Final Environmental Impact Statement
for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada
Volume 1
Appendices A - F
US. Department of Energy Nevada Operations Office Las Vegas, Nevada TABLE OF CONTENTS
4. DESCRIPTION OF PROJFCTS AND ACTIVITIES ...... A-l A.1 Ikfensc Prograin ...... A-I A.1 . 1 Alternative 1 ...... A-l A.1.1.1 Stockpile Stewardship ...... A-1 A.1. I . I . I Nuclear Test Readiness ...... 4-3 A.1 . 1 .I .2 LJnderground Nuclear Wiapons Testing ...... A-3 A.I.I . 1.3 Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship ...... A-6 A . I . I .I.4 Dynamic Exprriments and Hydrodynamic Testy ...... A-8 A.1 . 1 .2 Stockpile Maiiageinent ...... A-l 1 A . I . I . 3 Nuclear Eiiiergcncy Response ...... A-11 A . I . 1.3. I Nuclear Emergency Search learn ...... A- 1 1 A . I . 1.3.2 Federal Kadiological Monitoring and Assessment Center ...... ,21-1 A.1.1.3.3 Aerial Measuring System ...... A-12 A.I.1.3.4 Accident Response Group ...... a-13 A . I . 1.3.5 Radiological Assistance Program ...... A-I 3 A.1 . I . 3.6 lntcriial Emergency Management Prcogrm ...... A-I2 A . I . I . 4 Storagc and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile M;iterial ...... &I 3 A.1.I . 5 Large . Heavy-Industrial Fxility ...... A -13 A.1.I . 6 Twopah Te\l Rangc Activities ...... ;\-13 A.I.2 Altcrn;itive 2 ...... A-13 A.1.3 A ltemativc 3 ...... ,4-13 A.1.3.1 Stockpile Stewardship ...... a-14 A.1.3. I . I NuclemTest Keadincss ...... a-14 I .2 Underground Nucleai- Weapons Testinf ...... A-14 A.I.3.I 3 Science-Based Stockpile Steward5hip ...... A-14 A.l.3.1.4 Advanced Nuclear Weapons Simulatol-s ...... A-13 A.l.3.2 Stockpile Management ...... A-I? A . 1.3.2.1 Construction of a Stockpile Manageinent Complex ...... a-17 A.l.3.3 Nuclear Emergency Response ...... A- 1 R A . I . 3.4 Storage atid Disposition of Wrapoils-llsahlc Fishilc Materials ...... A-18 A.l l4.1 Storage of Weapons-Usable FideM;itcrials ...... /-IF! A.1 34.2 Ihposition of Weapons-Usablc~ihsileMaterial5 ..... A-IX A.I.3.5 Large . Heavy-Induhtrial Facility ...... a-18 A.1.3.6 Tonopah Test Range Activities ...... A -19 A . 1.3.6.1 Potential Tests ...... A-19 A.1.4 Alternative 4 ...... a-19 A.2 Waste Management Program ...... A- 19 A.2. I Altcrnative 1 ...... A-23 A.2.1. I Area 3 Kadioactivc Waste Management Site ...... A-23 A.2.1.2 Area 5 Kadioactive Waste Managcment Site ...... A-23 A.2.1.3 Area 6 Waste Management Operations ...... A-25 A.2.1.4 Area I1 Explosive Ordn;ince Disposal Cnit ...... A-2.5 A.2.2 Alternative 2 ...... A-26 A.2.2. I Area 3 Radioactive Waste Managcment Site ...... A-26
i l‘ablr of Contents ! NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT .
A.4.4.4 Envlronmcntai Management. and Technology Development Program ...... H-L~
A.4.4.S Environmental Research Park ...... 4-43 A.5 Work for Others Program ...... A-43 A.5.1 Alternative 1 A-43 ...... A.S.I . 1 Treaty Verification ...... A-43 A.51.1 . 1 Threshold Test Ran Treaty ...... A-43 1.1.2 Peaceful Nuclear Explosion Treaty ...... A-43 A.S. I . 1.3 Chemlcal Weapons Conventlon ...... A-43 A.S. 1 .I .4 The Treaty on Open Skies ...... A-4 .; A.S.l.2 Nonproliferation ...... A-43 A.5.1.3 Counterproliferation Research and Development ...... A-44 A.5.1.4 Conventional Weapons Demilitarization ...... A-44 A.S.1 .5 Defense-Related Research and Development ...... A-45 A.52 Alternative 2 ~-46 ...... A.S.3 Alternative 3 ...... A-46 A.5.4 Alternative 4 ...... A-47 A.6 Site Support Activities at the NTS ...... zi-~i A.6.1 Alternative I ...... 4-38 A.6.1 . I Utilities ...... A-48 A.6.l . 1.I Electrical Power ...... ,4.49 A.6.1.1.2 Natural Gas ...... A-52 A.6. I . 1.3 Water Supply ...... A-52 A.6.1 . 1 .4 Nonhazardous and Nonradioactive Wastes ...... a-16 A.6.1.2 Communications ...... A-57 A.6.1.2.1 Telephone Service ...... ,4.57 A.6.1.2.2 Microwave Systeln ...... A-59 A.6.1.2.3 DataCominunications ...... 4-59 A.6.1.2.4 Video Communications ...... 4-50 A.6.1.2.S Video Teleconferencing ...... A-59 A.6.1.2.6 Radio ...... A-59 A.6.1.2.7 Mail ...... A-60 A.6.1.3 Transponation Systelns ...... A-60 A.6.1.3.1 Roads ...... A-60 A.6.1.3.2 Related Facilities ...... A-62 A.6.1.3.3 Railroads ...... A-62 A.6.1.3.4 Air Facilities ...... A-62 A.6.1.3.5 Pathways ...... A-63 A.6.1.3.6 Parking ...... A.6.1.4 Facilities and Services ...... A-63 A.6.1.S Off-SiteSuPPm ...... A-63 A.6. I .6 Landlord-Related Construction and Maintenance Projects ...... A-63 A.6.2 Alternative 2 ...... A-64 A.6.3 Alternative 3 ...... A-64 ... A.6.4 Alternative 4 ......
B . FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE ...... B- I
iii Tahlr of Contents
. ,VEVAD.A TEST .SITE FINAI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMEIYT
C . RELEVANT RECCILATOKY REQUIREMENTS ...... C-! C . I Federal Environment;ll Statutes and Regulations ...... C-l C.2 Executive Orders ...... C-8 C.3 L1.S. Departrncnt of Energy Kcgulations and Orders and Policies ...... C-10 C.4 State ofNevadnI~ws...... C-12 C.5 Permits ...... C-13 C.6 Pollution Prevcntion and Waste Minimization ...... c-13 C.7 Iteferences ...... C-25
D . DISTKBUTION LIST ...... D-l
E . IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS ...... E-I E.1 Introduction ...... E-l E.2 Methods and Assuinptions of Analysis ...... E-l E.2.1 Land Use ...... E-l E.2. I . I NTS Site-Support Activities ...... E-I E.2.1.1.1 Alternative 1 ...... E-l b.2.1.1.2 Alternative 2 ...... E-2 F,.2.!.1.3 Alternative 3 ...... E-2 E.2.1 . 1 .4 Alternative 4 ...... E-2 E.2. I . 2 .Airspace ...... E-3 E.2.2 Transportation ...... E-3 E.2.2. I On-Site Traffic ...... E-3 E.2.2.2 Off-Site Traffic ...... E-4 E.2.2.3 Transportation of Materials and Waste ...... E-5 E.2.3 Socioeconomics ...... E-5 E.2.3.1 Economic Activity, Population, and Housing ...... E-6 E.2.3.2 Public Finance ...... E-8 E.2.3.3 Public Services ...... E-9 E.2.4 Geology and Soils ...... E-9 E.2.5 Hydrology ...... E-IO E.2.5.1 Surface Hydrology ...... e-10 Ii.2.5.2 Water Resources ...... e-10 E.2.5.3 Assumptions and Limitations ...... E-l 1 E.2.6 Biological Resources ...... E-l 1 E.2.6.1 List of Species Names ...... E-13 E.2.7 Air Quality and Climate ...... e-13 E.2.8 Noise ...... E-I? E.2.9 Visual Resources ...... e-18 E.2.10 Cultural Kesources ...... e-19 E.2.1 1 Occupational and Public Health and Safetymadiation ...... E-23 E.2.12 Environmental Justice ...... E-23 E.3 Refer-ences ...... E-26
F . PROJECT-SPECIFIC ENVRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...... F-l F.1 Introduction ...... F-I F.2 Purpose and Need Tor Action ...... F-l
'lahle of Contents iv
. NEVADA TEST SITE FINAI. ENVIRONMENTAL lMPACT STATEMENT
F.3 Description of the Alternatives ...... F-2 F.3.1 Alternative 3 ...... F-2 F.3. I .1 Location ...... F-2 F.3. I .2 Bunkers 4-300 and 4-480 ...... F-2 F.3. I .3 Firing Table and Surroundings ...... F-5 F.3.I .4 Operation ...... F-5 F.3.1.4.I Pretest and Test Activities ...... F-5 F.3.1.4.2 Post-Test Activities ...... F-7 F.3.2 Alternative 1 ...... F.4 Description of the Affected Environment ...... F-8 F.4.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils ...... F-8 F.4.2 Seismicity ...... F-8 F.4.3 Climate and Air Quality ...... F-8 F.4.4 Hazardous Air Pollutants ...... F-8
F.4.5 Surface and Groundwater Hydrology_ ...... ~~ ~ F-8 F.4.6 Vegetation ...... F-9 F.4.7 Wildlife ...... F-9 F.4.8 Cultural Resources ...... F-9 F.4.9 Floodplains and Wetlands ...... F-9 F.4.10 Noise ...... F.5 Potential Effects of Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 ...... F.5.1 Alternative I ...... F-9 F.S.2 Alternative 3 ...... F-9 F.5.2. I Construction-Re1 d Effects ...... F-10 F.5.2.2 Noise and High-Explosive Weight Limits ...... F-10 F.5.2.3 Air Emissions ...... F-10 F.5.2.4 Exposure to Radionuclides ...... F-11 F.5.2.5 Waste Effluents ...... F.5.2.6 Accident Scenarios ...... F.13 F.5.2.7 Cultural Resources ...... F.5.2.8 Natural Resources ...... F.5.2.9 Cumulative Impacts ...... F-15 F.5.2.10 Conformity ...... F.15 F.S.2.11 Environmental Justice ...... F.6 Persons and Agencies Contacted ...... F.7 References ...... F-16
List of Figures Figure h.l . Location of Stockpile Stewardship Emplacement Holes on the NTS ...... A-2 Figure Fl. Location of Area 4 at the NTS showing the Big Explosives Experimental Facility location ...... F-3 Figure F.2 . Layout and orientation of the Big Explosives Experimental Facility, including bunkers 4.480.4.300. and firing pad ...... F-4
1' Table of Contene
. NEVAUA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
List of Tables
Table A-I Recent defense-related research and development projects conducted at the NTS ...... A-46 Table A-2. Utilities table ...... A-SO Table A-3. Currently active or planned site-support projects ...... A-65 Table A-4. NTS EIS Program Summary Data and Resource Assumptions ...... A-69 Table C-l Operating permits ...... C-14 Table E-l . Common and scientific names of plants and animals mentioned in text and tables ...... E-I4 Table F-I. Estimated materials usage for the Big Explosives Experimental Facility.. operations ...... F-6 Table F-2. Estimated air emissions from detonation of high explosives at the Big Explosives Experimental Facility ...... F-I2 Table F-3. Potential impacts from maximum potential exposure to .. .. tntium emissions ...... F-13 Table F-4. Maximum potential exposure to Big Explosives Experimental Facility-area workers ...... F-I3 Table F-5. Comparison of annual Big Explosives Experimental Facility waste-generation rates with NTS waste-handling levels ...... F-I4
Table of Contents vi Appendix A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES NEVADA TEST SITE Fl.VAL BNVIRONMIiNTAL IMPACT STATEMEIVT
APPENDIX A DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES
1 Appendix A contains the description of the existing Range Defense Program responsibilities are I and potential projects, future work activities, and described in Section A. I. I .4. I services associated with the five Nevada Test Site (NTS) mission programs: Defense. Waste A.1.1 Alternative I Management, Environmental Restoration, Nondefense Research and Development, and Work Under Alternative I. Delense Program operations for Others. A description of NTS site-support would contititie under the ongoing nuclear test 1 activities is provided in Section A.6. ‘Table A-4, moratorium and negotiation of the Comprehensive I located at the end of this appendix, presents the Test Ban Treaty. Two wenarios could occur under I resource demands and requirements of the this alternative. In one xenaiio, the President I component projects and anticipated activities of would not direct any nuclear yicld tehting, and the I mission programs at the NTS. These data were the DOE’S iiuclear-lesting-r~late[lactivities would be I basis of detailed environmental analyses described limited to maintaining readdine\\ 10 conduct tests. I in Chapter 5. The hack portion of Table A-4 This scenario emphasizes NTS rcicnce-based I outlines the primary assumptions used to develop stockpile stewardship experiments and operations. I the results presented in Table A-4. The Thc other scenario (which the DOE believes I assumptions are presented by resource type, (e.g., unlikely hut consistent with the site’s historical I expenditures) and by mission program for each mission) includes a contingent possibility that the I alternative and general assumption. Projects President, through an end of the momtorium or I included in each of the alternatives are described through the “supreme national interest” clause of a 1 within the mission program summaries in Appendix test ban treaty. would direct the DOE to conduct I A. Within each section, the existing and potential I one or more nuclear-yield tests in order to achieve I future projects, activities and services associated a high level of confidence in the safety and I with each alternative are described. Appendix A reliability of the weapon type in question. One or I provides information on current projects and I more nuclear-yield tests could be conducted as I activities, as well as information on those projects, directed by the President. ‘The activities associated I activities and services that could occur over the next with this alternativc are also presented below. I 10 years. The purpose of this appendix is to: I A.1.1. I Stockpile Stewardship. Stockpile I 0 Present information used to evaluate the I stewardship includes nuclear weapons testing and I alternatives proposed in the NTS I science-based weapons experimentation and ensures I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the safety, reliability, and performance of the nation’s nuclear stockpile. The research and I 0 Provide descriptions of the projecw, activities, development of the technologies required for I and services discussed in the main chaptcrs of stockpile management are included under stockpile I the NTS EIS. stewardship. The DOE Nevada Operations Office I I (DOEINV) also maintains the capability of locating, A.l Defense Program I retrieving. and destroying damaged nuclear weapons. Descriptions of stockpile stewardship Among the ma,jor responsibilitics of the activities addressed in the NTS EIS are provided U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) at the NTS and I below. These activities are related to science-based the Tonopah Te!it Range is the continued I experiments which &ill he conducted in stewardship of the nation’\ nuclear weapons 1 emplacement holch depicted in Figure A-I stockpile. The NTS iiiiist also maintain a nuclear weapons tcsting capability. Other Tonopah Test
A-1 Volume 1, Appendix A
~
~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMEW1
Source RSN, 1994
Figure ,&I. Location of stockpile stewardship emplacement on the NTS
Volume 1, Appendix A A-2 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
A~ 1~1~ I~ I h'url@PnrTmt Roaifine.v.v---Ac required arwciated phenomenology The Containment by Presidential directive, the DOE will maintain the Evaluation Panel assists the Manager, DOENV, in readiness and capability to conduct nuclear tests the review of proposed nuclear tests to ensure that within 2 to 3 years if directed by the President. each containment design is one that will provide With respect to the NTS under Alternative I, this reasonable assurance of satisfactory containment of directive means that Defense Program efforts would radioactivity' or release radioactivity only under continue to maintain the required infrastructure and controlled conditions in compliance with all treaty I critical personnel necessary to meet this constraints and under health and safety guidelines I requirement. The DOE will maintain personnel established by the Secretary of Energy. I skills through the conduct of dynamic experiments, I (including subcritical experiments, involving Panel membership include scientists and engineers I special nuclear material) hydrodynamic tests, and from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, I exercises. The few capabilities essential for nuclear Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Sandia I testing not used during the experimental program National Laboratories, the Defense Nuclear Agency, I will be exercised periodically to maintain the the US. Geological Survey, the Desert Research I relevant skill bases. Laboratory personnel will Institute, and up to four independent consultants. I maintain the necessary technical competency by The Panel examines each factor that might I performing selected nuclear explosive operations at contribute to the unwanted escape of radionuclides I the Device Assembly Facility. These operations into the atmosphere during or after the detonation. I have been analyzed in the Device Assembly Facility Such reviews consider in detail the device yield, I Environmental Assessment. The necessary depth of burial, geology, hydrology, characteristics I infrastructure, including facilities. will be of the soil and rock, location of the emplacement I maintained in compliance with all regulatory, site (including the proximity to and the success of I safety, and programmatic requirements. previous test locations), closure methods, stemming design, and drilling and construction history A.1.1.1.2 Underground Nuclear Weapons Testing-Since 1963, the United States has A detailed description of the steps associated with conducted all of its nuclear weapons tests nuclear weapons tests in vertical drill holes is underground in accordance with the terms of the provided below. Limited Test Ban Treaty. Hence, complete containment of all nuclear weapons tests is a TESTS PJ VERTICAL DRILL HOLES-Tests in dominant consideration in nuclear test operations. vertical drill holes are of two types: smaller-yield devices in relatively shallow holes in the Yucca Flat Various methods are used far emplacing nuclear test area (Areas I, 2, 3. 4, 5. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) and devices so that the ensuing explosion is contained. higher-yield devices in deeper holes on Pahute The most comnion method is to emplace a test Mesa (Areas 18, 19, and 20). Tests at the Yucca device at the bottom of a vertically drilled hole. Flat and Pahute Mesa event sites have the same Another method is to emplace a test device within general requirements, but differ in the magnitude of a tunnel that has been mined horizontally to a the operations. Deeper-hole operations disturb a location that is sufficiently deep to provide larger area, require more on-site equipment, and containment. have a higher requirement for electrical power and utilities. The distance from the core of the Emplacenient of a test device in a drill hole or infrastructure is also a [actor; Pahute Mesa tunnel is not accomplished until the containment operations are 48 to 81 kilometers (km) (30 to design has been reviewed by the Containment 50 miles [mi])farther away than Yucca Flat. Evaluation Panel. The Containment Evaluation Panel is composed of individuals who have extensive experience in nuclear testing and NEVADA T1;'ST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMEKT
The following description of a vertical drill-hole test I geophysical logs are run into the hole to evaluate breaks dowti the operation into seveii individual the condition of the hole and gain a more thorough steps: understanding of the geology. The dnll site is then secured by filling the sump and installing specially I Step 1. Site Selection and Drilling. There are two designed covers over the hole. subsets of site selection as it applies to nuclear tests, namely: selection of an existing drill hole for a Step 2. Event-Site Engineering and Construction. I specific event (Figure A-1 ). and selection of a new When a hole is selected as a location for a nuclear I drill site limn the Nuclear Test Zone (Figure 3-3) test, the area around the hole is surveyed and staked for a specific event because the stockplle does not according to the criteria set forth hy the sponsoring contain a suitable site. The goal of siting is to national laboratory. The cultural and biological optimize the various parameters so that operationai surveys are then rerun to determine if the status of feasibility and sclccccsful containment of yields of the area has changed. The hole ir also uncovered, intcrest 10 device designers can he attained at a and selected geophysical logs are refed in the hole suitahly low cost. III rcconfirm its condition.
Many factors are considered. Soine of these are: Once it is assured that the environmental clearances (I) scheduling ol field resources; (2) event are complete, an area is cleared and leveled for the schedules: (3) shock sensitivity of a given surface ground-zero equipment; another area close experiment md possible interacttons wrth other by the selected site ir cleared and leveled for the experiments; (4)depth range required for a suitable recording trailer park. This IS a typical earthmoving device emplacement; (5) geologic structure; operation; native materials are used to top the pads (6) geologic material properties; (7) depth of or, if active inaterial is unstable, decomposed standing water; (8) potential drilling problems; granite fill is used. The on-site construction is (9) adjacent expended sites, craters, chimneys, temporary and is abandoned after the event is subsurface collapses; (10) adjacent open complete. Concrete pads are poured around the emplacement holes or unplugged post-shot or I wrkeground-zero to provide a stable platform for exploratory holes; and (I I) non-test program downhole operations and to provide a base for the constraints such as groundwater concerns, roads, assembly towers. Equipment is moved in to and power lines (Olsen, 1993). emplace the nuclear device in the hole, record the data produced, and provide radiological and seismic When drilling is required after a test location is monitoring of the site. An extensive grounding chosen by the sponsoring national laboratory, a system is used to establish bztseline instrurnentation drilling program outlining the requirements of the grounds, which might include a pit containing salt specific hole is completed. The event site is water. The equipment to be left in position during surveyed, staked, and chccked for cultural and the explosion is protected with an alurninuni-foil biological resources. When all environmental hcxcell-shaped shock-mounting material or dense clearance7 are completed, the site is graded and foam. A circle of radiation detectors is placed back leveled, and a drilling-fluid sump ib constructed to I from the surface ground-zero to detect and assess contain drilling fluid and cuttings. A dtill rig, usually any releases lrom the experiment. Finally, a with its own power and utilities, is moved onto the perimeter fence is erected. and access is controlled site. Water is brought in by truck, or piped in. and both into and out of the event site. mixed with drilling compounds to fill the sump. The hole is then drilled using standard NTS Step 3. Device Delivery and Assembly. For safety big-hole drilling techniques. A normal hole is from reasons, the nuclear device is delivered to the NTS I to 3 iiieters (m) (48 to 120 inches [in.l) diameter unassembled. The device is assembled and inserted and from 21 3 to 762 meters (m) (600 to 2.500 feet into a container at the Device Assembly Facility in [ftl) deep. During drilling. samples of drill cuttings 1 Area6 or in the Arza 27 AsscmhiyiStaglng Facilities. are collected at 3-in ( 10-ft) intervals. and rock cores Thc Ilevice Assembly Facilily is discussed at the are tsken as required. After drilling is complete, end of this section. The device. now encased in the
Volume 1, Appendix A A4 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT container, is delivered to the event site accompanied unnecessary equipment. A report is compiled for by armored convoy. It is then attached to the the Containment Evaluation Panel to show that the diagnostics canister in preparation for emplacement as-built condition reflects the containment design into the hole. Checks are mn, and alignment ih plan. assured. Heavy security is maintained during all operations that involve the nuclear device. Step 6. Test Execution. After the Containment Evaluation Panel accepts the as-built design of Step 4. Diagnostic Assembly. A diagnostic containment and all preliminary tests are successful, canister is assembled off site and transported to the the nuclew device is ready for detonation. Sccurity test site. A typical diagnostic canister might be 2 m operations begin two days before the test to assure (8 ft) in diameter and 30 m (120 ft) long and that all nonevent-related personnel are evacuated contain all the instrumentation required to receive prior to the test for security and personal safety. data at the time of the explosion (real time). The The explosive is armed. Radiation monitors are diagnostic canister might contain lead and other activated, and aircraft with tracking capability circle materials as shielding for the detectors. Upon the site in case gas and debris unexpectedly vent to arrival at the event site, the diagnostic canister is the surface. Weather forecasts and fallout pattern installed in the assembly tower to he mated with the predictions are reviewed Then, detonation occurs. device on site. Instrumentation cables are connected to the experiments and the recording When an underground nuclear device is detonated, trailer park. Slack in the cables allows the the energy release almost instantaneously produces diagnostic canister to be lowered into the hole. extremely high temperatures and pressure that vaporizes the nuclear device and the surrounding Step 5. Emplacement of the Experiment. The rock. Within a fraction of a second after detonation, nuclear explosive and special measurement devices a generally spherical cavity is formed at the are moved to the hole and lowered to the detonation emplacement position. As the hot gases cool, a position; all reyuircd diagnostic materials and lining of molten rock puddles at the cavity bottom. instrumentation cables are also lowered into the hole at this time. Downhole operations are After a period of niinutes to hours, as the gases in conducted according to a defined checklist and are the cavity cool, the pressure subsides and the weight monitored by independent inspectors. The whole of the overburden causes the cavity roof to collapse, assembly is placed on a set of fracture-safe beams producing a vertical, rubble-filled column known as that span the opening. Any auxiliary equipment is a rubble chimney. then lowered into the hole, and the area is secured. Emplacement equipment is removed from the area, The rubble chimney commonly extends to the and test mns are conducted on the downhole ground surface, forming a subsidence crater. experiment. Numerous subsidence craters art: present at the test site (see Plate 7, Volume 2). Subsidcnce craters The hole is stemmed to prevent radioactive generally are bowl-shaped depressions with a materials from escaping during or after the diameter ranging from about 60 to 600 m (200 to experiment. Stemming materials used to backfill 2,000 ft) and a depth ranging from a few meters up the hole are generally placed in alternating layers, to 60 in (200 ft), depending on the depth of burial according to the containment specification. and the explosive energy yield. Some deeply buried Alternate layers of I -centimeter (cm) (3iS-in.) pea explosions of low yield form cavities that do not gravel are combined with fine material to provide a collapse to the surface and, consequently, do not barrier equal to or hetter than the undisturbed create subsidence craters. Past underground nuclear material. Sand, gypsum, grout, cold tar, or epoxy tests in Yucca Flat and on I’ahute Mesa have plugs are also placed in the hole to provide fractured thc ground surface ahovc the explosions, impenetrable zones. In these zones, the instrument causing displacement of the surfiice along cables are sealed to prevent a radioactive gas path to preexisting faults adjacent to explosion sites. the surface. Once conipleted, the area is cleared of
A-5 Volume 1, Appendix A
~ ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
After the rest is conducted, the event site remains separate buildings within the Device Assenibly secure until it can he assured that the event has been Facility. These separate buildings are connected by contained. After a suitable time, a reentry crew is a common corridor. Single- and two-story sections dispatched to the site. Data are retneved, and the exist within the Device Assembly Facility, with condition of equipment is noted. After all is assured ceiling heights up to 9 in (30 ft). Second-story to be secure. normal NTS operations resume The sections are used primarily for security forces and event site is roped off, outlining an exclusion zone for additional mechanical and electrical cqurpment where there IS danger of potential cratering. space. The entire facility is provided with an automatic fire suppression system and, in areas Step 7. Post-shot Operations. After the where a nuclear device may be present. quick- temperature of the cavity has cooled, a post-shot response on-off sprinkler heads are also installed. hole is usually drilled into the point of the explosion in order to retrieve samples 01- the debris. These Assembly operations at the Device Assembly mmples are highly radioactive, but provide Facility are carried out in the five assembly cells, important information on the test. The post-shot three assembly bays, and four high bays. High hole is as small in diameter as possible and is drilled explosives and special nuclear materials enter at an angle to allow the drill rig to be positioned through the doors on the southeast side of the safely away from surface ground-zero. After complex and are staged in bunkers. The materials drilling and sampling operations are complete, the are transferred to assembly cells where the drill rig and tools are decontaminated. Residual components are assembled to the point that the radiation is cleaned up at the site, and the hole is device is no longer exposed. Completion of plugged back to the surface. This generally assembly includes mechanical and electrical completes the event operation, and the site is turned measurements, radiography, radiation checks, back to the DOE. alignment, and installation of other components. Radiographic operations are conducted on the I A.1.1.1.3 Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship- component or assembly in the radiography bays and I Projects and activities associated with science-based occasionally in the assembly cells or bays. In the I stockpile stewardship include experiments that will final step, the assembly is configured for shipment I provide esbential data for the modeling of the to the event location I performance, safely, and maintenance of the I enduring stockpile. Examples of such types of To provide further detail of the Device Assembly I pro,jects are described below. Facility, the description is divided into assembly I cells, assembly bays, high bays, and other facilities I DEVICE ASSEMBLY FACILITY-The Device as follows: I Assembly Facility is a multistructure facility in I which nuclear devices and high explosives can be Assemhlv Cells-The assembly cells are 10 m I assembled, disassembled or modified, staged, and (34 ft) diameter work areas that include composite I component tested. Nuclear devices and high- roofs designed to expand upward in the unlikely I explosive activities might also include maintenance, event of a high-explosive detonation and to collapse I repair, retrotit, and surveillance. This facility into the cell where the detonation occurred. The contains approximately 9,290 square meters (m’) collapsed, composite roof. material provides a (I 00.000 square feet [ft’]) of floor space within a filtration system that reduces the dispersion of 29-acre (1,163,240 ft’) high-security area. aerosolired special nuclear inaterials by over Ci)nstruction is primarily of heavy steel-reinforced 99.5 percent and, at the same time, absorbs the concrete. The facility is earth-covered with a energy of an explosive blast to prevent propagation minimum of2 in (5 ft) or compacted earth overlay, of the cxplosion into other structures within the leaving only one extcrior wall. facility. Decontamination facilities with tank storage are localcd in close proximity to the There arc individual underground structures assembly cells. The assembly cells have 30 cni separated by earthfill, and they are considercd 21s (12. in.) thick concrete walls and a roof structure NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT overlain with 8 m (25 ft) of graded gravel. Each 0 Radiography pi-ocedure? are conducted in one cell has an air-locked access vestibule equipped of two buildings that have air-locked acccss with double sets of blast doors that arc interlocked so corridors, blast doors, and siippon facilities that one door must be closed before the other can be comprised of a control room, service area, dark opened. The concrete structure, composite roof, room, and radiography room and interlocking blast doors within the assembly cells reduce the potential environmental impacts 0 Security is provided by iin entry guard stiition that could occur during an accident and reduce that controls traffic ingress and egress to the exposure to workers not located in the immediate complex. Two hardened guard towers vicinity of an accident. constructed of reinforced concrete provide for exterior security and surveillancc. Assembly Bavs-'rhc assembly bays have concrete walls with beparate personnel- and equipment-access AREA 27 COMPLEX-The Area 27 complex is air locks and interlocking blast doors to reduce comprised of the 5100 complex (Able Site) and the potential environmental impacts and impacts to 5300 complex (Baker Site). The complex has been workers outside the hay. Nuclear devices containing the primary facility for the assembly of nuclear insensitive high explosives as the only main charge device test assemblies for the nuclear test program. explosive are usenibled in a5sembly bays. Activities In addition, the Area 27 complex is the alternate conducted in assembly bays involve the assembly of assembly facility to the Device Assembly Facility. secondary components. Uncased explosives other A number of these facilities have been and will than insensitive high explosives can be handled in continue to be used in support of high-explosive these bays if no special nuclear matenals are device assembly for the Big Explosives present. Experimental Facility and other programmatic activities requiring the iise of the Area 27 complex. High Bavs-Four high bays to support test I These ongoing testing activities involve the use of operations are similar to the assembly hays in high explosives and/or special nuclear materials strucwre and hnction, except that no equipment separately or in combination. airlock is provided. Nuclear device operations conducted in assembly bays may also be conducted Each complex consists of several building$, storage in high bays. Two of the four high bays allow the hunkers, and other structures used for storing, dcvice transportation vehicle to be backed in for staging, asscmbly and disassembly, handling, loading and unloading. evaluation, and nondestructive testing of nuclear assemblies, nuclear explosive-like assemblies. Other Facilities-Other facilities located at the high-explosive devices. ct-itical assemblies, and Device Assembly Facility include the following: special nuclear rna(enals. Most of the facilities at each site were constructed in the I960s lor use in Bunkers are iised for staging high explosives the nuclear test program; missions have been ;ind special tiidear material components prior successfully accomplished iii these facilities without to assembly any accidents involving hish explosives or special nuclear materials. Mechanical and electrical support arcas include plant mechanical systems, The adequacy of safety of the Area 27 complex has diesel-powered electrical generators, an been demonstrated over the years hy a number of unintcrruptible battery power supply station, safety analyses, safety evaluiitions, huards analysis, and transformers and tiiiclzar devices safety slitdies 01 thc dominant accidents and mnnageinrnt controls. The Administrative offices are located on the first management of \afety has also been re-evaluated floor of the Device Assembly Facility. Each and includes reviews of safety design tciiturr5~ condor is provided with independent hearing, adminibtrative controls. procedures, and documents cooling, and ventilation systems used by the I)OE/NV, I.;iwrence I.i\crmore
A-7 Volume 1. Appendix A National Laboratory, iind Los Alamos National nuclear weapons, including changes caused by Idahoratory aging. Dynamic experiments may include the use I of special nuclear material; however, those that are In gener;al. the complex will house kilogram (kg) I to he conducted are designed to remain subcritical. quantities of special nuclear materials and up to I These expcnincnts are called "subcritical several thousand-pound quantities of \ai-ioiis typcs ! experiments". i.e., no self-sustaining fission chain of high explosives. Specific reviews iind I reaction will occur. evaluations arc performed, iis required. to ertablish I or revise individual quantity limits tor specific I Operations at the NTS have historiczilly included buildings. hunkers. and structures. Special nuclear I tests or experiments that, though involving hoth materials liniits are established hased iipon dispersd I high explosives and special nuclear materials, were consequences iind nuclear criticality considerations I intended to produce no nuclear yield or negligible (siich as form, gcomcti-y. shape. nioderatiun, and I nuclear energy release. These tests or experiments reflection). I frequently remained subcritical. They were often I performed as dedicated atand-alone experiments. The pi-imary assembly buildings (5100, .5 180. and I Nuclear explosion did not take place. therefore. the 5310) arc of con\entionnl construction, bur ( envir(inmenta1 impacts of these experimenrs were modified in some cases lor security purposes. I principally due to dispersal of special nuclear These buildings i'ontiiiii assembly hays (both I materials such as plutonium, and other materials. by normal ,~ndhigh) tor the assembly and sraginp of the detonation of high explosives. Thcsc tc:\ts or components arid assemblizs: restrooms; otfices; cxpcnments were performed through tlie 1950s. lower floor5 for radiographic equipment; cIane~and I 1960s. 197Os, and into the 1980s. Some of the hoists for tlic nioveiiient of components; and I earlier subciitical experiments were conducted on resilient and conductive llooriiif to reduce the risk I the surfax while others were conducted and prchahility of high-cxplo?ive detonation. I underground in shafts, shallow boreholes or tunnels. I Future subcritical experimcnts would he dynamic Security for the Ablc and Baker sites is provided by I experiments with special nuclear materials double security rencing, inti-iisioii detecting, 1 performed to answer crucial questions concerning hardened guard towerr, double tumbler locking I safety and reliability of the stockpile. systcnis for buildings, surwillancc rclevision. and I Approximately 10 dynamic experiments (including other securit) systems. All esit doors are equipped I subcritical experiments) or hydrodynamic tests with cniergency (pmicj hardware or safe havens I would be conducted annually at the Lyner Complex. that ciainiot he opened firom the outside. Hydrodynamic tests are dynamic, integrated systems 'Ihc buildings iire suppoi-1c.d by htanderd iitilitics tests of mock-up nuclzar packages during which the (water and electric) mil vcntilati(in. Class 11, high explosives arc detonated and the resulting Ilivision 2. Group Ci clcctrical fixtures are provided motions and reactions of materiala and components in tlic operating hay\. Ceilain buildings contain are observed and measured. The explosively tritiiiiii nionitoring systcins with local alarms. generated high pressures and temperatures cause Lightning protection i!, provided for all buildings. some of the materials to behave hydraulically (like Fire protcction 15 provided by inst;illed sprinkler ii fluid). Hydrodynamic tests are used to obtain teiiis and wiill-niouritcd lire cxtii~~t~ishe~-s. diagnostic information on the behavior of a nuclear I weapons pi-imary assembly (using simulated I A.I.I.1.J Ilyrmrnic hxperitnerzts arul H~dr~idylynnmic materials for the fissile materials in ;in acu~11 Tes~u-ll)naniii' experiments provide information weapon) and to evaluate the effects oC aging on the rcgiirdiiig chaye~111 iiiaterials under conditions nuclear weapons remaining in the stockpile. caured by thz dcronation of high explosives. Dynamic cxpei-iincnts are conducted in order to g;aiii For the purpose of impact analysis only. ir IS i~iform~ationon tlic physical pri>pcilic:said dynamic assumcd that under Alternative I, a totiil of I hetiaviilr 01 iii:iteriiik used in high explosives and 1,100 dynamic experiments or hydrodynamic tests
Volume I, .tppencli\- Z A-8 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL IS,VVIRONMENT,ZL IMPACT .STA TlMK%'T
I would be performed within the 10-year timeframe Explosivz eveiits are plxed in side drift5 mitied I (I 996 to 2005) of the NTS EIS. Examples of perpendicular to the main drift. Multiple tests ctiuld I science-based stewardship facilities and projects are be fielded by the coriiplex without changes to the I described below. main drift. The experiment drifts would be mined to suit the requirements of the experiment assigned. LYNER COMPLEX-Lyner was originally One experiinental drift has been completed and designed as a site to test low-yield nuclear devices. successfully expended for the demonstration Since the moratorium on nuclear testing began, it experimenr. has been converted to the testing of conventional high explosives, as well as dynamic experiments, Site development includes a3-acre recording trailer I subcritical experiments and hydrodynamic tests. park by the U-lg hole and a 17-acre pad that The Lyner Complex consists of a mined shaft contains the construct~onsupport buildings at the (U-la), a drilled hole (If-lg). a connecting mined U-la shaft location. Downhole support equipment tunnel, and surface facilities located west of the includes diita gathering, emergency refuge Mercury Highway in Yucca Flat. The surface chambers, distrihurion conduits for air and utilities, facilities include a trailer park for diagnostics and a and a freight and passenger landing at the hoist. work area around the mined shaft built with Electrical power and water are supplied from the transportable structures. NTS. The Lyner site is coniiected to the conlrol point by ii fiber-optic cable link. An emergency I The Lyner Complex will be used by the National evacuation system is installed with ?elf-contained I Laboratories to conduct the program of dynamic power and a dedicated hoist inechanisni ar the U-l g experiments and hydrodynamic tests. The U-l a hole. The U-lg hole provides emergency access to I shaft is 293 in (961 ft) deep, with access via a man- the complex and a backup access should an accident rated hoist. Secondary access through the drilled close the U-1 a shaft. hole at U-lg is gained by using an emergency cage powered by a separate hoist. The U-lg drill hole Further details regarding activities conducted in the also provides access for the firing and diagnostic Lyner Complex are addressed in a classified cables. The cables and other utilities are grouted appendix to the NTS EIS. However. environtnental into the annulus of the 122-cm (48-in.) access impacts of activities conducted at the Lyner casing and the 274-cm (108-in.) diameter hole. An Complex are included in the analysis in Chapter 5 independent ventilation system at the U-lg drill of the NTS EIS. hole provides a second supply of downhole air, thus supplementing the U- I a supply and acting as a dual RIGEXPLOSIVES EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY- system in the case of an accident. The Rig Explosives Experimental Facility is located in north-central Area 4. The sire contains sevcn The connecting main drift is mined 335 m (I,100 ft) underground slriictures previously associated with due north to the U-1s drill hole from the U-la shaft. atmospheric testing, one set of unidentified Tunnel support is provided by rock bolts, wire stanchions that might have been associated with mesh, and shotcrete. Secondary containment for atmospheric testing. the Bare Reactor Experiment experiments is located in the main drift, along with Nevada Tower foundations and stanchions and the distribution of utilities. Secondary containment Japanese Village complex, the U-4ad drill hole and assures a safe condition in the event of failure of the drill sump, the U-4af exclusion zone, and a white primary containment in the side drifts. Primary silicified volcanic core reduction flake. These containnient is provided by closing the side drifts structures were abandoned when nuclear testing with grouts and steel containment doors. Secondary wen[ underground. Two of the buried structures, contiiininent is achieved by massive grout plugs hunkers 4-300 and 1-480. have hcen modifisd to keyed to the rock with gas-tight steel doors within accommodate modern hydrodiagnostic equipment the plugs. to serve as ii hydrodynamic test Cactlity for detonations of very large conventional high-explosive charges and devices. The elect!-icd,
A-9 Volume 1, Appendix A ,\'IJVADA 1LST SITE FINAL ENVIHONMENTAI. IMPACT ST.4 TEMEjVl
conducted herween hlarch I995 and Aiigii\t I995 The tests consisted of detonation^ of cucces\t\cl) larger amounts of spherical charge\ or cuii\eiitioiial trinitrotoluene rxplosjvc txgiiiiiitig iil 132 kg 1512lh) and ending with 3..i;S hg l7.XOO Ihi. Thc iioi\t, acceleration, strain. overpres
The high-explosive weiyht liiiiit lor s;iTe. iniiiiiiecl operations at the Big lxplosivei lixperiniental Facility is based on the following facility hip! criteria: 454 kg (1,OOlI lh) of coii\cntioiial hiyh explosives detonated 5 ni (I5 It) irt~iiitlie Hunker 4-480 outer wall or 2.768 kg (5.(lOO Ih) of conventional high exphivss detonmd 8.3 ti1 (27 It) from the Bunker 3-4x0 outer wall. iiad on ttic results of the Popover test scrie., the iclatiiidiip between conventional higti-explosi\ c cliarfc iiiii\\ and safe detorintion dist;incc was dcterinitiecl ti) conform to these two ci.iteria Fui~cspcriiiiciits involving larger or riiialltr charge iiiii>\cs tliiiti previously tested or involviiiy chargc configusation\ different from those previously ic5te.d. the safe operating distance(s) of the chxgcis) nil1 hc determined using th el-iteria :ind \tiindxd engineering practice. !n this wiiy, ;irhitrwily large conventioniil high-explosiie ilial-gr tiiasws in practically any conliguration ciiii hc dtIy detonated as long as the equiv;ilent iiiipict 01 tire detonation on the facility iii terms 01 o\ei-pi~c'\sure. blast, shock, and noise is less than (>I- eqiiril to the facility design criteria.
Under this alternative approsiiii;itcl? I00 hydrodynamic tests or dynainic experiment\ would he conducted annuall) at the Big fiupli~vei Experimental Facility. No expel-iineiit periorined The \triicturd mundners of the modified hunkers at the Big Explosives Expc.riirieiit;il Facility will lor cupanded operations and the potential contain special nucleiir niaterialh. A \! tiop\is 01 ~~~~ir~in~~ictit~ilimpacts of blast. noise, and dust current Big Explosivei Experiiiieninl l-acilit) Liplit1 chic to li>drodyri:iriiic tests were investigated projects and activities folIo\vs. in ttit, tibe expciuiiieiits ot tiir Popover test series NEVADA TESTSITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMI"
Shaoed-charze Scaling Proiect- The purpose is Measuring System, the Accident Response Group, I to develop and test large shapcd-charge technology, the Radiological Assistance Program, and the originiitcil within the DOE weapons laboratories. DOWNV Internal Emergency M:inageinent for broad coitnterpriiliferation applications. The Program. Program activities are based at facilities project includes scaling the existing technology to in Las Vegas, Nevada; Santa Barbara, California; latpcr sizes; dcvcloping, testing, modifying, and Andrews Air Force Base near Washington. DC; and &,arcicterizing . . the performance of the large charges; the NTS. These activities are individually ant1 tipplying the scaled shaped-charges to a variety summarized below. of couiite:rprolifcration missions to test effectiveness against various targets. Typical experiments 11.1.1.3.1Nuclear Emergency Search Teain- invoI\~e un to 3.600 kE- (8.000 Ib) or more of DOE Order 5530.2, issued September 20, 1991, conLentional high cxplosives in a variety of requires the Manager, DOE/NV, to maintain an configurations. operational teain of specialists and equipment for response to threats involving nuclear explosivch, I Other Ilieh-Exolosive Exoeriments-This illegal use of nuclear materials, and weapons of I iiicludes potential projects with the goal uf mass destruction. The Nuclear Emergency Search : developing, improving testing and deploying Team, comprised of members from the DOE, other ad\,anccs in conventional nitinitions tcchnology or federal agencies, the nuclear weapon dehign their applications. Examples include the laboratories, and the DOEfi'V contracrot-s, 1s developnirnr of advanced conventional weapons, preparcd to provide technical assistance to the including shaped charges, cxplosively formed Federal Bureau of Investigation, designated by law pr~i.iectiles. propellant-dt-iven devices, explosive as the lead agency for response to terrorist acts in niunihn.;, pyrotechnics and otlicr conventional the United States. Since 1975. when the tcarn was weiiponr technologies, applications of these formed, significant research efforts, extenhive twhnrilupies to hard target and/or buried structure exercises, and thc DOE participation in responses to defeat, ciiunterpi-oliferation, and armor defeat. large nuclear emergencies, including the reentry of Typical experiments involve 3.600 kg (8.000 Ib) or the Russian Cosinos 954 nuclear-powered satellite inore of conventional high explosives in a variety of and the Three-Mile Island reactor accident, have c~~nfi~tirations. contributed substantially tu the development of needed response capabilities. A.1.1.2 Stockpile Management, Under Allertti!ttve I, no stockpile management activities A.1.1.3.2 Federal Radiological Moriitoring arid ~ouldbc ct~nductctlat tlir NTS. Assessment Center-The DOE has hceii tasked to develop and maintain thc Federal Radiological A. 1.1.3 Nuclear Emergericy Response. The Monitoring and Asscssmcnt Center program. The DOE/NV Emergency Management Program is DOE establishes and manages the field iiperiitions ;idministered by the DOENV Emergency center when a rna,jor radiological emcrgency occurs Maiiagcmcnt and Nonproliferation Division. The or potentially may occur. The creation of a Federal program receives significant support from the U.S. Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Ceptzr Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) capability is mandated by the Fcdcral Radiological Eti~'ironn~entalMonitoring and Support Laboratory, Emergency Response Plan and is assigned to the Lo\ Alamcih National Lahoratory, Lawrence DOElNV by the DOE Headquartel-s. DOE Order Livcrmorc National Lahordtory, Sandia National 5530.5, published in July 1992, specifies the I,aboratorizs, L1.S.Department of Defcnse (Don) purposc, organization, :ind responsibilities explosive ordnance demolition expetts, and the associated with the establishment of ;I Federal DOE/NV contractors. The program is comprised of Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center. 21 number 01- separate, but related, emergency rcspunse programs, including the Nuclear The Federal Radiological Monitoi-iiig and Enicrpency Search Team, the Federal Radiological Assessment Center is responsible fur acquiring, Monitoring and Assessmcnt Center, the Aerial processing, and providing asseiment of
A-I1 Volume 1, Appcndix A NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAI. IMPACT STATEMENT radiological data in the field. The Federal to the Albuquerque Office Accident Response Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center Group team in support of nuclear weapons may be called on to support or provide follow-on accidents, exercises, and training. The Accident support to the Nuclear Emergency Search Team. Response Group is mandated by DOE Order The Federal Radiological Monitoring and I 5530.1A, issucd on September 20, 1991. It defines Assessment Center is a stand-alone organization the purpose of the program and clarifies the capable of responding to any type of nuclear responsibilities and authorities of the DOE emergency, including nuclear weapons, Headquarters and the Operations Offices. The transportation, or power-plant-relatcd accidents. Accident Response Group resources required are normally drawn from the DOE/NV Nuclear A.1.1.3.3 Aerial Measuring System-The Aerial Emergency Search Team and Aerial Measuring Measunng System mission IS documented 111 DOE System programs. An Accident Response Group Order 5530.4, which define\ its purpose and mission may require any ot. the D0Eh-V major describes its roles and responsibilities. Primary emergency management resource\. objectives of the Aerial Measuring System are to: Some support requirements for this program are Conduct aerial surveys ofthe DOE facilities on similar to the DOE/NV Nuclcar Emergency Search a periodic basis to detect changes in conditions Team and Aerial Measuring System programs. The use of Nuclear Emergency Search Team and Aerial 0 Develop remote sensing, analytical. and Measuring System personnel, expertise, and display technology for detection of nuclear equipment to support the Accident Response Group radiation, as well as spectral characteristics in program eliminates the cost of duplicate services. the ultraviolet, optical, and infrared spectra emitted from an environment that provides A.l. 1.3.5 Radiological Assistance Program-The information about its condition or status Radiological Assistance Program is prepared to furnish assistance in all types of radiological 0 Establish and maintain a technically competent incidents. The program is mandated by DOE emergency response capability, including the I Order 5530.1A. Response to radiological incidents administrative, logistical, and technical support may include on- and off-site assistance when required in situations involving radiation, I requested by other federal agencies or state, local, radioactive materials, or other hazardous and tribal authorities in dealing with radiological materials. incidents.
The resources of the Aerial Measuring System are The DOENV Radiological Assistance Program on call 24 hours a day for emergency operations. provides two teams, a Radiological Assistance Team and a Radiological Cleanup Team, that can A.1.1.3.4 Accident Response Group-The respond to radiological incidents. The Radiological Accident Response Group, which is managed by the Assistance Team acts to control and confine hazards DOEiAlbuquerque Operations Office, has a resulting from incidents involving radioactive mission similar to the Federal Radiological material that may pose a threat to public health and Monitoring and Assessment Centel-, but focuses on safety. The Radiological Cleanup Team may accidents involving United States’ nuclear weapons. provide services for radioactive material cleanup in The Accident Response Group deals with on-site the event of an incident involving such materials. conditions while the Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center addresses A.1.1.3.6 Internal Emergency Management off-site measuremetits and assessments. Program--The purpose of the Internal Emergency Management Program is to ensure capabilities exist The DOE/NV, through a Memorandurn of [o respond to on-site emergencies. These Understanding with the IX)E/Alhuquerque emergencies include unusual occurrences, such as Operations Office. provides field response resources fire. bombs or bomb thi-eats, earthquakes, aircraft NEVADA TEST SITE FINAI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMEhT
accidents, and power outages. Specific plans have 0 Seismic Verifications been established to respond To the emergencies 0 Fuel Air Explosives Operations delineated in the current hazards assessment. The 0 Hazardous Burn Test Operations primary goals of these plans are to maximize the 0 Underground Explosives safery of personnel, minimize equipn~enr and Open-Air Explosives facility damage, and minimize facility downtime in 0 Post-Test Procedures and Recobery the event of a major accident or emergcncy. Operations.
A.1.1.4 Storage and Disposition of Weapons- The chemical testing program involves the testing Usable Fissile Material. There is no activity under of chemical effects on stockpile weapons. The Alternative I. physical properties (i.e., explosiveiconrbustible) of chemicals are tested for applicability and use in the A.1.I.S Large, Heavy-Industrial Facility. There nation's weapons stockpile. Other portions of the is no activity under Alternative 1 prograin test for defenses against possible hostile nations chemical warfare arscnals. Cheinical tests A.1.1.6 Tonopah Test Range Activities. The would include testing of the following: principal mission of the Tonopah Test Range is to provide research and development test support for 0 Liquids (burn, explosive) the DOE-funded wzapons projects. Many tests Gas (burn, explosive) performed at the Tonopah Test Range involve Particle (graphite, smoke) aircraft and air drops; the range is capable of handling a wide variety of miss~ons. Tests The passive testing program uses high-resonance conducted vary from simple tests of hardware energy, lasers, and ultrasound techniques for components and systems needing only limited checking the systems of the nation's conventional suppoit to rocket launches and air drops of test and nuclear weapons stockpile. Tests we also vehicles requiring full range support. A structural conducted on behalf of nonproliferation research to determine if other countries itre using or developing test of nuclear systems sometimes involvcs special nuclear capabilities. These tests would include the nuclear material; however, all tests are performed I on non-destructive yield assemblies only. No following: nuclear yield testing is conducted on the Tonopah 0 Telemetry, Microwave, and Photometrics Test Range. The principal types of tests include Operations iinpact teTts, passive tests, and chemical tests. 0 Radar Operdtions Laser Tracker An impact testing program has been devzloped to 0 Radiographic Operations test various parameters of the weapon while in Electromagnetic Kadiatim Test. flight or dropping a weapon and through the actual penetration of the ground surface. The data A.1.2 Alternative 2 obtained assist in weapons development. as well as the maintenance of the nation's weapons stockpile. The weapons include conventional, nuclear. and No Defense Program activities would occur at the inert projectiles. The weapons are unanned and, for I NTS under Alternative 2. DOE, Albuquerque 1 tiucleiir iiiunitions, il portion of the nuclear package mission related Defense Prograin activities at the has been omitted. The nuclear weapons are, Tonopah Test Range would be the same a5 those therefore, unable to reach criticality. Impact tests described under Alternative I include the following: A.1.3 Alternative 3 Air Drop Operations 0 Fixed Rocket Launcher Operati(~ns Under this alternative, all NTS Defense Prograln 0 Artillery Operations activities described under Alternative I would 0 Cruise Missile Operations continue. Many new activities would also be 0 Compressed Air Gun (Davis Gun) included under Alternative 3.
A-13 Volume 1, Appendix A IYEVAIIA TEST SITE FINAI. E.VVIKONME.VTAI. IMPACT STATEMENT
A.1..?.1 Stockpile Stewardship. Activities are I of experiments to be conducted at Big Explosives essentially the same as those described under I Experimental Facility include: I Alternativc I . However, hydrodynamic tests and I I dyn;imic experimcnts at the Big Explosives SHAPED-CHARGE SCALING PROJECT-The ! I A.1.3.1.2 Underground Nuclear Weapons A.1.3.1.4 Advanced Nuclear Weapons Sirnubom- Testing-Activities would he the same as those Enhancements to the scicnce-based Stockpile dexrihed under Alternative 1 Stewardship Program include advanced nuclear weapons simulators that are being considered lor A.1.3.1.3 Science-Based Stockpile Stewardsliip- development based on new data and technologies Under Alternative 3. the total number of dynamic emerging from current research. Adviinced nuclear expel-iments including subcritical experiments, and weapons simulators use state-(if-lhc-art technologies Ihylrodyniimic tests conducted at the NTS would he to acquire data critical to e~~nluatingIhc safely and the mne as those identified under Alternative 1 reliability of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile (I, 100 during the 10-year period). However, in the absence of underground testing. Thc Next dynamic experiments and hydrodynamic tests at the Generation Radiographic Facility and the Next I Big Explosives Experimental Facility would he Generation Magnetic Flux Compression Getier;ition I expanded to include larger high-explosive charges Facility are two examples of concep~u;iladvanced I and potcntiolly hazardous materials, such as simulator facilities that arc analyzed for land-use I bcryllium. depleted uranium, deuterium, and planning purposes. I tritium. Additional information 011 potentially I hiiz;irdons material^ associated with dynamic The Next Gencration Radiographic Facility and the I experiments and hydmdynamic tests is provided in Next Generation Magnetic Flux Compression 1 Appendix 1: and classified Appendix J. Examples Generation Facility tire proposed lur thc future and, at this time, neither of these facilities will be by the explosive mergy. Diagnostic cquipinrnt analyzed in detail in the Stockpile Stewardship and might include a state-of-the-art ;idv:inced diagnostic I Management EIS. Therefore, no siting decision and detection system to characterize high-cxploribe 1 will appear in the Stockpile Stewardship and explosions. Monitoring and control facilitw, for i Management Programmatic EIS Record of firing, personnel access, safety and health pliyics I Decision; however, the DOE believes that both I would also be included. Special tiitclear materials I facilities could he sited within the next 10 years. I would be involved, howcber, thew cxpcriinents I For this reason, both facilities are included under I would be designed to remain suhcritical 1.e.. no heif- I Alternative 3. Because the actual operation of the I sustaining nucleiir reaction would occur. I tiex[ Generation Kadiographic Facility is beyond the I titnefrarne covered hy the NTS EIS. only the In addition to the containnient sphere\. the laciliry construction phase is addressed in this EIS. Both could include an open-air firing capability, shot operations and construction of the Next Generation staging areas, diagnostic supporr, maintenance Magnctic Flux Conipression Generation Facility are facilities, monitoring, instrumentation and coiitrol included. facilities, office and sdministrative areas. uid electrical and mechanical support shops. A hrief description of both conceptual facilities is providcd as follows: NEXT GENERATION MAGNETIC FLUX COMPRESSION GENERATION FAC1LITY~- NEXT GENERATION RADIOGRAPHIC The next Generation Magnetic Flux Compression FACILITY-The Next Generation Radiographic Generating Facility could be designed to prrlvidc a Facility is potentially the next advanced high- cost-effective facility capable of supponing high I explosive test facility featuring multiple-pulse and energy, explosively powered ~xperiments. This multiple-view diagnostic capability. This Facility is facility is described as High-Explosiw Pulsed descrihcd as the Advanced Hydrotest Facility in the Power Facility in the Stockpile Stewardship and Stockpile Stewardship and Management I Management Programmatic EIS. In broadcst terms, 1 Programmatic EIS. The conceptual facility would the facility could support experirnetits that could provide advanced radiographic machine diagnostics make 100 to 1,000 megajoules ofelectrici cnergy with rnultiple (c.g., four to eight) views and with available to power experiments. Typical propused multiple (e.g., four to ten) pulses per view experiments could involve 4,536 kg (10.000 lh) or to provide we;ipons performance, safety and more of conventional high explosives in 21 vatiety of reliability information, to satisfy as necessary. configurations certain needs of science-based stockpile stewardship and tnanagernent programs. This next generation Individual expenmcnts could involvc consulnahle facility would incorporate all the latest diagnostics hardware, recording and diagnostic equipmcnt, and provide for dynamic experiments with special physics designers, engineers, and diapohticians. nuclcx materials a5 well z conventional explosives. Each individual experiment could require the This type of facility would respond to Stockpile assembly of custom hardware, the inslallation of Stewardship and Management Program explosive components, diagnostic, and data- requirements for inferring nuclear performance and recording equipment. The experiment would then safety. be moved to the hardened firing location The experiment would be executed, mid data wcluld be This type of facility would be used for the remotely recorded. Individual cxpct~itnentscould he investigation of the dynamics of metals subjected to fielded by a personnel teiini who wcnlld spend the forces ofa high-explosive detonation. It would several weeks at the NTS. Se~er;ilexpcriments be a permanent facility whose most prominent could be scheduled per year. feature would be the use of containment spheres (firing chambers). The chambers would be used to A support teain of two to four peopic permanently contain conventional explosions, with the purpose located at the NTS Next Generaiion Mafnctic Flux of investigating the responsc of metals being driven Compression Generation Facility would be required A-15 Volume 1, ,Appcndia A NEVAUA TEST SITE FINAL Eh'VIRONMENTAI. IMPACT STATEMENT to operate and maintain the buildings and The National Ignition Facility would also advance equipment, coordinate NTS support and services, civilian application for ineilial confinement fusion. interface with the experimental team that field The National Ignition Facility ignition and gain individual experiment, and ensure safety and experiments would determine whether the inertial environmental integrity of the varied operations. fusion approach to a fusion energy source for long- range commercial use is feasible. The National I The facility could be located at the Big Explosives Ignition Facility would be a key research facility I Experimental Facility. The existing facility may that would help keep the Unitcd States the leader in I require reconfiguration and suitable office and the development of inertial fusion energy. The i support space is available, but may require National Ignition Facility would also provide I modification. A new hardened remote structure important basic scientific research and technological rated at 3,000 kg (6,614 Ib) to suppon pulsed-power development capabilities. National Ignition Facility equipment and explosive experiments would be expenments would duplicate conditions in the required, as well as a sitewide remote control, center of the sun. which would promote and diagnostic, and interlock system. A modest pulsed- expedite advancements in astrophysics, plasma power laboratory suitable for pretesting the physics, and other basic sciences. Other advances equipment prior to committing that equipment to that might be a result from National Ignition Facility full-scale operation would be required. This would use and research include large-scale precision be performed largely using existing equipment. optics, rapid crystal growth technology, advanced Some upgrade of the electrical utility service to the X-ray lithography for integrated circuit area would be required. manufacturing, advanced health care technologies, new material development, and various scientific 1 NATIONAL IGNITION FACILITY-The goal of and analytical instrumentation. the National Ignition Facility is to produce ignition and energy gain in Inertial Confinement Fusion The DOE has two proposed sites for the National targets and perform high-energy-density and Ignition Facility in Nevada. One is at the NTS in radiation-effects experiments in support of national Area 22, southwest of Mercury. The proximity to security and civilian objectives. The National Mercury would be advantageous for accessibility to Ignition Facility would be a key component in thc infrastructure support that would be needed in DOE'S science-based Stockpile Stewardship support of National Ignition Facility activities. This Program to ensure the safety and reliability of the location would also be advantageous for Nation's remaining stockpile of nuclear weapons. accessibility to the facility by commercial and other The National Ignition Facility would make it nondefense personnel that would require clearancc possible to study, for the first time in a laboratory, prior to access of the forward areas of the NTS. All radiation and plasma physics at a temperature and work that presents the potential for exposure or pressure regime similar to some aspects of nuclear contamination would receive special consideration weapon detonations. It would also provide a unique and planning, including, but not limited to, dry-run source for the study of the weapon effects on other practices, condition monitoring experiments, and systems. The weapon science information personnel protective equipment upgrade analysis. generated through the National Ignition Facility Existing equipment, such as anticontamination experimentation and research would be used to clothing and personnel protective equipment, would examine specific physical effects of changes due to be available for use at the National Ignition Facility. aging or remanufacturing, and to improve the This type of reusable equipment would be computer codes needed to certify the reliability of decontaminated on site at the laundering and the remaining stockpile. In addition, the National cleaning facilities available at the NTS. Ignition Facility could provide a high-fidelity source for weapon effects studies that is beyond the Located on an 80-acrc site in the city of North capabilities of any other laboratory source. Las Vcgas, Nevada, the North Las Vegas Facility supports DOE/NV Operations Office and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos Volume 1, Appendix A A-16 I National Laboratory, and Sandia National I 720 percent over the current usage of 69 million I Laboratories weapons lesl programs and IS I ilyr (18 million gd/yr). Sanit:iry wastewater I considered an adjunct to the NTS. The facility I \~oIiime is cstlniated to he 72.5.5 million Liyr I supports test pre-staging activities and firhncation, I (17.7 inillion gaily). Watcr supply ;rnd sanitary I assembly, and testing of tield diagnostic syslenis I wastewater trcstment are provided hy the city of I that collect data from the NTS weapons testing 1 North Las Vegas. Current water and watew'ater I activities. This facility is being considered as an I utility capacity would be adcquiite to meet the I iiltematiw lccation for the Ndtional Ignition Facility. I additional requiremcnts frlr the proposed National I I Ignition Facility. Construction of the National Ignition Facility would I occur on a 4.5-acre parcel of previously undisturbed A.1.3.2 Stockpile Management. Stockpile land. Five new buildings would he constructed on management is the hands-on, day-to-day functions I this site. An underground water pipe line would and operations involved in maintaining the enduring likely be built to supply the National Ignition nuclear weapons stockpile. This includes assembly, Facility. The design and construction of a storm disassembly, modification. and n~aintenanceof drain system would depend on the specific layout of nuclear weapons; quality iissurance testing of the facility and its proximity to existing roads and weapons components; and the interiin storage of structures. nuclear weapons and ccmponents. Currently, the wst majoi-ity ofthis work i'. conducted at the Pantex Sanitary wastewater would be treated using a I Plant near Amarillo, Tex:is. Under Alternative 3. sewage lagoon system dedicated to the National I activities associatcd with stockpile management Ignition Facility. Nonhazardous solid waste would I could he undertaken. I he handled on site in designated landfill areas. I Hazardous wastes (liquid and solid) would be sent I h.1.3.2.1 Construction of a Stockpile Management I off site to permitted treatment. storage, and Complex-Under Alternative 3, Pantex stockpile disposal facilities outside Nevada. Solid radioactive management operations could be transferred to the wastes could he di\pOsed of at the NTS. Plans are NTS. Tlirreforc. this altcrnative includes the under way for 21 low-level liquid waste treatment constriiction of a full-scale stockpile management facility at the NTS. Current plans are to permit complex at thc NTS. Kelocntion of Pantex mixed solid waste disposal units at the NTS for operations ((1 the NTS would require the wastes that meet Resource Conservation and construction of approximately 30,779 ni2 Recovery Act land disposal restriction requirements. (327,000 ft') of new facilities centered around the Low-level mixed liquid wastes could he stored at Device Assembly Facility in .4rea 6. These the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site facilities would he necessary to perform the until an on-site treatment facility was available. If following operations: such a facility is not developed, low-level mixed I liquid waste would be shipped to offkite facilities Disassembly of nuclear weapons with appropriate treatment and disposal capabilities. I Modification and maintenance and I The North Las Vegas Facility has adequate site I surveillance of nuclear weapons I infrastructure to support the proposed National I I Ignition Facility without major modifications. I Quality assurance testing of weapons I About 3 million Liyr (0.8 million gavyr) of water I components I would be required for construction. The total raw I I water supply required for the National Ignition I Assrmbly of nuclear weapons I Facility operations would be about 151 million L/yr 1 (40 million gal/yr), of which 18 million Llyr I Storage of strategic resewes of special nuclear I (4.8 milliori gdliyr) would be for domestic use. The I rnaterinl. I water required for National Ignition Facility I I operations would he equivalent to an increase of I _- NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT A.1.3.3 Nuclear Emergency Response. An automatic retrieval system would be installed to Activities would be the same as those described I be able to call the stored material up for periodic under Alternative 1 checking. The total operation would he coriducted underground, minimizing sccuiity and safety i\sues. A.1.3.4 Storage and Disposition of Weapons- Little modifications would be needed to secure the Usable Fissile Materials. The DOE is responsible P-Tunnel portal area. It is unlikely that pre\iously for management. storage, and disposition of undisturbed land would need to be used for the weapons-usable fissile materials from the nation's construction of security fences or any other wzurity nuclear weapons dismantlement and weapons structures or facilities. P-Tunnel i\ 30 kin (25 mi) production processes. Weapons-usable fissile from the proposed site slated for disasseinhly, so a materials include plutonium, highly enriched transportation system would he required. The road uranium, and other materials. These materials are and security infrastructure is in place and would currently stored at eight DOE sites across the require only some upgrade and niaintenancc. 11 ii nation: Pantex, Hanford, Idaho National tunnel other than P-Tunnel were designated. the Engineering Laboratory, Rocky Flats Plant, tunnel would require extensive upgrades to meet Savannah Kiver Sitc, Lawrence Livermore National standards of safety, ventilation, and ~CCCFI in Laboratory, Los Almios National Laboratory, and addition to inspections to assure the safety of thc Oak Kidge Reservation. in-place work. The I)OE is in the process of preparing a A.1.3.4.2 Disposition of Weapons-C'sahlc Fissile Progranirnatic EIS to evaluate alternatives for I Materials-There are three main categories ior long-term storage of all weapons-usable fissile I disposition (if plutonium each with sevei-iil materials and disposition of surplus weapons-usable I alternatives. There are ii range of lacilitiss that fissile materials. Five sites, including the NTS, are I could be constructed including pit under consideration for a consolidated long-term I disasseinblyiconversioii. plutonium conversion, storage site. This Programmatic EIS is expected to I immobilization, mixcd oxidc fuel fabrication. and he completed in 1996. I evolutionary light water reactor. Some of these are I mutually exclusive. The Record of Decision for the A.1.3.4.1 Storage of Weapons-Usable Fissile I Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissik Muteria/s-The NTS can develop the capability of I Materials Pi-ogrammatic EIS w!ould only select thc I storing weapons-usable fissile material that results I technology not the site. The large heavy-industrial I from the output of the disassembly process. Two I facility, described in Seccion A.1.3.5, is options have been investigated. One option I representative of impacts that might he expected if involves the construction of either a new plutonium I the NTS were selected lor cxarnple as a sitc foi- a storage facility, or a new plutonium storage facility I mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility. and a highly enriched uranium storage facility depending on the programmatic storage alternative I A.1.3.5 Large, Heavy-Industrial Facility. Under selected. These facilities are proposed to be located I Alternative 3, an area has been set aside to he used in Area 6 near the Device Assembly Facility. This I by industrial facilities. For this EIS a large heavy- capability may limit other uses or the facility, but is I industrial facility has been assumed to determine a viable option. The changes required would be I maximum potential impact. A land disturbance of internal, with no major inodifications to the 600 acres and employment of 4,000 individuals are building. The other option is to utilize one of the I assumed fbr this facility. Those other resources horirontnl event tunnels as the monitored storage required to support such a facility (cg., water site. P-Tunnel has been proposed as a potential site. requirements, waste management requirement\, and I Other tunnels are available, however they would fuel requirements) were considered in thc analysis require extensive modification. The selected tunnel of impacts resulting from constructioii aid would have a new drift driven off the existing main operation of this facility. access drift and would be dedicated to the storage of the device pits and/or other special nuclear material. I Operable Unit 4 vitrified silo was1e.s arc I cavity. This c..oiiceptttaI modcl was confirincd by characterized hy high-specific activity and longer- I hydrologic data (ibtainsd in l99h from the lived radionuclides (such as uranium, thoriutn, and I exploratory borehole completed bcneath L-3hl. theit- daughter products). Selection of the NTS for I Water potential data iiidicatc that thet-e 15 no I disposal ofthe Operable IJnit 4 vitrified silo waste I grountiwater ino\;etiietit 11-otn a 4-m to 90-111 is supported hy very favorable site-specific I (131-11 to 315-ft) depth within the suhwrface characteristics, particularly the “no groundwater I chimney (Van Cleave, 19%). Givctl the proximity pathway” conceptual model, and by very low I of Area 5 to Area 23 (22 km 114 mi 1) and the very population density. Scientists predict no movement I sitiiilar hydrologic conditions. the defcitrihlc of direct rainfall through waste cells tir the deep I hydrogeologic conceptual model for Arca 5 is hcing groundwater because of the presence of thick, dry I tested and validated for the Arca 3 K;idioactivi. sediments and rock in combination with very low I Waste Management Site. Refer to Volume 1, precipitation levels and high evapotranspiration I Section 2.5.6 irt- inorc intonnation 011 l’erformancc rates (Shott et al., 1995). Treatability studies I Assessinents and Composite Analysis. conducted on the vitrified waste form indicate that 1 the bitrificd waste fully satisfies NTS waste Transuranic Waste Perfoi-maiice Assessments- xccptance criteria and may provide a higher level Two transuranic witste performance iissessincnis ire I of long-term prorecttveness (DOE, 1993) (Rattclle, in review or preparation \tage~: (1) Greatel I 1994). Performance assessment analyses will Confinement Disposal I’erinrmance Asses\mcnt rigorously test variou? disposal scenanos over a within the Arrd 5 K:rdioacti\;e Waste Mann,Oenietit 10,000-year period. The limiting analysis for waste Sitc and (2) Transuranic Waste in Trench TOIC :icct!ptance for disposal IS expected to he the Peiformance .4sses\ment (Area i K;dioactivc iiiadverttiit human intruder dose assessment. Waste Management Sitc). Each transumiiic waste perforinatice assesment evaluates individual The Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site tratisuranic sir~~rce-t~i-~iicnntrihution\ within the l’crformance Assessment-will address the post- Area 5 Kadioactive Wactc Matingemetit Sitc ficility 1988 waste source terms for the facility and is operation based on the containment performance I scheduled for submittal to DOE Headquarters in objective, at a minimum. The ratiniialc tnr this I March 1998. compxison is that the containment standard is thc niost limiting of the three qiinntitative stand;rrds Site-characteriiation of Area 1 in I996 focuses on given in EPA regulation 40 CFK l’art 191: completion of a 152-m (500-ft) exploratory containment, individual protection, itnd borehole beneath subsidence crater U-3hh (a reserve groundwater, described hrieily as follows (Price low-level waste cell at the Area 3 Radioactive et al., 1991): Waste Managcment Site). The primary objective of the exploratory borehole in Area 3 is to characterize Thc containment requirement asse~ses the the physical and hydrologic properties of the probability of cuiiiulative releacrs of chimneys and to assess the potential for downward radionuclides to the acces\ible environmeni gmundwater movement and radionuclide transpun. over I0.000 years, considering all significant I The underground shot cavities beneath the processes and ewms that might affect thc I subsidence craters and waste cells in the Area 3 disposal system. The accessihle cnvironment I Radioactive Waste Management Site are much c~iisistsof any point in the siihwrface that is I dczper than active hydrologic surface processes 5 km 13 mi) beyond the waste unit and ;my I (infiltration, redistribution, and evapotranspiration) point on the ground surface. The liinit on I uperating heneath the Waste unit frotn the ground cumulative rcleases depends 011 the initial I surface to a depth iif approximately 31 m (100 ft). radionuclide inventory I CuiTent scientific models suggest that the chimney I beneath the low-level waste unit docs not enhance Individual protection requ~remenrs arc I or promote vertical groundwater flow between the designed tc protect individuals for 1,(100 to I waste unit (subsidence crater) and the deep-shot 10,000 years alter elositrc of the disposal \it? 4-21 Volume I, Appendix A NAVADA TEFT SITE PINAL ENVIROAMENTAL IMPACT STATEMLNT (the compliance period is dependent on I regulations with regard to Class 5 InJection Wells. site-ipecific conditions). They place Designs for disposal configurations at depths that Ilmits on the annual dose equivalent minimize or eliminate environmental intrusion and received by any member of the public as that will not he defined as injection wells are a result of the disposal system. These currently under considel-ation. limits are 25 milliroentgen equivalent man (mrem) to the whole body and 75 I Greater Confinement Disnosal Performance mrem to any critical organ. All potent~ai 1 Assessments-The performance of the Greater pathways from the disposal system to Confinement Disposal site, situated within the people must he considered Area 5 Kadioactive Waste Management Site, was :ompared to the containnicnt standard fir the Groundwater protection requirements are disposal of transuranic waste given in EPA designed to protect specif-ic aquifers in the regulation 40 CFR Part 191. In 1991, thc first vicinity of the disposal site by placing limits iteration of this performance assessment was on concentrations of radionuclides in sources completed and is documented in three volumes of of groundwater. In addition, they place limits the Preliminary Pedormance Assessment on the annual dose equivalent received by an (Price et al., 1993). Performance assessment under individual as the result or drinking water from 40 CFR Part 191 is iterative, that is. repetitions of these specific aquifers. The regulatory period the analysis are conducted until compliance or for evaluation is 1,000 or 10,000 years, noncompliance is demonstrated with adequate depending on site-Ypecific conditions. confidence, hased on a sensitivity or uncertainty analysis. Subsequent characterization and analyses In 1980, the DOE realized the need for developing have refined the Preliminary PerTorrnance a disposal configuration to manage a portion of Iow- Assessment and are documented in the Second level waste that is unsuitable for shallow land burial Performance Assessment Iteration (Baer ct al., because of its high specific activity or potential for 1994). The final performance assessment iteration migration into biopathways. In 1981, the DOE is currently in preparation and is scheduled for draft began investigating the technology referred to as completion in March 1997: final report completion greater confinement disposal. This technology was is expected in August 1997. Based on the second also developed in light of the concern for performance assesanient iteration, the Grcater- inadvertent human intrusion into :in abandoned Confinement Disposal Unit was in coinpliancc with disposal facility. Although the sccnario for the containment standard for limits on cuniulative inadvertent intrusion was considered unlikely, this releases of radiation to the accessible environment. alternative disposal method was investigated to reduce the probability of occurrence. The DOElNV Transuranic Waste in Trench TO4C Performanci began a project to determine the feasibility of burial Assessment-The perfmnance of the transuranic at depths greater than arc normally provided in waste in Trench T04C within the Area 5 shallow land hurial. To hegin the feasibility test. a Radioactive Waste Management Site was compnred I 3 in (10 ft) diameter x 37 m (I 20 ft) deep borehole to the containment and individual protection was drilled. Instmment lines were emplaced in the requirements given in EPA regulation 40 CFK borehole, and other smaller diameter boreholes were Part 191 in Fiscal Year 1995. The transuranic drilled around the central waste shaft. The borehole waste disposed in Trench T04C was received from was filled with high specific activity waste and then Rocky Flats in 1986. Preliminary performance backrilled with 18 m (60 ft) of cover material. assessments documented by Price (I 993) and Raer Short-term monitoring of this borehole appeared et al. (1994) inaicated that this disposal method has adequate, and the disposal method became a not met the performance objectives as defined in practiced disposal method at the Area 5 Radioactive 40 CFR Part 191. Further analysis i? required to I Waste Management Site. Grcater confinement determine the appropriate action for transuranic I borehole disposal practices have ceased due to the wastes currently emplaced in trench T04C. Possible I state of Nevada’s implementation of EPA actions include closure in place if pcrformmcc Volume 1, Appendix A A-22 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL .!iNNL'IKOArM12VTAL IMPACT TTATE,%'ME,Vi 1 objective\ can be met, or retrieval and subsequent facilities would need to bc opened. The new I disposal in a system that meets the 40 CFR I disposal cell would have an eLtimated capacity of I Pan I91 performance objectives. I ?.8xlO' m3 (1x10: rt3) and ~ouldrcceivc I 9x10' 1n3 (3.2xIO" It3) during thc IO-ycer A.2.1 Alternative 1 I period. Under this alternative, it is projcctetl that I the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site will Under Alternative 1, ongoing Waste Managemeni I receive approximately 2.6~10~m3 (9.2~10~ ft)) Program activities at the NTS would continue at I during (he 10-year period defined for this EIS. I current levels. No significant new initiatives or prqjects are inclnded under this alternative. One disposal cell iU-3axihl) is filled to cap;icity and is required to be closed under Kcsource A.2.I.I Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Conservation and Recovery Act and state of Nevida Site. A portion of Area 3 is reserved as a low-level hazardous waste regulations due to Iiazlrdouh waste waste disposal site under regulatory provisions constituents known 10 be present. This diyposal cell derived from the Atomic Energy Act. The area has was operated according to the requirement? of the been designated as the Area 3 Radioactive W~aste Atomic Energy Act, prior to the NTS Management Site and includes seven subsidence implementation of Resoul-ce Conservatioii Kecovetq cinters created from underground nuclear weapons Act regulations and has been declared ii mixed tests. Bulk low-level waste is disposed of in these waste disposal cell. The DOE/" is developing ;I subsidence craters. Waste management facilities site-specific plan for closure activities :it Area 3. are described in the following manner. The most This plan, part of the Integrated Closurc PI:m, basic is the cell, which includes trenches, pits, and describes a closure cap design that would tnkc into craters. These are grouped together to make up consideration the climate, geology, surf~ewater units. such as the 20 cell Mixed Waste Disposal and regional hydrology, and waste forms. This Unit. Units are placed in Radioactive Waste project, pan of the Integrated Closure Program, has Management Sites such as the ones in Areas 3 investigated the most optinlum design for closure and 5. The Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management cap integrity in the and NTS environment. Closurc Site encompasses approximately 128 acres of land performance standards, which are the tiiininlum I and two support buildings located within the maintenance requirements tor the piotection of allocated boundaries of the facility. Two craters human health and the environment, arc also under I (U-3ax and U-3bl) were combined into one disposal development. Minimization or elnnina~ion of cell that is completely filled. Two other craters contaminant release and compliance with the I (U-3ah and U-3at) were also combined into one applicable regulations and DOE ordcrs will be 1 disposal cell that was approximately half-full at the considered. Closure of disposal cell U-3ax/bl will I beginning of Fiscal Year 1995. This disposal cell occur in the near future upon state approval of the (U-3ahlat) has been operating as a low-level Resource Conservation and Recovery Act closure I disposal unit since 1988. Three other craters plan. Under Alternative 1, one additional disposal I (U-3bh, U-3az, and U-3bg) remain for use as future cell (U-3ahIat) will also be closed. I disposal cells if necessary. A.2.1.2 Area 5 Radioactive Waste Managemertt The Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site. In 1961, an area nonhwest of.Frenchrnan Lake was reserved as a low-level waste disposal site Site serves the NTS and approved off-site under regulatory provisions derived froin the generators a5 a bulk, low-level waste disposal facility. Atomic Energy Act. In 1977, the area was I Disposal cell (U-?ah/at) has a remaining capacity designated the Area 5 Radioactive Waste I of approximately 1.7x1Qi cuhic meters (1113) Management Site and began controlled waste (6x IO' cubic feet [ft'I). Under Alternative 1, management operations. this capacity is insufficient to handle forecasted waste volumes for the next 10 years; therefore, DISPOSAL OPERATIONS-Operations at the it is anticipated that one additional disposal Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site include cell (U-3bh/az) and no additional support low-led waste and limited mixed waste disposal. The NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIKONMENTAI. IMPACT STATEMENT Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site and the DOE. The agreement allows for the storage encompasses 712 acres of allocated land. of whtch of on-site generated mixed waste until it can be 92 acres are currently heing used for storage and treated to meet the Land Disposal Kestrictions for dis,psal. Iaoru-level and certain mixed wastes may be disposal. There were 76 in' (2.698 ft') of mixed disposed via shallow land burial in pits and trenches. I waste stored on thc Transuranic Waste Stol-age Pad Trench T03U, T07C, T08C, & T09C and Pits P06lJ. I at the beginning of Fiscal Year 1995. The and P05U are the landfill cells open (Fiscal I Transuranic Waste Storage Pad Cover Building, Year 1995) for low-level waste disposal. Pit P03U is I Rldg. S-29, which has 1,765 m2(I 8,900 ft') of available for mixed waste dlsposal. Under this usable storage space. provides protection from alternative, the antictpated low-level waste volume is environmental degradation of the transuranic wahte 9.0~10'm3 (3.2~10~ft3) and the anticipated mixed containers. waste volume is 500 m3 (1 8.000 ft'). The existing capacity will meet the disposal needs of low-level The Hazardous Waste Storage Unit is a Resource waste expected to be generated under this Conservation and Recovery Act-permitted facility. alternative. Greater confinement disposal The Hazardous Waste Storage Unit was originally technology would continue to be pursued for constructed as a less-than-90-day hazardous disposal of high specific activity low-level waste. waste storage unit and consists of a 9.1 m x 30.3 111 (100 x 300 ft) curbed impervious concrete pad with The current inventory of mixed waste disposed in a cover and a maximum storage capacity of Pit P03U at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste 61,625 liters (L) (16.280 gallons [gal]) of Management Site is 8,024 m3 (2.8~10'ft'). Pit containerized waste. Hazardous waste generated on P03U is currently operating under Resource the NTS would be accepted for storage at the Conservation and Recoven/ Act Interim status for I Hazardous wastestorage . unit for less than one disposal of mixed waste. This waste must meet the I year and then shipped off sitc for ultimate Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Land 1 disposition. Disposal Restriction requirements prior to disposal. PitP03U has 9.1~1O'm~(3.2x10~ft~)ofremaining In Area 5, transuranic mixed waste is stored on a capacity available for disposal, which should meet 2.05-ac asphalt storage pad. the Transuranic Waste the disposal needs of low-level mixed waste Storage Pad, with a design capacity of 1,140 m3 expected to be generated under this alternative. (39,800 ft3). At the beginning of Fiscal Year 1995, Therefore, the Mixed Wastc Disposal Unit would there were612 m1(21,613 ft')oftransuranic mixed not be expanded under Alternative I waste stored at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site. All of this waste was received The remaining capacity for the Area 5 Radioactive from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Waste Management Site low-level waste disposal The DOE manages the current inventory of the pits and trenches is 1.1~10~m' (4.0xIQ ff). No transuranic mixed waste in accordance with the sanitary landfill construction or disposal activities requirements of the Settlement Agreement would occur in Area 5 under this alternative. (June 22, 1992) between the DOE and the state of Nevada, 1992. The transuranic mixed waste would STORAGE OPERATIONS-Under this continue to be stored at the Area 5 Radioactive alternative, the Area 5 Transuranic Waste Storage Waste Management Site pending development of Pad and the Hazardous Waste Storage Unit would on-site characterization capability for acceptance of continue to be used to store waste. However, the proposed Mixed Waste Storage Pad would not be the waste at a DOE-designated disposal site, when constructed, and the Hazardous Waste Storage Unit one is approved. would not be expanded. WASTE CERTIFICATION OPERATIONS- Low-level mixed waste is currently stored on the Certification activities for waste acceptancc would Transuranic Waste Storage Pad in accordance with continue under existing methods. Waste requirements of the January 14, 1994, Mutual characteristics of mixed waste would be identified Consent Agreement between the state of Nevada I through generator-supplied analytical data, split Volume 1, Appendix A A-24 - samples. and expressed acceptance of the concents A.2.1.3 Area 6 Waste l~larragenierirOpfrntioris. of the waste package as noted in the on-site 'The NTS would continue ro store ~i~~l~~cl~l~~ri~i~itc~I I generator'\ reporr and waste manifest. No waste biphciiyl (PCB) waste. in riccorciaiic~~wit11 the Til\ic I certiftcmon facilities would he constructed utider Substance Contnil Act and mte iit Vc\d:i I this alternativc. Waste certification activities rcgul;itions. All PCR \\:ihtc would ctriitii:iie to IY i rcquiretl to mect Ihe Waste Isolatiioti Pilot Plant disposed off uite at I~PA~pet-iiiittcdIaciIitic\~ I w~istcacceptance criteria would not he conducted, I and the transuranic niixcd waste would he shipped Low-level and mixed \\iistc cflliieiit geiicr,iicC b,) lhc i to other DOE sites for certification. handling, and Nevada Eii\~iroiiiiieiital hlaiiageiiicnt :ifid I)di.iiw I dlspo\'rl. Program activities would he trcated ;it ~hul~iquitl W~tisteTreatment System facilitic, 1.0 be I~irm'iI117 CLOSURE OPERATIONS--Area 5 currently has Area 6. Initially, there would he twi~I i) x lo' L lowlevel, mixed, and classified waste disposal units (5 x 10' gal) double-walled steel cvcipt>ratiiiiiimk\ filled to capxity and available for closure according for low-led wastes. Ho\wwr, if mixed \\asie\ \\ere to DOE and EPA regulatory requirements. Filled encountel-cd, one olthe tanks ivould he d<\iyiatcd ;I\ waste Pits POIU and PO2U and Trenches TOIIJ, a mixed waste treatment tmk. The initia! pliwe T0211, T04LI. TO6U. and T07U contain low-level the site would consist of ttic tuii ckiuti!c-u :iilc~.I vu;i wii~tc disposed of prior to I987 under the tanks, a leak detection sqsteni. yird light\. ;I tiiilhile- requirements of the Atomic Energy Act. Because homc-type trailer to house offices :ind mt>iiittwir: mixed waste iq suspected in these landfills. the equ~pnient.acce\s cmitrcil feature\, fcii~.iiig.and entire group would be closed in compliance with stonii water lit-orcctioii. Ifreqiiired. the tarilit!, coiild Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ul~lmalelybe expanded to handle tip till .5sl!< l.~r regulations. The greater confinement disposal (4.0~10"gal/yr). horeholes, used for the disposal of highly mobile, classified, or highly radioactive waste forms, would The hydrocarbon landfill is a statc IIINc\ad;.i- iilso he closed in ;iccord:ince with Resource permitted Class 111 disposal \ite IociitcC IILW tliL~ I Conservation and Reciivcry Act regulatory southern edge of Area 6. The l~ii~dfi!lv.oiilil I reqiiirements. Pit PO3U. opened in 1988, has continue to he used liir the wlu piirqi<,,L' ,>! received only low-level wistc and needs to meet discarding hydrocarh(in-bur~Ieii~(iwil. vptik only tlie closure requirements ofthe DOE orders. sludgc, md debris. Uewuric Ciinxi.iiiii, iii Recovery Act regulated wahtcs xi: not acL.q~tccifijt~ The DOE/NV is developing a site-specific design dispowl. The miniinuni rcnxiining ~~ip~icit!I)! IIX for closure of Area 5 that would takc into disposal site is approximately 42,000 111' ! 1 .ixI!)" IiJi. conrideration the climate, geology, surface water Approximately 15.3-90 m3(5.4rI!)' ft'i ol~wi!.4iidgc. and regional hydrology, iind waste forms. This and dehns have heen disposed of iti thc Ii~~lt~~~~~~rIx~ti project, the Integrated Closure Program, would landfill. investig;ite the most optimum design for successful closure integrity in the and NTS environnent. A.2.1.4 Area 11 Explosive Ordnnrice /hpo.vd Closure of tlie existing 92-acre Area 5 facility Unit. The Area 1 I Explosi\e Ordnanci~I>i\p bunker- and an electric shock box. The Explos~ve 1 reflect alternatives considered in the Draft Waste Ordnance Disposal Unit has a maximum operating I Management Programmatic Environmental Impact cupaci!y to treal 45 kg (100 Ib) per hour or an I Statement. iinniial ciipacity of 1.873 kg (4,100 Ib). NO explosive waste is received from outside Nevada. A.2.3.1 Area 3 Radioactive Waste rManageinertt Ihe Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit has an Site. Three additional low-level waste disposal unofficial huflbr zone of approximately 503 acres in units would need to he prepared to accept a total a cii-cular aren. projected bulk waste volume of 7.5~10‘m3 (2.6~10’ft-’). This volume increase is due to A.2.2 Alternative 2 accepting waste from more off-site generators than are currently approved, as well as accepting an Under this alternative, Wabte Management Program increased amount of NTS-generated waste from the actlvities would he shut down. After shutdown, site environmental cleanup activities anticipated under on-site monitoring and security functions would he this alternative. One additional support building reduced and would become part of the sitewide would be constructed to expand the existing support monitoring activity. Building 3-302. The expanded facility would almost double the size of Building 3-302 by A.2.2.1 Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management providing a portable, prefabricated structure, that Site. No waste closure or disposal operations would includes electrical and water systems. This takc place. Facilities would he secured, and overall construction project would be a short-duration low- NTS rnonitoring would take place. labor task. A.2.2.2 Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Bulk contaminated soils and other debris would he Site. No waste disposal, storage. closure, or delivered by haulers from environmental restoration ceitilication operations would take place. Facilities sites. These haulers would need to be surveyed and would he secured. and overall NTS monitoring might need to be cleaned to ensure they are free would rake place. No waste certification operations from radioactive contamination prior to release from would take place. All activities that generate mixed the site. Depending upon the levels of waste would cease. Containerized mixed, and contamination encountered, there could he the need trrinsiiranic mixed warte would be sent to other to construct a truck decontamination facility so that DOF, facilities for cerlification and treatment to haulers could he cleaned piior to release from the iiieet Krsource Conservation Recovery Act land Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site. diyxisal restriction requirements (as applicable). I All opcrational landfill units would receive a I .2 ni In addition to the closure activity descrihed under I (4 ft) cover of compacted native soil. Alternative I, the additional low-level waste disposal cells (U-3bh, U-~XZ,and U-3hg) would 4.2.2.3 Area 6 Waste Management Operations. become filled and would then need to he closed. No wah~storage or treatment operations would Increased volumes would come from additional off- take place. Facilities would be secured, and overall site generators (including the worst-case volume NTS monitoring would take place. from the treatnient of surplus, highly enriched uranium), as well as NTS environmental cleanup ‘4.2.2.4 Area I I Explosive Ordnance Disposal operations. The total projected volume for the Unif. No waste treatment operations would take 10-year consideration period to he disposed of in place. Facilities would be secured. and overall NTS Area 3 is 7.5 x 10’ m3 (2.6 x lo’ ft3). This volume monitoring would take place. would be enough to completely fill the new disposal cells, in addition to the existing capacity remaining A.2.3 Alternative 3 in disposal cell U-3ahkat. Even though disposal cell U-3axibl is declared a mixed waste disposal cell, The Waste Management Program under and disposal cells U-3ah/at and U-?hh, U-3az, and Alteinative 3 would include the activitics descrihed U-3bg would he radioactive only disposal cells, the under Alternative I, with an increase in scope to same or a similarly approved closure plan would he Vduuie 1, Appendix A A-26 used to protect the en\,ironment by implemenrmg the heyt available technology. The pwfmmance ot the dtsposiil cell U-3;ixhl closure system would he uscd lo conhider any changes that mtghr hr iiect.wiry in the clowrc of cell U-?ah/ar. A.2.3.2 Area 5 Kudioactive Waste Maimgeinerrl Site. Under Alternative 3, Area 5 waste management operations would be expanded md rcllect the regionalized waste management conccpt for the DOE complex. In addition to increasing wahte capacity, facilities for the on-site treatment and certification of NTS-generated or stored wastes would he constructed. DISPOSAL OP~RATIONS-Radioactive and mixed waste disposai operations would be increased to meet the demand of the additional DOE-approved generators shipping waste to the NTS. POSU, PO6U, and T03U in the Area 5 Radioactive Waste I Mzinageinenr Site would he tilled to capacity. Pit I P04U. was filled to capacity during 1995. 1Jnder I Alternative 3. two additional low-level waste disposal I cells in the Area 5 Radioactive Management Site I wciuld be opened in the next 10 years to dispose of I the projecwi volumes of 2.5 x 10' 111' (8.8 x 10" ft'). I Diyiosal capability for low-level waste inappropriate I for \hallow land disposal wiuld be expanded. I Pending the approval of ii mcidil~ication to the Resource Conrerv;ition and Recovery Act Pait H Permit application, 20 mixed waste disposal cells would be prepared to address the projected waste I voIuiites of3 x 10' m3(l.t x 1(i7ft') requiring dispwil under this alternative in the next 10 years. The Arcii 5 Resource Conservation and Reco\,ery Act Part H Pel-mit would be revised to addrev the additional mixed waste disposal capacity. Owing to these projected volumes, additional facilities and infrnstructure would have to be constructed. Additional facility inlormation i\described below 1 in Storage Opcrations. Pit PO3U would not he used for thc disposal of mixed wiistc under Alternative 3. STOKAGE OPERATIONS- -A lowlevel waste storage unit would be constructed under Alternative 3. The low-level waste stot-age would he a curbed concrete pad located at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Mmagcmcnt Site. Most ol the pad would be covered with a roof. The uncovered NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMIINTAI. IMPACT STATLCMENT hrcactiinf and ccrtifrcation of this waste before it is waste containers and would process approximately transported to a designated disposal facility. The 82 mi (2,896 ft3) of waste annually. I 1rilristiliinic Waste Storage Pad Cover Building ! (Hldg, S-29) would serve as the loading facility. A treatment facility for the solidification of the I I cotter concentrate waste would be constnicted in 1 1KEAT.MENT AND CERTIFICATION Area 5. This material residue from uraniuni ore I OPERATIONS-A Waste examination facility processing that was sent to the NTS for storage I coniprt\cd of thc wastc breaching and sampling from the DOE Mound Plant in Miarnisburg, Ohio, I building md thc real-time radiography building in 1987, is known to contain uranium, thorium, and ~ would be constructed. The waste breaching and procactiniuni. Thete concentrates were once I mnpiing huikliiig would be used to conduct on-site considered a valuable resource for source material. I verilicatiun and certification of mixed wastes that This solidification facility is planned for the I are accepted fur disposal at the Areas 3 and 5 treatment of the 1,244 fifty-five gallon containers of ! Kildioactive Waste Management Sites. This facility cotter concentrate mixed waste currently in storage would house a breaching room for opening and at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site. viewing waste. ;I sampling facility for the collection Cementation was the treatment of choice for the and prepaimtion of samples for chemical and majority of the waste, based on criteria such a\ radioctrcnrii.al analysis, and an office and feasibility. radiation dose to personnel, and cost. \hower/cliange rooiii. Ketnote package handling Eight of the containers from population B would iinu dccoiitatiiiiiatioli capability would be included. require incineration ~ Wa\te determined to bc mixed through these verilicntion xtivities would bc returned to the waste CLOSUREC PERATIONS-Filled and storage area IUI- fui-thcr disposition or, if conditions unnecessary mixed, and greater confinement ~v;ii-riint.returned to the generator if unacceptable. disposal waste disposal units would be closed under Alternative 3. The Integrated Closure Program ,A rea-time radiography building would be recommendations would be followed with the consti-ucted at the Area 5 Kadioactive Waste approval of the state or Nevada. Details described hlanagement Site mtl operated by the DOE/NV in under Alternative I apply to this alternative. A con.junction with the waste breaching and sampling minimum of two additional low-level waste disposal huildi~igto conduct verification of mixed waste units opened to accommodate the expanded use rccei\ul at the Areas 3 and 5 Radioactive Waste waste volumes would not he closed unless they hlanagenicnt Sites. Real-time radiography imagery reach disposal capacity during this activity period is a nondewiictivt. noninvasive method used to covered by this EIS. ptmvicle preliminary package examination before breaching quertionahle packages for waste SITE IMPROVEMENTS-Because the design and \ritnpling. Iktection 01. unacceptable conditions load limits of the existing roads are not for the wittiin the wiiste pickage would enable the package number of expected waste shipments, the following to hc opcned and the unacceptable itern(s) either to upgrades would occur under Alternative 3. Either he renioved or other appropriatc action to be taken. the 5-01 road would be repaired and widened, or the The f;lcility would be designed to process 5-07 road would be modified and redirected to approximately 2,832 m' (io0,oon ft'j of waste per provide adequate access to the Area 5 Radioactive year. Waste Management Site. This construction would be necessary to enhance the roads and provide safe The transuranic waste certification building would access to the disposal site. he ciiintructcd to certify NTS and off-site-gcnerated trilnsuranic waste for shipment to a designated DOE I A new controlled access building would be disposal hcility (i.e., Waste Isolation Pilot Plant). constructed at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste The facility would be used for the breaching, Management Site under Alternative 3. This sampliti~,inspecting, and repackaging of transuranic building would provide access security and personnel accountability to the site from road 5-01, NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL EXVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATE.Iffi.VT the main entrance. All NTS personnel and visitors expanded Defense and Environmental Restoration would need to he cleared through the entrance. I Programs activities as well as serve the needs of Identifying people through the gate would provide I neighboring rural counties. This landfill would accountability of all personnel on site at any time receive co~istr~ctionand sanitary waste, and would and would be especially useful under emergency have an approximate capacity of 424,753 111’ situations. (1.5 x 10’ A’). It is proposed that the landfill would use an existing borrow pit that is approximately The equipment maintenance and storage building one-half mile north of the Mercury Highway and would include a storage area for earthmoving adjacent to Road 5-01 (east side). The disturbed equipment and light-duty machinery and would area for this site would he approximately 15 acres. provide a sheltered work area for the three workers. Borrow pit activities have already disturbed this I The facility would he built in close proximity to the area. existing maintenance shed. The new facility would have approximately 297 m2 (3,200 W) of space. A.2.3.3 Area 6 Waste Management Operations. The NTS would continue to store PCB waste in A water supply line that would connect the Area 5 compliance with applicable regulations, as would Radioactive Waste Management Site with the main occur under Alternative 1. supply line near Mercury Highway would be constructed under Alternative 3. This supply line Thc liquid waste treatment system would operate as would provide the site with a constant source of descrikd under Alternative 1. Mohile treatnlent water, thereby eliminating the need for daily units would he used 011 potential mixed waste trucking of water. The two 227-m’ (b0,OOO-gal) sireams that require further characterization prior to water storage tanks would remain in use to provide deciding the appropriate treatment option. Plans an emergency supply should the new line heconie and schedules for characterizing these wastes, inoperable. undertaking technology assessments, and providing the required plans and schedules for developing A flood protection dike and channel would he treatment capacity would he described in constructed to protect the Area 5 Radioactive Waste accordance with thc requirements of the Federal Management Site. This flood diversion system is Facility Compliance Act. As the Defense and expected to he an approximately 4,725-m Environmental Restoration Program activities (I 5,500-ft) long horseshoe-shaped barrier around continuc at the NTS. iuobilc treatment units that I the planned mixed waste disposal unit area and the can address lead encapsulation technology would be existing Radioactive Waste Management Site. considered, at a minimun~. I Another construction project designed to assist with I1 I fire protection for the site consists of laying A.2.3.4 Area Explosive Ordnance Disposal underground water lines with a number of regularly Unit. Treatment operations under Alternative 3 would increase to a level near maximum capacity, spaced fire hydrants. The system would encircle the as descrihed under Alternative 1, for handling existing 92 acres of the Area 5 Radioactive W-aste explosive waste. Management Site and would be extended to encirclc the area of the future mixed waste units. The A.2.4 Alternative 4 1 existing communication system would hc expanded and modified to provide enhanced coverage for the Waste Management Program operations and site and better capabilities for communication to construction would include the activities described 1 link to off-site locations. The communication under Alternative 3, hut scaled back to provide system expansion would ensure the Area 5 sewice solely for DOE/NV waste generated within Radioactive Wastc Management Site reporting Nevada. capabilities in emergency situations. A.2.4.1 Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management I A Class 1 or Class 11 sanitary landfill would he Site. Under Alternative 4, the Area 3 Radioactive constructed in Area 5 to serve the needs of the Waste Management Site disposal crater (U-3ahht) A-29 Volunie I, Appendix A would be adequate to meet the projected Nevada- concentrate waste would occur ;IS described in I generated waste volume needs of l.50.000 m' Alternative 3. i (5.3 x lo6 ft'). Only closure of cell U-?axibi would take place under this alternative. A.2.4.3 Area 6 Waste Management Operations. W-aste inanagement activities at Area 6 would be A.2.4.2 Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management identical to those described under Alternatives 1 I Site. Under Alternative 4, disposal of mixed waste and 3. would continue at the NTS for only those DOE/NV waste generators within the state of Nevada. A.2.4.4 Area 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Accordingly, waste volumes would he reduced from Unit. Treatment operations under this alternative I Alternatives 1 and 3 levels to 336 111' (1 1,900 ft') of would decrease owing to the loss (if the nujority of 1 low-level waste and 500 nil (1 8,000 ft') of mixed NTS explosive waste generators. waste. No additional mixed waste disposal cells would need to be prepared to dispose of these A.3 Environmental Restoration Program prolected waste volumes. Waste disposal cell closure activities would be the same as those In November 1080, rhe Secrerary of Energy described for Alternative 3. estilblished the Office of Environmenlal Restoration and Waste Management to iinprox the NTS trnnsuranic and transuranic mixed waste management of remediation, waste management. would continue to be stored, pending development and facility decommissioning by consolidating these of transuranic waste certification capabilities in the missions into one orficc. In Nevada, envir~mneiitaI DOE complex. When such capability is available, restoration actib'ities are under the nuspices of the I this waste would he shipped off site for completion Environmental Restoration Division and are of certification activities and eventual shipment to managed as the Nevada Environmental Restoratioti the Wahtc Isolation Pilot Plant. Under Pro,ject. The DOE is committed to asscrsing and I Alternative 4, the haz~rdouswaste storage unit remediating contaminated sites, cmplying with all would remain at the same capacity level as applicable environmental regulations and statutes, described under Alternative 1. The mixed waste and protecting the public and workers' health and storage pad would not he constructed under this safety. alternative. Mixed waste storage would continue to take place on the transuranic waste storage pad. The specific activities under the Environmental Restoration Program are identitied as follows: No wahte certification facilities would he constructed under this alternative. Certification 0 Underground Test Area Project activities for waste acceptance would continue under existing methods, as described under 0 Soils Media Project (including portions of Alternative 1. The following facility construction the Nellis Air Force Range [NAFR] Complex) activities described under Alternative 3 would be conducted under Alternative 4: 0 Industrial Sites Project Access Control Building 0 Decontamination and Decommissioning 0 Water Supply Line Project 0 Maintenance Building 0 5-07 Road Keconfiguration 0 Defense Nuclear Agency industrial sites 0 500-year Flood Protection 0 Fire Protection Utilities I Communication System. 0 Tonopah Test Range industrial sites Construction and operation of the mixed waste 0 Central Nevada Tehl Ai-ea 1 treatmenr facility for solidification of cotter 0 Project Shoal Area. Volume 1, 4ppmdir A A-30 - ~ - The Defense Nuclear Agency rites are being installed near shot cavities to collect data about the identified as part of the Env~ronmentalRestoration near-field environment. A key portion of the data Program because Dcfrnbe Nuclear Agency site assessment activities is the completion of a ac[ivitie~ entail environ~nental reniediations. preliminary risk assessment to provide input to a Howevcr, it ihould hc noted that the Defense I value-of-information analysis that would identify Nuclear Agency is responsible for the operations, as and prioritize potential future data needs. The well as the funding. It is, in this sense, a Work for results of Phasc 1 would be directly used in the work Others Program project. scope for the weapons testing areits arid in the implementation of Phase 11. A.3.1 Alternative 1 Phase I1 activities would begin in Fiscal Year 1996 llnder this alternative, the DOE/NV would continue and would include the derelopnient or specific following the current scope of environmental groundwater flow and solute transport modeling for rcsrorarion work identified in the Nevada the six areas previously identified. Frwn this effort Environmental Kestol-tition Cost, Schedule. and I ii regulatory compliance zone would he established. I Technical Baseline, and milestones as identified in Field activities in each area u.(iiild pro\,ide data Appendix Ill of the Fedeinl Facility Agreement and collection in the near-field environnient. including Consent Order. installation of monitoring wells in Iociiti~ns 1 indicated by modeling results. The effort would Include near-field groundwater flow and solute A.3.I.I Underground Tesf Area Project. The transport modeling; risk assessment; stake Nevada Division (if Environmental Protection holderiregulatory concerns; and a monitoring regulates DOE Nevada's corrective actions through network design. the Federal Facility Agrectncnt and Consent Order. Appendix VI of the agrecment. the Corrective Current monitoring srsesses the extent of Action Strategy, describes the processes that will be contamination and supports niodeling efforts to used to complete corrective actions, including those establish protective boundaries around the six areas. in the Underground Test Area Project. Individual A five-year monitoring program would determine il sites covered by the agreement are known as data is consistent with predictions. If monitoring Corrective Action Sites, and they are grouped into results are satisfactory to the state, then a closure Corrective Action Units. The Underground Test report would be prepared for Nebada Division Area Prqject is comprised of six Corrective Action Environmental Protection approval. Post closui-e Units, generally retlecting the distinct geographic monitoring would he conducted for a duration or locations and geologic and hydrologic environments SO years and would be consistent with the of the weapons testing areas. requirements of compliance. The Underground Test Area Project is anticipated to continue [in a Becauw of the complexity and scale dthe NrS, the long-term basis. Although it is identified iis ii part Undri-ground Test Ai-ca Fro.ject Corrective Action of the Environmental Restoration Priigratn, the Investigation was separated into two major phases. monitoring aspects would provide additional data During Phase I. project activities have been focused concerning long-re!-m knowledge of thc iinpxt [it' on a regionnl invcstigation. During Phasc 11, work iiuclear testing on subsurface water. Once into the scope focu\ing on the Corrective Action Units will monitoring phase, the iinnual cost per \veil is he conductcd. estimated to be $I 2,500 (I 994 dollars). The total projected fundingicost of the project, from Fiscal Phase I consists of assessing cxisting data, Year I996 to 2005, is estini;~tedto be Y; 171 .SOO,OOO developing geology, groundwater flow and solute (1994 dollars). It is alw anticipated that transport models, md conducting risk assessment. contaminated mated drilled from the wells would Field activities include the usc of new and existing generate about 2,340 111' (83.200 rt'r of Iow-IeveI wells for inonitor~ngand resting to help dcvclop waste that would be disposed on tlic NTS at one of I transport iiiodrls. Some new wells would he the Kadioactivc Waste Manapnent \itch. A-31 Volume 1. Appendix A NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL HATIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT A.3.1.2 Soils Media Project (including portions cleanup have been determined, excavation would ofthe NAFR Complex). The Soils Media Project begin. The soil would then be transported to an provides for cleanup of approximately 3,257 acres approved disposal site. Transportation of of plutonium-contaminated soils (based on a contaminated soil is anticipated to use both existing 200 pCi/g cleanup level) on the NTS, the Tonopah roadways as well as roads specifically constructed Test Range, and the NAFR Complex combined. for contaminated soil haulage. The waste would be Contamination was a result of safety experiments in transported, handled, and disposed of in accordance the 1950s and 1960s to determine if nuclear with applicable regulations and orders. weapons can reach criticality through detonation of conventional explosives. Investigation and Currently, completed remediation plans exist only remediation activity has been expanded to include for the Double Tracks site which is located on the other NTS areas containing soil contaminated by NAFR Complex. Characterization activities are other radionuclides. These areas include cratering expected to be concluded at this site in Fiscal Year experiment sites, atmospheric test sites, and I 1996. Excavation activities would be expected to underground test releases of activity to the surface. begin, with approximately 1,300 m3 (46,222 ft') of low-level plutonium-contaminated soil waste being While the areal extent of contamination related to generated. these activities is found primarily on thc NTS (Figure 4-30), seven additional sites of The estimated fundingkosts for this Project during contamination are located on parts of the NAFR Fiscal Years 1996 to 2005 are identified in the Complex and Tonopah Test Range. These sites Baseline Environmental Management Report consist of the plume east of the Smallboy site (DOE, 199Sa) as totaling $1 55,500,000 (Frenchman area) and the plume north of the (1994 dollars). Total waste generated from all Schooner site located on the NAFR Complex (see activities within this Project, during the same time Figures 4-31 and 4-32, respectively), which are period, has been estimated to be 307,000 m' extensions of sites located on the NTS. Other (1 0,800,000 ft') of low-level plutonium- contaminated areas located on the NAFR Complex contaminated soil. include the Area 13 and the Double Tracks sites, shown in Figures 4-33 and 4-34, respectively. The After the contaminated soil has been removed, the Double Tracks test, part of Operation Rollercoaster, area would be surveyed to document that was conducted on the NAFR Complex, while three contamination has been reduced to the cleanup others, known as Clean Slate I, 2, and 3, were criterion. Upon confirmation, long-term site conducted on the Tonopah Test Range. stabilization activities, including potential revegetation activities, would begin. Characterization of areas of contamination has been performed in the past and would continue. A.3.1.3 Industrial Sites Project. The Industrial Previously, radiological contamination of surface Sites Project consists of 306 Corrective Action soil at the NTS and contaminated sites near the NTS Units which are in turn comprised of 926 Corrective were evaluated by the Radionuclide Inventory and Action Sites Corrective Action Units located at the Distribution Program and the Nevada Applied NTS and Tonopah Test Range. The Corrective Ecology Group, respectively. The objective was to Action Units have been functionally grouped into estimate the total amount and the distribution of all source groupings. Source groupings provide an manmade radionuclides in surface soils at the NTS, efficient mechanism to plan environmental Tonopnh Test Range, and NAFR Complex. restoration activities at Corrective Action Units with similar characteristics. The twelve source Cleanup operations would be designed utilizing groupings are: information gathered from characterization work. Remediation levels would he based on dose limits Disoosal Wells-Machine drilled boreholes of and would consider the proposed future land use. various diameters for the disposal of liquid or solid When the extent of the area and volume of the wilste. Volume 1, Appendix A .\-32 ~. - ~~~ ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMMEST lnactive Tanks-Aboveground storage tanks. Within the context of the Feder;rl l-iicilit> underground storage tanks and the surrounding soils Agreement and Conseni Order, iictivitics at potentially containing petroleum products or other Corrective Action Units within the \i?ui-ce groupings hazardous constituents. will follow the following qucnce: I ) Preliminary Assessment, 2) Corrective Action Inve~tigiition.71 Contaminated Waste Sites-Generally sites with Corrective Action, and 4) Closure. If enough waste piles of solid material. process knowledge and data arc iivailablc at ii site. a Streamlined Approach For En\iroiiiiientiil Seotic Tanks and Lagoons-Impoundments, Restoration Plan would be written to strr:imline ihl\ sewage lagoons, or septic tanks designed to handle process. The Streamlined Approach For wastewater from a variety of facilities. Environmental Restoration Plan would replace the Preliminary Assessment and the Correctzvc Action Tunnel Ponds and Muckoiles-Muckpiles are Investigation Plan. This sequence does not apply to generally heterogeneous solid wastes derived from the “Part A Sites” source grouping. Thew rites will postshot activities after an underground nuclear test be closed through the traditional Resource in a tunnel. The solid waste is placed near the Conservation and Recovery Act approach in entrance to the tunnel. Tunnel ponds are accordance with separate characterization and impoundments created to contain contaminated closure plans. The status or phase of xtivity for meteoric waters flowing from the tunnel portals. each Corrective Action Unitc ih tracked in the Appendices to the Federal Facility Agreement and Drains and Sumos-Informally known as “french Consent Order agreeinem which arc updated drains,” these sites are comprised of vcrtical quarterly. Corrective Action Units in Appeiidix 11 borings, backfilled with gravel, and receive liquid are awaiting the initiation of invcstigativc acti\itie>. wastes. usually from an underground pipe Appendix UI contains Corrcctive Aciicm Unit\ on connected to a facility. which activities have been initiated. Appcndis IV contains Corrective Action IJiiit\ that arc rlo\ed. Ordnance Sites-A site containing hazards from Currently, within the Industrial Site5 Project. there unexploded ordnancc. are 217 Corrective Action Units in Appciidix 11. 20 Corrective Action L‘niis in Appcndix Ill, and Bunkers. Chemicals and Material Storage Sites- 69 Corrective Action Units in Appendix IV. Generally a stiucture which housed hazardous or radioactive materials. Preliminary Assessment activities gencrcilly consist of historical records search, interviews 1s ith foniirr Soill Sites-An area of soil contamination not site workers, geophysical survqs, air photo associated with a fixed facility. interpretation. and limited site visits or \iiinpling activities. Corrective Action In\wtigatioiis uwally Part A Sites-Comprised of the seven original begin with the writing of ii Corrective ,Action Resource Conservation and Recovery Act sites Investigation Plan. The Corrective Actiori listed in the hazardous waste permit for the NTS. Investigation Plan guides field Nark at the These sites are briefly discussed later in this section. Corrective Action Units which may coiiii\t 01 surface soil sampling, subsurface buring sampling, Decontamination and Decommissionin., Facilities- or groundwater sampling. .4t the conipletion of Mission related surplus facilities which inliy be Corrective Action Invrsti:_.ation iicti\itiey, if contaminated froln usage are generally confined to Corrective Action Decision Documei~tdocuiiieiit\ the structural boundaries of the facility (i.e., floor, the results of the samplinf iictivitirs, aild vxplnr-e\ walls, roo0. remedial alternatives for the \it?. !\ Ccii-rcctive Action begins with the writing of :I Cot-rective Miscellaneous Sites--Sites that do not fit the above Action Plan which guides thc reni~diiitioti01 ttir categories of source groupings. Corrective Action Units through closure. I would he closure in place. Approximately 1 acre of land would br disturhed. AREA 2 U2RU SL'BSIDENCE CKATEK-The U-2hu subsidence crater in Arw 2 wiih ci-cutcd hy an underground test in 191 1 and was used as ii land disposal unit from 1973 lo 19x8. Site ctiaracteri7,ati~nand cIo~tireare pctidiii:2. The site I ~ivvouldmost likely he closed in place, which would consist 01 covering and sealing. Ahout I acre of 1;ind woold likely bc dirturhed All five Kerource Ciinservatton atid Kecobcry Act i Industrial site5 would he schedulcd tor closure mdhr contiiiuatioii of po.;tclosure monitorins iictivities through Fiscal Year 2005. Appr(iximatc.ly 2.5 acres of land would he disturbed hy these activities. It is estimated that licsourcc Conservxtiiin and Recowry Ac.1 siles uotild generatc about 3,720 in' il30.000 Ti') of mixed waste and 310 ni' (IO,',(I~ I?)of hazardous waste over the nexl 10 fiscal years (1996 to 2005). 'The total pro.jected fundingicost of this project is estimated to be slightly over S55 million dui-ing that same time period. A.3.1.4 Decuntanririafiun nrrdOecotnriii.s.si~rnirig f'rojcct. The ckcoiitaiiiination and ~iecotiimissiiinin:: facilities activity wits estahlishcd in 1978 to provide safe caretaking (\usveillance and maintenance) and disposition (decommissioning) of :etired, DOE-owned or -sponsored nuclear hcilittes that were used to support the dcvelopinent of nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Since 1989, the Ahsibrant Secretary lor En\ ironmental Restoralioii and Waste Management har had responsihility for decontamination and decommissioning. The decontamination and decommissioning project in Nevada is part of the Nevada Environmental Kestoration Project, which is administered by the DOEiNV Environmental Kestoration Division. Dccoiitamination and decommissioning are concerned with the sate caretaking of \urplus nuclear facilities until their entomhmcn~. disinHntlsment/sefmenliii~ and removal, or conversion to another tioiitiiiclcar reuse. r)ecoiitiiininaticn and decommis\iiintn~ tasks cricoiiipass (1) ~urieill;lncc and m:ttntcnar~ce. NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMI (2) assessment and chwacteriration, assurance orders (DOE Orders 5820.2A and (3) environmental review, (4) engineering design, 5400.1) that require an integratcd w'aste (5) decontamination and decommissioning management plan for the NTS. The Defense operations, (6) waste disposal, and (7) closeout. The Nuclear Agency, funded by the Doll, is a Work for inventory of surplus facilities includes reactors, Others Program. All the remaining activities in the laboratory facilities, and storage areas with program are environmental restoration related. radioactive and hazardous materials. Consequently, the Defense Nuclear Agency project description is located in the environmental Currently, there are seven facilities included in the restoration sectioii of this EIS. NTS decontamination and decommissioning project: (I) EPA Farm, (2) Engine Maintenance The Defense Nuclear Agency primarily conducted Assembly and Disassembly Facility, (3) Reactor its undergi-ound nuclciir weapons effects tcrh in Maintenance Assembly and Disassembly Facility, tunnels within Rainier Mesa located in the nntth- (4) Test Cell A, (5) Test Cell C, (6) Pluto central portion of NTS in Area 12. Most of the Disassembly Facility, and (7) Super Kukla Reactor approximately 100 sites included in this prujcct are Facility. An eighth facility, the Jr. Hot Cell, was within Area 12. The 100 sites includc muck pileb, decommissioned in Fiscal Year 1995. It has been tunnel ponds, con(:iininated tunnel pot-tal areas. assumed that the structures associated with all of the drums. batteries, and lead nyaterials that art? OI~may facilities would be demolished to ground level after he identified as the responsibility of the I)efeli\c verification that radioactivity levels are below the Nuclear Agcncy. The Defcnsc Nuclear ,4gcncy action level. No monitoring after this verification is i would be responsible for this project and co~t\.The anticipated; however, until the demolition and I activity envisioned for all sites would iriclude disposal of the waste occurs, all monitoring and characterization. rernediarion, and/or closure. security regulations would be enforced. It should Presently, the costs of restorati(iri activities are als(i be noted that decontamination and estimated to be $15 million 11994 dollars); the decommissioning apply only to structures. Soils, if restoration activities would take place between contaminated, would be rrmediated under Fiscal Years 1996 and 21)05. Approximatsly Environmental Restoration Program activities. 500 acres of land would be itivolvcd. atid about Ikmolition and waste removal would be the 50,000 mi (1.8 x 10" rt') of iow-kvel mixed waste\ principal physical activities, and it is anticipated would be generated. that these seven facilities would be decontaminated and decommissioned over the 10-year timeframe A.3.1.6 Torropah Test Range. There are covered by this EIS. 43 source units (environmental restoration sitehi identified within the Tonopah Test Range. All hx The seven decontamination and decommissioning are on controlled-access lands. For the purpose of project facilities contain approximately this EIS, potential release sites at the Tcmopal~Test 12,100 m2 (165,000 ft2) of building area. The total Range were divided into seven categories: projected fundingkost (1994 dollars) of these (1) underground storage tanks, 12) landfill and activities over the 10-year timeframe is estimated at lagoons-01, (3) landfill and lagoons-02, (4) soil less than $5 million. An estimated total of 37 m' contamination sites, (5) surface and near-surface (1,300 ft') of low-level waste would be generated radioactive sites, (6) urdtiance Gtes, and between Fiscal Years 1996 and 2005. 17) photographic french drains. A.3.1.5 Defense Nuclear Agency Industrial UNDERGROUND STORAGE Tt\NKS--Four Sites. The Defense Nuclear Agency operates as a potential release sites are identified under the tenant activity at the NTS under a Memorandum of underground storage tank categoty. The anticipated Understanding with the DOE. Thc terms of the activity would include chiiracterization, Memorandum of Understanding require that thc contaminated soil reniovai, and site closure. Thc Defense Nuclear Agency comply with all DOE sites are located in Area 3. environment, safety and hcdth, and quallty )VEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ~SVIRONMEXTALIMPACT STATEfMElVT I~~~N1)l~ILI.AND LAGOONS-01-The landfill Over the 10-year timeframe of this EIS, A.3.2 Alternative 2 A.4.1.1 Alternative Energy. Southern Nevada represents an ideal place for the research and In Alternative 2, Environmental Restoration development of a variety of alternative energy Program activities would be discontinued, and sites resources. Principal among these is solar-power would be left abandoned as IS. All reports, studies, electrical production. The abundance of this field investigations, characterization, and resource, coupled with the available land and decommissioning and/or decontamination would existing labor forces, presents a significant cease. Environmental monitoring would continue opportunity for demonstration and development of to the extent necessary to detect contaminant large-scale solar energy systems with the potential migration at compliance boundaries. All for commercial success. remediation projects under way would be discontinued, with the goal of progressing to a I A Solar Enterprise Zone facility concept has been suitable conclusion within one calendar year of the I advanced by a consortium of federal, state and local decision to pursue this alternative. I entities along with the solar power industry. I Established through an open. public process, the A.3.3 Alternative 3 I collective effort is to develop, finance and construct I one or more solar power production plants in In Alternative 3, Environmental Kcstoration I southern Nevada. Up to 1000 MW has been Program activities would continue as identified in I considered as a long-term goal starting with a Alternative I, Most Environmental Restoration I 100 MW project solicitation. Four sites, including Program activities are expected to be accelerated I the NTS. are currently being considered for relative to Alternative 1. Expanded uses may I construction of the initial solar generatioti facilities. require cleanup level iidjustment in accordance with I Additional citrs may he considered to support the the applicable environmental requirements. I long-term goals of a Solar Enterprise Zone facility I initiative. A.3.4 Alternative 4 I I The Corporation for Solar Technology and Environmental Restoration Program activities I Renewable Resources was created in early 1995 to would continue at current or accelerated rates. I facilitate the mission and goals ofa Solar Enterprise Cleanup levels and/or remediation could be stricter I Zone facility. It is a non-federal corporation (where applicable), based on designated land use I established spccifically to implenient the action and/or the potential return of some lands to the I plans of a Solar Enterprise Zone facility. The actual public domain. I cost of construction of a solar prqject on one or I more of the sites considered will be financed by the A.4 Nondefense Research and Development I project developers who may have access to tax Program I exempt bonding through the Corporation for Solar I Technology and Renewable Resources. The DOE is The DOF, has historically supported a variety of I not expected to hold equity interest in the facilities research and development activities at the NTS in I actually constructed. coopcration with universities, industry, and other I fcderal agencies. The nondefense research and A.4.1.2 Spill Test Facility. The DOE Spill Test devcloptncnt projects, activities and business Facility is a research and deinonstration facility. It services evaluated in this EIS are described below. is available on ii user-fee basis to private and public secior test arid training sponsors who are concerned A.4.1 Alternativc 1 with the safety aspects or hazalrlous chemicals. Safety research associated with the handling, Under this alternative, the DOE would continue to shipping, and storage of hazardous lluids and support the ongoing Nondefense Research and liquefied gaseous fuels 1s contlucted within this Ucveloprncnt Program operation. Facility. The Spill Test Facility is the only facility of its kind for either large- or small-scale testing of A-37 Volume 1, Appendix A NWAI)A TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT hazardous and toxic fluids. including wind runnei facility, with priority given to chemicals presenting resting, undei- controlled conditions. The facility the greatest potential risk to human health. The Act consists of a control building, a wind tunnel, requires the DOE to make the facility available to me~corologicaland camera towers, ii tank farm and interested persons, including other federal agencies spill area, and a personal safety equipment building. wanting to conduct related research and activities. The site is composed of four test areas. A.4.1.3 Alternative Fuels Demonsfrution Since 1986. the Spill Test Facility has been used for I Projects. Executive Orders 12759 and 12856, the evaluating and modeling hazardous releases into the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and the Clean Air Act atmosphere. The facility is ideally suited for test mandate the general requii-ements for using cp~insorswho wish to develop verified data on alternative fuels in the federal and private sectors prevention, mitigation, cleanup, and environmental and establish baseline conversion tables and effects of toxic and hazardous gaseous liquids. In procurement schedules for new alternative-fueled addition to testing, the facility provides structured vehicles. trnining for emergency spill response for most chemicals in cornmercial use. Performing Although the NTS does not have the refueling controlled, me;isured releases of toxic and infrastructure to support alternative-fueled vehicles, lharardous matcrials into the environment IS the the DOE has converted 16 of its vehicles to inost reliable means of simulating the behavior of compressed natural gas. These vehicles would he thex chcniicals during a full-scale accidental stationed in Las Vegas and shuttle between the relea.;e The Spill Test Facility is located or1 Nevada Operations Office and the NTS. This Frenchman Flat at the NTS, approximately 121 kin initiative used Fiscal Year I994 funding; additional (75 mi) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. funding is anticipated once the cos~s for procurement and conversion of original-equipnrent- To d;ite, six environmental assessments and manufacturer vehicles is developed in a formal acsociated Findings of No Significant Impact proposal. It is anticipated that initial refueling spanniiig 1981 to 1994 have been written to cover requirements to support future compressed natural the testing of certain chemicals ill the Spill Test gas conversions at the NTS might consist of tanker Facility. Specific tests proposed to he conducted at refueling deliveries until the demand establishes the the Spill Test Facility must he assessed by the DOE need for permanent facilities. in ati addendum to the Eitvironmentd Assessnwrit for Ho:nrdoir.s Murcriuls Tesling at the Liquefied Without future funding availability for refueling Gostwirs Firth Spill Test Fmilitj (DOWOFE, 1994) infrastructure, further conversion activity for the acc(irding to predefined exposure liniits or bounds remaining vehicle fleet would be unlikely. The for testing. If these tests are determined to he intent is to build the infrastructure, convert the within thc bounding analysis of the aforementioned original fleet, and further develop partnerships environmental assessinents, the DOE issues a geared to study other alteinative fuel and energy Findings (11 No Signiricant Irnpact for that specific sources, including, but not limited to, fuel-cell rest. The Spill Test Facility is already permitted for research and development, exotic-fuels the release of 30 gases. development, additive research, and elzctric- ;iutomobilc development and use. Operations would continue at the Spill Test Facility at its present level of testing. Through the Under Alternative 1, the DOE would continue to en;ictiiieiit of the Clean Air Act Amendments of suppoi1 the 16 DOE-owned vehiclcs already 1990, Cungiess has directed the EPA and the DOE converted to compressed natural gas. The DOE tu o\'ci-see cxperitnental research and to develop a would also continue devcloping a formal proposal list of chemicals rind a schedule for testing at the for the conversion of the original-cquipinent- Spill Test Facility. Specifically, Section 103(f)of manufacturer vehicles flcct. However. no the Clean Air Act specifics that a minilnuin of two conversion would take place beyond the cheiiiicals per year should be field tested at the development of a formal proposal. Volume I, Appendix A A-3% ~ ___~ NEVAUA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT A.4.1.4 Environmental Management and DOEhVV are the responsibility of the assistant Technology Development Project. The DOE is manager for Environmental Restoration and Waste committed to improving the effectiveness of all of Management Division. its programs and organizations. In support of this commitment, the Office of Environmental The DOE/NV goals related to technology Management Program, in cooperation with other development are to participate in the demonstration DOE research organizations, will use the best science of technologies at the NTS and other DOE sites. and technology available to solve the most Examples of current activities include developiiient challenging set of environmental problems m the and: world. This approach will build upon existing programs and will seek continual improvement of Field demonstration of the associated particle all cnvironmentai management operations and imaging system, a nonintrusive technology for processes. thrce-dimensional, elemental characterization of sealed, or inaccessible, containers and The goal of environmental management and the structures. This system would be used for Technology Development Office is to conduct a decontamination and decommissioning research and technology development program that activities is focused on overcoming major obstacles to progress in cleaning up the DOE sites and that Field demonstration of airborne and hand- involves the best talent in the DOE and the held, laser-induced fluorescence systems for international science communities. decontamination and decommissioning application. This system is particularly useful Thc focus of the Technology Development Project for Characterizing depleted uranium is on five major remediation and waste management contamination, as well as for petroleum areas: products 0 Contaminant Plume Control and Remediation Implementation of improved techniques for 0 Mixed Waste Characterization, Treatment, and integrating remote sensing data into Disposal geographic information systems. 0 High-Level Tank Remediation 0 Landfill Stabiiiration The current funding level for these activities is 0 Facility Transitioning, Decommissioning, and about $2 million. of which $1.7 million is operating Final Disposition. budget and $300,000 is capital equipment. Implementation of this program is through the A variety of other projects has been proposed for following teams: the DOWNV. including refinement of landfill monitoring technologies, demonstration of waste Management Team treatment and management techniques, applications 0 linplementation Team of remote sensing technologies, and soil sorting and Focus Area Review Group washing techniques. 0 Site Technology Coordination Groups (DOE). A.4.1.5 Environmental Research Park. The The implementation of this program at the DOE/” National Environmental Research Park Program is through the development of a Site Technology was started in 1972 by the DOE in response to Coordination Group and participation in national recommendations by citizens, scientists, and focus area groups. The Site Technology members of Congress to set aside land for Coordination Group is made up of personnel from ecosystem preservation and study. Seven such the various DOE programs and includes the ecosystem sanctuaries have been cstablished, the involveinent of stakeholders and regulators. The latest of which is the NTS in 1992. environmenlal management activities at the A-39 Volume 1, Appendix A NEVAUA TEST SITE FZNAI. EATVIXONl)L?NTAL IMPACT STATEMLVT Undcr a cooperative agt-eernent between the I Resources has headed this effort and wiih created in DOEDJV, the University of Nevada and the I early 1995 to facilitate the mission and goals of a University of Nevada, Las Vegas, the DOENV I Solar Enterprise Zone facility. Office ofthe Assistant Manager for Environmental I Restoration arid Waste Management is providing I The actual cost of constructing ii solar power project rinancial assiytance tu the University of Nevada, I on one or more of the sites considered will be and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, to I financed by the project develcipers who may have conduct scientific research projects unique to the I access to the tax exempt bonding through the NTS Environmental Research Park. Areas of I Corporation for Solar Technology and Renewable research include, but are not limited to, habitat I Resources. Costs or profits generated from the reclamation, liydrogcologic systcni.;. radionuclide I development of solar technologies will he realized transport, ecological change. waste management, I by the project developers, and the Corporation for monitoring processes, remediation, and I Solar Technology and Kenewablc Resources, not cIi;uacterization. Projects are selected by the park I the DOE. director from annually submitted proposals. I I Impact analyses for Solar Enterprise Zone thcility Existing projects and new projects will be I activities presented in this EIS were based on the conducted in accordance with this agreement. The I worst case scenario which niaximized disturbed nurnhrrofprc!jects conducted is commensurate with I land and water use. The worst case tcenario the availahlc budget. the infrastructure, and the I analyzed was one which assumed a single functions in place to support the pro-iects. In I 1,000-MW facility disturhing 2,300 acres of land. xidition, scientific research pl-oject~conducted by I and using solar technology which requircd 5.550 parties other rhari those in the above-mentioned I acre-feevyear of water. Also included in the land agreement arc being conducted, and more are I disturbance analysis was the construction of nnticipatcd. These parties are funded from sources I additional power lines and natural xas pipe lines other than the IIOEINV. The number of projects is I required for the facilities. Power lines and pipe lines limited only by the infrastructure and functions in I to Las Vegas were assumed to disturb 2,182 acres of place to support the projects. The current I land for a six-month period. It is iniportant to note, infrastructure and facilities operable at the NTS, I however, that specific sites and/or technologies and perhaps even in a reduced capacity, are I have not yet been chosen and may affcct this sufficient to support the park. I scenario. I A.4.2 Alternative 2 I Additional National Environmental Policy Act I documentation may be required bcfore the LJnder thi? Alternative, the DOE would discontinue I construction of Solar Enterprise %0ne facilities support of ongoing program operations. I begins. The documentation will contain the latest I pertinent data to provide decisionmakers with up-to- A.4.3 Alternative 3 I date information regarding the Solar Enterprise I Zone facilities initiative, including possiblc 7Jnder Alternative 3, the DOE would continue to I disturbances resulting from the installation of ~ Vi)Iiirne I, Appendix A A-40 .____~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT direct current power per square meter. Commercial Alternatively, other sites may he used in mlar modules convert between I1 to 13 percent of conjunction with the NTS to support a Solar incident sunlight into electricity tinless mounted on Enterprise Zone facility initiative to minimize rl tracking system that can increase output by infrastructure improvement requirements and 20 percent or more. improve access to power markets. Additional sites in southern Nevada have been proposed for Parabolic-trough solar thermal systems use deployment of a Solar Enierpnse Zone facility. The parabolic mirrors shaped lo concentrate insolation Eldorado Valley, south of Boulder City. the Dry on a receiver tube along the focal line of the trough. Lake Valley (Apex/Hany Allen) site, and the The hedt generated by the concentrated sunlight is Coyote Spring Valley in Lincoln County, are transferred to a working fluid, which is transferred alternative southern Nevada locations being through insulated pipes to a liciit transfer device coilsidered for a Solar Enterprise Zone facility used to raise steam The steam ih then used to development. power a steam turbine and produce electricity. This tcchirology also incorporates the use of natural gas Six thousand acres of land in Eldorado Valley as a back-up system. recently annexed hy the city o( Boulder City has been designated for the purpose of renewable Power tower systems consist of fields of heliostats resource development. Eldorado Valley lies in the that l?icus solai- radiation on a power towcr. The center of the southwestern power transmission rcceiwr absorbs the heat energy and transfers it to system that links the power markets of Arizona, a circulating fluid that can either be stored or ttsed Utah, southern Nevada. and southern California, directly to produce power. providing unparalleled access to transniission and utility markets. Consequently, Eldorado Valley is Pdrdholic dish systems are point-focus device? that the most likely marketing location for power use a parabolic mirror to focus solar energy on a generated at any of the sites being considered for a single receiver located at the focal point of the dlsh. Solar Enterprise Zone facility development. Natural The heat ib then ahsoi-bed in a tluid, which can then gas and water transmission systems would need to be converted to electricity via a generator system he developed before this area could empkry hybrid hcated at the f~calpoint of the dish or hc piped to solar technologies or any solar-energy production a central location for electricity generation or systems requiring water. Two natural gas pipe lines thermal applications. Systems coupled with engine transect this area, and depending on the siting of generators at the focal point have the greatest solar facilities in this area, the gas line could be potential to produce electrical energy. from 2 to 10 km (I to 6 mi) away. There is very little groundwater in this area; however, the city of The location of a large-scale solar-power production Boulder City has indicated an interest in making facility at the NTS would require upgrades to the available up to 3.7~10'"m'/yr (3,000 ac ft/yr) of existing transniission infrastructure. The NTS treated effluent to support solar development of this power transmission system could support I00 MW area. This amount of water would be sufficient to of capacity with no additional investment in support a 300 MW solar-powered steam facility. upgrading the system; approximately 30 MW is used by the NTS, and the remaining 70 MW would The Nevada Power Company's Harry Allen site is he available for export. In order to handle the located about 32 km (20 mi) northwest of planned 1,000 MW capacity, power transmission Las Vegas, just north of Interstate 15 in the Apex lines would have to be upgraded to between industrial area. Nevada Power Company has 345 kilwatts (kWj and 500 kW from the NTS to identified 3,600 acres for development of renewable Southwest lntertie or Eldorado Valley near energy supply. Currently, the area has a power Las Vegas. Other infrastructure upgrades required transmission capacity of 305 MW, hut plans of the for the siting of the solar production facility at the Nevada Power Company to site 780 MW of gas NTS may be a nattiral gas line and/or water system combustion turbines w,ould seriously limit the iiiiprovements. >IS determined by the type of transmission availahility for devclopment of solar tccllllology used. A-41 Vdurnc 1, Appendix A ,VEVAllA TEST TITI: FI,\'XL I?'YVIR0NMfiA7TAI.IMPACT STATEMENT power. Infrastruciure improvements being 85 proposed under Alternative 1 would he considered for the area include the ternlitdon of a implemented. As a national resource for the malor line for Idaho and completion of the Sunrise management of mixed waste, the DOENV would Corridor project. which could expand the develop and refine waste-nianagenient monitoring transmission capability of the Haq Allen rite. methods. Also, a natural gas pipe line is currently being arranged between the Nevada Power Company and In Alternative I, the DOE would convert vehicles to gas pipe line companies. These imprvvemcnts and use compressed natural gas. Under could be completed in time for Solar Enterprise Alternative 3, any vehicle or fueled equipment Zone facility development. Water supply is very associated with DOE/NV work activities may be limited in this area, and there are no plans to evaluated as to their potential conversion to construct a permanent water supply line to this area: alternate fuels. In addition, alternate fuels and Nevada Power plans to truck water to support its associated technologies other than compressed gas combustive turbines. may be evaluated, tested and demonstrated. Alternate fuel systems that may be considered The Coyote Spring Valley site is located include electric vehicles (powered by fuel cells or approximately 93 km (58 mi) north of Las Vegas. batteries), superconducting magnetic levitation Site boundaries fall within both Clark and Lincoln vehicles, and vehicles with internal combustion counties and have 3,200 acres of land available tor engines running with alcohol-based fuels (methanol solar power developmenr. The property is currently and ethanol), gaseous fuels (compressed or owned by Aerojet Investmeins, Ltd. The Lincoln I liquefied natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas), County Power District owns and operates the I and non-conventional fuel mixtures (such as existing transmission system, which mns along the I hydrogen and oxygen). western border of the Aerojet property. The 1 existing system is capable of acc(iti1modating I In February 1996, the DOE initiated a joint team 35 MW of solar generated power. Providing water I with NTS Development Corporation, a DOE to a solar facilitv on bite would reauire either i community re-use organization, and Kistler drilling or a new well or triinsporting water from an Aerospace Corporation. The DOE supports, as par( off site location. The closest supply of natural gas of the increase in technology development activities is 47 km (29 mi) to the east where a Southwest Gas at the NTS, the Kistler Aerospace Corporation'!, pipe line is located. proposal for a cominercial satellite delivery service as a potential future activity under this pro,oram. A.4.3.2 Spil/ Test Facility. Activities would he The DOE considers this activity compatible with the similar to those described under Alternative I, hut existing and future uses of the NTS. the level of activity would he increased. Kistler identified in the public comment process on A.4.3.3 Alternative Fuel Demottstratiori the Draft NTS EIS their proposal to manufacture Projects. Activities would he thc same as those and operate an aerospace vehicle for the delivery of described under Alternative I, with two exceptions. communications satellites to low earth orbit at the Under Alternative 3, the DOE would construct a NTS. Specific activities may include the fabrication compressed natural gas lucling facility for of composite stmctures, vehicle assembly, compressed natural gas veliicles at the NTS. In processing, fueling, and recovery. Kistlrr addition, the DOE would further develop anticipates conducting three suborbital test flights pnrtnerhhips geared to srody other iillernative Iiicl and three orbital test flights in the first year of and energy sourct's. operation, followed by ;in anticiparcd two opcrational tlights per month after thc test phase. A.4.3.4 En viron ozentul ;Vfaiarragemoit and Technology Development Program. Under A.4.3.5 Environmental Research Park. Alternative 3, the technology developmcnt activities Activities would he the same as those described would increase in all areas. Those activities listed under Alternative I. Volume 1, Appendix A A42 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT A.4.4 Alternative 4 walk-through inspections of short duration and are nonoperational in nature. Treaties currently in In some cases under this alternative, activities effect or under negotiation and the relevant rights would be the same as those described under granted under those treaties are discussed below. Alternative 1. In other cases, activities would he the same as those described under Alternative 3. The negotiation of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is underway at the Conference on A.4.4.1 Alternative Energy. Activities would be Disarmament in Geneva, Switzerland. The the same as those described under Alternative 3. DOE/NV is conducting various projects for the DOE Headquarters to help develop a strong, A.4.4.2 Spill Test Facility. Activities would be verifiable treaty that will deter proliferant activities. the same as those described under Alternative 1. A.5.1.1.1 Threshold Test Ban Treaty-The 1 A.4.4.3 Alternative Fuels Demonstration Threshold Test Ban Treaty permits Russian Projects. Activities would be the same as those scientists and engineers to conduct an inspection of described under Alternative 1 one nuclear test per calendar year if tests were conducted. The purpose of the inspection is to A.4.4.4 Environmental Management and verify that the United States is in compliance with Technology Development Program. Activities treaty limits. would he the same as those described under Alternative 3. A.5.1.1.2 Peacefil Nuclear Explosion Treafy- Russian scientists and engineers would conduct A.4.4.5 Environmental Research Park. inspections and geophysical measurements of any Activities would be the same as those described peaceful nuclear explosions at the NTS. However, the under Alternative 1 United States has no plans to conduit peaceful nuclear explosions, so this treaty would have no effect on the AS Work for Others Program I NTS related sites or facilities. The Work for Others Program is hosted by the DOE A.5.1.1.3 Chemical Weapons Convention-The and includes the shared use of certain NTS and Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty provides for Tonopah Test Range facilities and resources with on-site inspections of the United States’ facilities other federal agencies, such as the DoD for various capable of manufacturing or storing chemical military training exercises and research and weapons. Although the NTS has not been used for development projects. the production or storage of treaty-limited chemical agents, the presence of operations, such as the Spill A.5.1 Alternative 1. Under Alternative I, the Test Facility, may be sufficient justification to DOE would continue to host the projects and trigger challenge inspections under terms of the activities of other federal agencies at activity levels Chemical Weapons Convention. not exceeding those of the past 3 to 5 years. A.5.1.1.4 The Treaty on Open Skies-In an effort A.5.1.1 Treafy Verification. Activities at the to promote openness and to facilitate monitoring of NTS and NTS support facilities throughout Nevada, arms control treaties, the Treaty on Open Skies including the Tonopah Test Range, have been, and provides for aerial inspections by foreign observers will continue to be, impacted by impleinentation of of virtually any site in the United States, including current and future international arms control those sites that might he engaged in the production, treaties. Principal responsibility for implementing testing, or storage of treaty-limited wcapons and coordinating the DOE/NV arms control systems. Periodic inspections of the NTS facilities activities is assigned to the Emergency Management are expected as this treaty is implemented. and Nonproliferation Division. The DOE/NV Safeguards and Security Division shares A.5.1.2 NonproliJeration. The policy of the responsibility and may actually take the lead for United States is to resist the proliferation of those activities that are principally overflights or weapons of mass destruction. These weapons cau~e A-43 Volume 1, Appendix A ~~ ~ ~~ ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIKONMENTAI. IMPACT S?'ATfihIfi~:.VT indiscriminate, widespread destruction and include hunkers and tunnels. are also performed. These nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. experiments involve the sut-face and helowground Nonproliferation can he defined as the use of the detonation of conventional explosives in the full range of political, economic, and military tools immediate vicinity ill the NTS and Tonopah Test to prevent proliferation. reverse it diplomatically, ot Range bunkers and tunncI\. protect the United States" interests againsr an opponent armed with weapons of mass destruction The NTS could become the center for a national should that prove necessary. Nonproliferation tools counterproliferation program This program would include intelligence, global nonproliferation norms integrate the Nevada-based military and and agreements, diplomacy, export controls, US. Bureau of Land Maniigcmznt ranp into a security assurances, defenses, and the application of national counterpriiliferation test bcd, with the NTS military force. at its center. This test bed \vould he used 1-or ii variety of research and technology development The NTS and Tonopah Test Range continue to experiments aimed at countering the proliferation of provide critical support for the United States' weapons of mass destruction. tionproliferation goals and objectives, patticularly in the areas of research and technology development. The Big Explosives Experimcntal Facility was In the past, seismic signatures and ground specifically designed a> a hydrodynamic testing I disturbances produced from underground nuclear facility for the research. deveiopnient, and testing of weapons tests at the NTS have been analyzed to counterproliferatio~itechnologies. Modem United develop techniques and methods for detecting and States nuclear weapons contain sophisticated safety evaluating underground nuclear tests worldwide. features and are small in Fire relative to the first Additional nonproliferation-related experiments are nuclear weapons, making their disahlement currently using the unique capabilities of the Spill straightforward and certain. Proliferant countries Test Facility for the development, characterization, and terrorist organizitions. on the other hand, zirc and testing of remote sensors of chemical effluent. likely to produce nuclear weapons that arc unstable and, therefore, diflicult to render hafe with certainty. A.5.1.3 Counterproliferation Research And Several promising technologies have heen proposal Development. Counterproliferation refers to the and are under development to counter the special Don cffiirts to combat the international problems associated with this more primitive clas.; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As of nuclear device. In order for these technologies to with nonproliferation, these efforts include the full he successfully developed, a facility iiitiit be range of political, economic, and military tools availahlc to test the hydrodynamic functioning of available. However, since facilities for developing, simulated nuclear devices containing large aniountS producing, and storing weapons of mass destruction of conventional high explosive\. The Hig are likely to bc located belowground, a considerable Explosives Experimental Facility is crucial for this ilmouiit of counterproliferation research and task given the absence of underground nuclear development involves the detection, monitoring, testing. This is the main purpose of Rig Explo\ives ;ind neutralization of buried targets. Experimental Facility (SKZ Appendix F). The tunnels and hunkers at the NTS provide ideal The Dipole Hail Project involve\ a xries ii[ tmts to testing environments for a variety of evaluate the effectivetie\\ of vwiotts techniques atid counterproliferetion research and development munitions in damaging tunnels and thereby experiments. Experiments that use various remote impairing nuclear weapons devclopment opesations imagery and sensory applications in conjunction in those tunnels. The Cut and Cover Project with NTS hunkers and tunnels are conducted to involves using uriattendtxl ground sensor\ to develop techniques and methods to detect, identify and distinguiuh rcmotzly between viirioub characterize, and monitor buried objects. Sucli types of equipment being operated in bunhci-\. experitnetits involve both land-bascd and airborne operations. Experiments to develop vanous A.5. I.4 Converrtiorial Weupons Uenr iliturizutiorr techniques for destroying or neutralizing weapons I By the year 2000, it is especled that the Unitcd State of mitss destruction and buried ohjects, such as I government will nccd to dispose olover 4.5~10' kg Volumc 1, Appendix A A-43 A'E VADA TEST SITE FI.'CAI. EXVIKOMMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I (I .OxlO' Ih) dsolid rocket motors In addition. the environmental requirements would be met, and all b'nited Slates government is currently the custodian environmental, safety, and health protection I of ovcr 200.000 ton-. of obsolete conventional precautions would he taken. I munition\ md pyrorechnics (Joint Ordnance I Commanders Group. 199%). There is a definite The demonstration would consist of transporting a I need 10 disposition thcx ohsoletc munitions and I solid rocket motor or conventional munition from I ordnance in a Gite, environmcntally sound, and I ofr site to an underground cavern. The plugs and I economical mannet-. I bulkheads would he closed, and with I instrumentation fully established and calibrated, the I tion activity proposed for the NTS I solid rocket motor or conventional munition would I is a demonstration of polential tcchnologies used to I he delonated from a remote location. Gases would I destroy obsolete conventional munitions, he sampled before and after scrubbinp in I pyrotechnics. and solid rockzr motors by resting the I preparation for ventilation. The goals of the I technologies. Any future, large-scale activity I technologies are to develop "...an optimized I involving the demilitarization of obsolete munitions I demilitarization research and development I would require additional National Environmental I demonstration capability at the NTS, a set of fully I Policy Act Review and would be subject 10 all othei- I characterized demonstrations of environmentally I applicable fedcral. state, and county regulations as I benign destruction or resource recovery and I well as permitting requirements. I recycling processes, and final design packages for I I innovative processes" (Joint Ordnance Commanders I Thc existing underground ttinnels and facilities at I Group, 1995b). I the NTS oifer a unique opportunity to demonstrate I I envii-orimentally sound methods Of The construction and installation phases would I destructioiiitrcalinent of solid rocket motors, include facility preparation, tunnel modification, I pyrotechnics, and other !ion-nuclear encrgetic I excavation, grouting, sealing, and foundation work, I materials by using spccially designed pollution I as well as equipment installation, startup and I abatement systems that reniove the gaseous I shakedown of equipment and procedures, and I comhnstion productr froin the air prior to I personnel training. It is estimated that the planning, I atmospheric relcase and provide for I design, construction, and installation phases of this I coiitaiiinicnt/treatment of residual debris. The Spill activity would require the services of approximately I Test Facility in Area 5 would suffice for the 15 workers for 3 years, while the demonstration I demonstration [if the theiiiial trealment technologies phase would require the services of approximately I for pyrotechnics, and a tunnel environment at the 20 workers for approximately 0.5 years. Total cost I N'TS would suffice for the demonstration of the project is estimated at nearly $5 million. I technologies involving solid rocket motors and I other conventional munitions. LJsing an NTS tunnel A.5.1.5 Defense-Related Research and I takes advantage of a known geologic cavern as well Development. In the past, defense-related research I as the expertise of the NTS workforce in tunnel and development activities have included tests and I handling and firing of high explosives and in training exercises employing weaponry, such as I monitoring explosives in a contained environment. small arms, artillery, guns, aircraft, armored I vehicles, demolitions, rockets, bazookas, and I Research indicates that X tunnel would suffice for air-dropped armaments, as well as a variety of I demonstration projects inv o I v in g electronic, imagery, and sensory technologies, I destruction/treatment of. solid rocket motors and including, hut not limited to, infrared, lasers, and I conventional munitions. Calculations would he radar. Table A-l lists examples of recent made to determine pressure and temperature, as defense-related research and development projects well iis other effects, which would thrn he applied conducted at the NTS. It is expected that additional to design basis documenletion and a tcst plan. The experiments and tests similar to those mentioned in I lunnel would he modified with containment plugs, Table A-1, but not yet identified, would take place I motiitoring instrumentation. containment valves, at the NTS. and sci-ubbing and smpling outlets. All A-45 Volume I, Appendix A NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Table A-1. Recent defense-related research and development projects conducted at the NTS NEPA Project Organization Description DocurnentationlYear aptive Flight Tether Test .awrmce Livermore hptive (light test at the BREN .nvirnnmcntal Jational Laboratory ouer of a small, maneuverdhlc. \\SCiSmKllL'1992 ocket-powered, laser-equipped xototype vehicle designed tv ietect, track. and interccpt iallistic missilcs Mine Detection .awrence Livermore ?valuation of ground-based and 7atcgorical Exclusionil993 4ational Laboratory urbomc technologies. including nfrared Imaging, laser~hased 3ptical imagery, and ground-penetrating radar for ietection of buried objects such as mines and simulated hazardous waste containers. idvanced Infrared Lawrence Livermore Usc of the BREN tower for latcgorical Exclusion/l994 maging Vational Laboratory development of technology and measurement techniqucs for advanced infrared imaging from satellites. neater Missile Defense U.S. Army Space and The release of2M) kg (441 Ih) of Cniegorical Exclusionll994 5xperiment Strategic Defense nontoxic soda lime glans beads. Command ranging in size from 40 to 200 microns. at a specific altiiudc at or above 6,096 m (20,000 ft) over ihe NTS to obtain data for use in validating and evaluating atmospheric transport and diffusion models and computer codes. Depleted Uranium Testing U.S. Army Ballistics Various tests including Environmental Research Laboratory controlled bunis and live firings AsscwnenVI 992 of depleted uranium munilions to determine appropriate hazard classifications. ~ Re-entry Body Impact Sandia National Flight impact tests would he Categorical Exclusiodl995 Fuse Flights Laboratories conducted to develop the techniques required for the accurate delivery of reentry hody test units at extremely hi&h impact velocities. NOTE: NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act RREN = Bare Reactor Expenrnenl Nevada A.5.2 Alternative 2 Activities at the Tonopah Test Range would be the same as those described for Alternative I No Work for Others Program activities would occur at the NTS under Alternative 2 with one exception. A.5.3 Alternative 3 Those activities described under treaty verification for the Treaty on Open Skies and the Activities at the NTS and the Tonopah Test Range Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would be the same would be the same as those described under as those described for Alternative 1. Alternative I, with certain activities having a greater Volume 1, Appendix A A-46 number of experiments to conduct, resulting in an Las Vegas and other communities, the number of expanded scope. accoinmod;itiotts ii( adqiat? for the present. A.5.4 Alternative 4 If nuclear testing is halted completely, the number of cmitrilctor pet-sonnel ~vould not drop to zero. Activities at the NTS would he the same aa those Continuing activities that miist be performed would described under Glternative 2. Additionally, there require that many pcrsonnel be retained. However. wotlld be an increased use of the NTS airspace by personnel idicd by a ~ompletete\ting halt would the US. Air Force. include the expcricnced and skilled scientists and technicians who drill and mine ?niplacement holes, Activities at the Tonopah Test Range would be the emplace dcvices, design and install data-gathering same as those described under Alternative I. systems. atid collect and analyze test data. If this large block of talent were lost, it would take at least A.6 Site-Support Activities at the NTS 3 ycars to locate, train, and activate a comparable test-support organization. The DOEmV provides Section A.6 describes the existing infrastructure and sites and fxilitics on the NTS for underground support facilities present at the NTS and supporting wealmiis testing and numcrous xhmccd research facilities in Clark County, Nevada. These facilities and developtncnt projects that support 111c Defense include the utilities, coinniunicationa, and Prograin. For off-site safety. thc EPA ciinies out transportation systems. as well as the existing extensive radiation monitoring and dosimetry wpport facilities, both on and off site. The current programs in arcas surruuriding the NTS. Projects and planned infrastructure projects are iilso I for other fedcral programs are fielded on a cost- described I reimbursable basis. A Maintenance and Operating contractor currcntly operates all user-occupied The NTS-related employment has always depended f.d~il~tits. :">. Operations include construction and on programmatic requirements; consequently, wide inaintenancc. The IIOEINV Nevada Test Site fluctuations in employee numbers can be tracked Office pi-ovides operations oversight of the throughout the history of the NTS. Over the past 20 Maintenance and Operating Contractor. years, civilian pcrsonnel have numbered as inany as 10,000 and as few as 4,900. The NTS ii not a productiori facility; therefore, there are no quantities of production to report. The The DOENV reported 6,576 NTS-related site work load fluctuates with the mis4on and employees (DOE, laboratory, and contractor) in depend\ on the funding received. Resources are July 1995. Approximately 27 percent (1,794) of the pcriodically redistributed to maintain productivity employees work in the forward areas of the NTS, and efficieiicy. Both resources and facilities are 18 percent (1,153) are based at Mercury, and fully uscd by design. 55 percent (3,629) work in Las Vegas and North Lds Vegas. These figures include personnel The NTS is used to teat research and developmcnt assigned t~ the Yucca Mountain Project at the NTS efforts undertaken by three DOE national and in Las Vegas. Currently, the Yucca Mountain liihoratoi-ies. Two of these laboratories, Los Alamos Project employs 1,912 or 29 percent of the NTS- National Laboratory and Lawrence Li\,ermore related workforce. National Laboratory, conduct nuclear device tests. More than half the Merculy-based workers are The third organization, Sandia National administrative, clerical, professional. and technical. Laboratories, is responsible for teats of non-nuclear The NTS has room accommodations for rlcmenls of nuclear weaponty. Other uset-s include approximately 1,700 people and parking for the U.S. Air Force. thc DoD, and the Defense approximately 60 recreational vehicles; however, Nuclear Agency. These gi-oups conduct programs because the majority of workers commute from that include nucleai- and non-nuclear A-47 Volume I, Appcndix A - -~ ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL l"IRONMBNT.41~ IMPACT STATE:'MENT weapons-effects tests and weapons-development The distribution, assignment, use, and planning of tests. space at the NTS follow the requirements of the Federal Pi-ope,rty Management Regulations. For Nonwcapons users include the Yucca Mountain Slte office space, the objectiw is to achieve an overall Characterization Off-ice and the Nuclear Emergency space usage rate of t I 111' (1 20 ft') or less pel- Search Team. person. Although allocations for other types ol spaces (e.g., laboratories and shops) are less precise, Support of the underground testing program reasonable measures are taken to ensure thc use of requires a drilling and mining operation. The the minimum space necessary to perform the DOE/NV contractors are directly involved in these required function. operations. The DOE/NV contractors also provide security, guard force services, operation and The site support of the NTS supports a11 activities management of the DOE/NV centralized computer that occur at the NTS. This includes utilities, system, and auditing. transportation, communication, and on-site and off-site support. Each of these five subjects is The following agencies assist the DOE/NV with its described in detail in this section, along with the testing and public safety programs: current and future infrastructure construction projects. The U.S. Bureau of Mines conducts mine and well inspections before and after underground Construction projects with proposed starting dates tests beginning in Fiscal Years 1995 through 2001, as well as prior-year prqiects scheduled to be The US. Geological Survey conducts completed during and beyond Fiscal Year 1994. are hydrological studies, including flow paths of described in their appropriate programmatic area in groundwater this appendix. The National Weather Service correlates test- A.6.1 Alternative 1 area weather data with national weather information to make local preshot forecasts Existing infrastructure at the NTS and supporting facilities in Clark County are described under this The EPA performs radiological health and alternative. This information has been obtained safety services, including determining from the Fiscal Year 1994 Nevudn Tr.\r Sift, background radiation levels, determining I Technical Sire Irformnfiori (RSN, 1994~)and the extent of radiation in connection with Fiscul Year 1996 Capitrrl Asset Miiiiogeirwtif accidental release of radioactivity, and I Process Report (RSN, 1994h). preparing for emergency action. A.6.1.1 Utilities. Utilities include electrical Other contractors that assist in the safety programs power, natural gas, water supply and wastewater. at the NTS include the following agency: and industrial wastes. It also includes the related distribution, transniission, treatment, and disposal 0 The University of Nevada's Desert Kesearch systems, as appropriate, for these utilities. The Institute calculates groundwater migration of personnel that maintain these utilities comprise a radioactive material resulting from group of approximately 08 iull-time employees at underground nuclear testing. the NTS. This includes approximately 45 personnel in the electrical power group, 17 in the water and Facilities at the NTS generally consist of permanent steam group, and 6 in the sanitaqholid waste group or tcmporary, low-rise, industrial-type structures. (excluding hazardous, radioactive, and mixed J>anduse in the camo is low to medium densitv. waste). Volume 1, Appendix A A-48 ~ ~ ~~- h'I A.6.I.I.1 ElectricalPower-Electrical power at the The basic load centers seined at the NTS are NTS includes off-sit?. and on-site power Mercury (Area 23) and Areas 2, 3, 6, 12, and 25. transmission systems. on-site subtratismissions, I The 138 V transmission system loop runs from the exl\ting and projected ~uhtraiisniissioiis,and NTS Mercury (Arca 23) \\\itching station, nurtli to axil tritnstiiission. Frenchman Flat substntion (Atmi 5), extend\ to Yucca Flat substation (Arc:i 3), then tc the lap OFF-SITE POWER TRANSMISSION-In StructureiValley Substation (Area 2). The ~iiaiii September 1993, Raytheon Services Nevada loop continues to Rainier Mesa suhstation completed an updated load-flow study, to modify (Area 121, then 19km (12 mi) southwest to the results of a 1991 load-flow study. The update 1 Stockade Wash substation where a radial 69 kV liiie wiih required because of the Yucca Mountain taps off the niain loop via an autotransformel- aiid i\ Prqject load reduction and program changes at the extended to Pahute Mesa substation (Area 19). NTS. Projccted loads had been reduced I Taps off the 69 kV line are inade at Castle Rock significantly from 71 MW to 52 MW. The proposal substation and Echo Peak substation. Thc iiiain of a new 138 kV line from the Nevada Power I 138 kV loop then runs 56 kin (35 mi) south from Company was withdrawn; however. the addition of Stockdde W-ash substation to hotti Canyon and capacitor banks ar the NTS is still necessary to Jackass Flats substations. provide voltage suppon if the Yucca Mountatn Site Characterization project reaches 15 MW. ss Hats substation (Area 15) bus ties io the Mercury swiiching station via a 138 kV Neiada ON-SITE POWER TRANSMISSION-The Power Cornpany tie linc, which is an iniegral part of existing oil-site power transmission system at the the NTS 138 kV transmission loo[). At Canyon NTS is similar to that of a municipality. Power is substation and Jackass Flats substation. voltage is I procured at 138 kV at the Mercury switch station stepped down to 69 kV by autotransf~~~rmers,atid 21 and the Jackass Flats substation and is metered at subtransmission loop tic\ the Jackass Flats and both locations by the Nevada Power Company. The Canyon substations together at the 69 kV Icvcl. option also exists to purchase power from Valley Another 138 kV tic line between the Frenchman Electric Association, Inc., through transmission Flat and Jackass Flats substations is now lilies supplying 138 kV to the Jackass Flats permanently out of service‘. Mercury substation in Switching Station. The on-site power system is Area 23 is fed from a 138 kV tap out or the 1 operated and innintitined by Bechtel Nevada. The Mercury switching station total disturbed area of the on-site power system is 1.3x10'in2(I.4x10'ft')as showninTahle A-2. A system analysis evaluated load-flow conditions under normal conditions, as well as several Power at the NTS is transmitted through a 161-km emergency outage scenarios, to deterrninc voltage 1 (I(X)-mi)-long, 138 kV transmission loop that supplies levels under adversc conditions. The lowest voltage I eight major subrtations and one 138 kV radial levels at the NTS i~rcalways at Valley Tap. transmission line. The subtransmission of power is Opening the 138-hV loop at any point does not drop I via an cxtensive 34.5 kV system and two srnall voltages below 97 percent under projected NTS 1 69-hV syctems. The 135, 69, and 34.5 kV systems loads. provide distribution voltages of 4.16 kV and I 12.47 kV at various substations. The 34.5 kV Losing a source of power from the Nevada Power subtransmission system is also used as a distribution Company or Valley Electric Association causes voltage at several remote sites. Distribution severe voltage drops at the NTS Valley Tap untlcr voltages are transformed to both 4801277-volt (V) existing loads and causes the system to go do~n and 208/120-V thi-cr-phase systcms for most NTS using projected loads, specifically the Yucca I loads with a few single-phase, 120 V services. Mountain Project projected load of approximately 15 MW. A-49 Volume 1. Appendix A -~ ~ - NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The analysis showed that capacitor hanks are The 34.5 kV network is made up of a backbone necessary at Stockade Wash substation to provide circuit that extends from Frenchman Flat substation adequate voltage on the 138 kV loop when Yucca to Rainier Mesa subStatiOII, with switched Mountain Project loads reach approximately connections to circuits out of Yucca Flat and Valley 15 MW. Under outage conditions that cause a loss substations. By using sectionalizing switches, this of either power source, the prqjected system loads circuit may be operated from various 34.5 kV cannot be maintained without load-shedding or feeders out of various substations. using the existing generation plant as a back-up power source. In addition to this circuit, other 34.5 kV radial feeders spread out from the major 13W34.5 kV With the addition of capacitor banks at Stockade substations to cover the area from Frenchman Flat Wash substation, the existing 138 kV transmission into Rainier Mesa. Radial 34.5 kV circuits system is adequate for projected loads at the NTS originating at Castle Rock and Pahute Mesa through approximately 1997 to 1998. substations feed power to Area 18 and Pahute Mesa, respectively. Area 25 has its own network made up ---At most of the of 34.5, 12.5, and 4.16 kV lines. The Mercury 138 kV substations, voltage is stepped down from substation provides seven 4.16 kV circuits for the 138 kV to 34.5 kV. Othcr 138 kV substations base camp and one 12.5 kV circuii for Army convert from 138- to 69 kV, 12.5, and 4.16 kV Well I. levels. Volume 1, Appendix A A-50 ~ ~~ __ __ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXISTING AND PROJECTED Area I, is connected to this substation by the north SUBTRANSMISSION LOADS-Programmatic branch. The subtransmission line feeding Area 3 is changes at the NTS. along with consolidations of #4/0 aluminum-conductor, steel-reinforced, with a facilities and abandonment of other facilities, have capacity of 300 amps and has adequate capacity for changed the loading from each substation, making the existing loads. all power studies prior to 1991 obsolete. Recent power system studies performed by Raytheon The existing electrical distribution system, which Services Nevada, including the Tiger Team study originated with testing in the Los Alamos National for protective device coordination, have evaluated Laboratory test areas, is an underground system new loadings at all main substations. operating at 4.16 kV. Previously, this system was modified to reflect changes in testing requirciiients 1 38-kV/34.5-kV Substations-A review of that were necessary due to deterioration of the substation loading indicates that all 138 kV/34.5 kV system and the ground shock caused by testing. substations have adequate reserve capacity. The 34.5 kV line, which parallels Orange Blossom Road, extends into Area 9 and supplies the east side ReDresentative Subtransmission Lines-The of Yucca Flat. This line is adequate for projected capacity of the existing lines is maintained and is power requirements. adequate for the reduced load in these areas for the next several years. Any new programs with The 34.5 kV line from the Valley TapiSubstation, significant loads requiring capacity from the which supplied the EPA Farm and the Pile existing 34.5 kV system would require individual Driver/Chmax stock, has adequate power for these evaluations to determine their impacts upon the facilities. In addition, the 138 kV line tap from the existing system. Valley Tap/Substation extends through Areas 8 and I 15 to a test area 27 kni (17 mi) away in the NTS AREA TRANSMISSION-Area 1 is fed by a northeast corner of the NTS. 34.5 kV transmission line from the Yucca Flat substation. This line also feeds a well pump The existing 4.16 kV power distribution overhead (Well UE-l6d), the abandoned Area 16 tunnel, and underground lines are supplied froin the and several communications stations. The Frenchman Flat substation by way of the 34.5 kV subtransmission line feeding Area I is a north feeder and from the Yucca Flat substation by #2/0 aluniinum-conductor, steel-reinforced with a way of the 34.5 kV south feeder. The Yucca Flat capacity of266 amperes (amps) at 34.5 kV. Circuit substation is fed by a 138 kV line running noilh analysis has determined that additional future loads from the Mercury substation. The subtransmission from new and relocated facilities would not lines feeding Area 6 are #4/0 aluminum-conductor, adversely affect this line. Area 2 is fed by a steel-reinforced, with a capacity of 300 amps. 34.5 kV subtransmission line from the Valley substation. This line also feeds Areas 8 and 15. Area 12 is fed by a 34.5 kV subtransmission line The #2/0 aluminum-conductor, steel-reenforced I from the Valley substation to substation 12-1. The transmission line feeding Area 2 has a capacity of 4.16 kV distribution line feeding the camp is a 266 amps. The existing lines are more than #2/0 StKel-rKlnfOKed aluminum conductor. The adequate for current loads. Analysis indicates that cable has a capacity of 266 amps. A review of the subtransmission line feeding Area 2 from the I loading indicate that the Rainier Mesa substation Valley substation has adequate capacity and that the I has adequate capacity. transformer and feeder lines from the substations also have adequate capacity. There are no facilities in Area 14. Facilities at the High-Explosive Simulation Test site have been Electrical power for Area 3 is provided by the abandoned or removed. The area is not serviced by 1,000 kV substation 3-3, which is fed by the any utilities other than power. The existing power existing 34.5 kV overhead line (DAE) from the distribution consists of 64 kV and 138 kV lines that Yucca Flat substation. Line DAE, which also feeds parallel the southern boundary of Area 14 and a NEVIIUA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 34.5 kV line that crosses the northwestern corner of Some of these lines also feed sites outside Area 23. the area. The Mercury substation has a total of I1 circuits that feed Area 23. Two of these circuits (3 and 7) The distributed communications repeater network are spares, and one circuit (10) is boosted from for the NTS is located at Shoshone Peak in Area 29. 4.16 kV to 12.4 kV by means of transformers. A telemetry and microwave station was installed Circuits 4, 6, 8, 9, and 1 I are fed with a #2/0 steel- nearby and currently is rnamtained by the reinforced aluminurn conductor. This cable has a U.S. Air Force. Originally, it was installed for data capacity of 266 amps. Circuits 1 and 5 are fed with collectlon and relay dunng the flights of the #2 aluminum steel-reinforced conductor, with a X-I5 experimental aircraft from Edwards Air Force capacity of 179 amps. Circuit 10 is fed with Base in California. Currently, this station is used as #2 copper wire with a capacity of 233 amps. part of the U.S. Air Force communications network. Circuit 2 is a dedicated circuit to Building 300. It is a #6 copper wire with a capacity of 135 amps. It Existing power to Area 29 consists of a 34.5 kV line has been determined by circuit analysis that crossing Area 14 from the Yucca Flat substation. additional future loads will not adversely affecl this Substation 29-1 supplies power to the Shoshone line. receiver station and the Shoshone Mountain transmitter. In addition, a 138 kV line miis through Power to Area 25 is supplied from the Jackass Flats Area 29 from the Jackass Flats Substation to the substation I via the 138 kV line from Las Vegas. Stockade Wash substation. A portion of the I38 kV Auxiliary power sources consist of diesel NTS power loop passes through Areas 17, 18, engine-driven generators at the Control Point. and 30. This portion of the loop connects the Stockade Wash substation in the northeast comer of Area 27 facilities are fed by a 34.5 kV Area 18 to the Rainier Mesa substation in Area 12 subtransmission system. The work sites are fed by and extends south to the Canyon substation in 4.16 kV lines stepped down by transformers as Area 25. A 69 kV radial extends from the Stockade required from substation I1 Wash substation up to the Castle Rock, Echo Peak, and Pahute Mesa substations in Area 19. At the A.6.1.1.2 Natural Gas-Currently, the NTS does Pahute Mesa substation, the voltage is stepped not use piped natural gas and has no supply line for down to 34.5 kV, and the line splits to the far north furnishing it on site. Any project(s) requiring and west. Other existing power lines and signal natural gas (other than propane, which can be cables used for specific test events in the past are supplied via truck) would have to construct a pipe still visible. Power for Pahure Mesa (Areas 19 and line to the project site to meet its needs. 20) is presently fed by a 34.5 kV subtransmission line, from the Pahute Mesa substation. This A.6.1.1.3 Water Supply-The NTS is served by a I substation is tied into the NTS 138 kV loop at the water system comprising 11 operating wells for I Stockade Wash substation. The transmission line potable water, one well for nonpotable water, from the Pahute Mesa substation is a #4/0 steel- 27 utilized storage tanks, 13 usable construction reinforced aluminum conductor. This cable has a water sumps, and 6 water transmission systems capacity of 340 amps. The radial, single-thread (with 5 permitted water distribution systems system traverses mountainous terrain and is currently being used). The wells are not being used frequently downed by severe winds and winter to their full capacity and are capable of producing storms. A downed line in this area is difficult to much more water if needed. Additional wells are repair and can cause prolonged loss of commercial available or may be drilled and developed if power on Pahute Mesa. The condition of the power increased water production is required. Wells, lines, insulators, and poles is poor and needs to be sumps, and storage tanks are used as required to upgraded. support construction or operational activities. Five water storage tanks are currently under construction Area 23 is fed by 4.16 kV, overhead power at the NTS. A variety of domestic, construction, distribution lines from the Mercury substation. and fire-protection water uses are served by this Volume 1, Appendix A A-52 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAI. ENVIXONMENTAI. IMPACT STATEMEh’T yysteni. The water system disturbs 56,026 m2 Truck-fill stands at these sumps provided water for (603,059 ft2) of land on the NTS as shown in other construction applications. The control panels Table A-2. at the sump pumps and the fill stand pumps cannot he used until they are upgraded to meet the required This evaluation Focuses on major operating water electrical codes; however, these upgrades have not system!, at the NTS; descriptions of abandoned w’ater been planned due to funding restrictions and wells have been excluded. Temporaiy aboveground program changes. All potable water must be pipe lines serving drillins locations in Areas 19 and trucked to the Area 20 support facilities. 20 have also been excluded because their configurations change frequently. All other water wells in water service area A have been abandoned due to casing damage. All wells For purposes of this evaluation, the NTS water that are no longer functional or when the water is system has been divided into four water service unusable are capped prior to being abandoned. areas (A. B, C, and D), according to the location of the water system and support facilities. Well 2 is not operating, and no plans have been made to repair it due to funding restrictiiins and System capabilities within water service area A are program changes. Well 2 served construction and limited. This water system can only transfer water drilling water needs. The Well 2 sump and from 4rea 19 to Area 20. Water caniiot be reservoir provide construction watei- storage. transferred between construction sumps. To prevent freezing, a continuous flow of water must he Well 8 serves construction, fire protection. and mainrained within the aboveground, 15 cm (6-in.) potable water uses at Area 2 support facilities and at victaulic pipe line (piping connected together with a the Area 12 camp and provides construction water circular clamp) that parallels Pahute Mesa Road. for Area 2. Well 8 produces the highest quality Cumently, the line has been drained. water at the NTS. Water Well 19c and Well 20 can supply nonpotable Water from Well 8 is pumped from the Pahute Mesa construction water in water service area A. pimping station into four storage tanks in Area 12. Well 19c pumps to some drilling locations in The water is pumped through the 20 cni (%in.) pipc Area 20. Although relatively high fluoride line and the old 10 cm (4-in.) pipe line that parallels concentrations have been detected at Well 19c, Stockade Wash Road. System head losses limit thc water froiii this well is soft and of good quality. flow rate through this pipe line; however. the flow rate Well I9c can pump to the Area 20 sump to augment is adequate. the Well 20 supply. The pump for Well 20 has failed and fundingiprogram cutbacks preclude its Water is delivered to the Area 2 qport facilities by being replaced. However, when it was functioning, a 25-cm (to-in.), reinforced thermosetting resin Well 20 could only supply the Area 20 camp sump pipe or composite fiberglass pipc line Iron1 the and could not supplement the Well 19c supply for Area 12 reservoirs (storage tanks). Area 19. Two reservoirs and a constniction sump provide on- Three sumps can provide construction water storage site water storage near Well 8, but the sump is not within Areas 19 and 20. When in service, water can operational. Another construction sump is located he delivered to these sumps from Well 19c by a at the former Pahute Control Point. The Area 2. 15 cm (6-in.) aboveground pipe line that parallels sump provides construction water storage at the Pahute Mesa Road. Booster pumps at the Well 1% Area 2 support facilities. road sump and the Area 20 camp sump delivered water to remote drilling locations through temporary Well UE-I 6d serves consti-uction water aboveground pipe lines. requirements at Area 1 support facilities. It also provides potable water through a chlorine injector that is also located in Area I, The concentration of 1\43 \‘olurnr 1, Appendix A ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT total dissolved solids in water from Well UE-I6d NORTHERN HALF-A major portion of the exceeds the maximum containment level specified Area 3 water supply serving construction and fire by the Safe Drinking Water Act. protection purposes is delivered by the deteriorated I 20-cm (8-in.) water line that originates at the Water fi-om Well UE-16d is delivered to Area 1 Well C sump. This sump is currently supplied by support Pacilities through a 31-cm (12-in.) Wells C,C-I, 4, and A. There is no potable water polyviiiylchloridc water line that parallels Pahuw available in Area 3, and the temporary storage iank Mesa Koad. Construction water storage is provided is out of service and needs repairs. A large sump at the storage tank in Area 16. provides nonpotable water storage at the Area 3 camp. Well UE-I 5d served construction and potable water needs at the EPA complex in Area 15 prior to Fire protection water for the Well 3 yard is provided abandonment of the complex. This well is not by the Well 3 sump. This well originally satisfied operating due to funding restrictions. A reservoir nonpotdble water requirements in this location; and construction water sump still provide water however, it was abandoned owing to low yield. The storage capabilities near Well UE-1 Sd. Well 3 yard does not have a reservoir, and separate Concentrations of iron and of total dissolved solids potable and nonpotable water systems preclude in water from this well exceed maximum provision of a water system loop within the Well 3 containinant level standards. area. Seven wells serve water uses within water service Both the Control Point and the Yucca Flat facilities arca C. Wells C, C-I, 4, and 4a also provide water in Area 6 receive fire protection and potable water sewices for facilities in Area 6 (the Well 3 area, the service from the Control Point reservoir. These Yucca Lake area, and the Control Point). Nitrate I facilities are supplied by an 20-cm @in.) water line concentrations in water froin Well A periodically originating at the Well CIC-1 forebay tank. exceed maximum contaminant level. Iron, total Pressure-reducing stations at points on the water dissolved solids, and hardness Concentrations in distribution system serving the Control Point, Yucca water from Well C significantly exceed the Flat, and the Well 3 area maintain acceptable maximuin contaninant level. Water from Well C-l system operating pressures. A large sump located is high in color. The underground construction at Well C serves constniction water demands within water pipe liiie that connects Well C and the C-l the area. sump to the Well A sump and to the Well 3 sump is badly deteriorated. Lack of funds prevents the The underground asbestos-cement water pipe in the many coiistant leaks froiii being repaired until they Area 6 distribution system is very old and needs to become bad enough to stop the flow of water be replaced. The pipes have become soft and through the pipe line. waterlogged and have ruptured in several locations because new pipe was coupled to the older pipe. Wells 5h and 5c and Army Well 1 serve The pressure created by coupling the new and old c~iistruclioii,fire protection, and potable water uses pipe causes the additional ruptures. for Area 5 and Mercury. Well UE-Sc served water uses :it Area 5 support facilities before the facilities Well 4 and a water transmission line extension to were abandoncd. Well UE-Sc is only used for the Well CIC-1 forebay tank were recently environmental sampling. Well F, originally completed to provide a better source of potable developed as an exploratory well, is not operational, water for Area 6 facilities, which include the Device and there are no plans to use it in the future. Total Assembly Facility, the Control Point, the Yucca Flat dissolved solids and hardness concentrations in facilities, and the Well 3 yard. The water quality water froin Well F exceed inaxirnum contaminant analyses for Well 4 indicate that this attcnipt has level. been reasonably buccessful; however, the relatively low-quality water from Wells C and C-l is still the source of potable water because it is the only water Volume 1, Appendix A A-54 ~ - ~- - NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT that can be softened to the desired 0 to existed in the past. However, this project will also 15 milligrams per liter (mgiL) (0 to 15 ppm) quality add operational complexity to the system. Thls type needed. of complexity would he better controlled with the aid of a supervisory controlled and data acquisition Well 4a is part of the system serving Area 6, which system, which is not currently included in the scope includes the Control Point, Yucca Flat, and the of the revitalization project. Well 3 yard. During normal operations, Well 4a provides water to the Well C booster that connects The water service area D system is a nctwork of to the Control Point. The water is no longer water lines interconnected with 1 1 water-storage softened at the Well C booster; point-of-use reservoirs. This system serves construction, fire sofienei-.;have been installed instead. Wells C and protection, and potable water needs in Area 25 and C-l provide redundancy and constniction water. is serviced by Wells J-12 and 1-13. A third well, J-l I, was abandoned due to low yield, poor water Truck-fill stands ai the Area 3 support facilities, quality, and a collapsed casing. Changes in Area 25 Well 3, and Well C served event-related test program objectives within the past decade have construction activity in the northern half of Water reduced water demands in water scrvice area D. Service Area C. The Area 25 water system is fed by Wells 5-12and A potable truck-fill stand in Area 6 provides 1-13. Fluoride and nitrate concentrations in the construction water. Well J-12 water exceed the maximum contaminant level and the water is high in color. Fluoride, SOUTHERN HALF4onstruction. fire protection, nitrate, and iron concentrations in the Well J-13 and potable water demands in the southern half of water exceed maximum contaminant level. Water Service Area C arc served hy Wells Sb, 5c, and Arniy Well I. Construction water in Area S is All operable water storage reservoirs in Area 25 provided by the Well 5h sump. Wells 5b and Sc and have been converted to potable water storage. Five a booster pump station provide a portion of the of the 1 I existing water-storage reservoirs are potable water for Mercury. Water is delivered to a elevated structures. The other six reservoirs are large storage reservoir near Mercury by an ground-level structures. I 20-cm (%in.) water line. A portion of this water line provides construction water to the aggregate pit. The The overflow and drain lines for the reactor control potable water reservoir at Mercury is also fed by Army point tank in Area 25 no longer drain away from the I Well 1 through an existing 2O-cin (%in.) water line. nearby buildings and structures because of the Some potable water storage is provided at Amy addition of a helicopter pad. The overtlow and Well 1 by a small forebay tank. drain lines for the Well J-l I and Well 5-12tanks do not meet state regulations because the pipes The water distribution system at Mercury serves terminate under the sump water level. An air gap of potable. fire protection, and construction water 12 degree-inches is required. requirements. Truck-fill stands at Well 5b and in Mercury currently serve construction water needs Construction water storage in Area 25 is provided within the area. by a construction sump located near Well I-1 I Two additional construction sumps are located near Water is currently hauled into Areas 26 and 27 by the former MX facilities. truck. Four reservoirs in AI-ea 26 store construction water and potable water. One reservoir in Area 27 Current water needs for the Yucca Mountain Project stores fire protection and potable water. site arc serviced by Wells 5-12. and 1-13. These wells produce soft water from permeable fractured- The current water distribution systems NTS tuff and alluvial aquifers. Well I-1 I, which had revitalization prqject will add the redundancy, poorer-quality water. has been abandoned primarily reliability, and operational flexibility that has not due to a collapsed casing. The underground pipe A-55 Volunie I, Appendix A NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAI. IMPACT STATEMENT lines in Area 25. which are in very poor conditton, Area 3-Several facilities are serviced by include it line from Well J-I2 to Well 5-13, from underground collection systems, which feed three Well J-l I to the Engine Test Stand facility, and a separate septic tanWleachfields. line from Well 5-12 to W~ellJ-11. Area 5-Support areas have or will soon have Water for the Area I complex is supplied by Well sanitary sewer capacity that is sufficient for UE-I6d, which has a ctment pumping capacity of proposed expansion in this area. 734 liten pi-minute (Umin) (194 gallons per minute [gal/minl). The water is pumped from the well to an Area 6-Support areas have or will soon have adjacent 189,265-L (SO,ooO-gal) storage tank and then sanitary sewer capacity that is sufficient for to the fkilities through a 31-cm (12-in.) line. proposed expansion in this area. Although not potable, this water is usable for industrial needs. A chlorine injector in Area 1 Cormol Poinf-The facilities on the south side of makes the water potable when necessary. the Control Point have a sewage lagoon disposal I system, including four ponds that have been taken A.6.1.1.4 Noithazardous and Nonradioactive I out of service. These facilities are connected via the Wasfes-Domestic and industrial wastewater IS I Yucca Lake Sewage Lagoon System. Based on the transported through the sewage systems into sewage total anticipated discharge and present capacity of lagoons or septic systems located in the base camps the lagoons, the system is adequate. throughout the NTS. Sewage waste treatment is an interim process before final disposal. Treatment Yircra Luke-There are two existing sewage operations are normally handled by sewage lagoons systems at the Yucca Lake complex. One lagoon or septic tanks. Liquid wastes are treated through handles sewage from the shop areas; the other two evaporation. Other nonhazardous solid waste is lagoons handle the eftluent from two disposed of in sanitary landfills in Areas 9 and 23 of steam-cleaning facilities. A separate system handles the NTS. A landfill in Area 6 is reserved for only radioactive waste from the decontamination pelroleurn-contaniinated soil and debris. Other facility and the decontamination laundry building. unneeded materials are sold as scrap (metal and vehicles) or recycled (lead hricks and batteries). Wurehousing und Stagiq Areu-The sewage The land disturbance resulting from wastewater system at the warehousing and staging area north of systerns and sanitary waste landfills is 3.8~10~mz the Control Point consists ol a new, 15-cni (6-in.) (4.1 x10“ ft’) at the NTS as shown in Table A-2. underground sewer pipe system that is connected to the Yucca Lake sewage lagoons. Wastewater Svstem Area I2-The existing sewage Facility serving the Arm ]-The drilling operations, drilling suhdock, Area 12 camp was replaced by a new system of and coal tar/epoxy building are connected to an eight sewage lagoons designed to meet present and underground leachfield. Portable sanitary units are future requirements. A 10-in-diameter cast-iron provided at othcr facilities. pipe feeds sewage effluent from the camp into the ponds. Area 2-011 the w’est side of Kainier Mesa Road, the Area 2 camp is served by one septic The abandonment of inactive sewer lines has been tank/leachfield system fed by an underground completed. The inactive lines within the system gravity-flow collection network. On the east side of have been isolated at manholes, cleanouts, and Rainier Mesa Road, the Area 2 camp discharges diversion boxes to reduce considerably the chance waste into two sewage lagoons. Each lagoon of future blockages and unauthorized discharges. contains 5 I1 m2 (5,501 ft’) of surface area and is I 2 m (8 ft) dcep. These lagoons are presently not used. Areas 19 und 20-The existing sanitary systems in Areas 19 and 20 are limited. The abandoned Area 19 camp has no permanent provision for a Volume 1, Appendix A A-56 ~~ .~ ~- NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEME.VT sewer system. The Area 20 camp is serviced by an This system also includes transportable microwave underground collector line connected to a septic radio systems capable of extending telephone tanWleachfield system, which only serves a first- services from any switching location tu a distance of aid-station trailer and a small Lawrence Livermore, 32 km (20 miles). These systems enable quick and National Laboratory trailer. efficient service for programs at remote areas within the boundaries of the NTS. Mercury, Area 23-Support areas have or will soon have sanitary sewer capacity that is sufficient for The central switch at the DOENV facility is a proposed expansion in this area. Northern Teleconi SL-l0C Digital Switch. Telephone service within the building is provided The existing sewer system is a network of by direct connection to the switch. All other DOE underground collectors leading to a sewage lagoon operations in Las Vegas and the NTS are slaved system. In the past, a sewage treatment plant from this switch, which serves as the gateway for all southwest of the main camp was adequate to handle telephone services within the DOE community. All wastewater. However, mechanical problems trunking to outside telephone services are provided required that this plant he abandoned and replaced. at this hub location. This switch also serves as the Currently, a lagoon system and evaporative ponds gateway for local commercial service, radio paging are used to treat waste. service access, local commercial outdial service, Wide Area Telephone Service and Federal Area 27-The Able and Baker sites are served by Telecommunications Service. In the near future. underground gravity-flow sewer systems, which this switch will provide the tie line to the empty into a septic tank/leachfield. The Emergency Operations Center. constniction compound and Super Kukla sites are I served by portable septic tanks. The basic system, along with the Remote Line Connector Modules at the DOENV facility, the A.6.1.2 Communications. The communications North Las Vegas complex, and Echo Peak, were section of the infrastructure at the NTS employs upgraded to Electromagnetic Module approximately I 19 NTS workers. Additional Interference-protected status in September 1987. support personnel are located in Las Vegas because Remote switching concentrators at Mercury, Area 6, the majority of communications take place between and Area 12 of the NTS were also upgraded to the NTS and various Las Vegas facilities. EMI-protected status in September 1987. The SL-lM at the Tonopah Test Range was upgraded to A.6.1.2.1 Telephone Service-The DOE/NV's an SL-INT in April 1990. facility on Highland Avenue in Las Vegas, Nevada, houses a central switching center employing a SL-Is have been added to the system through a T-l stored program-controlled host 10 provide the carrier at the following locations: DOENV and its contractors with telephone communications. The system backbone is SL-INT, release 17 (YuccaMountain Project interconnected with major telephone systems by Office) 09/87 fiber-optic cable, copper cable, and microwave links through T-l camers. 0 SL-INT, release 13 (Remote Sensing Laboratory) 1 O/XY All internal switching functions and interconnect microwave services are in digital format. All key Meridian option 6 I, release 16 (Device components are redundant for service protection, Assembly Facility) 10/91 and all satellite locations for the UOENV are EPABX and remote/peripheral switching centers. 0 Meridian option 61, release 17 (IT The DOENV uses a five-digit dialing plan within Corporation) 04/92 the system, and all locations have a uniform access arrangement for any calls placed outside the system. Meridian option 61, release 17 (Summerlin) 11/92. A-57 Volume 1, Appendix A ~ ~~~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAI, EAVIRONMF.’NTAI. IMPACT STATI:aME.VT Six DS-3 fiber-optic circuits, leased from Nevada There are ntiiiierot~s radio remote-control units Bell, provide service between the DOE/NV facility located throughout the NTS. These radio reinote- in Las Vegas and CP-18 (Smokcy Jr.) in Area 6 of control units allow operators to coinmunicate via the NTS. Two DOE-owned fiber-optic routes are in radio net(s) to other remotes, mobile units, and/or service between Building CP-18 and Building base stations. The radio remote-control tinits use CP-42 in Area 6 of the NTS and between telephone radio order lines connected to IOCBI Checkpoint Pass in Area 5 and Building 725 in transceivers. The routing is dependcnt upon the Area 23 (Mercury). location of the radio remote-control unit in relation co the nearest Base Station Site or Reynolds The microwave tower and equipment shelter located Electrical and Engineel-ing Co., Inc.. backbone at the rear of the DOE/NV facility prorlde microwave sysrem terminal. redundant service for all facilitles at the NTS through Angel Peak located on Mt. Charleston in Telephone service for Arca 6 is provided by digital the Spring Mountain Range and Building CP-18 in carrier service from Control Point-1 8 over outside Area 6 of the NTS. Two parallel paths, each distribution cable via the main distribution fiame capable of supporting 84 T-l digital carrier systems, located at Control Point-40. Telephone swvice to are provided. Interconnection to the NTS SL-1 Area 3 is also provided by this remote switching PBXs is provided over leased fiber-optic circuits connector by back-kcding digital cnmer on the and a microwave system. outside distribution cable to CP-18 and then via microwave to the main distribution Irame in Area 3. Circuits from the central switch are routed over the I Bechtel Nevada backbone microwave system. The The rernotc switching coiiiiector will allc~wlocal microwave terminal and its associated analog communications in the event of any disruption of multiplex system is located in the shelter behind the service from the SL-I00 in Las Vegas. The remote DOE/NV building. Emergency back-up alternate switching connector is equipped with crnzrpicy routing for specific telephones is provided as trunking that provides limited service to Areas 12 follows: and 23 and access to the host switch \,ia microwave. 12 circuits. Control Point, Area 6 Off-premise service is also provided fi-om the 11 circuits, Mercury, Area 23 Area 6 remote switching connector to syhtems 2 circuits, Area 12. construction. Foreign exchange lines from the Sprint Central I Checkpoint Pass in Area 5 serves as a substation Telephone-Nevada. South Five Facility, are location with a microwave path to Skull Mountain connected to the DOE/NV terminal for the NTS. in Area 25. Cable digital carrier on the outside The signals from intrusion-detection alarm systems cable distrihution system provides service to the at the NTS are transmitted via outside cable remote switching connector at Mercury, which distribution system-provided circuits. These circuits provides the telephone service for Mercury and are routed through various main distribution frames Area 5. Digital cable camer is backfed to on the NTS, depending on the location of the alarm Checkpoint Pass where microwave carries the signal system. to Skull Mountain and then to the Area 27 main distribution frame to provide telephone service for The Octel Maximum Voice Mail System, located at that area. Two off-premise lines are provided to the DOE/NV facility, is networked to four Aspen Indian Springs Air Force Base from the Mercury voice mail systems located at the Yucca Mountain remote switching connector. Project Office, the Remote Sensing Laboratory, the Tonopah Test Range, and the Summerlin building. Intrasite trunking routes provide telephone sei-vice Total storage for the complete voice mail system is between Areas 6, 12. and 23 when in an emergency 88 hours. switching access mode, which would occur with the loss of the host switch localcd in Las Vegas. Volume 1. Appendix A A-58 ~ NEVADA TEST SIT.? FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATIME,VT Direct digital microwave service is provided from located in the Washington, DC, area. If either site Control Point-18 to Area 12. The Area 12 remote were disabled, the other site could continue to switching connector provides service to the local monitor and inanage the network. area and to the tunnel portals at Rainier Mesa. Alternate trunking to other areas is a part of the The Department of Energy Communications einergcricy switching access mode for this remote Network can he accessed through the network switching connector. operations center located in the DOE/NV facility. This operation will relocate to the new DOENV The Echo Peak remote line concentrator module facility in the North Las Vegas complex when it is provides service for Areas 19 and 20, and direct completed. digital camer 10 the Tonopah Test Range, which is served by a Northern Telecoin SL-I digital switch. A.6.1.2.4 Video Communications- Currently, the The Echo Peak Remote line concentrator module DOE/NV. its contractors, and the laboratories have uses both the outside cable distribution system and several video and related systcrns being used to mobile microwave systems with digital multiplex to support activities ranging from general provide telephone service for Areas I9 and 20. administration to special project-related activities. Some of these systems parallel each other, although In addition to the fixed and mobile microwave this type of back-up system is not nece system. a solar-powered mobile telephone microwave provides service to the Yucca Mountain There are several video systems that suppon Project Office and to Crater Flat to suppolt drilling activities ranging from physical securily to activities. event-related activities. A.6.1.2.2 Microwave System--Voice, data, security A.6.1.2.5 Video Teleconferencing-In addition to and alarm. mobile radio communications. and event the three conferencing systems that have been video are primarily provided by three separate installed in Las Vegas and on the NTS, a microwave systems. A limited aiiiount of inultichannel conference unit has been installed lor fiber-optic and copper cable exists between the the purpose of configuring multipoint conferences. microwave bites and ad.jacent areas. The primary This system is currently equipped with network for all voice, niost data communications, cryptographic equipment, which will allow for and security and safety alarm systems is provided by secured niultipoint conferences. a digital microwave system. A.6.1.2.6 Radio-Central monitoring of tlie NTS The mobile radio backbone system, some limited radio nets is maintained at Station 900, which back-up telephone services, a number of security- serves as the NTS radio-net coordination p(iint. and safety-related alariii systems, and a small This station primarily functions as tlie reporting number of data circuits use an analog microwave point for all emergency telephone and radio calls. system. In addition to these two systems, a third It also provides for access of up to 30 radio nets for event-related video system caii can-y services the purpose of coordination, all-net keying, voice betwccn the NTS and IxVegas. countdown, telephone-to-radio patching, net-to-net patching, and net maintenance. A.6.1.2.3 Data Corirrniiizicalions-‘rhe Department of Energy C~)tiitnuiiicatioiisNetwork provides data, The Station 900 facility is m;inned 24 hours a day. video, rind voice communication links for the Station 900 can he called by telephone by dialing DOE/NV, laboratories, contractors. und the DOE 91 I or 123 or on radio nets by using tlie Headquarters. The network provides data service in international distress call “Mayday.” By means of I ,200-baud (Ed) iiicrcnients, beginning at a a hotline telephone systcm, the 900 operator biindwidth [IT 1,200 Rd to full TI and is managed i connects the calling party to the Rechtel Nevada by the DOFJNV network operations center iocated Medical, Fire, and Safety Departmcnrs; the Nye in Lns Vegas or the network operation\ center County Shel-irr; Operational Control Center; and A-59 Volume 1, .Appendix A ~~ ~~ NEVAUA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT other essential units. The calling party can then A.6.1.3.1 Road-The main access road to the NTS communicate directly with the organization that (Mercury highway) originates at U.S. Highway 95, responds to the emergency. This method of direct approximately 105 km (65 mi) north of Las Vegas. communications prevents misunderstanding that Both the NTS and the Yucca Mountain Project area might occur if a relay system were used. have restricted access from Amargosa Valley on U.S. Highway 95. Other existing roadways, A special public safety network identified as Net 12 although unpaved, could provide access or exit provides radio coverage throughout most of Nevada routes in case of emergency. and neighboring parts of California and Utah through its 12-repeater system. The huh of Net 12 The on-site road network consists of 644 km is located at the DOE station on Rainier Mesa, and (400 mi) of paved roads and over 483 km (300 mi) the other 1 I repeaters are at off-site locations of unpaved roads. Additionally, the NTS contains ranging from Potosi Mountain near Las Vegas in numerous event-related unpaved roads, which are the south to Mount Lewis near Battle Mountain, no longer used after a test has been conducted. Nevada, to the north. These repeaters arc linked by a VHF/UHF network and provide half-duplex NORTHERN ROAD NETWORK-The primary operation. A complelely solar-powered site is paved roads in the northern part of the NTS are located at Hayford Peak, north of Las Vegas, to Pahute Mesa Road, Buckboard Mesa Road, and provide improved coverage of strategically Tippipah Highway. The areas served by these roads important areas northeast of the NTS. are Buckboard Mesa, Pahute Mesa, and Rainier Mesa. Pahute Mesa Road from Yucca Flat to the To meet operations security, three digital- Area 20 camp is typical of hot-mix paved roads on encryption-standard simulcast UHF radio nets have the NTS. At the higher elevations, the road is been installed. A fourth trunking-capable simulcast winding and crosses rugged terrain that is extremely UHF net that will be operated in a nondigital- hazardous under winter conditions. Chains or snow encryption standard mode is being installed to tires are essential when these conditions prevail. support the Yucca Mountain Project. From the Area 20 camp to the intersection of Buckboard Mesa Road, the road consists of graded A.6.1.2.7Mail-A small United States Post Office gravcl. is maintained in Mercury. It is run by four full-time employees. In addition to the post cfrice, an Tippipah Highway is an adequately drained, internal mail system has been developed that &weather highway that bypasses areas where connects various DOE and DOE contractor facilities testing has damaged Mercury Highway. This 8-m in Las Vegas, as well as various facilities at the (26-ft) wide road ha5 2-m (8-ft) compacted shoulders NTS. At these facilities, the mail is picked up, and was constructed with 8-cm @in.), hot-mix taken to a mail room, and sorted. It is then asphalt over a 3 1 -cm (12-in.) gravel base. transported and delivered hctween various buildings on the NTS and in Las Vcgas. Rainier Mesa Road, one of the first gravel roads on the NTS, was hastily constructed with little A.6.1.3 Transportation Systems. The NTS planning for its long-range use. Currently, this transportation system is composed of land, air, and I narrow oil-and-chip road with no shoulders receives rail lacilities. A 1.127-km (700-mi) network of minimum maintenance. primary and secondary roadways serves land transportation needs, while threc air strips and nine In Yucca Flat, the segment of Mercury highway helicopter pads serve authorized aircraft. Two froiii the intersection of Rainier Mesa Road and on-site rail systems in Areas 25 and 26 were Mercury Highway north to Sedan Crater is not previously used to transport heavy, oversized, and passable for normal traffic due to damage from hazardous payloads between Facilities. A total of numerous local underground nuclear weapons 176 full-time employees is includcd in this portion events. Although there are many detours and of the NTS infrastructurc. Volume 1, Appendix A A-m NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEME.VT bypasses from Sedan Crater to Guard Station 700, oil-and-chip road with no shoulders extends to the 6-m (20-ft) wide roadway is in good condition. Guard Station 500 (east of the Area 25 suppoit region) where it becomes Cane Spring Road. Cane Stockade Wash Road from Area 12 camp to Pahute Spring Road extends east to Mercury Highway Mesa Road is a hot-mix asphalt road in good where it terminates. It is also an oil-and-chip road, condition; however, the mountain pass section except for an asphalt-overlaid section 3 km (2 mi) through Eleana Ridge requires maintenance due to west of Mercury Highway. weathering. Road 28-03 in Area 27 is a cold-mix, low-traffic Buckboard Mesa Road from Road 18-03 north to road. Owing to the nature of security in that area, Pahute Mesa Road is a relatively new 18-km the road is adequately maintained. Tweezer, Angle, (1 1-mi)-long paved road providing convenient and Orange Blossom roads are narrow, secondary, access to the mesa testing areas. oil-and-chip roads with no shoulders. These roads require periodic maintenance. Orange Blossom Orange Road, which was constructed during the Road has been abandoned, and signs have been early development of the NTS, was abandoned in posted warning drivers to use at their own risk. favor of Tippipah Highway. Since this road has not been maintained for a number of years, most of the Major access to Area 29 is by Mine Mountain Road paving has deteriorated and crumbled. from Tippipah Highway. Secondary roads to I Area 29 include Fortymile Canyon Road and --The --The primary I Shoshone Mountain Road. All access roads to Area paved roads in the southern part of the NTS include I 29 are unpaved. Mercury Highway, Jackass Flats Road, Cane Spring Road, and Lathrop Wells Road. The remainder of the roadway network is composed of graded gravel roads and jeep trails. Gravel road, Mercury Highway is the primary route to the NTS to event sites are maintained ;is requirements from the interchange at U.S. Highway 95. Most of dictate. Gravel roads that remain in good condition this road is 8-m (26-ft) wide (the same width as the include the Mine Mountain and Mid-Valley/Saddle Tippipah Highway); however, the shoulders are Mountain Roads. variable from 1 to 2-m (4 to 6-ft) wide. POTENTIAL HAZARDS The Mercury Bypass is well-constructed and runs from just north of Gate 100 to north of Mercury. Northern Areas-Unique conditions at the NTS This 8-m (26-ft) wide road was built to enable the often preclude the use of conventioiiiil planning rerouting of all traffic with a forward-area methods. Roadways have always been subject to destination. extensive damage by localized seismic movements during underground nuclear tests. This type of Jackass Flats Road from Mercury to the Area 25 damage has presented a unique challenge in road support area is a hot-mix asphalt road that is in fair maintenance, especially around Mercury Highway condition. Currently, some repair work is needed to in Areas I, 2, 3, 7, 9, and 10. More detours or ii meet passing standards. The road system in more stable, efticient access to the nwtheastern area Area 25 is made up of 7-m (22-ft) wide roadways of the NTS might be required if further damage with 5-m (2-in.) hot-mix asphalt surfaces. This occurs to this roadway. roadway provides the principal access to the Yucca Mountain Project area. Recycling this roadway Significant trriflic dclays have occuni-d on P:hute with a plant mix would save it from deteriorating. Mesa Road during movement of hea\ loads from the base of the mesa (elevation 1.219 m The Lathrop Wells Road provides access to the 14,000 A]) to its summit (elevation 2.134 in [7,(xx)ftj). Yucca Mountain Project and the southwestern NTS If this nrea is selected for any fiilure projects or from US. Highway 95. This plant-mix programs, traffic load.; would alho increase. A-61 Volume 1, Appendix A ~ __~~~~ .~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAI. IMPACT STATEMENT Southern Areas-Urban design standards for streets Limited bus parking is also available at other and roads must be modified to serve the particular support facilities 011 the NTS. needs of the NTS. Practical standards should be used to evaluate transportation needs in Mercury A.6.1.3.3 Railroads-The closest mainline railroad and the forward cainps so that accident-risk areas to the NTS, the Union Pacific, which runs through within the tralfic-flow patterns are minimized. I Las Vegas, is 80 km (SO mi) away from Mercury. This line connects southern California with points Traffic flow through Mercury is impeded by east, but does not connect with the NTS. uunierous intersections arid the speed-reduction restrictions. Feeder traffic from Mercury Highway There is a 14 km (9 mi), standard-gauge railroad into the administrative and housing areas east of the within Area 25. The former nuclear rocket highway and the industrial district west of the development station facility employed ;I remotely highway causes congestion during early morning operated train engine to move specially and evening hours. This congestion is also a result designedhquipped flatbed car\ carrying extremely of diverse and uncontrolled types of traffic, such as heavy, large, and highly radioactive materials. At passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. the engine maintenance and disassembly facility, the railroad was used on site to transfer radioactive Paved local-traffic streets at Mercury are storage casks into heater holes. approximately 6 m (1 8 ft) wide, which is surficient for the projected traffic loads if parking is A shorter, similar line was locatcd at the Area 26 prohibited. However, streets do not have curbs and disassembly and test hunker sites. This line is gutters, and surface drainage is camed in ditches abandoned, and much of the trackage and parallel with streets. equipment has been removed. Jn addition to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic in A.6.1.3.4Air Facilities-Air facilities include Mcrcury could become a problem because Mercury helipads and several unused airstrips in the nonhenr has an incomplete sidewalk system. Crosswalks at and southern areas of the NTS major Mercury Highway intersections do provide adequate safety at those points. NORTHERN AREA-The only airbtrip iii the north is the Buckboard MesdPahute airstrip in Project areas are initially accessed by graded gravel Area 18. Classified as a secondary wpport facility or dirt roads. If the projects become long term, for authorized aircraft at the NTS. Buckboard these roads will require upgrading to all-weather MesaRahute airstrip has had minimal use in the last oil-and-chip seal coats which are 8 m (26 ft) wide, few years. Its primary purpose was as a landing with 2-m (8-ft) compacted shoulders. strip for aircraft carrying supplies and personnel to Pahute Mesa sites. Occasional helicopters and A. 6. I .3.2 RelatedFncilities-Transportationfacilities approximately 10, fixed-wing aircraft per ycar related to the roadway network include bus parking landed at the strip when the inesa was in use. and commuter-vehicle parking areas. Commuter Permission to use the strip had to be prearranged buses provide regular and express passenger sewice and was restricted to daylight hours, since no daily to the NTS from Las Vegas and Pahrump by runway lighting exists. The runway is relatively way of U.S. Highway 95. The number of buses short, and its surface was unable to withstand the entering the NTS can vary daily, depending upon impact from high-speed takeoffs and landings of jet the on-site activities in progress. The bulk of traffic aircraft when it was in peak condition. The largest accesses the NTS from Guard Station 100 near aircraft that could be accommodated was the Mercury. Bus service is also provided between prop-driven C-130. At the prescnt time, the Mercury and the forward areas. Paved areas are Buckboard MesafPahute airstrip is unusable. The providcd for the commuter buses at the support runway contains many potholes, as well as scvcrc f.dities within Areas 6, 23 (Mercury), 12 and 25. depressions in thc center of its surface. \. uliime 1, Appendix A 4-62 ~ ~ NEVMA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAI, IMPACT STATEMENT Helipads are located at the Buckboard MesdPahute A.6.1.3.5 Pathways-There is no real pathuay airstrip, the Area 12 camp, and the abandoned system at the NTS. Pedestrians walk along the side Pahute Mesa Control Point (Area 18). of the roads and streets or through opcn lots. SOUTHERN AREA-The southern area of the A.6.1.3.6 Parking-Transportation Facilitier related NTS IS served by the Desert Rock and Yucca Lake to the roadway network include bus, government airports. vehicle, and commuter vehicle parking areas. Paved areas are provided for the coniniuter buses a1 Desert Rock Airport is the prinlary aircraft support the support facilities within Areas 6. 12. 23 racility at the NTS. Existing features at Desert (Mercury), and 25. Limited bus parking is also Rock Airport include a paved runway, an available at other support facilities (in the NTS. administration/control building, a fireman standby Approximately 3 kinz (I mi') have been paved and trailer, an aircraft unloading pad, aircraft parking are available for parking at the NTS. Parking for tie-down spurs, two lighted windsocks, and radio- government and private commuter vehicles is activated runway lights. Additionally, the airport available at most buildings on the NTS. has a landing-arrester cable system for use in the recovery of damaged aircraft that require emergency A.6.1.4 Facilities and Services. The owslte landing facilities. Desert Rock Airport is no longer support is comprised of various groups of perwnncl manned, and no services are available because of conducting many diverse functions. 'These groups funding and program cutbacks. However, Desert include medical, fire protection, Nye County Rock Airport is still operational, and the use of this I Sheriffs Department, security. housing! airstrip is controlled by the DOE. janitorial/food services, administration. analytical services, information systems, quality assurance, Yucca Lake Airport is a secondary NTS support engineering, environmental compliance, health facility for authorized aircraft, hut is currently not protection, recreation, maintenance, National used. Features at this facility include an unpaved Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and thc runway, an abandoned terminal building, and an DOE. This on-site support includes aircraft refueling station. The runway is subject to 1,099 employees. These people are located in flooding following local storms. numerous facilities throughout the NTS. Helipads, equipped with windsocks, tire A.6.1.5 Off-Site Support. Ofl-site support extinguishers, and painted markings, are located in includes many of the support functions similar or the following places: related to the on-site support functions and is also comprised of diverse groups. These groups include Area 5. Radioactive Waste Management Site . medical, security, administration, information (Inactive) I systems, quality assurance, engineering, facilitieslmaintenance, communications, utilities, Area 6, east of Mercury Highway across from . transportation, Desert Research Institute, EPA, the Control Point National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adiiiinistration. and the DOE. These groups are located in Clark Area 6, east side of Yucca Lake (Aerial . County, Nevada (Las Vegas and Noith La, Vegas), Response Team facility) in various facilities and employ 1.639 people. . Area 22, Desert Rock Airport A.6.1.6 Landlord-Related Construction and I. Area 23, adjacent to the Rechtel Nevada Maintenance Projects. The majority of the medical facility I facilities at the NTS were constructed 30 to 35 years ago as temporary structures; less than 10 percent Area 25, west of the administration building in have been constructed in the last 15 years. The . DOElNV did not have a line-itcm construction the Central Support Area . Area 29, on Shoshone Peak. prqject from 1970 to 1980, and all building A-63 Volume 1. Appendix A ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMEVT additions and modifications were accomplished I A.6.2 Alternative 2 with General Plant Project funds. This funding has I been insufficient to meet programmatic necds and I The current level of infrastructure support regarding offset deterioration. Although the previous I utilities, communications, transportation, on-site S1,2OO,tX)0 cost cap on individual General Plant I support, and off-site support would still be available projects was raised to $2,000,000 as of November I under Alternative 2, but used commensurate with 1993, this ceiling will not enable the DOEINV to i the ongoing site-related activities. With the replace any large facilities. The revitalization I reduction of site-related activities identified under project has funded only 1X projects since its I Alternative 2, there would he no landlord-related inception in 1984. Two of these projects were I construction or maintenance projects. major capital equipment purchases, and six others I were located in North Las Vegas or Nellis Air Force I A.6.3 Alternative 3 Rase: consequently, only 10 major projects have I been constructed for the NTS under revitalization. I The current level of infrastructure support in regard A number of the facilities at the NTS are also I to utilities, communications, transportation, on-site currently inadequate in one or more of the I support, and off-site support would still be available structural, mechanical, or electrical categories. In 1 under Alternative 3, hut used and expanded many instances, refurbishing these units only I commensurate with Alternative 3 activities on site. extends their useful lives by 5 to 10 years each. I With the increase of site-related activities identified Additionally, the cost of refurbishment often I under Alternative 3, the landlord-related exceeds the cost of replacement. The following I construction or maintenance projects would he projects are shown in the NTS Five-Year I undertaken as circumstances dictate. Construction Plan as underway or planned and are I needed to maintain the NTS infrastructure (Table I A.6.4 Alternative 4 A-3). These are funded by the Defense Program as I the re\pmsihle NTS landlord. The ability of the I The current level of infrastructure support in regard NTS to accept new missions relies on maintaining I to utilities, communications, transportation, on-site thih infrastructure with siistained levels of funding I support, and off-site support would still be available and projects, such as those noted below. If, as I under Alternative 4, hut used commensurate with indicated in Alternative 4, Defense Program i the ongoing site-related activities. With the activities are eliminated, these responsibilities I reduction of site-related activities identified under would need to he underwritten by another program I Alternative 4, there would be no landlord-related in order to retain NTS capabilities. I construction or maintenance projects. Volume 1, Appendix A A-64 - ~ ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Table A-3. Currently active or planned site-support projects (Page 2 of 4) Fiscal Year 1994 currently active site-support projects I4 Project Overview Summary Description Title. Sewer Main Installation, Control Point to Yucca Provide for a gravity sewer main in Area 6 Lake, Area 6 at Control Point to close two sewage Sponsor: Defense Program lagoon facilities and eliminate the costs Funding: GPP TEC: $336,000 for operation. maintenance, and perinit Begin: FY 1994 End: FY 1995 cmipliance at both sites. Provide an addition to the Raytheon Tifle: Expansion of Office Bldg. 117, Area 23 Services Nevada NTS division Sponsor: Defense Program Building 117 to accommodate changes Funding: GPP TEC: $350,000 from an engineering to a inultifurictional Bcgin: FY 1994 End: FY 1995 building, consolidating functions from four other buildings. Title: Mercury Gas Station Upgrades, Area 23 Locate and repair undergriiund fuel leaks; Sponsor: Defense Program upgrade tank overfill protections; install Funding: GI'P TEC: $669,000 fuel inventory confrol system Begin: FY 1994 End: FY 1995 improvements; and install two new aboveground tanks. Fiscal Year 1995 currently active site-support projects Title: Bulk Fuel Storage Facility Upgrade, Area 5 Clean and install ii diluble-wall epoxy Spiinsor: Defense Program liner and a floating lid vapor recovery Funding: GPP TEC: $225,000 system in the 1.8~10~L (500.000-gal) Bcgin: FY 1995 End: FY 1995 gasoline tank in Area 23. Title: Paging Terminal and Controller Replacement, NTS Replace the system with the most Sponsor: Defense Progrdm state-of-the-art equipment piirsihle to Funding: OP~GPP TEC: $m,ooo cnsure the longest system life (10 to 15 Begin: FY 1995 End: FY 1995 ycars) possible. Introduce system to provide several new Title: Differential Glubal Piisilioning System, NTS mobile radio communicalion technologies Spiinwr: Defense Program to enhancc surveying. intruder I:unding: OPiCPP TEC: $3 10,000 interdiction. tleet maintenance, and Begin: FY 1995 End: FY 1995 vehicle tracking services. Volume 1, Appendix A A-66 ~- NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Table A-3. Currently active or planned site-support projects (Page 3 of 4) Fiscal Year 1YY5 currently active site-support projects (continued) Proiect Overview Summary Description Title: Class 111 Landfill Construction, Area 5 Design and construct a new 191,139 m‘ Sponsor: Defense Program (250,000 yd’) capacity landfill fiir the Funding: GPP TEC: $663,000 disposal of inert construction and Begin. FY 1995 End: FY 1995 demolition debris. Title: New Records Management Center, Area 23 Construct a one-story facility consisting of Sponsor: Defense Program 790 m2 (8,500 ft’), including restroom Funding: GPP TEC: $1,578,000 facilities. Begin: FY 1995 End: FY 1998 ~~~ Kenovate and modify building 650 to Administration Office Addition, BldE. 650, Area 23 Title: - provide ofticeladministrative space for 25 Sponsor: Defense Program full-time employees plus two classrooms; Funding: LIP TEC: $1.883.000 I restrooms; and mechanical and electrical Begin: FY 1995 End: 1998 FY systems. Provide for the reconstruction of Road 5-01 (or the construction of an eastward Title: Road 5-01 Reconstruction (or Cane Spring extension of the Cane Spring Road) into Extension), Area 5 an all-weather, paved access r1)ad for both SDonsor: EM Program- heavy- and light-vehicular traffic to the Fhding: LIP TEC: $5,005,000 Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Begin: FY 1995 End: FY 1996 Site. Design for H-20 highway wheel- loading and employ drainage c~ntr~lsfor the IOO-year ilood. Fiscal Year 1996 planned site support projects Summary Description 11 Title: 900 Ouerations Consolidation, NTS Provide consolidation of other locations; Spiinsor: Defense Program provide greater access to equipment for Funding: OPLIP TEC: $452,000 maintenance purpiises. Bepin: FY 1996 End: FY 1996 Microwave Radio Replacement, NTS Replace existing Wiltel, REECo. Defense ProgramI EG&GIEM, and other miscellaneous Funding: OPLIP TEC: $8,000,000 microwave and communication systems Begin: FY 1996 End: FY 1998 needed in support of NrS activities. Title: IKAC Radio Replacement, NTS Replace appr(iximately 60 radio systems, Sponsor: Defense Program 3.500 mobile radios and transmitters. Funding: OPLTP TEC: $15,000.000 consoles, and related equipinent with a Begin: FY 1996 End: FY 1998 digitally trunked mobile radio system. A-61 Volume 1, Appendix A ~~ ~~~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Table A-3. Currently active or planned site-support projects (Page 4 of 4) Fiscal Year 1997 planned site-support projects Project Overview Summary Description Title. Net 12 Upgrade, NTS Upgrade current NTS radio system Sponsor: Defense Program Funding: OPLIP TEC: $3,000,000 Begin: FY 1997 End: FY 1998 Title: Renovate Existing Roadways. NTS Provide 52 km (32 mi) of Mercury Sponsor: Defense Program Highway from the southern boundary of Funding: RP TEC: $10,170,000 the NTS to the intersection of Road 6-09 Begin: FY IY97 End: FY 1998 at the Well 3 yard in Area 6. Title: 138-kV Substation Modernization, NTS Replace one major substation. one Sponsor: Defense Program switching center, and one switching Funding: RP TEC: $2 I .004.000 station on the 138-kV transmission system Begin: FY 1997 End: FY 2001 loop at the NTS. Volume 1. Appendix A A-68 ~~~ ~~~ ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Table A-4. NTS EIS Program Summary Data and Resource Assumptions (Page 1 of 9) I I 12,495 Additional...... (k-ft'l 12.495 I",') 350,000 3 5 0,O 0 0 Additional (k-fl') IS in MW I,,,') 500 500 (k-ft') 22 22 waste I I I I I I (k-1'1 0 08-site WBS~CShimients' Hazardous 20 4 1 I 1 1 12 (ShipmenWyrl LLW 700 700 (ShipmenWyr) MI",' 0 0 1Shinm~nlslvri A Y e r a g e 75 2 1Y 52 0 0 2 Month Acres TOtd ACWX 9,905 30 34 9,823 0 0 in Water Demand Air Quality 24 0 6 17 0 0 I Mitigation (aere-fUyr) Consumptive Use 1,6YY 380 65 100 49 91 1,014 iarrr-ftlvr~ Emplojment (FTEI 6,576 1,472 250 38Y 191 350 3,924 I'"d be (gaVmol 187,000 41,846 7,114 11.051 5,440 Y,Y5Y 111,590 Expenditures l$Wyr) $670,312 $150.000 $25.500 $39,612 $19,500 $35,700 $400,00" A-69 Volume 1, Appendix A ~ ~ ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIHONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Table A-4. NTS EIS Program Summary Data and Resource Assumptions (Page 2 of 9) I Alternative 2 Wzable Environmental Nondcfense Work for Site k-ft' - 1,000 ft' Totals Defense hlanagement Restoration R&D Others Support I.. . , I I I 1 I Off-sitc Wastc ShimnenLv' Hazardous I 0 0 0 0 0 I (ShipmenWyr) I.LW (Shipmentdyr) MW (ShipmeaWyr) Air Quality I hliligatien (arrc-fll, r) Consumptive Use (arre-fU>r) 22 0 0 0 0 0 22 Emplojment (FTE) 86 0 0 0 0 0 86 Fuel Ike (ravmo) 2,441 2,441 --___--- - Expenditurn ($W>r) $8,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 Volume 1, Appendix A A-70 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Table A-4. NTS EIS Program Summary Data and Resource Assumptions (Page 3 of 9) Alternative 3 MW (Class 1- LLW PCB 1.I.W 2,460 2,460 (ShipmenWyr) MW 1,540 1,540 (ShipmenWyr) Area Disturbed Average 448 50 115 52 229 0 2 Month Acra Total ACES 15,632 1,000 209 9,823 4,582 0 in Mitigation A-71 Volume 1, Appendix A - ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEIfEST Table A-4. NTS EIS Program Summary Data and Resource Assumptions (Page 4 of 9) 1 Alternitiw 4 Waste Enriromental Nondefense Work for Site k-fl' - 1,000 fl' Totals Defense Management Hestoration H8D Others Support Waste Stored!DiSDOSed Additional (k-ft'l 6,783 6,783 LLW 150,000 150,000 (m') Additional (k-ft'! 179 179 I MW I I /-I/ t 500 I 500 I I I I (k-ft') 22 1 I 22 1 PCB I I I I im'i 623 1 623 New Cotter (k-gal! 68 68 \\ate I lk-li 259 1 259 I Off-site Waste Shioments" Hazardous (S hipmentdj r) 12 0 1 1 0 0 I0 LLW (ShipmenWyr) 0 0 - XfW (ShipmenWyr) 0 0 Area Dislirrhed AWMEC 289 0 6 52 229 0 2 Month Acres Total Acres 14,434 0 I1 9,823 4.582 0 in .Walcr Demand Air Oualitr 93 I 01 21 17 I 73 I 01 1 Consumptive Usc 6,539 0 105 203 5641 0 590 (arre-fuyr! Employment (FTE) 3,829 0 407 786 352 0 2.284 Fuel t:sc (gal/ms) 108,887 0 5,730 8,900 4,381 0 n9.m Expenditures (Wyr) $390,213 $0 $41.456 $8~.1179 $s,xsn $0 $232,828 Volume 1, Appendix A A-72 Table A-4. NTS EIS Program Summary Data and Resource Assumptions (Page- 5 of 9) General Assumptions I)Any underground nuclear test would be conducted in existing downhole locations. Thih would result in no further impacts from land disturbances, inIrastructures iuppan, ctc. 2) All NTS EIS rcsourcc estimates were prepared to co~erthe lO-year analysis period. 3) Water use Ior dust cunlrul. 50% control = 2x5 gallacrelday (8,700 gallacrclmonth)". This is mlid of areas oiactire constmuction pior to soil stahiliration. 4) Disporal of low-level wastc in Alternatives I & 3 will be divided between Areas 3 & 5 Seventy-live percent(7570) will bc placed in facilities in Area 3 while twenty-five percent (25%) will bc placed in Area 5 disposal facilities. Disposal of low-level waste in Altcmative 4 will he exclusively in Area 3. Disposal of all mixed low-level waste will bc in Arca 5. ~ Resource Specif= Assumptions TOTAL EXPENDITURES AIterndive 1. The annual total expenditures in 19Y5 was provided by the DOWNV OIlice of the Chief Financial Ofticer. 7he allocation ofemployment by program was determind in thc NTS EIS fact sheet meeting in mid-September 1995. Allerndives 2, 3, & 4. Projected expenditures far each alternative and program within cach alternative was estimated hy using the Alternative 1 cxpcnditures and adding project funding requirements for each program as identified in the original NTS EIS data sheets. EMPLOYMENT Allernahve 1. Total employment (FTEs) in 1Y95 was provided in the September 14, 1995 "Repon on NTS-related and Other NV-related Employment." The allocation of cmployment by program was determined in the NTS EIS fdCt sheet meeting in mid-September 1995. AllernaIives 2,3, & 4. Projected employment for each alternative and program within each alternative was estimated by the ratio of total alternative (or program) expenditures to a similar ratio of employment and expenditures irom Alternative 1 WATER USE AUernnfive I. Total water demand in 1995 was 1,700 acre-feeuyear. Watcr UFO hy program was delermined in the NTS EIS fact sheet meeting in mid-September 1995. Allernah'ves 2,3 & 4. Projected watcr demand for each alternative and program within each alternative was estimated by the ratio of total alternative (or program) expenditures to a similar ratio of water demand and cxpendihlres from Alternative 1 Solar Enterprise Zonc water demand' was added to the Non-Defense Research & Developmenl Program projects in Alternatives 3 & 4. DISTURBED AREA Disturbed areas are lhosc values provided by each program for new land disturbance activitics in Appcndix A. Disturbancc was assumcd to continue throughout the full ten-year period. Disturhed areas associated with new buildings were estimated at 2 times the huilding interior area. Total currcnt disturhed area = 58,729 acres. Table A-4. NTS EIS Program Summary Data and Resource Assumptions (Page 6 of 9) DISTURBED AREA (Cont’d) Alternulive 1. Defense Programs: Big Explosives Experimental Facility would disturb 30 acres. Active ground disturbance would be expected for up to 6 months. Waste Management: Area 3: Current disposal volume = 10,650,000 ft’ of low-level waste. Current disposal area is on approximately 20 acres. Therefore, the current practice results in the disposal of 532.500 ft3/acre or 14,900 m3/acre. I Seventy-five percent (75%) oflow-level waste disposal volume= (.75 X 350,000) = 262,500 m3. Projected area to he I disturbed = 262,500 m3/14,900 m3 acre = 18 acres. Approximately 55% of the area would be in active operation at any I time. I Area 5: Current disposal area = 30 acres. current volume = 6,344,700 f?. Therefore, the current practice results in the I disposal of 21 1,500ft31acre or 5,900 m3 lacre. Projected area to be disturbed = 500 m3/5,900 m’/acre = less than 1 acre. I Twenty-five percent (25%) of low-level waste disposal volume = (.25 X 350,wH)) = 87,000 m3. Projected area to be I disturbed = 87,500 m3/5,900 m3/acre = 15 acres. Total area disturbed = 16 acres. Approximately fifty-five percent (55%) I of the area would he in active operation at any time. I I Environmental Restoration: Total area to be disturbed over the 10-year period from Appendix A = [3520 + 2510 + 30 + I 2.5 + (165000/43560) + 5001 = 10,086 acres. Bulk materials remediation activities (Plutonium contaminated soil media I corrective actions, contaminated waste sites within Industrial Sites corrective actions and Defense Nuclear Agency sites) I are assumed to be sequential actions and are estimated to have active COnStNCtion on approximately 55 acrcdmonth. Soil I stabilization actions (the application of soil stabilizers and other revegctation activities) are assumed to be implemented I immediately and at a rate equal to that of active construction. Inactive tank remediation is expected to have active I construction followed by soil stabilization on 1 acrelmonth for a 30-month duration. Soil disturbance on the eight I decontamination and decommissioning sites is assumed to bc approximately I acrdsile for 2 months. I I Results: 55 acre disturbance for 114 months for bulk materials (55 X 114) = 6270 acre-months I 1 acrc disturbance for 1 month for inactive tanks (I acrc-month) I I acre disturbancc for 2 months for decontamination and decommissioning (2 acre-months) I Annual Average = 52.25 acres (6273 acre-manth/l20 months) of disturbance for 10 years of environmental I restoration activities I I Uondefense research and devclopment: Solar Enterprise Zone, listed in ALT I (section 3. I.L4j, does not appear on maps I 2nd does not include construction or other land disturbance: therefore, no disturbance. I I Work-for-Others: No disturbance I Site Support: Roadway Improvements for Road 5-01. I8 acres. Active construction would extend for up to one year. illernolive 2: No disturbance. Table A-4. NTS EIS Prc ram Summary Data and Resource Assumptions (Page 7 of 9) DISTURBED AREA (Cont‘d) Allernah’ve 3. Defense Programs: Facility improvements (including the National Ignition Facility ,Plutonium, and Highly-Enriched Uranium, Device Assemhly Facility modification and the large, heavy industrial ?ddity) = 1000 acres. Active ground disturhance would he expected for up to 6 months. Waste Management: low-level wastc volumc = 1,000,ooOm3, Mixed low-level waste Volumc = 300.500 m’. Area 3 = 750.000 m3/ 14,900 m31acrcs = 51 acres Arca 5 = 300.500 m’i 5.900 m’i acres + 250.000 mil acres = 94 acres Flood control dike: 15,5W long x 1W wide = 35 acres Class I Landfill: 15 acres Area 6: New liquid waste treatment facility = 14 acres Total Area Disturbed = 209 acres. Approximately fifty-fivc percent (55%) of the area would he in active operation at any time. Environmental Rcstoration: Same as Alternative I Nondefense Research and Development: Solar Enterprise Zonc: 2,400 acres of disturbance is estimated for the development of up to 1,000 MW of generating capacity. This disturbance could he distributed among each site. Infrastructure improvement rcquirementr are hounded hy the power line and natural gas pipeline from the NTS to Las Vcgac assumed to he 60 mi x ISO ft (cach) = 2,182 acrcs. Active ground disturbance would he expected for up to 6 months. Work-for-Othcrs: Nu disturhancc Site Suppmt: Roadway improvcments for Road 5-01, 18 acres. Active construction would extend for up to one year Alternalive 4. Derense Programs: No disturbance Waste Management: Area 3 = 150,000 m’i14,’)00 mi = 10 acrcs Area 5 = 500 m3/5,Y00 m’iacre = less than I acre Approximately 55% of the area would bc in active operation at any time Environmental Restoration: Same as Alternative I Yondefense Resrarch and Development. Same as Altcmativc 3. Table A-4. NTS EIS Prc ram Summary Data and Resource Assumptions (Page 8 of 9) FUEL USE Alternative I. Estimated total fuel use was based on information supplied by the liquid propane supplier, Southwest Gas, by a program which was determined in the NTS EIS fact sheet meeting in mid-September 1995. Alternatives 2, 3, & 4. Projected fuel use for each alternative and program within each alternative was estimated by the ratio ofthe total alternative (or program) expenditures to a similar ratio of fuel use and expenditures from Alternative 1 IMPORTED AND NTS. Altern&'ve 1. Low-Ievcl waste and rnxed low-level waste figures were estimated from the existing, approved vff-site waste generators. Totals were derived from DOUNV Lifetime Gcnerator Reports. 1995 Draft Baseline Environmental Management Report for Nevada for on-site generation (principally from cnvironmental restoration activities) and WASTE; AND TRANSURANIC projection from the 1993 Integrated Data Base for recently approved generators. WASTE Alternative 2. Low-level waste and mixed low-level waste generation from decommissioning activities is assumed to be sufficiently small to he discounted. I Alternm've 3. Low-level waste estjmdtes were based on information from the 1993 Integrated Data Base expanded to the 1 10-year time frame. Environmental restoration-derived low-level figures from thc NTS werc estimated from the Baseline I Environmental Management Report. Mixed low-level figures were estimated from the DOE Headquarters Mixed Wastc I Inventory Report and the Baseline Environmental Management Repon. I 1 Alternative 4. Low-level waste and mixed low-level figures were estimated from the Baseline Environmental Management I Report and the Lifetime Generator Reports. I I TRUAU Alternatives. Constant for all alternatives based on thc existing amount stored on the Transuranic Storage Pad I within the NTS Area 5 Radioactivc Waste Management Site. I OFF-SITE WASTE TRUCK TRIP: ANAIternatiws. Low-level waste and mixed low-level waste truck "load calculated by dividing the totdl Waste volume by I the average capacity of each truck. Historic data of shipments from Rocky Flats to the NTS indicates that each shipment I was composed of approximdtely lm' (250 it') of either low-level waste or mined low-level waste, Shipments from other 1 DOE sites contained approximately 37.5 m' (12 containers, each containing 11 2 ft' of matcnal (4 ft x 4 ft x 7 ft. Total capacity = 1,344 ft') of either low-level waste or mixed low-level waste. Shipmenls were rounded to the nearest 10 I shipmentslyear. I Hazardous waste truck transport estimated to hc 20lyear. hased on the REECo Hazardous Waste Collection Summary and EG&G waste information. Table A-4. NTS EIS Prc ram Summary Data and Resource Assumptions (Page 9 of 9) SOLID WASTE GENERATION Allernalive 1. Total domestic solid waste was bascd on the August 1995 "Final Environmental Assessment for Solid Waste Disposal." Nevada Test Site. The rcported value is 7,630 tonslyear. Conversion to ft' was derived following consultation with NTS staff responsible for management of solid wastcs. Approximately ninety-one percent (91%) of the wastes are disposed at 500 Ihslyd'. The remaining nine percent [ 9%) is disposed at 100 Ibslyd'. Therefore, the composite is disposed at 20.2 Ihs/As. Distnhution of this waste among the programs was based on thc relative contribution of program expendilurcs to the total. Additional amounts were added lor environmental restoration-derived wasla (from Appendix A). AIternafives 2 and 4. Total and program derived solid wastes were estimated by the ratio of total alternative (or program) expenditures to a similar ratio of solid waste generation and expenditures from Alternative I. Allernalive 3. Same as Alternatives 2 and 4. An additional 644 m' (23,ooO A') of waste is added to the NTS Waste Management Program (and the Alternative Total) to account for the development and operation of the regional landfill for the adjacent rural counties. I HAZARDOUS WASTE Allernalive I. Total hazardous waste generated was derived from the NTS Annual Reports for hazardous waste shipments. I GENERATION Shipped mass for 1993. 1994 and 1995 was averaged to generate the 280,100 kg/yr (616,220 Ihlyr) estimate. Program I estimates wese derived from discussions with the operators of the Explosivc Ordnance Disposal Unit and Hazardous Waste I Operations. I I Does not include internally generated waste Using EPA-450/3-88-008 5,550 acre feedyear NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT A.7 References REGULATION, OKDEK, LAW I 40 CFK Part 191 US.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Protection of the Environment: Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Managcrnent and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Trdnsuranic Radioactive Wastes,” Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, Revised July I, 1992. I 40 CFR Part 261 EPA, “Protection of the Environment: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste.” Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, US. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, July I. 1993. I 40 CFR Part 268 EPA, “Protection of Environment: Land Disposal Restrictions,” Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal RegisteI, National Archives and Records Administration, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, Revised July 1, 1992. DOE Order 5400.1 USDepartment of Energy (DOE), “General Environmental Protection Program,” Washington, DC, November 9, 1988. DOE Order 5530.2 DOE, “Nuclear Emergency Search Team,” Washington, DC, September 20,1991 DOE Order 5530.5 DOE, “Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center,” Washington, DC, July 10, 1992. DOE Order 5530.4 DOE, “Aerial Measuring System,” Washington, DC, September 20, 1991 DOE Order 5530.1A DOE, “Accident Response Group,” Washington, DC, September 20, 1991 DOE Order 5530.3 DOE, “Radiological Assistance Program,” Washington, DC, January 14, 1992. I DOE Order 5820.2A I DOE, “Radioactive Waste Management,” Washington, DC, September 26, 1988 I GENERAL I Baer et al.. 1994 I Baer, T.A., L.J. Price, J.N. Emery and N.E. Olague, Second Performance I Assessment Iteration of the Greater Confinement Disposal Facility of the I Nevada Test Site, SAND 93-0089, Sandia National Laboratories, I Albuquerque, NM, 1994. I Battelle, 1994 I Battelle-Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Final Report of VitriJicatioriDevelopment I I Studiesfor Fenmlri CRU-4 Silo Wastes, Richland, WA, April 1994. Volunic 1, Appendix A A-78 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I DOE, 1992 I U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Nevada Test Site Defense Waste I 4cceptance Criteria, Certification. and Transfer Requirements, NV 0-325 I (Rev.I), prepared by DOE Nevada Field Office and Reynolds Electrical & I Engineering Co., Inc.’s Waste Managcrnent Department, Las Vegas, I NV, 1992. I DOE. 1Y93 I DOE. Operable Unit 4 Treatability Study Report,for the Vitrifcntiori qf i Residues from Silos 1, 2, and 3,Femald Environmental Management Project. I Fernald, OH, May 1993. I DOE, 1994 I DOE, Integrated Data Base Report - 1994: U.S. Spent Nidear Fuel and 1 Rariioactii,r Waste Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics, I DOEIRW-0006, Rev. 9, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1994 I DOE, 1994a I DOE, Environmental Restoration Sites Inventory, 1994 Annual Statiis Report, I Draft, DOENV-UC700, Vols, I, 11, 111, and IV, Las Vegas, NV, 1994. I DOE, 199% I DOE, Estirnnting the Cold Wur Mortgage: The 1995 Baseline Envirunniental I Management Report, Vol I, 1 I, mid Executive Summrirj, DOEEM-0232. I Las Vegas, NV, 1995. I DOE, 199Sb I DOE, Draft Waste Matiagemerit Programmatic En vironniental Impact I Starenierit far Managing Treatment, Storage, and Diyosul of Radioactive and I Hazardous Wastr,DOEklS-0200-D, Office of Environmental Management, I Washington, DC, 1995. I DOE. 199% I DOE, Iniplemeritation Plan, Defense Nuclear Fucilities Safety Board I Recommenclatiori 94-2, Corforinance with Safe4 Standards at Department of I Energy LowLevel Nucienr Waste nnd Disposal Sites, Washington, DC, 1995. I DOEIOFE, 1994 I DOE/Office of Fossil Energy (OFE), Environmental Assessrnentfor I Hazardous Materials Testing [it the Liqnejied Gaseous Fuels Spill Test I Facility, Frenchman Flat, Nevada Test Site, DOE-EA-0864, Washington, DC, I 1994. I EO 12759 I Executive Order (EO), Office of the President, “Federal Energy Management,” I U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, April 17, 1991 I EO 12856 I EO, “Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention I Requirements,” Office of the President, Washington, DC. I Joint Ordnance I Joint Ordnance Commanders Group, Joint Demil Integration, Demilitarization I Commanders Group, I and Disposal Group, Demil Technology Office, 1995. I 1995 1 Joint Ordnance I Joint Ordnance Commanders Group, memorandum from J.Q. Wheeler to J.K. 1 Commanders Group, I Magruder, Nevada Operations Office, on “Joint Demilitarization Technology I 1995b I (JDT) Program,” February 21, 1995. I A-79 Volume 1, Appendix A - _- ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I Olsen, 1993 I Olsen, Clifford W., “Site Selection and Containment Evaluation for LLNL I Nuclear Events” in 7th Symposium on Contuinment of Underground Nuclear I Explosions Vol. /, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory CONF-9309103- I Val. I, Pp. 85-1 19, 1993. I Price et al., 1993 I Price, L.L., S.H. Conrad, D.A. Zimmeman, N.E. Olague, K.C. Gaither, W.B. I Cop, J.T. McCord, and C.P. Harlan, Preliminuty Perjormonce Aressinent of the I Greater Confinement Disposal Facility at the Nevada Test Site, Vols. I, 2, and 3, I SAND 91-0047, Sandia National Laboratories, Alhuqoerque, NM, 1993. I KSN, 1994a I Raytheon Services Nevada (RSN), Nevadu Test Site Technical Site I Information, prepared for the DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV 1994. I RSN, 1994b I RSN, FY 1996 Capitul Asset Management Process Report, Department of I Energy Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV, 1994. I Shott et al., 1995 I Shott, G.G., C.J. Muller, L.E. Barker, D.E. Cawlfield, F.T. Lindstrom, D.G. 1 Linkenheil, M.J. Sully, D.J. Thorne, and L. McDowell-Boyer, Perjormance I Assessment,for the Areu 5 Rudioactive Waste Manugement Site at the N-evuda I Test Site. Nye County, Nevurla, Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co., lnc., I Las Vegas, NV, 1995. I Srate of Nevada, 1992 I State of Nevada, SeftlemefitAgrermerrt for TruiIsrirrmic (TRU)Mixed Waste I Storage Issires at the Nevuda Test Site (NTS), State of Nevada, Division of I Environmental Protection, Carson City, NV, 1992. I Van Cleave, 1996 I Van Cleave, K.K., letter report to Stephen A. Mellington, Acting Director for I the Nevada Operations Waste Management Division, regarding the potential I for groundwater recharge below UE3ax/bl, Las Vegas, NV, 1996. Volume 1, Appendix A A-80 ~ Appendix B Federal Register Notice (Volume 59, Number 153, Wednesday, August 10,1994) [59 FR 408971 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT mhsr intsnned pmmr in rk p-a IhaltMEll Ioliowlocmplyvilb NEPA. and to dicnpublic ulrmnsnti on the pmpoesd mpe and contern of tha Nevada Tcst Sltr EIS. In order 10 mcel prsSent and QOlenlial fuiurs mission responsibilities Utho Nevada Ten Slle. be Dspvtmcrrt ACEIICI: U.S. lkpmiment of Energy QmpoSeS 10 OMluaIs resource IDOE). mansgrmsnt ahmnalba forthe Nevada ACTDN: Notice olhtcnt. Tea Sib %vhichwould ruppon current and fulure defense rel~ledmissions. rasarch mddevelopmant.wana mansgmant. snvimnmcalil nrrtumlian. infrastrueum mainmnancs. and facilily upgrades and albmelivs uses over the IIEX~5-1D yean. Thlr Slto-wido EIS will addmir numemu issuer. including. without limitation: (1) environmental restoration and olhm Depamenml acliviticr at the Navsda Test Silo and at ofi-silr loralions in the Slnc ofNevada where WEmnduaad nwlssr rxprimenlr. whid include UlePmject ShmlAma.CsnbalNwv.&To~Area. Tonopah T-1 Range. and panions of lhc Nullis An fire Ranee: and.121 B-1 Volume 1, Appendix B ~. ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 4089U Federal PegiUer I VoI 59. No. 153 / Wednesday. August 10, 1994 I Noticsr md groups in thlr and other DtpaIMc~1 wastes generated both on-rite and from EmTreat), in 1974. ~t haa besn ths only phnnmg yuviues outside 01 the lormil other DOE.sppmved lrcilitisr across the site used by the United Stater !or .oopmgpmcs..anlhi.Els. us. underground nvclsu wsaporu testing. UIORLML~ Written comments on Lhs * perform site charensnution and In Ssprmbm 1992. Congm% within the rap. of th. Site-wide ElS should be mvimnmentai restmatian actiwitia hework 01 the Threshold Test Ban medto: Donald R Ella. Director. Dguind to minimira or eliminate the Treaty. impod ninbmanlh ~~~msnulPmtecUm Division. U S. impm alps1 opsratlalu. mwatonum on undergmund ~YCIB~I Dsputmant 01 Energy. Nsvad. supenr~options a1 non.M)E tatmg. Rssidenl CJhion extended Iha antitis* at Gaseous LO july 1993 M Op.ntior.Som1os. P.O. Box 14459. hS the Uquefid PUBIS moratorium far Spill Tell Facility la perform additional 15 months md subsequently. v .I Nv89114. med '&.die o!wnttsncommmtr. md dsmonrlmtionr reletsd lo Ihe duly In Md1994. snandsd the V.IIMPIS 01 onl~omtmnu. md copies arpsc~ofhazardow chmicpL and moluorium hughSs tsrnbr 1995. dthr Implsmsnution Plan will b liqusfied garsaua IueL. Erkting iand use on %e Nevada Test ns * Saws as outdau laboratory kc.10 pnpmd and Wedbi the M Sit. WI, !ow g@ne,al utcgorrcr: ap-mt !w Inspeclion by tle public when, risnUrU aud mudonu un Testing An- RaMed hrsas: conduct memh mvlmmsnlal Wail0 the !allowing lautionr: on bduui.URed hr:and issum .I pm01th. DOE Natland MMagemanl Am~sMort oltho work on I. DOE Public hdiqRmm. 2751 S. Envirnllmsnul R-rcb Put Network the Nevada Tat Sil. bm bssn md Hl&hd Arm.. Lu Vqu. NV 891W - Suppon the 'Ibnrbald Tea Bul mnllnu" I0 ba nh1.d 10 naUOM1 2. Lu VquPublrs Ubnr*. 823 N. La V.nu rm.ty and the Peaceful Nuclear d.hals. with growing emphasis on Blvd.. Lu VqU. MI 89101 Explosives Treaty vsdfiution mission 3 ~CityPublicUtmry.PMNRmp snvimnnuntal ratorauon md waste SI.. Gnor, city. Nv 89701 dong with an sxpmdingmls in mmagsmant pqmms. Changing world I Toaoph Public Uby.171 Gnlnl supporting the ongoing Comprehensive condrtrons and mmnd polidn have S(-.Trnoph.NV 8W9 restBU~ rmaty negotietlonr. reduced Lhe need !or mmng programs. 5 ShiAw Llbnrv. 1101 E. C.1v.d. * Provide tho upability to respond to md other WEmd non.DOE aoivrtia ididentificstfon ~liostorrtolen nuclear weapons md 1pad.1 nuclau musrialr: exercis- relaud to nudear bomb threats and 10 ndulion diaped provide allemUw me& &M to meet power ndImtha buthwmsm ~ .. ~ United Stater mllr would include Ubruy. 551 S: bin.kdlon. NV 394ob Ad.c1iy111e~ In sobud other b&da;r .nd radiMivs ma1eri.h. 1107 altarnulve energy sauna technologies. The iouthvsrt -on althe Nevada 11. WashinEton Gunly Library. 50 S. Main. ~1.ampnribilitia U. Test Site pmvidor support for st.~.~.ur~770 m~~t~%ute.Raidsatid nonwesponi and nonnuclear weapons FOR FURTHER INFOWATKlW CIIITACT: For didan. mdCOngrsrriOIld pmgramr and lor short term activities funhsr inf@rmatimpk contac1: svthoriuuan and IppmPdaUOn. Outer such as the nuclsu weapons accident Donald R. Ells. Dior.Environmsnul ac1iviti.r may be W by ngu~~toryexercises conducted by tha Nuc1o.r Protection Division. US. Department of mmdilem identified in compliMm Emergency Search Team. lo 1993. MIE Energy. P.O. Box 14158. L. Vegai. mgmemsntl 01 ordmor other designated the Nevada Test Site as a Nevada 89114. 1702) 794-1550. sofo-bl~ donunen*. National Environmental Rarsmh Park. For inlorm.tion on tha Department's The Nevada Tnl Site mupiel 1.350 The Research Park is availabh lor use NEPA pmcsu. please mntYI: MI. Cam1 rqvua miles in Wuthun Nevnda. and is by the scientific community ,a en Borgruom. Dilor. Oflice of NEF'A IDcsted approdmately 65 miles outdoor Iabm!ory far research on the oversight. U.S. Depmmsnt 01 Energy. northwest afhVegm. The Nevada sffeeas of humon activities on the desert 1000 Independmu Avenue. S.W.. Test Sits is bordered to the north. west. rosystam. Land not used lor mission 01 Washington. Dc 20585. (2021 586-4600 and east by the Nellis Alr Fons Range. other purporer hu&en dcrignaled as 01 ICBVP.R message at 18001 472-2756. and OD the south by BuRs.r ofLand rerewed areas. wailable for future Manigsmanl-admini.l~red lands. To the development. The nonham pu1 o! the CUPPLEYENTARV INFORMATION: east. the Nevada Test Site shmr n Nevada Tst Sits is rsorvsd M an Background nearly contiguous border with lands underground nuclear weapons tesliug fie~~~~d~ rsrt site, near brvegor, managed by the US.Fish and Wildlifc area. Nuclear teat loutiom M at Yucca Sewice for the bran Cams Range. The Flat. Pahute Mesa. Raioer Mesa. and w~siernhaifolLhsCama Range ;r also Buckboard Mesa. ,led by the U S. Ah FOM. rhtch Waste management activities have sharers rontiguou.bound~y,ththa been ongoing a1 the Nevada Test Silo mndnct underground nuclear testing. Nevada Test Sits. The Nevada Test Site since 1952. For ease of identification. * Fulfill &osaanivitisr tomainlain IS remote. secure isniily for the Nevada Tat Site has been divided the nation's stockpile of nuclear candumng Lndsrground testing o! into numbemd goDgrsphic "Areas". weapons in a safe and secure manner nude= weapons and lor evduaung tho Waste Operations am conducted in areas. w8sle and~ ~ lullill ~~~ oIhsr ~~~ natiomal securitv ellea, olnuclsu waponr on mdrtary revers1 srnilary md solid related minions. CO~~U~~EOIID~Ssyrtamr. eiectromci. are disposed of in Areas 7.3 and 9. * Provide anongoing waste ntstl.m. sensors. Md other mslrrisl~ Hydrourbon.contaminated soils "10 iuanagrment program covering aIi Sinco the signing o! the Thmrhdd Test disposed or in a permitied landfill in Volume 1, Appedx B B-2 ~ ~. NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENE4L IMPACT STATEMENT Vnl. 59. No. 153 I Wednesday. August 10. 1994 I Notima 40899 Yucca Mountain lit.. and any eventual Nevada Tat Site. Tha Deprrrmmi of mnsuIclim md operation of a Energy nwds sits mou-ce mpodtory. includin envimnmantd mvlagemant plan hiwould sIlw it io nviaw. M &ate! by the pmceu continue its miuionr in a way UI.1 prssdbad In the NWPA. Thhamfom. the minimirn or~vvoidaanvironmsnlal NwadaTm SilaUSvill addlass ImpN. A pnliminuy set of ram- management titamtive~lor evaluation in haEIS has been idmufled below. l%a lidset o[ailemativss and imues ~ to be mnsidered in the EL$ wiu rrneci conridamtionof Ihe public input reOived dwing the -ping period. No Adion Mounttin dta for p&bladsvalopmsnt of a gsolo ic mpoitwy for diipovl of spent n& fuai and high level nudear wwte. mar lo paage of the 1987 mendmanu. MEhad prepared manigoment Iwt;onson tha Nevada M snvlmnmantd urasmsnt lEAl Tam Site or eiPawhsna. Public rosdr rn which included M analysis of ths ahud to ship low level mdioa~uvs effects ofdte chamctsdutionactivities wute hmother MEsiler lo the a1 Yucca Mountain mOWRW-0073. Nevada Test Site md lo ship hamdous May 19881. If ulUmaisly DOE waste hom the Nevada Ton Sit. to rawmmsndr .ppmv.1 of as Yucca permitted disposal facilua. Mountalnrils totheRaidsn1. that raeamnwndation nust tm rmmplnied Pmliminy Idmlificetlon of by an EiS pnparad under the specific Allsmatirn prouiriona of the NWPA. hll activities The proposed aaion t, to develop rnglnling the ch.nc+eriurtion of the rewmmmnagcmsnt plpn for the B-3 Volume 1, Appendix B NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 40900 Frdd kgistu I VoI: 59. Nn. 153 I Wednesday. AW10. 1994 I don. Volume 1, Appendix R R-4 ~ ~~ - NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Federal WbiMr I Vol. 58. No. 153 I Wednesday. August 10, 1994 I Notices QOQOl Fuel EIS will sddresr the potential The &lea md loulionr for the publrc OrbyvritingtothsDhctorofthe envimnmenul impacu ofths prapered Vopiog meslrngs are listed blow Ail Envimnmenlal Pmtsaim nivirian ,t policy nnewai and its implsmeolatloo. mmings we scheduled to begrn at 6 30 the above adbrPsmm wishing to Under a renewed policy. the uruted p.m. speak th.1 hnva not @stend in States could ac~sptup to 15.~0foreign September 7.1991 advincs may @rter at the enm- of rarearch mmor spent fuel elsmant~ Fallon C~WMUO~Canter the mssting mm.lndividruh #pe&hg over II 10 10 IS yem period. The Nevada 100 CamrJu. way on beshallof p11orgmiution should Test Site is a potential storage site in Fallon, . identify the organization rep-nted. lhi. ns. September8. 1994 In order 10 solicit individual I0 The Continued Operation orthe Q~~~city ~o~~,,,,i~~ viewpoints md fadlitate interactive Pantex Plant and Associated Storage of 851 &.I wiiiiam shet CommIminication bstwson pMicipants Nuclear Weapons Components EIS will -on Glv. Nevada~~ and representatives orthe Dapuunsnt. address the potential envimmental Septemt-ar 15,.1i94 opponunitiea will be pmvidsd at the imps- of the continued operation of Dixie Center Convention Facilities *oping meslingr far qucstiolu and the Pantex Plant. These include near. to 425 South 704 Earl informal discussions the mid-tern fore-able anivitias and regarding the st. CBOrgS. utab hues10 ba addressed in this EIS. nucleu womponent stonge activities at September 15.1994 other Department sites madated with Tonopah Convention Center Sutsnlusnl Document Preparation nuclear weapon disassembly st the 301 Bmugher ARsr the completion of the public PMteX Plant. DYBT thhs "en 5 10 10 yeas. Tono ah Nevada rcoping process. the Lhpu(ment will The Nevada Test Sits is being SptemKer io. 1w4 prepam an EIS ImplementstionPlm and considered as & potential sits under the &&man Field Convention Center make it available 10 the public upon relocation of operations alternative. 850 Lar Vegss Blvd. Nonh quest end place it in the public lgl 'Ihs environmental restoration La. Yegas. Nevada reading rwms. Thn Plao will record the program a1 the Fernald Envlronmsnial September 21.1994 results ofthe =oping pmcasr and deilns Management pmjm is divided into rive Bob Ruud Community Center the aiternalivs and issues that tho operable units. For each opembls unit. 150North Highway 160 Department will evaluate in thlr II feasibility atudylpmpomi plan is us. Phmp. Nevada The Plan mil also include I) schedule being prepared 10 pmvide a detailed Septembsr 22.1994 hor completing tha Draft EIS. malustion oftha leadingremedid Calienls Youh Center Availability of the Lhft EiS will be slternstivs for each ama of Highway 93 announced In the €den1 Rwtu. me contamination. Nevada Test Site may be CaLsnte. Nevada Depanment will solicit col~msn~~hm identified as the pmfemd candidate Oral Gmment. the public. organizations. and her disposal site for padonr of the low agencies on tha Draft US.and will level waste generated during cleanup A11 interested parties am invited to conrider a]] cDmmentSio itspreparation activities far each oprablm unit. The record their cornmenu or*uggsrtions ofthe ~i~~lus. cum111schedule for Iha Depuunsnt to IhSu " lraurd in Wnrhinglon. lhis 4th day of submit feasibility studylpmpored placed on thhs disttibution list by Dc the b Augu*'''w' PI- to the US. Envimnmsnrd ulliog the NevATnt SilsElS Hallins Protezuon Agency for appmvd is u at 1-800-105-1140 01 702-794-1550. P.(*rN'Blvlb follows: Operable Unit I (Warts Ptts). nShotline give iruhdons ~n Aciin(lAWstonlS-tary.. Environment. WdyandHn?l*. submitted l~ly1994: 0 snbls Un~tz how to word commenu or requests. lSoLd Wutu th~td,tog, aubmmd [FRDoc.94-lDs~1Fl1edM;8mm[ Augur1 1994; Opembls Unit 3 WriN*(ro Commrnt. uyo-*M* IPmduction ha).to be submitted W"ttcn comments or suggeatiaru to November 1996: ODerabls Unit 4 lsilm) assist the Department in identifying significant envhnmental isruesand the appmpti%ltascope ofths EIS. questions mncaming Lha Nevada Test Sits or other involved Department rites, querti for speaking timer. requests for copier of the EIS lm lemsomion Plan. md requests lo bs pyacad on the dirlribution List should be dirsasd to: Donald R. Ella. Dirsctar. Envlmnmental Rotmion Division. U.S.Deoerunent ~ of ~~ Energy. ~nvironmsnla~~mp& Statement. P.O. Box 14459. La$ Vqu. NV 89114. Public Mertiny Regirlration md Formst Oral and written commenU may be presented at the public soping meetings. Persons desiring to speak at any of there meetings should register by calling the Nevada Test Sits EIS Hotlina by 3:OO p.m.. Pacific Time. two working days in sdvonce of the rcoping meeting: I B-5 Volume 1, Appendix B NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT This Page Intentionally Left Blank Volume 1, Appendix B B-6 ~ Appendix C RELEVANT REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT APPENDIX C RELEVANT REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS This appendix identifies and summarizes the major Protection for a mixed waste disposal unit, a mixed federal and state laws, regulations, executive orders, waste storage unit, and a mixed waste treatment unit and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) orders that would be pursued. may apply to the proposed action and alternatives at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). This appendix also Under Alternative 3, the DOE would also continue its provides information concerning the status of permits consultations with the U.S. Bureau of Land and regulatory compliances at the NTS and the off- I Management and begin consultations with the site locations in Nevada. I U.S. Department of the Interior to define the appropriate actions to address administrative issues Consultations with the Nevada State Historic related to the NTS and other land withdrawals. Preservation Officer would continue on a projcct- specific basis for any of the alternatives considered. Under Alternative 4, existing permits would he Consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Service maintained. Consultations with the U.S. Bureau of pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act I Land Management would continue and consultations are in progress and described in Chapter 8. I would begin with the U.S. Department of the Interior Consultations with American Indian tribes are I to define and implement the appropriate actions to described in Chapter 8 and detailed in Appendix G of I address issues associated with thc NTS and other this Environmental Impact Statement. I land withdrawals. Under Alternative 1, the permits identified in Section C.l Federal Environmental Statutes and C.5 would be maintained and updated as necessary. Regulations Additional actions necessmy to acquire a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permit from the Nevada Listed below are the significant federal laws, rules, Division of Environmental Protection forthe disposal of regulations, and guidelines that are applicable at the off-site generated low-level mixed waste that meet land NTS and the off-site locations in Nevada. disposal restrictions would be pursued. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Under Alternative 1, the DOE would also continue its 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 4321, enacted by consultations with the US. Bureau of Land Public Law (Pub. L.) No. 91-190 as amended. Management and begin consultations with the U.S. Department of the Interior to define the The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 appropriate actions to address administrative issues establishes a policy promoting awareness of the related to the NTS and other land withdrawals. environmental consequences of major federal activities on the environment and consideration Under Alternative 2, no permitting actions would be of the environmental impacts during the required. This alternative would result in planning and decisionmaking stages of a noncompliance with the requirements of the Resource project. The National Environmental Policy Act Conservation and Recovery Act. requires all agencies of the federal government to prepare a detailed statement on the Under Alternative 3, the permits identified in Section environmental effects of proposed major federal C.5 would be maintained and updated as necessary, actions that may significantly affect the quality and additional local permits required for construction of the human environment. would be obtained. Additional actions necessary to acquire Resource Conservation and Recovery Act The Council on EnVirOntnentdl Quality and the permits from the Nevada Division of Environmental DOE have proclaimed regulations for C-1 Volume 1, Appendix C NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT implementing the National Environmental land disposal restrictions also prohibit storing Policy Act (40 Code of Federal waste that requires treatment, except to Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508 and facilitate proper recovery, treatment, or 10 CFR Part 1021). The Council on disposal. Much of the DOES waste that is Environmental Quality and DOE regulations currently stored, as well as some waste that will require the preparation of this EIS in two be generated in the future, is hazardous waste or stages: draft and final. The Draft and Final contains hazardous components that are subject ElSs must contain discussions of the purpose to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and need for the proposed action; reasonable requirements, including land disposal alternatives to the proposed action, including restrictions. the “no action” alternative; the environment potentially affected by the proposed action and Hazardous Waste and Solid Waste Amendments the alternatives; and the environmental Act of 1984, 42 U.S.C. 6901, enacted by consequences of the proposed action and Pub. L. No. 98-616. alternatives (40 CFR Part 1502.10 and 10 CFR Part 1021.315). The Hazardous Waste and Solid Waste Amendments Act of 1984 are amendments to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 1976, 42 U.S.C. 6901, enacted by that authorize regulations or require that Pub. L. No. 94-580 as amended. regulations be promulgated on waste minimization, land disposal of hazardous The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act wastes, and underground storage tanks. was enacted to ensure the safe and environmentally responsible management of I Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992, hazardous and nonhazardous solid waste, and to 42 U.S.C. 6961, enacted by Pub. L. No. 102-386. promote resource recovery techniques to minimize waste volumes. Regulations issued by I The Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency waives sovereign immunity for fines and (EPA) under the Resource Conservation and penalties for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act set forth a comprehensive Recovery Act violations at federal facilities. program to provide ‘kradle to grave” control of However, a provision postpones fines and hazardous waste by requiring generators and penalties after three years for mixed waste transporters of hazardous waste, as well as storage prohibition violations at DOE sites and owners and operators of treatment, storage, and requires the DOE to prepare plans for disposal facilities, to meet specific standards developing the required treatment capacity for and procedures. Hazardous waste is defined mixed waste stored or generated at each facility. under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Each plan must be approved by the host state or Act as a waste that poses a potential hazard to the EPA, after consultation with other affected human health or the environment when states, and a consent order must be issued by improperly treated, stored, or disposed of. the regulator requiring compliance with the plan. The Federal Facility Compliance Act The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act further provides that the DOE will not be regulations include requirements for locating subject to fines and penalties for land disposal and operating treatment, storage, and disposal restrictions storage prohibition violations for facilities. The Resource Conservation and mixed waste as long as it is in compliance with Recovery Act also requires the EPA to issue such an approved plan and consent order and land disposal restrictions that require the use of meets all other applicable regulations. the best demonstrated available technologies to treat certain hazardous waste and other waste containing certain hazardous components. The Volume 1, Appendix C c-2 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Comprehensive Environmental Response, Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 2011, enacted by Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 83-703. 42 U.S.C. 9601, enacted by Pub. L. No. 96-510, also known as Superfund: Amended in 1986 by The Atomic Energy Act ensures proper the Superfund Amendment5 and Reauthorization management, production, possession, and use of Act, Pub. L. No. 99-499. radioactive materials. The Act also provides the DOE with authority for developing generally The Comprehensive Environmental Response, applicable standards for protecting the Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. as environment from radioactive materials. amended, provides a statutory framework for Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, the DOE the cleanup of waste sites containing hazardous has established a system of standards and substances and, as amended by the Superfund requirements issued as DOE orders. The Act Amendments and Reauthoriation Act, provides also authorizes the Formerly Utilized Sites an emergency response program in the event of Remedial Action Program, under which the a release (or threat of a release) of a hazardous DOE is responsible for cleaning up privately substance to the cnvironment. The owned sites previously used and contaminated Comprehensive Environinental Response, as a result of nuclear weapons production. Compensation and Liability Act’s goal is to provide for response and remediation of Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, enacted by Pub. L. environmental problems that are not adequately No. 90-148 as amended. covered by permit programs of other environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act, The Clean Air Act, as amended, is intended to the Clean Water Act, the Resource “protect and enhance the quality of the Nation‘s Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Atomic air resources so as to promote the public health Energy Act. and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.” Section I 18 of the Clean Air Act, Emergency Planning and Community as amended, requires that each federal agency Right-to-Know Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. 11001, with jurisdiction over any property or facility enacted by Pub. L. No. 99-499. that might discharge air pollutants, such as the DOE, comply with “all federal, state, interstate, This act was included as Title I11 of the and local requirements” with regard to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization control and abatement of air pollution. Act. Under Subtitle A of this Act, federal facilities, including those owned by the DOE, The law requires the EPA to establish national provide various information, such as inventories primary and secondary ambient air quality of specific chemicals used or stored and releases standards as necessary to protect public health, that occur from these sites, to the %ate with an adequate margin of safety, from any Emergency Response Commission and to the known or anticipated adverse effects of a Local Emergency Planning Committee to ensure regulated pollutant (42 U.S.C. 7409). The that emergency plans are sufficient to respond Clean Air Act also requires establishment of to unplanned releascs of hazardous substances. (a) national standards of performance for new The DOE also requires compliance with Title III stationary sources of atmospheric pollutants: as a matter of agency policy. (h) emissions limitations for any new or modified building, structure, facility, or In addition, under Suhtitle B of the Act, inaterial installation that emits or may eniit an air safety data sheet reports, emergency and pollutant (42 U.S.C. 741 I): and (c) standards harardouschemical inventory reports, and toxic for emission of hazardous air pollutants chemical release inventory reports must he (42 U.S.C. 7412). In addition, thc provided to appropriate state, local, national, Clean Air Act requires specific emission and federal authorities. increases to he evaluated so as to prevent a c-3 Volume 1, Appendix C NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMl3NTAL IMPACT STATEMENT significant deterioration in air quality water.” The Clean Water Act prohibits the (42 U.S.C. 7470). “discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts” to navigable waters of the United States. To comply with these requirements, the EPA Section 313 of the Clean Water Act, as issued (a) New Source Performance Standards amended, requires all branches of the federal with respect to stationary sources, which impose government engaged in any activity that might emission or discharge limitations on new result in a discharge or runoff of pollutants to pollution sources (40 CFR Part 60); surface waters to comply with federal, state, (b) National Emission Standards for Hazardous interstate. and local requirements. Air Pollutants which establishes limits of I materials such as radioactivity, asbestos, In addition to setting water quality standards for beryllium, mercury, etc., that may be emitted the nation’s waterways, the Clean Water Act into the atmosphere (40 CFR Part 61 j; and supplies guidelines and limitations for effluent (cj Prevention of Significant Deterioration discharges from point-source discharges, and which contains measures which should be provides authority for the EPA to implement the considered andor implemented to minimize the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination deterioration of air quality at locations where air System permitting program. The National quality is already cleaner than the ambient Pollutant Discharge Elimination System standards (40 CFR Part 81). Program is administered by the Water Management Division of the EPA pursuant to The Clean Air Act requires each state to regulations in 40 CFR Part 122 et seq. Nevada develop implementation plans to control air has not applied for National Pollutant Discharge pollution and air quality in that state and submit Elimination System authority from the EPA. them for approval to the EPA , Under EPA Thus, all National Pollutant Discharge regulations, Nevada has been delegated Elimination System permis required for the NTS authority under the Clean Air Act to maintain would be obtained by the DOE through the EPA the Primary and Secondary National Ambient Region 9 (40 CFR Pat 122 et scq.). Air Quality Standards (40 CFR Part 52, Subpart N), to issue permits under the Sections 401 and 405 of the Water Quality Act Prevention of Significant Deteriorations of 1987 added Section 402(p) to the (40 CFR Part 52.683), and to enforce Clean Water Act. Section 402(pj requires that performance standards for new stationary the EPA establish regulations for issuing sources. To date, the state of Nevada does not permits for storm water discharges associated have authority to administer the National with industrial activity. Although any storm Emission Standards for Hazardous Air water discharge associated with industrial Pollutants Program regulating emissions of activity requires a National Pollutant Discharge radionuclides at DOE facilities. Therefore, Elimination System permit application. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air regulations implementing a separate storm Pollutants approvals authorizing release of water permit application process have not yet radionuclides are obtained from the EPA been adopted by the EPA. Region 9. Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974,42 U.S.C. 300f, Clean Water Act of 1977,42 U.S.C. 1251, et seq. et seq., enacted by Pub. I,. No. 93-523 as enacted by Pub. L. No. 95-917 [amendments to amended. the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 19721. The Safe Drinking Water Act’s primary The Clean Water Act of 1977, which amended ob.jective is to protect the quality of public the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. was water supplies and all sources of drinking water. enacted to “restore and maintain the chemical, The state of Nevada, with the EPA’s physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s authorization, regulates public drinking w3ter Volume 1, Appendix C c-4 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT supplies by establishing and enforcing drinkmg The EPA regulations pertaining to hazardous water standards and by developing and waste transportation are found in implementing aquifer and water source 40 CFR Part 262. These regulations deal with protection regulations. These regulations the use of the EPA waste manifest. which is the proclaim maximum contaminant levels, shipping paper used when transporting including those for radioactivity in community Resource Conservation and Recovery Act water systems, which are defined as public hazardous waste. water systems that serve at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, regularly serve at least 24 year-round residents. 16 U.S.C. 470, et scq., enacted by Other programs established by the Safe Pub. I,. No. 04-422 as amended. Drinking Water Act include the Sole Source Aquifer Program, the Wellhead Protection The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Program, the Underground Injection Control as amended, provides that sites with significant I Program, and Environmental Standards for the national historic value be placed on the National I Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Register of Historic Places. If a federal activity I Fuel, High-Level. and Transuranic Radioactive may impact a historic property resource, a I Wastes. required consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will usually generate a Hazardous and Radioactive Materials memorandum of agreement. including Transportation Regulations. stipulations that must be followed to minimize adverse impacts. Coordinations with the State Transport of hazardous and radioactive Historic Preservation Officer arc also materials, substances, and wastes are governed undertaken to ensure that potenMly significant by US. Department of Transportation, sites are properly identified and appropriate US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, andEPA mitigative actions implemented. regulations. These regulations may be found in 49 CFR Parts 100-178, 10 CFR Part 71, and 40 Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, CFR Part 262, respectively. 16 U.S.C. 470aa-47011, enacted by Pub. I,. No. 96-95 as amended. U.S. Department of Transportation regulations contain requirements for identification of a The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of material as hazardous or radioactive. These 1979 protects archaeological resources located regulations may hand off to the U.S. Nuclear on US. public lands and American Indian lands, Regulatory Commission or EPA regulations for including sites under the DOE’S control. The identification of material. However, rcquireinents concerning protection of U.S. Department of Transportation hazardous archaeological resources contained in the material regulations govern the hazard Archaeological Resources Protection Act should communication (for example, marking, hazard be addressed prior to site disturbances by labeling, vehicle placarding, and emergency consultation with the Department of Interior response telephone number) and transport Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and requirements (such as required entries on the State Historic Preservation OTficer. shipping papers or on the EPA waste manifest). Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1974, 16 U.S.C. 469, enacted hy Pub. L. regulations applicable to radioactive materials No. 86-532 as amended. transportation are found in 10 CFR Part 71 and detail packaging design requirements, including The Archaeological and Historic Preservation the testing required for package certification. Act of I974 protects bites that have historic and prehistoric imponance. c-5 Vcrlume 1, Appendix C ~~~ ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Endangered Species Act of 1973, I system provided “such uses are compatible with 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543, enacted by Pub. L. I the major purposes for which such areas were No. 93-205 as amended. I established.” The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, amended, is intended to prevent the further 16 U.S.C. 703, et seq., 40 Stat. 755. decline of endangered and threatened species and to restore these species and their habitats. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 governs The Act IS jointly administered by the the taking, killing, or possession of migratory US.Departments of Commerce and Interior. birds. The Act states that it is unlawful to take, Section 7 of the Act requires consultation to pursue, molest, or disturb bald (American) and determine whether endangered and threatened golden eagles, their nests, or their eggs species are known to have critical habitats anywhere in the United States. onsite or in the vicinity of the proposed action. Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940,16 U.S.C. 668, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980, enacted by 54 Stat. 250. 16 U.S.C. 2901, enacted by Pub. L. No. 96-366 as amended. I The Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 protects I bald and golden eagles by prohibiting the The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of l taking, possession, and commerce of such birds 1980 encourages all federal entities (in I and establishes civil penalties for violation of cooperation with the public) to protect and I this Act. conserve the nation’s fish and wildlife. Noise Control Act of 1972,42 U.S.C. 4901-4918, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, enacted by Pub. L. 92-574 as amended. 16 U.S.C. 661,48 Stat. 401 as amended. The Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended, The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act directs all federal agencies to carry out, “to the promotes more effectual planning and fullest extent within their authority,” programs cooperation between federal, state, public, and within their jurisdictions in a manner that private agencies for the conservation and furthers a national policy of promoting an rehabilitation of the nation’s fish and wildlife environment free from noise that jeopardizes and authoiires the U.S. Department of Interior health and welfare. to provide assistance. Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 15 U.S.C. 2601, et seq., enacted by Pub. L. No. 94- Act of 1966, 42 U.S.C. 668dd, enacted by 469 as amended. Pub. L. No. 91-135 as amended. The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 The National Wildlife Refuge System provides the EPA with the authority to require I Administration Act of 1966 provides guidelines testing of both new and old chemical substances I arid directives for the administration and entering the environment and to regulate them I management of all lands within the system, where necessary. The Act also regulates the I including “wildlife refuges, areas for the treatment, storage, and disposal of certain toxic I protection and conservation of fish and wildlife substances not regulated by the Resource I that are threatened with extinction, wildlife Conservation and Recovery Act or other I ranges, game ranges, wildlife management statutes, particularly polychlorinated biphenyls I areas, or waterfowl production areas.” The I (PCB), chlorotluorocarbons, and asbestos. I Secretary ofthe Interior is authorized to permit I by regulations the usc of any area within the Volume 1, Appendix C C-6 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Safety and Health Act regulations establish 42 U.S.C. 1996 et seq., enacted by Pub. L. specific standards telling employers what must No. 95-341. be done to achieve a safe and healthful working environment. The DOE places emphasis on The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of compliance with these regulations at DOE 1978 is a policy statement intended to reaffirm facilities and prescribes through DOE orders the American Indian rights regarding religious Occupational Safety and Health Act standards freedom. The purpose of the Act is to ensure that contractors shall meet as applicable to work that American Indians have access to and at government-owned, contractor-operated protection of physical locations and resources facilities. that are sacred and sometimes required for the practice of American Indian religious rites and Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431, et seq., ceremonies. enacted by Pub. L. No. 59-209. Native American Graves Protection and The Antiquities Act of 1906 protects historic Repatriation Act of 1990,25 U.S.C. 3001, enacted and prehistoric ruins, monuments, and by Pub. L. No. 101-601. antiquities, including paleontological resources, on federally controlled lands. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 governs ownership or Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986, control of American Indian remains and cultural 15 U.S.C. 2641, enacted by Pub. L. No. 99-519. items which are excavated or discovered on federal or tribal lands. The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986 requires studies to determine the extent Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, of danger to human health from asbestos in 42 U.S.C. 10101, enacted as Pub. L. No. 97-425 public and commercial buildings. and as amended. Department of Energy Organization Act, The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 provides 42 U.S.C. 7101, enacted as Pub. L. No. 95-91. for the development of repositories for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and The DOE Organization Act establishes the spent fuel and for the establishment of a statutory responsibility of the DOE to program of research, development, and (1) ensure incorporation of national demonstration regarding the disposal of high- environmental protection goals in the level waste and spent fuel. The Act provides for formulation of energy programs; and (2) to development (by the EPA and the Nuclear advance the goal of restoring, protecting, and Regulatory Commission) of generally enhancing environmental quality, as well as applicable standards for protection of the assuring public health and safety. environment and technical criteria for management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and high-level radioactive wastes in a 42 U.S.C. 5801, enacted by Pub. L. No. 93-438. repository. The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 was Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, established to improve government operations 29 U.S.C. 657, et seq., enacted by Pub. L. 91-596. and carry out the performance of other functions including, but not limited to, the Atomic Energy The Occupational Safety and Health Act Commission's military production and research of 1970 establishes the authority for assuring, activities. so far as possible, safe and healthful working conditions for employees. The Occupational c-1 Volume 1, Appendix C NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide of the NAFR Complex (of which the NTS was Act of 1972, 7 U.S.C. 136, enacted by Pub. L. once a part), such lands are reserved for high- No. 92-516 as amended. hazard testing along with other stated purposes. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and This law mandates that EISs be prepared and Rodenticide Act of 1972 governs the storage, include evaluations of the cumulative effects use, and disposal of pesticides through product (resulting from the use of these lands) on the labeling, registration, and user certification. environment and population of Nevada. Evaluations are made of possible measures to Federal Land Policy and Management Act of mitigate the cumulative effects of the land 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1701-1784, enacted by Pub. L. withdrawals. In addition, a continuing program No. 94-579. of decontamination is necessary. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act of 1976 governs the use of federal lands which of 1965, 16 U.S.C. 1461, enacted by Pub. L. may be overseen by several agencies and No. 89-249. establishes the procedure for applying to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for land The Hiscoric Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities withdrawals and right-of-ways. Act of 196.5 sets national policy to preserve historic sites, buildings, and antiquities for the Federal Water Pollution Control Act inspiration and benefit of the people of the Amendments of 1972,33 U.S.C. 1251, enacted by United States. Pub. I>. No. 92-500. Materials Act of 1947,30 U.S.C. 601-603, enacted The Federal Water Pollution Control Act by Pub. L. No. 80-291. Amendments of 1972 is the predecessor federal statute to the Clean Water Act of 1977. The Materials Act of 1947 provides for the management of minerals, timber, and other Public Lands - Wild Horses and Burros, construction resource materials on public lands. 85 Stat. 649, enacted by Pub. L. No. 92-195. Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, The Public Lands -Wild Horses and Burros Act 42 U.S.C. 13101, enacted by Pub. L. 101-508. requires the protection, management, and control of wild free-roaming horses and burros The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 on public lands. As a stated policy, free- establishes the authority to prevent or reduce roaming horses and burros are prohibited from pollution at the source whenever feasible. capture, branding, harassment, or death and Pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled they are to be considered an integral part of the should be treated in an environmentally safe natural system of the public lands. manner whenever feasible. Disposal or other release of pollution into the environment should Withdrawal of Public Lands for Military be employed only as a last resort and should be Purposes, 16 U.S.C. 460 ff, enacted by Pub. L. No. conducted in an environmentally safe manner. 99-606 (Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986). C.2 Executive Orders The Withdrawal of Public Lands for Military Listed below are the significant executive orders that Purposes Act provides authority for withdrawal are applicable at the NTS and the off-site locations in of nearly 3 million acres of land in Clark, Nevada. Lincoln. and Nye counties for exclusive use by the US. Secretary of the Air Force. Comprised Volume 1, Appendix C C-8 - NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Executive Order 11593 (May 13,1971) (National Executive Order 12580 (Superfund Historic Preservation). Implementation). This order directs all federal agencies to This order delegates to the heads of executive (I) make an inventory of their holdings and departments and agencies the responsibility for nominate, in cooperation with the state liaison undertaking remedial actions for releases, or officer for historic preservation, all sites, threatened releases, that are not on the National buildings, districts, and oh,jects that appear to Priority List. This order also delegates the qualify for listing on the National Register of responsibility of removal actions, other than Historic Places, a file of cultural resources of emergencies where the release is from any national, regional, state, or local significance facility under the jurisdiction or control of kept by the U.S. Department of the Interior's executive departments and agencies, to the National Park Service; and (2) assure that no heads of executive departments and agencies. site, etc., which might qualify for the National Register is sold, demolished. or substantially Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain altered. Management). Executive Order 12088 [Federal Compliance with This order requires federal agencies to establish Pollution Control Standards (October 13,1978), procedures to ensure that the potential effects of as amended by Executive Ordcr 12580 (January flood hazards and floodplain management are 23,1987)]. considered for actions undertaken in a floodplain. It also requires that floodplain Federal Compliance with Pollution Control impacts be avoided to the extent practicable. Standards requires federal agencies, including the DOE, to comply with applicable administrative and procedural pollution control Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). standards established by, hut not limited to, the Clean Air Act, the Noise Control Act, the Clean This order requires governmental agencies to Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the avoid, to the extent practicable, any short- and Toxic Substances Control Act, and the long-term adverse impacts on wetlands Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. wherever there is a practicable alternative. Executive Order 11514 (National Environmental Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice). Policy Act). This order directs federal agencies to achieve This order requires federal agencies to Environmental Justice by identifying and continually monitor and control their activities addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately to protect and enhance the quality of the high and adverse human health or environment. The order also requires federal environmental effects of its programs, policies, agencies to develop procedures to (I)ensure and activities on minority populations and low- that the public is informed and understands the income populations in the United States and its federal plans and programs with potential territories and possessions. The order creates environmental impact and (2)obtain the views an Interagency Working Group on of interested parties. The DOE has issued Environmental Justice arid directs each federal regulations (10 CF'R Part 1021) and DOE Order agency to develop strategies within prescribed 45 I. I for compliance with this Executive Order. time limits to identify and address Environmental Justice concerns. c-9 Viilume I, Appendix C ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Executive Order 12856 (Right-to-Know Laws National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as and Pollution Prevention Requirements). amended, to operate each of its facilities in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the Act. This order requires all federal agencies to reduce and report toxic chemicals entering any DOE Order 5000.3B, Occurrence Reporting and waste stream; improve emergency planning, Processing of Operations Information. response, and accident notification; and encourage clean technologies and testing of This order establishes the requirements for innovative prevention technologies. The order reporting and processing occurrences relating to also provides that federal agencies are persons safety, health, security, property, operations, for purposes of the Emergency Planning and and environment up to and including Community Right-to-Know (Superfund emergencies. Amendments and Reauthorization Act Title m), which obliges agencies to meet the requirements DOE Order 5480.1B, Environment, Safety, and of the Act. Health Program for Department of Energy Operations. C.3 U.S. Department of Energy Regulations and Orders and Policies This order establishes the Environment, Safety, and Health Program for the DOE operations. Through the authority of the Atomic Energy Act, the DOE is responsible for establishing a comprehensive DOE Order 5480.3, Safety Requirements for the health, safety, and environmental program for its Packaging and Transportation of Hazardous facilities. The regulatory mechanisms through which Materials, Hazardous Substances, and the DOE manages its facilities are the promulgation Hazardous Wastes. of regulations and the issuance of DOE orders. DOE orders generally set forth policy and the programs This order provides DOE policy, sets forth and procedures for implementing that policy. Listed requirements, and assigns responsibilities for below are the significant DOE regulations and orders the safe transport of hazardous materials, that are applicable at the NTS and the off-site hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and locations in Nevada. radioactive materials. I DOE Land and Facility Use Policy. DOE Order 5480.9A, Construction Project Safety I and Health Management. I This policy governs the DOE management of its I land and facilities as valuable national This order establishes procedures and provides I resources, based on the principles of ecosystem guidelines for the protection of the DOE and I management and sustainable development. DOE contractor employees engaged in I construction activities, protection of the general I public from hazards in connection with the I DOE Order 430.1, Life-Cycle Asset Management. DOE construction activities, protection of I adjacent property from damage, and prevention I This order governs the planning, acquisition, of delay or interruption of the programs due to I operation, maintenance, and disposition of accident or fires. I physical assets as valuablc national resources. DOE Order 451.1, National Environmental Policy Act. This order establishes responsibilities and sets forth procedures necessq for implementing the Volume 1. Appendix C c-10 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DOE Order 5483.1A, Occupational Safety and DOE Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Health Program for the DOE Contractor Public and the Environment. Employees at Government-Owned Contractor- Operated Facilities. This order establishes standards and requirements for operation of the DOE and This order establishes requirements and DOE contractors with respect to protection of procedures to assure that occupational safety members of the public and the environment and health standards prescribed pursuant to the against undue risk from radiation. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and the DOE Order 5480.4, Environmental Protection, DOE Organization Act of 1977 provide Safety, and Health Protection Standards. occupational safety and health protection for DOE contractor employees in government- This order specifies and provides requirements owned, contractor-operated facilities that are for the application of the mandatory consistent with the protection afforded private environmental, safety, and health standards industry employees by the occupational safety applicable to all the DOE and DOE contractor and health standards promulgated under the operations. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. DOE Order 5480.10, Contractor Industrial DOE Order 5700.6C, Quality Assurance. Hygiene Program. This order provides DOE policy, sets forth This order establishes the requirements and requirements, and assigns responsibilities for guidelines applicable to the DOE contractor establishing, implementing, and maintaining operations for maintaining an effective plans and actions to assure quality achievement industrial hygiene program to preserve in the DOE programs. employee health and well-being. DOE Order 5820.2A, Radioactive Waste DOE Order 5480.11, Radiation Protection for Management. Occupational Workers. This order establishes policies and guidelines by This order establishes radiation protection which the DOE manages its radioactive waste, standards and program requirements for the waste by-products, and radioactively DOE and DOE contractor operations with contaminated surplus facilities. respect to the protection of the worker from ionizing radiation. DOE Order 5400.1, General Environmental Protection Program. DOE Order 5484.1, Environmental Protection, Safety, and Health Protection Information This order establishes environmental protection Reporting Requirements. program requirements, authorities, and responsibilities for DOE operations to assure This order establishes the requirements and compliance with applicable federal, state, and procedures for the reporting of information local environmental protection laws and having environmental protection, safety, or regulations as well as with internal DOE health protection significance for DOE policies. operations. c-11 Vulurne 1, Appendix C ___ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT C.4 State of Nevada Laws Sections 940-9555. Polychlorinated Biphenyl Listed below, by category, are the significant State of Section 960, Limitations on Issuance of Nevada laws, rules, regulations, and guidelines that Permits are known to be applicable to the NTS and the off- Sections 965.976, Disposal of Asbestos site locations in Nevada: Air Pollution: These regulations establish fees, variances, I Nevada Administrative Code: Chapter 445B. restrictions, and permits and adopt 40 CFR Water Controls; Air Pollution: Parts 2, 124, and 260 to 270, I inclusive, as a part i Sections 287-366, Permits to Construct of the Nevada Administrative Code. and Operating Permits I Sections 339-351, Toxic or Hazardous Public Waters: Air Contaminants Nevada Revised Statutes: Chapter 533, I Sections 354-357, Visible Emissions Adjudication of Vested Water Rights; i Sections 360-367, Emissions of Appropriation of Public Waters: Particulate Matter Section 325, Application to State I Sections 38 1-395, Miscellaneous I Engineer for Permit I (includes open and incinerator burning) I Section 335, Application for Permit to Appropriate Water: Contents These regulations (1) implement both state and Section 4373, Application for federal (EPA) clean air statutes, and (2) identify Environmental Permit: Contents the requirements for permits for each air pollution source (unless it is specifically These statutes 'set forth the requiremcnts, exempted) as well as ongoing monitoring procedures, and process of acquiring a permit requirements. for the appropriation of public Waters in Nevada. These statutes also establish the fees Drinking Water: associated with the processing and issuing of i Nevada Administrative Code: Chapter 445A. permits and sets forth the environmental Water Controls; Air Pollution: requirements. m:The Legislative Counsel I Sections 450-682, Public Water Systems Bureau, Carson City, Nevada, has not published I Sections 810-925, Underground Injection a corresponding chapter in the Nevada Control Administrative Code covering the implementation of Nevada Revised Statutes, These regulations (I) set the standards for Chapter 533. drinking water, specifications for certification, and control of variances/exemptions; (2) set Sewage Disposal: standards and requirements for the construction Nevada Administrative Code: Chapter 444, of wells and other water supply systems; and Sanitation: (3)establish the different classes of wells (Class Sections 750.840, Sewage Disposal 1 through V), aquifer exemptions, prohibited wells, operation, monitoring, etc., as well as This regulation establishes the standards, plugging and abandonment activities. regulations, permits, and requirements for septic tanks and other sewage disposal systems for Hazardous Waste: single-family dwellings, comiiiutiities. and Ncvada Administrative Code: Chapter 444, commercial buildings. Sanitation: Sections 842-8746, Facilities for the Management of Hazardous Waste Sections 8752.8788. Program for Reduction of Hazardous Waste Volume I, Appendix C c-12 ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Solid Waste: Wildlife: Nevada Administrative Code: Chapter 444, Nevada Administrative Code, Chapter 503, Sanitation: I Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping; Miscellaneous Sections 570-748, Solid Waste Disposal I Protective Measures: Sections 010-104, General Provisions This regulation sets forth the definitions, This regulation specifies the classification of methods of disposal, special requirements for wildlife and also specifies protected and hazardous waste, collection and transportation unprotected wildlife. standards, and classification of landfills. ‘2.5 Permits Underground Water, Wells, and Related Drilling Regulations: Current Operating Permits for the NTS and Nevada Administrative Code: Chapter 534, surrounding areas are presented in Table C-l Underground Water and W-ells: Sections 280-298, License to Drill Well C.6 Pollution Prevention and Waste Sections 300-450, Drilling, Construction, Minimization and Plugging of Wells Introduction These regulations establish the ownership of underground waters within the State and the The DOE is committed to preventing pollution and appropriation for beneficial use and specify the reducing waste generation at the NTS. This is conditions, requirements, and rules for accomplished through establishing partnerships with acquiring such water. The regulations also set private industry and complying with federal, state, forth the license requirements of well drillers; and local regulations. The elements of the DOWNV the requirements of drilling, construction, and Waste MinimizationPollution Prevention Program plugging of wells; and the protection of the address reporting requirements, compliance costs, aquifers from pollution and waste. reduction costs, employee concerns, environmental liability, training, and the reduction, recycle, and I Vegetation: reuse of commodities. These actions provide a safer I Nevada Administrative Code: Chapter 527, environment for future generations, a more cost- I Protection and Preservation of Timbered Lands, effective operation, and a safer working environment. I Trees, and Flora. The preparation of the DOE contractor’s Waste I Minimization and Pollution Prevention Awareness I This regulation provides for the broad Implementation Plan reflects the objectives and I protection of the indigenous flora of the State. milestones identified in the DOE/NV Waste Those plants, declared to be threatened with I Minimization and Pollution Prevention Awareness extinction, are placed on the state of Nevada’s 1 Plan; the 1994 DOE guidance document, “Guidance list of fully protected species. I For Preparation of Waste MinimirationPollution I Prevention Awareness Plan”; and the Water Pollution: I DOEIHeadquarters Defense Program and the I Nevada Administrative Code: Chapter 445A, I Environmental Management guidelines. The Water Controls; Air Pollution: I Pollution Prevention Awareness Program as I Sections 070-348, Water Pollution Control I identified in DOE Order 5400.1 has also been I incorporated into the DOWV Waste Minimization This regulation classifies the waters of the I Program. State, establishes standards for water quality of all waters in the State, and specifies discharge permit requirements and notification requirements. C-13 Volume 1, Appendix C Table C-1. Operating permits (Page I of 8) Issuing Agency Permit Facility Permit Name Permit Item Erp. Date and Regulation ActionlComments Not Numbered NTS General Water Hauling Temporary State of Nevada Regular sampling and monthly reporting. Agreement Safe Drinking Water Act 13-95-0034-X NTS General Hawdous Materials General 12J3 I195 State of Nevada storage Fire Marshall 95-12 NTS General Air Quality Operating Open Burning for 10107J95 State of Nevada Annual repon by I1101195 offire exercises Permit Tmining Clean Air Act and telephone notification to the State before each trt3ning with Class A flilmmables. 95~21 NTS, LLNLArea27 Air Quality Operating Omn Burn 01/21/96 State of Nevada Telephone notification to the State every tim Permit Clean Air Act there is a bum, followed by telephonc or written communication within 5 days. AP9711-0549 NTS, Area I Air Quality Operating Shaker Planl: RNary 03/21/00 State of Nevada Annual report of yearly production and AU stationary emission Permit Uryer; Awgste Clean Air Acl opaiun hours to be submimed to the Stare units Plant; Concrete Batch on OUOl Plant; Sandbagging Operation with Ancillq Systems AP9711-0554 NTS, Area6 Air Quality Operating 32 Storage Silos; I1121199 State ofNcvada Annual report of yearly production and All stationary eini~smn Permit 1 Scale Tanks; Clean Air Act operation hours to k submitted to the Statc units 1 Decontaminatlon on nu01 Boiler; I Diesel Fuel Storage Tank; 1 Gasoline storage Tank I Portable T2 C- Operating permits (Page 2 c Iuuing Agency Permit Facility Permit Name Permit Item Exp. Date and Regulation ActionlCommenlS NTS, Area 23 Air Quality Operating 3 Boilers; I2104199 State of Nevada Annual repon of yearly production and AU stationary emission Permit I Incinerator; Clean Air Act operation hours to be submitted to thc Statc units 1 Gaydine Storage 0" 02/01. Tank; I Diesel Fuel Storage Tank; 1 Portable Slant Screen; I Surface Disturbance for NTS- wide activities >NEY93001 NTS, Area 2; Swage Systcin Pcrniit Sewage Treatment 01131199 Stare of Nevada An Operations &Maintenance Manual has Arca 6, DAF Facility Clean Air Act heen submitted and approved by the State. Area 12; Area? 22 and An acceptable method of groundwater 23; Area 25; CP, protection is required prior to expiration of LANL. KSN, Yucca pennit. 4V289W10521 NTS, Area 27 bwrmcr Livcmmrr Explosive Ordnance i0/01192 Stace of Nevada Annual rcponing. Site closed 09194 Explosive Ordnance National Laboratory Renewal mqueil KeSOWCe Disposal Filcility Resourcc Conselvation suhmined; denied Conservation and and Kzcorery ACLPm A by statc EPA. Recovery Act Permit Application NTS General Notiticarion of KcW"riC 512000 State of Nevada Annual rcponing of wmc gcncrmon 111 ihc Area 5 Hamdous HrzaIdrduus Waste Conselvation and Kc\,,"rCc DOE Kcport 10 iiatz EPA due biannually Wase Storage Unit; Activitic? Rccovery Act Pan R Conserv:ition and (1996 for 1994-19951 Area I1 Explosive Permit for image and Rcciivery Acr Ordnance Disposal trcatrncnt 01 Unlr Hazardous Waste NTS Gcncral uerource Conscnallun Mmcd Waw Not Applicable Stare of Nevada and Recovery Act P.ut ll Disporal. Mixed KCS""rCC Perniit Application Waste Stor:igs (TRU) Consrruation and Recovery Act NTS Gmerni PCR Ccnrraror PCB Generation Indriinae State of Nevada Annual rrponing of PCtl slatus to the DOE Notiticarion Toxic Substance and sriw EPA NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 2. > L z z Vcilume 1, Appendix C C-16 ~ ~~ ~~ NEVADA TEST SITS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (2-17 Vnlume 1. Appendix C OO/SO~SO 8150-1 libd PLLLJ 9PZEJ 88623 0582di 86/2O/Z1 6~nzd1 PPLZdl SZYZd( 9L6ld( Table C-1. Operating permits (Page 6 of 8) Issuing Agency Permit Farilily Permit Name Perniil Item Exp. Date and Rqulation ActiodComments S12888 NTS General and Specific Scientific Collection of Scientific Collection 12131196 Stvtc of Nevada Annual rcpnn hy 0113llYh (W. Kent Ostler) Wildlifc Sampler of Wildlife Smplcs Nevada AdminisIrarive Code Chapter 503 ...... TTR ...... TTR, TIADS Mancamp Swage System Pennrt 08120192" Smtc of Nevada Submir quarterly rcport of production an, Indusulal Area Clean Water Act hours of operation to the rlalc of Nevada Permit transferred hack to the U S. Air FWCC. 'ITR. EPA Waw ID Not~ilcarionof NIA Stale of Nevada Submit annual rcpon of production and Numher TTR Hazardous Waste Resource Conservation and hours of operation 10 the stau of Nevada. Activities K~COVCNAct Permit uanrfened kck to the U S. An Force. TTR. SNL Compound Puhlic Water Sy5tem Well 6 OY130193 Slate of Nevada Submit monthly repon of production and Permit Safe Dnnking Warcr Act hours of operation to thz ?tale of Ncrada. Permit tranulrfcrred back to the U.S Air FWCC. Puhlic Watcr Systrin Well IA 09130193 Statc of Nerada Submit monrhly repon ofproducrion md Permit BLM Well Safe Urinking Water Act hwrs of operation to the stale of Nevada Prmiit trandkcd hack to thc IJ S Air F'WC Table C-1. Operating permits (Page 7 of 8) luuing ,Agency Permit Facility Pcrmil Name Permit Ilem and Rrgulation AcIiodCommcnts NY~5lX)I~ IZNC hhlic Water System Well A, Wull B. Well Submit monthly lspon of production and hour: Permit EH~2 of oprmliim lo thc ?tale of Nevada Prrmii tr;mfcircd back to thc II S. Air Force. NY-SW2~12NC lTR, TEAR IOKhli Well OYIi~ll~i Subirrii monthly rcport of prduamo and Imun ufopcr:siun to the UBLC uf Nevada Pzrmr rransfurrcd hack to the U.S. Air Forcc. OPlbhl TTK, Perm Storage Air Quality Operating Diesel #I Suhiuit :mnod rcpoil ~Cproducrionand hours Perm1 of ojxrmon to the Srate by 04115 Pcmlir tramfened back to the U.S. Aic Force OF2229 TIR. Concrete Batch Air Qmhy Operating Rms Concrete Barch State of Nevada Submir annual repon of production and hours Pl.rnl Pcmiir Plant. Clm" A,r Act of operation 10 the Stilts by 04/15, Pennit SIN 1317 transfcmd hack to the U.S Air Force. om231 "R, Concrete Batch Air Quality Operating C.S.Johnson Batch I12119196 State of Nevada Submit annual repon of producriun and hours Plan1 Pcrmit Plant, Clean Air Act of opzrarion 10 ihc State by 04115, Pemiit SIN 64079~1 transferred back to the U S~ Air Force. om445 Air Quality Operating Diesel U I 03/26/97 State of Nevada Submit mnnud repun of production and hours k",,lt Clcan Air Act olaperatiun to the Srate by 04/15. Permit transferred hack lo the U S. As Form Om444 lTR. Petro Storage Air Qudity Operating JP-4 0?126197 State olNcvada Suhrriil amud repon of prnduction and hours Prmiit C1r.m Air Act of operation to the State by 04/15 Pcrmit trimsfcrred back 10 the U.S. Air Force. Om447 TTK, Pctru Storage JP~4 03l?h/97 State of Nevada Suhmit annual repon of production and hours Clean Air Act of operation to thz Statc hy 04/15, Pcnnii rran\fmcd hack to the U S. Air Force. OF2448 A,r Qunllty Operatmg JP-4 03126197 Submit aiiiiiial repon 01 production and hour? Permit ofopemum lothe State hy l14115. Permit tr;uisfcrred hack m rhc L1.S. Air Force om449 TTR. Perm Storage 0i/?h/Y7 Stare of Nwrda Suhniii mwal rcpon of production and Ihurs Clcan Air Act ufopzration to Ihc Stiltc by 04/15 Pcnnit Table C-1. Operating permits (Page 8 of 8) ~ ~ ~ ~ Issuing Agency Permit Facility Permit Name Permit Item Em. Dale and Rermlation op24sn lTR, Incinerator Air Quality Operating XIDL 500CA 03126198 State of Nevada Suhmit annual rcpon of production and hours Pcrmit C1c;m Air Act of operation to the State by 04/15, Permit transferred back to the U.S. Air Force OP2455 ITR. Scrccn Air Quality Operating Cedarapids Double 041 17/97 State of Nevada Submit annual repon of production and hours Pennit Deck Scrccn (with Clean Air Act of operation to the State by 04/15 Pcmat Roll Crusher) tiansfcrrcd back to the US. Air Force OP2456 TlR.Crusher Air Quality Operating Cedampidr Roll 0411 7/97 State of Nevada Submit snnual report of praduction and hcxn krmll Clushrr Clean Alr Act of operation to the Stale by 04/15. Permit transferred back to the U.S Air Force. OP2457 TTK, Cmsher Air Quality Operaling Cedarapids Jaw 04/17/97 Stare of Nevada Submit annual repon of production and hours Prmn Crusher Clcan Air Act olopxation to the State by 04/15. Pemiit tr;insferred back to rhe U.S. Air Force OP2844 TTR, General Air Quality Operating Surface Disturbance 09/15/98 Sratc of Nevada Suhmit annual repon of production and houri Pennir Clean Air Act of uperatian lo the Stxc by 04/15, Permil transferred back to lhc U S Air Force. OP3172 ITR,Vapor Extraction Alr Qud~tyPermit to Extraction Unit 03/26/98 State of Nevada Submit annual rcpon of production and hours conslruct Clcan Air Act of operation to the Starc by 04115. Permit transferred hack to the U.S. Air Force. I Background I requirements for environmental protection and waste I I management, This framework is the basis of the I The National Environmental Policy Act emphasizes I NTS’s strategy to implement waste I minimizing the impacts that result from federal I minimization/pollution prevention elements and I activities. The National Environmental Policy Act’s I techniques in all operations. The DOENV Pollution I original purpose was to “promote efforts which will Prevention Program establishes commitments to use I prevent or eliminate damage to the environment.” available technology to reduce waste generation, I This is complementcd by both the Pollution monitor operations to encourage sound practices that I Prevention Act of 1990 and the Hazardous and Solid discourage waste generation, develop an awareness I Waste Amendments of 1984. Thcsc acts enable of environmental concenis and practices, and comply I federal agencies to dcvclop and implement waste with existing laws governing environmental I minimization/pollution prevention programs. This protection. I relationship was further strengthened in a 1993 I memorandum from the Council on Environmental DOE/TW Waste Minimizatioflollution I Quality, which recommended that federal agencies Prevention Program I incorporate pollution prevention principles, I techniques, and mechanisms throughout the National The DOE/NV Waste MinimizationiPollution I Environmental Policy Act planning and Prevention Program is consistent with the DOE and I decisionmaking processes (58 FR 18). other legal requirements. I I To help facilities meet regulatory requirements, the The DOWNV provides services and support for the I EPA has published strategies and guidelines on waste NTS operations. These responsibilities included I minimizationlpollution prevention. The Pollution waste minimization, pollution prevention, recycling, I Prevention Act of I990 establishes an environmental waste management, environmental restoration, and I protection hierarchy, with pollution technology transfer. I prevention/source reduction as the most desirable I environmental management option. If pollution The DOE/NV has adopted Emergency Planning and I cannot he prevented, then, in descending order of Community Right-to-Know Act and sitewide goals. I preference, environmentally sound recycling, The Waste MinimizationiPollution prevention I treatment, and disposal are listed as alternative waste Program establishes the following three levels of I management options. goals: I I Waste minimization centers on source reduction or Program goals for reducing the number of I recycling of solid wastes regulated by the Resource releases and offsite transfers of Emergency I Conservation and Recovery Act. Pollution Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act, I prevention complements the concept of waste I Section 313, Priority Pollutants, as specified in I minimization by focusing on the following: source I Executive Order 12856 and the DOE 1994 I reduction and other practices that reduce or eliminate I Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention I pollutants through increased efficiency in the use of I Crosscut Plan I raw materials, energy, water, or other resources or I I protection of natural resources by conservation. I Sitewide goals for minimization of wastes and I Waste minimization is an implied element of the I pollutants not covered by Executive Order I pollution prevention process. 1 12856 I I I The DOE has developed an overall pollution I Generator-specific goals for minimization of I prevention strategy and framework that is consistent I wastes and pollutants covered by Executive I with EPA’s recommendations and other requirements I Order 12856. I (e.g., Executive Order 12856) around which its I I facilities must stmcture their own programs. DOE I Orders 5400.1 and 5820.2A establish policy Volume 1, Appendix C c-22 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I Emergency Planning and Community Right-To- I Assessments identify, screen, and analyze waste I Know I minimization options to reduce or eliminate the I I generation of waste. These assessments provide a I The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to- I summary of hazardous materials used during 1 Know goals are specified by Executive Order 12856 I production and also provide for the identification of I and the 1994 DOE Waste Minimization Pollution I processes and operations that can and need to be I Prevention Crosscut Plan. The goals are to reduce I improved orreplaced to promote waste minimization. I the release and offsite transfer of pollutant chemicals I The Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessments I from the Section 313 toxic chemicals list by I serve as a tool for prioritizing waste minimization I December 31, 1999. To the maximum extent I efforts and ensure the proper setting of baseline I practicable, these reductions shall be achieved by I goals. I implementation of source reduction practices. The I I DOE/NV has adopted these goals as contained in I Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessments are I Executive Order 12856. I carried out by designated teams comprised of I I personnel who are trained in the assessment process I The baseline for measuring the SO-percent reduction I and have an understanding of relevant environmental I goal shall be the first year in which toxic chemical I regulations; waste minimization concepts; principles, I releases to the environment and off-site transfers of I techniques, and quality assurance requirements; I such chemicals for treatment and disposal were I purchasing; material control and inventory; and I publicly reported by the DOE. The baseline amount I operational line functions. In identifying waste I (1992 figures) is the aggregate amount of toxic I minimization options, the Pollution Prevention I chemicals reported in the baseline year for all of the I Opportunity Assessment teams concentrate on I company’s operations that meet the threshold I process modifications resulting in source reduction, I applicability requirements. I followed by recycling opportunities. I I I Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessments I Waste EvaluatiodAssessments I I I Generation of all forms of waste; i.e. sanitary, I Hazardous and industrial wastes are continually I hazardous, radioactive, and mixed, is reviewed to I being evaluated by generators. These evaluations I determine where waste minimization/pollution I provide information regarding product substitution, I prevention opportunities exist. One method of I cross-contamination control, use of on-site treatment I examining waste generation is through conducting I by existing equipment, and potential treatment using I Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessments. The I commercially available equipment. Pending resource I Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessments take I availability, Pollution Prevention Opportunity I place using a graded approach. A Level I I Assessments will be conducted by multidiscipline I Assessment establishes the site’s baseline I teams. I operational information. Level II Assessments are I I used to develop and screen waste I Waste Stream IdentificatiodWaste Tracking I minimizatiodpollution prevention opportunities and I I to recommend viable options for the implementation I The waste minimization goals are the elimination and I of those opportunities. The objective of a Level Ill I reduction of the generation, volume, or toxicity of I Assessment is to conduct a detailed analysis of the I wastes. Prioritization is based on the presence of I process for waste minimizatiodpollution prevention I hazardous waste constituents, including the I opportunities and to document the result of the I probability of constituent occurrence, and on the I process evaluation in a written report, as defined in I volume generated. Low-level waste is listed I the DOE/NV Pollution Prevention Opportunity I according to how the waste generated compares to I Assessment Plan and the DOENV Waste I the environmental and health risks associated with I Minimization and Pollution Prevention Awareness I the other waste categories. I Plan. I I c-23 Volume 1, Appendix C NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I Hazardous waste generated at the NTS are tracked I. Make employees aware of general I through several processes and databases. All waste- I environmental activities and hazards, plus I generating locations at the NTS are identified by I Waste Minimization Program requirements, I utilization of a Satellite Accumulation Area I goals, and accomplishments I designation. This is in conjunction with a waste I I stream identification number, which is then used as I. Inform employees of specific environmental I a cross verification of on-site manifested wastes to I tssnes I the off-site hazardous waste manifests. These I I manifests are available in both hard copies and I. Train employees on their rehponsihilities in I databases. I pollution prevention I I I Solid Waste Recognize employees for their efforts to I improve environmental conditions through I Solid waste such as paper, cardboard, and aluminum pollution prevention I cans are currently being recycled through a I subcontractor as well as food waste from cafeterias. Encourage employees to participate in pollution I prevention activities I Procurenlent Controls I Publicize success stories. I Purchase requisitions for the procurement of I materials purchased outside the "Just-in-Time" Through company publications, topics are published I system are reviewed as they are generated. If the with the intent of increasing the employees' I waste generated by these materials has the potential awareness of environmental issues and their role in I to be regulated under Comprehensive Environmental improving the environmental conditions in the I Response, Compensation, and Liability ActXesource workplace and community. I Conservation and Recovery Act, or as a potential of causing harm to individuals or the environment, the Training reviewers will only approve their purchase if there is no approved substitute for the product and the use for I Through DOE/NV guidance, management and the product cannot be discontinued by process I affected employees are routinely instructed in waste modification. If the material is approved for I minimization and pollution prevention policies and purchase, the personnel administering the "Just-in- I procedures. Environmental awareness training is Time" system preapprove the material and enter it I presented to both management and employees. into the "Just-in-Time" system for purchase. I Technology Transfer Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention Awareness Minimization technologies are limited to commercially available product substitutes and The Pollution Prevention Awareness Program recycling or treatment equipment. Because the required by DOE Order S400.1 and others has been DOE/NV generates small quantities of numerous incorporated in the company's training program. The waste types, significant reductions resulting from purpose of the Pollution Prevention Awareness individual actions will not occur. In most cases, Program is to foster the philosophy that prevention is recycling is cost prohibitive because of the small superior to remediation. The goal of the program is volume of recyclable waste generated at each to incorporate pollution prevention into the operation compared to equipment costs. decisionmaking process at all levels. The Pollution Prevention Awareness Program has the following objectives: Volume 1, Appendix C C-24 Appendix D DISTRIBUTION LIST NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Federal Government Freedom of Information Joan Glickman Keading Room US. Department of Energy Washington, DC Betty Hallway Public Reading Rootn, Nevada U.S. Department of Energy Operations Office U.S. Department of Energy Jed Hanison US. Environmental Protection Agency Lab of Structural Biology & Molecular Med, University of California Shelley Haynie Los Angeles U.S. Department of Energy Theodore Angle Jim Holland U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. National Park Service John Baie Eloisa Hopper HQ USAE'iPentagon Environmental Management Nellis AFB David Bedsun Deiense Nuclear Agency David M. Howell U.S. Department of Energy Stephen D. Belew U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Lee Jesse US. Department of Energy William L. Belke U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Helene Klump U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Major Andrew M. Bourland Air Warfare Center Nicholas Lailan U.S. Environmental Protection Agency James P. Canipe Nellis AFB Milton Lammering U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Greg Czajkowski US.Environmental Protection Agency Earl Leming TDECAJS. Department of Energy Mary Jo Elpers U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service US. Environmental Protection Agency San Francisco George M. Essington US. National Park Service Director, Office of Radiation Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency J. Mark Fair US.Department of Commerce Julie Madden U.S. Department of Energy Anne Garner U.S. Bureau of Keclamation D-1 Volume 1, Appendix D NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Federal Government Wayne Marchant Ronald S. Sadora US. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Department of Defense Felicia Marcus Kathleen Shimmin US. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nancy J. Marvel Steven W. Slaten U.S. Environmental Protection Agency US. Department of Energy Nora McCee James F. Small U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Department of Labor Carlos Mendoza Alexis Strauss US. Fish & Wildlife Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency John Miesner James Tallerico U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Dan Morgan Douglas A. Trudeau U.S. Department of the Interior US. Geological Survey William Q. Nelson Howard J. Vaughn U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Aviation Administration Michael D. Noah Kenneth Voget Office of U.S. Navy's Commander of Fleet U.S. Department of the Interior Activities Paul J. Weeden Alan O'Neill U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Department of the Interior Dr. Y. Weiler George E. Ramsey U.S. Atomic Energy Commission U.S. Bureau of Apprenticeship &Training Deanna M. Wieman District Ranger U.S. Environmental Protection Agency US. Department of Agriculture Col. John Wilcox Ernest L. Ray United States Air Force US. Department of the Interior Nellis AFB Gary M. Russell Laura K. Yoshi U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gary Ryan Dianna L. Young USDepartment of the Interior U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Volume 1, Appendix D D-2 ~ ~ - ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Sarah Besser Hugh Ferree Office of the Honorable Richard R. Bryan Office of the Honorable Hany Reid Honorable Richard R. Bryan Jerry Gideon US. Senate Office of the Honorable Robert Dorman Joan Dimmitt Sonia Joya Office of the Office of the Honorable John Ensign Honorable Barbara F. Vucanovich Honorable Jesse Helms Honorable Robert Doman U.S. Senate U.S. House of Representatives Honorable Harry Reid Honorable John Ensign U. S. Senate U.S. House of Representatives David Sullivan L. J. Ferderber Office of the Honorable Jesse Helms Office of the Honorable Harry Reid Honorable Barbara F. Vucanovich U.S. House of Representatives D-3 Volume 1, Appendix D ~ ~ ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT State Government Administrator, Department of Business & Honorable Bob Coffin Industry, State of Nevada Nevada State Senate Chairman, Public Service Commission Michael K. Cox State of Nevada Nevada Wildlife Division Commissioner, Indian Commission Charlotte Crawford State of Nevada Department of Human Resources Honorable Dennis Allard Honorable Frankie Sue Del Papa Nevada State Assembly Office of the Attorney General Honorable Morse Arberty, Jr. Lewis H. Dodgion Nevada State Assembly US. Environmental Protection Agency llonorable Kathy Augustine Jeanne L. Douglas Nevada State Senate State of Nevada Honorable Douglas Albert Bache William F. Durbin Nevada State Assembly Minerals Division Karen Baggett Robert E. Erickson Commission on Economic Development Legislative Counsel Bureau Honorable Max Bennett Jimmie Garrett Nevada State Assembly Industrial Relations Division Honorable Deanna Braunlin Honorable Chris Giunchigliani Nevada State Assembly Nevada State Assembly Honorable Maureen E. Brower Honorable David Goldwater Nevada State Assembly Nevada State Assembly Honorable Barbara E. Buckley James F. Goodfellow Nevada State Assembly Emergency Management Office Julie A. Butler Heather G. Gray State of Nevada Clearinghouse Nevada State Wildlife Division Honorable Vonne Chowning Donald H. Haight Nevada State Assembly Office of the Deputy Attorney General Honorable Jack D. Close Honorable Lonnie L. Hammergren Nevada State Assembly Lieutenant Governor of Nevada Volume 1, Appendix D D-4 NEVAD.4 TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT State Government Honorable William Z. Harrington Honorable Mark Manendo Nevada State Assembly Nevada State Assembly James P. Hawke Stanley R. Marshall Emergency Management Office Bureau of Health Protection Services Radiological Health Section Honorable Dean A. Heller Office of the Secretary of State Robert K. Martinez Division of Water Resources Liliam Hickey Board of Education Honorable Donald J. Mello Nevada State Assembly Douglas E. Hunt Wildlife Division John F. Mendoza Public Service Commission Chairman Honorable Mark A. James Nevada State Senate Honorable Bob Miller Governor of Nevada Patricia Krajcech Board of Education Honorable Jan Monaghan Nevada State Assembly Saundra Krenzer Nevada State Assembly Susan C. Moore Emergency Management Office Cheryl Lau Environmental Protection Office Peter G. Morros Conservation and Natural Resources Directoi Paul J. Liebendorfer Environmental Protection Office Honorable Joseph M. Neal, Jr Nevada State Senate Walter S. Lombard0 Minerals Division Honorable Dennis Nolan Nevada State Assembly Robert Loux Nuclear Waste Projects Director Honorable Ann O'Connell Nevada State Senate Honorable Sue Lowden Nevada State Senate Honorable William R. ODonnell Nevada State Senate D. Keith Maki Nevada Department of Transportation, Honorable Genie Ohrenschall Planning Division Nevada State Assembly Loren J. Malkiewich Deeann Parsons Legislative Council Bureau, Director Nevada State Energy Ollice D-5 Vvlurne 1, Appendix D NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT State Government Honorable Richard Perkins Thomas E. Stephens Nevada State Assembly State of Nevada Honorable Jon C. Potter Joseph C. Strolin Nevada State Senate Nuclear Project Agency Honorable Robert Price Honorable Jeannine Stroth-Coward Nevada State Assembly Nevada State Assembly Joseph A. Quinn Suzanne E. Sturtevant Emergency Management Division Environmental Protection Division G .W. (Bill) Quinn Hany W. Swainston Water Resources, Chief Engineer Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects Honorable Raymond D. Rawson Ronald C. Swirczek Nevada State Senate Industrial Relations Division Honorable John B. Regan Yvonne S. Sylva Nevada State Senate Board of Health John E. Reichelt Honorable Sandra Tiffany Nevada Highway Patrol Nevada State Assembly Honorable Mike Schneider Honorable Dina Titus Nevada State Assembly Nevada State Senate James Scott John B. Walker Small Business Administration Nuclear Waste Project Office Honorable Gene W. Segerblom Diana L. Weigmann Nevada State Assembly Office of the Governor Honorable Raymond C. Shaffer Honorable Wendell P. Williams Ncvada State Senate Nevada State Assembly Gerald J. Sieren Nicholas Williams Environmental Protection Office Manager State of Nevada Honorable Dianne Steel Nevada State Assembly Volume 1, Appendix D D-6 ~~- ~ ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIKONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Local Government Executive Director Executive Director Boulder City Chamber of Commerce Henderson Chamber of Coininerce Manager Administrative Assistant City of Beatty Town Board Lander County Commission Planning and Development Arnie Adamsen City of Needles, CA City of Las Vegas Planning and Economic Development Christina Aguilera City of North Lds Vegas Clark County Office of the Mayor Robert J. Andrews City of St. George, UT Clark County Office of Emergency Management Chairman Jim Andms Clark County Commission City of Mesquite Council Office of Emergency Management Yvonne Atkinson-Gates Clark County Clark County Commissioner Clerk's Office John L. Avery Churchill County Commission City of Caliente Clerk's Office Phillip D. Bannett Esmeralda County Woodfords Community Council Chairman Ann Barron Eureka County Commission Director, Dept. of Economic Development City of Henderson Planning Commission Lincoln County Larry K. Barton City Manager of Lai Vegas Community Services Chairman Lincoln County Commission Wade M. Barton Esmeralda County Commission Clerk's Office Mineral County Commission Dennis A. Bechtel Clark County Nuclear Warte DiLision Chairman Mineral County Commission Bob Reckett Nye County County Clerk White Pine County Vicki G. Bergdale Boulder City D-7 Volume 1, Appendix D NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Local Government Honorable Jay D. Bingham Ira "Red" Copass Clark County Commission Nye County Honorable Iris Bletsch Bill Copeland Boulder City Council Amargosa Valley Planning Board Phillip A. Blount Dr. Brian Cram, Superintendent Clark County Nuclear Waste Division Clark County School District David Boyd Robert H. Cullins, Jr. Amargoba Valley Planning Board Las Vegas Fire Department City of Amargosa Peter Cummings Les Bradshaw City of Las Vegas Nye County Nuclear Waste Amanda Cyphers Lawrence A. Bray City of Henderson City of Amargosa Advisory Council Michael S. Cyphers Irene Bulton Clark County Fire Department Owens Valley Board of Trustees Albert C. Douglas Honorable Matthew Q. Callister City of Las Vegas Las Vegas City Council Michael Dyal Wayne M. Cameron City of North Las Vegas White Pine County Board of Commissioners Donald B. Eppley Ken Carter, Mayor City of Boulder City City of Mesquite Jack Finney Richard Carver Coordinator of Emergency Management Nye County City of Henderson Alan Chamberlain George Forbes Lincoln County City of Boulder City Honorable Paul J. Christensen Dr. Don Francom Clark County Commissioners Superintendent of Schools Lincoln County Pat Christensen Nye County Theron Goynes City of North Las Vegas Jack Clark City of Henderson Honorable Robert Groesbeck, Mayor City of Henderson Volume 1, Appendix D D-8 ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Local Government Andy Hafen Honorable Eric Lundgaard, Mayor City of Henderson City of Boulder City Phyliss A. Hargrove Florindo Mariani Las Vegas Department of Community White Pine County Planning and Development The Honorable Daniel McArthur Paul Henderson, City Manager City of St. George, UT City of Mesquite Honorable Michael J. Mc Donald Vaughn Higbee City of Las Vegas Lincoln County School District Nancy Mc Neil1 Juanita Hoffman City of North Las Vegas Esmeralda County Honorable Cameron McRae Richard B. Holmes Nye County Commissioner Clark County Bernie Merlin0 Lorraine Hunt Nye County Assessor Clark County Commissioner Brad R. Mettam Honorable Erin Kenny Inyo County Planning Department Clark County Commissioner Dean Molburg Donna Kristaponis Boulder City Fire Department City of Las Vegas Robert S. Nelson Honorable Jan Laverty-Jones, Mayor Nye County Office of Emergency Management City of Las Vegas Honorable Robert Nolen Jeffery K. Leake Las Vegas City Councilman Economic Development Officer City of Henderson Russel W. Peacock White Pine County Emergency Management Honorable James L. Ley Clark County Commissioner Mary Key Peck City of Henderson Leslie Long Department of Public Works W. Wayne Perkins City of North Las Vegas Nye County Honorable Kevin Phillips, Mayor City of Caliente D-9 Volume 1, Appendix D NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Local Government Jason Pitts Philip D. Speight, Manager Nuclear Waste Project Office City of Henderson Lincoln County John Sullard Garland Price City of Boulder City City of Pahrump Town Board Glen Van Roekel Honorable Gary Reese Director of Community Development City of Las Vegas Councilman City of Caliente Arte Robb Englebret von Tiesenhausen Nye County Dept. of Comp. Planning Nuclear Waste Division Honorable William E. Robinson, Councilman Clark County City ofNorth Las Vegas Robert Weber, Building Director Bernie Romer Clark County White Pine County Sheriff Paul K. Wilkins Honorable James K. Seastrand, Mayor Building and Safety Director City of North Las Vegas City of Las Vegas Ralph Shackelford Honorable Myra Williams General Services Director Clark County Commissioner City of Las Vegas David Wood Daryls Smith City of Henderson Nye and Esmeralda Counties Honorable Bruce L. Woodbury Robert Sorenson, Town Manager Clark County Commissioner City of Tonopah Volume I, Appendix D D-10 ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT American Indian Gerald W. Allen Darlene G. Byrd Nevada Indian Commission Lovelock Paiute Tribal Council Genial Anderson, Chairperson Eldene Cervantes Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Shivwitts Band of Southern Paiutes Cheryl Andreas, chairperson Jerry Charles Big Pine Paiute Tribe Ely Shoshone Tribe Richard W. Arnold Lee Chavez Pahrump Paiute Tribe Executive Director Official Tribal Contact Representative Las Vegas Indian Center Bishop Paiute Tribe Rose Marie Bahe Donald Cloquet Benton Paiute Tribe Official Tribal Contact Representative Las Vegas Indian Center Darryl Bahe, Representative Benton Paiute Tribe Betty Cornelius Official Tribal Contact Representative Gloria Benson Colorado River Indian Tribes Kaibab Paiute Tribe and Southern Paiute Indian Tribe Association Charlotte Domingo Shivwitts Band of Southern Paiutes James Birchim, Chairperson Yomba Shoshone Tribe Donna Duckey Official Tribal Contact Representative Angie Boland, Acting Chairperson Big Pine Paiute Tribe Timbisha Shoshone Tribe Wayne Dyer Robert Boyt, Chairperson Yomba Shoshone Tribe Las Vegas Indian Center Daniel Eddy, Jr. Angelita Bulletts Colorado River Indian Tribes Official Tribal Contact Representative Kaibab Paiute Tribe Pauline Esteves Official Tribal Contact Representative James C. Burton Timbisha Shoshone Tribe Nevada Indian Environmental Coalition Maurice Frank Leslie Button Official Tribal Contact Representative Official Tribal Contact Representative Yomba Shoshone Tribe Lone Pine Paiute Tribe Grace Goad Irene Button Official Tribal Contact Representative Owens Valley Board of Trustees Timbisha Shoshone Tribe D-11 Volume 1, Appendix D NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT American Indian Boyd Graham Marion Mc Fee Duckwater Shoshone Indian Tribe Official Tribal Contact Representative Shivwits Band of Southern Paiutes Janie Harper Official Tribal Contact Representative Calvin Meyers Chemehuevi Paiute Tribe Official Tribal Contact Representative Moapa Band of Paiutes Eleanor Hemphill Fort Independence Paiute Tribe Rosalyn Mike Moapa Band of Paiutes Gloria Hernandez Official Tribal Contact Representative Vernon Miller Las Vegas Paiute Tribe Official Tribal Contact Representative Fort Independence Paiute Tribe Raymond A. Hoferer Walker River Paiute Tribal Council Alfredd Mitre Las Vegas Paiute Indian Tribe Keith Honaker Duckwater Shoshone Indian Tribe Gaylene Moose Official Tribal Contact Representative Levi Hooper Blg Pine Paiute Tribe Official Tribal Contact Representative Yomba Shoshone Tribe Alvin Moyle Fallon PaiutelShoshone Tribal Council Glenn Hooper Yomba Shoshone Tribe Priscilla Naylor Official Tribal Contact Representative Roy Kennedy Fort Independence Paiute Tribe Timbisha Shoshone Tribe Neddeen Naylor Lawanda Laffoon Official Tribal Contact Representative Official Tribal Contact Representative Lone Pine Paiute Tribe Colorado River Indian Tribes Eunice Ohte Mathew Leivas Official Tribal Contact Representative Chemehuevi Paiute Tribe Moapa Band of Paiutes Cynthia Lynch Cynthia Osife Official Tribal Contact Representative Kaibab Paiute Tribe Pahrump Paiute Tribe Michelle Saulque Sally Marks Official Tribal Contact Representative Ely Shoshone Indian Tribe Benton Paiute Tribe Volume 1, Appendix D D-12 -~~ ~-~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT American Indian Gevene Savala Donald Walters Official Tribal Contact Representative Chemehuevi Paiute Tribe Kaibah Paiute Tribe Richard Wilder Alex Shepherd Fort Independence Paiute Tribe Paiute Tribe of Southern Utah Patrick T. Williams Allen Summers Bureau of Indian Affairs Bishop Paiute Tribe Sandra Yonge Peggy Vega Lone Pine Paiute/Shoshone Tribe Official Tribal Contact Representative Bishop Paiute Tribe Raymond Yowell, Council Chief Western Shoshone National Council Meml Wall Official Tribal Contact Representative Shivwits Southern Band of Paiute D-13 Volume 1, Appendix D NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SrATEMENT Other Interested Patties Concerned Citizens Committee Tim Carlson NTS Development Corporation Dyer Public Library Mary Kaye Cashman East Las Vegas Library Cashman Equipment Company Friends of Nevada Wilderness Dick Conner North Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Nevada Black Chamber of Commerce Diane Cravotta Executive Director Community Advisory Board Member Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force James Dalton, Ph.D Stephen Alastuey Army of Israel Citizens Alert Mary Lee Dazey William Andrews Citizens Alert University of Nevada, Las Vegas Robert Deegan Nick Aquilina Sierra Club Nuclear Waste Task Force Clint Arnoldus Gale Dupree First Interstate Bank of Nevada Nevada Wildlife Federation, Inc John Bangerter Marvin Einerwold Army of Israel Nevada Wildlife Commission Joseph Blackburn Joseph N. Fiore The Alliance of Atomic Veterans Community Advisory Board Member Vernon Brechin Dale Foust Tri Valley Care's TRW Environmental Safety Systems Chris Brown John Gardner I1 Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member Nevada Black Chamber of Commerce Jerry Brown Jo Anne Garrett We the People Citizens Alert David Buer John Goolsby Nevada Desert Experience The Howard Hughes Corporation Nilak Butler Marilynn Hall Grcenpeace Community Advisory Board Member Volume 1, Appendix D D.14 ~~ ~ __- ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties Maria Heaton Doug Lombardi Boulder City Chamber of Commerce Oak Ridge National Laboratory James Henderson James M. Long Community Advisory Board Member Int'l Association of Sheet Metal Workers Daniel Hirsch Thomas Lorinez Committee to Bridge the Gap Southern Nevada Federal Community Advisory Board Somer Hollingsworth Nevada Development Authority Mike Maffe Southwest Gas Corporation Roger L. Jacobson, Ph.D Desert Research Institute Robert Maichle Nevada Wildlife Federation Dianne Jett Sprint Central Telephone Charles Malone Environmental Consultant Melinda Kassen Environmental Defense Fund Bill Martin Pioneer Citizens Bank Keith Kerner Town of Beatty Advisory Board Ben Martinez Defense Nuclear Agency Robert Kessler Physicians for Social Responsibility Alice Martz Henderson Chamber of Commerce Gerald Kmetz lnt'l Brotherhood of Painters Lathia Mc Daniels MAWAG Tech.. lnc Joella Krall Oak Ridge National Laboratory W. Curt McGee Bechtel Nevada Corporation Dawn Lappin Wild Horse Organized Assistance Joe McGee Western Tech Stephanie Lynnette Lawton Community Advisory Board Member Rose McKinney-James Corporation for Solar TechRenewable Larry Litchfield Resource Associated Builders/Contractors Georgia McDonald Marilyn J. Littlepage League of Women Voters of Nevada Community College of Southern Nevada Brian Meacham Utah Peace Test D-15 Volume 1, Appendix D NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties Otto Merida Connie Simkins Latin Chamber of Commerce Lincoln County Record Richard Nocilla Stanley Sims Desert West Realty Nye County Robert Noms Dave Smith Natural Resources Defense Council First Security Bank of Nevada Mary O'Brien Dave Smith Community Advisory Board Member Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory John O'Reilly Roger Smith Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce SANDIAITTR Margaret Quinn Vernon F. Sousa League of Women Voters of Nevada National Association of Atomic Veterans Ed Richardson Joanne S. Stockill Bechtel Nevada Corporation Community Advisory Board Member E. Paul Richitt, Jr. Candace Stowell University of Nevada, Las Vegas Comprehensive Planning A. C. Robison Ken Struthers Robison Seidler, Inc. Nevada Wildlife Federation, Inc Mimi Rodden Shari Thomas Cultural Resource Sprint Central Telephone Wanda Rosenbaum Frank Tussing Boulder City Peace and Social Justice Community Advisory Board Member William Rosse, Sr. Jeff Van Ee Western Shoshone Sierra Club Shashi Sathisan William L. Vasconi University of Nevada, Las Vegas Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Randy Schaefer Johnny Vaught Southern Nevada Homebuilders Environment Property Services Dale Schutte Troy E. Wade Community Advisory Board Member Nevada Alliance for Defense Energy &Business Volume 1, Appendix D D-16 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties Rebecca Warnsley Cedar City Spectrum Nevada Nuclear Waste Churchill County Library Cari Wells North Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Director Citizens Alert Mike Wolicki United Transportation Union Citizens Voice Fred Wright Citizens Hall United Brotherhood of CarpenterdJoiners Nevada Appeal Robert Young Asian Chamber of Commerce Clark County Library Katherine Yuracko Community College of Southern Nevada Library Yuracko and Associates Daily Sentinel AHC Enterprises Defense Nuclear Agency Science Editor Arizona Republic Denver Post Bureau Chief Deseret News Associated Press Donald Zhark Associates Beatty Community Library Dons Shirkey Library Boulder City Library Douglas Daily Dispatch Director, Land Operations Office Bul-cau of Indian Affairs El Mundo Business Today Elko County Library Business Week Environmental News Network Calientc Branch Library Churchill County Library Caliente Library Fallon Public Library Carpenters Union Local 1780 Floor Coverer Glaziers Allied Trades Carson City Public Library Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn Casa Grande Dispatch Gateway Gazette D-17 Volume 1, Appendix D ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties Gloworm Gazette News Director KIOQ FM Radio Goldfield Library Public Affairs Green Valley Library KIZS Community College of Southern Ne.vada Public Affairs Henderson Campus KJUL Radio Editor Director, Public Affairs Henderson Home News KKMR High Country News News Director KLAS-TV Channel 8 Humboldt County Library Public Affairs Impact Assessment, Inc. KLAV Business Agent, Local Union No 433 Kleinfelder, Inc. Int'l Assw Bridge Structural Workers Public Affairs Int'l Energy Systems KLTN Public Affairs News Director KCEP KMZQ Radio News Director Public Affairs KDXU Radio KODS News Director Public Affairs KELY Radio KOMP Public Affairs Public Affairs KEYV KORK Public Affairs News Director KFMS KOWL Public Affairs Public Affairs KGLE KPLY Public Affairs Public Affairs KGYM KPTL Public Affairs Public Affairs KUA KRCK 91 FM Volume 1, Appendix D D-18 ~- NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties Public Affairs News Director KREC KVLV Public Affairs Public Affairs KRJC KXEQ Public Affairs Public Affairs KRLT KXPT Public Affairs Public Affairs KRLV KZAK Public Affairs Lake Tahoe Branch Library KMO Las Vegas Branch Library News Director KROWlKBUL News Lincoln County Library Public Affairs Lincoln County Record KRRI Logan Herald Journal Public Affairs KRXV National Desk Los Angeles Times News Director, Public Affairs KRZQ News Bureau McGraw-Hill, Inc. Public Affairs KTHO Mechanical Contractors Association KTNW Radio Mesa Tribune News Director Mineral County Library KTVN-TV Moapa Valley Library News Director KUDA-FM General Manager Moapa Valley Water District Public Affairs KUNR National Electrical Contractors Association Public Affairs National Maritime Union KUNV National Public Radio News Director KVBC-TV Channel 3 D-19 Volume 1, Appendix D NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties Field Director Red Rock Audubon Society National Wild Horse Association Review-Miner Native Nevadan Salt Lake Tribune Nevada Desert Experience Science News Nevada Government Today Scottsdale Progress Nevada Highway Patrol Senior Citizens Library Nevada Senior World Newspaper Senior Life Chairman, Economic Adjustment Task Force Nevada Test Site Silver Peak Library Nevada Wildlife Federation, Inc. Chairman, Environmental Soroptimist Int'l of Greater Las Vegas North Lake Tahoe Bonanza South Fork Band Look North North Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Sparks Tribune North Las Vegas Public Library The Desert Echo Newspaper Nuclear Waste News The News Ogden Standard-Examiner The Quest Group/ICF Oil and Gas Journal The Spectrum Peavine Branch Library Science Writer The Washington Post Petroleum Information Time-Standard Phoenix Gazette Tonopah Public Library Plasters and Cement Masons Science Writer Director Tri-City Herald Pro Video Tucson Star ProspectoriPennysaver Tulsa World Rangley Times Volume 1, Appendix D D-20 ~~ ~-~ ~~ -~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL Eh’VIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties Bureau Chief Jane Allen United Press International Alan Allred Local Union No. 5282 United Steel Workers of America Brian Amme Noble H Getchell Library Rita Anderson University of Nevada Reno Manna Anderson James Dickinson Library Mathew Anderson University of Nevada, Reno Richard Anderson Valley Times Tim Anderson Washington County Library Andy Anderson Washoe County Library Jed Angus Community College of Southern Nevada Library West Charleston Campus Gary Arbuckle Western Oil Reporter Maria Ardila-Coulson White Pine Library Rick Anal Wyoming Eagle-Tribune Jake Armor Yuma Daily Sun James R. Arnold Dennis Abernathy Laurence J. Ashbaugh Joseph Aceto Cindy Ashley Mickey J. Adams Keith Ashworth William Albright Ed Atchison Walter Alderson Steven Atkinson Kenneth Alkema Bob Bailey Peter Allan Mark Balen Duane Allen Randy Bake D-21 Volume 1, Appendix D ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties Bill and Rose Barber Cecil Black Donald Barber Linda Blanco Charles R. Barrett George Blankenship Max Barrett Jim and Barbara Blumer Susan Barrow Charles R. Boardman Jon Barth Paul Bolton Yosef Bartov, Ph.D. Angelo J. Bomasuto Mike Baughman E. J. Bonano Michael Bauser Lisa Bond Mary Bayer Tony Bonnici Ben Beaty Lou Borghi Chris Beck John Bowles Donna Becker Ted Bowling Dee Beckstead Kim Bowman Kathy Behling Jim Boyd Roger Bell Audrie Bradbury Herb Bentley Jim Bradham Thomas V. Bentz Steve Bradhurst Frank Bergwall Henry Brean Bill Berkey Sonja Breen Robert Bigelow Kevin Brennan James Biggs Richard Brennen Randy Black Ron Briggs Volume 1, Appendix D D-22 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties Rose Bnnghurst Jim Butler Kelly Bnnghurst Frank Caine Kathie Brinkerhoff Judy Calder Scott J. Broberg Glenn Campbell Susan Brockus Bob Campbell Dr. James Broon Michael Cancellier Bonita Brown Andrew Caputo Suzannc Brown Christi Carpenter Jeff Brown Luther Carter Joseph and Susan Brown Gwen Carter-Bogh Marcus B. Brown Darlene M. Cartier Betty Brown Connie M. Carville Joe Brown Melody Cawthon Paula Brown David Chanin Lana Buehrer Ed Chapuis Grace Bukowski David L. Chavez Saralyn Bunett Dr. S. Y. Chen Leon Burger Bill Cheshire Diane Burger Ann Marie Choephel Ray Burke Jon Christensen Lonnie Bums Marlin Christensen Jim Busch Christopher Christie Ward Bushee Bruce W. Church D-23 Volume 1, Appendix D NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties Jerry Claborn Dale Costich Lucille Clark Norvin "Pete" Cox Chris Clernents Dave Cox prank Clifford Bill Craig Erica Cline Elvin Cramer Jack Coffey Larry Crim Eric Cole Martha Crossland Crystal Collier Eve Culverwell Keith Collins Leslie Cusick Mary Collins-Shepard Richard Cuthrell Steve Comer Ryan C y Michael Conroy Noralea Dalhn Joseph Consolo lack Dallman Sherry Cook Richard Dalson Michael P. Cool Paul and Wendy Dame Matthew Coolidge Christine Datian Dallas Coonrod John L. Davis Nate Cooper Patricia Dawson Harry Copeland Jacque De Marquess Carol Corbett James De Meo Patrick Corbett Gregory De Sart Byron W. Cork Pat De Vore Dr. James Deacon Manny Cortez Volume 1, Appendix D D-24 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties Gerry Decker Rusty Durante Gusirppe Del Corto Femi Durosinmi Jim Denier Joe Dykes Sally Devlin Brian Dykstra Dick Dewitt Delyle Eastwood, Ph.D. Dennis Deziel Meinrad Eberle Dennis Dezwiet Merik Edge1 Russell Di Bartolo Peter Ediger Carl Di Bella Johnnie H. Edwards, Jr. Commissioner Don Dills Greg Elle Ned E. Dillwith Jean Elle Patricia Dimartini Atef Elzeftawy Ken Divich Jessie Emmett Earle Dixon Priscilla Empey Jim Doenges Jerry D. Ennis Dr. John F. Doherty James H. Enstrom Geeoff Dornan Tom Enyeart Cheryl Drossneer Dr. John Epps Dick Duffey Ed Eschner Bob Duncan Heidi Eskew Lori Duncan Marvin R. Esmund Melynda Dunn Heather Estes Dick Dunning Claude Evans D-25 Volume 1, Appendix D NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties J. Erich Evered Shirley Fmsh Dawn Everett Kevin Fuller Francina Everett Bob Furtek Ron Faich Vern Gahbard, Jr. Jerry Fate Alan J. Gaddy Bill Fawcett, Ph.D. Pam Gannon Joe Fedor Tom Gardner Pat Feivish David Gay Ray Fenster Dot Gayton Herinan Ferdinand0 Cliff Gentry Jon Ferguson Keith Steward Geofon Sandy Ferrell Gail Gerstner-Miller Ralph Figueroa Tim Gesner John and Carolyn Finan Richard Getschman Diann Fiore Fred Gibson, Jr. Leonard Fiorend Lon Gilbert Adarn Fire Maureen Gilgan Jeanne Fohes A1 Gionnotti Michael G. Foley, Ph.D. Ernest Goitein Jeny Frederickson C. Carlos Gonzales Sherman K. Fredricks David Gonzales Christopher K. Freeman Sydney J. Gordon Bryan 1). Friedman Nancy Gosing Volume 1, Appendix D D-26 NEVADA TESTSITE FINAL ENVlRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties Nancy Gott Don Ham Robert Goudge Lawrence F. Hancock Fred Gowers Carolyn Hansen T. J. Grady Glen Hanson Terry Graves Kevin Harbert Susan Greene Christopher J. Harhin Brian L. Greenspun Bill Harbour Wendy Griffin Andy Hare Jane Gross Kent Harper James Grosscurth Jack Harpster Clara Groves Heidi Harr Frank Gmnstead Billy Harrell Mary Ann Gubler Joan M. Harris Dr. Kenny C. Guinn Tom Hart Rex Gunderson Randy Hartwig Becky Gurka Larry Hatfield Augie Gurrola Jerry Hawe Denny Haas Mason Hayes Scott Hacking John Hayes John Hadder Anthony Hechanova Robert S. Hadfield Clyde Hedin Joni S. Hall Doug Henderson Ken Hall Roger Henning D-27 Volume I, Appendix D NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP.ACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties Paul Henry Eric Hulnick David A. Hicks Stephen Humphries Jean Higgens Richard B. Hunter Kurt Hildebrand Ken Hunter Nick Himaras Dr. Liang-chi Hus Richard L. Hinckley Leonard Hvesties Joe Hinds Carol Infranca Elaine Hiruo Diane Isbell Bill Hoehn Brent Israelsen John Hogan Anthony Jackson Mary Holland Jim Jackson John E. Holman Nicholas Jahr India Holmes Clifford Jarman Jeannine Holt Dr. Richard Jarvis Dalton L. Hooks Andrew Jenkins Rick Hoover Jeff Jennings Marcia House.1 William S. Jewett Mark Howard T. W. John Dave Howard Abby Johnson Constance K. Howard Janice Johnson Danilie Howe Harold Johnson Patricia Hrrin Linda Johnson-Henderson Liang Chi Hsu Ralph Johnston Volume 1, Appendix D D-28 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties Steve Jones Robert Kinder Bruce Jones Shirley Kinder Robert Jones Mary Kirby Adrian Jueschke Daniel J. Klaich Keith Julian Janice Klein Mike Kahle Robert Knudson Hank Kahn Beverly Kohfield Asha Kalia Charles Kondrack Alan Kalt Robin Kosseff Don Kaminski John Kramer Bob Katson Konrad Krauskopf Robert Kaufmann Francis Kremer Andy Kaye Peter A. Krenkel David Kearney Larry Krenzien Bill Kelly Kimberly Kuehne Harry Kelman Prof. P.K. Kuroda Robert Kemp Susan Lacy Matt Kennedy Scott Ladd Joan F. Kerschner Steve Ladnier Charles R. Kessler Karen Lane Hank Khan Martin Lane Mike Kidder Larry Lane Ginger King Rick Lange D-29 Volume 1, Appendix D - NEVALIA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STA7EMENT Other Interested Parties William Larson Frankie Lukasko Raymond Lashure Karen Lynne Dardara Leader Martin Mackay Lavo D. Leavitt Robert Macy Dave Lechel Joseph Mader Andrew Leduc John D. Madole Arnold Leibovit Tom Mahood Jerry Lein H. W. Mallery Ted Lenipart James Malone I11 Chuck Lenzie Jacelyn Mandell Fred Leonard Elisabeth Manning Joseph Leone Mary Manning Marcel Levy Tarnrny Manzini Karen Lewis Marisa Mardoc Ruth Lindahl Blair Martha George Lohscnz Joe Martillotti Diive Loomis Charles Martin Johnny Lopez John Martin Larry Lopez Lou Martino Elwood Lowery Rex Massey Dan Lowery Lloyd Matheson Robert Lowes John R. Mathews Ronald C.Lozito Patricia Mauro NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Mike Mazon Pamela Meidell Earl McGhee Lillian Mendoca Ed McCann Paul Mercier Bob McClone Pete Merlin Georgia McDonald Dr. Edward P. Michalewicz Paul McGinnis William "Bill" Middleton Chandler McPherson Christine Milburn Jack McCloskey Wanda Mitchell Kerry McCombs Dennis Mitchell Tricia McCracken William Moffitt Warren L. McCullough Tiffany Molock Tom McGowan William J. Monahan, Jr. John and Alice McGrath Fred Monette Dee McGuinnes Susan Moore Claudine McKay Gilbert Moore Dennis McKay Kim Morgan Patricia McKinney Kurt T. Morishige Paul McKinney Philip Moskowitz Judy McMurty David Mullen Mary McNabb J. P. Muntal Terry McRight Allan Murray Dr. Paul Meacham Ronald Myers John Meder Fina Myers D-31 Volume 1, Appendix D NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties Albert Narath Rosemary O'Neill Robert Nard Ed Oakes John Nash Cheryl Oar Robert Nay Vickie Occhipinti Wilma Nay Peter Ochabauer Paul Newell Ted Olsen Anne Newhouse Robert Orefice Raymond Newman Marilyn Pagan Robert Nicholsen Muhilan Pandian Phillip Niedzielski Pat Pape Rick Nielsen Emelinda Parentela Robert Nilson Richard Parizek Keiko Nishirnoto Joe Parolini Quentin Nisson Ramesh Patel John Noneman Mike Patrick John Norberg Dasha Pave1 Pete Nygard John Pawlak Kathe Nylen Dr. Jacob Paz Thomas O'Conner Anne Pendergrass Maggie ODonnell Edwin Pentecost Tom OFarrell Lew Pepper Larry E. O'Leary Chuck Pergler Layton O'Neill Anne Pershing Volume 1, Appendix D D-32 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties Claudia Peterson Sue Purushotham Dan J. Peterson Randal Putnam Kathleen Peterson Connie Putnam Prakash N. Phalke E. Quarterson Goldie M. Piatt Barbara Quinn Alex Pietsch Saimk Qureshy Patti Pietsch Jeff Rahbins Rob Piper Darryl Randerson Mark Plum Michael J. Rapovy Eric A. Podaca Denny Rasmussen James Pole5 John Rasmussen John E. Pollet Crissty Ratliff Bill Possidente Kurt Rautenstrauch Richard H. Powell Dr. Otto Ravenholt Trisha Powell Marty Rawson Dana Pratt R. G. Reddy Ramon and Barbara Prestwich Eric Redland U. Max Price Nick Reeves Jonathan Price John B. Regan Ken Priest Kenneth Reim Elaine K. Prishrey Clare Reis Scott Prisbrey Dennis Reis Michael Pullen Diane Remington D-33 Volume 1, Appendix D NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties Vaughn and Sandra Reuther John Roux M. Rice Jeff Rowe Myrle Rice David Roznovsky John Richardson Craig A. Ruark Dean Richmond Dr. Mark Rudin N. R. Ricks Joseph Ruggien William Roberts Dan Rusnak James Robertson Michael J. Russell Robert Robinson J. R. Russell Van Robinson John L. Russell Ace Robinson James Russell John G. Robison Mike Russo Michelle Rochelle Paul Ruttan Carmen Rodriquez Dick Ryan Pete Roesner Timothy Ryan Janice Rogenstic Margaret Ryanfur Hal Rogers Diana Salisbury Keith Rogers Steve Salyer Verge Rose David Sanford Tamara Rosta Renetta Seacchitti Joseph Roth Allen Scatena Linda Kothstein Lewis Sceny Roxie Roundy S. J. Schechter Volume 1, Appendix D D.34 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties Frederick Schoemehl Vicki Singleton Jesse Schoolcraft Gail Sinobio Nona Schorzman Pam Sin Jeny Schroy Vic Skaar Steven Scoggin Lewis Skeny Rick Scott Dean W. Smeaton Robert Sears David Smith David Seidel Keith and Mary Ann Smith Scott Seidenstricker Tom Smith Paul Seidler Gerald Smith Miguel Sepulveda Ron Smith Karen Sewell Susan Smith Lisa Seymore Fred Smith Mohsen Sharirli Steve Smith Sherman Shell Kenneth D. Smith Anne Shereshersky David K. Smith Kerry Sherman Robert Smith David Shifflett Chris Smith Mary Shope Lany Sommerfield Daniel Sicart Dan Sorenson William H. Silcox Patrick Spencer Me1 Silverberg Lea Rae Spendlove Roland Simmons Jan Sphar D-35 Volume 1, Appendix D NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties John Spitznen Paul Szydelko Larry Spohn Curtis Taipale Deb Spring Russ Taylor David Stahl Ellen Taylor Alan Stahler Dick Telfer Paul Standish Laura Tennant T. J. Stapleton Iain Thistle John Stearns Michelle Thomas Rex Steninger Jennifer Thompson Dick Stephans Richard Thompson Jamie Stewart Richard Thurlow Lisa Stiller David Tillson Ed Stock Ed Tilzey Jim Stoltz Dax Tobin Debbie Stout Charlene Toomer James Stubler Robert R. Trenkel Chris Stubs Doug Trenner Leslie Summer David Tseheetar Nell Swan Dan Tuckness Craig Swengle George Tuttle Leonard S. Sygitowicz Jeff and Christy Tyler Dr. Lynn R. Sykes Cindy Tyler Monte Symmonds Richard Urey Vulunie 1, Appendix D D-36 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Elgan Usrey Stuart Waymire Jim Utton William R. Webb Virginia Valentine Loren Webb Fernando Valentine Dr. David Weide Kent Van Leeuwen William Weigdrd Robert Van Neyhos Jonathen Weisman Ihrlene Vanroekel Peter Weiss Rueben Vasquez Stan Werlin Thad Vavret Michael West Cathy Vining Bob West Adriano Vivolo Roberta West Michael Voegek Chris West William C. Waggoner Sandra Jean Westman John Wagner Faye and David Wheeler Krishan Wahi John Whitaker Mary Jane Walsh Don Whitmire Paul Wang Lu Whitmire Laura Wang Ched Whitney Victor Warren Lelwin F. Wilkinson Gwen Washbum Cory Wilkinson Thoam Wasson Darla Williams Tetsuya Watanabe Glyn Williams Eddie L. Watson Ross Williams D-37 Volume 1, Appendix D NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Other Interested Parties James Williams Jana Wyld Holly Williams John Yatave Howard G. Wilshire Charles Young Howard Wilshire Bohbi Younghlood Laura Wingard Karen Younsh Lee Winston Maria Zaldivar-Vaught Janet Witt Peter Zavattaro Kara Wittstock Edwardine Zawacki Buck Wong Joseph Zawacki Siin Woolf Christopher Zguris Willy Wright Jan Ziegler Dana Wruble Ann Zom Christine Wunderlin Volume 1, Appendix D D-38 ~ ~ Appendix E IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT APPENDIX E IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS E.1 Introduction U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) control for a proposed activity. Additionally, conflicts with Appendix E contains the description of the methods established safety standards; adjacent public or used in preparing the Environmental Impact private recreation, religious, or institutional Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site facilities or sites; or local, regional, state, or federal Locations in the State of Nevada (NTS EIS). These land-use plans. policies, or controls would be methods were designed and implemented to considered negative impacts that could be evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the determined as significant. Impacts could be four alternatives addressed in this document. The considered beneficial if a proposed project resulted various analysis methods used to develop this EIS in providing additional land available for use, or if are summarized by resource. Further detail is a proposed change resulted in a higher and better included in the Technical Resource Document use of land resources. Potential mitigation section of the Administrative Record. measures have been identified for adverse land-use impacts. Appendix A of the Final NTS EIS E.2 Methods and Assumptions of Analysis provides related land-use information. I The following sections describe the methods and E.2.1.1 NTS Site-Suppurt Activities. I assumptions used in preparing this EIS. The I methods were designed and implemented to This section summarizes the methods of analysis I evaluate the potential impacts resulting from the used to assess the potential impacts to site-support I four alternatives. The various analysis methods activities resulting firom the four alternatives I used to develop this EIS are summarized here by presented in this EIS. I resource, E.2.1.1.1 Alternative I-The methods used for E.2.1 Land Use Alternative 1 were based on the assumption that activities and facilities, including the consumption The region of influence includes the NTS and land of resources, would continue at the current level. immediately adjacent to the NTS, portions of the The analysis of environmental conditions was based Nellis Air Force Range (NAFR) Complex, the on the following information and assumptions: Tonopah Test Range, the Project Shoal Area, the Central Nevada Test Area, Eldorado Valley, 0 The availability of usable water at the NTS is Dry Lake Valley, and Coyote Spring Valley. adequate and has not exhibited any notable decline An analysis was conducted to determine the effects of each of the four alternatives on land resources at The current use (pumping from wells) is the NTS and affected portions of the NAFR approximately 20 percent of the maximum Complex. Changes in land resource areas resulting capacity from each alternative were compared to existing conditions of the affected environment, and 0 Existing land capacities for the disposal of solid potential impacts were determined. Direct impacts sanitary waste are available and suitable resulting from project-related activities during implementation and operation phases, and indirect Existing land capacities for the disposal of Iow- impacts resulting from project-related population level waste and mixed waste are available and growth or decline were considered. Impacts were suitable. considered negative, and possibly significant, if there was insufficient land available under the E- 1 Volume 1, Appendix E - -~~~ __~ NEVADA TEST SITE FIIVALENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Operational assumptions include the following: to the originating location (one per day). The originating location for most personnel is Mercury, 0 The NTS site-support activities will remain at Nevada. The estimate and impact do not approxiinately the existing level for personnel specifically include impacts as a result of personnel and resources travel in Las Vegas. Routine maintenance will he provided to keep No industrial wastewater is generated as a result of the existing equipment and utilities functional the site-support operations. No known radiological waste was known to he generated by activities 0 Ma.jor construction activities will not occur associated with site support. The hazardous under Alternative 1. materials estimate is based on, and related to, the number of personnel needed to operate and manage I Operational activities will continue indefinitely the site-support activities. under Alternative 1. The total estimated cost for the NTS site-support activities includes the annual cost E.2.1.1.2 Akernative 2-NTS site-support for operations and maintenance. including labor, activities would be almost entirely abandoned under utilities, materials, maintenance, and contingency. this alternative. Only minimal resources would he Ground disturbance for the site-support activities provided for the monitoring and security functions includes equipment, facility and administration which would continue at the NTS under this buildings, and the parking lots and adjacent roads alternative. It was assumed that for this alternative, leading up to the Facilities. the remaining monitoring and security functions would be reduced from the Alternative 1 levels by It is assumed that 25 percent of the entire NTS will approximately 95 percent. Off-site support would continue to he unused and will provide a buffer not exist under this alternative. zone, as noted in the Fiscal Year 1994 NTS Technical Site Information (RSN. 1994). E.2.1.1.3 Alternafive3-Under Alternative 3, the NTS site-support activities would he modernized The total number of personnel required to operate and expanded to the extent necessary to provide and manage the NTS site-support activities is based support for existing activities and the new projects on the number of contractors represented in and activities not previously performed at the NTS organizational charts of the US. Department of In the past, the facilities at the NTS have been Energy/Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV) and capable of supporting a workforce much larger than the August 1994 Report of NTS-Related and Other currently exists, and it is assumed that this Nevada-Related Employment. capability is mostly intact. Therefore, increases in site-support resource use for Alternative 3 were Building activities are not applicable to this based on project-specific additions and not on a alternative for site-support activities. The water percentage increase. consumption esLimate is based on, and related to, the number of personnel needed to operate and E.2.1.1.4 A/ternative 4-The NTS site-support manage the site-support activities. The power activities would be reduced under this alternative. consumption estimate is also based on, and related The primary areas of site-support activity reduction to, tlic number of personnel needed to operate and would occur in on-site and off-site support With manage the site-support activities. Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program activities as the primary focus, a workforce The fuel consumption estimate is based on, and reduction would he anticipated. In reality, this related to, the numher of personnel needed to estimate would fluctuate depending on the addition upcrate and manage the site-support activities. The of potential turn-back programs that could be fuel consumption estimate is also based on the pursued: however, it was assumed that these estimated number of vehicles to transport functions would he run hy commercial conimunic;ition workers and supervisory personnel organizations. to individual site lociitions (one per day) and hack Volume 1, Appendix E E-2 ~ ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAI. IMPACT STATEMENT E.2.1.2 Airspuce. Airspace is afinite resource that I operations on civil aviation under any one of the can he defined vertically, horizontally, and I alternatives would ultimately require review and temporally for aviation purposes. As such, airspace I action by the Federal Aviation Administration. must be managed and used in a manner that best sewes the competing needs of commercial, general, E.2.2 Transportation I military, and other agency aviation interests. As the I primary agency responsible for the management of The methods and assumptions used to analyze I airspace, the Federal Aviation Administration transportation risk impacts resulting from the four I reviews all airspace user requirements and alternatives are presented in Appendix I, I establishes designated areas based on the degree of Transportation Study. Analysis results and Nevada I protection needed to support these requirements. route risk comparisons are also presented in the I Rules of flight and air traffic control procedures Transportation Study. The following discusses I have been established to govern if and how different methodologies for on-site and off-site traffic, and I segments of the aviation community may operate transportation of materials and waste. I within each type of designated airspace. I E.2.2.1 On-Site Traffic. The use-related effects I When changes to designated airspace use are I on traffic for the on-site roadway network were I planned andor proposed by the controlling agency, I assessed by estimating the average number of daily I such as increased or reduced operations, mission or I trips generated by each land use. project, or activity I flight profile changes, etc., further study is needed I for each of DOE'S primary programs: Defense, I to determine if such changes will (1) require I Waste Management, Environmental Restoration, I modifications to the airspace structure or air traffic I Nondefense Research and Development, and Work I control systemskervices, or (2) restrict, limit, or I for Others. These trip generation rates were I impinge in any manner on other aircraft within or I estimated by considering employee distribution, I adjacent to the airspace under review. I visitors, residents, service vehicles associated with I I construction, and all other on-site activities for each I The airsoace analysis for this study assesses of the proposed alternatives. An on-site "trip"' has potential impacts that actions occurring under each both its origin and destination on the NTS, and can of the four alternatives may have on current use of he counted as traffic on more than one roadway the different airspaces within the region of segment depending on the route traveled. For the influence. The region of influence includes the purpose of this report, it was assumed that all on- Nevada Test Site, the NAFR Complex (including site trips would he uniformly distributed throughout the Tonopah Test Range), the Las Vegas Class B the day, and have an endpoint in Mercury, Nevada. airspace overlying the Dry Lake and Eldorado This assumption provides a worst-case situation by Valleys, the Fallon Naval Air Station restricted focusing the traffic volume on the roadways around airspace over the Project Shoal Area in I Mercury, Nevada. It should be noted that traffic I northwestern Nevada, and the uncontrolled airspace I levels on the site would also be subject to many I over the Central Nevada Test Area. To the extent I event-related projects and activities which are I that data was available, this analysis considered the I unique to the NTS. I type and level of activities projected for each I I alternative and their potential effect on each I The on-site traffic analysis used the standard I airspace area. Current and projected use of this I techniques of trip generation, trip distribution, and I airspace by the US. Department of Defense (DoD), I traffic assignment. The daily trips generated under I as part of the NAFR Complex training mission, was I each alternative were distributed to the areas of the I also considered. Based on review of cumulative I NTS that were most likely to he affected by each of I uses under each alternative, a determination was I the progrdms. The traffic was then assigned to the I made on the potential impact of these projected uses I on each affected airspace area within the region of I influe,nce. Any added potentially significant I ' A "trip" is dctincd to be a one-way vehicle mnvcrneiit I impacts of U.S. Department of I from an origin to a dcslination. a round-trip wvuld thcrdorc I EnergylUS. Department of Defense (DOE/DoD) 1 be considered as IWDlrips. E-3 Volume 1. Appendix E NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIKONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I major roadways according to this distribution. To peak hours better reflect the operating conditions. I determine how well a section of roadway facilitates In general, the thirtieth highest hourly volume of the I vehicular traffic, the operating capacity is generally year is used to represent the daily peak hour and is I compared to the volume of traffic camed by the used for this analysis. On the average, the thinieth I section, The traffic volumes that are used in this highest hourly voluine is about 15 percent of I report are defined as average daily traffic, the total average daily traffic on rural arterials and 8 to I two-way traffic averaged daily. Traffic effects for 12 percent of average daily traffic in urban areas. I the on-site roadways were determined based on a On rural highways, when there is unusual or highly I comparison of average daily traffic to the capacity seasonal fluctuation in traffic flow and a high I of each key roadway segment on the NTS. percentage of traffic in one direction during the I Analyses were conducted for each alternative peak hours, the directional distribution of traffic I including Alternative 1 should be considered. This is known as the I directional design hourly volume. For example, if I This report presents the estimated number of daily the thirticth highest hourly volume is I5 percent of I trips that would be generated by each program the average daily traffic, and the directional I under each alternative, and provides the deviation distribution at that hour is 60:40, the directional I from Alternative I, in order to assess action-related design hourly volume is 0.15 x 0.60 x average daily I effects on traffic. The contribution by each program traffic, or 9 percent of the average daily traffic. The I to the average daily traffic of each key roadway key roadway segments analyzed exist in rural and I segment is also provided as an indication of the urban areas and generally experience seasonal I level of congestion. variations. The Nevada Department of Transportation I993 Annual Traffic Report E.2.2.2 Off-Site Traffic. The transportation (NDOT, 1993) was the source for the thirtieth network in the region of influence includes highest hourly volume used. principal road networks leading to the NTS and off- site project locations, with emphasis on the area The analysis is based on the peak-hour trips, data on surrounding each site. Existing travel roadway capacities, traffic volumes, and standards characteristics for the DOE employees were established by federal, state, and local transportation determined using existing employee survey data, agencies, and uses the standard analysis techniques site visits, and existing reports. Historical data on of trip generation, trip distribution, and traffic traffic volumes and road capacities were obtained assignment. The vehicle trip generation rate per from the Nevada Department of Transportation employee was determined from the number of Annual Traffic Report. vehicles observed at the access highway leading to the main entrance to the NTS and correlated to the The region of influence includes the access roads number of on-site employees. In 1993, the average and regional highways leading to the NTS, NAFR daily traffic recorded at the main entrance to the Complex, Tonopah Test Range, Project Shoal NTS was 1,375 vehicles in both directions, or Area, Central Nevada Test Area, and the Solar 1,375 vehicle trip ends. During the same period, Enterprise Zones. 2,948 employees worked on site. Therefore, the daily vehicle trip rate was approximately The effects on roadway traffic for all alternatives 0.50 vehicle trip ends per on-site employee. This were assessed by estimating the number of trips rate accounts for commuters, visitors, trucks, and generated by each program-related activity, service vehicles, and it is assumed to remain considering employees, visitors, residents, and constant throughout the period of analysis. service and delivery vehicles associated with Typically, the vehicle trip generation rate for office construction and operations. These trips were then and light industrial land uses is in the range of 3 to assigned to key roadway segments as established in 6 vehicle trip ends per employee (ITE, 1991). Chapter 4. However, because bus ridership among NTS employees is relatively high (approximately The general unit of measure for traffic on a highway 70 percent of on-sitc employees use the bus and is the average daily traffic. Traffic volumes during 30 percent drive their cars or carpool), this rate is NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT only 0.50 vehicle trip ends per on-site employee. E.2.3 Socioeconomics This analysis assumes the continuation of the current travel mode choice. A region of influence is defined as the area in which the principal, direct, and secondary socioeconomic The distribution of trips to and from the site is effects of site actions are likely to occur and are based on the number and location of access points expected to be of the most consequence for local to the site, the existing travel patterns (mainly for jurisdictions. The economic activity information commuters), and the locations of employee presented contains current conditions in a region of residences. It was assumed that the residential influence comprised of Nye and Clark counties, choices of project-related employees would Nevada. This region of influence includes correspond to those of the current on-site personnel. 97 percent of the residential distribution of the The resulting vehicle trips generated by the prqject employees of the DOE, its contractor personnel, and during the peak hour analyzed were then added to supporting government agencies. In addition, the the peak hour of nonproject-generated traffic region of influence encompasses the probable (background traffic) projected under Alternative 1. location of future off-site contractor operations and Future traffic volumes on key roadways were indirect economic activities. projected using previous trends for each segment obtained from available average daily traffic from The regions of influence addressed in this section 1983 to 1993. Currently, NTS employees enter the may vary, its appropriate, irom one socioeconomic site from guard station 100 by way of the site access issue to another. The public finance region of road (State Route 433, which connects influence includes the cities of Las Vegas and North US. Highway 95 at the Mercury, Nevada Las Vegas, the towns oiTonopah and Pahrump, the interchange. On a daily basis, U.S. Highway 95 counties of Clark and Nye, the Clark County School east (to the Las Vegas area) carries 98 percent of District and the Nye County School District. The employee vehicle trips; US. Highway 95 west pertinent region of influencc for different public handles the remaining 2 percent (Tetra Tech, services also differ. For example, with public Inc., 1995). education, the region of influence is the Clark County School District and the Nye County School Traffic impacts were determined based on level of District. service changes for each of the key roads analyzed. A summary of average daily vehicle trips generated The socioeconomic analysis discusses the potential by each program activity for the years 1996, 2000, socioeconomic effects associated with each and 2005 wa generated, and the level of service alternative examined in the NTS EIS. The purpose change was determined. Based on American of the study is to identify and analyze the major Association of State Highway and Transportation socioeconomic issues related to each possible future Officials (AASHTO) standards, level of service B activity at the sites and to compare the effects of is appropriate for freeways and arterials and rural these alternatives with each other. All changes highways (level or rolling terrain). Level of service associated with proposed alternatives were C is appropriate for rural (mountainous), urban, and considered effects. Alternative 1 was considered suburban highways. For local roads, level of equivalent to future baseline conditions without new service D is appropriate in all terrain activities. (AASHTO, 1990). Socioeconomic analysis involves two major steps: E.2.2.3 Transportation of Materials and Waste. (I) the characterization and projection of existing The methods and assumptions used to analyze social and economic conditions surrounding each of impacts for transportation of materials and waste the candidate sites (i.e., the affected environment); resulting from the four alternatives are presented in and (2) the evaluation of potential changes in Appendix I, Transportation Study. Analysis results socioeconomic conditions that could result from the and Nevada route risk comparisons are also construction of and operation associatcd with each presented in the Transportation Study. alternative. NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The description of Socioeconomic conditions residential distribution reveals that 90 percent of the includes economic indicators (population, civilian workforce lives in Clark County, 7 percent live in labor force, employment, unemployment rate, and Nye County, and the remaining 3 percent reside in income) that provide a basis for comparing regional other counties or states. Within Clark County, most sociocconomic conditions of the sites with all employees of the DOE/NV reside in the Las Vegas alternatives, In addition, public finance and public area (DOE, 1994). The Clark and Nye counties’ services (public education, police and fire regions of influence were identified based on the protection, and health) are also described. distribution of residents for current DOE and contractor personnel working at the sites described The socioeconomic analysis addresses the timing of in this EIS (DOE, 1994). The region of influence effects associated with each alternative for future was determined to be the area in which reuses. The analysis covers a period extending approximately 97 percent of current DOE and 10 fiscal years beyond 1996. Results are usually contractor employees reside. It was estimated that presented for each alternative for the benchmark future distribution of direct workers associated with years of 1996, 2000, and 2005. the proposed alternatives would follow the same trend. For the purpose of this analysis, the county Of particular importance in this analysis are data projections are accomplished separately. alternative effects, which are thc differences of each Because of the differences in size, economics, and alternative from Alternative 1. These effects contributions to the NTS, a misleading analysis include both direct on-site and indirect secondary would be produced if Clark and Nye counties were effects for each alternative. Direct on-site effects analyzed as one aggregate area of impact. are the changes immediately associated with an alternative, such as employment at a facility. Labor force and employment by place of residence Secondary effects include the indirect and induced were obtained from the Nevada Employment changcs that may occur either on site or off site. Security Department. Income data and employment The actual location of secondary eflkcts depends by place of work were obtained from the priniarily on pcrsonal and organizational purchasing U.S. Burcau of Economic Analysis Regional choices (i.e., locational decisions). Fiscal effects to I Economic Information Systems (DOC, 1992). local jurisdictions were evaluated based on changes Historical personal income and per capita income in employment, population, and iricoine and their values were converted to constant 1994 dollars effects on revenues and expenditures. Effccts to using the current US. Department of Commerce key local public scrvices were determined by the national income deflator index. Constant dollars are change in demand for personnel and facilities used as a gauge in adjusting the dollars of other arising from projcct implementation. years to ascertain actual purchasing power. Historical and current populations for Clark County The affected environment includes recent were obtained from the Center of Business and socioeconomic trends in Clark and Nyc counties. Economic Research, University of Nevada, Trends were analyzed for economic activity, Las Vegas (Schwer, 1995). Population figures for population, housing, public financc. and public Nye County were obtained from the Baseline services. Data were examined for the 1970, 1980, Economic mid Demographic Projections: 1990- and 1990 census years, as well as the most recent 2010 Nye County and Nye County Communities 5-year pel-iod for which data were available. (Nye County Board of Commissioners, 1993). Baseline housing needs ate based on housing unit Site-related effects, defined as program-related and population data obtained from the 1990 Census economic activity, population, housing, public of Population and Housing. finance, and public services were also discussed. The most recent data were used to determine the Effects to kcy local public services arc dctermincd trend of site-related effects. by the changc in demand for personnel. The ability to accommodate increased demand, or to respond to E.2.3.1 Econurizic Acfivity, Population, arid decreases in demand while maintaining accustomed Housing. A I994 survey 01 the NTS worker levels of local public service, is exainincd hascd on Volume 1, Appendix E E-6 -~ ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT potential changes in demand for services. Direct Economic Research, University of Nevada, effects on public services would arise from changes Las Vegas. The growth projections for Nye County in levels of employment and corresponding were based on those found in Baseline Economic population changes. arid Demographic Projection: 1990-2010 Nye County and Nye County Communities (1993). Current levels of service discussed in the Public Services section in Chapter 4 were used as The socioeconomic impact analysis applied total standards of service. Potential effects were output multipliers for the region of influence, determined by either the necessary addition or obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce, reduction of public service employees needed to Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional serve the alternative-related population increases or Interindustry Multiplier System. These decreases. interindustry multipliers were estimated using the United States inpuUoutput table in combination The public service impacts of all other alternatives with the most recent region-specific information can be determined by subtracting total personnel describing the relationship of the regional economy required from the Alternative 1 future baseline. The to the national economy. The Regional addition or reduction in personnel required would Interindustry Multiplier System model is based on be the specific impact associated with that research by Cartwright et al. (1981). The model alternative. includes the following four major components for the analysis: The future baseline (Alternative I) was established from the total employment projected for each of the 0 A regional interindustry component that sites at the end of Fiscal Year 1995. These produces a regional inpudoutput table and proposed Fiscal Year 1995 employment estimates output multipliers for each specified sector of are believed to best reflect the staffing levels needed the economy for each economic study area as a result of recent stockpile requirement reductions. 0 A direct-effects component that produces a matrix of final demands (estimated changes in For the Environmental Restoration Program, it was industry and household spending due to project assumed that regulatory requirements would be at activities) on the basis of direct employment the same levels as any Federal National Priority List and procurement associated with the alternative site, and the most stringent level of analysis and cleanup would be employed. The Remedial Action 0 An employment impact component that Cost Engineering and Requirements System, which calculates regional indirect output, earnings, is used with projects of a similar magnitude and and employment estimates with the same regulatory requirements, shows that salaries for activities to support the remedial A macroeconomics impact component that investigation/feasibility study phase and remedial calculates regional population impacts on desigdremedial action range from $120 to $150 per changes in unemployment, the share of the hour. These salaries include other direct costs and labor force with the necessary skills to take more specialized labor categories such as registered direct project jobs, and the portion of the direct chemists. It was assumed that with the size of the employment that would flow to the region of sites and their different locations, rental and influence. mobilization costs would be high or the program would require teams to work simultaneously Future housing units needed for cities and counties throughout the sites. in each region of influence were developed by estimating the household size from the current Historical trends were determined. Growth population and housing unit ratios. The household projections for Clark County population, labor size-to-population ratios were then applied to the force, employment, and income were based on estimated future population trends to obtain the projections from the Center of Business and number of housing units needed to accommodate E-7 Volume 1, Appendix E ~~ ~~~ ~ __ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT the projected population for the Alternative 1 future All revenues and expenditures are a combined total baseline. of general, special, debt service, and capital project funds. E.2.3.2 Public Finance. The financial character- istics of potentially affected local jurisdictions were Generally, the growth or decline of revenues and examined. The local jurisdictions include expenditures experienced in the past five years is Clark County, the cities of Las Vegas and expected to continue in the future based on North Las Vegas, Clark County School District, expected population, employment, and income Nye County, the towns of Tonopah and Pahmmp, projections. To predict diikrent items in the and the Nye County School District. income statement of each jurisdiction, appropriate methodologies were used depending on the item. Governmental funds discussed in this EIS are those which fund most governmental functions of the Population levels were used to forecast an item that jurisdiction. Governmental fund types include is generally population-dependent, such as ad general, special revenues, debt service, and capital valorem taxes. A per capita figure was used based projects funds. The general fund accounts are for on Fiscal Year 1994. As population levels financial transactions related to revenues and increased or decreased, the ad valorem taxes expenditures of services not accounted for in other reflected this increase or decrease proportionately. funds. Special revenues are those funds accounted Licenses and permits were figured in the same way, for in the proceeds of specific revenue sources that using personal income as a benchmark. are legally restricted for specified purposes. Debt Employment was used to predict items such as fines service funds account for the accumulation of and forfeitures. resources for, and the payment of, interest and principal on general long-term debt. Capital For some items such as miscellaneous transfers to projects funds are used to account for financial and from other funds, proceeds from bonds and resources for the acquisition or construction of loans, and transfers to refunding bond escrow major capital facilities. The fiscal year for all agents, a moving average was used. Moving Nevada jurisdictions is the 12-month period from averages are used to compute an average of the July 1 to June 30. most recent data values in a time series. This average is then used as the forecast for each For inany jurisdictions discussed, ad valorem taxes successive period. are a major source of revenue. These are taxes which are levied on the assessed valuation of real For most expenditures, a fixed cost percentage was propcrty. Assessed valuation is a basis for levying determined. Regardless of the population increase real estate taxes. Thirty-five percent of the taxable or decrease, certain fixed costs must be maintained. value of real property is used as the basis for Variable costs above that percentage are tied to levying property taxes in most Nevada jurisdictions. population. The more or less population there is, the greater or fewer corresponding services are The fund balance, as a percentage of current required. expense, depicts how much reserves would be used if current (due within a year) expenses had to be With school districts, most revenues and paid without considering revenues. The lower the expenditures were correlated with levels of percentage, the less is available to pay off current enrollment, which, in turn, corresponded to the expenses. population in the particular school district. For the Clark County School District, enrollment was Fiscal effects include incremental property tax assumed to be 14.74 percent of the population; for revenue and associated increases in services. thc Nye County School District, enrollment was Particular emphasis is placed on changes in assumed to be 36.91 percent oi the population. revenues and expenditures based on increases and Both percentages represent the Fiscal Ycar I994 decreases in population, employment, and income. enrollment. Volume 1, .Appendix E E-8 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 0 Accelerated deposition E.2.5.1 Surface Hydrology. For each alternative being considered, adverse impacts to the surface 0 Induced seismicity and faulting hydrology were assessed using the systematic approach of (1) identification of credible adverse 0 Ground fracturing impacts, (2) identification of factors responsible for these impacts, (3) analysis of the risk (the 0 Ground subsidence probability of these factors causing an impact and the consequence of such an impact), and 0 Ground folding (4) analysis of measures to mitigate determined risk. The potential credible adverse impacts related to the 0 Ground instability surface hydrology of the areas being considered are: Isolation of natural resources 0 Stoppage of surface water flow 0 Exploration for natural resources 0 Diversion of surface water flow 0 Exploitation of natural resources. 0 Concentration of surface water flow Because the alternatives being considered involve 0 Impoundment of surface water continued use of the areas in a manner more, less, or the same as the present, identification of factors 0 Flooding responsible for these impacts was largely through analysis of affected changes associated with past- 0 Contamination of surface water to-present activities. Impacts under the more-or less-use alternatives were extrapolated. Analyses Stoppage or reduction of spring discharge. included review of literature, review of data currently being collected in the many ongoing E.2.5.2 Water Resources. The potential credible studies related to geology, and discussions with adverse impacts related to the groundwater of the experts in the field. Risk was analyzed through areas being considered are: standard published methodologies. Mitigating measures will be based on the effect of measures 0 Change in infiltration taken in the past, in addition to new concepts. 0 Change in recharge E.2.5 Hydrology 0 Change in the water table The main source of water is groundwater. Therefore, the methods used to evaluate water 0 Change in groundwater flow resources are presented in the groundwater section. Because the alternatives being considered involve 0 Change in groundwater yield continued use of the areas in a matter more, less, or the same as the present, the factors responsible for impacts were identified largely through analysis of 0 Exploration for groundwater affected changes associated with past-to-present I activities. Impacts under Alternatives 2 and 3 were 0 Exploitation of groundwater extrapolated. Analyses included review of literature, review of data currently being collected in 0 Contamination of groundwater. the many ongoing studies related to hydrology, and discussions with experts in the field. Risk was Information needed for impact evaluation was analyzed through standard published obtained from existing agency files and published methodologies. Mitigating measures were based on data sources. Data were compiled on static and the effect of measures taken in the past, in addition pumping water levels, well and aquifer mechanics, to new concepts. potentially impacted water right owners, Volume 1, Appendix E E-10 ~. NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL EAVIRONMENTAI. IMPACT STATEMENT environmentally sensitive areas, and documented must he qualified by these assumptions. During boundary conditions. modeling, these assumptions were translated into the following boundary conditions: regional flow is The legal water availability was established through uniform and unhampered by boundary conditions the review of records on file with the Nevada between and within each basin: recharge from Division of Water Resources. Basin water right precipitation does not occur; vertical flow does not abstracts were requested from the Nevada Division occur; and leakage between aquifers and aquitards of Water Resources and were used to determine the does not occur. The intent of this model is to perennial yield, committed water resources, and determine if ail idealized version of the most estimated water use for each hydrographic basin productive formation in each hydrographic basin is under construction. capable of sustaining groundwater production under steady-state conditions at rates specified by Phased water-demand estimates for the Solar Nevada’s Division of Water Resources State Enterprise Zone have already been prepared. For Engineer’s Office. It is not to determine the overall other alternative actions, water demand was either groundwater budget for any given basin. Any such based on conceptual designs or historic water use. attempt would require additional data collection and For activities for which no water-use estimates are a much more intensive modeling effort using finite- available, independent estimates were through difference or finite-element models. development of a unit resource requirements table. Resource requirement tahles were submitted to the The impacts of groundwater withdrawals were DOE for review and concurrence before they were estimated through the use of standard hydrologic used in impact estimates. techniques, specifically thc Theis nonequilibrium equation, distance drawdown graphs, and image The groundwater resources for a given u>ellanalyses. A simple two-dimensional analytical hydrographic basin were assessed through the use of model (King, 1984) was used to perform the analytical solutions-solving for the drawdown of calculations, and a standard spreadsheet was used to hypothetical well fields. Strack’s (1989) two- gcnerate the distance drawdown graphs. Where dimensional analytical solutions for steady-state input data were lacking, reasonable values were flow were used to calculate discharge potential. selected that led to a reasonable worst-case evaluation and sensitivity analyses were performed Discharge potentials were computed using Strack’s to detcrniine a range of impacts rather than a single (1989) analytical solutions as they are incorporated value. into the groundwater flow model, Quicktlow (Geraghty and Miller, Inc., 1991). Quickflow uses E.2.6 Biological Resources several of Strack’s (1989) solutions to calculate the discharge potential at any given point. Two of these Impacts of the DOE activities on biological solutions were used in this modeling effort. The resources werr assessed qualitatively. Because of first equation modeled discharge potential created as the large number of projects and sites being a function of the regional gradient. The second evaluated, a systematic method was used to conduct equation modeled discharge potential as a function and document this assessment. This process was of stress created by one or more pumped wells. The adapted from Wright and Greene (1987). and was solutions of the two equations were summed at any performed by a team of biologists familiar with the given point and then converted to head. biota (local plants and animals) of the affected areas. E.2.5.3 Assumptions and Limitations. Several assumptions are inherent in Strack’s solutions: Step 1. Identify the Geographic and Temporal aquifers have infinite extent; are homogeneous; Scope of the Evaluation. Biologists first isotropic; have a constant thickness with the established boundaries to the scope of the underlying, completely horizontal, impermeable evaluation so analyses from all programs and basement; uniform regional hydraulic gradient; alternatives would be consistent. horizontal laminar flow; and are fully penetrated by wells. All of the results for this modeling effort Ell Volume 1. Appendix E ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Step 2. Identify Potential Impacts of the DOE Effects on plant and animal populations. An Activities. The second step taken was to examine activity was considered to have a significant impact project descriptions to determine and categorize the if it was (I) likely to either reduce or increase the ways that DOE actions might impact biological viability of any plant or animal population (i.e., the resources. All phases (e.g., construction, operation, ability of the population to persist through time) or transportation, decommissioning) of each project (2) cause a change in the abundance of a plant or that would occur over the 10-year timeframe animal population that would lead to an increase or covered by this EIS (1996 to 2005) were evaluated. decrease in economic or recreational opportunities. I To ensure that all species were considered and that The first criterion was chosen to ensure that impacts I economically important or rare species and habitats would be identified and considered if they might I were given special consideration, potential impacts increase the risk of extinction of any species, I were evaluated on three receptors: habitat, plant, including the most vulnerable of species, such as I and animal populations (with emphasis given to candidates for listing under the Endangered Species I economics); recreationally important species and Act. Quantitative population viability analyses I candidate species, and individual threatened or were not conducted. The following factors were I endangered species, golden eagles, or migratory qualitatively evaluated to determine changes in I birds, and natural springs and their associated biotic viability: change in generic diversity, population I communities (the only rare habitat or community in size and population demographics; changes in size the region). All potential impacts were considered and population demographics; changes in the unless they were obviously trivial (e.g., ecosystem processes required by a species; and redisturbance of disturbed ground along road barriels to dispersal or other important movements, shoulders). such as travel to breeding or wintering areas. The second criteria was chosen to ensure that all losses Step 3. Classify Significance of Impacts The and gains in economic or recreational opportunities third step was to classify the significance of the would be considered. potential impacts identified in the second step. The following were considered when classifying Effects on protected species. Individuals of species impacts: direct and indirect effects; cumulative protected under the Endangered Species Act, Bald effects; impacts to individuals, populations, Eagle Protection Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty communities, and ecosystems; magnitude of the Act received consideration over and above that effects (e.g., proportion of the population affected); given to other species. An activity was considered spatial pattern of effects; duration of effects; to have a significant negative impact if it was likely probability that effects would occur; human to kill or injure protected species. This level was perception of effects; and mitigation possibilities. chosen to identify those activities that might result Impacts were regarded as significant only if they in “take” of the species. Positive effects to these were likely to have substantial, permanent effects on species were considered at the habitat and the resource. population scale as defined previously. To evaluate effects on habitat, the total amount of Effects on springs. An activity was considered to habitat lost or gained through reclamation of have a significant impact if it would influence the disturbed areas was quantified for each project. To persistence of springs or their associated biotic evaluate effects on the other three receptors, the communities by causing a change in water quantity following criteria were established to identify or quality or by modifying the ecosystem on which impacts of sufficient significance to warrant these communities depend. All projects were I discussion in the NTS EIS and the development of classified as having one of the following levels of mitigation actions. These criteria were defined and impacts: potential to cause a (1) significant negative used as standards to facilitate comparisons of impacl, (2) nonsignificant negative impact potential impacts among the many different (i.e., having an action identified in Step 2 as activities, programs, and alternatives. potentially impacting biological resources but not meeting the significance criteria identified in Step 3). (3) significant positive impact, Volume 1, Appendix E E-12 __ ~- __ __~ ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (4) nonsignificant positike impact, or (5) no impact on regional air quality. In particular, the results of (i.e., having no actions identified in Step 2 that may assessments on the impacts of construction and impact biological resources). operation of facilities associated with each program in terms of expected pollutant emissions and I E.2.6.1 List ofspecies names. The common and concentration levels were analyzed. The types of I scientific names of plants and animals mentioned in emissions assessed are the criteria pollutants I text and tables of the NTS EIS are provided in (carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, I Table E-I. lead, and respirable particulate matter when the particulate diameter is equal to or less than Step 4. Determine if Significant Negative I0 micrometers [PM,,,]). Volatile organic Impacts Could be Mitigated and Propose compounds, which can lead to the formation of Mitigation. Biologists attempted to identify ozone, are also assessed. The categories of sources mitigation recommendations for each significant assessed include stationary sources (such as stacks negative impact. If mitigation was identified that and vents), fugitive sources (such as construction would reduce the impact to less than significant, the and demolition activities), and mobile sources (such impact was reclassified as a significant negative, bur as vehicles) associated with NTS activities. Thc mitigable, impact. assessments focus on conditions or impacts, that might result at off-site locations from the release of Step 5. Combine Impacts at the Project Level contaminants from various categories of sources. to Facilitate Comparisons Across Alternatives. Following an examination of impacts on a project- The impacts of existing and proposed sources of by-project basis, the biologists, working as a group, fugitive dust from construction activities were summarized effects of DOE activities across all estimated using the US. Environmental Protection projects, within each alternative, to facilitate Agency (EPA) emission factor of 1.2 tons per acre comparisons among alternatives. per month. The particulate matter, PM,,, was assumed to he 50 percent of the total dust loading. E.2.7 Air Quality and Climate It was also assumed that the application of water reduces PM,,, emissions by 50 percent. Pollutant Climatologic and meteorologic information for the emissions resulting from NTS bus fleet operations, region surrounding the NTS was derived from NTS fleet light- and heavy-duty vehicles, privately secondary sources. Ambient air quality information owned vehicles, and heavy-duty commercial for the Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control vehicles servicing the NTS site facilities were Region 147, which contains the NTS, the quantitatively predicted using emission factors NAFR Complex, the Projcct Shoal Area, and the obtained from the EPA Mobile Source Emission Central Nevada Test Area, were obtained from the Factor Model, MOBILE 5a. The ambient air State of Nevada Department of Conservation and quality assessment did not include methods for Natural Resources, Division of Environmental quantifying impacts related to ozone formation Protection. This information was compared to because (I) emissions of volatile organic applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards compounds (which are precursors of ozone and Nevada Ambient Air Quality Standards. With formation) are below the significance level the exception of radionuclides, ambient air quality designated by the state of Nevada, (2) no simple at the NTS is not currently monitored for criteria defined method exists to assess ozone formation pollutants. However, temporary monitoring stations potentials, and (3) ozone is not recognized as a were in operation in August and September of problem in the region. The region of influence for 1990, and results of this monitoring were used to this air quality analysis includes Nye and Clark dctermine an estimated ambient concentration counties, Nevada, where the impacts of the project contribution of criteria pollutants from existing would likely occur. sources at the NTS. E.2.8 Noise Each of the four altemdtives was analyLed to discover the potential effects that the five programs Noise is defined as sound that is undesirable and the site-support activities of the NTS may have because it interferes with speech communication E-13 Volume 1, Appendix E - NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIXONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Table E-1. Common and scientific names of plants and animals mentioned in text and tables (Page 1 of 4) Common Name Scientific Name Acacia greggii Baccharis emoryi Arctomecon Culijornica Coleogyne ramosissimn Bromus rubens Ambrosia dumosa Artemisia spinescens Opuntia basilaris TYP~~~PP. Bromus tectorum Hymenoclea salsola cholla Blue Diamond Opuatia Whipplei var. Multigeniculuta creosote bush Larrea tridentata egg-vetch, Clokey’s Astragalus oopherus var clokeyanus ephedra, green Ephedra viridis ephedra, Nevada Ephedra nevadensis filaree, red-stemmed Erodium cicuturium galleta grass Hiluria jamesii globemallow, desert Sphaeralcea ambigua Chenopodium spp. greasewood Sarcobutus vermiculatus I green molly Kochia americana halogeton Halogeton glomerulus hopsage Grayia spinosa horsebrush Tetradymia glabruta indigo bush, Fremont Psorothamnus fremontii indigo bush, glandular Psorothamnus polyadenius I( juniper, Utah Juniperus osteosperma Volume 1, Appendix E E-14 ~ ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Table E-1. Common and scientific names of plants and animals mentioned in text and tables (Page 2 of 4) Common Name Scientific Name mcnodora. spiny Menoriura spiriescens inilkvetch, Beatley Astagalrrs bmtleFcre innilkvetch, Geyer Astrqalus ,?eyeri vur. rriquerrus milkvetch, Needle Mountains A.strugalus euryiobirs pine, pinyon Pinus monuphylln prince’s plume, desert Sranleyu pinnata rabbitbrush, punctate Chrysotharnnus prrnicu1atu.s ratany, range Kranieria purviji>liii ricegrass, Indian Oryzophsis hynienoides rushes Juncirs spp. sagebrush Arteniisia spp. sagebrush, big A. tridmratri sagebrush, black A. novo saltbush, four-winged Atriplex cmescens saltcedar Tuniarix ramosissinia saltgrass Distichlis spicutn sedges Curex spp. seep weed Siraeilu torreyanu shadscale Atriplex confertifulin snowberry Syinphoricarpus .spp. tansy mustard Descurainia spp. thistle, Russian Salvola tragirs willow, desert Chilopsis linearis winterfat Ceratoides Iuniita wolfberry Lyciunn andrrsonii, I.. pallidum, rind L. yucca Yircca ,spp. yucca, Mohave Yucca schidigerii E-15 Volume 1, Appendix E NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Table E-I. Common and scientific names of plants and animals mentioned in text and tables (Page 3 of 4) Common Name Scientific Name girds :hukar Alectoris chukar love, mourning Zenaida macrura SIC, bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus con, peregrine Falco peregruinus cker, northern Colaptes auratus Iwk, red-tailed Buteo jamaicensis is, white-faced Plegadis chihi y. scrub Aphelocoma coerulescens ngbird, western Tyrannus verticalis Lrk, homed Eremophila alpestris wl, western burrowing Athene cutiicularin Lypugea hoebe, Say’s Sayornis sayu lover, mountain Charadrius mantanu.T ,pail, Gambel’s Callipepla gumbelii aven, common Corvus corax ,hrike, loggerhead hnius ludovicianus ;parrow, black-throated Amphispizn bilineata iparrow, Brewer’s Spizella brew,eri Fishes dace, Oasis Valley speckled Rhinichthys nsculus SSp. pupfish, Devils Hole Cyprinodon diabolis Mammals bobcat Felis rufus chipmunk, cliff Eutamias dorsalis cottontail, desert Sylvilagus audubonii cottontail, Nuttall’s S. Nuttallii coyote Canis latrans (1 deer, mule Odocoileus hemionus Volume 1, Appendix E E-16 NEVmA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Table E-I. Common and scientific names of plants and animals mentioned in text and tables (Page 4 of 4) Common Name Scientific Name bx, kit Vlrlpe” ve1o.x iorse, wild Eqirirs i~riballiis ackrabhit, black-tailed Lepus cnlifon1icus angaroo mouse, dark Mir.rodiporlops niegncephnlics angaroo rat, chisel-toothed Diporlomys rnicrops angaroo rat, desert Dipoclornys desErti angaroo rat, Memani’s Dipoduiiiys mei-riami ion, mountain Felis coricolor locket mouse, Great Basin Perogiiarlurs parvics locket mouse, long tailed Perognuthus funnusirs ironghorn Antilucapra anwricniia :beep, bighorn ovis Cnri~derlris iquirrel, white-tailed antelope Ai~irr~ospernio~~hiiiisleucurus voodrat, desert Neotonia lepidn ieptiles :huckwalla Suuronralus ohesus :ila monster. banded Heloderrna .suspectmu cincrrim irdrd, desert horned P hrynosonui pIafyhino.7 izard, desert night Xnwtusirr 1,iqilis izard, side-blotched Utn stuiisbirriann irdrd, western fence Sceloporirs oci.idenrnlis rattlesnake, speckled Crot~zlusmitchellii sidewinder Crorrdus cerostes snake, gopher Piruophis nielanoleucus snake, western shovelnose Chionactis occipiralis toad, Amargosa Bufo nelsoni tortoise, desert Gupherus agassizii whipsnake, striped Masticuphis tamiatus E-17 Volume 1, Appendix E and hearing, is intense enough to damage Ilearing, these sites. Special attention was paid to sensitive or is otherwise annoying. The characterist~csof receptors that are near the boundaries of these sites. sound include parameters such as amplitude, frequency, and duration. Noise lcvels often change The impact analysis section discusses the potential with time; therefore, to compare le\~4sover effects of the five programs and site-support different lime periods. several descriptors were activities 011 noise at all sites and in the surrounding developed that account for time variance. These area. Impacts of noisc on workers arc discussed in descriptors are used to assess and correlate the the occupational and public health and safety various effects of noise on man, including land-use sections. compatibility, sleep and speech interfercnce, annoyance, hearing loss, and startle effects. Bccause of its luge six, 3.396 square kilomcten (kin’) (1,350 square miles \mi’]), iioi’le generated on the NTS The decibel (DB), a logarithmic unit that accounts site does not propagate offsite at audible levels. The for the large variations in amplitude, is the accepted closest sensitive receptors to the site boundary ire standard unit measurement of sound. residences located 1.3 miles to the south in the unincorporated town of- Amargosa Valley. Noise When measuring sound to determine its effects on generation was estimated [or construction and the human population, A-weighted sound levels operational activities through the year 2005. (dBA) are typically used to account for the response of the human ear (ANWASME, 1983). Human The calculation of tloist: IwcIs at various distances response to sounds are lowest at low and high from construction cquipment sources assumed noise frequency levels and greatest in the middle levels decreased Mith distance according to the frequency level. A-weighted sound levels represent inverse square laiv of noise propagation. Noise adjustments to sound levels that are made according levels produccd by various types of construction to the frcqucncy content of the sound. equipment at a reference di,t;ince of 15 incters (111) (50 feet [ft])were obtained from the EPA document The day-night average sound level was developed to entitled Noise Comrriirrioii Eqluipi~i<,nt and evaluate the total community noise environment. Op~ration Bidiidirig Eqi~ipn~eiitmid Hoinr The day-night average sound level is the average Appliurice (EPA, 197 I ). A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour period I with 10 DB added to nighttime levels (between Railroad and aircralt noise were considered. 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.). This adjustment is added to Infrequent helicopter and wiall fixed-wing aircraft account for the increased sensitivity of nighttime operations occur on the site. Supersonic aircraft noise events. The day-night average sound level operating from Nellis Air Force Bare may overtly was endorsed by the EPA and is mandated by the the site, producing sonic booms. Subsonic low- U.S. Department of Housing and Urban level flights may alw create significant noise Development, the Federal Aviation Administration, patterns over the site during training exercises. and the Don for land-use assessment^. The day- night average sound level is sometimes The Centrtrl Ncviida Test Aica is 1oc;tlcd in supplemented with the equivalent sound level. The Hot Creek Valley. north 01 U.S. Highwy 6, equivalent sound level is the dBA level of a steady- approximately 129 km (80 mi) east of Tonopah. state sound, which has the same dBA sound energy There are no sensitive receptors cI~)\eto the site. as that contained in the time-varying sound being measured over a specific time period. E.2.Y Visual Resources The region of influence includes the NTS, portions A description of the cxisting visual resource of the NAFR Complex, the Tonopah Test Range, conditions was prepared based on existing the Prqject Shoal Area, thc Central Nevada information, field visits. and photographs. Test Area, Eldorado Valley, Dry Lake Valley, Coyote Spring Valley, and the regions surrounding The affected elivironment visual resources evaluation was habed on the U.S. Bureau of Land Volume 1, Appendix E E-18 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Management Visual Resource Management The region of influence chosen for the visual Prograin. Visual resources include the natural and resources analysis includes the NTS, poitions of the manmade physical features that give a particular NAFR Complex, the Tonopah Test Range, the landscape its character and value as an Project Shoal Area, the Central Nevada Test .Ai-ca. environmental factor. The physical feature Eldorado Valley, Dry Lake Valley, and Coyote categories which forin the overall impression a Spring Valley. Of particular coniideration are the viewer receives of an area include landform, portions of these sites that can be viewed from key vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, public viewpoints, usually public highways. and manmade (cultural) modification (BLM, 1980). Criteria used in the analysis of visual resources An analysis of impacts was conducted to determine include scenic quality, visual sensitivity, and the effects of each of the four alternatives on visual distance/visibility zones from key public resources. Visual impacts were assessed on tlir viewpoints. potential of each alternative to alter or conflict with the existing landscape character. Thc significance There are three scenic quality classes. Class A of visual impacts was determined by assessing includes areas that combine the most outstanding scenic quality (Class A = outstanding features, characteristics of each physical feature category, Class B = a mix of outstanding and coininoil Class B includes areas in which there is a features, and Class C = common featui-esj; the combination of some outstanding characteristics and degree of visual contrast that the proposed project- some that are fairly common to the region. Class C related activities would create during includes areas in which the characteristics are fairly implementation and operation phases; and whether common to the region. the activities would be seen from low. medium, or high visually sensitive viewpoints that would be Visual sensitivity for this analysis was based solely accessible to the public. These viewpoints would on the volume of travel on public highways, since include areas such as public roadways, recreation this provides the only key public viewpoint of the areas, and residential areas. An impact to visual study areas. Volume of travel was obtained from resources would be considered adverse and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT, potentially significant if the combination of scenic 1993). Study areas that are visible from highways quality, contrasts, and iensitivity level? or the with 3,000 or more average annual daily traffic viewpoints was unacceptably high. Potential were assigned a high sensitivity level. Study areas mitigation measures have been identified for that are visible from highways with 1,000 to significant adverse visual impacts. Land-use 2,999 average annual daily traffic were assigned a sections and Appendix A provide related medium sensitivity level. Study areas that are information regarding proposed facilities and visible from highways with average annual daily activities that would impact visual res~ur~es. traffic below 1,000 were assigned a low visual sensitivity level. E.2.10 Cultural Resources Visual quality and sensitivity may be magnified or This section summarizes the methods of analysis diminished by the distance or visibility of the used to provide an assessment of potential impacts landscape from key viewpoints (BLM. 1980). The to the cultural resources considered in this EIS. landscape scene can be divided into three basic Cultural resources generally consist of three types: distance zones: foreground, from 0 to 0.8 km (1) archaeological sites, (2) historic sites and (0.5 mi); middleground, from 0.8 km (0.5 mi) to structures, and (3) American Indian traditional 8 km (5 mi); and background or seldom-seen views, cultural properties. Archaeological and historical from 8 km (5 mi) to infinity. Seldom-seen views sites contain artifacts and/or features that resulted also include those portions of the landscape that from past human activities on the landscape. These cannot be seen from a key viewpoint because the sites are prehistoric, historic, or multicomponent. viewer’s line of sight is blocked by terrain, These Categories rcfer to time. Prehistoric sites vegctation, or some other physical feature. were formed before written records and historic sites date to times when written record5 were kept. E-19 Volume 1. Appendix F. NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Multicomponent sites have both historic and undertakings. While this law established a federal prehistoric components. American Indian policy towards archaeological remains, it was not traditional cultural properties can include these sites strong enough to curtail the looting of as well as other areas and materials that are archaeological sites. The Archaeological Resources important to American Indians for religious, Protection Act of 1979 along with its regulations historical. or cultural reasons. Traditional resources (43 CFR Part 7) instituted a stronger permitting are areas, features, habitats, plants, animals, system for archaeological work on federal land, minerals, or archaeological sites that contemporary standards for the conduct of archaeological American Indians consider valuable for the investigations, and established the framework as continuation of their traditional culture and religion. well as substantial penalties for violation of the law. Culturiil resources of primary concern include Therefore, it ensures that only qualified properties that are eligible hr or listed on the archaeologists will conduct work on federal land National Register of Historic Places and are sacrcd and that their work must meet the guidelines American Indian sites and areas. provided by the Secretary of the Interiar. Considerable legislation has been enacted over the Second are the laws which require federal agencies years which delineate federal agencieh' obligations to underhtand and plan for the effects of their for cultural resou~ces.Those most pertinent to this actions on cultural resources. These laws are the EIS include, but are not limited to: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), the National Environmental Policy Act I 0 The Antiquities Act of I906 (Public of 1969, and the Archaeological and Historic I Law 59-209) Presei-vation Act of 1974. The National Historic Preservation Act is a landmark legislation which The National Historic Preservation Act of requires federal agcncies to identify significant I966 (Public Law 89-665 as mended) resources and mitigate adverse effects to the cultural resources which are eligible to be listed or are listed 0 The National Environmental Protection Act of on thc National Register of Historic Places. The 1969(PuhlicLa\~91-190) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on 0 The Archaeological and I-listoric Preservation the environmental effects of proposed major federal Act (if I974 (Public Law 94-291 as amended) actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. This legislation usually 0 The American Indian Religious Freedom Act results in the generation of an EIS, which defines of 1978 (Public Law 95-341) the impacts of such planned actions. 0 Thc Archaeological Kesources Protection Act Sections 106 and I10 of the National Historic I of 1979 (Public Law 96-93 Preservation Act are the main drivers. Section 106 requires agencies to establish procedures for 0 The Native American Graves Protection and identifying cultural resources. evaluate their Repatriation Act of 1990 (Public significance based on National Register of Historic I Law 10 1-601). Places criteria, assess effects, preserve or mitigate affected National Register of Historic Places or Theye laws can he divided into thrcc categories. National Register of Historic Places-eligible First are the laws which regulate who can conduct rcsources, and coordinate and consult with the State archaeological studies and the penalties for people Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory who do not abide by these laws. The Antiquities Council on Historic Preservation. Section 110, on Act 01 1906 was the first law to require that the other hand. is intended to ensure that historic archaeological work on federal land be conducted preservation IS fully integrated into the ongoing by professional archaeologists, who are obliged to programs and missions of federal agencies. The obtain permits to undertake fieldwork. The law also Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of sanctioned people who conducted illicit I974 followed the National Historic Preservation Volume 1, Appendix E €5.20 NEVUA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP.4CT STATEMENT Act with similar requirements and has a specific summarizes all of the work completed on the NTS focus on projects related to dam construction. since 1978. This is the most complete set of documentation in existence for the NTS. and was Third are the laws which are directed toward consulted for each hydrographic region within the ensuring the rights of American Indians. The DOE jurisdiction. These files document areas that American Indian Religious Freedom Act protects have been surveyed and list the number and location the rights of American Indians to practice traditional of sites discovered during each survey. They also religions. It ensures the right to access sites, to use identify areas where no sites were located during and possess sacred objects, and to initiate archaeological survey and therefore may have a ceremonials and traditional rites. The Native lower archaeological sensitivity. American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act responded to concerns of American Indians For those areas outside of the DOE jurisdiction, a regarding the custody and disposition of American Class I literature review was conducted at the Hay Indian remains and American Indian cultural Reid Center and Marjorie Hanick Museum of Natural objects. This Act requires federal agencies and History at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. A museum to prepare inventories and summaries of Class I review in~olvesa professional study of existing various kinds of cultural materials in order to data that includes a compilation. analy\is, and initiate a repatriation process. Items affected by the interpretation of all available archaeological, historic, Act include human remains and associated funerilry and palecenvironmental data (BLM, 1990). The objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural Hany Rcid Center is the official state repository for patrimony. site records, reports, and maps that dwument cultural resources found in Clark, Lincoln, Nye, and The DOE has conducted surveys for the Esmeralda counties. This review involved identification of cultural resources on a sustained examination of all records pertinent to identification of basis since 1978 with the recording of over previously recorded cultural resources. These records 2,000 sites in the area under its jurisdiction. Since provide locations of previous surveys, identify negative 1988, the DOE has consulted with concerned surveys, and characterize archaeological sites recorded American Indians in an effort to determine cultural for each area. Additional information was ohtained resources that they believe are important. These from published sources. consultations involve members from 17 different groups, representing three federally recognized Consultations with American Indians are an integral tribes. These include the Southern Paiute, the part of the NTS EIS process. All 17 tribal groups Western Shoshone, and the Owens Valley Paiute have been consulted, and their concerns and whose membership encompasses parts of Nevada, comments are included in this document. This California, Utah, and Arizona. These groups were information was ohtained through ethnographic identified as having prehistoric or historic ties to work, as well as meetings and discussions between lands within and in the vicinity of the NTS. the DOE and the tribal representatives. Consultations resulted in the publication of two documents that focus on the Yucca Mountain Site This EIS contains the most up-to-date information Characterization Project area (Stoffle et al., 1990) on the importance of cultural resources within the and on Pahute and Rainier Mesas (Stoffle et al., areas addressed by the NTS EIS. Cultural resources 1994). The DOE currently is in the process of site data were compiled based on existing records conducting consultations with American Indians and summarized by site type and eligibility for the regarding the Native American Grave Protection National Register of Historic Places as determined and Repatriation Act. through consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Cultural resources The data used to compile information on these recorded prior to 1980 have not been formally resources were obtained from the database which evaluated through SHPO consultation. The the Desert Research Institute maintains for the eligibility of these sites is based on DOE. This database contains a complete set of recommendations of the prqject archaeologists. files, maps, and computerized information which E-21 Volume 1, Appendix E NISVAUA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I According to the National Register of Historic alternatives, (2) assessment of the impacts or effects I Places criteria (36 CFK Part 60.4), the quality of of these actions, (3) determination of significance of I significance is present in districts, sites, buildings, potential historic properties, and (4) development structures, and objects that: and implementation of measures to eliminate or reduce adverse impacts. The latter is usually Arc associated with events that have made a achieved through the establishment of a site-specific significant contribution to the broad patterns of data recovery program. history Adverse effects that may occur are those that have Arc associated with the lives of persons a negative impact on characteristics that make a significant in the past resource eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Actions that can diminish the Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, integrity, research potential, or other important period, or method of construction; represent the characteristics of historic property include the work of a master; possess high attistic value; or following (36 CFR Part 800.9): represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual 0 Physical destruction, damage, or alteration of distinction all or part of the property 0 Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, Isolating the property from its setting or altering information important in prehistory or history. the character of the property’s setting when that character contributes to the property’s To be listed in or considered eligible for listing in I qualification of the National Register of the National Register of Historic Places, a cultural I Historic Places resource must meet at least one of the above criteria and must also possess integrity of location, design, Introduction of visual or auditory elements that setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and are out of character with the property or that association. Integrity is defined as the authenticity alter its setting of a property’s historic identity, as evidenced by the survival of physical charilcteristics that existed 0 Transfer or sale of a federally owned property during the property’s historic or prehistoric without adequate condition or restriction occupation or use. If a resource retains the physical regarding its preservation, maintenance, or use characteristics it possessed in the past, it has the capacity to convey information about a culture or Neglect of a property, resulting in its people, historic patterns, or architectural or deterioration or destruction. engineering design and technology. Regulations for implementing Section 106 of the These criteria result in determination of eligibility National Historic Preservation Act indicate that the for listing on the National Register of Historic transfer, conveyance, lease, or sale of a historic Places. Applicable research domains in Nevada property are procedurally considered to be adverse which establish eligibility for prehistoric sites are effects, thereby ensuring full regulatoly defined in documents published by the state of consideration in federal project planning and Nevada (Lyneis, 1982) and US. Bureau of Land execution. However, effects of a project that would Management (BLM, 1990). Similarly, research otherwise be found to be adverse may not be domains for historic sites are identified considered adverse if one of the following (White et al., 1991). conditions exists: Compliance with requirements of cultural resource When the historic property is of value only for laws and regulations ideally involves four basic its potential contribution to archaeological, steps: (I)identification of cultural resources that historical, or architectural research, and when could he affected by the proposed action and such value can be substantially preserved Volume 1, Appendix E E-22 ~~~ ___ - . - NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL EA'VIRONMENTAL IMP,4CT STATEMENT through the conduct of appropriate research, Fiscal Year 1994 (October 1993 to September 1994), and such research is conducted in accordance 42 cultural resource reconnaissance surveys were with applicable professional standards and conducted and more than 67 archaeological sites guidelines were recorded as a result. Data recovery plans were generated for three previously recorded sites and 0 When the undertaking is limited to the one data recovery project was executed. This level rehabilitation of buildings and structures and is of effort is estimated to hc typical under Alternative conducted in a manner that preserves the I. For alternatives involving increased use of the historical and architectural value of the affected NTS, no matter what that use might be. the level of historic property through conformance with the effort is likely to be much greater than that Secretary of Interior's Standards for documented for Fiscal Year 1994. For Alternative Rehabilitation and Guidelines for 2, the level of effort is estimated to be much less, Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings although some impacts are still anticipated. These estimates cannot always predict the type or number 0 When the undertaking is limited to the transfer, of sites which may be encountered. Therefore, conveyance, lease. or sale of a historic property, cultural resource survey and site characterization and adequate restrictions of conditions are should be a necessary step for planned activities. included to ensure preservation of the property's significant features. E.2.11 Occupational and Public Health and Safetymadiation This EIS assumes that site-specific cultural resource evaluations will be conducted for future actions. The methods and assumptions used to analyze However, for the purposes of this EIS, probable human health and risk impacts resulting from the I mitigative actions are summarized for both four alternatives are presented in Appendix H. I archaeological and architectural manifestations and Human health and safety analysis results are also I are based on standard data recovery procedures presented in this Appendix. I established for the NTS. E.2.12 Environmental Justice Both direct and indirect adverse impacts are likely to result from current and proposed DOE activities Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address as defined in this EIS. Direct impacts include Environmental Justice in Minority Populafiuns arid ground-disturbing activities as well as alterations to Low-lricorne Popiilations, requires identifying and existing, potentially significant historic structures. addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high Indirect impacts may result from increased and adverse human health or environmental effects visitation and vehicular traffic within sensitive of federal programs, policies, and activities on I areas. While most adverse impacts to cultural minority populations and low-income populations. I resources can be negated through avoidance or I mitigation, unavoidable impacts will be incurred at Demographic analysis is the first step in the I sites where contamination levels preclude dctermination of disproportionately high and I archaeological survey, testing, or data recovery. adverse human health or environmental effects to I Any cultural resources in these areas would be lost low-income and minority populations. This I to surface and subsurface disturbance during analysis sets the stage for impact analysis. I remediation activities. Unavoidable impacts may I also be incurred as a result of illcgal artifact All program activities described in this EIS are I collecting. Such impacts may be minimized located in Clark, Nye, or Lincoln counties; I through educational programs involving NTS therefore, the region of intluence for Environmental I workers. Justice includes these three counties for this sitewide EIS. Census block groups, which are Another way that mitigative projects are made clusters of blocks within the same census tracts, includes comparing a typical year's effort with what have been delineated for Clark, Nye, and Lincoln might likely occur under the alternatives. During counties. Census block groups do not cross county 523 Volume 1, Appendix E NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT or census tract boundaries and generally contain census block group and is shaded in the figures in between 250 and 550 housing units (U.S. Bureau of Chapter 4. the Census, 1993). The meiin percentage of minorities in each census For the purpose of analysis, low-income populations block group is 0.07 percent. The deviation from are individuals living within a census block group this 0.07 percent is figured for each census block whose income is below the poverty level. group, the absolute value is determined, and this Households are classified as being below the absolute value for all census block groups is poverty level if the total family income or unrelated averaged. The absolute value average of the individual income is less than the poverty threshold deviation from the mean is 0.06 percent. Therefore, specified for the applic;ihle family size. For the upper limit for minorities in a census block example, the weighted average threshold for a group is 0.07 pcrcent plus 0.06 percent, or 4-person family is $12,674 for the 1990 census. 0.13 percent. Any census block group above This reflects the different consumption 0.13 percent for minorities is considered a minority requirements of families based on their size and community. composition (US. Bureau of the Census, 1994). The same methodology is used for lowincome The U.S. Bureau of the Census identifies four racial communities. The average of the percentage of classifications, including (1) white; (2) black; low-income population in all census block groups is (3) American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut; and 0.03 percent. The absolute value average (of the (4) Asian or Pacific Islander. Hispanic is not deviation from the mean) is 0.01 percent. considered a race by the U.S. Bureau of the Census; Therefore, the upper limit for low-income it is considered an origin. To determine the number communities in a census block group is 0.03 percent of minorities for each census block group for the plus 0.01 percent, or 0.04 pcrcent. Any census purpose of analysis, the white race category, less block group above 0.04 percent for low-income whites of Hispanic origin, were subtracted from the population is considered a low-income community. total census block group population (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994). Clark County is subdivided into 318 census block groups. Ninety-one of the census block groups are Within each census block group, percenta,ues are made up of low-income populations, and 57 census calculated of low-income and minority block groups constitute minority communities communities. The denominator used is the tn- census block groups. Nye County is divided into county (Clark, Nye, and Lincoln counties) total 25 census block groups. One census block group population of 763.015. To determine whether a has a low-income community above the threshold census block group percentage is meaningfully larger I level percentage. and four census block groups have than other census block group percentages, I minority comnrunities above the threshold level thresholds (the average absolute deviation from the percentage. Lincoln County contains eight census mean) for low-income and minority communities block groups. No census block groups in Lincoln are determined. To calculate a threshold, the County have low-income or minority communities percentage of low-income or minority communities above the threshold level percentages. (as compared to the tri-county population) in all census block groups is averaged. The deviation Once the locations of areas of low-income and from this mean is determined for each census block minority communities are determined, the next step group. The absolute value of this deviation is is to determine whether the programs discussed in summed for all census block groups and averaged. this EIS have disproportionately high and adverse This becomes the upper and lower limit of the human health or environmental impacts on low- mean. For the purpose of this analysis, the upper income and minority communities. Environmental limit is the one of interest. If a census block group Justice analysis involves two types of investigation. percentage is larger than the threshold, it is One is the determination of significant and adverse considered a low-income or minority community impacts. The other is an evaluation of whether a minority or low-income population is Volume 1, Appendix E E-24 ~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIKONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT disproportionately affected by these significant and Whether environmental effects are significant adverse impacts. If there are no significant and and are having an adverse impact on minority adverse impacts, then it follows that there would be or low-income populations that appreciably no significant disproportionately high and adverse exceeds or are likely to appreciably exceed impacts experienced by minority and low-income those of the general population or other populations. appropriate comparison group To determine whether human health effects are 0 Whether the environmental effects occur in a adverse and disproportionately high, the following minority population or low-income population factors are considered: affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposure From environmental hazards. 0 Whether the health effects, which may he measured in risks and rates, are significant, To determine where the impacts are located with unacceptable, and above generally accepted respect to areas of lowincome and minority norms. Adverse health effects may include populations, areas of significant and adverse bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death impacts are in the Chapter 4 census block group maps and placed in the Chapter 5 Environmental 0 Whether the risk or rate of exposure by a Justice analysis section. The resulting maps identify minority population or low-income population where low-income and minority populations and to an environmental hazard is significant and significant and adverse impacts are located. With a appreciably excecds or is likely to appreciably I geographic information system, an overlay analysis exceed the risk or rate to the general population is performed to determine whether the impacts disproportionately affect low-income and minority 0 Whether health effects occur in a minority populations. Disproportionate has been determined population or low-income population affected to mean 50 percent or more. In other words, if the by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures overlay analysis determines that a significant from environmental hazards. adverse impact affects SO percent or more of the areas of low-income populations or 50 percent or To determine whether environmental effects are more ofthe areas of minority populations, then this adverse and disproportionately high for low-income impact is said to disproportionately affect these and minority communitics, the following three groups. factors are considcred to the extent practicable: 0 Whether there is an impact on the natural or physical environment that significantly and adversely affects a minority community or low- income community E-25 Volume 1, Appendix E NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT E.3 References REGULATION, ORDER, LAW 36 CFR Part 60.4 I U.S. Department of the Interior ( DOr), “ParksiForestRublic Property: Criteria of I Effect and Adverse Effect,” Cude of Federal Regularions, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1980. 36 CFR Part 800.9 I DOI, “Parks/Forest/F‘ublic Property: “Coordination with Agency Requirements I Under the National Environmental Policy Act,” Code of Federul Regulutions, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, DOE, ParksiForestPublic Property, 1980. 43 CFR Part 7 DOI, “Public Lands: Protection of Archaeological Resources,” Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 199.5. EO 12898 Office of the President, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in I Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” Office of the President, Washington, DC. 1994. GENERAL AASHTO, 1990 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials , A Policy oii Geumetric Design of Highwnys arid Srreers, Washington, DC, 1990. ANSVASME, 1983 American National Standards InstituteiAmcrican Society of Mechanical Engineers , “Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear Facilities,” NQA-I -1 983, 1983. BLM, 1980 Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Visual Resource Mailagemerit frogrum, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, 1980. BLM, 1990 BLM, Crilturul Resources lriventory Geiierul Guidelines, 4th edition, (revised), USDepartment of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, Keno, NV, 1990. I Cartwright et al., 1981 Cartwright, J.V., R.M. Beemiller, and K.D. Gustely, RIMS//, Regional Irrpur- Otttpr Modeling System, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Washington, DC,1981 I DOC, 1992 U.S. Department of Commerce, Rrgioiinl Mulfipliers: A User Hmdbook for I the Regiorial Input-Output Modelirrg System (RIMS //), 19Y2, based on I Cartwright, J.V., R.M. Beemiller, and R.11. Gustcly, RlMS /I, RegiunaI hpur- I Ourput Modeling System, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic I Analysis, Washington. DC, 1981. Volume 1, Appendix E F-26 - ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAI, IMPACT STATfiMEAT I DOE. 1994 I US. Department of Energy (DOE), Yuccu Mountain Sit<,Chrrracteri~~~tioii I Project Socioeconomic Monitoring Program 19Y4 U.S.Di>par/ineii/ of I1 Energy/Nrvnda Employee Survey Datu Report, Execitrive Suniiiiur~,prepared III by Science Applications International Corporation for DOE/Yucca Mountain I Site Characterization Office, Las Vegas, NV, 1994. I EPA, 1971 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Noise froin Conswucriori Equipnierif and Operations, Building Equipinem, and Home Applimicrs. NTID300.1, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, DC. I971 Geraghty and Miller, Geraghty and Miller, Quickj?ow, Geraghty and Miller, Inc., Reston, VA, 1991. Inc., 1991 ICMA, 1982 International City Management Association (ICMA), Lxal Govemn~mrPoiice I Management, Second edition, B.L. Garmire (ed.), Washington, DC, 1982. ITE, 1991 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, mi Iriforrmiion Report, Fifth edition, Washington, DC, 1991 King, 1984 King, J.M., “Computing drawdown distributions using microcomputer,’ Groundwater, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 780-784, 1984. Lyneis, 1982 Lyneis, M. (Coordinator), An Archaeological Elementfor rhe Nriwfu Nismric Preservation Plan, Nevada Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Carson City, NV, 1982. NDOT, 1993 Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), 1993 Annual Tr@. Rrporr, Planning and Program Development, Traffic Section, in Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Adniinistration, Carson City, NV, 1993. NFPA, 1986 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Fire Profectiori Ni~iiribork, I 16th edition, A.E. Coto, P.E. and L.J. Liscville, (eds.), Quincy, MA, 1986 I Nye County Board of I Nye County Board of Commissioners, Draft Bmeline Economic urd I Commissioners, 1993 I Demographic Projections: 1990-2010, Nye County urid Nyr Cotuiry I Communities Draft. Nye County, NV, 1993. I RSN, 1994 I Raytheon Services Nevada (RSN), Nevada Test Sire Techiiicai irifortiiutioii, I prepared for the DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV, 1994. I Schwer, 1995 I Schwer, R.K., U.S.Ecunomic Outlook 19Y5. Center [or Business and I Economic Research, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. NV, 19%. I Stoffle et al., 1990 I Stoffle, R.W., D.B. Halmo, J.E. Olmsted, and hf.1. Evans, Niiri~c,Airi<,r.icilii I Ciiltirr~rlResource Studies 01 Yucca Mourituiit, Neievnda. Institutc for Social I Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1990. E-27 Volume 1, Appendix E -~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I Stoffle ct al., 1994 I Stoffle, R.W., M.J. Evans, D.B. Halmo, M.E. Dufort, and B.K. Fulfrost, I Native American Ciiltural Resources on Pahute and Rainier Mesas, Nevada I Test Site. Desert Research Institute Technical Report No. X4, BARA, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 1994. Strack 1989 I Strack, O.D.L., Croiindw.nter Mechanics, Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, I NJ, 1989. I Tctra ’Tech, Inc., 1995 I Tetra Tech, Inc., Trrrffic Counts and Observatiuns of Traffic Chriracterislics at I fhe Merury Gate hv Tetra Tech, lnr. Personnel on Murch 23, lYYS, I San Bernardino, CA, 1995. &S. l3iire;iu olihe U.S. Bureau of the Census, T/GER/Line Census Files, 19Y2. Technical Censuh, I993 L)ocumentation, U.S. Dcpartment of Commerce, Washington, DC, 1993 US. Bureau ofthe U.S. Bureau ofthe Census, County nnd City Dntu Book 1YY4, US. Ccnws, 1994 Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, 1994, White ct a]., 1991 White, W.G.. R.M. James, aid R. A. Bernstein, Nevndo Cotnprehensive Preservufiun Plan, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archeology, Carson City, NV, 1991. Wright and Green, Wright, D.S., and G.D. Greene, ”An Environmental Impact Assessment of 19x7 Methodology for Major Resource Development,” Joiirnnl of Enviroinnenml Manngernent, Val. 24, pp. 1-16, 1987. \ulume 1. Appendix I< E-2n Appendix F I PROJECT-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ;VEVALIA TEST SITE FINAL EAXVIRON~WENTAI-MPACT STA TEMENT APPENDIX F PROJECT-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS I This project-specific envii-onmental analysis is high-explosive charges up to 3,629 kg (8,000 Ib) I intended to complete the National Environmental each; no beryllium, depleted uranium, deuterium, or I Policy Act rcquiremcnts 1-or the Big Explosives tritium would he used. I Experiniental I'acility. It evaluatrs tlie potential I environmental, health and safety iinpacts of F.2 Purpose and Need for Action I Altern:itive 3. "Expanded Use of the Facility," and I Alternative I, "Continue Cut-rent Operations." With the end of the Cold War, the DOE'S Defense I Program efforts are shifting from the development I P.l Introduction of new nuclear weapons to the difficult problem of maintaining the safety, reliability. and performance Lawrence Liverrnore National Laboratory and of the enduring stockpile, as well as the challenging Los Alamos National Laboratory act for the task of developing the technologies for rendering I U.S. Department of Encrgy (DOE) tinder thc aegis safe potentially stolen United States stockpile I of tlie Nevada Test Site (NTS) Joint Test nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons fielded by I Organization. Thcsi: laboratories are involved in proliferant states, and nuclear threats from terrorist bunker certillcati(in activities in support of the organizations. With the moratorium on proposed hydrodynamic and pulse power testing at underground nuclear testing, tlie Nation is pursuing the Big Explosives Experimeiital Facility at the alternative, science-based approaches to stewarding NTS. These test5 are currently limited to the the enduring stockpile. As the numerically reduced aboveground detonations of conventional high stockpile ages, new issues emerge that are different, explosives and niunitions with charges LIP to atid in many ways iiiore challenging than those 3,629 kilogriitns (kg) (8,000 pounds [ Ib]) each. involved in designing and testing the systems in the Lawrence Liverrnore National Lahoratory and first place. Computational tools, appropriate for the Los Al;imos National Laboratory propose to expand initial design of nearly ideal systems, must be the use of this facility to include testing of advanced improved to address these new challenges. Further, tcchnologie, in support of the DOE Defense expe.rimen(al hta from a variety (if high energy Progrnni's stockpile stcwardship, counter- density pliysics experiments are needed to validdte proliferation, and work for others efforts. The the improved computational models. expanded use of the Big Explostves Expcriinental Facility would involve large experimental systems The complement to effective stewardship of the arid high-explosive charges up to 31,751 kg United States' enduring stockpile is the ability to (7(1,(100 Ib) each. Experiiiients could contain safely address the worldwide threat posed by stolen, potentially hazardous ni:itet-i;ils, such iis beryllium, proliferated, or improvised nuclear devices. de pletcd iiriiiii u tii, deuteri it iii, :ind ti-i ti um. No Modern United States' nuclear weapons have expeiiment that contains special nuclear materials ;is sophisticated safety features and are small in size defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1054 would compared to nuclear weapons of 50 years ago. he perl.(irnred at the facility. Consequently, their disablerrrent is straightforward and certain in most cases. Proliferant countries and Alternative 3 (Expanded Lrw) and Alternative 1 tc'rrorist organizations, however, are likely to (Contittue Cun-ent Operations) arid heir associated pi-oduce nuclear weapons that are large, unstable potential impact are ;iddrzssed in this prqject- and, thei-crorc, difficult to render safe with certainty. specific environmental analysis. Llndrr The put-pose of this DOE action is to develop Alternative I, the Rig Explosivei Esperimcn(al technologies that provide experimental data for Facility would ciintinu~'to he tlwd for ongoing mlid:ition of modern cotnputer codes and certification tests iuid shaped ch;~rge I-eseai-cli, techt~ilogiesthat could safely neutralize the nuclear dc\.elopmcnt, md dc:moristratioti nctibities with weapons that could he produced by proliferant F- 1 Volume I, Appendix F ~ NEVAUA TEST SITE FINAI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT countries and terrorist organizations. structures, hunkers 4-300 and 4-480, are currently The Big Explosives Experimental Facility would being used as part of the complex. fulfill this need by providing a facility for very large explosively powered physics experiments, and the F.3.1.2 Bunkers 4-300and 4-480. Bunkers 4-300 capacity to conduct hydrodynamic testing of and 4-480 are part of the Big Explosives proposed render-safe technologies against simulated Experimental Facility. The bunkers house modern nuclear devices where large amounts of hydrodiagnostic testing equipment for use during conventional high explosives might be involved. detonations of very large, conventional high- The facility currently has diagnostic equipment explosive charges and devices (Wobser, 1994). The sophisticated enough to provide this scientific data hunkers have upgraded electrical, lighting, and and a sufficient proof of destruct in thc abscnce of ventilation systems; optical ports; and electronic underground nuclear testing. control conduits. The facility has the capability to support many of the sophisticated diagnostics F.3 Description of the Alternatives techniques needed for the evaluation of hydrodynamic and pulse power experiments Alternative 3, Expanded Use, and Alternative 1, containing large amounts of high explosives. The Continue Current Operations, are described in the facility is designed and has been modified in full following sections. compliance with applicable building codes and DOE orders and requirements (Revers, 1994). F.3.1 Alternative 3 Bunker 4-480 is designed to contain up to Alternative 3 would allow for the expanded use of five helium or nitrogen-gas-driven rotating-mirror the Big Explosives Experimental Facility to include framing cameras, one (or more) laser-illuminated hydrodynamic testing and pulse power experiments image-converter camera, one (or more) continuous- using high-explosive charges up to 31,751 kg rotating-mirror framing camera, one (or more) I (70,000 Ih) each. These experiments would contain streaking camera, and one (or more) infrared potentially hazardous materials wch as beryllium, imaging camera in various combinations. This depleted uranium, deuterium, and tritium. Such bunker is equipped with five camcra stands and testing would further the technologies required to five corresponding optical ports with access to the support the DOE Defense Program’s stockpile 20-meter (m) x 20-m (66-foot [ft] x 66-ft) area stewardship, counterproliferation, and work for gravel firing pad. Bunker 4-300 contains others efforts. No experiment that contains special three rooms: the control room, the laser room, and nuclear materials (as defined by the Atomic Energy the utility room. The control and utility rooms were Act of 1954) would he performed at the Big modified to house the diagnostic and firing control Explosives Experimental Facility. electronics, digitizers, electronic rccording equipmcnt, and other electronic equipment F.3.1.1 Location. The Big Explosives necessary for hydrodynamic and pulse power Experimental Facility is located in noilli-central experiments. The laser room was modified to Area 4 of Yucca Flat, ii site associated with ;tccommodate a pulsed Ruby laser for image- atmospheric nuclear testing and nonexplosive converter canieril illumination and it laser for nuclear research at the NTS (Figure F-I). The site niultibeam Fahry-Perot velocimetry. Both bunkers contains seven undcrground structures associiitcd are shown in Figure F-2. with atmospheric tcsting, one set of unidentified stanchions that might have been associated with In the future, experiments of larger scale and more atmospheric testing, the Rare Reactor Experiment complexity may be proposed in support of both the Nevada Tower foundations and stanchions, and a stockpile stewardship and render-safe missions. “Japanese Village” mock-up. Although these These experiments would require sophisticated, structures were abandoned when ahoveground advmced diagnostic rechniques and may involve nuclear testing was halted, two of the undcrground Volume 1, Appendix F F-2 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 0 116 T4- i 9 i 5 0 5 10 MLS Figure F-1. Location of Area 4 at the NTS showing the Big Explosives Experimental Facility location F-3 Volume 1, Appendix F ~. aP X g Em 0 !? 3 F g P w 0 zi??=zz 0 oading Dock E 3 NEVAUA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAI. IMPACT STATEMENT advanced pulse power techniques as well. Specific cotnponents of beryllium and depleted uranium. diagnostic and pulse power equipment may require Some tests would involve deuterium and or tritium. additional bunkerkhelter space near the tiring However, the quantities of these potentially location. Future experiments may also require hazardous and radioactive materials would be recording to il large number (several hundred) of limited. The maxiinum quantities of these materials electronic and optical data channels; an expanded, would be I20 kgiyr (265 Ibiyr) of beryllium; suitably sheltered recording station may also be 1,202 kg/yr (2,650 Ibiyr) of depleted uranium; required. Additional shelters and blast-shields may 200 milligram (mg) per year (mg/yr) be temporary or permanent and constructed of (4.4 x 10~’ Ibiyr) of deuterium; and 200 mg/yr native soil as earth berms or steel and sandbag (2,000 curies per year [Ciliyr) of tritium. Tritium structures. Additional bunker space, if needed, would be used in approximately 10 of the 100 tests would be reinforced concrete construction, buried per year; but no more than 100 mg (I000 Ci) per or earth covered, in a manner virtually identical to test would be used. bunkers 4-480 and 4-300. Table F-l shows the estimates of annual material F.3.1.3 Firing Table and Surroundings. The Big usage during Big Explosives Experimental Facility Explosives Experimental Facility contains an operations. Most of this material would be approximately 20-m x 20-m (66-ft x 66-ft) firing dispersed in the form of solid debris that either table within the graded area west of the bunkers. would be recovered after the test or would be The firing table consists of pea gravel 1.8 m (6 ft) to deposited in the firing table gravel (which is 2.4 m (8 ft) deep. Three large (3 m 110 ft] in periodically removed and replaced) diameter and 6-m [20-ft] long) steel cylinders are (Section F.S.2.5). Because the experiments would placed outside the bunkers near the firing pad to be conducted outdoors, the remainder of the house 2.3-million-electron volt Febetron X-ray material would be, for the most part, dispersed to sources for high-energy X-ray radiography. the environment (primarily as metal or oxides). The Hycam recorders and video monitors are placed materials listed on Table F-I are, therefore, an around the firing area to monitor aboveground indication of what would constitute the maximum activity and the experimental performance of the annual source terms for waste streams andlor test devices. The area surrounding the bunkers is emissions that would likely rcsult from conducting graded with new earthcn berms that provide blast approximately 100 tests per year. protection and shield from radiation, and with a downrange projectile stop. The Big Explosives F.3.1.4.1 Prefest and Test Activities-Storage and Experimental Facility has a perimeter security assembly of high-explosives charges for the Big Explosives Experimental Facility Operations would fence, approximately 222 m x 480 m be provided in Sandia National Laboratories’ (728 ft x 1,575 ft), with a guardhouse to provide Warehouse No. 8, located in Zone 2, Area 6 of the security and access control. NTS (or its equivalent). Wai-ehouse No. 8 is an approved facility for the storage of high-explosive F.3.1.4 Operation. Approximately 100 research charges used in suppoit of the DOE-laboratory and diagnostic experiments would be conducted testing activities. The high-explosive device would annually at the Big Explosives Experimental be assembled at the Baker Site in Area 27, an NTS Facility. Quantities of high explosives expended in high-explosive and nuclear assembly area. tests would range from 0.5 kg (1 Ib) each to 31,751 kg (70,000 Ih) each. The firing table High-explosive devices would be transported from configuration may be modified (i.e., extended or Warehouse No. 8 to the Raker Site, and then to the deepened) for certain experiments that involve very Big Explosives Experimental Facility. Under large high-explosive masses or unusual security guard, high-explosive charges would likely circumstances. The experiments would continue remain on the firing table at the facility until ongoing hydrodynamic testing and include prcpasations for thc cxpet-iment were completed and applications of shapcd-charge technology. the high explosive was detonated. Advanced technologies would also be pursued. Some of thcse tests would typically involve some F-5 Volume 1, Appendix F NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIR0NME"IrlL IMPACT STATEMENT Table F-1. Estimated materials usage for the Big Explosives Experimental Facility operations Alternative I Alternative 3 Projected usage based on the estimated coinposition of 100 tests Only a very mail iraction of the weights of thc melallic materials arid salts listed in this tnhlc would be enpccled to he volatilized as gaseous or aerosol products ' These materials are potcntially hazardous and their use could lead to the generation ui mixed Waste when radiological materials ;Ire also present. These materials would he used only in those rare instances where suitable replacement materials cannot be found to meet programniatic requirements ' Beryllium. depleted uranium, deuterium, and tritium would bc present in cnpcriments only under Alternative 3; thcy would be absent under Alternative I Chrurnium and nickel sources are primarily alloy matcrials and nickel oii test hardware, such ab nuts and bolts. Following an cxperimcnt, most of this material would he large enough to be retrievcd by hand and can he either disposed of in a managed waste stream or recyclcd ' Copper source is partially electrical leads and wire. Most pieces of this material would he large cnough to he retriered by hand ilillowing an experiment and can he either diipnsed oi in a managed waste stream or recycled In rare initanccs. thorium may he used in place oidcplctcd uraniuni This projection is hilsed on an cslirnated maximum of 10 tests per year. Volume 1, Appendix F F-6 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIKONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I Transport, handling, and testing of high-explosive F.3.1.4.2 Post-Test Activities-Experiments I devices would be conducted by trained and would be electronically and optically monitored by I experienced NTS, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Big Explosives Experimental Facility hunker I and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory supervisor and test personnel from the protected I personnel in accordance with all federal and state control room in bunker 4-300. After an experiment I regulations, DOE orders, The DOE Explosives that does not involve radioactive materials, I Safety M[JTIU~(DOE, 1991 j, and the DOE- television cameras would survey the firing table for I approved test plans and procedures to ensure safe burning debris. Fires would he quenched by a I handling and testing of high-explosive materials. short-duration water washdown or allowed to self- I extinguish. When entry to the firing table is I Nonexplosive support fixtures and appdratus needed permissible, qualified explosives handlers (using I for the test assemblies would be assembled at the breathing protection, if necessary) would reenter. I facility and set up on the firing table. This Any smoldering materials or unreacted explosives apparatus often includes heavy foundations or shot would be rendered safe so that others could enter. stands to support the explosive experiment, annored Diagnostics data would he collected, and the firing radiographic filtn cassettes, heavy-steel monientum- table would be cleaned in preparation for the next transfer plates, mild-steel and wooden shrapnel experiment. shields, glass optical turning mirrors and mounting hardware, expendable capacitor discharge units, Tests involving components containing tritium high-pressure gas-filled devices, and other special would be administratively limited to 100 mg diagnostic equipment. Much of this apparatus is (1,000 Ci) tritium each; it is estimated that a expended in the test. Motor-driven cranes and maximum of 10 such tests per year would be forklifts may be used to move both the inert performed (a maximum of 200 mg 12,000 Ci] of apparatus and the explosives, if needed. Strict tritium per year). After an experiment, re-entry to administrative controls would he applied to restrict the tiring table would be delayed until tritium levels personnel movemcnt and location while certain of were deemed acceptable for re-entry. Re-entry these set-up operations are conductcd. scheduling would also depend on the levels of any other residual radiation, the intensity of which When other equipment has been readied, the would he monitored during and after an experiment, explosives-containing assembly would he brought by truck to the firing table from its assembly point F.3.2 Alternative 1 at the Baker Site or from an explosives storage magazine and carefully set in position; only Under Alternative 1, the DOE Defense Program essential personnel would he in attendance. System would continue ongoing certification tests and checks, in the form of “dry runs,” would he shape charge research, development, and performed to show that all electrical and mechanical demonstration activities with aboveground systems had been properly installed and connected detonations of high explosive charges up to and to verify that proper time delays between 3,629 kg (8,000 Ib) each. The facility configuration individual events had been programmed. (Sections F.3.1.1 through 3.13). pretest and test activities (Section F.3.1.4.1 j and post-test activities When all dry-run testing is complete, the site would (Section F.3.1.4.2) would also apply to he secured. Personnel would be assembled and Alternative I, except no beryllium, depleted accounted for (“mustered”) within the protected uranium, deuterium, or tritium would be used. control room (bunker 4-300j, and the experiment Estimates of annual material usage at the would be conducted. During testing, the muster Big Explosives Experimental Facility under control distance for any noninvolved worker could Alternative 1 are presented in Table F-I, The DOE be up lo 8,534 m (28,000 ft) from the firing table, would continue to develop render-safe technologies. depending on the size of the high-explosive charge. However, without the use of beryllium, depleted uranium, and tritium to provide realistic threat- nuclear-device and without the ability to develop F-7 Volume 1. Appendix F NlW..UA TEST SITI? FItVAL ENVIROiVMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT and test technologies requiring greater than The NTS region is designated as attainment for 3,629 kg (8,000 Ib) of conventional high explosives, criteria pollutants under the National Ambient Air the confidence in the proof of destruct and, Quality Standards. Criteria pollutants include therefore, the efficacy of new render-safe carbon monoxide, lead, oxides of nitrogen, ozone, technologies might be vxiously degraded. particulate matter 10 microns or smaller (PM,,,),and oxides of sulfur. Fugitive dust (PM,,,) generated F.4 Description of the Affected Environment from the various programmatic construction activities at NTS includes 1,422 tonslyr from A brief description of the affectcd environment Defense Program activities, 4 tonslyr from waste surrounding the Big Explosives Experimental management activities, 21 9 tonsiyr from Facility as it relates to the scope of Alternative 3 is environmental restoration activities, and 180 tonsiyr presented in this section. Detailed descriptions can from site support activities. The total Nye County he found in Chapter 4 of this Environmental Impact fugitive dust emissions are 866,400 tonslyr. Statement (EIS). The NTS criteria pollutant emissions from mobile F.4.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils sources include 240 tonsiyr carbon monoxide, 33 tonsiyr volatile organic compounds, and Area 4 is located within the northern half of 43 tonsiyr nitrogen oxides. The Nye County criteria Yucca Flat, an (350-square kilometers [km’] pollutant emissions from mobile sources include [135 square mile (mi2)]) oval-shaped holson 571 tonsiyr carbon monoxide, 82 tonslyr volatile (a basin with no outlet) located in the northeastern organic compounds, and 135 tonsiyr nitrogen corner of the NTS. The area is mostly flat and oxides. gently slopes upward from east to west. Average elevation is approximately 1,280 111 (4,200 ft). F.4.4 Hazardous Air Pollutants Sediments in this area itre mostly alluvial because tributary streams erode the surrounding mountains Toxic air contaminants are subject to the National and deposit sediments in Yucca Flat. The majority Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. of these Sediments in this area have been disturbed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air by human use. Pollutants standards pertaining to operations at the Big Explosives Experimental Facility are those for F.4.2 Seismicity beryllium and radionuclides. The Big Explosives Experimental Facility is located Using the 1993 data for release of radionuclides in a region that has experienced seismic activity from NTS operations, the maximum boundary dose within historical times. Yucca Fault in Yucca Flat to a hypothetical individual who remains has been active within the last few thousand to tens continuously during the year at the NTS boundary of thousands of years. located 60 kin (37 mi) south-southeast of Area 12 tunnel ponds would have an effective dose F.4.3 Climate and Air Quality equivalent of 4.8 x 10.’ rnillirem (mrem). This is below the National Emission Standards for Area 4 has a desert climate. Annual mean Hazardous Air Pollutants standard of 10 mrcm per precipitation is approximately 152 rnillimeters (mm) year, and well below the natural background (6 inches [in.]), most of which falls between radiation to individuals of 382 mrem per year. October and April during rna.jor winter storms. Strong, persistent winds arc characteristic of the F.4.5 Surface and Groundwater Hydrology site. In Yucca Flat, the average annual wind speed is 1 I kilometers per hour (kph) (7 miles per hour No surface sources of water exist at the site. The [niph]). The prevailing wind direction during the depth to the water table under Yucca Flat is winter months is nodh-northeasterly, and during the approximately 366 m (1,200 ft) (see Chapter 4, summer months is soulh-southeasterly. Section 4. I .5 of the NTS EIS). The Big Explosives Volume I, Appendix h F-8 -~ ~- -~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Experimental Facility firing table gravel is biological resources of the site are provided by periodically removed and replaced Johnson et al. (1994). (Section F.5.2.5); the percolation of metal residue to groundwater is not expected. F.4.9 Floodplains and Wetlands F.4.6 Vegetation No floodplains or wetlands exist within or near the Big Explosives Experimental Facility. Vegetation of the area is dominated by mbhithrush, cheatgrass, and other grasses. Desert thorn is an F.4.10 Noise important associate. No plants that have been listed as threatened or endangered are known to occur at Existing chronic noise sources at or near the the NTS. Big Explosives Experimental Facility include vehicular traffic, heating, ventilating, and air F.4.7 Wildlife conditioning equipment. Acute sources are limited to explosives testing (up to 140 decibels LdB] at the Fauna observed in the field is limited to jackrabbits, hunkers). Background noise levels are generally lizards, and various birds. The area is low, ranging from 50 dB to 70 dB. approximately 26 kni (16 mi) north of the desert tortoise habitat (see Section 4. I .6 of this EIS). F.5 Potential Effects of Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 F.4.8 Cultural Resources In the sections that follow, the environmental Bunkers 4-300 and 4-480 are identified as historic impacts of Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 are structures and are potentially eligible for the described and compared. National Register of Historic Places because of their association with the atmospheric nuclear testing F.5.1 Alternative 1 period at the NTS. Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and an Under Alternative 1, the Big Explosives evaluation of potential errects that would result Experimental Facility would continue to be used for from the modification and operation of the hunkers certification tests and shaped-charge research, have been conducted. This evaluation showed that development, and demonstration activities with the modifications done on the hunkers and their high-explosive charges up to 3,629 kg (8,000 Ib) ongoing operations would not adversely impact the each. A total of 100 shots per year would consume bunkers. approximately 226,796 kg (500,000 Ib) of high explosives. No beryllium, depleted uranium, One additional property exists that has been deuterium, or tritium would he used. There would identified as a potential historic structure because of he no increased levels of generation of low-level or its association with the Bare Reactor Experiment mixed wastes. Because Alternative 1 represents the Nevada Tower. This property consists of a levels of current ongoing operations, the facility grouping of three wood-frame structures and is would not contribute any incremental emissions or referred to as the "Japanese Village." The village is waste generation. The DOE would continue its located approximately 676 m (2,218 ftj east of the present level of ongoing missions to support bunkers along Road 4-04. These structures have development of render-safe technologies. experienced severe weathcr-related deterioration; however, they have bcen hardencd with steel F.5.2 Alternative 3 structural plates to withstand a peak over-pressure of 70 glcm' (I Ib/in? j. The tower has since been The following section describes the potential relocated to Area 25 of the NTS. Further details environmental impacts that would occur under concerning the cultural, archaeological, and Alternative 3. These impacts have been included in F-9 Volume 1, Appendix F ~ ~~ ~~ NEVADA TEST SITE FINAI. ENVIRONMENTAI. IMPACT STATHMENT determining the cumulative impacts associated with out on the 20-m x 20-ni x 1.8-in to 2.4-111 Alternative 3. (66-ft x 66-ft x 6-11 to 8-l't) deep gravel firing table in order to minimize dust uplift, dispersal of soil F.5.2.1 Constructiori-Related Effects. Potential contaminants, and coupling of ground shocks to the construction-related impacts associated with surrounding structures. A 31.751 kg (70,000 Ib) modification of the firing table and construction of high-explosive detonation could form ii crater I5 m hunkers would include increased fugitive dust, (50 Tt) in diameter and 3 m (I0 ft) in depth. noise, and temporary on-site traffic disruptions from Therefore, the firing table would he rnodified the use of earth-moving equipment. Fugitive dust (extended beyond 20 in [66 ftl from hunker 4-480) emissions would he mitigated by spraying water on so that detonation of this size \vould not penetrate the roads and on the exposed piles of excavated ground soils. soils. Workers would wear appropriate ear protection to reduce noise impacts. Traffic Additionally, high-explosive charge-weight versus disruptions would be kept to a minimum by limiting distance limits would he established for safc, other nonconstruction-related activities. The area manned operation of the facility. Testing of n given within the perimeter of the Big Explosives high-explosive charge size and configuration would Experimental Facility has previously been be perfonned while keeping the blast over-pressure, disturbed, and there are no foreseeable cultural or ground shock, and noise IevcIs well within the natural resources that would he impacted by the envelope of the facility design criteria. Within a construction activities. large margin of safety. the facility is designed to withstand the erfects 01454 kg (1,000 Ib) olhigli- F.5.2.2 Noise and High-Explosive WeightLimits. explosives dctonated 4.6 m (15 It) from the outer Meteorological conditions at the Big Explosives wall of bunker 4-480, or 2,268 kg (5,000 Ih) of high Expenrnental Facility are monitored before each test cxplo~ivedetonated 8.2 ni (77 Ct) from the outer so that noise levels can be projected and a minimum wall of hunker 4-480. Based on standard "stay-out" zone surrounding the firing table for safe engineering principles, thex design criteria, and the operation can be determined. On previous tests size of the firing table, an eflcctive upper limit ciin perfoormed at the facility, noise levels were he determined for the sizc of the high-explosive monitored for each detonation at stations placed at charge that could he dettmated at the l3ig Explosives various distances from the high-explosive charges Experimental Facility. If the iiiiixiiiiuni distance and at stations within the hunkers (Bevers, 1994). from the outer wall of bunker 4-480 to the end of The results of these noise-monitoring activities the gravel firing table is 20 ni (65 ft). then the demonstrated that noise levels from explosives largest high-explosive charge that could be testing for up to 3,538 kg (7,800 Ih) of detonated at the Big Explosives Experinrental trinitrotoluene (TNT) placed 8 m (27 ft) from Facility in its presciit cwitipration would he bunker 4-480 did not exceed 140-dB within 31,751 kg (70,000 Ih). hunker 4-300, which would be manned during iioriiial operations. The 140-dB limit has been P.5.2.3 Air Emissions. Air eiiiissims from the adopted by the U.S. Department of Defense Big Expl Volume I, Appendix F F-10 - ~ - ~VI~VAIIATF,XTSlTE FliYAl. l5VVIKONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Thehe prqjected emissions of high-explosive I [pgift '1). In contrast, the Derived Concentration detonation products are presented in Table F-2. I Guide (a calculated concentration of radionuclides These cmissionh from the Big Explosives I that could he continuously consumed or inhaled and Experimental Facility are s1iia11 when cornpared to I not exceed the DOE primary radiation protection the overall NTS and Nye County emission IevcIs. I standard to the public of 100-mrem-per-year In order to estimate a percentage increase from I effective dose equivalent) for depleted uranium is mgning NTS and Nye County emissions due to the I 0.3 pg/m' (0.01 pglft'). I expanded Rig Explosives Expcrimental Facility I operations, it was a~suimed that Alternative 1 The radioactive air emission of potentially greatest represents no increase above curl-cnt levels of impact is tritiated water. On approximately 10 tests :missions (those from ongoing NTS operations). per year, tritium may be used. On some of these Therefore, increase in air eniissions under the 10 tests, the tritium content may he as high as I expanded use would he the difference between 100 mg (1,000 Ci). The total tritium usage columns 2 and 4 of Tahle F-2. For example, would he administratively limited to incremental carbon rnonoxide emissions would he I 200 mg (2,000 Ci) per year. It is assumed that, as a the difference between 3,3 1 I kg&r (7,300 Ib/yr) and worst case, all tritium would he converted to 1,678 kg/yr (3,700 Ib/yr), or 1,633 kgiyr tritiated water. Of the maximum of 1,000 Ci of (3.600 Ib/yr). This incretiieiital iiicrcase in carbon tritium that could be present on the firing table, monoxide emissions (due to proposed facility 99 mg (990 Ci) (99 percent) is expected to result in operations) of 1,633 kg/yr (3,600 Ib/yr) is small tritiated water vapor, and 1 mg (10 Ci) (1 percent) compared to the NTS carbon monoxide emissions would condense on the steel supports, gravel, of 217,724 kg/yr (480,000 Ib/yr) and Nyc Caunty I equipment, and debris at the firing table. (See carbon monoxide eniissions of 5 17,095 kgiyr I Section F.5.2.4 for discussion of exposures to I (I,140,000 Ibiyr). Therefore, Alternative 3 I ionizing radiation.) Airborne emissions of I represents less than an approximate 1 -percent radionuclides and hazardous air pollutants would I increase in NTS carbon monoxide emissions and an comply with the National Emission Standards and I approximate 0.3-percent iiict-case in Nyc County Hazardous Air Pollutants compliance and reporting I carhon monoxide emission levels. Similarly, the requirements. I incremental 1,633 kg/y (3,600 Ibiyi-) volatile I organic compound emissions represents a7-percent F.5.2.4 Exposure to Radionuclides. I increase in NTS voI;itile F-11 Volume 1, Appendix F NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Table F-2. Estimated air emissions from detonation of high explosives at the Rig Explosives Experimental Facility Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Material Continue Current Operations Expanded Use kg/yr Iblyr kg/gr Ib/yr Carhon monoxide 1,67R 3,700 3.3 I I 7.300 Volatile organic compounds 1,633 3,600 3,266 7.200 Nitrogen oxides 998 2,200 1,950 4,300 Fugilivc emissionsh 1.451 3,200 2.901 6.400 ' Projected air emission dispersals per year is based on the estimated composition of 100 testslyr ' Carbon dust and soot. wind-speed conditions, which result in less I an area of 0.5 km (0.31 mi) in radius. The workers dispersion and higher plume centerline radiological I would wait until residual radiation levels are safe concentration as the detonation cloud moves I for reentry (1 to 7 days). Maximum potential downwind. I exposure to facility-area workers is presented in Table F-4. Based on this analysis, the collective The dose versus downwind distance results from the dose to workers at 0 km (0 mi) and workers at a application of the HOTSPOT code are given in 3.5-km (2.2-mi) distance would result in a Table F-3. This worst-case scenario gives the probability of excess cancer fatality of 4.3 x 10~' maximum potential effects from the airborne (4 in 10,000 chance of fatal cancer per year over a radionuclides. All other scenario conditions would 30-year exposure). Any airborne dispersal of yield doses that are less than those given in activated products would be minimal and well Table F-3. Based on the collective effective dose below the DOE guideline of 5 rem per year and equivalent for 10 shots per year for 30 years, the natural background radiation of 382 mrem per year. excess cancer fatality rate to the on-site maximally exposed individual would be 1.7 x 10~4 F.5.2.5 Waste Effluents. The proposed action (approximately 2 in 10,000 chance of fatal cancer would result in the generation of low-level waste per year over a 30-year exposure). An off-site and/or mixed waste. Conservative estimates are that maximally exposed individual at a distance of one 36 ni' ( 1,280 ft ) transportainer of shot or test 50 km (31 mi) from the Big Explosives debris and four 2.5 m3 (90 ft') gravel boxes would Experimental Facility would have an excess cancer be generated as low-level waste from each test. I fatality rate of 4.6 x 10~' (approximately 5 in I This estimate assumes that low-level waste would 10 million chance of fatal cancer per year over a I be generated from all tests, including tests without 30-year exposure). I any radiological components, because of some I I activation products remaining from previous tests I It is assumed that after each such test, as many as 3 I with radionuclides. Mixed waste generation is I involved facility-area workers would spend I expected from the proposed action because of the I 2 to 6 hours per day and up to 2 days at the firing I use of hazardous materials and radionuclides listed I table. To obtain the worst-case potential exposure I in Table F-I. Conservative estimates are that 4.5 m' I estimate, it was assumed that 10 Ci of tritium and I (160 ft') of mixed waste would be generated from I all activated products would be evenly distributed in Volume 1, Appendix F F-12 I t i I I I I I I I I I I I II r01Y9Z rO1 x 80 ! 0 0 II NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL EA'VIRONMBNTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Table F-5. Comparison of annual Big Explosives Experimental Facility waste-generation rates with NTS waste-handling levels Solids from Big Explosives NTS waste-handling Experimental Facility* totals (1994) (cubic feet per year) Waste Type m' f 1' m' ft' H~ZX~UUSwaste" 0 0 303 10,695 Low~lcvelwaste 4,644 164,000 21.3 12' 752,644' Mixcd Waste 46 1,640" 76' 2.6~ Transursnic waste' 0 0 NAF NAF - I I Assuming the noninvolved worker is located I Village remains approximately 683 m (2,240 ft) I approximately 3.5 km (2.2 mi) from the facility, that I from the facility. These calculations show that these structures might experience over-pressure I individual would have a committed effective dose I an I from a blast of 0.024 kgisquare centimeter (cm') I equivalent of 7.0 x 10~'rem. Hence, either accident (0.34 Ibkquare inches [in.']) for 90 milliseconds. It scenario would result in a fatality to an involved is unlikely that such a short-duration pulse would worker. but there would be minor impacts to the have an adverse effect on the remnants of the stmctures and noninvolved workers. This projected Japanese Village. Forces from naturally occurring radiation dose to the noninvolved worker is still phenomena (e.g., winds) at the NTS could reach lower than the DOE guideline limits for workers speeds that apply equivalent forces. Coordination and for the general public: thus, the greatest effect with the SHPO was conducted to determine the would be fatalities or injuries to workers due to historical value of the properties at the two sites. primary blast effects, as noted above. The remaining structures of the Volume I, Appendix F F-14 NEVADA TEST SITE FINAL I Japanese Village were strengthened with wood F.5.2.10 Conformiry. The proposed expanded screws and shoring planks. No adverse impacts on use of the Big Explosives Experimental Facility these structures are expected from operations of the would not result in levels of emissions of precursor Big Explosives Experimental Facility. organic compounds (carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds) that would place the facility F.5.2.8 Natural Resources. Operations at the above Environmental Protection Agency conformity Big Explosives Experimental Facility would not thresholds. The operations would not cause or impact the groundwater. The firing table gravel is contribute to any violation of the national Ambient periodically removed and replaced, and any Air Quality Standards. The facility would be percolation of metal residue to groundwater is not operated in conformance with all rules and expected. Facility operations would not impact the regulations of the Environmental Protection desert tortoise habitat, located at least 26 kni Agency, which are included as part of the :State (16 mi) to the south. Also, no impacts are expected Implementation Plan. to sensitive natural resources because there are no known threatened, endangered, or candidate plant F.5.2.11 Environmental Justice. Federal species near the facility. Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populalions and Low-Income Populations F.5.2.9 Cumulative Impacts. The Big (Executive Order IEOl 12898). requires that federal Explosives Experimental Facility operations would agencies identify and address, as appropriate, result in an approximate 4-percent increase in Nye disproportionately high and adverse human health County carbon monoxide emissions, a 3-percent or environmental effects of their program5 and increase in volatile organic coinpound emissions, activities on minority and low-income populations. and an approximate 0.002-percent increasc in The DOE is developing official guidance on the fugitive dust emissions. The cumulative exposure implementation of this executive order. However, to radionuclides for a hypothetical individual at the the analysis in this project-specific environmental site boundary would be 3.1 x 10~'inrem per year. analysis indicates that there would be insignificant This would be well below the National Emission or no potential for differential or disproportionate Standards and Hazardous Air Pollutants standard of impacts from Alternative 3 (or from Alternative 1) 10 mrem per year, and well helow the natural to off-site populations that could be characterized as background radiation to individuals of 382 mreiii predominantly minority or low income. per year. Based on a 30-year exposure at the fenceline, the maximally exposed individual would F.6 Persons and Agencies Contacted have a probability of an excess cancer fatality of 4.6 x 10~' (i.e., the off-site maximally exposed Consultation and notification of Alternative 3 and individual would have a 5 in 10 niillion chance of its environmental analysis were conducted as part of fatal cancer per year over a 30-year exposure). the NTS EIS National Environmental Policy Act Wastes generated from facility operations would he process. Details of consultations can be found in small compared to the existing disposal capacities at Chapter 8 of this EIS. the NTS. F-15 Volume 1, Appendix F NEVADA TEST SITE FIh'AL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT F.7 References REGULATION, ORDER, LAW EO 12898 Executive Order, Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minoritia Popidations nnd Lou Income Population, Office of the President, Washington, DC, 1994. GENERAL Bevers, 1994 Bevers, T.L., Safety Assessment Report for the Certification Testing of LLNL's Big Erplosives Experimental Facility, Livermore, CA, 1994. DOE, 1991 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), DOE Explosives Safety Manual, Washington, DC, 1991. Johnson et al.. 1994 Johnson, W. G., S.R. Edwards, and N.G. Goldenberg, Desert Research institute Culturul Resources Reconnaissance Short Report, A Class Ill Cultiiral Resources Reconnaissance of the Proposed Shaped-Charge Scaling Project arid Urilirj' Corridor, Yucca Flat, Area 4, NTS, SRO62994-1, NTS Project #945604, Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV, 1994. Wobser. 1994 Wobser, J., Big Explosives Experimental Facilir)/POPOVER Diagnostic and lristrirmentution Plnnfor Bunker Certification Tests., MISC-94-1 OA, Liverinore, CA, 1994. Volume 1, Appendix F F-16 *U.S. WVERNXEIFI PRINTING OFFICE:1996-785-718 ~ ~ ~