The Largest Security-Cleared Career Network for Defense and Intelligence Jobs - JOIN NOW

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

Previous PageTable Of ContentsList Of TablesList Of FiguresNext Page

Chapter 3


DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

This chapter contains the descriptions of the alternatives that are being evaluated for the NTS, Project Shoal Area, Central Nevada Test Area, Tonopah Test Range, and the DOE sites located on the NAFR Complex. Solar Enterprise Zone projects proposed for the NTS, Eldorado Valley, Dry Lake Valley, and Coyote Spring Valley are also described. Section 3.1 contains the alternatives and the associated land-use descriptions. Specific projects and activities included under each alternative are described in greater detail inAppendix A. Section 3.2 lists the alternatives the DOE is no longer considering and the reasons for their elimination. Section 3.3 provides a comparison of the alternatives and their environmental impacts based on analyses from the remainder of the NTS EIS. Sections 3.4 and 3.5 are the American Indian overview of environmental Impacts and Responses to the NTS Action alternatives. Section 3.6 identifies the DOE Preferred alternative.

Chapters 4 and 5
of this EIS identify the impacts of past, present, and proposed future programs, projects and activities of the DOE/NV. Projects and activities are included in one or more of the four alternatives and fall into three basic levels: (1) current activities, (2) planned projects, and (3) proposed projects. Current activities are those that are presently part of the normal operations of the NTS, the Tonopah Test Range, portions of the NAFR Complex, and other areas considered in this EIS. Planned projects are those that are within the 5-year planning cycle and are likely to be implemented. Projected projects are not yet included within the 5-year planning window, but have undergone sufficient conceptual development to allow a reasonable assessment. The most reliable data are clearly derived from ongoing activities. Planned projects would presentslightly less reliable data. Data for projected projects would be the least defined, but were determined to be essential to a full and open evaluation and disclosure of the potential effects of the alternative. To provide an adequate analysis, conservative assumptions and parameter values were used to evaluate potential impacts of the less-defined activities. In addition, site-supportactivities are analyzed for each of the environmental resources and resource elements.

3.1 Alternatives


Four use alternatives are evaluated in this EIS: Alternative 1, Continue Current Operations (No Action Alternative); Alternative 2, Discontinue Operations; Alternative 3, Expanded Use; and Alternative 4, Alternate Use of Withdrawn Lands. Each alternative is described with respect to the five program categories representing DOE/NV's primary mission: Defense, Waste Management, Environmental Restoration, Nondefense Research and Development, and Work for Others (defense-related research, development, and testing).

These alternatives are structured to provide scenarios of current and future uses of DOE facilities in Nevada that range from discontinued use to expanded use. The use alternatives have been designed to allow the DOE to analyze and compare the potential environmental effects of a wide range of use options.

The Tonopah Test Range has been managed by DOE/Albuquerque and operated by Sandia National Laboratories as a remote research and testing facility since the 1950s. In 1995, the DOE/NV and the DOE/Albuquerque entered into a memorandum of agreement, transferring the management of Environmental, Safety and Health responsibilities of the Tonopah Test Range to the DOE/NV. This action also transferred some of the operational management of the Tonopah Test Range to the DOE/NV with the exception of DOE/Albuquerque Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program and other weapons-related responsibilities for the DOE's mission.

Following
the description of each alternative are the site and zoning category definitions and a land-use map that illustrates the zoning that would be implemented for each alternative. The land-use maps identify the locations of waste management, industrial, research, and support sites and define the general physical and political boundaries ofactivities conducted on the NTS. These zones can include compatible defense and nondefense research development and testing projects and activities as well. The Continue Current Operations Alternative (Alternative 1) is considered as the baseline land-use condition. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are variations developed to represent and support the usesdescribed in each alternative.

3.1.1 Alternative 1, Continue Current Operations (No Action Alternative)


Alternative 1 is defined as the continuation of the DOE/NV and interagency programs and operations in the five program categories of: Defense, Waste Management, Environmental Restoration, Nondefense Research and Development, and Work for Others. Under Alternative 1, these activities would continue in the same manner and degree as they have within the past 3 to 5 years. Site-support activities would also continue in the same manner and degree as they have for the past 3 to 5 years. Current institutional controls would continue.


3.1.1.1 Defense Program under Alternative 1

Defense Program operations would continue at the NTS under the conditions of the ongoing nuclear testing moratorium and the negotiations of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as described in Chapter 2. Two scenarios were evaluated. In the first scenario, the President would not direct any nuclear testing and the DOE’s nuclear testing-related activities would be limited to maintaining a readiness to test. This scenario emphasizes the NTS’s science-based stockpile stewardship experiments and operations. In the second scenario, which the DOE believes unlikely but consistent with the site's historical mission, there is a contingent possibility that the President, through an end of the moratorium or through the "supreme national interest" clause of a test ban treaty, would direct the DOE to conduct one or more nuclear tests in order to achieve a high level of confidence in the safety and reliability of the weapon type in question. These types of stockpile tests would be conducted on Pahute Mesa or on Yucca Flat, which are the only nuclear testing locations considered in this EIS. The first scenario would comprise the following current Defense Program operations at the NTS. The second scenario would include the same operations, plus the contingent possibility of conducting underground nuclear tests.

  • Stockpile stewardship, including the following:

First Scenario:

- Maintaining readiness to conduct underground nuclear tests

- Performing treaty compliant and permitted dynamic experiments (including subcritical experiments) and hydrodynamic tests (subcritical experiments would be conducted only where containment is assured)

- Conducting high explosive tests and experiments

- Destroying damaged nuclear weapons.
Second Scenario:

- Conducting underground nuclear testing if directed by the President. This contingent possibility would occur only under the second scenario.

  • Nuclear Emergency Response. The Site provides widespread flexible support to the following programs for training and exercises:
- Nuclear Emergency Search Team

- Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center

- Aerial Measuring System

- Accident Response Group

- Radiological Assistance Program

- Internal Emergency Management Program.

The primary mission of Defense Program activities at the Tonopah Test Range is to ensure that thenation’s nuclear weapons systems meet the highest standards of safety and reliability. The primary activities include:
  • Stockpile stewardship:
- Assess the surety condition of existing systems, verifying required modification to existing systems, and verifying and maintaining surety of systems

- Conducting experiments with special nuclear materials where containment is assured.

All testing activities are non-nuclear.


3.1.1.2 Waste Management Program under Alternative 1.

Radioactive waste has been generated by the weapons development, testing, and production activities at DOE facilities as well as the environmental cleanup and restoration of these facilities. As DOE missions have changed, there has been an increasing volume of waste generated through the environmental restoration activities. This increase will continue into the future. Although no new initiatives or projects would be pursued or added under Alternative 1, the following ongoing waste management activities, as described in Chapter 2, would continue at the NTS:

  • Providing low-level and mixed waste disposal capability to the NTS generators and low-level waste disposal capability to currently approved waste generators. This includes disposal in existing cells as well as creating new cells. Low-level waste includes those waste streams that may be inappropriate for shallow land disposal

  • Continuing to study and pursue capabilities that lead to the development of disposal units

  • Storing transuranic and existing transuranic mixed waste, pending the development of DOE off-site treatment, certification, handling, and disposal facilities

  • Accepting no off-site transuranic mixed waste for storage

  • Storing hazardous waste pending off-site shipment for treatment, storage, and/or disposal

  • Storing mixed waste, pending development of treatment options and/or certification for disposal

  • Continuing closure activities of inactive waste sites, as planned

  • Storing PCB waste, pending off-site shipment for treatment, storage, and/or disposal

  • Treating explosives at the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit

  • Providing disposal capability for on-site generated solid waste

  • Continuing the Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention Program.


3.1.1.3 Environmental Restoration Program under Alternative 1

. Environmental Restoration Program activities would continue in the form of characterization and remediation of contaminated areas or facilities, as identified in the recently completed site inventory (DOE, 1994). Environmental restoration is not considered a land use, but an activity necessary for reuse or disposition of land and facilities. The Environmental Restoration Program projects in Nevada that would continue under Alternative 1 are as follows:

  • Underground Test Area Corrective Action Unit

  • Soils Media Corrective Action Unit (including portions of the NAFR Complex)

  • Industrial Sites Corrective Action Unit

  • Decontamination and decommissioning

  • Tonopah Test Range

  • Central Nevada Test Area

  • Project Shoal Area

  • Defense Nuclear Agency sites.

The Defense Nuclear Agency sites are being identified as part of the Environmental Restoration Program activities because Defense Nuclear Agency site activities are environmental remediations. However, it should be noted that the Defense Nuclear Agency is responsible for the operation and the funding. In this sense, it is a Work for Others project.


3.1.1.4 Nondefense Research and Development Program under Alternative 1

. The DOE would continue supporting ongoing program operations, but no new program initiatives would be pursued. Ongoing and planned nondefense research and development operations and activities at the NTS that would continue under this alternative are as follows:

  • Support for the Solar Enterprise Zone concept

  • Demonstration projects

  • Spill Test Facility activities

  • Environmental Management and Technology Development Programs

  • National Environmental Research Park Program activities.


3.1.1.5 Work for Others Program under Alternative 1

. The Work for Others Program is hosted by the DOE and includes the shared use of certain facilities and resources at the NTS and the Tonopah Test Range. Under Alternative 1, the DOE would continue to host the projects and activities of other federal agencies (for example, DoD) at activity levels not exceeding those of the past 3 to 5 years.

Work for Others Program activities that would be expected to continue include the following:

  • Nonproliferation projects

  • Treaty verification

  • Counterproliferation

- researching, developing, and characterizing counterproliferation echnologies

  • Conventional weapons demilitarization

  • Defense research and development, land navigation training, exercises, and use of air space.

3.1.1.6 Land Use and Zones under Alternative.

The following information describes the site and zone categories (for the NTS) under Alternative 1. The zone categories are depicted on the land use map in Figure 3-1 .

Industrial, Research, and Support SiteAn industrial site is used for the manufacturing, processing, and/or fabrication of any article, substance, or commodity. A research site is used for projects and conventional laboratory operations for the development, quality assurance, or reliability of materials and equipment under controlled conditions to verify theories or concepts. Support sites are used for office space, training, equipment storage, maintenance, security, feeding and housing, fire protection services, and health services.

Waste Management SiteThese sites are used for the disposal, storage, and/or treatment of wastes.

Nuclear Test ZoneThis land area is reserved for dynamic experiments, hydrodynamic tests, and underground nuclear weapons and weapons-effects tests.

Nuclear and High Explosive Test ZoneThis land area is designated within the Nuclear Test Zone for additional underground and surface high-explosive tests or experiments.

Research, Test, and Experiment ZoneThis land area is designated for small-scale research and development projects for the development, quality assurance, or reliability of materials and equipment under controlled conditions.

Radioactive Waste Management ZoneThis land area is designated for the management of radioactive waste.

Critical Assembly ZoneThis land area is used for conducting nuclear explosives operations. Operations generally include assembly, disassembly or modification, staging, storage, repair, retrofit, and surveillance.

Spill Test Facility Impact ZoneThis downwind geographic area, or footprint, would define the impacts of the largest planned tests of any material released.

Reserved ZoneThis land area includes areas and facilities that provide widespread flexible support for diverse short-term testing and experimentation
. The Reserved Zone is also used for short-duration exercises and training, such as the Nuclear Emergency Search Team and Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center training and DoD land-navigation exercises and training.

No designated land-use zones currently exist at the Tonopah Test Range. Activities on this range are conducted in industrial and testing areas.

3.1.2 Alternative 2, Discontinue Operations


Alternative 2 is defined as the discontinuation of the DOE/NV and interagency programs and operations at the NTS. Site-support activities would be maintained, but would be limited to environmental monitoring and security functions necessary for human health and security. Control of the NTS would be maintained by the DOE, but no activities would take place. All facilities, after decommissioning operations have ceased, would be placed in cold standby.

3.1.2.1 Defense Program under Alternative 2

. Under Alternative 2, the DOE/NV would not maintain a state of readiness for nuclear testing, and there would be an overall discontinuation of other defense-related activities at the NTS. The Tonopah Test Range would continue hosting StockpileStewardship activities as described under Alternative 1.

3.1.2.2 Waste Management Program under Alternative 2

. Under Alternative 2, the DOE/NV would maintain only minimum low-level and mixed waste disposal capability until NTS waste-generating activities are completely shut down. After shutdown, monitoring and security functions on the NTS would be reduced and become part of the sitewide monitoring activity. Transuranic and transuranic mixed waste would be shipped to other DOE facilities for certification, handling, and disposal. Active waste sites would be covered with approximately 3 m (10 ft) of soil prior to shutdown.

3.1.2.3 Environmental Restoration Program under Alternative 2

. Under Alternative 2, the currently inventoried Environmental Restoration Program sites would be discontinued and left abandoned as is. All reports, studies, field investigations, characterization, and decommis sioning and/or decontamination would cease. All remediation projects under way would be discontinued, with the goal of progressing to a suitable conclusion within one calendar year of the decision to pursue this alternative.

3.1.2.4 Nondefense Research and Development Program under Alternative 2

. Under Alternative 2, the DOE would discontinue support of ongoing program operations. The National Environmental Research Park Program would be terminated. The Spill Test Facility would be abandoned. The Environmental Management and Technology Development Program would be discontinued at the NTS. New DOE projects, such as a Solar Enterprise Zone facility, would not be sited on the NTS.

3.1.2.5 Work for Others Program under Alternative 2

. Under Alternative 2, the DOE would not host the projects and activities of other federal agencies. The use of NTS airspace and certain lands by branches of the military would be discontinued. Any subsequent airspace restrictions would be required to allow for overflights and inspections of the NTS in accordance with international arms control treaties, such as the Open Skies Treaty.

Figure 3-1 NTS Alternative 1 land use map

3.1.2.6 Land Use and Zones under Alternative 2

. The following information describes the site and zone categories depicted on the land use map (Figure 3-2)under Alternative 2.

Security and Monitoring Operations Control PointThe site is used as the base of operations location for environmental monitoring and security patrols.

Industrial, Research, and Support SitesAn industrial site is used for manufacturing, processing, and/or fabricating any article, substance, or commodity. A research site is used for projects and conventional laboratory operations for the development, quality assurance, or reliability of materials and equipment under controlled conditions to verify theories or concepts. Support sites are used for office space, training, equipment storage, maintenance, security, feeding and housing, fire protection services, and health services.

Closed SiteThese sites are industrial, research, or support sites that are no longer in use or maintained.

Closed Waste Management SiteThis site is a waste management site that is no longer in use or maintained.

Monitored and Restricted ZonePublic access to this land area is restricted. Visits, patrols, and/or data collection on a periodic basis is conducted to provide for human health and safety and for the protection of assets and the environment.

3.1.3 Alternative 3, Expanded Use


The scope of Alternative 3 (Expanded Use) in this EIS is defined as including all currently planned and proposed projects, and all currently ongoing DOE/NV and interagency programs and operations described in Alternative 1, Continue Current Operations (No Action Alternative) and the potential project activities resulting from other DOE EISs. These additional project activities include themodification and/or expansion of existing facilities, and the construction of new facilities. In the case of potential activities resulting from other DOE EISs, this alternative identifies the action to reserve land and infrastructure pending a programmatic decision. An analysis of the environmental impacts associated with siting these potential projects is included in the consequences analysis (Chapter 5) for this alternative.

The following is
a program-by-program description under Alternative 3, Expanded Use. To clarify the differences between Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 activities, asterisks are used to identify those activities that represent the expanded uses described by Alternative 3.

3.1.3.1 Defense Program under Alternative 3

.

Defense Program operations would continue at the NTS underthe conditions of the ongoing nuclear testing moratorium and the negotiations of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. These operations would emphasize NTS science-based stockpile stewardship experiments and operations to maintain the safety and reliability of the stockpile without underground nuclear testing. In addition, because there can be no absolute guarantee of the complete success in the development of enhanced experimental and computational capabilities, this alternative includes those activities necessary to maintain the capability to conduct nuclear tests under a "supreme national interest" provision in the anticipated Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. These activities include maintaining the necessary infrastructure, and more importantly, exercising the research and engineering disciplines of the nation’s nuclear weapons programs to assure the continued competence of its technical staff. Defense Programs activities would include:

  • Stockpile Stewardship and Management

– Performing treaty compliant and permitted dynamic experiments (including subcritical experiments), andhydrodynamic tests (subcritical experiments would be conducted only where containment is assured)

– Maintaining readiness to conduct underground nuclear tests

– Conducting high explosive tests and experiments to include hydrodynamic tests and pulse power experiments. These tests and experiments may contain potentially hazardous materials such as beryllium, depleted uranium, deuterium, and tritium. At the Big Explosives Experimental Facility no experiments utilizing special nuclear materials would be performed

– Disposition of damaged nuclear weapons

* Reserve land and infrastructure for a large, heavy-industrial facility

– Conducting underground nuclear testing if directed by the President under a "supreme national interest" provision in the anticipated Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

* Reserve land and infrastructure for next generation nuclear weapons simulators pending programmatic decisions

* Reserve land and infrastructure for nuclear weapon assembly/disassembly operations and associated storage of strategic reserves of special nuclear materials as proposed in the Pantex Sitewide EIS. Interim storage of nuclear weapons components (pits) as proposed as an alternative in the Pantex Sitewide EIS, pending programmatic decisions.

  • Materials Disposition

* Reserve land and infrastructure for long-term storage and facilities for the disposition of weapons-usable fissile material pending programmatic decisions

  • Nuclear Emergency Response

Although no land area is specifically dedicated to Nuclear Emergency Response activities, the NTS provides a broad support base for the National Emergency Response Programs. The NTS provides an excellent test bed for training and exercise activities, and provides technical, operational, and logistical expertise in planning and deployment operations of the following programs.

–Nuclear Emergency Search Team

– Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center

– Aerial Measuring System

– Accident Response Group

– Radiological Assistance Program

– Internal Emergency Management Program.

The primary mission of Defense Program activities at the Tonopah Test Range is to ensure that the nation’s nuclear weapons systems meet the highest standards of safety and reliability. These activities include several activities:

  • Stockpile Stewardship

– Assess surety conditions of existing systems, verifying required modification to existing systems, and verifying and maintaining surety of systems

– Conducting experiments with special nuclear materials where containment is assured.

Figure 3-2 NTS Alternative 2 land use map

3.1.3.2 Waste Management Program under Alternative 3.

Waste Management operations would continue to support DOE research and environmental cleanup and restoration programs. The DOE’s Waste Management objective for the NTS would be to conduct proper disposal and monitoring of wastes generated from the NTS and other DOE sites. The specific waste management activities proposed in Alternative 3 are listed in Table 3-4. The following Waste Management activities would occur in appropriately designated Waste Management zones or sites:

  • Providing low-level and mixed waste disposal capability to approved waste generators. This includes expanding and creating new disposal units. Low-level waste includes waste streams inappropriate for shallow land burial.

  • Storing transuranic and transuranic mixed waste, pending the development of the DOE off-site treatment and disposal facilities

* Construct and operate on-site facilities for the certification and handling of transuranic and transuranic mixed waste for off-site treatment and disposal

* Expanding the existing capacity for the storage of hazardous waste pending off-site disposal
  • Storing mixed waste, pending development of treatment options and/or certification for disposal

* Constructing and operating a mixed waste storage pad
  • Continuing closure activities of inactive wastesites, as planned

  • Storing PCB waste pending off-site disposal
* Constructing and providing storage capability for low-level waste * Constructing and operating treatment facilities for on-site generated low-level and mixed waste
  • Treating explosives at the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit

* Constructing and operating additional disposal facilities for solid waste generated on the NTS and in adjacent rural counties.

3.1.3.3 Environmental Restoration Program under Alternative 3

. Environmental Restoration Program activities would continuein the form of characterization and remediation of contaminated areas or facilities, as identified in the recently completed site inventory. Environmental Restoration is not considered a land use, but an activity necessary for reuse or disposition of land and facilities. The Environmental Restoration Program subprojects in Nevada that would continue under Alternative 3 include:

  • Underground Test Area Corrective Action Unit

  • Soils Median Corrective Action Unit (including sites on the NAFR Complex)

  • Industrial Sites Corrective Action Unit

  • Decontamination and decommissioning

  • Tonopah Test Range

  • Central Nevada Test Area

  • Project Shoal Area

  • Defense Nuclear Agency sites.

3.1.3.4 Nondefense Research and Development Program under Alternative 3

. Under Alternative 3, the DOE would continue supporting ongoing program operations and pursue new initiatives. New initiatives would include constructing and operating a solar power production facility and siting an Alternative Fuels Demonstration Project at the NTS. Alternative 3 reserves land and infrastructure for public and private institutions to use portions of the NTS for compatible research, development, and testing activities. For example, the Kistler Aerospace Corporation identified during the public comment period of this EIS their interest in a commercial satellite delivery system as a future activity in this program area. Nondefense research, development, and testing activities that would continue or be pursued at the NTS would include:

  • Supporting the Solar Enterprise Zone facility concept
* Reserve land on the NTS as a Solar Enterprise Zone facility. Construct and operate a solar power generation facility on the selected site

* Increased Spill Test Facility (Hazardous Materials Spill Center) activities

* Increased Environmental Management and Technology Development Programs

  • National Environmental Research Park Program activities

  • Additional demonstration projects.

Solar Enterprise Zone facility land use area is proposed under Alternative 3. In addition to a facility at the NTS, three sites in southern Nevada are being considered: Eldorado Valley, Dry Lake Valley, and Coyote Spring Valley.

The Tonopah Test Range activities that would be pursued include programs in the field of robotics technology, infrastructure maintenance, and transportation.

3.1.3.5 Work for OthersProgram under Alternative 3

Use of NTS airspace and certain lands by branches of the military for training and for defense-related research and development would increase under Alternative 3. The DOE would continue to host projects and activities of other federal agencies (for example, DoD) and share use of certain facilities and resources at the NTS and the Tonopah Test Range. This alternative reserves land and infrastructure for other federal agencies to use portions of the NTS for compatible activities. Work for Others Program activities that would continue include the following:

  • Treaty verification

  • Increased nonproliferation projects

  • Expanded counterproliferation projects
–Researching, developing, and characterizing counterproliferation technologies

* Additional conventional weapons demilitarization projects

* Expanded defense-related research and development, land navigation training, exercises, and use of airspace.
Furthermore, under Alternative 3, various facilities at the NTS would be used to conduct research and development of advanced conventional weapons technologies, including the Big Explosives Experimental Facility (see Section A.1.1.1.3 and Appendix F).

Tonopah Test Range airspace and the use of certain lands by the military for training and defense-related research and development would increase.

3.1.3.6 Land Use and Zones under Alternative 3

The following information describes the site and zone categories depicted on the land use map (Figure 3-3) under Alternative 3.

Waste Management SiteThese sites are used for the disposal, storage, and/or treatment of wastes.

Industrial, Research, and Support SiteAn industrial site is used for manufacturing, processing, and/or fabricating any article, substance, or commodity. A research site is used for projects and conventional laboratory operations for the development, quality assurance, or reliability of materials and equipment under controlled conditions to verify theories or concepts. Support sites are used for office space, training, equipment storage, maintenance, security, feeding and housing, fire protection services, and health services.

Nuclear Test ZoneThis land area is reserved for dynamic experiments, hydrodynamic tests, and underground nuclear weapons and weapons-effects tests. This zone includes compatible defense and nondefense research, development and testing projects and activities.

Figure 3-3 Legend for NTS Alternative 3 land use map

Nuclear and High Explosive Test ZoneThis land area is designated within the Nuclear Test Zone for additional underground and outdoor high-explosive tests or experiments. This zone includes compatible defense and nondefense research, development and testing projects and activities.

Research, Test, and Experiment ZoneThis land area is designated for small-scale research and development projects; demonstrations; pilot projects; outdoor tests; and experiments for the development, quality assurance, or reliability of materials and equipment under controlled conditions. This zone includes compatible defense and nondefense research, development and testing projects and activities.

Radioactive Waste Management ZoneThis land area is designated for the management of radioactive wastes.

Solar Enterprise ZoneThis land area is designated for the development of a solar energy power-generation facility, and light industrial equipment and commercial manufacturing capability.

Spill Test Facility Impact ZoneThis downwind geographic area would confine the impacts of the largest planned tests of any material released.

Defense Industrial ZoneThis land area is designated for stockpile management of weapons, including production, assembly, disassembly or modification, staging, repair, retrofit, and surveillance. Also included in this zone are permanent facilities for stockpile stewardship operations involving equipment and activities such as radiography, lasers, materials processing, and pulsed power.

Reserved ZoneThis land area includes areas and facilities that provide widespread flexible support for diverse short-term testing and experimentation
. The reserved zone is also used for short-duration exercises and training, such as the Nuclear Emergency Search Team and Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center training and DoD land-navigation exercises and training.

3.1.4 Alternative 4, Alternate Use of Withdrawn Lands


Under Alternative 4, the DOE would discontinue all defense-related activities at the NTS and most Work for Others Program activities. The U.S. Air Force could increase its use of airspace. The continuation of waste management operations in support of NTS environmental restoration and waste-generating activities associated with projects sited at the NTS would be the primary activities under this alternative.

3.1.4.1 Defense Program under Alternative 4

The DOE would not maintain a state of readiness for nuclear testing, and there would be an overall down scaling and discontinuation of other defense-mission activities. However, the DOE would be required to provide for overflights and inspections of the NTS in accordance with international arms control treaties. Tonopah Test Range activities associated with maintaining readiness would be in accordance with treaty requirements consistent with the Tonopah Test Range mission.

3.1.4.2 Waste Management Program under Alternative 4

. Waste Management Program operations and construction would include all the activities listed under Alternative 3, with the restriction that these services be provided solely for DOE waste generated within Nevada.

3.1.4.3 Environmental Restoration Program under Alternative 4

. The Environmental Restoration Program would continue at current or accelerated rates. More stringent remediation levels greater than protection of human health and the environment may be implemented (where applicable), based on designated land use and/or the potential return of some lands to public domain.

3.1.4.4 Nondefense Research and Development Program under Alternative 4

. Under Alternative 4, Nondefense Research and Development Program activities would include those described under Alternative 3, but with a reduction in the scope of the Alternative Fuels Demonstration Projects.

3.1.4.5 Work for Others Program under Alternative 4

. Under Alternative 4, it is anticipated that portions of the restricted NTS airspace would be relinquished. Conventional weapons demilitarization activities would not be sited at the NTS under this alternative, and defense-related research and training by other government agencies would not be conducted at the NTS. The DOE would be required to provide for overflights and inspections of the NTS and the Tonopah Test Range in accordance with international arms control treaties such as the Open Skies Treaty.

3.1.4.6 Potential Public Uses of NTS Lands under Alternative 4

. The activities described in the following sections are other potential public uses of the NTS.

  • Public Education:

Educational tour routes would be established for the public. Tours would allow the public to see firsthand some of the history of the Nuclear Era and impacts of past nuclear testing. A Nuclear Era museum at the NTS that highlights the testing activities would be an important contribution to understanding the nation’s nuclear history.

Educational field trips to the NTS have occurred to a limited extent. This type of education would allow students to see firsthand some of the impacts of nuclear testing and contrast this destruction to the pristine and relatively undisturbed ecosystems that exist on the NTS.

  • Public Recreation

Recreation on the NTS could focus on natural scenic areas, such as Timber Mountain and the isolated forested areas. The Timber Mountain Caldera is a national natural landmark and, with all its associated volcanic features, is one of the best examples of a caldera. This area is also the location of American Indian petroglyphs.

The road system on the NTS would provide a location for such events as foot races, marathons, closed-circuit bicycle and car races, and other similar activities. The desert terrain and the existing facilities make Alternative 4 attractive.

Deer herds and other game animals on the NTS have not been actively hunted for many decades. Consequently, a limited trophy deer hunt could be established similar to the bighorn sheep trophy hunt, as on the NAFR Complex, with a drawing to select a limited number of hunters. Each hunter must attend a one-day training session. The Nevada Division of Wildlife manages the bighorn sheep trophy hunt.

3.1.4.7 Land Use and Zones under Alternative 4

. The following information describes the site and zone categories depicted on the land use map (Figure 3-4) under Alternative 4:

Waste Management SiteThese sites are used for the disposal, storage, and/or treatment of wastes.

Industrial, Research, and Support SitesAn industrial site would be used for the manufacturing, processing, and/or fabrication of any article, substance, or commodity. A research site would be used for projects and conventional laboratory operations for the development, quality assurance, or reliability of materials and equipment under controlled conditions to verify theories or concepts. Support sites are used for office space, training, equipment storage, maintenance, security, feeding and housing, fire protection services, and health services.

Closed SiteThese are closed industrial, research, and support sites that are no longer in use or maintained.

Radioactive Waste Management ZoneThis land area is designated for the management of radioactive waste.

Spill Test Facility Impact ZoneThis downwind geographic area would confine the impacts of the largest planned tests of any material released at the Spill Test Facility.

Figure 3-4 Legend for NTS Alternative 3 land use map

Reserved ZoneThe reserved zone includes areas and facilities that provide widespread flexible support for diverse short-term nondefense research, testing, and experimentation.

Nondefense Research, Development, and Testing ZoneThis monitored restricted-access land area has been designated for nondefense-related research, development, and testing activities.

Potential Turn Back AreaThis zone encompasses the land area designated for potential return to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management who would determine the proper management prescription for the land consistent with area land use policies.

3.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration


A National Environmental Policy Act review specifies the purpose and need for an agency to take action, describes the action that the agency proposes to meet for that purpose and need, and identifies reasonable alternatives to meet all or part of the purpose and need. A potential alternative might be eliminated from detailed consideration if the alternative would take too long to implement, or would be prohibitively expensive, or highly speculative in nature and thus is considered unreasonable. During scoping for the NTS EIS, commentors suggested several alternatives that could be considered in the document. The DOE considered those alternatives, but did not analyze them in detail in this EIS. This section identifies the alternatives that were eliminated from further consideration and provides a brief explanation of the reason for elimination. These alternatives include the following:

  • Site uses defined by the program

  • Site closure with full environmental restoration

  • Site closure with direct turn back of surplus lands to the sovereign nations, public, county, and state

  • No Action Alternative that excludes receipt of waste from out-of-state waste generators

  • Other alternatives within the range of alternatives considered

  • Alternatives including rail routes for waste transport.

3.2.1 Site Uses Defined by Program


As an alternative to managing the NTS to support multiple programs, the DOE considered, but dismissed as unreasonable, the alternatives that would dedicate the NTS to a single program. The most commonly cited alternatives included the five programs evaluated in this EIS: Defense, Environmental Restoration, Waste Management, Nondefense Research and Development (including alternative energy research), and Work for Others. In each alternative, only one program would be conducted at the NTS, with the NTS being fully dedicated to conducting the program under consideration. The NTS has historically been a multipurpose facility because of its remote location, arid climate, controlled access, and size. For these reasons, this alternative fails to meet the DOE’s need for a site that can support evolving DOE missions.

3.2.2 Site Closure with Complete Environmental Restoration


The DOE considered, but dismissed as too speculative, the alternative to fully remediate and close the NTS in the next 10-year period. In accordance with the DOE’s National Environmental Policy Act EIS policy, the NTS EIS evaluates site uses for the next 5- to 10-year period and because of the unique nature of past NTS activities (nuclear weapons tests), complete site characterization and subsequent remediation activities could not be completed before the year 2035. Additionally, technologies to fully and economically remediate certain areas of the NTS (such as the underground testing areas) do not currently exist and are not anticipated to be available in the next 10-year period.

3.2.3 Site Closure with Direct Relinquishment of Surplus Lands to the Sovereign Nations,the Public, Nye County, or the state of Nevada following Remediation


The DOE considered, but dismissed as unreasonable, the alternative of relinquishing the withdrawn NTS land directly to the sovereign nations, the state of Nevada, Nye County, or the public. This alternative would require a redirection of the policies of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which administers the federal lands that are withdrawn for use by the DOE. Current U.S. Bureau of Land Management policies and regulations require lands that were formerly withdrawn from the public domain, and are no longer needed, to be relinquished to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. For this reason, this alternative was considered too speculative and outside the scope of the NTS EIS. Alternative 4 addresses, to the extent reasonable, the identification of possible surplus land within the NTS and the return of that land to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for public use.

3.2.4 Other Alternatives within the Range of Alternatives Considered


Several alternatives were identified by sovereign nations, stakeholders, and the public that fall within the range of the four alternatives being evaluated in this EIS. Such alternatives involved varying combinations of the five major programs (Defense, Environmental Restoration, Waste Management, Nondefense Research and Development, and Work for Others). Such alternatives included expanding nondefense research and development and minimizing waste management; continuing current operations except excluding receipt of waste from outside generators; and, expanding defense activities to include all stockpile stewardship and management functions. The DOE believes that the range of alternatives considered in this EIS bounds these other suggested alternatives. At one end of the spectrum, the alternatives include site closure with no activities other than monitoring; the opposite extreme is the expanded use of NTS resources. Encompassed within these extremes are the continuation of current operations (no action) and a reduced level of resource use that eliminatesall defense-related activities and that limits waste management activities to support the environmental restoration of the NTS.

3.2.5 Alternatives Including Rail Routes for Waste Transport


Several stakeholders urged that rail routes for the transport of all waste types, including high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel, should be included in one or more of the alternatives. The DOE considered the inclusion of rail routes as part of the alternatives. As stated earlier, no action to construct rail access to the NTS is considered in this EIS or in the Record of Decision. The DOE/NV recognizes, however, that a rail option would be a feasible alternative should the NTS be named the sole low-level waste disposal site for the DOE complex and defers any decision to such time that a decision is made in the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. The Transportation Study undertaken to support this EIS presents and analyzes, for purposes of comparison, the rail routes and highway truck transportation routes that could support low-level waste shipments only (see Appendix I).

The Yucca Mountain Project Repository EIS will evaluate the potential consequences associated with the construction and operation of a rail spur to ship spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. The implications of such a spur for the NTS will be addressed as part of the cumulative impacts analysis in the Repository EIS. Should the DOE decide to construct and operate a rail spur, the DOE/NV would perform additional evaluations associated with the use of this resource by low-level waste generators.

3.2.6 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Consideration Prior To Scoping


Prior to the public scoping period, the DOE determined that a number of issues would not be considered in this EIS. The eliminated alternatives are considered to be outside the scope of this EIS because they will be evaluated in other EISs or because they represent policy decisions on actions defined by mechanisms outside the DOE/NV or theDOE control including the Yucca Mountain Repository construction, operation, and closure.

3.2.6.1 Yucca Mountain Repository Construction, Operation, and Closure

. The NTS EIS addresses operations and activities at the Nevada Test Site that could potentially occur over a 10-year period. These proposed operations and activities are the responsibility of the DOE Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV). The Yucca Mountain Project is governed by the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, and is under the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, a separate DOE office whose mission is distinct from that of the DOE/NV. The Yucca Mountain Projectis currently engaged in activities which characterize the mountain to determine its suitability for development as a repository. The evaluations include analyzing the anticipated performance of such a repository, if it were constructed, over many thousands of years. Even if Yucca Mountain is eventually found suitable for development as a repository, and Congress authorizes such development, construction would not begin within the 10-year timeframe addressed in the NTS EIS.

The Council on Environmental Quality’s National Environmental Policy Act regulation, Title 40 CFR Part 1501.7(a)(5), instructs the DOE, as lead agency, to indicate any public EISs that will be prepared and that are related to, but are not part of, the scope of the impact statement under consideration. The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management is currently preparing an EIS, the Yucca Mountain Project Repository EIS, to evaluate the potential environmental impacts from the construction, operation, and eventual closure of a repository at Yucca Mountain for the geologic disposal of commercial and DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste (60 FR 40164, August 7, 1995).

During the scoping process for the Yucca Mountain Project Repository EIS, the DOE identified the construction, operation, and closure of a Yucca Mountain spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste repository as outside the scope of this EIS. Section 113
of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, (NWPA, 1983) as amended, categorizes the current site characterization activities at Yucca Mountain as "preliminary activities" and specifically excludes them from the requirement of preparing an EIS. However, the NTS EISincludes these activities as part of the description of the existing environment at the NTS (see Chapter 4) as well as in the discussion of cumulative impacts (in Chapter 6). The Repository EIS will consider other relevant information and analyses, including the NTS EIS and other EISs prepared by the DOE to address other proposed actions. The Repository EIS will incorporate information from the NTS EIS, as appropriate, in its description of the existing environment as well as in its analysis of cumulative impacts. The analysis of cumulative impacts will include the combined effects of transporting waste to the repository and to the NTS. In this way, DOE will ensure that the cumulative effects from all activities taking place or contemplated at the NTS are considered in its decisionmaking process, along with the public’s comments on these activities.

3.2.6.2 Monitored Retrievable Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at the NTS or in Lincoln County, Nevada.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, directed the DOE to work with interested states and sovereign nations to identify a host for the monitored retrievable storage facility. However, that provision has now expired. In addition, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, prohibits the siting by the Secretary of a monitored retrievable storage facility for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel in the state of Nevada (Section 145(g)). Although bills have been introduced into Congress that may eliminate or nullify this prohibition, attempting to predict the outcome of such legislative proposals would be highly speculative, at best. Therefore, the DOE considered the inclusion of a facility for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel within any of the NTS EIS sitewide alternatives to be beyond the scope of this EIS.

3.2.6.3 Claims for Past Damages Resulting from Atmospheric Testing

. In accordance with the provisions of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990, as amended, which is administered by the Department of Justice, members of the public who reside within the geographic boundaries andtime period therein defined may be eligible for monetary benefits as compensation for illness or damage related to specific diseases and death.

Historical dose estimates for past activities at the NTS, such as atmospheric weapons testing and belowground weapons testing, are available from a variety of sources (Church et al., 1990; Gesella and Voilleque, 1990). It is not within the scope of this assessment to recalculate the current information available on dose reconstruction at the NTS and the surrounding communities. Because none of the alternatives considered in the NTS EIS involve the resumption of atmospheric weapons testing, the risks for those activities are not assessed here. The risk to human health due to underground weapons testing is assumed to be similar to the past venting event detailed in the Special Nevada Report (SAIC/DRI, 1991). A wealth of information is available from the Off-site Radiation Exposure Review Project that was initially established by the DOE to collect historical exposure estimates and reconstruct the doses received by individuals off the NTS due to fallout.

To better understand the human health and safety issues posed by each of the alternatives, the DOE conducted a human health risk assessment as part of this EIS (see Appendix H). The human health risk assessment incorporates information on waste inventories, radioactive materials associated with nuclear weapons testing and defense program activities, and other hazardous materials that are used at the NTS under each of the alternatives considered. Risks that are examined include both fatal and non-fatal health effects that could result from transportation or other work-related accidents and from exposures to hazardous and radioactively contaminated materials.

3.3 Comparison of Alternatives and Environmental Impacts


The NTS EIS presents the discussion of environmental impacts of four alternatives for five DOE programs and site-support activities at the NTS and six other sites within Nevada. Tables 3-1 through 3-4 show site programs and projects for each alternative. Chapter 4 describes the affected environments of each of these sites by resource area,addressing, where applicable, the following resource areas: land use, airspace, transportation, socioeconomics, geology and soils, water resources, biology, air quality, noise, visual quality, cultural resources, occupational and public health and safety, and Environmental Justice. Chapter 5 describes the potential impacts of each of the alternatives on each of the resource areas. The discussion of impacts is arranged by resource area within each site so that the reader may find a discussion of the impact of a specific program for each alternative at a particular site. The following section presents a brief qualitative summary of the major impacts of each of the five programs. For each of the programs, there are resource areas that are of more interest than others. These major areas are summarized here. For further detail on these areas or for discussions of other resource areas, the reader should consult the relevant sections in Chapters4 and5.

Defense Program. Evaluation of the alternatives in this EIS for the Defense Program does not identify significant physical environmental impacts that would change the environmental baseline established by past activities. This would include Alternatives 1 and 3, which address a scenario to conduct one or more underground nuclear tests if directed by the President. Stockpiled holes for potential underground tests are isolated from other NTS activities. The construction of new facilities would have a minor, localized impact to the physical environment of the site but would not lead to off-site impacts. The most significant impacts would be the loss of income and jobs resulting from the elimination of the Defense Program activities under Alternatives 2 and 4.

Based on the more than 40 years of operations and information, many of the consequences of past Defense Program activities and other activities have been documented. Additional Defense Program impacts resulting from the alternatives considered in this EIS are significant, although small, compared to the impacts of previous testing. More than 800 underground nuclear tests have been conducted at the NTS. As discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada (ERDA, 1977), underground testing has resulted in unavoidable adverse impacts to portions of the land, geologic, and groundwater resources, making them unusable for most purposes. Formation of craters, surface subsidence, and the release of radioactivity into the environment have been the most significant impacts to the physical environment as a result of historical testing operations at the NTS. Pockets of radioactive contamination surround each expended underground test location. The quantity of radioactivity remaining in the subsurface media can be estimated, based on the half-life of the fission products. From data on the number and dates of the underground tests at the NTS, a total quantity of radioactivity remaining underground is estimated to be 3.0 x 108 curies (Ci). Much of this radioactivity, exclusive of tritium, remains captured in the original cavity, and thus is not available to leach into the groundwater.

Table 3-1. Comparison of Defense Program Activities for the Alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Stockpile Stewardship

- Maintain Readiness to Test

- Conduct Underground Nuclear Weapons Testing (if directed)

- Conduct Dynamic Experiments, including Subcritical Experiments, and Hydrodynamic Tests

- Conduct Conventional High-Explosive Testing

- Destroy Damaged Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear Emergency Response

- Nuclear Emergency Search Team

- Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center

- Aerial Measuring System

- Accident Response Group

- Radiological Assistance Program

- Internal Emergency Management Program

Tonopah Test Range

- Impact Tests

- Passive Tests

- Chemical Tests
Stockpile Stewardship

- Discontinue All Activities

Tonopah Test Range

- Impact Tests

- Passive Tests

- Chemical Tests

Stockpile Stewardship

- Maintain Readiness to Test

- Conduct Underground Nuclear Weapons Testing (if directed)

- Conduct Dynamic Experiments, including Subcritical Experiments, and Hydrodynamic Tests

- Conduct Conventional High-Explosive Testing

- Construct Nuclear Weapons Simulators

- National Ignition Facility (if selected in Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic EIS)

- Destroy Damaged Nuclear Weapons

Stockpile Management

- Store Nuclear Weapons

- Disassemble Nuclear Weapons

- Assemble Nuclear Weapons

- Modify and Maintain Nuclear Weapons

- Test Weapons Components for Quality Assurance

- Provide Interim Storage of Pits

Nuclear Emergency Response

- Nuclear Emergency Search Team

- Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center

- Aerial Measuring System

- Accident Response Group

- Radiological Assistance Program

- Internal Emergency Management Program

Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials

- Store Weapons-Usable Fissile Material

- Disposition Weapons-Usable Fissile Material

- Construct New or Modify Tunnel Complexes

- Increase Robotic Technology Experiment

- Construct New or Modify Existing Structures

- Heavy Industrial Facility

Tonopah Test Range

- Impact Tests

- Passive Tests

- Chemical Tests
Stockpile Stewardship

- Discontinue All Activities

Tonopah Test Range

- Impact Tests

- Passive Tests

- Chemical Tests

Table 3-2. Comparison of Waste Management Program Activities for the Alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Area 3

Disposal:

- Nevada Generated Low-Level Waste

- Non-Nevada Generated Low-Level Waste

Closure:

- Disposal Crater Complex UE3ax/bl

- Disposal Crater Complex UE3ah/at

Area 5

Disposal:

- Nevada Generated Low-Level Waste

- Non-Nevada Generated Low-Level Waste

- Nevada Generated Mixed Waste

- Greater Confinement Waste

Storage:

- Nevada Generated Mixed Waste

- Transuranic Waste

- Mixed Transuranic Waste

- Hazardous Waste

Closure Activities:

- Close Designated Low-Level Waste Disposal Units

- Close Designated Mixed Waste Disposal Units

- Close Designated Greater Confinement Disposal Units

Area 6

Storage Activities:

- PCB Waste

Disposal Activities:

- Hydrocarbon Landfill

Area 11

Treatment Activities:

- Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit
No Activity Area 3

Disposal:

- Nevada Generated Low-Level Waste

- Non-Nevada Generated Low-Level Waste

Closure:

- Disposal Crater Complex UE3ax/bl

- Disposal Crater Complex UE3ah/at

Construction:

- Future Low-Level Waste Disposal Pit

- Building 3-302 (expansion)

- Area 3 Truck Decon Station

Area 5

Disposal:

- Nevada Generated Low-Level Waste

- Non-Nevada Generated Low-Level Waste

- Nevada Generated Mixed Waste

- Greater Confinement Waste

Storage:

- Nevada Generated Mixed Waste

- Transuranic Waste

- Mixed Transuranic Waste

- Hazardous Waste

Facility Construction Activities:

- Breaching and Sampling Facility

- Real-Time Radiography

- Transuranic Waste Certification Facility

- Transuranic Waste Handling and Loading Facility

- Mixed Waste Storage Pad

- Mixed Waste Disposal Units

- Low-Level Waste Disposal Units

- Greater Confinement Disposal Units

- Hazardous Waste Storage Pad (expansion)

- Water Supply Line

- Access Control Building

- Maintenance Building

- 5-01 Road Reconstruction (may not be necessary)

- 5-07 Road Reconfiguration (may not be necessary)

- 500-Year Flood Protection

- Low-Level Waste Storage Facility

- Fire Protection Utilities

- Telephone System

Closure Activities:

- Close Designated Low-Level Waste Disposal Units

- Close Designated Mixed Waste Disposal Units

- Close Designated Greater Confinement Disposal Units

Treatment Facility:

- Cotter Concentrate Mixed Waste

Area 6

Storage Activities:

- PCB Waste

Treatment Activities:

- Low-Level Liquid Waste Treatment Facility

- Mixed Liquid Waste Treatment Facility

Disposal Activities:

- Hydrocarbon Landfill

Area 11

Treatment Activities:

- Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit
Area 3

Disposal:

- Nevada Generated Low-Level Waste

Closure:

- Disposal Crater Complex UE3ax/bl

-Disposal Crater Complex UE3ah/at

Area 5

Disposal:

- Nevada Generated Low-Level Waste

Storage:

- Transuranic Waste

- Mixed Transuranic Waste

- Hazardous Waste

Closure Activities:

- Close Designated Low-Level Waste Disposal Units

- Close Designated Mixed Waste Disposal Units

- Close Designated Greater Confinement Disposal Units

Facility Construction Activities:

- Water Supply Line

- Access Control Building

- Maintenance Building

- 5-07 Road Reconfiguration

- 500-Year Flood Protection

- Fire Protection Utilities

- Telephone System

Treatment Facility:

- Cotter Concentrate Mixed Waste

Area 6

Storage Activities:

- PCB Waste

Treatment Activities:

- Low-Level Liquid Waste Treatment Facility

Disposal Activities:

- Hydrocarbon Landfill

Area 11

Treatment Activities:

- Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit

Table 3-3. Comparison of Environmental Restoration Program Activities for the Alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Underground Test Area Corrective Action Unit

- Continue Groundwater Monitoring

- Continue Drilling Characterization Wells

- Evaluate and Implement Remediation Strategies

Soils Media Corrective Action Unit and Part of NAFR Complex

- Continue Studies to Identify, etc. Alternate Remedial Measures

- Remove Contaminated Soils on NTS and Nellis Lands

- Dispose of Contaminated Soils in Permitted Facilities

- Select Alternate Remedial Action Method and Implement

Industrial Sites Corrective Action Unit

- Characterize and Dispose of Environmental Restoration Sites

- Continue Field Program to Identify Sites

- Dispose of Waste in Approved Facilities

- Continue to Characterize and Remediate the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Industrial Sites

Decontamination and Decommissioning Facilities

- Continue Remediation Action and Planning

Defense Nuclear Agency Sites

- Continue Operations to Stop Contaminant Migration

- Characterize and Remediate Contaminated Muck Piles and Ponds

- Select and Implement Alternate Remedial Action or Redesign

Tonopah Test Range

- Continue Characterization and Remediation

Central Nevada Test Area

- Continue Characterization and Remediation

Project Shoal Area

- Continue Characterization and Remediation
No Activity Underground Test Area Corrective Action Unit

- Continue Groundwater Monitoring

- Continue Drilling Characterization Wells

- Evaluate and Implement Remediation Strategies

- Intensify Groundwater Monitoring

- Accelerate, Evaluate, and Implement Remediation Strategies

- Alternate Uses May Require Stricter Cleanup Levels

Soils Media Corrective Action Unit and Part of NAFR Complex

- Continue Studies to Identify, etc. Alternate Remedial Measures

- Remove Contaminated Soils on NTS and Nellis Lands

- Dispose of Contaminated Soils in Permitted Facilities

- Activities Would Accelerate Above Present Levels

- After Studies, Select Alternate Remedial Action Method and Implement

- Alternate Uses May Require Stricter Cleanup Levels

Industrial Sites Corrective Action Unit

- Characterize and Disposition of Environmental Restoration Sites

- Continue Field Program to Identify Sites

- Continue to Characterize and Remediate the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Industrial Sites

- Activities Would Accelerate Above Present Levels

- Alternate Uses May Require Stricter Cleanup Levels

Decontamination and Decommissioning Facilities

- Accelerate Remedial Actions

- Alternative May Require Clean Closure, Not Closure In Place

Defense Nuclear Agency Sites

- Accelerate Operations to Stop Radiation and Hazardous Contaminated Migration

- Select and Implement Alternate Remedial Action or Redesign

- Alternate Uses May Require Stricter Cleanup Levels

- Characterize and Remediate Contaminated Muck Piles and Ponds.

Tonopah Test Range

- Accelerate Characterization and Remediation of Site

Central Nevada Test Area

- Accelerate characterization and remediation

Project Shoal Area

- Continue Characterization and Remediation

- Accelerate Characterization and Remediation of Site
Underground Test Area Corrective Action Unit

- Continue Groundwater Monitoring

- Continue Drilling Characterization Wells

- Evaluate and Implement Remediation Strategies

- Intensify Groundwater Monitoring

- Accelerate, Evaluate, and Implement Remediation Strategies

- Alternate Uses May Require Stricter Cleanup Levels

Soils Media Corrective Action Unit and Part of NAFR Complex

- Continue Studies to Identify, etc. Alternate Remedial Measures

- Remove Contaminated Soils on NTS and Nellis Lands

- Dispose of Contaminated Soils in Permitted Facilities

- Activities Would Accelerate Above Present Levels

- After Studies, Select Alternate Remedial Action Method and Implement

- Alternate Uses May Require Stricter Cleanup Levels

Industrial Sites Corrective Action Unit

- Characterize and Disposition Environmental Restoration Sites

- Continue Field Program to Identify Sites

- Continue to Characterize and Remediate the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Industrial Sites

- Activities Would Accelerate Above Present Levels

- Alternate Uses May Require Stricter Cleanup Levels

Decontamination and Decommissioning Facilities

- Accelerate Remedial Actions

- Alternative May Require Clean Closure, Not Closure In Place

Defense Nuclear Agency Sites

- Accelerate Operations to Stop Radiation and Hazardous Contaminated Migration

- Select and Implement Alternate Remedial Action or Redesign

- Alternate Uses May Require Stricter Cleanup Levels

- Characterize and Remediate Contaminated Muck Piles and Ponds.

Tonopah Test Range

- Accelerate Characterization and Remediation of Site

Central Nevada Test Area

- Accelerate characterization and remediation

Project Shoal Area

- Continue Characterization and Remediation

- Accelerate Characterization and Remediation of Site

Table 3-4. Comparison of Nondefense Research and Development, Work for Others, and Site Support Activities for the Alternatives

Nondefense Research and Development Program
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
- Establish Solar Enterprise Zone

- Spill Test Facility

- Alternate Fuel Demonstration Project (16 vehicles)

- Technology Development (normal)

- Environmental Research Park
- No Activity - Establish Solar Enterprise Zone

- Construct and Operate Solar Production Facilities

- Spill Test Facility

- Alternate Fuel Demonstration Project (16 vehicles plus fueling station)

- Technology Development (expanded)

- Environmental Research Park
- Establish Solar Enterprise Zone

- Construct and Operate Solar Production Facilities

- Spill Test Facility

- Alternate Fuel Demonstration Project

(16 vehicles)

- Technology Development (expanded)

- Environmental Research Park
Work for Others Program
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Treaty Verification

- Threshold Test Ban Treaty

- Peaceful Nuclear Explosion Treaty

- Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty

- Treaty on Open Skies

Nonproliferation Projects

Counterproliferation Research and Development

- Dipole Hail

- Big Explosives Experimental Facility

- Cut and Cover

Conventional Weapons Demilitarization

Nondefense Research and Development

- Conduct Munitions Research and Development

- Training Exercises
- No Activity Increased activity levels for:

Treaty Verification

- Threshold Test Ban Treaty

- Peaceful Nuclear Explosion Treaty

- Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty

- Treaty on Open Skies

Nonproliferation Projects

Counterproliferation Research and Development

- Dipole Hail

- Big Explosives Experimental Facility

- Cut and Cover

Conventional Weapons Demilitarization

Nondefense Research and Development

- Conduct Munitions Research and Development

- Training Exercises
Treaty Verification

- Treaty on Open Skies

No Activity

- Increased Use of Airspace by DoD

Site Support Activities

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
No change in:

- Facilities

- Services

- Utilities

- Communications
- Facilities (cold standby)

- Services (minimal)

- Utilities (minimal)

- Communications (minimal)

Tonopah Test Range

- Maintain Site Support for Stockpile Stewardship
Expand as necessary:

- Facilities

- Services

- Utilities

- Communications
Modify as Necessary:

- Facilities

- Services

- Utilities

- Communications

The impacts of conducting subcritical experiments underground would be much less than those for nuclear testing since no self-sustaining fission chain reactions occur and much less radioactivity is deposited to the geologic environment. As in the case of nuclear testing, the radioactivity is captured underground.

Radioactively-contaminated
surface areas on the NTS resulted primarily from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons from 1951 to 1962. Additionally, safety tests conducted at the surface from 1954 to 1963 resulted in the radioactive contamination of the soil. More than 200 radiation-contaminated controlled areas have been identified and mapped on the NTS.

The DOE has established a monitoring program on and off the NTS to detect radionuclides in air and in groundwater. To date, no radioactive contamination attributable to DOE activities has been detected in monitoring wells off the NTS. Detection ofsignificant contamination is limited to underground testing areas on the NTS. Potable supply wells on the NTS utilize quality groundwater, meeting Safe Drinking Water Act Standards.

In addition to the historic and ongoing monitoring, the DOE has developed groundwater models, which continue to be refined, for addressing the concerns for potential groundwater transport of radionuclides. Health effects to the public from subsurface radioactivity have been modeled, based on predictions of future tritium concentrations in well water, even though predicted concentrations are well below current regulatory limits. Any public exposure to elevated tritium concentrations resulting from underground nuclear testing would necessarily occur outside the boundaries of DOE/DoD controlled areas. Modeling results to date consistently indicate that any such tritium levels would be below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for drinking water. The most recent model results from the Nevada Environmental Restoration Program (GeoTrans, 1995) predict that no tritium above natural background levels would appear outside of NTS/NAFR Complex controlled areas. The earlier screening study by Daniels et al., (1993) predicts a tritium peak of 4000 pCi/L. Therefore, calculations of the lifetime dose to a maximally exposed member of the public in the uncontrolled area around the time of peak tritium concentration indicate a lifetime probability of contracting a fatal cancer between 8 x 10-13 (about one in one trillion) and 1 x 10-5 (about one in 100,000).

Waste Management. The incremental environmental impacts over baseline conditions from waste management activities under Alternatives 1 and 3 would be negligible. Under Alternative 3, some new facilities would create a slight increase beyond the impacts under Alternative 1. Under Alternatives 2 and 4, little change in impact would be seen over present conditions because most of the land clearing, waste transportation, and geologic disturbance have already occurred.

Waste management has been an integral part of the NTS operations since the establishment of the NTS in 1951. The environmental impacts related to the Waste Management Program are minor compared to those of the other programs. The issues related to waste management are waste transportation and protection of the hydrologic, geologic, and biologic resources. A summary of the issues and impacts related to these topics is presented.

Impacts from waste management activities are mostly a result of transportation of waste from other sites to the NTS. The majority of the postulated injuries and fatalities would be a result of normal traffic accidents and not a result of exposure to the transported waste. Accident scenarios that involve release of radioactive waste were factored into the risk evaluation. The DOE is committed to continue working with stakeholders and the American Indian Sovereign Nations into the future as issues arise.

Low-level waste at the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site is disposed of in subsidence craters formed from past underground nuclear tests. Underground nuclear detonations create underground cavities into which the overlying soil and rock above the cavity then collapse. The final result is a crater on the surface. The craters that are and would continue to be used at the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site represent the unavoidable adverse impacts that resulted from past underground nuclear tests. Use of the craters for waste disposal is a beneficial use of lands that have been significantly and unavoidably impacted by past actions. These craters have significantly altered the topography and have significantly impacted the surface drainage. Emplacement of waste in the craters and subsequent engineered closure of the cells would return portions of the surface topography to a natural grade, help to partially restore drainage patterns, and prevent the downward migration of precipitation into the waste. Additionally, recent hydrologic data support the current conceptual hydrogeologic model that no groundwater pathway exists beneath the Area 3 UE3ax/bl disposal craters.

Waste Management Program operations in Area 5 are more diverse and include facilities for hazardous and mixed waste management in addition to low-level waste management facilities. After 30 years of waste disposal operations, groundwater monitoring in wells recently completed near the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site has not detected any contamination. In addition, field studies conducted to support the performance assessment models, which include monitoring of soil moisture and chloride ion concentrations, indicate that water falling on the surface (precipitation) in Frenchman Flat does not reach the groundwater. These studies and the absence of contamination support the conclusion that nogroundwater pathway exists beneath the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site. Thus, no impact to groundwater from waste management operations would be expected to occur. Cultural resource surveys will be performed prior to construction or expansion of any facility.

The long-term effects of waste disposal operations have been evaluated as a part of the performance assessment process. Scenarios developed in the performance assessment process are used to evaluate the potential for public exposure to radionuclides from the disposed waste. These scenarios consider transport of radionuclides by surface water and groundwater, by air, and by human intrusion pathways. Preliminary results of the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site Performance Assessment (Shott et al., 1995) indicate that the risk of potential exposure to the public from waste disposal activities through surface water is not significant. Based on results of field studies, the groundwater pathway and air pathways are not considered credible transport mechanisms.

The limiting scenarios identified in the Area 5 performance assessment are the inadvertent intruder scenarios, which are postulated to occur thousands of years in the future when areas previously used for waste disposal would beinadvertently mined or farmed. The significant exposure would result from a person living on the former waste disposal site consuming food and water (assumed to be contaminated) for a lifetime. The results of this very conservative approach to estimating exposure are then used to establish design, operation, closure, and waste acceptance criteria for the waste management facilities. The performance assessment is a continuous process used to improve the design and operation of DOE waste management facilities.

Environmental Restoration Program. Environmental restoration activities would continue at varying levels of intensity under all but Alternative 2. Approximately 10,000 acres of land would be disturbed during the restoration activities under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4. After the corrective action, which would be based on potential future land uses as determined through theFederal Facility Agreement and Consent Order process, these lands would be available for uses which may range from unrestricted public uses to various levels of restriction. Under Alternative 2, the environmental restoration activities would cease. This would result in a condition of noncompliance with environmental requirements (i.e., the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) and limit the future use of the land.

Nondefense Research and Development. Historic environmental impacts from this program have been minimal. The most significant impact from Nondefense Research and Development would occur under Alternatives 3 and 4 and would result from the siting and construction of a Solar Enterprise Zone facility. This facility would disturb over 2,000 acres ofdisturbed and undisturbed habitat and require 6.2 x 106 m3/yr (5,000 acre feet/yr) of water and would provide a net positive increase in terms of jobs and economic stability.

Work for Others. The Work for Others Program under Alternatives 1 and 3 is similar to historic activities and not expected to have significant impacts. Under Alternative 2, the program is discontinued, and under Alternative 4, the program is minimal.

A comparison of the environmental impacts of the four alternatives is summarized by resource or issue in Table 3-5. The alternatives, as described in Section 3.1, are Alternative 1, Continue Current Operations (No Action Alternative); Alternative 2, Discontinue Operations; Alternative 3, Expanded Use; and, Alternative 4, Alternate Use of Withdrawn Lands.

3.4 American Indian Overview of Environmental Impacts


As part of the consultation with the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations, summary assessments and recommendations were prepared by the American Indian Writers Subgroup. The DOEhas taken these CGTO recommendations under consideration. This section provides a summary of each project and a general response by the CGTO that includes at least one recommended action.

This section contains the overall and integrated responses of the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations (CGTO) to five categories of actions as contained in the (1) Defense Program, (2) Waste Management Program, (3) Environmental Restoration Program, (4) Nondefense Research and Development Program, and (5) Work for Others Program. The CGTO recommends that funding be provided so that American Indians can conduct systematic studies of waste management and environmental restoration activities, and develop an American Indian public education program for the NTS.

Defense Program. The Defense Program involves actions that range from complying with the nuclear weapons test moratorium of 1992, that precludes new underground nuclear testing, to maintaining a state of readiness to resume nuclear tests if so instructed by the President or Congress. The CGTO believes that any future nuclear testing will continue to adversely impact American Indian cultural resources. Studies have shown that nuclear testing has caused rockshelters and petroglyph panels to be destroyed when the edges of rock outcrops break off due to ground vibrations generated by the test (Stoffle, et al., 1994). Studies have also shown that plants have been removed so that roads, power lines, drill pads, and water ponds can be built as part of constructing the underground test chambers. American Indians express the opinion that some plants have been polluted due to releases of radioactivity from underground tests. American Indians also express the opinion that some plants are dying or do not flourish because they are not being prayed for ("talked to") and used in a traditional manner by American Indian people. American Indian people express concern that future underground tests will continue to crack the earth,thereby releasing radioactivity into the large underground water systems who are themselves alive, as well as being a basis for all other life and a part of the earth itself. Many American Indian people indicated that they were emotionally and spiritually troubled by ground-disturbing activities and underground nuclear tests. Even in areas where American Indian studies have occurred, there have not been studies of petroglyphs, power places, or cultural landscapes. Some areas have not been studied at all. It is not possible to completely assess the potential impacts of future underground tests on these cultural resources.

Table 3-5. Summary Comparison of Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives

Alternative 1

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Land Use, Site Support Activities, Airspace
Minimal land-use impacts would occur from continuation of current operations. All land uses would be consistent with current site and zone designations.

Because of the location of the sites analyzed, and because similar land uses generally would be located on the borders of the sites, surrounding land uses would not be affected by this alternative.
Surrounding land-use impacts would be the same as those listed under Alternative 1. Closure without environmental restoration would not meet requirements of federal and state laws and signed agreements and memorandums. Surrounding land-use impacts would be the same as those listed under Alternative 1. There would be minimal land-use impacts on site from increased intensity of operations and land-use conditions. Land uses at the Tonopah Test Range, Project Shoal Area, and Central Nevada Test Area would be similar to Alternative 1. The new Solar Enterprise Zone facility could result in up to 2,402 acres of new land disturbance. Potential public uses of relinquished NTS lands would be located in designated areas surrounded by buffer zones. Current defense-related designated areas would be redesignated for nondefense activities. Land uses at the Tonopah Test Range, Project Shoal Area, and Central Nevada Test Area would be similar to those listed under Alternative 1. New Solar Enterprise Zone facility activities could occur at the NTS, Eldorado Valley, Dry Lake Valley, or Coyote Spring Valley; these activities would be compatible with existing land uses. Surrounding land-use impacts would be the same as those listed under Alternative 1. Land-use designations and zones would be incompatible with existing designations and zones.
Site support activities would continue at current levels. Site support activities would decrease and facilities would be closed. Site support activities and structures would be modified and expanded, as needed. Site support activities would be reduced and facilities would be closed.
Airspace activities would be maintained at the current level of air traffic, navigational aid services, and airspace structure. The NTS and Tonopah Test Range would experience reduced flight operations; otherwise, there would be no impacts to airspace. Impacts to NTS airspace would be the same as those listed under Alternative 1. Minimal impacts would be experienced at the Tonopah Test Range, Central Nevada Test Area, Project Shoal Area, Eldorado Valley, Dry Lake Valley, and Coyote Spring Valley. Airspace impacts would be the same as those listed under Alternative 1.

Land Disturbancea

10,000 acres 0 acres 21,000 acres 15,500 acres
aThe total amount of land currently disturbed on the NTS is approximately 60,000 acres. Numbers shown represent additional estimated disturbed acreage under each alternative after 10 years (acres to be reclaimed are not included).
Transportation (On-site, Off-site, Transportation of Materials and Waste, Other Transportation)
Minimal on-site impacts would exist at the NTS, Tonopah Test Range, Project Shoal Area, and Central Nevada Test Area. The NTS would average 3,370 trips per day. This would not change the level of service on affected highways and roads.

A total of 1,480 one-way vehicle trips per day would occur off site by 2005. All key roads in the vicinity of the site would continue to operate at level of service C or better. However, while NTS-generated traffic would be relatively minimal, segments of I-15, U.S. Hwy. 95, and U.S. Hwy. 93 within metropolitan Las Vegas could deteriorate to unacceptable levels of service by 2000 because of cumulative traffic growth without state and local governmental transportation improvement projects. Minimal impacts to off-site traffic would be experienced at the
A total of 60 one-way vehicle trips per day would occur on the site. This would not change the level of service on affected highways and roads.

A decrease over Alternative 1 of 1,480 one-way vehicle trips per day would occur off site by 2005. All key roads in the vicinity of the site would continue to operate at level of service C or better.

Minimal generation of materials and waste would occur under Alternative 2.
A total of 16,310 on-site vehicle trips per day are estimated under this alternative. No roadway would experience any significant traffic congestion. All key NTS roadways would have a capacity exceeding 2,000 vehicles per hour. Minimal impacts would be felt at the Tonopah Test Range, Project Shoal Area, Central Nevada Test Area, Eldorado Valley, Dry Lake Valley, and Coyote Spring Valley.

An increase over Alternative 1 of 1,030 one-way vehicle trips off site per day would occur by 2005. Most key roads in the vicinity of the site would continue to operate at level of service C or better. While the NTS-generated traffic would be relatively minimal, segments of I-15, U.S. Hwy. 95, and U.S. Hwy. 93 within metropolitan Las Vegas could deteriorate to unacceptable levels of service by 2000 because of cumulative traffic growth without state and local governmental transportation improvement projects.
A total of 12,180 on-site vehicle trips per day are estimated. No roadway would experience any significant traffic congestion. All key NTS roadways have a capacity exceeding 2,000 vehicles per hour. Minimal impacts would be experienced at the Tonopah Test Range, Project Shoal Area, Central Nevada Test Area, Eldorado Valley, Dry Lake Valley, and Coyote Spring Valley.

A decrease from Alternative 1 of 610 one-way vehicle trips off site per day would be experienced by 2005. All key roads in the vicinity of the site would continue to operate at level of service C or better. However, while the NTS-generated traffic would be relatively minimal, segments of I-15, U.S. Hwy. 95, and U.S. Hwy. 93 within metropolitan Las Vegas could deteriorate to unacceptable levels of service by 2000 because of cumulative traffic growth without state and local governmental transportation

Socioeconomics (Economic Activity, Population, and Housing)

Total direct employment would be approximately 6,600 in 2005.

Unemployment rate:

Clark County, 5.8%

Nye County, 5.2%.

Total personal income in 2005:

Clark County, $32,280,885,000

Nye County, $780,701,000.

Population in 2005:

Clark County, 1,380,920

Nye County, 38,516.

Housing demand in 2005:

Clark County, 539,422

Nye County, 14,435.
A decrease from Alternative 1 of 6,490 direct jobs in 2005 would occur under Alternative 2.

Unemployment rate increase over Alternative 1 in 2005:

Clark County, +1.9%

Nye County, +2.5%.

Total personal income decrease in 2005 from Alternative 1:

Clark County, ($884,676,000)

Nye County, ($44,609,000).

Population decrease from Alternative 1 in 2005:

Clark County, -7,946

Nye County, -583.

Housing demand decrease from Alternative 1 in 2005:

Clark County, -2,928

Nye County, -218.
An increase over Alternative 1 of approximately 4,550 direct jobs in 2005 would occur under Alternative 3.

Unemployment rate decrease from Alternative 1 in 2005:

Clark County, -1.1%

Nye County, -0.05%.

Total personal income increase in 2005 over Alternative 1:

Clark County, +$632,638,000

Nye County, +$31,457,000.

Population increase over Alternative 1 in 2005:

Clark County, +10,020

Nye County, +656.

Housing demand increase over Alternative 1 in 2005:

Clark County, +3,914

Nye County, +246.
A decrease from Alternative 1 of approximately 2,750 direct jobs in 2005 would occur under Alternative 4.

Unemployment rate increase over Alternative 1 in 2005:

Clark County, +1.1%

Nye County, +1.7%.

Total personal income decrease in 2005 from Alternative 1:

Clark County, ($374,608,000)

Nye County, ($18,833,000).

No substantial employment level would be triggered; therefore, population and housing demand would not change when compared to Alternative 1.

Geology and Soils

Testing impacts would include ground motion hazards and secondary seismic effects, soil contamination, alteration of natural drainage paths, and decreased surface stability. Impacts from other activities would include dust creation, soil contamination, and an increase in erosion potential. There would be minimal impacts at the Tonopah Test Range, Project Shoal Area, and Central Nevada Test Area. Discontinuing operations would result in no additional impacts to geology and soils. However, the media that have been contaminated or altered by underground nuclear test would as in alternatives remain unavailable for unrestricted use. No surface areas contaminated by past activities would be remediated and any present access restrictions based on contamination would continue. Impacts would be the same as those listed under Alternative 1. Minimal impacts would be experienced at the Tonopah Test Range, Project Shoal Area, Central Nevada Test Area, Eldorado Valley, Dry Lake Valley, and Coyote Spring Valley. Impacts would include dust creation, soil contamination, and an increase in erosion potential. Minimal impacts would occur at the Tonopah Test Range, Project Shoal Area, Central Nevada Test Area, Eldorado Valley, Dry Lake Valley, and Coyote Spring Valley.

Hydrology (Surface Hydrology and Groundwater)

There would be minimal potential impact from the alteration of existing drainage paths caused by testing.

Total effects from continuing groundwater withdrawals are expected to be minor. Local effects to the Yucca Flat Basin could be substantial if the annual water demand exceeds the basin's perennial yield.

There could be localized impacts related to underground tests conducted under or near the water table. Monitoring has revealed few instances of migration of radionuclides beyond the near test environment. No impacts are anticipated from waste management activities.

Other potential quality impacts would be minimal. Minimal
There would be no new impacts to surface hydrology.

Water demand would be reduced to that required for environmental monitoring and for potable water for the caretaker workforce.

Contaminated areas would not be restored, resulting in continued possibility of groundwater contamination.
There would be minimal potential impacts from alteration of natural drainage paths caused by new construction.

Because of new program activities other potential impacts would be increased slightly over those listed under Alternative 1. However, the Solar Enterprise Zone has been estimated to require up to 6.8 x 106 m3/yr (5,550 ac-ft/yr) of water. Local effects to the affected basin such as those near Dry Lake Valley could be substantial if the annual water demand exceeds the perennial yield of the basin. Increased waste quantities would not result in impacts.

Minimal impacts would be experienced at the Tonopah Test Range, Project Shoal Area, Central Nevada Test Area, Eldorado Valley, Dry Lake Valley, and Coyote Spring Valley.
There would be minimal potential impacts from alteration of natural drainage paths caused by new construction.

Other potential impacts generally would be the same as those listed under Alternative 1 except at a decreased level. However, the Solar Enterprise Zone has been estimated to require up to 6.8 x 106 m3/yr (5,550 ac-ft/yr) of water. Local effects to the affected basin such as those near Dry Lake Valley could be substantial if the annual water demand were to exceed the perennial yield of the basin.

Minimal impacts are expected at the Tonopah Test Range, Project Shoal Area, Central Nevada Test Area, Eldorado Valley, Dry Lake Valley, and Coyote Spring Valley.

Biological Resources

Approximately 7,360 acres of generally undisturbed habitat would be disturbed, primarily in support of the Environmental Restoration Program at the NTS, Tonopah Test Range, and Central Nevada Test Area. This would represent approximately 1 percent of total undisturbed habitat in these areas. There would be minimal impact to desert tortoise population viability and on biodiversity or ecosystem functions. There would be no effect on undisturbed natural habitat. Discontinuation of man-made water sources would change the distribution of horses, deer, and chukar. However, there would be no sitewide ecosystem impacts. Approximately 10,420 acres of generally undisturbed habitat would be disturbed, primarily in support of the Environmental Restoration Program at the NTS, Tonopah Test Range, Project Shoal Area, and Central Nevada Test Area. This would represent an increase of 3,060 acres over Alternative 1. A portion of this area (3,015 acres) could be desert tortoise habitat. The Solar Enterprise Zone could minimally impact biodiversity or ecosystem functions at Eldorado Valley, Dry Lake Valley, and Coyote Spring Valley. Coyote Spring Valley lies within critical habitat for the desert tortoise. Approximately 9,275 acres of generally undisturbed habitat would be disturbed, primarily for the Environmental Restoration Program and the Solar Enterprise Zone at NTS. The NTS, Tonopah Test Range, Central Nevada Test Area, and Project Shoal Area impacts would generally be the same as those listed under Alternative 1. The Solar Enterprise Zone could minimally impact biodiversity or ecosystem functions at all sites and areas. Coyote Spring Valley lies within critical habitat for the desert tortoise.
Air Quality and Radiological Air Quality
Pollutant emissions from stationary and mobile sources would be generated on site and off site. These emissions would be dispersed over a wide area. No major air emission sources are planned. Pollutant concentrations related to NTS activities would be well below ambient air quality standards. No substantial increases in air pollution are expected by 2005 and Nye County would continue its present attainment designation for all criteria pollutants. No additional violations of air quality standards would be provided in the nonattainment area of Clark County. The region is expected to conform with the applicable State Implementation Plan for all National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Radiological air quality impacts would not reach the maximum CAP-88 air dose assessment modeled dose. Impacts would be minimal.
Pollutant emissions associated with stationary sources would be essentially eliminated following discontinuance of operations, and mobile source emissions would be substantially reduced.

Radiological air quality impacts would be the same as those listed under Alternative 1.
Impacts would be the same as those listed under Alternative 1.

Pollutant concentrations related to NTS activities, though higher than the Alternative 1, would remain below ambient air quality standards. Selected values for two pollutants of concern are PM10 : 600 tons/ year; less than one percent of regional burden.

CO2 : 224 tons/year of which 90 tons/year would be in the Las Vegas Valley; less than 0.2 percent of Clark County emissions.
Impacts would be the same as those listed under Alternative 1.

Pollutant concentrations related to NTS activities would be lower than those of Alternative 1. All pollutants would remain below ambient air quality standards.
Noise
Transportation noise levels on site would be minimal and would not produce any noise impacts off site. Temporary noise impacts from construction-related noise would occur within the immediate vicinity of construction sites. Noise impacts would be negligible because the sites are located within remote areas. No sensitive receptors are close to construction areas. Noise from other activities would decrease with distance and would be barely distinguishable from background noise levels. A minor amount of noise would result from operations vehicles. Other noise levels would be a result of noises typically found in uninhabited desert areas. Impacts would be the same as those listed under Alternative 1. Impacts would be the same as those listed under Alternative 1, except for the Defense Program, which would have the same impacts as Alternative 2.

Visual Resources

New land disturbance would be located in areas of scenic quality common to the region, but none would be visible from any public viewpoints. Although there would be short-term, local adverse effects because of environmental restoration, there would be long-term beneficial effects because of revegetation. There would be little change in the overall appearance of the existing landscape. Most new land disturbance would be located in areas of scenic quality common to the region. However, the areas proposed for the Solar Enterprise Zone facility in Eldorado Valley, Dry Lake Valley, or Coyote Spring Valley have a high visual sensitivity because they cross major highways. Furthermore, Coyote Spring Valley has extensive panoramic views of linear mountain ranges and valleys. There would be slight changes in the overall appearance of the existing landscape. New ground disturbance would be located in areas of scenic quality common to the region, but none of these areas would be visible from any public viewpoints. The impacts of the Solar Enterprise Zone would be the same as those listed under Alternative 3.
Cultural Resources

There would be impacts to cultural resources as a result of ground disturbing activities resulting from construction of new facilities, utilities, road upgrades, and decommissioning of existing buildings. Continued visitation and vehicular traffic could indirectly affect recorded archaeological sites and archaeologically sensitive areas. The precise location of these resources is unknown until archaeological survey is conducted. Surveys will be conducted prior to any ground disturbing activities.

Modification of existing buildings would include an evaluation of their historic significance, especially in relation to Cold War/nuclear development themes, to minimize impacts.

According to the CGTO, under Alternative 1, access to American Indian culturally significant places would continue to be reduced. The potential would exist for unauthorized artifact collection and culturally
Discontinuance of activities would eliminate most impacts to cultural resources. The degree of impact to American Indian cultural sites, as stated by the CGTO, would be less than that associated with Alternative 1. The amount of acreage disturbed as a result of activities described for Alternative 3 would double as compared to Alternative 1. Approximately 20,930 acres of ground disturbance are anticipated.

Construction of new facilities, wells, utilities roads, and burial of contaminated soils may affect cultural resources.

Large-scale activities associated with the Solar Enterprise Zone facility could affect cultural resources.

Modification of existing buildings would include an evaluation of their historic significance, especially in relation to Cold War/nuclear development themes, to minimize impacts.

According to the CGTO, under Alternative 3, access to American Indian culturally significant places would continue to be reduced. Increased visits by students and researchers who collect artifacts, visit sacred areas, and
Most impacts would be the same as those listed under Alternative 3. Access impacts, according to the CGTO, for American Indians would be less than that experienced under Alternative 1. However, the potential for unauthorized artifact collection would be increased from Alternative 1 because of increased public access.

Land Use Land Zone Areas

1. Nuclear Test Zone (includes Areas 19 and 20) - 1,120 km2(435 mi2)

2. Nuclear and High Explosive Zone - 180 km2 (70 mi2)

3. Research, Test, and Experiment Zone - 45 km2 (20 mi2)

4. Radioactive Waste Management Zone - 5 km2 (2 mi2)

5. Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Zone (within NTS boundary) - 225 km2 (90 mi2)

6. Critical Assembly Zone - 130 km2 (50 mi2)

7. Spill Test Impact Zone (within NTS boundary - 15 km2 (5 mi2)

8. Reserved Zones on NTS (within NTS boundary) - 1,775 km2(685 mi2)
1. Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Zone (within NTS boundary) 225 km2 (87 mi2)

2. Monitored/Restricted Zone (within NTS boundary) - 3,255 km2(1,260 m2)
1. Nuclear Test Zone (includes Areas 19) - 705 km2 (275 mi2)

2. Nuclear and High Explosive Zone - 381 km2 (147 mi2)

3. Research, Test, and Experiment Zone - 575 km2 (222 mi2)

4. Radioactive Waste Management Zone - 5 km2 (2 mi2)

5. Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Zone (within NTS boundary) - 225 km2 (90 mi2)

6. Solar Enterprise Zone - 34 km2(13 mi2)

7. Spill Test Impact Zone (within NTS boundary - 15 km2 (5 mi2)

8. Defense Industrial Zone - 170 km2 (65 mi2)

9. Reserved Zones on NTS (within NTS boundary) - 1,375 km2(530 mi2)
1. Non-Defense Research/Development/Testing Zone (includes Areas 19 and 20) - 1,295 km2 (500 mi2)

2. Radioactive Waste Management Zone - 5 km2 (2 mi2)

3. Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Zone (within NTS boundary) - 225 km2 (90 mi2)

4. Solar Enterprise Zone - 35 km2(13 mi2)

5. Spill Test Impact Zone (within NTS boundary) - 15 km2 (5 mi2)

6. Reserved Zones (within NTS boundary) - 1,310 km2 (505 mi2)

7. Potential Turnback Area (includes Area 22 Solar Enterprise Zone) - 610 km2 (235 mi2)
NOTE: CGTO = Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations.

Occupational and Public Health and Safety (Routine and Accident Operations)

The health impacts to workers due to occupational exposure and accidents could result in a probability of 1 in 8 of a single latent cancer fatality and 1 in 21 of a single other detrimental health effect in the worker population. The risk of life-threatening noncarcinogenic effects on workers involved with an accidental release of hazardous chemicals has a hazard index of 0.58.

Health impacts to the public from accidental release of radionuclides could result in a probability of 1 in 18,000 of a single latent cancer fatality and 1 in 40,000 of any other detrimental health effect in the population within 50 miles. Potential public exposure to accident release of hazardous chemicals could result in a probability of 1 in 4,000 of a single incidence of cancer in the population. No noncarcinogenic detrimental health effects are expected.

Potential accidental venting of radionuclides from an underground test
The health impacts to workers due to occupational exposure and accidents could result in a probability of 1 in 47 of a single latent cancer fatality and 1 in 120 of any other detrimental health effect in the worker population. The risk of life-threatening noncarcinogenic effects on workers involved with an accidental release of hazardous chemicals has a hazard index of 0.48.

Health impacts to the public from accidental release of radionuclides could result in a probability of 1 in 20,000 of single latent cancer fatality and 1 in 50,000 of any other detrimental health effect in the population within 50 miles. Potential public exposure to accidental release of hazardous chemicals could result in probability of 1 in 50,000 of a single incidence of cancer in the population. No noncarcinogenic detrimental health effects are expected.
The health impacts to workers due to occupational exposure and accidents could result in a probability of 1 in 8 of a single latent cancer fatality and 1 in 20 of any other detrimental health effect in the worker population. The risk of life-threatening noncarcinogenic effects on workers involved with an accidental release of hazardous chemicals has a hazard index of 2.4.

Health impacts to the public from accidental release of radionuclides could result in a probability of 1 in 18,000 of a single latent cancer fatality and 1 in 40,000 of any other detrimental health effect in the population within 50 miles. Potential public exposure to accidental release of hazardous chemicals could result in a probability of 1 in 4,000 of a single incidence of cancer in the population. No noncarcinogenic detrimental health effects are expected.

Potential accidental
The health impacts to workers due to occupational exposure and accidents could result in a probability of 1 in 13 of a single latent cancer fatality and in 1 in 30 of any other detrimental health effect in the worker population. The risk of life-threatening noncarcinogenic effects of workers involved with an accidental release of hazardous chemicals has a hazard index of 0.58.

Health impacts to the public from accidental release of radionuclides could result in a probability of 1 in 20,000 of a single latent cancer fatality and 1 in 43,000 of a single other detrimental health effect in the population within 50 miles. Potential public exposure to accidental release of hazardous chemicals could result in a probability of 1 in 4,000 of a single incidence of cancer in the population. No noncarcinogenic detrimental health effects are expected.

Environmental Justice

American Indian impacts would only consider American Indian groups and would, therefore, be disproportionately high according to the CGTO's method of defining impacts. Impacts would be the same as those listed under Alternative 1. Impacts would be the same as those listed under Alternative 1. Impacts would be the same as those listed under Alternative 1.

Another major component of the Defense Program involves expanding stockpile management responsibility, storage and disposal of weapons-useable fissile materials, and counterproliferation research and development. The CGTO believes American Indians lack sufficient information and understanding of these issues to make a complete assessment of their impacts on cultural resources. Some observations can be made at this time. The NTS is a holy area that is central to these American Indian people. In general, the more fearful activities that occur here and the more ground disturbance that occurs, the more cultural risks will be involved if American Indian people use these lands. The more such activities occur on these lands, the longer and more difficult it will be to restore these lands to their natural condition.

Waste Management Program. The storage of low-level and mixed waste generated by the DOE will be an ongoing responsibility regardless of which EIS alternative is selected. This program minimally involves the storage of existing waste and waste generated during the environmental restoration of NTS lands. Under Alternative 3, waste could be received from any DOE-approved facility, which would cause current NTS waste disposal locations to be filled and new waste facilities to be sited and operated. American Indian people hold both traditional and scientific views of radioactivity. The former builds on the view that rocks are alive; radioactive rocks are powerful, but they can become "angry rocks" if they are removed without proper ceremony, used in a culturally inappropriate way, disposed of without ceremony, and placed where they don’t want to be (Stoffle, et al., 1989; Stoffle, et al., 1990). Another issue is the ethics of agreeing to receive radioactive waste from other Native American lands so those people can live without fear of radioactivity (see Project Chariot, DOE/NV, 1994). In general, after properly removed rocks have been used, they are either returned to their place of origin or to a place of cultural significance. The practice of dealing with "bad medicine" or neutralizing negative forces was a part of the traditional culture. So, thequestion of "how to dispose of radioactive waste in a culturally appropriate manner" could be resolved if the time and resources were provided for American Indian people to participate in a formal study of this issue. American Indian people have not studied the cultural impacts of siting any of the existing waste facilities. So, American Indian people would like to become a part of a retrospective assessment of these facilities, as well as to participate in the assessment of siting all new waste facilities.

Environmental Restoration Program. The Environmental Restoration Program involves actions that would return disturbed land to its natural condition. Up to 1,800 monitoring wells and access roads are a part of this effort. All alternatives involve some environmental restoration and monitoring; however, Alternative 3 would require more restoration because it would disturb more land. American Indian people believe that the natural condition of the land existed before 1492 when the Europeans arrived. The land was in a natural condition when it was managed and used by American Indian people. For example, American Indian plant management techniques involved spiritual interactions like praying and conducting ceremonies for the plants, as well as physical actions like selective burning, transplanting cuttings and seeds, pruning of plants like Tumar (Stanleyappinnata) and willow, and "whipping" pine nut trees to make them fuller. American Indian water management techniques involved spiritual interactions that satisfied the water and its occupants like Water Babies, who need to know why American Indian people are using the water. Water ceremonies assured both rain and snowfall, for example, by praying for a continued relationship between wet snow and the little black bugs who are responsible for making the snow become wet. Generally, American Indian people managed the land according to religious teachings. From the American Indian perspective, environmental restoration should proceed according to American Indian culture and with the participation of American Indian people.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. There is a variety of planned actions considered within this category. Many of these are related tothe National Environmental Research Park, which permits universities and other federal agencies to conduct research. Other projects involve testing alternative vehicle fuels, testing techniques for handling chemical spills, and building alternative energy generators like solar collectors. American Indian people view each of these as potentially impacting cultural resources. More cars potentially endanger the desert tortoises. University students studying biology may find and collect arrowheads or remove plants that are significant to American Indian people. Solar collectors involve scraping the land. American Indian people believe they should be involved in assessing the impacts of all these proposed actions.

Only American Indian people know which places are appropriate for visits by non-Indian people and how to collect plants, animals, and soil samples so they do not disrupt the land and its associated spirituality. Only American Indian people can provide guidance for proper behavior; however, a guidance document has not been collectively produced and approved by the CGTO. On the other hand, with proper guidance by American Indian people, university students and other members of the public may learn about the beauty and cultural significance of these lands and begin to change national perceptions of these lands from one as a wasteland to one as an American Indian holy land.

Work for Others Program. This program contains two major subcategories of activities: the Conventional Weapons Demilitarization Program and Defense-related Research and Development Program. The first program involves the shipment, storage, disposal, and destruction of conventional weapons. The second program involves military training exercises and weaponry tests.

The CGTO, in principle, approves of the Conventional Weapons Demilitarization Program, because world peace will reduce the need to use the NTS for nuclear weapon production, storage, assembly, and testing. On the other hand, the CGTO believes that if the NTS becomes the place where most or all weapons are stored, disassembled, and disposed, then the NTS lands will be polluted. The presence of conventional andnuclear weapons defines the NTS as a place of destruction, which promotes an image that is inappropriate for a place for peaceful relations between American Indian ethnic groups.

The CGTO knows from past experience, but not formal study, that military training exercises and weaponry tests can adversely impact cultural resources. Military people move across the land on foot and in vehicles without either the time or the purpose to pay attention to the plants that are being crushed, the animals that are being dislocated, or the archaeology materials underfoot. Cultural resources are damaged when conventional weapons are fired nearby. Often, geographically distinctive power places, like the big white rock near Rattlesnake Ridge, are targeted without regard or knowledge of their cultural significance. Without a formal study, the exact impacts of military training exercises will not be fully understood.

3.5 Summary of American Indian Responses to the NTS Action Alternatives


The response of the CGTO to the four alternatives proposed for NTS and discussed site-by-site in the previous paragraphs can be summarized as follows:

Alternative 1: Continue Current Operations. Under this alternative, the DOE will continue with its current operations and interagency project activities in each of the programs listed above. There will be little or no change planned for the future mission of NTS. To this effect, the CGTO opposes Alternative 1 because of our strong cultural ties to the land. NTS operations have adversely impacted the land, causing irreparable damage to traditional resources. If NTS operations continue, it is expected that damage will be increased and more land will be wasted. Access to culturally significant spiritual places and use of animals, plants, water, and lands may cease because Indian people’s perception of health and spiritual risks will increase if nuclear weapon testing, assembly, storage, disassembly, and disposal continues. Nondefense programs are expected to cause adverse impacts if these producemore ground disturbance or if they bring people who trample and destroy traditional resources.

Alternative 2: Discontinue Operations and Decommission. Under this alternative, all current and planned programs, activities, and operations would be discontinued. Only activities conducted in support of decommissioning, radiation monitoring, and security functions necessary for human health, safety, and security would be maintained. Environmental restoration would not be done. All defense and nondefense programs would be discontinued. Inactive waste disposal sites would be abandoned. Only a minimum of low-level radioactive and mixed waste disposal capacity would be maintained to support closure of the NTS.

The CGTO supports Alternative 2 because it would allow the land to heal and perhaps return to its natural condition. The CGTO recommends that an evaluation of areas that can be restored for human use be made and that environmental restoration activities be included in this alternative. Access to culturally significant places should be allowed. The DOE should continue to protect all cultural resource sites.

Alternative 3: Expanded Use. Under this alternative, expanded use of the NTS and its resources would be made to support national programs for both defense and nondefense. Current defense programs would continue, and a variety of defense-related projects currently under consideration would be pursued. Waste management operations would increase and storage/disposal areas expanded. Waste transportation would be increased as well. Environmental restoration and research and development activities would continue and expand. A solar-energy production facility would be built.

The CGTO opposes Alternative 3 because of our strong cultural ties to the land. Under expanded use, it is expected that the continuation and expansion of current operations as well as the implementation of additional defense and nondefense project activities and programs would irreparably damage American Indian cultural resources present at the NTS. Expansion of NTS operations would conceivably require use of landthat is yet untouched, and would worsen the risk of radioactive contamination. Potentially, Native American access to resources and sacred sites would be even more restricted. Expanded use would be detrimental for the socioeconomic development and health of Indian communities.

Alternative 4: Alternate Use of Withdrawn Lands. This alternative will evaluate the impacts associated with locating new programs and project activities at the NTS, including nondefense research and development programs, expansion of the liquefied gaseous fuel spill test facility in Area 5, and various types of personnel training for locating, containing, handling, or transporting hazardous material, radioisotopes, fuels, explosives, and other material. Under this alternative, waste management operations, waste-generating operations, and ongoing NTS environmental restoration activities would continue. However, the DOE would not maintain a state of readiness for nuclear testing at the NTS. The NTS would be opened for unprecedented public access to some of the most remote areas, including areas that contain American Indian rock shelters, archaeological sites, and petroglyphs. Education and recreational activities would be pursued. The potential for turning back lands to the public domain would depend upon the ability to achieve established clean up and safety levels.

The CGTO tentatively supports Alternative 4 with reservations regarding certain components of this alternative. Aside from the concerns already expressed regarding waste-related pollution and ground disturbance, the CGTO expects that opening the NTS to the public will adversely impact traditional resources, particularly petroglyphs, archaeological sites, and rock shelters, because of their appeal as tourist attractions. Heavy traffic will trample plants, hurt animals, limit American Indian access to sacred sites and power places, and interfere with traditional practices.

The CGTO would like to have the right of first refusal in the event that the NTS lands are turned back to public use.

3.6 Identification of the Preferred Alternative


The DOE Preferred Alternative is Alternative 3, Expanded Use, plus the public education activities from Alternative 4. The Expanded Use Alternative represents a continuation of the multipurpose, multi-program use of the site, and further represents a continuation and diversification of the DOE/NV and interagency programs and operations at the NTS. The Expanded Use Alternative includes support for ongoing DOE/NV program categories defined in Alternative 1, Continue Current Operations (No Action), and also provides for increased use of the NTS and its resources and capabilities. This alternative would also make the NTS more available to both public and private institutions for purposes of demonstrating new technologies.

Public education activities from Alternative 4 include establishing educational tour routes on the NTS and promoting the concept of creating a nuclear era museum that highlights the NTS testing activities. Tours would allow the public to see firsthand some of the history and impacts of past nuclear testing. These activities would be an important contribution to public understanding of the nation’s nuclear testing and Cold War history.

The Draft NTS EIS pointed out that the use the DOE ultimately selected as the Preferred Alternative might not be a single NTS EIS alternative in its entirety, but rather a hybrid created by selecting specific options from among the various alternatives described. This approach was the starting point in the process of identifying the Preferred Alternative. Initially, the universe of activities included under any of the alternatives, by program, were combined and subjected to a process of elimination. This Preferred Alternative identification process began concurrently with the public hearings on the Draft EIS and continued through the comment response process and review of the Final NTS EIS.

The criteria used for eliminating various activities from the combined alternatives were: inconsistency with strategic planning, failure to fulfill statutory mission responsibilities, public concern and perceptions, incompatibility of uses, andconsideration of pending programmatic analyses and decisions. Appendix A, Descriptions of Projects and Activities, was used extensively in this process for detailed descriptive information. The result of this process was the identification of Alternative 3, Expanded Use, as the most comprehensive alternative in terms of supporting statutory mission responsibilities and providing for a diversification of use to include nondefense, interagency, public and private uses. The Expanded Use Alternative was generically identified in the original Notice of Intent for the NTS EIS; however, the specific nature of the Expanded Use Alternative was not fully realized, nor was its comprehensiveness appreciated by the DOE, until this systematic process was applied.

The Preferred Alternative identification process also led to better programmatic definition of the alternatives in general. In the case of potential activities resulting from other DOE Programmatic EISs, Alternative 3 now states clearly that the specific action contemplated under this alternative is to reserve land and infrastructure pending a programmatic decision. This realistically identifies the nature of the decisions to be made based on the NTS EIS with respect to activities that are currently under programmatic review. Other clarifications include the description of potential public uses of NTS lands in Alternative 4. This concept, in the Draft NTS EIS, was incorrectly described as limited to potential uses of relinquished NTS lands. However, the lands analyzed for potential return to the public were not the only lands on which public education or recreation activities could occur. In the Preferred Alternative process, public education activities were identified as another form of public use. Although this activity is not included in the Expanded Use Alternative, this aspect of Alternative 4 was chosen for inclusion in the Preferred Alternative.

In the Preferred Alternative identification process, the land use zones and maps in the Draft NTS EIS were also considered. Several rezoning concepts were considered in response to concerns that the land use maps would restrict nondefense research use of the site. Rather than adjust boundaries and create additional land use zones and definitions, the definitions of land use categories were amendedslightly to include compatible defense and nondefense use in almost every zone of the NTS. As defined in Alternative 3, Expanded Use, only the Defense Industrial Zone is restricted to defense-related activities.

The process of DOE approval of the Preferred Alternative began with the recommendation of the Nevada Operations Office to DOE Headquarters. The DOE continued to consider the Preferred Alternative process, public comments, andcomment responses in the preparation of the Final NTS EIS. In this stage of the Preferred Alternative identification process, the various affected program offices considered public comments received with regard to their statutory mission responsibilities. Only after the program offices had concluded that the comments were adequately addressed in the comment response document did they recommend approval of the preferred alternative and the Final NTS EIS to the Secretary of Energy.

3.7 References


REGULATION, ORDER, LAW
40 CFR Parts 1501-1508 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Agency Planning: Council on Environmental Quality," Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1993.
60 FR 40164 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), "Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada," Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 151, Washington, DC, 1995.
NWPA, 1983 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982," Public Law 97-425, 42 U.S.C. 10101-10226, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1983.
GENERAL
Church et al., 1990 Church, B.W., D.L. Wheeler, C.M. Campbell, and R.V. Nutley, "Overview of the Department of Energy's Off-Site Radiation Exposure Review Project (ORERP)," Health Physics, Vol. 59, No. 5, pp. 503-510, 1990.
Daniels et al., 1993 Daniels, J.I., R. Andricevic, L.R. Anspaugh, and R.L. Jacobson, "Risk-Based Screening Analysis of Ground Water contaminated by Radionuclides Introduced at the Nevada Test Site (NTS)," in the Pilot Study Risk Assessment for Selected Problems at the Nevada Test Site (NTS), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL-LR-113891, 1993.
DOE, 1994 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Nevada Test Site Environmental Restoration Sites Inventory 1994 Annual Status Report (Draft), Vols I, II, III & IV, Las Vegas, NV, 1994.
DOE/NV, 1994 DOE, Nevada Environmental Restoration Project, Project Chariot Site Assessment and Remedial Action Final Report, DOE/NV-368, Las Vegas, NV, 1994.
ERDA, 1977 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, ERDA-1551, Las Vegas, NV, 1977.
GeoTrans, 1995 GeoTrans, Inc., 1995a. A Stochastic Advective-Dispersive Transport Code for a Multiple Constituents in Dual Porosity or Fractured Geological Media, prepared for DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV, 1995.
Gesella and Voilleque, 1990 Gesella, T.F. and P. S. Voilleque (eds.), "Evaluation of Environmental Radiation Exposures from Nuclear Testing in Nevada: A Symposium," Health Physics, Vol. 59, No. 5, pp. 501-502, 1990.
SAIC/DRI, 1991 Science Applications International Corporation/Desert Research Institute, Special Nevada Report, U.S. Air Force, Tactical Fighter Weapons Center, Office of Public Affairs, Nellis Air Force Base, Las Vegas, NV, 1991.
Shott et al., 1995 Shott, G.J., C.J. Muller, L.E. Barker, D.E. Cawlfield, F.T. Lindstrom, D.G. Linkenheil, M.J. Sully, D.J. Thorne, and L. McDowell-Boyer, Performance Assessment for the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site at the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, NV, Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Co., Inc., Las Vegas, NV, 1995.
Stoffle et al., 1989 Stoffle, R.W., M.J. Evans, and C. Harshbarger, Native American Interpretation of Cultural Resources in the Area of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Interim Report, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1989.
Stoffle et al., 1990 Stoffle, R.W., J.E. Olmstead, and M.J. Evans, Literature Review and Ethnohistory of Native American Occupancy and Use of the Yucca Mountain Region, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1990.
Stoffle, et al., 1994 Stoffle, R.W., M.J. Evans, D.B. Halmo, M.E. Dufort, and B.K. Fulfrost, Native American Cultural Resources on Pahute and Rainier Mesas, Nevada Test Site, Desert Research Institute Technical Report No. 84, BARA, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 1994.

Previous PageTable Of ContentsList Of TablesList Of FiguresNext Page



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list