4.3 Project Shoal Area
Project Shoal Area was a joint effort of the DoD and the Atomic Energy Commission to study the effects of different geological media (e.g., granite) on seismic waves produced by underground nuclear shots and to determine whether seismic waves produced from underground nuclear testing could be differentiated from natural earthquakes (DOE, 1988). The Project Shoal Area was selected as a potential site in 1961, and preparations for the test began in late 1962. The Project Shoal Area was a nuclear device with an estimated yield of 12.5 kt at 367 m (1,205 ft)belowground surface on October 26, 1963. The shot produced a rubble-filled chimney 52 m (170 ft) in diameter and 140 m (460 ft) high (Gardner and Nork,1970). Deactivation of the site began almost immediately after the test, with all surface equipment removed by January 31, 1964. The shaft was covered by a permanent concrete slab, and all exploratory boreholes leading to the cavity were permanently sealed. A preliminary site assessment, conducted by the Desert Research Institute in 1988, resulted in a Hazard Ranking System score of 3.52. This score does not meet the minimum score required for placement on the National Priorities List under Superfund. Management recommendations listed in the report included groundwater monitoring of nearby wells and further investigations to quantify the nature and extent of potential contaminants (DOE, 1988). Because the activities at the Project Shoal Area are restricted to environmental restoration actions, the alternatives do not have the potential to impact waste management, transportation, or socioeconomics at the Project Shoal Area. Therefore, the development of a detailed baseline for these issues is not warranted. A brief explanation for this decision follows:
- Waste ManagementNo waste management facilities exist at the Project Shoal Area. Any waste generated during the course of Environmental Restoration Program activities would be transported either to the NTS or a permitted hazardous waste facility
- TransportationThe Project Shoal Area is crossed by numerous roads used for accessing surrounding public lands. Access to the site during Environmental Restoration Program activities would generate only a minor amount of traffic on local roads. Transportation of investigation-derived waste and remediation-generated waste is discussed in Section 4.1.2.3
- SocioeconomicsNo new facilities are proposed to be located at the Project Shoal Area. Only environmental restoration activities are planned at this location. Environ mental restoration activities would be short-term and would require relatively few personnel (less than 10 at any given time).
4.3.1 Land Use
4.3.1.1 Public Land Orders and Withdrawals.
The Project Shoal Area was withdrawn in 1962 for the proposed Project Shoal Area test by Public Land Orders 2771 and 2834. This site consists of 2,560 acres. (SAIC/DRI, 1991).
4.3.1.2 Land-Use Designations.
Characterization and testing activities began at the Project Shoal Area in late 1962. Upon completion of operations on October 28, 1963, site deactivation was initiated (AEC, 1970). All vehicles and equipment were returned to the NTS, including communications equipment, technical instruments, and radiation monitoring instruments. Roads andconcrete pads remained on the site. After wire, cable, poles, and lumber were salvaged, the lease of facilities in Fallon was terminated, and site decommissioning was deemed completed on January 31, 1964. Control or prevention of entry into the subsurface in the area continues to be a necessity for security purposes and is defined as the exclusion zone. The exclusion zone lies between a depth of 55 m (180 ft) and 518 m (1,700 ft) below surface ground zero and 1,006 m (3,300 ft) laterally between those depths (AEC, 1970). Access to the land surface of the withdrawal area is currently uncontrolled. The site is bounded on all sides by public land. North and south of the Project Shoal Area, land is used for grazing. The Navy has applied for a withdrawal which surrounds and overlaps the DOE withdrawal at the Project Shoal Area site. The DOE’s present plan is to characterize and complete any required remediation so that the surface can be available for unrestricted public use. Access to the deep subsurface would remain excluded. Continued access by the DOE for monitoring of the subsurface would be long term. The preliminary Hazard Ranking System score (EPA’s ranking system for Superfund cleanup determination) for the Project Shoal Area is a low score based primarily on the assumption of a low probability for the migration of radionuclides, and there are no human drinking water receptors in the vicinity of the Project Shoal Area. The nearest population center is the town of Fallon, Nevada, located 45 km (28 mi) northwest of the site, although evidence of past ranching activities can be found closer to the site.
4.3.1.3 Site-Support Activities.
This section provides a brief discussion of site-support activities at the Project Shoal Area. FACILITIESThere are no existing facilities at the Project Shoal Area. SERVICESServices discussed for the Project Shoal Area include law enforcement and security, fire protection, and health care. Figure 4-54. Project Shoal Area and surrounding area Law Enforcement and SecurityNo security is provided at the Project Shoal Area. Law enforcement is provided by the Churchill County Sheriff’s Department. Fire ProtectionFire protection for the Project Shoal Area is provided by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Health CareNo health care facilities currently exist at the Project Shoal Area. UTILITIESNo utilities currently exist at the Project Shoal Area. COMMUNICATIONSNo communication systems currently exist at the site.
4.3.1.4 Airspace.
The airspace over the Project Shoal Area is part of the Fallon Range Training Complex located in restricted area R-4812. This area encompasses 453 km2 (175 mi2) of public land (see Figure 4-55). This restricted area is a joint-use area, and civilian aircraft are able to fly in the area when it is not being used for military training activities (SAIC/DRI, 1991).
4.3.2 Transportation
No public roads currently exist on the Project Shoal Area. Access to the site during environmental restoration activities would generate only a minor amount of traffic on local access roads and the immediate regional highway (U.S. Highway 50), which are currently underused. In 1993, the average daily traffic on U.S. Highway 50 near the site was 1,340 vehicles (NDOT, 1993a). This traffic volume is far below the capacity of U.S. Highway 50 at this location, which ranges from 10,000 to 20,000 vehicles.
4.3.3 Socioeconomics
The majority of DOE/NV workers, including those assigned to projects at the Project Shoal Area, live in Clark or Nye counties (DOE, 1994b). An analysis of socioeconomic conditions in Clark and Nye counties is presented in Section 4.1.3 .
4.3.4 Geology and Soils
Physiography, geology, and soils are addressed in this section. Also discussed are seismic issues.
4.3.4.1 Physiography.
The Project Shoal Area is within the Basin and Range Physiographic Province. Section 4.1.4.1 contains a description of this physiographic province. The area immediately surrounding the site is a high, gently rolling plateau, falling steeply away to valleys on the east and west (AEC, 1970). The Project Shoal Area is located on Gote Flat in the northern portion of the Sand Springs Range. The range is a low, north-south-trending formation approximately 32 km (20 mi) long and 5 to 8 km (3 to 5 mi) wide. Total relief between the range and valley is 503 m (1,650 ft) (AEC, 1970). The range is bordered on the east and west by the similarly trending alluvial valleys of Fairview Valley and Fourmile Flat, respectively. Large faults are presumed to separate the range from the valleys to the east and west (AEC, 1963). Steeply dipping faults, joints, and shear zones with northwest and northeast orientations are prevalent in the range (AEC, 1970).
4.3.4.2 Geology.
Sand Springs Range is composed chiefly of Cretaceous granitic rocks, bordered on both the north and south by Mesozoic metamorphic rocks. Tertiary and Quaternary alluvial and aeolian (wind-blown) deposits occupy the valleys (AEC, 1970). Locally, both the granitic and metamorphic rocks are overlain by Tertiary and Quaternary volcanic rocks, and the surface ground zero area is overlain by Quaternary alluvium. Numerous dikes composed of aplite-pegmatite, andesite, and rhyolite intrude the granite. The Project Shoal Area test was detonated in the Cretaceous granite. There are 18 mines within 84 km (52 mi) of the Project Shoal Area surface ground zero. Two inactive tungsten mines are within 6 km (4 mi) of the site. The closest marginally active mine is a gold mine 8 km (5 mi) north of the site (AEC, 1970). The area surrounding the Project Shoal Area is seismically active, and future earthquakes could cause rearrangement of the rubble in the test chimney and further collapse of the ceiling. However, with more than 244 m (800 ft) of granite between the top of the chimney and the land surface, a complete collapse of the chimney resulting in release of radioactivity to the surface is unlikely (DRI, 1988). Figure 4-55. Project Shoal Area airspace
4.3.4.3 Soils.
Soil at the Project Shoal Area consists of the Chill series, a gravelly, sandy loam with the soil surface covered by approximately 10 percent fine pebbles. The Chill series consists of very shallow and shallow well-drained soils, formed in residuum of granitic bedrock on low hills (Dahl, 1994).
4.3.5 Hydrology
This section addresses surface water and groundwater conditions at the Project Shoal Area. A discussion of wells in the vicinity is also presented in this section.
4.3.5.1 Surface Hydrology.
The Project Shoal Area is within the Great Basin (AEC, 1970). There are no permanent bodies of water in the Project Shoal Area (DRI, 1988), only ephemeral streams fed by seasonal snow and rain. The ephemeral nature of the streams makes water monitoring difficult; consequently, there are no surface-water quality data. Ephemeral streams originating in the higher elevations of Aplite Ridge flow in an easterly direction across the site. The only springs in the area are the Bucky O’Neil Flowing Well, located 7.2 km (4.5 mi) northwest of surface ground zero on the edge of Fourmile Flat; and the Smith-James Spring, located 8 km (5 mi) southeast of surface ground zero on the edge of Fairview Valley.
4.3.5.2 Groundwater.
The mountain range around the Project Shoal Area is a regional groundwater recharge area, with regional discharge occurring both in the Fourmile and Eightmile Flats area to the west of the range, and in the Humboldt Salt Marsh in Dixie Valley to the northeast of the range (Figure 4-56 ). The University of Nevada (1965) analyzed hydrologic data in the Project Shoal Area and concluded that a groundwater divide may exist northwest of the event and that the main component of lateral movement of groundwater near ground zero is southeast towardFairview Valley. (Cohen and Everett, 1963) and (Glancy and Katzer, 1975) also identify a groundwater divide just west of the Project Shoal area, apparently based on a topographic divide. Though the hydraulic data suggest flow to the east from the site, hydrochemical parameters suggest flow to the west (University of Nevada, 1965), and available data are not sufficient to rule out either the east or west pathway. At the Project Shoal Area, groundwater occurs within fractured granite. Hydraulic tests conducted at the time of the Project Shoal Area test showed that there was a range of conditions in the granite, depending on fracture geometry relative to the wells, but that overall the transmissive capacity was low. This transmission capacity is expected to be less than 2.5 m²/day (200 gal/day/ft) (University of Nevada, 1965). In general, groundwater occurs about 290 m (951 ft) belowground surface in the immediate vicinity of the test, although a few high-altitude springs discharging from perched zones in the granite can be found to the south. In the adjacent valleys, groundwater occurs in alluvial material eroded from the highlands, and hydraulic testing indicated much higher transmissivities. These are on the order of 62 m²/day (5,000 gal/day/ft) to 944 m²/day (76,000 gal/day/ft) (University of Nevada, 1965). Granitic bedrock is relatively near the surface beneath a veneer of alluvium west of the Sand Springs Range. Farther to the west, and in Fairview Valley to the east, bedrock occurs at greater depths and is not penetrated by wells. Discharge of water originating in the Sand Springs Range occurs at springs and by evapotranspiration along the edge of the salt pan in Fourmile Flat. Data from a well completed in the alluvium between the range and the salt pan suggest that a counterflow of dense, saline water may be moving back toward the range from the playa, driven by buoyancy forces, with fresh water moving from the Sand Springs Range being confined to a thin lens at the top of the saturated zone (Chapman et al., 1995). The alluvium is much thicker in Fairview Valley, and the groundwater occurs in at least three separate aquifers separated by clay aquitards. No discharge to the surface occurs in Fairview Valley; rather, groundwater moves northward to discharge areas in Dixie Valley. The Long-Term Hydrologic Monitoring Program sa mples one spring in the Sand Springs Range and five wells in the adjacent valleys. No contamination related to the Project Shoal Area test has been detected in these samples. The Environmental Restoration Program will evaluate the need for additional hydrology studies and expanded monitoring at the Project Shoal Area. Figure 4-56. Location of wells and springs in the Project Shoal Area Six water wells exist within 4 miles of the site: one domestic water supply well, one livestock well, and four U.S. Bureau of Land Management exploratory wells. The only wells in the Sand Springs Range itself are associated with mining operations to the south of the Project Shoal Area. Groundwater is used in both of the adjacent valleys for stock watering, primarily on a seasonal basis. Groundwater quality is poor in the Fourmile Flat basin because of high dissolved solids, with better quality water found in Fairview Valley. Although there is a well at an apparently abandoned homestead in Fourmile Flat (Wightman Well), and there is a well at the location of a former store (known as Frenchman Station) in Fairview Valley, groundwater in the area is not currently used for private domestic supply. The perennial yield of Fairview Valley has been estimated at 16,741 m3 (500 acre-feet) (Cohen and Everett, 1963). The yield of the Fourmile Flat area is unknown; it was grouped with a large area of the Carson Desert for the resource appraisal, but estimates of groundwater discharge exceeded estimates of groundwater recharge for the region (Glancy and Katzer, 1975).
4.3.6 Biological Resources
The scientific names of plants and animals mentioned in this section are given in Section 2.0 of Appendix E, Biological Resources. The Project Shoal Area is within the Great Basin desert. The vegetation surrounding the site varies with elevation and topography. Salt Wells Basin is located about 10 km (6 mi) northwest of the Project Shoal Area in Fourmile Flat and lies at an elevation of about 1,201 m (3,940 ft). This basin has a dry, saline lake bed vegetated only by saltgrass where sufficient moisture is available. Sand dunes are located along the northeast edge of the lake bed and extend along its eastern edge. The northern end of these dunes have no vegetation, but the southern extension contains sparse stands of greasewood, glandularindigo bush, four-winged saltbush, and shadscale. Several springs and wells occur around the lake bed and dunes. Sedges, rushes, and desert saltgrass are common where seep areas and overflow from the wells sustain small oases of vegetation. Between the lakebed and the Sand Springs Range are shallow-sloped foothills dominated by the shrubs greasewood, shadscale, rabbitbrush, horsebrush, and glandular indigo bush. Steep, rocky slopes occur along a narrow zone between the shallow-sloped foothills and Gote Flat. These steep slopes are dominated by Nevada ephedra, rabbitbrush, horsebrush, big sagebrush, and snowberry. The highest elevations at this site, 1,500 to 1,800 m (4,920 to 5,910 ft), are dominated by big sagebrush. It is likely that few animal species use the dry lake bed. Animal species occupying the surrounding habitats are probably widespread and similar to those described for the Tonopah Test Range and the Great Basin desert portions of the NTS. Chukar is the only common game species in the area (BLM, 1983). No current federally threatened, endangered, or candidate plant or animal species are known to occur at the Project Shoal Area, although bald eagles and peregrine falcons may be rare migrants. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published the latest list of candidate plants and animals on February 28, 1996 (61 F.R. 7596). Prior to this, 10 vertebrate species, 4 invertebrate species, and 2 plant species that were identified as potentially occurring at this site were classified as candidates (Mendoza, 1995b) and were addressed (Table 4-30 ). The updated Notice of Review has removed all but one of these species from candidate status. The mountain plover, which may be an uncommon migrant in the area, remains a candidate bird species. The western burrowing owl, one of over 20 State-protected bird species, is likely to occur on site.
4.3.7
This section includes adescription of air quality conditions at the Project Shoal Area, including climatology, meteorology, and ambient air quality. CLIMATOLOGY AND METEOROLOGY Meteorological measurements are not available for the Project Shoal Area. Based on Nevada climatological maps of temperature and precipitation (Ruffner, 1980), temperatures would be 2 to 3 °C (4 to 5 °F) cooler than those on the Tonopah Test Range (see Section 4.2.7 ). Mean annual precipitation is estimated to be about 20 cm (8 in.). Wind patterns are similar to those that occur on the Tonopah Test Range. AMBIENT AIR QUALITYThe Project Shoal Area is located in Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control Region 147. There are no air-quality monitoring stations in the region. Because there are no significant sources of pollutant emissions in the region, the air quality is most likely good. Air Quality Control Region 147 is designated as unclassifiable/attainment for all criteria pollutants.
4.3.8 Noise
The acoustic environment around the Project Shoal Area can be classified as uninhabited desert or small rural communities. Noise measurements have not been made at the Project Shoal Area. The major sources of noise would be associated with prevailing meteorological conditions, such as wind, or would result from sonic booms produced by supersonic overflights of military aircraft. Training ranges used by the Naval Air Station, Fallon, are located several miles from the Project Shoal Area. These training ranges are used for gunnery, explosive ordnance, and bombing practice activities. C-weighted (Ldn) resulting from these range activities are less than 65 dB at the Project Shoal Area (SAIC/DRI, 1991). Noise from traffic on U.S. Highway 50, which is 6 km (4 mi) to the north, has negligible effect on the Project Shoal Area.
4.3.9 Visual Resources
The landscape character of the Project Shoal Area is typical of the Great Basin. Regional topography consists of mountain ranges arranged in a north-south orientation, separated by broad valleys. The landscape at the Project Shoal Area is common to the region. Therefore, scenic qualities have been designated Class C. State Route 839, which is 3 km (2 mi) east of the site, has an average daily traffic of 160 vehicles (NDOT, 1993a). Therefore, the sensitivity level would be low.
4.3.10 Cultural Resources
The Project Shoal Area lies in the western Great Basin, an area with a prehistory that may span the past 10,000 years or more. Properties ranging from the early prehistoric period to historic mining and ranching sites are known. Historical contexts are summarized in (Hardesty, 1982) and in (Bard et al. 1981). At the time of contact with Euroamericans in the mid-1800s, the area was used by the Toedokado band of the Northern Paiute (Stewart, 1939). Their territory centered around camps on the edge of the Carson Sink, northwest of the project area. Detailed information about the Northern Paiute can be found in (Stewart, 1939), (Bard et al., 1981) and (Fowler and Liljeblad, 1986). The Project Shoal Area consists of three separate land areas with a total area of approximately 2,560 acres (SAIC/DRI, 1991). An area of potential effect for the cultural resources at the Project Shoal Area is based on research performed in the area for environmental restoration at the site. Environmental Restoration Program activities involve sampling wells and springs within 16 km (10 mi) of ground zero. Based on that sampling strategy, an area of potential effect was created and a stratified, random sample survey of the area of potential effect was conducted to characterize the cultural resources of the area. RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCESEleven archaeological sites have been recorded within the area of potential effect. Of the 11 sites, 1 is an extractive locality, 4 are processing localities, 1 is a station, and 5 are historic sites. Five sites have been recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Consultation with the SHPO regarding eligibility of these sites is not concluded. SITES OF AMERICAN INDIAN SIGNIFICANCEThis study area is not within the traditional lands of the American Indian people represented by the CGTO. It is recommended by the CGTO that the DOE EIS team directly contact American Indian tribes andorganizations having traditional lands in the Project Shoal Area. The following tribes were suggested: Fallon Paiute, Walker River Paiute, Pyramid Lake, and Lovelock Paiute Tribe. NOTE: The DOE/NV provided notification, as recommended by the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations.
4.3.11 Occupational and Public Health and Safety and Radiation
Approximately 3 × 1011 Ci of radioactivity existed 1 minute after detonation of the Project Shoal Area test (Glasstone and Dolan, 1977). This amount of radioactivity was reduced by a factor of more than 2,000 during the first day after detonation. Virtually all radioactivity associated with the detonation is assumed to be confined to the puddle-glass mixture at the bottom of the shot cavity chimney. There is no evidence of venting of particulate matter during or after the explosion. Groundwater in the vicinity of the detonation is assumed to be contaminated with tritium. Historical groundwater monitoring in the vicinity of the Project Shoal Area has been performed by the EPA as part of the Long-Term Hydrologic Monitoring Program. Monitoring results demonstrate that the tritium concentration is below the EPA limit for drinking water (EPA, 1992). Low groundwater velocities indicate that migration of radionuclides to the nearest water supply well would take 750 years (DRI, 1988). Calculations indicate that tritium would decay to negligible levels long before reaching potential receptors (DRI, 1988). Minor levels of radioactivity were released and reached the surface during drilling and sampling operations subsequent to the detonation. The releases consisted of gases and vapors that were safely channeled into filters and traps. Historical records indicate that the radioactive material was slightly contaminated with short-lived radioisotopes of iodine and xenon. The radioactive material was placed in the post-shot mud pit and covered with several feet of uncontaminated earth. These isotopes have since decayed to negligible concentrations below detectable levels. A recentradiological survey of the surface showed no radiation levels above natural background (DRI, 1988).
4.3.12 Environmental Justice
Existing demographic conditions for Environmental Justice are discussed in Section 4.1.12 .
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
