Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations

Chapter 5

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter provides the scientific and analytical base for the comparison of the alternatives. The discussion addresses the potential direct and indirect effects of each of the alternatives. In addition, this chapter contains discussions of unavoidable adverse effects, the relationship of short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in implementing an alternative.

Four alternatives are analyzed in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): Alternative 1 (Continue Current Operations), Alternative 2 (Discontinue Operations), Alternative 3 (Expanded Use), and Alternative 4 (Alternate Use of Withdrawn Lands). Twelve environmental resources and/or environmental resource elements are analyzed for each alternative. These are as follows:

Land Use (includes land-use designations, site-support activities, and airspace)
Transportation (includes on-site traffic, off-site traffic, transportation of materials and waste, and other transportation)
Socioeconomics
Geology and Soils
Hydrology (surface hydrology and groundwater)
Biological Resources
Air Quality (includes radiological air quality)
Noise
Visual Resources
Cultural Resources/American Indian
Occupational and Public Health and Safety
Environmental Justice

Five programs are analyzed for each of the environmental resources and resource elements. These include the Defense Program, the Waste Management Program, the Environmental Restoration Program, the Nondefense Research and Development Program, and the Work for Others Program. In addition, site-support activities are analyzed for each of the environmental resources and resource elements.

Each program identified within an alternative was evaluated separately to identify its potential environmental impact. By evaluating each program separately, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will be able to identify specific mitigation measures that may be necessary to alleviate the severity of impacts.

This EIS identifies the impacts of past, current, and potential programs of the U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV). Proposed programs 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 Nevada Test Site (NTS), the Tonopah Test Range, portions of the Nellis Air Force Range (NAFR) Complex, and other areas considered in this EIS, such as the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site. Planned projects are those that are within the five-year planning cycle and are likely to be implemented, such as the Solar Enterprise Zone facility. Proposed projects are not currently considered within the five-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 present slightly less reliable data. Data for proposed 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 alternatives. To provide an adequate analysis, conservative assumptions and parameter values were used toevaluate potential impacts of the less-defined activities.

Implementation of any of the alternatives could result in a permanent commitment of resources such as groundwater, soil, biota, minerals, surface area, and subsurface geology and would represent an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of such resources. In addition to the National Environmental Policy Act requirement to identify the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, it is also the intent of the DOE to identify these same resources within the meaning of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Section 107(f)(1). Though the NTS is not listed on the National Priorities List established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the requirement exists to address the natural resource damage liability as discussed in Section 107.

The impact analysis for this NTS EIS is based on the best data currently available. This EIS will serve as a baseline document for the preparation of subsequent, tiered National Environmental Policy Act documents that may be required prior to implementation of future specific projects.

5.1 Alternative 1 - Continue Current Operations (No Action)

Alternative 1, Continue Current Operations, is defined as Defense, Waste Management, Environmental Restoration, Nondefense Research and Development, and Work for Others. These programs would continue in the same manner and degree as they have within the past three to five years. This alternative includes programs at the NTS, the NAFR Complex, the Tonopah Test Range, the Project Shoal Area, and the Central Nevada Test Area. A more detailed description of the program projects and activities is presented in Appendix A.

Defense Program. Defense Program operations would continue under the conditions of the ongoing moratorium and the negotiations of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Stockpile stewardship and nuclear emergency response would continue to be the two main categories of activitiesincluded in the Defense Program operations under Alternative 1. Stockpile stewardship includes a program of activities to maintain confidence in the safety, reliability, and performance of the nation’s nuclear weapons. Stockpile stewardship activities include nuclear test readiness, one or more underground nuclear weapons tests, if directed by the President, and hydrodynamic tests and dynamic experiments. The DOE cannot speculate on how many tests the President might direct the DOE to conduct in the unlikely event that the United States decides to renew underground nuclear testing. However, the DOE believes that this number is likely to be small and that the total environmental impact of any additional testing would be only a fraction of the impacts caused by the approximately 800 underground tests conducted prior to 1992 and documented in Chapter 4. This chapter describes the impacts each additional test would have and demonstrates that a limited testing program would result in only a few isolated areas of impact. Nuclear emergency response would continue to be composed of the Nuclear Emergency Search Team, the Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center, the Aerial Measuring System, the Accident Response Group, the Radiological Assistance Program, and the DOE/NV Internal Emergency Management Program.

Waste Management Program. The primary mission of the NTS Waste Management Program would be to continue to serve as a transuranic storage and low-level and mixed waste disposal and storage facility in support of the DOE/NV. The NTS would continue to provide disposal capability for approved waste generated on the NTS, as well as for approved off-site waste generators. The NTS will continue to implement the Waste Minimization/ Pollution Prevention Program as described in Appendix C.6. Waste management activities at the NTS would continue to be conducted in four primary areas: Areas 3, 5, 6, and 11.

The Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site would continue to serve the NTS and approved off-site generators as a bulk, low-level waste disposal facility. Under Alternative 1, it is anticipated that two additional cells/craters and no additional support facilities would be opened. Two disposalunits in Area 3 would be closed under this alternative.

Although the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site would continue to serve the NTS as a low-level and mixed waste disposal site, existing capacity would not meet the disposal needs of low-level waste expected to be generated under Alternative 1. Greater confinement disposal technology would continue to be pursued for disposal of high-specific activity waste. The pit used for disposal of mixed waste has sufficient capacity to meet the expected amount generated under this alternative. Therefore, the mixed waste disposal capacity would not be expanded. No sanitary landfill construction or disposal activities would occur in Area 5 under Alternative 1. The Transuranic Waste Storage Unit and the Hazardous Waste Storage Unit would continue to be used to store waste.

Waste management operations in Area 6 under Alternative 1 would include continued storage of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste, operation of the hydrocarbon landfill, and treatment of low-level waste at the Liquid Waste Treatment System Facility.

The Area 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit is a thermal treatment unit. Explosive ordnance wastes would continue to be detonated at the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit under Alternative 1.

Environmental Restoration Program. The goal of the Environmental Restoration Program is to remediate contaminated sites while complying with applicable environmental regulations and statutes and protecting the public and workers’ health and safety. The Environmental Restoration Program projects that would continue under Alternative 1 are the Underground Test Area Corrective Action Unit, Soils Media Corrective Action Unit, Industrial Sites Units, decontamination and decommissioning facilities, Defense Nuclear Agency sites, Tonopah Test Range, Project Shoal Area, and Central Nevada Test Area.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. The DOE has historically supported a variety ofresearch and development activities at the NTS in cooperation with universities, industries, and other federal agencies. Activities that would continue under Alternative 1 include development of a variety of alternative energy resources, a spill test facility, alternative-fueled vehicles and fueling station, development of an Environmental Management and Technology Development Program, and an Environmental Research Park.

Work for Others Program. The Work for Others Program would continue to be hosted by the DOE and includes the shared use of certain NTS and Tonopah Test Range facilities and resources with other federal agencies (such as the U.S. Department of Defense [DoD]) for various military training exercises and research and development projects. Activities included in the Work for Others Program under Alternative 1 are treaty verification, nonproliferation, counter-proliferation research and development, conventional weapons demilitarization, and defense-related research and development.

Activities at the NTS and NTS support facilities throughout Nevada are and would be affected by implementation of current and future international arms control treaties. Treaties currently in effect or under negotiation that are included as part of the treaty verification activities under Alternative 1 are the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, the Peaceful Nuclear Explosion Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Open Skies Treaty.

Nonproliferation is defined as the use of a full range of political, economic, and military tools to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction or missiles, diplomatically reverse the spread, or protect the United States interest against an opponent armed with these weapons, should that prove necessary. Under Alternative 1, the NTS and Tonopah Test Range would continue to provide critical support for the United States nonproliferation goals and objectives, particularly in the areas of research and technology development.

Counterproliferation refers to DoD efforts to combat the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As with nonproliferation, these efforts would continue to include the full range of political,economic, and military tools available. However, because facilities for developing, producing, and storing weapons of mass destruction would likely be located below ground, a considerable amount of counterproliferation research and development would involve the detection, monitoring, and neutralization of buried targets. Under Alternative 1, the NTS would continue current counterproliferation activities and could become the center for a national counterproliferation program.

Conventional weapons demilitarization activities would continue to include demonstration projects for the disposal or destruction of solid rocket motors and other nonnuclear energetic materials at the NTS.

Defense-related research and development activities under Alternative 1 would include tests and training exercises employing weaponry, such as small arms, artillery, guns, aircraft, armored vehicles, demolitions, rockets, bazookas, and air-dropped armaments, as well as a variety of electronic, imagery, and sensory technologies.

5.1.1 NTS

The following sections describe the potential effects the five programs and the site-support activities could have on the resources at the NTS.

5.1.1.1 Land Use.

The land-use analysis includes an assessment of the availability of land; potential disturbance of prime, unique, and other important features or habitat; and compatibility with land-use plans and policies. The baseline for each site and its immediate vicinity was established based on the interpretation of aerial photographs, land-use plans and policies, maps, and other sources available through local, state, and federal agencies and through information in the DOE files. Changes to land-use resource areas associated with the alternatives are compared to baseline land use discussed in Chapter 4 , and the potential impacts on these areas are assessed. No impacts to surrounding land uses have been identified under this alternative.

The NTS has been committed to weapons testing since the 1950s, and some of its land areas haveundergone changes that are considered to be permanent and irreversible. As stated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada (ERDA, 1977),

"...the addition of new underground pockets of radioactivity and the formation of subsidence craters in the test areas of the NTS will deny use of those sites for other nontest-related purposes. As a result of the test program, it will be necessary to subject those areas to rigorous control of access and limited use for an indefinite time. Such an evaluation of land-use impacts is largely qualitative and is supported by the quantitative impact analysis presented in other resource sections."

Defense Program. The entire NTS is designated as a Defense Program site. Defense Program projects, research and development, testing, and experimentation under this alternative are assumed to continue at levels equivalent to the past 3 to 5 years. Therefore, no new impacts to land use are expected. Defense Program activities are consistent with current site and land-use designation definitions. Land-use designation restrictions preclude activities that are inconsistent with current land uses.

The analysis performed for this EIS is for the conduct of one nuclear test. The impacts to the environment from the conduct of multiple tests (a series) are assumed to be incrementally additive. For example, the impacts of conducting two tests would be twice the impact of conducting a single test.

Waste Management Program. Under Alternative 1, ongoing Waste Management Program activities at the NTS would continue at current levels and are consistent with current site- and land-use designation definitions. Therefore, no new impacts to land use are expected.

Environmental Restoration Program. Under Alternative 1, the Environmental Restoration Program would continue at current levels. Therefore, no adverse impacts to land use areanticipated. After existing facilities are decontaminated, they could be used for other purposes. Removal of plutonium-contaminated soils would provide additional areas that could be used for new facility construction.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. Under Alternative 1, the DOE would continue to support ongoing program operations, but no new initiatives would be pursued. Thus, no new impacts to land use are expected.

Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 1, the DOE would continue to host projects and activities of other federal agencies (e.g., the DoD) at activity levels not exceeding those of the past 3 to 5 years. Activities are consistent with the site- and land-use designation definitions for the areas. No new impacts to land use are expected.

5.1.1.1.1 Site-Support Activities

Site-support activities are discussed in the following sections as an NTS resource that is affected by the implementation of the alternatives. The changes to the site-support activities are estimated based on changes in activities from baseline levels. Four subsections of site support are evaluated, including facilities, services, utilities, and on-site communications.

FACILITIES - Under Alternative 1, facilities would be maintained at approximately the current level. Facilities that are currently not in use would remain inactive, but be maintained to the extent possible so that they might be used at a later time.

SERVICES - Support services, such as law enforcement and security, fire protection, and health care, would remain at approximately the current level under this alternative.

UTILITIES - Water, wastewater, and electrical systems would be maintained to ensure they are defect free. Utilities currently not in use would be shut down and stabilized to the extent possible so that they might be restarted and used at a later time.

ON-SITE COMMUNICATION - Communication systems under Alternative 1 would be maintained at approximately the current capacity. Radio,telephone, and video communication systems would receive routine maintenance as deficiencies are identified. The internal and the United States mail systems would continue to operate.

5.1.1.1.2 Airspace

The effects of continued activities and aircraft operations under Alternative 1 would have a minimal effect on the NTS and NAFR Complex airspace.DOE operations (including Desert Rock Airport activities) may increase by approximately 2 percent each year and military operations may increase slightly under the Defense Program and Work for Others Program. As a result, internal NAFR Complex airspace boundaries may be modified to better accommodate range operations and facilitate movement of air traffic through the NAFR Complex. However, no significant modification to the external NTS and NAFR Complex airspace boundaries is anticipated.

The inherent constraints of the existing NTS and NAFR Complex restricted airspace would continue to require that nonparticipating civil and military aircraft be routed around the NTS and NAFR Complex, as necessary, contingent upon joint-use status, operations in progress, and air traffic considerations. The current level of air traffic control and radar/radio/navigational aid services would likely be maintained or improved under normal upgrade programs.

The possible effect on civilian aviation is keyed primarily to constraints that defense-related airspace might place on routes of flight. General aviation would continue to be diverted around the NTS and NAFR Complex. However, the current level of air traffic control and navigational aid services, as well as the same airspace structures, would most likely be maintained under this alternative. Based on the past trend and on improvements in communication, it would not appear that this alternative would cause a major change in civilian air traffic.

Under Alternative 1, the only activities that would affect airspace would be defense related. Therefore, only Defense and Work for Others Programs will be discussed and evaluated. However, with all programs, occasional flights of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft carrying supplies and personnel are anticipated.

Defense Program. Activities at the NTS would continue at the levels of the past 3 to 5 years. No new programs or initiatives would be pursued. Activities would likely include an increase in air traffic of approximately 2 percent per year for the next 3 to 5 years.

Work for Others Program. With the Work for Others Program, the continuation of the use of the NTS airspace for various training exercises and associated defense activities is anticipated. However, no commercial air passenger, general aviation, or air cargo activities would occur except for occasional DOE-related cargo and personnel operations or for emergency operations.

Airspace requirements under Alternative 1 would be the same as those currently in effect with the Nellis Air Force Base Air Traffic Control Facility, assuming full air traffic control in the NTS and surrounding area. The continuation of operation at the NTS under the Work for Others Program would not result in changed airspace or additional air traffic impacts.

5.1.1.2 Transportation

. The following sections contain the discussion of the environmental impacts related to transportation activities as defined under Alternative 1. The analysis of transportation impacts is presented with respect to on-site and off-site traffic, transportation of materials and waste, and other transportation.

5.1.1.2.1 On-Site Traffic

The majority of NTS employees commute to the site by bus and work 4 days per week. Currently there are 54 buses serving the Las Vegas area, and 5 buses that serve the town of Pahrump, located approximately 72 km (45 mi) south of the NTS on State Route 160. These buses have dedicated routes to the following locations on the NTS: Mercury (23 routes), Area 25 (12 routes), Control Point in Area 6 (8 routes), Area 6 operations (8 routes), Area 12 operations (1 route), Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site (2 routes), and 1 mail route. There is a limited number of shuttle buses for on-site trips. The average number of daily trips attributable to the commuter buses would be 120 trips per day on roads within the NTS. All buses enter the site through the main gate onMercury Highway, except for two buses from Pahrump. These buses use Gate 510 on Lathrop Wells Road (Thomas, 1995).

Traffic generated within the NTS as a result of the land use, projects, and activities associated with Alternative 1 is estimated to be 3,370 trips per day. Table 5.1-1 shows the baseline average daily trip generation for each of the programs.

Table 5.1-2 summarizes the average daily traffic volume for the key roadways on the NTS under Alternative 1. The portion of the average daily traffic volume that would be attributable to each program is also provided. All key on-site roadways have capacities exceeding 2,000 vehicles per hour for both directions combined (Transportation Research Board, 1994). A comparison of capacity to volumes assigned to each segment on Table 5.1-2 shows that no roadway would experience significant traffic congestion under Alternative 1. The segment of roadway with the highest volume would be the section of Mercury Highway from Mercury to Road 5-01, with an average daily volume of 1,215 vehicles per day.

Defense Program. Traffic generated on the roads within the NTS as a result of projects and activities associated with the Defense Program is estimated to be 635 average daily trips under Alternative 1. No adverse effects on traffic-flow would occur as a result of the Defense Program.

Waste Management Program. Traffic generated on the roads within the NTS as a result of projects and activities associated with the Waste Management Program is estimated to be 145 average daily trips under Alternative 1. The Radioactive Waste Management Sites in Areas 3 and 5 would continue to receive and dispose of low-level waste from approved waste generators within the DOE complex. The Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site would also continue to make mixed waste disposal capability available to NTS generators. Acceptance of waste quantities would continue at levels consistent with past activity (Shott el al., 1995). Inbound shipments from off-site generators are estimated to be approximately 6,800 in the next 10 years for an average of 3 shipments per day. The number of waste shipments generated on the NTS is expected to be 11,615 in the next 10 years for an average of 6 shipments per day. The majority of the low-level waste would be shipped to the Radioactive Waste Management Site in Area 5. Access to this site would be provided by the Radioactive Waste Management Site access road from Mercury Highway to Road 5-01. No adverse effects on traffic flow would occur as a result of the Waste Management Program.

Environmental Restoration Program. Traffic generated on the roads within the NTS as a result of projects and activities associated with the Environmental Restoration Program is estimated to be 390 average daily trips under Alternative 1. No adverse effects on traffic flow would occur as a result of the Environmental Restoration Program.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. Traffic generated on the roads within the NTS as a result of projects and activities associated with the Nondefense Research and Development Program is estimated to be 180 average daily trips under Alternative 1. No adverse effects on traffic flow would occur as a result of the Nondefense Research and Development Program.

Work for Others Program. Traffic generated on the roads within the NTS as a result of projects and activities associated with the Work for OthersProgram is estimated to be 140 average daily trips under Alternative 1. No adverse effects on traffic flow would occur as a result of the Work for Others Program.

Site-Support Activities. Traffic generated on the roads within the NTS as a result of activities associated with site-support activities is estimated to be 1,880 average daily trips under Alternative 1. No adverse effects on traffic flow would occur as a result of site-support activities.

5.1.1.2.2 Off-Site Traffic

Alternative 1 effects on roadway traffic were assessed by estimating the number of trips generated by each program-related activity and considered employees, visitors, residents, and service and delivery vehicles associated with construction and operations. These trips were then assigned to key roadway segments.

Traffic impacts were determined based on level of service changes for each of the key roads analyzed.

The major traffic generators at the site under Alternative 1 would be the construction and operation employees (totaling 2,947 employees on site in 1996 through 2005) and their activities. Table 5.1-3 shows a summary of average daily vehicle trips generated by each program activity for the years 1996, 2000, and 2005. Distribution among programs is assumed to remain approxi mately the same as the current trip distribution. The projected peak-hour traffic on key roads and the associated level of service that would result under Alternative 1 for 1996, 2000, and 2005 is shown on Table 5.1-4 . These include the average daily vehicle trip generation, by program, listed in Table 5.1-3 .

Based on American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials standards, level of service B is appropriate for freeways and arterials and rural highways (level or rolling terrain). Level of service C is appropriate for rural (mountainous), urban, and suburban highways. For local roads, level of service D is appropriate in all terrain (AASHTO, 1990). By 2005, all key roads in the immediate vicinity of the site (U.S. Highway 95; the Mercury interchange ramps; and the access highway to the site, State Route 433) would continue to operate at level of service C or better, which is acceptable according to American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials standards. However, key roads within metropolitan Las Vegas (segments of Interstate 15, U.S. Highway 95, and U.S. Highway 93) already operate at levels of service ranging from A to F, and by 2000, they would all deteriorate to an unacceptable level of service F. These conditions would prevail even without Alternative 1 because of cumulative traffic growth (recreational, regional, and commuter traffic). U.S. Highway 93 at Hoover Dam already operates at an unacceptable level of service F, and its level of service would continue to deteriorate further with or without Alternative 1 activitiesbecause of its geometry (steep grades and narrow curves) and partially because of its moderate traffic volume and truck traffic. All other key roadways would generally continue to operate at a level of service C or better throughout the period of analysis.

The off-site conditions described above would occur with or without Alternative 1 and with or without any single program activity. The following sections address the contribution of each program activity to traffic impacts.

Defense Program. The major Defense Program traffic generators in 2005 under Alternative 1 would be the approximately 660 on-site employees, generating approximately 330 vehicle trips on a typical weekday in 2005. Except for site-support, defense-related activities would have the highest number of daily vehicle trips (22 percent of the total) and the most traffic impacts.

Waste Management Program. The major traffic generators in 2005 under Alternative 1 would be the 112 on-site employees associated with the Waste Management Program, generating approximately 60 vehicle trips on a typical weekday in 2005. The Waste Management Program-related activities would contribute 4 percent of the total number of daily vehicle trips.

Environmental Restoration Program. The major traffic generators in 2005 under Alternative 1 would be the 174 on-site employees associated with the Environmental Restoration Program, generating approximately 90 vehicle trips on a typical weekday in 2005. The Environmental Restoration Program-related activities would contribute approximately 6 percent to the total number of daily vehicle trips.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. The major traffic generators in 2005 under Alternative 1 would be the 86 on-site employees associated with the Nondefense Research and Development Program, generating approximately 40 vehicle trips on a typical weekday in 2005. The Nondefense Research and Development Program activities would contribute slightly less than 3 percent to the total number of daily vehicle trips.

Work for Others Program. The major traffic generators in 2005 under Alternative 1 would be the 157 on-site employees associated with the Work for Others Program, generating approximately 50 vehicle trips on a typical weekday in 2005. These activities would generate approximately 5 percent of the number of daily vehicle trips.

Site-Support Activities. Site-support activities are anticipated to generate 880 vehicle trips on a typical weekday in 2005. These trips account for operations activities related to roads, utilities, communication, and other site support. Under Alternative 1, these activities would contribute to approximately 60 percent of the total number of daily trips in 2005.

5.1.1.2.3 Transportation of Materials and Waste

The expected waste volumes and numbers of shipments for Alternative 1 are identified on Table 5.1-5 . Table 5.1-5 reflects a 10-year average estimate of low-level waste volumes and shipments by generator sites for Alternative 1. The yearly average for low-level waste, ignoring NTS generated low-level waste, is approximately 700 shipments/year. Low-level waste, mixed waste, and some defense programs nuclear material would be transported under this alternative. The specific routes analyzed and their lengths are provided in Appendix I.

Defense Program. The Defense Program requires the shipment of special nuclear materials and weapons components in a safe-secure trailer. Information regarding the total number of radioactive materials shipments generated by the Defense Program is classified for reasons of national security. In addition, with the current weapons testing moratorium in place, it is uncertain at this time how many tests and what types of tests would be performed, in the event the moratorium is lifted. Under Alternative 1, a total of 140 shipments of nuclear test devices to the NTS would occur. The risk associated with Defense Programs transportation is low. The risk of radiation induced latent cancer fatality in the exposed population is 4 x 10^-5; the risk of health effects due to vehicle emissions (nonradiological risk) is 1.85 x 10^-4. The risk of a vehicle-related traffic fatality is 6 x 10^-4. The accident-initiated radiological risk of latent cancer fatality is 8 x 10^-11.

The only on-site risk is from the 32 to 40 km (20 to 25 mi) of roadway that the safe-secure trailer would travel. A group of flammable-liquid storage tanks, protected by dikes, is located near Mercury, about 31 m (100 ft) off the roadway. A transportation accident having serious consequences along this route is estimated to have a probability of less than or equal to 1 in 1,000,000.

Waste Management and Environmental Restoration Programs. Under Alternative 1, a waste volume of 350,500 cubic meters (m³) (458,437 cubic yards [yd³]) would be expected, ofwhich 350,000 m³ (457,783 yd³) is low-level waste. Additionally, 200,000 m³ (261,590 yd³) of the waste would be from off-site generators. This volume of waste represents approximately 7,200 shipments for the 10-year period evaluated.

For the transportation risk analysis, health risk was estimated in terms of vehicle-related fatalities and cargo-related deaths and illness, such as latent cancer fatalities, from highway transportation of DOE-generated low-level and mixed waste. The results are given in Table 5.1-6 . Traffic injuries and fatalities would be the most dominant risk, followed by the risk of radiation-induced cancer, which would be dominated by incident-free transportation.

The nonradiological accident risk along the entire route for the 10-year duration of the program is an estimated 2 vehicle-related fatalities and 27 injuries. It is estimated that 0.002 latent cancer fatalities would be induced over 10 years as a result of exposure to radiation. Inside the borders of Nevada, the risk of a traffic-related fatality is estimated to be 0.02 in 10 years, and 1 traffic-related injury is expected in 10 years. The risk of a latent cancer fatality inside Nevada during 10 years is 6 x 10^-4 (6 x 10^-⁴ = 0.0006). The consequence and probability of the maximum foreseeable accidents were calculated based on the total number of low-level radioactive waste shipments to the NTS. Themost severe consequence from a low-level waste accident would be 8.08 x 10^-3 latent cancer fatalities and 1.04 x 10^-3 radiation detriments. The maximum probability of occurrence of this accident is 2.25 x 10^-3. There is no off-site mixed waste received at the NTS under Alternative 1.

On-site risks include those from the transport of NTS-generated waste, as well as those from the on-site transportation of wastes generated off site. As with off-site transportation, the risk is dominated by vehicle-related fatalities and injuries; the cargo-related risks are very small.

5.1.1.3 Socioeconomics

. This section discusses the potential socioeconomic effects associated with Alternative 1. The purpose of this section is to identify and analyze the major socioeconomic issues related to each possible future activity at the sites.

This analysis addresses the timing of effects associated with each alternative for future reuse and covers a period extending 10 fiscal years beyond 1996. Results are usually presented for each alternative for the benchmark years 1996, 2000, and 2005. Table 5.1-7 lists the economic activity projections for Clark and Nye Counties, and Table 5.1-8 lists total housing projections.

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, POPULATION, AND HOUSING The baseline for this alternative was established from the total employment projected for each of the sites at the end of Fiscal Year 1995. These proposed Fiscal Year 1995 employment estimates are believed to best reflect the staffing levels needed as a result of recent stockpile requirement reductions.

The region of influence for Clark and Nye counties was identified based on the distribution of residents for current DOE and contractor personnel working at the NTS, the NAFR Complex, and the TonopahTest Range (DOE, 1994). The region of influence was determined to be the area in which approximately 97 percent of current DOE and contractor employees reside. It was estimated that future distribution of direct workers associated with the proposed alternatives would follow the same trend. For the purpose of this analysis, county data projections are accomplished separately. Because of the difference in size, economies, and contributions to the NTS, a misleading analysis would be produced if Clark and Nye Counties were analyzed as one aggregate area of impact. In other words, the effects might be different for each county.

Under Alternative 1, it was assumed that all sites would continue their current mission with the existing facilities that could comply with environmental, safety, and health requirements and current DOE guidance. It was estimated that a 6,576-person workforce would provide the necessary support to maintain current levels of operations. Figure 5.1-1 compares direct employment among all alternatives in 2005. With the 6,576-person workforce, it is estimated that direct payroll and purchases of goods and services would generate 12,516 secondary jobs (12,235 in Clark County and 281 in Nye County).

Direct earning levels are estimated at $323 million annually, and secondary earnings are estimated at more than $339 million annually. Of these earnings, $300 million in direct earnings and $330 million in secondary earnings would remain in Clark County, and $23 million direct earnings and $9 million in secondary earnings would remain in Nye County.

For all programs, because there would be no change in economic activity under Alternative 1, the unemployment rate would not be affected and would remain at 5.8 percent. Because of a lack of change in employment, no changes in population are anticipated. The demand for housing would not change under this alternative, because no in- or out-migration would be triggered with this alternative.

Defense Program. Under Alternative 1, the Defense Program would account for 1,472 direct jobs and 2,802 secondary positions, for a total of 4,274 jobs.

Waste Management Program. The Waste Management Program would result in no change in total current employment. This program would remain at approximately 726 jobs, including 250 direct and 476 secondary positions.

Environmental Restoration Program. Under Alternative 1, total employment in this program would not change from current levels. This program would account for approximately 1,129 jobs, including 389 direct and 740 secondary positions.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. Under Alternative 1, the DOE would continue to support ongoing program operations, but no new initiatives would be pursued. Total employment in this program would remain at the same levels. This program would support approximately 555 jobs, including 191 direct and 364 secondary positions.

Work for Others Program. Total employment in this program would remain at current levels.

This program would contribute approximately 1,016 jobs, including 350 direct and 666 secondary positions.

Site-Support Activities. Under Alternative 1, total employment in this program would remain at the same levels. This program would contribute approximately 11,392 jobs, including 3,924 direct and 7,468 secondary positions.

PUBLIC FINANCE.The fiscal effects of Alternative 1 are presented in this section. Table 5.1-9 outlines the projected financial summary for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2005 under Alternative 1. The fiscal impact of other alternatives can be determined by subtracting their totals from the Alternative 1 future baseline. The remaining fiscal impact would be the specific impact associated with that alternative.

Clark County. The expansion and improvement of the county infrastructure would continue to be the primary focus of Clark County fiscal efforts. In addition, Clark County has undertaken the implementation of a county facilities development program as discussed in Chapter 4

Under Alternative 1, revenues for Clark County would increase because of increases in population, personal income, and total employment in the county. Assuming continued small increases in revenues and slightly larger initial increases in expenditures, Alternative 1 would result in revenues less expenditures of a negative $2,502,000 in Fiscal Year 2000. It is expected that Clark County would achieve a positive fiscal position by Fiscal Year 2001. In Fiscal Year 2005, revenues less expenditures are expected to be $37,041,000. The fund balance (or reserves) as a percentage of current expense is expected to be 247 percent in 2000 and 379 percent in 2005.

City of Las Vegas. Under Alternative 1, revenues over expenditures for Las Vegas are expected to become positive in Fiscal Year 1995 because of increases in population, personal income, and total employment in the city. Assuming continued increases in revenues and expenditures, Alternative 1 would result in revenues less expenditures of $14,380,000 in Fiscal Year 2000. It is predicted that Las Vegas would achieve an increasingly positive fiscal position and by Fiscal Year 2005, revenues over expenditures would be $16,435,000. The fund balance as a percentage of current expense is expected to be 180 percent in 2000 and 273 percent in 2005.

City of North Las Vegas. Expenditures for North Las Vegas are forecast to continue outpacing revenues under Alternative 1. Revenues over expenditures in Fiscal Year 2000 would be a negative $7,077,000 and a less negative $6,580,000 in Fiscal Year 2005, despite increases in population, personal income, and total employment in the city. Public safety and capital projects are anticipated to continue to be the largest expenditures. Taxes, which recently decreased (from $10,059,472 in Fiscal Year 1993 to $7,941,972 in Fiscal Year 1994), are expected to slowly grow to 1993 levels by Fiscal Year 2001. The fund balance as apercentage of current expense is expected to be 64 percent in Fiscal Year 2000 and 94 percent in Fiscal Year 2005.

Clark County School District. Under Alternative 1, revenues for the Clark County School District would expand because of increases in population and corresponding school enrollment. Regular program and undistributed expenditures would likely continue to increase at a slower rate. The school district is not predicted to achieve a positive fiscal position by Fiscal Year 2005. In Fiscal Year 2000, revenues less expenditures would be a negative $15,067,000 and in Fiscal Year 2005 a less negative $11,168,000. The fund balance as a percentage of current expense is expected to be 17 percent in Fiscal Year 2000 and 22 percent in Fiscal Year 2005.

Nye County. Under Alternative 1, revenues for Nye County would increase slightly because of smallincreases in population, personal income, and total employment in the county. Assuming continued small increases in expenditures as well, a positive fiscal position is expected to be reached in Fiscal Year 1996. Alternative 1 would result in revenues less expenditures of $1,567,000 in Fiscal Year 2000. In Fiscal Year 2005, revenues less expenditures would be $3,455,000. The fund balance as a percentage of current expense is expected to be 56 percent in Fiscal Year 2000 and 97 percent in Fiscal Year 2005.

Town of Tonopah. Revenues and expenditures for Tonopah would increase slightly because of small increases in population, personal income, and total employment in the county. Assuming continued small increases, Alternative 1 would result in revenues less expenditures of $79,000 in Fiscal Year 2000. In Fiscal Year 2005, revenues less expenditures would be $75,000. The fund balance as a percentage of current expense would be 128 percent in Fiscal Year 2000 and 186 percent in Fiscal Year 2005.

Town of Pahrump. Under Alternative 1, revenues for Pahrump would increase slightly because of small increases in population, personal income, and total employment in the county. Assuming continued small increases in revenues and slightly smaller initial increases in expenditures compared to Fiscal Year 1994, Alternative 1 would result in revenues less expenditures of $224,000 in Fiscal Year 2000. In Fiscal Year 2005, revenues less expenditures would be $315,000. The fund balance (or reserves) as a percentage of current expense is anticipated to be 170 percent in Fiscal Year 2000 and 275 percent in the Fiscal Year 2005.

Nye County School District. Under Alternative 1, revenues for Nye County School District would increase slightly because of small increases in population. Local sources would continue to generate the most revenue. Revenues less expenditures would be a negative $1,402,000 in Fiscal Year 2000 and a less negative $136,000 in Fiscal Year 2005. The fund balance as a percentage of current expense would be a negative 2 percent in Fiscal Year 2000 and 14 percent in Fiscal Year 2005.

PUBLIC SERVICESThe public service impacts of all other alternatives can be determined by subtracting total personnel required from the Alternative 1 future baseline. The addition or reduction in personnel required would be the specific impact associated with that alternative. Table 5.1-10 summarizes the levels of service that would be required for Alternative 1. In each case, the current levels of service are assumed to continue.

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 requires state and local jurisdiction, within the United States, to plan for and have the capability to respond to incidents involving all hazardous materials, including waste, that reside in or pass through their jurisdiction. This process is implemented through the Local Emergency Planning Committee and the State Emergency Response Commission. As part of this program, local communities and counties are required to implement an Emergency Response Plan. These plans define chain-of-command, notification procedures, and evacuation procedures for each community.

For the past 15 years, the DOE has provided training to responders in Nevada through the First-On-Scene Program. The environmental safety and health training will continue to be made available to state regulators, educators, the public, and agencies (firefighters, law enforcement, and emergency, medical personnel) within Nevada. Training courses for environmental safety and health, transportation, radioactive materials management, environmental restoration, and classes that meet or exceed federally-mandated training requirements for personnel involved with the generation or disposal of radioactive or hazardous waste can be provided by the DOE/NV. Courses conducted associated with transportation activities include: first-on-scene responder for law enforcement, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel.

Public Education. A total of 7,928 full-time equivalent licensed teachers were employed by the Clark County School District in the 1993 to 1994 school year, resulting in a student-to-teacher ratio of 18 students to 1 teacher. To continue with this ratio, the Clark County School District would require 11,105 teachers by the school year 2004 to 2005. This is an increase of 40 percent over this period from 1993 to 1994 to 2004 to 2005. The student-to-teacher ratio for the Nye County School District was 16.39 students to 1 teacher in the school year 1994 to 1995. Projecting this ratio to the school year 2004 to 2005, a total of 384 additional teachers would be required. This additional increase is 61 percent above the 1994 to 1995 school year's full-time teaching staff.

Police Protection. Assuming the same levels of service in the future, requirements for sworn police and deputy protection in the year 2005 can be examined. The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department would require 1,705 sworn officers. The North Las Vegas Police Department would require 182 sworn officers. The Nye County Sheriff's Office in Tonopah would require 15 deputy sheriffs. The Pahrump Sheriff's Substation would require 51 deputy sheriffs, the Beatty Sheriff's Substation would require 5 deputy sheriffs, and the Amargosa Valley Sheriff's Substation would require 3 deputy sheriffs.

Fire Protection. The following discussion addresses firefighter personnel expected to be required in the year 2005 under Alternative 1. The Clark County Fire Department, which handles urban fires in the county, would be expected to require 564 firefighters. Some 406 firefighters would be required in the Las Vegas Fire Department in 2005. The North Las Vegas Fire Department would require 120 firefighters. The Tonopah, Pahrump, Beatty, and Amargosa Valley Volunteer Fire Departments would require 30, 55, 28, and 36 firefighters, respectively.

Health Care. The 1995 level of service for medical doctors and registered nurses was used to determine future needs based on population growth. In 2005, a total of 1,897 medical doctors and 6,689 registered nurses would be required in Clark County. In Nye County, 13 medical doctors and 59 registered nurses would be required. However, because of the present difficulty in obtaining medical services in Nye County, it is anticipated that this level of service would increase in the future.

AMERICAN INDIAN SOCIOECONOMICS This section describes the American Indian concerns associated with implementing Alternative 1, as summarized by the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations (CGTO).

Indian people prefer to live in their traditional homelands. One reason for this preference is that Indian people have special ties to their traditional lands and a unique relationship with each other. When Indian people receive employment near their reservations, they can remain on the reservation while commuting to work. This pattern of employment tends to have positive benefits for both the Indian community and tribal enterprises like housing. The reservation Indian community has the participation of the individual and his(her) financial contribution. The individual payment for housing is tied to income level, so the more a person earns with the job, the more they pay to the tribal housing office, thus making tribally sponsored housing more economically viable.

When employment opportunities decline on reservations, however, often times Indian families must move away from their reservations to seek employment. These situations have resulted in approximately one-half to two-thirds of the tribal members in the CGTO region of influence moving away from their reservations.

As Indian people move away from reservations due to employment opportunities, Indian culture is threatened because the number of families living on reservations declines. Tribal members who choose to relocate from their reservations impact reservation economies, school, housing, and emergency services. Both schools and economies are impacted because federal funding available to tribes is based on population statistics.

With local employment opportunities such as those offered by the NTS to neighboring tribes, prices of tribal housing rise because they are based on income. If a positive balance between increased income and increased cost of living in tribal reservations is achieved, then both individual members and the tribe benefit from employment opportunities. However, continued salary raises may tip the balance toward sharp increase in cost of living, making it unable for tribal members to continue living in the reservation.

Tribal housing programs become jeopardized if vacancies occur in tribal housing projects and cannot be reoccupied. If vacancies occur, tribal revenues and federal funding will be adversely impacted and will make it more difficult to expand housing programs in future years.

Additionally, vacant units require more maintenance. If tribal members are unavailable to occupy a tribal housing unit, then tribes make units available to non-Indians, and this too potentially impacts Indian culture. The increased presence of non-Indians on a reservation or in an Indian community reduces the privacy needed for the conduct of certain ceremonies and traditional practices. When non-Indian children are in constant interaction with Indian children, it creates a situation that potentially disrupts cultural learning opportunities that occur in everyday life.

Small rural reservations must have a sufficient number of people to generate an emergency response capability. The need for emergency services will decline as people move away from the reservation. Tribal members employed in these emergency service occupations may move away because of their marketable skills. Tribal revenues for administration, school, housing, and emergency services will be reduced accordingly, due to a decline in population size.

When Indian people move away from their reservations several dilemmas occur. Typically, Indian people experience a feeling of isolation from their tribe, culture, and family. When an Indian person relocates to an off-reservation area, the individual finds that there are fewer people of their tribe and culture around them. As a result, Indian people must decide on the appropriateness of practicing traditional ceremonies in the presence of non-Indian people. Indian people are continually torn between the decision to stay in the city or return to the reservation to participate in traditional ceremonies and interact with other tribal members. This dilemma occurs on a regular basis and potentially impacts the livelihood and cultural well-being of off-reservation employees and their families. When off-reservation individuals choose to return to their homelands to participate in traditional ceremonies, they risk their jobs or disciplinary actions against their children who attend public schools due to excessive absenteeism.

Should an emergency situation resulting from NTS- related activities, including the transportation of hazardous and radioactive waste occur, it could result in the closure of a major reservation road. Many of the Indian reservations within the region of influence are located in remote areas with limited access by standard and substandard roads. Were a major (only) road into a reservation to be closed, numerous adverse social and economic impacts could occur. For example, Indian students who have to travel an unusually high number of miles to or from school could realize delays. Delays also could occur for regular deliveries of necessary supplies for inventories needed by tribal enterprises and personal use. Purchases by patrons of tribal enterprises and emergency medical services enroute to or from the reservation could be dramatically impeded. Potential investors interested in expanding tribal enterprises and on- going considerations by tribal governments for future tribal developments may significantly diminish because of the perceived risks associated with NTS-related activities including the transportation of hazardous waste.

Defense ProgramUnder Alternative 1, the Defense Program would produce a total of 4,274 jobs. It is expected that a percentage of these jobs would be filled by tribal members from reservations within the American Indian Region of Influence. Many of these Indian people will move away from their reservations to take these jobs causing the socioeconomic impacts discussed above. Increased employment can positively impact American Indian employees and their families; however, this off-reservation employment is expected to adversely impact the social structure and cultural activities on the reservation.

Waste Management Program. Under Alternative 1, the Environmental Restoration Program would create approximately 1,129 jobs. Although this is approximately one-third the number of jobs created by the Defense Program, it is anticipated that a higher percentage of American Indians would be attracted to the Environmental Restoration jobs because they are more consistent with American Indian land preservation values. American Indians have special skills that may be especially critical to Environmental Restoration activities, and the CGTO has specifically asked that Indian people be involved in these programs. American Indians have asked to be involved when soil mediation actions remove contaminated soil, and afterwards, during habitat restoration.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. Under Alternative 1, no new jobs would be created by the Nondefense Research and Development Program. Were existing research programs, especially the National Environmental Research Park Program, to integrate American Indians into the study designs, it is possible that a few more Indian people would be employed. These shifts in employment are expected to be minor, so no American Indian socioeconomic impacts are expected.

Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 1, no new jobs would be created by the Work for Others Program. No American Indian socio economic impacts are expected.

Site-Support Activities. Under Alternative 1, no new jobs would be created by the site-support activities. No American Indian socioeconomic impacts are expected.

5.1.1.4 Geology and Soils

. The impacts to geology and soils resulting from the five programs and site-support activities are presented in this section.

Defense Program. Under Alternative 1, two scenarios for stockpile stewardship are considered. In the first scenario, a state of readiness to conduct nuclear tests is maintained, but no tests are conducted. No impacts to geologic and soil media result from readiness activities. In the second scenario, which the DOE believes to be highly unlikely, the President directs that one or more nuclear test be conducted. These stockpile tests would be conducted on Pahute Mesa and/orYucca Flat; because the type of test that would be conducted cannot be identified, the impacts associated with both types of potential tests are discussed.

Approximately 12 acres of surface geologic media are disturbed in each underground nuclear test in Yucca Flat. The surface area disturbed is three times this amount for each test on Pahute Mesa. Radioisotope contamination could extend up to five cavity radii from the point of detonation. Radii of cavities at the NTS range up to 49 meters (m) (160 feet [ft]), and rubble chimneys range up to 351 m (1,150 ft) high (Borg et al., 1976).

The formation of an underground cavity, a subsurface pocket of radioactivity, and a subsidence crater, as a result of underground testing under Alternative 1, represents an unavoidable and incremental impact on the geologic media in the vicinity of the planned tests. There are, however, already hundreds of such cavities and craters on the NTS where radioactivity has been released into the geologic media, as discussed in Chapter 4 , Affected Environments. The impacts associated with conducting a single underground nuclear test also are described in Chapter 4 (Sections 4.1.4.2 , 4.1.4.3 , 4.1.5.1 , 4.1.5.2 , and 4.1.11 ), Affected Environments. The adverse impacts on geology and soils of one to a small number of nuclear tests are a small increment when viewed against existing baseline conditions. The analysis performed for this EIS is for the conduct of one nuclear test. The impacts to the environment from the conduct of multiple tests (a series) are assumed to be incrementally additive. For example, the impacts of conducting two tests would be twice the impact of conducting a single test.

Fault reactivation and associated seismicity induced by underground testing of nuclear devices are described in Section 4.1.4 . Fault reactivation from testing of nuclear devices disturbs subsurface and surface geologic media, which is potentially significant in terms of resultant limitations on land use or resultant changes in surface and subsurface water movement. The yield or size of underground nuclear explosions is controlled by the Threshold Test Ban Treaty to a maximum high-explosive equivalent of 150 kilotons (kt). For the purposes ofthis evaluation, any future weapons testing is assumed to occur under this limitation. Currently, underground nuclear testing can be conducted in the Pahute Mesa and Yucca Flat areas. Because geologic structure may differ considerably among the testing areas, predicting the effects of tests prior to characterizing the geologic environment in the unused areas is uncertain. Nevertheless, the geographic areas for testing and the yield limits can be used to estimate ground-motion effects from future weapons tests.

Ground-motion hazards can result from the underground nuclear explosion and secondary seismic effects. Because of the rather complete recording of ground motions emanating from NTS activities, the effects of the weapons testing program are predictable, and damage effects have been documented.

Communities within 48 kilometers (km) (30 miles [mi]) of testing areas that could be most affected by ground motion from underground nuclear explosions are Beatty, Amargosa Valley, and Indian Springs. The closest potential testing area for these communities is 31 to 40 km (19 to 25 mi) away. Table 5.1-11 is a tabulation of peak horizontal ground-motions for 150-kt tests at 31 km (19 mi), using regressions developed by Long (1986). Peak ground acceleration, velocity, and displacement were computed at the 50th and 84th percentiles of the log-normal distributions given by Long (1986) for rock and alluvium recording geology at 31 km (19 mi) for a 150-kt test. Expected peak ground accelerations (g) are well below 0.05 g, which is the acceleration where slight damage might occur in typical buildings less than several stories in height.

Several Nye County mines are located in the testing vicinity, but all are at a distance greater than 40 km (25 mi) from the closest potential testing area. Because the distances from these mines to the underground nuclear explosions are approximately the same as, or greater than, the distances for communities, damage to structures in the mines is not expected. In investigations of earthquake effects to mines (Owen, 1981), there are very few reports of damage. Surveys of mines in the vicinity of the NTS by Owen and Scholl support these findings (ERDA, 1977).

In addition to direct ground motion effects of underground nuclear explosions, there is also potential hazard from secondary seismic effects. Secondary effects are associated with co-seismic strain release attributed to the release of tectonic strain, aftershocks that can be associated with tectonic strain release, and events associated with the collapse of cavities created by the underground nuclear explosions. Beyond 4.8 to 9.7 km (3 to 6 mi) of even the largest underground nuclear explosion (greater than 1 megaton), there was no evidence of significant secondary seismic effects associated with the test. In no case has the magnitude of an aftershock been larger than the magnitude of the underground nuclear explosion (URS/John A. Blume and Associates, 1986).

Underground subcritical experiments would produce some physical effects on the geologic media. Approximately 2,314 m³ (81,700 cubic feet [ft³]) would be disturbed each year in association with the conduct of up to four experiments. Irreversible effects would include the deposition of radiological material within the cavity mined in the subsurface. Approximately 20 acres of surface geologic media are currently disturbed in association with the Lyner Complex, where these experiments would be conducted.

In addition to the direct effect of detonating nuclear and other devices on geologic media and processes, preparation for such tests also disturbs geologic media. Disturbances include any associated infrastructure, excavated tunnels, and an existing inventory of deep boreholes up to 4 m (12 ft) in diameter for detonation of nuclear devices. Geologic media excavated in tunnels, boreholes, and burrow pits are considered to be permanently lost. Excavation of tunnels and testing conducted in those tunnels could potentially impact slope stability.

Withdrawal of the NTS would continue to exclude locatable minerals from exploration or appropriation. The presence of past production indicates a potential for future production using modern techniques. Thus, some potential impact regarding availability of these undefined resources exists. Industrial minerals and materials are widespread throughout Nevada. The unavailability of these minerals and materials from the NTS has had little effect on Nevada's mining, manufacturing, and construction industries and would probably have little effect in the future. Aggregate resources have been used in the past as part of Defense Program actions, and aggregate mining would continue under Alternative 1. The impacts of this mining are not considered significant with respect to the resource availability. The aggregateresources of the region are immense, and the demand outside metropolitan Clark County is negligible.

The NTS is considered to have a low potential for geothermal, oil, and gas resources. No impact on these resources is anticipated as a result of Defense Program activities under Alternative 1.

The impacts of soils grading and excavation in support of testing under Alternative 1 are not considered significant. Testing locations in Yucca Flat require that 12 acres be disturbed, while locations on Pahute Mesa require almost 3 times that amount. Given that one or more tests would be conducted under Alternative 1 and that an inventory of prepared sites exists, the associated soil disturbance either already exists or would be minor if a new location(s) was prepared. There is the potential for minor soil contamination as a result of drill-back operations. In the event that such a release occurs and results in soil contamination, corrective actions would be initiated, as required under the appropriate environmental regulations and DOE orders. The soil removed would be lost for the long term.

The consequences of altering the natural drainages and erosion rates are not considered significant. Short-term increases in sediment loss might occur; however, because of the overall slight precipitation over the NTS, increased soil erosion would be limited in both time and extent. Activities associated with conventional high-explosive testing, surface dynamic experiments, and hydrodynamic tests are not anticipated to significantly disturb the surface geology. No significant change in surface topography and drainage paths are anticipated, and, thus, the impacts would be negligible. Construction activities associated with these activities are mitigated to minimize impacts.

Waste Management Program. Craters resulting from underground nuclear tests in Area 3 that meet certain criteria have been excavated to dispose of bulk low-level waste. In this process, the area between adjacent crater pairs is removed, and the floors are reshaped so waste containers can be stacked for disposal. The Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site covers approximately 128 acres. 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.

The underground shot cavities beneath the subsidence craters and waste cells in the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site are much deeper than active hydrologic surface processes (infiltration, redistribution, and evapotranspiration) operating beneath the waste unit from the ground surface to a depth of 31 m (100 ft). Current scientific models suggest that the chimney beneath the low-level waste unit does not enhance or promote vertical groundwater flow between the waste unit (subsidence crater) and the deep shot cavity. This conceptual model was confirmed by hydrologic data obtained in 1996 from the exploratory borehole completed beneath U-3bl. Water-potential data indicate that there is no groundwater movement from a 40-m to 96-m (131-ft to 315-ft) depth within the subsurface chimney (Van Cleave, 1996). Given the proximity of Area 5 to Area 3 (23 km [14 mi]) and the very similar hydrologic conditions, the defensible hydrogeologic conceptual model for Area 5 is being tested and validated for the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site. The underground shot cavities beneath the subsidence craters and waste cells in the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site are located in the unsaturated zone more than 101 m (330 ft) above the water table. This substantial separation between the shot cavities and the water table provides a further basis, albeit preliminary, to conclude that there is no vertical groundwater flow between the low-level waste unit and the water table. The Environmental Restoration Program will evaluate the potential for groundwater contamination from shot cavities located in the unsaturated zone.

The trenches, pits, and boreholes in Area 5 have been excavated to dispose of containerized low-level waste and mixed waste. The Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site covers approximately 732 acres surrounded by a fence. The waste disposal craters and excavations areanticipated to be closed with an engineered cap. The presence of a landfill is essentially a long-term commitment of the area.

Environmental Restoration Program. Environmental Restoration Program activities on the NTS and NAFR Complex are not anticipated to significantly impact geologic media. Safety tests, venting, drill-backs, and atmospheric tests in certain areas of the NTS and NAFR Complex have resulted in radioactive soil contamination, as described in Chapter 4 . Various methods of cleanup of these areas have been proposed, including removal of contaminated soil media followed by revegetation. This method of cleanup could temporarily make the surface vulnerable to erosion by water or wind processes. Chemical stabilization followed by revegetation would provide longer-term stability. Reclamation will be based on the specific circumstances of the site and will be addressed in site-specific reclamation plans. Among the variables which will be considered are size of the area, future use, nature of soils, annual precipitation, slope aspect, and site location. The range of options includes natural revegetation, gravel armoring, chemical stabilization, seeding, planting, and irrigating. When highly intensive revegetation techniques are necessary, subsoils could be amended and irrigation could be used. Soils from areas used for staging and support sites could also be salvaged and replaced at the completion of activities. Some areas would be restored to full productivity, while others would be impaired for the long term. Industrial processes have resulted in various areas of chemical or hydrocarbon soil contamination. Remediation of these areas would result in closure in place or removal to an authorized facility. The soils involved would be lost for the long term.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. Projects conducted within the NTS Environmental Research Park are not anticipated to result in significant adverse impacts to geologic media. Tests conducted at the Spill Test Facility on Frenchman Playa in Area 5 do not pose a risk of significant adverse impact to geologic media at or near the facility (DOE/OFE, 1994).

Work for Others Program. Activities under the Work for Others Program, such as defense-related research, development projects, and military training exercises, could have an adverse impact on geologic media of the NTS and NAFR Complex. One potential impact would be soil contamination resulting from weapons firing tests on the NTS and NAFR Complex. Another would be alteration of natural drainage paths, resulting in potential preferential erosion of natural or fill deposits or deposition of sediments. Weapons-firing tests conducted on the NTS, primarily in Area 25, have contaminated relatively small areas of surface and near-surface geologic media. Lead and depleted uranium are the primary contaminants. Continued tests are assumed to have similar impacts as those in the past. Assuming that contaminants are long-lived, these media would be considered permanently lost either through closure in place or removal to a disposal facility. Removal of the contaminated media would make that surface temporarily vulnerable to erosion by water or wind processes.

Site-Support Activities. Infrastructure and grading associated with disposal of bulk waste in Area 3 and containerized waste in Area 5 have further disturbed nearby surface and near-surface unconsolidated deposits, including soils. Continued aggregate use on the NTS as a result of road and facility construction would result under Alternative 1. Aggregate excavated for site-support activities is considered to be permanently lost. Other geologic resources are not anticipated to be significantly impacted by site-support activities. Site-support structures (i.e., roads and buildings) could be removed, and the disturbed geologic media could be restored.

5.1.1.5 Hydrology

. The environmental impacts to surface hydrology and groundwater are described in the sections that follow.

5.1.1.5.1 Surface Hydrology

The impacts to surface hydrology for the five programs and site-support activities are presented in this section. One potential impact from all the programs would be effects to mines (Owen, 1981), and there are very few reports of damage. Surveys of mines alteration of natural drainage paths, resulted in potential preferential erosion of natural or fill deposits,deposition of sediments, ponding of water, or inundation of infrastructure. There is little surface water present on the NTS or NAFR Complex. Surface waters on the NTS consist of small areas of seepage associated with springs, small ponds associated with production wells, tritium-contaminated ponds created by tunnel drainage, and ephemeral waters caused by convective summer thunderstorms and runoff during wet winters. No surface waters are used for water supply. The ephemeral waters exist in normally dry washes for short periods of time and on the surfaces of playas for periods of days to weeks. Water quality of the ephemeral waters is poor because of naturally high sediment loads and dissolved solids. Activities could have minor effects on drainage patterns and discharge rates because of surface disturbance, existing surficial contamination, and altered infiltration rates (see Sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.5). Change to sediment loads and dissolved solids because of project activities would be minor compared to the natural conditions. No significant change in surface water quality or quantity is anticipated, and, thus, the impacts would be negligible.

Defense Program. Ground-surface disturbance and craters associated with underground nuclear tests have rerouted parts of natural drainage paths in areas of underground nuclear testing. Some craters have captured nearby drainage, and headward erosion of drainage channels is occurring. However, this is considered to be negligible. In some areas of the NTS, the natural drainage system has been all but obliterated by the craters. As noted in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada (ERDA, 1977), the development of surface craters is an unavoidable adverse impact of underground nuclear testing.

Alteration of natural drainage in the areas of nuclear-device testing is considered to be irrevocable. Whether water entering these craters and subsequently infiltrating into the ground has other than a negligible effect onthe unsaturated zone, or potentially the saturated zone, is unknown. However, water entering the unsaturated zones or the saturated zone would account for a negligible source component when compared to the overallbaseline condition. The erosion would continue, and over extended periods of time could result in some alteration of the natural drainage system. However, the principal areas where cratering has occurred are in Frenchman Flat and Yucca Flat, which are both topographically closed basins, and no effects on drainage would occur beyond the limits of these basins.

The potential impacts of detonating additional underground nuclear device(s) on flow rates of springs on the NTS are assumed to be negligible. Springs on the NTS are located outside the testing areas or are generally upgradient.

The impacts associated with conducting a single underground nuclear test are described in Sections 4.1.4.2, 4.1.4.3, 4.1.5.1, 4.1.5.2, and 4.1.11. The adverse impacts on hydrology of a small number of additional nuclear tests are small when viewed against existing baseline conditions.

The analysis performed for this EIS is for the conduct of one nuclear test. The impacts to the environment from the conduct of multiple tests (a series) are assumed to be incrementally additive; that is, the impacts of conducting two tests would be twice the impact of conducting a single test.

Activities associated with conventional high- explosive testing, surface dynamic experiments, and hydrodynamic tests are not anticipated to contaminate the water table. No significant change in surface water quality or quantity is anticipated, and, thus, the impacts would be negligible. Construction activities associated with these activities are mitigated to minimize impacts.

Waste Management Program. Potential flood hazards on the NTS and portions of the NAFR Complex are presented in Section 4.1.5 of Chapter 4, Affected Environments. Siting of waste management facilities is a critical issue in terms of protecting the facilities from floods. Also important, however, is the impact on natural processes and media of siting such facilities in areas of potential flood hazard.

The Radioactive Waste Management Sites in Areas 3 and 5 and other waste disposal areas on theNTS alter natural drainage paths. The craters that are, and would continue to be used, in the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site resulted from underground nuclear tests. The craters have significantly altered the topography and have significantly impacted the surface drainage as discussed in Section 4.1.5 . Emplacement of waste in the craters and subsequent engineered closure of the cells would return portions of the surface topography to a natural grade and help to restore drainage patterns. Similarly, engineered berms at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site constructed to prevent run-on to the site cause negligible impacts to the natural drainage of the area.

Environmental Restoration Program. Water produced from characterization and monitoring wells drilled as part of the Environmental Restoration Program can only be discharged to the surface if it is in compliance with requirements of the Clean Water Act. Because monitoring of the water would be performed and erosion would be reduced through channel protection, drilling activities would have no significant impact to drainage channels or to downstream springs or surface impoundments. Any accidental discharge of produced water that is contaminated with radionuclides or hazardous substances has the potential to contaminate surface and near-surface geologic media. However, present practice is to contain all discharged water in lined sumps until the water quality is determined.

As with Defense Program activities, the Environmental Restoration Program soil-disturbing activities might result in slight increases in sediment yield and some inorganic compounds in surface water. The only planned Environmental Restoration Program action that could result in significant adverse impacts is the cleanup of large areas of plutonium-contaminated soils on the NTS. Appropriate dust and drainage controls would be implemented to ensure that unacceptable levels of plutonium would not become available for transport via surface water flows. Because such controls would be implemented, the impacts of soil restoration actions on surface water quality would not be considered significant.

Other Environmental Restoration Program activities would not have significant impacts to surface waters on the NTS and NAFR Complex; therefore, the impact of environmental restoration actions on the quantity of surface water resources is not expected to be significant.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. The facilities for the Nondefense Research and Development Program have already been constructed, and no new soil-disturbing actions that might impact the surface water regime are included as part of Alternative 1. Tests conducted at the Spill Test Facility on Frenchman Playa in Area 5 do not pose a significant adverse impact to any surface water at or near the facility (DOE/OFE, 1994).

Work for Others Program. Surface-based testing under the Work for Others Program might have negligible impacts on the surface water regime. Slight alterations in runoff and minor contributions of inorganic compounds and increased sediment yield might occur. Any such impacts would likely be very short term and small scale. Because of the very limited surface water flows and the limited extent of disturbances, significant impacts on the surface-water regime are not anticipated.

Other activities of the Work for Others Program could have a significant impact on surface waters of the NTS and NAFR Complex. Whether these activities have a significant impact is dependent on the size and location of the activity, which are yet to be determined.

One potential impact would be contamination of surface waters resulting from weapons-firing tests on the NTS and NAFR Complex. Weapons-firing tests conducted on the NTS, primarily in Area 25, have contaminated relatively small areas of surface and near-surface geologic media. Lead and depleted uranium are the primary contaminants. Continued tests and military training activities are assumed to have similar impacts as in the past.

Site-Support Activities. As with the five programs discussed prior, a potential impact from the siting of support infrastructure in certain areas would be the alteration of natural drainage paths, resulting inpotential preferential erosion of natural or fill deposits, deposition of sediments, ponding of water, or inundation of infrastructure.

Construction activities could result in some temporary impacts on surface water quality. Anticipated impacts include increases in sediment yield and perhaps in the loading of naturally occurring inorganic compounds (salts). Because of the very infrequent surface water flows, these impacts would likely be negligible and are not considered significant.

Road building associated with well drilling and soil remediation might disturb significant areas of soils. However, because of the very limited nature of surface water resources on the NTS and other DOE-administered lands in Nevada, the impact on surface water flows is expected to be minimal.

5.1.1.5.2 Groundwater

Impacts to groundwater from the five programs and site-support activities are presented in this section. In addition, because groundwater is an important resource in Nevada and the primary source of water for the NTS, the impacts to this resource are analyzed.

The consequences of Alternative 1 activities on the water resources of the NTS and adjacent areas include two broad types of effects: reductions in water resource availability and impacts on water quality. The DOE routinely withdraws groundwater at the NTS and other DOE-administered lands in Nevada. These groundwater withdrawals could result in localized impacts, including a lowering of water levels, changes in groundwater flow directions, and a reduction in the quantity of water available to other users. If large-scale groundwater withdrawals occur, the impacts could increase to include reductions in spring off-site discharge rates, water quality impairment, and reduced underflow to downgradient areas.

The potential for increased percolation of water downward through the chimney and into the groundwater system is another potential impact. However, water entering the unsaturated zones or the saturated zone would account for a negligible source component when compared to the overall baseline conditions. The Desert Research Institute(Tyler et al., 1986) has investigated the effects of craters on infiltration and soil moisture movement, and research is continuing in this area. This study was inconclusive; additional studies are planned during 1997.

Two key areas of environmental concern are located beyond the NTS boundaries to the south: Devils Hole National Monument and Ash Meadows. Devils Hole is a small pool in the limestone in the Amargosa Desert that is the habitat for the desert pupfish. This fish feeds and spawns in the shallow water on limestone ledges in the pool. An adequate water level must be maintained in the pool to provide for the continued success of this endangered species. The Ash Meadows area is a point of regional discharge for the carbonate aquifer system. An estimated 2.09 x 10⁷m³/yr (17,000 acre-feet/year) discharges to the surface, creating an extensive area of spring pools, streams, and wetlands. These wetlands form a valuable habitat for a great diversity of unique species. While the results of past investigations have not found any impacts resulting from DOE operations on these key environmentally sensitive areas, additional evaluation would be performed using sophisticated numerical simulation methods to ensure the continued existence of the pupfish and the important habitat at Ash Meadows.

Another category of effects is the potential impact of a given activity on the quality of the water resources. The grading of soils and other construction actions could slightly alter the quantity and quality of runoff.

Defense Program. Historically, the total annual demand for water at the NTS since the early 1960s has varied considerably, ranging from about 1.0x10⁶ m³/yr (850 acre-feet) in 1963 to a peak of 4.2x10⁶ m³/yr (3,430 acre-feet) in 1989.

Long-term measurements of the water levels have demonstrated that historic water withdrawals have not resulted in significant impacts on water levels. It is considered unlikely that future Defense Program water withdrawals under Alternative 1 would result in significant impacts. Localized water-level declines and changes in flow direction would occur during periods of active pumping. These effects would be limited and are thus considered to be unavoidable, but not significant, impacts.

As an unavoidable consequence of underground nuclear testing, the quality of the groundwater under some portions of the NTS has been impaired. If an underground nuclear test is conducted under or near the water table, additional impairment of water quality and further losses of groundwater resources could be expected. NTS standard operating procedures are designed to protect groundwaters from contamination by ensuring that no tests are conducted within two cavity radii (ora minimum of 100 m [328 ft]) of the groundwater table.

The effects of underground testing have been well-documented in Borg et al. (1976), and the hazardous materials associated with testing have been detailed by Bryant and Fabryka-Martin (1991). A detailed discussion of the effects of past underground testing on the groundwater is presented in Sections 4.1.5 and 4.1.11.

Yields, locations, and proximity to the water table of tests to be conducted under Alternative 1 have not been defined. Therefore, it is not possible to estimate the total potential releases to the groundwater. If tests are conducted in or near the water table, then significant releases of radionuclides and hazardous materials into the near test environment are to be expected. The estimated total release of fission and source-term radionuclides and activation products is 804,500 curies (Ci)/kt of explosive yield. Thus, the potential releases to the groundwater environment from testing of a single device far exceed releases from other actions to be included under Alternative 1. Tests conducted well above the water table would release significant quantities of radionuclides and hazardous materials into the unsaturated zone. Some downward migration of these contaminants may occur and may have the potential to contaminate the underlying groundwater.

The ancillary operations related to testing under Alternative 1 are primarily surface-based and have little potential for groundwater contamination. Minor quantities of drilling fluids or lost circulationmaterials might be introduced into the near-water-table environment during test hole drilling and post-shot drill-back operations. Any contamination that results from these activities would be considered inconsequential compared to the releases from the actual test.

The continuation of testing under Alternative 1 would have a significant impact on groundwater quality only if the testing is conducted in, or near, the water table. In this event, contamination of the near-test groundwater resources would occur. However, because of the conditions at the NTS (long travel paths, sorptive geologic media, slight hydraulic gradients, and the depths of the stockpiled holes), it is not considered likely that significant impacts would occur in areas downgradient of the underground testing locations.

Underground conventional high-explosive, hydrodynamic tests, and dynamic experiments would not affect the groundwater because such tests and experiments would be conducted well above the water table.

Waste Management Program. Water use in support of Waste Management Program actions under Alternative 1 would be minimal. The impact of withdrawing limited quantities of groundwater in support of the Waste Management Program would not result in significant impacts to groundwater availability.

The craters that are and would continue to be used at the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site represent unavoidable adverse impacts that resulted from past underground nuclear tests. Use of the craters for waste disposal and subsequent capping with engineered covers would prevent the downward migration of precipitation into the waste.

The underground shot cavities beneath the subsidence craters and waste cells in the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site are much deeper than active hydrologic surface processes (infiltration, redistribution, and evapotranspiration) operating beneath the waste unit from the ground surface to a depth of approximately 31 m (100 ft). Current scientific models suggest that the chimney beneath the low-level waste unit does not enhanceor promote vertical groundwater flow between the waste unit (subsidence crater) and the deep shot cavity. This conceptual model was confirmed by hydrologic data obtained in 1996 from the exploratory borehole completed beneath U-3bl. Water potential data indicate that there is no groundwater movement from a 40-m to 96-m (131-ft to 315-ft) depth within the subsurface chimney (Van Cleave, 1996). Given the proximity of Area 5 to Area 3 (23 km [14 mi]) and the very similar hydrologic conditions, the defensible hydrogeologic conceptual model for Area 5 is being tested and validated for the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site. The Environmental Restoration Program, will evaluate the potential for groundwater contamination from shot cavities located in the unsaturated zone (more than 101 m [330 ft] above the water table).

After 30 years of waste disposal operations, groundwater monitoring at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site has not detected any contamination. In addition, field studies conducted to support the Performance Assessment (Shott et al., 1995), which included monitoring of soil moisture and chloride ion concentrations, indicate that water falling on the surface (precipitation) does not reach the groundwater. These studies and the absence of contamination support the conclusion that no groundwater pathway exists beneath the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site. Thus, no impact to groundwater from waste management operations at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site would occur during the timeframe covered by this EIS and long into the future. (See Volume 1: Appendix A, Section A.2; Chapter 2 , Section 2.5.6 ;and Chapter 4, Section 4.1.5.2 for additional information.)

Environmental Restoration Program. Groundwater use during environmental restoration activities would be minimal and would be limited to that used in pad and road construction, dust control, drilling and testing of characterization wells, decontamination of sampling materials, and purging of wells prior to sampling. Annual water requirements for characterization have not been well defined, but are expected to be minimal.

According to information from the Underground Test Area Corrective Action Unit project, the greatest demand for nonpotable water for drilling a characterization well was 7,401 m³ (6 acre-feet). The total water demand for this program would probably be less than 74,009 m³/yr (60 acre-feet/year) between 1995 and 2005. Smaller quantities of water would be required to support decontamination and well sampling. Total demand for site characterization activities would probably be 123,348 m³/yr (100 acre-feet/year), and no significant impact is expected from the withdrawal of such a small quantity of water.

Information concerning future remediation efforts is preliminary. Water demands projected for the decommissioning of some sites (e.g., the demolition of structures at Test Cell C) have been as high as3,785 liters (L)/day (1,000 gallons [gal]/day) of potable water (or about 1,357 m³/yr [1.1 acre-feet/year] over a two-year period). Long-term remediation requirements have not yet been determined. If it is assumed that remediation does not include any active groundwater controls, future requirements for monitoring and well-testing would be a few thousands of cubic meters per year (tens of acre-feet per year). If active groundwater controls were implemented (e.g., hydraulic barriers or extraction wells), future water demands could be several million cubic-meters per year (thousand acre-feet per year).

Nondefense Research and Development Program. The current water demand for the Spill Test Facility has not been determined, but is expected to be slight for fire control, safety, experiments, and potable and nonpotable water. Similarly, the Environmental Management and Technology Development Program has unquantified, but minimal, water demands. Some field measurements and testing might be included in the feasibility study of a Solar Enterprise Zone facility; however, any requirements would be negligible. In total, the water demands for the Nondefense Research and Development Program activities would probably be no more than 12,335 m³/yr (10 acre-feet/year), and no significant impact would be related to this water use.

Work for Others Program. The water demand for the Work for Others Program has not been defined, but is expected to be minimal. The defense-related research and development activities would include the development of nonintrusive detection and imaging capabilities and surface-based testing. Small quantities of water (probably less than 1,234 m³/yr [1 acre-feet/year]) may be required to support personnel. The withdrawal of this quantity of water is not significant.

Site-Support Activities. The DOE monitored water withdrawals at the NTS for the periods between 1951 through 1990 (see Chapter 4 ). These records serve as the basis for predicting the demand for water for the period 1996 through 2005. Under Alternative 1, water use is expected to remain relatively stable because the activities included within the alternative are the same as those that have been conducted previously at the NTS. For the purpose of evaluating the environmental consequences of testing, the water-use rate for 1989 was assumed to be representative for active testing conditions. Water use for 1993 was assumed to be representative of the water demand to support nuclear testing readiness.

Because the water required to support the NTS is derived exclusively from groundwater, there would be some level of impacts on groundwater resources. Because the effects of groundwater withdrawals vary depending on the location, geologic conditions, and withdrawal rates, a more detailed evaluation is required.

The localized water-level declines in areas adjacent to operating water supply wells is not considered a significant impact. The impacts of water-level declines would not be considered significant unless water levels decline in areas off site from the NTS or if the quantity of groundwater discharging from the NTS to downgradient areas would be diminished. The U.S. Geological Survey maintains a water-level monitoring network downgradient of the NTS. The water level in the Devils Hole well rose more than 1 m (3 ft) between the lowest recorded measurement in 1972 and the highest recorded measurement in 1993. Similarly, in the Point of Rocks south well, static water levels rose more than 22 m (72 ft) between the lowest recordedmeasurement in 1970 and 1994. These data and records for other monitoring wells in the region do not show any effects that might be attributed to water withdrawals on the NTS.

5.1.1.6 Biological Resources

. Little or no previously undisturbed habitat would be cleared for the Defense, Waste Management, Nondefense Research and Development, and Work for Others Programs. About9,800 acres of land would be cleared for the Environmental Restoration Program. Most of this land has been contaminated by radioactive or hazardous materials, and some of it has been disturbed previously. Much of that land would be stabilized and/or revegetated. Infrastructure development wouldresult in the removal of approximately 18 acres of previously undisturbed habitat. Collectively, approximately 9,900 acres, part of which has been disturbed previously, would be disturbed by the DOE or DOE-sponsored organizations under Alternative 1. This represents approximately 1 percent of undisturbed habitat present at the NTS (Hunter and Medica, 1992). Military training exercises under the Work for Others Program might impact additional sizeable habitat blocks, but these exercises are not defined well enough to allow estimation of the potential extent of disturbances. No projects in Alternative 1 are large enough that they would likely lower the viability of populations of any species, including candidate species and economically or recreationally important species.

Because Alternative 1 does not include additional atmospheric, safety, or cratering tests, the concentrations of radionuclides that the flora and fauna are exposed to will not increase. Since few deleterious effects were observed in species or populations when such activities were conducted in the past, no additional impacts are anticipated.

The desert tortoise is the only threatened or endangered species commonly found on the NTS. Individual desert tortoises might be accidentally killed or injured during military training exercises. However, because surveys are conducted and tortoises are removed prior to soil-disturbing activities on the NTS, this is unlikely. From 1989 through 1994 on average, less than one tortoise was killed per year on roads on the NTS (DOE/NV,1991, 1993, and 1994a). Because vehicular traffic patterns are expected to be similar or lower under Alternative 1 than they were during 1989 through 1994, a similar or lower number of tortoises probably would be killed under this alternative. Groundwater withdrawals under Alternative 1 would not likely affect water flow rates at springs on and around the area. Only military training exercises located at or near springs on the NTS or NAFR Complex could significantly impact the biota associated with these springs.

In a Draft Biological Opinion issued to the DOE/NV on May 21, 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the level of effect described in the NTS EIS would not reduce appreciably the likelihood of survival and recovery of the Mojave Desert population of the desert tortoise in the wild or diminish the value of critical habitat both for survival and recovery of the desert tortoise because:

The proposed programmatic area does not occur within any areas recommended for recovery of the desert tortoise or areas designated as critical habitat.
Rehabilitation and revegetation of disturbed sites or payment of off-site mitigation fees will benefit conservation and recovery of the desert tortoise as directed under Section 7(a)(1) of the Act.
The desert tortoise is a wide-ranging species occurring over a large area. The degree of threats to the species vary in different parts of the Mojave Desert, requiring implementation of management actions tailored to the needs of specific areas (Service, 1994). The loss of habitat associated with the proposed action translates to approximately 1 percent of the total habitat on the NTS. With proper management and conservation, important desert tortoise populations both inside and outside designated recovery areas, will remain viable.
The NTS occurs within the northeastern Recovery Unit in Nye County, Nevada. Activities on the NTS should not result in asubstantial loss of the tortoises within this Recovery Unit. The potential effects on desert tortoises as a result of implementation of the proposed programs by the DOE/NV, as described in the Description of the Proposed Action, represents a small impact to the Mojave population of the desert tortoise when total desert tortoise population numbers and geographical extent are considered.

Because there would be few significant impacts to population viability, rare species, or rare habitats in the region, Alternative 1 should have little negative impact on biodiversity or ecosystem functions in this area.

Defense Program. No new facilities would be needed for stockpile stewardship or emergency response activities, and transportation of hazardous or radioactive materials would not likely result in significant impacts on biological resources (Appendix I). Therefore, these projects would have no significant impact on biological resources.

Counterproliferation research and development activities involve detecting underground objects related to nuclear testing or eliminating such objects. Some activities would take place in buildings or, if outside, would involve nondestructive sampling. Thus, this part of the project is unlikely to impact biological resources. Other activities might include aboveground detonations near bunkers. Some activities involve developing technologies for the safe rendering of nuclear devices. This includes aboveground detonations of conventional high explosives at the Big Explosives Experimental Facility (see Appendix F). The detonations would take place on the 20 m x 20 m (66 ft x 66 ft) gravel firing pad constructed for high-explosive detonations. The facility site consists of 8 acres of graded and cleared land surrounding the bunkers and firing pad. It is unlikely that explosions would significantly impact surrounding habitat, affect the viability of plant or animal populations, or impact springs. This facility is north of the range of the desert tortoise (Rautenstrauch et al., 1994). Transportation to study sites would be infrequent; therefore, the impact of this program on biological resources would not be significantly increased.

Under Alternative 1, one or more nuclear tests could be conducted underground on Pahute Mesa or in Yucca Flat. Because the DOE has already prepared sufficient sites to handle numerous underground tests, no new impacts on biological resources would arise from maintaining readiness for these tests. A subsidence crater could be created by the underground test of the nuclear device. Because this crater would form in the area disturbed during site preparation for the test, no new loss of habitat would occur. Drilling sumps constructed as part of post-shot drilling operations could attract waterfowl and doves. Exposure to drilling fluid additives might increase these organisms' probability of drowning (Greger, 1995).

Additional releases of tritium into the aquifer from the underground nuclear test would not likely increase the impact to threatened and endangered species located at Devils Hole National Monument or Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. The short half-life of tritium and the slow rate of water exchange between the nuclear test sites and groundwater and the resulting model studies indicate that tritium would not be detected off government-controlled lands (Borg et al., 1976; GeoTrans Inc., 1995). Hydrodynamic tests and dynamic experiments conducted at the existing Big Explosives Experimental Facility in Area 4 and at the Lyner Complex in Area 1 are not expected to impact biological resources. Conventional high-explosives testing is expected to occur in areas previously cleared of vegetation, so no new wildlife or plant habitat would be lost. No other significant impact to biological resources is expected.

The analysis performed for this EIS is for the conduct of one nuclear test. The impacts to the environment from the conduct of multiple tests (a series) are assumed to be incrementally additive; that is, the impacts of conducting two tests would be twice the impact of conducting a single test.

Waste Management Program. Activities at the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site would disturb very little of the previously undisturbed areas and would not have a significant impact on habitat or population viability. Closure of the two disposal cells would result in a beneficial impact because these sites would be revegetated with nativeplants. Area 3 is north of the range of the desert tortoise; therefore, construction and operation would have no effect on this species. This program also would have no effect on other threatened and endangered species or springs and their associated biota.

Land disturbance at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site is too localized to impact viability of plant and animal populations. Construction activity would include one new trench and closure of several pits and trenches. Because these disturbed sites would be revegetated, this activity would have a positive impact on habitat. Effects on threatened or endangered species would be unlikely given that no tortoises or tortoise sign has been seen in this area (EG&G/EM, 1994), and other threatened and endangered species would be unlikely to use this area. No springs are near this site.

At the Area 6 Waste Management Site, PCBs are temporarily stored prior to being transported off site for disposal at EPA-permitted facilities. Because this waste would be stored in a developed area with no anticipated releases to the environment, this activity would have no biological impacts. Disposal activities at the hydrocarbon landfill in Area 6 are also not expected to impact biological resources.

In Area 11, explosive ordnance would be destroyed in an 8 m x 31 m (26 ft x 102 ft) detonation pit surrounded by an earthen pad. No new land would be disturbed. Detonations occur infrequently. They would not likely impact habitat use by animals in areas around this site, because desert tortoises are rare near this facility. A 40-acre area surrounding this facility was searched in 1991; no tortoise or tortoise sign was found. It is, therefore, unlikely that tortoises would be directly injured or killed by this project.

Environmental Restoration Program. Five projects in the Environmental Restoration Program would occur on the NTS or NAFR Complex under Alternative 1. None of the environmental restoration actions would have significant impacts on population viability or habitat of plants or animals. The impacted areas are small relative to the geographic areas inhabited by affectedpopulations, and very little undisturbed habitat would be disturbed. About 50 acres would be cleared for the Underground Test Area Corrective Action Unit project; however, much of this land is already disturbed. Burrowing owls, candidate species of bats, and economically or recreationally important species like doves or waterfowl might be exposed to drilling mud contained in drill sumps. Drilling mud, although nontoxic, might contain polymers and surfactants that could coat birds or mammals that land in or drink from the sumps. This could increase their probability of drowning (Greger, 1995). Drilling also might result in production of some hazardous and radioactive wastes; these wastes would be transferred to waste management facilities for disposal. Transport of the removed material to approved disposal sites would not likely impact biological resources (Appendix I).

The second project, the Soils Media Corrective Action Unit activities, would involve the removal and transport of radioactively contaminated soils from 3,257 acres to approved disposal locations. The habitat would be destroyed during soil removal, but may be revegetated afterward. This area is adjacent to the playa and, thus, is not desert tortoise habitat (EG&G/EM, 1991). No candidate species of plants occur on those sites (Blomquist et al., 1995). These activities would not occur near springs nor require pumping of shallow groundwater; thus, the tortoises would not be affected.

The third project, the Industrial Site Unit activities, would disturb about 2,510 acres. Almost all of this land has been disturbed previously and is not wildlife habitat. It is unlikely that desert tortoises would be killed or injured during earthmoving. Surveys would be conducted, and all tortoises would be removed prior to those activities. Removal of hazardous or radioactive materials might have positive impacts on the survival of individuals of threatened or endangered species, such as desert tortoises. Transport of the removed material to approved disposal sites would not likely impact biological resources because workers follow stringent safety protocols (Appendix I). This project is unlikely to take place near springs; thus, springs should not be affected.

During the fourth project, Decontamination and Decommissioning, eight contaminated buildings or building complexes could be torn down and transferred to appropriate disposal areas. Transport of the contaminated material to approved disposal sites would not likely impact biological resources.

There are 100 Defense Nuclear Agency sites in Area 12 of the NTS that were contaminated with radioactive or hazardous waste. This project might continue operations to contain contaminant migration, characterize and remediate contaminated muck piles and ponds, and select and implement post-contamination remediation actions. About 50,971 m³ (1.8 x 10⁶ ft³) of radioactive wastes would be removed from a 500-acre area. Therefore, a substantial amount of habitat would be destroyed, but might be revegetated. Revegetation could have a positive impact on habitat in highly disturbed areas because it would advance the successional process in these areas (Call and Roundy, 1991). Cleanup might also have negative impacts on habitat in areas where mature, undisturbed natural vegetation existed prior to cleanup. Transport of the removed material to approved disposal sites would not likely impact biological resources (Appendix I). This project would not take place near springs; thus, springs would not be impacted.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. All five activities within this program would be operational under Alternative 1. The first activity, the Alternative Energy Project, and the second activity, the Environmental Management and Technology Development Project, would be in planning or design stages and would not affect biological resources.

The third activity, the Alternative Fuels Demonstration Projects would not require destruction of habitat or have other negative impacts on biological resources. Over the long term, information from this project might have significant positive ramifications for biological resources because of potential influences on fossil fuel use.

The fourth activity, the National Environmental Research Park, would have no negative effect on habitat, population viability of plants or animals,

threatened or endangered species, or springs. Over the long term, research into many of these topics might have positive impacts on biological resources because the findings could result in improved management of resources.

The fifth activity, the Spill Test Facility, is not expected to result in any significant impact to vegetation or wildlife. A monitoring program was established in 1981 to evaluate impacts from chemical spill tests at various distances downwind (northeast) from the Spill Test Facility. Results of monitoring vegetation, small mammals, kit foxes, lizards, and lagomorphs showed no measurable impacts on these biological resources except for leaf burns observed on vegetation growing in patches of disturbed soil on the playa (DOE/OFE, 1994). No adverse impacts are anticipated to occur at distances greater than 5 km ( 3 mi) downwind of the facility, near the western boundary of the Desert National Wildlife Range. Desert tortoises are very uncommon near this facility (EG&G/EM, 1991) and probably would not be affected. Chemicals would be dispersed by the time they reach areas where tortoises are known to occur. Information from this project could have positive impacts on biological resources to the degree that it contributes to a better understanding of how to contain and clean up hazardous spills.

Work for Others Program. The Work for Others Program consists of five projects. Treaty verification and nonproliferation projects would have no significant impacts on biological resources. The Conventional Weapons Demilitarization Project would have no expected impacts on biological resources. Defense-related research and development projects have the potential to negatively impact biological resources because of habitat disturbance, either through troop or vehicle movements, ordnance detonation, or fires (Schaeffer et al., 1990). If off-road military exercises occur within tortoise habitat, tortoises might be inadvertently killed. Defense-related research activities performed in the past were essentially benign, consisting primarily of nondestructive sampling and testing, such as infrared imaging. Based on these prior projects, no significant negative impacts are anticipated on biological resources from this activity.

Similarly, defense-related research activities involving hydrodynamic tests are likely tohave little or no impact on surrounding habitat, the viability of plant or animal populations, or springs or other water sources. This is because the detonations would take place on the 20 m x 20 m (66 ft x 66 ft) gravel firing pad (constructed for high-explosive detonations) surrounded by 8 acres of graded and cleared land.

Site-Support Activities. The NTS and NAFR Complex are served by existing airfields and by paved and graded roads. Most people and material are transported to these sites via roads. Road maintenance would not significantly impact biological resources because it involves redisturbance of previously disturbed habitat. The southernmost 52 km (32 mi) of Mercury Highway would be repaved, disturbing approximately 6 acres of land for staging areas. In addition, 5 km (3 mi) of the Road 5-01 reconstruction would be completed. This road would run from Mercury Highway to just south of the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site, and would remove approximately 18 acres of undisturbed habitat. The fiber-optic network would continue to be expanded when extensions are added from the two central hubs. Because surveys are conducted and tortoises arefound and relocated out of harm's way prior to ground disturbances, it is unlikely that tortoises would be killed during this project. Construction would be unlikely to significantly impact other biological resources. Waterline, powerline, and natural gas line developments are not likely to be extensive.

5.1.1.7 Air Quality

. The impacts to air quality resulting from the five programs and site-support activities are summarized in this section. The region of influence for this air quality analysis includes Nye and Clark Counties, Nevada. The emissions from stationary, mobile, and fugitive PM₁₀ sources, which are shown in 5.1-12 Tables and 5.1-13 , occur within and outside of the NTS. These emissions would be dispersed over the 3,496 square kilometer (km²) (1,350 square mile [mi²]) area of the NTS. At the boundaries of the NTS, ambient pollutant concentrations would be well below the ambient air quality standards. Since no substantial increases in air pollution emissions are expected at the NTS by 2005, Nye County would continue its present attainment designation for all criteria pollutants. The analysis performed for this EIS is for the conduct of one nuclear test. The impacts to the environment from the conduct of multiple tests (a series) are assumed to be incrementally additive; that is, the impacts of conducting two tests would be twice the impact of conducting a single test.

Mobile source emissions in Nye County (on-site and off-site) and Clark County are presented in Table 5.1-12. These emissions would be dispersed over a wide area and would not increase ambient pollutant concentrations in Nye County above ambient standards. Therefore, Nye County would continue to maintain its attainment designation for all criteria pollutants. The NTS contribution to mobile source emissions in Clark County would continue to be very small. The carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and nitrogen dioxide pollutant emissions from NTS mobile sources in Clark County contribute 0.11, 0.10, and 0.41 percent, respectively, to the Clark Countypollutant burden. The small contribution to the carbon monoxide burden in Clark County would not produce additional violations of the carbon monoxide ambient air quality standard.

GENERAL CONFORMITY DETERMINATION The EPA published the General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Parts 6, 51, and 93) to implement Section 176 (c) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990. This section requires that federal actions conform to the appropriate State Implementation Plan. Conformity, as defined in the Clean Air Act, is conformity to the State Implementation Plan's purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards. A formal conformity determination is required for federal actions occurring in nonattainment areas when the total direct and indirect emissions of nonattainment pollutant (or their precursors) exceed specified annual de minimis (threshold) values. Because ozone (O₃) is a secondary pollutant, the conformity determination for ozone uses the precursoremissions of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) as surrogate pollutants. The de minimis thresholds are presented in Table 5.1-14

The mobile-source emissions for Clark County shown in Table 5.1-12 are based on commuter traffic traveling on U.S. Highway 95 between Las Vegas and the NTS. Approximately 40 percent of this highway is located in the Las Vegas Valley nonattainment area for carbon monoxide and PM₁₀.

Thus, the annual emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) in the nonattainment area would be 57.9 tons. This is well below the 100 ton per year de minimus shown for carbon monoxide in Table 5.1-14. Therefore, a general conformity analysis would not be required for this alternative.

RADIOLOGICAL AIR QUALITYAir concentrations would have to be 14 times higher than the measured 1993 average concentrations to achieve the maximum CAP-88 air dose assessment modeled dose (see Section 4.1.7 ). Effluents from the five programs are estimated at concentration levels that would never approach or even begin to approach this amount; therefore, it is expected that impacts to the air quality by radioactive effluents would be minimal under Alternative 1. The analysis performed for this EIS is for the conduct of one nuclear test. The impacts to the environment from the conduct of multiple tests (a series) are assumed to be incrementally additive; that is, theimpacts of conducting two tests would be twice the impact of conducting a single test.

5.1.1.8 Noise

Noise generated on the NTS does not propagate off site at audible levels. The closest sensitive receptors to the site boundary would be residences located 2 km (1.3 mi) to the south in the town of Amargosa Valley (Lathrop Wells). Therefore, NTS noise impacts under Alternative 1 would be a result of noise generated during the operation of construction equipment and from the transportation of personnel and materials to and from the site. The NTS total construction and operations workforce with this alternative would remain relatively constant through the 1996 to 2005 period.

Railroad and aircraft noise were considered. However, there are no railroads serving the NTS; therefore, a railroad noise impact analysis was not required. Based on composite noise contours developed by the U.S. Air Force in 1994 for subsonic and supersonic flight operations over the Nellis Air Force Range Complex (U.S. Air Force, 1994), the day-night average sound level (L_dn) in the NTS portion of the complex resulting from aircraft operations would be less than 50 decibels (dB). Flight operations at supersonic speeds are not authorized over the NTS (SAIC/DRI, 1991), and subsonic operations are not normally scheduled over the eastern portion of restricted area R-4808, which includes most of the NTS (U.S. Air Force, 1994). Only periodic helicopter and small fixed-wing aircraft operations are conducted from Desert Rock Airport.

Table 5.1-14 . De minimis thresholds in nonattainment areas

Defense Program. Transportation noise levels on the NTS would be minimal and would not produce any noise impacts off site, contributing less than 3 a-weighted sound level (dBA) to the overall traffic noise levels on U.S. Highway 95. Thus, noise impacts related to Defense Program activities would be considered minor and not significant. Noise levels associated with the conduct of multiple tests would be sporadic and transitory.

Waste Management Program. Waste Management Program activities under Alternative 1 would continue to include the disposal of low-level waste and mixed waste pits or trenches. The preparation of the disposal cells requires the use of some construction equipment. These construction activities would be intermittent. Noise levels would decrease with distance and would be barely distinguishable from background noise levels at the NTS boundary.

The delivery of waste to the site by large trucks would produce some on-site and off-site traffic noise. However, the number of vehicles would average only 10 to 15 per working day. This small number of vehicles would contribute only minor amounts of noise to the overall noise levels on U.S. Highway 95. Therefore, the noise levels produced by Waste Management Program activities under this alternative would produce only minor noise impacts, both on site and off site.

Environmental Restoration Program. Environmental Restoration Program activities would require the removal and disposal of contaminated soils and the drilling of characterization wells. The equipment required to perform these activities would generate noise at environmental restoration areas. The noise levels would decrease with distance. At the NTS boundary, the noise levels would be barely distinguishable from background noise levels. For example, the noise level 15 m (50 ft) from a drill rigwould be about 90 dBA. At a distance of 1.6 km (1 mi), the noise level would be 50 dBA, and at a distance of 3.2 km (2 mi), the noise level would be about 44 dBA.

Removal of the contaminated material from the NTS by trucks would produce a minor contribution to on-site and off-site noise levels generated by traffic on U.S. Highway 95. Therefore, the noise levels produced by Environmental Restoration Program activities under this alternative would produce only minor noise impacts, both on site and off site.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. The only activity in the Nondefense Research and Development Program that would generate noise is the continued operation of a wind tunnel at the Spill Test Facility. The wind tunnel operation is infrequent, and local noise levels would decrease with distance. The noise from this source would be barely distinguishable from background noise levels at the NTS boundary. Transportation noises for the Nondefense Research and Development Program would be minor, both on site and off site. Therefore, noise impacts from these programs would be negligible.

Work for Others Program. Included in the Work for Others Program are activities that include periodic military training exercises. These exercises include the operation of fixed and rotary wing aircraft in the NTS airspace. Noise levels resulting from these operations would produce local noise levels of 80 to 90 dBA. However, these noise levels would decrease with distance. Because of the large size of the NTS, noise levels from these activities would be barely audible at the NTS boundaries. Noise impacts would be minor.

Site-Support Activities. Transportation noise levels on the NTS would be minimal and would not produce any on-site or off-site noise impacts.

5.1.1.9 Visual Resources

. An analysis has been conducted to determine the effects of Alternative 1 on visual resources. Visual impacts were assessed on the potential of Alternative 1 to alter or conflict with the existing landscape character. An impact tovisual resources would be considered adverse and potentially significant if the contrasts and sensitivity levels of the viewpoints were unacceptably high. Appendix A provides related information regarding proposed facilities and activities that would affect visual resources at the NTS. The only activities that could affect visual resources would be from the Environmental Restoration Program. The other programs would not create new ground disturbance.

The Environmental Restoration Program activities would be located in areas of scenic quality common to the region, and none would be visible from public viewpoints. Depending on pertinent reclamation factors, disturbed areas could be revegetated after remediationhas been completed. Long-term impacts would be negligible. There would be some beneficial impacts to visual resources once vegetation is re-established.

5.1.1.10 Cultural Resources

. There would be impacts to cultural resources as a result of ground- disturbing activities, building modifications, and change to setting through increased noise, lighting, and construction in previously undisturbed locations. Impacts to cultural resources could occur through underground testing, drilling, grading, fencing, explosives-producing subsidence craters; cleanup activities (contaminated soils, effluent ponds and inactive tanks), construction of buildings, water systems, lights, wells, upgrading power lines, natural gas lines, roads, and the decontamination of buildings. A total of 9,905 acres are expected to be disturbed, but impacts to significant cultural resources are unlikely. Continued visitation and vehicular traffic could lead to vandalism or artifact collecting that could indirectly affect recorded archaeological sites and archaeologically sensitive areas.

Although archaeological surveys have not been conducted in those areas, it is estimated that 67 sites could be impacted by projects associated with this alternative based on the results of archaeological surveys conducted in adjacent areas in 1994. The precise location and number of these resources are unknown until archaeological surveys are conducted. Surveys will be conducted prior to ground-disturbing activities, and impacts will be mitigated through the measures described inChapter 7 . At least eight structures will be decommissioned under Alternative 1. If these buildings are determined to be historically significant, they would be mitigated using measures described in 7.0 .

Defense Program. Under Alternative 1, the DOE would maintain readiness to perform one nuclear test at the NTS. Although it is likely that this test would be performed in a disturbed area, the excavation and preparation of the test area, if in a previously undisturbed area, could adversely affect archaeological resources.

Some buildings in Area 4 may have historic significance related to the Cold War and nuclear development. Prior to any modification or destruction, these structures would be evaluated for their potential to provide historical information. No nuclear testing, stockpile management activities, or nuclear weapons storage projects are scheduled for Area 13 on the NAFR Complex. Therefore, these projects of the Defense Program would not impact cultural resources.

Waste Management Program. Under this alternative, the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site facility would be sufficient to handle forecasted waste volumes for the next 10 years. With the same level of activity, this program would present no increased potential for impact on cultural resources.

At the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site, existing facilities would be full before 10 years. It is estimated that one additional trench within the currently operated site would be needed.

No DOE waste management storage facilities are currently located within the NAFR Complex. All such facilities are located on the NTS, and any Waste Management Program activities pertaining to the NAFR Complex would involve removal of contaminated soils to the NTS. Therefore, the Waste Management Program would have no impact on cultural resources within the NAFR Complex.

Environmental Restoration Program. Environmental Restoration Program activities at the NTS would occur mainly on previously disturbedland. However, well construction, to monitor groundwater contamination, could impact cultural resources in undisturbed areas.

Under Alternative 1, eight structures will be decommissioned at the NTS. Two of these structures have been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. These include the EPA Farm and the Junior Hot Cell facility. Data recovery at the Junior Hot Cell facility has been completed and the building has since been demolished. Other structures, as yet unevaluated, may be eligible. These structures will be evaluated and if eligible, they will be mitigated using the measures described in Chapter 7 .

Few sites have been recorded directly within the area of potential effect for Area 13. However, much of the area has not been surveyed for cultural resources. Archaeological sites have been recorded in the general area, and indirect impacts to these sites could occur as a result of increased visitation to the site area.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. Most of the DOE's Nondefense Research and Development Program projects are located at the NTS. These projects are related to the development of solar generation facilities. If located in previously undisturbed areas, ground disturbance from construction could impact cultural resources. These programs would have no effect on the cultural resources found in the vicinity of the Area 13 site.

Work for Others Program. The DOE's Work for Others Program is focused on the NTS and would be located within existing facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact to significant cultural resources at the NTS. This program would have no effect on the cultural resources found in the vicinity of the Area 13 site.

Site-Support Activities. Site-support activities could impact cultural resources through ground disturbances associated with upgrading roads, utilities, power lines, and communication facilities.

AMERICAN INDIAN CULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes the American Indian concerns associated with implementing Alternative 1, as summarized by the CTGO.

The CTGO knows that the actions considered in the NTS EIS potentially will affect American Indian cultural resources within an area roughly bounded by where these people live today in their traditional lands (Figure 4-47 ). The proposed NTS EIS actions will have cultural effects within this region of influence because of the cultural centrality of these lands to all three ethnic groups (Western Shoshone, Owens Valley Paiute, and Southern Paiutes). Within this region of influence, specific actions will have direct local impacts. Ultimately, however, any action that moves the NTS away from or back towards its natural state has influence on all the Indian people.

The CTGO recognizes that some of the actions proposed in the NTS EIS will have direct impacts on other Indian tribes and organizations. For example, the Project Shoal Area is located on the traditional lands of the Northern Paiute people. The Eldorado Valley actions potentially impact the Mohave people. The return of radioactive waste to the NTS has permitted and potentially will permit people like the Alaskan natives to have their lands restored to a natural state (see Project Chariot Report [DOE/NV, 1994b]). Therefore, the CTGO defines the American Indian region of influence map in an effort to focus on the cultural concerns of those people having traditional ties to the NTS itself, but, in so doing, does not intend to preclude the cultural concerns of other Indian ethnic groups.

Defense Program at the NTS Under Alternative 1, it is expectedthat American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if further underground nuclear tests occur and if natural lands are scraped for construction. Access to culturally significant places will be reduced because Indian people 's perception of health and spiritual risks will increase if additional testing, storage, disassembly, or disposal of nuclear and conventional weapons occurs.

Waste Management Program at NTS Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will continue to be adversely impacted because the waste has not been disposed of in a culturally appropriate manner. Access to culturally significant places on the NTS will be reduced because waste isolation facilities increase Indian people 's perception of health and spiritual risks.

Environmental Restoration Program at the NTS Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted by the well monitoring program and the construction of access roads, but will be positively impacted by actions that return disturbed lands to their natural condition in a culturally appropriate manner and with the participation of Indian people.

Nondefense Research and Development Program at the NTS Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted by increased visits by students and researchers who collect artifacts, visit sacred areas, and remove plants or animals. Cultural resources could be positively impacted if students and researchers receive proper guidance by Indian people regarding how to visit places and interact with the environment.

Work for Others Program at the NTS Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if the NTS continued to be a place where weapons are stored, disassembled, and disposed. These actions have and will continue to pollute these lands. The presence of conventional and nuclear weapons defines the NTS as a place of destruction, which promotes an image that is inappropriate as a place for peaceful relations between Indian ethnic groups.

American Indian cultural resources will continue to be adversely impacted by military training exercises and weapons tests.

Defense Program at Area 13 Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if further nuclear safety tests occur and if natural lands are scraped for construction. In this alternative, however, there are no plans for additional tests at the Area 13 site on the NAFR Complex .

Waste Management Program at Area 13 Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted because there is no Waste Management Program at Area 13 on the NAFR Complex and none has been identified for this alternative.

Environmental Restoration Program at Area 13 Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources at Area 13 on the NAFR Complex will be adversely impacted if natural lands are scraped during environmental restoration. Access to culturally significant places will be increased if environmental restoration is successful, thus reducing Indian people 's perception of health and spiritual risks associated with this area. Indian people wish to be involved in identifying environmental restoration methods and in the evaluation of restoration success.

Nondefense Research and Development Program at Area 13 Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if Area 13 on the NAFR Complex continues to be a place where weapons are researched and developed. These actions have and will continue to pollute these lands. American Indian cultural resources will continue to be adversely impacted by military training exercises and weapons tests.

Work for Others Program at Area 13 Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if Area 13 on the NAFR Complex continues to be a place where weapons are researched and developed. These actions have and will continue to pollute these lands. American Indian cultural resources will continue to be adversely impacted by military training exercises and weapons tests.

5.1.1.11 Occupational and Public Health and Safety

For workers at the NTS, occupational health and safety impacts could result from industrial safety hazards in the workplace (e.g., injuries or fatalities from construction and maintenance), controlled exposure to radiation or hazardous chemicals in the workplace, and accidental exposures to radiation or hazardous chemicals. Impacts to worker health could take the form of injuries or fatalities from industrial hazards and cancer fatalities, or other detrimental health effects from exposure to radiation or hazardous chemicals. Table 5.1-15 summarizes the occupational and public health and safety impacts for each NTS program area under Alternative 1.

The remote location of the NTS insulates impacts to the general public from NTS activities. To impact public health and safety, there must be a pathway or a transport mechanism to transmit the hazard to the public. For NTS activities, the principal pathways by which the public could be exposed to hazards are air, groundwater, and motorized transport. Potential impacts to the public from routine airborne emissions of radioactivity and priority pollutants are discussed in Section 5.1.1.7 , Air Quality.

Transportation impacts are discussed in Section 5.1.1.2 , Transportation. This section addresses potential impacts to public health and safety from subsurface contamination of groundwater and from accidental releases of radioactivity to the air. Unless otherwise noted, impacts presented in this section are the total impacts for the 10-year period evaluated in this EIS. Results are presented for each program area, although some program areas do not involve hazards from radiation or hazardous chemicals.

Defense Program. Based on occupational injury and fatality rates for construction and other industrial activities, the Defense Program at the NTS is expected to result in 3.7 injuries to workers during routine program activities and 3.1 injuries as a result of construction activities over the 10-year period evaluated in this EIS. During the same period, 0.0066 fatalities are expected from routine activities, and 0.0055 fatalities are expected to result from construction activities.

Based on previous NTS occupational radiation records, occupational exposure to radiation is estimated to result in a collective dose to NTS Defense Program workers of about 78 person-rem in 10 years. Based on the dose to health effects correlation factors recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (1991), this dose could result in about 0.031 latent cancer fatalities and 0.012 other detrimental health effects in the worker population. Risk of accidental exposure to workers increases the latent cancer fatality risk by 0.001. No Defense Program hazardous chemical accident resulting in measurable effects at the NTS has been identified.

The health and safety impact to the public from potential Defense Program accidents could result in about 4.0 x 10^-6 latent cancer fatalities and 1.8 x 10^-6 other detrimental health effects in the population. Should the DOE be directed by the President to conduct underground nuclear-yield testing under Alternative 1, potential accidents associated with venting of radionuclides following a test could result in a risk of about 0.0054 latent cancer fatalities and 0.0025 other detrimental health effects in the population.

Subsurface radioactivity from past underground nuclear weapons tests potentially provides an exposure pathway for both NTS workers and the public. Transport modeling of tritium-contaminated groundwater from underground test areas at Pahute Mesa and Yucca Flat was performed in support of this EIS (GeoTrans, 1995). An earlier screening study by Daniels et al. (1993) also evaluated tritium migration from Pahute Mesa to Oasis Valley. The modeling results showed that tritium concentrations in groundwater are never expected to reach concentrations that are above the EPA's maximum allowable tritium concentration in drinking water which is 20,000 picocurie per liter (pCi/L) at the boundaries of the NTS or NAFR Complex. To date, only low levels of tritium have been detected in any on-site wells.

Health effects impacts to the public from subsurface radioactivity have been estimated based on future predictions of tritium concentrations in well water, even though predicted concentrations are below current limits of detection. These impacts are not expected to occur within the 10-year time frame of this EIS. The maximally exposed public individual is estimated to have a lifetime probability of contracting a fatal cancer between 8x10^-13 (about one in one trillion) and 1x10^-5 (about one in 100,000). The public exposure scenario assumes that the individual consumes contaminated well water for 70 years centered around the time of peak tritium concentration in well water.

No health effects impacts to NTS workers from subsurface radioactivity are expected to occur during the 10-year time period evaluated in this EIS. Tritium is not detectable in on-site drinking water wells. Existing monitoring programs and controlspreclude inadvertent consumption of contaminated well water by workers.

The maximum reasonably foreseeable radiological Defense Program accident at the NTS would be a non-nuclear explosion involving high explosives in an Area 27 nuclear weapons storage bunker, which has a probability of occurrence of 1 x 10^-7 (1 in 10,000,000) per year. The following consequences are estimated if this accident occurs:

Involved worker: fatally injured in the explosion
Maximally exposed non-involved worker: 62,000 rem (2,700 rem in first year after exposure), acute radiation effects could result in fatality without immediate medical treatment
Non-involved worker population at the nearest major facility area: 16,000 person-rem, 6.4 latent cancer fatalities, 2.6 other detrimental effects
Maximally exposed off-site individual at the nearest point of public access: 34 rem, 3.4 x 10^-² chance of latent cancer fatality, 1.6 x 10^-2 chance of other detrimental effects
Population within 80 km (50 miles): 5,800 to 110,000 person-rem, 3 to 55 latent cancer fatalities, 1 to 25 other detrimental effects.

No Defense Program accident resulting in measurable chemically hazardous effects at the NTS has been identified.

Waste Management Program. Based on occupational injury and fatality rates for construction and other industrial activities, the Waste Management Program at the NTS is expected to result in 150 injuries to workers during routine program activities and 2.8 injuries as a result of construction activities over the 10-year period evaluated in this EIS. During the same period, 2.9 fatalities are expected from routine activities, and 0.005 fatalities are expected to result from construction activities.

Based on previous NTS occupational radiation records, occupational exposure to radiation is estimated to result in a collective dose to NTS Waste Management Program workers of about 11 person-rem in 10 years. Based on the dose to health effects correlation factors recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (1991), this dose could result in about 0.0043 latent cancer fatalities and 0.0017 other detrimental health effects in the worker population.

The risk of accidental exposure increases the latent cancer fatality risk by 0.016 and the detrimental health effect risk by 0.0064. The risk of a single cancer in the worker population as a result of accidental exposure to hazardous chemicals is estimated to be 5.2 x 10^-7. The risk of life-threatening noncarcinogenic effects to a single worker from Waste Management Program hazardous chemical accidents has a hazard index of 0.48. A hazard index less than 1.0 indicates that no life-threatening noncarcinogenic health effects would be expected to occur.

The health and safety impact to the public from potential Waste Management Program accidents could result in about 5.1 x 10^-5 latent cancer fatalities and 2.3 x 10^-5 other detrimental health effects in the population. Waste Management Program accidents involving hazardous chemicals could result in about 2.0 x 10^-5 cancers in the population. No noncancer effects from chemical accidents would be expected to occur.

The maximum reasonably foreseeable Waste Management Program radiological accident at the NTS would be an airplane crash into the Area 5 transuranic waste storage unit, which has a probability of occurrence of 6 x 10^-7 (1 in 1,700,000) per year. The following consequences are estimated if this accident occurs:

Involved worker: fatally injured in the crash
Maximally exposed non-involved worker: 3,500 rem (154 rem in first year after exposure), 1.0 chance of latent cancer fatality, 1.0 chance of other detrimental effects
Non-involved worker population at the nearest major facility area: 99 person-rem, 0.04 chance of a single latent cancer fatality, 0.016 chance of other detrimental effects
Maximally exposed off-site individual at the nearest point of public access: 3.5 rem, 1.8 x 10^-3 chance of latent cancer fatality, 8.0 x 10^-4 chance of other detrimental effects
Population within 80 km (50 mi): 1,400 to 25,000 person-rem, 1 to 13 latent cancer fatalities, 0 to 6 other detrimental effects.

For Waste Management Programs hazardous chemical effects, the maximum reasonably foreseeable accident would be an airplane crash into the Area 5 hazardous waste storage unit, which has a probability of occurrence of 1 x 10^-7 (1 in 10,000,000) per year. The following consequences are estimated if this accident occurs:

Involved worker: fatally injured in the crash
Maximally exposed non-involved worker: 6.6 x 10^-2 chance of cancer, 340 noncancer hazard index for potentially life-threatening one-hour concentration
Non-involved worker population at the nearest major facility area: 1.1 x 10^-3 chance of a single cancer, 0.09 noncancer hazard index for potentially life-threatening one-hour concentration
Maximally exposed off-site individual at the nearest point of public access: 2.4 x 10^-5 chance of cancer, 0.013 noncancer hazard index for potentially life-threatening one-hour concentration
Population within 80 km (50 mi): 0.027 to 0.10 chance of a single cancer, 0.005 to 0.01 noncancer hazard index for potentially life-threatening one-hour concentration.

The long-term effects of waste disposal operations are being evaluated as a part of the performance assessment process discussed in Appendix A, Section A.2; Chapter 2, Section 2.5.6 ; and Chapter 4, Section 4.1.5.2 . As part of the performance assessment process, scenarios have been developed to evaluate the potential for public exposure to radionuclides from the disposed waste. Considered in these scenarios are the transport of radionuclides by air, surface water, groundwater, and human intrusion pathways. Preliminary results of the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site Performance Assessment (Shott et al., 1995) indicate that the potential risk/exposure from waste disposal activities through the surface water and air pathways is not significant over thousands of years. Based on the results of field studies, the groundwater pathway is not considered a credible transport mechanism. The limiting scenario identified in the Area 5 performance assessment is the intruder scenario. The intruder scenario is postulated to occur thousands of years in the future, when areas previously used for waste disposal would be mined or farmed. The significant exposure results from a person living on the former waste disposal site consuming food and water (assumed to be contaminated) for a lifetime. The results of the very conservative approach to estimating exposure is then used to establish design, operation, closure, and waste acceptance criteria for the waste management facilities. The performance assessment is a continual process that is used to improve the design and operation of DOE waste management facilities.

Environmental Restoration Program. Based on occupational injury and fatality rates for construction and other industrial activities, the Environmental Restoration Program at the NTS is expected to result in 8 injuries to workers during routine program activities and 2.2 injuries as a result of construction activities over the 10-year period evaluated in this EIS. During the same period, 0.027 fatalities are expected from routine activities, and 0.004 fatalities are expected to result from construction activities.

Based on previous NTS occupational radiation records, occupational exposure to radiation is estimated to result in a collective dose to NTS Environmental Restoration Program workers of about 21 person-rem in 10 years. Based on the dose to health effects correlation factors recommended by the International Commission on RadiologicalProtection (1991), this dose could result in about 0.0085 latent cancer fatalities and 0.0034 other detrimental health effects in the worker population. The risk of a single cancer in the worker population as a result of accidental exposure to hazardous chemicals is estimated to be 2.8 x 10^-7. The risk of life-threatening noncarcinogenic effects to a single worker from Environmental Restoration Program hazardous chemical accidents has a hazard index of 0.14.

The health and safety impact to the public from potential Environmental Restoration Program accidents could result in about 2.3 x 10^-10 latent cancer fatalities and 1.1 x 10^-10 other detrimental health effects in the population. Environmental Restoration Program accidents involving hazardous chemicals could result in about 1.6 x 10^-5 cancers in the population. No noncancer effects to the public from chemical accidents would be expected to occur.

The maximum reasonably foreseeable Environmental Restoration Program radiological accident at the NTS would be an airplane crash into the Area 13 site, which has a probability of occurrence of 7 x 10^-7 (1 in 1,400,000) per year. The following consequences are estimated if this accident occurs:

Involved worker: fatally injured in the crash
Maximally exposed non-involved worker: 0.0011 rem, 4.4 x 10^-7 chance of latent cancer fatality, 1.8 x 10^-7 chance of other detrimental effects
Non-involved worker population at the nearest major facility area: 0.0055 person-rem, 2.2 x 10^-⁶ chance of a single latent cancer fatality, 8.8 x 10^-7 chance of other detrimental effects
Maximally exposed off-site individual at the nearest point of public access: 0.0022 rem, 1.1 x 10^-⁶ chance of latent cancer fatality, 5.1 x 10^-7 chance of other detrimental effects
Population within 80 km (50 mi): 0.04 to 0.71 person-rem, 2.1 x 10^-5 to 3.6 x 10^-4 chanceof a single latent cancer fatality, 9.4 x 10^-6 to 1.6 x 10^-4 chance of other detrimental effects.

For Environmental Restoration Program hazardous chemical effects, the maximum reasonably foreseeable accident would be an airplane crash into a hypothetical environmental restoration site consisting of a composite of hazardous sites across the NTS, which has a probability of occurrence of 7 x 10^-7 (1 in 1,400,000) per year. The following consequences are estimated if this accident occurs:

Involved worker: fatally injured in the crash
Maximally exposed non-involved worker: 0.008 chance of cancer, 45 noncancer hazard index for potentially life-threatening one-hour concentration
Non-involved worker population at the nearest major facility area: 9.4 x 10^-5 chance of a single cancer, 0.0097 noncancer hazard index for potentially life-threatening one-hour concentration
Maximally exposed off-site individual at the nearest point of public access: 8.5 x 10^-6 chance of cancer, 9.8 x 10^-4 noncancer hazard index for potentially life-threatening one-hour concentration
Population within 80 km (50 mi): 1.5 x 10^-3 to 3.3 x 10^-3 chance of a single cancer, 6.1 x 10^-4 to 6.5 x 10^-4 noncancer hazard index for potentially life-threatening one-hour concentration.

Nondefense Research and Development Program. Based on occupational injury and fatality rates for construction activities, the Nondefense Research and Development Program at the NTS is expected to result in 1.9 injuries and 0.0033 fatalities to workers during construction activities over the 10-year period evaluated in this EIS. During the same period, no injuries or fatalities are expected to result from routine program activities.

Based on previous NTS occupational radiation records, occupational exposure to radiation isestimated to result in a collective dose to NTS Non defense Research and Development Program workers of about 8 person-rem in 10 years. Based on the dose to health effects correlation factors recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (1991), this dose could result in about 0.0031 latent cancer fatalities and 0.0012 other detrimental health effects in the worker population. No Nondefense Research and Development Program accident resulting in measurable radiological effects at the NTS has been identified.

The risk of a single cancer in the worker population as a result of accidental exposure to hazardous chemicals is estimated to be 3.2 x 10^-6. The risk of life-threatening noncarcinogenic effects to a single worker from Nondefense Research and Development hazardous chemical accidents has a hazard index of 0.58.

The health and safety impact to the public from potential Nondefense Research and Development Program accidents could result in about 1.9 x 10^-4 cancers in the population. No hazardous chemical noncancer effects to the public from chemical accidents would be expected to occur.

For Nondefense Research and Development Program hazardous chemical effects, the maximum reasonably foreseeable accident would be an airplane crash into the tank farm at the Spill Test Facility, which has a probability of occurrence of 1 x 10^-7 (1 in 10,000,000) per year. The following consequences are estimated if this accident occurs:

Involved worker: fatally injured in crash
Maximally exposed non-involved worker: 1.0 chance of cancer, 1,000 noncancer hazard index for potentially life-threatening one-hour concentration
Non-involved worker population at the nearest major facility area: 0.054 chance of a single cancer, 0.80 noncancer hazard index for potentially life-threatening one-hour concentration
Maximally exposed off-site individual at the nearest point of public access: 8.8 x 10^-4 chance of cancer, 0.34 noncancer hazard index for potentially life-threatening one-hour concentration

Population within 80 km (50 mi): 0 to 3 cancers, 0.01 to 0.19 noncancer hazard index for potentially life-threatening one-hour concentration.

Work for Others Program. Based on occupational injury and fatality rates for construction activities, the Work for Others Program at the NTS is expected to result in 11 injuries and 0.019 fatalities to workers during construction activities over the 10-year period evaluated in this EIS. During the same period, no injuries or fatalities are expected to result from routine program activities.

Based on previous NTS occupational radiation records, occupational exposure to radiation is estimated to result in a collective dose to NTS Work for Others Program workers of about 14 person-rem in 10 years. Based on the dose to health effects correlation factors recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (1991), this dose could result in about 0.0055 latent cancer fatalities and 0.0022 other detrimental health effects in the worker population. No Work for Others Program accident resulting in measurable radiological effects at the NTS has been identified. The risk of a single cancer in the worker population as a result of accidental exposure to hazardous chemicals is estimated to be 6.1 x 10^-8. The risk of life-threatening noncarcinogenic effects to a single worker from Work for Others Program hazardous chemical accidents has a hazard index of 0.004.

The health and safety impact to the public from potential Work for Others Program accidents could result in about 2.9 x 10^-7 cancers in the population. No noncancer effects to the public from chemical accidents would be expected to occur.

For Work for Others Program hazardous chemical effects, the maximum reasonably foreseeable accident would be a heavy metal release as a resultof an unplanned detonation of a test assembly at the Big Explosives Experimental Facility, which has a probability of occurrence of 1 x 10^-2 (1 in 100) per year. The following consequences are estimated if this accident occurs:

Involved worker: fatally injured in the explosion
Maximally exposed non-involved worker: 1.8 x 10^-4 chance of cancer, 0.044 noncancer hazard index for potentially life-threatening one-hour concentration
Non-involved worker population at the nearest major facility area: 6.1 x 10^-7 chance of a single cancer, 4.0 x 10^-6 noncancer hazard index for potentially life-threatening one-hour concentration
Maximally exposed off-site individual at the nearest point of public access: 1.4 x 10^-9 chance of cancer, 1.9 x 10^-7 noncancer hazard index for potentially life-threatening one-hour concentration
Population within 80 km (50 mi): 2.9 x 10^-6 to 1.3 x 10^-⁷ chance of a single cancer, 1.9 x 10^-7 noncancer hazard index for potentially life-threatening one-hour concentration.

Site-Support Activities. Site-support activities are distributed among the five major program areas. Site-support activities at the NTS are expected to result in 19 injuries and 0.033 fatalities as a result of construction activities during the 10-year period evaluated in this EIS. No injuries or fatalities are projected as a result of routine site-support activities. Occupational exposure to radiation is expected to result in a collective dose to NTS site-support workers of about 115 person-rem in 10 years. This dose could result in about 0.046 latent cancer fatalities and about 0.018 other detrimental health effects in the worker population.

Perceptions of radiation effects are discussed in Section 4.1.11 and are well known among the Western Shoshone, Southern Paiute, and Owens Valley Paiute people of this region. These perceptions of risks from radiation are frightening, and remain an important part of our lives. We will always carry these thoughts with us. Today, people are afraid of many things and places in this whole area, but we still love to come out and see our land. We worry about more radiation being brought to this land.

If the DOE wants to better understand our feelings about the impacts of radiation on our cultures, they should support a study of risks from radiation designed, conducted, and produced by the CGTO. At this time there has not been a systematic study of American Indians ' perceptions of risks. Therefore, it is not possible to provide action by action estimation of risk perception impacts. We believe it is a topic that urgently needs to be studied so that Indian people may better address the actual cultural impacts of proposed DOE actions. There have been recent workshops funded by the National Science Foundation to understand how to research the special issue of culturally based risk perception among American Indian communities, and at least one major project has been funded. Although this is a relatively new topic of research, it is one that can be more fully understood by research that deeply involves the people being considered. To understand our view of radiation is to begin to understand why we responded in certain ways to past, present, and why we will continue to respond to future DOE activities.

5.1.1.12 Environmental Justice.

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of federal programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. Analysis of Environmental Justice is based on geographic distribution of low-income and minority populations in Clark, Nye, and Lincoln counties as described in Section 4.1.12

Environmental Justice analysis involves two tiers of investigation. One is the determination of significant and adverse impacts as a result of the alternative. The other is an evaluation of whether a minority or low-income population is disproportionately affected by these significant andadverse impacts. If there are no significant and adverse impacts, there would be no significant, disproportionately high and adverse impacts experienced by minority and low-income populations.

To determine whether human health effects are adverse and disproportionately high, the following factors were considered:

Whether the health effects, which may be measured in risks and rates, are significant, unacceptable, and above generally accepted norms. Adverse health effects may include bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death
Whether the risk or rate of exposure by a minority population or low-income population to an environmental hazard is significant and appreciably exceeds or is likely to appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the general population
Whether health effects occur in a minority population or low-income population affected by total or multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards.

To determine whether environmental effects are adverse and disproportionately high for low-income and minority communities, the following three factors were considered to the extent practicable:

Whether there is an impact on the natural or physical environment that significantly and adversely affects a minority community or low-income community
Whether environmental effects are significant and are having an adverse impact on minority population or low-income populations that appreciably exceeds or is likely to exceed appreciably those in the general population or other appropriate comparison group
Whether the environmental effects occur in a minority population or low-income population affected by total or multiple adverse exposure from environmental hazards.

To identify the need for ensuring protection of populations with differential patterns of subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife, whenever practicable and appropriate, information of the consumption patterns of populations who principally rely on fish and/or wildlife for subsistence was analyzed. Differential patterns of consumption of natural resources relates to subsistence and differential patterns of subsistence, and means differences in rates and/or patterns of fish, water, vegetation, and/or wildlife consumption among minority populations or low-income populations, as compared to the general population. Subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife means dependence by a minority population or low-income population or subgroup of such populations on indigenous fish, vegetation, and/or wildlife, as the principal portion of its diet (CEQ, 1995). No such populations have been identified in the region of influence.

The CGTO has identified impacts to American Indian groups as a result of Alternative 1. The Yomba Shoshone tribe, the Moapa Paiute tribe, the Las Vegas Paiute tribe, the Pahrump tribe, and the Las Vegas Indian Center are all part of the CGTO and are all located in Clark, Nye, or Lincoln counties. In addition, while not physically located in Clark, Nye, or Lincoln counties, other groups have traditional ties to the NTS and surrounding areas. All American Indian groups in the American Indian region of influence (Figure 4-48) would be equally affected. Figure 4-48 does not imply that groups located closer to the NTS are more concerned about impacts than groups that live farther away. Impacts include continued reduced access to culturally significant areas, the potential for unauthorized artifact collection, and the potential for culturally inappropriate environmental restoration techniques. These impacts would be perceived only by American Indian groups and would, therefore, be a disproportionately high impact on these groups.

No other significant adverse impacts as a result of this alternative were ascertained; therefore, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to other minority and low-income populations.

The CGTO knows that the actions considered in the NTS EIS potentially will disproportionately affect American Indian people. As discussed in Section 5.1.1.10, Cultural Resources, and Section 5.1.1.11 , Occupational and Public Health and Safety, the American Indian impacts include: (1) Holy Land violations, (2) perceived risks from radiation, and (3) cultural survival especially access violations.

The effects of Alternative 1 on American Indian Environmental Justice issues are discussed below by program .

Defense Program at the NTS Under Alternative 1, it is expected that all three American Indian Environmental Justice impacts would occur. Holy Land violations occur whenever a portion of traditional land and its resources are taken away from Indian people by contamination or surface disturbance. Perceived risks will occur when more radioactivity is brought to or created at the NTS. Cultural survival impacts will occur if defense activities reduce the present and future access of Indian people and their children to places where cultural transmission occurs. Because these impacts would be perceived only by American Indian people, an Environmental Justice impact would occur.

Waste Management Program at the NTS Under Alternative 1, it is expected that all three American Indian Environmental Justice impacts would occur. Holy Land violations occur whenever a portion of traditional land and its resources are taken away from Indian people by contamination or surface disturbance. Perceived risks will occur when more radioactivity is brought to or created at the NTS. Cultural survival impacts will occur if waste management activities reduce the present and future access of Indian people and their children to places where cultural transmission occurs. Because these impacts would be perceived only by American Indian people, an Environmental Justice impact would occur.

Environmental Restoration Program at the NTS Under Alternative 1, it is expected that all three American Indian Environmental Justice issues would occur. Holy Land violations can be reversed when a portion of traditional land and its resources are returned to the Indian people by eliminating contamination and restoring surface disturbance areas with traditional Indian plants and animals. Perceived risks potentially can be reduced when radioactivity is reduced by the physical and spiritual restoration of the NTS. Cultural survival impacts will reverse if environmental restoration activities increase the present and future access of Indian people and their children to places where cultural transmission occurs. Because these impacts would be perceived only by American Indian people, an Environmental Justice impact would occur.

Nondefense Research and Development Program at the NTS Under Alternative 1, it is expected that all three Environmental Justice impacts would occur. Holy Land violations occur whenever a portion of traditional land and its resources are taken away from Indian people whether this occurs by contamination or use by students and researchers. Perceived risks will not increase unless more radioactivity is brought to or created at the NTS. Cultural survival impacts will occur if research and development activities reduce the present and future access of Indian people and their children to places where cultural transmission occurs. Because these impacts would be perceived only by American Indian people, an Environmental Justice impact would occur.

Work for Others Program at the NTS Under Alternative 1, it is expected that all three Environmental Justice impacts would occur. Holy Land violations occur whenever a portion of traditional land and its resources are taken away from Indian people by contamination or surface disturbance. Perceived risks will occur when more radioactivity or hazardous waste is brought to or created at the NTS. Cultural survival impacts will occur if military training exercises and weapons tests reduce the present and future access of Indian people and their children to places where cultural transmission occurs. Because these impacts would be perceived only by American Indian people, an Environmental Justice impact would occur.

5.1.2 Tonopah Test Range

Under Alternative 1, the Defense, Environmental Restoration, and Work for Others Programs at the Tonopah Test Range would continue in the same manner and degree as they have within the past three to five years. The activities associated with Alternative 1 are summarized below. A more detailed description of the activities is presented in Appendix A.

Defense Program. Under Alternative 1, Tonopah Test Range activities associated with stockpile stewardship would continue. Impact, passive, and chemical testing would also continue.

Environmental Restoration Program. Environ-mental Restoration Program activities would continue at current rates.

Work for Others Program. Current Work for Others Program activities would continue at the Tonopah Test Range. Activities include treaty verification, nonproliferation projects, counter proliferation projects, conventional weapons demilitarization, and defense research and development.

Site-Support Activities. Site-support activities under Alternative 1 would remain at the existing level of approximately 150 personnel. Routine maintenance would continue to be provided to keep existing equipment and utilities functional.

5.1.2.1 Land Use

. The DOE land uses under Alternative 1 would continue in the same manner and degree as in the past. This would continue the restriction on all non-federal agency uses. As a consequence, few of the traditional multiple uses for this type of land would be permitted. Undeveloped areas would continue to function as wildlife and wild horse habitat, while the industrial areas would continue in that type of land use. Past aerial bombing and gunnery activities, which have resulted in ordnance contamination of land areas, may have made it impossible to certify that decontamination is complete. The Secretary of the Interior can either accept or decline relinquished lands on the NAFR Complex.

Defense Program. Defense Program activities would continue to take place in already disturbed test beds and training areas. All ordnance or hardware would continue to be recovered following use. No new areas would be altered as a result, and land-use options would remain the same.

Environmental Restoration Program. On the Tonopah Test Range, 3 nuclear device safety test sites and 43 known industrial sites are scheduled for characterization and remediation. Presently, the safety test sites are fenced and completely restricted from use. Remediation of the safety test sites would result in their having a lessened degree of restriction on land uses. Depending on the cleanup level agreed upon between the state of Nevada and the DOE, these sites would be available for a greater unrestricted variety of other land uses. For the industrial sites that are remediated, fewer or no restrictions on alternative land uses would occur, depending on whether closure in place or clean closure is selected as the remediation measure.

Work for Others Program. Work for Others Program activities would continue to take place in already disturbed test beds and training areas. Other, noncompatible uses would be precluded, but no long-term restrictions on future land-use options would result.

5.1.2.1.1 Site-Support Activities.

Under Alternative 1, the facilities associated with support functions and services at the Tonopah Test Range would continue to be maintained and used at approximately the current level. Site-support services such as law enforcement and security, fire protection, and health care would continue to operate at existing levels. The water and electrical systems would remain; general maintenance and upgradeswould occur as required to ensure safe operations. The wastewater systems would remain in service with only regular maintenance and minor improvements as required to ensure adequate services to the users at the Tonopah Test Range. All solid waste disposal activities would continue to operate at current levels. Hazardous and low-level waste would continue to be transported off site for disposal. Under Alternative 1, the communication systems at the Tonopah Test Range would remainoperational and be maintained for all current administrative and testing operations.

5.1.2.1.2 Airspace

. It is estimated that there would be an increase of DOE sorties at a rate of 2 percent per year. As a result, the estimated sorties flown by the DOE in 2000 would exceed 18,000 per year.

The effect on civil aviation is keyed primarily to constraints on routes of flights because of defense-related airspace. The Tonopah Test Range is landlocked within the NAFR Complex, and its airspace is controlled by the surrounding airspace restrictions. Civilian aviation flights are generally restricted from crossing the surrounding airspaces, thus occurrences within Tonopah Test Range airspace would have little potential to impact civilian flights. Under Alternative 1, an increase in flying time between some commercial airports would remain. However, under this alternative, the current level of air traffic control and navigational aid services, as well as airspace structure, would be maintained. Activities under Alternative 1 are not expected to cause an increased delay in civilian air traffic. No new impacts to airspace are anticipated from the continuation of current activities.

5.1.2.2 Transportation

5.1.2.2.1 On-Site Traffic

. Under Alternative 1, on-site traffic levels would remain at approximately the current levels. Therefore, no impacts to on-site traffic would occur as a result of Defense, Environmental Restoration, or Work for Others Programs. Site-support activities would not result in impacts to on-site traffic under Alternative 1.

5.1.2.2.2 Off-Site Traffic

. Under Alternative 1, off-site traffic levels would remain at approximately current levels.

Defense Program. Approximately 50 employees would travel to the Tonopah Test Range to support Defense Program activities under this alternative. The main regional access to the Tonopah Test Range would continue to be U.S. Highway 6, which is currently underused. Given the number of trips associated with the Tonopah Test Range Defense Program, U.S. Highway 6 would still have a level of service A. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur.

Environmental Restoration Program. Under Alternative 1, the Environmental Restoration Program at the Tonopah Test Range would generate only an occasional, and minor, amount of vehicular traffic (less than 100 vehicle trips per day) on the local access roads and on the immediate regional highway (U.S. Highway 6 near Tonopah). Therefore, under Alternative 1, there would be no traffic impacts on off-site roadways.

Work for Others Program. The Work for Others Program is anticipated to generate less than 100 vehicle trips per day on the local access roads and U.S. Highway 6 near Tonopah. The average daily traffic on U.S. Highway 6 is far below capacity at this location. Therefore, there would be no traffic impacts on off-site roadways.

Site-Support Activities. Site-support activities and personnel would not significantly impact off-site roadways.

5.1.2.2.3 Transportation of Materials and Waste

. Under Alternative 1, all materials would be delivered to the Tonopah Test Range by commercial carrier, government contractor, government vehicles, or, in the case of special nuclear material, special courier or airlift. The Tonopah Test Range would not be used for disposal of waste. Therefore, all waste would be transported off site for disposal.

Defense Program. Defense Program activities would require the transportation of special nuclear materials and weapons components in safe-secure trailers. Based on the limited testing of components from ground to air at the Tonopah Test Range, the total number of shipments is estimated to be five per year. The average transportation mileage for all safe-secure trailer shipments to the Tonopah Test Range is 24,140 km/yr (15,000 mi/yr).

The DOE evaluated and reported the risks associated with transporting Defense Program materials in a Defense Program transportation risk assessment (see Appendix I). Conclusions from the risk assessment indicated that a transportation accident having serious consequences along many identified routes is estimated to have a probability of less than or equal to one in a million. Under Alternative 1, transportation of materials and waste would remain at the current level. Therefore, no new impacts are anticipated under this alternative.

Environmental Restoration Program. Required remediation levels for contaminated soils located at the Tonopah Test Range are uncertain. As a result, the number of waste shipments to be sent from the Tonopah Test Range to the NTS is uncertain.

Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 1, no significant impacts would occur as a result of the transportation of materials and waste with this program.

Site-Support Activities. Site-support activities would not require the transport of materials and waste. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

5.1.2.2.4 Other Transportation.

Approximately half of the workforce at the Tonopah Test Range would continue to be transported to the site by airlift on a daily basis. Equipment and supplies would also continue to be transported to the site by airlift.

5.1.2.3 Socioeconomics

. The socioeconomic analysis has been performed for the region of influence of Clark and Nye Counties, regardless of where employees work. Therefore, the place of employment would not change the effects in any of the socioeconomic issues. The analysis for this site is included in Section 5.1.1.3.

American Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in DOE employment opportunities for tribal members from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in Section 5.1.1.3 .

5.1.2.4 Geology and Soils

. The impacts to geology and soils resulting from the three programs and site-support activities are presented in this section.

Defense Program. Defense Program activities at the Tonopah Test Range would have an adverse impact to geologic media by excavation of the surface for installation of infrastructure or test activities. These projects are anticipated to impact 0.9 acres.

Several Defense Program projects have the potential to disturb and contaminate surface and subsurface geologic media. These projects are anticipated to impact approximately 640 acres, with fuel-air explosive operations accounting for greater than 99 percent of the area. Should remediation of contaminated geologic media not be implemented, and assuming that contaminants are long-lived, these media would be considered permanently lost.

Environmental Restoration Program. Environmental Restoration Program activities to restore the 964 acres of contaminated soils would make the surface vulnerable to short-term erosion by water or wind processes. Chemical stabilization and eventual revegetation would reduce erosion potential of disturbed areas.

Work for Others Program. The Work for Others Program activities would result in the same impacts as discussed for the Defense Program.

Site-Support Activities. No impacts from site- support activities would occur under this alternative.

5.1.2.5 Hydrology

The environmental impacts to surface hydrology and groundwater are described in the sections that follow.

5.1.2.5.1 Surface Hydrology.

Little surface water is present on the Tonopah Test Range. Surface waters consist of small areas of seepage associated with Cactus Spring, a small sump associated with the Roller Coaster production well, a U.S. Air Force well that provides a small surface water source for wild horses, and ephemeral waters caused by summer convection storms and runoff during wet winters. No surface waters are used for water supplies. The ephemeral waters exist in normally dry washes for short periods of time and on the surfaces of usually dry lakes for periods of days to weeks. Water quality of the ephemeral waters is poor because of naturally high sediment loads anddissolved solids. Activities could have minor effects on drainage patterns and discharge rates due to surface disturbance and altered infiltration rates. Change to sediment loads and dissolved solids due to project activities would be minor in comparison to the natural baselines. No significant change in water quality or quantity is anticipated, and, thus, the impacts are negligible.

Defense Program. Defense Program activities have some potential to impact the surface hydrologic environment at the Tonopah Test Range. The nature of the impact depends on the size and location of the activity.

One potential impact is contamination of the surface hydrologic environment resulting from weapons and burn tests. Some contaminants present in geologic media could be transferred to surface waters and transported downgradient to other soil areas.

Environmental Restoration Program. The restoration areas of the Tonopah Test Range that are contaminated with radionuclides from safety tests of nuclear weapons are all on the valley bottom and, in one case, a playa. Remediation would thus clean the lower and the terminal areas of the drainages. This would remove a source of potential contamination that ephemeral standing waters could pick up. Potential sources of surface water contamination would be removed during industrial site remediation.

Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 1, Work for Others Program activities are similar to Defense Program activities; therefore, the potential impacts to surface hydrology are similar.

Site-Support Activities. Under Alternative 1, site-support activities at the Tonopah Test Range are not expected to significantly impact surface waters.

5.1.2.5.2 Groundwater

Potential impacts to the groundwater from the programs and site-support activities are presented in this section.

Under Alternative 1, the potential impact on the water resources at the Tonopah Test Range include two broad types of effects: reduction in water resource availability and impact on water quality. The DOE routinely withdraws groundwater at the Tonopah Test Range that results in localized impacts, including a lowering of water levels, changes in groundwater flow direction, and reduction in quantity of water available to other users. If large-scale groundwater withdrawals occur, the impacts could increase to include reduction in spring discharge rates, water quality damage, and a reduction in underflow to downgradient areas.

Defense Program. Under Alternative 1, defense-related activities would be similar to those of the past three to five years. Therefore, no additional impacts are anticipated to the groundwater or water resources.

Environmental Restoration Program. Existing groundwater use by the Environmental Restoration Program would continue to be minimal and would be limited to that used for dust control, equipment decontamination, sanitation, and potable water for the workforce. Annual water requirements for characterization are expected to be minimal. Because of the limited demand for water, no significant adverse impacts on groundwater resources are anticipatedas the results of Environmental Restoration Program activities at the Tonopah Test Range.

Work for Others Program. Under Alternative 1, adverse impacts to groundwater at the Tonopah Test Range would not occur.

Site-Support Activities. Under Alternative 1, site-support activities at the Tonopah Test Range are not expected to significantly impact the groundwater.

5.1.2.6 Biological Resources

. Collectively, approximately 50 acres of undisturbed habitat would be disturbed by DOE or DOE-sponsored organizations under Alternative 1. No projects in Alternative 1 would be large enough that they would likely lower the viability of populations of any species. Therefore, it is unlikely that activities under Alternative 1 would influence biodiversity or ecosystem functions on or around the Tonopah Test Range.

Defense Program. There are 20 projects proposed for this site under this program. Eighteen of these projects involve testing of defense-related materials in previously disturbed areas. The projects are located in disturbed areas, and governing environmental protocols are followed. No biological impacts are likely to arise from these tests. Seismic verification tests would involve disturbance of up to 20 small 0.08-acre areas. Some of these areas may be in undisturbed habitats. No impacts are envisioned for biological resources given the small size of areas to be disturbed and the lack of threatened and endangered species in these areas. The final project, Hazardous Burn Tests, would involve digging four 9-m² (100-ft²) pits, lining them with plastic, and burning defense-related material in the pits. These pitscould be in undisturbed habitats. This project would also be performed in compliance with relevant environmental regulations and should have no impact on biological resources.

The Defense Program at the Tonopah Test Range involves a considerable amount of ground and air transportation. It is unlikely that this travel would significantly affect population viability of plants or animals, survival of individuals of threatened or endangered species, or springs and their associated habitats. No new infrastructure development is planned at the Tonopah Test Range for the Defense Program. Hazardous waste (5,614 kg [12,376 lb]) generated from these defense projects would be transported off site for disposal. No biological impacts are likely to occur from the transport of this hazardous material. No radioactive waste would be generated from Defense Program activities.

Environmental Restoration Program. This program would involve the removal and disposal of hazardous and radioactive materials from approximately 50 acres of undisturbed habitat, and the removal and disposal of ordnance scattered across approximately 1,000 acres. Cleanup would include characterization, remediation, and closure of sites. Disturbed sites would be revegetated as necessary. Disposal would involve transport of material to several sites both on and off the NTS.

Removal of ordnance would not result in long-term disturbance of habitat or the mortality of plants oranimals. Removal of contaminants would have a beneficial, long-term impact on plant and animal populations found in or near contaminated sites. However, cleanup would also have a negative impact on habitat because areas must be completely or partially cleared of vegetation during this removal process. This impact would be less significant on previously disturbed sites because habitat in these areas was already disturbed before this project began.

This program would not negatively affect population viability because the disturbances are small relative to the geographic range of affected species. Candidate species, such as burrowing owls and some bats and economically or recreationally important species such as doves or waterfowl, might be exposed to drilling mud or surfactants in drill sumps constructed for monitoring wells. This could increase their chances of drowning. Transport of the removed material to approved disposal sites would not likely impact the biological resources because stringent safety protocols are followed.

Work for Others Program. The Work for Others Program activities under Alternative 1 are similar to activities associated with the Defense Program. The level of activity is expected to remain at current levels. Therefore, no impacts to biological resources are anticipated.

Site-Support Activities. No new infrastructure would be developed under Alternative 1. Therefore, no impacts to biological resources resulting from site-support activities are expected under this alternative.

5.1.2.7 Air Quality

. The Tonopah Test Range is located in Nevada Intrastate Air Quality Control Region 147. Because there are no significant sources of pollutant emissions in the region, the air quality is good. The Air Quality Control Region is designated as unclassifiable/attainment for all criteria pollutants. Fugitive dust levels generated from construction activities were calculated. Other criteria pollutants were not considered because there are no active sources on the site. In addition, mobile source emissions were not calculated because of the minimal number of mobile sources.

Defense Program. Pollutant emissions would result from rocket artillery firing, as well as missile and explosives operations. These activities would be intermittent and produce only local emissions, which would be dispersed over the relatively large target area. Therefore, air quality impacts at the boundary and off site would be minor.

Environmental Restoration Program. About 80 acres would be disturbed during the Environmental Restoration Program activities. The average annual fugitive dust emission (PM₁₀) from Alternative 1 during Environmental Restoration Program activities would be about 2.4 tons. The total fugitive dust emissions generated from Environmental Restoration projects represents about less than 0.01 percent of the total fugitive dust (PM₁₀) generated in Nye County. Calculations assumethat fugitive dust would be reduced by 50 percent as a result of watering the sites. Because activities would occur only on a short-term basis, long-term air quality impacts would not be expected.

Work for Others Program. At the Tonopah Test Range, the Work for Others Program would continue to include fuel air explosives operations. A fuel air explosive device can produce a detonation yield equivalent to several thousand pounds of high explosives. Fugitive dust, as well as gaseous pollutant emissions, would result from each explosives test. Local dust clouds would result, but they would be dispersed on site and would not produce high concentrations of dust off site. Therefore, air quality impacts would be minor.

5.1.2.8 Noise

. Impacts to noise as a result of the Defense, Environmental Restoration, and Work for Others Programs are presented in this section. Site-support activities under Alternative 1 are not expected to generate significant noise on site or off site.

Defense Program. Heavy equipment operation during preparation and removal of equipment for mobile testing and construction of permanent testing facilities would result in noise levels of approximately 85 to 90 dBA near the equipment (15 m [50 ft]). The noise levels would decrease to 50 dBA at distances from 878 m to 1,524 m(2,800 ft to 5,000 ft). Periodic, short-term noise would occur as a result of artillery and explosives testing operations. However, the noise levels would decrease with distance. For example, a noise level of 90 dBA at 15 m (50 ft) decreases to 50 dBA at 2 km (1 mi) and to 44 dBA at3 km (2 mi).

Environmental Restoration Program. Noise impacts would occur during site characterization (e.g., from drilling activities) and remediation (e.g., from large truck movement and heavy equipment operations). Temporary noise impacts from construction-related noise would occur within the immediate vicinity of construction sites. Because activities would only occur on a short-term basis, long-term noise impacts would not be expected.

Work for Others Program. During fuel air explosives operations, instantaneous noise levels at the Tonopah Test Range would be very high. However, these noise levels would be intermittent and would not produce significant impacts.

5.1.2.9 Visual Resources

. Under Alternative 1, the only program anticipated to have impacts on visual resources is the Environmental Restoration Program. The other programs do not have ground disturbance associated with their activities.

Some new ground disturbance would occur as a result of Environmental Restoration Program activities, and some previously disturbed sites would also be redisturbed. Potential remediation disturbances area could range from 1 or 2 acres at the artillery site, to approximately 200 acres total for the contaminated soils sites. At some of the previously disturbed areas, vegetation has completely recovered, while others, such as landfills and lagoons, remain bare and debris-laden. Many areas of the contaminated soil sites have never suffered vegetation damage. Others are playa surfaces and are either sparsely vegetated or bare. One area of approximately 10,000 acres may have ordnance contamination and an estimated 10 percent of it would be disturbed by vehicle tracks during remediation. The remaining industrial sites are in developed areas.

The Clean Slates 1, 2, and 3 site areas of disturbance would depend upon the characterizationand agreed upon cleanup levels by the DOE and the state of Nevada. Resulting from 90 to 200 acres that would be disturbed, 40 acres of this area presently lie on the playa.

Summarizing, up to 200 acres comprised of increments of 1 or 2 acres up to 120 acres would be disturbed visually. Another area of approximately 10,000 acres would be altered by vehicle trailers through the vegetation. Three sites, each approximately 2 m x 2 m (6 ft x 6 ft), are associated with the Clean Slate 1, 2, and 3 tests. In addition to the Clean Slate sites, there are 43 other environmental restoration sites on the Tonopah Test Range that would disturb approximately 80 acres. The landscape character of the Tonopah Test Range is common to the region and is designated as Class C scenic quality. The affected areas would not be visible from public highways. Impacts to visual resources from Environmental Restoration Program activities would be negligible. There could be beneficial impacts to visual resources once revegetated areas have become established.

5.1.2.10 Cultural Resources

. Impacts to cultural resources may occur as a result of ground disturbing activities associated with remediation, military testing, and the construction of utilities. Visitation and vehicular traffic may lead to vandalism or artifact collecting that could result in indirect impacts to cultural resources.

Defense Program. The exact nature and location of various Defense Program activities are not known at this time. These activities are expected to be conducted primarily in areas of previous operations and, thus, involve little or no surface disturbance. Another source of potential impact would be from unauthorized artifact collection by workers or visitors brought to the area by specific projects.

Environmental Restoration Program. This program has identified specific areas for characterization and potential remediation. The exact size and configurations will not be known until an agreement with the state of Nevada is reached regarding cleanup levels, and characterization has defined the boundaries involved. Some of these areas have been previouslydisturbed in conjunction with pre- and post-safety test activities. Previously disturbed areas will likely have little or no potential for archaeological information. Portions of some contaminated sites might present hazards to personnel that outweigh their archaeological information potential. Cultural resource surveys would not be conducted in previously disturbed areas where information potential has been destroyed and might not be implemented where personnel risk is judged as too high. If cultural resources exist in an area too highly contaminated to survey and conduct data recovery, then these resources may be lost when remediation disturbs the surface. The impact potential would likely be low because the known areas of high contamination are generally in areas of previous disturbance and are not associated with areas of high cultural resource potential.

Another potential source of impact would be from unauthorized artifact collection by workers or site visitors, although this is unlikely because site access to visitors and workers during remediation activities would be restricted.

Work for Others Program. Military research and development, such as small arms, artillery, gun, aircraft, and armored vehicle testing, and airdropped armaments, and development of associated electronic systems, might take place. If the activities occurred in an unanticipated area that had not been surveyed for cultural resources then there might be ground-disturbing impacts to cultural resources.

Site Support Activities. Existing roadways might be used for transport, but, as part of the environmental restoration program, construction of a new road between the Tonopah Test Range and the NTS, crossing the NAFR Complex, has been proposed. Linear constructions, such as roadways that traverse large areas, would be likely to disturb the physical integrity of the cultural resources. A road would increase access and, consequently, the potential for unauthorized artifact collection. Cultural resources surveys would be performed prior to ground disturbing activities proposed under this program. Avoidance or data recovery would be implemented.

AMERICAN INDIAN CULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes the American Indian concerns associated with implementing Alternative 1, as summarized by the CTGO.

The CTGO recognizes that some of the actions proposed in the NTS EIS will have direct impacts on other Indian tribes and organizations. For example, the Project Shoal Area is located on the traditional lands of Northern Paiute people. The Eldorado Valley actions potentially impact the Mohave people. The return of radioactive waste to the NTS has permitted and potentially will permit people like the Alaskan natives to have their lands restored to a natural state (see Project Chariot Report [DOE/NV, 1994b]). Therefore, the CTGO defines the American Indian Region of Influence Map in an effort to focus on the cultural concerns of those people having traditional ties to the NTS, itself, but in so doing, does not intend to preclude the cultural concerns of other Indian ethnic groups.

Defense Program at the Tonopah Test Range Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if further aboveground nuclear tests occur and if natural lands are scraped for construction.

Waste Management Program at the Tonopah Test Range Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted because there is no Waste Management Program on the Tonopah Test Range and none has been identified for this alternative.

Environmental Restoration Program at the Tonopah Test Range Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if natural lands are scraped during environmental restoration. Access to culturally significant places will be increased if environmental restoration is successful, thus reducing Indian people 's perception of health and spiritual risks associated with this area. Indian people wish to be involved in identifying environmental restoration methods and in the evaluation of restoration success.

Nondefense Research and Development Program at the Tonopah Test Range Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if natural lands are scraped during Nondefense Research and Development Program actions. At this time, no actions are planned for the Tonopah Test Range.

Work for Others Program at the Tonopah Test Range Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if the Tonopah Test Range continues to be a place where weapons are researched and developed. These actions have and will continue to pollute these lands. American Indian cultural resources will continue to be adversely impacted by military training exercises and weapons tests.

5.1.2.11 Occupational and Public Health and Safety

The Defense, Environmental Restoration, and Work for Others Programs are the only programs expected to result in health and safety impacts to workers at the Tonopah Test Range. Occupational health and safety impacts may potentially result from industrial safety hazards in the workplace (e.g., injuries or fatalities from construction and maintenance), controlled exposure to radiation or hazardous chemicals in the workplace, and accidental exposures to radiation or hazardous chemicals. Impacts to worker health might take the form of injuries or fatalities from industrial hazards, and cancer fatalities or other detrimental health effects from exposure to radiation or hazardous chemicals. Table 5.1-16 summarizes the occupational and public health and safety impacts for the applicable Tonopah Test Range program areas under Alternative 1.

The remote location of the Tonopah Test Range insulates impacts to the general public. To impact public health and safety, there must be a pathway or a transport mechanism to transmit the hazard to the public. None of the routine activities conducted at the Tonopah Test Range involves hazards that would impact public health and safety. Section 5.1.2.7 , Air Quality, identifies no active sources for airborne release of radioactivity or criteria pollutants. Section 5.1.2.2.3 addresses impacts of transportation of radioactive materials and waste. Accidents associated with activities at the Tonopah Test Range could impact public health and safety and are discussed in this section.

Unless otherwise noted, impacts presented in this section are the total impacts for the 10-year period evaluated in this EIS. Results are presented for the applicable program areas, although some program areas do not involve hazards from radiation or hazardous chemicals.

Defense Program. Based on occupational injury and fatality rates for construction activities, the Defense Program at the Tonopah Test Range is expected to result in 2.5 injuries and 0.0044 fatalities to workers during construction activities over the 10-year period evaluated in this EIS. During the same period, no injuries or fatalities are projected as a result of routine program activities.

Based on previous occupational radiation periods, occupational exposure to radiation is not expected to exceed a collective dose to Defense Program workers of about 6-person rem in 10 years. Based on the dose to health effects correlation factors recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (1991), this dose could result in about 0.0025 latent cancer fatalities and 0.0010 other detrimental health effects in the worker population. The risk of accidental exposure to radioactive or hazardous chemical releases contributes nearly zero increase to worker risk of latent cancer fatality or other detrimental health effects.

The health and safety impact to the public from potential Defense Program accidents at Tonopah Test Range could result in about 9.0 x 10^-9 latent cancer fatalities and 4.1 x 10^-9 other detrimental health effects in the population. Additional risk due to accidental exposure to hazardous chemicals would be even less.

The maximum reasonably foreseeable Defense Program radiological accident at the Tonopah Test Range would be a failure of an artillery fired test assembly, which has a probability of occurrence of 1 x 10^-7 (1 in 10,000,000) per year. The following consequences are estimated if this accident occurs:

Involved worker: Not applicable; involved workers are under cover when the device is fired
Maximally exposed non-involved worker: 71 rem, 0.037 chance of latent cancer fatality, 0.023 chance of other detrimental effects
Non-involved worker population at the nearest major facility area: 7,100 person-rem, 5.7 latent cancer fatalities, 2.3 other detrimental effects
Maximally exposed off-site individual at the nearest point of public access: 2.3 rem, 0.0012 chance of latent cancer fatality, 5.3 x 10^-4 chance of other detrimental effects
Population within 80 km (50 mi): 18 to 310 person-rem, 0.009 to 0.16 chance of a single latent cancer fatality, 0.004 to 0.071 chance of any other detrimental effects.

For Defense Programs hazardous chemical effects at the Tonopah Test Range, the maximum reasonably foreseeable accident would be an explosion of a rocket test assembly containing depleted uranium and beryllium, which has a probability of occurrence of 6 x 10^-6 (1 in 170,000) per year. The following consequences are estimated if this accident occurs:

Involved worker: fatally injured in the explosion
Maximally exposed non-involved worker: 1.4 x 10^-8 chance of cancer, 0.30 noncancer hazard index for potentially life-threatening one-hour concentration
Non-involved worker population at the nearest major facility area: 1.4 x 10^-7 chance of a single cancer, 0.30 noncancer hazard index for potentially life-threatening one-hour concentration
Maximally exposed off-site individual at the nearest point of public access: 4.1 x 10^-7 chance of cancer, 1.0 noncancer hazard index for potentially life-threatening one-hour concentration
Population within 80 km (50 mi): 1.7 x 10^-6 to 1.1 x 10^-7 chance of a single cancer, 0.016 to 0.03 noncancer hazard index for potentially life-threatening one-hour concentration.

Environmental Restoration Program. Based on occupational injury and fatality rates for industrial activities, the Environmental Restoration Program is expected to result in 0.0049 injuries and 0.001 fatalities to workers during routine program activities over the 10-year period evaluated in this EIS. During the same period, no injuries or fatalities are expected to result from construction activities.

Based on previous occupational radiation records, occupational exposure to radiation is estimated to result in a collective dose to Tonopah Test Range Environmental Restoration Program workers of about 0.6-person rem in 10 years. Based on the dose to health effects correlation factors recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (1991), this dose could result in about 2.4 x 10^-4 latent cancer fatalities and 9.6 x 10^-5 other detrimental health effects in the worker population. The risk of accidental exposure to radioactive releases contributes nearly zero increase to worker risk of latent cancer fatality or other detrimental health effects. No Environmental Restoration Program hazardous chemical accident resulting in measurable effects at the Tonopah Test Range has been identified.

The health and safety impact to the public from potential Environmental Restoration Program accidents at Tonopah Test Range could result in about 1.2 x 10^-9 latent cancer fatalities and 5.7 x 10^-¹⁰ other detrimental health effects in the population.

The maximum reasonably foreseeable Environmental Restoration Program radiological accident at the Tonopah Test Range would be an airplane crash into the Project Roller Coaster site, which has a probability of occurrence of 1 x 10^-6 (1 in 1,000,000) per year. The following consequences are estimated if this accident occurs:

Involved worker: fatally injured in the crash
Maximally exposed non-involved worker: 0.012 rem, 4.8 x 10^-6 chance of latent cancer fatality, 1.9 x 10^-6 chance of other detrimental effects
Non-involved worker population at the nearest major facility area: 1.2 person-rem, 4.8 x 10^-⁴ chance of a single latent cancer fatality, 1.9 x 10^-4 chance of any other detrimental effects
Maximally exposed off-site individual at the nearest point of public access: 0.0034 rem, 1.7 x 10^-⁶ chance of latent cancer fatality, 7.8 x 10^-7 chance of other detrimental effects
Population within 80 km (50 mi): 0.2 to 3.3 person-rem, 9.5 x 10^-5 to 1.7 x 10^-3 chance of a single latent cancer fatality, 4.4 x 10^-5 to 7.6 x 10^-⁴ chance of other detrimental effects.

Work for Others Program. The impacts would be the same as those described for the Defense Program.

5.1.2.12 Environmental Justice

. Environmental Justice impacts for the region of influence are discussed in Section 5.1.1.12 .

5.1.3 Project Shoal Area

The only program that will occur at the Project Shoal Area is the Environmental Restoration Program. Therefore, environmental restoration is the only program discussed for this site. Under Alternative 1, characterization and remediation activities at the Project Shoal Area would continue.

5.1.3.1 Land Use

. Hazardous waste or other waste generated during environmental restoration actions would be disposed of off site at a permitted waste disposal facility. For the purposes of this evaluation, it has been assumed that radioactive waste would be disposed of at NTS facilities.

Some site characterization activities might have minor impacts on surrounding land use. There might be some impact on the use of restricted airspace or the use of the site by the U.S. Navy for strike rescue training. However, such impacts likely would be of short duration during active site characterization. The nearest population center is the community of Fallon, and it is not likely that any of the Alternative 1 actions would result in significant impacts on surrounding land use at the Project Shoal Area. Remediation activity would have the effect of negating any requirement restricting surface land uses near surface ground zero.

Under Alternative 1, continued site characterization and long-term hydrologic monitoring of the site could result in the disturbance of 10 acres of land. The Project Shoal Area, which is periodically used by the U.S. Navy for military maneuvers, consists of approximately 2,560 acres. The 10 acres identified for Environmental Restoration Program activities would represent less than 0.4 percent of the Project Shoal land area. Conflict between Environmental Restoration Program activities and other land uses would be temporary and negligible.

5.1.3.1.1 Site-Support Activities

. Road traffic associated with Environmental Restoration Program actions would result in some short-term increases in road use. Water supplies for drilling and other activities would be trucked from off site, and short-term requirements for power would be met through generators.

5.1.3.1.2 Airspace.

Under Alternative 1, the Environmental Restoration Program activities anticipated at the Project Shoal Area would not require direct air access other than for intermittent aerial radiological monitoring. Therefore, there would be minimal effects on airspace at the Project Shoal Area.

5.1.3.2 Transportation

. The following sections address the environmental impacts related to transportation activities as defined under Alternative 1. The analysis of transportation impacts is presented with respect to on-site and off-site traffic, transportation of materials and waste, and other transportation.

5.1.3.2.1 On-Site Traffic

. Environmental Restoration Program activities would be short-term and would require relatively few personnel (less than 10 people at any given time). No public roads currently exist on the site. Minor vehicular traffic is anticipated; therefore, there would be no traffic impacts.

5.1.3.2.2 Off-Site Traffic

. Environmental Restoration Program activities would generate only an occasional and minor amount of vehicular traffic (less than 100 vehicle trips per day) on the local access roads and on the immediate regional highway (U.S. Highway 50). In 1993, the average daily traffic on U.S. Highway 50 near the site amounted to 1,340 vehicles (NDOT, 1993); this traffic volume is far below the capacity of U.S. Highway 50 at this location (capacity ranges from 10,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day). Therefore, there would be no traffic impacts on off-site roadways.

5.1.3.2.3 Transportation of Materials and Waste.

The highest risk resulting from environmental restoration activities would be in traffic fatalities and injuries. Both were calculated as less than one (person) being affected.

5.1.3.2.4 Other Transportation

. Alternative 1 does not assume direct use of local railroads or other modes of transportation; therefore, direct effects on rail and other modes of transportation would be minimal. Furthermore, the anticipatedactivities at the site do not call for a measurable transportation demand.

5.1.3.3 Socioeconomics.

The socioeconomic analysis has been prepared for the region of influence, regardless of where employees work. Therefore, the place of employment would not change the effects in any of the socioeconomic issues. The analysis for this site is included in Section 5.1.1.3 .

5.1.3.4 Geology and Soils

. Environmental restoration at the Project Shoal Area site would consist of locating and characterizing the mud pit by collecting shallow soil samples from the pit for chemical and radiological analysis, reentering wells that were drilled during the original activities on the site to convert them into groundwater monitoring wells, and monitoring the groundwater to detect any contaminant migration that might occur. Because these wells already exist and drill pads have been prepared, this work would not affect additional geologic media. The only preparation that is expected is clearing of the vegetation around the abandoned wells. The disturbed areas did not cause excessive erosion. They have revegetated naturally, so it is not expected that they would pose an erosional problem for the future.

No known geologic resources (aggregates, clay, coal, minerals, or fossils) would be adversely impacted at the Project Shoal Area from Alternative 1 activities. The site is not located on or near any known or exploitable mineral resources, fossil beds, unique geologic outcrops, or other unique geologic features. The closest mine is an intermittently operated gold mine located approximately 8 km (5 mi) north of the site, but this is not close enough to be affected by any activities that have been or would be conducted on the site under this alternative.

5.1.3.5 Hydrology

The environmental impacts to surface hydrology and groundwater are describedin the sections that follow. Discussions of impacts to water quality and water quantity are also presented.

5.1.3.5.1 Surface Hydrology

The impact of Environmental Restoration Program actions on thequality of surface water resources of the Project Shoal Area is not expected to be significant. Road building associated with well drilling might disturb small areas of soils. However, because of the very limited nature of surface water resources at the Project Shoal Area, the impact on surface water flows is expected to be minimal.

The soil-disturbing actions might result in slight increases in sediment yield and some inorganic compounds in the surface water. Given the limited amount of soil disturbance and the scant surface water resources, no significant adverse impacts on surface water quality are anticipated.

5.1.3.5.2 Groundwater.

Planned groundwater use by the Environmental Restoration Program at the Project Shoal Area would be minimal and would be limited to that used in the drilling and testing of characterization wells, decontamination of sampling materials, and purging of wells prior to sampling. Annual water requirements for characterization have not been well defined, but are expected to be minimal. Because of the low demand for water, no significant impacts on water resource availability are anticipated. Similarly, because of the limited nature of Environmental Restoration Program activities, no significant adverse impacts on groundwater quality are anticipated.

5.1.3.6 Biological Resources

The only activities planned for this site consist of continued hydrological monitoring at existing wells. In addition, more wells might be drilled at this site, which may result in minor land disturbance. All 10 acres to be disturbed during environmental restoration have been disturbed previously; therefore, there are no likely biological impacts on habitat, population viability of plants or animals, threatened or endangered species, or regionally rare habitats (EG&G/EM, 1993).

5.1.3.7 Air Quality

The 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 good. The Air Quality Control Region is designated as unclassifiable/attainment for all pollutants. The quantity of fugitive dust that could be generatedfrom the construction activities was calculated. Other criteria pollutants were not considered because there are no active sources on the site. In addition, mobile source emissions were not calculated because of the minimal number of mobile sources. Emissions from the operation of naval aircraft over the Project Shoal Area would have little impact on surface ambient pollutant concentrations. Studies have shown that resulting concentrations would be about 0.05 percent of the allowable concentration (SAIC/DRI, 1991).

Under the Environmental Restoration Program, about 10 acres of land would be disturbed. The average annual fugitive dust emission (PM₁₀) from Alternative 1 drilling activity would be about 3 tons. Calculations assume that fugitive dust would be reduced by 50 percent as a result of watering the sites. Calculations assume activities are only expected to occur on a short-term basis; therefore, long-term air-quality impacts are not expected.

5.1.3.8 Noise

. Most of the noise at the Project Shoal Area would be generated during well drilling operations associated with the Environmental Restoration Program. All drilling operations occur on site, and there are no sensitive noise receptors. Noise impacts associated with increased traffic on access routes were not analyzed because the increase in traffic volume would be negligible.

Noise impacts would occur during site characterization (e.g., drilling) and remediation (e.g., large truck movement and front-end loaders). Temporary impacts resulting from construction-related noise would occur within the immediate vicinity of construction sites. Noise impacts from construction activities in the Project Shoal Area would be negligible because the closest private residence is 8 km (5 mi) west of the Project Shoal Area. Potential construction-related noise levels of 80 to 85 dBA at 15 m (50 ft) from the sources within the Project Shoal Area construction would be reduced to 30 dBA at 8 km (5 mi), which would be lower than ambient noise levels. Activities would only occur on a short-term basis; therefore, long-term noise impacts would not be expected.

5.1.3.9 Visual Resources

. The scenic quality for the Project Shoal Area has been designated Class C, and the sensitivity level is low. The Project ShoalArea is approximately 2,560 acres; the affected area (10 acres) would represent less than 0.4 percent of the total area. Impacts from Environmental Restoration Program activities to visual resources would be negligible. Depending on pertinent reclamation factors, disturbed areas could be revegatated after cleanup has been completed. There would be some beneficial impacts to visual resources once revegated areas become established.

5.1.3.10 Cultural Resources.

Ground-disturbing activities associated with remediation may effect the physical integrity of cultural resources. Indirect impacts to cultural resources might result from increased visitation and vehicular traffic in archaeologically sensitive areas.

AMERICAN INDIAN CULTURAL RESOURCES. This study area is not within the traditional lands of the Indian people represented by the CTGO. It is recommended by the CTGO that the DOE EIS team directly contact Indian tribes and organizations having traditional lands in the Project Shoal Area. The following tribes were suggested: Fallon Paiute, Walker River Paiute, and Pyramid Lake and Lovelock Paiute Tribes.

NOTE: The Fallon Paiute, Walker River Paiute, and Lovelock Paiute Tribes were contacted by the DOE in letters dated May 12, 1995.

5.1.3.11 Occupational and Public Health and Safety

. The Environmental Restoration Program is the only active program expected to result in health and safety impacts to workers at the Project Shoal Area. No contamination has been detected in surficial soils at this site, and no surface soil remedial actions are proposed. Activities at this site would consist of characterization and hydrologic monitoring. Impacts to worker health might take the form of injuries or fatalities from industrial hazards and cancer fatalities or other detrimental health effects from exposure to radiation or hazardous chemicals.

Table 5.1-17 summarizes the occupational and public health and safety impacts for Environmental Restoration Program activities under Alternative 1.

Because of the remote location of the Project Shoal Area and the nature of planned Environmental Restoration Program activities, no impacts to public health and safety are reasonably foreseeable from either routine activities or accidents. Radioactive contamination is known to exist in the subsurface as a result of past underground nuclear weapons testing. Potential impacts to public health and safety from subsurface contamination of groundwater are discussed in this section.

Environmental Restoration Program. Based on occupational injury and fatality rates for industrial activities, Environmental Restoration Program activities at the Project Shoal Area are expected to result in 1.6 x 10^-4 injuries and 3.1 x 10^-5 fatalities to workers during routine program activities over the 10-year period evaluated in this EIS. During the same period, no injuries or fatalities are expected because of construction activities.

Based on previous occupational radiation records, occupational exposure to radiation is estimated to result in a collective dose to Project Shoal Area Environmental Restoration Program workers of about 0.04 person-rem in 10 years. Based on the dose to health effects correlation factors recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (1991), this dose could result in about 1.7 x 10^-⁵ latent cancer fatalities and 6.8 x 10^-6 other detrimental health effects in the worker population. No Environmental Restoration Program accidents resulting in measurable radiological or chemically hazardous effects at the Project Shoal Area have been identified.

Subsurface radioactivity from past underground nuclear weapons testing at the Project Shoal Area could provide an exposure pathway for the general public. Transport modeling of tritium-contaminated groundwater at the Project Shoal Area was performed in support of this EIS (Chapman et al., 1995). The modeling results showed that peak tritium concentrations in groundwater could vary from nondetectable to about 20,000 pCi/L (depending on uncertainties in modeling parameters) at the nearest existing public wells. For comparison, EPA’s maximum allowable tritium concentration in drinking water is 20,000 pCi/L. At the eastern boundary of the Project Shoal Area,where no well currently exists, peak tritium concentrations could be between 280 pCi/L, arriving 200 years after the test, and 720,000 pCi/L, arriving about 70 years after the test.

Health effects to the public from Project Shoal subsurface radioactivity estimated by Chapman et al. (1995) were based on future predictions of tritium concentrations in well water and on the assumption that a public well could be installed at the boundary of the Project Shoal Area. These impacts are not expected to occur within the 10-year timeframe evaluated in this EIS. The public exposure scenarios assume that a hypothetical individual would consume contaminated well water for 70 years centered around the time of peak tritium concentration in well water. At the eastern boundary of the Project Shoal Area, the maximally exposed public individual is estimated to have a lifetime probability of contracting a fatal cancer between 2 x 10^-10 (about one in five billion) and 2 x 10^-³ (about one in 500). At the nearest existing public well, a hypothetical maximally exposed individual is estimated to have a lifetime probability of contracting fatal cancer between 4 x 10^-24 (essentially zero) and 2 x 10^-7 (about one in five million).

5.1.3.12 Environmental Justice

. Environmental Justice impacts for the region of influence are discussed in Section 5.1.1.12 .

5.1.4 Central Nevada Test Area

The only program that would occur at the Central Nevada Test Area is the Environmental Restoration Program. Therefore, this program is the only one discussed for this site. Characterization and remediation activities at the Central Nevada Test Area would continue.

5.1.4.1 Land Use

. Present use of the site is primarily for grazing, wildlife habitat, hunting, and scattered outdoor recreation. The DOE continues long-term monitoring and characterization and would complete needed remediation under this alternative. Sites that might require work include sewage lagoons, trash dumps, four emplacement holes, an uncovered hole, a runoff ditch, and drilling mud pits. Approximately 44 acres would bedisturbed by characterization and remediation at the three industrial sites. This would comprise less than 2 percent of the total site, which totals approximately 2,470 acres.

Wastes generated during Environmental Restoration Program activities would be disposed of at off-site permitted disposal facilities. For the purpose of this evaluation, it has been assumed that all radioactive wastes would be disposed of at NTS facilities. Closure in place would be an option evaluated for some sites.

Remediation would permit fewer to no restrictions on surface land uses. Closure in place would result in restricted surface use of the closure to protect the cap. The opportunity for a variety of land-use options would be improved under Alternative 1.

Surrounding land uses are similar to the site land uses with grazing, wildlife habitat, hunting, recreation, public land ranching, and widely scattered private ranch landsbut there are no nearby population centers in the region. Environmental Restoration Program activities would have no effect on surrounding land uses.

5.1.4.1.1 Site-Support Activities

. Road traffic associated with Environmental Restoration Program activities would result in some short-term increases in road use. Water supplies for drilling and other activities would be trucked from off site, and short-term requirements for power would be met through generators.

5.1.4.1.2 Airspace.

There would be no effect on airspace at the Central Nevada Test Area as a result of Alternative 1 Environmental Restoration Program activities.

5.1.4.2 Transportation

5.1.4.2.1 On-Site Traffic

. The site is accessed by U.S. Highway 6, and there are no public accessroads on site. Traffic generated by Environmental Restoration Program activities would be minimal and not significant.

5.1.4.2.2 Off-Site Traffic

. Environmental Restoration Program activities would generate only an occasional and minor amount of vehicular traffic (less than 100 vehicle trips per day). Traffic volume is far below the capacity of U.S. Highway 6 at this location (capacity ranges from 10,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day). Therefore, under Alternative 1, there would be minor vehicular traffic generated. If remediation waste is removed from the site, then traffic on on-site roads would increase, but would be well within their capacity.

5.1.4.2.3 Transportation of Materials and Waste.

The highest risk from Environmental Restoration Program activities would be in traffic fatalities and injuries. Both were calculated to be less than one person being affected.

5.1.4.2.4 Other Transportation

The highest risk from Environmental Restoration Program activities would be in traffic fatalities and injuries. Both were calculated to be less than one person being affected. Alternative activities do not include direct use of local railroads, air transportation, or other modes of transportation to this site; therefore, direct effects on rail, air, and other modes of transportation would be minimal.

5.1.4.3 Socioeconomics

. The socioeconomic analysis has been prepared for the region of influence, regardless of where employees work; therefore, the place of employment would not change the effects in any of the socioeconomic issues. The analysis for this site is included in Section 5.1.1.3 .

American Indian socioeconomic impacts due to fluctuations in DOE employment opportunities for tribal members from the CGTO region of influence are discussed in Section 5.1.1.3 .

5.1.4.4 Geology and Soils.

Environmental Restoration Program activities at the Central Nevada Test Area would consist of characterizing the mud pits at each of the three emplacement holes and remediating them if needed, cleaning up the debris that has been left on the sites, and monitoring the groundwater to detect any contaminant migration that might occur.

No known geologic resources (aggregates, clay, coal, minerals, or fossils) would be adversely impacted at the Central Nevada Test Area from Alternative 1 activities. The site is not located on or near any known or exploitable mineral resources, fossil beds, unique geologic outcrops, or other unique geologic features.

5.1.4.5 Hydrology.

Environmental impacts to surface hydrology and groundwater are described in the sections that follow.

5.1.4.5.1 Surface Hydrology

The impact of Environmental Restoration Program actions on the quantity of surface water resources of the Central Nevada Test Area is not expected to be significant. Road building associated with well drilling might disturb small areas of soils. However, because of the very limited nature of surface water resources at the Central Nevada Test Area, the impact on surface-water flows is expected to be minimal.

5.1.4.5.2 Groundwater.

Planned groundwater use by Environmental Restoration Program activities at the Central Nevada Test Area would be limited to that used in the drilling and testing of characterization wells, decontamination of sampling materials, and purging of wells prior to sampling. Annual water requirements for characterization are expected to be minimal. Because of the low demand for water, no significant impacts on water resources availability are anticipated. Similarly, because of the limited nature of Environmental Restoration Program activities, no significant adverse impacts on groundwater quality are anticipated.

5.1.4.6 Biological Resources

. Remediation would likely include the removal of drill pond mud, sewage lagoons, and the transfer of hazardous materials to appropriate disposal sites. Transport of the removed material to approved disposal sites is not likely to impact biological resources because ofthe stringent safety protocols in place (Appendix I). About 44 acres would be disturbed by Environmental Restoration Program activities. Some of this land has been disturbed previously. Removal of contaminants would have a beneficial, long-term impact on plants and animal populations found on or near the contaminated sites. However, it would also have a negative impact on habitat because areas must be completely or partially cleared of vegetation during this removal process. This program would not negatively affect population viability. Disturbances do not occur where candidate plant species are likely to occur. Candidate species, such as State protected birds and some bats; and economically or recreationally important species, like doves or waterfowl, might be exposed to drilling mud or surfactant in drill sumps constructed for monitoring wells. This could increase their chances of drowning. No threatened or endangered species would likely be affected by these activities.

5.1.4.7 Air Quality

. Ambient air quality has not been monitored for criteria pollutants at the Central Nevada Test Area. However, because the area lacks significant pollution emission sources, the air quality is good. The amount of fugitive dust generated from the construction activities was calculated. Other criteria pollutants were not considered because there are no active sources on the site. In addition, mobile source emissions were not calculated because of the minimal number of mobile sources.

A total of 44 acres of land would be disturbed at the Central Nevada Test Area during environmental restoration activities. The average annual fugitive dust emissions (PM₁₀) from Alternative 1 construction activities would be about 13.2 tons. Fugitive dust emissions assume a 50-percent reduction as a result of watering the construction sites. Air quality impacts would occur during site characterization and remediation (e.g., large truck movement and front-end loaders). Activities are only expected to occur on a short-term basis; therefore, long-term air quality impacts are not expected.

5.1.4.8 Noise

. Noise impacts would occur during site characterization and remediation (e.g., large truck movement and front-end loaders). Temporary impacts resulting from construction-related noise would occur within the immediate vicinity of the construction sites. Noise impacts from construction activities in the Central Nevada Test Area would be negligible because there are no sensitive receptors. Potential construction-related noise levels of 80 dBA to 85 dBA at 15 m (50 ft) from the sources within the Central Nevada Test Area construction would be reduced as the distance increases. Activities are only expected to occur on a short-term basis; therefore, long-term noise impacts are not expected.

5.1.4.9 Visual Resources

. The scenic quality for the Central Nevada Test Area has been designated Class B, and the sensitivity level is low. The affected areas would be revegetated after cleanup has been completed. The Central Nevada Test Area is approximately 2,470 acres; the affected areas (44 acres) would represent less than 2 percent of the total area. Impacts to visual resourcesfrom Environmental Restoration Program activities would be negligible. Depending on pertinent reclamation facts, disturbed areas would be revegatated after cleanup has been completed. Beneficial impacts would occur when vegetation becomes established.

5.1.4.10 Cultural Resources

. The exact location of all characterization and remediation activities is not known at this time. These activities are expected to be conducted largely in areas of previous operations and thus involve minor new surface disturbance. Other potential sources of impact would be from unauthorized artifact collection by workers or site visitors, although this is unlikely because of the tight control of visitors and workers at a remediation site.

AMERICAN INDIAN CULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes the American Indian concerns associated with implementing Alternative 1, as summarized by the CTGO.

This 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 Indian tribes and organizations having traditional lands in the Central Nevada Test Area. The following tribes were suggested: Fallon, Paiute, Walker River Paiute, and Pyramid Lake and Lovelock Paiute tribes.

Defense Program Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if further nuclear tests occur and if natural lands are scraped for construction. In this alternative, however, there are no plans for additional tests or construction at the Central Nevada Test Area.

Waste Management Program Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will not be impacted because there is no Waste Management Program on the Central Nevada Test Area and none has been identified for this alternative.

Environmental Restoration Program Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources on the Central Nevada Test Area will be adversely impacted if natural lands are scraped during environmental restoration. Access to culturally significant places will be increased if environmental restoration is successful, thus reducing Indian peoples ’ perception of health and spiritual risks associated with this area. Indian people wish to be involved in identifying environmental restoration methods and in the evaluation of restoration success.

Nondefense Research and Development Program Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if the Central Nevada Test Area becomes a place where weapons are researched and developed. No such actions are planned for this alternative, so American Indian cultural resources will not be adversely impacted.

Work for Others Program Under Alternative 1, it is expected that American Indian cultural resources will be adversely impacted if the Central Nevada Test Area becomes a place where weapons are researched and developed. No such actions are considered in this alternative, so American Indian cultural resources will not be adversely impacted.

5.1.4.11 Occupational and Public Health and Safety.

The Environmental Restoration Program is the only active program expected to result in health and safety impacts to workers at the Central Nevada Test Area. Activities at this site would consist of site characterization and remediation with removal of contaminated mud and sludge. Impacts to worker health might take the form of injuries or fatalities from industrial hazards and cancer fatalities or other detrimental health effects from exposure to radiation or hazardous chemicals. Table 5.1-18 summarizes the occupational and public health and safety impacts for Environmental Restoration Program activities under Alternative 1.

Because of the remote location of the Central Nevada Test Area and the nature of planned Environmental Restoration Program activities, no impacts to public health and safety are reasonably foreseeable from either routine activities or accidents. Radioactive contamination is known to exist in the subsurface as a result of past underground nuclear weapons testing. Potential impacts to public health and safety from subsurface contamination of groundwater are discussed in this section.

Environmental Restoration Program. Based on occupational injury and fatality rates for industrial activities, Environmental Restoration Program activities at the Central Nevada Test Area are expected to result in 1.6 x 10^-4injuries and 3.1 x 10^-⁵fatalities to workers during routine program activities over the 10-year period evaluated in this EIS. During the same period, no injuries or fatalities are expected because of construction activities.

Based on previous occupational radiation records, occupational exposure to radiation is estimated to result in a collective dose to Central Nevada Test Area environmental restoration workers of about 0.04-person rem in 10 years. Based on the dose to health effects correlation factors recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (1991), this dose could result in about 1.7 x 10^-5 latent cancer fatalities and 6.8 x 10^-⁶ other detrimental health effects in the worker population. No Environmental Restoration Program accidents resulting in measurable radiological orchemically hazardous effects at the Central Nevada Test Area have been identified.

Subsurface radioactivity from past underground nuclear weapons testing at the Central Nevada Test Area potentially provides an exposure pathway for the general public. Transport modeling of tritium-contaminated groundwater at the Central Nevada Test Area was performed in support of this EIS (Pohlmann et al., 1995). The modeling results show that tritium concentrations in groundwater are never expected to reach concentrations that are detectable (about 1 pCi/L) at any existing public wells. For comparison, the EPA’s maximum allowable tritium concentration in drinking water is 20,000 pCi/L. At the southern boundary of the Central Nevada Test Area, where no wells currently exist, tritium concentrations are predicted to have reached a peak of 1.23 x 10⁸ pCi/L about 8 to 15 years after the test (between 1976 and 1983).

Health effects impacts to the public from the Central Nevada Test Area subsurface radioactivity have been estimated by Pohlmann et al. (1995) based on predictions of future tritium concentrations in well water and on the assumption that a public well could be installed at the southern boundary of the Central Nevada Test Area. The public exposure scenarios assume that a hypothetical individual would consume contaminated well water for 70 years centered around the time of peak tritium concentration in well water. At the existing public well nearest to the Central Nevada Test Area, the peak tritium concentration does not reach the well until about 117 years after the test date (about the year 2085). The maximally exposed public individual is estimated to have a lifetime probability of contracting a fatal cancer between 1.7 x 10^-24 (essentially zero) and 3.2 x 10^-10 (about one in three billion). If a public well were to be drilled at a location near the southern boundary of the Central Nevada Test Area, with a peak tritium concentration of about 1.2 x 10⁸ pCi/L, Pohlmann et al. (1995) estimated that the maximally exposed public individual would have a lifetime probability of contracting a fatal cancer between 1.4 x 10^-5 (about one in 70,000) and 5.5 x 10^-3 (about one in 200). However, by the year 1996, radioactive decay would result in a 50-percent reduction of the peak concentration, and additional reduction would result from diffusion in the aquifer. Groundwater sampling and analysis results near the southern boundary of the Central Nevada Test Area have not confirmed these predicted tritium concentrations.

5.1.4.12 Environmental Justice.

The Environmental Justice impacts for the region of influence are discussed in Section 5.1.1.12 .

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)