NERC-LV-539-24
OBSERVATIONS ON WILDLIFE AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS EXPOSED
TO THE GROUND MOTION EFFECTS OF UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR DETONATIONS
Donald D, Smith, D.V.M.
Farm and Animal Investigation Branch
Monitoring Systems Research and Development Laboratory
National Environmental Research Center
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Ai ENCY
Las Vegas, Nevada
Published October
This study performed under a Memorandum of
Understanding No, AT(26-l)-539
for the
U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
-------
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United
States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States
Atomic Energy Commission, nor any of their employees, nor any of their
contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty,
express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility
for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, ap-
paratus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would
not infringe privately-owned rights.
Available from the National Technical Information Service,
U.S. Department of Commerce,
Springfield, VA 22151
Price: paper copy $4.00; microfiche $1.45
010
-------
NERC-LV-539-24
OBSERVATIONS ON WILDLIFE AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS EXPOSED
TO THE GROUND MOTION EFFECTS OF UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR DETONATIONS
by
Donald D. Smith, D.V.M.
Farm and Animal Investigation Branch
Monitoring Systems Research and Development Laboratory
National Environmental Research Center
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Las Vegas, NV 89114
Published October 1973
This study performed under a Memorandum of
Understanding No. AT(26-l)-539
for the
U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
-------
ABSTRACT
Domestic animals and wildlife have frequently been observed or intentionally
stationed in close oroximity to surface around zero at the time of under-
ground nuclear detonations at the Nevada Test Site and at other test
locations within the contiguous United States. This report gives subjective
summaries of large animal involvement with specific nuclear events and notes
that physical damage from ground motion has not been reported. Recommendations
are made for experimental verification of these subjective observations.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to express his appreciation to Mr. Ernest D. Campbell,
Chief, Bioenvironmental Branch, Environmental Effects Division, Nevada
Operations Office, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, whose encouragement,
research, and review made this paper possible.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS AND FIGURE
Page
ABSTRACT i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT H
INTRODUCTION 1
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATIONS 3
Project Clearwater 3
Project Salmon 4
Project Sulky 5
Project Palanquin 5
Project Pile Driver 6
Project Gasbuggy 7
Project Rulison 7
Project Rio Blanco 8
SUMMARY 9
REFERENCES 11
DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE
1. Location of Domestic Animals on the Nevada Test Site 2
-------
INTRODUCTION
The proposed widespread use of nuclear detonations for stimulation of
natural gas production from gas-bearing geological formations of low
permeability has caused concern among ranchers, soortsmen and geologists
about possible physical damage to livestock and wildlife from the subsequent
ground motion. A literature search revealed a lack of published information
on this subject.
The author has personal knowledge of one study designed to determine ground
motion effects on cattle. Unfortunately, the documentation of this effort
was inadequate and the data were not reported in the ooen literature. However,
over the years a number of animals on the Nevada Test Site have been exposed
to varying degrees of earth movement from nuclear detonations. A beef herd
of approximately 100 grade Herefords has been grazing over the Nevada Test
Site since 1957. A dairy herd of approximately 45 Holstein and Jersey cows
and three saddle horses have been maintained in the corrals at Areas 6 or
15 since 1964. An estimated 15 to 30 feral horses graze freely in Areas 2,
12, and 17 and a migratory mule deer herd spends the spring, summer, and
fall months in the higher elevations of Areas 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 29,
and 30 (see Figure 1). All areas identified numerically are located on
the Nevada Test Site.
For the period January 1951 to June 30, 1973, there have been 344 announced
underground detonations at the Nevada Test Site. In addition there have been
several detonations held at other locations under the Plowshare or Vela
Uniform programs. 1
-------
EXPERIMENTAL FARM
NUCLEAR ROCKET
DEVELOPMENT STATION
I NRDS
BUFFER I
ZONE
MERCURY
LAS VEGAS'
65 MILES
SCAlt l> MILES
Figure 1. Location of Domestic Animals on the Nevada Test Site.
2
-------
Observations discussed in this report pertained to nuclear detonations
at sites within the contiguous United States. Effects from the test
conducted on Amchitka Island were not included as they were discussed in
considerable detail in technical reports prepared by other organizations.
There have been no reported injuries to the domestic animals or wildlife,
residing on the Nevada Test Site, as a result of the ground shock from the
detonations. The Office of the Chief Counsel of the Nevada Ooerations
Office of the Atomic Energy Commission has no knowledge of any claims for
damages, from the ground motion effects of nuclear detonations, to livestock
owned by offsite ranchers or farmers^ .
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATIONS
There have been several opportunities for the observation of ground motion
effects on wildlife or domestic animals. During certain nuclear events,
animals have been stationed or observed in close proximity to surface
ground zero* at the time of detonation. Except for one case discussed
immediately below, they were placed for experimental objectives not con-
cerned with ground motion. The following represents subjective summaries
of large animal involvement in these specific events.
Project Clearwater
On October 16, 1963, the Clearwater device (with a yield between 20 and 200 kt**)
was detonated at a depth of 548 meters (1,800 feet) beneath Rainier Mesa. Three
Hereford cow-calf pairs were stationed on Rainier Mesa at distances of 91 meters
(300 feet), 213 meters (700 feet), and 426 meters (1,400 feet) from surface
ground zero (SGZ). No film record was recovered showing the ground motion
effects at 91 meters, but the reactions to the ground movement by the cow-calf
*As used in this report, surface ground zero (SGZ) is the ooint on the surface
of land vertically above the center of a nuclear explosion.
**kt = kiloton
3
-------
oairs located at the 213-meter and 426-meter stations were recorded on
movie film. Unfortunately, the quality of these films was poor but they
did show the animals riding the shock wave which threw them into the air.
The cow located at 213 meters was momentarily knocked to her knees. No
ill effects to any of the cattle were noted by the veterinarian conducting
the experiment when the animals were removed from the three test positions
several hours after the detonation.
Although ground motion instruments were not positioned at precisely the
same locations as the cattle, interpolation of data obtained nearby gives
(3}
the following approximationsv ':
Cattle Station
Horizontal Ranae
From SGZ, ft.
300
700
1400
Peak Upward
Acceleration*
0
4
2.7
2.5
Peak Upward
Velocity
cm/sec
230
160
140
Peak Upward
Displacement
cm
46
30
23
Project Salmon
Project Salmon was a nuclear test detection research experiment (Vela
Uniform). The 5.3 kt device tamped in place at the bottom of a 822-meter
(2,700 feet) hole in the Tatum Salt Dome near Hattiesburg, Mississippi,
was detonated on October 22, 1964.
Approximately 350 cattle were located within a 2.7 kilometer (1-3/4 mile)
radius of surface ground zero. The values of peak vertical ground surface
motion parameters at 1.6 kilometers from SGZ were^ ':
Acceleration 2.5 g
Velocity 40 cm/sec
Displacement 2.2 cm
-------
No damage to livestock or wildlife was reported.
Project Sulky
Project Sulky was a nuclear cratering experiment in hard rock executed as
part of the Plowshare Program for development of nuclear excavation. The
device was fired December 18, 1964, in Area 18 of the Nevada Test Site. The
depth of burial was 27.4 meters and the resultant yield was O.Q85±0.015 kilotons.
It produced a mound of broken rock with a depression in the center.
At the time of detonation, two grouos of six mature lactating Hoi stein cows
were stanchioned on the 1.2-kilometer (4,000-foot) and 6.7-kilometer
(22,000-foot) arcs from surface ground zero. Ground motion data are not
available for the cow locations. No ohysical damage to the cows in either
group was noted by researchers upon their entry several hours after detonation' ,
These animals continued to produce milk and to reproduce normally for the rest
of their lives.
Project Palanquin
Project Palanquin was a nuclear excavation experiment executed as a oart of
the Plowshare program. It was detonated in Area 20 of the Nevada Test Site
on April 14, 1965, with a yield of 4.3±0.4 kt. As part of the radionuclide
studies mounted by the National Environmental Research Center-Las Vegas,
called at that time the Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory, seven
adult Holstein cows were stanchioned 4.5 kilometers (2.8 miles) down wind
from the surface ground zercr . The values of peak vertical ground surface
motion parameters at 4.5 kilometers from SGZ were' ':
Acceleration 0.015 g
Displacement 0.13 cm
-------
All animals were in good condition, upon reentry of researchers, 31 hours
after detonation. Three of the cows were sacrificed at 62, 76, and 125
hours post-detonation and were extensively necropsied. No physical effects
(bruising, fractures, etc.) were noted on these animals. The other four
cows remained in the Area 15 milking herd from two to seven years and
produced well during this period.
Project Pile Driver
The Pile Driver Event was detonated on June 2, 1966, within a mine shaft
located approximately 2.4 kilometers (1-1/2 miles) from the Area 15
experimental dairy farm. The device was emplaced in gravit 462 meters
(1,518 feet) underground. The yield of the device was 56 kt.
Instruments of the Environmental Research Corporation recorded the
(B)
following seismic data for the farnr ':
Slant distance 2.4 km
Ground acceleration 0.36 gravity units
Velocity 28.6 cm/sec
Displacement 4.6 cm
The exoerimental dairy herd of 30 animals remained at the farm during
the detonation. Upon reentry, no abnormalities among the cows were
noted and the milk production that evening and the following day was
within normal limits. Also, there were no delayed effects upon pro-
duction that could be ascribable to this event. Some minor damage to
the barn was noted, i.e., an air conditioner was jarred from its supports,
ceiling tiles were dislodged, and a wall mounted-telephone was shaken to
the floor.
-------
Project Gasbuggy
Project Gasbuggy was a joint experiment by the U. S. Atomic Energy
Commission, the Department of the Interior, and the El Paso Natural Gas
Company to investigate the feasibility of using an underground nuclear
explosion to stimulate production and increase ultimate recovery of
natural gas from a gas-bearing geologic formation of low permeability.
The nuclear explosive was equal to about 29 kt and was detonated on
December 10, 1967, 1.29 kilometers (4,240 feet) underground in the Lewis
shale formation, 88.5 air kilometers (55 miles) east of Farmington,
New Mexico.
Following detonation, local veterinary practitioners, ranchers, county
extension agents, wildlife regulatory personnel and members of the
Jicarilla Apache Indian tribe were contacted. No damage to domestic
animals or wildlife was reported.
Project Rulison
Project Rulison was a joint experiment sponsored by Austral Oil Company,
Incorporated, of Houston, Texas, the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, and
the Department of the Interior with program management provided by CER Geonuclear
Corooratlon. The purpose was to study the economic and technical feasibility
of using an underground nuclear explosion to stimulate oroduction of natural gas
from the low permeability gas-bearing Mesa Verde formation in the Rulison Field
of western Colorado. Surface ground zero was about 9.7 kilometers (six miles)
southeast of the town of Grand Valley, Colorado. The Rulison device was deto-
nated on September 10, 1969. The 40 kt yield nuclear explosive was exoloded
at a depth of 2.57 kilometers (8,431 feet).
7
-------
At the time of detonation approximately 20 horses were at the North
Fork Wallace Deer Camp located 5.6 kilometers (3-1/2 miles) south of
surface ground zero on top of Battlement Mesa. These animals were
examined by the author after detonation and no injuries were noted. Also,
several deer and elk were observed during the helicopter flight back
into the area and they appeared normal.
Approximate peak vertical values of ground motion at 5.6 km from Rulison
Acceleration 1 g
Velocity 25 cm/sec
Displacement 0.7 cm
The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel in its feature article on the event
in the September 11, 1969, issue made the following comment: "Horses
and cattle grazing in pastures near the road gave no indication that
anything unusual had occurred."
No reports of physical damage to domestic livestock were made to any of
the claims representatives.
Project Rio Blanco
Project Rio Blanco was a Government-industry natural gas reservoir stimula-
tion experiment which was jointly sponsored by CER Geonuclear Corporation
and the AEC. On May 17, 1973, three 30-kiloton nuclear explosives were
detonated simultaneously within a single well bore at depths of 1.78 km
(5,840 feet), 1.86 km (6,230 feet), and 2.04 km (6,690 feet). The emplace-
ment well was located approximately 83.8 km (52 miles) northeast of Grand
Junction, Colorado and 48.4 km (30 miles) southwest of Meeker, Colorado.
8
-------
Bioenvironmental conditions around the surface ground zero were documented
immediately pre- and post-detonation by consultants from Colorado State
University and by representatives of the Colorado State Division of Wildlife.
Their observations on large mammals within the area were reported as follows:
"Cattle within 360 m (400 yards) of the emplacement well at detonation time
showed no effects. On post-detonation surveys, deer were seen in nearly
the same locations and in relatively the same numbers as before the detonation.
Twenty-nine cattle, eight horses and four domestic goats were under observa-
tion about 10 km (6 miles) from the emplacement well at detonation time.
Some of the animals became alert and moved about for a short time, but none
demonstrated undue alarm."
Preliminary approximate values of peak upward ground motions at 360 meters^ '
and at 10 kilometers' ' are as follows:
Distance Acceleration Velocity Displacement
From SGZ g cm/sec cm
360 m (400 yds) 4 90 8
10 km (6 miles) 0.2 5
SUMMARY
Since 1963, several hundred cows, horses, deer and elk have been stationed
or observed in close proximity to the surface ground zero of various under-
ground nuclear experiments. Frequently these animals were closely observed
for other research aims; however, no ohysical damage was noted from the
ground motion they experienced.
It is the author's opinion that physical damage from the direct effects
of ground motion is highly unlikely. Injuries to animals may result from
-------
their being struck by overhead objects dislodged by the ground motion
or from running into obstructions (i.e., barbed wire fences) because of
excitment caused by the ground motion. However, this hypothesis should
be tested by an experiment which will document any specific earth motion
effects on domestic animals and wildlife stationed at varying distances
from the SGZ of an underground nuclear explosion. The exoerimental design
should include photographic and seismic documentation of the magnitude
of the motion at each location of the experimental animals. Necropsies
and selected histopathology should be performed to verify the presence
or absence of physical damage.
10
-------
REFERENCES
1. Thomas 0. Fleming, Chief Counsel, Nevada Operations Office, U. S.
Atomic Energy Commission, Las Vegas, NV, oersonal communication.
(September 1973)
2. Harold Case, REECo Rad Safe, Mercury, NV (former Livestock Helper)
personal communication. (June 1972)
3. Elwood M. Douthett, Director,Office of Effects Evaluation, Nevada
Operations Office, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Las Vegas, NV,
personal communication. (August 15, 1973)
4. Roland F. Beers, Inc. Analysis of Ground Motion and Containment,
Salmon Event. VUF-1026. (November 1965)
5. Radioiodine Study in Conjunction with Project Sulky. SVJRHL-29r.
Bioenvironmental Research Program, Southwestern Radiological
Health Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV. (May 27, 1966)
6. Stuart C. Black, Ronald E. Engel, Victor W. Randecker, and
Delbert S. Barth. Radioiodine Studies in Dairy Cows Following
Project Palanquin. Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory,
Las Vegas, NV.' Report PNE-914F. (May 1971)
7. Lawrence L. Davis. Analysis of Surface Seismic Data, Project
Palanquin. Roland F. Beers, Inc. PNE-913F. (May 16, 1966)
8. Joseph A. Lahound, Environmental Research Corporation,
personal communication.
9. R. Q. Foote, et. al. Analysis of Ground Motions and Close-in
Physical Effects, Rulison Event. Environmental Research Corporation,
Alexandria, VA. Rpt. NVO-1163-206. (April 1970).
10. Project Directors' Completion Report D+30 Days (Detonation Related
Activities) - Project Rio Blanco. NVO-135. (July 1973)
11. Eugene Jackson, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, personal communication.
(August 9, 1973)
11
-------
DISTRIBUTION
1 - 20 National Environmental Research Center, Las Vegas, NV
21 Ma hi on E. Gates, Manager, AEC/NVOO, Las Vegas, NV
22 Robert H. Thalgott, AEC/NVOO, Las Vegas, NV
23 - 32 David G. Jackson, OIS, AEC/NVOO, Las Vegas, NV
33 Roger Ray, AEC/NVOO, Las Vegas, NV
34 Arthur J. Whitman, AEC/NVOO, Las Vegas, NV
35 Elwood M. Douthett, AEC/NVOO, Las Vegas, NV
36 Thomas 0. Fleming, AEC/NVOO, Las Vegas, NV
37 Paul B. Dunaway, AEC/NVOO, Las Vegas, NV
38 - 39 Paul J. Mudra, AEC/NVOO, Las Vegas, NV
40 - 89 Ernest D. Campbell, AEC/NVOO, Las Vegas, NV
90-109 Robert L. Loux, AEC/NVOO, Las Vegas, NV
110 - 119 Technical Library, AEC/NVOO, Las Vegas, NV
120 - 129 Bennie G. DiBona, AEC/NVOO, Las Vegas, NV
130 Chief, NOB/DNA, AEC/NVOO, Las Vegas, NV
131 Robert J. Cat!in, Office of Environmental Affairs, USAEC, Washington, DC
132 - 136 John A. Harris, OIS, USAEC, Washington, DC
137 Martin B. Biles, DOS, USAEC, Washington, DC
138 Tommy F. McCraw, DOS, USAEC, Washington, DC
139 - 141 James L. Liverman, Ass't General Mgr., BERSP, USAEC, Washington, DC
142 Gordon C. Facer, DMA, USAEC, Washington, DC
143 - 162 Edward H. Fleming, DAT/USAEC, Washington, DC
163 John S. Kirby-Smith, DBM, USAEC, Washington, DC
164 L. Joe Deal, DOS, USAEC, Washington, DC
165 Charles L. Osterberg, DBM, USAEC, Washington, DC
166 Rudolf J. Engelmann, DBM, USAEC, Washington, DC
167 Harold F. Mueller, ARL/NOAA, Las Vegas, NV
168 Gilbert J. Ferber, ARL/NOAA, Silver Spring, MD
169 Stanley M. Greenfield, Ass't Admin, for Research & Development,
EPA, Washington, DC
170 William D. Rowe, Deputy Ass't Admin, for Radiation Programs,
EPA, Washington, DC
-------
Distribution (continued)
171 Dr. William A. Mills, Dir., Div. of Criteria & Standards,
ORP, EPA, Washington, DC
172 - 173 Charles L. Weaver, Dir., Field Operations Div.,
ORP, EPA, Washington, DC
174 Ernest D. Harward, Act.Dir., Div. of Technology Assessment,
ORP, EPA, Washington, DC
175 Gordon Everett, Dir., Office of Technical Analysis,
EPA, Washington, DC
176 Library, EPA, Washington, DC
177 Bernd Kahn, Chief, Radiochemistry & Nuclear Engineering,
NERC, EPA, Cincinnati, OH
178 Kurt L. Feldmann, Managing Editor, Radiation Data & Reports,
ORP, EPA, Washington, DC
179 Dr. J. Frances Allen, ORM, EPA, Arlington, VA
180 Regional Admin., Region IX, EPA, San Francisco, CA
181 Regional Radiation Representative, Region IX, EPA, San Francisco, CA
182 Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility, EPA, Montgomery, AL
183 Kenneth M. Oswald, LLL, Mercury, NV
184 Bernard W. Shore, LLL, Livermore, CA
185 - 187 James E. Carothers, LLL, Livermore, CA
188 - 190 Howard A. Tewes, LLL, Livermore, CA
191 Lawrence S. Germain, LLL, Livermore, CA
192 Paul L. Phelps, LLL, Livermore, CA
193 - 195 Charles I. Browne, LASL, Los Alamos, NM
196 La Mar Johnson, LASL, Los Alamos, NM
197 Harry S. Jordan, LASL, Los Alamos, NM
198 George E. Tucker, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM
199 Arden E. Bicker, REECo, Mercury, NV
200 Savino W. Cavender, REECo, Mercury, NV
201 Carter D. Broyles, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM
202 Melvin L. Merritt, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM
203 Richard S. Davidson, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH
204 Verle Q. Hale, Battelle Memorial Institute, Las Vegas, NV
205 Steven V. Kaye, Oak Ridge National Lab., Oak Ridge, TN
206 Leo K. Bustad, Washington State University, Pullman, WA
-------
Distribution (concluded)
207 Leonard A. Sagan, Palo Alto Medical Clinic, Palo Alto, CA
208 Vincent Schultz, Washington State University, Pullman, WA
209 Arthur Wallace, University of California, Los Angeles, CA
210 Wesley E. Niles, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV
211 Robert C. Pendleton, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
212 William S. Twenhofel, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO
213 Paul R. Fenske, Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada, Reno, NV
214 - 216 F. Ward Whicker, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO
217 John M. Ward, President, Desert Research Institute,
University of Nevada, Reno, NV
218 - 219 Technical Information Center, USAEC, Oak Ridge, TN
(for public availability)
------- |