Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

, Volume 307, Issue 3, pp 2611–2616 | Cite as

Capabilities of an on-site inspection

  • Harry S. Miley
  • Derek A. Haas


The technical capabilities of a 10-person radionuclide team operating mobile labs and portable equipment against a nuclear anomaly that could be a contained underground nuclear explosion is described. Surveys, including flight, car-borne, and backpack, help locate an area for investigation, then in situ survey and sample collections can identify isotopic anomalies in concentration, location, and ratio. Where surface radionuclides are not evident, sub-surface noble gas (Xe and Ar) collection and mobile lab measurements can detect leakage from even well-contained nuclear tests. The authors will discuss the strategies for using these capabilities and the integration of information from other technical subteams in a 4-week exercise.


On site inspection CTBT Radionuclide Integrated field exercise 



This work was supported by the National Nuclear Security Administration Office of Nonproliferation and National Security (NA-24).


  1. 1.
    The Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. Accessed 4 November 2015
  2. 2.
    Keillor ME, Arrigo LM, Detwiler RS, Kernan WJ, Kirkham RR, MacDougall M, Chipman V, Milbrath BD, Rishel JP, Seifert A, Seifert CE, Smart JE, Emer D (2014) Particle release experiment (PRex) final report. PNNL-23997, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, RichlandGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baciak J, Millbrath BD, Detwiler RS, Kirkham RR, Keillor M, Lepel EA, Seifert HA, Emer D, Floyd M (2012) Investigation of CTBT OSI radionuclide techniques at the diluted wasters nuclear test site. PNNL-22494, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, RichlandGoogle Scholar
  4. 5.
    Dubasov YV (2010) Underground nuclear explosions and release of radioactive noble gases. Pure Appl Geophys 167(4–5):455–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 4.
    Lowrey JD, Eslinger PW, Haas DA, Miley HS (2015) A consideration of radionuclide particulate resuspension as a verification tool in the CTBT on-site inspection verification component. J Radioanal Nucl Chem. doi: 10.1007/s10967-015-4554-y
  6. 6.
    Carrigan CR, Sun Y (2014) Detection of noble gas radionuclides from an underground nuclear explosion during a CTBT on-site inspection. Pure Appl Geophys 171(3):717–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lowrey JD (2013) Subsurface radioactive gas transport and release studies using the UTEX model. Dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carrigan CR, Heinle RA, Hudson GB, Nitao JJ, Zucca JJ (1996) Trace gas emissions on geological faults as indicators of underground nuclear testing. Nature 382:528–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saey PRJ (2009) The influence of radiopharmaceutical isotope production on the global radioxenon background. J Environ Radioact 100(5):396–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lowrey JD, Biegalski SR, Bowyer TW, Haas DA, Hayes JC (2015) Consideration of impact of atmospheric intrusion in subsurface sampling for investigation of suspected underground nuclear explosions. J Radioanal Nucl Chem. doi: 10.1007/s10967-015-4462-1 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson C, Lowrey J, Biegalski S, Haas D (2015) Regional transport of radioxenon released from the Chalk River Laboratories medical isotope facility. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 305(1):207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ringbom A, Larson T, Axelsson A, Elmgren K, Johansson C (2003) SAUNA—a system for automatic sampling, processing, and analysis of radioactive xenon. Nucl Instrum Methods A 508(3):542–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tanaka J (2011) Technical report: 2009 on-site inspection noble gas field operation tests (NG09), CTBT/PTS/TR/2011-1Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhou C, Zhou G, Feng S, Jin Y, Zhao X, Cheng Z, Huang X, Xu H, Zhou X (2013) Atmospheric radioxenon isotope monitoring in Beijing after the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident. Appl Radiat Isot 72:123–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haas DA, Orrell JL, Bowyer TW, McIntyre JI, Miley HS, Aalseth CE, Hayes JC (2010) The science case for 37Ar as a monitor for underground nuclear explosions. PNNL-19458, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, RichlandGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nir-El Y, Haquin G (2001) Minimum detectable activity in in situ γ-ray spectrometry. Appl Radiat Isot 55(2):197–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schoengold CR, DeMarre ME, Kirkwood EM (1996) Radiological effluents released from U.S. continental tests 1961 through 1992. DOE NV-317 (Rev.1) UC-702, Bechtel Nevada, Las VegasGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Security Directorate, Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryRichlandUSA

Personalised recommendations