131 LA UR 03 5862 - National Nuclear Security Administration ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sanitary WasteLANL sanitary waste generation and transfer of waste to the Los Alamos County Landfill has variedconsiderably over the last decade, with a peak (more than 14,000 tons) transferred to the landfill in 2000that is probably due to removal of Cerro Grande Fire debris. The SWEIS estimated that LANL disposedof approximately 4,843 tons of waste at the Los Alamos County Landfill between July 1995 and June 1996(DOE 1999). This estimate may have not been representative of LANL’s sanitary waste disposal over thelong term.LANL has instituted an aggressive waste minimization and recycling program that has reduced theamount of waste disposed in sanitary landfills. LANL’s Material Recovery Facility, which is used toseparate recyclable items from other waste in trash dumpsters, now recovers about 40 percent of this wastefor recycling. Other recycling initiatives include cardboard and paper recycling, a pilot concrete crushingoperation, construction debris sorting, uncontaminated soil fill reuse, brush mulching, and metal and plasticrecycling (LANL 2002b).LANL performance goals for sanitary waste reduction are based on waste generation in 1993. LANL’stotal waste generation can be classified as routine and nonroutine. The waste can also be categorized asrecyclable and nonrecyclable. Table 4.3-1 shows LANL sanitary waste generation for FY 2002. Compared to1993, LANL has increased the recycled portion of sanitary waste from about 10 percent in 1993 to about 34percent in FY 1999 and to approximately 70 percent in FY 2002.Table 4.3-1. LANL Sanitary Waste Generation in FY 2002 (metric tons)ROUTINENONROUTINETOTALRecycled 1,425 5,938 7,363Landfill disposal 1,822 1,388 3,210Total 3,247 7,326 10,573Routine sanitary waste consists mostly of food and food-contaminated waste, paper, plastic, wood, glass,styrofoam packing material, old equipment, and similar items. LANL’s per capita generation of routinesanitary waste fell from 265 kilograms per person per year in 1993 to 163 kilograms per person per year in2001, equivalent to a 39 percent decrease in routine waste generation (LANL 2002b).Nonroutine sanitary waste is typically derived from construction and demolition projects. The CerroGrande Rehabilitation Project also generated large quantities of nonroutine waste as a result of variouscleanup activities. In general, construction and demolition waste is the largest single component of thesanitary waste stream and constitutes virtually all of the current nonroutine sanitary waste generation. UntilMay 1998, construction debris was used as fill to construct a land bridge between two areas of LANL;however, environmental and regulatory issues resulted in this activity being halted. Construction of newfacilities and demolition of old facilities are expected to continue to produce substantial quantities of this typeof waste. In FY 2002, approximately 82 percent of the uncontaminated construction and demolition wastewas recycled (LANL 2002b). The portion of construction debris that is recycled is expected to remain thesame or to increase in the future.The SWEIS projected that the Los Alamos County Landfill would not reach capacity until about 2014. In2002, NMED issued a 35-year permit for operation of the current landfill—five years of additional disposalof waste and 30 years of post-closure operation. Therefore, the existing landfill will no longer accept wasteafter 2007. Currently NNSA is preparing an environmental assessment of the effects of locating a new landfillwithin LANL boundaries. Other waste disposal alternatives may also be evaluated.4-8SWEIS Yearbook—2002
Chemical WasteWaste projections for the ER Project by the SWEIS ROD are uncertain at best. These projections weredeveloped in the 1996–1997 time period. Estimates were based on the then current Installation Work Planmethodology. The ER Project office kept a continuously updated database of waste projections by waste typefor each PRS. Estimates were made for the amount of waste expected to be generated by that PRS for thelife of the ER Project. In 1996–1997, it was assumed that the life of the ER Project would be 10 years, butthe schedule now projects cleanup will extend to 2020. This demonstrates the legitimate uncertainty in wasteestimates and schedules developed for the ER Project caused by changing requirements and refined wastecalculations as additional data were gathered.One task of the ER Project is to characterize sites about which little is known and to make adjustments inwaste quantity estimates based on new information. In addition, even the most rigorous field investigationscannot truly determine waste quantities with a high degree of certainty until remediation has progressedconsiderably. Remediation can often create more or less waste, or waste that was not anticipated, based onfield sampling. Moreover, the administrative authority may not approve a no further action recommendationor may require additional sampling or an alternative corrective action than the one planned. All of thesefactors lead to waste projections that are highly uncertain.An example of the latter is MDA-P. The first closure plan for MDA-P was submitted to EPA, and laterNMED, in the early 1980s. This plan proposed closure in place, but was never approved. During the mid- tolate-1980s, all parties (LANL, DOE, EPA, and NMED) decided that clean-closure was a more appropriatestandard and the plan was rewritten to reflect risk-based clean-closure. All information in the closure plan,including waste estimates, was based on best available information (a combination of operating group recordsand data from field investigations). However, when remediation started, it quickly became apparent that earlyinformation was not reliable, and that there would be more waste generated than originally anticipated. TheER Project clean closure of MDA-P began on November 17, 1997, and Phase I (i.e., waste management,handling, and disposal) and Phase II (i.e., confirmatory sampling) activities completed by April 2002. A totalof 20,812 cubic yards of hazardous waste and 21,354 cubic yards of other waste were excavated and shippedto a disposal facility. A total of 6,600 cubic yards were shipped and used as clean fill at MDA-J.Chemical waste quantities are higher than projections for two reasons: ER Project cleanup activitiesduring 1999, 2000, and 2001 and the Legacy Materials Cleanup Project during 1998. The variability in ERProject waste projections is discussed above. The Legacy Materials Cleanup Project, completed in September1998, required facilities to locate and inventory all materials for which a use could no longer be identified.All such materials (more than 22,000 items) were characterized, collected, and managed. In 1999, the Non-Key Facilities also exceeded projections, and this was attributed to ER Project cleanups of PRSs within theNon-Key Facilities. When comparing the subtotal of Key and Non-Key Facilities, only the Legacy Programin 1998 pushes the quantities over SWEIS ROD projections. Regardless, these wastes (both ER and LegacyProgram) were and are shipped offsite, do not impact the local environs, and do not hasten the need to expandthe size of Area G. High amounts of chemical waste at Non-Key Facilities are mostly due to new constructionand some expanded operations.SWEIS Yearbook—2002 4-9
Page 1:
SWEIS Yearbook - 2002LA-UR-03-5862
Page 5:
CONTENTSList of Tables . . . . . .
Page 11 and 12:
2.13-1. Radiochemistry Buildings wi
Page 13 and 14:
F-1. RTBF Line Item Projects . . .
Page 15 and 16:
AcronymsAFCIALARAAOCBABSLCASACDCCDI
Page 17 and 18:
PrefaceIn the Record of Decision fo
Page 19 and 20:
Executive SummaryIn 1999, the US De
Page 21 and 22:
Also, following the events of Septe
Page 23 and 24:
ReferencesDepartment of Energy, 199
Page 26 and 27:
AREA OF CONTRIBUTION (continued)Los
Page 28 and 29:
• Summary and conclusion (Chapter
Page 30 and 31:
Aerial view-North from Pajarito Roa
Page 32 and 33:
Table 2.0-2. Radiological Exposure
Page 34 and 35:
2-4Table 2.0-4. Low-Level Waste Gen
Page 36 and 37:
2-6Table 2.0-6. TRU Waste Generatio
Page 38 and 39:
2-8Table 2.0-8. Overall Solid Radio
Page 40 and 41:
In addition, the Key Facilities (as
Page 42 and 43:
2-12SWEIS Yearbook—2002Table 2.0-
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Table 2.0-12. Projected Constructio
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
This chapter also discusses Non-Key
Page 62 and 63:
SANTA FENATIONALSANTA FENATIONAL FO
Page 64 and 65:
2.1 Plutonium Complex (TA-55)The Pl
Page 66 and 67:
2-36SWEIS Yearbook—2002Table 2.1.
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
2-42Table 2.1.2-1. Plutonium Comple
Page 74 and 75:
Glovebox linesWaste transfer2.1.4 C
Page 76 and 77:
TA-16 during 1999, 2000, and 2001.
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
2.2.3 Operations Data for the Triti
Page 82 and 83:
Tree-thinning operations on Two-Mil
Page 84 and 85:
completed; work on the wing electri
Page 86 and 87:
2-56Table 2.3.1-1. CMR Building Con
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Table 2.3.2-1. CMR Building (TA-03)
Page 94 and 95:
Table 2.3.3-1. CMR Building (TA-03)
Page 96 and 97:
2.4.1 Construction and Modification
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
2-70Table 2.4.2-1. Pajarito Site (T
Page 102 and 103:
“Hummer”2.4.4 Cerro Grande Fire
Page 104 and 105:
2.5.1 Construction and Modification
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Table 2.5.3-1. Sigma Complex (TA-03
Page 110 and 111:
2-80Table 2.6.2-1. MSL (TA-03)/Comp
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
2.6.4 Cerro Grande Fire Effects at
Page 116 and 117:
2-86Table 2.7.2-1. TFF (TA-35)/Comp
Page 118 and 119:
Inspection of target component2.8 M
Page 120 and 121:
2.8.2 Operations at the Machine Sho
Page 122 and 123:
Table 2.8.3-1. Machine Shops (TA-03
Page 124 and 125:
Operations at this Key Facility are
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
2.9.2 Operations at High Explosives
Page 130 and 131:
2-100SWEIS Yearbook—2002Table 2.9
Page 132 and 133:
Table 2.9.3-1. High Explosives Proc
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
2.10.2 Operations at High Explosive
Page 138 and 139:
2-108Table 2.10.2-1. High Explosive
Page 140 and 141:
Table 2.10.3-1. High Explosives Tes
Page 142 and 143:
DX Division Strategic Plan for the
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
2-116Table 2.11.1-1. Los Alamos Neu
Page 148 and 149:
Table 2.11.2-1. Los Alamos Neutron
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
2-122Table 2.11.2-1. Los Alamos Neu
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
2.12 Bioscience Facilities (TA-43,
Page 158 and 159:
Because of the building’s small s
Page 160 and 161:
is expected to continue through 200
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
2-134Table 2.12.3-1. Bioscience Fac
Page 166 and 167:
Table 2.13-1. Radiochemistry Buildi
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Table 2.13.2-1. Radiochemistry Faci
Page 172 and 173:
Table 2.13.3-1. Radiochemistry Faci
Page 174 and 175:
Table 2.14-1. Radioactive Liquid Wa
Page 176 and 177:
2.14.2 Operations at the Radioactiv
Page 178 and 179:
Table 2.14.2-1. Radioactive Liquid
Page 180 and 181:
Table 2.14.3-1. Radioactive Liquid
Page 182 and 183:
Table 2.15-1. Solid Radioactive and
Page 184 and 185:
volume is an increase from the last
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
2-160Table 2.15.2-1. Solid Radioact
Page 192 and 193:
2.16 Non-Key FacilitiesThe balance,
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
2-166Table 2.16.1-1. Non-Key Facili
Page 198 and 199:
consumption would represent approxi
Page 200 and 201:
Exterior and interior views of the
Page 202 and 203:
Decision Applications Division Offi
Page 204 and 205:
k) Materials Science and Technology
Page 206 and 207:
n) NPDES Outfall ProjectDuring 1997
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
2.17 Environmental Restoration Proj
Page 212 and 213:
The sludge and water in the lagoons
Page 214 and 215:
Table 2.17.3-1. Evaluated and Stabi
Page 216 and 217:
2.18 ReferencesDepartment of Energy
Page 218 and 219:
Department of Energy, 1999d. “Cat
Page 220 and 221:
Katzman, 2000. Personal communicati
Page 222 and 223:
Los Alamos National Laboratory, 200
Page 224 and 225: Table 3.1.1-1 summarizes the radioa
Page 226 and 227: for reporting under Section 313 of
Page 228 and 229: NPDES permitted outfalls, including
Page 230 and 231: Table 3.2-4. Discharges from NPDES
Page 232 and 233: ensures that LANL meets all require
Page 234 and 235: 3.3.3 Low-Level Radioactive WastesT
Page 236 and 237: Table 3.3.5-1. Transuranic Waste Ge
Page 238 and 239: Power Plant ComplexIn CY 2002, an e
Page 240 and 241: 3.4.3 WaterBefore September 8, 1998
Page 242 and 243: Table 3.5.2-1. Radiological Exposur
Page 244 and 245: These employees have had a positive
Page 246 and 247: 3.7.1 Land Resources—CY 1998From
Page 248 and 249: Table 3.7.5-1. Site-wide Land UseAC
Page 250 and 251: Table 3.8-1. Groundwater Characteri
Page 252 and 253: captured in the Laboratory’s annu
Page 254 and 255: 828 ft. One sample of water from th
Page 256 and 257: Table3.9-2. HistoricPeriodCulturalR
Page 258 and 259: Traditional Cultural Properties Com
Page 260 and 261: 2002 Land TransferredNine cultural
Page 262 and 263: During 2002, LANL completed three b
Page 264 and 265: Lansford, R., L. Adcock, S. Ben-Dav
Page 266 and 267: Wetland in Mortandad Canyon3-44SWEI
Page 268 and 269: years for which data were reported;
Page 270 and 271: Figure 4-4. Carbon monoxide emissio
Page 272 and 273: The SWEIS assumed that reducing out
Page 276 and 277: Low-Level WasteLANL generation of L
Page 278 and 279: 4.4 Utility ConsumptionConsumption
Page 280 and 281: TRI(UC Workers Only)TRI(All Workers
Page 282 and 283: Though construction and modificatio
Page 284 and 285: LANL has also increased the invento
Page 286 and 287: 4.13 ReferencesClean Air Act. 42 US
Page 288 and 289: The PastV-Site building related to
Page 290 and 291: 5.1.2 AssumptionsThe Laboratory use
Page 292 and 293: Figure 5-1. Existing land use at LA
Page 294 and 295: Table 5.2.3.1-1. Site-Wide Land Use
Page 296 and 297: • Manhattan Monument tract, a fra
Page 298 and 299: Table 5.2.4-2. Selected Proposed Co
Page 300 and 301: infrastructure required to conduct
Page 302 and 303: 5-14SWEIS Yearbook—2002Table 5.3.
Page 304 and 305: 5.4 The Plan5.4.1 Planning ProcessT
Page 306 and 307: Table 5.4.3-1. Electrical Power Con
Page 308 and 309: easily provide forecasted water dem
Page 310 and 311: • Fire Hazard Mitigation: Facilit
Page 312 and 313: Table 5.5.1-1. Funding SourcesFUNDI
Page 314 and 315: Emergency Operations Center (above
Page 316 and 317: 5.6 ReferencesAmerican Standard of
Page 318 and 319: 5-30SWEIS Yearbook—2002
Page 320 and 321: • Construction of the DecisionApp
Page 322 and 323: projected by the ROD. Similarly, a
Page 324 and 325:
6.2 ConclusionsIn conclusion, LANL
Page 326 and 327:
6-8SWEIS Yearbook—2002
Page 328 and 329:
A-2Table A-1. Chemistry and Metallu
Page 330 and 331:
A-4Table A-2. Bioscience Air Emissi
Page 332 and 333:
A-6SWEIS Yearbook—2002Table A-3.
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
A-10Table A-6. Machine Shops Air Em
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
A-16SWEIS Yearbook—2002Table A-10
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
A-20Table A-10. Radiochemistry Site
Page 348 and 349:
A-22Table A-11. Sigma Complex Air E
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
A-26Table A-13. Tritium Operations
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
Table B-1. Comparison of Nuclear Fa
Page 358 and 359:
B-4Table B-1. Comparison of Nuclear
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
B-8SWEIS Yearbook—2002Table B-1.
Page 364 and 365:
B-10SWEIS Yearbook—2002Table B-1.
Page 366 and 367:
Page 368 and 369:
Page 370 and 371:
Table C-1. Radiological Facility Li
Page 372 and 373:
Appendix D. NPDES Outfall Status Su
Page 374 and 375:
Appendix D. NPDES Outfall Status Su
Page 376 and 377:
D-6SWEIS Yearbook—2002
Page 378 and 379:
Site Boundary ChangesOn December 11
Page 380 and 381:
Figure E-2a. TA-55 old evaluationbo
Page 382 and 383:
Table E-1. Land Parcels Transferred
Page 384 and 385:
Figure E-3. Location of transfer pa
Page 386 and 387:
References and Key Information Sour
Page 388 and 389:
F-2SWEIS Yearbook—2002Table F-1.
Page 390 and 391:
Page 392 and 393:
Page 394 and 395:
Page 396 and 397:
Page 398 and 399:
Page 400 and 401:
Page 402 and 403:
Page 404 and 405:
Page 406 and 407:
F-20Table F-5. Non-RTBF Non-Facilit
Page 408 and 409:
F-22Table F-6. Non-RTBF Non-Facilit
Page 410 and 411:
Page 412:
To obtain a copy of the SWEIS Yearb
show all

131 LA UR 03 5862 - National Nuclear Security Administration ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?