AIR QUALITY AND NOISE
This appendix presents the methods used for analyzing potential impacts to air quality and potential noise impacts. Appendix C1, Air Quality, addresses routine emission of nonradiological air pollutants from the DARHT and PHERMEX sites from construction activities and normal operations. Pollutants addressed in this appendix include nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate matter (PM10), heavy metals, beryllium, and lead. Appendix C2, Noise, provides methods and information on potential noise impacts from explosive detonation activities, construction, and traffic that would be associated with the DARHT or PHERMEX facilities.
Emission of nonradiological air pollutants into the atmosphere is regulated by Federal and State ambient air quality standards. Nonradioactive air pollutants at LANL are summarized in chapter 4. Estimates of the air quality impacts that would result from the emission of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter with a 10-µ or less aerodynamic diameter (PM10) were presented in chapter 5. Other criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone (O3), but these pollutants are not emitted in any significant quantities by the operation of the facilities. Modeling tools and assumptions used to estimate impacts on air quality are presented in this appendix. In formulating inputs for air quality modeling, a series of conservative assumptions was made (i.e., assumptions which tended to maximize air quality impacts).
C1.1 MODELS
The Industrial Source Complex (ISC2) computer code was used to estimate the annual air quality impacts, as well as some of the short-term air quality impacts of criteria pollutants. The ISC2 model consists of the ISC2 short-term model (ISCST2) and the ISC2 long-term model (ISCLT2). The two models use steady-state Gaussian plume algorithms to estimate pollutant concentrations from a wide variety of sources associated with industrial complexes (EPA 1992a). The models are appropriate for flat or rolling terrain, modeling domains with a radius of less than 31 mi (50 km), and urban or rural environments. The ISC2 models are approved by the EPA for specific regulatory applications and designed for use on personal computers. Input requirements for the ISC2 model include a variety of information that defines the source configuration and pollutant emission parameters. The user may define point, line, area, or volume sources. The ISCST2 model uses hourly meteorological data to compute straight-line plume transport and diffusion, while the ISCLT2 model uses a joint frequency distribution of wind direction, wind speed, and atmospheric stability data to compute the transport and diffusion. Plume rise, stack tip downwash, and building wake can be computed and deposition taken into account. The ISC2 models compute a variety of short- and long-term averaged products (concentrations and depositions) at user-specified receptor locations. Tables C1-1Table C1-1.-Input Parameters for Modeling Short-term Releases
of NO2 Emissions from Natural Gas Boiler, ISCST2 Model
Parameter |
Value |
|
Pollutant Type |
NO2 |
Averaging Time |
24 h |
X-coordinate of Source on Grid |
0.0 |
Y-coordinate of Source on Grid |
0.0 |
Release Height of Source |
0.0 m |
Emission Rate of Source |
4.53 x 10-3 g/s |
Exit Temperature of Source |
373 K |
Exit Velocity of Source |
0.0 m/s |
Exit Diameter of Source |
0.0 m |
Origin of Receptor Rings: x-coordinate y-coordinate |
0.0 0.0 |
Radii of Polar Rings (m) |
100. 200. 400. 800. 1000. 1200. 1500. 1800. 2000. 2500. 2700. 3000. 4000. 4400. 5000. 5500. 6000. 7000. |
Number of Receptors per Ring |
16 |
Height of Receptors |
0.0 m |
Starting Angle at each Ring |
0.0 deg |
Angle between Receptors on Ring |
22.5 deg |
Meteorological Input File |
TA61994.MET |
Anemometer Height |
10 m |
and C1-2Table C1-2.-Input Parameters for Modeling Long-term NO2 Emissions
from Natural Gas Boiler, ISCLT2 Model
Parameter |
Value |
|
Pollutant Type |
NO2 |
Averaging Time |
24 h |
X-coordinate of Source on Grid |
0.0 |
Y-coordinate of Source on Grid |
0.0 |
Release Height of Source |
0.0 m |
Emission Rate of Source |
4.53 x 10-3 g/s |
Exit Temperature of Source |
373 K |
Exit Velocity of Source |
0.0 m/s |
Exit Diameter of Source |
0.0 m |
Origin of Receptor Rings: x-coordinate y-coordinate |
0.0 0.0 |
Radii of Polar Rings (m) |
100. 200. 400. 800. 1000. 1200. 1500. 1800. 2000. 2500. 2700. 3000. 4000. 4400. 5000. 5500. 6000. 7000. |
Number of Receptors per Ring |
16 |
Height of Receptors |
0.0 m |
Starting Angle at each Ring |
0.0 deg |
Angle between Receptors on Ring |
22.5 deg |
Meteorological Input File |
LANLTA6.JFD |
Anemometer Height |
10 m |
Average Wind Speed for Six Wind Speed Categories (m/s) |
1.23 2.40 4.08 6.46 9.30 13.28 |
Average Temperature for Six Stability Classes |
282 K |
Averaging Mixing Height for: Stability A Stability B Stability C Stability D Stability E Stability F |
2600.0 m 2170.0 m 1740.0 m 1310.0 m 880.0 m 450.0 m |
present input parameters for the short-term and long-term models, respectively.
To calculate some of the short-term (24-h or less) criteria pollutant impacts, the SCREEN2 model was used. SCREEN2 is a screening model used to estimate short-term air pollutant concentrations, including estimates of maximum ground-level concentrations from a single source (EPA 1992b). The model uses a steady-state Gaussian plume algorithm to calculate the concentration from a single point, area, or simple volume source. The model can be applied to both simple and complex terrain for modeling domains out to 62 mi (100 km). Input requirements for SCREEN2 include information about the source configuration and pollutant emission parameters. Plume rise, building wake downwash, fumigation, and plume impaction on complex terrain can be computed. While specific meteorological values of wind speed and stability can be input to calculate pollutant transport and diffusion, the model can also calculate a worst-case maximum concentration, in which the model examines a range of stability classes and wind speeds to identify the "worst-case" meteorological conditions. Output of the SCREEN2 model is 1-h maximum concentration at specified distances. Adjustment factors can be applied to estimate concentrations for longer averaging periods (i.e., up to 24 h). The SCREEN2 model is approved by the EPA for specific screening procedures and is designed to run on personal computers.
C1.2 RECEPTORS
Maximum ground-level pollutant concentrations for regulatory-significant time periods are reported at the maximally impacted receptor location. To capture this impact, ISC2 model runs have at least one receptorlocation in each of the 16 transport directions (north, north-northeast, etc.) used by the model. Receptors are positioned at points of public access along publicly accessible roads within the boundaries of LANL, along the LANL fenceline, and in existing residential areas (figure C1-1).
To determine maximum short-term (i.e., exposure periods from 1 to 24 h) impacts, pollutant concentrations are reported for the maximally impacted point of public access. This involves assessing impacts at receptors located within, along, and outside of the LANL fenceline. For long-term impacts (i.e., annual exposures), pollutant concentrations are reported for the maximally impacted point of unrestricted public access. This involves the assessment of impacts at receptor locations along and outside of the LANL fenceline. Onsite points of public access are not considered because of the limited time any member of the public would spend at an onsite location over the course of an entire year; however, receptor locations along large segments of the LANL fenceline are considered even though current land-use restrictions do not allow permanent residents in these areas.
ISC2 model runs indicate that the maximum short-term (i.e., 1, 3, 8, and 24 h) pollutant concentrations would occur along the LANL fenceline at a point 1.0 mi (1.5 km) southwest of the proposed DARHT Facility (receptor 18 on figure C1-1). Maximum long-term (annual) pollutant concentrations would occur along the LANL fenceline at a point 1.1 mi (1.8 km) south of the DARHT Facility (receptor 16 on figure C1-1). Because of the close proximity of the DARHT and PHERMEX sites, emissions from both facilities are conservatively assumed to occur at the DARHT Facility.
C1.3 SOURCE TERM AND IMPACTS
The increases in the airborne concentration of criteria pollutants, as described for each alternative in chapter 5, is assumed to result from construction activities and routine operation of the DARHT or PHERMEX facilities. Construction activities release NO2, SO2, and PM10 as a result of the operation of diesel- and gasoline-powered construction equipment. PM10 emissions also occur, in the form of fugitive dusts, as a result of the movement of construction equipment over the disturbed ground. Operations activities release NO2 and PM10 as a result of emissions during hydrodynamic testing and NO2, SO2, and PM10 as a result of the operation of the natural gas boiler used in heating the DARHT Facility.
In all but one case, pollutants were assumed to be released from a ground-level point source located on flat terrain; the only exception to this is that fugitive dust emissions during construction are assumed to come from an area source. The use of more realistic pollutant release heights, accounting for buoyant and mechanical plume rise, and the consideration of initial plume spreading (e.g., as would result from
hydrodynamic testing) are factors that would tend to reduce maximized ground-level impacts, but were not included in this analysis.
To calculate annual pollutant concentrations using the ISCLT2 model, a joint frequency distribution of wind speed, wind direction, and atmospheric stability data from tower TA-6 was used (exhibit C1-1). The TA-15 area, where the proposed DARHT and PHERMEX facilities are located, does not have routine meteorological monitoring. As described in appendix H, meteorological data from TA-6 were also used to compute human health impacts from the airborne transport of pollutants.
The ISCLT2 model also required estimations of average mixing layer depth for the six stability classes (A-F). Because no mixing height data is available from Los Alamos, the annual morning mixing height of Albuquerque, 1,500 ft (450 m), is assumed to be the average mixing layer depth for stability class F (very stable), and the annual afternoon mixing height of Albuquerque, 8,500 ft (2,600 m), is assumed to be the average mixing layer depth for stability class A (very unstable) (Holzworth 1972). The mixing layer depths at stability classes between A and F are estimated by linear interpolating between the mixing heights at stability class A and F.
To calculate the short-term averaged concentration using the ISCST2 model requires hourly meteorological data of wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability, air temperature, and mixing heights. The hourly meteorological data for 1994 at tower TA-6 were used as meteorological input in the ISCST2 model. Because mixing layer depth is not measured at Los Alamos, a conservative estimate of the morning mixing height for Albuquerque for all stability classes was used (Holzworth 1972). The morning mixing height varied by season.
For estimating the short-term averaged concentration using the SCREEN2 model, no meteorological input is required. The worst-case maximum concentration option is used in which the SCREEN2 model estimates the maximum concentration by examining a range of wind speed and stability classes to find the worst-case meteorological conditions. For a ground-level release, the worst-case meteorological variables are a 2 mi/h (3.6 km/h or 1 m/s) wind speed and a stability class of F (very stable).
C1.3.1 Fugitive Dust
Because it is nearly impossible to accurately predict the amount of dust emitted during construction, a default value of 1.2 ton/ac/mo of total suspended particulates is assumed (EPA 1993). This value was based on EPA measurements of suspended particulates (with aerodynamic diameters = 30 µ) made during the construction of apartments and shopping centers. It takes into account emissions during land clearing, blasting, ground excavation, cut and fill operations, and facility construction (EPA 1993).
The amount of PM10 emitted from the construction at the DARHT site should be less than
1.2 ton/ac/mo because many of the particulates suspended during construction are at the larger end of the 30-µ size range and will tend to rapidly settle out of the atmosphere at locations very close to the source (Seinfeld 1986). Experiments on dust suspension due to construction found that at 160 ft (50 m), a maximum of 30 percent of the remaining suspended particulates in the atmosphere were in the PM10 size range (EPA 1988). Thus, only 30 percent of 1.2 ton/ac/mo of total suspendable particulates or 0.4 ton/ac/mo are assumed to be emitted as PM10 from the construction site. Any active dust suppression activities at the DARHT construction site would further reduce PM10 emissions; however, no dust suppression activities are assumed in our analysis.
To estimate the annual and 24-h average PM10 concentration requires both the size of the area disturbed and the unit-area emission rate (0.4 ton/ac/mo). For all alternatives except the No Action, a square-shaped area of 8 ac (3 ha) is assumed to be disturbed. For the No Action Alternative, the construction impacts Table C1-3.-Source Term for Calculating Fugitive Dust Impacts
for All Alternatives Except the No Action Alternative
Pollutant |
Averaging Time |
Mass of Pollutant per Time Period per Area |
Area of Source (ac) |
Maximum Emission Rate (g/(m2-s)) |
|
PM10 |
Annual 24-h |
4.4 x 103 kg/(yr-ac) 12 kg/(24-h-ac) |
8 8 |
3.4 x 10-5 3.4 x 10-5 |
Table C1-4.-Impacts on Air Quality from Fugitive Dust
from Completing Construction for the DARHT Facility
Pollutant |
Averaging Time |
Maximally Impacted Point of Unrestricted Public Access (µg/m3) |
Percent of Regulatory Limita |
|
PM10 |
Annual 24-h |
0.8 17 |
1.6% 11% |
|
a Uses the applicable regulatory limit from table 4-3. Note: No Action Alternative construction impacts were estimated to be no more than one-half those of other alternatives. | |||
Table C1-5.-Estimated Average Monthly and Peak Daily Consumption
of Diesel and Gasoline for Construction of the DARHT Facility
Fuel |
Average Monthly Consumption (gal/mo) |
Daily Peak Consumption (gal/day) |
|
Diesel |
500 |
135 |
Gasoline |
500 |
17 |
Table C1-6.-Amount of Pollutant Released per m3 of Fuel Consumed
by Construction Equipment with Highest Emissions
Pollutant |
Diesel (kg of pollutant/m3) |
Gasoline (kg of pollutant/m3) |
|
NO2 |
52.4 |
17.5 |
SO2 |
3.7 |
0.6 |
PM10 |
5.6 |
1.0 |
are assumed to be no more than one-half of those from the other alternatives, as some construction occurs on the existing DARHT structure to ready it for other uses. Table C1-3 presents the source term used to calculate the air quality impacts from fugitive dust emissions. Both the annual and 24-h maximum average concentrations are calculated using the ISC2 models. Estimated impacts on air quality from fugitive dust emissions are shown in table C1-4. These impacts apply to all alternatives except the No Action Alternative.
C1.3.2 Construction Equipment
The other major source of criteria pollutant emissions from construction is the operation of diesel- and gasoline-powered construction equipment. To obtain the emission rate for each pollutant from the construction equipment, it is assumed that all the diesel and gasoline are consumed by the heavy-duty construction equipment that emits the maximum amount of each pollutant for the given equipment type. The pollutant emission rate for heavy-duty construction equipment is found in EPA's AP-42 tables 2-7.1 and 2-7.2 (EPA 1991). Table C1-5 presents the estimated average monthly and the peak daily consumption of diesel and gasoline for construction of DARHT. Table C1-6 presents the kilograms of pollutant emitted per cubic meter (m3) of fuel consumed by the construction equipment. For all pollutants but SO2, the largest emitter is a wheeled tractor; the motor grader and the wheeled dozer are the largest emitters of SO2 for diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment, respectively.
The emission rate for the annual concentration is calculated from the average monthly emissions, assuming that the construction is year round. Annual concentrations are calculated using the ISCLT2 model.
The 3-h average emission rate assumes that all of the full workday ration of fuel is consumed in a 3-h period [i.e., 135 gal (0.5 m3) of diesel fuel per 3 h]. The 24-h average emission rate assumes that the same workday ration of fuel is consumed over a 24-h period. The short-term average concentrations are calculated using the SCREEN2 model. Because there is no specific information on different fuel consumption rates for the various alternatives, the same annual, 24-h, and 3-h consumption rates are used for all the alternatives except the No Action Alternative.
Table C1-7.-Source Term for Construction Equipment Emissions
for All Alternatives Except the No Action Alternative
Pollutant and Averaging Time |
Averaging Time |
Mass of Pollutant per Time Period |
Maximum Emission Rate (g/s) |
|
PM10 |
Annual 24-h |
150 kg/yr 2.9 kg/24 h |
4.7 x 10-3 3.4 x 10-2 |
NO2 |
Annual 24-h |
1,600 kg/yr 28 kg/24 h |
5.0 x 10-2 3.2 x 10-1 |
SO2 |
Annual 24-h 3-h |
99 kg/yr 1.9 kg/24 h 1.9 kg/3 h |
3.2 x 10-3 2.3 x 10-2 1.8 x 10-1 |
Table C1-8.-Impacts on Air Quality from Construction Equipment Emission
for All Alternatives Except the No Action Alternative
Pollutant |
Averaging Time |
Maximally Impacted Point of Unrestricted Public Access (µg/m3) |
Percent of Regulatory Limita |
|
NO2 |
Annual 24-h |
0.04 4.8 |
0.06% 3.3% |
PM10 |
Annual 24-h |
0.004 0.06 |
0.008% 0.04% |
SO2 |
Annual 24-h 3-h |
0.003 0.3 22 |
0.007% 0.2% 2.2% |
|
a Uses the applicable regulatory limit from table 4-3. Note: No Action Alternative construction-related impacts assumed to be no more than one-half those of other alternatives. | |||
Table C1-7 presents the source term for the construction equipment emissions used for all alternatives except the No Action Alternative.
Estimated impacts on air quality from construction equipment emissions are shown in table C1-8. These impacts apply to all alternatives except the No Action Alternative, which is estimated to have air quality impacts no more than one-half of the other alternatives for construction-related activities.
C1.3.3. Hydrodynamic Testing
Five ambient air pollutants - NO2, PM10, beryllium, heavy metals (uranium and lead), and lead - are assumed to be emitted during hydrodynamic testing. These are products of detonation of high explosives and the resultant aerosolization of metals. It is assumed that the high explosives do not contain any significant amounts of sulfur; thus, they are not a source of sulfur dioxide.
For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that 10 percent of the metals in a device become respirable (PM10) following a test. The remaining materials, detectable above background levels, stay within 460 ft (140 m) of the firing point (see appendix B). Table C1-9Table C1-9.-Estimated Material Released to the Environment During a Year
of Testing for the No Action and Enhanced Containment Alternatives
Alternative |
DU (kg) |
Be (kg) |
Pb (kg) |
Cu (kg) |
Other Metal (kg) |
HE (kg) |
LiH (kg) |
Total (kg) |
|
No Actiona |
700 |
10 |
15 |
100 |
200 |
1,500 |
100 |
_2,600 |
Enhanced Containment |
||||||||
Vessel Building Phased |
210 42 330b |
3 1 5b |
4 1 7b |
30 6 50b |
60 12 90b |
1,500 1,400 1,500b |
30 6 50b |
_1,800 _1,500 _2,000b |
|
DU = Depleted uranium Be = Beryllium Pb = Lead Cu = Copper HE = High explosives LiH = Lithium hydride | ||||||||
a Other alternatives are the same as the No Action Alternative. b Annual average over 30-year operating life. | ||||||||
gives the estimated maximum amount of material used each year in the No Action and the Enhanced Containment alternatives. With the exception of the Enhanced Containment Alternative, all the alternatives involve the same amount of material. Under the Enhanced Containment Alternative, the containment building or vessel limits the release of gases, fine particles, and fragments to 6 percent of the values estimated for the other alternatives. The 6 percent release factor is a highly conservative assumption that accounts for potential leakage of the containment structure and vessel/building failure. Annual concentrations are calculated using the ISCLT2 model.
For the 24-h concentration of PM10, an estimate of the largest amount of material to be expended in a 24-h period is needed. To provide a rough estimate of the maximum amount of material that could be detonated in a 24-h period, the largest test device detonation was used for all alternatives, assuming detonation of 500 lb (230 kg) of material in a 24-h period. The same emission rate was used for all alternatives except the Enhanced Containment Alternative, for which the emission rate is assumed to be 6 percent of the No Action Alternative. The 24-h PM10 concentrations are calculated using the SCREEN2 model.
Nitrogen dioxide can be produced from the detonation of high explosives. Because the type of high explosives to be used during testing is variable, a bounding case is used. The high explosive used in thisassessment was nitroglycerine (even though this specific explosive would not be used in hydrodynamic testing) because it has the highest emission rate of nitrogen dioxide, 53 lb/ton (26 kg/MT), of any of the explosives listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for stationary point and area sources (EPA 1993). Table C1-9 shows the yearly amount of high explosives to be used for the No Action and Enhanced Containment alternatives. All alternatives except the Enhancement Containment Alternative use the same amount of explosives as the No Action Alternative.
The annual emission rate for nitrogen dioxide from hydrodynamic testing is the product of the number of tons of high explosive used per year and the amount of nitrogen dioxide released per ton of explosive. The emission rate for nitrogen dioxide is the same for all alternatives except the Enhanced Containment Alternative, which uses a smaller quantity of high explosives. The annual concentrations are calculated using the ISCLT2 model.
For the 24-h emission rate of nitrogen dioxide from hydrodynamic testing, the largest amount of high explosive expended in a 24-h period is needed. This quantity is not known. It is assumed that 500 lb (230 kg) of high explosive (nitroglycerine for purposes of nitrogen dioxide emission) will be the maximum amount detonated in a 24-h period. The same emission rate is used for all alternatives. (In the Enhanced Containment Alternative, nitrogen dioxide emissions might initially be contained, but they are soon vented from the building or vessel.) The 24-h concentrations are calculated using the SCREEN2 model.
TableTable C1-10.-Source Term for Hydrodynamic Testing for the No Action
and Enhanced Containment Alternatives
Alternative |
Pollutant |
Averaging Time |
Mass of Pollutant per Time Period |
Maximum Emission Rate (g/s) |
|
No Actiona |
PM10 NO2 |
Annual 24-h Annual 24-h |
260 kg/yr 23 kg/24-h 39 kg/yr 5.9 kg/24-h |
8.3 x 10-3 2.6 x 10-1 1.2 x 10-3 6.8 x 10-2 |
Enhanced Containment |
PM10b NO2 |
Annual 24-h Annual 24-h |
8.8 kg/yr 1.4 kg/24-h 36 kg/yr 5.9 kg/24-h |
2.8 x 10-4 1.6 x 10-2 1.1 x 10-1 6.8 x 10-2 |
|
a Other alternatives are the same as the No Action Alternative. b Values shown are for the Building Containment Option. Values for the Vessel Containment Option and Phased Containment Option would be between the No Action Alternative and Building Containment Option values. | ||||
Table C1-11.-Data Used to Estimate Ambient Air Concentrations
of Metals from Hydrodynamic Testing
Parameter |
Uncontained Detonation |
Containment Release |
Release height |
elevated (99 m) |
ground level (<10 m) |
__/Q´ |
6.8 x 10-8 s/m3 |
5.3 x 10-7 s/m3 |
Release fraction |
1.0 |
0.06 |
Respirable fraction |
0.1 |
1.0 |
· Comparison point was at State Road 4, approximately 0.9 mi (1.5 km) southwest of the DARHT site. · Comparisons to 30-day air quality standards for heavy metals and beryllium assumed 25 percent of the annual usage of materials; assumed quantities used were 175 kg uranium, 2.5 kg beryllium, and 3.75 kg lead. · Comparison to the calendar quarter air quality standard for lead assumed 50 percent of the annual usage of material; assumed quantity used was 7.5 kg lead. · Uncontained detonation characterized the No Action, DARHT Baseline, Upgrade PHERMEX, Plutonium Exclusion, and Single Axis alternatives. · The Building Containment Option of the Enhanced Containment Alternative was characterized as 100 percent containment use. · The Vessel Containment Option of the Enhanced Containment Alternative was characterized as 25 percent uncontained detonation, 75 percent containment use. · The Phased Containment Option (preferred alternative) of the Enhanced Containment Alternative was evaluated as 1) 5 percent containment release and 95 percent uncontained detonation; 2) 40 percent containment release and 60 percent uncontained detonation; and 3) same as the Vessel Containment Option of the Enhanced Containment Alternative. | ||
C1-10 gives the source term used to estimate the air quality impacts from PM10 and NO2 due to hydrodynamic testing for the No Action and Enhanced Containment alternatives. As stated before, all alternatives except the Enhanced Containment Alternative are assumed to be the same as the No Action Alternative.
Ambient air concentrations for beryllium, heavy metals (uranium and lead), and lead were estimated using information presented in table C1-11. Twenty-five percent of the annual usage of metals was assumed to be released during the 30-day averaging time for beryllium and heavy metals, and 50 percent was assumed released during the calendar quarter averaging time for lead. Estimated impacts on air quality from releases of metals during hydrodynamic testing are shown in table C1-12.Table C1-12.-Impacts on Air Quality from Hydrodynamic Testing
for the Enhanced Containment Alternative
Pollutant |
Averaging Time |
Maximally Impacted Point of Unrestricted Public Access (µg/m3) |
Percent of Regulatory Limita |
|
NO2 |
Annual 24-h |
8 x 10-4 0.9 |
0.001% 0.6% |
PM10 |
Annual 24-h |
0.003 0.2c 3.2d |
0.006% 0.1%c 2.1%d |
Beryllium |
30 days |
2 x 10-5 |
0.0002% |
Heavy Metalsb |
30 days |
0.002 |
0.02% |
Lead |
Calendar Quarter |
1 x 10-4 |
0.007% |
|
a Uses the applicable regulatory limit from table 4-3. b Sum of the air concentration of uranium and lead. c Building Containment Option. d Vessel Containment and Phased Containment options. | |||
Air quality impacts from uncontained detonations are lower than those from containment releases. There are three major reasons for this.
· Atmospheric Dispersion: There is more atmospheric dispersion from uncontained detonations than from containment releases. Greater dispersion results in lower contaminant concentrations in air. Dispersion of ground-level releases is considerably less than for elevated releases, particularly for nearby locations. In general, ground-level releases impact closer individuals much more than elevated releases, which have greater impact on distant individuals and populations because of the greater dispersion. Thus, even though less material is released via the enhanced containment alternative, the potential for exposure is greater because of the decreased dispersion of ground-level releases.
· Source Term: It is conservatively assumed that 6 percent of the material used inside containment would be released. These releases from containment would be ground-level [< 30 ft (< 10-m high)] releases occurring as part of normal operations (1 percent) or small failures (5 percent) of the containment structure (building or vessel), rather than elevated releases as for uncontained detonations.
· Receptor Location: The point where a member of the public could receive the maximum offsite exposure is only 0.9 mi (1.5 km) from the firing point, southwest to State Road 4. This relatively short distance to the receptor and point of air quality determination tends to maximize the issues raised in items 1 and 2 above.
Item 1 above relatively decreases the impact of uncontained detonations, item 2 relatively decreases the impact of contained releases, and item 3 relatively increases the impact of contained releases. Taking all these issues into consideration, 100 percent containment releases have an air quality impact about five times those of 100-percent uncontained detonation releases.
Estimated impacts on air quality from uncontained detonations during hydrodynamic testing are shown in table C1-13Table C1-13.-Impacts on Air Quality from Hydrodynamic
Testing for All Uncontained Alternatives
Pollutant |
Averaging Time |
Maximally Impacted Point of Unrestricted Public Access (µg/m3) |
Percent of Regulatory Limita |
|
NO2 |
Annual 24-h |
0.001 0.9 |
0.001% 0.6% |
PM10 |
Annual 24-h |
0.007 3.2 |
0.01% 2.1% |
Beryllium |
30 days |
5 x 10-6 |
0.00005% |
Heavy Metalsb |
30 days |
5 x 10-4 |
0.005% |
Lead |
Calendar Quarter |
2 x 10-5 |
0.001% |
|
a Uses the applicable regulatory limit shown in table 4-3. b Sum of the air concentration of uranium and lead. | |||
Table C1-14.-Emission of Primary Pollutants from Natural Gas
Combustion, Heating Value, and Hourly Gas Input for an 80-hp
Commercial Boiler for All Alternatives
Pollutant |
Pollutant Emitted (kg of pollutant per 106 m3 of fuel) |
Heating Value (kcal/m3) |
Hourly Gas Input (103 Btu/hr) |
|
NO2 |
1,600 |
8,270 |
3,348 |
SO2 |
9.6 |
8,270 |
3,348 |
PM10 |
192 |
8,270 |
3,348 |
. These impacts apply to all alternatives except the Enhanced Containment Alternative. Impacts from the Enhanced Containment Alternative are shown in table C1-12.
C1.3.4. Boiler Emissions
The only other primary pollutant source from operation of the facility is emissions from the natural gas boiler used for heating. The natural gas boiler is assumed to be a commercial boiler (80 hp) with an hourly gas input rate of 3,348,000 Btu/hr. The emission rate of each pollutant can be calculated from the emission factors for commercial natural gas boilers given in EPA's AP-42 document (EPA 1993). TableTable C1-15.-Source Term for Emissions from the Natural Gas Boiler
Used in Heating the Facilities for All Alternatives
Pollutant |
Averaging Time |
Mass of Pollutant per Time Period |
Maximum Emission Rate (g/s) |
|
PM10 |
Annual 24-hr |
170 kg/yr 4.7 x 10-1 kg/24-h |
5.4 x 10-3 5.4 x 10-3 |
NO2 |
Annual 24-hr |
1,400 kg/yr 3.8 kg/24-h |
4.5 x 10-2 4.5 x 10-2 |
SO2 |
Annual 24-hr 3-hr |
8.6 kg/yr 2.4 x 10-2 kg/24-h 2.9 x 10-3 kg/3-h |
2.7 x 10-4 2.7 x 10-4 2.7 x 10-4 |
Table C1-16.-Impacts on Air Quality from Emissions
from the Natural Gas Boiler for All Alternatives
Pollutant |
Averaging Time |
Maximally Impacted Point of Unrestricted Public Access (µg/m3) |
Percent of Regulatory Limita |
|
NO2 |
Annual 24-h |
0.04 1 |
0.06% 0.7% |
PM10 |
Annual 24-h |
0.004 0.1 |
0.008% 0.07% |
SO2 |
Annual 24-h 3-h |
0.0002 0.006 0.03 |
0.0005% 0.003% 0.003% |
|
a Uses the applicable regulatory limit from table 4-3. Note: Air quality impacts are identical for all alternatives. | |||
C1-14 gives these emission rates in units of kilograms of primary pollutant (nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and PM10) per million m3 of natural gas. The rates are computed assuming a heating rate of 8,270 kcal/m3 of natural gas (EPA 1993). To be conservative, the boiler is assumed to run continuouslythroughout the year. It is also assumed that the boiler has no emissions controls for nitrogen dioxide. Since the hourly gas input rate is known, there is no special requirement for finding the short-term emission rates compared to annual emission rates. The emission rate is the same for all alternatives. Table C1-15 presents the source term used to estimate the air quality impacts due to emissions from the natural gas boiler. All the concentrations are calculated using the ISC2 models.
Estimated impacts on air quality from boiler emissions are shown in table C1-16. These impacts apply to all alternatives.
This evaluation of noise impacts focuses on three sources of noise: construction noise associated with each alternative, increases or decreases in traffic and resulting noise propagation in adjacent communities based on facility construction and operation, and effects of noise from the firing of test shots at the facilities. In support of the evaluation, this appendix reviews how meteorological conditions and terrain influence sound travel, summarizes noise measurements made at a series of testing firings at PHERMEX on March 11, 1995, and documents the tests or methods employed in the noise analysis.
C2.1 GENERAL INFORMATION
Noise is defined as sound that is loud, harsh, or confusing to humans. The standard unit of sound pressure level is the decibel (dB). The decibel (dB) is an expression of sound pressure level that is referenced to a pressure of 20 micropascals expressed on a logarithmic scale,
1 dB = 20 log10 (p/20)
where p is the sound pressure in micropascals. Twenty micropascals approximates the minimum audible sound pressure level in humans and is routinely used for noise levels. The dB(A) is an expression of adjusted pressure levels by frequency that accounts for human perception of loudness; consequently, dB(A) is most often used when evaluating human noise disturbance. For example, at a frequency of 500 Hz, 60 dB are reduced by 3.2 dB to give an a-weighted pressure level of 56.8 dB(A). Frequencies lower than 500 Hz sustain a larger adjustment (from -8.6 to -26.2 dB compared to frequencies greater than 500 Hz (-1.1 to 1.2).
For this assessment, noise is expressed in two forms. A-weighted sound pressure levels (dBA) are adjusted values that are most indicative of adverse community responses to noise. Firing noise levels are reported as peak dBA levels. Noise derived from traffic estimates are reported as 1-h equivalent sound levels (Leq). The Leq (in dBA) is the equivalent steady-state sound level that, if continuous during a specified time period, would contain the same energy as the actual time-varying sound over the monitored or modeled time period (in this case, 1 h). Except for vehicles exceeding 10,000 lb (4,540 kg) Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW), vehicle noise on public thoroughfares is exempted from residential noise standards.
C2.2 NOISE ANALYSIS MARCH 1995 TEST SHOTS
On March 11, 1995, at the PHERMEX pad, a series of test shots was fired to obtain seismic and acoustic measurements at selected locations. The coordinates at the PHERMEX firing point were North 35_49.957´ and West 106_17.739´. Acoustic (sound pressure) readings were taken by instruments fitted with wind screens at three locations: Technical Area 49 (TA-49), Bandelier National Monument entrance, and the community of White Rock.
C2.2.1 TA-49
The sampling location was located approximately 3/4 mi (1 km) east of the TA-49 Gate along State Route 4 (coordinates for this site were North 35_49.133´ and West 106_18.518´). A multi-spectral IVIE sound-level meter (IVIE #677) was used to record maximum sound pressure levels at nine standard frequencies. This location was the shortest distance between the firing site and the site boundary.
C2.2.2 Bandelier National Monument Entrance
This sampling location was located just off State Route 4 in a turn-off on the east side of the highway about 100 yards west of the entrance to Bandelier National Monument. The coordinates were North 35_47.797´ and West 106_16.545´. A multi-spectral IVIE sound-level meter (IVIE #436) was used to record maximum sound pressure levels at nine standard frequencies. This location represents the closest residence to the PHERMEX firing site.
C2.2.3 White Rock Community
This station was located about 100 to 150 ft (30 to 45 m) east of the intersection of State Route 4 and Karen Circle Road on LANL property just off State Route 4. The mean coordinates of two readings were North 35_82.026´ and West 106_22.182´. A-weighted sound levels were measured with a GenRad Precision Sound Level Meter at 250 Hz. On March 11, 1995, White Rock, which is generally ENE of PHERMEX, was not directly downwind of PHERMEX. Because of terrain and anticipated wind patterns, this location represents the community that is most likely to have the greatest noise levels resulting from blasts.
Acoustic measurements collected on March 11, 1995, measured air over pressure signals (frequencies from 2 to 200 Hz) with a microphone equipped with a wind screen. Measurements were collected at the TA-49 location from two duplicate sensors (Station B1 and Station B2), as shown in table C2-1Table C2-1.-Acoustic (Airblast) Measurement at TA-49 Seismic
and Acoustic Monitoring Stations, March 11, 1995
Shot # |
Loada |
Time |
Station B1 |
Station B2 | ||||
AOPb |
dB |
Hz |
AOPb |
dB |
Hz | |||
|
0942 |
10 |
12:15 |
<0.04 |
NS |
NS |
<0.04 |
NS |
NS |
0943 |
25 |
12:38 |
<0.04 |
NS |
NS |
<0.04 |
NS |
NS |
0944 |
50 |
13:01 |
0.17 |
119 |
6.6 |
0.14 |
117 |
6.9 |
0945 |
50 |
13:33 |
<0.04 |
NS |
NS |
<0.04 |
NS |
NS |
0946 |
100 |
13:54 |
0.11 |
116 |
6.0 |
0.12 |
116 |
6.2 |
0958 |
150 |
14:16 |
0.21 |
121 |
7.1 |
0.20 |
120 |
5.0 |
|
a lb TNT used b Air overpressure in millibars dB = decibel Hz = frequency, in Hertz NS = not sampled | ||||||||
Table C2-2.-Estimated Distances Between PHERMEX
Firing Site and Sound Measurement Locations
Location |
Distance |
|
TA-49 (off Route 4) |
1.3 mi (2 km) |
Bandelier National Monument Entrance |
2.6 mi (4 km) |
White Rock |
4.0 mi (6 km) |
Los Alamos |
3.0 mi (5 km) |
. Air blast measurements were measured at frequencies (5 to 15 Hz) which do not contribute to the A-weighted measurements for evaluation of human noise impacts. Consequently, air blast measurements are not addressed further.
Meteorological and environmental factors significantly affected the March 11, 1995, noise measurements. Terrain and wind are discussed below.
C2.2.4 Terrain
LANL is situated on the Pajarito Plateau and supports a mixture of conifers, trees, and shrubs. This ground cover will attenuate sound as it travels over land. Generally, the higher frequency sound is more
effectively attenuated than lower frequencies. The rate of attenuation through medium-dense woods at 250 Hz is 0.06 dB/m (EEI 1978); hence, attenuation in low-frequency bands that characterize blast noise is significant. The mesas, which run in an east-southeasterly direction, are separated by valleys that may also channel and influence offsite noise measurements.
Portions of the community of Los Alamos are closer to PHERMEX than White Rock (table C2-2), but they are located uphill over heavily forested terrain and beyond a hill. These factors would tend to significantly reduce noise levels at locations north and northwest of PHERMEX. Communities located to the east of LANL are lower in elevation and may have noise channeled into the community down through the valleys.
C2.2.5 Wind
Wind measurements are summarized from data collected at the TA-49 weather station (table Table C2-3.-Summary of Meteorological Data Collected
at TA-49 Weather Station March 11, 1995
Shot # |
Approximate Time |
Time |
Wind Speed (mi/h) |
Wind Direction (Degrees N=0) |
Temperature (_F) |
Relative Humidity (percent) |
|
12:00 |
9.7 |
183 |
54.1 |
37 | ||
942 |
12:16 |
12:15 |
12.1 |
182 |
57.0 |
33 |
12:30 |
13.0 |
182 |
57.7 |
31 | ||
943 |
12:39 |
12:45 |
15.4 |
187 |
56.8 |
31 |
944 |
13:02 |
13:00 |
13.9 |
177 |
58.6 |
31 |
13:15 |
16.1 |
180 |
59.0 |
30 | ||
945 |
13:33 |
13:30 |
17.4 |
190 |
58.1 |
30 |
13:45 |
13.9 |
194 |
57.4 |
30 | ||
946 |
13:55 |
14:00 |
15.4 |
187 |
7.0 |
31 |
958 |
14:17 |
14:15 |
14.5 |
189 |
57.0 |
31 |
14:30 |
11.0 |
183 |
56.5 |
32 |
C2-3). As the firings progressed, wind velocity steadily increased; however, the winds varied and were gusty. The wind measurements do not indicate gusts of possible greater speed that may have occurred at the time of firing. Sound moving into the wind is bent upwards, producing a shadow zone and generally reducing sound levels measured at ground level in an upwind location (EEI 1978). The Bandelier location is located to the south of the firing site and the TA-49 location is located to the SW. The prevailing winds would, therefore, reduce the measurements recorded at these two upwind locations. Sound traveling with the wind is forced downward, which effectively negates any ground-level attenuation that may result from trees, shrubs, terrain, or other sound-attenuating obstructions. This situation is further exacerbated by thegeneral decrease in slope from the PHERMEX firing site to the White Rock location. Because White Rock is located generally east of PHERMEX, the prevailing wind conditions would tend to increase noise levels there. Daytime winds are generally westerly during the months of March, April, and May (Bowen 1990), hence the selection of the White Rock location. However, during the March 11, 1995, testing, the winds came from the south.
Temperatures and relative humidity varied little over the duration of the firings (table C2-3). The differential effects on noise travel would not significantly affect measured noise levels during the March 11, 1995, tests.
C2.2.6 Measured Sound Levels at White Rock, Bandelier Entrance, and TA-49
During the testing, sound pressure recording generally increased with blast intensity (table C2-4Table C2-4.-Noise Measurements Conducted at LANL on March 11, 1995
). The noise variation observed by frequency and intensity is caused by the fluctuating wind that changed, not only in direction, but in speed. Under ideal conditions of calm and optimum temperature and humidity, it is possible for sound pressure levels at the TA-49 Site boundary location to exceed 70 dBA with the larger blasts. The lower power firings will have a lower probability of exceeding the 75-dBA Los Alamos County daytime guideline. The nighttime standard imposed from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. of 53 dBA can be exceeded at the closest site boundary locations. The diverse terrain and the frequency and directional variability of winds complicate routine noise estimation procedures and introduce a high level of uncertainty.
With a base schedule of 20 shots per year, blast noise impacts are considered equivalent for all alternatives except the Enhanced Containment Alternative. In this option, containment may reduce blast noise by as much as 80 percent; however, uncertainties in the choice of a vessel or a building and the design of containment prevent a more specific evaluation of blast noise impacts. The county noise regulations restrict maximum noise levels to 75 dBA for a period of not more than 10 minutes in a single hour during daylight hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.). Monitoring results indicate that it would be extremely unlikely for this guideline to be exceeded as an instantaneous measurement of more than 75 dBA or for 10 min of blast-associated noise to exceed 65 dBA in a given hour. (Under test shot operating procedures, it is not
possible for more than three shots to be fired in one hour.) However, the likelihood of exceeding the 53-dBA county limit for nighttime noise imposed from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. is high.
C2.3 WORKER PROTECTION
Construction workers are protected by administrative procedures and protective devices (such as ear plugs or muffs). Threshold limit values (ACGIH 1993) for impulse noise are 100 impulses per day at 140 dB. The maximum number of firings in an 8-h period, assuming 20 minutes between shots, is 25, well below the limit. Safety procedures implemented during firing create an exclusion zone that would protect staff from excessive impulse noise due to intensity and frequency.
C2.4 WILDLIFE
Firing noise may potentially impact sensitive wildlife, such as nesting birds. A group of deer observed during the first test shot on March 11, 1995, had an unhabituated startle response to the first firing. This observation suggests that local wildlife have not habituated to routine firings. However, the general health and well-being of deer and elk herds in the area suggest that testing programs involving firings have not had an adverse effect on ungulate populations at LANL or Bandelier National Monument.
C2.5 ESTIMATION OF TRAFFIC NOISE
Traffic noise is exempted under Los Alamos County noise regulations; however, increases in traffic can result in complaints about associated noise or congestion. A regression equation was developed from modeled data of traffic volume (vehicles/h) and estimated noise levels (1-h Leq in dBA). The modeled data was developed to assess traffic noise associated with the New Production Reactor Environmental Impact Statement (DOE 1991). The regression equation was:
Y = 48.35549 + 7.25929X
where Y is the predicted noise level in 1 h Leq (dBA) and X is the log of the hourly traffic volume.
For the analysis, three baseline levels of traffic volume were used: 10, 100, and 1,000 vehicles/h. The 10-vehicle/h limit might approximate early morning traffic. The 1,000-vehicle/h value is a conservative estimate of rush hour traffic volume. The larger the baseline traffic volume, the less significant the potential impact on overall traffic noise in the community. Incremental increases of traffic for each of these standard traffic volumes were raised by the full-time equivalents (FTEs) associated with each alternative. The impact was then related to the base flow to define the range of impact [the change (·) in table C2-5]. The same approach was used to estimate increases in traffic due to construction. Mean and maximum construction forces of 50 and 75 staff, respectively, were used in the assessment and the differences between alternatives resulting from the length of the construction phase.
Table C2-5.-Estimated Traffic Noise Increases by Alternative for Operation and Construction
Volume (Vehicles/hr) |
Log Volume |
Estimated Leq |
Baseline Leq |
Change in Leq (·Leq) |
|
OPERATIONS Analysis Baseline Traffic Flow 10 100 1000 No Action Alternative (based on 13.4 FTEs) 23 113 1013 DARHT Baseline Alternative (based on 19.9 FTEs) 30 120 1020 Enhanced Containment Alternative (based on 28.5 FTEs) 39 129 1029 Plutonium Exclusion Alternative (based on 19.9 FTEs) 30 120 1020 Single-Axis Alternative (based on 17.34 FTEs) 27 117 1017 PHERMEX Upgrade Alternative (based on 19.9 FTEs) 30 120 1020 CONSTRUCTION Maximum 85 175 1075 Mean 60 150 1050 |
1 2 3 1.4 2.1 3.0 1.5 2.1 3.0 1.6 2.1 3.0 1.5 2.1 3.0 1.4 2.1 3.0 1.5 2.1 3.0 1.9 2.2 3.0 1.8 2.2 3.0 |
56 63 70 58 63 71 59 63 70 60 64 70 59 63 70 59 63 70 60 63 70 62 65 70 61 64 70 |
NA NA NA 56 63 70 56 63 70 56 63 70 56 63 70 56 63 70 56 63 70 56 63 70 56 63 70 |
NA NA NA 2.7 0.4 0.04 3.5 0.6 0.06 4.3 0.8 0.09 3.4 0.6 0.06 3.2 0.5 0.05 3.4 0.6 0.06 6.8 1.8 0.2 5.7 1.3 0.2 |
|
Leq is the one-hour equivalent sound level. | ||||
The increases in traffic noise associated with all alternatives, compared to the No Action Alternative, are inconsequential because, in the modeled assumptions, the expected increases in traffic noise would not increase residential noise levels above 5 dBA. Within Los Alamos County noise standards, operation of motor vehicles on public thoroughfares is exempted from the county noise code.
C.3 REFERENCES CITED IN APPENDIX C
ACGIH (American Conference of Government and Industrial Hygienists), 1993, 1992-1993 Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Bowen, B.M., 1990, Los Alamos Climatology, LA-11735-MS, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico.
DOE (Department of Energy), 1991, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Siting, Construction, and Operation of New Production Reactor Capacity, Vol. 4: Appendices D-R, April, Washington, D.C.
EEI (Edision Electric Institute), 1978, Electric Power Plant Environmental Noise Guide, Vol. 1 and 2, New York, New York.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1988, PM10 Emission Factors for Selected Open Area Dust Sources, EPA-450/4-88-003, Office of Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1991, Supplement A to Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Volume 2: Mobile Sources, AP-42, Vol. 2 Suppl. A, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Mobile Sources, Test and Evaluation Branch, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1992a, User's Guide for Industrial Source Complex (ISC2) Dispersion Models Volume I - User Instructions, EPA-450/4-92-008a, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Technical Support Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1992b, SCREEN2 Model User's Guide, EPA-450/4-92-006, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Technical Support Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1993, Supplement F to Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, AP-42, Vol.1 Suppl. F. Office of Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Holzworth, G.C., 1972, Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States, PB-207-102, Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Seinfeld, J.H., 1986, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics of Air Pollution, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Exhibit C1-1.-Joint Frequency Distribution of Atmospheric Stability, Wind Direction,
and Wind Speed for Los Alamos National Laboratory at Tower TA-6
Wind measurements were made on-site at 32 ft (10 m) above ground level. Data are
based on measurements made from 1990 through 1993.
WIND DIRECTION
STAB FROM WHICH THE WIND SPEED CLASS (m/s)
CLASS WIND IS BLOWING 0 - 1.8 1.8 - 3.3 3.3 - 5.5 5.5 - 8.5 8.5 - 11.5 > 11.5
A |
NORTH |
0.0014 |
0.0005 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
A |
NORTH-NORTHEAST |
0.0022 |
0.0006 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
A |
NORTHEAST |
0.0048 |
0.0019 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
A |
EAST-NORTHEAST |
0.0086 |
0.0023 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
A |
EAST |
0.0096 |
0.0031 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
A |
EAST-SOUTHEAST |
0.0081 |
0.0044 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
A |
SOUTHEAST |
0.0086 |
0.0076 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
A |
SOUTH-SOUTHEAST |
0.0066 |
0.0074 |
0.0002 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
A |
SOUTH |
0.0038 |
0.0039 |
0.0003 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
A |
SOUTH-SOUTHWEST |
0.0017 |
0.0013 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
A |
SOUTHWEST |
0.0010 |
0.0007 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
A |
WEST-SOUTHWEST |
0.0007 |
0.0005 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
A |
WEST |
0.0007 |
0.0004 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
A |
WEST-NORTHWEST |
0.0007 |
0.0003 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
A |
NORTHWEST |
0.0009 |
0.0006 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
A |
NORTH-NORTHWEST |
0.0007 |
0.0006 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
B |
NORTH |
0.0005 |
0.0004 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
B |
NORTH-NORTHEAST |
0.0008 |
0.0012 |
0.0002 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
B |
NORTHEAST |
0.0019 |
0.0031 |
0.0004 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
B |
EAST-NORTHEAST |
0.0029 |
0.0032 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
B |
EAST |
0.0029 |
0.0032 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
B |
EAST-SOUTHEAST |
0.0020 |
0.0041 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
B |
SOUTHEAST |
0.0019 |
0.0055 |
0.0005 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
B |
SOUTH-SOUTHEAST |
0.0021 |
0.0085 |
0.0022 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
B |
SOUTH |
0.0016 |
0.0066 |
0.0035 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
B |
SOUTH-SOUTHWEST |
0.0008 |
0.0026 |
0.0019 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
B |
SOUTHWEST |
0.0005 |
0.0011 |
0.0010 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
B |
WEST-SOUTHWEST |
0.0002 |
0.0008 |
0.0004 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
B |
WEST |
0.0002 |
0.0007 |
0.0002 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
B |
WEST-NORTHWEST |
0.0002 |
0.0007 |
0.0002 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
B |
NORTHWEST |
0.0002 |
0.0008 |
0.0004 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
B |
NORTH-NORTHWEST |
0.0002 |
0.0005 |
0.0003 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
C |
NORTH |
0.0008 |
0.0013 |
0.0005 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
C |
NORTH-NORTHEAST |
0.0016 |
0.0037 |
0.0019 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
C |
NORTHEAST |
0.0026 |
0.0058 |
0.0021 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
C |
EAST-NORTHEAST |
0.0035 |
0.0031 |
0.0002 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
C |
EAST |
0.0040 |
0.0041 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
C |
EAST-SOUTHEAST |
0.0021 |
0.0046 |
0.0004 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
C |
SOUTHEAST |
0.0018 |
0.0030 |
0.0007 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
C |
SOUTH-SOUTHEAST |
0.0022 |
0.0087 |
0.0076 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
C |
SOUTH |
0.0026 |
0.0141 |
0.0160 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
C |
SOUTH-SOUTHWEST |
0.0014 |
0.0073 |
0.0090 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
C |
SOUTHWEST |
0.0009 |
0.0039 |
0.0053 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
C |
WEST-SOUTHWEST |
0.0004 |
0.0021 |
0.0046 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
C |
WEST |
0.0004 |
0.0014 |
0.0026 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
C |
WEST-NORTHWEST |
0.0003 |
0.0013 |
0.0019 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
C |
NORTHWEST |
0.0004 |
0.0016 |
0.0026 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
Exhibit C1-1.-Joint Frequency Distribution of Atmospheric Stability, Wind Direction,
and Wind Speed for Los Alamos National Laboratory at Tower TA-6 - Continued
WIND DIRECTION
STAB FROM WHICH THE WIND SPEED CLASS (m/s)
CLASS WIND IS BLOWING 0 - 1.8 1.8 - 3.3 3.3 - 5.5 5.5 - 8.5 8.5 - 11.5 > 11.5
C |
NORTH-NORTHWEST |
0.0004 |
0.0009 |
0.0007 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
D |
NORTH |
0.0098 |
0.0083 |
0.0011 |
0.0003 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
D |
NORTH-NORTHEAST |
0.0079 |
0.0081 |
0.0031 |
0.0010 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
D |
NORTHEAST |
0.0067 |
0.0041 |
0.0007 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
D |
EAST-NORTHEAST |
0.0046 |
0.0010 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
D |
EAST |
0.0055 |
0.0020 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
D |
EAST-SOUTHEAST |
0.0046 |
0.0024 |
0.0003 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
D |
SOUTHEAST |
0.0040 |
0.0012 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
D |
SOUTH-SOUTHEAST |
0.0060 |
0.0044 |
0.0022 |
0.0002 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
D |
SOUTH |
0.0098 |
0.0131 |
0.0041 |
0.0013 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
D |
SOUTH-SOUTHWEST |
0.0099 |
0.0221 |
0.0101 |
0.0027 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
D |
SOUTHWEST |
0.0085 |
0.0204 |
0.0084 |
0.0019 |
0.0002 |
0.0000 |
D |
WEST-SOUTHWEST |
0.0065 |
0.0120 |
0.0089 |
0.0038 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
D |
WEST |
0.0062 |
0.0095 |
0.0145 |
0.0090 |
0.0012 |
0.0001 |
D |
WEST-NORTHWEST |
0.0058 |
0.0092 |
0.0147 |
0.0101 |
0.0020 |
0.0012 |
D |
NORTHWEST |
0.0080 |
0.0130 |
0.0095 |
0.0030 |
0.0002 |
0.0000 |
D |
NORTH-NORTHWEST |
0.0079 |
0.0071 |
0.0011 |
0.0002 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
E |
NORTH |
0.0056 |
0.0027 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
E |
NORTH-NORTHEAST |
0.0028 |
0.0011 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
E |
NORTHEAST |
0.0016 |
0.0003 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
E |
EAST-NORTHEAST |
0.0008 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
E |
EAST |
0.0008 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
E |
EAST-SOUTHEAST |
0.0008 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
E |
SOUTHEAST |
0.0009 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
E |
SOUTH-SOUTHEAST |
0.0015 |
0.0004 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
E |
SOUTH |
0.0026 |
0.0013 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
E |
SOUTH-SOUTHWEST |
0.0047 |
0.0036 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
E |
SOUTHWEST |
0.0063 |
0.0076 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
E |
WEST-SOUTHWEST |
0.0047 |
0.0151 |
0.0007 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
E |
WEST |
0.0039 |
0.0093 |
0.0029 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
E |
WEST-NORTHWEST |
0.0038 |
0.0096 |
0.0050 |
0.0005 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
E |
NORTHWEST |
0.0062 |
0.0231 |
0.0010 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
E |
NORTH-NORTHWEST |
0.0063 |
0.0070 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
F |
NORTH |
0.0058 |
0.0011 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
F |
NORTH-NORTHEAST |
0.0031 |
0.0005 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
F |
NORTHEAST |
0.0019 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
F |
EAST-NORTHEAST |
0.0005 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
F |
EAST |
0.0008 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
F |
EAST-SOUTHEAST |
0.0009 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
F |
SOUTHEAST |
0.0009 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
F |
SOUTH-SOUTHEAST |
0.0011 |
0.0001 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
F |
SOUTH |
0.0020 |
0.0002 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
F |
SOUTH-SOUTHWEST |
0.0032 |
0.0003 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
F |
SOUTHWEST |
0.0058 |
0.0013 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
F |
WEST-SOUTHWEST |
0.0078 |
0.0068 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
F |
WEST |
0.0101 |
0.0307 |
0.0028 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
F |
WEST-NORTHWEST |
0.0100 |
0.0308 |
0.0035 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
F |
NORTHWEST |
0.0111 |
0.0149 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
F |
NORTH-NORTHWEST |
0.0078 |
0.0030 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
air quality C-1, C-7, C-6, C-8, C-11, C-10, C-11, C-10, C-12, C-13, C-22
beryllium C-1, C-9, C-11, C-10, C-11, C-13
containment C-9, C-10, C-11, C-10, C-11, C-10, C-12, C-19, C-21
contaminant C-10
depleted uranium C-9
detonation C-1, C-9, C-11, C-12
detonations C-10, C-12
firing point C-9, C-12, C-15
heavy metals C-1, C-9, C-11, C-10
high explosive C-9, C-10
high explosives C-9, C-10
human health C-5
monitoring C-5, C-17, C-19
noise C-1, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-18, C-19, C-18, C-19, C-20, C-21, C-20, C-22
particulate matter C-1
phased containment C-11
plutonium C-11, C-21
primary C-13, C-12
radiation C-22
vessel containment C-11
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
