Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Permitting”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 541 records · Page 30
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

A Systematic Evidence Based Performance Approach to Regulation of Nuclear Sites in England and Wales - 20058

The Environment Agency for England has developed a systematic evidence-based approach to pursue our strategic environmental objectives for the regulation of nuclear sites. We use an annual evidence review process to ensure effective and efficient targeting of limited resources to achieve those objectives. Over the last 8 years, we have been developing and refining this approach to ensure risk-based and value driven regulation. The approach comprises nuclear site and nuclear sector review processes known as Site Environment Review (SER) and Nuclear Environment Review (NER). This approach complements our regulation of nuclear site permit holders under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR). We deliver our regulation of nuclear sites in England and Wales alongside the Office for Nuclear Regulation. The SER process involves the lead regulator for each nuclear site assessing the permit holder's environmental performance across 14 themes, set within the context of the site's main activities and associated waste disposals. Our themes include environmental leadership, resources and climate change, radioactive waste management, facility management and decommissioning, groundwater, and environmental radiological protection. We use evidence from site inspections and working within our subject matter groups to grade current and predicted future environmental performance. We are particularly interested in sustainability and the application of Best Available Techniques (BAT) to prevent the creation, and minimise the disposal, of radioactive wastes. We use risk analysis (strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities) to examine performance against our strategic environmental objectives, which are set out, in our 5-year Nuclear Delivery Plan (NDP). The output supports the targeting of our resources at each nuclear site. We consult the relevant permit holders on the SER priorities and use their feedback to refine our plans. We expect all permit holders to take account of our priorities when considering their own programmes of work, objectives and plans. The NER process brings together what we learn and achieve through regulation across the sector. It provides input to planning priorities, supported by qualitative and semi-quantitative evidence. It covers the 28 nuclear sites in England and Wales and spans the same 14 environmental themes. During the process we collate, compile and summarise evidence from the SERs and other sources such as inspection reports and evidence from our other nuclear work programmes. The output is the NER annual report. This provides a snapshot of the status of the nuclear sector and gives insights to enable us to regulate more efficiently and effectively. It also takes account of cross-cutting issues and risks such as changes in international standards, domestic policy, regulatory framework, domestic standards and guidance, learning from experience such as incidents, events and good practice, and innovation, research and development. It provides graphics that illustrate the grading of environmental performance for the nuclear sector across the fourteen environmental themes. This analysis allows benchmarking of nuclear site's environmental performance and the visualisation provides a convenient comparison of performance across themes, sites, and over time. We use this intelligence to inform our investment in training and development of our staff, and our cross-cutting engagement on strategic issues with government, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and other corporate organisations. Adopting this approach can provide benefits with organisational reputation, stakeholder participation and ensuring value from the public investment. This paper describes the history of the SER/NER process, a selection of outputs from the process and ideas for improvement. The paper will be of interest to other regulators and organisations across the world that are interested in supporting continuous improvement. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

MH-1A Sturgis Decommissioning and Dismantlement - 20281

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) with its prime contractor, Aptim Federal Services, LLC (APTIM), recycled 5,260 metric tons (11.6 million pounds) of material from Sturgis Barge (Sturgis) during the Decommissioning and Dismantlement of the MH-1A nuclear power reactor. The overall objective of the project was to reduce residual radioactivity associated with MH-1A to levels that permitted release of Sturgis for dismantlement and termination of the Army Reactor Office permit. By effectively applying waste hierarchy's three Rs - reduce, reuse and recycle - the Sturgis project not only minimized the amount of waste that required disposal at landfills, but also reduced the potential for long-term environmental liability emanating from these landfills. The project team completed the physical decommissioning efforts in June 2018 in Galveston, TX. In September 2018, radiological surveys were completed to demonstrate the vessel could be released for shipbreaking. Sturgis was towed from Galveston, TX to Brownsville, TX in late September 2018. Shipbreaking, dismantlement and recycling efforts began in early October 2018 and were completed on 15 March 2019. As part of the decommissioning effort in Galveston, the team shipped 69 shipments (860 metric tons) of low-level radioactive waste and radioactive components to the Waste Control Specialist (WCS) facility in Andrews TX for disposal. Certain radioactive components had to be transferred to the Department of Energy prior to placing the materials into the Federal Waste Facility located within WCS. However, most of the radioactive waste was characterized, profiled, approved and managed under the WCS permitted radioactive waste exemption process authorized and implemented by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the Radioactive Materials Division. This allows LLRW and LLMW to be shipped as regulated waste and then upon receipt at WCS through satisfying the relevant waste acceptance criteria the waste is exempted and placed into the WCS RCRA permitted cell. An additional 35 shipments (544 metric ton) of contaminated hazardous waste water were transported to U.S. Ecology in Robstown, TX for treatment/disposal. An additional 36 shipments (500 metric tons) of non-hazardous wastewater was sent to Republic Waste Services' facility in Fresno, TX. The disposal of these materials required close coordination with State of Texas regulators. During decommissioning, the project team recycled approximately 270 metric tons (600,000 pounds) of lead and steel. As part of the dismantlement in Brownsville, TX the team recycled approximately 5,000 metric tons (11 million pounds) of ferrous and non-ferrous material, limiting our disposal requirements to about 180 metric tons (400,000 pounds) of material (<4% from entire shipbreaking activity). Although the primary hazard being mitigated by this project was radiological, recycling was always a priority for the project. The team strived to achieve sustainability goals as we implemented this one of a kind project. Scrap metal recycling has a large positive impact on the environment and can also favorably impact project disposal costs. Steel is among the most recycled material in the world. Nearly 40% of the world's steel production is made from scrap. Recycling steel also requires 75% less energy than producing it from raw materials. By using recycled steel rather than virgin materials, 2.33 kg of carbon emissions are eliminated per kg of steel [1]. The project recycled more than 4,500 metric tons (10 million pounds) of steel, which eliminated about 10,400 metric tons (23 million pounds) of CO{sub 2}. By implementing a recycling initiative for the Sturgis project, the team was able to realize cost avoidance for disposal of scrap, cost savings from the metals recycled, plus the project provided benefits to the environment through our recycling efforts. Once the dismantlement was complete, the team prepared a detailed decommissioning closure report, which allowed for the termination of the Army Reactor Decommissioning Permit. While it not only reduced any potential long-term environmental liability, this project to decommission and dismantle a floating nuclear power plant is truly unprecedented - it is a prime example of the USACE mission which is: 'Engineering solutions for the Nation's toughest challenges'. This unique, one of a kind, historical power plant was never designed to be taken apart, and the available information about its construction was lacking in many details. The hazards that required mitigation dictated a painstaking and deliberate process in order to avoid any release to the environment and the community, and to protect the health and safety of the workers involved while keeping the waste hierarchy's three R's - reduce, reuse and recycle at the forefront. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Non-Technical Barriers to Geothermal Development in California and Nevada [Slides]

This presentation presents the findings of our study, including an analysis of federal, state, and local geothermal regulatory and permitting processes, case studies analyzing site-specific attributes that may impact project development at four selected geothermal project sites, an analysis of cost and timeline implications for geothermal project development, and the results of a qualitative study focused on inter-agency coordination and collaboration efforts between federal, state, and/or local agencies for geothermal projects located in California and Nevada. Our analysis found that development timelines may be impacted by multiple federal and state environmental review processes and duplicative permitting requirements as well as coordination efforts between numerous federal, state, and local agencies involved in issuing authorizations and permits necessary for project development. In addition, projects in California and Nevada may face site-specific environmental challenges due to the presence of sensitive resources (e.g., biological species and species habitat, cultural resources) that may result in project construction delays. Our study results also indicate that protracted geothermal development timelines caused by delays in acquiring necessary permits and environmental reviews may result in loss of generated electricity revenue and additional financing costs, which may increase economic uncertainty associated with project development. Through our qualitative analysis, we found that utilization of best practices, including tiering to existing environmental review documents and developing memoranda of understanding, which clearly delineate agency roles and responsibilities may reduce overall project timelines, costs, and uncertainties associated with geothermal project development in California and Nevada.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2017

Adding Impacts and Mitigation Measures to OpenEI's RAPID Toolkit

The Open Energy Information platform hosts the Regulatory and Permitting Information Desktop (RAPID) Toolkit to provide renewable energy permitting information on federal and state regulatory processes. One of the RAPID Toolkit's functions is to help streamline the geothermal permitting processes outlined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This is particularly important in the geothermal energy sector since each development phase requires separate land analysis to acquire exploration, well field drilling, and power plant construction permits. Using the Environmental Assessment documents included in RAPID's NEPA Database, the RAPID team identified 37 resource categories that a geothermal project may impact. Examples include impacts to geology and minerals, nearby endangered species, or water quality standards. To provide federal regulators, project developers, consultants, and the public with typical impacts and mitigation measures for geothermal projects, the RAPID team has provided overview webpages of each of these 37 resource categories with a sidebar query to reference related NEPA documents in the NEPA Database. This project is an expansion of a previous project that analyzed the time to complete NEPA environmental review for various geothermal activities. The NEPA review not only focused on geothermal projects within the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service managed lands, but also projects funded by the Department of Energy. Timeline barriers found were: extensive public comments and involvement; content overlap in NEPA documents, and discovery of impacted resources such as endangered species or cultural sites.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

Air Pollutant Emissions and Regulatory Implications of a Biorefinery Producing Raw Bio-Oil: Preprint

Co-processing bio-oil with petroleum-derived intermediates in existing refineries attracted refineries' interest because it offers a promising opportunity to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels produced and requires relatively low capital investments to retrofit the refineries. A biorefinery producing bio-oil is considered a chemical process plant under the Clean Air Act's permitting program and could be classified as a major or minor source based on the size of the facility and the magnitude of regulated pollutants expected to be emitted. Our analysis examines the air pollutant emissions and potentially applicable federal air quality regulations for a biorefinery utilizing an ex situ catalytic fast pyrolysis process with a design capacity of processing 2,000 dry metric tons of biomass per day to produce 4,200 barrels of raw bio-oil per day. We quantify the preliminary potential-to-emit (PTE) for the biorefinery producing raw bio-oil and examine the ramifications on potential air permit classifications. We also provide an alternative set of PTE estimate by assuming the adoption of selected technically feasible emission control options that could help the biorefinery avoid being subject to major source permitting requirements (e.g., prevention of significant deterioration). Our analysis is expected to provide insights for new bio-oil project developers to identify opportunities to mitigate emissions and develop strategies to overcome potential challenges associated with air permitting.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Annual FEC-PTC Report - CDRL F.70

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site operates facilities with potential emissions of criteria and hazardous air pollutants. This report documents the calendar year 2021 criteria and hazardous air pollutants emissions and has been prepared to comply with permit to construct (PTC) P-2015.0023 for the period of 1-1-2021 up to the effective date of PTC P 2020.0045 (1-29-2021), and PTC P-2020.0045 for the period from 1-29-2021 through 12-31-2021. The Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01.178, Standard Contents of Permits Establishing a Facility Emissions Cap (FEC) requires that all permits establishing a FEC shall include sufficient reporting to assure compliance with the permit establishing the FEC. Total hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions for the year were 0.10 tons in aggregate and the maximum individual HAP was toluene at 0.04 tons. Criteria pollutant emissions were 0.75 tons for sulfur dioxide, 24.33 tons for oxides of nitrogen, 6.07 tons of carbon monoxide, 2.53 tons of total particulate matter and 0.99 tons of volatile organic compounds (VOC).

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Emission factors of industrial boilers burning biomass-derived fuels

Boilers are combustion devices that provide process heat and are integral to many industrial facilities. Historically, outside of the pulp and paper industry, most boilers burned fossil fuels, although interest in decarbonization has been leading to an increased use of renewable fuels in boilers. These boilers, including those in the biorefineries, are often large sources of air pollutant emissions, and the characterization of these emissions is critical to obtaining air permits and ensuring protection of the surrounding air quality. Several industrial boilers and new biorefineries allow utilization of biomass-derived fuels (e.g. wastewater sludge, lignin, etc.) produced during their operation as a fuel for the boiler to meet process energy needs. However, there is limited empirical data on emission factors for the burning of unconventional fuels, such as solid-gas mixtures containing biomass residues. To fill this gap, we carry out a comprehensive data survey, collecting information on emission factors for boilers burning either a single or a mixture of solid and gaseous biomass-derived fuels. We review multiple hard-to-obtain and unconventional data sources, such as air permit applications, stack test data, and industry-sponsored data collection efforts, to compile emission factors for biomass-derived fuels. We then compare this data with wood residue emission factors from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s AP-42 emission factor database. Our results indicate that the emission factors for boilers burning unconventional fuels vary widely depending on the fuel composition, boiler type, and fuel characteristics. Overall, we find that median emission factors of selected biomass-derived fuels are typically lower than those of wood residue boilers in AP-42. The information collected herein could be useful to permitting agencies and industries utilizing boilers who may want to reduce the carbon impact of their facilities by combusting biomass-derived wastes for process energy needs, for more accurate emission estimation for permitting.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2015

Capture and X-ray diffraction studies of protein microcrystals in a microfluidic trap array

A microfluidic platform has been developed for the capture and X-ray analysis of protein microcrystals, affording a means to improve the efficiency of XFEL and synchrotron experiments. X-ray free-electron lasers (XFELs) promise to enable the collection of interpretable diffraction data from samples that are refractory to data collection at synchrotron sources. At present, however, more efficient sample-delivery methods that minimize the consumption of microcrystalline material are needed to allow the application of XFEL sources to a wide range of challenging structural targets of biological importance. Here, a microfluidic chip is presented in which microcrystals can be captured at fixed, addressable points in a trap array from a small volume (<10 µl) of a pre-existing slurry grown off-chip. The device can be mounted on a standard goniostat for conducting diffraction experiments at room temperature without the need for flash-cooling. Proof-of-principle tests with a model system (hen egg-white lysozyme) demonstrated the high efficiency of the microfluidic approach for crystal harvesting, permitting the collection of sufficient data from only 265 single-crystal still images to permit determination and refinement of the structure of the protein. This work shows that microfluidic capture devices can be readily used to facilitate data collection from protein microcrystals grown in traditional laboratory formats, enabling analysis when cryopreservation is problematic or when only small numbers of crystals are available. Such microfluidic capture devices may also be useful for data collection at synchrotron sources.

75 CONDENSED MATTER PHYSICS, SUPERCONDUCTIVITY AND↗
DOE OSTI2025

EV-ELM (Electric Vehicle Policies with the Energy Language Model) [SWR-25-156]

Electric Vehicle Policies with the Energy Language Model (EV-ELM) leverages previous work using Large Language Models (LLMs) to find, download, and parse policy information related to energy infrastructure. In this application, we use LLMs to find policy documents related to the permitting and installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure. This software contains the code to find, download, and parse these documents, while a related data record in the Open Energy Data Initiative (OEDI) will include the resulting output dataset that can be used for downstream analysis. The EV-ELM repository contains code for the EV-ELM project, which focuses on retrieving and processing EV permitting processes using large language models. The project is composed of two pipelines: (1) a web scraping pipeline for discovering and downloading EV permitting documents, and (2) a document parsing and extraction pipeline that processes the downloaded files to produce structured data. The web scraping pipeline is designed to extract relevant information from various websites, while the document parsing pipeline processes and analyzes the extracted documents to derive meaningful insights. Both pipelines depend on the NLR elm repository, which provides essential tools and functionalities for handling and processing the data. The web scraping pipeline is a modified version of the ordinance_gpt example within the elm repository. It has been adapted to fit the specific requirements of the EV-ELM project, ensuring that it effectively captures and processes the necessary information related to EV permitting.

Olson, Reid [National Laboratory of the Rockies (N↗
DOE OSTI2024

Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Database and Explorer

Overview The Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Toolkit is an online exploratory visualization tool developed by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) with support from other federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). It provides a single point of access to authoritative information on federal agency investment in a portfolio of research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects that have been publicly announced to advance technologies for point source carbon capture, carbon dioxide removal, transport, storage, and conversion, collectively referred to as carbon management. The RD&D programs covered in this tool are authorized by annual congressional appropriations ("Base Program") and the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The tool also incorporates public information on other federal initiatives, such as the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs, and public information released by other government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) and Primacy States’ Underground Injection Control Class VI permits and EPA’s facility level greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Developed in a geographic information system, the tool organizes carbon management projects into five groups based on the primary technology that a project aims to advance, each visually represented as a digital layer ("carbon management project layer"). Only federally funded projects are included, which can be awarded projects that are completed or ongoing, or projects that have been selected but are currently under negotiation. Project information can be viewed in the map or in the attribute table below it when turned on. In the map view, each project is displayed at either its host site (for field work), where available, or its performer site (project lead's location, further explained in the table below). Host sites and performer sites are represented in distinct icons. Several reference layers offer additional public information on infrastructural and natural resource environment for carbon management. These reference layers, combined with multiple geographical basemaps, enable users to visualize the carbon management project layers in context. Carbon management project information will be updated monthly based on feedback and information availability. Carbon management project layers Point Source Carbon Capture (PSC) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants or industrial facilities. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, including direct air capture (DAC) and DAC hubs, direct ocean capture, enhanced mineralization, and biomass carbon removal and storage. For projects with multiple host sites, each of the sites are displayed individually with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the total for the entire project. Carbon Transport This layer contains DOE- and DOT-funded projects focused on CO2 transport. The Transport Research and Development sublayer contains projects that do not involve physical infrastructure; the Proposed Transport Corridor sublayer contains projects for which either a route for the transport infrastructure has been proposed or a general area for the transport infrastructure has been identified. Carbon Storage This layer contains DOE-funded key projects focused on CO2 storage. For projects with multiple field-work sites, each of the sites are displayed individually on the map with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the overall total for the entire project. Carbon Conversion This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on converting CO2 into economically valuable products. Reference layers The following layers provide additional information in the geographic proximity of carbon management projects. Users should reference the original sources for more details (weblinks provided below and in pop-up windows on the map). Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub and Facility These layers illustrate the approximate areas of the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs announced by DOE's Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) and the approximate locations of individual facilities that constitute the hubs (see "Where are the H2Hubs located?" on the webpage linked above). EPA Facility Level GHG Emissions (direct emitter) This layer shows direct CO2 emissions from stationary sources in 2022, using data extracted from EPA's Facility Level Information on GreenHouse gases Tool (FLIGHT). Captured and injected CO2 are not deducted from direct emitters’ total emissions. Contact EPA for additional details. Underground Injection Control Class VI permit/permit application This layer shows the locations of CO2 injection wells that are granted or in the process of applying for an Underground Injection Control Class VI permit by EPA or a Primacy State (currently Louisiana, North Dakota, and Wyoming). The URLs for the permits or permit applications are provided in the pop-up windows associated with the well locations. Contact EPA for additional details. Carbon Storage Resource This layer contains information on prospective CO2 storage resources in saline formations and oil and gas reservoirs provided by the National Carbon Sequestration Database and Geographic Information System (NATCARB) spatial database. Contact NETL for additional details. Existing CO2 pipeline This layer shows active CO2 pipelines based on information digitized from the map issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Contact PHMSA for additional details.

Carbon Conversion↗
DOE OSTI2015

Environmental Restoration Operations: Consolidated Quarterly Report (Oct. - Dec 2014)

This Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico Environmental Restoration Operations (ER) Consolidated Quarterly Report (ER Quarterly Report) fulfills all quarterly reporting requirements set forth in the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) Module of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, and the Compliance Order on Consent. The 33 sites in the Corrective Action regulatory process are listed in Table I-1. The 33 sites consist of 25 Solid Waste Management Units and 8 Areas of Concern (AOCs). A summary of post-closure care activities performed in accordance with the Chemical Waste Landfill Post-Closure Care Permit is also included in this document. The Burn Site Groundwater and Technical Area V Groundwater AOCs are not included on the current HSWA Permit, but have been added as AOCs to the revised Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, which is pending approval by the New Mexico Environment Department at this time, and are included within this Consolidated Quarterly Report for completeness. Suspect waste includes radionuclides, metals, organic compounds, and explosives.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

2014 Annual Industrial Wastewater Reuse Report for the Idaho National Laboratory Site’s Materials and Fuels Complex Industrial Waste Ditch and Industrial Waste Pond

This report describes conditions, as required by the state of Idaho Industrial Wastewater Reuse Permit (WRU-I-0160-01, formerly LA 000160 01), for the wastewater reuse site at the Idaho National Laboratory Site’s Materials and Fuels Complex Industrial Waste Ditch and Industrial Waste Pond from November 1, 2013 through October 31, 2014. The report contains the following information; Facility and system description; Permit required effluent monitoring data and loading rates; Groundwater monitoring data; Status of special compliance conditions; Noncompliance issues; and Discussion of the facility’s environmental impacts During the 2014 reporting year, an estimated 10.11 million gallons of wastewater were discharged to the Industrial Waste Ditch and Pond which is well below the permit limit of 17 million gallons per year. The concentrations of all permit-required analytes in the samples from the down gradient monitoring wells were below the applicable Idaho Department of Environmental Quality’s groundwater quality standard levels.

2014 Annual Industrial Wastewater Reuse Report for↗
DOE OSTI2018

Mock Inspection Exercise Materials- Example For Training Purposes Only, Version 3

New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) is providing statewide training to all entities that are currently or expecting to be covered by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP). The purpose of the training is to educate facility personnel on permit requirements and methods to stay compliant with a permit. NMED has invited personnel from Los Alamos National Laboratory Environmental Protection & Compliance – Environmental Compliance Programs to assist with the statewide training by developing training materials and assist NMED in presenting the training sessions. The attached map mock-up and photos are intended as training materials for a mock MSGP routine facility inspection. In this exercise, participants will use the map and photos for a simulated field walk-down of a fictitious facility, the XYZ Widget Company’s Production Complex. Participants will learn elements of storm water flow paths, how to identify potential storm water issues, and document their findings in order to meet permit requirements.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2019

MSGP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for: TA-60-01 Heavy Equipment Shop, Triad National Security, LLC (Triad), Los Alamos National Laboratory, January 2019, Revision 0

This Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was developed in accordance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§1251 et seq., as amended), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MSGP) (U.S. EPA, June 2015) issued by EPA, and using the industry specific permit requirements for Sector P – Land Transportation & Warehousing as a guide. The applicable stormwater discharge permit is EPA General Permit Tracing Number NMR050013 [Triad National Security, LLC (Triad)]. This SWPPP applies to discharges of stormwater from the operational areas of the TA-60-01 Heavy Equipment Shop at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Los Alamos National Laboratory (also referred to as LANL or the “Laboratory”) is owned by the Department of Energy (DOE), and is operated by Triad. Throughout this document, the term “facility” refers to the TA-60-01 Heavy Equipment Shop (HES). The current MSGP expires at midnight on June 4, 2020.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2019

MSGP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for: TA-03-22 Power and Steam Plant, Triad National Security, LLC (Triad), Los Alamos National Laboratory, January 2019, Revision 0

This Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was developed in accordance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§1251 et seq., as amended), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MSGP) (U.S. EPA, June 2015) issued by EPA, and using the industry specific permit requirements for Sector O-Steam Electric Generating Facilities as a guide. The applicable stormwater discharge permit is EPA General Permit Tracing Number NMR050013 [Triad National Security, LLC (Triad)]. This SWPPP applies to discharges of stormwater from the operational areas of the TA-03-22 Power and Steam Plant at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Los Alamos National Laboratory (also referred to as LANL or the “Laboratory”) is owned by the Department of Energy (DOE), and is operated by Triad. Throughout this document, the term “facility” refers to the TA-03-22 Power and Steam Plant (PSP). The current MSGP expires at midnight on June 4, 2020.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2019

MSGP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for: TA-03-38 Carpentry and Metal Fabrication Shops, Triad National Security, LLC (Triad), Los Alamos National Laboratory, January 2019, Revision 0

This Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was developed in accordance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§1251 et seq., as amended), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MSGP) (U.S. EPA, June 2015) issued by EPA, and using the industry specific permit requirements for Sector A-Timber Products and Sector AA-Fabricated Metal Products as a guide. The applicable stormwater discharge permit is EPA General Permit Tracing Number NMR050013 [Triad National Security, LLC (Triad)]. This SWPPP applies to discharges of stormwater from the operational areas of the TA-03-38 Carpentry and Metal Fabrication Shops (38 Shops) at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Los Alamos National Laboratory (also referred to as LANL or the “Laboratory”) is owned by the Department of Energy (DOE), and is operated by Triad. Throughout this document, the term “facility” refers to the TA-03-38 Carpentry Shop (CS) and/or the Metal Fabrication Shop (MFS). The current MSGP expires at midnight on June 4, 2020.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2019

MSGP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TA-60 Material Recycling Facility

This Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was developed in accordance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§1251 et seq., as amended), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MSGP) (U.S. EPA, June 2015) issued by EPA, and using the industry specific permit requirements for Sector N: Scrap Recycling and Waste Recycling Facilities as a guide. The applicable stormwater discharge permit is EPA General Permit Tracing Number NMR050013 [Triad National Security, LLC (Triad)]. This SWPPP applies to discharges of stormwater from the operational areas of the TA- 60 Material Recycling Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Los Alamos National Laboratory (also referred to as LANL or the “Laboratory”) is owned by the Department of Energy (DOE), and is operated by Triad. Throughout this document, the term “facility” refers to the TA-60 Material Recycling Facility. The current MSGP expires at midnight on June 4, 2020.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2019

MSGP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TA-60 Roads and Grounds Facility, Sigma Mesa Staging Areas, and Asphalt Batch Plant

This Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was developed in accordance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§1251 et seq., as amended), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MSGP) (U.S. EPA, June 2015) issued by EPA, and using the industry specific permit requirements for Sector P: Land Transportation and Warehousing and Sector D: Asphalt Paving and Roofing Material and Lubricant Manufacturing as a guides. The applicable stormwater discharge permit is EPA General Permit Tracing Number NMR050013 [Triad National Security, LLC (Triad)]. This SWPPP applies to discharges of stormwater from the operational areas of the TA-60 Roads and Grounds Facility, Sigma Mesa Staging Areas, and Asphalt Batch Plant at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Los Alamos National Laboratory (also referred to as LANL or the “Laboratory”) is owned by the Department of Energy (DOE), and is operated by Triad. Throughout this document, the term “facilities” refers to the TA-60 Roads and Grounds Facility, Sigma Mesa Staging Areas, and Asphalt Batch Plant. The current MSGP expires at midnight on June 4, 2020.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗