Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Environmental”

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 217 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2019

Site Environmental Report for 2018

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL, Berkeley Lab) is a multi-program scientific facility operated by the University of California (UC) for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Berkeley Lab’s research is focused on the physical, biological, environmental, and computational sciences, with the objective of delivering scientific knowledge and discoveries pertinent to DOE’s mission. This annual report describes environmental protection activities and potential impacts resulting from LBNL operations conducted in 2018. The format and content of this report satisfy the requirements of both DOE Order 231.1B, Administrative Change 1 (Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting) and the operating contract between UC and DOE (DOE Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231, also known as Contract 31). LBNL activities are planned and conducted with full regard to protecting employees, the public, and the environment, as well as complying with all applicable environmental, safety, and health laws and regulations. As presented in Chapter 2, Berkeley Lab implements an Environmental Management System (EMS) to oversee environmental compliance activities and continually improve overall environmental performance while maintaining operational capability and sustaining its overall mission. The effectiveness of the EMS and environmental programs is reviewed annually as part of the performance evaluation process of Contract 31. For fiscal year (FY) 2018, which began October 1, 2017, and ended September 30, 2018, the EMS was given a performance rating of B plus for its management of environmental activities (on a scale from A plus as the highest grade, to F as the lowest). The measurement and rating system was developed jointly by Berkeley Lab, UC, and DOE. The FY 2018 rating was based on how Berkeley Lab met the objective in DOE’s FY 2018 Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plan (Appendix B in Contract 31, Section J) of providing an efficient and effective EMS. Six significant accomplishments, which ranged from effective teaming on projects and with regulatory agencies to improved program assessment approaches, were factors in the rating. The EMS was also graded through the federal Office of Management and Budget’s annual EMS performance metrics, in which a reporting scorecard rates elements of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14001 standard and the degree of integration between the EMS and Berkeley Lab’s sustainable practices. Overall scores fall into one of three categories: green (highest), yellow (middle), or red (lowest). For FY 2018, Berkeley Lab received a score of green. A week-long formal conformity audit of the EMS was conducted at the end of July by a qualified external party, as is required every three years. The audit team found that Berkeley Lab’s EMS continues to conform to the ISO standard with no major nonconformance. An overview of environmental protection and restoration programs is provided in Chapter 3, including information about compliance activities, operating permits, and regulatory agency inspections and audits that occurred during 2018. Twenty-one minor violations and two Class II violations were issued during agency inspections of programs governing aboveground and underground storage tanks, hazardous waste treatment units, hazardous waste storage areas, hazardous materials management, and wastewater, stormwater, and air emission sources. This report also includes information on environmental monitoring performed in 2018 (Chapter 4). The results of these monitoring activities confirmed that groundwater cleanup actions have been effective in reducing concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the groundwater, although concentrations appear to be reaching asymptotic levels in some areas. Site groundwater plumes are stable or are attenuating, and VOCs are not migrating off site. All emissions and discharges from LBNL operations were within environmental compliance release limits except oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide from boilers (under 5 million BTUs) from Buildings 2, 66, and 88. The radiological dose assessments (Chapter 5) performed in 2018 concluded that the maximum potential dose to a hypothetical resident from Berkeley Lab’s airborne radionuclide releases was approximately 0.04% of the DOE and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency annual limit of 10 millirem per year (mrem/yr); the potential dose from all radiation sources at Berkeley Lab was approximately 0.15% of the average natural background radiation dose of 310 mrem/yr in the United States, and about 0.5% of the DOE annual limit of 100 mrem/yr from all sources.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report 2014

This Nevada Nuclear Security Site Environmental Report (NNSSER) was prepared to satisfy DOE Order DOE O 231.1B, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.” Its purpose is to (1) report compliance status with environmental standards and requirements, (2) present results of environmental monitoring of radiological and nonradiological effluents, (3) report estimated radiological doses to the public from releases of radioactive material, (4) summarize environmental incidents of noncompliance and actions taken in response to them, (5) describe the NNSA/NFO Environmental Management System and characterize its performance, and (6) highlight significant environmental programs and efforts.This NNSSER summarizes data and compliance status for calendar year 2014 at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly the Nevada Test Site) and its two support facilities, the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF) and the Remote Sensing Laboratory–Nellis (RSL-Nellis). It also addresses environmental restoration (ER) projects conducted at the Tonopah Test Range (TTR) and the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR). Through a Memorandum of Agreement, NNSA/NFO is responsible for the oversight of these ER projects, and the Sandia Field Office of NNSA (NNSA/SFO) has oversight of all other TTR and NTTR activities. NNSA/SFO produces the TTR annual environmental report, which is available at http://www.sandia.gov/news/publications/environmental/index.html.Major Site Programs and Facilities NNSA/NFO directs the management and operation of the NNSS and six sites across the nation. The six sites include two in Nevada (NLVF and RSL-Nellis) and four in other states (RSL-Andrews in Maryland, Livermore Operations in California, Los Alamos Operations in New Mexico, and Special Technologies Laboratory in California). Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia National Laboratories are the principal organizations that sponsor and implement the nuclear weapons programs at the NNSS. National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec), is the current Management and Operating contractor accountable for the successful execution of work and ensuring that work is performed in compliance with environmental regulations. The six sites all provide support to enhance the NNSS as a location for weapons experimentation and nuclear test readiness. The three major NNSS missions include National Security/Defense, Environmental Management, and Nondefense. The major programs that support these missions are Stockpile Stewardship and Management, Nonproliferation and Counterterrorism, Nuclear Emergency Response, Strategic Partnership Projects, Environmental Restoration, Waste Management, Conservation and Renewable Energy, Other Research and Development, and Infrastructure. The major facilities that support the programs include the U1a Facility, Big Explosives Experimental Facility (BEEF), Device Assembly Facility, Dense Plasma Focus Facility, Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research Facility, Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures Test and Evaluation Complex, Nonproliferation Test and Evaluation Complex (NPTEC), Radiological/Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction Incident Exercise Site (known as the T-1 Site), Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC), and the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2014

A state-impact-state methodology for assessing environmental impact in land use planning

The implementation of land use planning (LUP) has a large impact on environmental quality. There lacks a widely accepted and consolidated approach to assess the LUP environmental impact using Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). In this paper, we developed a state-impact-state (SIS) model employed in the LUP environmental impact assessment (LUPEA). With the usage of Matter-element (ME) and Extenics method, the methodology based on the SIS model was established and applied in the LUPEA of Zoucheng County, China. The results show that: (1) this methodology provides an intuitive and easy understanding logical model for both the theoretical analysis and application of LUPEA; (2) the spatial multi-temporal assessment from base year, near-future year to planning target year suggests the positive impact on the environmental quality in the whole County despite certain environmental degradation in some towns; (3) besides the spatial assessment, other achievements including the environmental elements influenced by land use and their weights, the identification of key indicators in LUPEA, and the appropriate environmental mitigation measures were obtained; and (4) this methodology can be used to achieve multi-temporal assessment of LUP environmental impact of County or Town level in other areas. - Highlights: • A State-Impact-State model for Land Use Planning Environmental Assessment (LUPEA). • Matter-element (ME) and Extenics methods were embedded in the LUPEA. • The model was applied to the LUPEA of Zoucheng County. • The assessment shows improving environment quality since 2000 in Zoucheng County. • The method provides a useful tool for the LUPEA in the county level.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2013

An Assessment of Environmental Health Needs

Environmental health fundamentally addresses the physical, chemical, and biological risks external to the human body that can impact the health of a person by assessing and controlling these risks in order to generate and maintain a health-supportive environment. In manned spacecraft, environmental health risks are mitigated by a multi-disciplinary effort, employing several measures including active and passive controls, by establishing environmental standards (SMACs, SWEGs, microbial and acoustics limits), and through environmental monitoring. Human Health and Performance (HHP) scientists and Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) engineers consider environmental monitoring a vital component to an environmental health management strategy for maintaining a healthy crew and achieving mission success. ECLS engineers use environmental monitoring data to monitor and confirm the health of ECLS systems, whereas HHP scientists use the data to manage the health of the human system. Because risks can vary between missions and change over time, environmental monitoring is critical. Crew health risks associated with the environment were reviewed by agency experts with the goal of determining risk-based environmental monitoring needs for future NASA manned missions. Once determined, gaps in environmental health knowledge and technology, required to address those risks, were identified for various types of exploration missions. This agency-wide assessment of environmental health needs will help guide the activities/hardware development efforts to close those gaps and advance the knowledge required to meet NASA manned space exploration objectives. Details of the roadmap development and findings are presented in this paper.

Macatangay, Ariel V.↗
DOE OSTI2013

Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report 2012

This report was prepared to meet the information needs of the public and the requirements and guidelines of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for annual site environmental reports. It was prepared by National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec), for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) (formerly designated as the Nevada Site Office [NNSA/NSO]). The new field office designation occurred in March 2013. Published reports cited in this 2012 report, therefore, may bear the name or authorship of NNSA/NSO. This and previous years’ reports, called Annual Site Environmental Reports (ASERs), Nevada Test Site Environmental Reports (NTSERs), and, beginning in 2010, Nevada National Security Site Environmental Reports (NNSSERs), are posted on the NNSA/NFO website at http://www.nv.energy.gov/library/publications/aser.aspx. This NNSSER was prepared to satisfy DOE Order DOE O 231.1B, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.” Its purpose is to (1) report compliance status with environmental standards and requirements, (2) present results of environmental monitoring of radiological and nonradiological effluents, (3) report estimated radiological doses to the public from releases of radioactive material, (4) summarize environmental incidents of noncompliance and actions taken in response to them, (5) describe the NNSA/NFO Environmental Management System and characterize its performance, and (6) highlight significant environmental programs and efforts. This NNSSER summarizes data and compliance status for calendar year 2012 at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly the Nevada Test Site) and its two support facilities, the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF) and the Remote Sensing Laboratory–Nellis (RSL-Nellis). It also addresses environmental restoration (ER) projects conducted at the Tonopah Test Range (TTR) and the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR). Through a Memorandum of Agreement, NNSA/NFO is responsible for the oversight of these ER projects, and the Sandia Site Office of NNSA (NNSA/SSO) has oversight of all other TTR and NTTR activities. NNSA/SSO produces the TTR annual environmental report available at http://www.sandia.gov/news/publications/environmental/index.html.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2014

Lifetime Energy and Environmental Impacts of Insulation Materials in Commercial Building Applications – Assessment Methodology and Sample Calculations

Application of insulation materials to building envelopes is a relatively easy and effective way of reducing energy consumption for space conditioning and, consequently, limiting the negative environmental impacts from the buildings sector. While insulation materials have a positive impact on the environment by reducing energy consumption in buildings, they also have some negative environmental impacts associated with their ‘embodied energy’. The total lifetime environmental impacts of insulation materials are a summation of: (1) direct impacts due to their embodied energy, and (2) indirect or environmental impacts avoided due to the reduced building energy consumption. It is important to identify insulation materials for buildings that will result in minimum negative environmental impacts. The objective of this project was to perform an assessment of the lifetime energy and environmental impacts of building insulation materials based on a previously developed protocol. The developed protocol was used for calculating the lifetime environmental impacts of selected insulation materials. Two Excel-based tools were developed: 1) to calculate embodied energy and GWP (equivalent CO 2 emissions) of insulation materials, and 2) to estimate energy savings and avoided environmental impacts due to the use of insulation materials in buildings. The direct environmental impacts were estimated using data from existing literature and life cycle analysis software; the indirect impacts were based on simulations of prototype whole-building models. This report summarizes the simulation study based on the recommendations of a previously developed protocol (A protocol for lifetime energy and environmental impact assessment of building insulation materials) by Shrestha et al., 2014. It also discusses a simplified algorithm based technique developed to quantify energy savings potential without requiring whole-building energy simulations. The report describes a proposed protocol that is intended to provide a comprehensive list of factors to be considered in evaluating the direct and indirect environmental impacts of building insulation materials, as well as detailed descriptions of standardized calculation methodologies to determine those impacts. Estimating the energy savings impact of insulation materials for the buildings in United States was an important aspect of this recommendation and comparative analyses of selected insulation materials were performed.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2016

A method to the impact assessment of the returning grazing land to grassland project on regional eco-environmental vulnerability

The Chinese government has conducted the Returning Grazing Land to Grassland Project (RGLGP) across large portions of grasslands from western China since 2003. In order to explore and understand the impact in the grassland's eco-environment during the RGLGP, we utilized Projection Pursuit Model (PPM) and Geographic Information System (GIS) to develop a spatial assessment model to examine the ecological vulnerability of the grassland. Our results include five indications: (1) it is practical to apply the spatial PPM on ecological vulnerability assessment for the grassland. This methodology avoids creating an artificial hypothesis, thereby providing objective results that successfully execute a multi-index assessment process and analysis under non-linear systems in eco-environments; (2) the spatial PPM is not only capable of evaluating regional eco-environmental vulnerability in a quantitative way, but also can quantitatively demonstrate the degree of effect in each evaluation index for regional eco-environmental vulnerability; (3) the eco-environment of the Xianshui River Basin falls into the medium range level. The normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and land use cover and change (LUCC) crucially influence the Xianshui River Basin's eco-environmental vulnerability. Generally, in the Xianshui River Basin, regional eco-environmental conditions improved during 2000 and 2010. The RGLGP positively affected NDVI and LUCC structure, thereby promoting the enhancement of the regional eco-environment; (4) the Xianshui River Basin divides its ecological vulnerability across different levels; therefore our study investigates three ecological regions and proposes specific suggestions for each in order to assist in eco-environmental protection and rehabilitation; and lastly that (5) the spatial PPM established by this study has the potential to be applied on all types of grassland eco-environmental vulnerability assessments under the RGLGP and under the similar conditions in the Returning Agriculture Land to Forest Project (RALFP). However, when establishing an eco-environmental vulnerability assessment model, it is necessary to choose suitable evaluation indexes in accordance with regional eco-environmental characteristics. - Highlights: • We present a method for regional eco-environmental vulnerability assessment. • The method combines Projection Pursuit Model with Geographic Information System. • The Returning Grazing Land to Grassland Project is crucial to environment recovery. • The method is more objective to assess regional eco-environmental vulnerability.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2017

Environmental impacts of climate change adaptation

Climate change adaptation reduces adverse effects of climate change but may also have undesirable environmental impacts. However, these impacts are yet poorly defined and analysed in the existing literature. To complement this knowledge-gap, we reviewed the literature to unveil the relationship between climate change adaptation and environmental impact assessment, and the degree to which environmental impacts are included in climate change adaptation theory and practice. Our literature review showed that technical, social and economic perspectives on climate change adaptation receive much more attention than the environmental perspective. The scarce interest on the environmental impacts of adaptation may be attributed to (1) an excessive sectoral approach, with dominance of non-environmental perspectives, (2) greater interest in mitigation and direct climate change impacts rather than in adaptation impacts, (3) a tendency to consider adaptation as inherently good, and (4) subjective/preconceived notions on which measures are good or bad, without a comprehensive assessment. Environmental Assessment (EA) has a long established history as an effective tool to include environment into decision-making, although it does not yet guarantee a proper assessment of adaptation, because it is still possible to postpone or even circumvent the processes of assessing the impacts of climate adaptation. Our results suggest that there is a need to address adaptation proactively by including it in EA, to update current policy frameworks, and to demand robust and reliable evaluation of alternatives. Only through the full EA of adaptation measures can we improve our understanding of the primary and secondary impacts of adaptation to global environmental change. - Highlights: • Climate change adaptation may have undesirable environmental impacts. • The impacts of adaptation are yet poorly analysed in the literature. • There is an excessive sectoral approach to adaptation, mainly non-environmental.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2017

Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report 2016

This Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report (NNSSER) was prepared to satisfy DOE Order DOE O 231.1B, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.” Its purpose is to (1) report compliance status with environmental standards and requirements, (2) present results of environmental monitoring of radiological and nonradiological effluents, (3) report estimated radiological doses to the public from releases of radioactive material, (4) summarize environmental incidents of noncompliance and actions taken in response to them, (5) describe the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) Environmental Management System and characterize its performance, and (6) highlight significant environmental programs and efforts. This NNSSER summarizes data and compliance status for calendar year 2016 at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) and its two Nevada-based support facilities, the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF) and the Remote Sensing Laboratory–Nellis (RSL-Nellis). It also addresses environmental restoration (ER) projects conducted at the Tonopah Test Range (TTR) and the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR). NNSA/NFO directs the management and operation of the NNSS and six sites across the nation. In addition to the NNSA itself, the six sites include two in Nevada (NLVF and RSL-Nellis) and four in other states (RSL-Andrews in Maryland, Livermore Operations in California, Los Alamos Operations in New Mexico, and Special Technologies Laboratory in California). Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia National Laboratories are the principal organizations that sponsor and implement the nuclear weapons programs at the NNSS. National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec), is the current Management and Operating contractor accountable for the successful execution of work and ensuring that work is performed in compliance with environmental regulations. The six sites all provide support to enhance the NNSS as a location for its multiple missions. The three major NNSS missions include National Security/Defense, Environmental Management, and Nondefense. The major programs that support these missions are Stockpile Stewardship and Management, Nonproliferation and Counterterrorism, Nuclear Emergency Response, Strategic Partnership Projects, Environmental Restoration, Waste Management, Conservation and Renewable Energy, Other Research and Development, and Infrastructure. The major facilities that support the programs include the U1a Facility, Big Explosives Experimental Facility (BEEF), Device Assembly Facility, Dense Plasma Focus Facility, Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research Facility, Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures Test and Evaluation Complex, Nonproliferation Test and Evaluation Complex (NPTEC), Radiological/Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction Incident Exercise Site, the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC), and the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2019

Review of environmental metrics used across multiple sectors and geographies to evaluate the effects of hydropower development

In this paper, as U.S. hydropower development continues to expand, a thorough inventory of potentially relevant environmental metrics will provide a comprehensive and transparent starting point for stakeholders seeking to evaluate the sustainability and environmental effects of this anticipated expansion. To address this need, we conducted a literature review to extract and analyze a swath of environmental metrics related to previous hydropower projects. Our examination of several U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing documents, several certification documents prepared by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute and the International Hydropower Association, and a set of peer-reviewed journal articles led to creation of a database of > 3000 current environmental metrics related to hydropower projects in 231 locations worldwide. Information recorded for each environmental metric was used to map the comprehensiveness and consistency of environmental measurements gathered across primary categories, dam life cycle stages, spatial scales and locations. We found that a majority of environmental metrics were related to water quantity and water quality, a large number of metrics were related to biota and biodiversity, and relatively few metrics were related to the categories of geomorphology, land cover, connectivity and fragmentation, and infrastructure and design. However, the categories of environmental metrics represented in each type of literature varied significantly. Forty-five subcategories of environmental metrics emerged from our analysis, thereby suggesting a potential envelope of environmental measurements that might be used to improve efficiency in evaluating the potential environmental effects of new U.S. hydropower projects.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2018

Site Environmental Report for 2017

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL, Berkeley Lab) is a multi-program scientific facility operated by the University of California (UC) for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Berkeley Lab’s research is focused on the physical, biological, environmental, and computational sciences with the objective of delivering scientific knowledge and discoveries pertinent to DOE’s mission. This annual report describes environmental protection activities and potential impacts resulting from LBNL operations conducted in 2017. The format and content of this report satisfy the requirements of both DOE Order 231.1B, Administrative Change 1 (Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting) and the operating contract between UC and DOE (DOE Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231, also known as Contract 31). Activities are planned and conducted with full regard to protecting employees, the public, and the environment, as well as complying with all applicable environmental, safety, and health laws and regulations. Berkeley Lab implements an Environmental Management System (EMS) to oversee these compliance activities and continually improve overall environmental performance while maintaining operational capability and sustaining its overall mission. The effectiveness of the EMS and environmental programs is reviewed annually as part of the performance evaluation process of Contract 31. For fiscal year (FY) 2017, which began October 1, 2016, and ended September 30, 2017, the EMS was given a performance rating of B plus for its management of environmental activities (on a scale from A plus as the highest grade to F as the lowest). The measurement and rating system was developed jointly by Berkeley Lab, UC, and DOE. The FY 2017 rating was based on how Berkeley Lab met the objective in DOE’s FY 2017 Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plan (Appendix B in Contract 31, Section J) of providing an efficient and effective EMS. Six significant accomplishments, which ranged from effective teaming on projects and with regulatory agencies to improved program assessment approaches, were factors in the rating. The EMS was also graded through the federal Office of Management and Budget’s annual EMS performance metrics, in which a reporting scorecard rates elements of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14001 standard and the degree of integration between the EMS and Berkeley Lab’s sustainable practices. Overall scores fall into one of three categories: green (highest), yellow (middle), or red (lowest). For FY 2017, Berkeley Lab received a score of green, as described in more detail in Chapter 2. An overview of environmental protection and restoration programs is provided, including information about compliance activities, operating permits, and regulatory agency inspections that occurred during 2017. Thirteen minor violations issued during City of Berkeley inspections of above and underground storage tanks, treatment units, and hazardous waste storage areas are discussed in this chapter. This report also includes information on environmental monitoring performed in 2017. The results of these monitoring activities confirmed that groundwater cleanup actions continue to show improving conditions, and all emissions and discharges from LBNL operations were within environmental compliance release limits, with the exception of some stormwater discharges. Most stormwater discharges measured throughout the LBNL site fall within acceptable levels established by the state’s stormwater permit; however, iron and aluminum exceeded Numeric Action Levels. To reduce iron and aluminum discharge levels, Berkeley Lab is aggressively implementing controls such as construction of asphaltic berms and check dams to restrain and filter runoff to storm drains, and installation of filtration units in storm drain basins to collect sediment and absorb metal contaminants. The radiological dose assessments performed in 2017 concluded that the maximum potential dose to a hypothetical resident from Berkeley Lab’s airborne radionuclide releases was approximately 0.1% of the DOE and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency annual limit of 10 millirem per year (mrem/yr); the potential dose from all radiation sources at Berkeley Lab was approximately 0.06% of the average natural background radiation dose of 310 mrem/yr in the United States, and about 0.2% of the DOE annual limit of 100 mrem/yr from all sources.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2019

Public Perceptions of Environmental Public Health Risks in the United States

Understanding public perceptions about environmental health hazards, exposures, and health impacts can help environmental public health practitioners to target and prioritize community activities, policy needs, and communication strategies. The online cross-sectional 2013 summer wave of the ConsumerStyles survey sampled U.S. adults and used questions from the Centers for Disease Control’s Environmental Public Health Tracking Program to measure public awareness of governmental efforts to track environmental exposures and links to health impacts, as well as perceptions of environmental health issues. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regressions examined the associations between demographic characteristics and level of awareness of government environmental public health efforts or level of concern about health risks associated with environmental pollutants. Responses were received from 4033 participants, yielding a response rate of 66.0%. More than half of respondents (57.8%) noted concerns about health risks from environmental pollutants. More than one-third (40.0%) of respondents reported awareness of government efforts. Nearly 40% of respondents felt that none of the health impacts listed in the survey were related to environmental issues. Multiple logistic regression models showed that non-Hispanic blacks, other races, females, people with a college or higher education, and people living in the Midwest or South regions were more likely than their counterparts to be concerned about how the environment affects their health. Future work should focus on improving risk communication, filling the information gap on environmental health issues, and understanding how perceptions change over time.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

Environmental contaminants and microRNA regulation: Transcription factors as regulators of toxicant-altered microRNA expression

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) regulate gene expression by binding mRNA and inhibiting translation and/or inducing degradation of the associated transcripts. Expression levels of miRNAs have been shown to be altered in response to environmental toxicants, thus impacting cellular function and influencing disease risk. Transcription factors (TFs) are known to be altered in response to environmental toxicants and play a critical role in the regulation of miRNA expression. To date, environmentally-responsive TFs that are important for regulating miRNAs remain understudied. In a state-of-the-art analysis, we utilized an in silico bioinformatic approach to characterize potential transcriptional regulators of environmentally-responsive miRNAs. Using the miRStart database, genomic sequences of promoter regions for all available human miRNAs (n = 847) were identified and promoter regions were defined as − 1000/+500 base pairs from the transcription start site. Subsequently, the promoter region sequences of environmentally-responsive miRNAs (n = 128) were analyzed using enrichment analysis to determine overrepresented TF binding sites (TFBS). While most (56/73) TFs differed across environmental contaminants, a set of 17 TFs was enriched for promoter binding among miRNAs responsive to numerous environmental contaminants. Of these, one TF was common to miRNAs altered by the majority of environmental contaminants, namely SWI/SNF-related, matrix-associated, actin-dependent regulator of chromatin, subfamily A, member 3 (SMARCA3). These identified TFs represent candidate common transcriptional regulators of miRNAs perturbed by environmental toxicants. - Highlights: • Transcription factors that regulate environmentally-modulated miRNA expression are understudied • Transcription factor binding sites (TFBS) located within DNA promoter regions of miRNAs were identified. • Specific transcription factors may serve as master regulators of environmentally-mediated microRNA expression.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Mutually beneficial outcomes for hydropower expansion and environmental protection at a basin scale

Reshaping the scale of planning for hydropower development, from reaches to basin-scales, has been recommended as a more effective way to ameliorate the environmental impacts of hydropower. One approach is identifying mutually exclusive areas where development is precluded for conservation purposes and areas of low conservation value that present fewer barriers to development. This strategy, however, is less adoptable in developed countries where hydropower is already widespread and large-scale construction of new dams is unlikely. To broaden the adoption of basin-scale planning, alternative approaches and planning tools are needed for identifying mutually beneficial opportunities for simultaneous increases in hydropower capacity while improving environmental conditions. In this study, we present the Basin Scale Opportunity Assessment as a methodology to improve environmental conditions through either direct (on-site) or indirect (off-site) mitigation. We assess whether direct or indirect mitigation activities lead to optimal results in terms of added hydropower, environmental improvement, and monetary cost at a basin scale. We present two case studies for the Connecticut River and Roanoke River Basins, USA. Significant opportunities for expanding hydropower generating capacity are numerous in both basins. Results suggest that total hydropower capacity could be increased 4 to 7 % in the Roanoke and Connecticut Basins, respectively, without new dam construction and with net improvements in environmental conditions. We found that environmentally and economically optimal win-win strategies for increasing hydropower capacity and improving environmental conditions included improving environmental conditions in rivers downstream of existing dams. Off-site mitigation opportunities, such as dam removal and wetland mitigation, were identified as optimum solutions for achieving net environmental improvements only when they were associated with new hydropower construction. Our results demonstrate that opportunities to increase hydropower capacity and improve environmental conditions are expanded by viewing cumulative benefits at basin scales; however, increasing regulatory flexibility may be required to realize these opportunities.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2017

2016 Billion-Ton Report: Advancing Domestic Resources for a Thriving Bioeconomy, Volume 2: Environmental Sustainability Effects of Select Scenarios from Volume 1

With the goal of understanding environmental effects of a growing bioeconomy, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), national laboratories, and U.S. Forest Service research laboratories, together with academic and industry collaborators, undertook a study to estimate environmental effects of potential biomass production scenarios in the United States, with an emphasis on agricultural and forest biomass. Potential effects investigated include changes in soil organic carbon (SOC), greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water quality and quantity, air emissions, and biodiversity. Effects of altered land-management regimes were analyzed based on select county-level biomass-production scenarios for 2017 and 2040 taken from the 2016 Billion-Ton Report: Advancing Domestic Resources for a Thriving Bioeconomy (BT16), volume 1, which assumes that the land bases for agricultural and forestry would not change over time. The scenarios reflect constraints on biomass supply (e.g., excluded areas; implementation of management practices; and consideration of food, feed, forage, and fiber demands and exports) that intend to address sustainability concerns. Nonetheless, both beneficial and adverse environmental effects might be expected. To characterize these potential effects, this research sought to estimate where and under what modeled scenarios or conditions positive and negative environmental effects could occur nationwide. The report also includes a discussion of land-use change (LUC) (i.e., land management change) assumptions associated with the scenario transitions (but not including analysis of indirect LUC [ILUC]), analyses of climate sensitivity of feedstock productivity under a set of potential scenarios, and a qualitative environmental effects analysis of algae production under carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) co-location scenarios. Because BT16 biomass supplies are simulated independent of a defined end use, most analyses do not include benefits from displacing fossil fuels or other products, with the exception of including a few illustrative cases on potential reductions in GHG emissions and fossil energy consumption associated with using biomass supplies for fuel, power, heat, and chemicals. Most analyses in volume 2 show potential for a substantial increase in biomass production with minimal or negligible environmental effects under the biomass supply constraints assumed in BT16. Although corn ethanol has been shown to achieve GHG emissions improvements over fossil fuels, cellulosic biomass shows further improvements in certain environmental indicators covered in this report. The harvest of agricultural and forestry residues generally shows the smallest contributions to changes in certain environmental indicators investigated. The scenarios show national-level net SOC gains. When expanding the system boundary in illustrative cases that consider biomass end use, reductions in GHG emissions are estimated for scenarios in which biomass—rather than oil, coal, and natural gas—is used to produce fuel, power, heat, and chemicals. Analyses of water quality reveal that there could be tradeoffs between biomass productivity and some water quality indicators, but better outcomes for both biomass productivity and water quality can be achieved with selected conservation practices. Biodiversity analyses show possible habitat benefits to some species, with other species showing potential adverse effects that may require additional safeguards. Increasing productivity of algae can reduce GHG emissions and water consumption associated with producing algal biomass, though the effects of water consumption are likely of greater concern in some regions than in others. Moreover, the effects of climate change on potential biomass production show gains and losses in yield among feedstocks across the continental United States. Key research gaps and priorities include actions that can enhance benefits and reduce potential for negative effects of increased biomass production. The results from this report will help DOE, the bioenergy industry, and other institutions continue important discussions on environmental effects and will help chart a path toward a more environmentally sustainable bioeconomy.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Women in Environmental Science

Despite the prominent role that women have traditionally played in environmental activism and initiatives to promote environmental justice, women’s representation in most environmental science fields remains low. The first environmental laws in the U.S., established in the 60’s and 70’s, were propelled by movements evolved out of male dominated scientific professions, mainly engineering. To this day, environmental fields are still perceived as not open to women. Yet the field being so broad, it offers many opportunities for women scientists to contribute to the advancement of science and technology needed to address the most pressing environmental issues. To this end, the Society for Industrial Microbiology and Biotechonology organized a session at its 2019 General Meeting entitled Women in Environmental Science that showcased the work of women leading efforts in environmental fields. The session was convened by Dr. Gemma Reguera (Michigan State University) and Dr. Arpita Bose (Washington University in St. Louis) and included 4 additional speakers whose work spans basic and applied environmental research yet impacts discovery-driven science, technology development, science policy and communication, in addition to environmental advocacy and stewardship. The talks highlighted the career path of women-led teams whose research and professional activities are contributing to the development of “biobased solutions to DOE mission challenges in energy and environment”.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Comparison of the Environmental Effects of Open-Loop and Closed-Loop Pumped Storage Hydropower

Pumped storage hydropower (PSH) capabilities are generally characterized as either open-loop or closed-loop. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) defines open-loop PSH as “continuously connected to a naturally flowing water feature,” and closed-loop PSH as “not continuously connected to a naturally flowing water feature.” All the PSH projects constructed in the United States to date are open-loop, so the potential environmental effects of closed-loop systems are not as well documented as the effects of open-loop systems. To address this knowledge gap, the DOE Water Power Technologies Office, under its HydroWIRES Initiative, has prepared this report to: (1) compare the potential environmental effects of open-loop PSH projects with those of closed-loop PSH projects; (2) describe how these effects are being avoided, minimized, or mitigated at existing projects in other countries and proposed projects in the United States; and (3) discuss the relative significance of the environmental issues. The report begins with a brief introduction on the current status of PSH development in the United States. Next, the report describes the current Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydropower licensing process, emphasizing some recent regulatory changes that affect closed-loop PSH development. The report then provides a summary comparison of the environmental effects of constructing and operating open-loop and closed-loop PSH systems and discusses the relative significance of those issues. This comparison and discussion are based on the results of a literature review and a review of FERC licensing records. The literature review includes journal articles, technical reports, and presentations on the environmental effects of PSH systems. It includes literature from the United States as well as countries where closed-loop PSH projects have been constructed. The FERC records review examines the FERC licensing record (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act documents and license orders) to identify the environmental effects anticipated and mitigation measures proposed for six of the closed-loop PSH projects currently licensed or permitted in the United States. For comparison, the FERC records review also discusses the environmental effects and mitigation measures for four open-loop PSH projects proposed or currently operating in the United States. The comparison of effects between open-loop and closed-loop projects is relative; that is, it characterizes the impacts of each project type as generally lower or higher than another project type. The comparison reflects general trends among project types because there are sometimes exceptions to the examples cited. The comparison is based on both spatial (location) and temporal (duration) factors and reflects both the severity and likelihood of effects. The report concludes that the environmental effects of closed-loop PSH projects are generally lower (i.e., more localized and of shorter duration) than those of open-loop PSH projects because they are located “off-stream,” minimizing aquatic and terrestrial impacts, and often have greater siting flexibility than open-loop PSH projects. For certain closed-loop project designs, however, impacts to groundwater may be higher relative to open-loop projects and should be considered in any environmental review.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Integration of Environmental Compliance at the Savannah River Site - 13024

The Savannah River Site (SRS) is a large federal installation hosting diverse missions and multiple organizations with competing regulatory needs. Accordingly, there was a need to integrate environmental compliance strategies to ensure the consistent flow of information between Department of Energy-Savannah River (DOE-SR), the regulatory agencies and other interested parties. In order to meet this objective, DOE and major SRS contractors and tenants have committed to a strategy of collaboratively working together to ensure that a consistent, integrated, and fully coordinated approach to environmental compliance and regulator relationships is maintained. DOE-SR and Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC, the SRS management and operations contractor, have established an environmental compliance integration process that provides for the consistent flow down of requirements to projects, facilities, SRS contractors, and subcontractors as well as the upward flow of information to assist in the early identification and resolution of environmental regulatory issues and enhancement of compliance opportunities. In addition, this process strongly fosters teamwork to collaboratively resolve complex regulatory challenges, promote pollution prevention and waste minimization opportunities to advance site missions in a manner that balances near-term actions with the long-term site vision, while being protective of human health and the environment. Communication tools are being utilized, some with enhancements, to ensure appropriate information is communicated to all levels with environmental responsibility at SRS. SRS internal regulatory integration is accomplished through a variety of informational exchange forums (e.g., Challenges, Opportunities and Resolution (COR) Team, DOE's Joint Site Regulatory Integration Team, and the Senior Environmental Managers Council (SEMC)). SRS communications and problem-solving with the regulatory agencies have been enhanced through formation of an interagency 'SRS Regulatory Integration Team (SRIT)'. The SRIT is a partnership comprised of representatives from DOE-SR (with contractor support), EPA Region 4 and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) and is chartered to develop a consensus understanding of SRS regulatory issues and activities. These forums and a formal environmental compliance integration process improve timely cross-functional decision making, problem solving, information sharing, and issue resolution. The SRS internal process has been formally documented in an Environmental Regulatory Integration Program Description, which is linked to the SRS Environmental Policy and agreed upon by all major contractors, subcontractors and tenants. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗