Options for Simplifying DOE’s Transportation Analysis for NEPA
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Connolly, Kevin↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “NEPA”
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.
NEPATEC v2.0: Standardized Metadata and Text Corpus of National Environmental Policy Act Documents
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), is a major environmental law in the United States, requiring Federal agencies to consider and document potential environmental impacts before deciding on a proposed action. Modernization of NEPA and permitting processes faces significant challenges due to the lack of standardized formats and interoperable systems for organizing and sharing NEPA-related information across agencies. Much of the information gathered during NEPA reviews is written into documents such as categorical exclusions, environmental assessments, and environmental impact statements, then filed in predominately independent agency file stores that may or may not be publicly accessible. The application of metadata and data standards, such as those recommended by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), to NEPA documents offers a shared vocabulary and structure for key entities like projects, processes, and documents that can streamline information exchange and enhance collaboration across systems. In this work, we publicly release NEPATEC2.0, an expanded corpus of NEPA documents with associated metadata. NEPATEC2.0 encompasses approximately 120,000 documents from 60,000 projects prepared by more than 60 different agencies. Modeled to align with CEQ metadata standards, NEPATEC2.0 promotes consistency in environmental reviews and supports the ongoing effort to modernize permitting technologies by facilitating more transparent, efficient, and data-driven decision-making. Importantly, NEPATEC2.0 demonstrates the possibilities and limitations of large language model-based prompting to extract information from NEPA documents at scale.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
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↗
Data call questions related to potential NEPA/Data gaps
Based on review of the related NEPA documents, and consideration of the potential gaps in NEPA coverage, a number of questions have been generated. These questions are generally higher level (less detailed) questions that should help to establish the applicability of analyses in existing NEPA documents and the ability of these documents to provide NEPA coverage for the Proposed Action. These questions do not request detailed information about SRS facilities/activities and the Proposed Action like typically would be requested when performing impacts analyses for an EIS. We do not believe detail information is needed; if it is needed, it may be an indication that an SA is not the appropriate level of NEPA documentation for the Proposed Action.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
X-33 Environmental Impact Statement: A Fast Track Approach
NASA is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to prepare an appropriate level environmental analysis for its major projects. Development of the X-33 Technology Demonstrator and its associated flight test program required an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the NEPA. The EIS process is consists of four parts: the "Notice of Intent" to prepare an EIS and scoping; the draft EIS which is distributed for review and comment; the final ETS; and the "Record of Decision." Completion of this process normally takes from 2 - 3 years, depending on the complexity of the proposed action. Many of the agency's newest fast track, technology demonstration programs require NEPA documentation, but cannot sustain the lengthy time requirement between program concept development to implementation. Marshall Space Flight Center, in cooperation with Kennedy Space Center, accomplished the NEPA process for the X-33 Program in 13 months from Notice of Intent to Record of Decision. In addition, the environmental team implemented an extensive public involvement process, conducting a total of 23 public meetings for scoping and draft EIS comment along with numerous informal meetings with public officials, civic organizations, and Native American Indians. This paper will discuss the fast track approach used to successfully accomplish the NEPA process for X-33 on time.
McCaleb, Rebecca C.↗
Geothermal Development and the Use of Categorical Exclusions (Poster)
The federal environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) can be complex and time consuming. Currently, a geothermal developer may have to complete the NEPA process multiple times during the development of a geothermal project. One mechanism to reduce the timeframe of the federal environmental review process for activities that do not have a significant environmental impact is the use of Categorical Exclusions (CXs), which can exempt projects from having to complete an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement. This study focuses primarily on the CX process and its applicability to geothermal exploration. In this paper, we Provide generalized background information on CXs, including previous NEPA reports addressing CXs, the process for developing CXs, and the role of extraordinary circumstances; Examine the history of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) geothermal CXs;Compare current CXs for oil, gas, and geothermal energy; Describe bills proposing new statutory CXs; Examine the possibility of standardizing geothermal CXs across federal agencies; and Present analysis from the Geothermal NEPA Database and other sources on the potential for new geothermal exploration CXs. As part of this study, we reviewed Environmental Assessments (EAs) conducted in response to 20 geothermal exploration drilling permit applications (Geothermal Drilling Permits or Notices of Intents) since the year 2001, the majority of which are from the last 5 years. All 20 EAs reviewed for this study resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). While many of these FONSI's involved proponent proposed or federal agency required mitigation, this still suggests it may be appropriate to create or expand an exploration drilling CX for geothermal, which would have a significant impact on reducing geothermal exploration timelines and up-front costs. Ultimately, federal agencies tasked with permitting and completing environmental reviews for geothermal exploration drilling activities and/or legislative representatives are the responsible parties to discuss the merits and implementation of new or revised CXs for geothermal development.
15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
Geothermal Development and the Use of Categorical Exclusions Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Presentation)
The federal environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) can be complex and time consuming. Currently, a geothermal developer may have to complete the NEPA process multiple times during the development of a geothermal project. One mechanism to reduce the timeframe of the federal environmental review process for activities that do not have a significant environmental impact is the use of Categorical Exclusions (CXs), which can exempt projects from having to complete an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement. This study focuses primarily on the CX process and its applicability to geothermal exploration. In this paper, we: Provide generalized background information on CXs, including previous NEPA reports addressing CXs, the process for developing CXs, and the role of extraordinary circumstances; Examine the history of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) geothermal CXs; Compare current CXs for oil, gas, and geothermal energy; Describe bills proposing new statutory CXs; Examine the possibility of standardizing geothermal CXs across federal agencies; and Present analysis from the Geothermal NEPA Database and other sources on the potential for new geothermal exploration CXs. As part of this study, we reviewed Environmental Assessments (EAs) conducted in response to 20 geothermal exploration drilling permit applications (Geothermal Drilling Permits or Notices of Intents) since the year 2001, the majority of which are from the last 5 years. All 20 EAs reviewed for this study resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). While many of these FONS's involved proponent proposed or federal agency required mitigation, this still suggests it may be appropriate to create or expand an exploration drilling CX for geothermal, which would have a significant impact on reducing geothermal exploration timelines and up-front costs. Ultimately, federal agencies tasked with permitting and completing environmental reviews for geothermal exploration drilling activities and/or legislative representatives are the responsible parties to discuss the merits and implementation of new or revised CXs for geothermal development.
15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
Structural dynamics of N-ethylpropionamide clusters examined by nonlinear infrared spectroscopy
In this work, the structural dynamics of N-ethylpropionamide (NEPA), a model molecule of β-peptides, in four typical solvents (DMSO, CH{sub 3}CN, CHCl{sub 3}, and CCl{sub 4}), were examined using the N—H stretching vibration (or the amide-A mode) as a structural probe. Steady-state and transient infrared spectroscopic methods in combination with quantum chemical computations and molecular dynamics simulations were used. It was found that in these solvents, NEPA exists in different aggregation forms, including monomer, dimer, and oligomers. Hydrogen-bonding interaction and local-solvent environment both affect the amide-A absorption profile and its vibrational relaxation dynamics and also affect the structural dynamics of NEPA. In particular, a correlation between the red-shifted frequency for the NEPA monomer from nonpolar to polar solvent and the vibrational excitation relaxation rate of the N—H stretching mode was observed.
37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
PNNL Review of Federal and State Agency Regulatory Streamlining Practices
All major federal actions that have the potential to significantly affect the environment (e.g., land purchases and/or issuing grants, permits, leases, or licenses) are subject to multiple statutes including the following: • an environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) • potential consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) • potential consultations with State Historical Preservation Officers (SHPOs) and/or tribal nations [often Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs)] under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). Given the size of the federal government and the corresponding variability and complexity in its missions, different branches within the federal government have a fairly wide range of approaches to fulfill their NEPA and consultation requitements. Many of these approaches are founded on the desire to streamline their NEPA and consultation processes while meeting the spirit and letter of the regulations. Some federal and state environmental/engineering agencies have developed web-based dashboards that provide a single web location for permit application submittals. They also use general permits in their various permitting processes. General permits can streamline the permitting process by establishing identical requirements for all eligible applicants. This reduces the time these agencies need to spend reviewing individual permits and setting specific requirements. In addition, general permits do not require a case-specific permit application. This paper presents a sampling of effective agency examples of streamlining the NEPA process and associated agency consultations. It also includes several examples of federal and state agency web portals, online application systems, and general permits that make application processes more efficient and accessible.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Geothermal Case Studies
The US Geological Survey (USGS) resource assessment (Williams et al., 2009) outlined a mean 30GWe of undiscovered hydrothermal resource in the western US. One goal of the Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO) is to accelerate the development of this undiscovered resource. The Geothermal Technologies Program (GTP) Blue Ribbon Panel (GTO, 2011) recommended that DOE focus efforts on helping industry identify hidden geothermal resources to increase geothermal capacity in the near term. Increased exploration activity will produce more prospects, more discoveries, and more readily developable resources. Detailed exploration case studies akin to those found in oil and gas (e.g. Beaumont, et al, 1990) will give operators a single point of information to gather clean, unbiased information on which to build geothermal drilling prospects. To support this effort, the National Renewable Energy laboratory (NREL) has been working with the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop a template for geothermal case studies on the Geothermal Gateway on OpenEI. In fiscal year 2013, the template was developed and tested with two case studies: Raft River Geothermal Area (http://en.openei.org/wiki/Raft_River_Geothermal_Area) and Coso Geothermal Area (http://en.openei.org/wiki/Coso_Geothermal_Area). In fiscal year 2014, ten additional case studies were completed, and additional features were added to the template to allow for more data and the direct citations of data. The template allows for: Data - a variety of data can be collected for each area, including power production information, well field information, geologic information, reservoir information, and geochemistry information. Narratives ? general (e.g. area overview, history and infrastructure), technical (e.g. exploration history, well field description, R&D activities) and geologic narratives (e.g. area geology, hydrothermal system, heat source, geochemistry.) Exploration Activity Catalog - catalog of exploration activities conducted in the area (with dates and references.) NEPA Analysis ? a query of NEPA analyses conducted in the area (that have been catalogued in the OpenEI NEPA database.) In fiscal year 2015, NREL is working with universities to populate additional case studies on OpenEI. The goal is to provide a large enough dataset to start conducting analyses of exploration programs to identify correlations between successful exploration plans for areas with similar geologic occurrence models.
15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
Regulatory and Permitting Information Desktop (RAPID) Toolkit (Poster)
The Regulatory and Permitting Information Desktop (RAPID) Toolkit combines the former Geothermal Regulatory Roadmap, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Database, and other resources into a Web-based tool that gives the regulatory and utility-scale geothermal developer communities rapid and easy access to permitting information. RAPID currently comprises five tools - Permitting Atlas, Regulatory Roadmap, Resource Library, NEPA Database, and Best Practices. A beta release of an additional tool, the Permitting Wizard, is scheduled for late 2014. Because of the huge amount of information involved, RAPID was developed in a wiki platform to allow industry and regulatory agencies to maintain the content in the future so that it continues to provide relevant and accurate information to users. In 2014, the content was expanded to include regulatory requirements for utility-scale solar and bulk transmission development projects. Going forward, development of the RAPID Toolkit will focus on expanding the capabilities of current tools, developing additional tools, including additional technologies, and continuing to increase stakeholder involvement.
15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
Ecological Impacts of the Space Shuttle Program at John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida
The Space Shuttle Program was one of NASAs first major undertakings to fall under the environmental impact analysis and documentation requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Space Shuttle Program activities at John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and the associated Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR) contributed directly and indirectly to both negative and positive ecological trends in the region through the long-term, stable expenditure of resources over the 40 year program life cycle. These expenditures provided support to regional growth and development in conjunction with other sources that altered land use patterns, eliminated and modified habitats, and contributed to cultural eutrophication of the Indian River Lagoon. At KSC, most Space Shuttle Program related actions were conducted in previously developed facilities and industrial areas with the exception of the construction of the shuttle landing facility (SLF) and the space station processing facility (SSPF). Launch and operations impacts were minimal as a result of the low annual launch rate. The majority of concerns identified during the NEPA process such as potential weather modification, acid rain off site, and local climate change did not occur. Launch impacts from deposition of HCl and particulates were assimilated as a result of the high buffering capacity of the system and low launch and loading rates. Metals deposition from exhaust deposition did not display acute impacts. Sub-lethal effects are being investigated as part of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulatory process. Major positive Space Shuttle Program effects were derived from the adequate resources available at the Center to implement the numerous environmental laws and regulations designed to enhance the quality of the environment and minimize impacts from human activities. This included reduced discharges of domestic and industrial wastewater, creation of stormwater management systems, remediation of past contamination sites, implementation of hazardous waste management systems, and creation of a culture of sustainability. Working with partners such as the USFWS and the St Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), wetlands and scrub restoration and management initiatives were implemented to enhance fish and wildlife populations at the Center. KSC remains the single largest preserve on the east coast of Florida in part due to NASAs commitment to stewardship. Ongoing Ecological Program projects are directed at development of information and knowledge to address future KSC management questions including the transition to a joint government and commercial launch facility, enhanced habitat management requirements for wetlands and scrub, potential impacts of emerging contaminants, and adaptation to climate change including projected sea level rise over the next 50-75 years.
Space Shuttle Program↗
Geothermal Development and the Use of Categorical Exclusions Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
The federal environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) can be complex and time consuming. Currently, a geothermal developer may have to complete the NEPA process multiple times during the development of a geothermal project. One mechanism to reduce the timeframe of the federal environmental review process for activities that do not have a significant environmental impact is the use of Categorical Exclusions (CXs), which can exempt projects from having to complete an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement. This study focuses primarily on the CX process and its applicability to geothermal exploration.
15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
Environmental Concerns and Mitigation Associated with Geothermal Resource Confirmation Drilling Activities
In 2017-2018, the Bureau of Land Management's National Renewable Energy Coordination Office, through its Geothermal Program, funded the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to analyze technical and environmental considerations related to geothermal resource confirmation drilling. NREL solicited input from a group of technical and environmental experts in the geothermal industry, along with analyzing National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) documentation for previously approved projects. The collected data and analysis will be used by the Bureau of Land Management to examine the possibility of developing a new classification of wells and/or expediting the NEPA compliance process, which could potentially reduce permitting and regulatory compliance timelines when compared to the current process for obtaining a geothermal drilling permit for resource confirmation drilling activities.
15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
Fueling Nuclear Research at MFC: The Environmental Backbone of Nuclear Operations
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review guidelines are an essential part of the approval process of any construction or modification being done at Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The Material and Fuels Complex (MFC) Environmental team is responsible for writing and reviewing Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), Environmental Assessments (EAs), Environmental Compliance Permits (ECPs), Air Permitting Applicability Determinations (APADs), and other NEPA compliance documentation. This documentation allows for innovation in MFC research by permitting the introduction of new laboratory equipment, research facilities, and materials for researchers to use in their experiments. Without the work of the Environmental team, nuclear research and operations at MFC would not be possible.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Brigham City Hydro Generation Project
Brigham City owns and operates its own municipal power system which currently includes several hydroelectric facilities. This project was to update the efficiency and capacity of current hydro production due to increased water flow demands that could pass through existing generation facilities. During 2006-2012, this project completed efficiency evaluation as it related to its main objective by completing a feasibility study, undergoing necessary City Council approvals and required federal environmental reviews. As a result of Phase 1 of the project, a feasibility study was conducted to determine feasibility of hydro and solar portions of the original proposal. The results indicated that the existing Hydro plant which was constructed in the 1960’s was running at approximately 77% efficiency or less. Brigham City proposes that the efficiency calculations be refined to determine the economic feasibility of improving or replacing the existing equipment with new high efficiency equipment design specifically for the site. Brigham City completed the Feasibility Assessment of this project, and determined that the Upper Hydro that supplies the main culinary water to the city was feasible to continue with. Brigham City Council provided their approval of feasibility assessment’s results. The Upper Hydro Project include removal of the existing powerhouse equipment and controls and demolition of a section of concrete encased penstock, replacement of penstock just upstream of the turbine inlet, turbine bypass, turbine shut-off and bypass valves, turbine and generator package, control equipment, assembly, start-up, commissioning, Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA), and the replacement of a section of conductors to the step-up transformer. Brigham City increased the existing 575 KW turbine and generator with an 825 KW turbine and generator. Following the results of the feasibility assessment Brigham City pursued required environmental reviews with the DOE and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) concurring with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) It was determined that Brigham City’s Upper Hydroelectric Power Plant upgrade would have no effect to federally listed or candidate species. However Brigham City has contributed a onetime lump sum towards Bonneville cutthroat trout conservation in the Northern Bonneville Geographic Management Unit with the intention to offset any impacts from the Upper Hydro Project needed to move forward with design and construction and is sufficient for NEPA compliance. No work was done in the river or river bank. During construction, the penstock was disconnected and water was diverted through and existing system around the powerhouse and back into the water system. The penstock, which is currently a 30-inch steel pipe, would be removed and replaced with a new section of 30-inch pipe. Brigham City worked with the DOE and was awarded a new modification and the permission to proceed with Phase III of our Hydro Project in Dec. 2013; with the exception to the modification of the award for the construction phase. Brigham City developed and issued a Request for Proposal for Engineer and Design vendor. Sunrise Engineering was selected for the Design and throughout the Construction Phase of the Upper Hydroelectric Power Plant. Brigham City conducted a Kickoff Meeting with Sunrise June 28, 2013 and received a Scope of Work Brigham City along with engineering firm sent out a RFP for Turbine, Generator and Equipment for Upper Hydro. We select Turbine/Generator Equipment from Canyon Industries located in Deming, WA. DOE awarded Brigham City a new modification and the permission to proceed with Phase III Construction of our Hydro Project. Brigham City Crews removed existing turbine/generator and old equipment alone with feeder wires coming into the building basically giving Caribou Construction an empty shell to begin demolition. Brigham City contracted with Caribou Construction from Jerome, Idaho for the Upper Power Plant construction. A kickoff meeting was June 24, 2014 and demolition was immediately started on building. Because of a delivery delay of Turbine, Generator and Equipment from Canyon Brigham City had to request another extension for the final date of completion. DOE awarded modification (.007) to Brigham City with a new completion date of August 1, 2015. The Turbine has had a few adjustments to help with efficiency; but the Generator had a slight vibration when generator got hot so Canyon Industries had U S Motor’s that manufactured the generator come to check out the issue. The other Equipment seems to be running normal. Brigham City, Sunrise Engineering and Canyon Industries met to determine what the vibration in the generator was and how to solve the issue Us Motor’s found some welds that failed: they have been repaired. U S Motor’s delivered the repaired generator Feb. 17, 2015. Canyon Industries arranged for a crane to installed generator in Power Plant. U S Motor’s balanced and wired generator. Plant Operators put the generator back on line. Canyon Industries returned and gave their approval to keep Hydro online. After Hydro was put back into operations it kept going off line because of overheating issues. Canyon Industries returned and replaced sensors and adjusted them to the proper settings for normal operations. Brigham City added additional steel screens to windows to increase air flow in Power Plant Building. After construction phase of the Upper Hydro Plant some landscaping has been restored around the building additional gravel brought in and leveled out and the road that was cut through for conduits to run wires. A retaining wall was installed to protect penstock. The Upper Hydro Plant is complete and in full operations. The final reimbursement was submitted.
13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
Savannah River Site nuclear materials management plan FY 2017-2031
The purpose of the Nuclear Materials Management Plan (herein referred to as “this Plan”) is to integrate and document the activities required to disposition the legacy and/or surplus Enriched Uranium (EU) and Plutonium (Pu) and other nuclear materials already stored or anticipated to be received by facilities at the Department of Energy (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) as well as the activities to support the DOE Tritium mission. It establishes a planning basis for EU and Pu processing operations in Environmental Management Operations (EMO) facilities through the end of their program missions and for the tritium through the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Defense Programs (DP) facilities. Its development is a joint effort among the Department of Energy - Savannah River (DOE-SR), DOE – Environmental Management (EM), NNSA Office of Material Management and Minimization (M3), NNSA Savannah River Field Office (SRFO), and the Management and Operations (M&O) contractor, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC (SRNS). Life-cycle program planning for Nuclear Materials Stabilization and Disposition and the Tritium Enterprise may use this Plan as a basis for the development of the nuclear materials disposition scope and schedule. This Plan assumes full funding to accomplish the required project and operations activities. It is recognized that some aspects of this Plan are pre decisional with regard to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); in such cases new NEPA actions will be required.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Oak Ridge Response to Versatile Test Reactor Environmental Impact Statement Data Request
The Versatile Test Reactor (VTR) is a fast-spectrum test reactor being developed in the United States under the direction of the US Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE). The VTR mission is to enable accelerated testing of advanced reactor fuels and materials required for advanced reactor technologies. The conceptual design of the 300 MWth sodium-cooled metallic-fueled pool-type fast reactor has been led by the US National Laboratories in collaboration with General Electric–Hitachi and Bechtel National, Inc. In support of the VTR project, DOE issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on August 5, 2019, announcing the intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. The EIS will evaluate alternatives for a versatile reactor–based fast-neutron source facility and associated facilities for the preparation, irradiation, and post-irradiation examination (PIE) of test/experimental fuels and materials. Specifically, the NOI identified two siting alternatives for the VTR reactor facility: Idaho National Laboratory (INL) or Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). In addition, the NOI also specified two siting alternatives for VTR fuel fabrication: INL and the Savannah River Site (SRS). This report provides information in response to data requests made to ORNL to fill in site-specific knowledge gaps to develop a high-quality EIS. The responses provided are not required to provide full details in every aspect; instead, they adequately bound possible environmental impacts or provide sufficient information to adequately assess likely environmental impacts. This work is being performed under a subcontract from INL to ORNL using DOE-NE funds and is directed by DOE-NE and DOE-ID. Leidos has been contracted by DOE-NE to write the VTR EIS, so most data requests have come from Leidos but were often routed through INL or DOE-ID. DOE-ID is overseeing the NEPA and EIS processes for the VTR project. Leidos will use the information provided in this report to inform the VTR EIS and will also cite this document to establish a clear, publicly available source of the information. Section 2 of this report briefly describes the proposed ORNL VTR Alternative and illustrates the location of the proposed site for the ORNL VTR Alternative. Sections 3 through 7 provide direct responses to data requests received by ORNL. These sections use a tabular format in which data requests are divided into separate items to be addressed; the items are numbered, the data requests are restated with more topical information included, and then the responses are provided. Initial data requests and follow-on requests for additional information (RAIs) are combined under the original data request fields. Finally, Section 8 presents summarized conclusions and describes future work.
21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗