Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Building an EPA Class VI Permit Application

Summary To accelerate the commercialization of carbon capture and storage (CCS), the US Department of Energy (US DOE) is building on decades of characterization efforts and pilot-scale projects through their CarbonSAFE program. Administered through their National Energy Technology Laboratory, this program seeks to bring fully integrated projects to the sector that can store more than 50 million tonnes of CO2 over a 30-year period. The program, which was enacted before the enhancement of Internal Revenue Code Section 45Q, is in the capture assessment, characterization, and permitting phase. The objectives of this paper are to discuss (a) the injection permitting requirements of the CarbonSAFE projects; (b) information gathering in support of the permit; (c) the timelines of field development and permit-related activities; (d) the major technical components of the field development plan; and (e) early feedback from the regulators toward acceptance of the permit. In Mississippi, more than 30,000 acres have been characterized by six deep characterization wells, a deep groundwater well, and 92 line miles of 2D seismic as part of the CarbonSAFE Project ECO2S. During the acquisition of seismic data, all receiver lines were live, which resulted in the generation of a pseudo-3D seismic design. The incorporation of a 3D seismic survey was not included as part of this project due to logistical difficulties presented by the undulating, wooded surface terrain. A suite of openhole geophysical logs was taken from each well, allowing for a detailed interpretation of prospective storage reservoirs and confining intervals to complement the analysis carried out on the 290 ft of a whole core that was cut through the prospective confining zone and storage reservoir. The detailed geologic and reservoir data were assembled and entered into a 3D model to assess the injection capacity and the area of review (AoR). This information fed into the detailed corrective action, monitoring, testing, and postinjection site care (PISC) modeling. The results have been exceptional. The geologic assessment has revealed three primary storage targets, ranging in depth from 3,500 ft to 6,000 ft. These storage reservoirs net 1,300 ft of sandstone, with mean porosity and permeability of 29% and 3.6 darcies, respectively. Together, these reservoirs have storage capacities that may exceed 20 million tonnes per square mile, making this a gigatonne prospect. Forward modeling of the project resulted in an AoR of 16 sq miles, injecting about 8000 t/d, for 30 years, via two deep injection wells. The excellent confining characteristics of the caprock, relatively simple geologic structure, and lack of historical well drilling activity in this area provide excellent containment of the injected CO2. Based on this work, the project has proposed 20 years of PISC. To date, only two US CO2 injection permits have been granted. These projects relied on a singular capture point feeding a singular sequestration point (source to sink), and considerations have not been made to garner CO2 emissions from other industrial sources. The Kemper County Storage Complex is a first-of-its-kind storage hub concept that looks to develop an area capable of storing significant quantities of CO2 from the region. Also, this work will show how characterization efforts, geological and numerical modeling efforts, and plan development were constructed in support of permit and incentives acceptance.

Energy & Fuels↗
DOE OSTI2021

Extract useful information from building permits data to profile a city’s building retrofit history

Building retrofit is one of the key strategies for cities to reduce energy use and GHG emissions. The historical information about changes to buildings is crucial to infer the buildings’ current energy system efficiency levels and to identify candidate buildings for retrofit. In general, a building permit is required before the start of any construction activity of a building, such as changing building structure, remodeling, or installing new equipment. Moreover, many large cities provide public datasets of building permits in history. Therefore, the permits are a potentially good resource for mining information on the city’s retrofit history. In this study, we use the permit dataset from the city of San Francisco as a case study. Location and time information from the dataset is also used to depict the retrofit timeline of each building and the whole building stock. The type of work of the permit is inferred from the descriptive text by a machine learning model. At last, the limitations of the current permit dataset and potential improvements on the permit data management are discussed to better utilize the information in the future.

Zhang, Wanni↗
DOE OSTI2021

Marine Energy Environmental Permitting and Compliance Costs

Costs to permit Marine Energy projects are poorly understood. In this paper we examine environmental compliance and permitting costs for 19 projects in the U.S., covering the last 2 decades. Guided discussions were conducted with developers over a 3-year period to obtain historical and ongoing project cost data relative to environmental studies (e.g., baseline or pre-project site characterization as well as post-installation effects monitoring), stakeholder outreach, and mitigation, as well as qualitative experience of the permitting process. Data are organized in categories of technology type, permitted capacity, pre- and post-installation, geographic location, and funding types. We also compare our findings with earlier logic models created for the Department of Energy (i.e., Reference Models). Environmental studies most commonly performed were for Fish and Fisheries, Noise, Marine Habitat/Benthic Studies and Marine Mammals. Studies for tidal projects were more expensive than those performed for wave projects and the range of reported project costs tended to be wider than ranges predicted by logic models. For eight projects reporting full project costs, from project start to FERC or USACE permit, the average amount for environmental permitting compliance was 14.6%.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2024

NORTH DAKOTA CARBONSAFE PHASE III: SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND PERMITTING OF GEOLOGIC STORAGE OF CARBON DIOXIDE

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), in partnership with Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc. (Minnkota), SLB, and Computer Modelling Group Ltd. (CMG), supported wide-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as part of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) Initiative Phase III. This phase included the acquisition, analysis, and development of information to fully characterize two storage complexes to demonstrate viable storage resources for commercial volumes of CO2 (defined by DOE as a minimum of 50 million tonnes [MMt] of CO2 within a 30-year period) (National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2024). Phase III also involved the preparation, submission, and approval of North Dakota underground injection control (UIC) Class VI storage facility permits (SFPs)—required precursors to applications for Class VI injection well permits. The presumed viability of commercial-scale CCS, situated adjacent to Minnkota’s Milton R. Young Station (MRYS), is validated by Minnkota’s continued pursuit of Project Tundra—an initiative to build the world’s largest lignite-based CCS project in central North Dakota (www.projecttundrand.com). Project Tundra comprises two scopes of work, Tundra Capture (installation of postcombustion CO2 capture at MRYS) and Tundra SGS (secure geologic storage). The efforts of North Dakota CarbonSAFE Phase III, Site Characterization and Permitting, supported Tundra SGS. Extensive site-specific characterization activities included a successful multimeasurement geophysical approach and drilling a stratigraphic test well (J-ROC 1, subsequently renamed Liberty-1) adjacent to MRYS. Core collection and analyses, downhole testing and fluid sampling, and geophysical logging were performed on J-ROC 1 and on a nearby stratigraphic test well (known as J-LOC 1), which was drilled, cored, and tested under a complementary project funded by the North Dakota Lignite Research Program. The injection tests performed on J-LOC 1 positively impacted the CarbonSAFE project, resulting in fewer proposed injection wells and significant construction, operations, and monitoring cost savings. The characterization data collected and analyses performed were integrated into geologic models, and successive numerical simulations were run to determine CO2 plume extent and subsurface pressure buildup associated with the planned CO2 injection rate of nearly 4 MMt per year. The latter doubles the CarbonSAFE Initiative goal with an estimated 100 MMt of CO2 stored in 20 years. Application of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) method for estimating the Class VI Rule area of review (AOR) to the overpressurized Broom Creek Formation inspired an alternative method of calculation, called risk-based AOR delineation. This peer-reviewed method was applied for the first time during the storage facility-permitting process. The two SFP applications submitted in 2021 successfully resulted in North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) orders in 2022 authorizing the creation of the storage facility areas and amalgamation of pore space as well as establishing financial responsibility requirements. After approval of the SFPs, Minnkota filed in 2022 applications for permits to reenter the J-ROC 1 well and to drill two new wells—all with the intended purpose to become Class VI injection wells. To establish eligibility under the Internal Revenue Code for Section 45Q tax incentives, a monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) plan was prepared and submitted by Minnkota to EPA in 2022, resulting in the first such plan approved in North Dakota. Also in 2022, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Minnkota prepared and submitted an environmental information volume (EIV) describing the proposed CCS project and associated potential environmental impacts. Based on the EIV, DOE determined that the proposed construction project required an environmental assessment, and Minnkota submitted the first draft in 2023 and a revised draft in 2024. Both submissions were followed by a public comment period. Subsequently, DOE issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) on September 13, 2024. A successful outreach program, strongly based in the production, presentation, and dissemination of informational material, fostered an environment to aid stakeholders in making informed decisions regarding the planned project. Opportunities for public input were provided at various steps along the way, including at county planning and zoning meetings, before and during the SFP administrative hearing, and during environmental assessment public comment periods. In addition, land/pore space owners and mineral owners had various points of contact, including granting access rights, securing pore space leasing, and mineral owner notifications. Based upon the successful storage facility permitting issued by NDIC, approval of the MRV plan by EPA, and receipt of a FONSI under the NEPA, Minnkota is continuing its pursuit of Project Tundra. In December 2023, the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations under its Carbon Capture Demonstrations Projects Program announced funding for the capture system (Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, 2023) and a proposal for CarbonSAFE Phase IV: Construction funding was submitted in March 2024 for the storage project. A go/no-go decision to proceed with construction and operations in the Broom Creek Formation is anticipated in 2024. References National Energy Technology Laboratory, CarbonSafe Initiative, https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon-storage/carbonsafe (accessed August 2024). Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, 2023, OCED selects three projects in CA, ND, and TX to reduce harmful carbon pollution, create new economic opportunities, and advance carbon reducing technologies, December, www.energy.gov/oced/articles/oced-selects-three-projects-ca-nd-and-tx-reduce-harmful-carbon-pollution-create-new (accessed August 2024).

Peck, Wesley↗
DOE OSTI2026

Illinois Storage Corridor, CarbonSAFE Phase III: UIC Class VI Permitting Plan

The Illinois Storage Corridor (ISC) project evaluated two distinct sites to determine the feasibility of commercial-scale CO₂ storage at each. The project leveraged the region's exceptional geological characteristics, particularly the well-characterized Cambro-Ordovician Storage Complex, to enable permanent geological storage of more than 50 million tonnes of CO₂ over 30 years. The two storage sites are located at One Earth Energy (OEE) facility in northcentral Illinois and Prairie State Generating Company (PSGC) in southcentral Illinois. Once operational, these facilities will combine to capture and store more than 6.5 million tonnes of CO₂ per year, positioning the ISC among the largest carbon storage regions globally. Preliminary homogeneous dynamic modeling based on regional and site-specific reservoir characteristics indicates promising injection capabilities at both locations. For the OEE site, modeling predicts a maximum allowable injection rate of 3.7 MTPA, with a baseline scenario of 1.7 MTPA over 30 years producing a CO₂ plume radius of 1.4 miles at end of injection. For the PSGC site, incorporating recent well data, modeling indicates a single-well maximum injection rate of 2.1 MTPA, with a plume radius of 4.2 miles at end of injection for the 60 MT over 30 years scenario. The primary objective of this CarbonSAFE Phase III project is to develop and submit Class VI Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit applications to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5. The permitting plan outlines comprehensive site characterization, Area of Review delineation, monitoring programs, well construction designs, financial responsibility provisions, and post-injection site care procedures necessary to demonstrate safe, permanent CO₂ storage protective of underground sources of drinking water. Three UIC Class VI permit applications for the OEE site were submitted to EPA in October 2022 and are progressing through technical review, with final permit decision projected by June 2026. Through five rounds of Requests for Additional Information and responses, the applications have been refined to address computational modeling, area of review delineation, well integrity, monitoring protocols, and financial assurance requirements. For the PSGC site, finalized characterization and permitting documentation was delivered directly to the facility in July 2023 due to business constraints precluding formal federal regulatory submission. This comprehensive permitting effort builds upon extensive prior subsurface evaluations and demonstration projects that have confirmed the feasibility of widespread commercial-scale carbon storage in the region.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2025

Air Dispersion Modeling for the Idaho National Laboratory Permit to Construct P-2020.0045 Facility Emission Cap Revision Request

The U.S. Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID) is seeking to modify permit to construct (PTC) P-2020.0045 issued to U S Dept. of Energy – Idaho National Laboratory (INL) on January 29, 2021 by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). This PTC allowed the INL to become a synthetic minor source of air pollutants using a facility emission cap (FEC). Air dispersion modeling was performed as part of the permit revision application process to demonstrate that the modifications will comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This report documents the modeling methodology and complete results for the air dispersion impact analysis and is supplied as an appendix to the permit revision request, Idaho National Laboratory Permit to Construct P-2020.0045 (INL 2025). All criteria air pollutants (CAPs) regulated under Section 109 of the Clean Air Act were modeled with the exception of lead (Pb) and ozone which are not required to be modeled by DEQ. Consistent with the original permit application, modeling was not performed for toxic air pollutants (TAPs) as uncontrolled emissions did not exceed screening emission levels for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic TAPs. Acceptable model design values (concentrations) for each CAP and averaging period were summed with average background concentrations and compared to NAAQS. The results demonstrate the impacts of requested FEC limits for CAPs are less than applicable standards and demonstrate emissions up to FEC limits will not cause a violation of ambient air quality standards.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Air Dispersion Modeling for the Idaho National Laboratory Permit to Construct P-2015.0023 Facility Emission Cap Revision Request

The U.S. Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID) is seeking to modify permit to construct (PTC) P-2015.0023 issued to U S Dept. of Energy – Idaho National Laboratory (INL) on January 11, 2018 by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). This PTC allowed the INL to become a synthetic minor source of air pollutants using a facility emission cap (FEC). Air dispersion modeling was performed as part of the permit revision application process to demonstrate that the modifications will comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This report documents the modeling methodology and complete results for the air dispersion impact analysis and is supplied as an appendix to the permit revision request, Idaho National Laboratory Permit to Construct P-2015.0023 Facility Emission Cap Revision Request (DOE-ID 2020). All CAPs regulated under Section 109 of the Clean Air Act were modeled with the exception of lead (Pb) and ozone which are not required to be modeled by DEQ. Consistent with the original permit application, modeling was not performed for toxic air pollutants (TAPs) as uncontrolled emissions did not exceed screening emission levels for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic TAPs. Acceptable model design values (concentrations) for each CAP and averaging period were summed with average background concentrations and compared to NAAQS. The results demonstrate the impacts of requested FEC limits for CAPs are less than applicable standards and demonstrate emissions up to FEC limits will not cause a violation of ambient air quality standards.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Environmental Permitting and Compliance Cost Reduction Strategies for the MHK Industry: Lessons Learned from Other Industries

The marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) industry plays a vital role in the U.S. clean energy strategy by providing a renewable, domestic energy source that may offset the need for traditional energy sources. The first MHK deployments in the U.S. have incurred very high permitting costs and long timelines for deploying projects, which increases project risk and discourages investment. A key challenge to advancing an economically competitive U.S. MHK industry is reducing the time and cost required for environmental permitting and compliance with government regulations. Other industries such as offshore oil and gas, offshore wind energy, subsea power and data cables, onshore wind energy, and solar energy facilities have all developed more robust permitting and compliance pathways that provide lessons for the MHK industry in the U.S. and may help inform the global consenting process. Based on in-depth review and research into each of the other industries, we describe the environmental permitting pathways, the main environmental concerns and types of monitoring typically associated with them, and factors that appear to have eased environmental permitting and compliance issues.

other industries↗
DOE OSTI2022

Economic Impact of Permitting Timelines on Produced Geothermal Power

Despite having a large geothermal power potential in the United States, only a small fraction has been developed for power generation. Various barriers, including technical, financial, and regulatory permit delays, are attributed to lower contribution of geothermal energy in the national grid. Unpredictable environmental reviews and permitting timelines are some of the non-technical barriers that can cause delays in geothermal exploration and utilization plans. This study shows that the geothermal permitting timelines can vary from six months to several years, depending on the presence or absence of biological resources, cultural resources, and sensitive environmental issues at the project site. The potential impacts of these permit barriers can range from investors abandoning geothermal development to making the product (i.e., electricity) more expensive and uncompetitive.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

A phased workflow to define permit‐ready locations for large volume CO 2 injection and storage

Abstract To‐date, only two UIC Class VI permits have been issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency. We illustrate a four‐phase workflow to first identify regional storage resources and then down‐select sites to yield permit‐ready locations that can accept and store large volumes of CO 2 . Specific permit requirements should guide objectives and define deliverables of respective workflow phases. In the first phase we used available regional data and screened structure and injection zones to locate resources that match CO 2 volumes planned to be captured. Available data were also used to assess presence and depth of usable groundwater, the key resource being protected via permitting. We then used advanced, closed‐form, analytical solutions (EASiTool) to estimate CO 2 injectivity into each hydrologically connected injection compartment. In the second phase we acquired and conditioned additional wireline logs and leased available seismic datasets. We interpreted the depositional systems from wireline well‐log character and mapped sandbody geometry to interpolate injection and confining‐zone distribution. Using available data, we mapped faults and locations of freshwater and overpressure (or other capacity‐limiting geologic parameters) in more detail. In the third phase, we used the augmented geologic data to develop a static model for the selected area, extracted the areas of highest interest, and generated and ran dynamic (flow) models. In a fourth phase, we reduced major uncertainties identified in earlier phases. Our case study indicates that to complete preparation of a permit application requires (1) improved lithologic characterization information (thicknesses and horizontal and vertical connectivity) and (2) better definition of poorly defined local faults. © 2023 The Authors. Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology published by Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2019

SolarAPP+ ® (Solar Automated Permit Processing Plus) [SWR-19-51]

SolarAPP+ ®: Safe and affordable home solar through permitting automation. NREL has launched a collaborative effort with key code officials, authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs), and the solar industry to develop an instant online solar permitting platform for code compliant residential systems. SolarAPP (Solar Automated Permit Processing) will: -Provide a flexible, web-based PV-permitting tool for residential systems at no-cost to AHJs. -Enable standardization of instant permitting processes. -Evaluate applications for safety and code compliance. -Offer opportunities to incorporate energy storage and expand to other market segments.

Cook, Jeffrey↗
DOE OSTI2024

Request for Exemption and Permit Modification for S-6008: Sewer Diversion Complex

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) operates its Sewer Diversion Complex (SDC) under two relevant permits: discharges to air are controlled by Condition 5533 of LLNL’s BAAQMD permit for Source 6008, and discharges to the municipal sewer system are controlled by LLNL’s Wastewater Discharge Permit (Permit #1250). LLNL intends to modify the SDC by changing the currently permitted tanks to new models. Generally, this change will increase the volume of the tanks, update the abatement carbon system to suit the larger volume, and switch to a set of taller but thinner tanks.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Case study on the novel permitting and authorization of PacWave South, a US grid-connected wave energy test facility: Development, challenges, and insights

Marine energy (i.e., energy from waves, tides, currents, and rivers) in the United States is a nascent industry. In particular, permitting processes—an uncertainty for industry advancement that can be costly and time consuming to navigate—have rarely been tested and used for marine energy. The novelty of the marine energy industry and utilization of open ocean permitting processes that were not originally developed for marine energy have led to extensive efforts to gain consensus amongst state and federal regulatory agencies to authorize marine energy projects. In 2021, Oregon State University successfully completed permitting of a wave energy test facility, called PacWave South, off the coast of Oregon, which is designed to advance wave energy research and development. This article documents the multi-year process that Oregon State University used to receive federal and state authorization for a pre-permitted commercial-scale grid connected facility by detailing the development of the test facility, management of uncertainty and challenges, and key decisions. The PacWave South case study provides insights for the larger marine energy community as the industry advances towards commercialization.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2022

Marine Energy Environmental Toolkit for Permitting and Licensing

The permitting and licensing process for marine energy in the U.S. could take up to 7 years for even small demonstrations or pilot studies despite existing resources like Tethys, MarineCadstre, and the FERC E-Library. The goal of the Marine Energy Environmental Toolkit Project was to increase regulators, developers, and marine energy innovators’ understanding of potential environmental effects of marine energy conversion devices deployments and provide information to make efficient and effective determinations during permitting and licensing; develop a one-stop shop for existing environmental, spatial, regulatory, and scientific data that allows users to access disparate sources of data through a series of tags and spatial queries. The Toolkit (marineenergy.app) builds upon prior U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO) investments by pulling from WPTO-funded and outside resources to facilitate the permitting and licensing process, inform technology developers of required permits, and disseminate the latest knowledge of the environmental effects of these devices to regulators, developers, and marine energy innovators and stakeholders.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2021

Idaho National Laboratory Annual Report for Permit to Construct P-2015.0023 for Calendar Year 2020

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site operates facilities with potential emissions criteria and hazardous air pollutants. This report documents the calendar year 2020 criteria and hazardous air pollutants emissions and has been prepared to comply with permit to construct (PTC) P-2015-0023, Condition 2.9 and Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01.178, Standard Contents of Permits Establishing a Facility Emissions Cap (FEC). IDAPA 58.01.01.178.04 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 0.59 tons in aggregate and the maximum individual HAP was hydrochloric acid at 0.35 tons. Criteria pollutant emissions were 1.23 tons for sulfur dioxide, 40.96 tons for oxides of nitrogen, 11.7 tons of carbon monoxide, 3.01 tons of total particulate matter and 1.98 tons of volatile organic compounds (VOC).

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Illinois Storage Corridor - CarbonSAFE Phase III: Policy, Regulatory, Legal and Permitting Characteristics; Subtask 5.5

The Illinois Storage Corridor (ISC) project aims to advance the commercial development and implementation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies within a region in Illinois of suitable geology for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) storage in deep saline aquifers. The project partners have annual emissions greater than 6.5 million tonnes per year; storage hubs are being explored at two sites—one near the One Earth Energy facility in east-central Illinois, and one near the Prairie State Generating Company campus in southwest Illinois. To implement the technology, legal, policy, and economic considerations must be explored. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) administers the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program and is responsible for issuing Class VI permits to construct and operate CO 2 injection wells, i.e., a UIC Class VI well permit is required to inject CO 2 into the subsurface for geologic sequestration. The largest consideration of the Class VI well requirements is to protect underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). Additionally discussed are considerations for Class VI permits relating to public engagement. Besides permitting, property rights to storage sites, subsurface pore spaces, and areas for pipeline transportation must be secured. Pore space rights is still a novel concept being explored and not yet addressed by the Illinois legislature. It is believed that surface property rights are required for the subsurface pore space below, so long as there is not a separated mineral estate in the subsurface. Illinois legislature has addressed securing rights-of-way for CO 2 transportation, allowing for easements and the exercise of eminent domain to secure such rights. Economically, the incentives for CCS are ever-expanding. Recently, the federal government broadened the availability and increased the dollar-amounts for the § 45Q tax credits for geological storage of carbon oxides. Congress has also authorized the Advanced Industrial Facilities Development Program which allocates billions of dollars in funds to installing technology at industrial facilities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On the state level, Illinois has had its own incentives for CCS projects since 2009 and expanded its emission-related goals again in 2021. The law enacted in 2021 specifically creates a commission to explore implementing CCS at Prairie State Generating Company, a partner on the Illinois Storage Corridor project.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Solar permitting, inspection, and interconnection cycletimes and requirements

Twenty three small-to-large residential, commercial, and industrial PV installers submitted project-level data for analysis, which included timestamps for major components of the permitting, inspection, and interconnection process as well as contract and installation dates. NREL calculated median timelines for these processes across the authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs) and utilities represented in the data. Also included are relevant permitting requirements for AHJs and interconnection process requirements for utilities. This dataset represents the underlying results shown in the Solar Time-based Residential Analytics and Cycle time Estimator (SolarTRACE) viewer. This dataset has been reviewed but errors may exist, and it may not be comprehensive. Errors in the sources (e.g., AHJ permitting requirements lists from data partners) may be duplicated in the dataset.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Soil Sample Plan in Support of the Site 300 Explosives Waste Treatment Facility Ecological Risk Assessment Pursuant to the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Condition #14 a-f. August 2020

The Department of Toxic Substances Control issued the Final Hazardous Waste Facility Permit to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Site 300 in 2017. As part of the continual process to ensure waste treatment emissions are not impacting ecological receptors, LLNL analyzed soil samples in the vicinity of the Explosive Waste Treatment Facility (EWTF) Burn Units (i.e., Burn Cage and Burn Pan) and the Detonation Pad. Soil samples were analyzed by EPA Solid Waste 846 Methods for furans, explosives, metals, and semivolatile compounds. In all samples, furans, explosives, and semi-volatile organic compounds were not detected. Metals were detected at concentrations below background levels. This soil sample plan will sample the same four downwind areas of the Burn Units and the same downwind areas of the Detonation, as well as including four new sample locations. The four new locations will be located to the northeast and southwest of the Burn Units and Detonation (as shown in Figure 3). The constituents to be analyzed are in Tables 2 and 3. Perchlorate was not identified as a constituent of concern in the 2007 Soil Sampling Plan. However, for this plan, all soil samples will be analyzed for perchlorate. After completion of the sampling event, a soil sample report will be submitted to DTSC in accordance with requirements specified in the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Conditions 16 a-f. This proposed soil sampling plan will be fully implemented no later than one year after receiving DTSC approval, in accordance with the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Condition 15.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗