Engineering Papers⌕ Search

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.

At least 91 records · Page 5

Hanford Site Black-tailed Jackrabbit Monitoring Report for Fiscal Year 2015

The U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) conducts ecological monitoring on the Hanford Site to collect and track data needed to ensure compliance with an array of environmental laws, regulations, and policies governing DOE activities. Ecological monitoring data provide baseline information about the plants, animals, and habitats under DOE-RL stewardship at Hanford required for decision-making under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The Hanford Site Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP, USDOE 1999), which is the Environmental Impact Statement that evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with implementing a comprehensive land-use plan for the Hanford Site for at least the next 50 years, ensures that DOE-RL, its contractors, and other entities conduct activities on the Hanford Site in compliance with NEPA.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Hanford Site Ground Squirrel Monitoring Report for Calendar Year 2015

The U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) conducts ecological monitoring on the Hanford Site to collect and track data needed to ensure compliance with an array of environmental laws, regulations, and policies governing DOE activities. Ecological monitoring data provide baseline information about the plants, animals, and habitats under DOE-RL stewardship at Hanford required for decision-making under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The Hanford Site Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP, DOE 1999), which is the Environmental Impact Statement for Hanford Site activities, helps ensure that DOE-RL, its contractors, and other entities conducting activities on the Hanford Site are in compliance with NEPA.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Hanford Site American Badger Monitoring Report for 2015

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Richland Operations Office (-RL) conducts ecological monitoring on the Hanford Site to collect and track data needed to ensure compliance with an array of environmental laws, regulations, and policies governing DOE activities. Ecological monitoring data provide baseline information about the plants, animals, and habitat under DOE-RL stewardship at Hanford required for decision-making under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The Hanford Site Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP,USDOE 1999), which is the Environmental Impact Statement for Hanford Site activities, helps ensure that DOE-RL, its contractors, and other entities conducting activities on the Hanford Site are in compliance with NEPA.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Hanford Site Rare Plant Monitoring Report for Calendar Year 2013

The U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) conducts ecological monitoring on the Hanford Site to collect and track data needed to ensure compliance with an array of environmental laws, regulations, and policies governing DOE activities. Ecological monitoring data provide baseline information about the plants, animals, and habitat under DOE-RL stewardship at Hanford required for decision-making under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The Hanford Site Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP, DOE/EIS-0222-F) which is the Environmental Impact Statement for Hanford Site activities, helps ensure that DOE-RL, its contractors, and other entities conducting activities on the Hanford Site are in compliance with NEPA.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Geothermal Induced Seismicity National Environmental Policy Act Review

In 2016, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) contracted with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to assist the BLM in developing and building upon tools to better understand and evaluate induced seismicity caused by geothermal projects. This review of NEPA documents for four geothermal injection or EGS projects reveals the variety of approaches to analyzing and mitigating induced seismicity. With the exception of the Geysers, where induced seismicity has been observed and monitored for an extended period of time due to large volumes of water being piped in to recharge the hydrothermal reservoir, induced seismicity caused by geothermal projects is a relative new area of study. As this review highlights, determining the level of mitigation required for induced seismic events has varied based on project location, when the review took place, whether the project utilized the International Energy Agency or DOE IS protocols, and the federal agency conducting the review. While the NEPA reviews were relatively consistent for seismic monitoring and historical evaluation of seismic events near the project location, the requirements for public outreach and mitigation for induced seismic events once stimulation has begun varied considerably between the four projects. Not all of the projects were required to notify specific community groups or local government entities before beginning the project, and only one of the reviews specifically stated the project proponent would hold meetings with the public to answer questions or address concerns.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Technical Requirements for Geothermal Resource Confirmation

In 2017-2018, the Bureau of Land Management's 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. This paper provides a summary of the technical requirements for confirming a geothermal resource. The analysis showed that confirming a geothermal resource requires confirming reservoir temperature, chemistry, permeability, and flow rate. Obtaining these data requires drilling at least two-preferably three-successful wells into the resource to conduct the necessary tests, including an interference test. Bottom-hole well diameters of at least 6'' to 8'' (0.15 to 0.2 m) are needed to limit the wellbore frictional pressure drop to effectively perform well flow and interference tests. Drilling these wells requires a drill rig with a mud pump and derrick capable of holding three drill pipes. This type of rig requires a minimum well-pad size of 2.5 acres (104 m2) including surface area for a 1 million-gallon (3.8 million-liter) pit. Up to 15 acres (5x104 m2) of total surface disturbance are needed for developing access roads and well pads to drill a total of three to five wells.

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↗

Stakeholder-Engaged Structured Decision Making for the Los Alamos Legacy Cleanup Mission - 20501

The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) environmental legacy cleanup program requires decisions to be made for environmental remediation, decommissioning and disposal or management of radioactive waste. This legacy cleanup program was established to address groundwater contamination, material disposal areas (MDAs) that have been used to dispose of radioactive and other waste material, and 'aggregate areas' that might produce radioactive or other chemical waste as a result of remediation activities. The LANL site is regulated for environmental concerns under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). However, some parts of LANL, such as material disposal area G (MDA G), have disposed of radioactive waste under DOE Order 435.1, and are subject to other regulations. For example, decommissioning the remote-handled TRU material stored in 33 shafts at MDA G falls under EPA's 40 CFR 191. Collectively, the regulations are all aimed in the same direction of finding the best solution, either through constructs such as 'as low as reasonably achievable' (ALARA), considering balancing factors as opposed to only cost and human health risk, and, under EPA regulations such as RCRA and NEPA, evaluating impact from all chemicals and both human health and ecological endpoints. Despite the basic goals and objectives of the regulations or their guidance, the main challenge is in their implementation. Arguably perhaps, but really in principle, all of these (and similar) regulations are asking for a decision analysis to be performed. Implementation challenges encountered have included lack of understanding of decision analysis in the industry, lack of effective stakeholder engagement in the decision analysis process, and lack of appreciation of the need to separate value judgments from science, the latter leading to developing conservative, or protective, science-based models. Conservative models lead to poor solutions, lack of effective stakeholder engagement leads to long drawn out protracted approaches to finding a solution (which also might never be found with this approach), and lack of understanding of decision analysis and Bayesian statistics causes poor models to be built, which creates unfortunate situations of 'garbage in, garbage out' becoming the basis for decision making. Stakeholder-engaged structured decision making (SDM) is an approach to solving problems that relies on the theory of decision science to involve stakeholders in the decision-making process. This approach incorporates stakeholder values using a scientifically rigorous methodology that separates value judgments from science in a way that helps avoid the pitfalls of biased, protective, or conservative modeling. This approach has its foundation in Keeney's 1992 treatise on value-focused thinking [1]. Keeney advocated a paradigm shift in decision making based on the idea that the standard way of thinking about decisions is backwards. The standard approach of focusing first on identifying alternatives rather than on articulating values results in a reactive approach with the emphasis on mechanics and fixed choices instead of the core values that have meaning to stakeholders. This paradigm shift effectively engages all stakeholders in the decision-making process while using a values focused thinking approach that can lead to the identification of decision opportunities and the creation of better alternatives. The intent is to be proactive and generate solutions that are related directly to values and objectives as identified by stakeholders. There are, perhaps, two overarching reasons why SDM can be used to benefit LANL's environmental legacy cleanup. Some of LANL's remaining waste management and environmental management problems are challenging and complex (for example, the Cr and RDX plumes, and MDAs) and while the traditional approach has, arguably, worked well for relatively simple risk-based problems, it cannot, or should not, be applied to more complex problems if the most effective and efficient solutions are desired. The second reason is cost. This has perhaps become more critical since publication of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that DoE's environmental liability is considered a high-risk concern for the nation [2]. The focus of SDM is on structuring solutions to decision risk problems by first addressing stakeholder and decision maker values and subsequently developing decision objectives and ways to measure those objectives, preference weighting across objectives, identifying decision alternatives that best achieve those values, and characterizing uncertainty in predictions of the measures. Because a complete decision model is created using SDM, it can be evaluated to find the main elements of the model that drive, or predict, the best solution. This approach creates complete decision models that are transparent, traceable, reproducible and technically defensible. The science behind SDM, or decision analysis, is well founded, yet it is not unusual to see ad hoc approaches to decision making implemented under various environmental regulations that are pertinent to the LANL site, including NEPA, RCRA and DOE Order 435.1. Such ad hoc approaches are often not transparent or traceable, and lack reproducibility and technical defensibility. The LANL legacy cleanup program has embarked on using SDM to address the complex problems that remain. Stakeholder meetings have been held, and a prototype version of the stakeholder value system has been developed. Further meetings are expected in the future to address specific project needs. This is a long-term endeavor considering the complex environmental problems faced by DOE EM in Los Alamos (EM-LA), and careful planning, consideration of stakeholder value systems, and engagement with stakeholders throughout the SDM process is expected to lead to a successful endpoint. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Spent Nuclear Fuel Exploratory Roadmaps - 20054

The U.S. Department of Energy manages nearly 2,500 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) resulting from several decades of research, testing, and production reactors [DOE 1995]. This SNF is managed at the DOE Hanford Site in Washington State (Hanford), Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and Savannah River Site in South Carolina (SRS). From 1995 to 2004, the Department of Energy (DOE) made several key programmatic decisions, supported by appropriate documentation in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the management of SNF [DOE 1995]. These decisions have provided an overarching framework for SNF management, as well as site-specific and SNF-related management decisions for the past two decades. In the years since these decisions were made, with the notable exception of the successful drying and packaging of the production reactor fuel at Hanford, a majority of the decisions have been largely unimplemented. Also, since these decisions were made, a number of changes that bear on considerations relative to the path forward have occurred. A SNF Exploratory Road map activity, identified reasonable alternate pathways for DoE's inventory of SNF. Three fundamental pathways were identified in this activity for the long-term management and disposition of DOE SNF: Direct Disposal Pathway, Existing Processing Pathway and Alternate Processing Pathway. Further actions would be required (e.g., evaluation of NEPA analysis, technology maturity evaluations, refinement of cost and risks, benefits and advantages relative to other alternate paths) to define and inform many key decisions that will result in the selection of the disposition pathways that are most beneficial to the US Government in dispositioning DoE's SNF inventory. DOE is currently managing all SNF safely; however, the age of DOE-owned SNF and facilities for storing and processing SNF, coupled with the uncertainty of the storage duration, necessitates decisions and actions to ensure that the infrastructure will be in place to ensure continued safe and effective long-term management and eventual disposal. The identification of reasonable alternate pathways took these considerations into account in an effort to proactively manage conditions that could challenge the safety of storing and managing DOE SNF over the time periods now contemplated and also to ensure that flexibility is preserved to ensure that the DOE SNF remains compatible with final disposition pathways when they become available. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Impacts Analyses Supporting the National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Assessment for the Resumption of Transient Testing Program

Environmental and health impacts are presented for activities associated with transient testing of nuclear fuel and material using two candidate test reactors. Transient testing involves irradiation of nuclear fuel or materials for short time-periods under high neutron flux rates. The transient testing process includes transportation of nuclear fuel or materials inside a robust shipping cask to a hot cell, removal from the shipping cask, pre-irradiation examination of the nuclear materials, assembly of an experiment assembly, transportation of the experiment assembly to the test reactor, irradiation in the test reactor, transport back to the hot cell, and post-irradiation examination of the nuclear fuel or material. The potential for environmental or health consequences during the transportation, examination, and irradiation actions are assessed for normal operations, off-normal (accident) scenarios, and transportation. Impacts to the environment (air, soil, and groundwater), are assessed during each phase of the transient testing process. This report documents the evaluation of potential consequences to the general public. This document supports the Environmental Assessment (EA) required by the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC Subsection 4321 et seq.).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Economic Impact of Permitting Timelines on Geothermal Power in California, Nevada, and Utah

The United States has great geothermal power potential; however, only a small fraction of this resource has been utilized for power generation. Various barriers, including technical, financial, and regulatory permit delays, are attributed to the lower penetration of geothermal energy into 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 document provides an assessment of the potential economic impact of permitting costs and timelines on geothermal power in California, Nevada, and Utah. Development of geothermal resources requires multi-layered regulatory permitting by local, state, and federal agencies. In this study, we collected and reviewed permit timelines and associated cost data for several existing geothermal power plants as well as for geothermal projects currently undergoing permitting processes for exploration and development activities in California, Nevada, and Utah. We interviewed several geothermal developers and staff from multiple permitting agencies to obtain insight from both sides (i.e., people applying for permits and people processing those applications for California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] and National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] reviews and other regulatory compliance). The intent of this project was also to identify informative pathways for the geothermal stakeholder community by which the permitting process could be streamlined.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Assessment of Economic Impact of Permitting Timelines on Produced Geothermal Power in Imperial County, California

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. Our 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. In this study, we conducted economic analysis to assess the impact of permitting timelines on cost of produced electricity from geothermal resources using data from existing geothermal plants as well as prospective sites. In this paper, we present collected timelines data, approach, and results of economic impact of permitting timelines on geothermal power. We evaluated the various environmental management and permit review processes by considering a hypothetical geothermal project in the Salton Sea Known Geothermal Resource Area. Because of the variety of the biological and environmental issues and the involvement of local, state, and federal agencies with overlapping jurisdictions, this project could go through one of the many California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review scenarios that range from the least to the most complex in its circumstances. The fastest CEQA/NEPA review timelines would have the project completed in six years. In contrast, the project would substantially need longer time to complete if it were located in an area with significant environmental resources or cultural issues that required permitting from various agencies. With increasing project completion timelines, the simplified levelized cost of electricity (sLCOE) can be 4 to 11% higher with longer CEQA/NEPA review timelines than the sLCOE value with the fastest CEQA/NEPA review timeline. Lengthier CEQA/NEPA review timelines could also result in loss of $64 million to $227 million in potential revenue. Such significant economic impacts could determine the success of a geothermal project.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: Setting the research agenda

Impact assessment has been in place for over 40 years and is now practised in some form in all but two of the world's nations. In this paper we reflect on the state of the art of impact assessment theory and practice, focusing on six well-established forms: EIA, SEA, policy assessment, SIA, HIA and sustainability assessment. We note that although the fundamentals of impact assessment have their roots in the US National Environmental Policy Act 1969 (NEPA) each branch of the field is distinct in also drawing on other theoretical and conceptual bases that in turn shape the prevailing discourse in each case, generating increasing degrees of specialisation within each sub-field. Against this backdrop, we consider the strengths and weaknesses of collective impact assessment practice, concluding that although there are substantial strengths, the plethora of specialist branches is generating a somewhat confusing picture and lack of clarity regarding how the pieces of the impact assessment jigsaw puzzle fit together. We use this review to suggest an overarching research agenda that will enable impact assessment to evolve in line with changing expectations for what it should deliver. -- Highlights: ► Strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats for IA are explored in this paper ► EIA, SEA, policy assessment, SIA, HIA and sustainability assessment are reviewed ► Diversity of practice is both a strength and weakness in the current economic climate ► There are opportunities to simplify IA by focusing on common and fundamental elements ► Continued research into theory related to IA effectiveness is also essential.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Federal policy documentation and geothermal water consumption: Policy gaps and needs

With U.S. geothermal power production expected to more than triple by 2040, and the majority of this growth expected to occur in arid and water-constrained areas, it is imperative that decision-makers understand the potential long-term limitations to and tradeoffs of geothermal development due to water availability. To this end, water consumption data, including documentation triggered by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, production and injection data, and water permit data, were collected from state and federal environmental policy sources in an effort to determine water consumption across the lifecycle of geothermal power plants. Values extracted from these sources were analyzed to estimate water usage during well drilling; to identify sourcing of water for well drilling, well stimulation, and plant operations; and to estimate operational water usage at the plant level. Nevada data were also compared on a facility-by-facility basis with other publicly available water consumption data, to create a complete picture of water usage and consumption at these facilities. This analysis represents a unique method of capturing project-level water data for geothermal projects; however, a lack of statutory and legal requirements for such data and data quality result in significant data gaps, which are also explored

Schroeder, J. N.↗

Utah FORGE: Final Topical Report 2018

This is the final topical report for the Phase 2B Utah FORGE project, which is located near Roosevelt Hot Springs, Utah. This PDF format report details results associated with the conceptual geologic model, deep well 58-32, rock geomechanics, reservoir temperatures, seismic surveys, seismic monitoring, certainty, and NEPA. The report also provides an overview of all of the deliverables which were used to produce the results and full appendices.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Evaluation of a Wave Powered Water Pump Performance by Ocean Field Testing and WEC-Sim Modeling

This submission from AMEC (the Atlantic Marine Energy Center) includes data from an ocean field deployment of a wave powered water pump in March 2023. The wave pump is an upweller device, designed to enhance macroalgal aquaculture. The wave pump device was deployed off the coast of Isles of Shoals Appledore Island in Maine, USA. The data were collected using a custom-built DAQ module comprised of Arduino Unos. GPS time stamp accompanies the data. The data are volumetric flow rate from the wave pump, and relative motion of the device between float and spar buoys. Flow rate is measured by flow meter, and relative motion is measured by lidar. Calibration data for the lidar and flow meter sensors are included. This data set also includes synchronous Sofar Spotter buoy data from a mooring approximately 300 feet away from the wave pump mooring. Video data from the deployment are included from both on-board the device sporadically throughout the deployment, and from a webcam for a short duration of the deployment. Hydrophone data were also taken co-currently, and are available by contacting Martin Wosnik at the University of New Hampshire. The Matlab code used to process the field data is incorporated. A biological assessment is included which aided the NEPA consultation process, prior to conducting the field deployment. A WEC-Sim numerical model of the wave pump, and a re-design effort are part of this work. Code used to validate the WEC-Sim model from the field data are also included.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗

Alternatives Analysis for the Resumption of Transient Testing Program

An alternatives analysis was performed for resumption of transient testing. The analysis considered eleven alternatives – including both US international facilities. A screening process was used to identify two viable alternatives from the original eleven. In addition, the alternatives analysis includes a no action alternative as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The alternatives considered in this analysis included: 1. Restart the Transient Reactor Test Facility (TREAT), 2. Modify the Annular Core Research Reactor (ACRR) which includes construction of a new hot cell and installation of a new hodoscope, and 3. No Action.

42 ENGINEERING↗

Criteria Considered in Selecting Feed Items for Americium-241 Oxide Production Operations

The analysis in this document serves the purpose of defining a number of attributes in selection of feed items to be utilized in recovery/recycle of Pu and also production operations of 241 AmO 2 material intended to meet specification requirements. This document was written in response to a specific request on the part of the 2014 annual program review which took place over the dates of October 28-29, 2014. A number of feed attributes are noted including: (1) Non-interference with existing Pu recovery operations; (2) Content of sufficient 241 Am to allow process efficiency in recovery operations; (3) Absence of indications that 243 Am might be mixed in with the Pu/ 241 Am material; (4) Absence of indications that Cm might be mixed in with the Pu/ 241 Am material; (5) Absence of indications of other chemical elements that would present difficulty in chemical separation from 241 Am; (6) Feed material not expected to present difficulty in dissolution; (7) Dose issues; (8) Process efficiency; (9) Size; (10) Hazard associated with items and package configuration in the vault; (11) Within existing NEPA documentation. The analysis in this document provides a baseline of attributes considered for feed materials, but does not presume to replace the need for technical expertise and judgment on the part of individuals responsible for selecting the material feed to be processed. This document is not comprehensive as regards all attributes that could prove to be important. The value of placing a formal QA hold point on accepting feed items versus more informal management of feed items is discussed in the summation of this analysis. The existing planned QA hold points on 241 AmO 2 products produced and packaged may be adequate as the entire project is based on QA of the product rather than QA of the process. The probability of introduction of items that would inherently cause the 241 AmO 2 products produced to be outside of specification requirements appears to be rather small.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗