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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 127 records · Page 7

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

Environmental Impacts of Closed-Loop Pumped Storage Hydropower

The goal of this report is to help license applicants, resource agencies, and other members of the hydropower community involved in closed-loop pumped storage hydropower permitting and licensing process, focus the scope of environmental reviews, and more quickly identify impacts with project nexus and potential mitigation measures for these impacts. Pumped storage hydropower (PSH) is an energy storage technology that uses energy to pump water up from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir where water is stored until electricity is needed and the water is released to a lower reservoir passing through turbines. Closed-loop PSH—PSH that is not continuously connected to a naturally flowing water feature—is one of the lowest greenhouse gas emitting energy storage technologies and is therefore a critical part of the transition to renewable energy (Simon et al. 2023). Proposals for closed-loop PSH facilities in the United States currently account for more than 40% of original licenses and 99% of potential generation capacity in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydropower licensing pipeline (Johnson et al. 2023). While closed-loop PSH facilities can have lower environmental impacts than open-loop PSH facilities, no closed-loop facilities have been constructed in the United States to enable direct accounting of project impacts and efficacy of mitigations. Many proposals for closed-loop PSH submitted to FERC are abandoned early in the permitting and licensing process prior to license applications and environmental assessments, so there is little documentation describing potential project impacts and proposed mitigations. The newness of closed-loop PSH proposals in the United States may mean that tribal, federal, and state agencies with authorities for cultural and natural resources protection and management involved in the FERC licensing process may not have experience with closed-loop PSH regulation. Moreover, many proposed closed-loop PSH facilities are in areas that do not have high concentrations of conventional hydropower, so these agencies may also be unfamiliar with the FERC hydropower licensing process. The goal of this report is to help license applicants, resource agencies, and other members of the hydropower community focus the scope of environmental review for the closed-loop PSH development, licensing, and federal authorization process enabling quicker identification of potential impacts, mitigations, and situations where mitigation may not be possible. We found that environmental impacts of closed-loop PSH are highly site-specific, and generalizations about the types of environmental impacts across closed-loop PSH projects are difficult to make. Environmental impacts of closed-loop PSH are like those for open-loop PSH with a few exceptions including water sourcing, which can lead to delays and contention due to potential complexities with water rights, impacts to aquatic resources, and greenhouse gas emission potential. Cultural resource impacts were commonly reported in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents reviewed and discussed in interviews, but in many cases such impacts cannot be mitigated.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration: Phase III (Final Scientific/Technical Report)

The Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration (SWP) is one of 7 regional partnerships formed in 2003 under the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) initiative. The overall purpose of the initiative was to help determine and implement the technology, infrastructure, and regulations most appropriate to promote carbon storage in different regions of the country. Covering Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and parts of Texas, Wyoming, and Kansas, the SWP evaluated regional carbon storage and utilization potential and focused on technologies and sites that could complement the region’s strong position in energy production. The project progressed through three phases: • Phase I (2003–2005): Characterized regional geologic formations and CO 2 sources, assessed sequestration potential, and identified pilot test sites. • Phase II (2005–2013): Conducted small-scale field tests to validate sequestration methods, including geologic and terrestrial projects. • Phase III (2008–2022): Demonstrated large-scale CO 2 injection at a commercial oil field to test monitoring, verification, and long-term storage strategies. This report covers Phase III. The final project site, the Farnsworth Unit (FWU) in Texas, provided real-world testing of reservoir characterization, monitoring, and risk evaluation tools and processes that could be used in any commercial scale carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) project. Extensive data collection and analysis helped refine best practices for reservoir characterization, injection monitoring, and storage verification. The SWP contributed to national databases, DOE best practice manuals, and regional geological assessments to support future sequestration efforts. Key lessons learned include the importance of robust data management, strategic site selection, regulatory navigation, and effective industry collaboration. The project’s findings will inform ongoing and future carbon storage initiatives. Task 1 (Regional Characterization) • The SWP continued to participate in national outreach efforts and NATCARB. • The SWP evaluated multiple potential sites before selecting the FWU as the primary field test location. Task 2 (Public Outreach and Education) • The SWP contributed to national databases, DOE best practice manuals, and regional geological assessments to support future sequestration efforts. Task 3 (Permitting and Regulatory Compliance) • The SWP ensured compliance with federal and state regulations, including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. • The SWP obtained all necessary permits for drilling, injection, and monitoring activities. Task 4 (Site Characterization and Planning) • The SWP developed work plans for four key activities: characterization, simulation, monitoring and verification, and risk evaluation. • The SWP collected and synthesized legacy data from multiple sources to build initial static geological models and dynamic reservoir models demonstrating project feasibility. • The SWP conducted an initial risk evaluation and developed mitigation plans. Task 5 (Field Operations and Data Collection) • The SWP drilled, logged, and cored three characterization wells to gather critical subsurface data. • The SWP conducted multiple geophysical surveys, including 3D seismic, crosswell seismic, and vertical seismic profiling, to improve reservoir characterization. Task 6 (Monitoring and Verification) • The SWP performed extensive geological characterization using data from characterization wells and seismic surveys. • The SWP established a surface monitoring network to track CO 2 flux in soil gas, groundwater chemistry, and near-surface atmospheric CO 2 levels. • The SWP built and refined reservoir models to study the effects of relative permeability on simulation behavior and improve calibration with experimental data. Task 7 (Risk Assessment and Model Refinement) • The SWP conducted multiple studies to evaluate reservoir integrity, predict CO 2 plume behavior and improve predictive modeling capabilities. • The SWP refined geological models and used them to enhance the accuracy of simulation models. • The SWP continued quantitative risk assessment of top-ranked risks and strengthened the link between qualitative and quantitative risk methodologies.

02 PETROLEUM↗

DOE OSTI2025

Wetland Re-Evaluation and Delineation Report for the Los Alamos National Laboratories Wetlands Project, Los Alamos County, New Mexico

In March of 2005, the Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), Los Alamos Site office (LASO) requested the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Albuquerque District (USACE) to identify and delineate wetlands at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The results of this study were intended to support the preparation of the Supplemental Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and various mitigative measures that would become part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance process for LANL. The term “wetland” will be used throughout the report to refer to the potential wetlands listed in Table 1. Many of these potential "wetlands” were not determined to be wetlands based on 2025 data.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

Wetlands Delineation Report and Classification: PNNL – Sequim (formerly MSL) Wetland Delineation for the Water and Sewer Line

A wetlands delineation report summarizes the wetland delineation on the southern portion of PNNL-Sequim campus to support campus development, maintenance, and potential research activities. The delineation was conducted in accordance with state and federal wetland regulations and summarizes the potential jurisdiction. This will used to support biological reports, NEPA documents, and permit applications.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2014

Hanford Site Steelhead Redd 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 provides baseline information about the plants, animals, and habitat under DOE stewardship at Hanford required for decision-making under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). In addition, ecological monitoring helps ensure that DOE, its contractors and other entities conducting activities on the Hanford Site are in compliance with the Hanford Site Comprehensive Land Use Plan (DOE/EIS-0222-F). DOE-RL places priority on monitoring those plant and animal species or habitats with specific regulatory protections or requirements; or that are rare and/or declining (federal or state listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species); or of significant interest to federal, state, or tribal governments or the public.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2013

Hanford Site Snake Hibernacula Monitoring Report for Calendar Year 2013

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2013

Hanford Site Freshwater Mussel 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 maintain data needed to ensure compliance with an array of environmental laws, regulations, and policies governing DOE activities. Ecological monitoring data provides baseline information about the plants, animals, and habitat under DOE stewardship at Hanford that is required for decision-making under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). In addition, ecological monitoring helps ensure that DOE, its contractors, and other entities conducting activities on the Hanford Site are in compliance with the Hanford Site Comprehensive Land Use Plan (DOE/EIS-0222-F). DOE places priority on monitoring those plant and animal species or habitats with specific regulatory protections or requirements, that are rare and/or declining (federal or state listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species), or are of significant interest to federal, state, or tribal governments or the public.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2013

Hanford Site Summer Bat Monitoring Report for Calendar Year 2013

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Townsend’s Ground Squirrel Conservation on the Hanford Site for Calendar Year 2022: Translocation to Support At-Risk Ground Squirrel Populations

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-RL activities. Ecological monitoring data provide baseline information about the plants, animals, and habitat under DOE-RL stewardship at the Hanford Site required for accurate ecological impact assessment decision-making under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). In addition, ecological monitoring helps ensure that DOE-RL, its contractors and other entities conducting activities on the Hanford Site are in compliance with the Hanford Site Comprehensive Land Use Plan (DOE/EIS-0222-F). DOE-RL places priority on monitoring those plant and animal species or habitats with specific regulatory protections or requirements; or that are rare and/or declining (federal or state listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species); or of significant interest to federal, state, or tribal governments or the public.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2013

Ground Squirrel 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 the Hanford Site required for accurate ecological impact assessment decision-making under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). In addition, ecological monitoring helps ensure that DOE-RL, its contractors and other entities conducting activities on the Hanford Site are in compliance with the Hanford Site Comprehensive Land Use Plan (DOE/EIS-0222-F). DOE-RL places priority on monitoring those plant and animal species or habitats with specific regulatory protections or requirements; or that are rare and/or declining (federal or state listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species); or of significant interest to federal, state, or tribal governments or the public.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2026

Wyoming CarbonSAFE Phase III: Site Characterization and Permitting Commercial-Scale Carbon Storage Complex Feasibility Study at Dry Fork Station, Wyoming

This report presents the findings of the technical and non-technical site characterization and permitting activities (“Phase III”) conducted under the Wyoming CarbonSAFE: Accelerating CCUS Commercialization and Deployment at Dry Fork Power Station (DFS) and the Wyoming Integrated Test Center project (“Wyoming CarbonSAFE”). Wyoming CarbonSAFE is part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (“CarbonSAFE”) Initiative. The results of Phase III demonstrate that the Wyoming CarbonSAFE project - referred to as the Northern Powder River Basin Carbon Sequestration Hub (NPRB-CSH) - meets the technical, regulatory, and commercial feasibility requirements necessary to advance toward commercial development and construction. The activities completed under this project Phase make the NPRB-CSH one of the region’s most commercially ready carbon storage sites. Completion of this Phase included the finalization of all site surface and subsurface characterization activities, completion and testing of two Class VI standard wells, 10 draft Class VI permits-to construct to address the future needs of a storage complex, finalized NEPA assessments, transportation and capture FEED studies, and a full commercialization strategy with economic modeling, operation and site closure strategies. The NPRB-CSH meets all requirements to progress to a CarbonSAFE Phase IV program or advance to full commercial operations under the development of a business partner.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

DOE OSTI2025

Literature Review of Selected Publications Relevant to Carbon Dioxide Pipeline and Storage Systems

The annotated bibliographies provided in this document focus on identifying and reviewing environmental impact statements (EIS), environmental assessments (EA), and scientific literature relevant to aspects of CO 2 pipeline and storage construction and operation. The purpose of these summaries is to aid stakeholders responsible for the preparation of documents compliant with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements to have access to a quick and comprehensive guide of the literature that can inform their activities. They aim to inform the development of EISs and EAs by identifying potential environmental concerns and mitigation strategies. The annotated bibliographies captured in this document cover the general environmental assessment and impact topics relevant to CO 2 pipeline and storage construction and operation activities, with the subject of waste creation and handling being specifically pulled out into its own section. The reasoning behind a dedicated section for waste is that many EAs and EISs focus on the description of waste and its impacts, be it caused in routine operation or as a result of an accident.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2026

Hanford Site Mule Deer Monitoring Report for Fiscal Years 2024 and 2026

The U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford Field Office (HFO) conducts ecological monitoring on the Hanford Site to collect and track data needed to ensure compliance with environmental laws, regulations, and policies governing Department of Energy activities. The vision for the HFOmanaged portion of the Hanford Site, hereby referred to as Central Hanford, focuses not only on the cleanup of nuclear facilities and waste sites but on the protection and restoration of the Hanford Site lands. As the HFO moves toward accomplishing this vision, understanding of the ecological resources present and the need for conservation and/or protection of those resources will be critical for making informed decisions for responsible site stewardship. Ecological monitoring data provides baseline information about the plants, animals, and habitats under HFO stewardship at Central Hanford required for decision-making under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2026

Polk Carbon Storage Complex CarbonSAFE Phase 3 (Final Scientific/Technical Report)

This report summarizes the workplan, technical progress, and high-level findings for the Polk Carbon Storage Complex (PCSC) CarbonSAFE Phase III project. The project was designed to advance a commercial-scale geologic CO 2 storage by drilling and completing two characterization wells to strengthen an already-submitted Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class VI permit application, acquiring new subsurface data, advancing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, progressing CO 2 transportation engineering, and developing commercial and community engagement frameworks.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS1982

A preliminary study of environmental parameters associated with the feasibility of a polygeneration plant at Kennedy Space Center

The feasibility of a polygeneration plant at Kennedy Space Center was studied. Liquid hydrogen and gaseous nitrogen are the two principal products in consideration. Environmental parameters (air quality, water quality, biological diversity and hazardous waste disposal) necessary for the feasibility study were investigated. A National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) project flow sheet was to be formulated for the environmental impact statement. Water quality criteria for Florida waters were to be established.

Barnes, G. D.↗

NASA NTRS1989

Final environmental impact statement for the Galileo Mission (Tier 2)

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) addresses the proposed action of completing the preparation and operation of the Galileo spacecraft, including its planned launch on the Space Transportation System (STS) Shuttle in October 1989, and the alternative of canceling further work on the mission. The only expected environmental effects of the proposed action are associated with normal launch vehicle operation, and are treated in published National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents on the Shuttle (NASA 1978) and the Kennedy Space Center (NASA 1979), and in the KSC Environmental Resources Document (NASA 1986) and the Galileo Tier 1 EIS (NASA 1988a). The environmental impacts of a normal launch were deemed insufficient to preclude Shuttle operations. Environmental impacts may also result from launch or mission accidents that could release plutonium fuel used in the Galileo power system. Intensive analysis of the possible accidents associated with the proposed action reveal small health or environmental risks. There are no environmental impacts in the no-action alternative. The remote possibility of environmental impacts of the proposed action must be weighed against the large adverse fiscal and programmatic impacts inherent in the no-action alternative.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1990

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Ulysses Mission (Tier 2)

This Final (Tier 2) Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) addresses the environmental impacts which may be caused by implementation of the Ulysses mission, a space flight mission to observe the polar regions of the Sun. The proposed action is completion of preparation and operation of the Ulysses spacecraft, including its planned launch at the earliest available launch opportunity on the Space Transportation System (STS) Shuttle in October 1990 or in the backup opportunity in November 1991. The alternative is canceling further work on the mission. The Tier 1 EIS included a delay alternative which considered the Titan 4 launch vehicle as an alternative booster stage for launch in 1991 or later. This alternative was further evaluated and eliminated from consideration when, in November 1988, the U.S. Air Force, which procures the Titan 4, notified that it could not provide a Titan 4 vehicle for the 1991 launch opportunity because of high priority Department of Defense requirements. The Titan 4 launch vehicle is no longer a feasible alternative to the STS/Inertial Upper Stage (IUS)/Payload Assist Module-Special (PAM-S) for the November 1991 launch opportunity. The only expected environment effects of the proposed action are associated with normal launch vehicle operation and are treated elsewhere. The environmental impacts of normal Shuttle launches were addressed in existing NEPA documentation and are briefly summarized. These impacts are limited largely to the near-field at the launch pad, except for temporary stratospheric ozone effects during launch and occasional sonic boom effects near the landing site. These effects were judged insufficient to preclude Shuttle launches. There could also be environmental impacts associated with the accidental release of radiological material during launch, deployment, or interplanetary trajectory injection of the Ulysses spacecraft. Intensive analysis indicates that the probability of release is small. There are no environmental impacts in the no-action alternative; however, the U.S. Government and the European Space Agency would suffer adverse fiscal and programmatic impacts if this alternative were adopted. The scientific benefits of the mission would be delayed and possibly lost. There could be significant impacts on the ability of the U.S. to negotiate international agreements for cooperative space activities.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1996

Planetary protection, legal ambiguity and the decision making process for Mars sample return

As scientists and mission planners develop planetary protection requirements for future Mars sample return missions, they must recognize the socio-political context in which decisions about the mission will be made and pay careful attention to public concerns about potential back contamination of Earth. To the extent that planetary protection questions are unresolved or unaddressed at the time of an actual mission, they offer convenient footholds for public challenges in both legal and decision making realms, over which NASA will have little direct control. In this paper, two particular non-scientific areas of special concern are discussed in detail: 1) legal issues and 2) the decision making process. Understanding these areas is critical for addressing legitimate public concerns as well as for fulfilling procedural requirements regardless whether sample return evokes public controversy. Legal issues with the potential to complicate future missions include: procedural review under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); uncertainty about institutional control and authority; conflicting regulations and overlapping jurisdictions; questions about international treaty obligations and large scale impacts; uncertanities about the nature of the organism; and constitutional and regulatory concerns about quarantine, public health and safety. In light of these important legal issues, it is critical that NASA consider the role and timing of public involvement in the decision making process as a way of anticipating problem areas and preparing for legitimate public questions and challenges to sample return missions.

NASA Discipline Number 59-10↗