SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
This paper provides an overview of the U.S. space nuclear power system launch approval process as defined by the two separate requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Presidential Directive/National Security Council Memorandum No. 25 (PD/NSC-25).
Supplying radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG) to American space missions became very complex. The process is marred by many obstacles: high cost, lack of new developments, difficult launch approval and NEPA compliance. At the same time there are many ambitious space missions for which an RTG would indisputably be the lightest, smallest and most robust power source. An American delegation investigated status of RTG production in Russia to decide if our product line could be supplemented by the Russian designs.
In response to President George W. Bush's announcement in January 2004 that the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) would end in 2010, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) completed a nation-wide historical survey and evaluation of NASA-owned facilities and properties (real property assets) at all its Centers and component facilities. The buildings and structures which supported the SSP were inventoried and assessed as per the criteria of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in the context of this program. This study was performed in compliance with Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (Public Law 89-665), as amended; the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (Public Law 91-190); Executive Order (EO) 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment; EO 13287, Preserve America, and other relevant legislation. As part of this nation-wide study, in September 2006, historical survey and evaluation of NASA-owned and managed facilities at was conducted by NASA's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas. The results of this study are presented in a report entitled, "Survey and Evaluation of NASA-owned Historic Facilities and Properties in the Context of the U.S. Space Shuttle Program, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas," prepared in November 2007 by NASA JSC's contractor, Archaeological Consultants, Inc. As a result of this survey, the Jake Gam Mission Simulator and Training Facility (Building 5) was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, with concurrence by the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The survey concluded that Building 5 is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C in the context of the U.S. Space Shuttle program (1969-2010). Because it has achieved significance within the past 50 years, Criteria Consideration G applies. At the time of this documentation, Building 5 was still used to support the SSP as an astronaut training facility. This documentation package precedes any undertaking as defined by Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, and implemented in 36 CFR Part 800, as NASA JSC has decided to proactively pursue efforts to mitigate the potential adverse affects of any future modifications to the facility. It includes a historical summary of the Space Shuttle program; the history of JSC in relation to the SSP; a narrative of the history of Building 5 and how it supported the SSP; and a physical description of the structure. In addition, photographs documenting the construction and historical use of Building 5 in support of the SSP, as well as photographs of the facility documenting the existing conditions, special technological features, and engineering details, are included. A contact sheet printed on archival paper, and an electronic copy of the work product on CD, are also provided.
The X-33 was a suborbital reusable spaceplane demonstrator, in development from 1996 to early 2001. The intent of the demonstrator was to lower the risk of building and operating a full-scale reusable vehicle fleet. Reusable spaceplanes offered the potential to lower the cost of access to space by an order of magnitude, compared with conventional expendable launch vehicles. Although a cryogenic tank failure during testing ultimately led to the end of the effort, the X-33 team celebrated many successes during the development. This paper summarizes some of the accomplishments and milestones of this X-vehicle program, from the perspective of an engineer who was a member of the team throughout the development. X-33 Program accomplishments include rapid, flight hardware design, subsystem testing and fabrication, aerospike engine development and testing, Flight Operations Center and Operations Control Center ground systems design and construction, rapid Environmental Impact Statement NEPA process approval, Range development and flight plan approval for test flights, and full-scale system concept design and refinement. Lessons from the X-33 Program may have potential application to new RLV and other aerospace systems being developed a decade later.
The Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) Programs goal is to make RPS available for the exploration of the solar system in environments where conventional solar or chemical power generation is impractical or impossible to use to meet mission needs. To meet this goal, the RPS Program manages investments in RPS system development and RPS technologies. The RPS Program exists to support NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD). The RPS Program provides strategic leadership for RPS, enables the availability of RPS for use by the planetary science community, successfully executes RPS flight projects and mission deployments, maintains a robust technology development portfolio, manages RPS related National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Nuclear Launch Safety (NLS) approval processes for SMD, maintains insight into the Department of Energy (DOE) implementation of NASA funded RPS production infrastructure operations, including implementation of the NASA funded Plutonium-238 production restart efforts. This paper will provide a status of recent RPS activities.
A Pre-Project team is currently studying a conceptual Mars Sample Return (MSR) architecture that would return samples collected by Mars 2020 to Earth. The basic architecture comprises of acquisition of these samples using a sample retrieval lander (SRL), which also would also house the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) and Sample Fetch Rover (SFR). The MAV would put the orbiting sample container (OS) in a Martian orbit, which would then rendezvous with an Earth return orbiter (ERO) and be sent to Earth. This paper focuses on the SRL portion of the potential MSR campaign. The thermal architecture of this mission during cruise to Mars presents several challenges that pertain to the thermal control of the spacecraft and the lander/MAV/rover throughout cruise under varying thermal environments & operating conditions. Additionally, the control of these systems within their allowable operating temperature limits on the Martian surface is very challenging because of the large fluctuations in the environment, operating conditions and limited electrical power and energy availability. This paper will describe the thermal architecture for a potential SRL mission, the key thermal requirements and interfaces.It should be noted that the decision to implement MSR will not be finalized until NASA’s completion of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. This document is being made available for information purposes only.
The return of scientifically selected samples from Mars would provide a rare opportunity forinvestigation with the full range of the latest technology available, but to take full advantageof this opportunity, it is important to plan ahead to ensure the pristine nature of the samplesupon arrival within the Earth environment until scientific investigations can begin.The NASA/ESA science community-driven MSR Science Planning Group – Phase 2 (MSPG2)delivered recommendations and guidance regarding curation (1) and science (2, 3) activities tobe performed on the samples under containment. High-level requirements for the infrastruc-ture were also developed by MSPG2 (4). In order to prepare infrastructure-targeted input forthe ESA and NASA facility studies planned in the 2022-2023 timeframe, the agency-led MSROperational Scenarios Definition Team (MOSDT) was assembled to conceptualize the sampleoperations that will inform future architecture teams. Emphasis was placed on the respon-sibility of MOSDT to use community-defined requirements and to represent the view of the international scientific community.All necessary and sufficient instruments and analytical needs described in MSPG2 were inte-grated in MOSDT main deliverable, the operational workflow (see Hays et al, this conference).In MSPG2, notional instruments were split between curation analytical needs, and objective-driven (time-sensitive and sterilization-sensitive) science analytical needs. In MOSDT, whilethe first phases of curation, “pre-Basic Characterization” and “Basic Characterization” wererather streamlined and separate from other analytical needs, “Preliminary Examination” and“Science” instruments were not always physically segregated. In addition to the necessary andsufficient instruments described by MSPG2, the MOSDT recommended additional supportequipment for sterilization, cleanliness and contamination monitoring.It was sometimes necessary for the MOSDT to rely on assumptions to integrate instruments inthe activity workflow. In general, the assumptions were very conservative to limit contaminationand cross-contamination risks. It is expected that future work to refine limits of contaminationwill enable optimization of instrumentation.The community was consulted during the course of the MOSDT work. This abstract’s aimis two-fold: on one hand, inform the scientific community and overall MSR stakeholders, tobring their attention on the analytical needs currently considered as necessary and sufficient;on the other hand, to solicit feedback from a larger community audience to optimize and refineanalytical needs during the next phases of MSR ground-segment preparation.Disclaimer: The decision to implement Mars Sample Return will not be finalized until NASA’scompletion of the program’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. This docu-ment is being made available for informational purposes only.[1] Tait et al. (2021) Preliminary planning for Mars Sample Return (MSR) curation activities ina Sample Receiving Facility (SRF). Astrobiology in press, doi:10.1089/ast.2021.0105. [2] Toscaet al. (2021) Time-sensitive aspects of Mars Sample Return (MSR) science. Astrobiologyin press, doi:10.1089/ast.2021.0115. [3] Velbel et al. (2021) Planning implications relatedto sterilization-sensitive science investigations associated with Mars Sample Return (MSR).Astrobiology in press, doi:10.1089/ast.2021.0113. [4] Carrier et al. (2021) Science and curationconsiderations for the design of a Mars Sample Return (MSR) Sample Receiving Facility (SRF).Astrobiology in press, doi:10.1089/ast.2021.0110.
NASA, in partnership with the European Space Agency (ESA), is seeking to return Martian geological and atmospheric samples to Earth for scientific study in the early 2030s. Due to the possibility that the samples could contain extraterrestrial life, Mars Sample Return (MSR) is classified as a Category V: Restricted Earth Return mission by the NASA Planetary Protection Office. As a result of this classification, a MSR Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) must not only provide a pristine environment to ensure samples are protected from terrestrial contamination for scientific investigations, it must also provide high-containment (biosafety level 4 [BSL-4]-equivalence) to isolate the samples from Earth’s biosphere until the samples are deemed safe for release and/or sterilized. The nominal utilization period for a SRF is anticipated to be 2-5 years and is intended to enable curation activities, biohazard assessment, select early science activities, and the rapid release of samples to the scientific community. However, to account for possible delays in schedule or the identification of extant life, this anticipated period of time must be flexible to accommodate schedule extensions and contingency plans. Due to requirements for high-level biological containment and cleanliness, a traditional receiving/curation facility cannot be utilized for MSR. Therefore, beginning in 2022, NASA Johnson Space Center is performing a MSR SRF Assessment Study (MSAS) to investigate the most optimal facility modality for a MSR SRF, as well as start to define programmatic early estimate of costs and schedules before the initial design phase begins. NASA is partnering with industry contractors (architectural and engineering firms with BSL-4 and cleanroom technology experience, as well as other contracted infrastructure and construction specialists) along with selected experts from NASA, ESA, existing U.S. BSL-4 facilities, and other U.S. government agencies, to carry out the assessment study. The MSAS should also aid in the future refinement of the science requirements (e.g., contamination control, equipment accommodations) before site-specific design would commence. As part of the MSAS, NASA is planning to assess an array of possibilities for a MSR SRF. One of the main considerations is the facility modality and whether an existing BSL-4 facility can be utilized (for some or all functions); or, if new constructure would be required, would a traditional fixed facility or a modular facility the best choice. MSAS will also investigate the ability of the modalities to accommodate two different facility capability endmembers: 1) a minimal facility focusing on biohazard assessment and curation tasks with a small footprint, and 2) an enhanced facility with additional capabilities to enable expedited processing and the completion of time-sensitive and (some) sterilization-sensitive science. The assessment is intended to generate information that will inform the selection of facility modalities for high-level conceptual design development. While the assessment study will focus on SRF requirements for accommodating curation, science, and sample safety assessment infrastructure, it will also consider an array of other factors, such as ease of access for international users, decommissioning, repurposing, future sale or lease following MSR’s use of the facility, and uncontained preparatory laboratory spaces. Upon completion of the study, the preferred modality and refined requirements would be utilized for site-specific design but will not be finalized until NASA’s completion of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.
The Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) Program tasked the Compass Team to evaluate use of Dynamic Radioisotope Power Systems (DRPS) for lunar science rovers. The object was to identify their advantages and challenges as well as to influence the technology developments with flight-type requirements. This was easily done by using the promising Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) solar- powered rover mission as a platform to ‘swap in’ a DRPS. The ‘pickup truck bed’ approach allowed both simplified installation and operation of the DRPS while keeping the forward lunar surface ‘blocked’ from the DRPS waste heat which could sublimate the icy surface. It was found that with the Stirling DRPS option the mass is within the planned VIPER lander capability and is very close to VIPER mass and size (the DRPS replaces large battery pack/solar arrays). The Stirling DRPS option produced ~300 Watts electrical (We) using six general purpose heat source (GPHS) bricks and eight Stirling convertors. Replacing the solar/battery power with radioisotope power allows a continuous presence (instead of 6 hours) in a permanently shadowed region (PSR) and over 18 months of operations with minimal science impact (rearward surface heating). It was also found that use of a dynamic system (instead of a thermoelectric system) reduces the heat impact on the science environment two-to-three times. The DRPS, along with a relay link (like Gateway), can provide continuous access to PSRs. The system was also found to be capable of roving for 8 hours per day with a range of over 500 km in 18 months. Preliminary cost estimates fit into a Class D mission but only assuming VIPER heritage and launch, lander, operations, nuclear specific costs [National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), fueling, transport, Launch Services Program (LSP), etc.] and DRPS are not included.
The purpose of this handbook is to facilitate a repeatable and robust process that promotes clear and effective interfaces between activities and stakeholders focused on meeting nuclear flight safety requirements for missions utilizing space nuclear systems (SNS), within the context of NASA’s broader nuclear-related activities and interfaces. NPR 8715.26, Nuclear Flight Safety, requires that the NASA project manager “incorporate nuclear flight safety considerations starting with program or project formulation through the point at which the SNS or other radioactive material no longer has the potential to affect Earth’s biosphere.” NASA’s use of SNS inherently involves partnering with other stakeholders to conduct a range of related activities that interface with nuclear flight safety. From a categorical perspective these include: (i) meeting the authorities and licensing requirements for possession and use of nuclear material, as governed by other Federal authorities; (ii) conducting National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities for nuclear-enabled missions; (iii) meeting Federal nuclear launch authorization requirements; (iv) conducting radiological contingency planning activities, including those associated with international commitments; (v) performing risk communication and public outreach activities; and (vi) ensuring decommissioning and disposal strategies reflect National policies and interests. It is the intent of this handbook to promote an effective interface between nuclear flight safety and these interrelated categorical activities. In addition to activities undertaken with partnering agencies, there are individual nuclear-related activities and programs that have a nexus to nuclear flight safety, and these include: (i) applicable NASA Standing Review Boards; (ii) the US Department of Energy nuclear safety activities conducted in partnership with NASA under Memoranda of Understanding; (iii) the Department of Defense’s Range Safety activities; (iv) NASA’s general involvement in interagency and international dialogues regarding nuclear safety; (v) the NASA-administered Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Board; (vi) NASA’s program and project governance activities and nuclear-specific Technical Discipline Team activities under the Office of the Chief Engineer; and others. It is the intent of this handbook to promote effective leveraging of these additional interrelated organizational activities, as appropriate.
The objective of this project is to demonstrate an innovative process to mineralize CO2 from flue gas directly to reactive carbonates and maximize the value and versatility of its beneficial use products. The program scope includes the design, construction, and testing of a CO2 Conversion to Material Products (CCMP) Pilot Demonstration Plant utilizing CO2 from the flue gas of a power production facility in Moss Landing, CA. This topical report covers Subphase 2a which is the design phase of pilot demonstration subsystems. Materials of construction have been selected and proven in both lab scale and prototype testing to be acceptable for the reagent conditions of interest. The target application for the reactive carbonate material has been selected based upon small-scale feasibility studies and the design of a continuous fiber board production line has been completed. The electrochemical cell architecture and components have been selected based upon both lab scale and prototype testing. The appropriate quality control and diagnostic techniques have been developed and tested along with the required instrumentation and controls. Finally the demonstrate site infrastructure, NEPA categorical exclusion, and permitting is all ready for the construction and installation of the new units and upgrades.
This Topical Report addresses accomplishments achieved during Phase 2b of the SkyMine® Carbon Mineralization Pilot Project. The primary objectives of this project are to design, construct, and operate a system to capture CO2 from a slipstream of flue gas from a commercial coal-fired cement kiln, convert that CO2 to products having commercial value (i.e., beneficial use), show the economic viability of the CO2 capture and conversion process, and thereby advance the technology to the point of readiness for commercial scale demonstration and deployment. The overall process is carbon negative, resulting in mineralization of CO2 that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere. The project will also substantiate market opportunities for the technology by sales of chemicals into existing markets, and identify opportunities to improve technology performance and reduce costs at the commercial scale. The project is being conducted in two phases. The primary objectives of Phase 1 were to evaluate proven SkyMine® process chemistry for commercial pilot-scale operation and complete the preliminary design for the pilot plant to be built and operated in Phase 2, complete a NEPA evaluation, and develop a comprehensive carbon life cycle analysis. The objective of Phase 2b was to build the pilot plant to be operated and tested in Phase 2c.
The Mid-Atlantic Baseline Studies Project helped address environmental barriers to offshore wind energy development in the mid-Atlantic region by providing regulators, developers, and other stakeholders with comprehensive baseline ecological data and analyses. Project funders and collaborators from a range of academic institutions, non-governmental organizations, federal agencies, foundations, and private companies came together to study bird, sea turtle, and marine mammal distributions, densities, and movements on the mid-Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf between 2012 and 2014. Specific project activities and goals included the following: (1) Conduct standardized surveys to quantify bird, sea turtle, and marine mammal densities seasonally and annually throughout the study region and identify important habitat use or aggregation areas. (2) Develop statistical models to help understand the drivers of wildlife distribution and abundance patterns. (3) Use individual tracking data for several focal bird species to provide information on population connectivity and individual movements that is complementary to survey data. (4) Identify species that are likely to be exposed to offshore wind energy development activities in the mid-Atlantic study area. (5) Develop U.S.-based technological resources and assessment methods for future monitoring efforts, including a comparison of high resolution digital video aerial surveys to boat-based surveys. (6) Help meet data needs associated with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Marine Mammal Protection Act, and Endangered Species Act requirements, by contributing several years of data and analysis towards future Environmental Impact Statements. This report consists of six parts: Project overview (executive summary and Chapters 1-2); Examining wildlife distributions and relative abundance from a digital video aerial survey platform (Chapters 3-6); Examining wildlife distributions and abundance using boat-based surveys (Chapters 7-12); Integrating data across survey platforms (Chapters 13-19); Individual movements and habitat use for focal bird species (Chapters 20-25); and Nocturnal avian migration monitoring (Chapters 26-27). Boat-based and digital video aerial surveys each had specific advantages and disadvantages, but were largely complementary (Chapters 1, 5, 13-14). Digital aerial surveys were particularly useful for covering offshore areas at broad scales, where general distributions of taxonomic groups were a priority; boat surveys could provide more detailed data on species identities and behaviors, but were more limited in geographic scope due to their slower survey pace. The mid-Atlantic study area was important for wintering and breeding taxa, and its location also made it a key migratory corridor. There was considerable variation in species composition and spatial patterns by season, largely driven by dynamic environmental conditions (Chapters 12, 15, and 20-22). Habitat gradients in nearshore waters, however, were reliable influences on productivity and patterns of species distributions and abundance. Areas within about 30-40 km of the coast offshore of the mouths of Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, as well as to the south of Delaware Bay along the coast, were consistent hotspots of abundance and species diversity, regardless of survey methodology or analytical approach (Chapters 2, 12, 17). Inter-annual variation was substantial, and the importance of certain environmental variables in predicting animal distributions indicates that these species may well respond to future environmental shifts brought about by anthropogenic effects and climatic change. This study is an important first step, however, towards understanding how bird, marine mammal, and sea turtle populations in the mid-Atlantic may be exposed to offshore wind energy development and other anthropogenic activities. The results of this study provide insight to help address environmental permitting requirements for current and future offshore development projects, and serve as a starting point for more site-specific studies, risk analyses, and evaluation of potential measures to avoid and minimize those risks.
This Topical Report addresses accomplishments achieved during Phase 2a of the SkyMine® Carbon Mineralization Pilot Project. The primary objectives of this project are to design, construct, and operate a system to capture CO2 from a slipstream of flue gas from a commercial coal-fired cement kiln, convert that CO2 to products having commercial value (i.e., beneficial use), show the economic viability of the CO2 capture and conversion process, and thereby advance the technology to the point of readiness for commercial scale demonstration and proliferation. The overall process is carbon negative, resulting in mineralization of CO2 that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere. The project will also substantiate market opportunities for the technology by sales of chemicals into existing markets, and identify opportunities to improve technology performance and reduce costs at the commercial scale. The project is being conducted in two phases. The primary objectives of Phase 1 were to elaborate proven SkyMine® process chemistry to commercial pilot-scale operation and complete the preliminary design for the pilot plant to be built and operated in Phase 2, complete a NEPA evaluation, and develop a comprehensive carbon life cycle analysis. The objective of the current Phase (2a) is to complete the detailed design of the pilot plant to be built in Phase 2b.
Summit Texas Clean Energy, LLC (STCE) is developing the Texas Clean Energy Project (TCEP or the Project) to be located near Penwell, Texas. The TCEP will include an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant with a nameplate capacity of 400 megawatts electric (MWe), combined with the production of urea fertilizer and the capture, utilization and storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) sold commercially for regional use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in the Permian Basin of west Texas. The TCEP will utilize coal gasification technology to convert Powder River Basin subbituminous coal delivered by rail from Wyoming into a synthetic gas (syngas) that will be cleaned and further treated so that at least 90 percent of the overall carbon entering the IGCC facility will be captured. The clean syngas will then be divided into two highhydrogen (H 2 ) concentration streams, one of which will be combusted as a fuel in a combined cycle power block for power generation and the other converted into urea fertilizer for commercial sale. The captured CO 2 will be divided into two streams: one will be used in producing the urea fertilizer and the other will be compressed for transport by pipeline for offsite use in EOR and permanent underground sequestration. The TCEP was selected by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy (FE) for cost-shared co-funded financial assistance under Round 3 of its Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI). A portion of this financial assistance was budgeted and provided for initial development, permitting and design activities. STCE and the DOE executed a Cooperative Agreement dated January 29, 2010, which defined the objectives of the Project for all phases. During Phase 1, STCE conducted and completed all objectives defined in the initial development, permitting and design portions of the Cooperative Agreement. This topical report summarizes all work associated with the project objectives, and additional work required to complete the financing of the Project. In general, STCE completed project definition, a front-end, engineering and design study (FEED), applied for and received its Record of Decision (ROD) associated with the NEPA requirements summarized in a detailed Environmental Impact Statement. A topical report covering the results of the FEED is the subject of a separate report submitted to the DOE on January 26, 2012. References to the FEED report are contained herein. In August 2013, STCE executed fixed-price turnkey EPC contracts and previously, in December 2011 a long-term O&M agreement, with industry-leading contractors. Other work completed during Phase 1 includes execution of all commercial input and offtake agreements required for project financing. STCE negotiated long-term agreements for power, CO 2 and urea offtake. A contract for the purchase of coal feedstock from Cloud Peak Energy’s Cordero Rojo mine was executed, as well as necessary agreements (supplementing the tariff) with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) for delivery of the coal to the TCEP site. STCE executed firm agreements for natural gas transportation with ONEOK for long-term water supply with a private landowner. In addition, STCE secured options for critical easements and rights-of-way, completed and updated a transmission study, executed an interconnection agreement and has agreed a target October 31, 2013 financial closing date with debt and conventional and tax equity.
This presentation reviews four National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) documents to understand how Federal agencies, including the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and Department of Energy, review and analyze the potential impacts to the human environment when funding or approving permits for enhanced geothermal system with the potential for induced seismicity.
As a primary stakeholder in the Yucca Mountain program, the state of Nevada has spent three decades examining and considering national policy regarding spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste transportation. During this time, Nevada has identified 10 issues it believes are critical to ensuring the safety and security of any spent nuclear fuel transportation program, and achieving public acceptance. These recommendations are: 1) Ship the oldest fuel first; 2) Ship mostly by rail; 3) Use dual-purpose (transportable storage) casks; 4) Use dedicated trains for rail shipments; 5) Implement a full-scale cask testing program; 6) Utilize a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for the selection of a new rail spur to the proposed repository site; 7) Implement the Western Interstate Energy Board (WIEB) 'straw man' process for route selection; 8) Implement Section 180C assistance to affected States, Tribes and localities through rulemaking; 9) Adopt safety and security regulatory enhancements proposed states; and 10) Address stakeholder concerns about terrorism and sabotage. This paper describes Nevada's proposals in detail and examines their current status. The paper describes the various forums and methods by which Nevada has presented its arguments and sought to influence national policy. As of 2012, most of Nevada's recommendations have been adopted in one form or another, although not yet implemented. If implemented in a future nuclear waste program, the State of Nevada believes these recommendations would form the basis for a successful national transportation plan for shipments to a geologic repository and/or centralized interim storage facility. (authors)
The process of transferring real property from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is always the same - except when it's not. The most frequently asked questions in the process are: how can this take so long and be so complex, and why is it different every time? The process of transferring real property from the Department of Energy is always the same - except when it's not. Repeat as needed. The authority for DOE to transfer property is found in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA). Specifically, the transfer of real property for mission-related purposes is done pursuant to the AEA Section 161(g). Another rule that can provide certain unique benefits to the transferee is found in 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 770, Transfer of Real Property at Defense Nuclear Facilities for Economic Development; it can be followed for economic development purposes at defense nuclear facilities. All federal real property transfers include at minimum a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review and a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) chap. 120(h) environmental due diligence evaluation. The end-point objective is to be able to demonstrate that a transfer is protective of human health and the environment - typically attained via a risk evaluation. That's it...mostly. None of these requirements are new; their processes are well-known. So, why is it different every time there is a transfer and what can be done to move things along? Time and the perception of open-ended schedules kill projects. Economic development projects that are proposed by Community Reuse Organizations (CROs) and others or by parties who need private capital are especially time-sensitive. It is not reasonable to expect business interests or investors to wait two years while the property transfer process is carried out. Lenders are also risk-sensitive and not solely business-risk sensitive. After all, these are federal properties where contamination is a factor. What are some of the things you can do to address those time and risk issues? Issues of time and complexity arise from several variables. Short-sighted vision and lack of project definition lead to wasted effort and lengthy delays. Some variability on the input side of the process can be controlled in a way that will save you time and actually work to your advantage. Steps can be taken to systematize the transfer process on the agency's part and on the requester/grantee's part. Having the right mix of dedicated people from the beginning, planning with flexibility, coordinating with the clean-up program at your site, knowing the interests and issues of your stakeholders, and working with the CRO/economic development authorities - all of these measures and others can and will help you. The key is not simply knowing the steps and making a punch-list, but understanding the steps and how to work with and use them. These concepts can be applied to create a vision of success for those engaged in real property transfer. (authors)