Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1971

Flight Research Center, Edwards, California. Environmental Impact Statement

This is an institutional environmental impact statement relating to the overall operation of the NASA, Flight Research Center. The Center is located in Kern County, California, approximately 100 miles northeast of Los Angeles. Flight activities relate primarily to areas in the vicinity of Los Angeles, Kern, Inyo and San Bernardino counties in Southern California; and to areas in Southern Nevada (principally Nye and Clark counties. Operations of the Flight Research Center have a very neglibible impact on the environment; and they are planned and controlled to eliminate or minimize effects on water, air and noise.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1997

Environmental Impact Statement for the Cassini Mission

This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) to the 1995 Cassini mission Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) focuses on information recently made available from updated mission safety analyses. This information is pertinent to the consequence and risk analyses of potential accidents during the launch and cruise phases of the mission that were addressed in the EIS. The type of accidents evaluated are those which could potentially result in a release of plutonium dioxide from the three Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGS) and the up to 129 Radioisotope Heater Units (RHUS) onboard the Cassini spacecraft. The RTGs use the heat of decay of plutonium dioxide to generate electric power for the spacecraft and instruments. The RHUs, each of which contains a small amount of plutonium dioxide, provide heat for controlling the thermal environment of the spacecraft and several of its instruments. The planned Cassini mission is an international cooperative effort of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the European Space Agency (ESA), and the Italian Space Agency (ASI) to conduct a 4-year scientific exploration of the planet Saturn, its atmosphere, moons, rings, and magnetosphere.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1990

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

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) addresses the environmental impacts which may be caused by the preparation and operation of the Ulysses spacecraft, including its planned launch on the Space Transportation System (STS) Shuttle and the alternative of canceling further work on the mission. The launch configuration will use the STS/Inertial Upper Stage (IUS)/Payload Assist Module-Special(PAM-S) combination. 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. However, the U.S. Air Force, which procures the Titan 4 for NASA, could not provide a Titan 4 vehicle for the 1991 launch opportunity because of high priority Department of Defense requirements. The only expected environmental effects of the proposed action are associated with normal Shuttle launch operations. 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 have been judged insufficient to preclude Shuttle launches. In the event of (1) an accident during launch, or (2) reentry of the spacecraft from earth orbit, there are potential adverse health and environmental effects associated with the possible release of plutonium dioxide from the spacecraft's radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG). The potential effects considered in this EIS include risks of air and water quality impacts, local land area contamination, adverse health and safety impacts, the disturbance of biotic resources, impacts on wetland areas or areas containing historical sites, and socioeconomic impacts. Intensive analysis of the possible accidents associated with the proposed action are underway and preliminary results indicate small health or environmental risks. The results of a Final Safety Analysis Report will be available for inclusion into the final EIS.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1988

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

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) addresses the environmental impacts which may be caused by the preparation and operation of the Galileo spacecraft, including its planned launch on the Space Transportation System (STS) Shuttle and the alternative of canceling further work on the mission. The launch configuration will use the STS/Inertial Upper Stage (IUS)/Payload Assist Module-Special (PAM-S) combination. 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. However, the U.S. Air Force, which procures the Titan 4 for NASA, could not provide a Titan 4 vehicle for the 1991 launch opportunity because of high priority Department of Defense requirements. The only expected environmental effects of the proposed action are associated with normal Shuttle launch operations. 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 have been judged insufficient to preclude Shuttle launches. In the event of: (1) an accident during launch, or (2) reentry of the spacecraft from earth orbit, there are potential adverse health and environmental effects associated with the possible release of plutonium dioxide from the spacecraft's radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG).

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 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 NTRS1996

Final Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement for International Space Station

The Final Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the International Space Station (ISS) has been prepared by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and follows NASA's Record of Decision on the Final Tier 1 EIS for the Space Station Freedom. The Tier 2 EIS provides an updated evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with the alternatives considered: the Proposed Action and the No-Action alternative. The Proposed Action is to continue U.S. participation in the assembly and operation of ISS. The No-Action alternative would cancel NASA!s participation in the Space Station Program. ISS is an international cooperative venture between NASA, the Canadian Space Agency, the European Space Agency, the Science and Technology Agency of Japan, the Russian Space Agency, and the Italian Space Agency. The purpose of the NASA action would be to further develop human presence in space; to meet scientific, technological, and commercial research needs; and to foster international cooperation.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1995

Draft Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement for International Space Station

The Draft Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the International Space Station (ISS) has been prepared by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and follows NASA's Record of Decision on the Final Tier 1 EIS for the Space Station Freedom. The Tier 2 EIS provides an updated evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with the alternatives considered: the Proposed Action and the No-Action alternative. The Proposed Action is to continue U.S. participation in the assembly and operation of ISS. The No-Action alternative would cancel NASA's participation in the Space Station Program. ISS is an international cooperative venture between NASA, the Canadian Space Agency, the European Space Agency, the Science and Technology Agency of Japan, the Russian Space Agency, and the Italian Space Agency. The purpose of the NASA action would be to further develop a human presence in space; to meet scientific, technological, and commercial research needs; and to foster international cooperation.

Source record↗
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 Tier 1 (program level) EIS (NASA 1988a) considered the Titan IV launch vehicle as an alternative booster stage for launch in May 1991 or later. The May 1991 Venus launch opportunity is considered a planetary back-up for the Magellan (Venus Radar Mapper) mission, the Galileo mission, and the Ulysses mission. Plans were underway to enable the use of a Titan IV launch vehicle for the planetary back-up. However, in November 1988, the U.S. Air Force, which procures the Titan IV for NASA, notified NASA that it could not provide a Titan IV vehicle for the May 1991 launch opportunity due to high priority Department of Defense requirements. Consequently, NASA terminated all mission planning for the Titan IV planetary back-up. A minimum of 3 years is required to implement mission-specific modifications to the basic Titan IV launch configuration; therefore, insufficient time is available to use a Titan IV vehicle in May 1991. Thus, the Titan IV launch vehicle is no longer a feasible alternative to the STS/Inertial Upper Stage (IUS) for the May 1991 launch opportunity.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2022

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Manufactured Housing

This draft environmental impact statement (EIS) analyzes the impacts related to DOE’s proposed energy conservation standards for manufactured homes. DOE’s proposed energy conservation standards are based on the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and relate to the building thermal envelope; air sealing; installation of insulation; duct sealing; heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC); service hot water systems; mechanical ventilation fan efficacy; and heating and cooling equipment sizing. The draft EIS evaluates DOE’s proposed action (energy conservation standards tiered based the manufacturers retail list price), alternatives to the proposed action (including energy conservation standards tiered based on size of the manufactured home and untiered standards), and a no action alternative. The draft EIS presents analysis of impacts related to (1) energy resources; (2) air resources (including greenhouse gases, climate change, ambient air quality and indoor air quality); (3) health and safety; (4) socioeconomics; and (5) environmental justice.

MacDonell, Margaret↗
NASA NTRS1988

Final (Tier 1) environmental impact statement for the Galileo and Ulysses Missions

Presented here is a Final (Tier 1) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addressing the potential environmental consequences associated with continuing the modifications of the Galileo and Ulysses spacecraft for launch using a booster/upper stage combination that is different from the one planned for use prior to the Challenger accident, while conducting the detailed safety and environmental analysis in order to preserve the October 1989 launch opportunity for Galileo and an October 1990 launch opportunity for Ulysses. While detailed safety and environmental analyses associated with the missions are underway, they currently are not complete. Nevertheless, sufficient information is available to enable a choice among the reconfiguration alternatives presented. Relevant assessments of the potential for environmental impacts are presented.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1990

Supplemental final environmental impact statement for advanced solid rocket motor testing at Stennis Space Center

Since the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision on the FEIS describing the potential impacts to human health and the environment associated with the program, three factors have caused NASA to initiate additional studies regarding these issues. These factors are: (1) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agreed to use the same comprehensive procedures to identify and delineate wetlands; (2) EPA has given NASA further guidance on how best to simulate the exhaust plume from the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM) testing through computer modeling, enabling more realistic analysis of emission impacts; and (3) public concerns have been raised concerning short and long term impacts on human health and the environment from ASRM testing.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1973

Institutional environmental impact statement (space shuttle development and operations) amendment no. 1

Data are presented to support the environmental impact statement on space shuttle actions at Kennedy Space Center. Studies indicate that land use to accommodate space shuttle operations may have the most significant impact. The impacts on air, water and noise quality are predicted to be less on the on-site environment. Considerations of operating modes indicate that long and short term land use will not affect wildlife productivity. The potential for adverse environmental impact is small and such impacts will be local, short in duration, controllable, and environmentally acceptable.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1998

X-33 Environmental Impact Statement: A Fast Track Approach

NASA is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to prepare an appropriate level environmental analysis for its major projects. Development of the X-33 Technology Demonstrator and its associated flight test program required an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the NEPA. The EIS process is consists of four parts: the "Notice of Intent" to prepare an EIS and scoping; the draft EIS which is distributed for review and comment; the final ETS; and the "Record of Decision." Completion of this process normally takes from 2 - 3 years, depending on the complexity of the proposed action. Many of the agency's newest fast track, technology demonstration programs require NEPA documentation, but cannot sustain the lengthy time requirement between program concept development to implementation. Marshall Space Flight Center, in cooperation with Kennedy Space Center, accomplished the NEPA process for the X-33 Program in 13 months from Notice of Intent to Record of Decision. In addition, the environmental team implemented an extensive public involvement process, conducting a total of 23 public meetings for scoping and draft EIS comment along with numerous informal meetings with public officials, civic organizations, and Native American Indians. This paper will discuss the fast track approach used to successfully accomplish the NEPA process for X-33 on time.

McCaleb, Rebecca C.↗
DOE OSTI2018

Does size matter? An evaluation of length and proportion of information in environmental impact statements

Highlights: • Empirical analysis of length and proportion of information in EISs is presented. • Current EISs, in Brazil, are significantly longer than the early ones. • Baseline information is the most common element in EISs. • EIS length is affected by many variables, including project sector and size. • While relevant to decision-making, EIS length should be carefully regulated. - Abstract: For decades, authors and institutions have argued that the quality of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) is somehow affected by the volume of information they contain. Both too little and too much information can be a problem. However, very few academic studies have addressed the issue of EIS length in detail. The objective of this article was to systematically analyze the volume of information presented in EISs, using Brazil as the empirical context. More specifically, this study evaluated the volume and proportion of information disclosed in 49 Brazilian EISs. This study also tried to identify sectorial variations and whether variables such as project size and number of pages in Terms of References are likely determinants of information volume. >146 thousand pages of EIS information were scrutinized in two rounds of content analysis. Data were organized in spreadsheets and then coded and analyzed through various descriptive and inferential statistical techniques. Overall, findings corroborate the fact that EISs are now significantly longer than the early ones, and still heavily loaded with baseline information. The average number of pages in EISs and in Non-technical Summaries was found to be 2993 and 94, respectively. Kruskal-Wallis and linear regression tests indicated that EIS length is likely affected by a combination of variables, including project size, territorial and sectorial characteristics. Such findings suggest that the historical approach of setting page limits to EISs through regulations and Terms of References is no longer appropriate for EIA practice in connection with large enterprises in Brazil, and arguably elsewhere. The article discusses its practical and academic implications, and highlights the need to further investigate the actual impacts of EIS length on decision-making.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2018

Mining project's economic impact on local communities, as a social determinant of health: A documentary analysis of environmental impact statements

Australian mining developments cause indirect economic impacts on nearby communities leading to poor health and wellbeing of local residents. Economic instability is a recognised social determinant of health (SDoH); however, SDoHs are rarely considered adequately in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). This research aimed to determine the extent economic impacts as a SDoH are considered in three Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) of mining projects in the New South Wales, Australia. We adopted an exploratory case study design following Yin (2012). Three cases in New South Wales, Australia, were purposively sampled as being of concern to the local community who had sought legal advice about the content of the EIS (although not necessarily for health reasons). Two were open cut mines: Watermark located in the Liverpool Plains and Warkworth Continuation in the Hunter Valley Region. The third is a comparative case – the underground Mandalong Southern Extension located in Lake Macquarie. We adapted a health-focused EIA coding framework to investigate how economic indicators as SDoH were explicitly mentioned in EISs and applied this to the three cases. Economic indicators as SDoH were rarely considered. There was a greater focus on population characteristics rather than the potential economic impacts of the mining projects on the communities. Causal association of economic determinants and health outcomes were insufficiently reported compared to best practice, and health data were not used to inform assessments. Despite two EISs – Warkworth Continuation and Watermark – associating some economic indicators to health outcomes, impacts were not adequately discussed when compared to the known literature on economic impacts of mines. Our findings show that the three EISs were inadequately utilised to determine economic impacts of mining projects on the health and wellbeing of local communities. The evidence base linking economic impacts of mines to health is underdeveloped, which compromises assessing the quality of economic coverage in EISs. EIA scoping should enable sufficient inclusion of broader determinants of health using appropriate methodology, and the economic-focused content of EISs should be subject to rigorous peer-review process to fully inform government approvals for projects. Our methods lend themselves to research in other contexts to investigate the quality of EIAs.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗