Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “environmental review”

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
DOE OSTI2025

Systems Innovation: Modernization & Efficiencies for ESH&Q Reviews

Environmental compliance reviews at INL have traditionally been managed through fragmented systems, relying on multiple spreadsheets and manual processes. This inefficiency led to time-consuming status updates and redundant tasks, such as manually sending reminder emails and transferring data from Excel to the Environmental Review Process (ERP). Initial attempts to streamline these processes using Power Automate and Excel revealed significant limitations, necessitating a more comprehensive solution. To address these immediate inefficiencies, automated workflows were developed using Power Automate. These workflows were designed to send scheduled status update reminders and capture responses through standardized forms, with submitted data flowing directly into centralized Excel trackers. This automation reduced the administrative burden, improved data accuracy, and enabled faster, more consistent reporting. Specifically, email automation achieved a 65% efficiency gain, while data integration saw a 48% improvement, resulting in 91% of project statuses being updated within two months. Despite the improvements brought by Power Automate, the fragmented nature of the review processes persisted. To further enhance efficiency and accuracy, the Integrated Review Tool (IRT) was developed. The IRT aims to centralize review initiation and connect team systems, creating an interconnected data infrastructure that preserves team autonomy while enhancing overall efficiency. This tool automates email reminders, centralizes reviews, and streamlines data integration, significantly improving the accuracy and efficiency of environmental compliance reviews. The design and development of the IRT involved advanced systems methodology, process mapping, project management, and collaboration with subject matter experts. The minimum viable product design is 100% complete, and system development is currently underway, with expected outcomes including a centralized entry point for all ESH&Q reviews, automated routing, real-time tracking and analytics, AI integration, and a user-friendly interface. This project demonstrates the potential of leveraging automation and integrated systems to enhance efficiency, accuracy, and decision-making in environmental reporting and compliance processes at INL.

99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Non-Technical Barriers to Geothermal Development in California and Nevada

Geothermal project development in the United States may be subject to numerous permits, authorizations, and other regulatory requirements at the federal, state, and local level, which are necessary to address potential environmental and resource impacts at geothermal project sites. This report presents the findings of our study, including an analysis of federal, state, and local geothermal regulatory and permitting processes, case studies analyzing site-specific attributes that may impact project development at four selected geothermal project sites, an analysis of cost and timeline implications for geothermal project development, and the results of a qualitative study focused on inter-agency coordination and collaboration efforts between federal, state, and/or local agencies for geothermal projects located in California and Nevada. Our analysis found that development timelines may be impacted by multiple federal and state environmental review processes and duplicative permitting requirements as well as coordination efforts between numerous federal, state, and local agencies involved in issuing authorizations and permits necessary for project development. In addition, projects in California and Nevada may face site-specific environmental challenges due to the presence of sensitive resources (e.g., biological species and species habitat, cultural resources) that may result in project construction delays. Our study results also indicate that protracted geothermal development timelines caused by delays in acquiring necessary permits and environmental reviews may result in loss of generated electricity revenue and additional financing costs, which may increase economic uncertainty associated with project development. Through our qualitative analysis, we found that utilization of best practices, including tiering to existing environmental review documents and developing memoranda of understanding, which clearly delineate agency roles and responsibilities may reduce overall project timelines, costs, and uncertainties associated with geothermal project development in California and Nevada.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Non-Technical Barriers to Geothermal Development in California and Nevada [Slides]

This presentation presents the findings of our study, including an analysis of federal, state, and local geothermal regulatory and permitting processes, case studies analyzing site-specific attributes that may impact project development at four selected geothermal project sites, an analysis of cost and timeline implications for geothermal project development, and the results of a qualitative study focused on inter-agency coordination and collaboration efforts between federal, state, and/or local agencies for geothermal projects located in California and Nevada. Our analysis found that development timelines may be impacted by multiple federal and state environmental review processes and duplicative permitting requirements as well as coordination efforts between numerous federal, state, and local agencies involved in issuing authorizations and permits necessary for project development. In addition, projects in California and Nevada may face site-specific environmental challenges due to the presence of sensitive resources (e.g., biological species and species habitat, cultural resources) that may result in project construction delays. Our study results also indicate that protracted geothermal development timelines caused by delays in acquiring necessary permits and environmental reviews may result in loss of generated electricity revenue and additional financing costs, which may increase economic uncertainty associated with project development. Through our qualitative analysis, we found that utilization of best practices, including tiering to existing environmental review documents and developing memoranda of understanding, which clearly delineate agency roles and responsibilities may reduce overall project timelines, costs, and uncertainties associated with geothermal project development in California and Nevada.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Dataset for report: Non-Technical Barriers to Geothermal Development in California and Nevada

In California and Nevada, geothermal projects are subject to non-technical barriers, which may create development delays leading to higher project costs and risks and decreased competitiveness with other electricity generation technologies. These non-technical barriers may include federal and state permits, authorizations, environmental reviews, and other regulatory requirements that are applicable throughout different phases of geothermal project development. The 2022 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report, "Non-Technical Barriers to Geothermal Development in California and Nevada" presents findings of a study on non-technical barriers that may influence geothermal project development. The set of data resources relied upon for the report includes: 1) interviews conducted with relevant geothermal stakeholders including regulators and project developers, 2) federal and state environmental review documents developed for specific projects, 3) a techno-economic analysis conducted using the NREL Annual Technology Baseline (ATB) framework, and 4) an analysis of the impacts of site-specific land access and permitting considerations on project development readiness conducted using the Geothermal Resource Portfolio Optimization and Reporting Technique (GeoRePORT) Socioeconomic Assessment Tool (SEAT).

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
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 OSTI2022

Bioproducts from high-protein algal biomass: An economic and environmental sustainability review and risk analysis

This report has High-protein algal biomass as an important bio-commodity that has the potential to provide a new source of sustainable protein products. Herein is a critical review that identifies 1) the most relevant sustainability findings related to the processing of proteinaceous algal biomass to higher value protein products and 2) the potential pathways to improve life cycle assessment (LCA) and techno-economic analysis (TEA) metrics, including life-cycle carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 eq), life cycle energy, and minimum selling price (MSP) of these products. The critical review of the literature revealed a large variation in model input parameters relating to these metrics. Therefore, a Monte Carlo analysis was conducted to assess the risk associated with these input variations. To understand the uncertainties that propagate into high-protein algae to products’ systems, we reviewed more than 20 state-of-the-art unit operations for algal biomass processing., including cell disruption, protein solubilization, protein precipitation and purification, and protein concentration. We evaluated displacement of proteinaceous products by algal-bioproducts, including ruminant feed, aquaculture feed, protein tablets, and biopolymers and biopolyesters, with prices in the market ranging from 1.9 to 120 $\$$ kg -1 protein. This review realized that the MSP of ruminant and non-ruminant feed ranges from 0.65±0.56 to 2.9±1.1 $\$$ kg -1 protein, and bioplastics’ MSP ranges from 0.97 to 7.0 $\$$ kg -1 protein. Regarding LCA metrics, there is limited research on life cycle energy in proteinaceous biomass concentration and bioproduct systems, reported at 32.7 MJ kg protein -1 , for animal feed displacement. Animal feed emissions in the literature report negative fluxes, representing environmental benefits, as low as -3.7 kgCO 2 eq kg -1 protein and positive fluxes, i.e., global warming potential, as high as 12.8 kgCO 2 eq kg -1 protein. There is limited research on bioplastics life cycle emissions reported at 0.6 kgCO 2 eq kg -1 protein. In general, the studies to date of algae-derived protein bioproducts showed similar life cycle emissions to soybean meals, nylon, polymers, and polystyrenes. Our risk analysis realized that more than 50% of scenarios can result in negative-net life cycle CO 2 eq emissions. This review and risk analysis assess and demonstrate the scenarios that improve economic and environmental sustainability metrics in high-protein algal bioproducts systems.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Mapping Support for Targeted Critical Minerals Exploration and Extraction

The United States’ dependency on imported minerals poses significant risks to economic stability and national security due to potential supply disruptions. Recognizing the strategic importance of critical minerals, the Department of Energy (DOE) emphasizes the need for a secure and resilient supply chain to support emissions reduction, technology development, and capitalization on clean energy opportunities. The DOE’s Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains (MESC), in collaboration with the Office of Policy (OP), addresses these vulnerabilities by focusing on upstream domestic critical minerals production, balancing extraction with social and environmental goals, including conservation, environmental justice, and respect for Tribal sovereignty. This report showcases a collaborative effort involving Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne), National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to map mineral development potential along with key social and environmental datasets. A geographical information system (GIS)-based web map application was developed as a preliminary tool for environmental analysis, integrating 158 geospatial data layers such as critical habitat, land ownership, economic indicators, and environmental concerns. Data were sourced from agencies like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and USGS and processed using GIS technology to enhance visualization and analysis. The proposed analysis framework categorizes areas into high, mid, and low concern based on withdrawn lands, special status species, the Economic Development Capacity Index (EDCI) Mining Composite Index, and the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST). While the application provides broad visualizations, it is not a substitute for detailed environmental reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Users must conduct further analyses and engage with tribal entities and other stakeholders for comprehensive planning. A case study of the Idaho Cobalt Belt (ICB) in Lemhi County, Idaho, has been provided in the report to illustrate the tool's practical use. This report introduces a GIS application and framework to support stakeholders in identifying and prioritizing areas for critical mineral exploration, promoting secure supply chains, and advancing the nation's energy independence through responsible resource stewardship.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Market Analysis of Solar Photovoltaic Development Potential on Bureau of Land Management Land in Arizona

This report explores the magnitude of the potential buildout of new solar development on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land in Arizona based on market conditions in 2023. The BLM currently has 18 solar energy zones (SEZs), including three in Arizona, where land has undergone preliminary reviews and is suitable for expedited environmental review and permitting for solar energy projects. The BLM also administers variance areas that are outside SEZs and may consider right-of-way (ROW) applications for utility-scale solar development on such variance lands. Within variance areas in Arizona, the BLM has further identified Renewable Energy Development Area (REDA) lands that are likely well suited to solar or wind development. The purpose of the analysis reported here is to explore the anticipated extent of new solar development on BLM land in the state by 2035.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

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↗
DOE OSTI2022

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↗
DOE OSTI2022

Environmental Effects Assessment for Proposed Offshore Wind Farm off the Coast of Grays Harbor, Washington

Grays Harbor Wind LLC (GHW) is proposing to develop a floating offshore wind farm offshore of west Grays Harbor County, Washington (Grays Harbor). The proposed GHW Offshore Wind Project (Project) would entail construction, installation and operation of a 1,000-megawatt (MW) offshore wind farm consisting of approximately 75 floating units, each containing a floating foundation and wind turbine generator (WTG). The Project location is approximately 25 miles (21.7 nautical miles [nmi]) offshore west of Grays Harbor, at waters depths of 360 to 700 feet. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) was contracted by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. on behalf of GHW to carry out this preliminary scoping study to evaluate baseline conditions and potential effects on fish and marine mammals from development and operation of a floating offshore wind farm installed within a designated area off the coast of Washington1. Floating offshore wind units installed in an ocean environment as part of the Project would interact with marine wildlife. This Study report provides an initial data aggregation and analysis, using publicly available data, of the Project effects, both negative and positive, on the marine environment. The scope of this assessment is limited by the fact that the Project development is presently at the conceptual level. Data on marine organisms were aggregated and evaluated; however seabirds were evaluated by Herrera Environmental Consulting and, along with bats, were not included in the scope of this study. Significant additional work is necessary to characterize ocean, seafloor, and environmental conditions; select appropriate floating offshore wind technologies; identify construction methods and locations; and assess facility locations, including electrical interconnection. Data aggregation and analysis of seabirds and bats is also needed. Evaluation of the full range of potential environmental effects would be conducted following an award of a lease from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) as part of the leasing, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) environmental review and permitting processes. While this initial data aggregation and analysis uses best available public scientific information and current assumptions about the Project configuration, the effects discussed herein are based on the status of review to-date and may change as Project-specific details are developed.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Economic Impact of Permitting Timelines on Produced Geothermal Power

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

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Recommendations to Improve Nuclear Licensing: Update to INL/RPT-23-72206, Recommendations to Improve the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reactor Licensing and Approval Process

In 2023, various stakeholders had asked for BEA’s thoughts and recommendations to improve the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) licensing review and approval process. This included an April 14, 2023 request from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on “information and recommendations to improve the licensing review and approval process, . . . as well as the siting, licensing, construction, and oversight of advanced nuclear reactor technologies.” In response to these requests, BEA prepared and published INL/RPT-23-72206, Recommendations to Improve the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reactor Licensing and Approval Process (2023 Report). The 2023 Report included 13 recommendations related to streamlining NRC hearings, expediting NRC safety and environmental reviews, otherwise improving NRC licensing, and providing financial benefits to new reactor projects. Many of these earlier recommendations were addressed through various legislative actions or changes made by the NRC. Section 2 of this report addresses the current status of those earlier recommendations. BEA recently received a new request from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce seeking any suggestions for additional areas to examine or potential reforms “that may assist in modernizing the licensing and regulatory process that affects civil nuclear deployment.” Additionally, the new Secretary of Energy has identified initial DOE actions to support unleashing the golden era of American energy dominance, including “Unleash Commercial Nuclear Power in the United States” and “Streamline Permitting and Identify Undue Burdens on American Energy.” Given these developments, BEA has prepared a new set of updated recommendations in this report. The recommendations include updated versions of recommendations from the 2023 Report which have not been fully adopted, as well as entirely new recommendations. This set of recommendations has a slightly broader focus with some recommendations focused on DOE authorizations and some recommendations related to nuclear licensing beyond new reactors. Each recommendation below also identifies whether the recommendation would require legislative action or could be addressed directly by the respective agency.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Recommendations for an Applicant to Calculate Activity Data for Greenhouse Gases Estimates

In 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) directed the NRC staff to address climate change issues and consider the impacts of the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) in its environmental reviews for major licensing actions (NRC 2009b). To implement this direction from the Commission, the staff issued guidance in 2011 and updated guidance in 2014 in Attachment 1 to Interim Staff Guidance COL/ESP-ISG-026 (NRC 2011; NRC 2014). This guidance provides a simpler method than the method described in RG 4.2 Rev. 3, that an applicant can use to meet the plant parameter envelope (PPE) value from the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors (NR GEIS). NRC staff estimated the 97-year lifecycle GHG emissions from a reference 1000 megawatt electrical (MWe) light-water reactor (LWR) for various activities associated with construction, operation (including uranium fuel cycle), and decommissioning of nuclear power plants and presented the results in Appendix H of the NR GEIS. Appendix H of the NR GEIS includes estimates of direct emissions from construction equipment and emergency diesel engines in a nuclear facility and indirect emissions from workforce vehicular traffic, fuel transportation and the uranium fuel cycle. The NR GEIS Section 3.3 extended the estimates in Appendix H for the installation of two 1000 MWe nuclear reactors on the same site. Scaling factors were used to extrapolate the GHG emissions of a reference 1000 MWe reactor to a two-unit nuclear reactor plant (each reactor unit generating 1000 MWe). GHG emission estimates for building, operation, decommissioning and safe storage (SAFSTOR) for a two-unit nuclear reactor plant would be based on the plant’s physical size, and therefore estimates for these source categories were assumed to be twice the value of the reference 1000 MWe reactor. However, GHG emissions from the fuel cycle (including fuel transportation) were scaled upward by a factor of 3, based on plant efficiencies greater than the 80 percent assumption in Appendix H. Table 1 below shows the PPE emissions for two 1000 MWe nuclear reactors as provided in NR GEIS. The total GHG emissions for two 1000 MWe reactors were calculated as 2,534,000 metric tons (MT) of CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 (e)) based on a 97 year GHG life cycle period. The GHG emissions lifetime of 97 years for a reference nuclear reactor includes a 7-year building phase, 40 years of operation, 10 years of active decommissioning, and 40 years of SAFSTOR operations (NRC 2024). Construction equipment and vehicular traffic from workers commute would contribute to the GHG emissions during a 7-year building phase. Uranium fuel cycle, vehicular traffic, fuel and waste transportation, and testing of standby diesel generators would contribute to GHG emissions during the 40-year operations phase. While NRC’s regulations allow up to 60 years of reactor facility decommissioning, Appendix H estimated that most of the GHGs would occur over an estimated 10-year period during which to the licensee would engage in significant demolition and earth-moving activities, as discussed in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002). Vehicular traffic by the workforce during a 40-year SAFSTOR period would additionally contribute GHG emissions. The carbon footprint for a 40-year SAFSTOR period was separately analyzed from the decommissioning activities as provided in Table YYYY-2 of the staff issued guidance in 2011 (NRC 2011).

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Los Alamos National Laboratory Floodplain Assessment for Fire Risk Mitigations at the Lower Slobbovia Testing Site in (TA-36)

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), is proposing to take fire pre-suppression actions at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Technical Area (TA) 36. Constructing a fire break and a fuel break surrounding the Lower Slobbovia explosives testing site in addition to the current vegetation mowing practices would establish a safety perimeter to help prevent fires from spreading away from the firing point. NNSA has prepared this floodplain assessment in accordance with 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1022 Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements (10 CFR 1022), which was promulgated to implement DOE requirements under Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management (EO 1977). A floodplain is defined in 10 CFR 1022 as “the lowlands adjoining inland and coastal waters and relatively flat areas and flood prone areas of offshore islands,” and a base floodplain as “the 100-year floodplain, that is, a floodplain with a 1.0 percent chance of flooding in any given year (CFR 2003).” This floodplain assessment evaluates potential impacts to floodplain values and functions from implementation of the proposed action, identifies alternatives to the Proposed Action, and allows for meaningful public comment.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗