Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “environmental impact statement”

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↗
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.↗
NASA NTRS1971

Environmental impact statement for National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

The probable environmental impact and adverse effects of the Lewis Research Center are assessed. The Cleveland and Plum Brook facilities are briefly described. It is felt that the absence of harmful environmental impact from the Cleveland site is apparent, and the monitoring at the Plum Brook reactor facility shows the effectiveness of effluent controls. The probable adverse effects are considered for air, water, and noise pollution, and radioactive and hazardous waste storage and disposal; it is concluded that all emissions are maintained below Federal, and local standards. There are no appropriate alternatives to the operation of the Center, and no improvement in environmental quality would result from relocation. The relationship between local short-term productivity is briefly discussed. No adverse comment has been received from public agencies or private organizations or individuals.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1971

NASA, John F. Kennedy Space Center environmental impact statement

The probable total impact of the John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) operations on the environment is discussed in terms of launch operations emissions and environmental quality. A schedule of planned launches through 1973 is included with a description of the systems for eliminating harmful emissions during launch operations. The effects of KSC on wild life and environmental quality are discussed along with the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of natural resources.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1979

Environmental impact statement for the Kennedy Space Center, 1978 - 1979 revision

The ongoing operation of KSC for expendable launch vehicles and automated spacecraft, continued development of facility capabilities, and the approved follow-on operations of the Space Transportation System and associated payloads are described. Emphasis is placed on the expendable launch vehicle and space shuttle traffic projected as of January, 1979. The maximum potential effect on the environment is addressed. Site specific environmental effects are summarized. It is indicated that all potential impacts will be localized, of short duration, controllable, and of minimum severity. The impact on land use, air and water quality, weather, and noise effects is covered.

Source record↗