Chapter IV: Environmental consequences of the alternative actions. Chapter V: Listing of contributors. Appendices: Detailed analyses and a comment appendix. The heart of the document is chapter II, discussion of the alternatives in the light of their environmental consequences. Note that the EIS does not contain the choice among alternatives; that is left for the record of decision (ROD). A vital element of the NEPA process is public participation. It is only through this public involvement that we can hope to gain public confidence. In a simplified form, the NASA EIS process is depicted in Fig. 1. The public and all interested parties participate particularly in two steps: the scoping activity, and during the review and comment period. The overall process proceeds as follows: (1) A Notice of Intent (NOI) is published to alert interested individuals, groups, agencies and so forth that an EIS is planned. This Notice generally describes the EIS which is planned. In NASA, this starts with the scoping process. During this period, interested parties may advise NASA of issues which should be addressed in the EIS. DOE, EPA and other agencies actually hold public hearings as a means of gaining helpful input. (2) A draft EIS (DEIS) is then prepared and circulated for public comment. CEQ regulations require a minimum of 45 days. Upon proper request, NASA may grant an extension of up to 15 days. (3) After consideration of comments, a final EIS (FEIS) is then published. The FEIS should include a comment appendix containing all the comments (or summaries of longer comments) and their disposition. (4) Following a 30-day waiting period, NASA may file a record of decision (ROD). Note that the 30-day period is not formally a comment period; upon its publication, the FEIS is a complete NEPA document. NASA will, of course, continue to consider comments, but the only way to formally intervene is through the courts. Safety Analysis: source of the data Clearly the EIS is only as valid as the data on which it relies. In the instance of space nuclear power—either reactors or RTGs—the only environmental impacts are associated with launch or reentry of the system, and then only if there is an accident. All other aspects of the development process are covered by existing NEPA documents [4, 5]- Fortunately, too, there is a well-established process for conducting the safety and environmental analyses for space nuclear missions. Indeed, the National Academy of Engineering recently recommended [6] that NASA undertake a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) for the Shuttle. It is interesting that the PRA procedure they recommended is the same in every important feature as the process followed by the DoE in preparing the safety analysis [7] for the Galileo mission. The element of the final safety analysis report (FSAR) are described in Fig. 2 and the steps in the safety analysis are shown in Fig. 3.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==