Final Environmental Impact Statement, Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Program, Particle Bed Reactor Propulsion Technology Development and Validation

Page 2

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SPACE NUCLEAR THERMAL Particle Bed Reactor Propulsion Technology Development and Validation

Page 3

PRELIMINARY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SPACE NUCLEAR THERMAL PROPULSION PROGRAM b. Cooperating Agency: Department of Energy c. Proposed Action: Technology development through validation testing of a particle bed reactor (PBR) propulsion system. Written comments and inquiries on this document should be directed to: Capt. Scott Hartford, AFCEE/ESEP, 8106 Chennault Road, Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5000. e. Designation: Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) f. Abstract: The PBR concept has been under study in the United States since the early 1980s. During the past decade the PBR technology has advanced to the degree that the Air Force, in carrying out its mission to investigate promising technologies for military applications, proposes to conduct validation testing of the PER technology for space propulsion as part of its Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (SNTP) program. This environmental impact statement has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act to analyze the potential environmental consequences of the proposed PBR construction and testing activities. The document analyzes the potential environmental impacts at two candidate test locations, the Saddle Mountain Test Station a t the Nevada Test Site, and the Contained Test Facility at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, as well as the impacts of the No-Action Alternative. The analyses include infrastructure, land use, transportation, hazardous materials and hazardous waste management, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, water resources, and health and safety. Anticipated issues related to health and safety will be addressed in facility designs and safety procedures so that applicable statutes, regulations, and permits are met or exceeded. The program would cause slight increases in utility demands, population, air emissions, and disposal of hazardous waste. Additional small releases of radioactivity would occur due to normal operations or from an accident. Construction would cause loss of habitat at either site; in-place mitigations at the Nevada Test Site would minimize impacts to the desert tortoise (a federally listed threatened species). A warning siren or other deterrent could be used at INEL to lessen the remote likelihood of impacts to the bald eagle (a federally listed endangered species) from flare stack operations. No impacts that exceed applicable limits have been identified at either candidate test location, although SNTP in combination with other potential future programs may deplete existing disposal capacity for low-level radioactive waste more quickly then when considered separately.

Page 5

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION This environmental impact statement (EIS) analyzes the potential environmental consequences of implementing a proposal to perform testing associated with the Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (SNTP) program. The SNTP program is an activity to pursue development of nuclear reactor technologies that have potential application to advanced space propulsion systems. In support of its mission, the Air Force has a continuing need to investigate new and promising technologies. The Air Force has tasked the Space and Missiles Technology Directorate of the Phillips Laboratory with the responsibility for validating and using advanced technologies to acquire and maintain superior space propulsion systems. Based on its technical merits, a nuclear technology known as a particle bed reactor (PER) has been identified for validation for potential application as an advanced upper stage The Air Force must comply with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which require preparation of an EIS. This study provides information to the decision makers and the public on the potential environmental impacts that could result from proceeding with development of the PBR propulsion technology through validation testing. The Department of Energy (DOE) is a cooperating agency in the preparation of this EIS and will participate with the Air Force in making decisions regarding the technology validation. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION The Air Force proposes to develop the technology and demonstrate the feasibility of a PBR propulsion system that could be used to power an advanced upper stage rocket engine. The Proposed Action for this technology development program consists of development and testing of the engine and propellant management system components and assemblies, and construction and operation of validation testing facilities. The PBR propulsion system would include a nuclear reactor consisting of an arrangement of fuel elements containing uranium-235 fuel particles, each one coated to provide containment of radioactive fission products. Cryogenic hydrogen would flow through the reactor and be heated as a result of cooling the fuel. The heated hydrogen would be expanded through the nozzle assembly, producing thrust. A series of tests would be performed, leading to the validation of the concept. Tests would be sequenced to begin with testing of multiple assemblies to demonstrate reactor fuel element operation, progress through

Page 6

tests to demonstrate the propellant management system, and culminate in testing a series of up to ten reactors that gradually approach the desired performance conditions. Each test sequence would undergo a comprehensive safety analysis in accordance with DOE procedures for preliminary and final Safety Analysis Reports. Testing would be conducted in strict compliance with all applicable safety and .environmental regulations Two alternative PER validation test sites are being considered as part of the Construction and operation of the PBR validation test facilities at the Saddle Mountain Test Station (SMTS) at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) is being considered. NTS is a DOE installation located in southern Nevada. Development of the facilities would involve construction on approximately 100 acres at the SMTS. Infrastructure improvements such as road improvements and water and electric power service extensions would be required. Renovation of existing facilities and construction of some new facilities at the Contained Test Facility (CTF) at the Test Area North (TAN) area of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) is being considered. INEL is a DOE installation located in east-central Idaho. Development of the PBR validation test facilities would involve the renovation of existing facilities on approximately 55 acres of developed land plus additional acreage for construction of the remaining needed facilities. The total developed area would be approximately 1 0 0 acres. The only alternative to the Proposed Action being considered is the NoAction Alternative. The No-Action Alternative would result in not carrying out the development and validation process for the PBR propulsion technology. Development of testing facilities would not occur under this The Air Force's preferred alternative is to facilitate development of nuclear thermal propulsion technology by constructing and operating a PBR validation test facility. While both NTS and INEL appear to be acceptable candidate locations for the test facility, the Air Force presently prefers NTS. The Air Force's final decision, as well as DOE'S site selection, will be documented in one or more formal Records of Decision that will be made available to the public. SCOPE OF STUDY The scoping period began when the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the SNTP program was published in the Federal Reoister on March 13,

Page 7

1992. Issues related to the SNTP program were identified in scoping meetings held in Las Vegas, Nevada (April 7, 1992); Idaho Falls, Idaho (April 9, 19921; St. George, Utah (April 16, 1992); and Salt Lake City, Utah (April 22, 1992). The comments and concerns expressed at the scoping meetings and received during the public comment period were used in determining the scope and direction of studies and analyses required to accomplish this EIS. This EIS discusses the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Action, its siting alternatives, and the NoAction Alternative. To provide the context in which potential environmental impacts may occur at the two candidate field test locations and the surrounding communities, existing conditions and potential changes as a result of construction and test activities are described. Impacts to the physical and natural environment are evaluated for infrastructure, land use, transportation, hazardous materials/waste management, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, water resources, and health and safety. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This EIS considers the environmental impacts of proceeding with PBR technology development and validation and whether to perform the testing operations at the SMTS or the CTF. For purposes of summarizing and comparing environmental impacts, the alternatives are arranged as follows: proceeding with the Proposed Action at the SMTS, proceeding with the Proposed Action a t the CTF, and the No-Action Alternative. Influencing factors include projections based on program requirements that would likely influence the biophysical environment, including ground disturbance, socioeconomic factors, and infrastructure demands, as well as environmental (biophysical) impacts of the alternatives. Influencing factors and environmental impacts are summarized below and in Table S-1 . SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS The Draft EIS (DEIS) for the SNTP program was made available for public review and comment from August to October 1992. Public hearings were held in Las Vegas, Nevada (September 8, 1992); St. George, Utah (September 10, 1992); Salt Lake City, Utah (September 15, 1992); and Idaho Falls, Idaho (September 17, 1992). At each of these the Air Force presented the findings of the DEIS. Public comments received both verbally at the public hearings and in writing during the response period have been reviewed and are addressed in Chapter 9 of this EIS. In addition, the text of the EIS itself has been revised, as appropriate, to discuss the concerns expressed in the public comments.

Page 9

SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM THE DElS TO THE FINAL EIS (FEIS) Based on more recent studies or comments from the public, the following major changes have been made to the EIS: Additional discussion of Purpose and Need (Sections 1.2 and Additional details on the description of the Proposed Action are Analysis of roads accessing the SMTS (traffic, biological resources) is added (Section 4.4.1 and 4.7.11 The potential for impacts from the SNTP program and the Yucca Mountain (Nevada) Waste Repository site characterization process is discussed (Sections 4.3.1 and 4.4.1.1) Clarification of radioactive waste classification is provided radioactive wastes is provided for both NTS and INEL. (Sections Additional information on potential DOE actions regarding environmental restoration of DOE facilities, revisions to DOE waste management policies and procedures, and consolidation (reconfiguration) of the U.S. nuclear weapons production facilities and the potential for cumulative impacts for hazardous Additional discussion of potential Native American interests is Text is revised to incorporate the results of a recent study that no transuranic (TRU) waste would be generated (Sections 3.5 Additional discussion on seismic and volcanic conditions a t NTS and INEL is provided (Sections 3.9 and 4.9) Quantities of cryogenics are shown for the total validation test program rather than for a single test (Section 2.3). The Health and Safety discussions (Sections 3.12, 4.12, and Appendix E) are modified to enhance clarity, including minor modifications to some analvses to make them more consistent.

Page 10

Chapter 9 discusses the comments received from the public review process for the Draft EIS. A number of these comments requested additional details of design, analysis, and specific results, panicularly in context of radioactive releases, accident scenarios, and public health and safety. Some of these details were provided where appropriate, but many of these details are more applicable to a DOE-required Safety Analysis Repon (SARI process, which would be performed subsequent to this environmental analysis. The environmental analysis was based on bounding conditions, using conservative assumptions (Le., resulting in more severe impacts); the SAR studies would include more detailed studies, based on less conservative, more realistic assumptions. As a result, the SAR process is expected to predict impacts less severe than those presented in the EIS. If in fact the SAR process identifies greater impacts, additional analysis would be IMPLEMENTING THE PROPOSED ACTION AT SMTS Community Settingllnfluencing Factors The community region of influence for the SMTS includes Nye and Clark counties, Nevada, including the city of Las Vegas. The program would require a maximum of 100 personnel during the peak construction period. Even if it is assumed that all such personnel would move into the area from outside the region of influence, there would be a negligible effect on population, local economy, and support service availability. A new power line within the NTS power grid would be required; however, there is sufficient power at NTS to support this line. Generation of solid waste, use of water, and production of wastewater would represent a small increase in the total requirements, given existing capacities and past No land use conflicts are anticipated as a result of implementing the Proposed Action at the SMTS. The testing activities would be consistent with the type of research conducted at NTS. No impacts to the Yucca Mountain Waste Repository site characterization process are expected. Traffic due to the Proposed Action being implemented at the SMTS would result in a small increase on the main route connecting NTS to Las Vegas (U.S. 95). No adverse effects are expected. Transportation of hazardous materials (both radioactive and nonradioactive) would comply with all applicable regulations, and no impacts are expected. Storage and use of hazardous materials would be consistent with current

Page 11

Nonradioactive and radioactive hazardous wastes would be disposed of in existing disposal facilities. All such facilities have sufficient capacity to support the SNTP program. Implementation of potential DOE environmental restoration and waste management activities may change specific disposal sites/procedures, and existing low level waste disposal space may be filled more quickly, but DOE'S capability to dispose of SNTP wastes would be maintained. SNTP activities are not expected to impact the Yucca Mountain site characterization and potential site selection process of the waste Air quality impacts resulting from implementation of the Proposed Action at the SMTS would include emissions of fugitive dust (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter [PM,J) and exhaust emissions from vehicles and generators involved with both construction and operations. Control of PM,, would minimize any impacts, and the use of diesel generators may require permits from the state. No air quality impacts are expected from PBR test exhausts. The hydrogen flare stack ignition system may cause particulate matter (PM,,). These emissions are not expected to add substantially to the regional air pollution inventory; however, applicable permits may be required. Implementing the Proposed Action at the SMTS would result in the loss of up to approximately 100 acres of low quality vegetation. Approximately 1,000 Joshua trees would be removed as a result of facility construction and infrastructure improvement needs. Operation of the flare stack could be a fire hazard to nearby vegetation if vegetation control measures are not implemented. Minimal wildlife impacts would be expected; noise from the flare stack would frighten some animals temporarily, and any birds flying into the hydrogen flare would be killed. No impacts to threatened or endangered species are expected as a result of program activities at the SMTS. However, potential impacts to the desert tortoise (a threatened species) could arise from road maintenance and/or traffic to the site. These potential impacts would be minimized by existing NTS mitigation measures. No sensitive habitats would be affected as a result of the Proposed Action No adverse impacts to archaeological, historical, Native American, or paleontological resources are expected if the Proposed Action is implemented at the SMTS. No adverse impacts to geology, topography, or soils are expected; however, localized temporary soil …