[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8433-8436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4276]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Environmental Finding Document
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Environmental finding document: Finding no significant impact;
notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA), evaluating a Sea Launch Limited
Partnership (SLLP) proposal to construct and operate a mobile, floating
launch platform in international waters in the east-central equatorial
Pacific Ocean. After reviewing and analyzing currently available data
and information on existing conditions, project impacts, and measures
to mitigate those impacts, the FAA Associate Administrator for
Commercial Space Transportation (AST) finds that licensing the
operation of the proposed launch activities is not a major Federal
action that would significantly affect the quality of the human
environment within the meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12114,
Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, the application
of which is guided by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) is not required pursuant to E.O. 12114, and AST is issuing an
Environmental Finding Document Finding No Significant Impact.
The Environmental Assessment for the Sea Launch Project, dated
January 1999, is incorporated by reference and attached to this
document. This EA describes the purpose and need for the proposed
project and describes the alternatives considered during the
preparation of the document. The EA describes the environmental setting
and analyzes the impact on the applicable human environment as a
consequence of the proposed project.
For a Copy of the Environmental Assessment for the Sea Launch
Project/Contact: Mr. Nikos Himaras, Office of the Associate
Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Space System
Development Division, Suite 331/AST-100, 800 Independence Ave., S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20591; phone (202) 267-7926, or refer to the following
Internet address: http://ast.faa.gov
Action: If a foreign entity controlled by a U.S. citizen conducts a
launch outside the United States and outside the territory of a foreign
country, its launch must be licensed. 49 U.S.C. Sec. 70104(a)(3). The
FAA determined that SLLP is a foreign entity controlled by a U.S.
citizen, Boeing Commercial Space Company. 49 U.S.C. Sec. 70102(1)(C);
14 CFR Sec. 401.5. Because SLLP proposes to launch in international
waters, outside the territory of the United States or a foreign
country, SLLP must obtain an FAA license to launch. Licensing a launch
in the environment outside the United States, its territories, and
possessions is a Federal action requiring environmental analysis by the
FAA in accordance with E.O. 12114 the application of which is guided by
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Upon receipt of a
completed license application, the Associate Administrator for
Commercial Space Transportation must determine whether or not to issue
a license to SLLP to launch. Environmental findings are required for a
license evaluation. In this instance, the proposed action is the
licensing by the FAA of two launches by the SLLP at the specified
launch location. The environmental finding and analysis covers up to
six launches per year. SLLP proposes to conduct three (3) launches in
the first year of operation. Pursuant to its requirements, the FAA will
reevaluate the adequacy of existing environmental documentation if new
circumstances develop.
SLLP proposes to conduct commercial space launch operations from a
mobile, floating platform in international waters in the east-central
equatorial Pacific Ocean. The SLLP is an international commercial
venture formed to launch commercial satellites. It is organized under
the laws of the Cayman Islands, BWI, and the partnership members are
Boeing Commercial Space Company of the United States; RSC Energia of
Russia; KB Yuzhnoye of the Ukraine; and Kvaerner Maritime a.s of
Norway.
The SLLP would use a launch platform (LP) and an assembly and
command ship (ACS). A floating oil drilling platform was refurbished in
Norway to serve as the self-propelled LP. The ACS was built in Scotland
specifically for Sea Launch operations.
A Zenit-3SL expendable launch vehicle fueled by kerosene and liquid
oxygen would be the only launch vehicle used at the Sea Launch
facilities. In the first year of operation, SLLP intends to conduct
three (3) launches. Six launches are proposed for each subsequent year.
The launches are proposed to occur at the equator in the vicinity of
154 degrees west to maximize inertial and other launch efficiencies.
The distances from South America (over 7,000 km) and from the nearest
inhabited island, Kiritimati (Christmas Island), (340 km) are intended
to ensure that Stage 1 and Stage 2 would drop well away from land,
coastal populated areas, and exclusive economic zones. The FAA
evaluated open sea areas, the Kiribati Islands, the Galapagos Islands
and used a U.S. Navy environmental analysis of the Home Port in Long
Beach, California in assessing potential environmental impacts from the
proposed launch activities. This FAA environmental study incorporates
by reference an environmental assessment conducted by the Navy on the
Home Port Facility, which EA resulted in 1996 in a Finding of No
Significant Impact. The Navy environmental assessment, also known as
the Navy Mole EA, covers SLLP Home Port activities. This FAA
environmental study focused on Sea Launch activities conducted at the
launch location, activities that may impact the launch range during
normal launches, and failed missions. Sea Launch payloads (i.e.,
commercial satellites) are not included in this evaluation because they
will be fueled and sealed at the Home Port and will only become
operational at an altitude of over 35,000 km. Potential environmental
impacts of payloads are not discussed here except with regard to failed
mission scenarios.
Environmental Impacts
Air Quality
Pre-launch activities that may impact air quality include LP and
ACS positioning, final equipment and process checks, coupling of fuel
lines to the integrated launch vehicle (ILV) prior to fueling, the
transfer of kerosene and liquid oxygen (LOX) fuels, and decoupling of
the fueling apparatus. Normal launch operations would result only in an
incidental loss of kerosene and LOX in vapor form. This loss of vapors
would dissipate immediately and form smog. Although unlikely, an
unsuccessful ignition attempt would result in automatic defueling of
the ILV. Defueling would release LOX vapor and approximately 70 kg of
kerosene when the fuel line is flushed. The LOX would dissipate and the
vapor and kerosene would evaporate rapidly, dissipate and degrade,
thereby having little effect on the surrounding environment. The
probability of an unsuccessful ignition attempt resulting in defueling
is 4 x
[[Page 8434]]
10-4. Potential environmental impacts from launch and flight
activities would include spent stages, residual fuels, combustion
emissions, and thermal energy and noise released into the atmosphere
and ocean. During normal launches, any impacts would be distributed
across the east-central equatorial pacific region in a predictable
manner. Kerosene released during descent of a failed launch attempt
would evaporate within minutes. Any residual LOX released during a
failed launch attempt would instantly evaporate without consequence.
The proposed launch site is relatively free of combustion source
emissions. That fact coupled with the size of the Pacific Ocean and air
space allows most launch emissions to dissipate rapidly. Launch effects
on the boundary layer up to 2,000 meters would be short term and cause
minimal impacts. Emissions occurring in the atmospheric boundary layer
would be dispersed away from the islands by winds and local turbulence
caused by solar heating. Because dispersion occurs within hours, the
planned six missions per year would preclude cumulative effects.
All emissions to the troposphere would come from first stage
combustion of LOX and kerosene. Photochemical reactions involving Sea
Launch Zenit rocket emissions would form carbon dioxide
(CO2) and oxygenated organic compounds. Nitrogen oxide in
the exhaust trail would form nitric and nitrous acids. Cloud droplets
and atmospheric aerosols efficiently absorb water-soluble compounds
such as acids, oxygenated chemical compounds, and oxidants, thereby
reducing impacts to insignificant levels. Approximately 36,100 kg of
carbon monoxide (CO) would be released into the troposphere during the
first 55 seconds of flight resulting in an estimated CO concentration
at Christmas Island of 9.94 mg/m\3\. This release is well below the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL) of 55 mg/m\3\, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
level of concern of 175 mg/m\3\ and the industry Emergency Response
Planning Guideline-2 of 400 mg/m\3\. Nitrogen compounds in the exhaust
trail of liquid propellant rockets would cause a temporary reduction of
atmospheric ozone, with return to near background levels within a few
hours. Models and measurement of other space systems comparable to Sea
Launch indicate that these impacts would be temporary, and the
atmosphere is capable of replacing the destroyed ozone within a few
hours by migration or regeneration. The high-speed movement of the
Zenit-3SL rocket and the re-entry of the stages after their use may
impact stratospheric ozone. The exact chemistry and relative
significance of these processes are not known but are believed to be
minimal. Impacts to air quality would be minimal. Those impacts that do
occur would be of short duration and would naturally reverse themselves
over a short period of time.
Waste
Post-launch operations at the launch site involve cleaning the LP
for subsequent launches. Cleaning would result in particulate residues
being washed from the LP with fresh water. Only a few kilograms of
debris and residues would be generated. These materials would be
collected and handled onboard as solid waste for later disposal at the
Home Port. Impact locations for the spent rocket stages would be the
open ocean. The current descriptions of the ocean environment,
including physical, chemical and biological processes, apply equally to
the launch location and the approximate locations of spent stage
impacts. Nutrient and biological productivity levels are largely
equivalent (in statistical terms) at the launch location and points
further east where Stage 1 and Stage 2 fall; one has to be much closer
to the Galapagos Islands to find meaningfully higher levels of
productivity and biological activity.
Noise
Noise from a launch is calculated at approximately 150 decibels at
378 meters with the equivalent sound intensity in the water estimated
at less than 75 decibels. Due to the small number of launches per year
and scarcity of higher trophic level organisms, noise impacts are
expected to be negligible.
Biological and Ecological Impacts
Pre-launch preparations includes spraying fresh water from a tank
on the LP into the LP's flame bucket, which would dissipate heat and
absorb sound during the initial fuel burn. There would be minor impacts
to the ecosystem because of the input of heated freshwater. However,
the natural variation in plankton densities would ensure rapid and
timely recolonization of plankton in the water surrounding the LP.
Launch and flight activities may impact the ocean environment by
depositing spent stages and residual fuels. During normal launches,
these impacts would occur and be distributed across the east-central
equatorial pacific region. It is unlikely that any falling debris would
impact animals, although a small number of marine organisms would be
impacted. Plankton immediately beneath any kerosene sheen would likely
be killed. However, overall plankton mortality would be minimal as the
population densities are greatest around 30 meters below the surface.
Fuel dispersed from Stages 1 and 2 would evaporate in minutes and
within a few thousand feet, as in the case when a pilot lightens a
plane by dumping jet fuel. The small amount of kerosene that might
reach the ocean surface would evaporate and decompose within hours.
Two severe accident scenarios were evaluated and determined to
cause only minimal damage to the environment. The first case evaluated
ILV failure and explosion on the LP with the ILV being fully fueled and
ready for launch. This failure would result in an explosion of the ILV
fuels scattering pieces of the ILV and LP up to 3 km away. Particulate
matter from the smoke plume would drift downwind and be distributed a
few kilometers before dissipating. Plankton and fish in the immediate
area would be killed over the course of several days. Thermal energy
would be deflected and absorbed by the ocean and 100% of the fuels
would be consumed or released into the atmosphere through combustion or
evaporation. Disruption to the atmosphere and the ocean would be
assimilated and the environment would return to pre-accident conditions
within several days. The second scenario evaluated involved failure of
the rocket's upper stage. Loss and re-entry of the upper stage and
payload would result in materials and fuels being heated by friction
and vaporizing. Remaining objects would fall into the ocean causing a
temporary disruption as the warm objects cooled and sank. The risk of
debris striking any populated areas or ecological habitats is very
remote. Sea Launch selected a more northerly route to further reduce
the risk to the Galapagos Islands. The risk of an impact to either Wolf
or Darwin Islands would only occur in the unlikely event of a scenario
in which Stage 3 (the upper stage) suffers a specific type of failure
during two specific time intervals of around .25 second each. In the
event of mid-flight Stage 3 failure, approximately 99% of the satellite
and its components would burn up upon re-entry to the atmosphere. Thus,
the total mass of any objects reaching Wolf or Darwin Islands would be
small. The probability of this occurring is approximately 8 in 100,000
launches.
[[Page 8435]]
Socioeconomics
The SLLP would occupy the launch location for two to seven days
during each launch cycle. Due to the brief period of time that the LP
and the ACS will be present at the launch location, social and economic
impacts to the Kiribati are considered negligible. The brief duration
of launch activities, and the relative degree of isolation of the
launch location provides a barrier between Sea Launch and cultural and
economic character of the Kiribati society. The baseline plan for
operations does not include any use of facilities based on any of the
Kiribati Islands. Impacts to the Islands, associated with employees
transiting Christmas Island on an emergency basis, would be positive
given that the expenditures would be an addition to the local economy.
Health and Safety
FAA's licensing process will examine safety aspects of the proposed
launch operations.
The SLLP adopted as a population protection risk criteria, an upper
limit of one in a million casualty expectation. Public safety assurance
and analysis issues are discussed in the SLLP document ``Sea Launch
System Safety Plan.'' The launch location was shifted away from South
America to ensure that Stage 1, the fairing, and Stage 2 would drop
well away from land and coastal commercial activity. The instantaneous
impact point speed would increase over South America, decreasing the
dwell time and potential risk as the rocket traverses land. The launch
area, in the vicinity of 154 degrees west was selected because it is
located outside of the Kiribati 320 km exclusive economic zone and is
roughly 340 km from the nearest inhabited island.
Threatened and Endangered Species
There are no known threatened and endangered species that will be
impacted by the proposed launches.
Archeological and Cultural Resources
The launches, proposed to occur in the open ocean, will not impact
archeological or cultural resources.
Cumulative Impacts
There are no other foreseeable planned developments in the area of
the proposed launch location at this time, therefore, no expected
cumulative impacts are expected. The Navy Mole facility is currently
underutilized as compared to its historical level of operation and
development. Sea Launch activities will generate additional work and
revenue and the Home Port facility may be the impetus for other
development in the area.
Other Environmental Considerations
Home Port
The design, permitting, construction, and operation of the Home
Port would be managed under the jurisdiction of the state, regional,
county, municipal, and port authorities of the Port of Long Beach,
California. The Navy, as part of the California Environmental Quality
Act Process, submitted its Mole EA to the California Coastal Commission
for review, which determined the proposed Home Port activities were not
inconsistent with the California Coastal Zone Management Program. The
Port of Long Beach has approved the construction and operation of the
Home Port through the Harbor Development Permit process. One of the
standard conditions in the Harbor Development Permit is that SLLP will
follow all applicable Federal, state, and local laws and regulations,
including those pertaining to safety and environment. The LP, ACS, and
satellite tracking ships used to transport the launch vehicle, payload
and other materials to the launch site and operate the launch will be
subject to and will comply with all applicable environmental and
maritime international agreement requirements while traveling to and
from, and while at the launch site.
Notice to Mariners
Standard notices to mariners will be broadcast using U.S.
Government protocols via INMARSAT-C in the Pacific Ocean Region on
Safety Net channel at 1000--1030 and 2200-2230 hours GMT each day
starting 5 days prior to each launch. For vessels without INMARSAT-C
transceivers, the notice will be broadcast in the HF band by U.S. Coast
Guard, Honolulu. For vessels without any receiving equipment (expected
to be limited to those operating out of Kiribati ports), the standard
notice will be delivered by fax or mail services to Kiribati government
authorities and fishing fleet and tour operators for distribution and
posting.
Environmental Monitoring Plan
The Environmental Monitoring and Protection Plan is being developed
as an integral part of Sea Launch plans for operations at sea, and its
implementation involves the participation of both aerospace and marine
crews. FAA approval of the Environmental Monitoring Plan is a condition
of the launch license. The Plan consists of four elements:
Visual observation for species of concern.
Remote detection of atmospheric effects during launch.
Surface water samples to detect possible launch effects.
Notices to local mariners.
A separate plan exists for each element to direct specific actions
and coordinate the analysis of acquired data.
Public Participation
During the planning phase of the Sea Launch environmental review
process, the FAA concluded that public participation was required. It
was further decided that the Environmental Assessment and proposed
finding document would be made available for public review for a 30-day
period. Consequently a list of pertinent entities was compiled to
ensure that wide distribution of the documents would be possible. The
list included cognizant Federal and State agencies, scientific
institutes, trade and environmental organizations and foreign embassies
of countries in the area of the proposed action. The documents would
also be made available to any organization or member of the public and
could also be found in the FAA/AST web site. The public review period
commenced on April 23, 1998 via publication of a Notice in the Federal
Register. During the week preceding this announcement, FAA mailed
copies of the documents to all entities on the list. Additional copies
were mailed via regular or next-day mail, as requested. The public
review and comment period was scheduled from April 23, 1998 until May
26, 1998.
Interest in the project was expressed by a number of South Pacific
Nations, Ecuador and the South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme
(SPREP). These entities also indicated the need for additional time for
internal coordination and consultation. In response to this need, the
FAA accepted and addressed all review comments, which arrived after the
end of the scheduled public review and comment period.
As part of the public participation program, FAA/AST personnel held
face-to-face information exchanges with representatives of Ecuador in
Washington, DC. In addition, FAA personnel traveled to the Western
Pacific and held similar meetings with representatives of the Republic
of Kiribati at Tarawa and with SPREP representatives at Apia, Samoa.
Diplomatic representatives from Australia and New Zealand participated
at the Apia meeting and Australian representatives met with the FAA in
Washington, DC. Numerous meetings,
[[Page 8436]]
and information exchanges also took place among FAA/AST personnel and
specialists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), National Air and Space Administration (NASA),
United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Department of State (DOS).
The FAA is also making available to the public the Final Sea Launch
Environmental Assessment and Environmental Finding Document.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action alternative the SLLP would not launch
satellites from the Pacific Ocean and the Port of Long Beach would
remain available for other commercial or government ventures. The goals
of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IX, ch. 701 Commercial Space Launch Activities,
would not be realized. Predicted environmental impacts of the proposed
launch activities would not occur and the project area would remain in
its current state.
Finding
An analysis of the action has concluded that there are no
significant short-term or long-term effects to the environment or
surrounding populations. After careful and thorough consideration of
the facts contained herein, the undersigned finds that the proposed
Federal action is consistent with the purpose of national environmental
policies and objectives as set forth in E.O. 12114 the application of
which is guided by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
and that it will not significantly affect the quality of the human
environment or otherwise include any condition requiring consultation.
Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement for the action is not
required.
Issued in Washington, DC on: February 16, 1999.
Patricia G. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 99-4276 Filed 2-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
