AGENCY: United States Air Force (USAF)

DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT INTENT TO ADOPT THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR MULTI-USE OF LAUNCH COMPLEXES 39A AND 39B AT JOHN F. KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, FLORIDA AGENCY: United States Air Force (USAF) BACKGROUND: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) completed the Final Environmental Assessment for Multi-Use of Launch Complexes 39A and 39B, John F. Kennedy Space Center, FL in November 2013 to allow multiple users to prepare and launch vehicles from Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Launch Complexes (LCs) 39A and 39B. The Proposed Action would provide the continued capability of space exploration, including the processing and launching of rocket powered vehicles, to (1) enable improved access to KSC space launch and test operational capabilities by commercial and other non-nasa users; (2) advance NASA s mission by fostering a commercial space launch and services industry; and (3) improve the return on taxpayer investment of KSC spaceport facilities through expanded use and improved utilization. The 2013 NASA Final Environmental Assessment (EA) resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) signed by NASA on February 20, 2014. NASA prepared the EA in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 United States Code 4321, et seq.); Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500 1508); and NASA policy and procedures (14 CFR 1216, Subpart 1216.3). Following signature of the FONSI in 2014, NASA signed an agreement with Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) to lease LC-39A, which allowed SpaceX to construct and modify the facilities and infrastructure at LC-39A, and successfully conduct their first launch of a Falcon 9 launch vehicle on February 19, 2017. Construction of LC-39B is anticipated to be completed later in 2018. Once both complexes are completed and fully operational, users will be able to process a variety of launch vehicle systems on site (including booster component transport; stage and payload integration; system testing, and fueling) and begin conducting launches from either launch pad. All activities, including prelaunch and launch activities, would be conducted in accordance with established range safety regulations and procedures. Because the NASA Final EA Proposed Action to process launch vehicles and conduct launches is substantially similar to actions associated with USAF satellite missions and other space launches, USAF proposes to adopt the NASA Final EA for launch of the Space Test Program (STP) 2 mission on a Falcon Heavy launch vehicle in 2017 from KSC using the modified LC-39 facilities and infrastructure. Other future USAF space launch missions would follow. The USAF proposal for mission launches at KSC is consistent with NASA s plan for expanded use of KSC spaceport facilities. USAF has independently reviewed the NASA Final EA to determine it satisfies their NEPA regulations found at 32 CFR 989 (Environmental Impact Analysis Process). The USAF proposal to formally adopt the EA would be in accordance with USAF policies and procedures in 32 CFR 989.9(b) and with CEQ regulations in 40 CFR 1506.3(b). The USAF NEPA strategy for applying the NASA Final EA would require the review of individual launch missions, launch programs, or launch vehicle families using the Air Force Form 813, Request for Environmental Impact Analysis, to document whether a categorical exclusion (Appendix B to 32 CFR 989) is applicable. In addition to the NASA Final EA, other applicable USAF and NASA NEPA documents would be utilized in this review process. For those USAF missions that are not covered by the NASA Final EA or other existing NEPA documents, further environmental analyses would be needed. FONSI-1

As part of the Air Force Form 813 process for evaluating proposals to use and launch from the LC-39 complexes, the USAF would coordinate with the KSC Environmental Management Branch for any changes in environmental conditions, operations, or regulatory requirements (e.g., climate change and sea level rise) that might alter the environmental effects, including cumulative effects, identified in the NASA Final EA. Additionally, any USAF missions affected by the following factors would require further review and environmental analyses, as needed, before given consideration for approval. 1. Would be launched on a booster vehicle not identified in the NASA Final EA 2. Carry radioactive sources that would trigger threshold requirements for conducting a safety analysis as specified in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 91-110 (Nuclear Safety Review and Launch Approval for Space or Missile Use of Radioactive Material and Nuclear Systems) and Air Force Space Command Manual 91-710 (Range Safety User Requirements Manual) 3. Cause the manifested launch rate (per year) to exceed the rate previously approved and permitted 4. Require the construction of any new facilities or substantial modification of existing facilities 5. Use hazardous materials in quantities exceeding the Envelope Payload Characteristics described in the NASA Environmental Assessment for Launch of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Routine Payloads on Expendable Launch Vehicles (2011) 6. Use a potentially hazardous material whose type or quantity would not be covered by new or existing local permits 7. Release material other than propulsion system exhaust or inert gases into the atmosphere during launch 8. Cause potential risk of human casualty from planned reentry debris exceeding the criteria specified in the National Space Policy, Department of Defense Instruction 3100.12 (Space Support), and AFI 91-217 (Space Safety and Mishap Prevention Program) 9. Use Earth-pointing laser systems that do not meet the requirements of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z136.1 and ANSI Z136.6 for safe operation 10. Have the potential for substantial effects on the environment outside of the United States 11. Have the potential to create substantial public controversy related to environmental issues. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES: The Proposed Action analyzed in the NASA Final EA includes the processing and integration of launch vehicles and payload systems, and providing space launch capabilities to multiple users of LC-39A and LC-39B. As part of the LC-39 facilities, an Integration Facility would provide housing for launch vehicle preparation prior to launch. Launch vehicles covered in the EA for use at LC-39A and LC-39B include Atlas V, Delta IV, Delta IV Heavy, Liberty, Falcon 9 and 9 v1.1, Falcon Heavy, Antares, Radially Segmented Launch Vehicle, Athena IIc, Xaero, and the Space Launch System. The potential for conducting up to two launches per month from the modified facilities is planned. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: The NASA Final EA analyzed 14 environmental resource topics in detail at KSC. A summary of the potential environmental impacts from implementation of the Proposed Action and alternatives is provided below. FONSI-2

Land Use (EA 4.1, pages 103 105): Conducting launches from LC-39A and LC-39B does not represent a change in land use classification for the site. Launch noise would affect Section 4(f) properties in the vicinity (i.e., publicly owned lands including Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge and Canaveral National Seashore). Due to the long history of these 4(f) properties experiencing noise from launches at KSC and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, and because no more than two launches per month would occur at the complex, the Federal Aviation Administration determined the Proposed Action would not substantially diminish the protected activities, features, or attributes of any of the 4(f) properties identified. Thus, the launches would not result in substantial impairment of the 4(f) properties. Facilities and Infrastructure (EA 4.2, pages 105 106): Impacts on electricity, natural gas, communications, and solid waste infrastructure at KSC would be minimal. Impacts on water supply and treatment during launch operations are classified as moderate due to the increased volume of water needed for sound suppression during launch, and the acquisition of industrial wastewater permits required for launch deluge water. Transportation impacts are classified as moderate due to increased traffic and road closures during launch events. Health and Safety (EA 4.3.1, pages 106 107): Potential adverse effects on human health and safety are possible during operational activities related to the Proposed Action. Prior to launch operations, however, NASA would establish a safe distance around LC-39 that is cleared of people. Additionally, there are no residential communities nearby. Compliance with applicable NASA, USAF, and 45th Space Wing established hazardous material and range safety regulations and procedures would mitigate the risks, and result in moderate impacts to health and safety. Water Quality (EA 4.3.2, pages 107 110): During launch of booster systems using solid rocket propellant, the fallout of hydrogen chloride from launch exhaust emissions could result in short-term acidification of impounded surface waters near the launch pads. These waters are highly buffered and should return to pre-launch conditions within 72 hours of launch. Although the prior complex industrial wastewater permits for launch deluge water were surrendered in 2012, a new wastewater permit for LC-39A has since been issued. Launch deluge water from LC-39A would be collected, monitored, and disposed in accordance with the requirements and conditions specified in the Industrial Wastewater Facility Permit issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to SpaceX, effective May 15, 2015. Thus, the impacts on surface waters during launch are considered moderate, while impacts on groundwater would be minimal. Atmospheric Environment (EA 4.3.3, pages 111 113): The total potential emissions of any criteria pollutants under the Proposed Action would not be expected to cause exceedances of federal or state ambient air quality standards. Combustion emissions from launch vehicles would be of short duration and rapidly dispersed. Moderate impacts would be expected on air quality from launch operations. Noise and Vibration (EA 4.3.4, pages 113 115): Moderate impacts would be expected from increased noise levels during launch. Noise levels from launch are of short duration (less than 30 seconds) and diminish quickly as the vehicle rises. Sonic boom levels would be less than those previously experienced during Space Shuttle launches and reentry. Biological Resources (EA 4.3.5, pages 116 125): Acid deposition in launch emissions could adversely affect vegetation in the exhaust plume; however, changes in plant community composition have not been documented from prior launches. Impacts on wildlife from launch noise would be minimal, resulting in the interruption of normal behavior only twice per month. Compliance with the current KSC exterior lighting requirements during night launches would lessen the potential for disorientation impacts to nesting and hatching marine turtles. Additionally, it is likely that the density of marine mammals and sea FONSI-3

turtles in the splash down zones is low. Thus, the probability of vehicle elements striking animals is negligible. Geology and Soil (EA 4.3.6, pages 125 126): Chemical characteristics of soils in the vicinity of the launch pads could be altered by deposition from the launch exhaust plume. These impacts would be moderate, but the buffering capacity of the soils prevents long-term effects. Historic and Cultural Resources (EA 4.3.7, pages 126 128): For KSC operations, NASA has a programmatic agreement with the State Historic Preservation Officer for the protection of historic properties on the range. By complying with the programmatic agreement, conducting launches from LC- 39 is not expected to impact historic and cultural resources. Hazardous Materials and Waste Management (EA 4.3.8, pages 128 131): Wastes generated by range users would be properly managed and disposed of in full regulatory compliance. Impacts due to use of large quantities of hazardous materials during processing of launch vehicles would be measurable, but could be reduced through appropriate management and conservation measures and would therefore be moderate. Global Environment (EA 4.3.9, pages 131 135): Increased energy use related to the Proposed Action would result in an increased generation of carbon dioxide. With continued implementation of energy conservation programs at KSC and other measures that minimize the use of fossil fuels, it is expected that emissions from the additional workforce and increased flight activities would not make a substantial contribution to greenhouse gas emissions or climate change. Socioeconomics and Children s Environmental Health and Safety (EA 4.3.10, pages 135 136): Operations associated with the Proposed Action would be beneficial to the local economy from the creation of full-time jobs. In addition, increased noise during launches would not pose disproportionately high or adverse impacts on children s environmental health or safety. Orbital and Reentry Debris (EA 4.3.11, pages 136 137): NASA or other user entities would ensure that Notices to Mariners and Notices to Airmen were provided prior to any launch (for the launch area and downrange zones) to minimize risks to aircraft and surface vessels. During atmospheric reentry, the majority of spacecraft and spent launch vehicle debris would burn up because of aerodynamic heating. Any debris surviving reentry would most likely impact in the ocean. Procedural requirements and standards applied to each mission would limit the risk of human casualty from reentry debris to 1 in 10,000 and require that missions be designed to assure that domestic and foreign landmasses be avoided in both controlled and uncontrolled reentries. Thus, the risk for an individual to be hit and injured from reentering debris would be extremely low. Aesthetics (EA 4.3.12, pages 137 138): Because the Proposed Action locations are in industrialized areas, the visual sensitivity is low. Therefore, the Proposed Action is not expected to have significant impacts related to aesthetics. PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT: USAF published a Notice of Availability for public review of the NASA Final EA and USAF Draft FONSI in the Florida Today newspaper on or about May 18, 2017, initiating a 30-day review period. During this time, USAF placed copies of the Final EA and Draft FONSI in local libraries and on the Internet at http://www.patrick.af.mil/about-us/environmental/. POINT OF CONTACT: The point of contact for questions, issues, and information relevant to USAF s intent to adopt the NASA Final EA for launch of the STP-2 mission and other reasonably expected future USAF space launch missions is Ms. Jecely Torres-Ramos, SMC/ENC, 483 North Aviation Boulevard, El FONSI-4

Segundo, CA, 90245-2808. Ms. Torres-Ramos also can be reached by calling (310) 653-2376 or by e-mail at jecely.torres_ramos@us.af.mil. CONCLUSION: USAF has independently reviewed the 2013 NASA Final EA and determined it satisfies USAF regulations for implementing NEPA. Because the USAF s Proposed Action would fit within the bounds of the actions and resulting environmental effects identified in the NASA Final EA, supplementation of the EA is not required. Based upon a review of current information, and the facts and analysis contained in the EA, USAF finds the Proposed Action for use of the LC-39 complexes at KSC to process launch vehicles and conduct space launches would not have a significant impact on the natural or human environment, either by itself or cumulatively with other actions. After thoroughly considering the facts herein, the undersigned finds that the Proposed Action would be consistent with existing environmental policies and objectives set forth in NEPA and its implementing regulations. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. APPROVED: MICHELLE A. LINN, GS-15, DAFC Chief, Engineer Division Command Civil Engineer DATE FONSI-5