Environmental Finding Document

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