23 April 1998
Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Federal Register: April 23, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 78)]
[Notices]
[Page 20240-20243]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23ap98-127]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration
[Docket No. 29208]


Proposed Finding of No Significant Impact

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed finding of no significant impact; Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA), evaluating
a Sea Launch Limited

[[Page 20241]]

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 Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA),
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST)
proposes to determine 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 the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969.
Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
would not be required and AST is proposing to issue a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI).

FOR A COPY OF THE SEA LAUNCH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CONTACT: Mr.
Nikos Himaras, FAA, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space
Transportation, 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

DATES: There will be a thirty (30) day comment period before the FAA
makes its final determination on the proposed FONSI. Interested
individuals, Government agencies, and private organizations are invited
to send comments on the proposed FONSI to the address set forth below
by May 26, 1998 by mail.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to, Docket Clerk, Docket No.
29208, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., S.W.,
Room 915, Washington, D.C. 20591.

Proposed 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. 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. 70102(1)(C); 14 CFR 401.5.
Because it 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 is a Federal action
requiring environmental analysis by the FAA in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. Upon
receipt of a completed 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 all possible launches by the SLLP at the
specified launch location.
    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 is being
refurbished in Norway to serve as the self-propelled LP. The ACS is
being built in Scotland specifically for Sea Launch operations.
    A Zenith-3 SL 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 two
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 (340 km) are intended to ensure that stage one and
stage two would drop well away from land and coastal populated areas.
    The FAA evaluated open sea areas, the Kiribati Islands, the
Galapagos Islands and the Home Port in Long Beach, California for
environmental impacts from the proposed launch activities. The
environmental study focused on Sea Launch activities conducted at the
launch location, activities that may impact the launch range during
nominal 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 35,000 km. The environmental study
incorporates by reference an environmental assessment conducted by the
Navy on the Home Port Facility which resulted in 1996 in a Finding of
No Significant Impact. 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 operations would result only in an
incidental loss of kerosene and LOX. This loss of vapors would
dissipate immediately and form smog. 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, dissipate rapidly and degrade, thereby having little effect
on the surrounding environment.
    Potential environmental impacts from launch activities would
include spent stages, residual fuels and combustion emissions released
into the atmosphere and ocean from spent stages, combustion emissions,
thermal energy and noise. During nominal 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 liquid oxygen
would instantly evaporate without consequence.
    The proposed launch location 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 two thousand meters would be short
term and cause minimal impacts. Emissions occurring in the boundary
layer would be dispersed away from inhabited islands by prevailing
easterly trade winds and local turbulence caused by solar heating.
Because dispersion occurs within hours, the planned six missions per
year would preclude any chance of 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
(CO<INF>2</INF>) and oxygenated organic compounds. Nitrogen oxide in
the exhaust trail would form nitric and nitrous acids. Cloud droplets
and atmospheric aerosols efficiently absorb

[[Page 20242]]

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/m3. This
release is well below the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 55 mg/m3, the Environmental
Protection Agency level of concern of 175 mg/m3 and the industry
Emergency Response Planning Guideline-2 of 400 mg/m3. Nitrogen
compounds in the exhaust trail of liquid propellant rockets would cause
a temporary reduction of 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 by migration or
regeneration the destroyed ozone within a few hours. The high-speed
movement of the Zenit-3L 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 involve cleaning the launch platform 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.

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 include 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 nominal 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. Kerosene reaching the ocean would form a surface sheen
covering several square kilometers. Over 95% of the kerosene sheen
would evaporate from surface waters within hours with the remaining 5%
dispersing or degrading in a few days. Plankton immediately beneath the
kerosene slick would likely be killed. However, overall plankton
mortality would be minimal as the population densities are greatest
around 30 meters below the surface.
    Two worst case 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 LLV 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.

Socioeconomics

    The SLLP launch activities 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 the 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

    The FAA's licensing process will examine all safety-related aspects
of the proposed launch operations. The SLLP adopted a common risk
value, an upper limit of one in a million casualty expectations, as the
population protection criteria. 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 one, the fairing, and stage two 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. The licensing process will
evaluate these factors.

Threatened and Endangered Species

    There are no known threatened and endangered species that will be
impacted by the proposed launch activities.

Archeological and Cultural Resources

    The launch activities, 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 cumulative
impacts are expected. The Navy Mole facility is currently underutilized
as compared to its historical level of operation and development. The
Home Port facility may be the impetus for other development in the
area.

[[Page 20243]]

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 the 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 the environment.

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.

Determination

    An analysis of the proposed 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 existing national environmental
policies and objectives as set forth in section 101(a) of 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 pursuant to section
102(2)(C) of NEPA. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement for the
proposed action would not be required.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 17, 1998.
Manuel F. Vega,
Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Commercial Space
Transportation.
[FR Doc. 98-10748 Filed 4-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
