60234_AFP-KSC-LC48-2024_Attachment_B.1-EA 12.17.2025.pdf

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR

LAUNCH COMPLEX 48

JOHN F. KENNEDY SPACE CENTER

Prepared for National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Kennedy Space Center, Florida

Prepared by Integrated Mission Support Services

Kennedy Space Center, Florida

May 30, 2019

Launch Complex 48 Environmental Assessment

Executive Summary ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts resulting from construction and operations associated with the proposed Launch Complex (LC) 48. This EA analyzes effects on resources due to the Proposed Action to develop a Small Class Launch Vehicle (SCLV) complex and the No Action Alternative.

Federal agencies are required to consider environmental consequences resulting from their actions. This is in accordance with regulatory mandates including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (Title 42 of the United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321 - 4347), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500-1508), NASA regulations for implementing NEPA (14 CFR Subpart 1216.3), and the NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) for Implementing NEPA and Executive Order (EO) 12114 (NPR 8580.1).

Also, because potential launch operators at LC-48 may apply to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Commercial Space Transportation for a commercial space license once the launch site is built, this EA complies with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, regarding potential launch-related impacts. This will enable the FAA to adopt this EA in the future to support its environmental review of license applications for commercial space launch operations at LC-48. As NASA is considering the development of a launch complex, this EA is necessary to support the federal agencies in compliance with NEPA and related federal and state environmental regulations.

In accordance with the applicable requirements, NASA initiated a public review and comment period for the Draft EA. The 30-day public review and comment period began with the issuance of the Notice of Availability in the Florida Today newspaper on April 4, 2019, and ended on May 10, 2019. NASA received no substantive public comments.

Purpose and Need

The purpose of NASA’s Proposed Action is to expand its spaceport capabilities to include the processing, launch, and recovery of small class vertically launched rocket-powered vehicles. This will 1) enable improved access to Kennedy Space Center’s (KSC) space launch and test operation capabilities by NASA, as well as 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 in KSC spaceport facilities through expanded and improved utilization.

This action also furthers the goals of KSC long-term planning initiatives and NASA programmatic objectives, and ultimately increases American competitiveness in commercial space. The proposed LC-48 site would be a direct fulfillment of the KSC Master Plan to “foster and support the fullest commercial use of space”. It would also provide greater mission capability to meet small class vehicle customer needs.

Proposed Action

A multi-user launch complex for SCLVs would be constructed approximately 1.6 kilometers (km) (1 mile [mi]) southeast of LC-39A and 1.6 km (1 mi) northwest of LC-41 (Figure 2-1). LC-48 would be designed as a versatile launch pad and integrated stage testing facility, providing a clean pad surface that would allow customers to bring their own launch ground systems. Multiple liquid propellant types would be

Executive Summary iii accommodated, including oxygen, methane, hydrogen, and rocket propellant 1 (RP-1), as well as high-pressure gaseous nitrogen and helium.

LC-48 could support up to two concrete slab pads with room for minimal supporting infrastructure and facilities, or one concrete slab pad that would allow for a greater diversity of supporting facilities. Initial development of the area (Phase 1, Figure 2-2) would include one clean pad. To account for potential future partners and development, the total build-out concept (Phase 2) for LC-48 could support fully integrated launch facilities with all necessary supporting infrastructure.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would mean NASA would not build a small class vehicle launch pad on KSC.

There would be fewer commercial customers able to contract for SCLV launches and there would be less diversity in use of KSC property.

Summary of Potential Environmental Effects

This EA considered the following 15 resource areas to provide a context for understanding the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives: land use/visual resources, noise, biological resources, cultural resources, air quality, climate, hazardous materials/hazardous waste (includes solid waste and pollution prevention), water resources, geology and soils, transportation, utilities, health and safety, socioeconomics, environmental justice and children’s health and safety, and Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f).

The environmental consequences associated with the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative were analyzed for the appropriate Region of Influence (ROI) for each resource area. The following table presents a summary of the resources considered and the potential impacts on those resources. The descriptions include both construction and operations-related tasks associated with this Proposed Action.

Executive Summary iv

Table E-1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts from the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative.

Resource Area Potential Environmental Impact from Proposed Action

Land Use/Visual Resources

Management of the land would be transferred from Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR) to NASA. Development of the LC-48 site would impact a small impoundment, designated as T-25-B, located east of the railroad track. However, the impoundment is not directly connected to the Indian River Lagoon (IRL), and not actively managed for mosquitos. Site operations at LC-48 would need to be considered by MINWR in future prescribed burn plans to ensure activities would not be negatively impacted.

Potential visual impacts to the landscape in the vicinity of the Proposed Action include light emissions during nighttime launch and testing operations. There would be no facilities constructed during Phase 1 that block the view of natural surroundings and temporary, removable lightning arrestor towers would be supplied during launch operations by the launch provider. Though the Proposed Action would require some construction and modifications, these additions would be consistent with existing infrastructure and not cause a significant impact to the area. Impacts from the proposed action on MINWR land management activities and the impact of LC-48 to visual resources would be moderate.

Noise Under the Proposed Action, short-term and long-term moderate adverse effects would be expected, resulting in the continuation of many of the types of noise presently occurring at KSC. Noise generated during construction activities of the Proposed Action at LC-48 would potentially have discernable, but temporary effects. Long-term effects would include increased traffic to and from the location, and mobilization to the site for pre- and post- launch activities that occur throughout the year. The loudest noise generated at the site would result from launches and test fires; this would be short in duration and intermittent throughout the year. Personnel on site would be required by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and NASA regulations to be equipped with hearing protection. Impacts from the Proposed Action for noise would have moderate impact on the environment and areas beyond the KSC.

Executive Summary v

Resource Area Potential Environmental Impact from Proposed Action

Biological Resources

Construction of the Proposed Action would result in moderate impacts to wildlife due to loss of habitat at the proposed LC-48 site. Impacts to the overall wildlife population and biodiversity at KSC would not be significant as the affected area is already partially fragmented by the railroad track and Phillips Parkway, and is only a fraction of the land not used for operations on KSC. Facility lighting and nighttime launch operations would potentially result in moderate impacts due to disorientation of nesting and hatchling marine turtles. Impacts to marine species from rocket debris were determined to be minimal as it is highly unlikely any fish, turtles, or whales would be struck directly by falling materials.

Corrosion of rocket parts in the ocean would be slow and the dilution of toxins by the large volume of water would stay below dangerous levels. Impacts to vegetation from launch emissions and potential acid deposition could occur intermittently, resulting in short-term minimal effects. The installation of lightning protection towers with guy wire supports located along the coast near wetlands and in a high bird concentration area, would result in moderate impacts.

Cultural Resources The development of LC-48 at the proposed project area would have no effect on any archaeological sites or historic resources that are listed, determined eligible, or considered potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). No impacts are expected to any cultural resources from the Proposed Action.

Air Quality Total quantities of criteria pollutants produced during launch or engine test firings are dependent on launch vehicle classes and total number of annual launches and engine tests.

Individual launches would be short-term discrete events and rocket emissions released in the lower atmosphere would be rapidly diluted and dispersed by prevailing winds. Effects on ambient air quality at KSC from construction and operation of LC-48 would be minimal. The increase of emissions related to traffic associated with launch complex operations would be negligible. The modest addition of personnel expected for the Proposed Action could increase traffic emissions intermittently and for short periods of time during launch and test firing operations. However, this increase would not exceed emissions that were associated with traffic volume during the Space Shuttle Program.

Climate and Climate Change/Sea Level Rise

In February 2010, the CEQ issued NEPA guidance for evaluating the effects of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the anticipated minimal and intermittent addition of employees, and the number of SCLV launches that would occur at the launch complex, annual direct emissions should be well under 25,000 metric tons (55 million pounds). Therefore, according to the CEQ guidance, the impact of this project to global or regional climate change, including sea level rise, is anticipated to be minimal.

Executive Summary vi

Hazardous Materials/ Hazardous Waste

The Proposed Action would increase the amount of hazardous materials being transported and wastes generated and managed at this location. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be set in place for the handling of hazardous materials and hazardous waste at the site. Construction and operation at the site should not significantly impact the NASA KSC Remediation Program for managing Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) or Potential Release Location (PRL) sites located within the boundary, or interfere with ongoing investigations at these locations. Rocket parts such as fuel tanks would break apart after hitting the water, sinking quickly, but dispersing contents and substances from their surfaces and quickly diluted. Therefore, the impact of this project on the environment from hazardous materials and waste would be minimal.

Water Resources Impacts to surface water and groundwater would occur from runoff associated with newly created impervious surface. Treatment of runoff would be required by permit and involve percolation to groundwater. In each of these cases, the effect would be moderate and easily absorbed by the environment. Additional impacts to surface water might be associated with vehicle exhaust deposition. An example of these effects may be pH change due to acid deposition, similar to Shuttle. In this case, the effect is short-term and moderate for surface water and minimal for groundwater. A further potential to impact groundwater is discussed under Industrial Wastewater effects in the Utilities section.

Geology and Soils Native soil profiles within the top several feet would be disturbed by either leveling, excavation, or filling associated with land clearing and construction activities. Once operational, the launch facility would not be expected to have any measurable impacts to soils within or adjacent to the launch complex. Underlying geological characteristics would not be impacted by construction or operation of LC-48, and are common on KSC and in east-central Florida. Overall impacts would be considered none to geology and moderate to soil.

Executive Summary vii

Transportation The Proposed Action would result in the continuation of many of the modes of transportation presently occurring at KSC but potentially in greater amounts. LC-48 would accommodate up to 52 launches per year per pad, totaling 104 launches a year overall.

Short-term and long-term minimal adverse effects would be expected. Short-term increases in traffic would result from construction worker commutes during construction and modification of facilities. Long-term effects would be primarily due to additional worker commutes and changes in traffic patterns near more centralized activities at KSC and the launch complexes. Increased traffic volumes and changes in traffic patterns would have minimal effects, and there would be some long-term beneficial effects from upgrades to infrastructure leading to the site.

The Proposed Action is not expected to cause appreciable changes in the overall traffic volume at KSC; however, some components could affect the level of service at intersections or roadways both at and away from the facilities. Transportation impacts would be classified as minimal due to increased traffic on roadways in support of the launches predicted to take place each year.

Utilities

The Proposed Action project area would require access to electric, fiber connectivity, water, sewer, and high-pressure gases. Development of the new launch complex would include activities such as construction of roads, upgrading and installing aboveground and underground utilities, excavation, foundation pouring, the building of a clean pad and modification of existing infrastructure. Effects of consumption of resources from the potable water, electric, gas, communication and solid waste systems are all expected to be measurable, but small compared to use at KSC as a whole and therefore, classified as moderate.

Production of industrial wastewater could impact either the domestic wastewater system or groundwater, if disposed of via percolation under permit. In either case, the effect would be moderate.

Executive Summary viii

Health and Safety Potential adverse effects to human health and safety could occur during construction and launch operations attributed to the Proposed Action. Compliance with OSHA regulations and other recognized standards would be implemented during the construction and operational phases to minimize the impacts to health and safety. With the implementation of safety and health plans, and environmental protection measures, potential health risks to project personnel and the public from construction and launch operations would be minimal.

Operations would be required to comply with all applicable safety regulations for storage, use, and transfer of toxic and hazardous materials. Due to the regulatory and safety requirements inherent in the industry and the nature of expected operations, it is considered likely that sufficient engineering and administrative controls would mitigate the risks associated with the presence of these materials to the lowest possible level.

An explosive safety plan must be submitted to the KSC Explosive Manager who would determine handling, permitting, transportation, siting, and storage for each commodity to account for public safety. Through this coordination, explosive safety elements would be met and there would be no significant impact. The probability of an accidental release on KSC would increase due to the increased activities and quantity of materials, but best management practices would ensure this increased risk is minimal.

Socioeconomics There are no negative impacts expected from the Proposed Action. Minimal beneficial effects may result from construction and operation at LC-48 due to the need for a larger work force.

Environmental Justice and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety

The population inhabiting the ROI for the Proposed Action is not comprised of greater than 50% minorities and does not exceed the percentage of minorities as compared to the rest of Florida. The poverty level coupled with median household income levels are lower or comparable to the rest of Florida, and the majority of the population is living well above the poverty level as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Therefore, no disproportionate impacts to minorities or low-income residents would occur.

The Child Development Center is the only location where children are concentrated in the vicinity of the Proposed Action. Noise levels experienced in that area would be short in duration and greatly diminished due to distance from launch pads. There would be no disproportionately high or adverse impacts to children’s environmental health or safety.

Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f)

Because there would be a maximum of 104 launches per year at LC-48, the noise level would only increase temporarily, and air quality would not be significantly affected. The Proposed Action would not substantially diminish the protected activities, features, or attributes of any of the 4(f) properties identified, and would not result in substantial impairment of the properties. Thus, the Proposed Action would not result in a “use” of a Section 4(f) property.

Executive Summary ix

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are defined by the CEQ in 40 CFR §1508.7 as impacts on the environment, which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. The CEQ regulations further require that NEPA environmental analyses address connected, cumulative, and similar actions in the same document (40 CFR 1508.25). The cumulative impact analysis for this EA focuses on the incremental interaction the Proposed Action may have with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, and evaluates cumulative impacts potentially resulting from these interactions. The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions at KSC, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), and Port Canaveral focus on constructing facilities and improving transportation modes, spacecraft processing and launch, and the cruise and cargo industry. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not likely cause any significant cumulative impacts to local resources.

Table of Contents x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... ii

Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................................... ii

Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................................ ii

No Action Alternative .............................................................................................................................. iii

Summary of Potential Environmental Effects .......................................................................................... iii

Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................................................. ix

ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONs ...................................................................................................... xiv

1.0 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Location and Background

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action

1.4 Structure and Scope of the Environmental Assessment

2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 Introduction and Background

2.2 Description of Proposed Action

2.3 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Consideration

2.4 Description of the No Action Alternative

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1 Land Use/Visual Resources

3.1.1 Affected Environment

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences

3.2 Noise

3.2.1 Affected Environment

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences

3.3 Biological Resources

3.3.1 Affected Environment

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences

3.4 Cultural Resources

3.4.1 Affected Environment

3.4.2. Environmental Consequences

3.5 Air Quality

3.5.1 Affected Environment

Executive Summary xi

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences

3.6 Climate

3.6.1 Affected Environment

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences

3.7 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste

3.7.1 Affected Environment

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences

3.8 Water Resources

3.8.1 Affected Environment

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences

3.9 Geology and Soils

3.9.1 Affected Environment

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences

3.10 Transportation

3.10.1 Affected Environment

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences

3.11 Utilities

3.11.1 Affected Environment

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences

3.12 Health and Safety

3.12.1 Affected Environment

3.12.2 Environmental Consequences

3.13 Socioeconomics

3.13.1 Affected Environment

3.13.2 Environmental Consequences

3.14 Environmental Justice and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety

3.14.1 Affected Environment

3.14.2 Environmental Consequences

3.15 Section 4(f) Properties

3.15.1 Affected Environment

3.15.2 Environmental Consequences

4.0 Cumulative Impacts

4.1 Projects Considered for Potential Cumulative Effects

Executive Summary xii

4.2 Cumulative Impact Analysis on Resources

4.2.1 Land Use and Visual Resources

4.2.2 Noise

4.2.3 Biological Resources

4.2.4 Air Quality

4.2.5 Climate

4.2.6 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste

4.2.7 Water Resources

4.2.8 Geology and Soils

4.2.9 Transportation

4.2.10 Utilities

4.2.11 Health and Safety

4.2.12 Socioeconomics

4.2.13 Section 4(f) Properties

5.0 List of Preparers and Contributors

6.0 Literature Cited

List of Figures

Figure 2-1. Location of the proposed LC-48 and adjacent launch pads

Figure 2-2. LC-48 Phase 1 conceptual site layout

Figure 2-3. LC-48 Phase 2 conceptual dual pad site layout

Figure 2-4. Alternate vertical launch sites considered (RSH 2007)

Figure 3-1. Conceptual overview of rocket noise prediction model methodology

Figure 3-2. Sonic boom peak overpressure contours for a SCLV launch

Figure 3-3. Existing land cover within the proposed action site for LC-48

Figure 3-4. Marine turtle nesting beach on KSC/MINWR with monitoring marker locations at each kilometer

Figure 3-5. Combined disorientation rates of sea turtle hatchlings on KSC

Figure 3-6. Potential Florida scrub-jay territory categories within the LC-48 site

Figure 3-7. Location of designated critical habitat for the northern right whale in the southern part of the range

Figure 3-8. Previously present archaeological sites at proposed LC-48 site

Figure 3-9. Soils distribution at the proposed LC-48 site

Executive Summary xiii

List of Tables

Table E-1: Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts from the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. ................................................................................................................................ iv

Table 2-1. Launch Vehicles Potentially Utilizing LC-48

Table 3-1. Typical noise sources and levels

Table 3-2. Acreages of the nine major land cover types found within the boundary of the proposed action area

Table 3-3. Wildlife species documented on KSC which are not federally listed, but are protected by the State of Florida

Table 3-4. Federally protected wildlife species documented to occur on KSC

Table 3-5. Annual number of nests, by species, deposited on the KSC security beach from 2008 through 2015

Table 3-6. Federal ambient air quality standards

Table 3-7. KSC history of actual annual emissions (tons per year)

Table 3-8. Estimated Annual Launch Emissions Estimates of Criteria Pollutants (tons per year) at LC-48 Based on Comparison Launch Vehicles

Table 3-9. General site-specific impacts to hydrology and water quality associated with construction and operations of roads and facilities

Table 3-10. Soil types and acreages (USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1974) found within the boundary of the LC-48 site

Table 5-1. Preparers of this Environmental Assessment

List of Appendices

Appendix A. Additional LC 48 Pad Renderings…………………………………………………………92

Appendix B. USFWS Endangered Species Office 2016 Biological Opinion ……………………………95

Appendix C. Blue Ridge Research Center Noise Study………………………………………………….150

Appendix D. National Marine Fisheries Service 2016 Consultation Letter………………………………178

Appendix E. State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Letters……………………………….189

Appendix F. Smoke Contamination Buffers for Smoke Sensitive Facilities……………………………193

Acronyms and Abbreviations xiv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ac acres

AOI Area of Influence

BDA Blast Danger Area

BMAPs Basin Management Action Plans

BMP Best Management Practice

C Celsius

CCAFS Cape Canaveral Air Force Station

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations cm centimeters

CNS Canaveral National Seashore

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act dB decibels dBA A weighted sound pressure level

DNL day-night average noise level

DO dissolved oxygen

DOT Department of Transportation

EA Environmental Assessment

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EGS Exploration Ground Systems

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERD Environmental Resources Document

ERP Environmental Resource Permit

ESA Endangered Species Act

F Fahrenheit

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAC Florida Administrative Code

FDEP Florida Department of

Environmental Protection

FDOH Florida Department of Health

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FPF Fairing Processing Facility

FPL Florida Power and Light ft feet ft2 square feet gal gallon

GHe gaseous helium

GHG greenhouse gas

GN2 gaseous nitrogen

GPS global positioning system

GSDO Ground Systems Development and Operations ha hectares

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants

HIF Horizontal Integration Facility

ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan

IRL Indian River Lagoon

ISS International Space Station kg kilogram kgf kilogram-force

KIWI Kennedy Industrial Wastewater Inventory

Acronyms and Abbreviations xv km kilometer

KNPR Kennedy NASA Procedural Requirement

KSC John F. Kennedy Space Center kv kilovolt l liter lbf pound-force lbs pounds

LC Launch Complex

LCH4 liquid methane

LOX liquid oxygen

LZ-1 Landing Zone 1 m meters m2 square meters mi miles

MINWR Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge mph miles per hour mt metric tons

N nitrogen

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NCRS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NMS National Marine Sanctuary

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric

NOx nitrogen oxide

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPR NASA Procedural Requirement

NPS National Park Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRO National Reconnaissance Office

OFW Outstanding Florida Waters

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OSTDS On Site Treatment and Disposal System

Pb lead

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement pH a measure of acidity/alkalinity of a solution

PM10 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter

PM2.5 particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

PRL Potential Release Location

PWQ Process Waste Questionnaire

QD quantity distance

RCRA Resource Conservation Recovery Act

ROI Region of Influence

RP-1 Rocket Propellant 1 (kerosene)

RWWTF Regional Waste Water Treatment Facility

Acronyms and Abbreviations xvi

SAA Space Act Agreement

SCLV Small Class Launch Vehicle

SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management District

SLF Shuttle Landing Facility

SLS Space Launch System

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SpaceX Space Exploration Technologies

SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures

SR State Road

SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit tf ton force metric

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TRP Technical Response Package µg/m3 micrograms per liter

UPSS Universal Propellant Servicing System

U.S. United States

USAF United States Air Force

U.S.C. United States Code

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VAB Vehicle Assembly Building

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

Section 1: Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 1

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

1.1 Introduction

This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to evaluate the proposed development and operation of Launch Complex (LC) 48 at the John F.

Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in east central Florida. The complex would provide clean pad surfaces to which potential customers could bring their own ground systems for launching Small Class Launch Vehicles (SCLVs) and/or for engine test operational recertification for reflight. At full build-out, LC-48 would include up to two concrete slab launch pads, utility hookups, deluge system, and mobile launch support infrastructure.

Federal agencies are required to consider environmental consequences resulting from their actions. This is in accordance with regulatory mandates including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (Title 42 of the United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321 - 4347), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500-1508), NASA regulations for implementing NEPA (14 CFR Subpart 1216.3), and the NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) for Implementing NEPA and Executive Order (EO) 12114 (NPR 8580.1).

Also, because potential launch operators at LC-48 may apply to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Commercial Space Transportation for a commercial space license once the launch site is built, this EA complies with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, regarding potential launch-related impacts. This will enable the FAA to adopt this EA in the future to support its environmental review of license applications for commercial space launch operations at LC-48. As NASA is considering a plan to develop a SCLV launch complex, this EA is necessary for compliance with NEPA, as well as related federal and state environmental regulations. The environmental impacts of the proposed construction and operation of LC-48 must be assessed prior to NASA entering into any agreements such as land use permits and support arrangements authorized under Space Act Agreements (SAAs).

1.2 Location and Background

NASA was created in 1958 to lead the nation’s civilian space exploration and aeronautical technology development activities. In 1962, NASA began acquiring property to be used as a base for launch operations in support of the Manned Lunar Landing Program. A Launch Operations Center, later known as KSC, was established in Merritt Island, Florida. KSC is situated along the east coast of central Florida approximately 242 kilometers (km) (150 miles [mi]) south of Jacksonville, 322 km (200 mi) north of Miami, and 64 km (40 mi) east of Orlando (Figure 1-1). KSC is located within Brevard and Volusia counties and is comprised of approximately 57,400 hectares (ha) (142,000 acres [ac]). Today, NASA continues to operate KSC as the nation’s primary federal spaceport for government and commercial access to space. NASA at KSC was responsible for ground processing, launch, and landing activities for the Space Shuttle Program, which was retired in 2011. NASA is furthermore engaged in developing new capabilities to implement future space programs and the advancement of the commercial space industry, including the use of KSC property by other governmental agencies, commercial space and related industries, and universities through Enhanced Use Leases and SAAs. Property agreements at KSC include Space Florida’s operation of the Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) for use by commercial and governmental entities, the Florida Power and Light

Section 1: Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 2

(FPL) photovoltaic facilities, Boeing’s use of the former Orbiter Processing Facility 3 for manufacturing and testing of the CST-100 Starliner, the Blue Origin Manufacturing Facility in Exploration Park, and the Commercial Space Launch Act agreement with Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) for processing and launch of Falcon vehicles at LC-39A.

The Proposed Action would support the NASA goal of encouraging activities by the private sector to strengthen and expand U.S. space transportation infrastructure. It would provide greater mission capability to meet small class vehicle customer needs. The Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the KSC Master Plan, completed in November 2016, describes the current environmental setting and long range planning (2012-2032) for KSC. Programmatic NEPA documents are broad in scope and may be followed by more site-specific or action-specific documents, as appropriate. This is described as tiering, with focused documents (such as this EA) referring back to broader documents (such as the KSC PEIS) that elaborate in more detail. The more narrowly focused NEPA documents do not need to repeat the impact analysis of common issues from the broad EIS. Instead, they would incorporate by reference a summary of those discussions and analyses, and focus on the project specific issues. The KSC PEIS was prepared to evaluate potential environmental impacts from center-wide KSC operations, activities, and facilities;

consider scenarios for repurposing existing facilities; reorganize management of KSC and its land resources; and continue partnerships with government organizations and commercial entities. NASA, as the lead federal agency, has prepared this EA as a tiered document focusing on development of a SCLV launch complex. The KSC PEIS is incorporated by reference with new information and details provided, as appropriate.

This EA was prepared by NASA as the proponent of the Proposed Action and the lead federal agency, in cooperation with the FAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). As the landowner, NASA is responsible for managing areas on KSC for space-related development and operations, and provides oversight for current non-NASA space and technology development use of KSC property. KSC would be responsible for establishing and coordinating appropriate use agreements and operating procedures for those activities outlined in the Proposed Action.

The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation is a cooperating agency in the preparation of this EA due to its role in licensing commercial launch operations. The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportations’ mission is to ensure protection of the public, property, and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States during commercial launch or reentry activities, and to encourage, facilitate, and promote U.S. commercial space transportation. The FAA may receive launch license applications from commercial space launch operators for launch operations at LC-48 once the launch complex is built. The FAA intends to adopt this EA in the future to support its environmental review of the launch license application(s). If, after reviewing the launch license application and this EA, the FAA determines that future proposed operations fall within the scope of this EA and that the FAA’s action of issuing a license would not individually or cumulatively result in significant impacts on the human or natural environment, the FAA would adopt this EA and issue its own finding of no significant impact (FONSI) to support issuing a license. The FAA will draw its own conclusions from the analysis presented in this EA and assume responsibility for its environmental decision and any related mitigation measures.

For the FAA to completely rely on this EA to satisfy its NEPA obligations, the EA must meet the requirements of FAA Order 1050.1F, which contains the FAA’s policies and procedures for compliance with NEPA.

Section 1: Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 3

The USFWS is a cooperating agency in the preparation of this EA due to management responsibilities for land potentially affected by the activities evaluated in this EA. Through official agreement with NASA (KSC-1649 Rev. A), the USFWS manages KSC lands not specifically used for space-related operations as the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (MINWR).

The various components of the Proposed Action are described in detail in Section 2. The general vicinity and potential location for the activities on KSC are shown in Figure 1-1.

Figure 1-1. Location of the proposed LC-48 site on KSC.

Section 1: Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 4

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action

As established by the Office of the President and directed from Congress, it is NASA’s mission to expand commercial uses of space and the space industry. This directive is detailed in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and the Space Act of 1958, as amended. The purpose of NASA’s Proposed Action is to expand its spaceport capabilities to include the processing and launch of small class vertically launched rocket-powered vehicles. This will: 1) enable improved access to KSC's space launch and test operation capabilities by NASA, as well as 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 in KSC spaceport facilities through expanded and improved utilization.

This action also furthers the goals of KSC long-term planning initiatives and NASA programmatic objectives, and ultimately increases American competitiveness in the commercial space market. The proposed LC-48 site would be a direct fulfillment of the KSC Master Plan (NASA 2013) to “foster and support the fullest commercial use of space”. In 2015, KSC dedicated LC-39C, located within the southeast area of the LC-39B perimeter, to accommodate small class vehicles. LC-39C serves as a multi-purpose site allowing companies to test vehicles and capabilities in the smaller class of rockets, making it more affordable for small class launch vehicle companies to participate in the commercial spaceflight market. A complexity of LC-39C is that it is shared with the Space Launch System (SLS) program utilizing LC-39B, and customers using LC-39C must do so on a non-interference basis. Since the construction of LC-39C, KSC has experienced a much greater interest and demand for the use of a small class launch complex. This resulted in the goal of augmenting capabilities to accommodate increased demand by developing an additional small class vehicle launch complex, to be designated LC-48. More details of site consideration are discussed in Section 2.

The FAA’s action of issuing licenses to commercial space launch operators at LC-48 is considered part of the Proposed Action analyzed in this EA. The FAA’s purpose of issuing licenses to commercial space operators is to fulfill the FAA’s responsibilities as authorized by Chapter 509 of Title 51 of the U.S. Code for oversight of commercial space launch activities, including licensing launch activities. The need for FAA’s action results from the statutory direction from Congress under the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 to, in part, “promote commercial space launches and reentries by the private sector; facilitate Government, State, and private sector involvement in enhancing U.S. launch sites and facilities; and protect public health and safety, safety of property, national security interests, and foreign policy interests of the United States”, Pub. L. 114-90, § 113(b). Additionally, Congress has determined the federal government is to “facilitate the strengthening and expansion of the United States space transportation infrastructure, including the enhancement of United States launch sites and launch-site support facilities, and development of reentry sites, with Government, State, and private sector involvement, to support the full range of United States space-related activities”, 51 U.S.C. § 50901(b)(4).

1.4 Structure and Scope of the Environmental Assessment

This EA presents the analysis and description of potential environmental impacts that could result from the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. As appropriate, the affected environment and environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative are discussed in context with resource area descriptions.

Section 1: Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 5

The structure of the EA is as follows: Section 2 describes the Proposed Action, the No Action Alternative, and Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis, and discusses reasons for alternative site selection or non-selection. Section 3 describes the affected environmental resources and potential direct and indirect effects or consequences of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. The resources analyzed in detail are:

• Land Use/Visual Resources

• Noise

• Biological Resources

• Cultural Resources

• Air Quality

• Climate

• Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste

• Water Resources

• Geology and Soils

• Transportation

• Utilities

• Health and Safety

• Socioeconomics

• Environmental Justice and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety

• Section 4(f) Properties

Section 4 describes cumulative impacts on the resource areas from other similar past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Section 5 presents a list of those who prepared the EA and key personnel who contributed to its content. Section 6 lists references cited in the EA.

Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 6

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Introduction and Background

This section provides a discussion of the Proposed Action of developing LC-48 on KSC. It also provides descriptions of alternative actions considered but eliminated. Only the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative were evaluated.

The KSC Master Plan identifies the location for LC-48 as approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) southeast of LC- 39A and 1.6 km (1 mi) northwest of LC-41 (Figure 2-1). This location was designated as the most suitable site for a small or medium class pad over twelve other alternatives assessed on KSC as part of a vertical launch site evaluation conducted by Reynolds, Smith, and Hill, Inc. (RSH 2007).

2.2 Description of Proposed Action

The multi-user LC-48 would be designed as a versatile launch pad and integrated stage testing facility for SCLVs. LC-48 would provide clean pad surfaces to allow customers to bring their own launch ground systems for launching an SCLV or for engine tests for operational recertification. Multiple liquid propellant types would be accommodated, including oxygen, methane, hydrogen, hypergolic propellants, and rocket propellant 1 (RP-1), as well as a variety of other liquid and hybrid solid propellants. High-pressure gases (nitrogen [GN2] and helium [GHe]) would also be allowed for use at LC-48. KSC would be able to provide the Universal Propellant Servicing System (UPSS), which includes propellant loading skids, vacuum jacketed pipes, and propellant manifold connections. There are also two 41,639 liter (l) (11,000 gallon [gal]) liquid methane (LCH4) storage containers and three 20,441 l (5,400 gal) liquid oxygen (LOX) storage containers available for use at KSC. Customers could also provide their own mobile propellant service systems. Customers would provide lightning protection, cameras, lighting, access ladders/platforms, umbilical towers, and launch control systems.

LC-48 could support up to two concrete slab pads with room for minimal supporting infrastructure and facilities, or one pad that would allow for a greater diversity of supporting facilities. Initial development of the area (Phase 1, Figure 2-2) would include the one clean pad design. To account for potential future partners and development, the total build out concept for LC-48 could support fully integrated launch facilities with all necessary supporting infrastructure.

Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 7

Figure 2-1. Location of the proposed LC-48 and adjacent launch pads.

Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 8

Under the two-pad design scenario of Phase 2 (Figure 2-3), a company or multiple companies would transport their vehicle from off site before launch. Any infrastructure needed to develop and process vehicles would likely be located elsewhere, leaving this option as flexible as possible to avoid conflict with another company’s ability to operate, should there be multiple users.

Once Phase 2 was implemented, LC-48 would accommodate an additional 52 SCLV launches per year, for a total of 104 launches per year once both phases are fully operational. SCLVs weigh up to 136,078 kilograms (kg) (300,000 pounds [lbs]) and have a thrust range up to 226,796 kilogram-force (kgf) (500,000 pound-force [lbf]). Propellants used include solid, RP-1, LOX, monomethyl hydrazine, dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4), hydrazine (N2H4), isopropyl alcohol, and LCH4. SCLVs can have from one to five stages. Table 2-1 provides vehicular data for the types of SCLVs potentially using LC-48.

Table 2-1. Launch Vehicles Potentially Utilizing LC-48.

Vehicle Payload Dimensions Propellant Type Propellant

Amount klb (tons)

Liftoff Thrust N (lbf)

Gross Liftoff Weight tf2 (klb1)

A 680-1361 kg (1500-3000 lbs) to

300+ km (186+

mi) eastward orbit

LOX/methane, LOX/RP-1

(113)

1,556,878 (350,000)

0.113 (250)

B 23 kg (50 lbs) to 100 km (62 mi) orbit, low inclination

15 m (50 ft) tall, 1.5 m (5 ft) max diameter

Hybrid: solid, with nitrous oxide or LOX

88,964 (20,000)

0.007 (15)

C 400 kg (882 lbs) to 185km (115

mi) equatorial orbit

21 m (70 ft) tall, 1.8 m

(6 ft) diameter

LOX/RP-1,

LOX/methane, hypergols on payload

(9)

556,028 (125,000)

0.041 (90)

D 100 kg (220 lbs) to LEO3, 110 kg (243 lbs) to 500 km (311 mi) sun synch

18 m (60 ft) tall

LOX-RP 177,929

(40,000)

0.014 (30)

E Suborbital LOX/ethanol or densified propylene

22,241 (5,000)

0.007 (15)

F 40 kg (88 lbs) orbital

12 m (40 ft) tall

LOX/ethanol or densified propylene

G Suborbital to >100 km (62 mi), 150 kg (331 lbs) to LEO

6-8 m (20- 26 ft) tall,

1.2 m (4 ft) diameter

Hybrid: inert solid

(polyethylene plastic or wax

(9)

88,964 (20,000)

0.009 (20)

Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 9

Table 2-1. Launch Vehicles Potentially Utilizing LC-48 (cont.).

Vehicle Payload Dimensions Propellant Type Propellant

Amount klb (tons)

Liftoff Thrust N (lbf)

Gross Liftoff Weight tf2 (klb1) H 300-350 kg (661-

772 lbs) to LEO 23 m (75 ft) tall, 1.4 m

(4.6 ft) diameter

Hybrid: inert solid

(polyethylene plastic or wax

(23)

711,715 (160,000)

0.027 (60)

I 8 m (26 ft) tall

LOX/ethanol

J 1,400-2,300 kg (3,000-5,000 lbs) to

LEO

30.5 m (100

ft) tall; 4.1 m (13.7 ft) diameter

LH2/LOX 2,224,111

(>375,000)

0.136 (240)

1 kilopound (klb) force; 2 ton-force (tf) metric; 3 Newton (N), 4 liquid hydrogen (LH2), 5 low earth orbit (LEO)

In general, the following criteria would apply for each construction phase:

Phase 1:

• A LC-39C equivalent would be sited on the north end of LC-48 and would only include utility hookups, deluge system including catchment basin and sound suppression tanks, fire hydrants, paging and area warning system, perimeter fence, site lighting, connection to high pressure gas lines, and mobile launch support infrastructure (mobile command trailer, UPSS, etc.).

• Payloads and their power supplies, fairings, and cargo modules would be processed in off site facilities, then brought to the site encapsulated, fueled, and ready for integration to the launch vehicle.

• There would be no launch stand, only the concrete pad. It would have pad dimensions similar to LC-39C. The main launch surface of LC-39C is 17 m (54 ft) wide x 13 m (42 ft) long constructed of 122-cm (48-inch [in]) thick concrete. There would be additional 20-cm (8-in) thick concrete pads, on either side of the main launch surface.

• A 9.1 m (30 ft)) berm would be constructed to limit quantity distance (QD) impacts and contain hazardous propellant emissions.

• Each launch provider would bring their launch mount and flame deflector.

• Launch rate would be a maximum of 52 launches per year.

• Maximum liftoff weight would be 136,078 kg (300,000 lbs).

• There would be no landings at LC-48.

• The launch pad would be constructed a minimum of 229 m (750 ft) from the road to allow traffic to continue during prelaunch operations and only cease during launches.

• A new access road to the LC-48 site from Phillips Parkway would be required.

• Temporary lightning arrestor towers, if desired, would be supplied by the launch provider.

• A 381 m (1,250 ft) QD would be in effect and is based on standard maximum level of explosives, similar to baseline for LC-39C launch QD.

• Phase 1 would include the potential for engine test operational recertification for reflight.

Section 2: Description of the Proposed Action…