environmental assessment for defense satellite ... · with integrated apogee boost system cape...

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCEMateriel Command

Headquarters, Space and Missile Systems Center

Environmental Assessmentfor

Defense Satellite Communications System IIIwith Integrated Apogee Boost System

Cape Canaveral Air Station, Florida

July 1995

Environmental Impact Analysis Process

Report Documentation Page

Report Date 00071995

Report Type N/A

Dates Covered (from... to) -

Title and Subtitle Environmental Impact Analysis Process EnvironmentalAssessment for Defense Satellite Communications System IIIWith Integrated Apogee Boost System

Contract Number

Grant Number

Program Element Number

Author(s) Project Number

Task Number

Work Unit Number

Performing Organization Name(s) and Address(es) Parsons Engineering Science 8000 Centre Park Drive, Suite 200Austin, Texas 78754

Performing Organization Report Number

Sponsoring/Monitoring Agency Name(s) and Address(es) sponsoring agency and address

Sponsor/Monitor’s Acronym(s)

Sponsor/Monitor’s Report Number(s)

Distribution/Availability Statement Approved for public release, distribution unlimited

Supplementary Notes

Abstract

Subject Terms

Report Classification unclassified

Classification of this page unclassified

Classification of Abstract unclassified

Limitation of Abstract UU

Number of Pages 93

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

DEFENSE SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM IIIWITH INTEGRATED APOGEE BOOST SYSTEM

CAPE CANAVERAL AIR STATION, FLORIDA

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, the Council on Environmental Quality regula-tions implementing the Act (40 CFR 1500-1508), Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 6050.1,DOD Instruction 5000.2, and Air Force Instruction 32-7061, which implements these regulationsin the Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP), Air Force Regulation 19-9 regarding inter-agency coordination, and other applicable federal and local regulations, the United States Air Forcehas conducted an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of the processing forlaunch of six Defense Satellite Communications System III (DSCS III) satellites with IntegratedApogee Boost System (IABS). The no action alternative was also considered. This Finding of NoSignificant Impact (FONSI) summarizes the results of the evaluation.

Proposed Action and Alternatives: The Air Force proposes to process six DSCS III/IABSsatellites for launch at Cape Canaveral Air Station (AS), Florida, during the time frame from 1995through 2003. The satellites will be operated on-orbit for approximately 10 years until their end oflife. The no-action alternative would be continued reliance on the existing on-orbit DSCS satelliteswith no replenishment until the operational life of the existing satellites is ended.

Anticipated Environmental Effects: The environmental assessment evaluated the environ-mental impacts of the satellite system with regard to transportation, processing, operation, and dis-posal. Impacts associated with the launch vehicle have been previously assessed in an environ-mental assessment dated February 1989 for the Medium Launch Vehicle II program that resulted ina FONSI. The potential environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives were as-sessed for the following environmental resource areas: air quality (including stratospheric ozone),hazardous materials, hazardous waste, solid waste, pollution prevention, nonionizing radiation,ionizing radiation, water quality, biological communities, cultural resources, noise, socioeco-nomics, orbital debris, and safety.

Operations will be conducted in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local legislationand regulation, including existing permits. Operational effects would cause quantifiable increasesfrom the existing baseline conditions of no more than one percent for any of the resource areasconsidered with the exception of orbital debris. The proposed action would increase the populationof tracked objects in near geosynchronous Earth orbit by approximately 2.6 percent. At the end ofthe operational life of each satellite, the remaining fuel would be used to move the satellite to anorbit beyond geosynchronous Earth orbit.

Conclusion: Based on the environmental assessment, it is concluded that the proposed actionwill not result in significant environmental impacts or cause significant cumulative impacts in as-sociation with other programs. An environmental impact statement is not required.

Mitigation: No significant impacts were identified which would require mitigation.

Point of Contact: A copy of the “Defense Satellite Communications System III with IntegratedApogee Boost System Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Assessment,” July1995, may be obtained from, or comments on these documents may be submitted to:

- 1 -

Finding of No Significant ImpactDefense Satellite Communications System III

HQ SMC/CEVLt Joe Fox2420 Vela Way, Suite 1467Los Angeles AFB, CA 90245-4659Phone: (310) 363-0934

Approved:

WILLIAM MAIKISCH DateExecutive DirectorHQ Space and Missile Systems CenterChairperson, Environmental Protection Committee

Approved:

DONALD COOK DateBrigadier General, USAFCommander, 45th Space WingChairperson, Environmental Protection Committee

- 2 -

Environmental Assessmentfor

Defense Satellite Communications System IIIwith Integrated Apogee Boost System

Cape Canaveral Air Station, Florida

Prepared for

Department of the Air ForceHeadquarters Space and Missile

Systems Center/CEVLos Angeles Air Force Base, California

and

Air Force Center for Environmental ExcellenceHuman Systems Center

Brooks Air Force Base, Texas

July 1995

Contract F41624-94-D-8003, Order 8Printed on Recycled Paper

Environmental AssessmentDefense Satellite Communications System III Table of Contents

CONTENTS

Page

Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................................................vi

Section 1.0: Purpose of and Need for the Action..............................................................................1

1.1 Background......................................................................................................................1

1.2 Purpose and Need.............................................................................................................1

1.3 Program Description.........................................................................................................2

1.4 Purpose of the Environmental Assessment.........................................................................2

1.5 Issues................................................................................................................................2

1.6 Scope of the Environmental Assessment............................................................................2

1.7 Organization of the Environmental Assessment.................................................................3

Section 2.0: Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives..........................................................4

2.1 Proposed Action................................................................................................................4

2.2 Project Description and Location.......................................................................................4

2.2.1 Location and Background.....................................................................................4

2.2.2 Satellite.................................................................................................................4

2.2.3 Integrated Apogee Boost System...........................................................................7

2.2.4 Prelaunch Processing Facilities..............................................................................8

2.2.5 Processing Operations.........................................................................................12

2.2.6 Mission Profile....................................................................................................14

2.3 Mission...........................................................................................................................14

2.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action.................................................................................16

2.4.1 No-Action Alternative.........................................................................................16

2.4.2 Other Alternatives Eliminated from Consideration...............................................16

2.5 Mitigation Measures........................................................................................................16

2.6 Summary of Impacts.......................................................................................................16

Section 3.0: Affected Environment................................................................................................18

3.1 Air Quality......................................................................................................................18

3.1.1 Meteorology.......................................................................................................18

3.1.2 Local Air Quality................................................................................................18

3.1.3 Stratospheric Ozone............................................................................................20

3.2 Hazardous Materials........................................................................................................21

-i-


3.3 Hazardous Waste.............................................................................................................22

3.4 Solid Waste......................................................................................................................24

3.5 Pollution Prevention........................................................................................................24

3.6 Nonionizing Radiation....................................................................................................25

3.7 Ionizing Radiation...........................................................................................................26

3.8 Water Quality..................................................................................................................26

3.8.1 Groundwater Quality...........................................................................................26

3.8.2 Surface Water Quality..........................................................................................27

3.9 Biological Communities..................................................................................................28

3.10 Cultural Resources...........................................................................................................28

3.11 Noise...............................................................................................................................31

3.12 Socioeconomics..............................................................................................................32

3.12.1 Demography.......................................................................................................32

3.12.2 Housing..............................................................................................................32

3.12.3 Economy............................................................................................................32

3.12.4 Schools...............................................................................................................32

3.12.5 Public Safety.......................................................................................................32

3.12.6 Health Care.........................................................................................................32

3.12.7 Transportation.....................................................................................................33

3.13 Utilities............................................................................................................................33

3.13.1 Water Supply.......................................................................................................33

3.13.2 Wastewater Treatment..........................................................................................33

3.13.3 Electricity............................................................................................................33

3.14 Orbital Debris..................................................................................................................33

3.15 Safety..............................................................................................................................34

Section 4.0: Environmental Consequences and Cumulative Impacts...............................................36

4.1 Air Quality......................................................................................................................36

4.1.1 Local Air Quality................................................................................................36

4.1.1.1 Processing Emissions...................................................................................36

4.1.1.2 Clean Air Act Conformity............................................................................38

4.1.2 Stratospheric Ozone............................................................................................38

4.2 Hazardous Materials........................................................................................................39

4.3 Hazardous Waste.............................................................................................................42

4.4 Solid Waste......................................................................................................................44

4.5 Pollution Prevention........................................................................................................45

4.6 Nonionizing Radiation....................................................................................................45

4.7 Ionizing Radiation...........................................................................................................47

4.8 Water Quality..................................................................................................................48

4.9 Biological Communities..................................................................................................48

-ii-


4.10 Cultural Resources...........................................................................................................49

4.11 Noise...............................................................................................................................49

4.12 Socioeconomics..............................................................................................................49

4.13 Utilities............................................................................................................................50

4.13.1 Water Supply.......................................................................................................50

4.13.2 Wastewater Treatment..........................................................................................50

4.13.3 Electricity............................................................................................................50

4.14 Orbital Debris..................................................................................................................50

4.15 Safety..............................................................................................................................52

4.15.1 Injury to Personnel..............................................................................................52

4.15.2 Damage to Property............................................................................................52

4.15.3 Risk Assessment and Mitigation...........................................................................53

4.16 Cumulative Impacts.........................................................................................................54

4.16.1 Air Quality..........................................................................................................55

4.16.2 Hazardous Materials............................................................................................56

4.16.3 Hazardous Waste.................................................................................................56

4.16.4 Solid Waste..........................................................................................................56

4.16.5 Pollution Prevention............................................................................................56

4.16.6 Nonionizing Radiation........................................................................................57

4.16.7 Ionizing Radiation...............................................................................................57

4.16.8 Water Quality......................................................................................................57

4.16.9 Biological Communities......................................................................................57

4.16.10 Cultural Resources...............................................................................................57

4.16.11 Noise...................................................................................................................58

4.16.12 Socioeconomics..................................................................................................58

4.16.13 Utilities................................................................................................................58

4.16.14 Orbital Debris......................................................................................................58

4.16.15 Safety..................................................................................................................59

Section 5.0: Regulatory Review and Permit Requirements..............................................................60

5.1 Air Quality......................................................................................................................60

5.2 Hazardous Waste.............................................................................................................60

5.3 Water Quality..................................................................................................................60

5.4 Coastal Zone Management..............................................................................................61

Section 6.0: Persons and Agencies Consulted.................................................................................62

6.1 United States Air Force....................................................................................................62

6.2 Federal , State, and Local Agencies..................................................................................62

6.3 Other Organizations........................................................................................................62

Section 7.0: References..................................................................................................................63

-iii-


Section 8.0: List of Preparers.........................................................................................................66

Appendices:

A Air Force Form 813

B Lighting Policy for Cape Canaveral Air Station

-iv-


FIGURES

Page

1 General Location Map, Cape Canaveral AS............................................................................5

2 DSCS III Satellite On-orbit....................................................................................................6

3 Integrated Apogee Boost System...........................................................................................7

4 Processing Locations at Cape Canaveral AS...........................................................................9

5 Main Spacecraft Processing Area.........................................................................................10

6 Plan View of DSCS Processing Facility................................................................................11

7 Atlas II Launch Vehicle.......................................................................................................13

8 DSCS III Mission Profile.....................................................................................................15

9 Vegetation Communities at Cape Canaveral AS....................................................................29

TABLES

Page

1 Effects of the Proposed Action............................................................................................17

2 State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards...............................................................19

3 Baseline Criteria Pollutant Emissions for Brevard County, Florida........................................20

4 Special Status Species Associated with Cape Canaveral AS...................................................30

5 Emissions from the Proposed Action...................................................................................37

6 Hazardous Materials Associated with DSCS III/IABS Processing..........................................41

7 Forecast of Annual Hazardous Wastes Associated with DSCS III/IABS.................................44

8 Summary of Transmitting Antenna Characteristics...............................................................46

9 Summary of RF PEL Safe Distances....................................................................................47

10 Forecast Launches at Cape Canaveral AS/Kennedy Space Center..........................................55

-v-

Environmental AssessmentDefense Satellite Communications System III Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

45 SW 45th Space Wing45 CES/CEV 45 SW environmental planning function°F Degrees FahrenheitAB Administration BuildingAFB Air Force BaseAFI Air Force InstructionAFOSH Air Force Occupational Safety and HealthAFSCN Air Force Satellite Communication NetworkAS Air StationAFSPC Air Force Space CommandAl2O3 Aluminum OxideAQCR Air Quality Control RegionAST Aboveground storage tankBE Brilliant EyesCAA Clean Air ActCEQ Council on Environmental QualityCFC ChlorofluorocarbonCFR Code of Federal Regulationscm centimeterCMP Coastal Management ProgramCO Carbon monoxideCWA Clean Water ActCY Calendar yearCZMA Coastal Zone Management ActDOD Department of DefenseDOT Department of TransportationDPF Defense Satellite Communications System Processing FacilityDRMO Defense Reutilization and Marketing OfficeDSCS Defense Satellite Communications SystemDSF Defense Satellite Communications System Storage FacilityEC Earth coverageEA Environmental assessmentEIAP Environmental impact analysis processEMTF Electromechanical Test FacilityEO Executive OrderEOL End of lifeEPA Environmental Protection AgencyEPA-17 Environmental Protection Agency 17 Priority PollutantsEPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know ActEVCF Eastern Vehicle Checkout FacilityFAC Florida Administrative CodeFDEP Florida Department of Environmental ProtectionFGFWFC Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish CommissionFIP Federal Implementation Plan

-vi-


FONSI Finding Of No Significant ImpactFPL Florida Power and LightFR Federal RegisterFSA-1 Fuel Storage Area 1FSA-2 Fuel Storage Area 2FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control ActGEO Geosynchronous Earth OrbitGHz Gigahertzgpd gallons per dayGPS Global Positioning SystemGPTU Generic Propellant Transfer UnitHBFC HydrobromofluorocarbonHCFC HydrochlorofluorocarbonHCl Hydrochloric acidIABS Integrated Apogee Boost SystemIPA Isopropyl alcoholJPC Joint Propellants Contractorkm kilometerkm2 square kilometerlb/ft2 pounds per square feetLBSC Launch Base Support ContractorLEO Low Earth OrbitLV Launch vehicleMBA Multi-beam antennaMEO Medium Earth Orbitmgd million gallons per daymg/m3 milligrams per cubic meterMHz MegahertzMIL-STD Military StandardMLV Medium Launch VehicleMMH Monomethyl hydrazineMSDS Material Safety Data SheetmW/cm2 milliwatts per square centimeterNAAQS National Ambient Air Quality StandardsNASA National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNEPA National Environmental Policy Actnm nanometerNO2 Nitrogen dioxideNOx Nitrogen oxidesNPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemNTL No threat levelO3 OzoneODC Ozone depleting chemicalODP Ozone depleting potentialOFW Outstanding Florida WaterOPlan Operations PlanOSHA Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationPb LeadPCF Propellant Conditioning FacilityPEL Permissible exposure limitPM-10 Particulate matter smaller than 10 micrometersPOL Petroleum, oil, and lubricantppm Parts per million

-vii-


PPMAP Pollution Prevention Management Action PlanPPP Pollution prevention programPSCCE Production Satellite Configuration Control ElementRF Radio frequencyrpm Revolutions per minuteSAB Satellite Assembly BuildingSARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization ActSAR Specific absorption rateSBIRS Space Based Infrared SystemSCAPE Self-Contained Atmospheric Pressure EnsembleSHF Super High FrequencySIP State Implementation PlanSLC Space Launch ComplexSLEP Service Life Extension ProgramSO2 Sulfur dioxideSOx Sulfur oxidesSRMU Solid Rocket Motor Upgradetpy tons per yearTVCF Transportable Vehicle Checkout FacilityUS United StatesUSAF United States Air ForceUSFWS United States Fish and Wildlife ServiceUV UltravioletUV-B Ultraviolet B wavelength regionVOC Volatile organic compoundsW/kg Watts per kilogramWQA Water Quality Act

-viii-

Environmental AssessmentDefense Satellite Communications System III Purpose of and Need for the Action

SECTION 1.0

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE ACTION

1.1 BACKGROUND 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The Defense Satellite Communications System(DSCS) provides a high data rate satellitecommunication link for the Department ofDefense (DOD) and other governmental agen-cies.

The continuing upheaval ın the wake of thedisintegration of the Soviet Union into severalnuclear capable and for the most part unstablepolitical entities, and recent United States(US) military involvement in the Middle Eastand eastern Africa require that the UnitedStates have a command, control, and com-munications system capable of supporting USand allied forces anywhere in the world,should they need to be deployed. DSCS iscurrently the only high data rate satellite com-munications system that the DOD has forcommand, control, and communication withdeployed forces, both within and outside ofthe continental US. This will remain so untilthe end of the decade and early into the nextcentury when a Super High Frequency (SHF)follow-on system will replace DSCS. At thattime the DSCS III constellation of satelliteswill either have reached their end of life (EOL)or those that remain operative will be used asredundant, on-orbit, backups for the SHFfollow-on system which should just begin tobecome operational. The SHF follow-onsystem will begin to be launched around 2007and continue through 2011 when the fullydeployed SHF follow-on constellation will beon-orbit. Between now and sometime afterthe turn of the century, DSCS will be the onlydeployed system capable of meeting DOD'shigh data rate satellite communications mis-sion support requirements.

The first generation of DSCS satellites werelaunched between June 1966 and June 1968.into quasi-synchronous equatorial orbits with adaily latitudinal drift rate over the equator of30˚. Twenty-six of these DSCS I satellites werelaunched. DSCS I satel l i tes were simplespin-stabilized designs with no station-keepingcapability (Zee, 1989).

The second generation, DSCS II, incorporated astation-keeping capability. Sixteen DSCS IIsatellites were launched between October 1971and June 1983, with four not achieving orbit(SMC/MCD, 1995). The third generation,DSCS III, incorporates further improvementsand is described later in this assessment.Twelve DSCS III satellites have been launched.

The MILSATCOM Joint Program Office(DSCS Program) of the Space and MissileSys t ems Cen te r , A i r Fo rce Ma te r i e lCommand, in cooperation with the Air ForceSpace Command, proposes to launch sixDSCS III satellites into their specified orbitsfrom Cape Canaveral Air Station (AS) launchfacilities. These satellites would replenish theexisting, on-orbit, constellation as the existingsatellites reach the end of their operational life,to maintain the high data rate satellite commu-nication capability required by the DOD. Theproposed action needs an environmental as-sessment (EA).

The current fleet of DSCS satellites have beenin operation for over 10 years and are nearingtheir EOL. At the time the DSCS satellitesquit functioning, the high data rate satellitecommunication link will be lost and DOD

-1-


missions will be severely impacted if action isnot taken. The purpose of this action is tocontinue the capability of a high data ratesatellite communication link for the DOD andother governmental agencies.

geosynchronous orbit is achieved. The IABS isprocessed by the satellite contractor, and is notconsidered part of the launch vehicle.

1.4 PURPOSE OF THEENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

1.3 PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONThe purpose of this EA is to make the decisionmaker(s) aware of the environmental conse-quences of the proposed action and alternatives,including the no-action alternative. The mostimpacted environmental resource areas associ-ated with the transportation, prelaunch process-ing, operation, and ultimate disposal of sixDSCS III/IABS satellites are identified and ana-lyzed. Additionally, this EA identifies mitiga-tive measures that should be implemented toensure environmentally safe program func-tions.

The third-generation DSCS III mission is tomaintain nuclear hardened, limited antijam,secure-voice, and high data rate communica-tions in the 3-30 gigahertz (GHz) range for theDOD and other government agencies. TheDSCS program is a vital part of the compre-hensive plan meeting military communicationneeds. Users of the system range from air-borne terminals with 33-inch diameter anten-nas to fixed installations with 60-foot diameterantennas and elaborate data processing equip-ment. Mobile terminals supporting groundand naval operations communicate with eachother and the command chain through thesatellites. “Housekeeping” control is providedthrough the Air Force Satellite CommunicationNetwork (AFSCN), a worldwide network oftransmit/receive ground antennas. ProductionSatellite Configuration Control Elements(PSCCE) at ground support locations providecommand control.

1.5 ISSUES

Environmental resource areas considered areair quality (including stratospheric ozone de-pletion), hazardous materials, hazardous waste,solid waste, pollution prevention, nonionizingradiation, ionizing radiation, water quality, bio-logical communities, cultural resources, noise,socioeconomics, utilities, orbital debris, andsafety (including transportation). A confor-mity analysis or determination under the CleanA i r A c t i s n o t r e q u i r e d s i n c e t h e C a p eCanaveral AS area is in attainment or unclassi-fied for the national ambient air quality stan-dards. Permits are referenced in Sections 4 and5.

Providing uninterrupted secure-voice and highdata rate communications with antijam capa-bility and sophisticated survivability enhance-ments, the DSCS III satellites support glob-ally distributed Department of Defense users.These communications requirements must bemaintained through the year 2007.

1.6 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTThe operational constellation consists of five

active satellites in geosynchronous, equatorial,orbital slots. To date, a total of eight DSCS IIIsatellites have been launched. The first fourwere launched using the Space Shuttle andTitan 34D launch vehicles over five years ago.Within the last three years, an additional foursatellites have been launched using Atlas IIlaunch vehicles. Six more satellites have beenmanufactured and remain to be launched usingthe Atlas II.

This EA is part of the environmental impactanalysis process (EIAP) for the proposed pro-jec t . The EIAP is se t for th in Air ForceInstruction (AFI) 32-7061, which implementsthe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)and the President's Council on EnvironmentalQuality (CEQ) regulations. Additional EIAPrequirements are contained in DOD Directive6050.1 and DOD Instruction 5000.2. This EAidentifies, describes, and evaluates the potentialenvironmental impacts of activities associatedwith the proposed action, and other reasonablealternatives, including the no-action alternative.

The satellites are inserted into orbit using anIntegrated Apogee Boost System (IABS) thatseparates from the satellite after the final

-2-


It also identifies all required environmentalpermits. As appropriate, the affected environ-ment and environmental consequences of theaction and alternatives may be described interms of a regional overview (i.e., BrevardCounty and the City of Cocoa Beach) or a site-specific description (Space Launch Complex36A). Finally, the EA identifies mitigationmeasures to prevent or minimize any signifi-cant environmental effects.

are not included aside from those situated atCape Canaveral AS that are used in prelaunchprocessing operations. The six Atlas II launchvehicles that will be used to launch the satelliteshave been previously assessed (USAF, 1989b),and a FONSI was signed. The issues analyzedare identified in Section 1.5.

1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THEENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Applicable program and environmental datawere collected to analyze and document theenvironmental consequences of the proposedaction and alternatives. Under NEPA, the AirForce is charged with determining the effects ofthe proposed action and alternatives on the en-vironment. If the Air Force approves the EAdetermination that the environmental impactswill not be significant, they will prepare a find-ing of no significant impact (FONSI).

This EA comprises e ight major sect ions.Section 1 contains an introduction, a descrip-tion of the purpose and need for the proposedaction and the scope of this EA. Section 2 de-scribes the proposed action, alternatives to theproposed action, and summarizes the environ-mental impacts of the alternatives. Section 3presents information on the affected environ-ment, providing a basis for analyzing the im-pacts of the proposed action and alternatives.Section 4 is an analysis of the environmentalconsequences of the proposed action and alter-natives. Section 5 addresses regulatory re-quirements and lists the relevant laws that per-tain to the proposed action. Section 6 lists per-sons and agencies consulted in the preparationof this EA. Section 7 is a list of source docu-ments relevant to the preparation of the EA.Section 8 lists preparers of this document. Anappendix provides additional information rele-vant to the EA.

For the proposed action, this EA assesses envi-ronmental impacts related to the transportation,prelaunch processing, operations, and ultimatedisposal of six DSCS III/IABS satellites. TheIABS will not be part of the on-orbit DSCS IIIsatellite since it is used only to insert the satel-lite into near-geosynchronous orbit. However,it is processed with the satellite by the satellitecontractor, and will be included in the EA.Ground control and user facilities or equipment

-3-

Environmental AssessmentDefense Satellite Communications System III Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

SECTION 2.0

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION Cape Canaveral AS occupies a total of 15,804acres of land (USAF, 1991a). Facilities at CapeCanaveral AS are scattered, with scrub vegeta-t i o n s e p a r a t i n g t h e s e d e v e l o p e d a r e a s .Elevations range from sea level to 15 to 20 feetabove mean sea level.

The United States Air Force (USAF) proposesto process six DSCS III/IABS satellites forlaunch at Cape Canaveral AS, Florida, through2003. The satellites will be operated on-orbitfor approximately 10 years until their end oflife. 2.2.2 Satell ite

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ANDLOCATION

The DSCS III/IABS satellite will weigh approx-imately 5,910 pounds at launch, including theIABS, adapters, ballast, and all propellant.Figure 2 shows a DSCS III satellite in its orbitalconfiguration. The satellite itself weighs 2,598pounds and consists of seven subsystems(MMAS, 1994a; MMAS, 1994b):

2.2.1 Location and Background

C a p e C a n a v e r a l A S i s l o c a t e d o n C a p eCanaveral in Brevard County, on Florida'sAtlantic coastline near the City of Cocoa Beach.Figure 1 shows the general location of CapeCanaveral AS, which is located on the northernport ion of a barrier is land. The island isbounded by the Atlantic Ocean to the east andthe Banana River to the west.

• Structure and Mechanisms

• Attitude Control

• Thermal Control

In 1947, Cape Canaveral AS was selected as thelocation for a US missile testing range, withconstruction beginning in 1950. The firstmissile was launched from Cape Canaveral ASon July 24, 1950. Continuous advancement intechnology made possible the launching of theNational Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) Saturn 1B in 1961, the Air Force TitanII in 1974, and the Navy Trident missile, whichbegan testing in 1977. Cape Canaveral AS has81 miles of paved roads which connect variouslaunch and support facilities with the central-ized industrial area. Development of CapeCanaveral AS as a missile test center has pro-duced an installation that is unique with respectto other Air Force installations (USAF, 1991a).

• Propulsion

• Electrical Power and Distribution

• Telemetry, Tracking, and Command

• Communication

The structure and mechanisms subsystem in-cludes the satellite structure; mechanisms thatjoin the satellite to the IABS and rotate the so-lar array panels and the gimbaled dish an-tenna; and ordnance that provides for separa-tion from the IABS and deployment of thesolar array panels and gimbaled dish antenna.

-4-


-5-


The structure consists primarily of aluminumhoneycomb panels joined with magnesium andaluminum edge members. Two equipmentpanels are manufactured from thoriated mag-nesium (ionizing radiation source).

thermal blankets consist of aluminized Kapton,indium t in oxide, a luminized mylar , andpolyester mesh.

The propulsion subsystem consists of four22-inch spherical titanium tanks containing152 pounds (24 gallons) of monopropellanthydrazine each and 16 one-pound catalyticthrusters. The tanks are pressurized with he-lium.

The attitude control subsystem consists of fourmechanical reaction wheel assemblies and sen-sors that detect the position of the earth andsun. This subsystem monitors and controls theorientation of the satellite, including reorienta-tion through the propulsion subsystem. The electrical power and distribution subsystem

includes the solar arrays with a total area of 126square feet, three nickel cadmium batteries, andthe cables and harness to conduct power andcommunications.

The thermal control subsystem maintainsequipment temperatures through thermal blan-kets, coatings, heaters, and thermostats. The

-6-


The telemetry, tracking, and command subsys-tem provides command, control, and monitor-ing of all satellite functions.

A Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) maybe implemented for some of the DSCS IIIsatellites. The changes associated with SLEPwould be minor, including use of electrother-mal hydrazine thrusters rather than catalyticthrusters and gallium arsenide based solar pan-els. These minor changes would not affect theimpact analysis presented in this assessment.

The communication subsystem includes theantennas and electronic devices that communi-cate with Earth stations. Receiving antennasinc lude two Ear th coverage horns and a61-beam wave guide lens with associated beamforming network. Transmitting antennas in-clude two Earth coverage horns, two 19-beamwave guide lens assemblies with associatedbeam forming networks, a high-gain parabolicgimbaled dish, a UHF crossed dipole, and anS-band crossed dipole.

2.2.3 Integrated Apogee Boost System

The IABS is used to move the satellite fromgeosynchronous transfer orbit to geosyn-chronous orbit. It is a bipropellant design us-ing monomethyl hydrazine as fuel and nitro-gen tetroxide as oxidizer. Figure 3 shows the

-7-


IABS, which cons is t s of s ix subsys tems(MMAS, 1994a; MMAS, 1994b):

The telemetry, tracking, and command subsys-tem consists of one S-band antenna which iscontrolled by the satellite electronics system.

• Structure2.2.4 Prelaunch Processing Facilities

• Thermal ControlThe fol lowing exist ing faci l i t ies at CapeCanaveral AS will be used in support of DSCSIII/IABS prelaunch processing operations: theCape Canaveral AS runway (skid strip), DSCSProcessing Facility (DPF), Fuel Storage Area 1(FSA-1), Fuel Storage Area 2 (FSA-2), theElectromechanical Test Facility (EMTF), anAdministration Building (AB), the SatelliteAssembly Building (SAB), the TransportableVehicle Checkout Facility (TVCF), the DSCSS t o r a g e F a c i l i t y ( D S F ) , t h e P r o p e l l a n tConditioning Facility (PCF), and Space LaunchComplex (SLC) 36A. Figure 4 shows the loca-t ions of the processing faci l i t ies at CapeCanaveral AS. Figure 5 shows the main space-craft processing area where the DPF is located.

• Electrical Power and Distribution

• Ordnance

• Propulsion

• Telemetry, Tracking, and Command

The structure subsystem consists of a 60-inchdiameter cylindrical shell enclosing a cruciformtruss structure mounting two 110-pound thrustliquid apogee engines, and an adapter to attachthe IABS to the Atlas II launch vehicle. TheIABS structural material is predominantlyaluminum.

The thermal control system maintains tempera-tures for critical components, including thepropulsion system and solar arrays. It includesthermal blankets, heaters, coatings, and heatshields.

Skid Strip. The skid strip (Facility 50305) willbe utilized by aircraft delivering manufacturedsatellites. It was constructed in 1952.

DSCS Processing Facility (DPF). The DPF(Facility 55820) will be the main processingfacility for DSCS III and IABS prelaunch pro-cessing. Figure 6 is a plan view of this facility.

The electrical power and distribution subsystemconsists of eight solar arrays around the pe-riphery of the structure and a power transferunit connected to the DSCS III satellite. TheDSCS III electronics system controls the IABS.

The DPF has four bays that are used to processsatellites. All four bays are class 100,000 cleanrooms. A class 100,000 clean room has filter-ing systems that maintain a particle count ofless than 100,000 particles per cubic foot forparticles of size 0.5 microns and larger. Inaddition, no more than 700 particles per cubicfoot can be of size 5.0 microns and larger.

The ordnance subsystem includes the elec-troexplosive devices and separation nuts thatseparate the DSCS III/IABS from the launchvehicle and the IABS from the DSCS III satel-lite. Separation is controlled by the launch ve-hicle and the DSCS III electronics systems.

The DPF is segregated into two types of pro-cessing areas: hazardous and nonhazardous.The hazardous processing areas consist of theEast and West Bays and Airlock. These threebays are class 100,000 clean rooms and are alsorated as class I division II explosive safe areasin accordance with the National Electric Code.

The propulsion subsystem includes eight25.5-inch diameter stainless steel or titaniumtanks, four for the oxidizer and four for thefuel, two 18.2-inch helium pressure tanks, andtwo liquid apogee engines. The propulsionsubsystem tanks hold approximately 1,010pounds (139 gal lons) of monomethyl hy-drazine and 1,660 pounds (138 gallons) of ni-trogen tetroxide.

The remaining areas are all rated as nonhaz-a rdous . The Main Bay prov ides a c lass100,000 clean room for nonhazardous space

-8-


-9-


craft processing. The other nonhazardous ar-eas are support areas such as the east and westcontrol room and garment change rooms, thepayload control centers A and B, the commonroom, security room, bonded storage, andbreak room.

An antenna on the roof of the DPF will beused for compatibility testing with groundcontrol facili t ies at Onizuka Air Station,Cal i forn ia , and Fa lcon Air Force Base ,Colorado. Signals will be directed to an an-tenna on the SAB.

-10-


Fuel Storage Area 1 (FSA-1). FSA-1 will beused to store liquid propellants.

Transportable Vehicle Checkout Facility(TVCF). The TVCF is a mobile resourcenormally situated near the SAB, with a 23-footdiameter antenna. It is used in conjunctionwith the EVCF to test the satellite network linkswith ground control facilities.

Fuel Storage Area 2 (FSA-2). FSA-2 will beused for ordnance storage.

Electromechanical Test Facility (EMTF).The EMTF (Facility 1058) will be used fortesting of ordnance devices.

DSCS Storage Facility (DSF). T h e D S F(Facility 44700) will be used to store shippingcontainers, the satellite transporter, propellanttransfer equipment, and may be used for in-terim storage of the satellite and IABS.

Administration Building (AB). T h e A B(Facility 49901) is a modular office complexproviding office space for satellite contractorpersonnel. Propellant Conditioning Facility (PCF). The

PCF (Facility Number 8610) will be used tostore propellant transfer equipment. It is lo-cated at SLC 14.

Satellite Assembly Building (SAB). T h eEastern Vehicle Checkout Facility (EVCF) ishoused in the SAB (Facility 49904). An an-tenna on the roof will communicate with thesatellite to test the communications system.

Space Launch Complex 36A (SLC-36A).Final testing and preparations will be per-formed here prior to launch.

-11-


2.2.5 Processing Operations fuel to flow into the satellite fuel tanks. Whenthe proper amount of fuel has been loaded, thetransfer equipment and lines will be drainedback into the fuel storage container, andpurged and/or evacuated with gaseous nitrogenthrough the DPF hypergolic vent system whichis connected to a vapor scrubber which willoperate in accordance with its existing airpermit. A liquid separator is included in thevent system to accumulate liquid.

DSCS III satellites and the IABS will be trans-ported together to the skid strip by Air ForceC-141 aircraft. The satellite and IABS will beremoved from the aircraft with a K-loader andtransferred into an air-ride tractor-trailer fortransport to the DPF. The DSCS III and IABSare typically delivered when needed for launchand not stored long-term at Cape CanaveralAS.

The fuel transfer equipment will then be pre-liminarily decontaminated and moved to thePCF at SLC-14 for temporary storage. Wipes,gloves, and other solid waste will be placed in a14-gallon container for the monopropellanthydrazine solid waste stream. This containerwill remain in the DPF until additional decon-tamination of the equipment is performed af-ter the launch. The fuel storage container willbe returned to FSA-1 by the JPC.

At the DPF, the satellite and IABS will be of-floaded into the air lock, removed from theshipping containers, installed on individual testdollies, and transferred into the Main Bay forinspection and processing. After the receivinginspection and battery charging, a helium leaktest of the DSCS III and IABS propulsion sys-tems will be performed. After leak testing, theDSCS III and IABS are electrically connectedand an integrated systems test is performedwhere all subsystems are functionally tested.Compatibility testing with the AFSCN is per-formed as part of this test, and antenna “hats”are used to reduce radio frequency emissions.Ordnance is tested at the EMTF.

The four IABS fuel tanks will be loaded with1,010 pounds of monomethyl hydrazine(MMH) from DOT certified fuel storage con-tainers delivered by the JPC. Instead of evac-uating the IABS fuel tanks, the fuel storagecontainers will be pressurized to induce flowinto the IABS fuel tanks, with venting throughthe DPF vent system and vapor scrubber.Waste handling and preliminary decontamina-tion is similar to the satellite fuel loading op-eration, with a 14-gallon container for theMMH solid waste stream, and the fuel transferequipment moved to the PCF for temporarystorage. The fuel storage containers will ber e t u r n e d t o F S A - 1 b y t h e J P C .MMH-contaminated solids are acutely toxichazardous wastes, and will be managed and la-beled by the DSCS III/IABS in accordancewith 45 SW Operations Plan (OPlan) 19-14.The waste container will remain at the genera-tion site prior to removal by the JPC to a90-day accumulation facility. For this acutelyhazardous waste, the container will be removedby the JPC within 72 hours if the quantity ex-ceeds one quart.

The satellite and IABS will then be mated inthe airlock. The DSCS III/IABS interface willbe tested and ordnance installed in the MainBay. The DSCS III/IABS will then be movedback to the airlock, the IABS helium tanks willbe pressurized, and the assembly will bemoved to the West Bay for propellant loading.The entire propellant transfer operation will beperformed by certified handling and servicingpersonnel using Self-Contained AtmosphericPressure Ensemble (SCAPE) suits.

In the West Bay, approximately 608 pounds ofmonopropellant hydrazine will be transferredinto the four satellite fuel tanks. The fuel willbe stored at FSA-1 under the supervision ofthe Joint Propellants Contractor (JPC) who willdeliver fuel to the DPF when needed. Fuel willbe transferred to the satellite from Departmentof Transportation (DOT) certified fuel storagecontainers. Prior to loading the oxidizer, the liquid separa-

tor in the DPF vent system will be pressurizedto induce flow of the mixture of captured hy-drazine and MMH into a 5-gallon container.

Propellant transfer equipment and lines will beconnected to the fuel storage container and thesatellite fuel tanks will be evacuated, causing

-12-


This container will be removed by the JPC forreclamation.

The four IABS oxidizer tanks will be loadedwith 1,660 pounds of nitrogen tetroxide simi-larly to fuel loading, with the oxidizer storagecontainer pressurized to induce flow into theIABS oxidizer tanks. Waste handling and pre-liminary decontamination is similar to theIABS fuel loading operation, with a 14-galloncontainer for the oxidizer solid waste stream.However, the oxidizer transfer equipment willremain in the DPF until after the launch. Theoxidizer storage containers will be returned toFSA-1 by the JPC.

After propellant loading, propellant tanks willbe pressurized with helium and the DSCSIII/IABS will be moved through the airlock tothe East Bay, mated to the launch vehicleadapter, and encapsulated in the payload fair-ing. The encapsulated payload is then trans-ported to SLC-36A for mating with the AtlasII/Centaur launch vehicle by the launch vehiclecontractor. With the exception of continuousbattery charging and final ordnance connec-tion, no further processing of the satellite oc-curs at SLC-36A with the exception of abbre-viated functional testing. The total processingtime is approximately 100 calendar days.Figure 7 shows the Atlas II launch vehicle.

After the launch, the oxidizer transfer equip-ment and lines will be decontaminated. Thelines will be flushed with potable water into a55-gallon container. Containers with a sodiumbicarbonate solution and potable water will beused for wiping and dipping components.Solid waste will be double-bagged and placedinto the 14-gallon oxidizer solid waste con-tainer. As with MMH-contaminated solidwaste, the oxidizer-contaminated solid wastesare acutely toxic hazardous wastes and will bemanaged accordingly. The sodium bicarbon-ate solution and potable water will be pouredinto the 55-gallon container. The containerwill be sampled for characterization, neutral-ized, and discharged, if nonhazardous, to thesanitary sewer in accordance with a variancefor disposal of liquid oxidizer wastes.

The fuel transfer equipment for the satelliteand IABS will then be moved from the PCF to

-13-


t h e D P F f o r d e c o n t a m i n a t i o n .Decontamination procedures for both sets ofequipment are similar, and generate separatewaste streams. For each equipment set, thelines will be flushed with potable water into a55-gallon container, and then flushed with amixture of isopropyl alcohol (IPA) and dem-ineralized water into another 55-gallon con-tainer. Containers with a citric acid solutionand potable water will be used for wiping anddipping components. Solid waste will bedouble-bagged and placed into the 14-gallonhydrazine or MMH solid waste container. Thecitric acid and potable water dip solutions willbe poured into the 55-gallon potable waterflush container for each fuel waste stream.The 55-gallon containers will be sampled forcharacterization and labeling, and moved tothe appropriate DPF satellite accumulationpoints for removal by the JPC.

At the apogee of the fifth orbit, the IABS willbe ignited for approximately 60 minutes toinject the DSCS III/IABS into an intermediateorbit with a period of 23 hours. At the apogeeof the ninth orbit, the IABS will be ignited forapproximately 80 seconds to refine the finalorbit and drift rate. The satellite thrusters willthen be used to stop the DSCS III/IABS spin,and the IABS will separate from the DSCS III.

The DSCS III satellite will perform normal sunand earth acquisition, and drift to the orbit teststation where a series of halt maneuvers willplace it in geosynchronous orbit. The IABSwill remain in an orbit approximately 150nautical miles below geosynchronous orbit.The time when the IABS will reenter the atmo-sphere is beyond present estimating capabili-ties, in excess of 1,000 years.

At the end of its approximate 10-year life, theremaining propellant in the DSCS III will beused to boost the satellite to an orbit abovegeosynchronous orbit where the satellite willbe deactivated. The time when the DSCS IIIwill reenter the atmosphere is beyond presentestimating capabilities, in excess of 1,000years.

The contractor performing the propellantloading operations will be responsible forproper identification, containerization, mark-ing, and accumulation of any wastes prior topickup by the JPC. A subcontractor of theJPC will perform a final decontamination ofthe propel lant t ransfer equipment a t theKennedy Space Center, and be responsible forproper identification, containerization, mark-ing, and accumulation of any wastes from thisfinal decontamination prior to pickup by theJPC. The propellant transfer equipment willthen be returned to the DSF for storage.

The booster and sustainer sections of the AtlasII launch vehicle will fall back to the Earth af-ter separation from the Centaur II upper stage.Specific estimates for the orbital life of theCentaur II are not available, but can be as-sumed to be decades based on the orbitalcharacteristics.2.2.6 Mission Profile

Figure 8 and the following discussion describea typical mission. The Atlas II launch vehicleinjects the DSCS III/IABS into a 26.5º geosyn-chronous transfer orbit with a period of 10.4hours. After injection, the Atlas II will orientthe DSCS III/IABS to the proper apogee burnattitude, spin to four revolutions per minute(rpm), and separate . Using the satel l i tethrusters, the spin velocity will be increased to20 rpm.

2.3 MISSION

The DSCS program mission is to maintainworldwide, nuclear hardened, limited anti-jam, secure-voice, and high data rate com-munications in the 3-30 GHz range for theDOD and other government agencies, for sta-tionary and mobile users.

-14-


-15-


2.4 ALTERNATIVES TO THEPROPOSED ACTION

Previous DSCS satellite designs are alternativesto the DSCS III. However, the previous de-signs do not meet modified mission require-ments and will not be considered further inthis EA.

2.4.1 No-Action Alternative

The no-action alternative is continued relianceon the existing on-orbit DSCS satellites withno replenishment until the operational life ofthe existing satellites is ended.

Any alternative satellite designs would havesubstantially similar environmental effects.

A ground-based system is not a reasonable al-ternative due to the unavailability of sites inmany areas of the world.

2.4.2 Other Alternatives Eliminatedfrom Consideration

Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB), California,is the only alternative location for processingand launching DSCS III satellites in the UnitedStates. Generally, the environmental effectswould be similar to those experienced at CapeCanaveral AS if existing facilities could be uti-lized. However, the orbital requirementswould call for a launch path over populatedareas, with attendant safety concerns that couldnot be mitigated. Therefore, the VandenbergAFB alternative will not be considered further.

2.5 MITIGATION MEASURES

No impacts have been identified which wouldrequire mitigation.

2.6 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

Table 1 contains a matrix summarizing the ef-fects of the proposed action.

-16-


Table 1 Effects of the Proposed Action

Air Quality Total emissions are low and would not cause a violation of the national or Florida ambi-ent air quality standards. Prelaunch processing quantities are less than those considered deminimis by EPA under its Clean Air Act conformity regulations. A conformity analysisis not required since the Cape Canaveral AS area is in attainment.

Stratospheric Ozone No Class I ODCs will be used for prelaunch processing. The only Class II ODCs are forfacility air conditioning systems. Operation and disposal will not adversely affect strato-spheric ozone.

Hazardous Materials Handling and use of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable regulations wouldnot adversely affect personnel or the natural environment. Spill prevention and controlmeasures will minimize the possibility of accidents and the risk associated with potentialspills.

Hazardous Waste Prelaunch processing will generate up to an estimated 4,652 pounds of hazardous wasteper year, which is approximately one percent of the hazardous waste produced at CapeCanaveral AS. All hazardous and regulated wastes will be managed and disposed of in ac-cordance with applicable federal, state, local, and Air Force regulations, as well as 45thSpace Wing management plans. Waste minimization will be employed by contractors.

Solid Waste Prelaunch processing and program operations will produce an estimated 26.5 tons of solidwaste per year, which is approximately 0.76 percent of the current solid waste produced atCape Canaveral AS.

Pollution Prevention The satellite contractor and the Air Force will comply with the pollution prevention man-agement plan under development for Cape Canaveral AS.

Nonionizing Radiation Radio frequency radiation will either be non-hazardous or controlled so that no personnelare exposed to hazardous levels.

Ionizing Radiation The thoriated magnesium panels on the satellite are low-level sources of radiation andwould not be hazardous unless particles were ingested. No processing operations wouldgenerate hazardous particles.

Water Quality Wastewater will be disposed of in accordance with permit conditions, minimizing adverseeffects. Prevention and control of spills of hazardous materials in accordance with 45 SWOPlan 19-1 will minimize impacts on water quality

BiologicalCommunities

The proposed action will utilize existing facilities engaged in activities similar to the pro-posed action and will not affect existing biological communities or any habitat that wouldhave been utilized by threatened or endangered species beyond current operational impacts.

Cultural Resources No renovation or construction activities would occur under the proposed action that wouldaffect cultural resources.

Noise Prelaunch processing operations will not produce hazardous noise levels. Noise impactsfrom launch are addressed in the EA for the launch vehicle.

Socioeconomics The 17 permanent personnel represent approximately 0.23 percent of the Cape CanaveralAS work force. Additional office or work space for transient personnel is not needed.

Utilities Utility usage would be essentially unchanged from current baseline conditions.

Orbital Debris The proposed action will fractionally increase the total amount of debris in orbit. TheDSCS III and IABS will be placed in disposal orbits at the end of their missions.

Safety The proposed action will be conducted in accordance with safety plans and regulations tominimize risks.

-17-

Environmental AssessmentDefense Satellite Communications System III Affected Environment

SECTION 3.0

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The level of detail of the baseline data pre-sented in the following sections reflects thelikelihood and significance of potential im-pacts.

3.1.2 Local Air Quality

As required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and itsamendments, the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) has promulgatedregulations that set National Ambient AirQuality Standards (NAAQS). Two classes ofstandards were established: primary and sec-ondary. Primary standards define levels of airquality necessary to protect public health withan adequate margin of safety. Secondary stan-dards define levels of air quality necessary toprotect public welfare (i.e., soils, vegetation, andwildlife) from any known or anticipated ad-verse effects of a pollutant.

3.1 AIR QUALITY

3.1.1 Meteorology

The climate of Cape Canaveral AS is character-ized by long, relatively humid summers andmild winters. Owing to its location adjacent tothe Atlantic Ocean and the Indian and BananaRivers, annual variations in temperature aremoderate. The annual average temperature atCape Canaveral AS is 71 degrees Fahrenheit(°F) (USAF, 1989a). National and Florida ambient air quality stan-

dards are currently in place for six pollutants(known as “cri ter ia pol lutants”): carbonmonoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone(O3), sulfur oxides (SOX [measured as sulfurdioxide, SO2]), lead (Pb), and particulate mattersmaller than 10 micrometers (PM-10). Thestate of Florida has adopted the NAAQS exceptfor SO2. The state requires the NAAQS be metat ambient air, defined as air that is accessible tothe general public. National and state primaryand secondary air quality standards are pre-sented in Table 2. Although ozone is consid-ered a criteria pollutant and is measurable inthe atmosphere, it is not often considered as apollutant when reporting emissions from spe-cific sources. Ozone is not typically emitted di-rectly from most emissions sources. Ozone isformed in the atmosphere from its precursors,nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organiccompounds (VOC), which are directly emittedfrom various sources. Thus, emissions of NOX

Rainfall distribution is seasonal, with a wet sea-son occurring from May to October, while theremainde r o f the yea r i s r e l a t ive ly d ry .Average annual rainfall for Cape Canaveral ASis 48.5 inches, 70 percent of which occurs fromMay through October at the rate of approxi-mately 5 inches per month (USAF, 1989a).The Cape Canaveral area has the highest num-ber of thunderstorms in the United States, andone of the highest frequencies of occurrence inthe world during the summer. On average,thunderstorms occur 76 days per year at CapeCanaveral. Between May and September, thun-derstorms can be expected more than 10 daysper month (USAF, 1989a). During the summermonths, lightning detection systems indicatethat 1,400 ± 840 cloud strikes occur per monthon the 135-square mile Kennedy Space Center(NASA, 1990).

-18-


Table 2 State and National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPollutant Averaging Florida National Standards(a,b,c)

Time Standard(a,b,c) Primarye Secondaryf

Sulfur dioxide Annual 60 µg/m3 (0.02 ppm) 80 µg/m3 (0.03 ppm)

24-hour 260 µg/m3 (0.10 ppm) 365 µg/m3 (0.14 ppm)

3-hour 1300 µg/m3 (0.5 ppm) 1300 µg/m3 (0.50 ppm)

Particulate Matter Annual 50 µg/m3(d) 50 µg/m3(d) 50 µg/m3(d)

PM-10 24-hour 150 µg/m3(d) 150 µg/m3(d) 150 µg/m3(d)

Carbon monoxide 8-hour 10 mg/m3 (9 ppm) 10 mg/m3 (9 ppm)

1-hour 40 mg/m3 (35 ppm) 40 mg/m3 (35 ppm)

Ozone 1-hour 235 µg/m3 (0.12 ppmd) 235 µg/m3 (0.12 ppmc) 235 µg/m3 (0.12 ppmd)

Nitrogen dioxide Annual 100 µg/m3 (0.05 ppm) 100 µg/m3 (0.053 ppm) 100 µg/m3 (0.053 ppm)

Lead Quarterly 1.5 µg/m3 1.5 µg/m3 1.5 µg/m3

Notes:

a. National and state standards, other than ozone and those based on an annual/quarterly arithmetic mean, are not to be ex-ceeded more than once per year. The ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year withmaximum hourly average concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than 1.

b . All measurements of air quality are corrected to a reference temperature of 25 degrees C and to a reference pressure of 760millimeters of mercury. µg/m3 refers to micrograms per cubic meter. ppm refers to parts per million of volume. mg/m3

refers to milligrams per cubic meter.

c. Arithmetic average.

d. Attainment determinations will be made on the criteria contained in 40 CFR 50, July 1, 1987.

e. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the publichealth. Each state must attain the primary standards no later than 3 years after the state's implementation plan is ap-proved by the EPA.

f. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or antic-ipated adverse effects of a pollutant. Each state must attain the secondary standards within a “reasonable time” after theimplementation plan is approved by the EPA.

and VOCs are commonly reported as criteriapollutants instead of ozone.

Section 176(c) of the CAA states that no fed-eral department or agency shall support or ap-prove any activity or action that does not con-form to an approved State Implementation Plan(SIP) or Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).On November 30, 1993, the EPA promulgatedfinal rules on conformity of general federalprojects. A separate rule addressed transporta-tion programs developed under the FederalTransit Act. The general conformity rules, in-cluded in 40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR)Parts 6, 51, and 93, apply to areas that arenonattainment or maintenance for the NAAQSand where a SIP has been adopted.

The air quality at Cape Canaveral AS is consid-ered good since there are few air pollutionsources in the local area. Cape Canaveral AS islocated in the federally defined Central FloridaIntrastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR48). The AQCR consists of the followingcounties: Brevard, Lake, Orange, Osceola,Seminole, and Volusia. AQCR 48 is classifiedby EPA as an attainment area for all of the cri-teria pollutants. Attainment means that the airquality in an area is equal to or better than theNAAQS.

Accurate emissions inventories are needed forestimating the relationship between emissions

-19-


sources and air quality. An emissions inven-tory is an estimate of total mass emissions ofpollutants generated from a source or sourcesover a period of time, typically a year. Baselineemissions of criteria pollutants for BrevardCounty for 1993 are summarized in Table 3.The Brevard County emissions inventory ac-counts for permitted stat ionary and pointsources that are required to report annualemiss ions to the F lo r ida Depar tmen t o fEnvironmental Protection (FDEP). This inven-tory includes all permitted air emissions sourceat Cape Canaveral AS, including permittedpower generators, boilers, paint booths, andpropellant loading operations, among others.An effort is currently underway to develop acomplete inventory of all air emissions sources(both permitted and nonpermitted) at CapeCanaveral AS (Potter, 1995).

Earth's surface. The region overlying themesosphere is the thermosphere, which largelyincludes the ionosphere. This is a region ofv e r y h i g h v a c u u m w i t h f e w e r t h a n 1 019

molecules per cubic meter compared to 2.5 x1025 molecules per cubic meter at sea level.

The stratosphere is the main atmospheric re-g i o n o f O3 p r o d u c t i o n . T h e h i g h e s t O3concentrations are found near the middle of thestratosphere at a height of about 25 km. Theconcentration of O3 results from a dynamicb a l a n c e b e t w e e n O3 t r a n s p o r t e d b ys t r a t o s p h e r i c c i r c u l a t i o n a n d O3production/destruction mechanisms. Ozoneconcentrations vary with stratospheric location.Stratospheric circulation carries O3 f rom theequator ia l regions , where i t i s producedprimarily by chemical reactions, to otherregions of the stratosphere where circulationand heterogeneous chemist ry (gas-phasereactions with liquids or solid particles) play animportant role.

Table 3 Baseline Criteria PollutantEmissions for Brevard County, Florida

Pollutant Tons per Year

Nitrogen oxides 9,498 Even though O3 is a trace element in the strato-sphere, its presence is important because it hasthe ability to absorb ultraviolet (UV) radiationfrom the sun. It is able to absorb virtually allUV radiation with wavelengths less than 290nanometers (nm) and most of the radiation inthe harmful 290-320 nm wavelength region(ultraviolet-B [UV-B] region). The strato-sphere is considered an important shield againstharmful UV radiation. The absorption proper-ties of O3 present in this layer prevent UV ra-diation from reaching the Earth's surface inquantities that could be harmful to humanhealth, natural environmental systems, and cli-mate.

Sulfur oxides 32,943

Carbon monoxide 960

Particulate matter 2,366

Volatile organics 581

Lead Not reported

Source: FDEP, 1995

3.1.3 Stratospheric Ozone

The Earth's atmosphere can be described by aseries of four vertical strata or layers distin-guished by temperature profile, structure, den-sity, composition, and degree of ionization.The four strata, in ascending order from theEarth's surface are the troposphere, strato-sphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere. Theboundaries between these atmospheric layersare indistinct and vary with latitude The tropo-sphere extends up from the surface of the earthto a height ranging from 12 kilometers (km) atthe equator to 8 km at the poles. The strato-sphere extends from the troposphere to about50 km above the earth's surface. Above 50 kmis the mesosphere, a transition zone between thestratosphere and the thermosphere. The meso-sphere extends to about 80 km above the

T i t l e V I o f t h e C l e a n A i r A c t ( C A A )Amendments of 1990 reflects Congressionalconcern that chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), hy-drochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC), brominatedhydrocarbons (halons), carbon tetrachloride,methyl chloroform, and other chemicals aredestroying the stratospheric ozone layer. Eventhough these chemicals are released in thelower atmosphere (troposphere), their life spanis such that they can be transported to thestratosphere through tropospheric mixing.Once in the stratosphere, these compounds arebroken down by ultraviolet radiation, produc-

-20-


ing highly reactive chlorine and bromine radi-cals which participate in the catalytic destruc-tion of O3. Title VI (Sections 602-618 of theClean Air Act, codified at 42 United StatesCode 7671a-q) requires the phase-out of pro-duction and consumption of ozone-depletingchemicals (ODC), regulates the use and disposalof ODCs, bans nonessential products containingODCs, requires labeling of products manufac-tured with and containing ODCs, and regulatestheir replacement with substitutes so that thestratospheric concentration of chlorine andbromine can be reduced.

erated phase-out of CFCs, methyl chloroformand carbon tetrachloride by January 1, 1996,with the exception of critical CFC uses. Itcalled for the phase-out of halons by the end of1993. Finally the protocol calls for the addi-tion of methyl bromine (a broad spectrum pes-ticide) and hydrobromofluorocarbons (HBFC)as Class I substances with the phase-out ofmethyl bromide by January 1 , 2001, andHBFCs by January 1, 1996. The EPA haselected to accelerate the phase-out of the threeClass II HCFCs with the highest ODP: HCFC-141B, HCFC-22, and HCFC-142B. The EPAwill ban the production and consumption ofHCFC-141B as of January 1, 2003, and theproduction and consumption of HCFC-142Band HCFC-22 by January 1, 2020. The EPAwill ban the production and consumption of allother HCFCs by January 1, 2030. The EPA hasincorporated the accelerated phase-out andadditions called for by the amendments in itsfinal rule on the protection of stratospheric O3,published in 58 Federal Register (FR) 65018-65082 (Dec. 10, 1993) and codified at 40 CFRPart 82. Ultimately, the goal is to reverse theobserved reduction in global O3 and limit re-sulting damage to the Earth from increased UVradiation.

T h e C A A r e q u i r e d t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a lProtection Agency (EPA) to regulate ODCs intwo classes. Class I substances include CFCs,halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chlo-roform. Class II substances are specificallylisted HCFCs. EPA is required to add sub-stances to the Class I category if they have anozone depleting potential (ODP) of 0.2 orgreater. The ODP is a factor established byEPA to reflect the ozone-depleting potential ofa substance as compared to chlorofluorocar-bon-11 (CFC-11). For Class II substances, EPAis required to add any other substance that isknown or may reasonably be anticipated tocause or contribute to harmful effects on the O3layer. 3.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

The actions detailed in Title VI carry out theUnited States obligations under the “MontrealProtocol on Substances that Deplete the OzoneLayer.” The Montreal Protocol is a treaty, rat-ified by the U.S. Senate in December 1988,limiting global production and consumption ofODCs. The Montreal Protocol, as embodied inthe CAA Amendments of 1990, originally re-quired the production of CFCs to be phased outby January 1, 2000, with the exception ofmethyl chloroform which had a deadline ofJanuary 2, 2002. Also, effective January 1,2015, it would be unlawful to sell or consumeClass II substances without certain restrictions,and their production would be phased out byJanuary 30, 2030.

Hazardous materials management is the re-sponsibility of each individual or organizationat Cape Canaveral AS. The primary outlet forhazardous materials purchase and acquisition ist h r o u g h P a t r i c k A F B s u p p l y c h a n n e l s .Individual hazardous mater ia ls obta inedthrough base supply at Patrick AFB are as-signed a code which allows limited tracking ofthe materials and provides knowledge of haz-ardous materials usage for industrial hygieneand environmental compliance purposes.Currently, Patrick AFB is developing a phar-macy-style hazardous materials acquisitionsystem in order to improve hazardous materialstracking, reduce amounts of certain hazardousmaterials used, and reduce the amount of wastegenerated as result of expired shelf-life materi-als. Under this system, only specific individualswithin an organization will be able to order andsign for hazardous materials. The hazardousmaterials pharmacy will not store or issue pro-pellants.

During 1992, the par t ies to the MontrealProtocol amended the treaty to reflect recentscientific information on the harmful effectscaused by the destruction of stratospheric O3.The Montreal Protocol now calls for an accel-

-21-


Currently, individual contractors at CapeCanaveral AS may also obtain hazardous mate-rials through their own supply organizations,local purchases, or other outside channels.Under the new hazardous materials pharmacyapproach, contractors will be required to obtainhazardous materials through the pharmacywhenever possible. Contractors that must ob-tain hazardous materials through other chan-nels (e .g. , products not readi ly avai lablethrough standard government supply organiza-tions) will be required to register the materialswith the pharmacy's central tracking locationprior to bringing the product on the facility.Large quantities of materials obtained outsideof the pharmacy system will be required to bestored with pharmacy stock and distributed tothe contractor as needed in specified quantities.

are required to submit the MSDSs or a list ofMSDSs for materials stored in excess of report-ing thresholds to the local emergency planningcommittee, the state emergency responsecommission, and the local fire department.Under Section 312, the same facilities must alsosubmit an emergency and hazardous materialinventory form (Tier I or Tier II) for each ma-terial reported under Section 311. UnderSect ion 313, faci l i t ies using over 10,000pounds of listed toxic chemicals in a calendaryear must submit an annual toxic release inven-t o r y F o r m R f o r e a c h c h e m i c a l t o t h eEnvironmental Protection Agency and desig-nated state officials. Cape Canaveral AS wasrequired to submit Section 311 information byAugust 1994 and Section 312 information byMarch 1, 1995, for the calendar year (CY)1994 reporting period. Cape Canaveral AS isrequired to submit any applicable Section 313Forms R by July 1, 1995 for the CY94 report-ing period.

Hazardous materials must be handled andstored in accordance with Occupational Safetyand Health Administration, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, and Air Force regulations.Bulk-quantity storage of hazardous materials islimited to designated storage areas at CapeCanaveral AS. Smaller, shelf-life items, such aspaints and varnishes, are stored in approvedpetroleum, oil, and lubricant storage cabinetsm a i n t a i n e d b y i n d i v i d u a l c o n t r a c t o r s .Hazardous fuels are controlled by the JointPropellants Contractor (JPC) for 45th SpaceWing (45 SW). The JPC provides for the pur-chase, transport, temporary storage, and loadingof hazardous fuels and oxidizers.

Contractors and programs operating at CapeCanaveral AS must provide 45 CES/CEV and45 MDG/SGPB with copies of MSDSs for allh a z a r d o u s m a t e r i a l s p r o p o s e d f o r u s e .Additionally, information on hazardous mate-rials used by contractors or programs must beprovided to 45 CES/CEV in accordance withSARA Title III and Clean Air Act Title V re-porting requirements.

3.3 HAZARDOUS WASTE

Spills of hazardous materials are covered under4 5 S W O P l a n 1 9 - 1 , O i l a n d H a z a r d o u sSubstances Pollution Contingency Plan, re-quired by 40 CFR 112. Included in OPlan19-1 are all applicable federal, state, and localcontacts in the event of a spill.

H a z a r d o u s w a s t e m a n a g e m e n t a t C a p eCanaveral AS is regulated under 40 CFR, Parts260 through 280, and Florida AdministrativeCode (FAC) 17-730. These regulations areimplemented at Cape Canaveral AS through 45SW OPlan 19-14, Petroleum Products andHazardous Waste Management Plan. Five mainentities are involved in hazardous waste man-agement and disposal for Cape Canaveral AS.These include the generator of the waste, theJPC, the Launch Base Support Contractor(LBSC) for Cape Canaveral AS, the DefenseReutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) ofthe Department of Defense, and the environ-mental support organization at Patrick AFB (45CES/CEV).

T h e S u p e r f u n d A m e n d m e n t s a n dReauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 incorpo-rated report ing requirements in Tit le III .Pursuant to Executive Order 12856, signedAugust 4, 1993, federal facilities are now sub-ject to these reporting requirements.

Under Section 311 of SARA Title III, facilitieswhich must prepare or have available MaterialSafety Data Sheets (MSDS) under OccupationalSafety and Health Administration regulations

-22-


The US Air Force, as the owner of the facilitiesat Cape Canaveral AS, is considered the genera-tor of hazardous wastes at Cape Canaveral AS,and is responsible for hazardous wastes physi-cally generated by contractors. All hazardouswas te gene ra ted by con t rac to r s a t CapeCanaveral AS is labeled with the US Air Force'sEPA identification number for Cape CanaveralAS, and it is transported, treated, and disposedunder this number. Each individual or organi-zation at Cape Canaveral AS is responsible tothe Air Force for identifying, minimizing,packaging, and labeling hazardous waste gen-erated by their activities, as well as requestingsampling and pickup of hazardous waste by theJPC. Additionally, they are responsible foradministering all applicable regulations andplans regarding hazardous waste, and for com-plying with applicable regulations regardingthe temporary accumulation of hazardous wasteat the process site. Physical generators of haz-ardous waste are required to submit to the JPCeach year a process waste questionnaire techni-cal response package which details the typesand amounts of hazardous wastes expected tobe generated during the year. The JPC assignseach hazardous waste stream a process wastecode so that the waste may be tracked fromgeneration through disposal.

b le federa l , s ta te , and local regula t ions .Additionally, the LBSC operates the permittedhaza rdous was t e s t o r age a r ea s on CapeCanaveral AS, maintains records and invento-ries of permitted hazardous waste storage andprocess site accumulation areas, and maintainsrecords pertaining to facility inspections, haz-ardous waste training, safety training, and otherhazardous waste matters.

The DRMO is responsible for managing andmarketing excess and recoverable products andwaste materials in accordance with applicableregulations. Hazardous items which cannot bemarketed by the DRMO are disposed of as haz-ardous wastes. The DRMO is also responsiblef o r o b t a i n i n g o f f s i t e h a z a r d o u s a n dnon-hazardous wastes disposal contracts at alldownrange sites.

The 45 CES/CEV at Patrick AFB is the envi-ronmental support organization which providesoversight of the LBSC at Cape Canaveral AS.45 CES/CEV acts as the point of contact withregulatory agencies and informs the LBSC andJPC of new policies and policy changes con-cerning hazardous waste management.

Cape Canaveral AS currently operates threehazardous waste storage facilities (FacilityNumbers 44632, 54810, and 55123), and onehazardous waste treatment facility (FacilityNumber 15305). All are operated under asingle five-year Resource Conservation andRecovery Act permit which expires in 1997(HO05-185569). The three storage facilitiesare relatively small storage areas which arepermitted to store hazardous wastes for up toone year until the waste can be disposed of bythe JPC at an off-station location. These stor-age sites are not permitted to store hydrazine,monomethyl hydrazine, or nitrogen tetroxidehazardous wastes. The wastes must be takenoffsite for storage and disposal before tempo-rary accumulat ion t ime l imi ts have beenreached . Fac i l i ty 15305 , the Explos iveOrdnance Disposal Facility, provides thermaltreatment of waste explosive ordnance (Byrd,1994).

The JPC services include waste determinationssampling, pickup, packaging assistance, techni-cal assistance, and disposal of petroleum prod-ucts, hazardous wastes, and non-hazardouswastes. The JPC collects and transports haz-ardous waste from the process site to a 90-dayhazardous waste accumulation area, one ofthree permitted one-year hazardous waste stor-age facilities at Cape Canaveral AS, or to a li-censed disposal facility off-station. They areresponsible to the Air Force for providing anoperational level of hazardous waste disposalwhich complies with all applicable regulationsgoverning handling, transport, storage, treat-ment, and disposal or reclamation of the waste.

The LBSC provides environmental manage-ment and technical support for Cape CanaveralAS. The LBSC ensures that contractors havehazardous waste management programs inplace, offers hazardous waste training, and re-views and inspects contractors to ascertaincompliance with OPlan 19-14 and all applica-

Cape Canaveral AS has recently received a no-tice from FDEP on the intent to issue an operat-ing permit for a single hazardous waste storage

-23-


area to replace the existing three. The singlestorage facility is expected to begin operationin May 1995 and will be permitted to storehazardous wastes for up to one year. CapeCanaveral AS plans to obtain closure permitsfor the three existing storage areas (Halbert,1995).

Canaveral AS landfill located near the airstrip ispermi t ted to accept cons t ruc t ion debr is ,demolition debris, and asbestos-containingmaterial. Waste is segregated within the landfillaccording to waste type (i.e. concrete waste isplaced in one section, wood waste in another,etc.). Cape Canaveral AS disposed of 2,340tons of solid waste in the station landfill in1994 (Camaradese, 1995).Individual contractors and organizations at

Cape Canaveral AS maintain hazardous wastesatellite accumulation points and 90-day haz-ardous waste accumulation areas in accordancewith 45 SW OPlan 19-14. Hazardous wastesatellite accumulation points are volume-basedaccumulation sites operated at or near the pointof hazardous waste generation. A maximum of55 gallons per waste stream of hazardous waste(or one quart of acutely hazardous waste) canbe accumulated at a satellite accumulationpoint. Once the volume limit is reached thecontainer of hazardous waste must be dated andmoved to a 90-day accumulation area or to apermitted storage facility within 72 hours.Satellite accumulation points have indefiniteaccumulation times. 90-day hazardous wasteaccumulation areas are time-based accumula-tion sites used for temporary accumulation ofhazardous waste. Hazardous wastes must bemoved from a 90-day accumulation area to apermitted hazardous waste storage, transfer,treatment, or disposal facility within 90 daysfrom the accumulation start date. There is nolimit on the volume of hazardous waste that canbe accumulated at a 90-day hazardous wasteaccumulation area.

General solid refuse from daily activities atCape Canaveral AS is collected by private con-tractor and disposed off-station at the BrevardCounty Landfill. The Brevard County Landfillis a Class I landfill that occupies 192 acres nearthe City of Cocoa. The landfill receives be-tween 2,200 and 2,400 tons of solid waste perday (Hunter, 1994). Cape Canaveral AS dis-posed of 3,492 tons of sol id waste in theBrevard County Landfill and recycled 1,296tons of solid waste in 1994 (Camaradese,1995).

3.5 POLLUTION PREVENTION

The Air Force has taken a proactive stance indeveloping a pollution prevention program(PPP) to implement the regulatory mandates inthe Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, ExecutiveOrder (EO) 12856 Federal Compliance withRight-to-Know Laws and Pollution PreventionRequirements, EO 12873 Federal Acquisition,Recyc l ing , and Was te Preven t ion, a n dE O 1 2 9 0 2 Energy E f f i c iency and WaterConservation at Federal Facilities. The Ai rForce PPP incorporates the following principlesin priority order:The contractor for the DSCS III/IABS satellite

maintains two hazardous waste satellite accumu-lation points and no 90-day hazardous wasteaccumulation areas. The JPC is responsible forcollection and transportation of hazardouswastes from this accumulation site.

• Generation of hazardous substances, pollu-tants, or contaminants will be reduced oreliminated at the source whenever feasible(source reduction)

• Pollution that cannot be prevented will berecycled in an environmentally safe man-ner

Cape Canaveral AS reported the generation of420,662 pounds of hazardous waste in 1993(Albury, 1995).

• Disposal, or other releases to the environ-ment, will be employed only as a last resortand will be conducted in an environmen-tally safe manner.

3.4 SOLID WASTE

Solid waste management is the responsibility ofeach individual or organization generating thewaste. Solid waste is managed according to thenature and quantity of the waste. The Cape

Air Force Instruction (AFI) 37-7080, dated 12May 1994, provides the directive requirements

-24-


for the Air Force PPP. AFI 37-7080 incorpo-r a t e s b y r e f e r e n c e a p p l i c a b l e F e d e r a l ,Department of Defense, and Air Force levelregulations and directives for pollution preven-tion. Each installation shall incorporate the re-quirements of AFI 37-7080 into a PollutionPrevention Management Action Plan (PPMAP).The PPMAP is a single reference used to man-age the actions needed to develop and executean installation's PPP. Installation PPMAPs willaddress the process required to run a PPP; theprogram required to fund pollution preventionprograms; the road map to achieve Air Forcepollution prevention goals; and the actions re-quired to execute the PPP. Plans are based onrecurring opportunity assessments designed tocontinually evaluate an installation's success inachieving pollution prevention at the highestlevel in the hierarchy of actions. The PPMAPwill incorporate management strategies formeeting the goals of the following elements ofthe Air Force PPP:

purchased by an installation each year ineach of EPA's “Guideline Item” cate-gories shall contain recycled materialsm e e t i n g E P A ' s G u i d e l i n e C r i t e r i a .Guideline items include paper, retread tires,building insulation, cement/concrete con-taining fly ash, and re-refined oils.

• Implementation of energy conservation inaccordance with EO 12902, including re-duction of facility energy (natural gas,coal, electricity, fuel oil, etc.) 10 percent by1995, 20 percent by 2000, and 25 percentby 2005 with 1985 consumption as thebaseline.

Each installation will be required to incorporateappropriate management, measurement, andreporting goals within the PPMAP to complywith all elements of the Air Force PPP.

T h e S u p e r f u n d A m e n d m e n t s a n dReauthorization Act (SARA) was passed in1986. Title III of SARA was the EmergencyPlanning and Community Right-to-Know Act(EPCRA), which added significant public noti-fication and reporting requirements to theComprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act, most notablytoxic chemical release inventory reporting.EO 12856, signed 4 August 1993, requires fed-eral facilities previously exempt from EPCRAto comply with the reporting requirements ofall sections of EPCRA no later than for the re-porting period of calendar year 1994.

• Reduction of ozone depleting chemicals(ODCs) in accordance with the actionmemorandum dated 7 January 1993, in-cluding complete elimination of Class IODCs and reduction of Class II ODCs byspecified target dates using CY92 as thebaseline.

• Reduction of EPA 17 industrial toxics by50 percent by the end of 1996 from aCY92 basel ine to comply with EPA'sIndustrial Toxics Program.

• Reduction of hazardous waste disposal (inaccordance with AFI 32-7042) by 25 per-cent by the end of 1996 and 50 percent bythe end of 1999 from a CY92 baseline us-ing source reduction whenever possiblefollowed by reclamation and recycling.

Cape Canaveral AS is currently developing aPPMAP to incorporate the elements of the AirForce PPP. The PPMAP is scheduled to becompleted prior to 31 December 1995.

3.6 NONIONIZING RADIATION

• Reduction of municipal solid waste dis-posal (in accordance with AFI 32-7042and AFI 32-7080) by 10 percent by 1993,30 percent by 1996, and 50 percent by1997 from a CY92 baseline using segrega-tion and recycling of wastes, including pa-per, plastic, metals, glass, used oil, lead acidbatteries, and tires.

Nonionizing radiation is electromagnetic radia-tion emitted at wavelengths whose photon en-ergy is not high enough to ionize or “charge”an absorbing molecule (i.e. human tissue).Nonionizing radiation is considered to be thatpart of the electromagnetic radiation spectrumwith wavelengths greater than 10-7 meters andconsists primarily of near ultraviolet radiation,visible radiation or light, infrared radiation, andradio frequency (RF) radiation. RF radiationaccounts for the largest range of frequencies

• Affirmative procurement of environmen-tally friendly products in accordance withEO 12873. 100 percent of all products

-25-


among the various types of nonionizing radia-tion and is used extensively to transmit radio,television, and radar signals. RF radiation has afrequency range of 10 kilohertz to 300 giga-hertz.

will produce RF radiation during prelaunchprocessing activities.

3.7 IONIZING RADIATION

Ionizing radiation is photons or particles whichhave sufficient energy to produce ionization or“charging” in their passage through a sub-stance. Ionizing radiation is considered to bethat part of the electromagnetic radiation spec-trum with wavelengths less than 10-7 meters andincludes gamma rays, X-rays, alpha and betarays, and far ultraviolet radiation. Hazardsfrom ionizing radiation are most commonly as-sociated with emissions from radioactive sub-stances.

Numerous RF radiation sources exist through-out Cape Canaveral AS. These are typically inthe form of transmitting antennas which sup-port various space and launch vehicle pro-grams. RF radiation hazards can exist whenthere is sufficient power contained in the inci-dent radiation from these antennas to causedamage to humans. Humans are affected whenRF radiation agitates the molecules of the body,causing them to vibrate and rotate faster thannormal. This accelerated motion producesheat. When exposure to RF radiation ends, theadditional molecular agitation stops.

All activities generating ionizing radiation mustbe coordinated with the base radiation office(45 ADMS/SGPH) and base safety (45 SW/SG)for compliance with Air Force, DOD, and fed-eral regulations regarding radiation protection.

The human body's thermoregulatory systemcan compensate for heat produced at low levelsof RF radiation. However, higher intensities ofRF radiation over a prolonged period of timecould cause heating that could not be ade-quately regulated. Thermal distress or damagecould occur.

There are no naturally occurring radioactivesubstances at Cape Canaveral AS. However, theDSCS III structure includes thoriated magne-sium panels, which are a low-level radiationsource.

Standards to limit RF radiation hazards are ex-pressed in the form of permissible exposurelevels (PEL). A PEL is the exposure level inmilliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2) t owhich an individual may be repeatedly ex-posed, and which, under the conditions of ex-posure, will not cause detectable bodily injuryregardless of age, gender, or child-bearing sta-tus. Air Force Occupational Safety and HealthStandard 48-9 establishes PELs for RF radia-tion averaged over a six-minute exposure timebased on the frequency of the emitted radia-tion. PELs are used to determine “safe dis-tances” from RF sources beyond which RF ra-diation hazards will not occur.

3.8 WATER QUALITY

Cape Canaveral AS is located on the CanaveralPeninsula, which is a barrier island between theAtlantic Ocean and the Banana River. Themajority of ground surface at Cape CanaveralAS is composed of former sand dunes. Thesurface soils generally consist of highly perme-able sand and shell (USAF, 1994a). Surfacedrainage generally flows west into the BananaRiver, even near the eastern side of the penin-sula. None of the facilities used in prelaunchprocessing are within the 100-year flood plain.

3.8.1 Groundwater QualityAll activities generating nonionizing radiationmust be coordinated with the base radiation of-fice (45 ADMS/SGPH) and base safety (45SW/SG) for compliance with Air Force, DOD,and federal regulations regarding radiationprotection.

Two aquifer systems underlay Cape CanaveralAS, the surface aquifer and the Flor idanaquifer. The surface aquifer system, which iscomposed generally of sand and marl, is underunconfined conditions and is approximately 70feet thick. The water table in the surfaceaquifer is generally located a few feet below theground surface. Recharge to the surface

Antennas located on the DPF, the EVCF on theSAB, the TVCF, and the DSCS III/IABS satellite

-26-


aqu i f e r i s p r i nc ipa l l y by p r ec ip i t a t i on .Groundwater in the surface aquifer at CapeCanaveral AS generally flows to the west exceptalong the extreme east coast of the peninsula(USGS, 1962).

The FDEP has classified water quality in theMiddle East Coast Basin as “poor to good”based on the physical and chemical character-istics of the waters as well as whether they meettheir designated use under FAC 17-3. The up-per reaches of the Banana River adjacent toCape Canaveral AS and the lower reaches ofMosquito Lagoon have generally good waterquality due to lack of urban and industrial de-velopment in the areas. Lower reaches of theBanana River and Indian River, upper reachesof Mosquito Lagoon, and eastern portions ofthe Indian River along Merritt Island are classi-fied as fair. Areas of poor water quality existalong the western portions of the Indian Rivernear the City of Titusville and in NewfoundHarbor near Sykes Creek in southern MerrittIsland. Fair and poor areas are influenced pri-marily by wastewater treatment plant effluentdischarges and urban runoff (FDEP, 1992).Beginning in 1995, discharge of wastewater ef-fluent to the Banana and Indian Rivers will nolonger be permitted. Cape Canaveral AS hasconstructed a new wastewater treatment plantfor compliance with this requirement.

A confining unit composed of clays, sands, andlimestone separates the surface aquifer from theunderlying Floridan aquifer. The confiningunit is generally 80 to 120 feet thick. Therelatively low hydraulic conductivity of theconfining unit restricts the vertical exchange ofwater between the surface aquifer and the un-derlying confined Floridan aquifer.

The Floridan aquifer is the primary source ofpotable water in central Florida. The Floridanaquifer is composed of several carbonate unitswith highly permeable zones. The top of thef i r s t carbonate uni t occurs a t a depth ofapproximately 180 feet below ground surface,and the carbonate units extend to a depth ofseveral hundred feet. Groundwater in theFloridan aquifer at Cape Canaveral AS is highlymineralized, and therefore is not used as asource of drinking water.

Several water bodies in the Middle East CoastBasin have been designated Outs tandingFlorida Water (OFW) in FAC 17-3, includingmost of Mosquito Lagoon and the BananaRiver, Indian River Aquatic Preserve, BananaRiver State Aquatic Preserve, Pelican IslandNational Wildlife Refuge, and CanaveralNational Seashore (FDEP, 1992). The OFWdesignation affords water bodies the highestlevel of protection, and any compromise ofa m b i e n t w a t e r q u a l i t y i s p r o h i b i t e d .Additionally, the Indian River Lagoon Systemhas been designated an Estuary of NationalSignificance by the Environmental ProtectionAgency. Because of these designations as wellas other Florida regulations designed to mini-mize wastewater discharges and urban runoff inthe area, water quality in the Middle East CoastBasin is expected to improve.

3.8.2 Surface Water Quality

Cape Canaveral AS is located in the FloridaMiddle Eas t Coas t Bas in (Uni ted S ta tesG e o l o g i c a l S u r v e y H y d r o l o g i c U n i t030802020). The Middle East Coast Basincontains three major bodies of water in prox-imity to Cape Canaveral AS: the Banana Riverto the immediate west, Mosquito Lagoon to thenorth, and the Indian River to the west, sepa-rated from the Banana River by Merritt Island.All three water bodies are estuarine lagoonswith circulation provided mainly by wind-in-duced currents.

Studies indicate that ambient conditions in theBanana River, Indian River, and MosquitoLagoon are typical of estuarine waters, with theexception of some areas affected by pointsource loading (FDEP, 1992; BC, 1991).Levels of aluminum, silver, and iron have beenreported in excess of state criteria, but seem tobe indicative of background concentrations dueto their widespread distribution as well as thehigh level of organic particulate matter foundin the area (BC, 1991).

In April 1994, the Cape Canaveral AS stormwater pollution prevention plan was finalized.The National Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem group storm water permit has not beenissued by the EPA as of the date of this assess-ment. Storm water discharges are also regu-l a t e d b y t h e S a i n t J o h n s R i v e r W a t e r

-27-


Management District. Cape Canaveral willcontinue to obtain storm water permits for in-dividual facilities or construction projects asnecessary from the EPA and Saint Johns RiverWater Management District.

The sea turtle nesting summary report for 1994for Cape Canaveral AS (Leach, 1994) includesthe latest Cape Canaveral AS data as a partici-pant in the FDEP Index Nesting Beach Survey.It documents the results of beach restoration,predator control, and light shielding of sea tur-tle nests. The Cape Canaveral AS beaches pro-vide prime nesting habitat for green and log-gerhead sea turtles. For the ten years of surveydata, 1994 was the second highest in nestingactivity for both species.

3.9 BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES

Near-natural conditions have been retained atCape Canaveral AS by restricting activities onthe station. The majority of the complex con-sists of vegetation indigenous to the Floridacoastal scrub (9,400 acres), coastal strand(2,300 acres), and coastal dune (800 acres)plant communities. Wetlands at Cape CanaveralAS represent a minor percentage of the totalland area, with 20 acres of freshwater wetlands,450 acres of mangrove swamp, and 140 acresof salt marsh (George, 1987). Hammocks atCape Canaveral AS are small in size, totalingless than 200 acres. Figure 9 shows vegetationcommunities at Cape Canaveral AS.

3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Cape Canaveral AS has been the subject of nu-merous intensive historic and archaeologicalsurveys in recent years. Among these surveyshave been studies by Resource Analysts, Inc.,for the Air Force (Barton and Levy, 1984;Levy, Barton, and Riordan, 1984) and morerecent and ongoing cultural resource evalua-tions for National Register eligibility conductedby the Environmental Resources PlanningSection of the US Army Corps of Engineers,Mobile, Alabama.

The hammock communities on Cape CanaveralAS are characterized by three layers of vegeta-tion: a tree layer with a closed canopy, a shrublayer, and an herb layer. A herb layer is com-prised of vegetation that does not develop per-sistent woody tissue. Tree species of red bay,live oak, Chapman oak, and cabbage palm mayreach heights from 5 to 20 meters. Shrubspecies such as saw palmetto and stopper haveprofiles from 0.5 to 3 meters in height in thiscommunity. An herbaceous layer of vegetationis always present, but the extent of its develop-ment is determined by light, water, and soilconditions.

SLC-36 was among 21 launch complexes iden-tified as potentially eligible for the NationalRegister of Historic Places (Barton and Levy,1984). A memorandum of agreement betweenthe Air Force, the Flor ida State His tor icPreservation Officer, and the Advisory Councilon Historic Preservation dated February 1,1989, required documentation prior to any al-ternation, dismantling, demolition, or removalaction that could affect SLC-36. In 1994, theCorps of Engineers finalized historical docu-mentation of SLC-36 in accordance with thestandards of the Secretary of the Interior(George, 1995).

Forty-six special status plant and animal speciesare associated with Cape Canaveral AS, asshown in Table 4. US Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) and Florida Game and Fresh WaterFish Commission (FGFWFC) status and sight-ings are included in this table. Sea turtles andturtle hatchlings are affected by exterior lights.To minimize impacts to sea turt les, CapeCanaveral AS has implemented a lighting pol-icy (included as Appendix A) for managementof exterior lights at the installation. This policyrequires the use of low-pressure sodium lightsunless prohibited by safety or security pur-poses. Each complex has a light managementplant to protect sea turtles, including SLC-36.

The PCF is located on SLC-14, which is aNational Historic Landmark site which con-tributes to the National Historic LandmarkDistrict at Cape Canaveral AS (George, 1995).The National Historic Landmark District iscomprised of seven non-contiguous sites in-cluding SLC-14, SLC-19, SLC-34, the servicestructure at SLC-13, SLC-26, SLC-5-6, and theMission Control Center. None of the otherfacilities that will be used for satellite process-ing operations are currently considered eligible

-28-


-29-


Table 4 Special Status Species Associated with Cape Canaveral AS

Scientif icName

CommonName

USFWS2

STATUS1

FGFWFC3 CapeCanaveral4

Amphibians and Reptiles:

Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T(S/A) SSC o

Caretta caretta caretta Atlantic loggerhead turtle T T o

Chelonia mydas mydas Atlantic green turtle E E o

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback turtle E E o

Drymarchon corais couperi Eastern indigo snake T T o

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise UR2 SSC o

Lepidochelys kempi Atlantic ridley turtle E E o

Nerodia fasciata taeniata Atlantic salt marsh snake T T n/o

Rana areolata Gopher frog UR2 SSC n/o

Birds:

Ajaia ajaja Roseate spoonbill -- SSC o

Aphelocoma coerulescenscoerulescen

Florida scrub jay T T o

Charadrius melodus Piping plover T T o

Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland's warbler E E n/o

Egretta thula Snowy egret -- SSC o

Egretta tricolor Louisiana heron -- SSC o

Ethene cuniculeria Burrowing owl -- SSC o

Falco peregrinus tundrius Arctic peregrine falcon T T o

Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern Americankestrel

UR2 T n/o

Florida oaerules Little blue heron -- SSC o

Grus canadenis pratensis Florida sandhill crane -- T o

Haematopus palliatus American oyster catcher -- SSC o

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle E T o

Mycteria americana Wood stork E E o

Pandion haliaetus Osprey -- SSC o

Pelecanus occidentalis Brown pelican -- SSC o

Polyborus plancus audubonii Audubon's crested caracara T T n/o

Sterna antillarum Least tern -- T o

Mammals:

Peromyscus floridanus Florida mouse UR2 SSC o

Peromyscus polionotusniveiventris

Southeastern beach mouse T T o

Trichechus manuatus latriostris West Indian manatee E E o

-30-


Table 4, continued

Scientif icName

CommonName

Status1 List ingAgency5

Status atCape

Canaveral4

Plants:

Acroatichum danaeifolium Giant leather fern T FDA o

Asclepias curtissii Curtis milkweed E FDA n/o

Cocoa nuvifera Coconut palm T FDA o

Avicennia germinans Black mangrove SP FCREA o

Azolla caroliniana Mosquito fern T FDA o

Ernodea littoratis Beach creeper T FDA o

Elophia alta Wild coco T FDA o

Hymenocallis latifolia Broad-leaved spiderlily UR USFWS,FNAI

o

Peraea borbonia var. humilis Dwarf redbay UR USFWS,FNAI

n/o

Opuntia compressa Prickly pear cactus T FDA n/o

Opuntia stricta Prickly pear cactus T FDA o

Osmuda regalis var. spectabilis Royal fern C FDA n/o

Remirea maritima Beach star E FDA, FNAI o

Scaevola plumeria Scaevola T FDA o

Tillandsia simulata Wildpine; air plant(unnamed)

T FDA n/o

Tillandsia utriculata Giant wildpine; giant airplant

C FDA o

1 E = Endangered; T = Threatened; T(S/A) = Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance; SSC = Species of SpecialConcern; UR2 = Under review, but substantial evidence of biological vulnerability and or threat is lacking; C =Commercially Exploited.

2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

3 Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission

4 o = observed; n/o = not observed

5 Listing agencies: FDA = Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; FCREA = FloridaCommittee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals; FNAI = Florida Natural Areas Inventory; USFWS =United States Fish and Wildlife Service

for the National Register of Historic Places(George, 1995).

exper ienced on a shor t - te rm bas i s whenlaunches occur at one of the launch complexes.Ambient conditions in the prelaunch process-ing areas are typical of those for an urbancommercial business or light industrial area.

3.11 NOISE

T h e p r i m a r y n o i s e g e n e r a t o r s a t C a p eCanaveral AS prelaunch processing sites aresupport equipment, vehicles, and air condition-ers. Occasionally, increased noise levels are

-31-


3.12 SOCIOECONOMICS commute from surrounding areas to work inthe county. Services, manufacturing, retailtrade, and government-related enterprises arethe principal means of employment. Majoremployers are the Kennedy Space Center, PortCanaveral, Cape Canaveral AS, and aerospacefirms.

3.12.1 Demography

Pr ior to 1950 the popula t ion of BrevardCounty was predominantly rural. Activation ofCape Canaveral AS in the 1950s brought mili-tary personnel into the county. From 1950 to1960, the total population of Brevard Countygrew from 23,500 to 111,500. In the 1990census, Brevard County's population was398,978. The preliminary projected 1995population for Brevard County is 452,737, a13.5 percent increase (University of Florida,1992). Principal urban centers are located inthe cities of Melbourne (61,295), Titusville(39,738) , Palm Bay (65,015) , and Cocoa(17,724) (BCRCD, 1988). By the year 2000,the county's population is projected to reach504,263, an increase of about 11.4 percent overcurrent levels (University of Florida, 1992).

The total personal income of Brevard Countyresidents in 1990 was $7.1 billion. The 1990average annual salary in Brevard County was$22,119 (University of Florida, 1992).

3.12.4 Schools

Public schools in Brevard County are part of acounty-wide, single-district school system withseventy-three schools and over 60,421 studentsin the 1992-1993 academic year. The schoolsystem has been growing since 1982, and ca-pacity has been exceeded in some parts of cen-tral Brevard County. Growth in the district isexpected to average 4 percent through 1996,the last year of school board projections.

Most military personnel at Cape Canaveral ASand Patr ick AFB live in Brevard County.About 95 percent of Air Force civilian contrac-tor personnel live in Brevard County. The re-mainder live in Orange County, Indian RiverCounty, and other nearby counties. Most ofthe people working on the base are employedby companies involved in launch vehicle testingand space launch operations. These employeesl ive in sur rounding communi t ies . CapeCanaveral AS currently has a work force of7,500 persons.

3.12.5 Public Safety

Police departments in the five municipalities ofcentral Brevard County have 2.36 officers per1,000 people, and fire protection has 2.17 full-time officers per 1,000 people (CBAEDC,1992) . Po l ice and f i re se rv ices a t CapeCanaveral AS are provided by the launch basesupport contractor and include mutual agree-ments with other jurisdictions, particularly thecity of Cape Canaveral and Kennedy SpaceCenter, and Brevard County. Disaster control isperformed in accordance with 45 SW OPlan355-1, Disaster Preparedness Operations Plan.

3.12.2 Housing

In 1990, there were 185,150 housing units inBrevard County. Vacancy rates over BrevardCounty averaged 12.2 percent, with a vacancyrate of 29.2 percent in the Cape Canaveral area.The average household in Brevard County in1991 included 2.42 persons (University ofFlorida, 1992). No housing exists at CapeCanaveral AS. The nearest significant residen-tial areas are Cocoa Beach and Merritt Island.

3.12.6 Health Care

Cape Canaveral AS is equipped with a dispen-sary operated under a joint contract (NationalAeronautics and Space Administration and AirForce) to handle accident cases, physical exam-inations, and emergencies involving the workforce. Additional medical services are availableat the Air Force Space Command Hospital,Patrick AFB, and at four hospitals in the CapeCanaveral AS area at Cocoa Beach, Rockledge,Titusville, and Melbourne. There are mutualaid agreements with NASA and Brevard County

3.12.3 Economy

The total labor force in Brevard County in1991 was 199,929, and the unemployment ratewas 7.1 percent (University of Florida, 1992).In addition to resident employees, many people

-32-


for catastrophic events, and Brevard CountyDisaster control is performed in accordancewith 45 SW OPlan 355-1, Disaster PreparednessOperations Plan.

AS was constructed to provide peak capacitiesof up to 30,000 gallons per minute for 10minutes.

3.13.2 Wastewater Treatment3.12.7 Transportation

Cape Canaveral and its neighboring cities(Cocoa, Cocoa Beach, and Rockledge) areserved by separate municipal sewer systems.Unincorporated areas of centra l BrevardCounty are served by several treatment plants.Cape Canaveral AS carries out its own sewagedisposal with a sewage treatment plant in theindustrial area, Trident missile chemical treat-ment plant, package plants, and numerous sep-tic tanks. A new consolidated wastewater treat-ment plant for Cape Canaveral AS is currentlyunder construction.

Transportation in the region is served by high-way, rail, airport, and harbor facilities. Federal,state, and local roads provide highway servicefor Brevard County. Principal routes areInterstate 95, US Highway l, and State RoutesA1A, 407, 520, and 528. Bridges and cause-ways link the urban areas on the beaches toMerritt Island and the mainland. The FloridaEast Coast Railway affords rail service to thecounty, with a main line through the cities ofTitusville, Cocoa, and Melbourne. Spur raillines serve other parts of the county, includingCape Canaveral AS. Several commercial andgeneral aviation airports are located in thevicinity of Cape Canaveral AS, the closest beingMelbourne Regional Airport, approximately 30miles south of the base. Port Canaveral, locatedat the southern boundary of Cape CanaveralAS, is the area seaport. Industrial and com-mercial facilities are located at the port, andcruise ship use is increasing.

3.13.3 Electricity

Florida Power and Light (FPL) supplies elec-tricity to Brevard County. Cape Canaveral ASis serviced by FPL through a 240/138-kilovoltswitching station.

3.14 ORBITAL DEBRIS

Orbital debris consists of material left in Earthorbit from the launch, deployment, and deacti-vation of spacecraft. Most of the debris mass isincorporated in large objects. The debrispopulation is primarily composed of aluminafrom solid rocket motor exhaust, aluminumsatellite components, and zinc and titaniumoxides from thermal coatings (Aerospace,1995).

The Cape Canaveral AS road system, which islinked to the regional highway system by theNASA Causeway to the west, State Route 402 tothe north, and the Cape Canaveral AS southgate and State Highway A1A to the south,serves launch complexes, support facilities, andindustrial areas. An airstrip near the center ofthe base is used by government aircraft and fordelivery of launch vehicles and spacecraft.Cape Canaveral AS is closed to the public. The space around the earth in which satellites

operate is generally divided into three regimes:Low Earth Orbit (LEO), Medium Earth Orbit(MEO), and Geosynchronous Earth Orbit(GEO). LEO is at altitudes less than 2,000 kmwith orbital periods less than 3.75 hours. MEOis intermediate between LEO and GEO. GEO isoccupied by objects orbiting at an altitude of35,787 km with an orbital period of approxi-mately twenty-four hours. Geostationary Earthorbit is a further subset of GEO in which anobject orbits with an angular rotation speedequal to that of the Earth and is stationary withrespect to a point on the Earth's surface (NSC,1989; USOTA, 1990).

3.13 UTILITIES

3.13.1 Water Supply

The city of Cocoa provides potable water fromthe Floridan aquifer to central Brevard County.Maximum daily capacity is 44 million gallonsper day (mgd), and the average daily con-sumption is 25 mgd (CBAEDC, 1992). CapeCanaveral AS receives its water supply from thecity of Cocoa and uses an average of 0.64 mgd(Burkett, 1994). To support launches, the watersupply distribution system at Cape Canaveral

-33-


The Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) cur-rently maintains a catalog of more than 7,000tracked objects in space that are 10 centimeters(cm) and larger: 5,923 in LEO, 683 in MEO,and 453 (including approximately 100 activesatellites) in GEO, (NSC, 1989; USOTA,1990). Only 400 of these tracked objects areoperational satellites. These objects are trackedand monitored by the DOD Space SurveillanceNetwork. The National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration estimates that there are between35,000 and 150,000 objects in the 1 to 10 cmrange, and 3 to 40 million objects under 1 cmin size (AIAA, 1992).

• Operational effects on surveillance, track-ing, and communication

The proliferation of objects in space is increas-ing the risk of collision between debris and op-erational spacecraft. The effects of impactsbetween orbiting objects depends on the massand the relative velocity of the objects. For acollision between a spacecraft and an object lessthan 0.01 cm, the effect is primarily surfacepitting and erosion. For objects between 0.01and 1.0 cm, structural damage can result, de-p e n d i n g o n t h e d e s i g n o f t h e s a t e l l i t e .Collisions with objects greater than 1.0 cm canbe catastrophic.

Cataloged orbital debris is normally classifiedinto four categories: inactive payloads, dis-carded rocket bodies , operat ional debr is(objects such as ejection springs and lens caps),and fragmentation debris. Fragmentation iscaused by the explosion of rocket bodies or thecollision of objects (rocket bodies, payloads,and/or debris). The location, size, and mass ofthe orbital debris cloud varies with time, andthere are uncertainties with regard to the extentof the problem, particularly with regard to ob-jects less than 10 cm in diameter.

Astronomers have been affected because of de-bris. There have been cases of confusion as towhether observed objects were debris or objectsof scientific interest. Additionally, the amountof light reflected by debris grows as the popu-lation grows, affecting the precision of obser-vations (NSC, 1989).

AFSPC Regulation 57-2 implements the DODpolicy of minimizing the impact of space de-bris on military operations. Under this regula-tion, “Design and operations of DOD spacetests, experiments, and systems will strive tominimize or reduce accumulation of space de-bris consistent with mission requirements.”

Almost half of the objects orbiting the Earthhave come f rom veh ic le f r agmenta t ion :propulsion related explosions, intentional ex-plosions (antisatellite tests), and collisions.Historically, the largest uncontrolled addition toorbital debris has been the breakup of upperstages. The dominant cause of these breakupsappears to have been pressure-vessel failurethrough deflagration of hypergolic propellants,stress failure of the vessels, or reduction ofpressure-vessel integrity by collision with mete-oroids or other space objects (Kessler, 1989).

3.15 SAFETY

T h e p r i m a r y s a f e t y r e g u l a t i o n a t C a p eCanaveral AS is Eastern and Western Range127-1, Range Safety Requirements. This regu-lation establishes the framework within whichsafety issues are addressed, referencing othersafety regulations and requiring the preparationof various safety plans. Additional importantregulations are Air Force Manual 91-201,“Explosives Safety Standards”; MIL-STD-1522A, “Standard General Requirements forSafe Design and Operation of PressurizedMissile and Space Craft”; MIL-STD-454,Requirement I, “General Requirements forE l e c t r o n i c D e v i c e s ” ; M I L - S T D - 1 5 7 6 ,“ E l e c t r o e x p l o s i v e S u b s y s t e m S a f e t yRequirements and Test Methods for SpaceSystems”; Air Force Occupational Safety andHealth (AFOSH) Standard 91-XX, Safety

Orbital debris is a concern for four main rea-sons (Aerospace, 1995):

• Reentry of debris resulting in earth impact

• Stratospheric ozone deplet ion duringreentry

• Collisions between debris and operationalspacecraft

-34-


Series; and AFOSH Standard 48-XX, MedicalSeries.

ducive to numerous lightning strikes. Duringthe summer months, lightning detection sys-tems indicate that 1,400 ± 840 cloud strikes oc-c u r p e r m o n t h o n t h e 1 3 5 - s q u a r e m i l eKennedy Space Center (NASA, 1990).

As indicated in Section 3.1.1, the meteorologi-cal environment at Cape Canaveral AS is con-

-35-

Environmental AssessmentDefense Satellite Communications System III Environmental Consequences and Cumulative Impacts

SECTION 4.0

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

4.1 AIR QUALITY The generator, rated at 1 Megawatt maximumpower, is operated approximately 27 hours peryear for standby power service only. This in-cludes 24 hours per year for actual standbyuse and 3 hours per year for monthly opera-tional tests. Standby generators operating lessthan 400 hours per year are not required to bepermitted by FDEP.

4.1.1 Local Air Quality

4.1.1.1 Processing Emissions

Proposed Action. Potent ia l a i r pol lutantsources associated with processing the DSCSIII/IABS satellites will be located at the DPF,the PCF (used to store propellant transferequipment only).

The 4,000-gallon AST is a horizontal, fixed-roof tank that supplies diesel fuel to both theboiler and the generator. The annual fuelthroughput for the tank is approximately31,000 gallons. Roughly 30,330 gallons aresupplied to the boiler and 670 gallons aresupplied to the generator. The AST is not re-quired to be permitted as an air emissionssource.

Emissions are not calculated for facilities indi-rectly involved with DSCS III/IABS satelliteprocessing, including remote propellant stor-age locations, antenna sites, and other areaswhich support the entire installation. Sourcesat these facilities (i.e., boilers and generators)are considered specific to the individual facili-ties and would normally generate emissions inthe absence of the proposed action. Emissionsfrom these sources are included in the baselineemissions presented in Section 3.

The fuel and oxidizer scrubbers service thehypergolic vent system at the DPF. Followingthe loading of anhydrous hydrazine andMMH into the DSCS and IABS respectively,transfer equipment and lines are purged withgaseous nitrogen through the fuel scrubber.The fuel scrubber neutralizes anhydrous hy-drazine and MMH vapors in the respective airstreams using a 14 percent citric acid solutionas the scrubber liquor. The fuel scrubber hasa 99 percent conversion efficiency. Followingoxidizer loading into the IABS, t ransferequipment and lines are purged with gaseousnitrogen through the oxidizer scrubber. Theoxidizer scrubber reduces nitrogen tetroxidevapors to nitrogen dioxide using a 25 percentsodium hydroxide solution as the scrubberliquor. The oxidizer scrubber has a reductionefficiency of 94 percent. The fuel and oxi-dizer scrubbers at the DPF operate underFDEP Permit AO05-236505.

Sources at the DPF will include a boiler, a gen-erator, a 4,000-gallon diesel abovegroundstorage tank (AST), fuel and oxidizer scrub-bers, and the use of materials containingVOCs. The boiler, generator, AST, and ma-jority of the volatile materials are used for fa-cility operation and maintenance to supportDSCS III/IABS processing. The oxidizer andfuel scrubbers as well as IPA are used for di-rect support of the DSCS III/IABS mission.

The boiler, rated at a maximum capacity of1,050,000 British Thermal Units per hour, isused for climate control in the facility. It ispermitted to operate continuously at the ratedcapacity under FDEP Permit A005-201125.

-36-


Table 5 Emissions from the Proposed ActionPol lutant Emiss ions ( tons per year)

Emiss ions Source NOx SO x CO P M 1 0 VOC Lead

Permitted Sources

Boiler 0.30 0.87 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.00

Fuel scrubber -- -- -- -- 4.28 X 10-8 --

Oxidizer scrubber 3.41 X 10-7 -- -- -- -- --

Subtota l 0 . 3 0 0 . 8 7 0 . 0 8 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 0

Non-permitted Sources

Standby generator 0.42 0.06 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.00

AST -- -- -- -- 0.001 --

Materials with VOCs -- -- -- -- 0.42 --

Subtota l 0 . 4 2 0 . 0 6 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 4 3 0 . 0 0

T o t a l e m i s s i o n s 0 . 7 2 0 . 9 3 0 . 1 8 0 . 0 4 0 . 4 4 0 . 0 0

Brevard County Basel ine 9 , 4 9 8 3 2 , 9 4 3 9 6 0 2 , 3 6 6 5 8 1 NR*

Percent Contribut ion ofPermitted Sources 0 . 0 0 3 2 0 . 0 0 2 6 0 . 0 0 8 3 0 . 0 0 1 3 0 . 0 0 1 7 0 . 0 0

Percent Increase ofNonpermitted Sources 0 . 0 0 4 4 0 . 0 0 0 2 0 . 0 1 0 4 0 . 0 0 0 4 0 . 0 7 4 0 0 . 0 0

* NR = not reported.

Materials containing VOCs at the DPF are usedalmost exclusively for facility maintenance.The exception is IPA, which is used primarilyfor wipe cleaning of satellite surfaces andother miscellaneous cleaning during satelliteprocessing. Approximately 55 gallons of IPAis used per mission. Other materials used forgeneral facility maintenance include acetone,lacquer thinner, aerosol lacquers, stainless steelcoatings, aerosol lubricants, and insect repel-lant. Quantities of these materials are limitedto l e s s t han 5 ga l l ons ap i ece pe r yea r .Emissions from the use of these materials areconsidered to be fugitive emissions (no singlepoint of emissions), and as such, are not re-quired to be permitted. However, contractorsas Cape Canaveral AS are required to reportVOC emissions to 45 CES/CEV for compli-ance with the CAA, Title V.

dures are in place to contain an accidentalspill. Use of the PCF for storage of propellanttransfer equipment will be similar to theprevious use of the PCF for other programs.No fumes or gases will be emitted as a result ofnormal storage.

Table 5 summarizes the emiss ions f romsources at the DPF. The boiler and the scrub-bers are considered part of the baseline emis-sions since they are permitted sources andFDEP has received reported emissions fromthem. Therefore, they will not contribute in-creases to the baseline inventory of criteriapollutants presented in Section 3. Emissionsfrom the permitted boiler and scrubbers com-prise less than 0.0083 percent of the totalemissions of each criteria pollutant in BrevardCounty. Use of the generator, AST, and ma-terials containing VOCs at the DPF will in-crease the baseline emissions in BrevardCounty by less than 0.0740 percent per yearfor each criteria pollutant.

Use of the PCF at SLC-14 for storage of pro-pellant transfer equipment has been previouslyassessed (USAF, 1988). It was found that nofumes or gases will be emitted as a result ofnormal storage. Emergency response proce-

-37-


All sources currently operating at the DPFhave the appropriate permits or are exemptfrom permitting. The potential impacts ofpermitted sources on air quality are evaluatedby the FDEP during the permitting process.The permit requirements reflect the results ofthe FDEP analysis of emission levels thatwould no t adverse ly a f fec t a i r qua l i ty .Likewise, FDEP conditions for exemptingsources from permitting also reflect emissionlevels that would not adversely affect air qual-ity. As such, emissions from exempt sourcesare considered by FDEP to have no adverse ef-fect on ambient air quality.

of an area that is nonattainment. The deminimis amounts for moderate nonattainmentareas are 100 tons each for nitrogen oxides,sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, VOC, andparticulate matter, and 25 tons for lead. Therespective emissions for the proposed actionare substantially less than these thresholds.Therefore, even if the Cape Canaveral AS areawere in nonattainment, the processing opera-tions for the proposed action would emit deminimis amounts that would not adversely af-fect air quality.

4.1.2 Stratospheric Ozone

In conclusion, the anticipated air emissionsfrom DSCS III/IABS satellite processing arenot expected to violate the NAAQS, theFlorida ambient air quality standards, or FDEPair toxics regulations, and would contributeinsignificantly to existing air quality in thearea. Assumptions regarding minor emissionquantities are based on studies performed in-ventorying air emissions from similar sourcesat other installations. FDEP indicated thatthere are no ongoing enforcement actions orcompliance problems at the installation (FDEP,1994).

Proposed Action. Since the time scale formixing in the troposphere is less than the lifecycle (decades) of most ODCs, these com-pounds are usually well mixed in the loweratmosphere. They eventually cycle betweenthe troposphere and stratosphere where thecompounds are dissociated by UV radiation inthe stratosphere and react with O3. No Class IODCs will be used under the proposed action.The only Class II ODCs are related to the airconditioning systems. These ODCs wouldonly be released to the atmosphere if an acci-dent or leak occurred. Therefore, ground fa-cility operations are not anticipated to ad-versely affect stratospheric ozone.No Action. Cape Canaveral AS accommo-

dates other space launch programs unrelatedto the proposed action that would continue inuse for the foreseeable future. The activitiesassociated with these programs have environ-mental consequences which have been in-cluded in the baseline environmental condi-tions (Section 3). Under the no-action alter-native, prelaunch processing operations forother space launch activities would continue tobe performed.

Deorbiting debris can affect stratosphericozone through homogeneous and heteroge-neous reactions. Recent work evaluating theimpacts of homogeneous and heterogeneousreactions on the stratospheric O3 has beenconducted (TRW, 1994).

The evaluation of homogeneous mechanismsinvolved the study of deorbiting debris enter-ing the stratosphere at hypersonic speed gen-erating gas phase species harmful to O3. Nitricoxide is produced by the high temperaturebetween the bow shock wave and the body(thermal mechanism) and as pyrolysis prod-ucts from spacecraft paint or ablation materials(material-bound mechanism). Pyrolysis is thedecomposition or transformation of a com-pound by heat, and ablation is the removal ofmaterial from the surface of a body by de-composition or vaporization. For deorbitingdebris, it was estimated that one stratosphericO3 molecule per one billion per day would be

4.1.1.2 Clean Air Act Conformity

Since the proposed action will occur in an areathat is in attainment for the NAAQS, the gen-eral conformity rules, included in 40 CFRP a r t s 6 , 5 1 , a n d 9 3 , w o u l d n o t a p p l y .Although the Cape Canaveral AS area is in at-tainment for the NAAQS and not subject tothe Clean Air Act conformity requirements,the conformity regulations include “de min-imis” amounts below which projects or actionsare not expected to adversely affect the status

-38-


destroyed by the material-bound nitrogenmechanism and one part per ten billion peryear by the thermal mechanism (TRW, 1994).

tics. Toxicity is the tendency of a material toaffect the health of a living organism throughchemical interaction with the organism’s bio-logical systems. Ignitability is the capabilityof a material to cause fire when exposed to aspecific environmental stimulus such as fric-tion, absorption of moisture, or spontaneouschemical changes. Reactivity is a characteristicof certain materials which causes them toreadi ly undergo v io lent change under achemical or physical stimulus such as expo-sure to air, water, a strong heat source, or astrong oxidizer. Corrosivity describes onematerial’s ability to degrade another material,and is typically a characteristic of highlyacidic or alkaline materials. Other characteris-tics of hazardous materials exist, but most ap-ply to special circumstances. For example,cryogens, such as liquid nitrogen, would beconsidered hazardous due to their extremelylow temperature.

The evaluation of heterogeneous mechanismsaddressed the direct orbital decay of large andsmall particles as well as the stripping of smallparticles from the surfaces of larger space ob-jects by aerodynamic drag forces duringreentry. To determine the depletion of strato-spheric O3, the orbital debris population anddebris flux into the stratosphere were esti-mated. The resultant ozone depletion by het-erogeneous mechanisms is estimated to besmall: 10,000-100,000 years to destroy onepercent of the stratospheric O3 (TRW, 1994).

No Action. Cape Canaveral AS accommo-dates other space launch programs unrelatedto the proposed action that would continue inuse for the foreseeable future. The activitiesassociated with these programs have environ-mental consequences which have been in-cluded in the baseline environmental condi-tions (Section 3).

All hazardous materials used for satellite pro-cessing shall be transported, stored, and dis-pensed in accordance with OccupationalSafety and Health Administration (OSHA) 29CFR 1926, and AFOSH Standards 91-XX(Safety) and 48-XX (Health), as well as appli-cable federal, state, and local regulations gov-erning the transport, storage, and use of haz-ardous materials. These regulations considerthe inherent danger of hazardous materials tohealth, safety, and the environment, and if haz-ardous materials are handled according toregulations, minimal impacts should occur. Ingeneral, aside from minor air emissions asso-ciated with solvents, coatings, and adhesivesuse, no other impacts are expected from thenormal use of hazardous materials under theproposed action in accordance with applicableregulations.

4.2 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Proposed Action. Hazardous material typesand amounts used during DSCS III/IABS pro-cessing activities are projected by the satellitecontractor based on the four satellites previ-ously processed. Hazardous materials use islimited to activities at the DPF. Facilities indi-rectly involved with satellite processing,including remote propellant storage locations,antenna sites, and other areas which supportthe entire installation, will not use hazardousmaterials to directly support the proposedaction. Materials used at these facilities areconsidered specific to the individual facilitiesand would normally be used in the absence ofthe proposed ac t ion . As such , they areconsidered part of the baseline usage at CapeCanaveral AS.

The following paragraphs describe the poten-tial impacts associated with hazardous materi-als used during satellite processing. Materialsare grouped and described according to theclassification (propellants, solvents, etc.) as-signed to each by the satellite contractor.Impacts of hazardous materials on specificenvironmental media, such as air, and impactsassociated with safety issues are presented inmore detail in other appropriate subsections ofSection 4.

Materials are typically classified as hazardousbased on one or more of four major character-istics: toxicity, ignitability, reactivity, and cor-rosivity. The potential impacts to humans andthe environment associated with transporting,storing, and dispensing hazardous materialsare primarily a reflection of these characteris-

-39-


Hazardous materials that will be used duringsatellite processing are summarized in Table 6.No baseline use of hazardous materials wasavailable for Cape Canaveral AS. As such,potential effects from hazardous materials forthe proposed action are analyzed according totheir hazard characteristics. Propellants andoxidizers represent the most potentially dan-gerous group of hazardous materials usedduring satellite processing and have potentialimpacts associated with all four hazard charac-teristics. All three are toxic, highly reactive,ignitable, and corrosive. Anhydrous hy-drazine, monomethyl hydrazine, and nitrogentetroxide will be stored at FSA-1 and deliveredto the DPF in approved containers by the JPCwhen needed. Fuel and oxidizer loading willbe conducted separately using methods previ-ously described in Section 2.2.4 using separatepropellant transfer equipment for each of thetwo fuels and the oxidizer. Approximately600 pounds of anhydrous hydrazine will beloaded into the DSCS satellite. The IABS willreceive approximately 1,000 pounds of MMHand 1,600 pounds of ni t rogen te t roxide.Hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide vapor emis-sions will be controlled by separate packed-column air scrubbers at the DPF. After hy-drazine and nitrogen tetroxide transfers takeplace, empty containers will be returned toFSA-1. Dur ing hydraz ine and n i t rogentetroxide handling, all applicable safety stan-dards (evacuation of nonessential personnel,use of protective gear) shall be in force tomitigate health and safety hazards, and no im-pacts are anticipated if these standards arefollowed during normal fuel and oxidizer pro-cessing.

human contact. Trained personnel dispensingthe solutions into the scrubbers will take allprecautions, including the use of protectivewear, to ensure they are not exposed. No im-pacts are expected during satellite processingfrom the normal use of process liquids.

Process gases will be used at the DPF duringsatellite processing for fuel line purging andmiscellaneous operations which require pres-surized gases. All have potential impacts as-sociated with reactivity and ignitabil i ty.Process gases are stored under high pressureand can react violently and explosively whenexposed to air through a container puncture orwhen exposed to an ignit ion source. Tominimize this danger, pressurized gases arecontained in thick metal cylinders designed towithstand punctures and prevent exposure toignition sources. These pressure vessels com-ply with DOT standards to ensure safety. Inaddition, the gases will be stored in designatedapproved storage areas when not in use tofurther minimize the potential for hazard.Cryogenic liquid nitrogen is considered a po-tential hazard due to the extreme low tempera-ture at which it is stored and used. Standardhealth and safety precautions will be takenwhen using liquid nitrogen to ensure that per-sonnel are not exposed. No impacts are ex-pected from the normal use of process gasesand cryogens during satellite processing.

Oils and lubricants will be used at the DPF forfacility maintenance during satellite process-ing. All will be stored in small amounts in ap-proved petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL)storage lockers. Quantities needed will vary,and supplies will be ordered and maintained asnecessary. Oils and lubricants would havepotential hazards associated with toxicity if in-ges t ed o r r e l eased to the env i ronmen t .However, impacts to human health and theenvironment are unlikely from normal use ofthese materials if they are dispensed and storedin accordance with applicable health andsafety standards.

Process liquids used during satellite processingwill include a 14 percent citric acid solution,which is used at the DPF as liquor for the hy-drazine packed-column air scrubber, and a 25percent sodium hydroxide solution, which isused as liquor for the oxidizer packed-columnair scrubber. Both represent potential hazardsassociated with toxicity and corrosivity. Citricacid and sodium hydroxide solutions will becontained in the respective air scrubbers andwill not be accessible to the environment or to

Protective coatings will be used in relativelysmall amounts at the DPF for facility mainte

-40-


Table 6 Hazardous Materials Associated with DSCS III/IABS Processing

Material Primary Use

AnnualAmount

Used (lbs)a

Propellants/Oxidizers:Anhydrous hydrazine Mission 1,200Monomethyl hydrazine Mission 2,000Nitrogen tetroxide Mission 3,200

Process Liquids:Citric acid, 14% Fuel scrubber solution 6,351b

Sodium hydroxide, 25% Fuel scrubber solution 7,989b

Process Gases and Cryogens:Breathing Air Mission 44,910Gaseous argon Facility maintenance 21Gaseous helium Mission 516Gaseous nitrogen Mission 123,046Liquid nitrogen Mission 2,160Propane Mission 43

Oils and Lubricants:Bearing grease Facility maintenance 1Chevron machine oil Facility maintenance 37Dow grease Facility maintenance 3Krytox grease Facility maintenance 18Krytox oil Facility maintenance 0.4Krytox vacuum pump oil Facility maintenance 16Mobil oil - heavy medium Facility maintenance 36Molykote grease Facility maintenance 21Spray lubricant Facility maintenance 5Texaco oil Facility maintenance 5

Protective Coatings:Aerosol lacquers Facility maintenance 12Circuit board adhesive Facility maintenance 2Colloidal silica thickener Facility maintenance 1Epoxy hardener Facility maintenance 10Epoxy resin Facility maintenance 10Insect repellant aerosol General use 8Stainless steel coatings Facility maintenance 52

Solvents and Cleaning Materials:Acetone Facility maintenance 33Isopropyl alcohol Mission/facility maintenance 715Lacquer thinner Facility maintenance 33

Source: Ulshafer, 1995.

a Amounts presented consider two missions per year for those materials with primary use indicated as “mission”.

b Amounts of citric acid solution and sodium hydroxide solution shown reflect the amounts present in the scrubbers.

-41-


nance. These materials present potential haz-ards due to their toxicity and ignitability.Typical use of coatings during maintenancewill release small amounts of volatile con-stituents as part of the drying process. Allcoatings will be used in well-ventilated areas toprevent concentration of hazardous vapors.Additionally, necessary safety precautions willbe taken to prevent the ignition of vapors.When not in use, coatings will be stored in ap-proved flammable materials storage lockers.Supplies will be ordered and maintained asnecessary. With the exception of minor airemissions, no other impacts are anticipatedfrom the normal use of protective coatings andresins during satellite processing.

toxics in 1996 by 50 percent from the 1992baseline. Additionally, the EPA has estab-lished a voluntary reduction program, calledthe 33/50 program, which aims to promotevoluntary reduction of EPA-17 priority pollu-tants by 50 percent in 1995 with an interimgoal of 33 percent by 1992. EPA-17 chemi-cals used during satellite processing includetoluene and xylene, which are typical con-stituents of lacquer thinner and coatings.These chemicals will be used only in smallquantities at the DPF for miscellaneous thin-ning and coating.

Explosive ordnance used on the satellite willpresent potential safety risks associated withaccidental explosions. Safety hazards fromaccidental explosions are described in section4.15.

Solvents and cleaning materials will be used atthe DPF for miscellaneous wipe cleaning andthinning of coatings. All are volatile and canbe expected to release small amounts of vaporsin the immediate area where they are used.Solvents and cleaning materials will be used inwell-ventilated areas to prevent buildup of va-pors, and precautions will be taken to preventignition of vapors. With the exception of iso-propyl alcohol, all solvents and cleaning ma-terials will be stored in small quantities in ap-proved flammable materials storage lockers.Isopropyl alcohol, used primarily for wipecleaning of surfaces on the satellite, will bestored in a single 55-gallon container locatedin an isolated storage room in the DPF. Thisroom is equipped with its own fire suppressionsystem. Supplies will be ordered and main-tained as needed. With the exception of non-adverse impacts to air quality, normal use ofsolvents during satellite processing is not ex-pected to present other effects.

The contractor for DSCS III/IABS will partici-pate in the hazardous materials pharmacy be-ing implemented at Cape Canaveral AS.Hazardous material spill prevention and con-trol for satellite processing activities shall be inaccordance with 45th Space Wing OperationsPlan 19-1.

No Action. Cape Canaveral AS accommo-dates other space launch programs unrelatedto the proposed action that would continue inuse for the foreseeable future. The activitiesassociated with these programs have environ-mental consequences which have been in-cluded in the baseline environmental condi-tions (Section 3). Under the no-action alter-native, prelaunch processing operations forother space launch activities would continue tobe performed.

Several of these compounds or their con-s t i tuen t s a re t a rge ted chemica l s on theE n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y 1 7(EPA-17) priority pollutant list of industrialtoxics. This list was developed to identifychemicals used throughout industry that arejudged to be of the greatest concern due totheir toxicity and effect on the environment.Air Force Materiel Command Regulation 500-13, which incorporates the Air Force actionmemorandum regarding pollution prevention,dated January 7, 1993, commits the Air Forceto reducing purchases of EPA-17 industrial

4.3 HAZARDOUS WASTE

Proposed Action. Hazardous materials asso-ciated with DSCS III/IABS processing can po-tentially generate hazardous waste. The con-tractor for the satellite is responsible for iden-tification, containerization, labeling, and ac-cumulation of hazardous wastes in accordancewith all applicable federal, state, and localregulations, and with 45 SW OPlan 19-14. Allhazardous wastes generated from satellite pro-cessing activities will be transported, treated,

-42-


stored, and disposed (or arrangements madefor disposal) by the JPC.

permits obtained from FDEP. Nonhazardousoxidizer wastes can be neutralized and dis-charged to the sanitary sewer in accordancewith a variance for disposal of liquid oxidizerwastes.

A forecast of annual hazardous waste streamsassociated with the proposed action is pre-sented in Table 7. Hazardous waste predic-tions for satellite activities assume two missionsper year.

Sodium hydroxide solution used in the oxi-dizer scrubber will be changed approximatelyonce every five to ten years. As requested, theJPC will pump the spent scrubber solution intoapproved containers, and label and dispose thewaste accordingly after testing to determinethe waste characterization of the liquid. Thecitric acid solution used in the fuel scrubberwill be collected and disposed by the JPC asnon-hazardous waste. Fresh scrubber solu-tions will be provided by the JPC.

Liquid wastes will be generated almost exclu-sively from fuel and oxidizer transfer opera-tions using separate propellant transfer equip-ment for each of the two fuels and the oxi-dizer. After loading anhydrous hydrazine intothe DSCS satellite, transfer equipment andlines will be flushed first with potable waterand then with an IPA and demineralized watermixture. Equipment and lines used to transferMMH to the IABS will also undergo potablewater and IPA/demineralized water flushes af-ter MMH has been loaded. Potable water willbe used to flush oxidizer transfer equipmentand lines after nitrogen tetroxide has beentransferred to the IABS. The first three rinsesof potable water for MMH and ni t rogentetroxide lines and equipment are consideredhazardous waste. Further rinses with IPA anddemineralized water may or may not be haz-ardous waste depending on the waste charac-ter iza t ion . Approximate ly 5 ga l lons ofsodium hydroxide solution used for soakingsmall oxidizer transfer equipment parts (seals,fittings, etc.) will be added to the oxidizer rinsewater. All five rinse streams will be collectedin separate, approved DOT 5C 55-gallon con-tainers. The containers will accumulate in thewaste propellant area (satellite accumulationpoints) outside the DPF until retrieved by theJPC.

During gaseous nitrogen purging of equip-ment and lines used to transfer anhydrous hy-drazine and MMH to the DSCS satellite andthe IABS, respectively, liquid droplets remain-ing in the equipment will be collected by aliquid separator as the air streams pass throughthe hypergolic vent scrubber system. Prior toloading the IABS with nitrogen tetroxide, thismixture of anhydrous hydrazine and MMH(approximately 5 gallons) will be transferredfrom the l iquid separator to an approved5-gallon container and collected by the JPC.The JPC will arrange for the reclamation of thetwo fuels for future use.

Solid hazardous wastes will also be generatedexclusively from fuel and oxidizer transferoperations. Pads, wipes, and other solids willbe used to clean drips of anhydrous hydrazine,MMH, and nitrogen tetroxide. Solids cominginto contact with a fuel or oxidizer will bedouble-bagged and placed in an approvedDOT 21C 14-gallon container. A separatecontainer will be used for each fuel or oxi-dizer. Containers will be labeled as hazardouswaste and accumulated in the waste fuel andoxidizer areas outside the DPF until collectedby the JPC (Ulshafer, 1995). Because solidscontaminated with MMH and nitrogen tetrox-ide are acutely toxic hazardous waste, thesecontainers will be moved from the DPF to a90-day waste accumulation facility within 72hours in accordance with 45 SW OPlan 19-14if amounts exceed one quart.

The fuel and oxidizer rinsate wastes may ormay not be hazardous depending on how thewaste was generated and/or the characteristicsof the wastes. Waste from each drum will besampled and characterized based on labora-tory analysis and the generation process.Based on the results of the waste characteriza-tion, drums will be labeled as hazardous ornon-hazardous and disposed of accordinglyby the JPC. Nonhazardous fuel rinsate can bedisposed of in the Hypergolic PropellantsIncinerator operated by the JPC under air

-43-


Table 7 Forecast of Annual Hazardous Wastes Associated with DSCS III/IABS

Waste DescriptionEstimated Volumeof Waste (lb/yr)a

Liquid Hazardous Wastes

Potable water rinsate of anhydrous hydrazine transfer equipment 917

IPA and demineralized water rinsate of anhydrous hydrazine transfer equipment 917

Potable water rinsate of MMH transfer equipment 917

IPA and demineralized water rinsate of MMH transfer equipment 917

Potable water rinsate of nitrogen tetroxide transfer equipment 917

Sodium hydroxide (oxidizer scrubber solution) 6,251b

Anhydrous hydrazine and MMH mixture collected from liquid separator on scrubber 110c

Solid Hazardous Wastes

Pads, wipes, and other solids contacting anhydrous hydrazine 56

Pads, wipes, and other solids contacting MMH 56

Pads, wipes, and other solids contacting nitrogen tetroxide 56

Total Exclusive of Scrubber Solution and Reclaimed Propellant 4,753

Baseline Cape Canaveral AS 420,662

Percent of Baseline from Proposed Action 1.1

Source: Ulshafer, 1995.

a Amounts presented account for two missions per year .

b Sodium hydroxide scrubber solution will actually be changed approximately once every 5-10 years. The amount pre-sented reflects the total amount that will be wasted when the solution is changed. This amount is not included in the an-nual hazardous waste total used for comparison with the baseline hazardous waste generated annually at Cape CanaveralAS.

c The anhydrous hydrazine and MMH is reclaimed and not included in the annual hazardous waste total used for comparisonwith the baseline hazardous waste generated annually at Cape Canaveral AS.

DSCS III/IABS satellite processing will gener-ate up to an estimated total of 4,753 pounds ofhazardous waste per year. This is approxi-mately 1.1 percent of the current hazardouswaste generation rate of 420,662 pounds peryear at Cape Canaveral AS. The annual haz-a r d o u s w a s t e g e n e r a t i o n r a t e f o r C a p eCanaveral AS includes hazardous wastes fromprior DSCS III/IABS missions. As such, pro-cessing of future missions is not expected toincrease hazardous waste generation from itscurrent level.

use for the foreseeable future. The activitiesassociated with these programs have environ-mental consequences which have been in-cluded in the baseline environmental condi-tions (Section 3). Under the no-action alter-native, prelaunch processing operations forother space launch activities would continue tobe performed.

4.4 SOLID WASTE

Proposed Action. Solid waste will be gener-ated by DSCS III/IABS processing activities aswell as by personnel associated with those ac-tivities. Drums and dumpsters are used fortemporary storage of solid waste. Containers

No Action. Cape Canaveral AS accommo-dates other space launch programs unrelatedto the proposed action that would continue in

-44-


are removed or emptied by the Cape CanaveralAS solid waste contractor. The satellite con-tractor plans to participate in the white paperand aluminum can recycling program in placeat Cape Canaveral AS. Participation in thisprogram will reduce the total solid waste thatwould have been generated by each contrac-tor.

Toluene and xylene are also listed chemicalsunder EPCRA section 313. Although tolueneand xylene amounts for the proposed actiondo not exceed the usage threshold of 10,000pounds, each wil l contribute to the totalamounts of toluene and xylene used at the en-tire facility. If toluene or xylene usage atCape Canaveral AS as a whole exceeds the re-porting threshold, release pathways for eachchemical in exceedance will have to be docu-mented in the toxic release inventory Form Rreports submitted to the EPA. Therefore,contractors at Cape Canaveral AS must trackall EPCRA-listed chemicals and report emis-sions to 45 CES/CEV. A separate Form R re-port is required for each exceeding chemical.Since toluene and xylene are found exclu-sively in thinners and coatings at the DPF, theentire quantity of each will be released to theair during usage of the materials.

Assuming a maximum of 67 permanent andtransient DSCS III/IABS personnel (discussedin Section 4.12), a design solid waste genera-tion rate of 3 pounds per person per day, and260 working days per year, satellite personnelwould generate up to an estimated 26 tons ofsolid waste per year (tpy). In addition, satelliteprocessing activities would generate less than0.5 tons of non-hazardous solid waste per yearfor a total solid waste generation rate of ap-proximately 26.5 tpy. This represents an in-crease of 0.76 percent over the current solidwaste generation rate of 3,492 tpy for CapeCanaveral AS.

The DSCS III/IABS program will comply withthe PPMAP that will be developed by CapeCanaveral AS. Compliance with the PPMAPwill minimize pollution and meet the regula-tory requirements relative to pollution preven-tion.



4.5 POLLUTION PREVENTION

Proposed Action. No Class I ODCs are usedin the satellite processing facilities. The air-conditioning systems use Freon-22 refrigerant,a Class II ODC considered to be much lessharmful than other Class I refrigerants due toits lower ozone-depleting potential. Smallquantities of materials that contain EPA-17targeted industrial toxics will be used duringsatellite processing. These include coatingsand thinners which typically contain tolueneand xylene. The satellite contractor has dis-continued the use of freon, methyl chloro-form, methyl ethyl ketone, and radioactivekrypton during processing operations.

4.6 NONIONIZING RADIATION

Proposed Action. Table 8 summarizes thetransmitting characteristics for the antennas as-sociated with the proposed action. There are 5types of transmitting antennas on the DSCSIII/IABS satellite system. Two earth coverage(EC) horns, two multi-beam antennas (MBA),and one gimbaled parabolic reflector antennaon the DSCS satellite will transmit communi-cations data and information on X-band fre-quencies to ground-based receivers. A UHF,cross dipole antenna on the DSCS satellite will

-45-


Table 8 Summary of Transmitting Antenna Characteristics

Antenna Operat ing Peak Power to AntennaT y p e / S i z e Quantity Band Frequency (MHz) Transmitter (W) Gain (dB)

DSCS III Satel l i te1

S-band Cross Dipole 1 S 2,257.50 - 2277.5 2 5.0UHF Cross Dipole 1 UHF 240.00 - 255.00 150 7.0EC horns 2 X 7405.00 - 7750.00 10 20.0Multi-band antenna 2 X 7250.00 - 7590.00 40 30.0Gimbaled parabolic dish 1 X 7250.00 - 7590.00 40 33.0

IABS1

S-band Cross Dipole 1 S 2,257.50 - 2277.5 2 5.0

DSCS Process ing Fac i l i ty2

Parabolic Dish/8-ft 1 S 1,815.74 0.00032 32.0

Sate l l i t e Assembly Bui ld ing3

EVCF Parabolic Dish/8-ft 1 S 1750.00 13 29.5EVCF Parabolic Dish/4-ft 1 S 1750.00 13 21.0

1 MMAS, 1994b.2 Fragala, 1993.3 FA, 1991.

provide communications capability with air-borne receivers. An S-band cross dipole an-tenna on both the DSCS satellite and the IABSwill transmit telemetry, tracking, and commandinformation to ground-based receivers.

of extensive RF radiation research and testing.Maximum PEL standards, expressed as powerdensities in mW/cm2, are used along with thepeak antenna power and the antenna gain tocalculate a “safe distance” from each antennabeyond which no hazard to humans will occur.

The 8-foot antenna on the DPF, the 8-foot and4-foot EVCF antennas on the SAB, and the23-foot antenna on the TVCF will be used tot e s t v a r i o u s s a t e l l i t e f u n c t i o n s d u r i n gprelaunch processing. The TVCF will be usedin conjunction with the EVCF to test the satel-lite network links with ground control facili-ties. The TVCF antenna has been previouslyassessed and determined to have no significantradio frequency radiation impacts, includingadditive impacts with the EVCF antennas(USAF, 1993). Analysis of the TVCF is notincluded in this EA.

AFOSH Standard 48-9 recommends a maxi-mum PEL of 10 mW/cm2 for personnel in re-stricted areas where the antenna operating fre-quency is grea ter than 1 ,000 megaher tz(MHz). For restricted areas where frequenciesare less than 1,000 MHz, the maximum PELrecommended is a function that varies with theac tua l an tenna f r equency . A PEL o f 5mW/cm2 is recommended for the general pub-lic in unrestricted areas where the antenna fre-quency is greater than 1,500 MHz. For unre-stricted areas where frequencies are below1,500 MHz, a frequency-dependent functionsimilar to the one for restricted areas is used.The RF radiation hazard analysis for the an-

tennas is based on AFOSH Standard 48-9,which establishes maximum PELs of RF radia-tion for Air Force and contract workers in re-stricted areas and for the general public innonrestricted areas. All PEL standards pre-sented in AFOSH Standard 48-9 are the result

Table 9 presents a summary of unrestricted(conservative) safe distances for each antennaon the DSCS III/IABS satellite and associatedground facilities, as calculated using methodsrecommended in AFOSH Standard 48-9.

-46-


Table 9 Summary of RF PEL Safe DistancesUnrestricted Safe

L o c a t i o n Antenna Dis tance ( f t )

DSCS III Satellite S-band Cross Dipole <1

DSCS III Satellite UHF Cross Dipole 8.7

DSCS III Satellite EC horns 4.1

DSCS III Satellite Multi-band 26.2

DSCS III Satellite Gimbaled Parabolic 37.0

IABS S-band Cross Dipole <1

DSCS Processing Facility 8-ft Parabolic <1

Satellite Assembly Building EVCF 8-ft Parabolic 15

Satellite Assembly Building EVCF 4-ft Parabolic 6

The limiting RF radiation safe distance forantennas on the DSCS III/IABS satellite is 37feet for the gimbaled parabolic antenna. Theantennas on the DSCS III/IABS satellite will beenclosed in RF antenna hats during systemtesting. The RF antenna hats will reduce allhazardous distances to less than six feet(MMAS, 1994b). Processing personnel willremain outside the six-foot hazard distanceduring testing of the antennas. No RF radia-tion hazard will be associated with the antennamounted to the roof of the DPF because thePEL distance is less than 1 foot. The areawithin the 1-foot safe distance is in open spaceand not accessible to personnel. This smallPEL distance is due to a maximum power out-put from the transmitter of less than 1 mW.

and beam width, a flying bird would not beharmed by RF radiation as it crossed the beamof a transmitting antenna. A bird that roostedin the beam of an antenna would experiencediscomfort from RF radiation-induced heatand move from the beam area (Polk & Postow,1986).

All activities generating nonionizing radiationshall be coordinated with the base radiationoffice (45 ADMS/SGPH) and base safety (45SW/SG) for compliance with Air Force, DOD,and federal regulations regarding radiationprotection.


Likewise, no RF radiation hazard will be asso-ciated with either EVCF antenna on the roof ofthe SAB. The areas within the 15-foot and 6-foot PEL distances are in open space and notaccessible to personnel.

Birds in the beam of a transmitting antennawould be subjected to RF radiation. TheAFOSH standards are based on experimentalanimal studies that determined maximum val-ues of the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) atwhich animals were not harmed. The SAR isthe rate at which RF energy is absorbed by ananimal and is expressed in watts per kilogram(W/kg). The AFOSH standards included asafety factor of ten and are based on a SAR of0.4 W/kg averaged over a six-minute period.

4.7 IONIZING RADIATION

Proposed Action. Two panels on the satelliteare manufactured of thoriated magnesium.The thorium act ivi ty in each satel l i te isapproximately 82 microcuries. This level doesnot constitute a hazard unless the material isabsorbed into the body. Prelaunch processingoperations do not include any processes suchas filing or drilling that would disturb thepanels and cause a release of particles that

Based on conservative assumptions regardingbird weight, cross-sectional area, flight speed,

-47-


could be absorbed in the body. The Directorof Nuclear Safety for the Air Force has autho-rized the launch of this material in a memo-randum dated February 4, 1991 (MMAS,1994b).

not routinely used. Therefore, these systemsare not regulated as hazardous waste tank sys-tems.

The 4,000-gallon AST used to supply dieselfuel to the boiler and standby generator hassecondary containment sufficient to hold5,100 gallons. The AST has underground fuellines with pressure monitors to detect leaks.

All activities generating ionizing radiationmust be coordinated with the base radiationoffice (45 ADMS/SGPH) and base safety (45SW/SG) for compliance with Air Force, DOD,and federal regulations regarding radiationprotection.

Since no new facilities will be constructed un-der the proposed action, storm water permitsfrom the Saint Johns River Water ManagementDistrict are not required. The existing facili-t ies are covered under the current CapeCanaveral AS storm water pollution preventionplan.

No Action. Cape Canaveral AS accommo-dates other space launch programs unrelatedto the proposed action that would continue inuse for the foreseeable future. The activitiesassociated with these programs have environ-mental consequences which have been in-cluded in the baseline environmental condi-tions (Section 3). Under the no-action alter-native, the use of thoriated magnesium panelswith insertion of this low-level radioactivesource into orbit would not occur.


4.8 WATER QUALITY

Proposed Action. DSCS III/IABS satelliteprocessing activities will take place withinstructures and precautions will be taken to pre-vent and control spills of hazardous materialsin accordance with 45 SW OPlan 19-1. Spillsof spacecraft fuels and oxidizers will be con-trolled through sump systems in the West andEast bays of the DPF. The floor in each bay issloped toward a drainage area in the corner ofthe room which contains one drain for fuelsand another for oxidizers. The fuel drain ineach bay is connected to a 2 ,500-gal lonaboveground holding tank located in the wastepropellant area of the DPF through an under-ground piping system. Likewise, the oxidizerdrain in each bay is connected to 1,500-gallonaboveground holding tank in the waste propel-lant area. During fuel or oxidizer loading ac-tivities (conducted separately), the appropriatedrain will be opened to catch potential spills.The sump systems are tested regularly prior tofuel and oxidizer loading operations to ensuresystem integrity.

4.9 BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES

Proposed Action. Prelaunch processing ofthe DSCS III/IABS will occur in existing fa-cilities that are currently used for these pro-cesses. Adjacent habitats will not be disturbed.

Although potential effects of lighting associ-ated with facilities at Cape Canaveral AS is aconcern for endangered sea turtles, a lightingpolicy for management of exterior lights andemphasis on the use of low-pressure sodiumlights has been implemented. Lights whichemit ultraviolet, violet-blue, and blue-greenwavelengths disorient sea turtle hatchlings onthe beach. The disoriented hatchlings moveinland rather than seaward and suffer in-creased mortality. Exterior lighting at all fa-cilities used for satellite processing shall con-form with this policy.

The floor drains and associated tanks are foremergency purposes only (large spills) and are

The proposed action will utilize existing facili-ties. There will be no modifications to these

-48-


facilities, disturbances to adjacent grounds, orchanges in existing activities. Biological activ-ity, habitats, or species of concern at CapeCanaveral AS will not be affected beyond ex-isting baseline conditions. Therefore, consul-tation with the US Fish and Wildlife Serviceunder Section 7 of the Endangered SpeciesAct would not be required.

industrial facility and similar activities occur atdifferent locations on Cape Canaveral AS. Allnecessary and feasible noise control mitigationmeasures will be implemented at the affectedfacilities to meet worker noise exposure limitsas specified by OSHA. Due to the distancesinvolved, there will be no noise impact at sen-sitive receptor locations in public residentialareas as a result of the normal prelaunch pro-cessing operations. Launch noise is addressedin the EA for Medium Launch Vehicle II(USAF, 1989).

No Action. Cape Canaveral AS accommo-dates other space launch programs unrelatedto the proposed action that would continue inuse for the foreseeable future. The activitiesassociated with these programs have environ-mental consequences which have been in-cluded in the baseline environmental condi-tions (Section 3). Under the no-action alter-native, launches would continue to occur forother programs.

No Action. Cape Canaveral AS accommo-dates other space launch programs unrelatedto the proposed action that would continue inuse for the foreseeable future. The activitiesassociated with these programs have environ-mental consequences which have been in-cluded in the baseline environmental condi-tions (Section 3). Under the no-action alter-native, no noise due to prelaunch processingfor the DSCS III/IABS would occur.

4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Proposed Action. Although activities relatedto prelaunch satellite processing occur at twoSLCs that are listed or eligible for the NationalRegister of Historic Places, the integrity ofthese resources would not be affected bysatellite processing. No construction or reno-vation of processing facilities will be con-ducted for the proposed action. Since noearth disturbance will occur, archaeological re-sources will not be affected.

4.12 SOCIOECONOMICS

Proposed Action. Seventeen personnel arepermanently stationed at Cape Canaveral AS insupport of the DSCS program, seven of whomare military. Most of these personnel supportother programs besides DSCS. For eachlaunch, approximately 30 to 50 additional per-sonnel are brought in as needed to supportprelaunch processing operations. Therefore, amaximum of 67 personnel would be involved.

No Action. Cape Canaveral AS accommo-dates other space launch programs unrelatedto the proposed action that would continue inuse for the foreseeable future. The activitiesassociated with these programs have environ-mental consequences which have been in-cluded in the baseline environmental condi-tions (Section 3). There would be no differ-ence between the proposed action and theno-action alternative because satellite process-ing facilities would likely be utilized by otherprograms.

The 17 permanent personnel represent ap-proximately 0.23 percent of the 7,500-personwork force at Cape Canaveral AS. The com-bined total of 67 is approximately 0.89 per-cent.

Assuming 2.8 dependents per permanent em-ployee, the estimated population of BrevardCounty for 1995 would be increased by 65.For the period 1990 through 1995, the popu-lation of Brevard County was estimated to in-crease by 13.5 percent, to 452,737 (Universityof Florida, 1992).

4.11 NOISE

Proposed Action. Noise sources in prelaunchprocessing areas, such as pumps and compres-sors, are minor compared to launch noises.Operational activities will be conducted insidebuildings. These activities are typical for an

No Action. Cape Canaveral AS accommo-dates other space launch programs unrelatedto the proposed action that would continue in

-49-


use for the foreseeable future. The activitiesassociated with these programs have environ-mental consequences which have been in-cluded in the baseline environmental condi-tions (Section 3). Assuming half of the DSCSprogram permanent personnel would be un-needed, the work force at Cape Canaveral ASdecrease by 9, or 0.12 percent. The BrevardCounty population would decrease by 46.

septic systems to treat wastewater or dischargeinto the wastewater treatment plant for themain industrial area.

Assuming a design wastewater flow of 30 gpdper person and 17 permanent personnel asso-ciated with the DSCS program, the total esti-mated wastewater flow would be 0.0005 mgd.For 67 permanent and interim personnel as-sociated with a launch, wastewater flow wouldtotal 0.002 mgd.4.13 UTILITIES

4.13.1 Water Supply No Action. Cape Canaveral AS accommo-dates other space launch programs unrelatedto the proposed action that would continue inuse for the foreseeable future. The activitiesassociated with these programs have environ-mental consequences which have been in-cluded in the baseline environmental condi-tions (Section 3). Assuming half of the DSCSprogram permanent personnel would be un-needed, the average daily wastewater flow atCape Canaveral AS would decrease by 0.0003mgd.

Proposed Action. Assuming a design wateruse of 50 gallons per day (gpd) per person,the 17 permanent personnel would consumeapproximately 850 gpd, or approximately0.13 percent of the average daily water usageat Cape Canaveral AS of 640,000 gpd. For 67permanent and interim personnel associatedwith a launch, water consumption would total3,350 gpd, or 0.52 percent of the averagedaily use at Cape Canaveral AS.

No Action. Cape Canaveral AS accommo-dates other space launch programs unrelatedto the proposed action that would continue inuse for the foreseeable future. The activitiesassociated with these programs have environ-mental consequences which have been in-cluded in the baseline environmental condi-tions (Section 3). Assuming half of the DSCSprogram permanent personnel would be un-needed, the average daily water consumptionat Cape Canaveral AS would decline from640,000 gpd to 639,550 gpd.

4.13.3 Electricity

Proposed Action. The main use of electricityin support of prelaunch processing activities isrelated to environmental control at facilities,and is not specifically related to the number ofpersonnel. These facilities are all existing, andthe proposed action would cause essentially nochange in electricity usage.

No Action. Cape Canaveral AS accommo-dates other space launch programs unrelatedto the proposed action that would continue inuse for the foreseeable future. The activitiesassociated with these programs have environ-mental consequences which have been in-cluded in the baseline environmental condi-tions (Section 3). Prelaunch processing facili-ties would continue in use for other programs,and there would be essentially no change inelectricity usage.

4.13.2 Wastewater Treatment

Proposed Action. No wastewater will be gen-erated from prelaunch satellite processingaside f rom that generated by personnel .Effluent from the DPF is discharged to a0.010 mgd extended aeration treatment plant(Facility Number 55860), and thence to twopercolation ponds for disposal to the surfaceg r o u n d w a t e r a q u i f e r . F D E P P e r m i tD005-195237 authorizes the discharge of0.010 mgd of effluent treated to a secondarylevel. The plant currently operates at approx-imately 25 percent of its capacity. Othersatellite processing facilities utilize individual

4.14 ORBITAL DEBRIS

Proposed Action. A total of six DSCS IIIsatellites will be launched into GEO. Thelaunch weight of the DSCS III satellite is 2,643pounds, which includes 608 pounds of mono-

-50-


propellant hydrazine and 45 pounds of ballast.After the completion of its mission, the re-maining mass would be 2,035 pounds. Thelaunch weight of the IABS is approximately3,268 pounds, including the launch vehicleadapter and 2,670 pounds of propellant thatwill be consumed. At the conclusion of itsmission, the IABS mass would be 597 pounds.

• Expulsion of excess propellants and pres-surants after mission completion

• Designing satel l i tes so that they are“litter-free” - i.e., separation devices,payload shrouds, and other expendablehardware are disposed of at alti tudeswhere they do not become orbital or re-main attached by lanyards

The six IABS will end in an orbit approxi-mately 280 km below GEO, and not interferewith on-orbit satellites in GEO. However,satellites launching into GEO will traverse theorbit used by the IABS. The six DSCS IIIsatellites will be boosted to a disposal orbit be-yond GEO and not interfere with on-orbitsatellites in GEO.

• Providing electrical protection circuits toprevent battery explosions

• Deorbiting used satellites and launch ve-hicles

• Boosting satellites into disposal orbits af-ter operational life ends

• Boosting satellites to escape velocity

Therefore, the number of objects in near GEOwill increase by 12, or approximately 2.6 per-cent . The mass wil l increase by 15,792pounds. The equatorial radius of the earth isapproximately 6,392 km and the altitude toGEO is approximately 35,787 km. Therefore,the area of the sphere occupied by GEO is ap-proximately 22,356,428,351 square kilometers(km2), and the area in km2 per object would be48,078,341. However, most of the objects inGEO are near the equatorial band where theDSCS III satellites will operate and not evenlydistributed.

• Adding dedicated debris shielding

• Placing mission critical and potentiallyexplosive components inside satellites

• Using materials that do not degrade intofragments

• Selecting launch windows using collisionavoidance software programs

Sufficient fuel shall be reserved to move eachsatellite to a disposal orbit. For the near-term,these measures will minimize the potential forcollision with operational spacecraft. For thelong-term, the proposed action will contributeto a problem which may eventually becomesignificant.

GEO is an important resource, and the chanceof a collision between a large satellite and de-bris is estimated at 0.1 percent over its lifetime(USOTA, 1990). Additionally, the relativevelocities in GEO are low, and collisions wouldnot be as damaging and produce as manyfragments as a collision in LEO, where sub-stantial concerns are present. Recent analysissuggests that satellites in low to medium Earthorbits may require design changes by 2000 toprotect them against orbital debris (Aerospace,1995). The hazards from orbital debris inGEO are considered less than the hazard frommeteoroids passing through the orbit (USOTA,1990). However, collisions in GEO could in-crease the number of objects and thus thechance of collisions.

The environmental effects of deorbiting debrisare assessed in the sections of the EA regard-ing safety and stratospheric ozone.

No Action. Other space programs unrelatedto the proposed action would continue for theforeseeable future. The activities associatedwith these programs have environmental con-sequences which have been included in thebaseline environmental conditions (Section 3).Under the no-action alternative, debris relatedto these other programs, both United Statesand foreign, will continue to be deposited inorbit.

Measures to prevent and reduce space debrisinclude:

-51-


4.15 SAFETY • Rupture of nitrogen tetroxide tanks orlines resulting in exposure to poisonousand reactive vapor or liquidProposed Action. In addition to the general

safety regulations and standards enumerated inSection 3.15, satellite processing safety hasb e e n c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e A c c i d e n t R i s kAssessment Report for the DSCS III/IABS(MMAS, 1994b) and the pad safety plan forthe DPF. Safety concerns regarding satelliteprocessing operations can generally be dividedinto injury to personnel and damage to prop-erty.

• Unauthorized personnel in processing ar-eas

• Orbital reentry

• Tripping

• Sharp edges

• Noise.

4.15.2 Damage to Property4.15.1 Injury to Personnel

Safety concerns include:Safety concerns include:

• Transport aircraft accidents• Transport aircraft accidents• Transport vehicle accidents during deliv-

ery of components• Transport vehicle accidents during deliv-ery of components

• Vehicle accidents during transport be-tween facilities at Cape Canaveral AS• Vehicle accidents during transport be-

tween facilities at Cape Canaveral AS• Excessive stress loads during transport or

handling• Accidents during handling operations re-lated to failure of support equipment orpersonnel errors • Accidents during handling operations re-

lated to failure of support equipment orpersonnel errors• Personne l con tac t wi th e lec t r i ca l ly

charged components• Inadvertent deployment of satellite mech-

anisms within launch vehicle fairing• Exposure of personnel to hazardous levelsof radio frequency radiation

• Execution of system functions with safe-guards not set• Execution of hazardous systems functions

with personnel in unsafe location• Execution of system functions in incor-

rect sequence• Execution of hazardous systems functionsin incorrect sequence

• Battery rupture and/or explosion• Failure of hazardous systems monitoringequipment • Improper equipment installation or cable

connection• Rupture of a pressurized component• Failure of monitoring equipment• Personnel contact with heat sources in-

cluding load resisters , infrared l ightsources, and high intensity lights

• Contamination of the propellant systemsby entry of particulate-contaminated gas

• Battery rupture and/or explosion • Rupture of a pressurized component

• Activation of ordnance devices by acci-dent or electrostatic discharge

• Electrostatic discharge

• Damage to solar array panels during test-ing• Rupture of hydrazine or MMH tanks or

lines resulting in exposure to poisonousvapor or liquid, or explosion due to igni-tion or exposure to incompatible materials

• Transmission of improper or out-of-se-quence signals

-52-


• Malfunction of batteries Two primary factors determine whether or notan object will survive reentry and strike theEarth: the melting point of its material and itsballistic coefficient. The ballistic coefficient isthe mass of an object compared to its area. Asan object reenters, friction with the atmosphereproduces heat. Heating begins at approxi-mately 80 nautical miles and the heating ratepeaks at 30 to 45 nautical miles, depending onthe ballistic coefficient of the object. The in-tegrity of an object is maintained until itsmelting temperature is reached, and the ballis-tic coefficient of the object determines themaximum temperature that will be reachedduring reentry (Aerospace, 1992).

• Activation of ordnance devices by acci-dent or electrostatic discharge

• Power surges

• Backup power and control failure

• Short circuiting from improper electricalconnections

• Improper installation in transporters

• Failure of environmental control duringstorage or transport

• Rupture of hydrazine or MMH tanks orlines resulting in explosion due to ignitionor exposure to incompatible materials Space and launch vehicles with an aluminum

structure typically breakup at 42 nauticalmiles. The subsidiary objects resulting fromthis breakup will then be exposed to atmo-spheric drag, and their fate will vary depend-ing on their material and ballistic coefficient.Aluminum objects with a ballistic coefficientof less than 15 pounds per square feet (lb/ft2)will generally survive. Propellant and pressur-ant tanks made from titanium will generallysurvive reentry intact, regardless of ballisticcoefficient, because of titanium's high meltingtemperature (Aerospace, 1992).

• Rupture of nitrogen tetroxide tanks orlines resulting in oxidation of exposedvulnerable materials

• Insertion in improper orbit

• Damage to antennas during testing andassembly

• Premature reentry.

4.15.3 Risk Assessment and Mitigation

Proposed Action. Mishaps during air trans-port of the satellite are unlikely since flightcrews are constantly trained in operation andsafety of the aircraft. Ground transport acci-dents are also unlikely because of the lowspeeds, precautions, and times when transportoccurs. The DSCS III/IABS is transported tothe DPF without propellants.

Therefore, certain components of the satelliteand IABS are likely to survive reentry. Forthose objects with a high ballistic coefficientthat survive reentry, the results of a personbeing struck, whether in a building or not,would probably be fatal. Those objects with alower ballistic coefficient that survive reentrywill have a lower velocity at impact, but stillcould produce injury or death. To date therehave been no in jur ies or fa ta l i t ies f romreentering objects. Over the period 1958 to1991, NASA indicated that 14,831 payloadsand debris objects reentered the atmosphere(NASA, 1991). The daily average individualrisk from reentering objects computed by theAerospace Corporation is substantially smallerthan such hazards as work accidents, lightning,air carrier accidents, or smallpox vaccinations,and is comparable to that of being struck by ameteori te (meteor that survives to Earthimpact). The only reported incident of ameteorite striking a person occurred in 1954w h e n a w o m a n w a s b r u i s e d b y a s t o n e

The safety concerns listed in previous sectionsh a v e b e e n c o n s i d e r e d i n p l a n n i n g f o rprelaunch processing and launch. Detailedprocedures and training for all hazardous pro-cesses have been prepared and implemented.The 45th Space Wing Director of Safety willreview and approve all safety procedures.

Orbital reentry of the IABS or satellites is un-likely to occur for substantially more than1,000 years due to the nature of their finalorbits, unless an accident occurs during orbitalinsertion. Therefore, the following discussionis only applicable to an accident resulting inreentry.

-53-


meteorite that crashed through the roof of herhouse (Aerospace, 1992) . Assuming anincrease in the number of reentering objectswould increase the risk on a proportional basis,a 1 0 0 - f o l d i n c r e a s e i n o b j e c t s w i t h aconsequent 100-fold increase in risk wouldproduce a daily average individual risk stillsubstantially less than any of the hazardsmentioned previously.

assumptions regarding the final configurationof the program will be made as necessary toassess cumulative impacts. It is also assumedthat no new facilities will be required at CapeCanaveral AS to accommodate these pro-grams.

For purposes of this assessment, it is assumedthat six of the SBIRS satellites will be launchedus ing the T i tan IV So l id Rocke t MotorUpgrade (SRMU). The environmental effectsof the Titan IV SRMU have been previouslyassessed (USAF, 1990), and a FONSI signed.It is also assumed that there will be an overlapwith the DSCS III program of two satellitelaunches from Cape Canaveral AS (one peryear for the las t two years of the DSCSIII/IABS program).

Additional precautions are taken to ensure thatthe risk from lightning strikes is reduced. Allfacilities at Cape Canaveral AS incorporatelightning arresting devices for protectionagainst lightning strikes.

No Action. Cape Canaveral AS accommo-dates other space launch programs unrelatedto the proposed action that would continue inuse for the foreseeable future. The activitiesassociated with these programs have environ-mental consequences which have been in-cluded in the baseline environmental condi-tions (Section 3).

The final number of BE satellites is unknown,as is the launch vehicle (LV). The BE pro-gram could also potentially be incorporatedinto the SBIRS program as a low Earth orbitcomponent. For purposes of this assessment, itis assumed that there will be an overlap withthe DSCS I I I p rogram of n ine sa t e l l i t elaunches from Cape Canaveral AS (three peryear for the last three years of the DSCSIII/IABS program) and that the Atlas II will beused as the LV. An EA with a signed FONSIevaluated the effects of up to four Atlas IIASlaunches per year from Cape Canaveral AS(USAF, 1991b).

4.16 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cape Canaveral AS accommodates various on-going space programs. The environmental ef-fects associated with these programs have beenincluded in the baseline environmental condi-tions (Section 3). Forecasts of future launchesare shown in Table 10 (USAF, 1995. Thesepro jec t ions ind ica te tha t the number oflaunches is anticipated to decrease by approx-imately 30 percent. Those launch vehicleswith the largest potential impact because oftheir use of solid rocket motors, including theSpace Shuttle, Titan, and Trident programs,will also have substantially fewer launches withthe exception of the Space Shuttle.

Twenty-one GPS IIR satellites will be launchedduring the same time period as the DSCS IIIprogram (three per year) using the Delta IILV. The environmental effects of the Delta IILV and the GPS IIR constellation have beenpreviously assessed (USAF, 1994b).

All of the LVs are part of existing launch pro-grams whose ongoing environmental impactshave been included in the baseline environ-mental conditions (Section 3) or assessed inEAs wi th s igned FONSIs . The MediumLaunch Vehicle (MLV) II and III programsfor DSCS III/IABS and GPS IIR are includedin the forecasts shown in Table 10. Therefore,additional foreseeable launches would total no

Additional space programs that are reasonablyforeseeable include Space Based InfraredSystem (SBIRS), Brilliant Eyes (BE), and theNAVSTAR Global Positioning System (GPS)IIR replenishment constellation and their as-sociated launch vehicles. Of these three pro-grams, the GPS IIR is the only one whose finalconfiguration is known. For SBIRS and BE,

-54-


Table 10 Forecast Launches at Cape Canaveral AS/Kennedy Space Center

Vehicle FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01

Space Shuttle 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Atlas 11 10 5 3 5 5 4

Delta 4 6 11 5 5 4 4

Titan 4 4 3 2 2 2 2

Lockheed LV 0 1 2 2 2 2 2

Med-Lite 0 0 0 0 4 2 3

Trident I 4 3 3 2 2 0 0

Trident II 3 4 3 2 2 2 2

UK Trident II 2 0 0 1 0 1 0

TOTALS 3 5 3 5 3 4 2 4 2 9 2 5 2 4

more than four per year, using LVs whose im-pacts have already been assessed and found tobe not significant.

Launch impacts from Atlas II and Titan IVLVs are already included in the baselineconditions. Since the Atlas II does not usesolid rocket motors, the only launch emissionconst i tuent of concern would be carbonmonoxide, which rapidly oxidizes to carbondioxide due to the abundant oxygen and highe x h a u s t t e m p e r a t u r e s ( U S A F , 1 9 9 4 b ) .Specific estimates for the prelaunch processingemissions for the Atlas II are only partiallyavailable. However, these emissions would oc-cur under existing permits which reflect the re-sults of the FDEP analysis of emission levelsthat would not adversely affect air quality.

The cumulative impacts are quantified wherequantitative information was available or rea-sonable assumptions could be made. Wherequantitative information was not available orassumptions could not be reasonably made,the impacts are assessed qualitatively. In anycase, rather than a 30 percent reduction (10pe r yea r ) i n t he number o f an t i c ipa t edlaunches, there would be a 17 percent reduc-tion (6 per year).

4.16.1 Air Quality For the Titan IV SRMU LV, the primarylaunch emission constituents of concern arecarbon monoxide , which would oxid izerapidly to carbon dioxide, aluminum ox-ide(Al2O3) , and hydrochlor ic ac id (HCl) .These emissions were determined to be notsignificant for up to six launches per year(USAF, 1990). Prelaunch processing emis-sions associated with up to six launches peryear were not expected to be measurable off-site (USAF, 1990.

The SBIRS, BE, and GPS IIR programs woulduse existing prelaunch processing facilitieswith standby generators and boilers that havealready been included in the baseline envi-ronmental conditions in Section 3. Additionalvolatile organic compound emissions wouldoccur primarily from the use of solvents,coatings, and adhesives during prelaunch pro-cessing of each satellite. These amounts aresmall and estimated to total no more than 1ton per year, cumulatively. As such, thecumulative VOC emissions from all foursatellite programs would increase the currentbaseline for Brevard County by less than 0.17percent.

Therefore, no significant cumulative impactson regional air quality are anticipated.

As documented in the EA for MLV III, thetotal chlorine emissions into the stratospherefor all LVs worldwide would produce an esti-mated annual ozone reduction of 0.0425 per-

-55-


cent. To produce an additional one excesscancer per one million persons, an estimated0.2 percent reduction in ozone would be nec-essary (USAF, 1994b).

Specific estimates for hazardous waste genera-tion for the Titan IV SRMU are not available.Cumulatively, the annual amount of hazardouswaste generated at Cape Canaveral AS woulddecrease because of the overall decline innumber of launches.4.16.2 Hazardous Materials

The SBIRS, BE, and GPS IIR programs are as-sumed to use similar types and quantities ofhazardous materials as those used for theDSCS III/IABS program. Under simultaneousoperation of all four programs, there will be anincreased demand for hazardous materials atCape Canaveral AS. As wi th the DSCSIII/IABS program, the impacts associated withhazardous materials for the SBIRS, BE, andGPS IIR programs, will be limited to minor airemissions from the use of small quantities ofsolvents, coatings, and adhesives. No otherimpacts from the use of hazardous materials inthe new programs are expected if hazardousmaterials are used in accordance with applica-ble safety, health, and environmental regula-tions. Hazardous materials usage associatedwith the LVs would decrease from the currentbaseline conditions due to an overall reductionin number of launches.

4.16.4 Solid Waste

The DSCS III/IABS program will generate ap-proximately 29.5 tpy of solid waste, or about15 tons per mission. The GPS IIR programwill generate approximately 20 tpy of solidwaste, or about 6.7 tons per mission (USAF,1994b). Assuming that the SBIRS and BEprograms will generate amounts of solid wasteper mission similar to the GPS IIR program,approximate annual solid waste generation forthese programs will be 6.7 tpy for SBIRS and20 tpy for BE. The combined solid wastefrom all four satellite programs will be 76.2tpy. This represents an increase of less than2.2 percent per year over the current solidwaste generation rate of 3,492 tpy at CapeCanaveral AS.

Annual solid waste generation associated withthe Atlas II LV was estimated to be approxi-mately 64.2 tons per year (USAF, 1994b).Specific estimates for the Titan IV programare not available. However, solid waste forboth of these programs is included in the cur-rent baseline conditions. With the projecteddecrease in number of launches, solid wastegeneration would decrease.

4.16.3 Hazardous Waste

The DSCS III/IABS program will generate amaximum of 4,753 pounds of hazardous wasteper year, or approximately 2,376 pounds permission. The GPS IIR program will generateapproximately 1,330 pounds of hazardouswaste per year , or approximate ly 444.3pounds of hazardous was te per miss ion(USAF, 1994b). Assuming that hazardouswaste generation rates for each mission of theSBIRS will be similar to the DSCS III/IABSprogram and the BE program will be similar tothe GPS IIR program, annual hazardous wastegeneration for these programs will be 2,376pounds for SBIRS and 1,330 pounds for BE.The combined amount from all four satelliteprograms operating at one time would be8,459 pounds per year. This represents an in-crease of approximately 2 percent per yearover the current total hazardous waste genera-t ion of 420,662 pounds per year at CapeCanaveral AS. The Atlas II LV is estimated togenerate approximately 4,200 pounds of haz-ardous waste per mission (USAF, 1994b).

4.16.5 Pollution Prevention

The SBIRS, BE, and GPS IIR programs are as-sumed to use similar types and quantities ofhazardous materials as those used for theDSCS program, including the use of limiteda m o u n t s o f E P A - 1 7 i n d u s t r i a l t o x i c s .Cumulatively, the four programs are predictedto use less than 15 gallons per year of materi-als that contain EPA-17 industrial toxics. Allnew programs will comply with the PPMAPthat will be developed by Cape Canaveral AS.Compliance with the PPMAP will minimizepollution and meet the regulatory require-ments relative to pollution prevention. TheAtlas II and Titan IV LV programs will com-

-56-


ply with Air Force pollution prevention pro-grams.

4.16.8 Water Quality

As with the DSCS III/IABS program, activitiesassociated with the SBIRS, BE, and GPS IIRprograms are not expected to affect waterquality. The nature of satellite processing re-quires that the majority of activities take placewithin structures, where the potential for im-pacts from spills or leaks is minimal. TheAtlas II and Titan IV LVs will not cause anyincreased adverse effect on water quality be-cause the overall launch rate is projected todecline. Precautions will be taken to preventand control spills of hazardous materials forall programs in accordance with 45 SW OPlan19-1.

4.16.6 Nonionizing Radiation

The limiting safe distance for antennas on theDSCS III/IABS satellite is 5.5 feet. Eachsatellite processed under the SBIRS and BEprograms is assumed to have antennas similarto those on the GPS IIR satellite. The limitingsafe distance for antennas on the Block IIRsatellite is 5 feet (USAF, 1994b). Antennas onboth the DSCS and the GPS IIR satellites willbe enclosed in a radiation shields during test-ing to prevent exposure of personnel to haz-ardous levels of RF radiation. If radiationshields or antenna hats are not used duringprocessing of SBIRS and BE satellites, person-nel will need to remain at least 5 feet awayfrom the satellites during antenna testing.Since the respective satellites for each programare separate sources of RF radiation that emitduring testing at various times and differentlocations, there is no cumulative (additive) im-pact f rom RF radiat ion for the differentsources.

Each launch of an Atlas II LV uses approxi-mately 280,000 gallons of water which perco-lates into the surficial aquifer (USAF, 1989b).The Titan IV SRMU generates approximately400,000 gallons per launch which also perco-lates into the surficial aquifer (USAF, 1990).Overall, the amount of deluge water will de-crease because of the cumulative reduction inthe number of launches.

Safe distances for RF radiation from the AtlasII LV antennas are less than one foot (USAF,1994b). Information on antennas associatedwith the Titan IV SRMU LV is not available,but the safe distances are assumed to be simi-lar. Each LV is a separate source of radiationthat emits at various times and different loca-tions. Therefore, there would be no cumula-tive effects.

4.16.9 Biological Communities

Satellite and LV processing would occur inexisting facilities and biological communitieswould not be affected. The LVs are existingtypes with active launch programs at differentlaunch complexes. Therefore, the biologicalcommunities near the complexes are alreadydisturbed due to the existing launch programs.Each SLC has its own light management planto minimize impacts on sea turtle hatchlings.The anticipated lower cumulative launch ratewould decrease the frequency of disturbancenear these complexes, but not change the areaof disturbance.

4.16.7 Ionizing Radiation

None of the LVs carry sources of ionizing ra-diation. Each of the GPS IIR satellites con-tains two frequency standards with 200 micro-grams of rubidium each, a total of 8.4 mil-ligrams. None of the satellites are anticipatedto include nuclear reactors or other significantsources of ionizing radiation. Any low-levelradiation sources would be distributed amongdifferent satellites, limiting the potential forany additive effects. There would be no antic-ipated health risks.

4.16.10 Cultural Resources

The SBIRS, BE, and GPS IIR programs woulduse existing facilities at Cape Canaveral AS.No changes to launch complexes which maybe listed or eligible for the National Registerof Historic Places or which may be NationalH i s t o r i c L a n d m a r k s a r e a n t i c i p a t e d .Therefore, no impacts to historical resourcesare expected. Because no disturbance of earth

-57-


is anticipated for any of the programs, ar-chaeological resources would not be impacted.

850 gpd. Due to a reduction of personnel inthe GPS program from 100 to 50, the waterdemand at Cape Canaveral AS will decreasefrom the current 640,000 gpd to a baseline of637,500 gpd at the beginning of the GPS IIRprogram. The cumulative actions will increasewater use at Cape Canaveral AS to 645,850gpd, or 1.3 percent above the baseline of637,500 gpd. The Cape Canaveral AS watersupply system has been designed to accom-modate periodic deluge water demands.

4.16.11 Noise

For satellite prelaunch processing, all neces-sary and feasible noise control mitigation mea-sures will be implemented at the affected fa-cilities to meet worker noise exposure limits asspecified by OSHA. Due to the distances in-volved, there will be no noise impact at sensi-tive receptor locations in public residential ar-eas as a result of the normal prelaunch pro-cessing operations.

Wastewater generation for the GPS IIR pro-gram will be 1,500 gpd based on fifty perma-nent personnel. Assuming the same numberof personnel will be required for the SBIRSand BE programs, the wastewater generatedfrom each will also be approximately 1,500gpd. Including the DSCS program wastewaterof 510 gpd, the simultaneous operation of allfour programs will increase wastewater gen-eration at Cape Canaveral AS by 5,010 gpd.Due to the cumulative projected reduction inthe number of launches, wastewater generationassociated with the Atlas II and Titan IV pro-grams is projected to decrease. Currently, allmajor treatment facilities at Cape Canaveral AShave adequate capacity to handle the cumula-tive load.

Each launch is a discrete event which isscheduled so that launches do not occur at thesame time. Furthermore, the cumulative num-ber of launches is projected to decrease.Therefore, there would be no adverse cumula-tive noise impact from launches.

4.16.12 Socioeconomics

The GPS program is an existing program atCape Canaveral AS, and personnel require-ments will actually decrease for the GPS IIRsatellite constellation. The LV programs thatwould launch all the satellites are also existing,and additional personnel would not be re-quired. Assuming that the SBIRS and BEprograms will each require 50 additional per-sonnel, the work force at Cape Canaveral ASwould cumulatively increase by 67, accountingfor the decrease of 50 attributable to the BlockIIR program and the 17 for the DSCS pro-gram. Assuming 2.8 dependents per em-ployee, the estimated 1995 population ofBrevard County would increase by 255. The1995 est imate of populat ion for BrevardCounty is 452,737, exclusive of these addi-tions.

Electricity usage should not vary substantiallyfrom the existing baseline conditions sinceexisting facilities would be used.

4.16.14 Orbital Debris

For purposes of this assessment, it will be as-sumed that the end of life average weight forthe BE and SBIRS satellites is 3,000 pounds.Therefore, a total of 33,00 pounds of orbitalmass from these satellites would be added.The 47,481 pounds attributable to the GPS IIRsatellites would be placed in MEO, causing nocumulative impact with the DSCS III/IABSsatellites. Assuming the placement of all 11 ofthe BE and SBIRS satellites in GEO and as-suming that orbital insertion systems for eachof these satellites would remain in near-GEO, ato t a l o f 22 ob j ec t s wou ld be p l aced i nnear-GEO. Adding the 12 objects attributableto the DSCS III/IABS program would increasethe number of tracked objects in near-GEO by34, or 7.5 percent.

4.16.13 Utilities

Water use for the GPS IIR program will be2,500 gpd based on 50 permanent personnel.Assuming that the required personnel for theSBIRS and BE programs will be roughly thesame as those for the GPS IIR program, eachof these three programs will also use approxi-mately 2,500 gallons of water per day. TheDSCS III/IABS permanent personnel will use

-58-


4.16.15 Safety safety for each of the programs will be consid-ered in individual missile system prelaunchsafety packages. All hazardous processes willbe analyzed and safe procedures established insafety plans. The 45th Space Wing Director ofSafety will review and approve all safety pro-cedures.

With the increased number of potentially haz-ardous processes, the risk of accidents will in-crease. All operations at Cape Canaveral ASare subject to the safety regulations and stan-dards referenced in Section 3.15. In addition,

-59-

Environmental AssessmentDefense Satellite Communications System III Regulatory Review and Permit Requirements

SECTION 5.0

REGULATORY REVIEW AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

5.1 AIR QUALITY detrimental effects. The levels were developedas part of a strategy to control the release oftoxic pollutants to a no threat level and are, assuch, health based standards.

The Florida air pollution control program ismanaged by the FDEP under authority of theFlorida Air and Water Pollution Control Actand the Environmental Protection Act. FDEPadminis ters the a i r pol lu t ion program inBrevard County. The Brevard County Officeof Natural Resources is under contract to FDEPfor ambient air quali ty monitoring in thecounty.

The boiler at the DPF is permitted to operatecontinuously at its rated capacity under FDEPPermit A005-201125. The generator at theDPF is a standby generators operating less than400 hours per year and is not required to bepermitted by FDEP. The fuel and oxidizerscrubbers at the DPF service the hypergolicvent system. The scrubbers at the DPF operateunder FDEP Permit AO05-236505.

The regulations detailed in the CAA and con-tained in the SIP are embodied in the permit-ting programs conducted by FDEP. To ensurethe protection of the public health, safety, andwelfare, FDEP requires permits for constructionand operation of any installation considered tobe a source of air pollutants. The policy inher-ent in the permits program is to protect the airquality existing at the time air quality standardswere adopted or to upgrade or improve thequality of the air within the state.

5.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE

H a z a r d o u s w a s t e m a n a g e m e n t a t C a p eCanaveral AS is regulated under 40 CFR, Parts260 through 280, and Florida AdministrativeCode (FAC) 17-730. These regulations areimplemented at Cape Canaveral AS through 45SW OPlan 19-14, Petroleum Products andHazardous Waste Management Plan. CapeCanaveral AS holds Florida Department ofEnvironmental Regulation hazardous wastemanagement permit number H005-185569,pursuant to Section 403.722, Florida Statutes.This permit allows management of hazardouswaste in designated areas of Cape Canaveral ASin accordance with 40 CFR 264 and 265.USAF operations on Cape Canaveral AS areident i f ied by EPA ident i f icat ion numberFL2800016121.

Toxic air pollutants are chemicals that areknown to or are suspected of causing cancer orother serious health effects, including damageto the respiratory or nervous systems, birth de-fects, and reproductive effects. Air toxics in-clude metals, other particles, and certain vaporsfrom fuel and other sources. The Clean AirAct Amendments of 1990 authorize EPA to setstandards requiring facilities to sharply reduceroutine emissions of air toxics.

Currently, the state of Florida regulates air tox-ics through the development of No ThreatLevels (NTL). An NTL is the ground levelambient concentration of a pollutant to which aperson may be exposed and not experience any

5.3 WATER QUALITY

The Federal Water Pollut ion Control Act(FWPCA) of 1972, as amended by the CleanWater Act (CWA) and the Water Quality Act

-60-

Environmental AssessmentDefense Satellite Communications System III Regulatory Review and Permit Requirements

(WQA) of 1987, forms the legal framework tosupport maintenance and restoration of waterquality. The FWPCA is commonly referred toas the CWA and establ ishes the NationalPol lu tant Discharge El iminat ion System(NPDES) as the regulatory mechanism toachieve water quality goals by regulating pollu-tant discharge to navigable streams, rivers, andlakes.

Plan, required by 40 CFR 112. Included inOPlan 19-1 are all applicable federal, state, andlocal contacts in the event of a spill.

5.4 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)authorizes a state-federal partnership to ensurethe protection of coastal resources. WhileFlorida has specifically excluded federal facili-ties from the state's coastal zone, as required bySections 305(b)(1) and 304(1) of the CZMA,the act requires that federal activities directlyaffecting the coastal zone and federal develop-ment projects located in or directly affectingthe coastal area be consistent “to the maximumextent practicable” with the Florida CoastalManagement Program (CMP). Therefore, theFlorida CZMA requires consistency review offederal development projects and activities “. .. which significantly affect the coastal watersand the adjacent shorelands of the s tate”(380.23(3)(a), FS).

The EPA issues NPDES wastewater dischargepermits and storm water permits. The Corps ofEngineers issues wetlands permits. The FDEPissues permits for wastewater discharges andshares regulation of wetlands with the SaintJohns River Water Management District. TheSaint Johns River Water Management Districtadministers the storm water management pro-gram at Cape Canaveral AS. Septic tanks areregulated by the Brevard County Departmentof Health.

FDEP Permit D005-195237 authorizes the dis-charge of 0.010 mgd of effluent treated to asecondary level from the treatment plant in thesatellite assembly area which includes the DPF.

Of the Florida statutory authorities included inthe CMP, impacts from DSCS III/IABS process-ing in the areas of historic preservation (chapter267), living land and freshwater resources(chapter 372), and environmental control(chapter 403) are addressed in this EA.

Spills of hazardous materials are covered under45 SW Operations Plan (OPlan) 19-1, Oil andHazardous Substances Pollution Contingency

-61-

Environmental AssessmentDefense Satellite Communications System III Persons and Agencies Consulted

SECTION 6.0

PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED

The following individuals were consulted dur-ing preparation of this environmental assess-ment.

Brevard County

Hunter, Charles

6.1 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 6.3 OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

Cape Canaveral AS Aerospace Corporation

Fragala, Capt Al (45 SPOS/DOD) Bresnick, RobertGreenberg, SteveLang, ValerieSchmunk, DonSpiglanin, Tom

Los Angeles AFB

Berkstresser, Lt Marc (MCMT)Edwards, John (SMC/CEV)Fox, Lt Joe (SMC/CEV)Pham, Capt Bruce (DSCS Engineering)

EG&G

Thomas, JackPatrick AFB

Johnson ControlsAlbury, Joan (45 CES/CEV)Camaradese, Mike (45 CES/CEV)Crawford, Ginger (45 CES/CEV)Smith, Larry (45 CES/CEV)Wethern, Jeff (45 SW)

Burkett, K.D.Byrd, CurtisGeorge, DonHalbert, LynettePotter, DonnaReagan, MarkSchidel, Catherine

6.2 FEDERAL , STATE, AND LOCALAGENCIES

Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection

Martin Marietta

Allen, TomMcClelland, JamesStrickland, ScottUlshafer, Kevin

Ehu, YiShine, Caroline

-62-

Environmental AssessmentDefense Satellite Communications System III References

SECTION 7.0

REFERENCES

Aerospace, 1992. The Aerospace Corporation,Review of Orbital Reentry Risk Predictions,July 15, 1992.

Services, concerning permitted hazardouswaste storage and treatment facilities at CapeCanaveral AS, February 28, 1994.

Aerospace, 1995. Overview of the SpaceDebris Environment, M.J. Meshishnek,March 15, 1995.

Camaradese, 1995. Personal conversation withMike Camaradese, 45 CES/CEV, regardingsolid waste generation at CCAS, March1995.

A I A A , 1 9 9 2 . A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e o fAeronautics and Astronautics, Orbital DebrisMitigation Techniques: Technical, Legal,and Economic Aspects, AIAA SP-016-1992,1992.

CBAEDC, 1992. Cocoa Beach Area EconomicDevelopment Council, Cocoa Beach AreaChamber of Commerce, Cocoa Beach areaeconomic profile. Merritt Island, Florida,1992.

Albury, 1995. Personal conversation with JoanAlbury, 45 CES/CEV, regarding hazardouswaste generation at CCAS, March 1995.

FA, 1991. Ford Aerospace, Accident RiskAssessment Report for Automated RemoteTracking Station, July 1991.

Barton and Levy, 1984. David F. Barton andRichard S. Levy, An Archaeological andEngineering Survey and Evaluat ion ofFacilities at Cape Canaveral Air Station,Brevard County, Florida. Submitted toNational Park Service, Atlanta, for the UnitedStates Air Force, Eastern Space and MissileCenter, Patrick Air Force Base, Florida,1984.

F D E P , 1 9 9 2 . F l o r i d a D e p a r t m e n t o fEnvironmental Protection, 1992 Florida wa-ter quality assessment, 305(b) main report,June 1992.

F D E P , 1 9 9 4 . F l o r i d a D e p a r t m e n t o fEnvironmental Protection, Conversation withCaroline Shine regarding air quality compli-ance, May 23, 1994.

BC, 1991. Bionetics Corporation, AmbientWater Quality Conditions at the KennedySpace Center, February 27, 1991.

F D E P , 1 9 9 5 . F l o r i d a D e p a r t m e n t o fEnvironmental Protection, Conversation withYi Ehu regarding Brevard County baselineemissions, March 23, 1995.BCRCD, 1988. Brevard County Research and

Cartography Division, 1988 data abstract,Merritt Island, Florida, 1988. Fragala, 1993. Personal communication with

Capt Al Fragala (45 SPOS/DOD) concerningantenna characteristics at Defense SatelliteCommunication System Processing Facility,May 4, 1993.

Burkett , 1994. K.D. Burkett , Supervisor,Sanitation, Johnson Controls, personal con-versation concerning water supply, January20, 1994.

George, 1987. D.H. George, Pan Am WorldServices, Inc., Fish and Wildlife ManagementByrd, 1994. Telephone conversation with

Cur t i s Byrd , Johnson Cont ro l s Wor ld

-63-


Plan for Cape Canaveral Air Station, Florida ,1987.

NSC, 1989. National Security Council, Reporton Orbital Debris by Interagency Group(Space), February 1989.

George, 1995. Don George, Johnson Controls,Telephone conversations regarding culturalresources.

Polk & Postow, 1986. Charles Polk and ElliotPostow, CRC Handbook of Biological Effectsof Electromagnetic Fields, 1986.

Halbert, 1995. Telephone communication withLynette Halbert, Johnson Controls WorldServices, regarding the status of hazardouswaste storage facilities at CCAS, March 22,1995.

Potter, 1995. Personal communication withDonna Potter , Johnson Controls WorldServices, concerning permitted emissionssources at CCAS, March 23, 1995.

Hunter, 1994. Charles Hunter, Brevard CountyLandfill, telephone conversation concerninglandfill, March 3, 1994.

SMC/MCD, 1995. Status of DSCS II / I I ISatellites, 1995.

TRW, 1994. TRW Space and ElectronicsGroup, The Impact of Deorbiting SpaceDebris on Stratospheric Ozone, May 31,1994.

Kessler, 1989. D.J. Kessler, Current OrbitalDebris Environment, in Orbital Debris fromUpper-stage Breakup. J.P. Loftus, Jr., edi-tor. Washington, D.C.: American Instituteof Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., 1989. Ulshafer, 1995. Personal and telephone con-

versations with Kevin Ulshafer, LockheedMarietta, regarding hazardous materials andhazardous waste for DSCS, March 1995.

L e a c h , 1 9 9 4 . A n g y L . L e a c h , J o h n s o nControls World Services, 1994 Sea TurtleNesting Summary Report, Cape CanaveralAir Station, Florida, December 1994. University of Florida, 1992. University Press of

F lo r ida , F lo r ida S ta t i s t i ca l Abs t r ac t .Gainesville, Florida: 1992.Levy, Barton, and Riordan, 1984. Richard S.

Levy, David F. Barton, and Timothy B.R i o r d a n , R e s o u r c e A n a l y s t s , I n c . ,Bloomington, Indiana. An ArchaeologicalSurvey of Cape Canaveral Air Stat ion,Brevard County, Florida. Submitted toNational Park Service, Atlanta, for the UnitedStates Air Force, Eastern Space and MissileCenter, Patrick Air Force Base, Florida,1984.

USAF, Cape Canave ra l AS 19 -1 . CapeCanaveral AS Operations Plan 19-1, CapeCanaveral Air Station Oil and HazardousSubstances Pollution Contingency Plan.

U S A F , 4 5 S W 1 9 - 1 4 . 4 5 S p a c e W i n gOperations Plan 19-14, Petroleum Productsand Hazardous Waste Management Plan.

USAF, 1988 . Un i t ed S t a t e s A i r Fo rce ,Environmental Assessment, PropellantStorage Facility (now known as PropellantConditioning Facility), Cape Canaveral AS.Prepared by Pan Am World Services, Inc., 20November 1986, revised 10 August 1987,August 10, 1987, November 20, 1987,February 12, 1988, May 12, 1988.

MMAS, 1994a. Martin Marietta Astro Space,DSCS III/IABS Integrated Launch Base TestPlan, November 1994

MMAS, 1994b. Martin Marietta Astro Space,DSCS III/IABS Accident Risk AssessmentReport, December 1994

NASA, 1990. National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, Climate of the KennedySpace Center and Vicinity, 1990.

USAF, 1989a. United States Air Force, CapeCanavera l Forecas t Fac i l i ty Termina lReference File Notebook, 1989.

NASA, 1991. National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, Satellite Situation Report,Document Volume 31, Number 4, December31, 1991.

USAF, 1989b. Uni ted Sta tes Air Force ,Environmental Assessment, Medium LaunchVehicle II Program, February 1989.

-64-


USAF, 1990 . Un i t ed S t a t e s A i r Fo rce ,Environmental Assessment for Titan IVSolid Rocket Motor Upgrade Program,February 1990.

USAF, 1994b . Uni t ed S ta te s Ai r Force ,Environmental Assessment, NAVSTARGlobal Positioning System, Block IIR, andMedium Launch Vehicle III, Cape CanaveralAS, FL, November 1994.

USAF, 1991a. United States Air Force, EasternTest Range Basic Information Guide, CapeCanaveral AS, October 1, 1991.

USAF, 1995. United States Air Force, 45SW/XPN, Eastern Range Forecast/Projection,May 1995.

USAF, 1991b. Uni ted Sta tes Air Force ,Environmental Assessment for CommercialAtlas IIAS, August 1991.

USGS, 1962. United States Geological Survey,Water Resources of Brevard County, Florida.Florida Geological Survey report of investi-gations number 28, 1962.USAF, 1993 . Un i t ed S t a t e s A i r Fo rce ,

Environmental Assessment for TransportableSatellite Test Resource, November 1993. USOTA, 1990. United States Congress, Office

of Technology Assessment, Orbiting Debris:A Space Environmental Problem, September1990.

USAF, 1994a . Uni ted Sta tes Air Force ,Environmental Assessment, NAVSTARGlobal Positioning System, Block II/IIA,Cape Canaveral AS, FL, January 4, 1994. Zee , 1989. Chong-Hung Zee, Theory of

Geostationary Satellites, 1989.

-65-

Environmental AssessmentDefense Satellite Communications System III List of Preparers

SECTION 8.0

LIST OF PREPARERS

Parsons EngineeringScience

Employee NameDegree

Professional Discipline Years of Experience

Craig McColloch, P.E. B.S., civil engineering Environmental engineer 16

David S. Reasons M. Engr., environmentalengineering

Environmental engineer 2

Rutherford C. Wooten Ph.D., ecology/biology Environmental scientist 29

Parsons Engineering Science8000 Centre Park Drive, Suite 200

Austin, Texas 78754

-66-

Appendix A

Air Force Form 813

Appendix B

Lighting Policy for Cape Canaveral Air Station

Section 1

Purpose of and Need for the Action

Section 2

Description of Proposed Actionand Alternatives

Section 3

Affected Environment

Section 4

Environmental Consequences andCumulative Impacts

Section 5

Regulatory Review and PermitRequirements

Section 6

Persons and Agencies Consulted

Section 7

References

Section 8

List of Preparers

Executive Summary

Table of Contents

Appendix A

Appendix B

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

environmental assessment for defense satellite ... · with integrated apogee boost system cape...

Documents