NASA Environmental Impact Statement

7/30/2019 NASA Environmental Impact Statement

1/381

NASA

Final

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STATEMENT

forSOUNDING ROCKET PROGRAM


2/381

ERRATA SHEET

June 26, 2000

Chapter/Page Changes

3.2.2.2.7/Page 3-36 The last sentence of the first paragraph is changed to read:"The Lower Range of this facility is located within the 500-year flood plain of the Chatanika River, but lies outside the100-year floodplain."

Appendix D/Page D-13 Under "Response to Comment 3.9," change "110 impactsOn Salt Creek" to read: "no impacts on Salt Creek."

Front Cover and pages Change "1998" to "2000" where it appears on the coverof this document and page footers throughout thedocument.*

*The Record of Decision for this Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statementfor Sounding Rockets Program was signed on June 30, 2000.


3/381

NASA Wallops Flight FacilityGoddard Space Flight Center

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

ADDENDUMFebruary 1, 2000

Since the printing of the document entitled NASA Final Supplemental EnvironmentalImpact Statement for Sounding Rocket Program - 1998, the Sounding Rocket ProgramHandbook dated June 1, 1999 has been issued electronically and has replaced theSounding Rocket User's Handbook (Bibliography #86).

All other information and analysis presented in the 1998 Final SupplementalEnvironmental Impact Statement for Sounding Rocket Program remains current andaccurate as of this date.


4/381

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FOR THE SOUNDING ROCKET PROGRAM

( ) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement(X) Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546

THE TITLE OF PROPOSED ACTION:

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Sounding Rocket Program

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Mr. William B. Johnson

National Aeronautics and Space Administration,Goddard Space Flight Center, Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Virginia 23337,(757) 824-1099

ABSTRACT:

This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was prepared for the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Sounding Rocket Program (SRP) to update theFinal Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the SRP published by NASA in July 1973.The NASA SRP supports space and Earth sciences research sponsored by NASA and other usersby providing suborbital vehicles for deployment of scientific payloads. The Proposed Action of


5/381


6/381

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page

Cover Page.................................................................................................................................................................C-1

LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................................................. vii

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................ix

GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS.................................................................................................................xii

SUMMARY..............................................................................................................................................................S-1

The Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................... S-1The Need....................................................................................................................................................................S-1The Scope .................................................................................................................................................................. S-1Alternatives................................................................................................................................................................ S-2Proposed Action......................................................................................................................................................... S-4Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................................................... S-4

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED............................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 THE PURPOSE ......................................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 THE NEED................................................................................................................................................. 1-2

1.3.1 Space Physics .............................................................................................................................................. 1-3

1.3.2 Astrophysics ................................................................................................................................................ 1-3

1.3.3 Solar System Exploration ............................................................................................................................ 1-4

1.3.4 Earth Science and Applications................................................................................................................... 1-4


7/381

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Title Page

2.1.1.6 Space Shuttle (STS) Observations.............................................................................................. 2-52.1.1.7 Satellite Observations................................................................................................................. 2-62.1.1.8 Space Probe Observations.......................................................................................................... 2-6

2.1.2 Site-Specific Alternatives ............................................................................................................................ 2-6

2.2 PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................................................................................. 2-7

2.2.1 SRP with State-of-the-Art Propellants......................................................................................................... 2-72.2.1.1 Super Arcas (15)....................................................................................................................... 2-172.2.1.2 Orion (30)................................................................................................................................. 2-192.2.1.3 Black Brant V (21) ................................................................................................................... 2-212.2.1.4 Nike-Orion (31)....................................................................................................................... 2-242.2.1.5 Nike-Tomahawk (18) ............................................................................................................... 2-282.2.1.6 Taurus-Tomahawk (34) ............................................................................................................ 2-322.2.1.7 Taurus-Orion (33) .................................................................................................................... 2-362.2.1.8 Terrier-Malemute (29).............................................................................................................. 2-402.2.1.9 Aries (24) ................................................................................................................................. 2-442.2.1.10 Nike-Black Brant VC (27)........................................................................................................ 2-472.2.1.11 Black Brant IX (36).................................................................................................................. 2-512.2.1.12 Taurus-Nike-Tomahawk (38) ................................................................................................... 2-552.2.1.13 Black Brant X (35) ................................................................................................................... 2-592.2.1.14 Black Brant XI (39).................................................................................................................. 2-632.2.1.15 Black Brant XII (40) ................................................................................................................ 2-67

2.2.2 Meteorological Rocket Program................................................................................................................ 2-722.2.2.1 Super Loki Dart........................................................................................................................ 2-722.2.2.2 Viper IIIA Dart......................................................................................................................... 2-77

2.2.3 Test Rocket Program................................................................................................................................. 2-80

2.2.4 Permanent Launch Facilities...................................................................................................................... 2-83


8/381


9/381


10/381


11/381

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)

Section Title Page

4.2.4 White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), White Sands, New Mexico........................................................... 4-444.2.4.1 Air Quality Impacts: Lower Atmosphere.................................................................................. 4-444.2.4.2 Land Management .................................................................................................................... 4-444.2.4.2.1 Range Safety, Payload Recovery, and Mitigation......................................................... 4-454.2.4.2.2 Management of Hazardous Materials and Waste and Mitigation.................................. 4-454.2.4.2.3 Impacts on Wetlands, Floodplains, and Coastal Areas ................................................. 4-464.2.4.3 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology............................................................................................... 4-464.2.4.3.1 Flora.............................................................................................................................. 4-464.2.4.3.2 Fauna............................................................................................................................. 4-464.2.4.3.3 Endangered and Threatened Species ............................................................................ 4-464.2.4.4 Cultural Resources and Mitigation........................................................................................... 4-48

4.2.4.5 Socioeconomic Effects ............................................................................................................. 4-494.2.4.6 Secondary Effects..................................................................................................................... 4-49

4.3 IMPACT OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................. 4-49

4.3.1 Programmatic Consequences..................................................................................................................... 4-49

4.3.2 Site-Specific Consequences....................................................................................................................... 4-49

4.3.3 Scientific Consequences............................................................................................................................ 4-50

4.4 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM

MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT........................................... 4-50

4.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES....... ....... ........ ... 4-51

4.6 FEDERAL ACTION TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN MINORITY AND

LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS ......................................................................................................... 4-51

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS............................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTORS............................................................................................................ 5-1


12/381

LIST OF FIGURES

Section Title Page

S-1 NASA SRP Activities Over Past 10 Years .................................................................................................. S-5

2-1 NASA Sounding Rocket Launch Vehicles .................................................................................................. 2-8

2-2 Sounding Rocket Launch Sites .................................................................................................................... 2-9

3-1 The Four Principal Layers of the Earth's Atmosphere................................................................................. 3-2

4-1 NASA SRP Programmatic Actions Flow Chart........................................................................................... 4-3

LIST OF TABLES

Section Title Page

2-1 Matrix of Alternatives for NASA Science Missions.................................................................................... 2-2

2-2 10-Year Sounding Rocket Activity by Discipline (FY86 Through FY95) ................................................ 2-11

2-3 10-Year Sounding Rocket Activity by Location (FY86 Through FY95) .................................................. 2-12

2-4 10-Year Sounding Rocket Activity by Launch Vehicle (FY86 Through FY95) ....................................... 2-13

2-5 Mission Success Rates 10-Year Sounding Rocket Activity (FY86 Through FY95) ................................. 2-14

2-6 Super Loki Dart Meteorological Rocket Flights (FY86 Through FY95) .................................................. 2-76

3-1 Natural Heritage Resources Documented within WFF.............................................................................. 3-20

3-2 Extent of Habitat/Vegetation Types at WSMR.......................................................................................... 3-47

3 3 H bit t/V t ti T O i t WSMR 3 48


13/381


14/381

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Abbreviation

A angstrom(s), astrophysics

AAP aurora acceleration phenomenaACS attitude control systemAK AlaskaAl aluminumAm americiumAML Astro Met LaboratoriesAN ammonium nitrateANFO ammonium nitrate/fuel oil explosionAP ammonium perchlorate

ARAB Rocket Assembly Building AARC Atlantic Research CorporationASSI airglow solar spectrometer instrumentB boronBa bariumBBVB Black Brant VBBBVC Black Brant VCBLM Bureau of Land ManagementC carbonCa calciumCAA Clean Air ActCAAA Clean Air Act and its AmendmentsCAL calibrationCd cadmiumCEQ Council on Environmental QualityCERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActCF3Br bromo-trifluoro-methane (fluid)CFC chlorofluoro-carbonsCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCl chlorineCm curiumCo cobaltCO carbon dioxide


15/381

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Continued)

Abbreviation

FB Fairbanks, Alaska

Fe ironFEIS Final Environmental Impact StatementFR Federal RegisterFt FortFY fiscal yearGRN Sondre Stromfjord, GreenlandGSFC Goddard Space Flight CenterH hydrogenHANLC high altitude noctilucent clouds

HFEF high frequency electron fluxHMTA Hazardous Material Transportation ActHMX cyclotetramethylene tetranitramineHSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste ActIR infraredISCST Industrial Source Complex - Short Termkg kilogram(s)km kilometer(s)kNm kilo-Newton-meterskPa kilopascal(s)KWAJ Kwajalein, Marshall IslandsLC launch complex(es)Li lithiumLVI launch vehicle impactMg magnesiumMISTI mesospheric ionization structure and turbulence investigationmm millimeter(s)MRP Meteorological Rocket ProgramMS mass spectrometer

msl mean sea levelN nitrogenNACA National Advisory Committee for AeronauticsNASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration


16/381

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (Concluded) Abbreviation

pH the negative logarithm of the effective hydrogen ion concentration in gram equivalentsper liter, used in expressing both acidity and alkalinity

PE payload effectPMSE polar mesospheric summer echoesPR Camp Tortuguero, Puerto Rico

psi pounds per square inchQE quadrant elevation or launch angleRCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery ActREDAIR release experiments to derive airglow inducing reactionsRS radioactive sourceS sulfurS-T stratosphere - troposphereS* startle of nesting speciesSa samariumSDIO Strategic Defense Initiative OrganizationSEC, sec second(s)SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact StatementSF6 sulfur hexafluoride (gas)

SO stratospheric ozoneSP Space PhysicsSPH -sphereSr strontiumSRP Sounding Rocket ProgramSS Solar System ExplorationSTS Space Transportation System (Space Shuttle)T threatenedTAD throwaway detectorTEA triethyl aluminumTi titaniumTiB2 titanium diboride

TLV threshold limit valuesTMA trimethyl aluminumTR test rocketTSCA Toxic Substances Control Act


17/381


18/381


19/381


20/381

~ "\( "\~ .( r(r 'Ilillll,.

~ (N


21/381

SUMMARY

THE PURPOSE

This Supplemental EnvironmentalImpact Statement (SEIS) was prepared forthe National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA) Sounding RocketProgram (SRP) in compliance with theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)as amended (42 USC 4321 et seq.), CEQregulations at 1502.9(c), and NASA policyand regulations at 14 CFR 1216.3.

The SEIS presented here reflectsprogrammatic and site-specific changes inthe NASA SRP that have taken place since1973 by deleting launch vehicles that are nolonger used, adding new launch vehicles andsystems currently being used, updating

changes in launch sites and ground supportactivities.

THE NEED

balloons (about 50 kilometers or 30 miles)

and the minimum altitude for satellites(about 160 kilometers or 100 miles). Thelaunch vehicles used by the NASA SRP fordeployment of scientific payloads have:

1. high reliability (96.9-percent vehicleand 85.5-percent mission successrate in the last 10 years),

2. short mission lead time,3. low cost,4. mobility, and5. payload recovery and reuse.

THE SCOPE

The scope of this SEIS covers theprogrammatic and site-specific aspects ofthe NASA SRP and the following relatedactivities: special agreements for NASA

The NASA SRP is needed for

suppor t of space and Earth sciencesresearch by providing suborbital

vehicles for deployment of scienti fi c

payloads.

The purpose of thi s SEIS is to

update the Final Environmental

Impact Statement (FEI S) whi ch

was prepared for the NASA SRP in

July 1973.


22/381


23/381


24/381


25/381


26/381


27/381

Summary

For the Titan III, actualmeasurements of ozone loss were made in

the exhaust trail. At an 18-kilometeraltitude, only 13 minutes after launch, SOwas reduced by more than 40 percent belowbackground. However, after a few hours,recovery to near background levelsoccurred. Similarly, there was no ozonereduction at Kennedy Space Center a few

hours after a Space Shuttle launch (seeSection 4.1.1.1.4). Currently annual carbondioxide emissions from Earth are in excessof 24 billion tons (see Section 4.1.1.1.4).The annual carbon dioxide emissions fromthe SRP total less than 0.54 metric tons andcan be considered to be not substantial.

Lower AtmosphereThe lower atmosphere (below 10

kilometers) receives SRP launch vehiclerocket exhaust emissions from all firststages, plus many second stages, includingthose in three- and four-stage launchvehicles. The first, or launch, stage usually

contains more propellant than the secondstage, the second stage more than the third,and so on. Thus, the lower atmosphere

i t f th k t h t

Impacts of Payloads with Radioactive

Sources

A small fraction of all launchesincludes sealed radioactive sources as part ofinstruments in the payloads. The amounts ofradioactive materials used are minute andthey are used under close control of internal

NASA safety with approvals from aRadiation Safety Committee. Thesesafeguards were proven effective during theentire SRP program.

Noise Impacts

Noise generated by the suborbital

SRP flights can be grouped into launchnoise, flight noise, and landing noise. TheSRP flights follow ballistic trajectoriesmodified by air resistance and in particular

The SRP generates relati vely smallamounts of air emissions and no

substantial pollution effects in the

lower atmosphere


28/381


29/381


30/381


31/381

Summary

Termination of the sounding rocket

launches will also result in a reduction orelimination of a number of atmospheric

environmental research studies, includingsome that are dealing with ozone depletion,and greenhouse atmospheric effects, as wellas studies in plasma physics, ultraviolet andX-ray astrophysics, solar physics, andEarth's upper atmosphere. The terminationof the SRP will have an adverse impact onlocal economies, especially in the area of theEastern Shore of Virginia, where WFFmakes a substantial contribution to the localeconomy.

The overal l programmatic and site-

specif ic effects of termination of the

SRP wil l be negative.


32/381


33/381


34/381

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

Solar physics: Study of solar activity and thestructure and plasma properties of coronalloops and study of high spatial and spectral

resolution of ultra violet emissions of theSun;

Planetary atmospheres: Observation of theJupiter/Shoemaker Levy comet impact andstudy of hydrogen in the interplanetarymedium;

Galactic astronomy: Study in ultra-violetastronomy with the primary goal ofobtaining spatially resolved spectra of faintextended emission line objects and hot stars;

High energy astrophysics: High resolutionX-ray spectroscopy of a bright mass transferbinary (Cygnus X-1) and high resolution x-

ray spectroscopy in the vicinity of the northpolar spur and SCO-X-1.

The contributions of SRP to thisscientific endeavor include:

1. scientific instrument development

for future space flight missions,2. payload development for spacemissions,

3 proven testing ground for future

Research Range (PFRR), Alaska; and WhiteSands Missile Range (WSMR), NewMexico. The site-specific aspects of this

SEIS do not apply to the mobile launch sites,nor to the permanent launch sites abroad.

1.2 THE PURPOSE

The purpose of this SEIS is to updatethe Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)which was prepared for the NASA SRP in

July 1973 [57]1

. The SEIS presented herereflects programmatic and site-specificchanges in the NASA SRP that have takenplace since 1973 by deleting launch vehiclesthat are no longer used, adding new launchvehicles and systems currently being used,updating changes in launch sites and groundsupport activities.

1.3 THE NEED

The need for information about nearand far space is as old as the human race.Astronomical studies were conducted inantiquity, as they are today, in part to satisfy

curiosity about the physical environment,and in part to meet the very needs ofexistence. In the second half of the 20thcentury the use of aerospace vehicles


35/381


36/381


37/381

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

aspects of the NASA SRP and itsalternatives on a global scale and the site-specific environmental impacts at each

major rocket launch site in the United States.Commitment of resources in support of thisactivity, effects on minority and low-incomecommunities, and appropriate mitigationmeasures are also discussed in this part.

1.5 SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The information and data related tothe site-specific environmental issues atWFF, PFRR, and WSMR comprisedocuments which were developed in supportof NASA, Army, Navy, Air Force, rangeuser's handbooks and a number of site-specific EA's and EIS's, commercial launch

vehicles and missions. A number ofadditional general references related to thisSEIS were also considered in preparation of

Site-specific information for WallopsFlight Facility (WFF) was updated andenhanced using the latest site-specific

information from the EnvironmentalResources Document, NASA GoddardSpace Flight Center, Wallops FlightFacility, Wallops Island, Virginia 23337,published in August 1994 [54] andcorrespondence from the Department ofEnvironmental Quality, Commonwealth ofVirginia dated June 12, 1995.

Site-specific information for WhiteSands Missile Range (WSMR) was re-written using information from the draftWhite Sands Missi le Range Range-wide

Environmental Impact Statementpublishedby the White Sands Missile Range, NewMexico, Directorate of Environment andSafety, Environmental Services Division,WSMR, New Mexico 88002 in June 1994[144].

Site-specific information for PokerFlat Research Range is based largely oninformation contained in the Environmental

Assessment, Improvement andModern ization Program, Poker F lat

Research Range, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775published by Geophysical Institute

Th is SEI S presents new SRP

programmatic and site-specificin formation and a review, analysis,

and summary of all available

pert inent and applicable data.


38/381


39/381


40/381


41/381


42/381


43/381


44/381


45/381


46/381


47/381

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Somewhat simplified, observations fromsounding rocket payloads are of two types:(1) "optical," scanning different parts of theelectromagnetic spectrum (ultraviolet,visible, infrared, X-ray, etc.); and (2)testing of matter in situ, such as nitrousoxide and ozone determinations byphysical-chemical-electronic-magneticprobes or detectors. Opticalobservations can be closeup (in situ) or long-range (tens or hundreds of kilometers) or

intermediate between the two. The payloadsmay be used in a number of ways. These are:

1. to carry optical scanninginstrumentation and/or physical-chemical-electromagnetic probes ordetectors and make appropriatemeasurements;

2. to release specific chemicals over aprescribed altitude range; or

3. to be simply a target whose motion istracked by radar or telemetry formeteorological data.

The launch sites may or may not

need to be specific. If the aurora borealis isobserved, a northern latitude is needed, suchas at PFRR, Fairbanks, Alaska. If equatorialphenomena must be observed a site such as

astrophysics (14) and other (12). The 10-year sounding rocket activity by location ispresented in Table 2-3, and by launchvehicle type in Table 2-4 [76]. Comparingpermanent launch sites, about one-half of thelaunches are from WSMR, followed byWFF and PFRR. From Table 2-4, the trendin recent years has been to use morepowerful launch vehicles in order to liftheavier payloads, now averaging 270kilograms, to altitudes from 50 to over

1,500 kilometers. Flight times, from groundlaunch to surface impact, up to 20 minuteshave been achieved.

The success rates for the NASA SRPduring the last 10 years are presented inTable 2-5 [76]. This table shows an averagevehicle success rate of 96.9 percent, and an

average experimental success rate of 85.5percent. Since the SRP was started in 1959,there have been 2,698 flights with anexperimental success rate over 86 percentand a vehicle success rate of over 95percent.

Here a vehicle success means thatthe actual flight trajectory was sufficientlyclose to the planned trajectory for theminimum scientific mission to be


48/381


NASA SRP FSEIS 1998 19982-11

Table 2-2

10-YEAR SOUNDING ROCKET ACTIVITY BY DISCIPLINEFY86 THROUGH FY95

1

Discipline Fiscal Year

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 10-Year Total

Galactic Astronomy (A)2 4 1 3 2 6 2 2 1 1 2 24

High Energy Astrophysics (A) 2 0 4 1 1 2 1 2 0 1 14

Solar Physics (SR) 1 4 5 4 0 6 2 3 1 4 30

Plasma Physics (SP) 14 18 16 10 17 10 18 5 25 15 148

Upper Atmosphere (E) 9 5 3 4 1 2 7 8 2 2 43

Planetary Atmospheres (SS) 3 1 1 4 3 2 0 1 2 2 19

Other 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 0 2 4 12

All Disciplines 33 29 33 25 30 25 32 20 33 30 290

1 [76]

2 Office of Space Science and Application Division

A = AstrophysicsE = Earth Sciences

SP = Space PhysicsSR = Solar PhysicsSS = Solar System Exploration


49/381


50/381


51/381


Table 2-5

MISSION SUCCESS RATES 10-YEAR ROCKET ACTIVITYFY86 THROUGH FY951

Fiscal Year Vehicle Experiment

Success Failure %Success Success Failure %Success

1986 31 2 93.9 28 5 84.8

1987 28 1 96.6 26 3 89.7

1988 33 0 100 31 2 93.9

1989 23 2 92.0 21 4 84.0

1990 30 0 100 25 5 83.3

1991 24 1 96.0 22 3 88.0

1992 32 0 100 31 1 96.9

1993 18 2 90.0 14 6 70.0

1994 32 1 97.0 25 8 75.8

1995 30 0 100 25 5 83.3

10-Year Total 281 9 96.9 248 42 85.5

1 [76]

Thus, a vehicle failure will always result in amission failure, and the mission success ratewill always lie at or below the vehicle

the payload weight, the thrust of the rocketsystem, and the launch angle. Higher


52/381


for "pointing" the vehicle at launch. A fewvehicles have an onboard S-19 BoostGuidance System for the first 10 to 18seconds of flight, but no other in-flight

guidance. For "pointing," the vehicle issecured to 'launchers' which are rigid rails,tubes, or towers able to swivel and rotateinto the desired launch attitude. In contrast,the Aries sits on a horizontal launch pedestalor platform and after vertical launch hasbuilt-in gimballed nozzles with an onboard

flight guidance and control system to causeit to follow the desired trajectory.

During the flight of a typicalthree-stage rocket launch vehicle, some orall of the following materials are ejected intothe atmosphere:

1. Burned propellant (exhaust gases andproducts of combustion) from thefirst-, second-, and third-stagerockets, mixing with the air anddriven by the wind.

2. Spent rocket cases (mostly metallic)from the first, second, and thirdstages, in ballistic paths to groundimpact.

trajectory to ground impact.

6. Attitude control fluids or gases.

7. A release of residual propellants incase of launch failure.

8. Outgassing of materials due toambient low pressure andaerodynamic heating.

If the flight is over water the statedimpacts will be to water rather than ground.This means that heavier-than- water materialwill sink if no recovery system is used,while lighter- than-water material (or itemsprovided with floats) will float and may berecovered later. The following pagesgraphically illustrate the characteristics of

the 15 launch vehicles. Each vehicledescription contains a set of sheets with thefollowing information.

1. The subsection number, name, andSRP numerical designation, e.g.,2.2.1.1 Super Arcas (15).

2. An outline drawing of the launchvehicle to scale, with rockets andpayload labeled.


53/381


6. The exhaust emissions showing theweight of each chemical in theburned propellant for each rocket,and the altitudes and times in the

trajectory when released. Basically,the type and amount of eachchemical species present in thepropellant combustion products arecomputed from thermochemicalreaction theory and flow expansionthrough the exit nozzle. Sampling of

the exhaust stream and thrustmeasurements are used to confirmthe computation. In the present case,the emission data were obtained fromthe rocket manufacturers and thestandard compilation by theChemical Propulsion InformationAgency (CPIA). The combustion

dissociates metallic compounds inthe raw propellant into the metallicelement, e.g., lead beta resorcylateand lead salicylate into elementallead.

7. The missions and payloads block,containing the number of flights withthis vehicle during FY86 throughFY95, estimated planned flightsduring FY96 and a brief


54/381


55/381


56/381


2.2.1.2 Orion (30)

Orion is a single-stage, unguided, solid propellant

rocket system for lifting payloads to altitudes below 100kilometers. Flight stability is achieved by three equidistantfins at the rocket aft end. The vehicle can carry a 38-kilogram payload to 88 kilometers, or a 68-kilogrampayload to 71 kilometers. Impact ranges vary from 25 to 50kilometers. The rocket and payload diameter is 0.36 meter.Vehicle length is 2.8 meters, to which a payload length

from 1.8 to 2.5 meters is added. During the last 10 years,12 flights have taken place.

The Orion propellant weighs 278 kilograms and isa mix of ammonium perchlorate, polyurethane, andnitroguanadine with an aluminum additive. The rocketexhaust emissions are mainly hydrogen chloride, water,carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and aluminum oxide.

They occur during the 32.5-second burning time over thealtitude span from ground to about 25 kilometers.

Standard hardware includes a separable clamshellnose cone. Separation systems can be provided to separatethe rocket from the payload. [4, 68, 86]


57/381


2.1.2 Orion (30) (Concluded)LAUNCH VEHICLE DESIGN

Rocket Diametermeter Lengthmeter Totalwt. kg Propellantwt. kg Impactwt. kg

OrionPayload

0.360.36/0.15

2.682.26

41841

278-

140*41

Launch 4.94 459 278 *ChuteRecovery

ORION PROPELLANT COMPOSITIONAmmonium PerchlorateAluminum

PolyurethaneNitroguanadine

ORION EXHAUST EMISSIONS, kilogramCompound 0-24.8 km; 0-32.5 sec

Aluminum oxide

Carbon monoxideCarbon dioxideHydrogen chlorideNitrogenHydrogenCopper

31

5044642641

Total 278

MISSIONS AND PAYLOADS

No. of Flights FY 91 Payload Payload Impact


58/381


59/381


60/381


2.2.1.3 Black Brant V (21) (Concluded)

BLACK BRANT V PROPELLANT COMPOSITIONAmmonium perchlorateAluminumPolypropylene glycolPoly 1,4-butylene glycolN-phenyl-beta-naphthylamine

Toluene di-isocyanateCarbon blackIron acetylacetateSulfurDioctylazelate

BLACK BRANT V EXHAUST EMISSIONS, kilogramCompound 0-29.8 km; 0-32.5 sec

Aluminum oxideCarbon monoxideHydrogen chlorideNitrogenWaterHydrogenCarbon DioxideSulfurOther

3572881877640301414

Total 997

MISSIONS AND PAYLOADSFY 89Mission

PayloadReleases

PayloadRecovery

ImpactMedium


61/381


62/381


63/381


2.2.1.4 Nike-Orion (31) (Continued)

LAUNCH VEHICLE DESIGNRocket Diameter

meterLengthmeter

Totalwt. kg

Propellantwt. kg

Impactwt. kg

NikeOrionPayload

0.420.36

0.36/0.44

3.642.663.71

616418355

340278

-

276140355

Launch 10.01 1389 618

PROPELLANT COMPOSITIONNike Orion

NitrocelluloseNitroglycerinTriacetin2-Nitrodiphenylamine

Diphenyl-amino-methyl substitutedphenolsLead stearateGraphite

Ammonium perchloratePolyurethaneNitroguanadineAluminum

EXHAUST EMISSIONS, kilogram

Compound

Nike Orion

0.2-1.1 km0-3.5 sec

3.3-25.7 km9.0-41.6 sec


64/381


65/381


66/381


2.2.1.5 Nike-Tomahawk (18) (Continued)

350

300

250E~uj200o:)t - 15O~ber at protectedoccurrtll'lCU, ard threats HoioIlII!vlII!r. the ~ a s . i t ; remains on the of populations or o c e u r r t n C ~ $ . ,ucn that r-otnicz; yilLbe an ind.f.x of b"Iown b i o l o ~ l i c . l rar i ty ,S1 ExtrenW:ty r B r ~ . ~ l l y 5 or f e w ~ r populations or oecurrences in stilt .:; or may be a fIN remaining individuals;often ~ p e c i a l l v vuln .r .b le to ,=xtirPition.s2 Very rare; usualLy between 5 .lind 20 populatforu;; or occurrences; or with a'lany i nd iv idual s in fewer occurrences; often!iusceptihle to becoming ext;r-pated.s3 RAre to c.n::cmnon; usually betloleen 20 and 100 poputetions or occurrences; ... havl! feoJIo!r o c c u r r e n c l o ! ~ , but ..,tth a largen....mer of i n d ; " i ~ L , ; in some papulatiON; /My be susceptible to largcscale disturbances.S4 Cooman: usuaLly ,.100 popuLe.tioN or occurr-enees, but lIIo1y be fewer wiU, INIny t!lrge populations; may bt: r-e:strlctedto only II portlan of the stOlte: usually not susceptible to irnnediate thre:at&.5S Very eotmlOn; deftlOnSuably , ~ c u r e Lnder present conditions.SA. Accidental in the state.SB# Breeding :lCatU$. of an or'3anhm within the I:tate.sE ~ : t o t i l : . : /"tOt bel ieyed to be n-atlve in the stllte.SH Histor-lcalty known frOft the s tate. but not verified for 3n extended pcrtQd. usuelly > lS ye.e:rs; this I"anl:. is used

~ r i m . a r ' i l y when inYentDry has been attenpted rl!l:l!t1tly.SN# \ . I o n b r ~ i n g s.tatus within t : h ~ ' t a re . Usually appl fed to ..,inter resident: species.SR Reported from the &tatc. but without persuasl'Ve docunentation to either accept or- reject the report.


362/381

NASA SRP FSEIS 1998D-37

su Status LnCertajn. often because ot tow Sl!arch eHor t or cryptic nature of tne element.SX Apporently extirp.ated frOll\ tne statf!'.s2 long d istance migrant whose oc:cyrrencH during ",igor-ation ere- too irretllJlor. trans itory ar.d/or dispersro to bereI iabLv i d e n t { f i ~ . Il\3pped and pr-ounl!!d.Gtobal rank3 lJre "fmil.tr. but r ~ f e r to It "peei" ' rar ity throughout its totll rlnge. Global ranks are denoted ~ i t t \ a IIG"fal Lowed by a character. Hote that GA and GN arc not used ond GX meatl& apparently ex t inc t A "Oil in a ranle: indie.ates tkata ~ a x o n o m i e qUC!5tion exists concerning that species. A ",,, in a rank. {rdieates IXlCcrta;nty os ta tha t spec ies ' rlllrity.RarlKS fer subspec;es ar-e denotl!d with "T-. The I1Lobel ..N "htl!! ranks corrbined ' e ~ g . c2/S1) g { v ~ an inst.:lnt grasp of .5pecil!s' IcnoWf rari ty .

T h ~ $ C ' r-3ni::s should not be intl!rpnttd all legal designations.Feder-al Lesal 'StatusThe Division of Natural "eritlg:e uses the s t a ~ r d abbreviations for Federal ~ n g e n n e t ' \ t developed by the u.s. Fh h ardui ld l i fe Servic.e, Division of E n d . a ~ ~ r e d Species .nd If.bitat COII$ervatiOC"lLE L i s t ~ E r d . a n g ~ r - e dLT - Listed ThreatenedPS Propo6ed Endangel"edoT - P r ~ e d T h r l l ! ! a t . ~C1 - Candidate, cnegory ,c2 Candidate, cateqory 2.State L1!96! Status:

31t Fonner candidate - pf'll!liiurwd ~ t { n c t3& - F on ne r c.andi.3tlt - not a valid spe-cies lKlClerC'Urr@nt u.xonanic: l..I"Ideruandin;3t Fotlllef candidate - ccm non or ",ell protectedMF no feder"l le'ial s tatus

Thr!- OiIJis:ion of N:atur-al Iteritlge uses: similar abbreviationl5 for State endangll!!l"[email protected] Lt &ted Erdanger-edLT l i s ted Threeter'ledC Candi date

PE - P r o p o $ ~ Endangeredpf Proposed Thrutenec:lHS no state ll!iaL statU$

sc . Specilll Cooc::er-n

For infOMnO:l.t;on on the laws ~ r t : a ; n i n g to threotened or erdangered species, contact:u.s. Fh h and wildLife Service for al l fEDERALLY listed speci"Department of Agr1cul tlJre sid COn5LD11!'r" S ~ r v i c e , plllnt P r o t ~ t l o n 8ure:.:IU for STATE l is ted plants ard i f " l S ~ c t 5Oepertment of Gmne .. od Inland Fisheries for all other STATE l is ted snilllills

Response to Comments Appendix D

Commentor 14: Darryl M. GloverCommonwealth of Virginia

Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department

Comment 14.1

Comment noted. Thank you.


363/381


= =

14.1

= =


Commentor 15: A. E. Douglas, P.E.Commonwealth of Virginia

Department of Health

Office of Water Programs

Comment 15.1



364/381


= =

15.1

= =


Commentor 16: Raymond T. FernaldCommonwealth of Virginia

Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

Comment 16.1


I f yo u cannot meet th e dead l ine , p l ease not i fy ELLIE IRONS a t804/762-4325 o r R. THOMAS GRIFFIN AT 804/762-4337 pr io r to th edate given . Arrangements w i l l be made to extend t he date fo ryour review if p o ss i b l e . An agency wil l no t be considered tohave reviewed a document i f no comments are received (o r con tac ti s made) wi th in the per iod speci f ied . .

REVIEW INSTRUCTIONS:A. Please review th e document carefu l ly . I f t he p roposal ha sbeen reviewed ear l i e r ( i . e . if th e document is a federa lFinal EIS or a s ta te supplement) , please cons ider whe the ryour ear l i e r comments have been adequa te ly addressed.B. Prepa re your agency 's comments in a form which would beaccep tab le fo r responding d i re c t ly to a pro jec t proponentagency.C. Use your agency sta t ionery or th e space below fe r yourcomments. IF YOU USE THE SPACE BELOW, THE FORM MUSTSIGNED AND DATED.please re tu rn your comments to :

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYOFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW62 9 EAST MAIN STREET, SIXTH FLOORRICHMOND, VA 23219


365/381


= =

16.1

= =

];,AX #804/762-4319- ' - - ,Reed. by Dept. Of. :Emironmental QualityJUN 16 "'9951

Environmental Program Planner

COMMENTSPUbliC & Inter-governmental Affairs

~ ~ ~ f - .:r",.4"/jock 7,uhm.4" ",.I",,,,u . I ? ~ "'"/">' >47.{ .., , /"",7hi'


366/381


= =

17.1

= =


Commentor 18: Eugene K. RaderCommonwealth of Virginia

Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy

Comment 18.1

Thank you.


367/381


= =

18.1

= =


Commentor 19: Stewart BakerTown of Chincoteague

Town Manager

Comment 19.1

Thank you.


368/381


= =

19.1

= =


Commentor 20: Jerry A. MaracchiniState of New Mexico

Department of Game & Fish

Comment 20.1

See response to Comment 3.6

Comment 20.2

See response to Comment 3.8. Full text of White Sands

Pupfish Cooperative Agreement is reproduced as Appendix C

of this report.

Comment 20.3

The indicated deficiency is corrected in FSEIS. The

probability of potential impacts to pupfish, as well as

mitigation measures for protection of pupfish at WSMR are


369/381


= =

20.1

= =

= =

20.2

= =

= =

20.3

= =

mitigation measures for protection of pupfish at WSMR are

addressed in Section 4.2.4.3.3 Endangered and Threatened

Species, Sub-Section NASA Sounding Rocket Mitigation

Measures, and in Appendix B. Mitigation procedures

described in Section 4.2.4.3 and Appendix B provide for high

level of protection for endangered and threatened species.According to Navy communication reported in Appendix B,

out of 1162 recorded space racket missions since 1967, there

have been no impacts on Salt Creek.


Commentor 20: Jerry A. Maracchini (Concluded)State of New Mexico

Department of Game & Fishr. Will iam Johnson -2 - August 1 , 1995

We apprec ia te the oppor tuni ty to review th e EIS. I f yo u have an yques t i ons , please c a l l Bob Wilson a t (505) 827-7827.

JAM/BW/ia

Sincere ly ,~ A A I ' 7 ~ - J ~

~ ; ; ; - A . MaracchiniDirec tor

xc: Thomas A. Ladd (Di rec tora te of Environment , WSMRlJennife r Fowler-Propst (Ecological Services Supvsr . , USFWS)Craig Nordyke (Southwest Area Opera t ions Chief , NMDGF)Andrew Sandoval (Cons. Services Divis ion Chief , NMDGF)Ji m Bai ley (Cons. Servo Asst . Divis ion Chief , NMDGF)Bo b Wilson (Habi ta t Spe c ia l i s t , NMDGF)John Pi t t e nge r (Aquat ic Habi ta t Spe c ia l i s t , NMDGF)


370/381



Commentor 21: T.A. Barnard, Jr.Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Comment 21.1


W E T L ~ N D P R O G R ~ M TEL 80____________ ..;..;_4_-,;.4. ... 1 ., 9_____ un 08.95 15 : 03 No . 00 1 P. 01U ya u aannot meet th e d .adl.in . pl .... notify stoLl! IRONS ..80'/762 -U2S ar R. mOMAII GllJ:l'I'IN AT 904/762 - 4l37 pr ior to th ed . "e given. A r r ~ t . will be _ d e to eottomd the data fo ryour r .. ,1 _ it po b l . . AD ..gency "d ;ll Do t b .


371/381


= =

21.1= =

(signed!( t i t l e )(agency)

f-' , " II (.'~ ? ( . L t . . : ; : . . ' t - - - ~E n v ~ r o n m e n t a i Program Planner

We. hilV8 l " e ~ the subject d o c ~ n t from a Nr1'neenviroT1ll8Jltal viewpoint and ruwe no cODIIlCnta at this time.

T A. :Jarnard, Jr .)tad iU Sct6uc1.tV ] M ' ~ ! Olouc "or P01J1t. VA

(elate) 6/8/95

P ~ J l C ' 1 ' . ~ __ 5/95


= =

22.1

Commentor 22: Ronald M. PierceGeophysical Institute, University of Alaska

Comment 22.1



372/381


= =


= =

23.1

= =

= =

Commentor 23: Clinton JamesNational Radio Astronomy Observatory

(Federal Agency)

Comment 23.1

Requested information is included in FSEIS.

Comment 23.2

NRAO is identified as Federal Agency as requested.

Comment 23.3

NASA SRP is an on-going program at WSMR. The

contribution of this program to the radio frequency activity of

the region is minimal and is considered to be not substantial,

due the limited nature of NASA SRP activity - 0.5% of

mission activity at the site and 2% of all research launches at


373/381


23.2

= == =

23.3

= =

= =

23.4

WSMR.

Comment 23.4


Response to Comments Appendix Dfrom the Sounding Rocket program may fall within frequency bands protected by 47 Code ofFederal Regulations, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

policy, and by International Te lecommunications Union (ITU) regulations, such as ITU-RRA.769. Allocations of frequencies to the Sounding Rocket program in bands adjacent to theradio astronomy bands where the program is line-of-site to the VLA or one of the VLBAantennas, can result in gain compression of the radio receiver, and loss of data. The VLAlocation on the Plains of San Augustin offers a unique opportunity to observe southern skiesfrom a relatively high altitude in an area with less than average RF interference. Since there areno alternatives to this location for NRAO, diminution of the RF-quiet environment on the Plainsrepresents a severe impact to the Radio Astronomy Service and to the national effort inscientific research. Therefore, NRAO requests that the impact of the proposed Sounding Rocket

program on the RF environment especially for the VLA, but also for the VLBA antennas, beincluded as an important impact in the Final EIS. The electromagnetic spectrum is a vitalnational resource to be preserved for use by present and future generations.

The VLA is located 122 km northwest of the WSMR Stallion site and is line-of-site toemitters at an elevation of 3 - 4 km above average terrain over much of the northern part of therange. As an example of the impact of RF usage on the VLA, an emitter 30 meters above ground

level near the Stallion Site on WSMR, 33 20'latitude and 106 39'longitude, with an effectiveisotropic radiated power (EIRP) of 11 milliwatt and a center frequency of 1380 MHZ, wouldexceed the harmful level of the VLA in a radio astronomy (RA) band. If the emitter wereelevated to 3 km, the harmful EIRP would be 5 microwatts. The 5 microwatt level could beexceeded by harmonic or spurious emissions of a transmitter tuned to a frequency not in the RA

band. These ha rmful levels a re based on an average side lobe gain of O d Bi for the radioantenna; if the emitter were to pass through the main beam of the antenna, the harmful levelwould be much lower. In fact, equipment damage could occur. The Sounding Rocket programoperation at WSMR will require close coordination of frequency assignment and usagethrough the office of the DOD Area Frequency coordinator at WSMR.

23.4

= =

= =

23.5

Commentor 23: Clinton James (Continued)National Radio Astronomy Observatory

(Federal Agency)

Comment 23.5


Comment 23.6


Comment 23.7



374/381


Although the Draft Supplemental EIS does not mention an "extended range" as apossible location of Sounding Rocket operations, NRAO's greatest concern is that the rocketrange may be extended at some point to include the VLA or areas in the vicinity. Increased RFactivity near the VLA represents the severest threat to the VLA operation and to RadioAstronomy in general. For example, emissions less than a billionth of a watt could corrupt VLAdata if the frequencies were in a radio astronomy band and the emitter were directly over the

VLA. Frequency assignments in bands adjacent to the radio astronomy bands are also a severeproblem if the t ransmitters ar e close to the VLA; the frequency bands of the antenna receiversextend beyond the radio astronomy bands in order to observe doppler-shifted spectral lines. Forexample, a 10 watt EIRP transmitter in the vicinity of the VLA can cause receiver gaincompression and lost data even if the observations are being conducted within the RA band.

The Sounding Rocket program may include the use of weather balloons, radar, or othersurveillance equipment. Weather balloons equipped with radiosondes transmitting in anadjacent band can disrupt VLA activities for several hours when located line-of-site to theantennas by causing gain compression of the receivers. Telemetry and voice communication inan adjacent band can cause gain compression of the receivers, and out-of-band emissions suchas harmonics and intermodulation products can corrupt data if the frequencies fall within an RA

band, even with very low emission levels. Since much of the RF emission will be airborne, thepossibility increases that the emission will be in the main beam which could result in damage tothe receivers. Tracking, meteorological, and surveillance radar transmissions all can lead toout-of-band interference in a radio astronomy frequency band or gain compression in an

adjacent

Operated by Associated Universe, Inc.Under Cooperative Agreement with the National Science Foundation

= =

= =

23.6

= =

23.7

= =


= =

23.8

= =

= =

23.9

= =

= =

23.10

= =

= =

23.11

= =


(Federal Agency)

Comment 23.8

No areas outside WSMR are targeted by NASA SRP.

Comment 23.9

No supersonic surveillance aircraft is used by NASA SRP.

Comment 23.10

NASA SRP is an on-going program since 1959 and as such

does not establish precedents.

Comment 23.11


375/381




Figure 2

RADIO ASTRONOMY BANDS AND ADJACENT FREQUENCY BANDS AT VLA AND VLBA

Band VLA AdjacentBand(MHz)

VLBA AdjacentBand(MHz)

Radio AstronomyBand(MHz)

Harmful Power Densityin the 0dBisidelobe for RA band1

(dBW/m2)VLA VLBA

4 72.9 - 74.7 none 73.0 - 74.6 -210 -182

P 300- 345 300- 345 322.0 - 328.6 -204 -175future 609 - 613 608.0 - 614.0 -200 -171

L 1155- 1734 1260- 1840 1330.0- 1427.0 -196 -1661610.6- 1613.8 -194 -1651660.0 -1670.0 -194 -1651718.8- 1722.2 -194 -165

S future 2000 - 2800 2290.0 - 2300.02 -189 -1592640.0 - 2655.02 -189 -1592655.0 - 2700.0 -189 -159


(Federal Agency)


376/381


C 4300 - 5100 4500 - 5200 4825.0 - 4835.0 -183 -1514950.0 - 5000.0 -183 -151

X 7600 - 9000 7900 - 8900 8400.0 - 8450.02 -176 -145none 10.1k - 11.3k 10.60k - 10.7k -173 -142

Ku 14.2k - 15.7k 11.82k- 15.63k 14.47k - 14.5k -169 -13515.20 - 15.35k2 -169 -13515.35k - 15.4k -169 -135

K 2I.7k - 24.5k 21.3k - 24.7k 22.01k - 22.5k -162 -12922.81k - 22.86k -162 -12923 .07k - 23.12k -161 -12823.60k - 24.0k -161 -128

Q 40k - 50k 40k - 45k 42.50k - 43.5k -153 -11648.94k - 49.04k -152 -115

W none 86k - 92k 86.00k - 92.0k -144 -106(Future)

Notes:1. Harmful levels are derived from spectral power flux densities recommended in ITU-R

RA.769, 1992.2. Allocated for space research.



(Federal Agency)


377/381


VICINITY MAP .



(Federal Agency)Radio Astronomy and Interference -- A Brief Overview

What is radio astronomy?Radio astronomy is the study of distant objects in the universe by collecting and analyzing the radio waves emittedby those objects. Though radio astronomy is little more than a half-century old, it has been a major factor inrevolutionizing our concepts of the universe and how it works. Radio observations have provided a whole newoutlook on objects we already knew, such as galaxies, while revealing exciting objects such as pulsars andquasars that had been completely unexpected. Radio telescopes today are among the most powerful toolsavailable for astronomers studying nearly every type of object known in the universe.Why do radio astronomers worry about interference?The radio signals arriving on earth from astronomical sources are extremely weak -- millionsweaker than the signals used by communication systems. For example, a one-tenth-wattmoon would produce a signal on earth that radio astronomers consider quite strong.sources are they are easily masked by man-made interference. Possiblmasking, signals can contaminate the data collected by radioastronomers to


378/381


users. of the radio spectrum is vital. Engineer s at

Further reading:"Interference and Radio41-49.Light Pollution, Radio Inte1991.

for ways.tb minimize i n t e r f e r ~ n c e . If, for some reason,know when jfwilLQe transmitted so the y may avoid its effects to

r 1991, pp.

National RadIo Astronomy Observatory, P.O_ Box 0, Socorro, NM 87801



(Federal Agency)


379/381




(Federal Agency)f 1


380/381


J


COPYRIGHTED ARTICLE9 PAGES

INTERFERENCE AND

RADIOASTRONOMY

The radioastronomers struggle againsta growing flood of interfering sources,

from garage door openers to digitalaudio broadcast satellites, must be

fought in the technicaland political arenas.

A Ri h d Th

Commentor 23: Clinton James (Concluded)National Radio Astronomy Observatory

(Federal Agency)


381/381

A Richard Thompson,Thomas E. Gengely,

and Paul A Vanden Bout

Documents

NASA Environmental Impact Statement