Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments

1. FAA Failed to Provide Required Oversight and Responsibility REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☐ Did not Study ☐ Taking ☐ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT 40CFR1506.5(c), AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY, requires that “If the document is prepared by contract, the responsible Federal official shall furnish guidance and participate in the preparation and shall independently evaluate the statement prior to its approval and take responsibility for its scope and contents.”

The FAA failed to meet its required oversight of the preparation of the Draft. COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS The extensive errors, omissions, and contradictions demonstrate that the FAA has failed to provide its required oversight in the preparation of the DEIS. The launch azimuth required to reach “90 degrees inclination” (page 1-1) is not possible from Spaceport Camden. The Noise Study presents data for a Medium class rocket, not the Medium-Large rocket that was added to the EIS after the Scoping Period and without any notice to the public. The DEIS fails to study the Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Impacts to the 100 lot, 40+ home community that lies unavoidably in the Launch Hazard Area just 4 miles down range. The FAA states that “Camden County has stated that they intend for their results to demonstrate that an OEZ will not extend onto Little Cumberland Island.” The FAA has allowed the DEIS to contain studies from the DEIS contractor without verification that the proposed launch parameters are possible. Spaceport Camden would be the first time such a narrow hazard area and abbreviated OEZ are approved so extra validation should be the FAA watchword. Spaceport Camden would be the first time that rocket launches are licensed over resident, non-involved third persons and National Park visitors within 4 to 10 miles of the launch pad so extra validation should be the FAA watchword. There is no evidence that the FAA Spaceport Camden would be the first time that rocket launches are licensed over children. However, the FAA does not have an established a significance threshold for Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks. Does the FAA have sufficient managerial resources, technical oversight capabilities and, manpower resources to meet the requirement of 40CFR1506.5(c)? Will the FAA establish significance thresholds for Children’s Environmental Health and Safety? Will all elements of the DEIS be reworked and rereleased for public study and comment after the correct rocket class is studied?

2. Non-compliance with Space Directive 2, Section 1 REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☒ Taking ☐ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT Space Directive 2, Section 1: “It is therefore important that regulations adopted and enforced by the executive branch promote economic growth; minimize uncertainty for taxpayers, investors, and private industry; protect national security, public-safety, and foreign policy interests; and encourage American leadership in space commerce.”

Steve Weinkle Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments Page 1 of 20

COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS The FAA has never previously licensed launches where non-involved third parties are resident within 100NM downrange of the launch pad. FAA Order 1050(F) is deficient in that it does not prescribe a requirement to study human health impacts other than from noise, air and water quality, explosive force, and toxic substances. There are no FAA Order 1050.1F requirements to study human injuries that occur even if the Ec threshold is not crossed. These are covered as insurable losses, but the risk is not addressed in the DEIS. There is no study conducted of cumulative human health impacts equivalent to cumulative impacts to turtles, eagles, shrimp, and snakes.

Why does the FAA fail to study significant human health impacts?

3. Non-compliance with Space Directive 2, Section 2(d) REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☐ Taking ☐ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT Space Directive 2, Section 2(d) states: “The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall coordinate to examine all existing U.S. Government requirements, standards, and policies associated with commercial space flight launch and reentry operations from Federal launch ranges and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to minimize those requirements, except those necessary to protect public safety and national security, that would conflict with the efforts of the Secretary of Transportation in implementing the Secretary’s responsibilities under this section.” COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS The FAA has never previously licensed launches where non-involved third parties are resident within 100NM downrange of the launch pad. FAA Order 1050(F) is deficient in that it does not prescribe a requirement to study humans health impacts other than from noise, air and water quality, explosive force, and toxic substances. There are no FAA Order 1050.1F requirements to study human injuries that occur even if the Ec threshold is not crossed. These are covered as insurable losses but the risk is not addressed in the DEIS. There is no study of cumulative human health impacts equivalent to cumulative impacts to turtles, eagles, shrimp, and snakes.

Why does the FAA fail to address all human health impacts?

4. Non-compliance with Space Directive 2(b) REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☐ Taking ☐ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT Space Directive 2, Section 2(b) states, ”Consistent with the policy set forth in section 1 of this memorandum, the Secretary of Transportation shall consider the following: “(ii) replacing prescriptive requirements in the commercial space flight launch and re-entry licensing process with performance-based criteria.” COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS The subject rocket for the Spaceport Camden DEIS is described as a Medium-Large rocket with the capability of performing barge landings in the Atlantic or landings on a land-based pad and also requires 250,000 gallons of deluge water. The only existing rocket, or rocket in development, that meets this specification is the SpaceX Falcon 9FT.

Steve Weinkle Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments Page 2 of 20

Why is the FAA allowing the applicant to submit a hazard analysis for the NEPA Statement based on untested calculations for a rocket equivalent to the SpaceX F9 FT, rather than requiring use of precisely known, performance-based criteria and data? How does Camden County have access to SpaceX technical performance specifications if the information is proprietary to SpaceX? If Camden County has access to SpaceX proprietary data, why is the Hazard Analysis the FAA has used to for acceptance of the NEPA Region of Influence and other technical studies concealed from the public?

5. Why Is the Bayer Property Omitted from NEPA Impact Analysis REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☒ Contradictions ☒ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☒ Taking ☒ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT In the context of the placement of the Alternate Control Center and Visitor Center, DEIS Page 2-2 states, “Bayer CropScience has indicated a willingness to sell the property to Camden County, should the County pursue the purchase. However, should the County not purchase the property nor reach an agreement to build on Bayer CropScience property, this facility would have to be relocated. Alternative locations for the facility would be assessed to determine the need for additional environmental impact analysis and documentation.”

COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS Camden frequently states in the DEIS the spaceport property contains 11,600 acres. This would include approximately 4,000 acres purchased from Union Carbide acres and the purchase, lease or easements for 7,600 Bayer acres. The Bayer property is required for more than the placement of an Alternate facility. Camden states that if it does not purchase the Bayer property, the Launch Pad will not meet legal boundary requirements. Camden has addressed the boundary issues in the DEIS when identifying Alternate Launch Pad siting and it did not find another suitable site. Bayer owns the water wells required for the spaceport. Bayer owns the existing dock facility that is required for barge-landing. At the minimum, Camden County would require Bayer access easements to connect its facilities. Bayer contains both identified and unknown hazardous waste sites. Bayer owns substantial property that would be in the Launch Hazard Area.

Why has the Bayer site been omitted in the NEPA EIS Impact studies?

6. Fails to Address DOI/NPS Concerns About CUIS REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☒ Taking ☐ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT 40CFR1508.27(b) Intensity, states, “This refers to the severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that more than one agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. The following should be considered in evaluating intensity: (1) Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. (2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. (3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.

Steve Weinkle Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments Page 3 of 20

(4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. (5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. (6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.”

COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS NPS is the “agency” with vested responsibility for Cumberland Island National Seashore which lies unavoidably in the Launch Hazard Area. Section 4.2 of the Spaceport Camden Scoping Summary identifies the following conflicts, among many not addressed in the DEIS, related to Cumberland Island National Seashore (CUIS): a. Disturbance of the natural habitat and visitor experience on Cumberland Island National Seashore; b. Conflict between the Proposed Action and the wilderness designation of portions of the Cumberland Island National Seashore under the Wilderness Act; c. Decreases in tourism and eco-tourism, Cumberland Island visitation, and other local outdoor commerce; d. Impacts on the public and threatened and endangered species from noise, vibration, chemical use and release, and lighting; The December 30, 2015 10-page Scoping Comments letter from Stan Austin, NPS Southeast Regional Director identified dozens of NPS concerns about the impacts to CUIS resources and operations. The DEIS fails to address many of these issues or delays consideration until a future time. Specifically, NEPA-mandated mitigations are not detailed nor are they agreed upon between the NPS and FAA. Many questions are deferred to the launch licensing stage which essentially takes them out of the EIS process NEPA clearly intends for these issues to be addressed since they are otherwise inseparable. It is illogical that the FAA can address any aspect of the Affected Environment such as specifics regarding Noise without having sufficient information to determine Impacts on Cumberland Island. The similar assumptions (for the correct rocket class) can be applied to other Impacts on CUIS. It is obvious that NEPA directives are subverted if an EIS reaches the Record of Decision action without full consideration and sufficient study of Impacts that are required under NEPA. Since there is no public record of discussions between NPS and the FAA, the DEIS does not meet NEPA requirements to allow full public involvement.

Why is every concern raised in Mr. Austin’s December 30, 2015 letter not addressed in the DEIS? Will the FAA require that enforceable mitigations are agreed upon with the NPS prior to making a finding of No Significant Impact in its Record of Decision?

7. Failure To Study All Required NEPA Impact Categories REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☒ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☐ Did not Study ☐ Taking ☒ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT The Spaceport Camden Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Informational Brochure distributed that the May 2018 public hearings indicates “Health and Safety” are “Categories not required to be addressed by FAA Order 1050.1F.”

Steve Weinkle Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments Page 4 of 20

COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS Health and Safety may not have been previously studied for NEPA impacts by the FAA because they have never previously licensed rocket launches over resident populations in the OEZ or the Launch Hazard Area four to ten miles downrange. However, the FAA has been aware since the EIS Scoping that resident populations will be present in hazard areas. The FAA has erred in assuming that the Ec calculation made during launch licensing can replace its responsibility to meet NEPA requirements. Quantitative study and standards must be established for the harm to individuals from Reasonably Foreseeable and Cumulative Impacts that are not related to Ec calculations thus these NEPA-mandated Health and Safety impacts must be considered for the DEIS.

Does the FAA have Health and Safety Thresholds for identifiable Health and Safety Impacts in Launch Hazard Areas 4 to 10 miles downrange? Does the FAA have Health and Safety Standards for Cumulative Impacts to Health and Safety Impacts in Launch Hazard Areas 4 to 10 miles downrange? Will all elements of the DEIS be reworked and rereleased for public study and comment after NEPA required Health and Safety Issue deficiencies are rectified?

8. Socioeconomic REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☒ Taking ☐ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT DEIS 6.12 states, ”Provide advanced public notice to minimize the impacts on commercial fishermen for waterway closures.” COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS Commercial fishing has statutory seasons. Reducing the access to commercial fishing grounds will reduce the opportunity for them to use resources they are entitled to on a limited basis thereby reducing their income. Fishermen have to fish where and when the fish are. Commercial Crab fishermen work in and travel through the inter-coastal area subject to the most restrictive closure. There are no alternate routes for them. Why has DEIS failed to study and report the socioeconomic costs to non-involved third parties? How will fishermen and other professions dependent on timely access to Camden County’s waterways be compensated for lost opportunity costs? How will fishermen and other professions dependent on timely access to Camden County’s waterways be compensated for extra costs incurred by closures? What is the penalty if fishermen ignore launch closure restrictions? What is the penalty if recreational boaters ignore launch closure restrictions? Who is responsible to enforce closure restrictions on Cumberland Island, Little Cumberland Island, inshore, on the inter-coastal waterways and offshore? Have these agencies agreed to enforce closure restrictions on people who depend on their rightful access to maritime resources?

9. Socioeconomic – CUIS Disruption REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☒ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☒ Taking ☒ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT DEIS 6.12 states, “Coordinate with the management of Cumberland Island and its campsites to minimize disruption to their operation.”

Steve Weinkle Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments Page 5 of 20

COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS Camping and Cumberland Island access reservations are made up to 6 months in advance, but launch decisions are made a matter of hours or minutes before launch. NPS would have to locate and transport backpackers from Wilderness areas not accessible by any wheeled or motorized vehicles. Rescheduling and canceling of launches will create unpredictable CUIS operation’s responsibilities and costs. Lands and Legacies Tours will have to be modified to accommodate an unpredictable launch schedule. Commercial Ferry Operator will be forced to make policy changes for Park Visitors who cancel to avoid last minute changes to their CUIS visit. CUIS can expect significant increases in private boat visitation on launch days. This visitation is not controllable by current CUIS resources. NPS budgets are severely strained with decreasing services a persistent problem at Cumberland Island.

How will NPS costs incurred by spaceport operations demands be funded or reimbursed? How will the commercial ferry operator be compensated for lost opportunity costs? Under what justification can the FAA state that inconveniences to CUIS visitors are mitigated by advance notification, especially considering the FAA’s awareness of the frequency and likelihood of postponements and rescheduling over consecutive days?

10. Socioeconomic – Spaceports Require Taxpayer Funding REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☒ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☒ Taking ☒ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT The FAA is aware that all vertical launch spaceports are require significant funding by taxpayer subsidies. Therefore, the DEIS must study the Socioeconomic Impacts of the economic risk to at-risk populations through the redirection of limited taxpayer funding to spaceport activities rather than to traditional community responsibilities such as indigent care, community healthcare, public safety, building code enforcement, drinking water supply and water quality, and flood mitigation projects.

COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS The FAA accepts on face value that Camden’s claims of potential economic benefit are derived from serious study and empirical evidence. The Georgia Southern University Economic Summary provided by Camden County to the public was derived without independent analysis of the input parameters. For instance, more than $16 million of the $22 million total benefit is derived for “Scientific Research and Development Services.” Such claims are pure speculation. Many space companies are not spaceport dependent for their location as evidenced by the hundreds of substantial space-related business located in Alabama, Mississippi, Utah, and Washington. All Camden economic claims in the DEIS are entirely speculative. A Spaceport Operating Budget has not been conducted, or if they have been studied, they have not been revealed nor are they in evidence in the DEIS. Funding for spaceport construction and operation has not been identified, or if funding has been studied, it has not been revealed. Camden County will accept substantial liability and risk for the monitoring and mitigation of known and unknown environmental hazards on the spaceport property. Camden does not have the finacial resources to accept this liability. No Georgia or Federal funding has been committed to build or operate Spaceport Camden.

Will the FAA remove all statements of economic benefits from the DEIS until Camden County produces a validated study demonstrating the economic claims are reasonable and not just wishful thinking? Will the FAA remove all statements of economic benefits from the DEIS until Camden County produces a validated risk analysis demonstrating the economic claims will offset economic costs to Camden County?

Steve Weinkle Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments Page 6 of 20

In lieu of 1 and 2 above, will the FAA add a disclaimer statement to each economic claim in the DEIS that states, “The Economic statements in the EIS are uncorroborated?”

11. Failure to Provide Enforceable Mitigations – Fire Protection CUIS REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☐ Taking ☐ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT DEIS 6.12 states, “Emergency response times could vary depending on tide conditions, availability of qualified personnel, and location of emergencies. To minimize potential emergency management situations on the Cumberland Island and Little Cumberland Island, emergency response resources and personnel should be readily available on the island and nearby to minimize response times.” COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS Restricting boat activity from LCI or CUIS through closure areas will limit property owners access to self- directed healthcare. Limited to no Telephone service is available in the CUIS Hazard Area to summon emergency response. How will this be mitigated? Virtually all of the CUIS Wilderness is accessible only by foot. Fire management practices such as preventative controlled burning is not permitted. No fire services are provided by Camden County. There is no central water system or fire hydrants. Cumberland Island has a single 3,000-gallon pumper truck. Will launches be prevented when Dangerous Fire Hazard conditions are declared on the Spaceport property, LCI or Cumberland Island? Why doesn’t the DEIS define specific, enforceable mitigations necessary to protect private property owners down range on LCI? Will a fire-fighting, water-drop helicopter be deployed during launches since thousands of acres can only be reached by aerial drop?

12. Failure to Provide Enforceable Mitigations – Fire Protection LCI REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☒ Taking ☐ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT DEIS 6.12 fails to address a feasible, affordable and implementable Fire Protection Plan or addressable mitigations for Little Cumberland Island where property owners have no fire trucks or central water system and are solely responsible for fire response.

COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS Approximately 1,000 acres of LCI upland is equivalent to Wilderness with no roads. Access to Little Cumberland Island is not possible during low tide conditions. Fire management practices such as preventative controlled burning is not permitted. No fire services are provided by Camden County or CUIS to LCI. There is no central water system or fire hydrants. There are no fire trucks on LCI. Residents would be compelled to fight fires to protect their property. Resident population on the island should be expected to increase significantly on launch days since they will be the first line of defense. Since the loss of community association-owned forest and other assets would significantly devalue property on LCI, MPL-required 3rd party loss insurance must be provided to offset every property owner’s potential loss of value and the loss in value to each private property related to the loss of community common property.

Steve Weinkle Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments Page 7 of 20

Will launches be scheduled only when tide conditions allow emergency access to Little Cumberland Island? Will launches be prevented when Dangerous Fire Hazard conditions are declared on the Spaceport property, LCI or Cumberland Island? Will a fire-fighting, water-drop helicopter be deployed during launches since thousands of acres can only be reached by aerial drop? Why doesn’t the DEIS define specific, enforceable mitigations necessary to protect private property owners down range? Why does the DEIS ignore awareness gained during the Spaceport Camden Scoping about the residential community on Little Cumberland Island? Failure to study the Present and Foreseeable Impacts on the 100-lot, 40+ home residential community on Little Cumberland Island is cause to trigger 40CFR1502.9(a) requirements on all EIS sections affected by this ommission.

13. Term with No Legal Meaning – Authorized Persons REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☒ Taking ☐ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT DEIS page 11 states, “…provisions for “authorized persons” would also be determined and implemented (e.g., residents, vacation house owners and permit-holding campers, NPS personnel).” COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS There is no legal basis for “authorized persons.” New rule-making would be required to implement such a policy. There is no legal method whereby a launch operator can limit the number of exposed third-parties on LCI. There is no reasonable legal justification to allow “authorized Persons” on LCI or CUIS while restricting or prohibiting people from farther downrange beach access (controlled by the State of Georgia) or onboard boats east of LCI and CI. The FAA has refused to respond to my Freedom of Information Request for the following Freedom of Information Request dated March 14, 2018: “Any FAA document providing the legal definition of an "Authorized Person" as used by the FAA to determine the qualification and eligibility for a person to remain in a spaceport Overflight Exclusion Zone or any other range hazard zone during a hazardous activity“

Why does Spaceport Camden need to have “Authorized Persons” if each launch will require Ec calculations based on the number of persons present in the Launch Hazard Area at the time of the launch? What authority exists in US law permitting “Authorized Persons” to remain in the Launch Hazard Zone? Will “Authorized Persons” be required to show identification to invoke their private property and free movement rights? Will children be required to be individually “Authorized?” Will “Authorized Persons” be compensated for the increased risk exposure? Will “Authorized Persons” be required to waive risks or damage claims? How does a person become “Authorized” and by which authority issues authorizations? Can “Authorized Person” authorizations be revoked? What is the penalty is a person refuses to become an “Authorized Person?” How much time is required to become “Authorized?” How can the FAA or the licensee legally limit the number of “Authorized Persons” to guaranty that the Ec number does not exceed 1x10-6? Will the spaceport have to close once the Ec limit is exceed?

14. Access to LCI not available to the FAA or Spaceport Operator REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☒ Taking ☐ Other

Steve Weinkle Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments Page 8 of 20

RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT The DEIS fails to address how launch operators will legally gain access to LCI for any spaceport operations. COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS LCI is entirely private property with no legal rights of access available to spaceport or launch operators. The FAA has no legal right of access or enforcement of rules on LCI.

How will launch operators count the number of exposed, non-involved third parties on LCI or CI without violating privacy laws and full cooperation from LCI owners? How will launch operators recover rockets or rocket wreckage landing on LCI? If a prior agreement between the launch operators and LCI residents to allow access and compensation cannot be reached, will the FAA issue a launch site license?

15. Insufficient Experience with MPL REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☒ Taking ☐ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT Source: FAA Maximum Probable Loss (MPL) Table Vandenberg launches have higher 3rd-party insurance coverage requirements apparently due to (evacuated) State parks, off-shore oil rigs and a policy tolerant of some private boats. No other MPL calculations appear to take land- based third-party risk in the Launch Hazard Area into account because currently every OEZ is evacuated and there are no existing spaceports with private property and people in the Launch Hazard Area. COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS Socioeconomic burdens on the spaceport owners (the taxpayers of Camden County, Georgia) will be directly related to operating costs and necessary subsidies associated with Spaceport Camden. The costs of MPL-required launch insurance at Spaceport Camden will be considerably higher than other spaceports due to the presence of uninvolved third parties, private property, irreplaceable resources, and historic sites not found at other ranges.

Why have increased MPL requirements not been addressed as a Socioeconomic Impact to Camden County citizens? What mechanism and procedures are in place that assure taxpayers and at risk populations are represented when determining the amount of insurance required to meet Congressional MPL requirements?

16. No Insurance Covering Loss of National Seashore Resources REASON: ☐ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☐ Taking ☒ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT NPS Damage and Restoration Handbook, https://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DO-14Handbook.pdf Appendix A, Subchapter III-B, Section 19jj-1(c)(3) Defenses states, “A person is not liable under this section if such person can establish that — c. the destruction, loss, or injury to the park system resource was caused by an activity authorized by Federal or State law.” COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS Rocket Launches are obviously “an activity authorized by Federal law,” thus it is disputable if losses to NPS resources are required to be insured by the commercial launch operator. The DEIS fails to address the value of NPS resources damaged during rocket launch operations. Failure to require commercial operators to provide insurance for NPS losses will confirm the GAO concerns about inadequate MPL private insurance coverage and risk to the taxpayers. Steve Weinkle Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments Page 9 of 20

FAA dependence on Congressional approval of special allocations to cover losses to public lands is insufficient to meet MPL requirements.

Since current policy does not satisfy GAO concerns that the American taxpayer is not sufficiently protected from financial liability, will the FAA develop an insurance regimen that requires launch operators to purchase insurance to cover repair, restoration and/or replacement to National parkland damaged during commercial launch operations?

17. FAA remains deficient in addressing MPL issues REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☐ Taking ☒ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT GAO January 2018, 690 found: “The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) report evaluating its maximum probable loss (MPL) methodology did not fully address the evaluation and consultation requirements specified by the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (CSLCA).”

“Balance of Risk. CSLCA required FAA to include ensuring that the federal government is not exposed to greater indemnification costs and that launch companies are not required to purchase more insurance coverage than necessary as a result of FAA’s MPL methodology. FAA said that it ensured this balance by improving its methodology, but it did not reevaluate its probability thresholds after revising its methodology. These thresholds are used to divide the risk of loss between launch companies and the government.” COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS After multiple GAO referrals, the FAA is still not compliant with Congressional requirements.

Will the FAA comply with GAO concerns about loss exposure to American taxpayers prior to making a Spaceport Camden EIS ROD?

18. Questionable Equivalent Level of Safety Decision #1 REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☒ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☐ Taking ☐ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR SpaceX EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES OPERATIONS AREA ON KENNEDY SPACE CENTER”, April 2018 4.2.11 Health and Safety “Minimal adverse impacts to worker health and safety during construction and operation of the Proposed Action and cumulative projects would be expected. Contractor and operations personnel would be required to follow and implement OSHA, and NASA safety standards to establish and maintain a safe working environment. There would be no cumulative impacts to worker or public health and safety as a result of the Proposed Action.” COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS The FAA does not study cumulative impacts to public Health and Safety in the NEPA EIS process.

Will the FAA meet NEPA requirements to study Health and Safety Impacts?

19. Questionable Equivalent Level of Safety Decision #2 REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☒ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☐ Taking ☐ Other

Steve Weinkle Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments Page 10 of 20

RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR SpaceX EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES OPERATIONS AREA ON KENNEDY SPACE CENTER”, April 2018 3.12.1 Affected Environment, “Range Safety monitors launch surveillance areas to ensure that the risk to people, aircraft, and surface vessels is within acceptable limits.” COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS There is no way to count or control the number of exposed non-involved third parties. Can such surveillance over private property without violations of privacy? Spaceport Camden would not be able to provide an Equivalent Level of Safety to operations at Kennedy Space Center.

20. Questionable Equivalent Level of Safety Decision #3 REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☒ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☐ Taking ☐ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR SpaceX EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES OPERATIONS AREA ON KENNEDY SPACE CENTER”, April 2018 3.12.1 Affected Environment, “Control areas and airspace are closed to the public as required (USAF 1998).” “COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS Spaceport Camden and the FAA propose to allow the public in areas required for closure at Kennedy Space Center and other spaceports. How can the FAA justify allowing Safety risks at Spaceport Camden that are not allowed at other licensed spaceports without a formal Equivalent Level of Safety Study of each risk?

21. Failure To Study NEPA-required Health and Safety Impacts REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☐ Taking ☒ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT The Spaceport Camden DEIS Informational Brochure, May 2018 states, that the NEPA Act Environmental Impact Category for “Health and Safety” is “not required to be addressed by FAA Order 1050.1F.” However, NEPA 42 USC § 4331 Sec. 101 (b) is explicit: “In order to carry out the policy set forth in this Act, it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means…” to “attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;” COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS The FAA has never previously licensed launches where non-involved third parties are resident within 100NM downrange of the launch pad. Therefore, FAA Order 1050.1F is deficient in that it does not prescribe a requirement to study humans health impacts other than from noise, air and water quality, explosive force, and toxic substances. There are no requirements to study human injuries that occur even if the Ec threshold is not crossed. There is no study of cumulative impacts equivalent to impacts on turtles, eagles, shrimp, and snakes. The FAA fails to provide required regulations for Human Health and Safety other than for Noise, Air & Water Quality, toxic substances, and explosive effects. There are no references in FAA Order 1050.1F or FAA Order 1050.1F Desktop Reference addressing how the FAA is to assess “unintentional injuries.” NEPA does not exempt Expected Casualty impacts from inclusion in EIS studies. Among numerous causes, unintentional injuries can result from attempting to find shelter when a launch noise is first heard or while avoiding or fighting rocket-caused fires.

Steve Weinkle Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments Page 11 of 20

Mental and physical health problems from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders (PTSD) are possible consequences, especially in women and children, from the anxiety induced by imminent risk of life situations during each rocket launch.

Does the FAA intend to comply with the explicit requirements of NEPA 42 USC § 4331 Sec. 101 (b) before further consideration of the Spaceport Camden EIS? What is the FAA experience with rocket launches that have been licensed over the non- involved public located within 4 to 8 miles downrange from the launch pad?

22. Failure To Study Impacts on Children Per NEPA Requirement REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☐ Taking ☒ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT FAA 1050.1f 12.3 states, “Federal agencies are directed, as appropriate and consistent with the agency’s mission, to make it a high priority to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children.” “Impacts to children are considered separately in NEPA reviews because children may experience a different intensity of impact as compared to an adult exposed to the same event.” “’Unintentional injuries’ are explicitly identified as one of four environmental risks to children that must be considered separately from general impacts.” COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS The FAA fails to meet the requirements of NEPA 42 USC § 4331 Sec. 101 (b). FAA Order 1050.1F states, “The FAA has not established a significance threshold for Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks.“ 40CFR 1508.8 states, “Effects and impacts as used in these regulations are synonymous. Effects includes ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative.”

Why has the FAA not established a significance threshold for Children’s Environmental Health and Safety? Does the FAA intend to comply with the explicit requirements of NEPA 42 USC § 4331 Sec. 101 (b) before further consideration of the Spaceport Camden EIS by establishing a significance threshold for Children? What is the FAA experience with launches over children located within 4 to 8 miles downrange of the launch pad? What studies have been conducted assessing the special direct, indirect or cumulative risks to children from rocket launches located within 4 to 8 miles downrange of the launch pad?

23. Does This Relate to Launch Hazard Area Safety? REASON: ☐ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☒ Taking ☒ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT DEIS page 4-59 states, “The County has discussed the option to offer anyone who is an ‘authorized person’ who wants to depart for the launch window, a complimentary ride and/or appropriate temporary accommodations including ‘VIP’ viewing passes for the launch. COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS This innocuous offer is just as likely an attempt to use a “special” benefit to induce people to remove themselves from the Launch Hazard Area.

Steve Weinkle Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments Page 12 of 20

What is the contingency plan when it becomes necessary to postpone launches due to an excessive number of exposed “authorized persons?” Will Camden County provide lunch with beer? Will it become difficult to become an “authorized person?”

24. Obvious Oversight: The DEIS Noise Study Does Not Relate to the Proposed Action REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☒ Contradictions ☒ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☐ Taking ☐ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT The Proposed Action is to launch Medium/Large-lift-class rockets but the Noise study is for Medium-lift-class rockets. COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS Medium-Large rockets can have 4 times the trust and thus will generate a different noise profile than a Medium- lift-class rocket. Why does the FAA allow an incorrect Noise Analysis to be used in the DEIS? Will the FAA require the correct Noise Impact Study be completed and rerelease the DEIS once all affected Impact topics are reanalyzed to reflect the correct Noise Impacts?

25. Draft EIS IS Not Searchable REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☐ Did not Study ☐ Taking ☐ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT NEPA requires that Draft EIS and EIS documents are accessible and readable by the public. COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS The 4 volumes of DEIS Appendices are not indexed by document and are not searchable. The Appendices of the Scoping documents were searchable. The DEIS required 22 listed contributors who have worked since December 2015 but the public has been provided only 75 days to research and comment on virtually unreadable, unsearchable documents. The Public is not paid to do the work of identifying errors, omissions, contradictions and misleading statements. That is the FAA and applicant’s responsibility that should be concluded PRIOR to release of the DEIS.

Since supporting documents are not indexed and are not searchable, does the FAA meet its legal responsibilities for Public Involvement and Commenting? Will the FAA extend or reopen the Comment Period after making the entire content of the DEIS accessible and searchable?

26. Impacts and Risks to Tidal Marsh are Not Addressed REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☒ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☒ Taking ☐ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT DEIS Page 2-47 includes this statement: “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) suggested that facilities be located to avoid and accommodate species and habitat of special concern. Specific suggestions included: “During project planning facilities with the highest potential for leaks or releases should be sited away from the most environmentally sensitive areas on and near the project site, such as protected species habitats and tidal marsh environments.”

Steve Weinkle Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments Page 13 of 20

COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS Tidal Marsh comprises 75% of the Launch Pad Clear Zone for a Medium Rocket. Tidal Marsh comprises 84% of the Launch Pad Clear Zone for a Medium-Large Rocket. Tidal Marsh comprises 31% of the Launch Pad Clear Zone within 1,000 feet of the launch pad. The Fairfield North/South launch pad is sited within 400 feet of tidal estuary and tidal marsh. The Launch Site Retention Ponds are as close as 100’ to the marsh. Washout of retention ponds during hurricane flooding is not studied. The Launch Pad Flame Trench directly faces tidal marsh which is less than 300 feet away. Flame Trench orientation directs exhaust contaminants straight into the marsh. The Spaceport Camden site plan does not appear to have a water deluge capture system that is capable of processing 250,000 gallons of water. The DEIS does not study exhaust waste contaminants present in deluge water vapor. The Tidal Marsh is considered a buffer for spaceport activities. However, Camden County does not own the marsh bottom. Incoming tides will move hazardous waste and debris upstream twice each day for more than 5 hours. Then, the outgoing tide will carry contaminants back over previously contaminated marsh, river banks and river bed. It is likely that the contamination will eddy in the vicinity of the spaceport increasing the accumulated concentration of contaminants. Contaminants from launches will fall directly on marsh bottom that is exposed at each low tide. Contamination of marsh bottom will directly impact the safety of commercially and privately gathered shrimp and crabs. Tidal Marsh bottom is considered an important component of the food chain. Contamination of the marsh bottom will directly, indirectly and cumulatively impact the entire food chain with unpredictable impacts on birds, turtles and marine mammals that feed in the marsh. Unlike the ocean, the marshes are rich with organic detritus that is part of the food chain which includes apex predators like Bald Eagles and humans. Extensive research in the flushing times of tidal embayments for the Satilla River have not been included in the DEIS. The Satilla River requires substantially greater flushing times than other Coastal Georgia Rivers potentially increasing contamination of marshland.

Why does the DEIS ignore Environmental Impacts to marsh land for a Launch accident over spaceport property which is the type of accident Camden admits is the most likely to occur? Why are tidal currents not considered in the study of Marsh Impacts? How is the accumulation of hazardous materials in estuaries and tidal marshes different than the same contaminants released into the open ocean at other licensed spaceports? Why has the extensive field of research in mixing and flushing of tidal embayments not been incorporated in the DEIS?

27. FAA Knows the Volume of Launches Increases Risk But Ignores Cumulative Ec Risk Involving Public Safety REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☒ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☒ Taking ☐ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT GAO 15-706 Page 37 states, “As we have previously reported, industry changes could increase the government’s exposure to third-party liability, but the amount of increase could be mitigated as long as the maximum probable loss methodology is reasonable and maximum probable loss calculation is accurate. Increases in the number of prospective launches and reentries would increase the number of times the government is exposed to potential claims. In addition, changes in the types of launches and reentries could increase the government’s exposure but the increase could be mitigated if the maximum probable loss calculation accurately takes them into account.” “First, the number of launches and reentries covered by federal indemnification is forecasted to increase, and the federal government’s potential exposure to third-party liability claims would increase with the added volume. “ “In general, by increasing the volume of launches and reentries, the probability of a catastrophe occurring is also increased.”

Steve Weinkle Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments Page 14 of 20

COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS It is unequivocal that the GAO considers increased frequency of launches equates to cumulative risk. FAA Ec Calculations consider only the risk calculated for each single launch. The FAA does not consider the cumulative risk to persons who may be exposed on a repeated basis. The FAA standard procedure contradicts with the basis of MPL calculations for permanent populations that reside in the Launch Hazard Area. The FAA has experience with this issue based on its knowledge of the increased risk to people who work or live in the take-oof and landing patterns beyond the ends of runways. Why does the FAA not have a process concerned with cumulative exposure to risk in the Launch Hazard Area? Why does the FAA not have a process concerned with cumulative exposure to Health and Safety Impacts in the Launch Hazard Area? Will the FAA devise a new Ec calculation method that includes cumulative risk to persons exposed multiple times to rocket launch risks?

28. Inconsistent Application of Rules – Camden and Boca Chica REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☒ Contradictions ☒ Error/Omission ☐ Did not Study ☒ Taking ☐ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT SpaceX Boca Chica FEIS page ES-4 Section ES.2.1 Operational Activities states, “The proposed closure area was developed in consultation with the USFWS and NPS due to the presence of the Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR and the Palmito Ranch Battlefield NHL. In addition to including the FAA-approved hazard area, the proposed closure area includes the entire NWR and NHL, because the USFWS and NPS expressed concern over potential public intrusion in these sensitive areas during launch operations.”

SpaceX Boca Chica FEIS page 7-1 Section 7.0, UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS, states, “Construction of the proposed vertical launch and control center areas would indirectly impact the setting and feeling of the Palmito Ranch Battlefield NHL. Three historic properties in proximity to the vertical launch area (the Cypress Pilings, Palmetto Pilings, and Palmetto Pilings Historical Marker) could be impacted by vibrations from high noise levels, which could cause physical damage to structural features.”

COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS The Palmito Ranch Battlefield NHL is located approximately 3 miles southwest of the proposed vertical launch site. Unlike historic structures on Cumberland and Little Cumberland Islands, Palmito Ranch Battlefield NHL lies outside of the designated overflight area and behind the launch pad. The rocket launches from Spaceport Camden will unavoidably overfly Little Cumberland and Cumberland Islands’ historic district and structures. Why are different NEPA standards applied for Spaceport Camden and Boca Chica Spaceport? Has the FAA previously licensed rocket launches over accessible historic districts that are visited daily? How can the spaceport operator accurately know the number of people exposed in the hazard areas? How can the NPS or spaceport operator legally restrict the number of visitors to private property on Little Cumberland or Cumberland Islands? Why are historic structures on Little Cumberland and Cumberland Islands not afforded the same concern as those near Boca Chica? Why are the equivalent Unavoidable Adverse Impacts not identified in the Camden DEIS in Section 7, UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS?

Steve Weinkle Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments Page 15 of 20

29. Requirement to Comply with 14CFR1502.9(c) REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☐ Taking ☒ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT 40CFR1502.9(c) Agencies, requires that the FAA: “(1) Shall prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental impact statements if: (i) The agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or (ii) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.” COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS The Scoping document did not include Medium-Large rockets which have significantly greater environmental and human risk impacts than smaller rockets. The Medium-Large Falcon 9 FT that is the model for the DEIS has up to 4 times the thrust and requires substantially more deluge water to control noise than the medium rocket proposed in the Scoping document. The Medium-Large Falcon 9 FT that is the model for the DEIS generates substantially more noise and pollutants within the first 10 miles downrange due to its greater thrust. The Medium-Large Falcon 9 FT that is the model for the DEIS carries more than 1,285,000 pounds of flammable and explosive fuel and FTS ordnance. The Medium lift class Antares 230 (current version) is loaded with approximately 685,000 pounds of flammable and explosive fuel and FTS ordnance. How can such a substantial change not trigger the requirement to issue a Supplemental Draft EIS with the requirement to conduct a subsequent public hearing and comment period? Does the FAA intend to issue a Supplemental Draft EIS after the non-compliance issues, errors, omissions, contradictions, and corrections are complete?

30. Failure To Apply Empirical Experience REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☐ Taking ☐ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT The FAA is relying on statements from Camden County that it can produce a rocket equivalent to the SpaceX Falcon 9 FT allowing an OEZ and Launch Hazard Area substantially smaller than those imposed at other spaceports for the same rocket. COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS It defies logic and common sense that the FAA can accept Camden’s theoretical calculations instead of the accumulated empirical evidence gained from more than 55 launches of the Falcon 9 FT and its predecessors. The FAA has failed to respond to my Freedom of Information Act Request of May 6, 2018 asking for the following items demonstrating the FAA can validate its existing regulations or any proposed changes to their regulations: a. All records indicating the scope, quantity, size and/or impact distribution pattern of rocket components intentionally or accidentally shed during flight from any FAA-licensed rockets that have impacted within 100 nautical miles downrange during any FAA-licensed launch. b. All records indicating the scope, quantity, size and/or impact distribution pattern of debris resulting from an accident that have impacted within 100 nautical miles downrange during any FAA-licensed rocket launch. c. All records indicating the scope, quantity, size and/or impact distribution pattern of debris resulting from the use of a Flight Termination System that has impacted within 100 nautical miles downrange during any FAA-licensed rocket launch. d. All records indicating the scope, quantity, size and/or impact distribution pattern of debris resulting from SpaceX CRS-7 explosion June 28, 2015, from Cape Canaveral, Florida. e. All records indicating the scope, quantity, size and/or impact distribution pattern of debris resulting from the SpaceX Amos-6 launch pad anomaly on September 1, 2016, from Cape Canaveral, Florida.

Steve Weinkle Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments Page 16 of 20

f. All records indicating the scope, quantity, size and/or impact distribution pattern of debris resulting from the Orbital ATK Orb-3 launch explosion on October 28, 2014, from Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport.

When will the FAA respond to my Freedom of Information Request of May 2018? Can a theoretical calculation substitute for empirical evidence where there is substantial history of performance for the purposes of the EIS? By what means can the FAA demonstrate that Ec calculations have been proven accurate for the Launch Hazard Area in the range of 4 to 10 miles from the launch pad? What is the proper title of the FAA document defining the procedures and requirement for determining Equivalent Level of Safety?” Has the FAA ever licensed a launch using a maximum 5-mile wide Launch Hazard Area for a Medium-Large class rocket at a distance of 10 miles from the launch pad? If so, please indicate which launch was licensed. Has the FAA ever licensed a launch using a maximum 5-mile wide Launch Hazard Area for a Medium class rocket at a distance of 10 miles from the launch pad? If so, please indicate which launch was licensed. Has the FAA ever licensed a launch using a maximum 5-mile wide Launch Hazard Area for a Medium-Small class rocket at a distance of 10 miles from the launch pad? If so, please indicate which launch was licensed. Has the FAA ever licensed a launch with an OEZ extending less than 4 miles from the launch pad for a Medium-Large class rocket? If so, please indicate which launch was licensed. Has the FAA ever licensed a launch with an OEZ extending less than 4 miles from the launch pad for a Medium class rocket? If so, please indicate which launch was licensed. Has the FAA ever licensed a launch with an OEZ extending less than 4 miles from the launch pad for a Small class rocket? If so, please indicate which launch was licensed.

31. FAA Must Evaluate Applicant-submitted Information for NEPA REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☒ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☐ Taking ☒ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT FAA Order 1050.1.F, 2-2.1.a. Responsibilities of the Federal Aviation Administration, states the following are General FAA Responsibilities: (1) Ensuring compliance with NEPA, the CEQ Regulations, this Order, and other environmental requirements; (2) […] (3) Independently and objectively evaluating applicant-submitted information and EAs and taking responsibility for content and adequacy of any such information or documents used by the FAA for compliance with NEPA or other environmental requirements; COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS The FAA’s own guidance states that its NEPA responsibilities include “Independently and objectively evaluating applicant-submitted information.” There is no indication in the DEIS the FAA has reviewed Camden’s Hazard Analysis claiming an OEZ that stops short of Cumberland and Little Cumberland Island and supports a Launch Hazard Area that is approximately 5 miles wide. The FAA’s own guidance states that its NEPA responsibilities include “… taking responsibility for content and adequacy of any such information or documents used by the FAA for compliance with NEPA or other environmental requirements;” At no point in the DEIS does the FAA acknowledge that it has “Independently and objectively evaluating applicant-submitted information” and agrees with Camden’s claims it can prove its substantially smaller Launch Hazard Area. Where in NEPA regulations or FAA Order 1050.1F is the FAA allowed to accept theoretical calculations or the applicant’s statements to define the MEPA required Region of Influence? Why did the FAA allow the applicant to provide a Noise Impact study based on the smaller Medium-lift-class rocket when the Proposed Action is for a Medium/Large-lift-class rocket?

Steve Weinkle Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments Page 17 of 20

Why did the FAA fail to study the possible Impacts of highly toxic and high corrosive hypergolic fuels often used in upper stages or payloads even though they are identified as “special fuels” on page 2-10?

32. Insufficient Study of Impacts on Union Carbide and Bayer Properties REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☒ Taking ☐ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT Page 2-34: “Because FAA regulations 29 (14 CFR §420.21) require launch pads to be at least 10,600 feet (for medium-lift-class to large-lift-class launch vehicles) from the launch site boundary, vehicle debris from the explosion would be expected to be confined to the launch site.“ COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS Camden states that the RCRA Hazardous Landfill would remain owned by Union Carbide/Dow. The boundary for the Landfill parcel is 9,000 feet from the launch pad. This proximity does not allow sufficient boundaries required in 14CFR 420.21(b) for Medium/Large or Medium rockets unless the FAA waives requirements for this rule. There is no mention of the required waiver in the DEIS. The Bayer property is 3,100 feet from the Launch Pad. A Bayer Brownfield is 4,700 feet from the launch pad and is entirely surrounded by spaceport property. The minimum boundary requirement for Small-lift-class rockets is 7,300 feet. There is no mention of the required waiver in the DEIS. However, the EIS defers consideration of downrange Health and Safety Impacts to a post-EIS process because it does not have a launch application to consider. It appears that the applicant has applied for a reuseable launch vehicle so that it can use licensing exceptions addressed exclusively to reuseable rockets. Is the FAA aware that Camden County intends to subdivide the Union Carbide property to exclude the Hazardous Landfill from the spaceport property? Has the FAA approved Landing Pad clear zones closer to property boundaries than those specified in 14CFR420 Table 2? Has any NEPA Impact Study been conducted related to the proximity of the RCRA Hazardous Landfill? Have there been discussions with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division about the environmental risks associated with launch activities? Have there been discussions with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division about the Environmental Covenant restricting all development activity on the Union Carbide property? Why has the FAA accepted an DEIS that does not include comprehensive analysis of known and unknown environmental hazards on the Bayer property that must be acquired by Camden to allow for sufficient boundaries?

33. Significant Factual Error Page 2-34 REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☒ Error/Omission ☐ Did not Study ☐ Taking ☒ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT Page 2-34: “Because FAA regulations 29 (14 CFR §420.21) require launch pads to be at least 10,600 feet (for medium-lift-class to large-lift-class launch vehicles) from the launch site boundary, vehicle debris from the explosion would be expected to be confined to the launch site.“

Page 2-2: “Bayer CropScience has indicated a willingness to sell the property to Camden County, should the County pursue the purchase. However, should the County not purchase the property nor reach an agreement to build on Bayer CropScience property, this facility would have to be relocated. Alternative locations for the facility would be assessed to determine the need for additional environmental impact analysis and documentation.”

Steve Weinkle Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments Page 18 of 20

COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS Factual misstatement: 14cfr420.21 Table 2 requires 9,300 feet boundary clearance for Medium-lift-class rockets, 10,600 feet for Medium/Large-lift class rockets, and 13,000 feet for Large-lift-class rockets. Did the FAA review the DEIS prior to its release to the public?

34. Factual Error Example REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☒ Contradictions ☒ Error/Omission ☒ Did not Study ☐ Taking ☐ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT DEIS Page 2-47, states, “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) suggested that facilities be located to avoid and accommodate species and habitat of special concern. “ Camden responded: “-additional buffer has been provided should the need arise to move locations.” “For instance, moving the Vertical Launch Facility further to the southwest by 1.25 miles would result in movement of the noise profiles further southwest, which would then result in further potential for noise impacts to Little Cumberland Island and a larger closure area closer to shore.”

COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS The DEIS provides no indication that there is any flexibility in moving the Launch Pad facilities. Relocating the Vertical Launch Facility on a bearing of 205 degrees places the launch pad further from LCI providing less overflight over LCI and fewer potential impacts. The change in location adds 1,100 feet additional public-owned beach to the closure area, increasing the closure area from 3.54 miles to 3.87 miles. Is the real reason for Camden’s position is so that it does not address boundary implications? How does weak and incorrect analysis like this make it into the DEIS?

35. FAA Can Terminate An EIS REASON: ☒ Non-compliance ☐ Contradictions ☐ Error/Omission ☐ Did not Study ☐ Taking ☒ Other RULE/CODE/AUTHORITY/ DEIS CONTENT FAA Order 1050.1F, Section 7-1.3. Decision Not to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. “Under certain circumstances, the FAA may choose to terminate an EIS.” COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS In various carefully-worded statements, the public has been told that the EIS application is “an applicant-driven process.” The implication is that FAA can only respond to what an applicant wants them to do. In any case, the FAA is not prepared to address a Spaceport EIS that is complicated by the presence of near- downrange residents, an unavoidable National Seashore, a Designated Wilderness Area, incomplete or biased representation of facts, impacts, the Region of Influence, and the Affected Area. The FAA does not include the required Health and Safety Impact Study and has not established required significance thresholds for Children’s Health and Safety Impacts. The DEIS does not provide enforceable, affordable and practical mitigations for known hazards. The DEIS does not address the waivers that would be required to meet NEPA and FAA regulations. It is unclear that the FAA can defer Health and Safety issues to a post-EIS process. COMMENT(S) & COMMENT QUESTIONS Does the Spaceport Camden Draft EIS meet minimum standards for continuation of its Spaceport Camden EIS?

Steve Weinkle Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments Page 19 of 20

Is the FAA prepared to process the rule-making and procedure changes necessary to comply fully with NEPA? At what point does the FAA make the decision the EIS is a waste of time and its limited resources? What is the FAA process, instructions or directive that provide guidance for how the FAA determines to terminate an EIS?

Steve Weinkle Spaceport Camden Draft EIS Comments Page 20 of 20