A Reproduced Copy OF
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Reproduced Copy OF = (NASA-TM-X-69471) INSTITUTICNAL N74 10302 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SPACE SHUTTLE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS) AMENDMENT NO. 1 (NASA) --4*6 p HC $9.50 Unclas 1'S CSCL 14B G3/11 21647 Reproduced for NASA by the NASA Scientific and Technical Information Facility FFNo 672 Aug 65 August, 1973 JOHN F. KENNEDY SPACE CENTER OCT 9 - 1973 1OHN F. KENNEDY SPACE CENTEI NASA ULIBRARY CIRCULATION COPY, 7 AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO THE INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SPACE SHUTTLE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS) SHUTTLE PROJECT OFFICE / AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO THE INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SPACE SHUTTLE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS) Prepared by: Shuttle Project Office John F. Kennedy Space Center, NASA Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899 // SUMMARY AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SPACE SHUTTLE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS) ( ) DRAFT (X) FINAL Responsible Federal Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Office of Manned Space Flight, Space Shuttle Program. a. ( X ) Administrative Action ( X ) Legislative Action b. This action proposes to establish, at John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC), NASA, facilities for receiving, inspection, checkout, launch, recovery and refurbishment of Space Shuttle flight hardware. Many existing facilities and systems, constructed for the Apollo and Skylab programs, are capable of supporting Shuttle operations with little or no modification. Presently identified modifications to such areas as the Vehicle Assembly .Building (VAB) for Orbiter maintenance and checkout, Orbiter tank storage and space vehicle vertical integration; the Mobile Launchers (ML) and Launch Pad for adaptation to a new space vehicle configuration; and numerous minor modifications to existing shop and laboratory areas are structural in nature and generally fall within the modification and rehabilitation category. When a new use or an existing facility could not be accom- modated, studies were initiated to determine the best site, weighing equally the concerns of environment, cost, and operations. Present Apollo systems designed to handle pro- pellant and entrap accidental spills are available and, considering environmental matters, will be utilized to the fullest extent possible. Apollo techniques and procedures developed for safe handling of propellants and radioactive materials are also available. We do not foresee an effect on the environment from these sources at this time. c. Studies indicate that land use to accommodate Space Shuttle operations may have the most significant impact whereas the impacts on air, water and noise quality are predicted to be a lessor degree on the on-site environment. Considerations of operating modes indicate that long and short term land uses will not affect wildlife productivity. The potential for adverse environmental impact is small; such impacts that are foreseen I - i .ii will be local, short in duration, controllable, and environmentally acceptable. There was no significant consumption of natural resources identified which are considered irreversible and irretrievable. Where the possibility of some detrimental environmental impact exists, operational constraints will be imposed to minimize these impacts. d. Alternates to KSC and the Vandenberg Air Force Base as launch and landing sites have been determined to be more expensive and not environmentally superior. e. Amendment Number 1 to the KSC Institutional Environmental Impact State- ment was prepared as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the April 23, 1971 Guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for the proposed Shuttle operations from KSC. (1) On March 3, 1971, the Federal Register (Vol. 36, No. 42) announced availability of the KSC Institutional Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Comments received were included in the final Statement dated August 11, 1971. A (2) The final KSC Statement was forwarded to CEQ on September 29, 1971. Subsequent comments transmitted by EPA on October 8, 1971 have been taken into account in the preparation of this draft to cover Space Shuttle Development Operations. (3) Comments on Draft Amendment Number 1 (October 1972) were requested from EPA, DOI, DOD, HUD, DOT, DOC, OMB, AEC, and State. (4) On November 17, 1972 the KSC Draft Amendment Number 1 (October 1972) was forwarded to CEQ. (5) On November 25, 1972, the Federal Register (VOL 37, No. 228) announced availability of the KSC Draft Amendment Number 1 (October 1972). (6) Comments were received from EPA, DOD, DOT, DOC, DOI, AEC and the State on the draft statement (October 1972). All comments were given consideration in the preparation of this final statement. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .................. 1-1 a. Background ................................ 1-1 b. Shuttle Benefits ........ ............ o ..... 1-3 c. Revi<tw of Existing Facilities.......... ...... 1-4 d. op; of Space Shuttle Actions . ....... 1-8 (1) General ...... ......... ...... 1-8 (2) Modified Facilities Required . 1-12 (3) New Facilities Required ............ ....... 1-13 2 PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION......................................... 2-1 a. Genieral .... .... ...... .. ........ ....... 2-1 b. Air Quality ..................... ....... 2-4 (1) Source and Nature of Emissions . 2-4 (2) Meteorology of KSC Area .................. 2-5 (3) Distribution of Emissions ................... 2-16 (4) Construction Phase ......................... 2-29 c. Water Quality ................ ......... .. 2-30 (1) Source and Nature ....................... 2-30 (2) Local Geology and Hydrology .............. 2-32 (3) Effect on the Environment ..................... 2-37 do Noise. ..................................... 2-41 (1) Source and Nature .................. 2-41 (2) Environmental Effects - Controlled Areas .. ... .. 2-43 (3) Environmental Effects - Uncontrolled Areas ........ 2-43 V TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Title Page e. Reentry of Spent Solid Rocket Booster and Orbiter Tank .... 2-51 (1) Source and Nature ......................... .... 2-51 (2) Environmental Effects . 2-54 f. Social, Cultural and Demographic Characteristics ........ 2-54 (1) Current Population and Potential Vicinity Support . 2-54 (2) Current Economic Base and Potential Industrial Support ....................... ........ 2-56 (3) Land Use .............................. 2-59 3 PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED ............... ...... .... 3-1 a. Air Quality ................................ 3-1 b. Sonic Boom ................................. 3-2 c. Solid Rocket Booster and Orbiter Tank Reentry ......... 3-2 d. Land Use .................................. 3-3 e. Recreational Access Impact ...................... 3-3 4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ............ 4-1 a. Selection of KSC for a Launch and Landing Site......... 4-1 b. Alternatives Concerning Facility Locations ............ 4-2 c. Alternate LDS Construction Methods . 4-8 5 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY .......... 5-1 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Title Page 6 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PRO- POSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED ........... 6-1 a. General................. 6-1 b. Helium ............... ****** ........ ...... 6-1 c. Solvents and Chemicals ............ ......... 6-2 d. Liquid Hydrogen ...................... .. .. .. 6-2 7 COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT FOR SPACE SHUTTLE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS AT JOHN F. KENNEDY SPACE CENTER.............. ......... 7-1 APPENDICES A REFERENCES .............................. ** . A-1 B RESPONSES TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT..... B-2 vii/viii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Title Page . 1-6 1-1 Kennedy Space Center Site Plan ....................... 1-7 1-2 Facilities at KSC and CKAFS ...................... .... 1-10 1-3 Proposed Siting for Space Shuttle Facilities ........... 1-14 1-4 Air Space Clearances for Runway Location ................ ......... 1-15 1-5 Landing, Deservicing and Safing Facility Site Layout . 2-7 2-1 Location of Meteorological Data Recording Stations ........ 2-8 2-2 Seasonal Wind Rose for KSC 1961 thru 1968 ............ 2-9 2-3 Average (Day-Night) Wind Distribution ..... .. .. 2-11 2-4 Frequency Distribution of Stability Classes by Hours of the Day 2-5 Upper Air Wind Rose at KSC From 7 AM and 7 PM Rawinsone Data 1957 - 1967 ............................. .. 2-14 2-6 Frequency of Inversions at KSC From 7 AM and 7 PM Rawinsone Data 1957 - 1967 ................................ 2-17 Peak Centerline Concentration of CO at the Surface Downwind 2-7 2-22 From a Normal Launch ............................. Peak Centerline Concentration of HCI at the Surface Downwind 2-8 2-23 From a Normal Launch .............................. Downwind 2-9 Peak Centerline Concentration of A1203 at the Surface From a Normal Launch ............................. 2-24 2-10 Peak Centerline Concentration of CO at the Surface Downwind From a Pad Abort ............................. 2-25 2-11 Peak Centerline Concentration of HCI at the Surface Downwind From a Pad Abort .................................. 2-26 2-12 Peak Centerline Concentration of A12 0 3 at the Surface Downwind From a Pad Abort ................................ 2-27 2-13 Generalized Hydrologic Conditions in East Central Florida ...... 2-33 2-14 Controlled