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.