Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)

Chapter 2 - Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)
FOR THE
EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE (EELV) PROGRAM
April 1998

This section describes the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative. The Proposed Action (Section 2.1) is implementation of the EELV program. The No-Action Alternative (Section 2.2) involves the continuation of current launch vehicle systems to meet the requirements of government spacelift transportation programs under the NMM.

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The U.S. Air Force is considering participation in the continued development and deployment of EELV systems to replace current Atlas IIA, Delta II, and Titan IVB launch systems. The EELV systems are intended to meet the requirements of the U.S. government NMM, both medium and heavy lift, at a lower launch cost than the present expendable launch systems. The EELV System Performance Document (SPD) identifies additional requirements and goals that must be implemented by the contractors for development of the EELV system (Appendix E). The EELV would be DoD’s source of expendable medium and heavy spacelift transportation to orbit through 2020. EELV systems would provide capabilities to launch unmanned DoD, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and other payloads to orbit. Cape Canaveral AS and Vandenberg AFB are the only locations within the United States that currently provide space launch capabilities sufficient to support EELV systems.

The 45 Space Wing (SW) manages Cape Canaveral AS, conducts East Coast space and missile launch operations, and manages the Eastern Range (ER), which provides continuous and complementary instrumentation coverage over a broad portion of the Atlantic Ocean. The 30 SW manages Vandenberg AFB, conducts West Coast space and missile operations, and manages the Western Range (WR), which provides continuous and complementary instrumentation coverage over a broad portion of the Pacific Ocean. As a result of the Air Force implementation of the EELV program, one or more contractors may use EELV systems to launch commercial payloads. For this reason, both government and commercial use of EELV systems are analyzed in this EIS. A combined government/commercial mission model was developed for this purpose.

The government portion of the EIS mission model, based on the Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) NMM (dated July 1997), includes the total number of DoD and NASA space vehicle launches scheduled through 2020. Information in the AFSPC NMM for both the east and west coasts includes vehicle types and proposed payload. The commercial portion of the mission model used in this EIS was created using commercial forecasts from the AFSPC NMM, the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Council (COMSTAC) projections, and FAA estimates. The projected peak launch rate at Cape Canaveral AS would be achieved in 2015, and the projected peak launch rate at Vandenberg AFB would be achieved in 2007.

This EIS analyzes three options for implementing the Proposed Action. Concepts A and B depict each of the two contractor EELV concepts: that of the Lockheed Martin Corporation (described as Concept A in Section 2.1.1) and that of McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Boeing Company (described as Concept B in Section 2.1.2). Both of these proposed systems are evolved from current launch vehicle systems. The number of launches analyzed under both concepts for the EIS includes the government NMM, plus 16 commercial launches per year. Under these concepts, only one of the two contractors would continue to develop and use an EELV system. The third option, Concept A/B (described in Section 2.1.3), depicts a scenario under which both contractors would continue with the development and use of EELV systems. Under Concept A/B, no distinction is made between government and commercial flights. For the EIS analysis, each contractor is assumed to launch 50 percent of the combined total of EELV flights.

Predicting a precise EELV mission model for both government and commercial flights through the life of this dynamic program is difficult. These mission models are the most accurate estimates that can be made at this time and are intended to identify the range of activities that may occur with implementation of the EELV program.

2.1.1 Concept A

Under Concept A, the contractor would use Space Launch Complex (SLC)-41 at Cape Canaveral AS and SLC-3W at Vandenberg AFB for EELV system activities, as well as other facilities at both locations. The following is a general description of the launch vehicle and facility requirements for Concept A. Specific descriptions for implementation of this concept at Cape Canaveral AS and Vandenberg AFB follow the general description. Construction would include modifications to existing facilities and construction of new facilities. Most of the components (boosters, upper stages, and avionics modules) would be assembled before shipment to the launch site (i.e., Cape Canaveral AS or Vandenberg AFB) in flightworthy condition.

2.1.1.1

Launch Vehicle Concept. The EELV family of vehicles would consist of two configurations of medium lift variant (MLV) (MLV-D and MLV-A) and two configurations of heavy lift variant (HLV) (HLV-L and HLV-G) as shown in Figure 2.1-1. MLVs would use one booster; HLVs would use three boosters. MLV-D and HLV-L configurations would use a Storable Upper Stage (SUS), while MLV-A and HLV-G configurations would use a Cryogenic Upper Stage (CUS). Table 2.1-1 provides data for the launch vehicle components.

All Concept A launch vehicles would use the Russian-designed RD-180 booster engine, which is fueled by kerosene fuel (rocket propellant [RP-1]) and liquid oxygen (LO2) and ignited by triethyl boron/triethyl aluminum (PG-2). Avionics would be used for guidance, power, telemetry, ordnance separation, and range safety. The Flight Termination System (FTS) would provide the capability for range safety personnel to terminate a vehicle undergoing erratic flight before it could endanger people and property.

Figure 2.1-2 shows a representative launch vehicle ascent sequence. After they are expended, the boosters would fall into the ocean and would not be recovered. The payload fairings would separate from the vehicle prior to orbit and fall into the ocean; they would not be recovered. The upper stage (CUS or SUS) of the space launch vehicle boosts the satellite into orbit, where the launch vehicle separates from the satellite. Residual propellant within the CUS would be vented to minimize orbital debris caused by breakup.

2.1.1.2 Primary Support Structures.

Various support structures and equipment would be necessary to process and launch the vehicle. These would consist of structures at the proposed launch complex (i.e., SLC-41 or SLC-3W), as well as facilities and utilities located elsewhere on the launch site. The primary support structures and equipment that would be required at both Cape Canaveral AS and Vandenberg AFB are described in the following paragraphs. Facility locations at each launch site are described for Cape Canaveral AS in Section 2.1.1.6 and for Vandenberg AFB in Section 2.1.1.9. Unloading Facilities. Flight hardware transported by truck would be unloaded to the appropriate processing facilities or to storage facilities until needed for launch. Hardware delivered by cargo aircraft would be unloaded at the airstrips at both locations.

Storage Facilities. The EELV program would require storage of flight hardware to meet launch responsiveness requirements. Vehicle Processing Facilities (VPFs). These facilities would be used for booster and upper-stage processing (e.g., installation of interstage adapters, payload fairings, and booster nose cones; installation of batteries and destruct ordnance into the upper stages and boosters).

Payload Processing Facilities (PPFs). Preprocessed and fueled payloads would be encapsulated within these facilities; payload processing and encapsulation would occur within existing PPFs. The payload would be inspected at these facilities; any final assembly and checkout would be conducted, and, if required, storable propellant would be loaded on the payload.

Assembly Facilities. The launch vehicle would be assembled on the launch platform associated with the assembly facility. The fuel servicing systems, including vapor abatement as required, support all off-pad hydrazine load and emergency detanking operations. Other services that would be provided in this facility include transferring gaseous nitrogen (GN2) and gaseous helium (GHe) into the launch vehicle for reaction control and systems verification. When vehicle assembly is complete, the launch system would be moved on rails to the launch pad for propellant loading, final check out, and launch. Launch Pad. Each launch pad would consist of a deck, launch platform rails, hardpoints and tiedowns, vehicle servicing connections to the launch platform, pad water systems, and equipment housing. The launch pad would also contain launch exhaust ducts that direct the exhaust flame from the launch vehicle for safe dispersal away from the launch deck and complex. Vehicle servicing on the pad includes, as required, transfer of GN2, GHe, and propellants into the launch vehicle. Propellant vapor abatement systems and a hydrogen vent stack would be provided at the launch pad. The hydrogen flare stack pilot would use propane at Cape Canaveral AS and natural gas at Vandenberg AFB.

Launch Control Support. The launch control support facilities include one launch control center at each range. The EELV launch control centers would interface with the Range Operations Control Center (ROCC).

Propellant and Gas Holding Areas. Propellant holding areas would be used to store RP-1, LO2, liquid hydrogen (LH2), monomethyl hydrazine (MMH), and nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4). The gas storage area would include storage and handling facilities for GHe and GN2; the propellant and gas holding areas would be located at the SLC. Secondary containment for propellants would be sized to contain a minimum of 110 percent of the stored commodity tank volume.

An RP-1 tank, pump, and piping system would be used for the common booster. This would include a 90,000-gallon RP-1 tank, an unloading area, pumps, a piping system, secondary containment, and a leak detection system. Piping to the launch pad would be installed. In addition, LO2 tanks and a piping system would be required for the common booster. Facilities would include two 300,000-gallon tanks, an unloading area, pumps, and a piping system.

An LH2 fuel tank and piping system would be required for the CUS. Facilities would include a 55,000-gallon tank farm, an unloading area, pumps, a piping system, secondary containment, a leak detection system, a flare stack to burn excess vapor, a fire suppression/deluge system, power, and instrumentation. Piping to the launch pad would be installed. In addition, an LO2 storage (28,000 gallons) and servicing area would be required for the CUS. Requirements for the SUS propellant systems include mobile MMH and N2O4 storage tanks, propellant conditioning units, and scrubbers. The double-walled storage tanks (2,500 gallons each) are truck-mounted and DOT-certified. The propellant conditioning units maintain the required temperature during SUS loading. Existing scrubbers would be used for vapor abatement at both sites. The systems would also include tanks for temporary storage of waste fuels, piping, secondary containment, and leak detection systems. Mobile packed-tower N2O4 and hydrazine fuel scrubbers currently being used by both the Air Force and NASA for payload loading and other hypergolic propellant transfer operations would be used for SUS loading at Cape Canaveral AS. The packed-tower N2O4 scrubber and bubble-cap hydrazine fuel scrubber currently available at SLC-3E would be used for SUS loading at Vandenberg AFB.

2.1.1.3 Launch Site Operations.

The launch vehicle components would be shipped separately to each launch site (i.e., Cape Canaveral AS or Vandenberg AFB). Upon arrival, the components would undergo a variety of receiving inspections and off-line processing in the facilities noted above before final integration on the launch platform associated with the assembly facility. Figure 2.1-3 provides an overview of the Concept A launch operation concept.

Launch process operations to be conducted at the launch site would include launch preparation, launch operations, and post-launch refurbishment. The operations process would be standard for both launch sites, as described below. Launch process operations for the MLV vehicle configurations, using the processes described below, would take approximately 30 days; launch process operations for the HLV vehicle configurations would take approximately 60 days.

Table 2.1-2 lists the types and total estimated amounts of hazardous materials used per launch for these processes under Concept A. All hazardous materials used would be handled in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Any spill of these materials would be collected and disposed of by a certified subcontractor in accordance with the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan.

Receive and Check-Out Vehicle Components. The SUS, fairings, and associated hardware (i.e., batteries, interstage skirts, and destruct ordnance) would be shipped via truck to both launch sites. The CUS would be transported by cargo aircraft, and the boosters would be transported via truck or by cargo aircraft. The boosters would be delivered in near- flightworthy condition and either placed in storage at the launch site or in the processing flow. Once flightworthy vehicle components (e.g., boosters, ordnance, batteries) have been delivered to the launch sites, a receiving inspection would be performed, which would include downloading transportation data to verify that no out-of-specification conditions existed as a result of transportation to the site. Payload fairings would arrive cleaned, double-bagged, and ready for storage. No additional cleaning would be required at the launch site.

Propellants for the launch vehicle would be shipped directly from the manufacturing location. All propellants would be shipped in accordance with DOT regulations, found in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 100-199. LO2, LH2, and RP-1 would be transported by truck and would be shipped from the manufacturing locations to the launch site. After the Directorate of Aerospace Fuels Management, located at Kelly AFB, Texas, approves the shipment of N2O4, it would be shipped by rail or truck from the manufacturing location to the launch site. MMH would be transported via truck by one of the authorized shippers (Directorate of Aerospace Fuels Management or NASA) to the launch site.

Store Vehicle Components. Flightworthy vehicle components would be stored until needed for launch. The function begins when the component is placed in storage, and ends when the component is removed from storage for service.

Process Components. Final processing required to make vehicle components ready for integration into the launch vehicle in the assembly facility would occur under this function. This includes transport of the vehicle elements from the check-out/storage facility to the processing facility, as required. Processing includes installation of any loose items shipped (including destruct ordnance and batteries) and installation of the interstage adapters to the upper-stage elements. The function begins with completion of element inspection or element removal from storage, and ends when the launch vehicle components are ready for integration in the assembly facility.

Encapsulate Payload. This function begins when payload processing has been completed, and ends when the encapsulated payload is ready for transport to the assembly facility. This function also includes receipt of payload fairing sectors, establishment of a clean environment, encapsulation of the payload within the fairing, and positioning and securing the encapsulated payload on the transporter.

Integrate Launch Vehicle. Transporting, erecting, assembling, and integrating vehicle elements, including the encapsulated payload, into the completed launch vehicle would occur under this function. The function begins with transportation of processed vehicle elements to the assembly facility, and ends with the mating of the payload to the launch vehicle. Conduct Integrated Systems Test. This function would be the final integrated test conducted within the assembly facility prior to launch countdown and would verify the functionality of all interfaces and services between the launch vehicle and the payload. Upon successful completion of this function, the vehicle would be configured for transport to the pad. This function begins with completion of all payload mating operations, and ends with the launch vehicle ready for transport to the pad.

Perform Launch Countdown. Under this function, the launch system would be moved from the assembly facility to the pad. Activities performed for this function include moving equipment to safe positions, performing an interface test, loading propellants, performing initial FTS closed-loop checks, final range verification, countdown, engine firing, thrust verification, and final countdown. For a launch, the launch platform would be rolled into position at the launch pad. Launch platform/pad connections include GN2 and GHe, conditioned air, propellants, power, and data. Following a successful validation test, the booster would be fueled with RP-1 and LO2 at the launch pad. No nonessential on-pad personnel access would be allowed during propellant transfer. The LH2 and LO2 for the CUS and the MMH and N2O4 for the SUS would also be loaded at the launch pad. Vapor emissions from these propellants would be controlled by vapor abatement devices (scrubbers or incinerators) at propulsion system vents to minimize air quality impacts. Once the pad is cleared of all nonessential personnel, final communication and vehicle checks would be performed. After range safety has verified safe operations, final countdown would be completed and the vehicle would be launched.

At launch, water would be sprayed at the launch vehicle exhaust, cooling the exhaust to minimize damage to the launch pad and providing acoustic damping. Approximately 50,000 gallons of water would be required for pad deluge for each launch. It is estimated that approximately 10,000 gallons of water would be lost as mist or vapor and 40,000 gallons would collect in the launch duct. Remaining deluge and wash water within the flame duct would be tested in the duct after launch in accordance with applicable regulations. At Cape Canaveral AS, deluge water remaining in the launch duct after launch would be pumped out to a percolation area or to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) if treatment is required. Deluge water dispersed as mist would not be collected. At Vandenberg AFB, deluge water would remain in the launch duct until it is pumped out into tankers, and delivered to the WWTP at SLC-6. Wastewater would be disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

Flight Support Operations. During the flight, data would be transmitted to either ground-based telemetry or through the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) to recording ground stations. Data would be available real-time at the launch control centers at Cape Canaveral AS and Vandenberg AFB. Data collected would include final trajectory and orbital information, orbital insertion parameters, anomaly data (if an anomaly occurs), significant event descriptions, and spacecraft flight environment during flight. Perform Post-Launch Countdown. This function would follow vehicle lift-off after the pad has been declared safe for access. It would include inspection of the launch pad facilities, launch platform, and equipment for damage, as well as general clean-up and performance of maintenance and repairs necessary to accommodate the next launch cycle. System design (e.g., aft umbilicals, auto couplers, rise-off disconnects, protective covers, and water deluge), combined with the use of liquid propulsion systems, would minimize refurbishment required after each launch. This function ends when the launch platform and the launch pad are certified as ready for the next launch. Although launch vehicle and payload fueling would be completed in a closed system, there may be small leaks and spills during fueling, as well as other hazardous material spills. These materials would be cleaned up, if necessary, by dilution with water, absorption or adsorption by the appropriate materials, and collection of the waste materials into DOT-approved waste containers for disposal. Disposal of waste materials would be conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

2.1.1.4 Safety Systems.

Specific safety plans would be developed to ensure that each launch operation is in compliance with applicable regulations, as specified in numerous compliance documents, and by various organizations, including the following:

EWR 127-1 provides overall safety regulations for both Cape Canaveral AS and Vandenberg AFB. The objective of the range safety program is to ensure that the general public, launch area personnel, foreign land masses, and launch area resources are provided an acceptable level of safety, and that all aspects of prelaunch and launch operations adhere to public law. EWR 127-1 provides a framework for review and approval of all hazards associated with construction, prelaunch, and launch operations and incorporates all Air Force, DoD, and other applicable health and safety standards.

Fire Protection System. Fire protection, alarm, and fire suppression systems would be provided for all fuel holding areas and support facilities. Flame detectors in the fuel holding area would activate both the area deluge system and alarms to the Air Force Fire Department. A fire detection and alarm system would be provided in oxidizer holding areas. However, a deluge system would not be included because N2O4 and water are highly reactive. Security. Security requirements, an integral component of project safety, would be incorporated within the project design and operational procedures. Site security measures would include a perimeter security fence, a clear zone, an entrapment area road, security lighting, security standby power, an intrusion detection system, and security patrol roads. Procedures for security would include the use of entry controllers, alarm monitors, alarm/security response teams, radios, and vehicles in accordance with Air Force regulations.

Launch Hazard Area Safety. Both Cape Canaveral AS and Vandenberg AFB have established safety procedures for the areas affected by launch operations. Launches are not allowed to proceed if they present an undue hazard to persons and property due to potential dispersion of hazardous materials, propagation of blast, or other effects. At both launch locations, a standard dispersion computer model, run by installation meteorological/ environmental personnel, would be used for both normal and aborted launch scenarios prior to launch. If the model predicted that populated areas lay within the toxic hazard corridor (THC), the launch would be delayed until more favorable meteorological conditions existed.

At Cape Canaveral AS, Range Safety would monitor launch surveillance areas to ensure that the risks to people, aircraft, and surface vessels were within acceptable limits. Control areas and airspace would be closed to the public as required. A Notice to Mariners and Notice to Airmen would be provided in accordance with established procedures to provide warning to personnel.

At Vandenberg AFB, the coastal waters and surrounding areas would be patrolled prior to launch, and train movement through the base would be monitored. Both Jalama Beach and Ocean Beach county parks would be closed to public access prior to launches from SLC-3W. A Notice to Mariners and Notice to Airmen would be provided in accordance with established procedures to provide warnings to marine craft and aircraft. In accordance with 30 SW Instruction 91-105, Evacuating or Sheltering of Personnel on Offshore Oil Rigs, the Air Force would notify oil rig companies of an upcoming launch event approximately 10 to 15 days in advance. The Air Force’s notification, provided through the Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service, would request that operations on the oil rigs in the path of the launch vehicle overflight be temporarily suspended and that personnel be evacuated or sheltered.

Detanking or other procedures to be followed in the event of a launch delay or cancellation would be established and would generally be in accordance with procedures used for current vehicle systems. Mission/Vehicle Reliability. Mission and launch vehicle reliability would meet the requirements set forth in the SPD prepared for the EELV program (see Appendix E). Mission reliability is measured from launch commit and is defined as the probability of successfully placing the payload into its delivery orbit with the required accuracy, and then executing a collision avoidance maneuver.

Quantity-Distance Criteria. Explosive Safety Quantity-Distance (ESQD) criteria are used to establish safe distances from launch complexes and associated support facilities to nonrelated facilities and roadways. These regulations are established by DoD and Air Force Explosive Safety Standards. The criteria utilize the trinitrotoluene, also called TNT, explosive equivalent of propellant onboard a fueled launch vehicle, or stored components or propellant, to determine safe distances from space launch operations or processing and holding areas. The facilities associated with this concept would be sited to meet these criteria.

2.1.1.5 Project Location and Access - Cape Canaveral AS.

EELV launch operations would be conducted at the 47-acre SLC-41 at Cape Canaveral AS, in the northwestern portion of the station. SLC-41 was used by the Air Force from 1964 to 1977 for Titan III launches. Renovated in 1986, it has been used for Titan IV launches since 1989. The last Titan IVB launch at SLC-41 has been tentatively scheduled for 1998.

Access to Cape Canaveral AS is provided through Gate 1 from State Route (SR) 401 (Figure 2.1-4). Once on Cape Canaveral AS, access to the site is along Samuel C. Phillips Parkway to Titan III Road, which connects to SLC-41.

2.1.1.6 Support Structures/Operations - Cape Canaveral AS.

The launch rates associated with Concept A are provided in Table 2.1-3. Approximately 240 personnel are expected to be required to support EELV launch operations by 2003. Launch site operations for Cape Canaveral AS would be as described in Section 2.1.1.3 and would be conducted in the structures listed in Table 2.1-4. Figures 2.1-4 and 2.1-5 provide the general location of facilities at Cape Canaveral AS and the site layout plan for SLC-41, respectively. The entire SLC-41 area would be utilized for launch operations. Under Concept A, the activities associated with EELV would generate the following average utility demands at Cape Canaveral AS during the projected peak launch year (2015): Based upon employment projections and project activities, Concept A would generate 770 average daily vehicle trips. The evening peak-hour volume (PHV) is projected to be 160 vehicles.

2.1.1.7 Project Construction Activities - Cape Canaveral AS.

At Cape Canaveral AS, construction activities would begin in July 1998 and continue through June 2000. Most of the ground-disturbing activities would occur between August 1998 and June 1999. Construction of the second assembly facility would occur between the first quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2004. Additional ground-disturbing activities would occur at the Hangar J driveway between April and May 2000. Construction personnel requirements would average 260, with a maximum of 382 during peak construction activities. Proposed construction activities at Cape Canaveral AS are described below.

Existing Facility Modification

SLC-41. Most of SLC-41 would be modified for this concept. Major modifications would include changing the existing site topography, as required, to support rail system work and facility modification/new construction. Modifications at the SLC would be as follows:

Building 1721, Hangar J, Booster Storage and Check Out. The existing driveway would be modified to provide an increased turning radius. Interior utilities would be modified to meet program requirements.

Building 38804, Centaur Processing Facility (CPF) Upper Stage Storage and Check Out. The existing facility would be modified to accommodate new support equipment.

Facility 38835, Centaur Processing Building (CPB) Launch Control Center. The interior of this facility would be renovated to meet program requirements. Road Modifications. The road turning radius at the northeastern corner of Skid Strip Road and Samuel C. Phillips Parkway would be modified to allow transport of the launch vehicle.

Infrastructure. Utility lines required for the EELV program would be modified within SLC-41 in previously disturbed areas. In addition, a new fiber optic line may be required from the CPB to SLC-41 along the previously disturbed road corridor.

New Facilities

Assembly Facilities. Two identical assembly facilities, located in separate complexes of identical design, would be constructed south of SLC-41 along the current Titan IVB transporter rail line. Construction of the two assembly facilities would disturb approximately 15 acres. A single fence, utility shed, and guardhouse would be constructed within each complex, and an asphalt parking area would be constructed adjacent to each complex. The transporter track systems would be modified to allow movement of the launch systems to the launch pad, assembly facilities, and refurbishment areas in the Integrate Transfer Launch (ITL) area.

Utilities for each assembly facility would include an electrical substation, a diesel generator, and two water chillers. Electrical power, potable water, GN2, and GHe lines would need to be extended from SLC-41 to each assembly facility along the previously disturbed road corridor.

Construction Phase

Most of the construction activities would take place along existing road corridors. At the assembly facilities site, vegetation would be removed to create a cleared area approximately 300 feet wide. Construction equipment laydown areas, personal vehicle parking, temporary mobile offices (trailers), maintenance facilities, and other ancillary construction areas would be sited in previously disturbed areas (see Figure 2.1-5).

Earthwork for construction would be performed in accordance with the construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and project SPCC Plan that would be developed for this project.

A temporary truck washdown area would be provided within the boundaries of the construction laydown areas. In order to contain collected wastewater, the washdown area would be provided with an impoundment containing a sump that would allow water to percolate into the ground.

Approximately 15 acres of land would be disturbed for construction of the assembly facilities. Depending upon the final design and grading plans, earth movement would involve a minimum of about 24,000 cubic yards of cut and fill material. Unsuitable cut material would be removed from the project area to a spoil site located off station or at other approved locations. Appropriate erosion control would be implemented at the stockpile. Construction materials would generally be transported by truck through Gate 1 over Samuel C. Phillips Parkway to Titan III Road to SLC-41.

During the construction period, water use would average approximately 4,000 gpd for general activities (e.g., site washdown, cement mixing, personnel requirements). Some water would also be used for dust control. Wastewater generation would average approximately 3,760 gpd. In addition, approximately 3,580 tons of solid waste would be generated, of which the contractor expects to recycle 3,100 tons. The construction contractor would remove construction debris; any hazardous materials identified during construction (e.g., asbestos, lead-based paint) would be abated in accordance with applicable regulations.

From 1998 through 2000, construction traffic entering and exiting project construction sties on Cape Canaveral AS under Concept A is estimated to generate an average of 1,640 daily vehicle trips, with 170 trips expected during the peak hour. Construction traffic entering and exiting project construction sites during the peak construction period is expected to be 2,400 trips, with 250 trips occurring during the peak hour.

2.1.1.8 Project Location and Access - Vandenberg AFB.

EELV launch operations would be conducted at the 33-acre SLC-3W at South Vandenberg AFB. SLC-3W was used for Atlas D/Agena launches from 1960 to 1963, for Thor Agena launches from 1963 to 1972, and for Atlas E/F launches from 1972 to 1995. SLC-3W is currently inactive and requires minimal maintenance.

Access to the SLC would be primarily through the Vandenberg AFB South Gate entrance via SR 246, then over Air Force-controlled secondary roadways, including Arguello Boulevard and Bear Creek and Coast roads (Figure 2.1-6).

2.1.1.9 Support Structures/Operations - Vandenberg AFB.

Launch rates associated with Concept A are provided in Table 2.1-3. Approximately 135 personnel are expected to be required to support EELV launch operations by 2006. Launch site operations for Vandenberg AFB would be as described in Section 2.1.1.3 and would occur in the structures listed in Table 2.1-5. Figures 2.1-6 and 2.1-7 provide the general location of facilities at Vandenberg AFB and the site layout plan for SLC-3W, respectively. The entire SLC-3W area would be utilized for launch operations.

Under Concept A, the activities associated with EELV would generate the following average utility demands at Vandenberg AFB during the projected peak launch year (2007): Based upon employment projections and project activities, Concept A would generate 430 average daily vehicle trips, with 90 trips anticipated during the peak hour.

2.1.1.10 Project Construction Activities - Vandenberg AFB.

At Vandenberg AFB, construction would begin in February 2000 and continue through February 2002. Most of the ground-disturbing activities would occur between March and September 2000. Construction personnel requirements would average 252, with a maximum of 324 during peak construction activities. Proposed construction activities at Vandenberg AFB are described below.

Existing Facility Modification

SLC-3W. Most of SLC-3W (within the fence line) would be modified for this concept. Major modifications would include: Mobile systems for N2O4 and MMH, and any necessary scrubbers, would be utilized.

Building 7525, Booster Assembly Building (BAB). New entrance/exit driveways would be constructed in the front and rear of the facility. Construction would occur on the previously disturbed roadway shoulder. Road/Pavement Improvements. Intersections at the following locations along the booster tow route would be widened to accommodate the turning radii of booster transporters: Coast and Bear Creek roads (south of intersection), Bear Creek and Napa roads (west of intersection), and Napa and Alden roads (intersection area) (see Figure 2.1-6). The route widening would occur in previously disturbed areas. Existing power poles at the northeastern side of Coast and Bear Creek roads would have to be relocated, and the traffic signal at Utah and New Mexico avenues would need to be modified (see Figure 2.1-6).

Infrastructure. New utility lines and connections would be located in previously disturbed areas or within construction areas or other proposed facilities. These would include water, wastewater, electrical, and gas lines.

New Facilities

Assembly Facility. An assembly facility containing a new power substation would be constructed approximately 500 feet northeast of the launch pad. Upper-Stage Processing Facility (USF). A 3,200-square-foot USF would be constructed across Bear Creek Road from SLC-3. A concrete apron would be constructed on one side of the facility, and an asphalt surface would be constructed for transporter laydown. This site is currently the SLC-3 fallback parking area that has been previously disturbed. The facility would require a security fence, water lines, and a septic tank. Construction would occur in the northern corner of the SLC-3 fallback area.

Construction Phase

Initial construction would consist primarily of clearing and grading, and demolition of existing structures at the project site. Most construction activities would take place within the previously disturbed SLC-3W area or along existing road corridors. Construction equipment laydown, personal vehicle parking, temporary mobile offices (trailers), maintenance facilities, and other ancillary construction areas would be sited in previously disturbed areas at the SLC-3 fallback parking area.

Earthwork for construction would be performed in accordance with the construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and project SPCC Plan that would be developed for this concept.

To contain collected wastewater, a temporary truck washdown area with an impoundment would be provided within the boundaries of the construction laydown areas.

Approximately 33 acres of land within the SLC-3W fenceline would be disturbed during construction. Depending upon the final design and grading plans, earth work would involve a minimum of about 142,000 cubic yards of cut material. An equal amount of fill material would come from borrow areas on Vandenberg AFB (Manzanita Borrow Area). Unsuitable cut material would be returned to the embankment cut at the SLC that would be regraded prior to site revegetation. Some spoil material may be disposed of on the base landfill. A site restoration plan would be developed to replace non-native plant species disturbed during construction with native vegetation. Construction materials would generally be trucked through the Coast Gate entrance (see Figure 2.1-6), then to SLC-3W.

During the construction period, water use would average approximately 8,240 gpd for general activities (e.g., site washdown, cement mixing, personnel requirements). Some water would also be utilized for dust control. Wastewater generation would average approximately 3,760 gpd. In addition, approximately 4,920 tons of solid waste would be generated; the contractor estimates that 4,600 tons would be recycled. The construction contractor would remove construction debris; hazardous materials found during construction (e.g., asbestos, lead-based paint) would be abated in accordance with applicable regulations.

From 2000 to 2002, construction traffic entering and exiting project construction sites on Vandenberg AFB under Concept A is estimated to generate an average of 1,600 daily vehicle trips, with 170 trips expected during the peak hour. Construction traffic entering and exiting project construction sites during the peak construction period is expected to be 2,000 trips, with 210 trips occurring during the peak hour.

2.1.2 Concept B

Under Concept B, the contractor would use SLC-37 at Cape Canaveral AS and SLC-6 at Vandenberg AFB for EELV system activities, as well as other facilities at both locations.

The following is a general description of the launch vehicle and facility requirements for Concept B. Specific descriptions for implementation of this alternative at Cape Canaveral AS and Vandenberg AFB follow the general description. Construction would include modifications to existing facilities and construction of new facilities. Most of the components (boosters, upper stages, and avionics modules) would be assembled and tested prior to shipment to the launch site (i.e., Cape Canaveral AS or Vandenberg AFB) in near flightworthy condition.

2.1.2.1 Launch Vehicle Concept.

The EELV would consist of several variations of a Delta IVB (DIV) launch vehicle, including small (DIV-S), medium (DIV-M), and large (heavy) (DIV-H) launch vehicles, shown in Figure 2.1-8. This system would use a common booster core (CBC), with a Hypergolic Upper Stage (HUS), Delta Cryogenic Upper Stage (DCUS), or Heavy Delta Cryogenic Upper Stage (HDCUS) as second stages, depending upon the payload requirements. The small and medium vehicles would use one CBC first-stage core booster; the heavy vehicle would use one first-stage CBC and two CBC strap-ons. The strap-ons are the standard version of the CBC with Titan IV nose cones and appropriate separation hardware added. They have shorter burn times than the center core and would be jettisoned prior to burnout of the center core vehicle. A Delta IVB Medium Plus (DIV-M+) vehicle, consisting of a DIV-M with solid rocket motors (SRMs), would be utilized for some commercial missions (not shown in Figure 2.1-8). The SRM booster casing would be composed of graphite epoxy. Table 2.1-6 provides data for the launch vehicle components.

The medium and heavy upper stages would be fueled by LH2 and LO2, and the small vehicle upper stages would utilize Aerozine-50 (A-50) and N2O4. All propellant transfer would occur on the launch pad.

The CBC is a new design for the EELV program using a Rocketdyne RS-68 engine and would be a common element for all Concept B launch vehicles. The CBC casing would be composed of aluminum alloy and composite structures. The CBC propellants are LH2 and LO2.

The HUS would be designed to satisfy the low end of the NMM in terms of payload delivery to orbit and would be used on the DIV-S only. The DCUS would be used for the DIV-M, and the HDCUS would be used for the DIV-H. The DIV-S and the DIV-M both satisfy the medium lift requirement of the NMM.

For some small vehicle missions, a third stage (Star 48B) containing solid propellant would be utilized. The propellant would be composed of ammonium perchlorate (NH4ClO4), aluminum (Al), and hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) (binder material). The third stage would be encapsulated with the payload and transported to the launch pad. For the medium and heavy vehicles, fueling of the reaction control system (RCS) would occur in the payload processing facility. The RCS propellant would be anhydrous hydrazine (N2H4) and helium (He).

The payload fairings would be developed from existing Delta and Titan IV designs. The fairing structures for the DIV-H would be made of aluminum; small and medium vehicle payload fairings would be a graphite-epoxy composite.

The CBC avionics’ basic architecture and all elements would be developed from Delta II/III avionics that provide single-fault tolerant control that monitors electrical power for all critical functions. The upper-stage avionics provide the inertial sensing and data processing for the navigation, guidance, control, and sequencing; radio frequency (RF) communication electronics; flight termination; and the telemetry, power, and distribution network.

The FTS would be a redundant system that would provide the capability to terminate a vehicle undergoing erratic flight before it could endanger people and property. The system for Concept B would rely upon existing technologies that have been used for the Titan, Delta, and space shuttle programs.

Figure 2.1-2 depicts a representative launch vehicle ascent sequence. After completing its mission, the CBC would fall into the ocean and would not be recovered. Less than 25 gallons of hydraulic fluid would remain in the booster when it falls into the ocean and sinks. The payload fairings would separate from the vehicle prior to orbit, fall into the ocean, and would not be recovered. The upper-stage engine would cut off when the payload reached the desired orbit. The upper stages (HUS, DCUS, and HDCUS) of the launch vehicle would boost the payload into orbit, where the upper stage would separate from the payload. Residual propellant within the upper stages would be vented to minimize orbital debris due to breakup.

2.1.2.2 Primary Support Structures.

Various support structures and equipment would be necessary to process and launch the vehicle. These would consist of structures at the proposed SLC (i.e., SLC-37 or SLC-6), as well as facilities and utilities located elsewhere on the launch site. The primary support structures and equipment that would be required at both Cape Canaveral AS and Vandenberg AFB are described in the following paragraphs. Exact facility locations at each launch site are described for Cape Canaveral AS in Section 2.1.2.6 and for Vandenberg AFB in Section 2.1.2.9.

Unloading Facilities. Barge/boat unloading facilities at each location would be used to unload CBCs transported by barge or boat. Airstrips at each location would be utilized to unload flight hardware transported by cargo aircraft. Hardware transported by truck would be received at appropriate processing facilities or interim storage facilities.

Storage Facilities. CBCs, upper stages, fairings, and other flight hardware may be stored in these facilities, if necessary, prior to processing. These facilities would also be utilized to store ground support equipment (GSE). Horizontal Integration Facility (HIF). An HIF would be utilized for vehicle processing. Functions performed in the HIF would include the receiving, integration of CBCs and strap-ons for the DIV-H, and check-out of the CBC and upper stages. In addition, this facility would house many support functions required for integration of the launch vehicle.

Payload Processing Facility. Preprocessed and fueled payloads would be encapsulated within this facility. The Star 48B would be integrated with the payload and encapsulated. The payload would be inspected, any final assembly and checkout conducted, and if required, storable propellant (N2H4) loaded. Encapsulation of the payload within the fairing would be the final operation prior to transport to the launch pad.

Launch Complex. The launch complex would include the launch table and installation/interface points for various support services. It would also contain launch exhaust ducts that direct the exhaust flame from the launch vehicle away from the launch deck and complex for safe dispersal. The launch pad would include an MST, a Fixed Umbilical Tower (FUT), and an SEB that would provide miscellaneous support systems that need to be close to the launch pad, as well as propellant and gas storage areas.

Launch Control Center. Launches would be controlled at the launch control center once SLC operations/procedures had been completed. Propellant and Gas Holding Areas. Propellant and gas holding areas would include a gas storage area and LH2 and LO2 holding areas at the SLC. An LH2 system, consisting of a double-walled tank; a leak detection system; and a piping system would be used for CBC, DCUS, and HDCUS fueling. This would include an 850,000-gallon tank at Cape Canaveral AS and an 850,000-gallon tank at Vandenberg AFB. This area would also include an unloading area, a piping system, a sloped spill runoff area, a propane flare stack, a hydrogen burn stack to burn excess vapor, a fire suppression system, power, and instrumentation. Piping to the launch pad would be installed. In addition, an LO2 system consisting of a double-walled tank, pumps, and a piping system would be required for CBC, DCUS, and HDCUS loading. Facilities would include a 250,000-gallon tank at Cape Canaveral AS and a 300,000-gallon tank at Vandenberg AFB. An unloading area, an LH2 leak detection system, and a piping system would also be required. At Vandenberg AFB, an existing berm that slopes to an existing containment area would be utilized for secondary containment. At Cape Canaveral AS, a containment system would be designed in accordance with Range Safety and OSHA requirements. The earthen berm containment areas would accommodate 100 percent of the liquid volume because of the rapid volatilization of any potential spills.

The gas storage area would include storage and handling facilities for GHe and liquid nitrogen (LN2). At both Cape Canaveral AS and Vandenberg AFB, one 20,000-gallon tank of LN2 and four 300-cubic-foot vessels of GHe would be required. GN2 would also be provided to the launch facilities via existing pipelines. Additional piping would be installed, as required. Two additional GN2 truck connections would be required at Cape Canaveral AS.

A-50 and N2O4 for the HUS would be transported to the site by DOT-approved supply tankers following procedures similar to those used currently for the Delta II program. These chemicals would not be stored on site. The loading area would include secondary containment and a leak detection system. Mobile scrubbers and a bubble overflow scrubber on the FUT would require air permits similar to those required for current Delta II operations. Small quantities of MMH required for the DCUS would be provided in DoD-approved drums. It has not yet been determined whether air permits for scrubbers would be required; because of the small amounts of MMH used, permits may not be required. Hypergolic rinseate would be managed and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and installation requirements.

Solid propellant would not be stored in the launch pad area. Existing solid propellant storage facilities would be utilized at each launch location. At Cape Canaveral AS, solid propellant would be stored in a new Delta III building within Area 57E to be constructed in 1998, and within portions of Buildings 50801 and 50803. At Vandenberg AFB, solid propellant would be stored in Building 1670.

2.1.2.3 Launch Site Operations.

The launch vehicle components would be shipped separately to each launch site (i.e., Cape Canaveral AS or Vandenberg AFB). Upon arrival, the components would undergo a variety of receiving inspections and off-line processing in the facilities noted above before final integration on the launch pad. Figure 2.1-9 provides an overview of the Concept B launch operation concept.

Launch process operations that would occur at the launch site include launch preparation, launch operations, and post-launch refurbishment of the launch pad. Table 2.1-7 lists the types and total estimated quantities of hazardous materials used for these processes for each Concept B launch. All hazardous materials used would be handled in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Any spill of these materials would be collected and disposed of by a certified subcontractor in accordance with the SPCC plan. Vehicle Receiving/Inspection. The major transportation methods for this concept would include barge/boat, air, and truck. The CBCs, CBC/interstage, and CBC strap-ons would be shipped to the launch site by barge/boat and received at the barge unloading facilities. Upon arrival, the CBCs would be moved to the HIF or an interim storage facility. Some of the payload fairings would be transported to the launch site via aircraft and received at the airstrip; the upper stage and the remainder of the payload fairings would be transported by truck.

Once at the launch site, the payload fairings would be transported to the payload encapsulation facility. The HUS, CUS, and HDCUS would be transported to the HIF or an interim storage facility. Items received would be inspected and prepared for integration/encapsulation at designated facilities. Liquid propellant for the launch vehicle would be shipped directly from the manufacturing location. All propellant would be shipped in accordance with DOT regulations in Title 49 CFR Parts 100-199. LO2 and LH2 would be transported by truck and would be shipped from the manufacturing locations to the launch site. After the Directorate of Aerospace Fuels Management, located at Kelly AFB, Texas, approves the shipment of N2O4, it would be shipped by rail or truck from the manufacturing location to the launch site. MMH and A-50 would be transported via truck by one of the authorized shippers (Directorate of Aerospace Fuels Management or NASA) to the launch site. Solid rocket motors could be shipped by truck, rail, barge, or aircraft.

Horizontal Integration Facility Processing. Receiving, integration, and check-out of the CBC and upper stages would be performed in the HIF. When the launch vehicle is ready, it would be transported to the launch pad. Payload Encapsulation. This process would involve encapsulating the payload within the payload fairing, which would entail mating the payload-attach fittings, payload, and fairing, and conducting automated tests to ensure that all interfaces are verified. The third stage would be encapsulated with the payload, if required, for some small vehicle missions. Fueling of the payload would be conducted prior to encapsulation in payload processing.

Launch Vehicle Transfer and Erection. During this process, the unfueled launch vehicle would be moved to the launch pad from the HIF and erected. The assembled launch vehicle and umbilicals would then be raised and connected to the launch table.

Launch Pad Processing. The launch pad processing for all three vehicles would be similar, with the exception of the propellant servicing of the upper stages and attitude control systems. The vehicle would be erected and the launch mount unit secured to the launch table. The MST/mobile assembly shelter (MAS) (at Vandenberg AFB only) would be moved over the pad, and access platforms would be lowered or rotated in place to gain access to critical vehicle points. Interfaces at the pad include electrical, engine purge lines, GHe purge lines, ground equipment purge lines, LO2 and LH2 fill and drain lines, and vent lines, as applicable. The encapsulated payload would be hoisted by the MST crane and positioned over the upper stage.

Upon completion of final vehicle preparations for launch, the MST/MAS would be moved into the launch position, and final countdown would commence. The vehicle would undergo a final "hold fire" test to ensure range safe operation, followed by fueling of the vehicle stages. The final countdown would then be completed and the vehicle launched.

If deluge water were required, approximately 200,000 to 300,000 gallons of water per launch would be sprayed into the flame deflector to cool the rocket exhaust and minimize damage to the launch pad. At Cape Canaveral AS, deluge water remaining in the launch duct after launch would be released to grade in accordance with permit requirements. Pretreated deluge water that could not be released to grade would be released to the WWTP. At Vandenberg AFB, water would be transported to the SLC-6 deluge treatment plant for treatment and disposal into evaporation ponds. Wastewater would be disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

Approximately 30,000 gallons of water would be required for pad wash- down after DIV-M+ vehicle launches. This water would be neutralized and disposed of according to installation requirements.

Flight Support Operations. Flight operations after launch include the downlinking of composite vehicle performance and system payload telemetry data to the NASA TDRSS. These data would be routed to recording stations, as required for processing, data archiving, analysis, and monitoring by launch team personnel. Pre- and post-launch telemetry data would be used to perform event reconstruction, trend analysis, and vehicle performance evaluation. Flight support operations also include range safety control throughout all phases of the mission.

Post Launch Operations. This process would include pad refurbishment in preparation for the next launch. Following launch, some of the components would require sandblasting and repainting; ablative material would be applied on some areas.

Small leaks and spills could occur during fueling, as could other hazardous material spills. These materials would be cleaned up, if necessary, by dilution with water, absorption or adsorption by the appropriate materials, and collection of the waste materials into DOT-approved waste containers for disposal. Collected wastewater would be disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

If a launch were to be canceled or delayed beyond the launch window, it would be necessary to defuel the launch vehicle in accordance with EWR 127-1 requirements. Defueling is accomplished through pneumatic-activated valves that allow propellant to drain to ground/mobile storage containers. Electrically activated valves would allow high-pressure helium to vent to the atmosphere.

2.1.2.4 Safety Systems.

Concept B would be subject to the same rules and policies described in Section 2.1.1.4 for Concept A. Systems with aspects unique to Concept B are described below.

Fire Protection System. Fire protection, alarm, and fire suppression systems would be provided for all fuel (A-50, LH2, N2H4) holding areas and support facilities. Gas (H2) detectors, detecting the lower explosive limit in the LH2 storage area, would activate the alarms to the Air Force Fire Department. Flame detection alarms would also automatically activate deluge systems and notify the Fire Department. At Cape Canaveral AS, fire suppression water would be obtained through an existing 10-inch potable water line; a fire suppression water tank (144,000-gallon minimum) and pumps would likely be required. At Vandenberg AFB, an existing tank above the launch complex would be utilized for fire suppression water. All launch pads at both locations would require installation of an underground fire suppression water loop encircling the site. This loop would contain approximately 15 hydrants; the total anticipated fire suppression water flow would be 1,500 to 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm). For oxidizer fueling performed by truck, a deluge system would not be included because N2O4 and water are highly reactive. Flushdown hoses, however, would be available.

Security. Security requirements, an integral component of project safety, would be incorporated within the project design and through operational procedures. Elements of site security would include a perimeter security fence, a clear zone, security lighting, security standby power, an intrusion detection system, and security patrol roads. Security procedures include the use of entry controllers, alarm monitors, closed circuit television (CCTV), alarm/security response teams, radios, and vehicles in accordance with Air Force regulations.

Launch Hazard Area Safety. The procedures for launch safety would be the same for Concept B as described for Concept A, except for the number of beach closures at Vandenberg AFB. Jalama Beach County Park would be closed to the public during some SLC-6 launches, depending on the launch azimuth. Ocean Beach County Park would not be closed during launches from SLC-6.

Quantity-Distance Criteria. The facilities associated with Concept B would be sited to meet ESQD criteria.

2.1.2.5 Project Location and Access - Cape Canaveral AS.

EELV launch operations would be conducted at the 120-acre SLC-37 (Pads 37A and 37B) at Cape Canaveral AS, in the north-central portion of the station. SLC-37 was originally used for the Apollo Program. The only remaining structures at SLC-37 are concrete support equipment buildings that served as bases for the two launch pad umbilical towers, the former launch control center, miscellaneous retaining walls, and the concrete pad/refractory brick pad areas.

Cape Canaveral AS is accessible through Gate 1 from SR 401 (Figure 2.1-10). Once on Cape Canaveral AS, access to the site is along Samuel C. Phillips Parkway to Beach Road, which connects to SLC-37.

2.1.2.6 Support Structures/Operations - Cape Canaveral AS.

Launch rates associated with Concept B are provided in Table 2.1-8. Approximately 540 personnel are expected to be required to support EELV program operations by 2007. Launch operations for Cape Canaveral AS would be as described in Section 2.1.2.3 and would be conducted in the structures listed in Table 2.1-9. Figures 2.1-10 and 2.1-11 provide the general location of facilities at Cape Canaveral AS and the site layout plan for SLC-37, respectively. Most of the area would be utilized for launch operations. Under Concept B, the projected activities associated with EELV would generate the following average utility demands at Cape Canaveral AS during the projected peak launch year (2015): Based upon employment projections and project activities, Concept B would generate an average of 1,730 vehicle trips daily, with 360 trips expected to occur during the peak hour.

2.1.2.7 Project Construction Activities - Cape Canaveral AS.

Construction at Cape Canaveral AS would begin after Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) award (June 1998) and would be completed by July 2000. Construction personnel requirements would average 220, with a maximum of 405 personnel required during peak construction activities in June 1999. Proposed construction activities at Cape Canaveral AS are described below.

Existing Facility Modification

At SLC-37, launches are planned from both Pads 37A and 37B. Modifications required to support EELV activities would include the following (see Figure 2.1-11):

Port of Canaveral Dock. A dock at the Port of Canaveral would be used for EELV program activities. Any additional required road or facility improvements would be the responsibility of the Port of Canaveral.

Building 1348 (Hangar C). This building would be used for GSE storage. Upgrades to Hangar C would include interior asbestos and lead-based paint abatement, minor interior modifications, and construction of new entrances. Additional storage space (approximately 20,000 square feet) would be required on Cape Canaveral AS; available facility space has not yet been identified.

Building 75251, Missile Inert Storage (MIS). This building would be used for hardware storage. Upgrades to Building 75251 would include interior and exterior modifications and installation of new doors.

Buildings 33008 and 43400. These buildings would be used for storage. Modifications to Buildings 33008 and 43400 would be required to support EELV program activities. The extent of modifications required has not yet been determined.

Buildings 38800, 38804, 38835, Centaur Processing Facility. These facilities would be used for storage of fairings and upper stages, as well as other support activities. Interior modifications to these buildings would be required. The launch control area within Building 38835 would be modified. Building 43400. A portion of this building would be utilized as a machine shop. Interior modifications would be required.

Area 57E. Portions of existing Buildings 50801 and 50803, and a new building scheduled for construction for the Delta III program, all within Area 57E, would be utilized for storage and processing.

Infrastructure. New wastewater, electrical, and water lines would be installed (see Figure 2.1-11). Some improvements would be made along existing road corridors; new wastewater and electrical lines may be installed through undisturbed areas between SLC-37 and Samuel C. Phillips Parkway.

New Facilities

Horizontal Integration Facility. An HIF would be constructed near SLC-37 on the south side of Beach Road (see Figure 2.1-11). The facility would be of a hangar-like configuration, with a parking lot in front. A fire detection system and sprinkler system would be installed. An estimated 14 acres would be disturbed for construction of the HIF.

Electric Substation. An electrical substation and associated connections would be constructed in the vicinity of Patrol Road and Samuel C. Phillips Parkway, at the area of Building 43302 (which would be removed). All electrical lines would be run underground.

Alternative Facilities

Two alternative facilities have been identified at Cape Canaveral AS for Concept B activities, in the event that the preferred locations are not available in the time period required to support the EELV program. These facilities are described below.

Horizontal Integration Facility. An alternate location for construction of the HIF is adjacent to the CPF Complex (Buildings 38800/38804/38805). U.S. Air Force Roll-On/Roll-Off Dock. If the Port of Canaveral Dock is not available to support EELV, the existing Air Force Roll-On/Roll-Off Dock would be modified. Limited dredging activities may be required in previously dredged areas. The dock would be modified to accommodate the turning radius of the transport vehicle/dolly in the egress area.

Construction Phase

The majority of new construction, except for construction of the HIF, would occur within the previously disturbed SLC-37 area or along existing road corridors. The entire area of SLC-37 inside the new security fence would be cleared of vegetation (approximately 25 to 30 acres for Pad 37A and 55 acres for Pad 37B). Construction equipment laydown areas, personal vehicle parking, temporary mobile offices (trailers), maintenance facilities, and other ancillary construction areas would be sited in previously disturbed areas (see Figure 2.1-11). The construction laydown areas would be located between Pads 37A and 37B.

Earthwork for construction would be performed in accordance with the construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and the SPCC plan. To contain collected wastewater, a temporary truck washdown area with an impoundment would be provided within the boundaries of the construction laydown areas.

Approximately 80 acres of land, including the area for construction of the HIF and electric substation, would be disturbed during construction. Depending upon the final design and grading plans, 5,000 to 9,000 cubic yards of material would be excavated and 110,000 to 180,000 cubic yards of fill would be required. Fill material would come from borrow areas located off station. Unsuitable cut material would be removed from the project area to a spoil site on Cape Canaveral AS, or to other approved locations. Appropriate erosion control would be implemented at the stockpile. Construction materials generally would be trucked through Gate 1 over Samuel C. Phillips Parkway to SLC-37.

During the construction period, approximately 3,300 gpd of water would be required for general activities (e.g., site washdown, cement mixing, personnel requirements). Wastewater generation would average approximately 2,000 gpd. In addition, approximately 5,000 to 8,000 tons of solid waste would be generated, of which an estimated 3 to 5 percent would be recycled. Removal of construction debris would be the responsibility of the construction contractor; any hazardous materials found during construction (e.g., asbestos, lead-based paint) would be abated in accordance with applicable regulations.

From 1998 through 2000, construction traffic entering and exiting project construction sites on Cape Canaveral AS under Concept B is estimated to generate an average of 1,400 daily vehicle trips, with 150 trips expected during the peak hour. Construction traffic entering and exiting project construction sites during the peak construction period in June 1999 is expected to be 2,550 trips, with 270 trips occurring during the peak hour.

2.1.2.8 Project Location and Access - Vandenberg AFB.

EELV launch operations would be conducted at the 100-acre SLC-6 at South Vandenberg AFB. The SLC-6 site was originally constructed in 1970 for the Titan IIIM manned launch vehicle that was to be used for the Manned Orbital Laboratory (MOL) program. After the MOL program was cancelled, SLC-6 was modified for the space shuttle program, but was never used for this program. Most of the facilities are currently in mothball status. Some of the other facilities are currently being used by the California Commercial Spaceport and a launch contractor. Access to the SLC would be primarily through the Vandenberg AFB South Gate entrance via SR 246, then over Air Force-controlled secondary roadways, including Arguello Boulevard, and Bear Creek and Coast roads (Figure 2.1-12).

2.1.2.9 Support Structures/Operations - Vandenberg AFB. Launch rates associated with Concept B are provided in Table 2.1-8. Approximately 400 personnel are expected to be required to support EELV launch operations by 2007. Launch site operations would be as described in Section 2.1.2.3 and would occur in the structures listed in Table 2.1-10. Figures 2.1-12 and 2.1-13 provide the general location of facilities at Vandenberg AFB and the site layout plan for SLC-6, respectively. Most of the SLC-6 area would be utilized for launch operations.

Under Concept B, the projected activities associated with EELV would generate the following average utility demands at Vandenberg AFB during the projected peak launch year (2007): Based upon employment projections and project activities, Concept B would generate an average of 1,280 vehicle trips daily, with 270 trips occurring during the peak hour.

2.1.2.10 Project Construction Activities - Vandenberg AFB.

At Vandenberg AFB, construction would begin after EMD award (June 1998) and would be completed by February 2001. Construction personnel requirements would average 173, with a maximum of 350 personnel required during peak construction activities between January and March 2000. Proposed construction activities at Vandenberg AFB are described below.

Existing Facility Modification

SLC-6. The MST, bridge cranes, launch mount and exhaust ducts, and LO2 and LH2 storage areas would be modified. Other modifications would include:

South Vandenberg AFB Boat Dock. Modifications would consist of dredging approximately 20,000 cubic yards of sediment from the existing harbor channel. Dredging would be accomplished to the previously dredged depth. Disposal of material would be conducted in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit requirements.

Building 836. Building 836 would be utilized for receiving, inspection, and storage of CBCs and upper stages. Minor interior modifications would be required.

Building 375, Integrated Processing Facility and Building 1032 (Astrotech). The IPF would require minor exterior and interior modifications. The Astrotech facility would likely require construction of a new high bay for encapsulation of heavy payloads.

Buildings 330, 398, and 520. These facilities would be utilized for storage and refurbishment of GSE. Minor interior modifications would be required at all three facilities.

Building 1670. Building 1670 would be utilized for SRM storage and processing. Minor interior modifications would be required. Infrastructure. Utility modifications would occur within previously disturbed areas of SLC-6.

New Facilities

New Horizontal Integration Facility. A new HIF would be constructed in the northern portion of SLC-6. This area was the laydown area used during the initial construction of SLC-6 and is now a parking lot. Approximately 14 acres would be disturbed during construction.

Alternative Facilities

Two alternative facilities have been identified for Concept B activities at Vandenberg AFB, in the event that the preferred facilities are not available in the time period required to support the EELV program. These facilities are described below. Building 2520. If Building 375 is not available for payload encapsulation activities, Building 2520 would be utilized for unbagging of payload fairings and encapsulation of small and medium payloads.

Building 7525. If Building 330 is not available to support EELV, Building 7525 would be utilized for GSE storage and refurbishment, and sandblasting and painting activities. If Building 836 is not available for storage of flight hardware, Building 7525 would be utilized for this purpose. The extent of modifications required has not yet been determined.

Construction Phase

Most of the construction activities would take place within the previously disturbed SLC-6 area or along existing road corridors. SLC-6 consists of 100 acres of semi-improved grounds within a perimeter fence. Construction equipment laydown areas, personal vehicle parking, temporary mobile offices (trailers), maintenance facilities, and other ancillary construction areas would be sited in previously disturbed areas, to the north of the construction site. Earthwork for construction would be performed in accordance with the construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and the SPCC plan. To contain collected wastewater, a truck washdown area and impoundment within the boundaries of the construction laydown areas would be provided. Depending upon the final design and grading plans, 4,500 to 7,500 cubic yards of material would be excavated, and 80,000 to 135,000 cubic yards of fill would be required. Fill material would come from the Vandenberg AFB Manzanita Borrow Area. Unsuitable cut material would be removed from the project area to the Manzanita spoil site, or to other approved locations. Top-soil would be removed and stockpiled on site for re-spreading on disturbed areas for revegetation and erosion control after completion of construction. Appropriate erosion control would be implemented at the stockpile. Construction materials generally would be trucked through the Coast Gate, then over Coast Road to SLC-6.

During the construction period, approximately 2,100 gpd of water would be required for general activities (e.g., site washdown, cement mixing, personnel requirements). Wastewater generation would average approximately 1,400 gpd. In addition, approximately 2,200 to 3,800 tons of solid waste would be generated, of which it is estimated that 3 to 5 percent would be recycled. Removal of construction debris would be the responsibility of the construction contractor; any hazardous materials found during construction (e.g., asbestos, lead-based paint) would be abated in accordance with applicable regulations.

From 1998 to 2001, construction traffic entering and exiting project construction sites on Vandenberg AFB under Concept B is estimated to generate an average of 1,100 daily vehicle trips, with 115 trips expected during the peak hour. Construction traffic entering and exiting project construction sites during the peak construction period between January and March 2000 is expected to be 2,200 trips, with 230 trips occurring during the peak hour.

2.1.3 Concept A/B

Under Concept A/B, the contractors would use SLC-41 and SLC-37 at Cape Canaveral AS and SLC-3W and SLC-6 at Vandenberg AFB for the EELV system activities, as well as other facilities at both locations.

2.1.3.1 Launch Vehicle Concept.

Under Concept A/B, the launch vehicle system described in Section 2.1.1.1 for Concept A and that described in Section 2.1.2.1 for Concept B would both be utilized.

2.1.3.2 Primary Support Structures.

Structures described in Sections 2.1.1.2 and 2.1.2.2 for Concept A and B, respectively, would be utilized to support Concept A/B activities. If this concept were to proceed, any conflicts in facility usage between the two contractors would be addressed as the EELV program is further defined.

2.1.3.3 Launch Site Operations.

Launch vehicle components would be delivered to the site, and all operations would be conducted as described in Sections 2.1.1.3 and 2.1.2.3 for Concepts A and B, respectively. Quantities of hazardous materials to be utilized would be the same per launch as shown in Tables 2.1-2 and 2.1-6, respectively, for both Concepts A and B. 2.1.3.4 Safety Systems. Concept A/B would be subject to the same rules and policies described in Sections 2.1.1.4 and 2.1.2.4, respectively, for Concepts A and B.

2.1.3.5 Project Location and Access - Cape Canaveral AS.

As described in Section 2.1.1.5 for Concept A and in Section 2.1.2.5 for Concept B, EELV launch operations would be conducted at SLC-41 and SLC-37 at Cape Canaveral AS.

2.1.3.6 Support Structures/Operations - Cape Canaveral AS.

Launch rates associated with Concept A/B are provided in Table 2.1-11. As described in Section 2.1, each contractor is assumed to launch approximately 50 percent of the combined total of EELV flights. No distinction has been made between government and commercial flights. Full staffing to support EELV program operations would be reached in 2003 for Concept A at 150 personnel and in 2007 for Concept B at 440 personnel.

Under Concept A/B, the projected activities associated with EELV would generate the following average utility demands at Cape Canaveral AS during the projected peak launch year (2015): Based upon employment projections and project activities, Concept A/B would generate an average of 1,900 vehicle trips daily, with 390 trips expected to occur during the peak hour.

2.1.3.7 Project Construction Activities - Cape Canaveral AS.

Construction activities described in Sections 2.1.1.7 and 2.1.2.7 for Concept A and B, respectively, would occur under Concept A/B. No additional construction would be required under this concept.

2.1.3.8 Project Location and Access - Vandenberg AFB.

As described in Section 2.1.1.8 for Concept A and in Section 2.1.2.8 for Concept B, EELV launch operations would be conducted at SLC-3W and SLC-6 at Vandenberg AFB.

2.1.3.9 Support Structures/Operations - Vandenberg AFB.

Launch rates associated with Concept A/B are provided in Table 2.1-11. Full staffing to support EELV operations would be reached in 2006 for Concept A at 135 personnel and in 2007 for Concept B at 300 personnel.

Under Concept A/B, the projected activities associated with EELV would generate the following average utility demands at Vandenberg AFB during the projected peak launch year (2007): Based upon employment projections and project activities, Concept A/B would generate an average of 1,300 vehicle trips daily, with 280 trips expected to occur during the peak hour.

2.1.3.10 Project Construction Activities - Vandenberg AFB.

Construction activities described in Sections 2.1.1.10 and 2.1.2.10 for Concept A and B, respectively, would occur under Concept A/B. No additional construction would be required under this concept.

2.2 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION

2.2.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, Atlas IIA, Delta II, and Titan IVB launch vehicles would continue to support space launches to meet the requirements of the government portion of the NMM, both medium and heavy lift. These launch vehicles would provide DoD’s source of expendable medium and heavy spacelift transportation to orbit through 2020. The No-Action Alternative does not include analysis of commercial launches. Table 2.2-1 presents the peak launch rates of these vehicles to meet the government portion of the NMM. These launches would continue at existing launch complexes at both Cape Canaveral AS and Vandenberg AFB (Figures 2.2-1 and 2.2-2), utilizing existing manning levels. The infrastructure, operational procedures, and safety systems are in place for these launch vehicles at both Cape Canaveral AS and Vandenberg AFB. Chapter 3.0, Affected Environment, provides a description of the baseline conditions associated with these launch programs.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Air Force would continue to utilize the Atlas IIA, Delta II, and Titan IVB. Table 2.2-2 and Figure 2.2-3 present the general characteristics of these launch vehicles. The heavier lift version of each vehicle has been selected for analysis purposes.

Atlas IIA. The Atlas IIA has the ability to lift payloads of up to 14,000 pounds to low Earth orbit (LEO). The Atlas IIA consists of two LO2/kerosene fuel (RP-1) booster engines, a sustainer section, and a CUS (see Table 2.2-2). The Atlas IIA is launched from SLC-36 at Cape Canaveral AS and SLC-3E from Vandenberg AFB. Deluge water requirements for the Atlas IIA are approximately 100,000 to 200,000 gallons per launch. The types and amounts of hazardous materials utilized for, and hazardous waste generated from, Atlas IIA launch operations are presented in Section 3.6, Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management (Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-4, respectively).

Delta II. The Delta II has the ability to lift payloads of up to 7,500 pounds to LEO. The Delta II is a three-stage launch vehicle with a first stage that uses kerosene fuel (RP-1) and LO2 (see Table 2.2-2). The second stage utilizes a mixture of 50 percent unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) and 50 percent anhydrous hydrazine (A-50) and N2O4, and the third stage utilizes solid propellant. Nine SRMs are attached to the first-stage motor to provide additional thrust. The Delta II is launched from SLC-17 at Cape Canaveral AS and from SLC-2W at Vandenberg AFB. Deluge water requirements for the Delta II are approximately 35,000 to 60,000 gallons per launch. The types and amounts of hazardous materials utilized for, and hazardous waste generated from, Delta II launch operations are presented in Section 3.6, Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management (Tables 3.6-2 and 3.6-5, respectively).

Titan IVB. The Titan IVB/solid rocket motor upgrade (SRMU) has the ability to lift payloads of up to 40,000 pounds to LEO. The typical Titan IVB launch vehicle consists of a two-stage core vehicle that uses N2O4 and a mixture of 50 percent UDMH and 50 percent anhydrous hydrazine (A-50), two SRMUs consisting of three segments each and a Centaur Upper Stage (see Table 2.2-2). The Titan IVB is launched from SLC-40 and SLC-41 at Cape Canaveral AS and from SLC-4E at Vandenberg AFB. Deluge water requirements for the Titan IVB are approximately 100,000 to 150,000 gallons per launch. The types and amounts of hazardous materials utilized for, and hazardous waste generated from, Titan IVB launch operations are presented in Section 3.6, Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management (Tables 3.6-3 and 3.6-6, respectively).

Titan II. The Titan II has the capability of carrying payloads of up to 5,600 pounds and is not currently launched from Cape Canaveral AS; SLC-4W has been utilized for Titan II launches from Vandenberg AFB. No Titan II launches are currently scheduled, and no future launches are planned to occur during the peak years considered in this EIS. The Titan II program is a relatively small program, with infrequent launches in the past; therefore, the Titan II launch vehicle will not be discussed further or analyzed in this EIS.

2.3 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION

Other launch concepts besides an expendable launch system were addressed in 1994, when a multi-agency SLMP was developed to evaluate national space launch systems and to improve the United States' launch capability. The SLMP contained four alternatives for the modernization of the United States' space launch capabilities: sustaining the existing launch systems (No-Action Alternative); evolving the current expendable launch systems (EELV); developing a new, expendable launch system; and developing a new, reusable launch system.

On August 5, 1994, the President signed the National Space Transportation Policy, tasking the Secretary of Defense to provide an implementation plan for improvement and evolution of the current Expendable Launch Vehicle fleet. On October 25, 1994, the Deputy Secretary of Defense signed the National Space Implementation Plan for National Space Transportation Policy, which identified the EELV program as DoD’s solution to reduce the government launch cost baseline by 25 to 50 percent and lead implementation of DoD acquisition reform policies.

2.4 OTHER FUTURE ACTIONS AND POTENTIAL FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

No other reasonably foreseeable actions have been identified that could be considered as contributing to a potential cumulative impact on the environment along with impacts associated with implementation of the EELV program.

2.5 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

A summary of the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative at Cape Canaveral AS and Vandenberg AFB is provided in Tables 2.5-1 and 2.5-2, respectively. Each resource potentially affected by implementation of the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative is listed, and proposed mitigation measures, if applicable, are presented. Local community, land use and aesthetics, transportation, and utilities are considered factors that could influence environmental impacts; these factors are not included within the tables. Impacts to the environment are described briefly in the Summary and in detail in Chapter 4.0.