I 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

CL Environmental File! 

Doc-# 58 

02.01.0'3 

compliance Actions - NEPA - 

FAO 

Environmental Impact 

Analysis Process 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

U.S. AIR FORCE 

TITAN IV/SOUD ROCKET MOTOR UPGRADE PROGRAM 

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California 

February 1990 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 
ROVED FOR RELEA;SL utrARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 15 HEADQUARTERS SPACE SYSTEMS DIVISION (AFSC) 

LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE SASE, PO BOX 92960 

LOS ANGELES, CA 90009.2960 

To: Governmental Agencies, Public Officials, Public Groups and 

Interested Individuals 

Attached for thirty (30) days of public and governmental agency notification, in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the regulations of the 

President's Council on Environmental Quality, is the Finding of No Significant Impact 

and the Environmental Assessment for the Titan IV/Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade 

Program and operations at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California and Cape 

Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. 

The Finding of No Significant Impact and the Environmental Assessment address the 

environmental consequences associated with the construction and modifications to 

existing launch complexes and certain support facilities at Vandenberg AFB, California 

and Cape Canaveral AFS, Florida and construction of a second Solid Motor Assembly 

Building(SMAB) and a Payload Fairing Cleaning Facility (PFCF) at Cape Canaveral 

AFS, Florida to support a maximum launch rate of 37 Titan launch vehicles from 1991 

through 1995 and will also provide for the launching of a larger launch vehicle known 

as the Titan IV - Type 2 or Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade (SRMU) from Vandenberg 

AFB, California and Cape Canaveral AFS, Florida. 

2 6 The thirty (30) day public and agency notification period begins on FEB 

and continues until viAR 2 8 

Copies of the Finding of No Significant Impact and the Environmental Assessment 

may be obtained by writing to: 

Department of the Air Force 

Headquarters Space Systems Division/DEV 

Attn: Mr. Dan Pilson 

P. 0. Box 92960 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960 

or by calling: Mr. Dan Pilson at (213) 643-1409. 

Sincerely, 

Donald R. Simmons, Lt Colonel, USAF 

Acting Director, Acquisition Civil Engineering 
NIRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

TITAN IV/SOLID ROCKET MOTOR 

UPGRADE PROGRAM 

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California 

Department of the Air Force 

Headquarters, Space Systems Division 

Los Angeles Air Force Station, California 

February 1990 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 'JUNE 2015 

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 

TITAN IV/SRMU PROGRAM 

CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, FLORIDA 

AND 

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA 

1. PROPOSED ACTION 

In support of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) space program, the U.S. Air 

Force (USAF) proposes to expand its existing Titan IV launch program at Cape Canaveral Air 

Force Station (CCAFS), Florida, and Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California. The 

proposed action is to increase the launch rate to a maximum of 37 Titan IV vehicles from 1991 

through 1995 and to increase payload capacity for Shuttle-class payloads with a larger solid 

rocket motor known as the Titan IV-Type 2 or the Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade (SRMU). To 

support the expanded Titan IV program, the USAF proposes to modify existing launch 

complexes (LCs) and certain support facilities at CCAFS and VAFB and to construct a second 

Solid Motor Assembly Building (SMAB) and a Payload Fairing Cleaning Facility (PFCF) at 

CCAFS. 

The Titan IV program has evolved rapidly since 1985 when the USAF began the 

Complementary Expendable Launch Vehicle (CELV) program to provide launch capability to 

supplement the Space Shuttle. The CELV program developed the Titan 34D7 launch vehicle, 

an expanded version of the Titan 34D. The USAF initially planned to launch 10 CELVs from 

CCAFS. An Environmental Assessment (EA) for this program, which evaluated the impacts of 

modifications to LC-41 and 10 launches of the CELV, also supported a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI). 

In mid-1986, the USAF expanded the CELV program to 24 launches (total) from 

CCAFS and VAFB. At that time, the Titan 34D7 was renamed Titan IV. A supplemental EA 

addressed the increased number of launches and modifications to facilities at CCAFS, and a 

separate EA was prepared for the Titan IV launches from VAFB. FONSIs were also supported 

by these EAs. 

F-1 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

F-2 

The expanded Titan IV program will provide increased launch frequencies and greater 

lift capacity to ensure adequate launch capability for DOD payloads. For some launches, the 

SRMU will be used to provide increased thrust for the Titan IV vehicle so that it can launch 

Shuttle-class DOD payloads. The SRMU will increase payload capacity 25 to 35% above that 

of the Titan Di-Type 1 vehicle. To achieve the increased launch rates proposed for the Titan 

IV program and to process the larger SRMU, new facilities and modifications to existing 

facilities are needed at CCAFS and VAFB. 

Alternative actions considered for the Titan IV program include no action, alternative 

sites, and alternative launch vehicles. Alternatives were eliminated from detailed consideration 

in this environmental assessment (EA) because they were incapable of meeting the mission 

requirements of the Titan IV program. 

1.1. Project Location 

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 

CCAFS is located along the eastern coast of Florida near the city of Cocoa Beach in 

Brevard County. The base is about 15 mi north of Patrick AFB and adjacent to the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Kennedy Space Center (KSC). CCAFS 

occupies about 15,800 acres (25 mit) of a barrier island that is bounded on the east by the 

Atlantic Ocean and on the west by the Banana River. 

The facilities at CCAFS that would be affected by the proposed action are located in 

the northwest portion of the base. These include LCs 40 and 41 and the Titan IntegrateTransfer-Launch (ITL) Area immediately south of the LCs. A new facility, the SMAB, is 

proposed to be constructed at a site near the ITL Area on narrow man-made causeway in the 

Banana River. 

The ITL Area is located on a man-made island in the Banana River; the LCs are 

located on previously disturbed land and are industrial in character. LCs 40 and 41 were 

constructed in 1963-64. LC-41 was used by the USAF from 1964 to 1977 for Titan launches; it 

was reactivated in 1986 and renovated to support Titan IV launches. LC-40 has been used for 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 'JUNE 2015 

F-3 

Titan launches from 1964 to the present. The site for the proposed new SMAB is currently 

vacant except for a railroad spur on which rail cars containing rocket fuel and oxidizer are 

stored. 

Vandenberg Air Force Base 

VAFB, occupying 98,400 acres (154 nu') along the south central coast of California, is 

located 140 mi northwest of Los Angeles and about 5 mi west of Lompoc in Santa Barbara 

County. VAFB is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and south. VAFB is bisected by 

Ocean Avenue, which runs from Lompoc to a public beach at Surf. 

The facilities at VAFB that would be affected by the proposed action are located on 

South AFB and include Space Launch Complex (SLC) 4E, from which Titan IV vehicles would 

be launched, and the Solid Rocket Subassembly Facility (SRSF) (Bldg. 398), located at SLC-6. 

1.2 Project Description 

The proposed action consists of (1) an increase in the Titan IV launch rate from 

CCAFS and VAFB from 24 to 37 through 1995, (2) the development and use of an enhanced 

Titan IV vehicle having larger solid rocket motors (SRMUs) capable of carrying Shuttle-class 

payloads, and (3) the expansion and renovation of Titan launch and support facilities at CCAFS 

and VAFB to process and handle the increased launch rates and larger Titan IV-Type 2 

(SRMU) vehicles. 

Existing facilities at CCAFS are not capable of processing solid rocket motors or the 

proposed SRMUs at a rate that could support the higher launch frequencies. Launch 

frequencies are also limited at present, because only one launch pad (LC-41) is available and 

because solid rocket motor assembly and inspection must be completed on the pad. The 

proposed action will provide a second SMAB that could accommodate a three-segment SRMU 

or a seven-segment solid rocket motor, thereby eliminating on-pad assembly and increasing the 

pre-launch processing rate. Because the existing Payload Fairing Cleaning Facility is incapable 

of handling the proposed launch frequencies, an additional PFCF will be built. An additional 

launch site (LC-40) will be renovated to support the launch of Titan IV-Type 1 and Type 2 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

F-4 

(SRMU). LC-40 will require a new Mobile Service Tower, a new Umbilical Tower, and an 

overpressure suppression system (OSS). LC-41 will undergo structural modifications to 

accommodate the SRMU and will also have an OSS installed. Other minor renovations of 

structural, mechanical, and electrical systems will be made at the existing SMAB, the Vertical 

Integration Building, the Motor Inert Storage building and the Receipt, Inspection, and Storage 

building at CCAFS. 

The existing facilities at VAFB are adequate to support the proposed launch rates; 

however, modifications are needed at Bldg. 398 for processing and storage of the larger SRMU 

segments and at SLC-4E to accommodate the Titan IV Type 2 (SRMU) vehicle. 

2. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

2.1 Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 

Air Ouality 

Construction, pre- and post-launch processing, and launch activities during the Titan IV 

program will not significantly impact air quality. 

Modelling results indicate that particulate matter (PM-10) emissions from earthwork and 

excavation would be about 5% and 1% of the 24-hr and annual National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) for PM-10. Background levels in the CCAFS area are well below the 

NAAQS, therefore, the incremental increase from construction activities of the Than IV 

program would not result in standards violations. In addition, PM-10 increases would be 

temporary, lasting only for the construction period. 

During construction and pre- and post-launch processing, vehicles and equipment will 

emit nitrogen oxides (NO.), sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide (CO), and 

PM-10. Emissions will be sporadic and concentrated near the source, and ambient air quality 

outside the immediate vicinity of operation will not be adversely affected. 

Ground support activities and launch vehicle fueling will also result in emissions of trace 

quantities of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), hydrazines, nitrogen tetroxide, NOvand CO. 

Emissions of hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide will be minimized by pollution control devices and 

will conform to all required regulatory permits. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

F-5 

Combustion of solid rocket motors at launch will produce a ground level exhaust cloud 

containing aluminum oxide particulates, hydrogen chloride vapor or droplets, and carbon 

monoxide gas. The CO will rapidly oxidize to carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, 

therefore, it will not adversely affect ambient air quality. Modelling results indicate that the 

maximum 1-hr hydrogen chloride concentration at the nearest off-base location would be 0.22 

parts per million (ppm), well below the National Research Council-recommended short-term 

public emergency guidance level (SPEGL) of 1 ppm. Similarly, the maximum 24-hr aluminum 

oxide particulate concentration off-base was predicted to be about 25 micrograms/d, well below 

the NAAQS of 150 micrograms/e. Adverse air quality impacts would not be expected, because 

even when this increment is added to the highest historical background PM-10 concentration, 

the NAAQS will not be violated. In addition, the probability of maximum background 

concentration occurring coincidentally with launch is very low. 

The incremental effects of Titan IV launches on stratospheric ozone and hence, groundlevel ultraviolet-B radiation, will be much less than effects attributable to other natural and 

man-made causes. 

Water Resources 

Adverse impacts to surface waters and groundwater will not result from the Titan IV 

program. During construction, control measures, such as straw barriers and berms, will be 

implemented to minimize erosion and sedimentation. New wastewater streams will discharge to 

the Banana River from the stormwater runoff retention pond and the sewage plant at the 

proposed SMAB. Discharges will be in accordance with the effluent limitations defined by state 

permits, and will not adversely affect the water quality of the Banana River. 

During launch, about 400,000 gallons of deluge water will be required. About 320,000 

gallons will be collected in a sump, then drained to percolation ponds at LCs 40 and 41 in 

accordance with a state industrial wastewater discharge permit for the facilities. The remaining 

80,000 gallons will be dispersed by the force of the vehicle exhaust into the atmosphere and to 

grade near the launch pad. 

Percolation through the soil to groundwater will prevent the release of deluge water to 

nearby surface waters, therefore, no adverse surface water impacts will result. Percolation will 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

F-6 

likely cause slight groundwater mounding beneath the LCs. Based on local groundwater 

velocity, it would take a minimum of eleven years for the mound to reach the wetlands that are 

one-quarter mile west of the complexes. Groundwater quality will not be adversely affected by 

percolation because dilution by natural groundwater would be expected. An existing 

groundwater monitoring program at the LCs will continue during the Titan IV program, and will 

enable quick detection of contamination and appropriate mitigative action, if needed. 

The deluge water dispersed by the exhaust will contain hydrogen chloride vapor or 

droplets and aluminum oxide particulates. Depending on prevailing winds, deposition from the 

cloud would be on land, in the Banana River, or in the Atlantic Ocean. No adverse impacts 

will result because both water bodies have sufficient buffering capacity to neutralize the acidic 

character of the hydrogen chloride. The aluminum oxide is insoluble and will not affect water 

quality. 

Ecology 

No significant impacts to the biota of CCAFS and surrounding areas will result from the 

expanded Titan IV program. Habitat will not be lost or permanently disturbed, and populations 

of resident species will not be significantly changed. Hydrogen chloride and aluminum oxide in 

the ground cloud formed from SRM exhaust would have minor impacts on populations of 

wildlife and vegetation outside the perimeter fence of each pad. Noise from Titan N launches 

exceeding 95 dBA could result in a temporary hearing loss in sensitive wildlife near the launch 

pads. Wildlife that are heavily dependent on auditory (as opposed to visual) information may 

be more susceptible to predation if they experience short-term hearing loss. However, because 

no more than six Titan IV launches would occur per year, launch noise will not significantly 

contribute to wildlife hearing loss. Because the sonic boom from the Than N launches will 

occur over open ocean waters, it will not significantly impact terrestrial wildlife. Sea birds and 

mammals may exhibit startle responses. 

Aquatic biota in a 03-ha (0.8-acre) wetland will be displaced by construction of the new 

SMAB. There will be no dredging or alteration of aquatic habitat in the Banana River. With 

the implementation of erosion and sedimentation control, no significant adverse impacts to the 

aquatic ecosystem will occur as a result of construction. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

F-7 

Depending on prevailing winds, acid deposition from the ground cloud may occur in the 

wetlands and Banana River to the west of both LCs or the Atlantic Ocean to the east. Fish 

and insects in the areas of heaviest HCl deposition could be adversely affected by a decreased 

pH. For the most part, the buffering capacity of the Banana River will be sufficient to prevent 

significant impacts to aquatic biota. 

Deluge water would discharge to grassy percolation areas at the LCs, and gate valves 

would prevent water movement off-site. Therefore, deluge water discharge will not adversely 

affect aquatic ecosystems. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

The impacts of security and operations lighting at the LCs and ITL Area on endangered 

sea turtles is a major concern associated with all CCAFS launch programs. Lights that emit in 

the ultraviolet, violet-blue, and blue-green wavelengths disorient sea turtle hatchlings in nests on 

the beach. When hatchlings are disoriented, they move inland rather than seaward and 

subsequently suffer increased mortality. Light management plans designed to reduce beach 

lighting are being developed for all existing facilities at CCAFS. With the approval of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the implementation of these plans, significant impacts to 

endangered sea turtle populations will not result. 

Consultation between the USAF and the FWS regarding the effects of the launch 

vehicle's ground cloud and launch noise on two federally listed threatened species, the Florida 

scrub jay and the southeastern beach mouse, resulted in a Biological Opinion issued by the 

FWS that stated that "the operational phase of the Than IV program is not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of the scrub jay or southeastern beach mice.* The FWS issued an 

incidental take exemption to the USAF for losses of either species in the vicinity of the launch 

complexes. 

Floodplains and Wetlands 

The low-lying areas at the new SMAB site will be elevated with fill (loamy sand with 

shell) to 9 ft above mean sea level (MSL). This elevation is above both the base (100-year) 

and critical action (500-year) floodplains. Because of the small area affected by the proposed 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

F-8 

construction relative to the floodplain of this lagoon system, the action would have no effect on 

flood potential in the drainage basin. A Sect. 404 dredge-and-fill permit has been obtained 

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Construction of the SMAB will require the removal of about 0.8 acre of wetland 

vegetation (primarily woody shrubs) along the southern causeway portion of the site. The total 

area of vegetation, both wetland and non-wetland, on the SMAB site is about 14 acres. All 

vegetation on the site is secondary growth with no unique plant communities and no habitat for 

protected species; therefore, significant adverse impacts will not occur. To compensate for 

wetlands disturbance, a new 1.6-acre wetland will be created on the western boundary of the 

site. 

Man-made Environment 

New construction and proposed modifications for the Titan N program are compatible 

with the existing industrial nature of land use at CCAFS. 

The projected population increase during construction would be about 650, which 

represents 0.1% of Brevard County's projected 1990 population. About 160 additional persons 

would be expected to migrate into the area for the Titan N launch operations period. Many 

of these employees would locate in Cape Canaveral and Cocoa Beach. The estimated increase 

represents about 0.6% of the combined projected 1990 populations of these communities. The 

population increase expected from construction and operation will have a negligible impact on 

the local infrastructure, services, and economy. 

An estimated 600 vehicles might be added by the Than N program to the existing 

traffic volume entering CCAFS access points. Given the existing levels of service, there is little 

probability of a major reduction of speed or flow rate. 

The Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has provided official comment 

on the proposed project and has indicated that no significant archaeological or historical sites 

are recorded or considered likely to be present within the project areas, and that no adverse 

impacts to cultural, archaeological, or historic resources will occur as a result of the proposed 

action. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

F-9 

Hazardous Waste 

The small increases in hazardous wastes generated at CCAFS as a result of the Titan IV 

program will be mitigated by management practices, as stipulated by applicable federal and state 

regulations. The Titan IV program is being evaluated under the USAF hazardous waste 

minimization program; measures will be implemented to reduce the production of hazardous 

wastes, where feasible, and recycling will be encouraged. Therefore, hazardous waste from the 

Titan IV program will not have a significant impact on the environment. 

Safety 

The Titan IV program will not result in an unreasonable or increased risk to the public. 

Potential impacts to public safety will be prevented by the safety and disaster preparedness 

plans for the program and for CCAFS. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The Titan IV program is one of many under development in the Brevard County region. 

Others include military-related projects and urban/industrial development. 

The proposed Titan IV program is a successor to the Titan 34D program, which is being 

phased out. The environment is not expected to be impacted to a greater intensity than by 

previous Titan launch programs. 

2.2 Vandenberg Air Form Base 

Air Quality 

Construction activities at VAFB will involve minimal earthmoving operations; therefore, 

fugitive dust emissions will be small, and significant air quality impacts are not expected. 

Vehicle and equipment emissions at VAFB will be the same as those described for CCAFS, and 

will not result in significant adverse impacts. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

F-10 

Modelling results indicate that combustion products from launch would result in a 

maximum 1-hr HCl concentration at the nearest off-base location equal to the SPEGL of 

1 ppm. As is the case with all potentially hazardous launch-related activities, VAFB 

meteorological forecasting staff will conduct dispersion modeling before launch to ensure that 

adverse concentrations do not occur over populated areas on-base or off-base. 

The maximum 24-hr aluminum oxide particulate concentration off-base was predicted to 

be --105 micrograms/m', which is below the 24-hr NAAQS of 150 micrograms/m3but greater 

than the California Ambient Air Quality Standard of 50 micrograms/if?. However, the predicted 

PM-10 concentration is quite conservative, because maximum background and launch impacts 

are assumed to coincide in time. Because of the unlikelihood of such an occurrence, significant 

PM-10 impacts will not be expected. 

Water Resources 

Construction at VAFB will not require the disturbance of land, therefore, erosion and 

sedimentation impacts to surface waters will not occur. 

Water quality in Spring Canyon Creek (an intermittent stream) reflects the cumulative 

impacts of deposition from ground clouds and deluge discharge from previous Titan launches at 

SLC-4E and SLC-4W. Deposition reduces the pH and alkalinity upstream of the site, and 

aluminum oxide accumulates in streambed sediments. With future launches, water quality will 

continue to be degraded by the ground cloud. Uncontrolled deluge water discharge will not 

occur, however, during future Titan IV launches; wastewater will be collected and treated onsite. Because only two launches per year are planned, impacts from the ground cloud 

deposition will not be significant. 

A surface water monitoring plan will be implemented as part of the Titan IV program. 

If significant water quality changes are evident, the California Regional Water Quality Control 

Board will advise the USAF of appropriate mitigation measures. 

Surface water supplies in the region will not be utilized by the Titan N program; 

therefore, adverse impacts will not occur. The groundwater supply at South VAFB will not be 

significantly impacted by Titan IV launches at SLC-4E. Based on launch requirements and a 

launch rate of two per year, annual groundwater withdrawn for deluge and washdown water will 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

F-11 

be about 0.3% of annual groundwater supplies currently consumed at South VAFB. Because 

about 80% of deluge and washdown water will be collected and treated, adverse impacts to 

groundwater quality will not occur during normal operation. 

Ecology 

Construction activities associated with the proposed action will have negligible impacts 

on terrestrial vegetation. 

Launches will temporarily increase noise and will produce acid deposition on vegetation 

and fauna. Because only two Titan IV launches per year are planned, impacts of acid 

deposition will not be significant. 

Certain launch trajectories of Titan N vehicles will produce sonic booms that may 

intersect the surface on or near the Channel Islands near VAFB, which are important breeding 

grounds for several protected species of marine mammals and sea birds. Based on previous 

studies of the potential sonic boom effects expected of Space Shuttle launches from VAFB, the 

Titan N launch would generate a sonic boom of a substantially lower magnitude. (This 

determination is based on the size and shape of the vehicle and the size of its exhaust plume 

relative to the Shuttle). Significant adverse impacts to marine species during previous launches 

from VAFB over the past 25 years have not been observed during field studies, therefore, it is 

projected that future Titan N launches, at a rate of two per year, will not significantly impact 

threatened or endangered species of the Channel Islands. 

Deposition onto Spring Canyon Creek and its watershed from the ground cloud would 

to reduce the pH and alkalinity upstream of the site and maintain the existing poor aquatic 

habitat in the creek. Because only two launches are planned per year, impacts to aquatic 

habitat will not be significant. Deluge water discharge at SLC-4E will be collected and treated; 

therefore, adverse impacts to the wetlands in Spring Canyon will not occur. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

F-12 

Man-made Environment 

A maximum of 15 construction and 21 operations workers will be needed for the 

expanded Titan IV program. No impacts to regional and local community resources are 

expected from this small increase in labor requirements. 

The proposed action involves modifications to existing structures at SLC-4E and internal 

modifications to Bldg. 398, thus, no historic or archaeological sites would be affected by the 

proposed action. Consultation with the California SHPO has resulted in a determination of no 

adverse effect from the proposed action. 

Hazardous Waste 

The small increases in hazardous wastes generated at VAFB as a result of the Titan IV 

program will be mitigated by management practices, as stipulated by applicable federal and state 

regulations. The Than N program is being evaluated under the USAF hazardous waste 

minimization program; measures will be implemented to reduce the production of hazardous 

wastes, where feasible, and recycling will be encouraged. Therefore, hazardous waste from the 

Titan IV program will not have a significant impact on the environment. 

Safm 

The Titan N program will not result in an unreasonable or increased risk to the public. 

Potential impacts to public safety will be prevented by the safety and disaster preparedness 

plans for the program and for VAFB. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The Titan N program is one of many under development in the Santa Barbara County 

region. Others include military-related projects, oil and gas development projects, and 

urbanfmdustrial development. 

The proposed Titan N program is a successor to the Than MD program, which is being 

phased out. The environment is not expected to experience any significant impacts of greater J 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

F-13 

intensity than that of previous Titan programs. Therefore, cumulative impacts to the 

environment are not expected to be significant. 

3. FINDINGS 

Based upon the above, a Finding of No Significant Impact is made. Copies of the 

Environmental Assessment on the proposed action, dated February 1990, can be obtained from: 

Headquarters, Space Systems Division, SSD/DEW 

Attn: Mr. Daniel Pilson 

P.O. Box 92960, Worldway Postal Center 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

CONTENTS 

age 

LIST OF FIGURES vii 

LIST OF TABLES ix 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS xi 

1. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 1 

1.1 PROPOSED ACTION 1 

1.1.1 Purpose of and Need for the Action 1 

1.1.2 Project Location 2 

1.1.2.1 Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 2 

1.1.2.2 Vandenberg Air Force Base 2 

1.1.3 Background 8 

1.1.3.1 Evolution of the Titan IV program 8 

1.132 Description of the Titan IV launch vehicle 10 

1.133 Pre-launch processing 10 

1.13.4 Launch and flight 14 

1.1.4 Project Description 14 

1.1.4.1 CCAFS proposed activities 17 

1.1.42 VAFB proposed activities 26 

12 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 29 

12.1 No-Action Alternative 29 

1.2.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Consideration 29 

1.2.2.1 Programmatic alternatives 29 

1.2.2.2 Site-specific alternatives 31 

13 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 33 

2. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 35 

2.1 CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION 35 

2.1.1 Man-made Environment 35 

2.1.1.1 Socioeconomic resources 35 

2.1.1.2 Cultural resources 41 

2.1.13 Ambient noise 42 

2.1.2 Natural Environment 42 

2.1.2.1 Climate and air quality 42 

2.1.2.2 Surface water resources 45 

2.1.2.3 Geology, soils, and groundwater 49 

2.12.4 Terrestrial ecology 50 

2.1.2.5 Aquatic ecology 56 

2.1.2.6 Floodplains and wetlands 57 

2.1.2.7 Threatened and endangered species of CCAFS 57 

2.2 VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE 62 

2.2.1 Man-made Environment 62 

2.2.1.1 Socioeconomic resources 62 

2.2.1.2 Cultural resources 68 

iii 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2.2.1.3 Ambient noise 

2.2.2 Natural Environment 

68 

69 

2.2.2.1 Climate and air quality 69 

2.2.2.2 Surface water resources 73 

2.2.2.3 Geology, soils, and groundwater 76 

2.22.4 Terrestrial ecology 79 

2.22.5 Aquatic ecology 81 

2.2.2.6 Threatened and endangered species 82 

2.2.2.7 Floodplains and wetlands 86 

3. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 87 

3.1 CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION 87 

3.1.1 Man-Made Environment 87 

3.1.1.1 Regional and local impacts 87 

3.1.12 Cumulative impacts 93 

3.1.1.3 Mitigation 101 

3.12 Noise 102 

3.12.1 Regional and local impacts 102 

3.1.2.2 Cumulative impacts 105 

3.1.2.3 Monitoring and mitigation 105 

3.1.3 Air Quality 105 

3.13.1 Regional and local impacts 105 

3.132 Cumulative impacts 113 

3.13.3 Monitoring and mitigation 116 

3.1.4 Surface Water 118 

3.1.4.1 Regional and local impacts 118 

3.1.42 Cumulative impacts 120 

3.1.4.3 Monitoring and mitigation 120 

3.1.5 Geology and Groundwater 121 

3.15.1 Regional and local impacts 121 

3.1.52 Cumulative impacts 122 

3.1.5.3 Monitoring and mitigation 122 

3.1.6 Terrestrial Ecology 123 

3.1.6.1 Regional and local impacts 123 

3.1.6.2 Cumulative impacts 124 

3.1.63 Monitoring and mitigation 125 

3.1.7 Aquatic Ecology 125 

3.1.7.1 Regional and local impacts 125 

3.1.7.2 . Cumulative impacts 126 

3.1.7.3 Monitoring and mitigation 126 

3.1.8 Floodplains and Wetlands 127 

3.1.8.1 Regional and local impacts 127 

3.1.8.2 Cumulative impacts 128 

3.1.83 Monitoring and mitigation 128 

3.1.9 Threatened and Endangered Species 129 

3.1.9.1 Facility lighting impacts 129 

3.1.92 Habitat destruction or disturbance 130 

3.1.93 Launch effects 130 

iv 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

3.1.9.4 Cumulative impacts 

3.1.9.5 Monitoring and mitigation 

3.2 VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE 

131 

132 

133 

32.1 Man-made Environment 133 

32.1.1 Regional and local impacts 133 

3.2.1.2 Cumulative impacts 133 

3.2.13 Mitigation 135 

3.2.2 Cultural Resources 135 

3.2.3 Noise 135 

3.2.3.1 Regional and local impacts 135 

3.2.3.2 Cumulative impacts 136 

3.2.3.3 Monitoring and mitigation 136 

3.2.4 Air Quality 137 

32.4.1 Regional and local impacts 137 

3.2.4.2 Cumulative impacts 140 

3.2.43 Monitoring and mitigation 141 

3.2.5 Surface Water 142 

3.2.5.1 Regional and local impacts 142 

3.2.5.2 Cumulative impacts 145 

3.2.5.3 Monitoring and mitigation 145 

3.2.6 Groundwater 146 

3.2.6.1 Regional and local impacts 146 

3.2.6.2 Cumulative impacts 146 

3.2.6.3 Monitoring and mitigation 147 

3.2.7 Terrestrial Ecology 147 

3.2.7.1 Regional and local impacts 147 

3.2.7.2 Cumulative impacts 148 

3.2.73 Monitoring and mitigation 150 

3.2.8 Aquatic Ecology 150 

3.2.8.1 Regional and local impacts 150 

3.2.8.2 Cumulative impacts 151 

3.2.8.3 Monitoring and mitigation 151 

3.2.9 Floodplains and Wetlands 152 

3.2.9.1 Regional and local impacts 152 

3.2.9.2 Cumulative impacts 152 

3.2.9.3 Monitoring and mitigation 153 

33 IMPACTS OF ACCIDENTS 153 

3.3.1 Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 153 

3.3.1.1 Storage and assembly 153 

3.3.1.2 Liquid propellant handling 153 

33.1.3 Launch 154 

3.3.2 Vandenberg Air Force Base 157 

3.3.2.1 Storage and assembly 157 

33.2.2 Liquid propellant handling 157 

3.3.2.3 Launch 157 

33.2.4 Failed liner at. SLC-6 158 

4. PERMITS AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE 161 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

4.1 CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION 

4.1.1 Air Quality 

4.1.2 Water Quality 

161 

161 

161 

4.1.2.1 Stormwater discharge 161 

4.1.2.2 Sewage treatment 162 

4.1.2.3 Industrial wastewater discharge 162 

4.1.2.4 Floodplains and wetlands 162 

4.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 163 

4.1.4 Spill Prevention 163 

4.1.5 Coastal Zone Management 164 

4.1.6 Historic Resources 164 

4.2 VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE 165 

4.2.1 Air Quality 165 

4.2.2 Water Quality 165 

4.2.2.1 Stormwater discharge 165 

4.2.2.2 Sewage treatment 165 

4.2.2.3 Industrial wastewater discharge 166 

4.2.2.4 Floodplains and wetlands 166 

4.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 166 

4.2.4 Spill Prevention 166 

4.2.5 Coastal Zone Management 167 

4.2.6 Historic Resources 167 

5. REFERENCES 169 

6. LIST OF AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACIEI) 177 

6.1 U.S. AIR FORCE 177 

6.1.1 Headquarters, Space Systems Division 177 

6.12 Patrick Air Force Base/Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 177 

6.1.3 Vandenberg Air Force Base 178 

6,2 FEDERAL AGENCIES 178 

6.3 STATE AGENCIES 178 

6.4 LOCAL AGENCIES 179 

6.5 OTHERS 179 

7. LIST OF PREPARERS 181 

APPENDIX A. 

APPENDIX D. 

FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSIs) FOR 

PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS OF THE 

TITAN IV PROGRAM A-1 

CONSULTATION WITH THE FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE B-1 

CONSULTATION WITH STATE HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION OFFICES AND THE 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE C-1 

THERMOCHEMICAL DATA FOR EXHAUST EMISSIONS . . D-1 

APPENDIX B. 

APPENDIX C. 

vi 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 ',JUNE 2015 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Page 

1.1. Regional location of Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, 

Florida 3 

1.2. Launch complexes and support facilities at Cape Canaveral 

Air Force Station, Florida 4 

1.3. Locations of existing and proposed Titan W program 

facilities at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida 5 

1.4. Regional location of Vandenberg Air Force Base, California 6 

1.5. Location of existing Titan IV project facilities, Vandenberg 

Air Force Base, California 7 

1.6. Evolution of the Titan IV launch vehicle 9 

1.7. Titan IV/Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade (SRMU) launch vehicle 11 

1.8. Existing processing facilities for Titan IV launch 

vehicles, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida 12 

1.9. Processing of Titan 1V components at Vandenberg 

Air Force Base, California 13 

1.10. Reference mission for the Titan IV-Type 1, no 

upper stage 15 

1.11. Architectural drawing of the proposed Solid 

Motor Assembly Building 18 

1.12. Proposed layout of the new Solid Motor Assembly Building 

site 19 

1.13. Existing and proposed layout of Launch Complex 

40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida 23 

2.1. Wind rose for Cape Canaveral for 1968-1978 44 

2.2. Outstanding Florida waters near Cape Canaveral Air 

Force Station 46 

2.3. Surface water and groundwater monitoring stations at 

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida 47 

vii 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2.4. Location of percolation areas and groundwater monitoring 

wells at Launch Complex 41 52 

2.5. Vegetation at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida 55 

2.6. Habitats of threatened and endangered species at Cape 

Canaveral Air Force Station 61 

2.7. Population trends in Santa Barbara County 64 

2.8. Wind rose for Vandenberg Air Force Base for 1967-70 

and 1973-79. 70 

2.9. Surface waters in the vicinity of Titan IV launch and 

support facilities, South Vandenberg Air Force 

Base, California 74 

2.10. Groundwater contour levels and sampling locations near 

SLC-4-E at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California 77 

2.11. Vegetation of Space Launch Complex 4 and surrounding area 80 

3.1. Peak construction employment in the expanded Titan IV/SRMU 

Program at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 89 

3.2. Cumulative peak construction and operations employment in 

USAF programs at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 96 

3.3. Titan IV Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade maximum 1-hour hydrogen 

chloride (Ha) and 24-hour aluminum oxide (A1203) 

concentrations predicted by the Rocket Effluent Exhaust 

Dispersion Model (REEDM) for four meteorological scenarios 

at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Station 112 

3.4. Titan IV Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade Maximum 1-hour Ha and 

24-hour A1203concentrations predicted by the Rocket Effluent 

Exhaust Dispersion Model (REEDM) for four meteorological 

scenarios at Vandenberg Air Force Base 139 

viii 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Pane 

1.1. Planned launches of Titan IV vehicles 16 

2.1. Surface water quality characteristics of the Banana River 

adjacent to the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 48 

2.2. Water quality characteristics of the deeper, confined Floridan 

aquifer and the near-surface, unconfined aquifer compared 

with Florida primary and secondary drinking water 

standards 51 

2.3. Groundwater quality of LC-41 monitor wells, 

June 1988 53 

2.4 Listed and proposed threatened and endangered animal 

species and candidate animal species in Brevard County 

and their status on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 59 

2.5. Maximum air pollutant concentrations at two sites at 

Vandenberg Air Force Base in 1986 72 

2.6. Surface water quality data for Spring Canyon Creek at 

Vandenberg AFB, California 75 

2.7. Groundwater quality data for Spring Canyon both upstream 

and downstream of SLC-4E compared with interim 

primary and secondary drinking water standards 78 

2.8. Threatened and endangered fauna and protected marine 

mammals near Vandenberg Air Force Base and their status 83 

2.9. Candidate 2 species at or near Vandenberg Air Force 

Base and their status 

3.1. Estimated construction schedules and personnel requirements for the 

expanded Titan IV Program at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 87 

3.2. Peak employment estimates associated with USAF actions at 

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station by quarter through 1992 95 

3.3. Peak estimates of in-migrating employees for USAF actions 

at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station by quarter through 

1992 97 

ix 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

3.4. Peak and attenuated noise levels expected from operations of 

vehicles and equipment during construction for the Titan W 

program at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida 

3.5. Combustion products at the nozzle exit plane for Titan IVType 1 and Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) stage zero 

boosters 

3.6. Cape Canaveral Air Force Station meteorological parameters 

for four typical worst-case dispersion conditions used as 

input to the Rocket Effluent Exhaust Dispersion Model 111 

3.7. Vandenberg Air Force Base meteorological parameters for 

four seasonal worst-case dispersion conditions used as 

input to the Rocket Effluent Exhaust Dispersion Model 140 

3.8. Rocket Effluent Exhaust Dispersion Model—predicted air 

quality impacts for deflagration and conflagration events 

at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 156 

3.9. Rocket Effluent Exhaust Dispersion Model—predicted air quality 

impacts for deflagration and conflagration events at 

Vandenberg Air Force Station 158 

103 

109 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

A/C air conditioning 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

AFB Air Force Base 

AFR Air Force Regulation 

AFSC Air Force Systems Command 

AGE Aerospace Ground Equipment 

A1203 aluminum oxide 

App. Appendix 

CCAFS Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards 

CELV Complementary Expendable Launch Vehicle 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CO carbon monoxide 

COE (U.S. Army) Corps of Engineers 

dBA decibels (A-weighted) 

DCE dichloroethylene 

DOD (U.S.) Department of Defense 

EA environmental assessment 

EDS exhaust duct sump 

EPA (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency 

ESMC Eastern Space and Missile Center 

FDER Florida Department of Environmental Regulation 

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation 

FPL Florida Power and Light 

ft foot 

FVIS Fuel Vapor Incineration System 

FWS (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service 

gal gallon 

gpd gallons per day 

GEO geosynchronous orbit 

GN2 gaseous nitrogen 

gpm gallons per minute 

hr hour 

Ha hydrochloric acid 

in. inch 

ITL integrate-transfer-launch 

IUS Inertial Upper Stage 

km kilometer 

KSC Kennedy Space Center 

lb pound 

LC Launch Complex 

LEO low earth orbit 

LRB liquid rocket booster 

xi 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

m meter 

MEK methyl-ethyl-ketone 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

mi mile 

m*2 square mile 

min minute 

MIS Motor Inert Storage (Building) 

MLV Medium Launch Vehicle 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

mph miles per hour 

MSL mean sea level 

MST Mobile Service Tower 

MVA megavolt/ampere 

MW megawatt 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NDE nondestructive examination 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

N20, nitrogen tetroxide 

N2114 hydrazine 

NO, nitrogen oxides 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRC National Research Council 

NUS no upper stage 

03 ozone 

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

OSS overpressure suppression system 

OVSS Oxidizer Vapor Scrubber System 

Pb lead 

PFCF Payload Fairing Cleaning Facility 

PHC Potential Hazard Corridor 

PM-10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 

REEDM Rocket Effluent Exhaust Dispersion Model 

RIS Receipt, Inspection, and Storage 

RO reverse osmosis 

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board 

second 

SCS Soil Conservation Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture) 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SLC space launch complex 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SMAB Solid Motor Assembly Building 

SPCCP Spills Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan 

SPEGL Short-Term Public Emergency Guidance Level 

SRM solid rocket motor (manufactured by United Technologies) 

xii 
NRO APPROVED 

1.JUNE 2015 

SRMU 

SRSF 

STS 

TCE 

TSP 

UDMH 

USAF 

UT 

bia 

μg/m3 

UV 

UVB 

VAFB 

VIB 

VOC 

SR 

FOR RELEASE 

Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade (manufactured by Hercules, Inc.) 

Solid Rocket Sub-Assembly Facility 

Space Transportation System 

trichloroethylene 

total suspended particulates 

unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine 

U.S. Air Force 

Umbilical Tower 

micrograms per liter 

micrograms per cubic meter 

micron 

ultraviolet 

ultraviolet radiation in the 290-310 nm wavelength range 

Vandenberg Air Force Base 

Vertical Integration Building 

volatile organic compound 

state route 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

1. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

1.1 PROPOSED ACTION 

In support of the. U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) space program, the U.S. Air 

Force (USAF) proposes to expand its existing Titan IV launch program at Cape Canaveral 

Air Force Station (CCAFS), Florida, and Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California. 

The proposed action would be to launch a maximum of 37 Titan IV vehicles from 1991 

through 1995 and to increase payload capacity for Shuttle-class payloads with a larger solid 

rocket motor known as the Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade (SRMU). To support the 

expanded Titan IV program, the USAF proposes to modify existing launch complexes and 

certain support facilities at CCAFS and VAFB and to construct a second Solid Motor 

Assembly Building (SMAB) and a Payload Fairing Cleaning Facility (PFCF) at CCAFS. 

1.1.1 Purpose of and Need for the Action 

The expanded Titan IV program would provide increased launch frequencies and 

greater lift capacity to ensure adequate launch capability for DOD payloads. Over the past 

5 years, DOD has directed its space program toward the use of unmanned, expendable 

launch vehicles to allow the Space Shuttle to be used primarily for those payloads that 

require manned spacecraft. Also during the past 5 years, the design of the Titan vehicle has 

evolved to enable it to carry a greater weight of payloads. 

The expanded Titan IV program will provide increased launch frequencies and 

greater lift capacity to ensure adequate launch capability for DOD payloads. For some 

launches, the SRMU will be used to provide increased thrust for the Titan IV vehicle so 

that it can launch Shuttle-class DOD payloads. The SRMU will increase payload capacity 

25 to 35% above that of the Titan IV-Type 1 vehicle. To achieve the increased launch 

rates proposed for the Titan IV program and to process the larger SRMU, new facilities 

and modifications to existing facilities are needed at CCAFS and VAFB. 

1 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2 

1.12 Project Location 

1.1.2.1 Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 

CCAFS is located along the eastern coast of Florida near the city of Cocoa Beach in 

Brevard County (Fig. 1.1). The base is 15 mi north of Patrick AFB and adjacent to the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Kennedy Space Center (KSC). 

CCAFS occupies 15,800 acres (25 me) of a barrier island that is bounded on the east by the 

Atlantic Ocean and on the west by the Banana River. 

The facilities at CCAFS that would be affected by the proposed action are located in 

the northwest portion of the base, as indicated in Fig. 1.2. These include Launch 

Complexes (LCs) 40 and 41 and the Titan Integrate-Transfer-Launch (ITL) Area 

immediately south of the LCs. A new facility, the SMAB, is proposed to be constructed at 

a site near the ITL area on narrow man-made causeway in the Banana River. The relative 

locations of these facilities are shown in Fig. 1.3. 

The ITL Area is located on a man-made island in the Banana River, the LCs are 

located on previously disturbed land and are industrial in character. LCs 40 and 41 were 

constructed in 1963-64. LC-41 was used by the USAF from 1964 to 1977 for Than 

launches; it was reactivated in 1986 and renovated to support Titan W launches. LC-40 has 

been used for Titan launches from 1964 to the present. The site for the proposed new 

SMAB is currently vacant except for a railroad spur on which rail cars containing rocket 

fuel and oxidizer are stored. 

1.1.2.2 Vandenberg Air Force Base 

VAFB, occupying 98,400 acres (154 mit) along the south central coast of California, 

is located 140 mi northwest of Los Angeles and about 5 mi west of Lompoc in Santa 

Barbara County (Fig. 1.4). VAFB is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and south. 

VAFB is bisected by Ocean Avenue, which runs from Lompoc to a public beach at Surf 

(Fig. 1.5). VAFB was formed in 1957 when Camp Cooke Army Post was transferred to the 
. • . 

•■•■■••■■■•••■ 

NO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 3 

ORNL-DWG 89-10581R 

br 0 d 

< '0 

0 

cc 

—J 

O > 

> ' L 13 

• .• " 

4-1°A,41 

aly? STATION 

Na / CAPE CANAVERAL 

AIR FORCE 

TIT 

ORANGE CO. 

OSCEOLA CO. 

C 3 6 MILES 

t gr A 

Nik&Al 1 

::.. 

PATRICK

COCOA 

.• 

: 

. 

,_ .. 

-... . - 

AIR FORCE 

A, /0 BASE &e. 

• 

MELBOURNE 

Fig. 1.1. Regional location of Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

ORNL-DWG 89-10582R 

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER 

4 

. - COMPLEX 41 

COMPLEX 40 

EXISTING SOLID 

MOTOR ASSEMBLY 

BUILDING 

• COMPLEX 37 A & B (DISMANTLED) 

APOLLO-SATURN AREA ., 

COMPLEX 34 (DISMANTLED) 

APOLLO-SATURN 

. • . '.%- 

ki . • • • 

,,z. Iv 

o

iv 4:' I* 

C' N4t' • ir CZ • 

- 

C* <bliNN4t* .1. 

0 40 

LIQUID FUEL 

STORAGE 

-k- 

. • 

'COMPLEX 16-PERSHING 

COMPLEX 14 (DEACTIVATED) 

MERCURY-ATLAS 

ATLAS-AGENA • 

COMPLEX 13-ATLAS-AGENA 

. . 

. - 

:COMPLEX 36 

ATLAS-CENTAUR 

•••••• COMPLEX 43- 

- : :WEATHER ROCKETS 

NEW HYPERGOLIC STORAGE FACILITY 

COMPLEX 17-DELTA 

. . . 

AIR FORCE SPACE MUSEUM 

• • . . 

COMPLEX 25-TRIDENT (USN) 

• 

HARBOR • 

0 3000 6000 FEET 

BASE BOUNDARY 

Fig. 1.2. Launch complexes and support facilities at Cape Canaveral Air Force 

Station, Florida. 
OFINL-89-10583R2 

5 

. , OCEAN - . . . . . * • ' . . . . • 

• 

. 

. • ". . • . • '.• • ..'.•.,.' . 

. . 

. • 

.. ,, • 

. • . • - •. .• .•.:.:...:. ••••• : -/:;:.•„•.:.:- • •, . . 

. '• ... .":3> CA . PE ROAD (HIGHWAY 401) 

,,...-- LAUNCH COMPLEX 40 

ei EXISTING SOLID MOTOR ASSEMBLYBLDG. (SMAB) _.....-. 

LAUNCH COMPLEX 4s p0Firen 1 ..::..... ,.....: ........, ..... ..:

TITAN ROAD 

- :,: • -, :.. s 

C ‘1114111111 

.. • '- : : :* • -" . • :•,: : •• •

PROPOSED PAYLOAD FAIRING CLEANING FACILITY 

,...:

,..: :. 

. :.:7..'' ...• .

A.:

,

.,,.`" '

' .14A..K.:.;:

:.

• '..---.- .:.....,,. ., C ..,ITL WAREHOUSE -.," 4VAN .. .' . ,:..' ....• ,.; --- - 

. . ,:..- • ',:. - •:',:. ,. . . /9/v • . ':• 1•-:: .',.' ' . • ' . • ". '• : -: l',•':',-' .0"*"••• 4.. -: VERTICAL INTEGRA:TON BL:DG. (VIB) ' 

PROPOSED .1:::....11K-....0,...71:• • -.',...;!.... - ..- --. • 

•

':'...:•••::-...;,...?1.,;:.....,. ,.,...-.•••::::.;' .....1-.:I'-• '..1:-. .• * •SMAB SITE ''' -.. 777-77.. .......: - ' 1 NASA CAUSEWAY EAST 

.::: ..*:•'•:.•:•...-: .• • . • • MOTOR INERT STORAGE BLDG. (MIS) ••,:: . • . . 

`

•-• • ' INTEGRATE- . . • •/;:"?".7:- ' 

.:1•. ,..-:-.:::.••..... • ."... .. -:':"..- • ••••::'..". • TRANSFER-LAUNCH NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING (X-RAY) FACILITY 

• 

••• (ITL) AREA. ' . :•.' -:./X.;..- 

• 

,....•. . SEGMENT RECEIPT AND INSPECTION BLDG. (RIS) -•. ••... • 

. •:4/7/17.f • . . 

. .. . . 

••••:,.11,...,.. •'. ''-,•-•,•:.. . . • . SOLID ROCKET STORAGE BLDG. (S RS) 

':.: : '-',• ....:-..,-.. :,.... .;;.:. ,•,•.. . ......,..::.' .• '...1 '. . . . ...., 

0 2000 FEET 

11J 

U) 

LU 

LU 

CC

0 

LL 

0 

LU 

O 

• 

LO 

CNI 

< LU 

0 

Z 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 6 

1 JUNE 2015 

ORNL-DWG 89-10584 

• SANTA MARIA 

VANDENBERG 

AFB 

.• 

• PT. CONCEPTION SANTA 

BARBARA 

.• .• 

VENTURA 

' LOS ANGELES 

CHANNEL ISLANDS 

0 

in SAN MIGUEL . . 

• • .- • . 

...,.. -);- 

-z ISLAND . ; _ ... .:..- • . : • % ANACAPA 

BANTA CRUZ .. ' ISLAND 

SANTA ROSA . ISLAND 

. ISLAND • - • 

0 10 20 

MILES 

Fig. 1.4. Regional location of Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 7 

ORNL-DWG 89-12014R3 

Cosmotio .•- BASE BOUNDARY 

SURF 

COAST 

GATE 

RECEIPT, INSPECTION 

AND STORAGE 

FACILITY 

(BLDG 545) 

X-RAY FACIUTY 

(BLDG INS) 

./ 

/ MATERIAL 

SUPPORT 

/ FACILITY 

(BLDG 5500) 

NORTH " 

VANDENBERG 

AIR FORCE BASE 

PAYLOAD FAIRING 

PROCESSING AND STORAGE BLDG 

(BLDG *337) • 

CORE VEHICLE 

ASSEMBLY BLDG 

(BLDG 5401) 

,SLC-4 (TITAN IV LAUNCH SITE) I ,-47-1 

(E&W) SOUTH %/s71 

VANDENBERG ''.;;;; 

AIR FORCE BASE 

'' ,....— BASE BOUNDARY 

SUBASSEMBLY /

li FACILITY FACILITY Z‘ (BLDG MIS) 

,/' 

r

e/ 0 6000 12,000 

'C 

Fig. 1.5. Location of existing Titan IV program facilities, Vandenberg 

Air Force Base, California. 

Lompoc 

SLC-6 42. .

.I. FEET ' ' 

.,•71 

?

, 

.j .1 

1 

;• :1 

oc.4.44, / 

%) 

VondenOerg 

Vitiogn 

United Steles 

Penitent ittry 

FA 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

8 

USAF; the south portion of the base (South VAFB), originally the Naval Missile Facility at 

Point Arguello, came under USAF control in 1962. 

The facilities at VAFB that would be affected by the proposed action are located on 

South VAFB. These include the Space Launch Complex (SLC) 4E, from which the Titan 

IV vehicles would be launched, and the Solid Rocket Sub-Assembly Facility (SRSF), located 

at SLC-6. 

1.1.3 Background 

1.13.1 Evolution of the Titan IV program 

The Titan IV program has evolved rapidly since 1985 when the USAF began the 

Complementary Expendable Launch Vehicle (CELV) program to provide launch capability 

to supplement the Space Shuttle. The CELV program developed the Titan 34D7 launch 

vehicle, an expanded version of the Titan MD (Fig. 1.6). The USAF initially planned to 

launch 10 CELVs from CCAFS. An Environmental Assessment (EA) for this program 

evaluated the impacts of modifications to LC-41 and 10 launches of the CELV (USAF 

1986). That EA supported a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which is included 

in App. A of this document. 

In mid-1986, the USAF expanded the CELV program to 23 launches (total) from 

CCAFS and VAFB. At that time, the Titan 34D7 was renamed Titan IV. A supplement 

(USAF 1988a) to USAF (1986) addressed the increased number of launches and 

modifications to facilities at CCAFS, and a separate EA was prepared for the Titan IV 

launches from VAFB (USAF 1988b). FONSIs for these EAs are also provided in App. A. 

In October 1987, the USAF began developing the SRMU, a larger, modified solid 

rocket motor (SRM) intended to increase the payload capacity of the Titan IV by 25-35%. 

The USAF prepared an EA to evaluate the impacts of test facility modifications and testing 

of the SRMU at Edwards AFB (USAF 1988c; see App. A for FONSI). 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

SOLID 

ROCKET 

MOTOR 

UPGRADE 

❑1::: 5 

CORE 

VEHICLE 

SOLID 

ROCKET 

MOTOR 

9 

Space launch 

vehicle 

Titan 34D (predecessor 

to the Titan IV) 

Titan IV—Type 1, 

originally called the 

Titan TV/Solid Rocket 

Motor Upgrade, or 

Complementary Titan IV—Type 2 

Expendable Launch 

Vehicle or 

Titan 34D7 

Launch sites Launched 1983-89 from First launched June To be launched from 

and dates Space Launch Complex 1989 from CCAFS. CCAFS and VAFB 

4 EastiVandenberg Air 

Force Base (VAFB) 

and from Launch 

Complexes 40 and 41 

at Cape Canaveral Air 

Launches planned 

from VAFB and 

CCAFS from 1989 

through 1995 

1992-1995 

Force Station (CCAFS) 

Height 161 ft 204 ft 204 ft 

Number of 

solid rocket 

motor 

segments 

5-1/2 7 3 

Capacity 4,200 lb to 10,000 lb to 12,700 lb to 

(design geosynchronous orbit geosynchronous orbit geosynchronous orbit 

specification) 27,500 lb to low. earth 32,000 lb to low earth 40,000 lb to low earth 

orbit orbit orbit 

Fig. 1.6. Evolution of the Titan IV launch vehicle. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

10 

1.132 Description of the 'Titan IV launch vehicle 

The typical Titan IV launch vehicle (designated Type 1) consists of the following 

components: (1) a two-stage core vehicle, which uses liquid propellants, nitrogen tetroxide 

(N204) oxidizer, and Aerozine 50 fuel [equal parts hydrazine (N2114) and unsymmetrical 

dimethylhydrazine (UDMH)]; (2) two SRMs, each with seven segments of solid fuel 

consisting primarily of ammonium perchlorate and aluminum powder in an organic binder; 

(3) an upper stage, either a Centaur or an Inertial Upper Stage (IUS); and (4) a payload 

fairing (a protective shield) with the same 15 x 60 ft capacity as the Space Shuttle Orbiter's 

payload bay. An alternative configuration for Titan IV has no upper stage. The 

performance specification for the Titan IV Type1 is 10,000 lb from CCAFS to 

geosynchronous orbit (GEO) and 32,000 lb from VAFB to a polar low earth orbit (LEO) 

with an altitude of about 100 nautical miles. 

The SRMU consists of three segments instead of seven, and its diameter (126 in.) is 

5% larger than the existing SRM (120 in.) (see Fig. 1.6). The performance specification for 

Titan IV/SRMU (designated Type 2) is 12,700 lb to GEO and 40,000 lb to LEO. 

Figure 1.7 shows two configurations of the Than IV-Type 2 (SRMU), one with a Centaur 

upper stage, the other, no upper stage (NUS). 

1.133 Pre-launch processing 

The processing of launch vehicles at CCAFS and VAFB includes receipt of 

components, inspection, storage, assembly, testing, and transport to the launch pad. The 

present processing steps and facilities at CCAFS and VAFB are shown in Figs. 1.8 and 1.9. 

At CCAFS, the core vehicle is assembled and inspected at the Vertical Integration 

Building (VIE) located in the ITL Area. The solid fuel segments of the SRM are 

transported to the Receipt, Inspection, and Storage (RIS) Facility and, after preparation and 

inspection, stored in the Solid Rocket Storage Facility. The inert segments of the SRM 

(nose cone, aft skirt, nozzle, and exit cone) are processed in the Motor Inert Storage 

Facility, where the payload fairings are also prepared. In the assembly of an SRM for a 
CORE VEHICLE 

STAGE I 

SOLID PROPELLANT 

= 1,360,788 LB 

STAGE I OXIDIZER 

N204= 223,166 LB 

TITAN IV/CENTAUR TITAN IV/NO UPPER STAGE 

CENTAUR STAGE 

LH2 = 7,489 LB 

= 37,446 LB 

HYDRAZINE = 340 LB 

CORE VEHICLE 

STAGE II 

STAGE II OXIDIZER 

N204= 49,134 LB 

STAGE II FUEL 

AEROZINE 50 = 27,735 LB 

SOLID ROCKET 

MOTOR UPGRADE 

204' 

174' 

LH2- LIQUID HYDROGEN AEROZINE - 50% HYDRAZINE, 50% UDMH 

LO2 - LIQUID OXYGEN UDMH - UNSYMMETRICAL DIMETHYL 

N204- NITROGEN TETROXIDE HYDRAZINE 

Fig. 1.7. Titan IV/Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade (SRMU) launch vehicle. Two 

coniguralions are shown,with the Centaur upperstage (left) and no upperstage (NUS) (right). 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

ORNL-DWG 89-13634R2 

PROPELLANTS COMPONENTS 

SATELLITE VEHICLE 

PAYLOAD FAIRING 

CENTAUR STAGE 

11 
0 z O—t 5 

UJ m 

Z Wcc 

0g 

2 

CC 

/- 0 Cr 

0) • 

• 

PAYLOAD FAIRING PREP 

Z O Z 

I= 5 

111 ZW 

0 

< CL CC 

11 0 

0 U1 C6 0 CC ea z

5 La I-0 Y5 < 

co cc 

w 0 tc cn 1.- 

O1- um) mm • 

cr 

< 

ON 

Icc 

L11 UJ CL 

0- 

8 CC < 

0 

0 

M CC 

Ili 

rn Z 

N 

CC tf) 

0 

CC 03 03 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

ORNL-DWG 89- 12345 

PAYLOAD MATE AND CHECKOUT PAYLOAD FAIRING FINAL ASSEMBLY 

12 

15 

C) 

to 0 

CL 

15 

ca ao 

W 

0 

CO 

TO 

2 e • i 

ta."0 0- c LL 

s 

7c = ° 

ra 

cci 

u 
CORE VEHICLE 

COMPONENTS 

ENGINES AND 

AVIONICS CORE VEHICLE 

ASSEMBLY BUILDING 

(BLDG 8401) FORWARD 

PAYLOAD FAIRING 

PAYLOAD FAIRING 

PROCESSING FACILITY 

(BLDG 8337) 

AFT 

PAY LOAD 

FAIRING 

PAYLOAD 

FAIRING 

CORE VEHICLE 

STAGES 

SLC-4E 1044. PAYLOAD 

FIRST AND 

SECOND STAGES 

OF CORE VEHICLE 

NE30 APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 13 

ORNL-DWG 89-13636R 

SRM RECEIVING, 

INSPECTION, AND 

STORAGE FACILITY 

(BLDGS 945, 946) 

SOLID 

ROCKET 

MOTORS 

SRM = SOLID ROCKET MOTOR 

SLC-4E = SPACE LAUNCH 

COMPLEX 4-E 

MST = MOBILE SERVICE TOWER 

Fig. 1.9. Processing of Titan IV components at Vandenberg Air Force 

base, California. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

14 

Titan IV vehicle, five of the fuel segments and the bottom inert segments are moved by 

rail moved by rail to the existing SMAB and stacked. The SMAB was designed for 

assembly of the five-segment SRM for the Titan 34D. Because of limitations in the lifting 

capability and location of the 305-ton crane in the SMAB, all seven segments of a Titan IV 

SRM cannot be stacked there. The remaining two fuel segments and the inert nose cone 

are added at the LC. The core vehicle is moved from the VIB on the rail transporter to 

the SMAB, where the partially completed (five-segment) SRMs are attached to it. The 

launch vehicle, minus two solid fuel segments and the nose cone, is transported to the LC 

where stacking of SRMs is completed. Finally, the upper stage, payload, and payload fairing 

are integrated with the launch vehicle on the launch pad. The core vehicle then undergoes 

final combined system tests, is loaded with liquid fuel, and is ready to be launched. 

At VAFB, the core vehicle is assembled at Bldg. 8401 on North VAFB (Fig. 1.5). 

Payload fairings are cleaned, coated, painted, and stored at Bldg. 8337, North VAFB. The 

SRM fuel segments are transported by truck to the RIS Facility on South VAFB (Bldg. 

945) for subassembly, inspection, weighing, and storage. The SRMs are also examined at 

the X-ray Facility (Bldg. 946) adjacent to the RIS. All the components of the launch 

vehicle are brought by truck to SLC-4E and assembled on the pad. 

1.13.4 Launch and flight 

The launch and flight of a Titan IV (Fig. 1.10) begin with ignition of the SRMs, 

which burn for about 2 min. At 29 mi above the earth, the Stage 1 motors ignite, quickly 

followed by jettison of the SRMs. The payload fairings are jettisoned after about 4 min of 

flight, and Stage 1 shutdown/Stage 2 ignition occurs after abour5 min. In less than 9 min 

from liftoff, Stage 2 is shut down and jettisoned and the payload is in a low earth "parking" 

orbit. 

1.1.4 Project Description 

The proposed action consists of (1) an increase in the Titan IV launch rate from 

CCAFS and VAFB from 24 to 37 through 1995, (2) the development and use of an 

J 
0 

Referencemission forthe Titan IV-Type1,noupperstage. 

0 

u. 

• 15 REAL TIME VEHICLE POSITION RANGE FROM LAUNCH SITE (NAUTICAL MILES) 

0 

CO ,- ct g CO (CLi 

T 

CD 03; 

N 

VI 

g 

O) 

x x 

ALTITUDE 

(ft) 

0 

0 0 

CO e 03 CD 

1- v0 

g 

CO 

0 

CO 

4 

0 x 

g >> 

4 

x 

,) 

w 

2 'a 

I0 

In m 0 

CO Co Cri 

._ C, .i. 

.- .- N 

— . (1:> 

CI 

CO 

. u5 

Cr, 

N .3' 03 In 

N a 

w 

w 

6 2 06 P E iz L rc i 

2 z 

"rc 2 2 C9 8 LL 0 0 

° — Er cc as 

Ill LU 0 CC UAL! 

0 0 0 0 < 0 0 

< 

PFaI- - F- 0 0 < LU I- F- co co tot a. co tom 

6 

u) LLI 

..." 

Ill 

0 

I- 0 

z 

2 2 

-I I 

ru — — 

Ill Ul 

0 0 

I- Ico co 

z 

cc 

1_ 

i— 0 Quir--- 

0 

cr a, mNci2gc Q 

cos 

05 (i)cc 2

0-

0‹ 

0 w 

co 

LU 

CO 

_J 

0 

0 

LU 

O 

• 

If) 

*,c'-D"- 

\ 0_ 

C 

1-) 

Fu6 

E F 

o) S2 

0 0 

z 

0l- a i—co — 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 16 

Table 1.1_ Planned launches of Titan IV vehicles 

Fiscal 

year 

Launch site 

LC-40 LC-41 SLC-4E Total 

1991 0 3 2 5a 

1992 3 3 2 8b 

1993 3 3 2 Eic 

1994 3 3 2 8` 

1995 3 3 2 8` 

Total 12 15 10 37 

aAll Titan IV, Type 1. 

b50% Type 1, 50% Type 2 (SRMU). 

`All Type 2 (SRMU). 

enhanced Titan IV vehicle having larger solid rocket motors (SRMUs) capable of carrying 

Shuttle-class payloads, and (3) the expansion and renovation of Titan launch and support 

facilities at CCAFS and VAFB to process and handle the increased launch rates and larger 

Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) vehicles. The planned launch schedule for the Titan IV, Types 1 

and 2, is given in Table 1.1 From 1991 to 1995, there would be a transition from the use 

of Type 1 vehicles to Type 2. 

Proposed construction and operations at CCAFS are described in Sect. 1.1.4.1. 

Existing facilities at CCAFS are not capable of processing SRMs and SRMUs at a rate that 

could support the proposed launch frequencies. Launch frequencies are also limited at 

present, because only one launch pad (LC-41) is available and because SRM assembly and 

inspection must be completed on the pad (see Sect. 1.1.3.3). The proposed action would 

provide a second SMAB that could accommodate a three-segment SRMU or a sevensegment SRM, thereby eliminating on-pad assembly and increasing the pre-launch processing 

rate. An additional launch site (LC-40) would be renovated to support the launch of Titan 

IV—Type 1 and Type 2 (SRMU). 

The existing facilities at VAFB are adequate to support the proposed launch rates. 

However, modifications are needed at Bldg. 398 for processing and storage of the larger 

SRMU segments and at SLC-4E to accommodate the larger SRMU. Details of the 

proposed actions at VAFB follow in Sect. 1.1.4.2. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

17 

1.1.4.1 CCAFS proposed activities 

Construction and operation of a new SMAB 

The proposed SMAB (Fig. 1.11) would provide an additional facility for processing 

SRMs, thus facilitating increased launch rates of the Titan IV from CCAFS. Operation of 

the facility would involve assembly-line stacking of the SRMU segments, nondestructive 

testing and checkout of SRMUs, storage of assembled SRMUs, and mating of assembled 

SRMUs with core vehicles. 

Construction of the new SMAB would commence with the demolition of existing 

fuel storage facilities at the proposed site and the removal of an existing rail spur, water 

lines, and storm drainage culverts. The existing rail car storage area would not be relocated. 

In the future, fuel and oxidizer would be stored in a hypergolic storage facility now under 

construction on the west side of CCAFS 2 mi south of NASA Causeway East (Fig. 1.2). 

The site has been evaluated to determine if fuel and oxidizer storage there has resulted in 

groundwater contamination; no evidence of contamination was found (Morton 1989). 

The new SMAB would cover 59,600 ft' and would be 240 ft high. The building 

would be supported by a deep pile foundation and a reinforced concrete floor slab. The 

vertical construction would consist of a structural steel frame with an 8 ft high, hardened 

reinforced concrete exterior wall at ground level and aluminum siding above. Two interior 

overhead cranes would be installed in the new SMAB; load capacities would be 500 tons 

and 220 tons, with 60-ton and 25-ton auxiliary crane capacities, respectively. The project 

would also include construction of a guardhouse and a double-track transporter spur from 

the existing tracks into the assembly building. Double perimeter fencing, security lighting, 

and other security requirements would be provided. Access drives and paving would be 

installed around the building, and a 75-space parking area would be located outside the 

perimeter fence. A packaged sewage treatment plant with a drain field and a storm 

drainage system with a retention pond would be installed. Electrical, water, and 

communications utilities would be connected to the new facility from existing systems at 

CCAFS. The proposed layout of the new SMAB, associated facilities, utilities, and the 

railroad spur is shown in Fig. 1.12. 
18 

°ANL-DWG 8611465 

11.1 

0 

„,- 

LPJ 

Lli x 

CI _1 

CL Z a IP 0 0 

0 

LL

5

. 

0 0 

a 

LIJ 

> 

0 

CL 

a_ 

a. 

< 

0 

z 

1 JUNE 2015 

Architectural drawing of the proposed Solid Motor Assembly Building. 
T ' 

r 

z 

ar 

z,,_ 

85 

fl 

11 

n 

111 11 

_III II 

II II 

II 

11 11 

nn 

11 

11 

11 

11 

II II 

t. el 

I- 

/ 

z 

cc 

cfc 

cc 3 

r2? Oa 

■•••••■•••••—e.. 

19 

to W 

0 CC 

-1 • 

ay 

a. 

1-• 

au Lu 

<2 Z Waa 

PROVED FOR RELEASE 

z 

1 JUNE 2015 

ORNL-DWG 89-11464R2 

I 

0 

Proposed layout of the newSolid Motor AssemblyBuilding site. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

20 

The new SMAB would support the following Titan IV operations: 

1. Receiving and inspecting solid-fuel motor segments and components. This function 

within the new SMAB would consist primarily of mechanical handling of segments with 

large cranes and ultrasonic examination of the SRMU to ensure that the solids have not 

been damaged. 

2. Handling, storage, and environmental control of solid-fuel motor segments and stacked 

SRMUs. The new SMAB would be able to store one flight set (two aft, two center, 

and two forward segments) before stacking; two flight sets fully assembled in storage 

stands; two flight sets in various stages of assembly; and one set on the transporter with 

the core vehicle. 

3. Assembly of all components of solid motor segments. Nose cones would be received by 

truck and moved to a designated area where cables, boxes, batteries, solid stage 

separation rockets, and the controlled high energy firing unit would be installed. Cable 

raceways and cables would be installed in all three segments of the SRMU at another 

area, and cork-type insulation would be attached with an ambient-cure adhesive to the 

forward segment and attachment and the aft segment and skirt. 

4. Stack buildup (complete) for one pair of SRMUs, including installation and checkout of 

the destruct systems. The final assembly of the SRMU would be performed in the 

vertical position in the stacking cell area of the new SMAB. 

5. Integration of the stacked SRMUs with the Titan IV core vehicle, to be performed in 

the transporter area of the new SMAB. 

6. Preparation for transporter roll-out of the totally integrated launch vehicle minus the 

upper stage, payload fairing, and space vehicle (payload). 

7. Processing of up to eight Titan IV vehicles per year. 

8. Stacking and destacking of one pair of SRMs. 

Construction of the new SMAB would result in typical construction-related emissions 

from vehicle exhaust and earthwork activities. Installation of the transporter spur at the 

new SMAB would require filling 0.8 acre of wetlands south of the proposed site along the 

western edge of the causeway (Fig 1.12). To compensate for this loss of wetlands, a new 

1.6-acre wetlands area would be created along the Banana River at the western edge of the 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 'JUNE 2015 

21 

SMAB site. Creation of the wetlands area would involve removal of soil to lower the grade 

of the designated area so that it would be intermittently flooded and would support wetland 

vegetation. Details on wetlands creation are provided in Sect. 3.1.8. 

Operation of the new SMAB would consist of mechanical handling and assembly 

activities, with no atmospheric emissions expected under normal circumstances, other than 

vehicle and equipment exhaust. Liquid effluents from the new SMAB would include 

stormwater runoff and treated sanitary sewage. Stormwater runoff would be discharged to 

the Banana River, after retention in a settling pond (see Fig. 1.12), in accordance with a 

permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER). Treated 

wastewater from the sewage plants would be discharged to a drainage field (Fig. 1.12) in 

accordance with a separate FDER permit. 

Solid nonhazardous wastes from construction of the new SMAB would include spoils 

from excavation, vegetation debris, and conventional construction wastes such as wood and 

metal scrap. Hazardous wastes would include paint wastes, oils and grease, and solvents. 

During operation, nonhazardous solid wastes would consist of ordinary trash and sludge from 

a sewage treatment plant. Hazardous wastes from operations might include rags 

contaminated with cleaning solutions and wastes associated with the sealing adhesives used 

in the assembly of the SRMUs. 

Construction and operation of new Payload Faking Cleaning Facility 

The existing ITL facilities at CCAFS are not capable of cleaning and storing 

Titan IV payload fairings to meet the launch frequency of the Titan IV program. Because 

of the proposed increased launch rate, further processing capability is needed. A 12,750-ft2 

PFCF would be constructed on the northeast corner of the VIB in the ITL area. The 

structure would consist of an airlock high bay, two cleaning booths, and miscellaneous floor 

space for lockers and a control room. Two overhead cranes would be installed to service 

the high bay area and cleaning booths. 

The PFCF would be used for final cleaning of the fairing. The fairing trisectors 

would be cleaned for gross contamination in the existing facility and the exterior surface 

would be painted. The trisector would then be moved to a clean room in the new facility. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

22 

Final cleaning would be done by placing Freon-113 on a lint-free cloth and wiping 

the fairing interior surfaces. Methyl-ethyl-ketone (MEK) may be needed to clean small 

areas. The estimated quantities required for each fairing are 5 gal of Freon and 1 gal of 

MEK. After the fairing is properly cleaned, the acoustic blankets would be installed on the 

inside surface. The fairing would then be wrapped with plastic for storage or transfer to the 

launch pad. One fairing processing period would take about 30 days. Waste Freon-113 and 

MEK would be collected and stored at a permitted hazardous waste accumulation area at 

the VIB until disposal off-site by an approved contractor. 

Modifications to LC-40 

Modifications to LC-40 to support the launch of the Titan IV-Types 1 and 2 would 

include (1) construction of a new Mobile Service Tower (MST), (2) construction of a new 

Umbilical Tower (UT), (3) construction of a trailer shed north of the Aerospace Ground 

Equipment (AGE) building, (4) construction of a new air conditioning (A/C) shelter, and 

(5) installation of an overpressure suppression system (OSS) at the center of the launch pad. 

The layout of LC-40 and the location of proposed new facilities are shown in Fig. 1.13. 

New facilities would be located on previously disturbed land. The new UT would be 

erected in the parking position of the existing MST, which would provide services during the 

construction period. The annex to the AGE building and the A/C shelter would be 

constructed to the structural, mechanical, and electrical specifications of the existing AGE 

and A/C facilities at LC-41. The design criteria for LC-40 will incorporate Centaur 

requirements in all necessary facilities. 

The OSS would use pressurized gaseous nitrogen (GN2) to inject water directly into 

the SRM/SRMU exhaust to reduce the shock wave that occurs at SRM ignition as a result 

of the interaction between SRM exhaust and the launch pad exhaust duct. The system 

would consist of a water distribution manifold for each SRM, nozzles for injecting about 

5000 gal water into the SRM plume, and a high-pressure GN2system to control delivery of 

water to the exhaust duct. The OSS would supplement the deluge water system used to 

reduce noise and provide cooling at the pad during launch. 
L1J 

0 

LLI 

LLJ 

rr 

CD 

LL 

LLI C u 

LtJ 

cbt 

C D 

Z 

a 

3 

uJ 

LL 

m 

Q 

0 I4 

= 

ou 

o w = 

w ..I W 

M 0 -, sa 

Z m 

La LC ..I iss 

cm m 2 .4 4 

ma 01,4- 

. os === —m4 

CO m 

4 mP0 .z a w w be 3 

4m4.i ri: M<El og5 0 m ammw<2 

<aszer On WO 

2ww 00S 

0 —

I- 

= t_ in2 

0=24 1

6.Z 

WMNWffi ACC 

wZ1P200 

0000bew mdiA—.1-0z 4w==0. wo. ccopom007, m ^Dm m cilm .a...-1 

Omm

0m1 0m0sswo5o0e, s-lam wz772 40=m=z0 

11.11 UWV m-I Fns: .1x_j _- 

exxx!_x_suss Oxisswxwwowmxm 

meem"mil5 mM33w3use3 

000u.z 2w4zwzmwzwwz 

.:44(44 g cOcid,4;441t;

,Og 

23 

if) 

O 

C) 

co 

o 

go. 

0 

U C 

"6 

0 

CS 

co 

O 

ci 0.0 

x gC

rOaTi 

ILI 

1 

• 0 

a 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

24 

The MST would be constructed at either LC-34 or 37, which have been dismantled 

(see Fig. 1.2 for location). It is anticipated that steel and materials would be delivered to 

CCAFS by over-the-road trailers. The steel would be placed at the proposed construction 

site at LC-34 or 37. The modules would be fabricated and then delivered to LC-40 by 

over-the-road vehicles for final erection. Operations to be conducted at the module 

fabrication site would be welding, sandblasting, grinding, and painting. Portable power units 

would be required for lighting and equipment operation. Existing CCAFS roads would be 

used but may need improvements and widening at some locations. 

Atmospheric emissions during the proposed modifications would include fugitive dust 

and vehicle and equipment exhaust. No liquid effluents other than sanitary sewage would 

be generated. Solid wastes would consist of nonhazardous conventional construction wastes 

(wood and metal scrap) and hazardous wastes such as paint waste, oils, grease, and solvents. 

Other modifications 

LC-41, which has a layout identical to that of LC-40 (Fig. 1.13), would require 

structural, mechanical, and electrical modifications to the MST and UT to make them 

capable of supporting the Titan IV—Types 1 and 2. The AGE building and A/C shelter 

would be evaluated to determine their capability of withstanding the pressure, force, and 

temperature from the firing of the SRMU. The launch platform would be modified to 

support the SRMU. An OSS would be installed as described previously for LC-40 and 

would function in the same manner. 

The existing SMAB would undergo the following changes to accommodate the 

SRMU: (1) modification of the northeast and southeast stacking cell platforms; 

(2) modification of the SRM sling support platform, installation of a new SRMU 220-ton 

bar sling support platform, modification of the SMAB structure to accommodate the new 

sling configuration as well as the new 220-ton bar sling; (3) modification, as required, of the 

SRM frame supports in the northeast and southeast stacking cells; (4) modification of four 

removable support piers and foundations; (5) removal of eight concrete piers and 

replacement with eight removable support piers and foundations; and (6) modification of 

existing foundation as necessary to support railcar hardcovers. Modifications would allow 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

25 

alternation of Titan IV—Type 1 and Titan IV—Type 2 (SRMU) assembly with a minimum of 

effort and parts handling. 

Atmospheric emissions during the proposed modifications of LC-41 and the SMAB 

would include fugitive dust and vehicle and equipment exhaust. No liquid effluents other 

than sanitary sewage would be generated. Solid wastes would consist of nonhazardous 

conventional construction wastes (wood and metal scrap) and hazardous wastes such as paint 

waste, oils, grease, and solvents. 

Minor interior modifications to platforms and workstands would be made to 

Cell 4 of the VIB. Utilities would be provided to (1) the RIS building for the ultrasonic 

inspection system, and raceway and cork installation area and (2) the MIS building for 

inspection, assembly, and storage of raceway cables, and the nozzle, exit cone, nose cone, 

forward attachment ring and aft skirt of the SRM. 

Launch operations at CCAFS 

Processing of the Titan N launch vehicles (Type 1 and Type 2) is described in 

Sect. 1.1.33. Both the existing and the new SMAB would have the facilities required to 

assemble both Type 1 and Type 2 SRMs. The new SMAB would allow complete assembly, 

inspection, and storage of Type 1 and Type 2 SRMs. The existing SMAB would still allow 

only partial SRM assembly; final assembly of the SRMs would be completed on the pad, as 

would SRM checkout. Liquid propellants would be delivered to the pad by truck and 

loaded to the core vehicle. Propellants are stored in the Hypergolic Storage Facility shown 

in Fig. 1.2. 

During launch, potable water would be used for the deluge, washdown, and the OSS. 

Approximately 400,000 gal would be required per launch. Wastewater would be collected in 

a sump during launches at LCs 40 and 41, then discharged to percolation ponds in 

accordance with an FDER industrial wastewater discharge permit. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

26 

Light management planning 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has determined that security and 

operations lighting at the LCs at CCAFS decreases the survival rate of hatchling sea turtles 

on the ocean beach (Sect. 3.1.6.1). Consequently, all existing and proposed facilities at 

CCAFS must develop a light management plan in consultation with the FWS (see App. B). 

All lights within a facility are surveyed to determine whether they shine directly or indirectly 

on the beach or shoreline. Corrective actions are then planned for lights that illuminate 

beaches. These may include (1) eliminating unnecessary lighting, (2) redirecting lights, 

(3) shielding lights, (4) using low-profile rather than pole/building lamps, (5) changing to 

low-pressure sodium vapor lights that do not emit in the critical wavelengths (ultraviolet to 

blue-green), (6) installing low-light cameras, (7) erecting shades over nests that are lit, or 

(8) erecting bathers around nests to channel hatchlings toward the sea. The measures that 

would be adopted for the Titan IV facilities would depend on the type and location of 

existing or proposed lights and the facility's operational and security requirements. Further 

discussion of light management at CCAFS is presented in Sect. 3.1.6. 

1.1.42 VAFB proposed activities 

The 1988 EA for Titan IV launches at VAFB (USAF 1988b) described the 

modifications to SLC-4E and the adjacent area, the Payload Fairing and Processing Facility 

(Bldg. 8337), and the Vehicle Assembly Building (Bldg. 8401). It also evaluated a maximum 

launch rate of four vehicles per year to allow for the possibility that launch rates might 

increase in the future. The following sections describe new proposed actions for the 

Titan IV program necessary to support the SRMU at VAFB, including modifications at 

SLC-4E and the SRSF, Bldg. 398. The launch of Than IV-Type 2 (SRMU) vehicles is also 

discussed, as well as the disposal of the wastewater from Titan IV launches. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

27 

Modifications at SLC-4E 

To accommodate the SRMU, the following internal modifications are needed at 

SLC-4E: (1) structural modifications to launch mounts, frames, posts, heads, pressure baffle, 

stage one access platforms, and launch stand platforms; (2) modification of the GN2 

distribution system used for checkout of the Thrust Vector Control system; (3) installation 

of new electrical service to support aerospace ground equipment; and (4) modifications in 

the design of the MST. In addition, an oxidizer vapor scrubber system (OVSS) would be 

installed at SLC-4E to replace an existing oxidizer vapor burner. No land will be disturbed 

by any of these actions. 

Modifications to the SRSF, Bldg. 398 

The SRSF, which was constructed near SLC-6 for use in the Space Shuttle program, 

would be internally modified to accommodate SRMU segment and component receipt, 

inspection, testing, buildup, and storage. The proposed modifications are as follows: 

remove and replace or relocate three doors and add two new doors; raise a 25 x 80 ft 

section of the roof by 3 ft; provide a foundation for the verticalization fixture; anchor 

permanently installed equipment; provide an environmentally controlled control room with 

utilities; relocate the air handling unit on the roof; and provide utilities for aft skirt buildup, 

ultrasonic testing, cork insulation, raceway installation, segment buildup, and storage of 

components and segments. In addition, a 20 x 100 ft paved extension of an existing paved 

apron at Bldg. 520 (adjacent to Bldg. 398) is planned for SRMU transporter storage. 

Launch operations at VAFB 

The analysis in this EA focuses on changes in launch operations in the Titan IV 

program at VAFB. The USAF would launch two Titan IVs per year from VAFB between 

1991 and 1995 (Table 1.1); this represents no change in the projected launch rate evaluated 

in USAF 1988b. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

28 

The processing and launch procedures for Titan W vehicles at VAFB would be as 

described in Sect. 1.13, with the exception that Bldg. 398 will be used for SRMU processing 

rather than Bldgs. 945 and 946, which will continue to process SRMs. 

The Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) vehicles would use 15% more solid propellant than 

the Titan IV-Type 1. Because of this difference, launch impacts could differ from those 

described in USAF (1988b). 

The Titan-Type 2 (SRMU) would require the same quantity of deluge and 

washdown water per launch as the Titan IV-Type 1 (about 220,000 gal per launch). In 

previous Titan launch operations, the procedure was to discharge all deluge water to grade. 

Because of a change in regulatory requirements, this will not be allowed for future Titan IV 

launches. Instead, wastewater collected from launch operations, consisting primarily of postlaunch washdown water, would be temporarily stored in the SLC-4E retention basin and 

subsequently trucked to SLC-6 for treatment. Because this procedural change would affect 

the environment differently than operations described in USAF (1988b), it is evaluated in 

this EA as part of the proposed actions. The proposed wastewater treatment for Titan IV 

launches at SLC-4E is as follows. 

Prior to treatment, wastewater would be analyzed for hydrazine compounds. If 

hydrazine compounds are detected, they would be removed in an ultraviolet/ozone treatment 

facility. The pH would be adjusted and metals would be removed by precipitation. 

Dissolved solids would be removed in a reverse osmosis (RO) unit. Reject water (brine) 

from the RO unit would be stored in evaporation ponds. Treated water from the RO unit 

would either be released to appropriately lined evaporation ponds or reused as process 

water. The wastewater treatment facility will be designed and operated in accordance with 

the requirements of Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and other regulatory 

agencies with jurisdiction. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

29 

1.2 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 

1.2.1 No-Action Alternative 

No action would mean that no modifications or new construction would occur for 

the Titan IV program at CCAFS and VAFB, the SRMU would not be brought into the 

USAF inventory of launch vehicles, and the increased number of launches planned for the 

program would not be carried out. As a result, the larger DOD payloads that require the 

SRMU would not be supported, and such payloads would have to be launched by the Space 

Shuttle, which already has an extensive backlog of satellites awaiting launch. If no action 

were taken, launches of the heavier payloads might be delayed or cancelled and DOD 

mission requirements to place national security satellites in orbit would not be met. Launch 

delays or cancellations would amount to a corresponding loss of defense capabilities. 

Environmental impacts associated with the proposed action would not occur if no action 

were taken. 

1.2.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Consideration 

The following alternatives to the proposed action were identified during planning for 

the Titan IV missions but have been eliminated from detailed consideration in this EA for 

reasons outlined below. 

1.2.2.1 Programmatic alternatives 

Alternative launch vehicles 

Selection of a space launch vehicle depends upon two primary factors: the specific 

payload to be supported and the availability of existing launch vehicles to meet the payload 

and mission requirements. Payload requirements such as the weight, the specific orbit the 

payload is to be placed in, and the size of the payload must be considered. The 

Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) vehicle is essential to the DOD space program because it can 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

30 

launch payloads as heavy as those carried by the Space Shuttle without the need for a 

manned spacecraft. 

The alternative of using the Space Shuttle to launch the satellites of the Titan IV 

program was eliminated because the launch rate and payload capacity of the Shuttle are 

limited. Although DOD satellites could be placed back on the Shuttle inventory, the 

current Shuttle launch schedule and payload priorities of greater national significance would 

delay the Titan IV program mission unacceptably. 

Alternative launch sites 

Selection criteria for a suitable launch site included economics, the ability to meet 

the technical requirements of the Titan IV vehicle, environmental factors, and the 

availability of a site for launching the mission on schedule. The use of sea platforms or 

construction of a new launch site (i.e., other than VAFB and CCAFS) was discounted for 

all four of the above reasons. No space launch sites other than VAFB and CCAFS exist at 

DOD facilities; therefore, consideration of alternative sites was eliminated from detailed 

consideration. 

Alternative launch complexes at VAFB and CCAFS 

Launch complexes are designed and constructed for a specific launch vehicle or 

family of launch vehicles. Only those LCs at CCAFS and VAFB that have previously 

launched the Titan vehicle (these include SLC-4E and SLG4W at VAFB and LCs 15, 16, 

19, 20, 40, and 41 at CCAFS) were considered for use in the Titan IV program because of 

economic, environmental, technical, and scheduling reasons. Of these, LCs 40 and 41 at 

CCAFS and SLG4E at VAFB were the only suitable complexes. LCs 15, 16, 19, and 20, 

developed to support the Titan II vehicle, have been deactivated; in addition, these LCs are 

not served by the existing Titan rail transporter system. Other complexes at CCAFS were 

designed for launch vehicles other than Titan, and those that have not been deactivated 

support other missions. These include LCs 36A and 36B, which support the Atlas vehicle; 

LG17, which supports the Delta vehicle; and LC-39, which supports the Space Shuttle. At 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

l'JUNE 2015 

31 

VAFB, SLC-4 is the only complex that has supported Titan launches. SLC-4W supports 

launches of Titan II vehicles and is not available to support Titan IV. SLCs 2, 3, and 5 

support launches of the Delta, Atlas, and Scout vehicles, respectively, and SLG6 was 

designed to support Space Shuttle launches. The use of LCs other than LC-40, LC-41, and 

SLC-4E would involve displacement of other launch vehicles and/or substantial costs for 

modification. 

Alternatives other than launch 

No alternate means of deploying satellites for use in defense and national security 

missions are available. Discontinuation of the use of space satellites in the defense network 

would be a counterproductive step that could negate the advances made in recent decades 

and could adversely impact national security. 

1 77 ? Site-specific alternatives 

Alternatives to constructing the new SMAB 

The crane in the existing SMAB cannot handle the weight of the SRMU fuel 

segments (Sect. 1.1.3). New handling equipment would be installed at the existing SMAB as 

part of the planned modifications at CCAFS; however, the existing SMAB alone would still 

not have sufficient capacity to process SRMs and SRMUs to meet the increased frequency 

of Titan IV launches. Furthermore, other operations within the existing SMAB, which 

include the loading of hazardous propellants on payloads and the processing of various 

upper stage vehicles, frequently preclude SRM assembly operations for safety reasons. 

Consequently, the existing SMAB would not be capable of supporting the Titan IV program 

as planned because it could not accommodate the required throughput of SRMs and 

SRMUs and would delay the Titan IV launch schedule. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

32 

Alternative sites for the new SMAB 

Consideration was given to the use of alternate sites at CCAFS and off-base for 

location of the new SMAB. The criteria used in the evaluation of potential sites included 

(1) proximity to LCs 40 and 41 and the ITL Area, (2) availability of an adequate rail system 

for transport of assembled vehicles to the launch pad, (3) ability to satisfy the 

quantity-distance requirements (AFR 127-100) for explosive materials, and (4) potential for 

environmental impact. No other on-base or off-base site met these criteria as well as the 

proposed site. Because the Titan IV vehicle is processed and assembled in the ITL Area, 

the proposed site for the new SMAB (between the ITL Area and the LCs) is almost ideal. 

Alternatives considered included (1) creating a new man-made island in the Banana 

River (2) expanding the ITL Area, or (3) building the new SMAB in the vicinity of LC-40 

or LC-41. These options were eliminated from detailed consideration because of explosive 

materials quantity-distance requirements or economic or obvious environmental reasons. 

Constructing a new dual track rail system from other sites at CCAFS to the LCs would be 

expensive and would require a construction period that would negatively impact the mission 

schedule for Titan IV. Development of a new island in the Banana River could involve 

significant environmental impacts and possible regulatory delays that would be unacceptable. 

Siting a facility such as the SMAB off-base also would require the construction of a new rail 

system, with the associated economic, environmental, and scheduling impacts. In addition, 

the potential risk to the public from accidental ignition of the solid-fuel rockets during 

assembly or transport would be greater for an off-base facility. 

Assembly of SRMUs at the manufacturing facility in Utah is infeasible for similar 

reasons. The segments are assembled vertically and would have to be transported in this 

manner. In addition, existing rail transportation systems would be incapable of handling the 

weight of the SRMUs and the tandem or dual track hauling capabilities required. 

Alternatives to VAFB modifications 

SLC-4E was designed to launch the Titan vehicle, so it is the logical launch site for 

the Titan IV, Types 1 and 2. There are no alternatives to modifying SLC-4E to render it 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

33 

capable of supporting the Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) except to choose not to use the Type 2 

vehicle (no action; see Sect. 1.2.1). 

Bldg. 398 has the capability to process the SRMU with only interior modifications. 

It was determined to be more economical to use Bldg. 398 rather than to construct a new 

SRMU processing facility or modify the existing SRM RIS facilities at VAFB. In addition, 

having separate facilities to process SRMs and SRMUs would expedite pre-launch 

processing. 

13 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

This EA was prepared to satisfy the environmental review requirements set forth in 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, Public Law 91-190). It was 

prepared in accordance with the President's Council on Environmental Quality regulations 

implementing NEPA (40 CFR, Parts 1500-1508) and Air Force Regulation (AFR) 19-2. 

The objective of the EA is to provide the basis for a determination of the significance of 

environmental impacts of the proposed action. If impacts are potentially significant, an 

environmental impact statement will be prepared. If not, the USAF will issue a Finding of 

No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the proposed action. 

This EA focuses primarily on those aspects of the Titan N program that have not 

been addressed in previous NEPA documents (USAF 1986 and 1988a,b,c). The Titan IV 

program, however, has evolved and expanded rapidly. This EA, in its consideration of 

cumulative impacts, provides an integrated review of the entire Titan N program as planned 

and as currently being pursued at VAFB and CCAFS. For a worst-case analysis in this EA, 

it is conservatively assumed that all launches would be Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU)s, which 

would result in 15% more exhaust emissions than the Titan IV-Type 1. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2. AFFECtED ENVIRONMENT 

2.1 CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION 

2.1.1 Man-Made Environment 

2.1.1.1 Socioeconomic resources 

Population distribution and trends 

Military personnel at CCAFS and Patrick AFB live in Brevard County, —57% of 

them on Patrick AFB. About 95% of Air Force civilian and contractor personnel live in 

Brevard County; the remainder live in Orange County, Indian River County, and other 

counties. The base is easily accessed from northern and central Brevard County. Orlando, 

—45 mi west of CCAFS in Orange County, and the communities of south Brevard County 

(Melbourne, West Melbourne, Melbourne Village, Palm Bay, and Malabar), about 25-30 mi 

away, are within commuting distance from CCAFS. 

Population characteristics in Brevard County are closely linked to the space program 

economy. Prior to 1950, the county was predominantly rural. The activation of CCAFS in 

the 1950s introduced a substantial population of military personnel into the county. From 

1950 to 1960 the total population of Brevard County grew from 23,500 to 111,500. Inmigration related to the space program continued until the late 1960s, when major cutbacks 

occurred in NASA operations. Employment levels in the space program dropped to their 

lowest point in 1976 but recovered after 1979 because of a new emphasis on space launch 

events (Edward E. Clark Engineers-Scientists, Inc. 1986). In 1985, the population of 

Brevard County was estimated at 338,000. The projected annual growth rate in Brevard 

County is 4.1% from 1985 to 1990 and 3.2% from 1990 to 1995. The projected 1990 and 

1995 populations are 407,200 and 473,000, respectively. Projected growth through 1995 is 

expected to be highest on the mainland in southern Brevard County (4.4% annually, 1990-

1995) and lowest on the mainland in central Brevard County (2.6% annually, 1990-1995) 

(Brevard County Research and Cartography Division 1988). 

35 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

36 

Land use 

CCAFS is Station 1 of the Eastern Test Range, a network of bases and stations 

established in the 1950s. The primary function of the station is to provide launch, tracking, 

and other facilities in support of DOD, NASA, and other range-user programs. 

Approximately 30% of CCAFS is developed with LCs and support facilities 

(Fig. 1.2). The remaining 70% is undeveloped land. The developed land on the base 

consists of more than 40 LCs along the eastern edge, many of which have been dismantled 

or deactivated. Support facilities are located in the central and western portions of the base 

(Fig. 1.2). 

About 68% of the developed land use in Brevard County is agricultural, 12% is 

residential, 2% is commercial, 1% is industrial, and 1% is institutional. The remaining 16% 

comprises other land uses (Brevard County Research and Cartography Division 1988). The 

developed land is clustered in three areas in a north-to-south pattern along the coast and 

the banks of the Indian River and Banana River. The developed areas are Titusville on the 

north mainland; central Brevard County, which includes Cocoa Beach, City of Cape 

Canaveral, Merritt Island, Cocoa, and Rockledge; and the South Brevard area, which 

consists of Melbourne, West Melbourne, Melbourne Village, Palm Bay, and Malabar on the 

mainland, and the beach communities of Satellite Beach, Indian Harbour Beach, Indialantic, 

and Melbourne Beach. Communities located near CCAFS are Cape Canaveral (0.5 mi 

south), Cocoa (7 mi southwest), Cocoa Beach (8 mi south), Titusville (12 mi northwest), and 

Patrick AFB (15 mi south) (see Fig. 1.1). 

Employment and economy 

The total civilian labor force in Brevard County in October 1988 was 188,362, up 

from 178,321 in October 1987. The number of Brevard County residents employed was 

179,421 in October 1988, yielding an unemployment rate of 4.7% (Brevard County Job 

Service 1988). The unemployment rate rose in the last quarter of 1988 to 5.1%, exceeding 

9,000 persons for the first time since the third quarter of 1987 but decreased to 4.3% in the 

first quarter of 1989. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

37 

Employment in the construction industry in Brevard County has remained steady in 

recent years, even though nonagricultural employment rose at a rate of 6.4%/year. The 

construction work force was 9,300 in January 1988, 9,000 in January 1989, and 9,300 in 

March 1989 (personal communication from C. Johnson, Brevard County Job Service, to 

Janice Morrissey, SAIC, May 16, 1989). A relatively high percentage of Brevard County 

employment is in manufacturing; in 1987, 19.7% of employees covered by unemployment 

compensation law were in manufacturing, in contrast to 10.9% in Florida as a whole 

(University of Florida 1988). 

Housing 

Brevard County's housing industry has fluctuated with shifts in employment within 

the space program. From 1986 to 1989, building activity declined from its 1984 peak, 

partially because of layoffs following the Space Shuttle disaster. 

In 1987, there were 148,280 housing units in Brevard County, of which 61% were 

single-family dwellings, 27% were multi-family dwellings, and 12% were mobile homes. As 

of 1980, 25.6% of total units were renter occupied, 64.5% were owner occupied, and 9.9% 

were vacant. Vacancy rates were lowest in the Melbourne area (7.0%), Titusville (6.8%) 

and Cocoa (73%) (Brevard County Research and Cartography Division 1988). In 1980; the 

vacancy rate of rental units was 12% in Brevard County as a whole, 6.7% in Cocoa and 

Rockledge, and 7.4% in Titusville. Vacancy rates on the beaches for 1987 ranged from a 

low of 8.5% at Satellite Beach to a high of 25.4% at Cape Canaveral. The seasonal 

availability of temporary housing can be roughly estimated based on local studies of tourist 

and part-time resident or winter resident population. Occupancy rates for hotel/motel units 

are highest in February and March (81.0% and 853%, respectively) and lowest in 

September and October (52.5% and 513%, respectively). Part-time resident populations are 

highest in February and March and lowest in July, August, and September. The total parttime resident and tourist population in 1986 was estimated at 24,000 in March and 8,600 in 

September (Brevard County Research and Cartography Division 1988). 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

38 

Facilities and services 

Schools. Public schools in Brevard County are part of a countywide, single-district 

school system with 69 schools and over 50,000 students. The school system has been 

growing since 1982, and capacity has been exceeded in some districts of central Brevard 

County. Average growth in the district has been about 3%/year and is expected to exceed 

6% by 1993. The major growth in the school district is at the elementary level. Two new 

elementary schools will open in the fall of 1989, one in Port St. John and another in Palm 

Bay. Seven more elementary schools are being planned over the next 5 years—five in the 

Palm Bay area and two between Cocoa and Titusville. The staffing plan is based on 

enrollment projections; teachers are hired to maintain an average pupil-teacher ratio of 22:1 

at the elementary level (Jordan 1989). 

Water. The city of Cocoa provides potable water, drawn from the Floridan Aquifer, 

to the central portion of Brevard County. The maximum daily capacity is 40 million gallons 

per day (mgd), and average daily consumption is 26 mgd (Cocoa Beach Area Economic 

Development Council 1988). CCAFS receives its water supply from the City of Cocoa and 

uses 3 mgd. To support launches, the distribution system at CCAFS was constructed to 

provide up to 30,000 gal/min for 10 min. 

Waste management. The cities of Cocoa, Cape Canaveral, Cocoa Beach, and 

Rockledge each are served by their own municipal sewer systems. Unincorporated areas of 

Central Brevard County are served by several plants. One county plant in Port St. John, 

south of Titusville, has reached capacity, and plans to build a new plant are uncertain. 

Other county systems are expected to resolve any capacity problems by mid-1990. Municipal 

systems in Cape Canaveral, Cocoa Beach, and Cocoa recently were expanded, and plans are 

under way to expand the Rockledge system (personal communication from D. Martens, 

Director of Water/Wastewater Division, Brevard County Utility Systems, June 21, 1989). 

CCAFS provides for its own sewage disposal with on-site packaged treatment plants. 

Nonhazardous solid waste at CCAFS is managed according to the nature and 

quantity of the waste. The CCAFS sanitary landfill, which is located near the skid airstrip 

(see Fig. 1.2), accepts only construction debris. Debris from large construction projects is 

usually disposed of off-base by the contractor. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

JUNE 2015 

39 

Hazardous wastes at CCAFS are managed by a joint USAF/NASA contractor 

certified to conduct hazardous waste disposal. For the Titan IV program, wastes not 

incinerated or recycled would be placed in interim storage at a designated accumulation area 

at the VIB for up to 90 days before being transported to a permitted storage site or off-site 

for disposal. The contractor would handle disposal in accordance with state and federal 

regulations and the Eastern Space and Missile Center (ESMC) Hazardous Waste 

Management Plan (OPLAN 19-14). Hazardous wastes generated in support of commercial 

launches would be disposed of by a certified contractor. 

Power. Florida Power & Light (FPL) supplies electricity to Brevard County. 

CCAFS is serviced by FPL through a 240/138-kV switching station. The FPL net capacity 

in the summer of 1988 was 16,137 MW. The historical system peak of 12,533 MW occurred 

on January 22, 1985 (communication from M. Philo, FPL, to J. Morrissey, SAIC, June 6, 

1989). 

Public safety. The police departments in the 5 municipalities of the central Brevard 

area have 1 officer per 631 people, and fire protection has 1 full-time officer per 

936 people (Cocoa Beach Area Economic Development Council 1988). Police and fire 

services at CCAFS are provided by the Launch Base Support Contractor and include mutual 

agreements with other jurisdictions, particularly the city of Cape Canaveral and KSC. 

Health care. CCAFS is equipped with a dispensary operated under a joint contract 

(NASA/USAF) with EG&G, Inc., to handle accident cases, physical examinations, and 

emergencies involving the work force. Additional medical services are available at the Air 

Force Systems Command Hospital, Patrick AFB and at two hospitals in the Cocoa Beach 

Area. The two off-site hospitals have a total of 458 beds. 

Transportation 

Principal routes near CCAFS are Interstate 95, U.S. 1, and State Routes AlA, 401, 

528, 3, 405, and 407 (Fig. 1.1). Bridges and causeways link the urban areas on the beaches, 

Merritt Island, and the mainland. Daily traffic loads on off-base roads fluctuate widely 

because of tourism in the beach resort areas. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

40 

Peak traffic on off-base roads is created by workers commuting to CCAFS and the 

beaches, out-of-town tourists year-round, and weekend tourists from Orlando and other 

areas on the mainland. The highest volumes of traffic occur on Saturdays. State Route 

(SR) AlA, a four-lane divided road that extends along much of Florida's east coast, has 

been experiencing congestion. Peak traffic on SR AlA occurs in the afternoon as well as 

on weekends. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has planned an 

engineering study to widen SR AlA to six lanes south of the SR 401 interchange for 6.5 mi 

through Cocoa Beach in the late 1990's. There is a major congestion problem on SR AlA 

south of SR 528 in Cocoa Beach (letter from R. Kamm, Asst. Director, Brevard County 

Traffic Management Division, to Janice Morrissey, SAIC, June 2, 1989). 

All roads on CCAFS and KSC are federal property. Employee access to CCAFS is 

provided by the NASA Causeway from the west, SR 401 from the south, and the Cape 

Road from the north. Public access from the north is restricted because of its proximity to 

NASA's Shuttle launch pads 39A and 39B. The NASA causeway begins on the mainland at 

U.S. 1 south of Titusville and is a four-lane limited access facility. About 1.5 miles east of 

the intersection with N. Courtenay Parkway (SR 3) in the center of KSC and just east of 

the KSC operations complex, the causeway narrows to two lanes. The Causeway is, 

therefore, two lanes as it crosses the Banana River into CCAFS. The Causeway terminates 

at a 'T' intersection with the north-south road that runs the length of CCAFS. This road, 

the Cape Road, is variously two or four lanes. It exits the south end of CCAFS on the 

north side of Port Canaveral. At this southern access point, the road is two lanes with a 

continuous center turn lane. Outside CCAFS, the road becomes SR 401. Problems are 

currently being experienced at the 401/528 interchange south of CCAFS by increased traffic 

related to the construction of a cruise ship terminal at Port Canaveral. Congestion and 

potential traffic hazards are caused by cross-traffic of construction vehicles travelling to the 

Port; unaided by traffic signals; increased traffic to Orlando from cruises; and back-ups 

caused by the priority of commercial vessels to use of the drawbridge. 

Traffic frequently is backed up outside the South Gate of CCAFS during morning 

badge-checks. KSC also experiences frequent congestion during morning and afternoon 

peak hours on the 4-lane section of NASA Causeway from U.S. 1 to KSC (Capt. Buffington, 

Pan Am World Services Security Police, personal communication with Janice Morrissey, 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

41 

SAIC, September 22, 1989). A 24-hr traffic count on North Cape Road in the vicinity of 

LC-41 indicated 612 northbound vehicles and 649 southbound vehicles. During peak hours, 

there is a stable traffic flow, with no backups caused by traffic congestion. Because of its 

location between two major operational areas (LC 40/41 and LC-39), the North Cape Road 

experiences frequent, unscheduled closing due to operational requirements and thus is not a 

reliable access/egress route for CCAFS. When the North Cape Road is closed, commuters 

must go south on SR 3 to the two-lane NASA Causeway (Capt. Bullington, Pam Am World 

Service Security Police, personal communication with Janice Morrissey, SAIC, September 22, 

1989). Traffic counts for a 24-hr period (in November 1988) on the NASA Causeway 

indicated 4,300 eastbound vehicles and 4,280 westbound vehicles. 

On Cape Road in the vicinity of Gate 1 at the south end of CCAFS, a 24-hr count 

showed 6,172 northbound vehicles and 6,522 southbound vehicles. There is a stable traffic 

flow during peak hours, with minor backups (letter from Lt. Col. W. K. Penley, USAF, to 

Janice Morrissey, SAIC, July 10, 1989). In 1963, the South Gate typically handled 8,000 

vehicles during a 24-hr period; however, severe back-ups resulted during morning rush hour 

(Capt. Bullington, Pam Am World Service Security Police, personal communication with 

Janice Morrissey, SAIC, September 22, 1989). 

2.1.12 Cultural resources 

Archeological and historical surveys of CCAFS were conducted in 1984 (Levy, 

Barton, and Riordan 1984; Barton and Levy 1984). The surveys identified 32 prehistoric 

and historic sites and several uninvestigated historical localities associated with the 

4,000-5,000 years of human occupancy of the cape. The field survey indicated that many of 

the archeological resources had been severely damaged by construction of roads, LCs, 

powerlines, drainage ditches, and other excavation associated with the development of 

CCAFS. The survey recommended further evaluation for 11 sites to determine eligibility for 

the National Register of Historic Places. 

Attempts are being made by the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service, and USAF to protect significant resources associated with the Man in Space 

National Historic Landmark Program. Areas designated landmark sites include the Mission 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

42 

Control Center and Complexes 5/6, 26, 34, 14, and 19, which were used during the Mercury 

and early Gemini manned space flights. 

Facilities at LC-40 are located on previously disturbed land. LC-41 is located in a 

highly disturbed area that was not included in the archaeological survey. The closest 

recorded archaeological site (BR 221) is located 4 mi north of LC-41. LC-41 has been 

evaluated and determined not to be part of the Man in Space program. The survey located 

no known historic or archaeological resources at the proposed SMAB site, which lies on a 

man-made causeway covered by 15 ft of fill and no native soils. Similarly, the ITL Area is 

situated on a man-made island and is unlikely to contain native soils. 

Consultation with the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) with regard 

to archaeological or historic resources that would be impacted by the Titan IV program 

activities has been completed (see App. B). 

2.1.13 Ambient noise 

Monitoring of ambient noise levels at CCAFS has not been performed. However, 

noise levels at the ITL Area, LC-40, and LC-41 would be expected to approximate those of 

an urban industrial area, or 60-80 dBA. 

2.1.2 Natural Environment 

2.1.2.1 Climate and air quality 

Climatology 

The climate at CCAFS is strongly influenced by its coastal setting. Annual variations 

in atmospheric temperature and moisture content are slight because of the moderating 

effects of the Atlantic Ocean. The annual average temperature at CCAFS is 71°F. Average 

daily minimum temperatures range from 51°F in February to 73°F in August. Average daily 

maximum temperatures range from 69°F in January to 88°F in July. Between 1968 and 

1978, the lowest recorded temperature at CCAFS was 19°F; the highest was 98°F. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

I JUNE 2015 

43 

Surface-based temperature inversions are infrequent, occurring 2% of the time. 

Temperature inversions aloft caused by sea breeze circulations and by subsidence associated 

with the Bermuda high-pressure feature are much more common. 

Relative humidity at CCAFS is usually between 70 and 100% because of the 

proximity of the ocean and inland waterways. Fog is uncommon during most of the year 

but occurs about 1 out of 4 days during the winter. Annual average precipitation in the 

CCAFS area is 45 in., with the monthly maximum occurring in September and the monthly 

minimum occurring in April. 

The sea breeze and land breeze circulations, caused by uneven solar heating and 

surface radiation properties of the land and ocean, are very common in summer and less 

common in winter. The sea breeze (onshore or easterly winds) occurs during the daytime, 

while the land breeze (offshore flow) occurs at night. Figure 2.1 is a wind rose showing the 

frequency distribution of wind speeds and directions at CCAFS. Winds predominate from 

the southeast quadrant. 

Air quality 

The air quality at CCAFS is very good because there are few local pollutant sources. 

Air quality monitoring data for the CCAFS vicinity are limited. Recent (1986) ambient air 

quality data indicate that there were two monitoring sites operated at Titusville and two on 

Merritt Island but that these sites measured only total suspended particulate (TSP) matter. 

TSP concentrations measured at these sites in 1986 were well below the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for TSP (FDER 1987). 

Effective July 31, 1987, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) replaced 

the NAAQS for TSP (150 Rim' 24-hr average and 75 xtginf annual average) with NAAQS 

for particles less than 10 ttm in diameter (PM-10). The new PM-10 standards were set at 

150 tig/m3and 50 μg/m' for 24-hr and annual average concentrations, respectively. Even if 

all TSP measured at Titusville and Merritt Island in 1986 were under 10 1.4m in diameter, 

the new PM-10 NAAQS would still have been met. 

No long-term measurements are available from the CCAFS vicinity for the other five 

criteria air pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 44 

ORNL-DWG 89-11467 

E 

S 

KNOTS 

21 10 16 0 3 6 

Fig. 2.1. Wind rose for Cape Canaveral for 1968-1978. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

45 

ozone (03), and lead (Pb). However, episodic measurements for some pollutants have been 

made in conjunction with space vehicle launches at CCAFS and KSC. CCAFS and the 

vicinity are considered by EPA to be either "in attainment" or "unclassifiable" with respect to 

NAAQS for criteria pollutants (40 CFR Pt. 81). There are no designated NAAQS 

"nonattainment" areas in Brevard County. 

2.1.2.2 Surface water resources 

Major inland water bodies near CCAFS are the Banana River and Indian River to 

the west and the Mosquito Lagoon to the north (Fig. 2.2). These are shallow lagoons, 

except for the portions that are maintained as part of the Intracoastal Waterway between 

Jacksonville and Miami. The Indian and Banana rivers have a combined area of 150,000 

acres in Brevard County; the combined drainage area is 540,000 acres. The Indian River is 

connected to the Atlantic Ocean to the south of CCAFS by Sebastian Inlet and to the 

north through Haulover Canal to the Mosquito Lagoon and subsequently through Ponce de 

Leon Inlet. 

The existing SMAB and the ITL Area are located on a man-made causeway in the 

Banana River, a saltwater tidal lagoon (Fig. 22). Runoff from these areas (as well as most 

of the CCAFS) is to the Banana River either directly or via percolation to groundwater 

(USAF 1989a). The Banana and Indian Rivers merge to the south of the site and join the 

Atlantic Ocean about 80 km (50 mi) south of the SMAB site. 

Both LC-40 and LC-41 are located on a barrier island between the Atlantic Ocean 

and the Banana River (Fig. 2.3). Because of the porous nature of the soil in the area and 

high percolation rate (greater than 20 in./hr), most of the surfaCe runoff from the 

complexes percolates into the soil; any remaining surface runoff flows toward the Banana River. 

Wetlands adjacent to both LC areas are discussed in Sect. 2.1.2.6. There are no 

freshwater resources at any of the Titan IV facilities sites. 

The FDER samples the Banana River monthly at the four locations shown in 

Fig. 2.3. At NASA Causeway East, the station nearest the Titan IV facilities, water 

temperatures ranged from 52° to 87°F and salinity from 15 to 36 parts per thousand 

between 1981 and 1986. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were normally greater than 
CANAVERAL 

NATIONAL 

' • SEASHORE* 

TITUSVILLE• 

LAUNCH 

. COMPLEX 41 

LAUNCH 

COMPLEX 40 

SOLID MOTOR 

ASSEMBLY 

BLDG. 

COCOA 

• 

BANANA RIVER 

• AQUATIC 

PRESERVE* 

0 3 6 MILES 

ATLANTIC 

OCEAN 

LEGEND: 

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER AND 

MERRITT ISLAND WILDLIFE REFUGE 

CAPE CANAVERAL 

AIR FORCE STATION 

SEBASTIAN 

INLET 

." RECREATION 

AREA 

v A 

11.41 V. 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 46 

ORNL-DWG. 89-10.581 R2 

Fig. 2.2. Outstanding Florida waters near Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. 

Outstanding waters marked wtth asterisks. 
ORNL•DWG 89-15737 

LC 41 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

JUNE 2015 47 

ATLANTIC OCEAN 

LC 40 

ITL 

AREA 

0 

44 

. BANANA RIVER 

. . 

EOD 

FACILITY 

• 2 

• 

KEY 

• FDER SURFACE WATER 

• 3 MONITORING STATIONS 

11 GROUND WATER 

MONITORING STATIONS 

SCALE .4 • . 

3000 0 3000 6000 FEET 

amme=smoure 

KENNEDY 

SPACE 

CENTE 

Fig. 2.3. Surface water and groundwater monitoring stations at Cape 

Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

48 

5.5 mg/L, although values as low as 4 mg/L were observed. Other parameters monitored 

included pH, biological oxygen demand, turbidity, chlorophyll, and nutrients. Results of 

FDER water quality analyses of the Banana River are given in Table 2.1. 

Table 2.1. Surface water quality characteristics of the Banana River 

adjacent to the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station' 

Parameter Concentration' 

Secchi depth (meters) 1.2 

Color (Platinum-Cobalt color units) 12.5 

Specific conductance (Amhos/cm) 28,700 

Dissolved oxygen 5.6 

5-day biological oxygen demand (BODs) 23 

pH (83, 8.4)b 

Total alkalinity [as calcium 

carbonate (CaCO3)] 

164.0 

Salinity (ppt)` 17.8 

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (as N) 1.55 

NO3+ NO2(as N) 0.01 

Total phosphorus (as P) 0.04 

Chlorophyll a (mg/L)d 2.7 

Turbidity (NTU)` 6.6 

eAll values were expressed in mg/L unless otherwise noted and are the mean of two 

samples, one in November 1983 and one in May 1984, taken at site 1 on Fig. 2.3. 

bMeasured values. 

cppt = parts per thousand 

dmg/L = micrograms per liter 

eNTU = nephelometric turbidity unit 

The waters of the Merritt Island Wildlife Refuge and Canaveral National Seashore 

to the north, Sebastian Inlet State Recreational Area to the south, and the Banana River 

Aquatic Preserve (Fig. 2.2) are classified as Class III Outstanding Florida Waters 

(Environment Reporter 1988). Class III waters are considered suitable for recreation and 

for the propagation and maintenance of fish 'and wildlife and as such are afforded the 

highest degree of protection by the FDER. The Banana River is also designated as an 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

49 

Outstanding Florida Water [Chap. 17-3.041(4)(h), Florida Administrative Code], which 

affords it the highest degree of regulatory protection. Activities near or discharges into 

Outstanding Florida Waters, including activities related to drainage, flood control, or 

dredging and filling, are permitted only if the developer implements management practices 

and suitable technology approved by the FDER [Chap. 17-4.242(1)(b)]. 

2.1.2.3 Geology, soils, and groundwater 

CCAFS lies on a barrier island composed of relict beach ridges (remnants of an 

ancient beach) formed by wind and wave action. The island is 4.5 mi wide at its widest 

point. The land surface ranges from sea level to 20 ft above mean sea level. The island is 

underlain (in ascending order) by more than 320 ft of mainly carbonate strata belonging to 

the Floridan Aquifer, 160 ft of confining beds, and 100 ft of upper Miocene to recent age 

unconsolidated carbonate sands, silts, and shell fragments belonging to the near-surface 

aquifer. 

Soils on the CCAFS were mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil 

Conservation Service (SCS) (USAF 1989a). The site is underlain by the Canaveral-Urban 

Land Complex. The urban complex includes impermeable asphalt and concrete surfaces as 

well as permeable sands and shell fragments dredged from the Banana River. Native soils 

are highly permeable (greater than 20 in./hr). According to SCS, the soils at CCAFS are 

not suitable for agricultural use. 

COE (1989) describes foundation conditions beneath the proposed SMAB site. 

Foundation bore holes varied in depth from 15 to 127 ft. The soil profile at SMAB consists 

of alternating layers of silty sand and well sorted sand. The density of sand layers ranges 

from loose to dense and appears to be unrelated to depth. Layers of very soft clayey silt 

were found at depths of 13.5 and 60 ft. The upper silt layer is believed to be the original 

ground surface prior to filling for an existing causeway. Shell fragments are found 

throughout the depth of bore hole drilling. Groundwater in the bore holes was generally 

encountered at a depth of 6 ft, fluctuating with rainfall and tides. 

Groundwaters of the deeper Floridan and near-surface aquifers are hydraulically 

isolated from one another; hence, any contamination of the upper aquifer would not impact 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

50 

the deeper aquifer. The Floridan Aquifer is under artesian pressure, whereas the 

near-surface aquifer is not, and the chemical composition of groundwater from the two 

aquifers is distinctly different (Table 2.2). The Floridan Aquifer contains nonpotable and 

brackish (TDS greater than 1000 mg/L) water that exceeds most secondary drinking water 

standards whereas groundwater from the near-surface aquifer is potable (TDS less than 500 

mg/L) and exceeds only the secondary drinking water standard for iron. Table 2.2 compares 

the chemical compositions of these aquifer waters with Florida primary and secondary 

drinking water regulations (FDER 1989a; FDER 1989b). 

Shallow (15-ft) groundwater monitor wells have recently been installed at the LC-40 

and LC-41 sites, as shown in Fig. 2.4. Also shown in this figure are wastewater discharge 

points for the flame bucket and oxidizer scrubber and their associated percolation ponds. 

Table 2.3 provides recent (June 1988) groundwater data from wells at LC-41 (no data are 

available for wells at LC-40) for comparison with Florida primary and secondary drinking 

water standards. All wells at LC-41 exceed primary drinking water standards for cadmium. 

Several wells exceed secondary drinking water standards for iron and manganese, and water 

from well No. IV is brackish. Traces of 1,1,1-trichloroethane, benzene, and dimethylhydrazine were also found in water samples from well No. IV. Water samples from well 

No. IV were also turbid, suggesting that contaminants adsorbed on soil particles may have 

been solubilized during sample collection. More recent analyses of samples taken in 

November 1988 at both LC-40 and LC-41 wells did not reveal the presence of organic acids, 

base/neutral organics, or volatile organics at detection limits ranging from 5 to 100 parts per 

billion (ppb) in the November sample analyses. Most detection limits were 10 ppb. 

2.1.2.4 Terrestrial ecology 

Vegetation and fauna of CCAFS 

The vegetation types found at CCAFS have been mapped and described (George 

1987; Provancha, Schmalzer, and Hinkle 1986). The complex is dominated by three 

community types—coastal scrub (9,400 acres), coastal strand (2,300 acres), and coastal dune 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

51 

Table 2.2. Water quality characteristics of the deeper, confined Floridan 

aquifer and the near-surface, unconfined aquifer compared with 

Florida primary and secondary drinking water standards 

Parameter 

Deeper, confined 

Floridan Aquifer° 

Near-surface 

unconfined aquifer° 

Maximum 

contaminant levela,d 

Secondary 

Standards 

Chloride 540 8.50-21.4 250 

Copper <0.01 <0.03 1 

Iron 0.02 0.73-1.56 0.3 

Manganese <0.001 0.03 0.05 

Sulfate 85 13.88-49.33 250 

IDS' 1425 194-258 500 

Zinc <0.01 <0.01-0.166 5 

pHr 7.6 6.92-7.78 6.5-8.5 

Primary 

Standardsg 

Arsenic <0.01 <0.01-0.166 0.05 

Barium 0.02 <0.15 1.0 

Cadmium <0.001 <0.01 0.01 

Chromium 0.001 <0.04 0.05 

Fluoride NA 0.45-0.48 2.0 

Lead <0.001 <0.05 0.05 

Mercury 0.0005 <0.002 0.002 

Nitrate (as N) <0.01 <0.02-0.14 10 

Selenium 0.006 <0.01 0.01 

Silver <0.001 <0.03 0.05 

Sodium 1400 6.12-10.76 160 

'Concentrations in mg/L except for pH, reported in pH units. 

bCCAFS facility 1717 well; June 1984. 

`CCAFS landfill monitoring station; range of values in 1986. 

dFlorida Department of Environmental Regulations Maximum Concentration 

Levels-Rule 17-550320 (FDER Secondary Drinking Water Standards). 

Florida Department of Environmental Regulations Maximum Concentration 

Levels-Rule 17-550310 (FDER Primary Drinking Water Standards). 

"TDS=total dissolved solids. 

Negative log of the hydrogen ion concentration; the pH must not vary more than 

one unit above or below natural background of predominant freshwater and coastal waters 

or more than 0.2 units above or below natural background of open water (Florida Water 

Quality Standards, FDER 1989b). 

gWater quality data available only for metals, fluoride, nitrate, and selenium. 

Sources: USAF 1989a; FDER 1989a; FDER 1989b. 
52 

C 

zR 

• ce 

.w 0 4 a0 33 

am< z‘" 

m oE X 

...x 106 OZ W 0 de mo o. 

3o (2 

• • == 

= 

= 0 

B 0 

3 

2 

w 

J 

• 

c z ..i w W 

mt— 0 •J . 

t.. 

Z MWM .J 

W or- o 

2J Q 

cc 0w,.. 05 5 lc i= 0 c 

5E2 (301-5 a'0; 

cgc 1 20 

3 22,5 Oww 

A w 4 0 ziradocz ._ 

V00A 071ZME 00E 40Z vlysly0 OPM<50.3g =olut wobec,..061- .J wc_J raw 0u0 Sw W m5w4a2m w

0 

z

moS6,

9"-

_,

1 

Oz 4mwm-uowmw <opomouz 

OCM00 

-010

-

mw

s

o=o0x 

"NUgi m=

78 P 4e°x

FU 

OR2 421PIEtttn 

0003wz Mw< wzowzwwz

m 

...... • 

..144,

40114D P 4, 010 0.... 

w 

0 

LL 

w 

O 

• 

L-0 

: 

0_ 

0L c 

< LLI 

0 

-) 

Z 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

53 

Table 23 Groundwater quality of LC-41 monitor wells, June 1988* 

Parameter 

Well number Maximum 

contaminant 

1 2 3 4 5 level 

Secondary 

standards 

Chloride 11 15 15 130 15 250 

Copper <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 1 

Iron 0.11 1.19 0.95 12.1 0.22 0.3 

Manganese <0.02 0.06 <0.02 0.20 0.06 0.05 

Sulfate 9 40 7 2 13 250 

TDS 240 474 374 1388 274 500 

Zinc 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.05 5 

pH 7.6 8 7.3 7.4 7.5 6.5-8.5 

Primary 

standards' 

Arsenic <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.05 

Barium <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 <0.15 1 

Cadmium 0.23 0.10 1.26 021 0.63 0.01 

Chromium <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.05 

fluoride 0.24 0.79 1.30 0.43 0.34 2 

Lead 0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.05 

Mercury <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.002 

Nitrate 1.45 <0.02 0.04 0.04 0.03 10 

Selenium <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 

Silver 0.04 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 0.05 

Sodium 5 9 10 84 7 160 

'Concentrations in mg/L except for pH, reported in pH units. 

bFlorida Department of Environmental Regulations Maximum Concentration 

Levels-Rule 17-550320 (FDER Secondary Drinking Water Standards). 

`Florida Department of Environmental Regulations Maximum Concentration 

Levels-Rule 17-550.310 (FDER Primary Drinking Water Standards). 

Source: Patrick AFB 1989. 

(800 acres). Three minor but ecologically significant community types present on the 

complex are freshwater wetlands (20 acres), mangrove swamp (450 acres), and salt marsh 

(140 acres). Because of the restricted nature of its activities, the CCAFS has retained a 

near-natural condition on much of its land. The majority of the acreage remains as virgin 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

54 

stands or secondary growth indigenous to the Florida coastal strand. Consequently, CCAFS 

offers excellent habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species, including some rare and 

endangered species. 

Figure 2.5 depicts the vegetation on the portion of CCAFS potentially impacted by 

the activities considered in this assessment. The new SMAB would be located on the 

transporter causeway in the Banana River. The vegetation near the proposed facility is 

grass or bare soil, characteristic of highly disturbed sites. An area of wetlands is just south 

of SMAB, where the transporter tracks would cross (Sect. 2.1.2.6). LCs 34 and 37 are 

industrial areas containing ruderal vegetation surrounded on the east by coastal strand 

vegetation and on the west by coastal scrub vegetation. LCs 40 and 41 are industrial areas 

containing ruderal vegetation and largely surrounded by coastal scrub. Coastal dune, coastal 

strand, and all three wetlands community types intermixed occur within 1,000 ft of LC-40 

and LC-41. Following is an excerpt from George (1987) describing the major vegetation 

community types and their associated fauna in the vicinity of the Titan IV facilities. No 

information is available on terrestrial invertebrate species. 

Coastal scrub—This community varies in height from 3 to 20 ft tall. It is 

characterized by short trees and shrubs such as the introduced Brazilian pepper tree, 

cabbage palm, Hercules Club, a variety of oaks, wax myrtle, and wild mulberry. The 

understory is very limited and there are often openings in the shrub-tree canopy. The 

community provides habitat for 10 species of mammals including Florida white-tailed deer, 

armadillo, bobcat, feral hogs and the Southeastern beach mouse (federally designated 

threatened species); 14 bird species including red-tailed hawk, red-headed woodpecker, and 

the Florida scrub jay (federally designated threatened species); and 5 reptile species, 

including the Eastern indigo snake (federally designated threatened species), and the gopher 

tortoise. 

Coastal strand--This community occurs immediately inland of the coastal dunes and 

is composed of a dense thicket of woody shrubs 3-13 ft tall, including such species as 

cabbage palm, saw palmetto, and tough buckthorn. An understory of prickly pear, partridge 

pea, and grasses is typical. The community provides habitat for eight mammal species 

including Florida white-tailed deer, raccoon, Florida mouse (a state-designated threatened 

species), and the Southeastern beach mouse. Fourteen bird species utilize this community 
ORNL-DWG 89M-9559 

VEGETATIVE 

COMMUNITY TYPES 

SCRUB 

WETLANDS 

DUNE 

STRAND 

INDUSTRIAL 

COMPLEX OR 

OFFSITE 

mu.. 

El 

1\20.44- PROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 55 

Fig. 2.5. Vegetation at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

56 

(the same species that inhabit the coastal scrub), while only two reptiles—the gopher 

tortoise (a candidate 2 species) and the eastern diamondback rattlesnake—are found here. 

Coastal dune—This community includes the area from the high tide line to about 

halfway between the primary and secondary dune crest or the beginning of the coastal 

strand community type. It is characterized by a single layer of grass, herbs, and dwarf 

shrubs including such species as sea grape, cabbage palm, partridge pea, sea oat, and beach 

grass. Florida Statute 370.41 prohibits the disturbance or removal of sea oats (George 

1987). The community provides habitat for seven mammal species, including the 

Southeastern beach mouse. Most notable are raccoons, which feed on the trash, fish, and 

food items washing ashore. Four bird species are found here, including the Florida scrub 

jay. The dune areas at CCAFS and the adjacent KSC are important for sea turtle nesting 

which occurs from early May until the end of October. Raccoons are a primary predator of 

the nests. The nesting of the sea turtles, a federally designated endangered species, has 

been the subject of ongoing study and concern for several years (NASA 1984; NOAA 1987; 

George 1987; USAF 1988d) and is discussed in Sect. 3.1.7. 

2.1.2.5 Aquatic ecology 

CCAFS is located in a transition zone between temperate and tropical climates; 

consequently, the aquatic biota found in the area are representative of both climates. The 

surface water habitats at and near CCAFS include marine (Atlantic Ocean), estuarine 

(Banana and Indian rivers), and freshwater (St. Johns River, to the west of the Indian 

River) (see Fig. 2.2). 

No freshwater is found at or near the Titan IV launch and support facilities at 

CCAFS. Aquatic species in the Titan IV facilities area would occur in the Banana River 

and in the wetlands adjacent to the LCs. No information is available concerning aquatic 

fauna in the wetlands. A description of wetlands vegetation follows in Sect. 2.1.2.6. 

Aquatic vegetation, abundant in the Banana River, stabilizes the substrate and serves as a 

source of food and habitat for many fish and invertebrate species. Seagrasses, including 

turtle grass, manatee grass, and Cuban shoal grass, are the most common vegetation in the 

Banana River. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

57 

The benthic macroinvertebrate community of the Banana River is dominated by 

polychaetes, molluscs, and crustaceans (Reish and Hallisey 1983). Numerous local marine 

fish species collected in the Banana River include redfish, mullet, snook, drum, and 

sheepshead (George 1987). The lagoons are considered to be productive habitats for fishes 

and also support numerous waterfowl, alligators, and some mammals. 

2.1.2.6 Floodplains and wetlands 

Three wetland community types (mangrove swamp, saltwater marsh, and freshwater 

marsh) occur at CCAFS (Fig. 2.5). The wetland adjacent to LC-41 is mixed salt-tolerant 

grass marsh with some black mangrove and sea oxeye vegetation areas. The wetland at 

LC-40, which is separated from the complex by a narrow band of wax myrtle/Brazilian 

pepper vegetation to the west, consists of white/mixed mangrove with scattered areas of 

mixed salt-tolerant grass marsh areas interspersed. The wetlands near LC-40 and LC-41 

probably receive some surface runoff from the sites; however, most of the water entering 

them is assumed to come from groundwater (see Sect. 2.123). 

The wetlands at the proposed SMAB site are depressions consisting of woody 

vegetation typical of an upper (high) salt marsh community. 

2.127 Threatened and endangered species 

To comply with the requirements of Section 7c of the Endangered Species Act 

(Public Law 93-205) and with the Marine Mammals Protection Act, the USAF has consulted 

with the FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service for information and comment on 

the potential for adverse impacts to protected species and habitat at CCAFS (see App. B 

and App. C). No federally designated threatened or endangered flora exist at CCAFS. 

Two species of plants at CCAFS, Verbena maritima and Hymenocallus latzfolia (a dune 

species and coastal strand species, respectively), are currently listed as Type 2 candidate 

species and, as such, are under consideration for threatened status (personal communication, 

Don George, Pan Am World Services, Inc., with R. L Graham, ORNL, April 17, 1989). 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

58 

Table 2.4 lists threatened and endangered animal species at CCAFS and in the 

vicinity, and Fig. 2.6 shows the location of their habitats. No threatened or endangered 

aquatic species are known to exist in the surface waters near the launch sites or support 

facilities. An endangered marine mammal, the manatee, inhabits the Indian and Banana 

rivers; a manatee sanctuary has been designated in the Banana River (Fig. 2.6) (Provancha 

and Provancha 1988; Shane 1983). Protected marine species found in coastal waters 

adjacent to CCAFS include the finback, humpback, right, sperm, and sei whales. 

Loggerhead, Atlantic green, and leatherback turtles nest on the ocean beaches of 

CCAFS between May and October each year (NASA 1984; NOAA 1987; George 1987; 

USAF 1988d). The beaches of CCAFS and KSC are critical habitat for Atlantic Coast 

populations of both the loggerhead and green sea turtle. Aerial pelagic surveys indicate that 

loggerhead densities are greater in the vicinity of Cape Canaveral in the spring and summer 

than anywhere else along the entire Atlantic coast. Each year 1,200 to 1,500 loggerhead 

and 10 to 20 green sea turtle nests occur on the 30-km (21-mi) stretch of CCAFS beach 

(NOAA 1987). 

The dune habitat at CCAFS is used as a wintering area by Arctic peregrine falcons 

(George 1987), and a wood stork rookery is found on a mangrove island northwest of 

LC-41 (see Fig. 2.6) (personal communication, Dave Breininger, Bionetics, Co., with 

R. L Graham, ORNL, July 19, 1989). Florida scrub jays extensively use the scrub 

vegetation surrounding the perimeter fences at LCs 40 and 41 (Fig. 2.5), and nests have 

been observed within 660 ft (201 m) of LC-41. The population of scrub jays within a 

0.4-mi (0.6-km) radius of the LC 40 and 41 launch pads was estimated using scrub jay 

density and habitat and territory data from studies at the adjacent Kennedy Space Center 

(USAF 1989e). This distance was used because it includes the near-field zone that extends 

about 600 ft (182 m) from the pad. An estimated range of 60-199 jays was predicted within 

a 0.4-mi radius (0.6-km radius) of LCs 40 and 41. Breininger (1989) estimated between 920 

to 1,840 scrub jays at CCAFS (based on bird densities per hectare and hectares of available 

habitat), which is about 10% of the state population reported by Cox (1984, 1987). 

Therefore, the estimated maximum population at LCs 40 and 41 ranges between 3% to 11% 

of the estimated maximum CCAFS population, or a range of 0.3% to 1% of the state 

population. 
N.R0 APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

59 

Table 2.4. listed and proposed threatened and endangered animal species 

and candidate animal species in Brevard County and their status on 

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 

Federal Cape Canaveral 

Species' statusb Air Force Station' 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Loggerhead [sea turtle] T Occurs on beach/nests 

Green sea turtle E Occurs on beach/nests 

Leatherback [sea turtle] E Occurs on beach/nests 

Kemp's ridley [sea turtle] E Occurs on beach/no nests 

Hawksbill [sea turtle] E Occurs offshore/no nests 

Eastern indigo snake T Resident 

American alligator T(S/A) Resident 

Atlantic salt marsh snake T Not observed 

Gopher tortoise C2 Resident 

Gopher frog C2 Not observed 

Alligator snapping turtle C2 Not observed 

Birds 

Florida scrub jay T Resident 

Wood stork E Resident 

Bald eagle E Visitor 

Piping plover T Visitor 

Arctic peregrine falcon T Transient 

Audubon's caracara T Not observed 

Red-cockaded woodpecker E Not observed 

Kirtland's warbler E Not observed 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

60 

Table Z4. (continued) 

Species' 

Federal 

statusb 

Cape Canaveral 

Air Force Station` 

Birds (continued) 

Bachman's sparrow C2 Visitor 

Reddish egret C2 Visitor 

Mammals 

West Indian manatee E Resident in waters 

Southeastern beach mouse T Resident 

Finback whale E Offshore waters 

Humpback whale E Offshore waters 

Right whale E Offshore waters 

Sperm whale E Offshore waters 

Sei whale E Offshore waters 

Florida mouse C2 Resident 

Round-tailed muskrat C2 Possible resident 

'Scientific names of federally listed threatened or endangered species are found in 

FWS (1989). The reader is referred to Banks, McDiarmid, and Gardner (1987) to obtain 

scientific names of other species. 

bE = endangered; S/A = similarity of appearance; T = threatened; C2 = 

Candidate 2 (proposed for listing as threatened). 

`Resident = a species that occurs on CCAFS year-round; Visitor = a resident bird 

species that occurs on CCAFS but does not nest there; Transient = a bird species that 

occurs on CCAFS only during season of migration; Not observed = species occurs either as 

a resident or as a visitor in Brevard County but has not been observed on CCAFS. 

Sources: USFWS 1989; USAF 1989a; George 1987 (personal communication, Dave 

Rininger, Bionetics Co., with Robin Graham, July 19, 1989). 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

61 

ORNL-DWG 89-19548 

• 

MANATEE 

WOOD STORK ROOKERY 

SEA TURTLE, BEACH MOUSE 

MANATEE SANCTUARY 

FLORIDA SCRUB JAY 

BEACH MOUSE 

LAGOON NOT USED 

BY MANATEES 

0 1 2 

MILES 

Fig. 2.6. Habitats of 

Stati Florida threatened and endangered species at Cape Canaveral Air Force , 

on 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 62 

The southeastern beach mouse inhabits sand dunes mainly vegetated by sea oats 

(Uniola paniculata) and dune panic grass (Paspulum amanilum) and adjoining scrub, 

characterized by oaks (Quercus sp.), sand pine (Pinus clausa), and palmetto (Serenoa repens) 

Extine and Stout (1987). The dune grassland at CCAFS is excellent, extensive habitat for 

beach mice (see Fig. 2.6), and the population density there is high. Northward, the habitat 

narrows to a single dune in Canaveral National Seashore, where population density appears 

to be lower. Data obtained from trapping in dune, strand, and scrub vegetation at LC 40 

suggest a beach mouse population range of 11,024 to 15,199 for all suitable habitats 

(USAF 1989e). Assuming similar beach mice densities exist at LC 41 as for LC 40 and 

extrapolating those densities to all suitable habitat, a population range of 13,042 to 18,940 

was estimated (USAF 1989e). The estimated population of beach mice within the disturbed 

coastal scrub, which is primarily found within a 0.4-mile radius, is 5,732 for LC-40 and 6,177 

for LC-41. 

22 VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE 

2.2.1 Man-Made Environment 

2.2.1.1 Socioeconomic resources 

The commuting patterns for current VAFB workers generally indicate that the 

VAFB area of influence is the North County region of Santa Barbara County, which 

encompasses the area north of Lompoc (see Fig. 1.5). The area to the south is defined as 

the South Coast area. Within the North County, VAFB economic influence centers on the 

Lompoc and Santa Maria valleys. 

Population distribution and trends 

The total population of Santa Barbara County was 298,700 in 1980. The county's 

population grew at an average annual rate of 2.1% from 1975 to 1980. The estimated 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

63 

population increased to 334,600 in 1985 and is projected to reach almost 365,000 by 1990 

(California Population Research Unit 1986). The population trend of cities in Santa 

Barbara County is shown in Fig. 2.7. In 1985, Lompoc had an estimated population of 

29,100, and Santa Maria had an estimated population of 48,350. 

Activities at VAFB have influenced population growth patterns in Santa Barbara 

County over the last 30 years. The working population at VAFB was 15,016 in 1986, an 

increase of more than 4,600 from a decade earlier but a substantial decrease from the mid1960s, when the VAFB working population was above 18,000. Between 1960 and 1970, 

Lompoc grew by about 11,000 persons, or 75%, while Santa Maria increased its population 

by 13,000, a 69% growth rate. Growth continued between 1970 and 1980, although at a 

much slower rate, with the population of Lompoc increasing by 4% and that of Santa 

Maria increasing by 21%. Although total employment at VAFB has decreased, North 

County population growth has continued as a result of the development of offshore oil and 

gas resources. More than 80% of the oil-related growth is believed to have occurred in 

North County communities. 

Land use 

VAFB is located in northwest Santa Barbara County and comprises 98,400 acres, or 

5.6% of the county. Urban uses account for about 3% of the total land area in the county. 

The populated areas of the county are primarily concentrated along the coast, in 

communities along U.S. 101 and Highway 1. Santa Maria is located 12 mi northeast of the 

main base complex, and Lompoc lies 5 mi to the southeast. Vandenberg Village and Mission 

Hills lie to the east in Lompoc Valley. Casmalia, Guadalupe, and Santa Maria-Orcutt are 

located north and east in the Santa Maria Valley. The Santa Barbara urban complex lies 

50 mi to the southeast along U.S. 101. Large agricultural areas common throughout the 

region form a buffer between these urban centers and VAFB. The VAFB shoreline 

includes three public beach parks, one each immediately north and south of VAFB and one 

at Surf, which lies on the boundary of North and South VAFB (USAF 1988b). 
ORNL-DWG 89-11832 

I 1 1 1 I_I I 

TOTAL POPULATION 1900-2000 

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY 

O UNINCORPORATED 

A SANTA BARBARA 

o SANTA MARIA 

• LOMPOC 

x CARPINTERIA 

✓ SOLVANG 

GUADALUPE 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

64 

1 JUNE 2015 

180 

160 

140 

cji 120 

z

0 100 

-J 

80 

0 

a_ 

-J 

1— 60 

0 

40 

20 

0 

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 

Fig. 2.7. Population trends In Santa Barbara County. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

65 

Employment and economy 

VAFB is the major economic influence in northern Santa Barbara County and the 

Lompoc Valley. Approximately 40% of the Lompoc Valley and 9% of the Santa Maria 

Valley labor forces are employees at VAFB. VAFB employment decreased by 30% from 

1985 to 1987, partly as a result of a 45% decline in the number of aerospace contract 

employees. Growth in the business sectors of Lompoc and Santa Maria occurred at rapid 

rates during the 1980s in association with construction of SLC-6 and other activities in 

preparation for the Space Shuttle Program at Vandenberg. The mothballing of the program 

following the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster resulted in a large surplus in the services 

economy, particularly in the restaurant and hotel/motel industries, where much of the new 

growth occurred (personal communication, T. Martin, Principal Planner, City of Lompoc, 

with Janice Morrissey, SAIC, June 15, 1989). 

Much of the employment in Santa Barbara County has been related to the 

construction of oil facilities, which has helped to maintain a steady construction work force 

in the area in spite of space program fluctuations. Oil-related construction workers reside 

primarily in the Lompoc Valley. 

Housing 

The estimated number of housing units in Santa Barbara County in 1985 was 

131,000, an increase of 20% from the 1980 level of 109,000 (USAF 1989d). The ownership 

housing stock in Lompoc is very strained. The price of single-family homes in Lompoc has 

risen 42% over a 12-month period. The large surplus of rental units and hotel rooms exists 

because of expansion to accommodate the construction of SLC-6 for the Space Shuttle. 

Vacancy rates in apartment units average 12% (personal communication, T. Martin, 

Principal Planner, City of Lompoc, with Janice Morrissey, SAIC, June 15, 1989). 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

66 

Facilities and services 

Facilities and services relevant to the possible influx of workers at VAFB include 

schools, utilities, and waste disposal. 

Schools. The VAFB-related school population is concentrated in the Lompoc 

Unified School District, which includes two elementary schools, a middle school, and a high 

school located on VAFB. Enrollment in Lompoc Unified totalled about 9,000 during the 

1986-87 school year (California Department of Education 1987). As of 1987, the Lompoc 

Unified district had ample capacity, as did the Orcutt Elementary and Santa Maria Joint 

Union High School districts. 

Water. In 1986, VAFB supplied about 90% of its own water, purchasing the 

remainder from the adjoining Park Water Company. Water usage in many areas of Santa 

Barbara County exceeds the safe yield capacity of water sources. As of 1987, 75-80% of the 

county water supply was derived from groundwater sources, and the rest is from surface 

reservoirs, primarily along the Santa Ynez and Santa Maria Rivers. Current county-wide 

water deficits are 40,000 acre-ft/year. 

Waste management. Sufficient wastewater treatment capacity exists in the North 

County communities of Santa Maria, Lompoc, and Guadalupe. The Lompoc system is at 

60% capacity (personal communication, T. Martin, Principal Planner, City of Lompoc, with 

Janice Morrissey, SAIC, June 15, 1989). Wastewater from the VAFB administrative/ 

industrial area flows to the Lompoc publicly owned treatment works. Individual packaged 

treatment facilities serve the more remote support areas for VAFB launch facilities, 

including SLC-4. 

Construction and expansion of facilities for the expanded Titan IV program would 

generate both industrial and hazardous wastes. Categories and definitions of hazardous 

waste are provided by the EPA in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 261) and by 

the California Department of Health Services in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), 

Title 22, Chapter 30. California recognizes more wastes as being hazardous than does the 

EPA. Industrial designated and nonhazardous solid wastes must be disposed of in Class II 

or Class III landfills. Specifications for such landfills are set forth in the CCR Title 23, 

Chapter 3, Subchapter 15, Article 5, sections 2532 and 2533, respectively. Hazardous wastes 
WO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

67 

can be disposed of in a Class I landfill or, if disposal is not desired, an approved treatment 

facility can be used to treat and recycle the waste. After May 8, 1990, only hazardous 

wastes meeting certain specified treatment standards may be disposed of in a Class I landfill. 

VAFB practices waste minimization by on-site and off-site recycling to reduce the 

total amount of waste it sends to Class I landfills. In 1987, the amount of waste recycled 

was about 436,640 lbs, or 28% of the total hazardous waste generated by VAFB (USAF 

1989a). 

Industrial waste in the region is primarily generated from manufacturing facilities in 

the city of Lompoc and the North VAFB industrial area. Although a Class II landfill exists 

in the city of Lompoc and can accept various domestic and industrial wastes, it is not 

utilized by VAFB for waste disposal. The North VAFB Class III landfill is currently used 

for disposal of some solid industrial waste generated on VAFB. 

Hazardous wastes generated on North VAFB are transferred for temporary storage 

(less than 90 days) to a collection-accumulation point (CAP) on North VAFB. From the 

CAP, the hazardous waste is transferred to a central EPA RCRA (Part A) permitted 

hazardous waste storage facility on North VAFB. VAFB contracts the disposal of its 

hazardous wastes to privately owned firms. Once the wastes leave the storage facility, they 

are either hauled to a Class I landfill or recycled (USAF 1989a). 

Transportation 

The transportation system potentially affected by the proposed project would be the 

highways surrounding the city of Lompoc and VAFB and streets within the city of Lompoc. 

In 1985, the peak-month average daily traffic volumes on Ocean Avenue were 3,900 vehicles 

on the segment west of 13th Street and 4,850 vehicles immediately east of 13th Street, with 

peak-hour traffic volumes of 430 and 690 vehicles, respectively (Caltrans 1985). The volume 

of traffic entering and leaving VAFB was recorded in October 1986 by VAFB's Traffic 

Engineering Department. During a midweek, 24-hr period, 5,478 vehicles passed through 

the 13th Street Gate (13th Street near Ocean Avenue), 2,645 through the South Gate 

(Arguello Boulevard near Ocean Avenue), and 3,835 through the Coast Gate (Coast Road 

at the western terminus of Ocean Avenue). Most of this traffic occurred during daylight 

hours. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 68 

Traffic on Ocean Avenue west of 13th Street has declined significantly since 1986, 

largely because of cutbacks in the Space Shuttle program. In early 1988, the hours when 

the Coast Gate was open were cut back from 13.5 hr (5:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) to 2.5 hr 

(6:00 to 8:30 a.m.). 

2.2.1.2 Cultural resources 

More than 600 archaeological sites are recorded within the boundaries of VAFB, 

and over 2,000 archaeological sites are recorded in Santa Barbara County. Extensive 

archaeological surveys and testing have been conducted recently for other programs on 

South VAFB. A survey by Greenwood and Associates (1987) documented numerous 

archaeological sites near SLC-4E. Consultation with the SHPO regarding present 

construction activity at SLC-4E resulted in a determination of no adverse effect (personal 

communication, Sarah Berry, 1 STRAD/ET, VAFB, with Andrea Campbell, ORNL, 

August 11, 1989). An historic site (CA-SBA-1148) (a ranch) is located about 1/4 mi 

southeast of Bldgs. 398 and 520 at SLC-6, and an archaeological site (CA-SBA 1678) is 

located about 1/4 mi to the southwest. The area at Bldg. 520 has been surveyed, and no 

archaeological resources were found (personal communication, Larry Spanne, 1 STRAD/ET, 

VAFB, with Andrea Campbell, ORNL, September 25, 1989). Recent consultation with the 

SHPO (see App. C) has indicated that future modifications to SLC-4E and Bldg. 398 as 

part of the proposed expansion of the Titan IV program at VAFB would also have no 

adverse effect (see App. C). 

The National Park Service conducted an inventory of historic sites on VAFB in 

1987. Although military use of the area, dating back to the early .1940s, is reflected in 

certain structures on VAFB, SLC-4 was not nominated as an historic landmark. 

2-2.13 Ambient noise 

Noise monitoring at VAFB and surrounding areas during 1984 and 1985 showed 

ambient average noise levels of 48-67 dBA, levels typical of residential or urban areas. 

Rural and isolated areas of VAFB, the Lompoc Valley, and north Santa Barbara have noise 
WO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

69 

levels less than 45 dBA. Current space vehicle launches at VAFB generate high noise 

levels but because of their short duration and infrequent occurrence do not influence noise 

contours for the Lompoc Valley or Santa Maria. 

2.2.2 Natural Environment 

7 2 7 1 Climate and air quality 

Climatology 

The climate at VAFB is strongly influenced by its coastal setting. Annual variations in 

temperature and moisture content of the air are relatively small because of the moderating 

effects of the Pacific Ocean. The average annual temperature at VAFB is 55°F. Average 

daily minimum temperatures range from 43°F in January to 53°F in July. Average daily 

maximum temperatures range from 59°F in March to 68°F in October. Between 1958 and 

1970, the lowest recorded temperature at VAFB was 26°F and the highest was 100°F. 

Relative humidity at VAFB is usually in the 50-100% range because of the proximity 

of the ocean and the predominance of ocean-to-land air flow. Fog is common during the 

summer months, particularly at night and in the early morning. Annual average 

precipitation in the VAFB region is 12.7 in., the majority of which occurs in the winter 

months. 

The terrain at VAFB causes wind speeds and directions to vary substantially across 

the base. Stronger winds tend to occur along the beaches and on higher terrain. The wind 

rose in Fig. 2.8 shows the frequency distribution of wind speeds and directions at a location 

just south of the VAFB airfield. This wind rose is based on 11 years of data (1967-70 and 

1973-79). The spokes on the wind rose indicate a strong predominance of winds from the 

northwest quadrant at VAFB. 

Temperature inversions of two types are fairly common at VAFB. A high-pressure 

system over the Pacific Ocean causes subsidence inversions at an elevation of about 1,000 ft 

frequently during the summer and less frequently during the rest of the year. Surface-based 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 70 

1 JUNE 2015 

ORNL-DWG 89-11466 

KNOTS 

3 6 10 16 21 

Fig. 2.8. Wind rose for Vandenberg Air Force Base for 1967-70 and 1973-79. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

71 

radiation inversions caused by nighttime cooling are frequent during autumn, winter and 

spring. 

Air quality 

The most recent air quality monitoring data (1986) obtained from the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB 1987) indicate that air quality at VAFB is quite good for most 

regulated air pollutants. The generally good air quality results from the predominance of 

northwest winds, bringing clean air from over the Pacific Ocean. The lack of major 

emission sources at VAFB is another reason for the good air quality. An inventory of 1981 

emissions indicated that sources on VAFB accounted for less than 2% of the total emissions 

in Santa Barbara County. 

Two monitoring sites at VAFB are included in the CARB report. One site was 

located in the vicinity of SLC-2, near Purisima Point. The other site was on the plateau 

about 1 mi southeast of the airfield. Each of these sites yielded measurements of six criteria 

pollutants during 1986: SO2, NO2, CO, 0,, Pb, and TSP. The data in Table 2.5 summarize 

the maximum concentrations measured at either of the two VAFB monitoring sites during 

1986. With the exception of 03, levels of all pollutants were less than half of the 

corresponding California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and NAAQS. Ozone 

levels at VAFB exceeded CAAQS several times in 1986 but did not exceed the NAAQS. 

TSP levels at VAFB in 1986 were less than half of the 24-hr and annual NAAQS. 

There were no PM-10 data from VAFB in 1986 to compare with the California PM-10 

standards or with the new PM-10 NAAQS implemented on July 31, 1987. However, based 

on recent PM-10 measurements in Santa Barbara County, the Santa Barbara County Air 

Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) has designated northern Santa Barbara County, 

including VAFB, as non-attainment with respect to the CAAQS for PM-10 (personal 

communication, Larry Gordon, 1 STRAD/ET, VAFB, with E. J. Liebsch, ORNL, August 16, 

1989). PM-10 was measured at two other sites in Santa Barbara County (in the cities of 

Santa Maria and Santa Barbara) in 1986. The ratio of PM-10/TSP at these other sites was 

roughly 0.5 for both 24-hr and annual average concentrations. Assuming that the same ratio 

of PM-10/15P applies at VAFB, the PM-10 concentrations at VAFB for 1986 would have 

been well below the new PM-10 NAAQS and safely below the CAAQS for PM-10. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

72 

Table 2.5. Maximum air pollutant concentrations at two sites at Vandenberg 

Air Force Base in 1986 

Pollutant' 

Averaging 

period Concentration CAAQSb NAAQS C 

SO, 1-hour 

3-hour 

0.01 ppm 

NAd 

0.25 ppm 

None 

none 

0.50 ppm 

24-hour NA 0.05 ppm 0.14 ppm 

Annual 0.001 ppm None 0.03 ppm 

NO, 1-hour 

Annual 

0.04 ppm 

0.003 ppm 

0.25 ppm 

None 

none 

0.05 ppm 

CO 1-hour 2.0 ppm 20.0 ppm 35.0 ppm 

8-hour NA 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm 

0, 1-hour 0.10 ppm 0.10 ppm 0.12 ppm 

Pb 30-day 0.02 μg/m3 1.5 mg/n? none 

Calendar 0.01 μg/m3 None 1.5 Agin.? 

Quarter 

TSP` 24-hour 69 isg/m3 None 150 A g/m3 

Annual 32 μg/m3 None 75 μg/m3 

PMio 24-hour No data5 50Mg*? 150 Atg/ne 

Annual No data5 30 μg/m3 50 μg/m3 

= sulfur dioxide; NO, = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; 

03= ozone; TSP = total suspended particulate matter; PM-10 = particulate matter less 

than 10 microns. 

bCAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

`NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

dNA = not available. These data were not provided in CARB (1987). 

°The NAAQS for TSP were replaced by NAAQS for PM-10 effective July 31, 1987. 

iGeometric mean concentration. All other annual averages in the table are 

arithmetic means. 

5PM-10 data were not monitored at the two VAFB sites in 1986. 
WO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

73 

2222 Surface water resources 

Hydrology 

The major streams that drain VAFB are the Santa Ynez River, San Antonio Creek, 

and Canada Honda Creek. None of these is near SLC-4. The Santa Ynez River, the 

closest, is 5.3 mi north, and Canada Honda Creek is 2 mi to the south (Fig. 2.9). 

Ephemeral and intermittent streams near SLC-4E and SLC-6 include Spring Canyon Creek, 

0.1 mi south and directly downslope from SLC-4 and Bear Creek, 1 mi to the north. 

Spring Canyon Creek, which originates 1.4 mi inland and flows toward the ocean, is 

the only receiving water that could be directly affected by the proposed action. The 

drainage at SLC-4E is toward Spring Canyon Creek, away from Bear Creek. Although the 

major portion of the flow in the creek is from direct runoff, several small seeps also feed 

into it. Flow varies seasonally between 0 and 0.5 cfs (Versar 1987). The creek flows into a 

seasonal pond behind the Coast Road embankment and percolates into the groundwater 

system rather than discharging directly to the Pacific Ocean. The water in the creek 

ultimately reaches the ocean via groundwater transport (Stearns Catalytic 1987). 

Bear Creek, to the north of SLC-4, drains an area of only a few square miles. Like 

Spring Canyon Creek, Bear Creek does not discharge directly to the ocean. Canada Honda 

Creek, south of SLC-4, is more than 8 mi long and drains an area of 12 mit. Flow in the 

creek ranges from 0 to a measured peak of 2,120 cfs in February 1962. Summer flow comes 

from seeps and springs along canyon walls. 

Water quality 

Water quality of Spring Canyon Creek is summarized in Table 2.6 for the sampling 

locations indicated on Fig. 2.9. Water quality is generally poor to fair, with high 

concentrations of sodium, chloride, iron, aluminum, and total dissolved solids. Elevated 

concentrations of these elements are probably the result of past wastewater discharges and 

particulate deposition of A1203and Ha in the ground cloud during previous Titan III 

launches from the SLC-4 site. Dissolved oxygen and pH vary in comparison with 
SOUTH 

VAFB 

SEASONAL POND 

SURFACE WATER 

SAMPUNG LOCATION 

;. • 

POINT 

ARGUELLO: . 

•.. - 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 74 

ORNL-DWG 89-11833R 

/100-YEAR 

FLOOD PLAIN/ 

(De 

GROUNDWATER 

SUPPLY WELLS 

1 AND 3 

SLC-4 

. • • 

OCE,4A1 0 1 MILE • 

Fig. 2.9. Surface waters in the vicinity of Titan IV launch and support facilities, 

South Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Surface water sampling locations and 

groundwater supply wells are also indicated. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

75 

Table 2.6. Surface water quality data for Spring Canyon Creek at 

Vandenberg AFB, California 

Sampling station 

above SLC-4b 

Sampling station 

below SLC-4` 

Parameter' 1983 1984 1986 1983 1984 1985 1986 

pH 6.42 6.00 6.00 6.99 7.50 7.68 6.67 

Total organic 

carbon 24.50 23.00 31.00 25.00 35.60 34.70 18.00 

Chemical oxygen 

demand 87.50 120.00 325.00 59.00 179.20 190.30 112.50 

Dissolved 

oxygen 8.45 NA NA 5.70 8.75 9.70 8.40 

Chloride 280.00 NA 580.00 316.00 550.00 593.30 670.00 

Nitrate <0.10 0.40 <0.10 0.10 0.05 NA 0.10 

Calcium 15.05 2730 70.20 62.60 62.30 75.50 53.25 

Magnesium 21.40 13.40 47.00 52.85 47.10 73.10 49.50 

Sodium 173.90 24.70 296.00 206.45 303.20 367.60 306.54 

Total dissolved 

solids 872.50 NA 1,220 879.50 550.00 59330 1,407 

Total 

hardness 125.50 123.00 369.00 373.50 349.60 489.70 373.00 

Alkalinity 44.00 NA 162.00 148.50 193.20 143.30 157.70 

Arsenics <10.00 NA NA 502.50 <10.00 NA NA 

Coppers <20.00 NA NA 28.50 34.00 NA NA 

Irons 7,822 3,728 48,640 512,751 26,952 7,272 4,680 

Lead" 17.50 NA NA 17.50 NA NA NA 

Zinc" <50.00 NA NA 70.00 70.00 NA NA 

Aluminum" 3,602 38,700 805.00 35,520 1,157 108.7 250 

'Units are shown in mg/L, except where noted. 

°Sampling location is 1/4 mi upstream. 

`Sampling location is 1 mi downstream. 

"Units are μg/L. 

Source: USAF 1988b, Table 2.1.5-3. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

76 

EPA-accepted levels of 5.0 mg/L and 6.5-8.5 units, respectively, for protection of aquatic 

life. High values of iron may exceed accepted safe levels for aquatic life based on toxicity 

bioassays. 

7 7 7 3 Geology, soils, and groundwater 

Detailed descriptions of the geology, groundwater, and soils of VAFB are provided 

in a previous Titan IV EA (USAF 1988b), but the impact of deluge water on groundwater 

was not included. This assessment reiterates the site geology in sufficient detail for 

understanding the impact of deluge water on local groundwater. 

The SLC-4E site and its support facilities lie in the southern part of VAFB on soils 

of the Marina-Oceano association. These soils, mainly sand, are developed on nearly flat to 

moderately steep slopes and drain very rapidly (greater than 20 in./hr). 

Soils are underlain by Pleistocene (ice age) dune sand and alluvium except where 

they are eroded out and replaced by Holocene (recent age) alluvium that fills the bottom of 

Spring Canyon. Stratigraphers refer to the Pleistocene unit as the Orcutt Sand. Both of 

these units lie directly on top of several tens of meters (perhaps 100 ft) of diatomite and 

diatomaceous clay shale (the Sisquoc Formation). In turn, the Sisquoc Formation overlies 

several thousand feet of diatomite and diatomaceous shale belonging to the Monterey 

Formation. 

Groundwater movement adjacent to SLC-4E is restricted to the near-surface Orcutt 

Sand aquifer and the Holocene alluvial aquifer of Spring Canyon, as shown in Fig. 2.10. In 

the middle reaches of Spring Canyon (near SLC-4E), the water table lies 3 m (10 ft) 

beneath the surface, but downstream (near the ocean) the water table is up to 43 m 

(140 ft) deep. Groundwater in the Orcutt Sand discharges to the Holocene alluvium of 

Spring Canyon and then through the Holocene alluvium to the Pacific Ocean. Groundwater 

in Spring Canyon is apparently isolated from groundwater in Bear Creek by the fault shown 

in Fig. 2.9. Hence, groundwater north of the fault would not be impacted by contaminated 

groundwater beneath SLC-4E. The underlying diatomite (siliceous remains of tiny 

organisms) and shale are too fine grained to be considered aquifers. 

Groundwater quality data in the Holocene aquifer of Spring Canyon near SLC-4E, 

collected from 1984 to 1986, are provided by Table 2.7. Groundwater quality fails to meet 
77 

2 

w 0 n 

O o 

z . . 1 

m 

 

z 

. . 4 . . . . . 

▪ 

 . . . 0 7,4, D 

I Y., 

.......4L■ 

X > 

0 

X 

U

. 

O 

LL Dw 0 

(,) ...1 0-1 

O u. I- < 

w 

-.1 

W Z 

< Z w W 

z r 0 0 

w z m . . .... oz acc 

0 

O D Z < .a < 0 

Z -1 < _ W w CC u j Lij 1— —1 cn 0 1-- 

O u- w tr rr we > 2 m 0 

w ,,, < 

z 

Q. w < a. co — u) ..., — u. 

...1 < a. to 

coa. 

6 m 

)' i 

I 

1 0 • W 8 

I 1 / 

0. LLI _ 

03 (\I 

Ui 

-. . N. . .: \ S .- l ■-. 1 •-. % .,- % % 1 c''' ‘ 1. k . 

11.1 ...,, 

....., 

\ .: ... 

ur) , 

......---.. \ , 

. 

os. \\\\\ \/,. , \\\.\\ / ..i 

LLI ...-. ___I ...... 

'0., ■ ...,N...■ ::•ty N. 

I Nye 

.N.. 

. .7 • . 

O "" . • s% . . , °I2e,..._ . . z .... 

....— 

L.L. I 

•■••• • ""•• 

.., .... 

... 

0

. 

1.11 

.**•••-• "*" ..... Wt. 

CI 

......■ .„.., 

., 

-.., 

'0.9...... ... 

O I-0 

CL 

CL .N CD 

0 

Z 

-DWG 89-997 

0 w 

w 

MONITOR WELL 

41 I 00 

c-1 cq 

cu4I \ 4, \I \\/ (.) -II I \ I-,ir 

\I /, 

8 r- .-- / ...---- I 

\ / / 

..1 / / / 

.-,-. ........ 

I C "r / / 

- 

CO / / 

, -r--.. _ ....... .L- 1.,,_/ _ 

■ -... -. 

/ — 

. I 

/ / / 1 

.....r._ i icV"' .... I / i ,,s ; 

's I/ tel 

t 

O O 

S

C

A

LE IN FEET 

E 

0 

ai 

O 

0 

10) €13 

• 

co 

Ta 

C) 

U) 

ea 

to 

O 

O 

Eta 

en 

to 

N 

O 

O 

'417 

tip 

LL 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

78 

Table 2.7. Groundwater quality data for Spring Canyon both upstream and 

downstream of SLC-4E compared with interim primary and secondary 

drinking water standards 

Monitoring wells 

Parameters' 

EPA 

maximum 

contaminant 

levelsb 

6R1 

1500 ft 

upstream 

6P1 

500 ft 

downstream 

1J1 

2000 ft 

downstream 

1K1 

4000 ft 

downstream 

Samples 1 1 4 2 

Alkalinity 80 109 67 346 c 

Boron <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0.1 c 

Calcium 25 38 73 95 c 

Magnesium 20 27 76 43 c 

Hardness 145 206 497 415 c 

Secondary 

Standards 

Chloride 354 372 825 240 250 

Copper <0.02 <0.02 0.016 0.005 1 

Iron 1.5 3.4 1.6 0.1 03 

Manganese 0.09 0.22 0.52 1.30 0.05 

Sodium 19 19 457 175 none 

Sulfate 48 33 270 245 250 

Total dissolved 

solids 664 842 1800 1050 500 

Zinc 0.07 0.65 0.50 0.12 5 

pH' 6.9 7.1 6.4 7.0 6.5-8.5 

Primary 

Standards 

Arsenic <0.01 <0.01 0.002 0.001 0.05 

Barium <0.2 <0.2 0.25 None 1 

Cadmium <0.01 <0.01 0.004 0.001 0.01 

Lead 0.022 <0.02 0.002 0.001 0.05 

Nitrate <0.1 <0.1 None None 10 

'Units are shown in mg/L except as noted. 

b40 CFR, Parts 141.11 and 1433. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Drinking 

Water Standards, Maximum Contaminant Levels for Inorganic Metals and Secondary 

Maximum Contaminant Levels. 

No standards. 

dNegative log of the hydrogen ion concentration. 

Source: USAF 1988b, Table 2.15-1. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

79 

most interim secondary drinking water standards but (based on limited data) apparently 

meets interim primary drinking water standards. As a result, it is highly unlikely that the 

Holocene aquifer would be an acceptable municipal water supply. Groundwater quality 

generally deteriorates downstream from an active launching pad. Downstream deterioration 

in water quality may be related to both launching activities and proximity to the sea. 

Slightly elevated levels of organic solvents [trichloroethylene (TCE) and trans-1,2- 

dichloroethylene (DCE)] were also observed. The presence of organic solvents is almost 

certainly related to VAFB activities. 

2.224 Terrestrial ecology 

Vegetation within and around VAFB has been well documented in previous studies 

(e.g., USAF 1978, 1988b). Eleven different community types are known to exist on the 

base. The three community types which would be affected by the proposed action are the 

dune scrub, the coastal scrub, and the ruderal vegetation communities (Fig. 2.11). The 

following is a brief description taken from USAF (1988b) of these three communities, the 

degree to which they have been disturbed by prior activities, and the wildlife inhabiting 

them. 

Dune-scrub community—This community consists of a dense cover of shrubs 3 ft or 

more in height growing on gently sloping hills of loose sand. Dominant shrubs are dune 

lupine, mock heather, and California sagebrush. Common native herbs include curly-leaved 

monardella, cudweed aster, and Blochman's groundsel. The dune scrub community near the 

SLC-4 complex has been lightly invaded by a few introduced species such as hottentot fig 

and narrow-leaved iceplant. 

The community type has been classified as a threatened and declining vegetation 

type in California. Because the sandy soil is unconsolidated, this community type is 

especially sensitive to off-road vehicles and other forms of mechanical disturbance. The 

dune scrub community in the vicinity of the SLC-4 complex has experienced little 

disturbance. Few animal species permanently inhabit this community. 

Coastal scrub community—This community is dominated by a dense cover of shrubs 

3-7 ft high. Dominant shrubs are California sagebrush, mock heather, black sage, California 

coffeeberry, coyote brush, and poison oak. Common native herbs include figworts, chaparral 
..... 

.■ ..1. ... me. ..... .....■ 

.... •••• 411. v. - ....... .0. •••• ...' 

... ow ... maw .... ••• ..... ....... ......t N. ... 

.... ....... ••••••■ 

/lb ••■••••..■ .7....... ..., 

.1. alb, •••••• ... 

am. .. a. 

..., ..... 

••••• ... 40. ... 

...... WO. •••"..AOL. 

.II. .... 411. ..... .... .... .... ..... ... •■ .. ... nir 

• .... ... o.. ■••.... .... till, .7.1.45 

, .1111%..... ... 

..... — ... 

---..... 

..... -..7---...... ... -....z, — --... ••• .".. am. ... '. .... ...• 

.....' .7.0.W..' ....m. 

n• ear 

•••• 00,6 ...am ,■. /111. h. 

AO,. ••• WO. ■••■ .... Ms. ... ...41. .... 

•IIIN .1. ... Imo .... .... ........ ... 4•■• . 

= ... 

... 

....., 

.... ... ...... ..... .4. ■■•■• •■ 4.1. 

di. ••• a. AD."' dm. m.... ■•• .... 

4111. 4... •111,.......... 7., .11. *Oa ..... .... 

41.• .... 

.11. Alm. 

.11a. Q. ••• all. .1. ... 

all. ...... 

40. .... 

.... .... . .. all• ' .... www. ••■ .... ■ 

....... ow ■••..... .1•■■ ■111. 

.1. 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 80 

1 JUNE 2015 ORNL-DWG 89M-9566 

COASTAL SAGE -

CHAPARRAL SCRUB 

COASTAL SCRUB 

El DUNE SCRUB 

RUDERAL VEGETATION 

N EUCALYPTUS GROVES 

FIREBREAK (Ruderal vegetation) 

SPRING CANYON 

WETLANDS 

Fig. 2.11. Vegetation of Space Launch Complex 4 and 

surrounding area. Source: adapted from Versar 1987, Fig. 2.1-7. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

81 

morning glory, white yarrow, California croton, and branching phacelia. With the exception 

of a recently burned area near SLC-4, the community type is relatively undisturbed. 

Many wildlife utilize the food and shelter afforded by the dense shrub cover of this 

community. Twelve species of reptile and two species of amphibians use this habitat type 

within VAFB, while fourteen bird species breed in the habitat. In addition, several 

regionally rare or declining bird species, including Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, merlin, 

short-eared owl, and burrowing owl are likely to forage in this habitat. Fourteen mammal 

species, including badger, also use this habitat. 

Ruderal community—This highly disturbed community is dominated by introduced 

species, especially hottentot fig and iceplant, and supports a somewhat limited wildlife. Four 

species of reptile and two amphibians are expected to occur in this community near SLC-4. 

Seven grassland bird species might be expected to breed within this community, while 

regionally rare raptors such as the black-shouldered kite, northern harrier, and burrowing 

owl may use such sites for foraging. Small rodents are common and provide important prey 

for hawks, owls, and other carnivores. This habitat is also used by mule deer, feral pig, and 

badger. 

The Channel Islands just south of Santa Barbara and VAFB represent a unique 

biological resource. Although the flora and fauna of the Channel Islands are generally 

similar to that of VAFB and the adjacent mainland areas (USAF 1988b), the islands are 

ecologically significant because they include some of the most important Californian 

breeding grounds for seals and sealions and migration areas for whales and porpoises. The 

islands also serve as breeding grounds for many seabird species including California's only 

nesting colonies of brown pelicans (USAF 1978). 

7 7 7 5 Aquatic ecology 

Because they are intermittent streams, Spring Canyon Creek and Bear Creek have 

no permanent aquatic fauna. The wetlands vegetation in Spring Canyon is described in 

Sect. 2.2.2.7. The aquatic biota of Canada Honda Creek is diverse because of good water 

quality, abundant plant life, and year-round flow (USAF 1988f). Fauna include invertebrates 

such as stoneflies, caddisflies, snails, and amphipod crustaceans. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

82 

The marine biota in the project vicinity from Point Arguello to the Santa Ynez 

River are described in detail in USAF (1983 and 1988b). This area has diverse species in 

both intertidal and subtidal zones. The biota north of Point Arguello are generally typical 

of the central California coast. In rocky habitats adjacent to SLC-4, the high intertidal zone 

commonly contains acorn barnacles, periwinkle snails, and limpets; the middle intertidal 

zone, in addition to these groups, contains brown and red algae. Slightly lower in the zone 

are sea anemones, black turban snails, shore crabs, polychaete worms, tidepool sculpins, and 

green and red algae. Mussels, gooseneck barnacles, starfish, and coralline red algae also are 

common, and red and black abalone occur. 

The subtidal region offshore from SLC-4 varies greatly in habitat type and biotic 

composition. The inshore habitats support a variety of benthic plants, predominantly green 

and brown algae. The fauna vary with depth. Offshore, at depths of 50 to 75 ft, 

polychaete worms, speckled sanddabs, and dark-blotched rockfish are dominant. At least 

297 species of marine fish appear in the Point Arguello region (USAF 1978). Three species 

of sea turtle are the only marine reptiles expected in the project region. South of Point 

Arguello are several haul-out and breeding areas for a large population of harbor seals and 

one haul-out area for California sea lions. Juvenile elephant seals occasionally haul out in 

these areas. 

2.2.2.6 Threatened and endangered species 

Several federal candidate threatened or endangered plant species occur in the dune 

scrub community—soft-leaved Indian paintbrush, crisp monardella, curly-leaved monardella, 

and black-flowered figwort. The same rare plant species are found in the coastal scrub 

community, although crisp monardella is absent. In addition, the federal candidate species, 

Hoffmann's sanicle, is also expected to occur in the coastal scrub community although it has 

not been observed there. 

Threatened and endangered animal species and protected marine mammals that may 

occur on or near VAFB are listed in Table 2.8; candidate species are listed in Table 2.9. 

The portions of Canada Honda Creek that have year-round flow support an introduced 

population of the federally listed endangered unarmored three-spined stickleback 

(USAF 1988b). 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1

.

JUNE 2015 

83 

Table 2.8. Threatened and endangered fauna and protected marine mammals near 

Vandenberg Air Force Base and their status 

Status at 

Federal Vandenberg 

Species' statusb Air Force Base 

Birds 

California least tern E Resident/nesting 

Bald eagle E Rare winter visitor 

Brown pelican E Visitor/foraging 

American peregrine falcon E Visitor/foraging 

Marine Mammals 

Finback whale E Occasional sightings 

Right whale E Occasional sightings 

Northern elephant seal E Rookery/Channel Is. 

Guadalupe seal T Visitor/Channel Is. 

California sea otter T Occasional sightings 

California gray whale E Occasional sightings 

Blue whale E Occasional sightings 

Humpback whale E Occasional sightings 

Sperm whale E Occasional sightings 

Harbor seal Rookery/VAFB 

Stellar sea lion Visitor/Channel Is. 

Northern fur seal Visitor/Channel Is. 

California sea lion Rookery/VAFB 

Fish 

Unarmored three-spined stickleback E Resident 

'Scientific names are given in FWS (1988). 

bE = listed as endangered 

T = listed as threatened. 

Source: USAF 1988b. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

84 

Table 29. Candidate 2 species' at or near Vandenberg 

Air Force Base and their status 

Species' VAFB 

Plant 

Black-flowered figwort Observed 

San Luis Obispo monardella Observed 

Soft-leaved Indian paintbrush Observed 

Beach spectacle pod Observed 

Surf thistle Observed 

Island wallflower Observed 

Crisp monardella Observed 

Aphanisma Observed 

Shagbark manzinita Observed 

Lilac (Nipomo Mesa ceanothus) Not observed 

Monterey spine flower Observed 

La Graciosa thistle Observed 

Gambel's watercress Observed 

Hoffmann's sanicle Observed 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Western pond turtle Resident 

California red-legged frog Resident 

Arroyo toad Not observed 

Birds 

Western snowy plover 

Long-billed curlew 

Ferruginous hawk 

White-faced ibis 

Tricolored blackbird 

California black rail 

Resident/nesting 

Resident 

Observed/no nesting 

Visitor/observed 

Observed 

Not observed 
NRO . APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

85 

Table 2.9. (continued) 

Speciesb VAFB 

Birds (continued) 

Elegant tern Visitor/observed 

Western yellow-billed cuckoo Visitor 

Mammals 

Spotted bat Not observed 

Towsend's western big-eared bat Not observed 

Western mastiff bat Not observed 

Fish 

Tidewater Goby Observed 

Invertebrates 

Morro blue butterfly Observed 

Globose dune beetle Not observed 

Wandering skipper butterfly Not observed 

'Candidate 2 species are proposed for federal listing. 

°Scientific names are given in USAF (1989d). 

Source: USAF (1988b); Schmalzer et al. 1988. 

No other protected aquatic species have been identified in surface water bodies in the 

project vicinity. The California least tern nests at the mouth of the Santa Ynez River and 

on the beaches and dunes from Seal Beach north to Shoman Creek. Peregrine falcons are 

occasionally sited on South VAFB. Six endangered whale species have been sighted in the 

vicinity of the Channel Islands. Harbor seals use the beaches of Vandenberg for rookery 

habitat. California sea lions use the rocks at Pt. Arguello for haul-out areas, and elephant 

seals are also sometimes seen in this area. The Northern elephant seal, harbor seal, and 

California sea lion use the Channel Islands for rookery habitat. 

In compliance with Sect. 7c of the Endangered Species Act, the FWS and National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have been contacted for information about protected 

species that may be affected by the proposed action (see App. B and App. C). 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 86 

2.2.2.7 Floodplains and wetlands 

Spring Canyon contains unique wetland communities, including riparian forest, 

emergent wetlands, and arroyo willow scrub. These wetland communities are described in 

detail by USAF (1988b) and are summarized here. 

The riparian forest occurs as two groves in the lower reaches of the canyon and is 

dominated by blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), which provides habitat for wildlife, insects, 

and birds. These areas are used as winter roosting sites for monarch butterflies. Butterfly 

roosts are considered an environmentally sensitive habitat and are a protected resource 

within Santa Barbara County (USAF 1988b). The Spring Canyon roost supports a winter 

population of 2,000-4,000 individuals. In the vicinity of SLC-4, the perennially wet soil and 

partially open canopy have resulted in the formation of dense stands of bulrushes and rush. 

Arroyo willows also occur along the stream margins. Emergent wetland areas in Spring 

Canyon consist of areas of both broadleaf and narrowleaf cattails, coastal woodfern, western 

sword fern, braches fern, stinging nettle, giant horsetail, and sedge. 

Many birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and insects use the wetland area. 

Cooper's hawk and the western gray squirrel are the only regionally rare or declining 

wildlife species that are expected to frequent Eucalyptus woodlands in the vicinity of SLC-4 

(USAF 1988b). No threatened or endangered species are expected to use the wetland area 

in Spring Canyon. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 3. POTENIIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 

3.1 CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION 

3.1.1 Man-Made Environment 

3.1.1.1 Regional and local impacts 

Socioeconomic impacts at the regional and local levels depend largely on the influx 

of workers during the construction and operational phases of the project. The projected 

personnel requirements for the expanded Titan IV program are indicated in Table 3.1. 

Table 3.1. Estimated construction schedules and personnel requirements for the 

expanded Titan IV Program at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 

Proposed 

activity 

Construction Construction Duration 

start finish (months) 

Approximate 

cost 

($ million) 

Peak 

number of 

additional 

workers 

New Solid Motor January October 1991 22 79 260 

Assembly Building 1990 

New Payload Fairing April 1990 April 1991 12 10 35 

Cleaning Facility 

Modifications to April 1990 February 1992 22 135 435 

Launch Complex 40 

Other modifications January January 12 15 80 

1990 1991 

Based on planned schedules, the on-site construction work force for the new SMAB, 

the modifications to LC-40, and construction of the PFCF would be expected to peak in 1990 

at a level of 730. Of these, the actual workers needed on the construction site are assumed to 

make up about 68% of the total; another 14% are management, quality control, and 

administrative personnel; and absentees and contingencies account for about 9% each. 

87 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 88 

The operations work force for the expanded Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) program would 

be expected to build to a level of 230 employees (200 contractor and 30 subcontractor) around 

July 1991, following the completion of construction. The peak work force requirements over 

time for construction and operation of the SRMU program are shown in Fig. 3.1. Total Titan 

IV activities (i.e., the expanded program and existing program) would involve a peak 

construction workforce of 820 in 1990 and a peak operational workforce of 630 in late 1991. 

Population distribution and trends 

Although construction labor is available within commuting distance of CCAFS, it is 

expected that up to 40% of the work force would be drawn from outside the vicinity, in part 

because highly specialized skills in high-rise steel work will be required. Thus, a maximum of 

290 construction workers associated with the expanded Titan IV program would be expected to 

relocate to Brevard County from other regions. Approximately 60% of the workers' families, 

or 170 families, would relocate for the construction period (Malhotra and Manninen 1981). 

Assuming that each of the 170 construction workers is accompanied by an average of 2.1 family 

members (Malhotra and Manninen 1981), the population increase during the construction 

phase would be about 650 (including workers without families present), which represents only 

0.1% of Brevard County's projected 1990 population or less than 1% of the central mainland's 

1990 population of 65,650. Such an increase would have a negligible impact on the size and 

composition of the county population. 

Of the expected operations work force of 230 associated with the expanded Titan IVType 2 (SRMU) program, about 23% (50) would be drawn from outside the local area and 

about 23% would be drawn from the Brevard County labor force. The remaining 54% would 

be expected to be available within the CCAFS, PAFB, and KSC employee pool (USAF 1989a). 

Assuming that the 50 in-migrating operations employees would be accompanied by their 

families, with a total household size of 3.1, 160 additional persons would be expected to 

migrate into the area in the operations phase. It is expected that many of these employees 

might locate in Cape Canaveral and Cocoa Beach. The estimated increase represents about 

0.6% of the combined projected 1990 populations of these two communities. Because 

projected growth in Cocoa Beach and Cape Canaveral from 1985 through 1990 is in the range 

of 3.2 to 4.1%, the operations phase would have a negligible impact on the size and 

composition of either the regional or local population. 
CD 

• 

"tt Cv) 

cc 

2 

ORNL- DWG 89-15780 

1- —C')0) n 

o) 2 

...-.. CV CO 

1... CC 

...-- 

C CO 

.... 

M N 

..... 'Cr 

CD 

0) C 

...-- N

1"• 03 

0. X 0 

■... 1- 0 .0 

...... ‘1" C 

...... 

...... el co CD E(1 C) E 

— cm 1- 

o 

a. 

N

CI . 

.. E 

o 

c .0. o o : 7.-.. co o 

A 

 os 

-o- co co 2 in CO V) eD T C 0 0° CM 0 u. 0 0 

LL. 

111. ca 16. 

o as 

89 

OF WORKERS 

=NEN ■Ii■ 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

90 

Land use 

The construction of the new SMAB and the proposed modifications to existing facilities 

are compatible with the existing industrial nature of land use at these sites and would not 

change present land use patterns. Because construction and operations activities would not be 

expected to result in a significant increase in the off-site population, no impacts to community 

land use patterns would occur. 

Employment 

Construction employment for the proposed expanded Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) 

program would peak at 730 employees, 290 of whom would be drawn from the labor force 

outside of Brevard County. These 290 workers would represent an increase of 0.1% in the 

Brevard County labor force and, assuming other factors remain constant, could lower the 

county's unemployment rate from 4.7 to 4.5%. 

Housing 

In-migrating construction workers would be expected to locate primarily on the 

mainland in either central or northern Brevard County. It is unlikely that a significant 

percentage of the workers would buy homes—many would seek temporary housing such as 

apartments, mobile homes, and hotel/motel rentals. Rental vacancy rates range from 6.7% to 

7.4% in central and northern Brevard County and are higher elsewhere in the county. 

Temporary housing, such as hotel/motel units, can be expected to be readily available during 

the peak construction period in the summer months, when the part-time and tourist population 

is at its lowest level. No impact on the housing market would be expected from increased 

demand during the construction phase. 

Many of the operations personnel might locate in Cape Canaveral, Cocoa Beach, or 

elsewhere in central Brevard County. The 50 new households expected during the operations 

phase represents only 0.1% of housing units in Brevard County and about 1.5% of housing 

units in Cape Canaveral and Cocoa Beach. The vacancy rate among total housing units in 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

91 

Cape Canaveral and Cocoa Beach was 25% in 1980. No impact is expected as a result of 

increased housing demand from operations personnel. 

Facilities and services 

Schools. Assuming an average of 0.8 children per in-migrating family enrolled in 

elementary or high school (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1983), the estimated maximum potential 

increase in the Brevard County school district as a result of the proposed action would be 175 

new students (0.8 x 220 families). This represents an increase of only 0.3% in the district and 

would have no effect on existing pupil-teacher ratios. This figure is well within projected 

growth rates and staffing plans for the school district and would have a negligible impact on 

enrollment in any area of the district. 

Water. The maximum increase in potable water consumption resulting from an influx 

of population in the area is 53,000 gal/day (810 x 65 gal/day), which represents about 0.1% of 

the maximum daily capacity. The water supply has ample available capacity to accommodate 

this increase. 

Implementation of the Titan IV program expansion would require an increase of 

727,000 gal of deluge and washdown water over pre-SRMU launches, or about 121,000 gal per 

launch. The launch water would be drawn from the municipal supply. The water requirements 

for each launch are within the available daily capacity of the system. 

Waste management. Because the increase in population expected from the proposed 

action is very small, it would not be expected to stress wastewater treatment and landfill 

capacity in the county, which are adequate for the existing and projected population. 

Construction and expansion of facilities for the Titan IV program would generate 

conventional wastes (wood and metal scrap, excess concrete flashing, etc.), which would be 

disposed of either at the on-base site or at an approved off-base site (probably the Brevard 

County Solid Waste Disposal Facility) as prescribed by the USAF in the project specifications. 

Nonhazardous solid waste generated during operation of the program would consist of 

domestic waste (e.g., trash from offices) and sludge from the VIB and SMAB sewage treatment 

plants. Domestic waste would be collected by a range contractor and disposed of off-base at 

the Brevard County Solid Waste Disposal Facility. Sludge from the sewage treatment plant 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

92 

would be analyzed to determine if it contains hazardous substances. If so, it would be treated 

as hazardous waste; if not, it would likely be spread over the on-base solid waste landfill. 

Conventional hazardous wastes, such as paint wastes, solvents, and potentially 

contaminated oils, are anticipated to result from construction. These wastes would be managed 

by a certified contractor, and no significant impacts would be expected. If asbestos is 

encountered during refurbishment, it will be removed by a licensed contractor in accordance 

with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61), which the state 

of Florida has incorporated into its regulations by reference, and disposed of at the CCAFS 

sanitary landfill in accordance with ESMC OPLAN 19-15. The quantities of hazardous waste 

from construction for the Titan IV program would not significantly impact landfill capacity. 

Hazardous wastes generated during project operations would consist of trichloroethylene 

(TCE) from cleaning operations (50-100 gal per launch), MEK, and Freon-113. All would be 

temporarily stored in the VIB area for subsequent recycling or disposal. The TCE and MEK 

would either be recycled on-site or incinerated off-site, and waste Freon-113 would be collected 

and recycled by a KSC contractor. Because hazardous wastes would be recycled, incinerated, 

reused, or disposed of by a certified contractor, no significant impacts would be expected. 

Power. Because FPL is a very large power producer with adequate available capacity, 

the peak population increase of 810 and the operational requirements of the Titan IV facilities 

would not impact the demand for power in the region. 

Public safety. The expected population increase of 810, if concentrated in Central 

Brevard County, would only slightly change the ratio of police officers or firefighters to service 

area population. No impacts to public safety services would be expected. 

Health care. An increase of 810 would not significantly change the availability of 

hospital beds in Central Brevard County. No impact on health care would be expected. 

Transportation 

Due to the variability in traffic volume attributed to tourism and beach traffic, increases 

in highway traffic from the influx of Titan IV/SRMU program workers commuting to CCAFS 

are not expected to result in a noticeable reduction of flow rate on off-base roads. However, 

the expected increase could exacerbate traffic problems near Port Canaveral. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1.JUNE 2015 

93 

Additional commuting traffic would be expected to occur in the third quarter of 1991. 

Assuming that 60% of the 730 construction workers would carpool with another person, and all 

others would drive alone (Malhotra and Manninen, 1981), the expanded Titan IV program 

could add an estimated 550-600 vehicles the existing traffic volume entering CCAFS access 

points. Workers who reside on the beaches and in Central Brevard County are likely to enter 

Gate 1 via SR 401 and travel north on the Cape Road. Existing traffic problems could be 

exacerbated in the vicinity of Port Canaveral. NASA Causeway on KSC and North Cape Road 

are likely to be travelled by persons commuting to CCAFS from Titusville area. The increase 

in traffic volume on either road would depend on where the workers locate in the county. 

Assuming a maximum increase of 400 vehicles entering from the Causeway or Gate 1 (south), 

the increases in traffic for a 24-hr period would be 9% and 6%, respectively. Given the 

existing levels of service, there is little probability of a major reduction of speed or flow rate. 

However, the increases could contribute to the frequency of back-ups during peak traffic 

periods. Thus, minor impacts during peak hours could occur on CCAFS and KSC roads. 

Traffic is expected to decline following peak construction, although traffic on the Cape Road 

south of CCAFS may continue to be heavier because of additional operations employees 

commuting from the beach communities. 

Cultural resources 

Proposed facilities modifications and new construction would occur on previously disturbed 

or man-made areas that are industrial in character. The SHPO has provided official comment 

on the proposed project, stating that no significant archaeological or historical sites are 

recorded or considered likely to be present within the project areas (App. q. Thus, no 

adverse impacts to cultural, archaeological, or historic resources would be expected to occur as 

a result of the proposed action. 

3.1.1.2 Cumulative impacts 

The assessment of cumulative impacts to socioeconomic resources includes actions in the 

existing Titan IV program that are already completed or under way and other major actions at 

and near CCAFS that are not part of the Titan IV program. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

94 

Other major activities under way at CCAFS include two Medium Launch Vehicle (MLV) 

programs and the commercial Titan program. It is not expected that sufficient excess 

processing and launch capacity at the Titan facilities would exist for there to be a significant 

number of launches by the commercial Titan program. The MLV program began in late 1988 

with the MLV I, a Delta expendable space vehicle launched from LC-17 to place navigation 

satellites into orbit (USAF 1988g). The MLV H program, proposed to reach full operations in 

1991, involves the modification of LC-36 and the nearby industrial area at CCAFS to support 

launches of expendable Atlas II vehicles to place satellites into orbit. The program will cover a 

4-year period (USAF 1989a). 

Because construction activities for MLV I have been completed, the activities assessed for 

cumulative impacts include the operations phases of the MLV I program, the construction and 

subsequent operations phases of the MLV II program, the construction and operations phases 

of the existing Titan IV program, and the construction and operations phases of the expanded 

Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) program. Table 3.2 shows the background and projected schedules 

of each phase and peak personnel requirements during each quarter through 1992. 

Population distribution and trends 

Figure 3.2 shows peak employment, which is expected to occur between the second quarter 

of 1990 and the third quarter of 1991. At that time, construction activity associated with 

LC-40 and new SMAB is expected to peak, the MLV II program would be continuing its 

construction activities and would have reached its operational level, and the Titan IV-Type 2 

(SRMU) operations phase would be starting. The cumulative increase in new construction and 

operational employees during that time is estimated to be 1,700 .(750 construction and 950 

operation). 

Assuming that 40% of construction workers and 23% of operational personnel are drawn 

from outside the local labor force (see Sect. 3.1.1.1), a peak increase in in-migration of 530 

employees could be expected to occur in the second quarter of 1990. The peak levels of 

in-migration for each stage of the various programs are shown in Table 3.3. Assuming that 

60% of in-migrating construction workers and 80% of operational personnel have families 

present (Maihotra and Manninen 1981), 350 families might be expected to relocate to the 
v) 

o kn 

N 

p•R 8 N in 

ece, 8 ) e-, &- 

0 en 8,. s 

F 

r-VD 

3 0 

et 

N 

er 

N 1■4 

N 

rp, 

0 sdd T. 0\ 

$14 

0 

0 

NRO ROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

8 0 0 0 § 

N 

8 

8 M enen 

T4-V;;) 

tr, o 

en en 8 M 

M E 00 .4- 0 

1-1 

v) 

M et 0 

0, 8 rin 0 8 0 in C° 

V.) et %.0 N r, 

M Y..) 0 

CD 8 8 

•■■•1 

0 0 s 

M —4 re) 

e--1 et e- te) r- 

'et

© VI

ao 

0 

•—.4 ■ 

00 00 8 

00 

8 VI 0 0 0 ■•••4 

vz. 

73' 

N 0 & 

cL§ 

..a.) .9. 

ca. r..1 

E O c.) 

F R8 8 = 8 0 

..... c.) = 

& 8 .... v 8 

= — 

8 

0 0, 0:, & 0 8 ....., 

er 

8 

0 0 V) 0 

S 

11;) 

00 

M 8 

N N 

:Fe 8 N 8 

— 

E co 

I:4 be I" 

I 

Q. 4:3 

0.4 C C 

CO s o e, es ,., 

... 

0.:

c ..... • C 9 e 

.., 7, g 8 E ,-, ,... = ..,. .0 .... ,,, " ..... 0 , ..., -0 E c & F.,'8,r) gai Cl. 

I. = 0) 

OW _01) C6., 

4) 2a 0 "do t: d 5 — L., 0 b.0 C 

CO 2 .4-.. 

V3 3 > 

ScL" ii.9 

a 

E2 
cc 

2 0 0 

■ 

43- OPERATIONS 

O O O O O O tG 

O O 

03 

O O O 

0 O 

C\I 

OF WOR

KERS 

cc 

2 

=Imo git 

U) 

ce) c

▪ 

 r ) 

0 

ORNL- DWG 89-15785 

C 

•••■■• 

0 

O 

96 

• 

■

z 

LIJ 

CO 

LLJ 

E7 

0 

0 

0 

0

0

O 

1 JUNE 2015 
M 

N 

et 

M 

F 

N 

et 

N 

*C Oa, 4.4 

97 

00 (° ,4 

° N 00 

0 0 0 No 

0 0 

Wcr 

° 

• ° F 0 0 00 

N ° F ° 0 0 N 00 

N F 0 0 

00 

O et F F 

0 .2 

0 N 

° t-- 

1•1 

ro

et F

0 csi 

o 0 rn r- 0 

w4 

F cst ° 

w4 wd 

N 8 8° 

O g 

cNi N 

11.4 

o 

vo E 

124 

cc 

,.. 

Q 2 

O

sa., c c .4 0 0 w JD 

47+ M -52 n E 2 i E. n 

CZ C.)0 150 . 0 L.. c., 0 

. . c E ...., 1! 11 ji ... •- bo a ..... I..., — ca .5' —. ., Etla 

op rc, 2 u L'.3, Ts E 2 " & Ez" , g. 

o .... 

.... . a ci., is. as 

44 "

. 

(30 ..410 50 •-1 0 -.j0 ni "5 

Em'zT: I 2 ._ ....1 

R 75 0 tv 

4 — 

0 

C 13 _ 

,... o E -'t —- nr M E a 

.— O 0 c40 

, 

,.. 

▪ 

C .0 

- * -4.0 

•tr ON •

al 

,.., ..„, o 0 n E › . 

C 0 . ,-, 0 

td . .0 In 1.4 

' 

CZ 

4.: 0 P. in " 

. 

o >n a 0 '8 

N 3) ,.., 0 ., ; 0 t co 

E 1 •R — ..... u 

eu 

= 

0 8 ca

CL 

CZ 

C -.A v 2 s 

en al ...0 4e1 o, ,... ,•-■ co O ba 

cu C‘ > C .-4 * -E 

t 

.9. 

......, E . 

al io 

tl• g39 .., 

g * 2 § 

0 en 2: 

i

-s .. 0, 0, csi .< cr u re) 4. 

Ti g A 2 

g 

2 E 65%-, „c-)1' "Ea 0 .0 

2

= 

t 8 'i .. 2 0..c 8,--w.0 vs 

..4 

esi B 11. t'sa E .14: 

co E C .t3 -8 v = u E Er) 

g3 • v = a ct. 

-Bi 

c 

la Z 

8

E 

E .., — 

• 0 = g 8 

.,,:i 

▪ — (49, 

c%.5. 2 ve S. 4. 0 .3 .0 0 0 y, Ati .4 0 

C .0 g 0 = 0 0 c -- 0 —5 _co• 

T 

,4 3 ....0 2 ,1 = es „i, eis ur = Op 

• y...ia ri . • 0 

E-4 o 8 4/a 

—ct,..—ti • a> 4) 

. .c .a 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

98 

area, in addition to 180 individuals not accompanied by families. Assuming each family has an 

average of 3.1 members, an estimated population increase of 1,270 could be expected during 

the peak employment stage. This represents an increase of 0.3% in Brevard County's 

estimated 1990 population. 

The size and composition of the population is not expected to change significantly as a 

result of the cumulative USAF activities at CCAFS. 

Land use 

The construction and operations activities associated with the MLV programs and the 

Titan IV program would not result in impacts to community land use patterns because there 

would be no significant increase in the local population. The activities will not require new 

utility services, community facilities, or additional transportation access. The construction would 

not change the industrial nature of land use on CCAFS. 

Employment and economy 

Cumulative program activities are expected to reach a peak employment level of about 

1,700 workers during the second quarter of 1990. Approximately half of the operations work 

force is expected to be drawn from personnel currently employed by contractors at KSC and 

CCAFS and military personnel stationed at CCAFS (USAF 1989a). The remaining half of 

peak operational employment of 1,080 workers (or 540 workers) would represent a 4.6% 

increase over the existing level of USAF and associated contractor employment in the area, 

which totalled 11,743 in September 1988 (PAFB 1988). The direct in-migrating work force of 

530 associated with cumulative activities would amount to an increase of less than 0.3% in 

Brevard County's existing labor force. The peak increase in direct new employment, 1,700 jobs, 

could change the unemployment rate from 4.7% to 4.1%, if other factors remain constant. 

Because the employment levels associated with the cumulative projects are small in 

Brevard County's overall economic context, adverse impacts to community employment would 

not be expected and economic benefits would be small. 
WO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

99 

Housing 

Peak in-migration associated with construction for the cumulative programs is expected 

to require up to 350 temporary rental units during mid-1990. As described in Sect. 2.1.1.1, 

temporary housing in central Brevard County is expected to be readily available. 

Employment of permanent employees associated with the MLV II and Titan IV 

programs is expected to reach its highest point in the latter part of 1991 (See Table 3.2). 

Approximately 240 new operating personnel remaining after 1991 will require permanent 

housing; these houses represent only about 02% of housing units in Brevard County. Vacancy 

rates are particularly high on the beaches, where permanent employees may be likely to locate. 

No cumulative impacts to the housing market are expected to occur. 

Facilities and services 

Schools. Assuming an average of 0.8 school-aged children per family (Malhotra and 

Manninen 1981) among the 350 in-migrating families during the peak employment stage in mid1990, a maximum of 280 students would be expected to enter the Brevard County School 

District. These students represent less than 0.5% of the district's enrollment, and enrollment 

increases would be distributed over the central mainland and beach communities. No 

cumulative impacts to school capacity are expected. 

Water. The maximum cumulative increase in water consumption due to in-migration 

would be 83,000 gal (1,270 x 65 gal/day), or about 0.2% of the system's capacity. No impacts 

to the provision of community water services are expected as a result of cumulative inmigration. 

The deluge water used in the combined operations of the MLV I, MLV II, and Titan 

IV programs is not expected to exceed or stress the maximum daily capacity of the municipal 

water system. 

Waste management. The peak cumulative population increase of 1,270 people is not 

expected to impact local wastewater treatment systems. Most systems in the area (with the 

possible exception of the Port St. John community) are expected to have sufficient capacity for 

new customers by 1990. Because a new county facility for solid waste disposal is expected to 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

100 

be in operation by early 1990, the cumulative population increase is not expected to strain 

existing waste disposal services. 

Power. The maximum population increase of 1,270 is not expected to impact the 

provision of power by FPL. Adequate capacity is available (see Sect. 2.1.1.1) for all CCAFS 

activities. 

Public safety. The peak cumulative population increase is expected to change only 

slightly the ratio of police and fire department personnel to population in central Brevard 

County. No impacts on public safety services are expected. 

Health care. The cumulative population increase is expected to change the ratio of 

hospital beds to population in central Brevard County to 1:278 from 1:276. This change is not 

expected to affect the availability of health care services in the area. 

Transportation 

The cumulative employment increase of 1,700 workers during early 1991 could result in 

an increase of up to 1,000 additional vehicles entering and leaving CCAFS over a 24-hour 

period, in addition to trucks and other vehicles associated directly with construction. This 

estimate assumes that 60% of the construction workers would carpool with another worker and 

that all other workers would drive alone (Malhotra and Manninen, 1981). The increase on 

each access route would depend upon where workers locate. A maximum increase of 700 

vehicles at either the NASA Causeway gate or the South Gate (on Cape Road) could be 

expected during a 24-hour period. Such increases may result in significant increased back-ups 

during morning badge checks at these points (Capt. Bullington, Pan Am World Services 

Security Police, personal communication with Janice Morrissey, SAIC, September 22, 1989). 

Traffic on the 2-lane section of NASA Causeway east of SR 3 would be particularly heavy 

when North Cape Road is closed. Badge checks conducted by KSC are honored by CCAFS; 

therefore, increased traffic on the NASA Causeway between the mainland and KSC could 

conflict with KSC rush-hour traffic congestion. 

Due to the existing variability in off-base traffic caused by travel to and from the 

beaches, no significant impacts on off-base roads would be expected to occur, although some 

increase in rush hour traffic on roads closer to the base may be noticeable. 
WO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

101 

While significantly higher traffic levels have been handled by CCAFS access roads in 

the past, increased traffic flow and congestion on the NASA Causeway and on Cape Road 

near the main gate could occur during morning and afternoon peak hours as a result of 

cumulative actions at CCAFS. Off-base impacts could occur to the south of CCAFS in the 

area of Port Canaveral as increases in CCAFS traffic conflict with increasing traffic related to 

the new cruise ship terminal and related expansions at Port Canaveral. 

Cultural resources 

No cumulative impacts to cultural resources would be expected. Consultation with the 

Florida SHPO for the MLV and Titan programs at CCAFS has resulted in an official 

determination of no adverse effects on archaeological or historic resources at CCAFS. 

3.1.13 Mitigation 

Because adverse impacts on the economy, land use, or the provision of public services 

would not be expected to occur, no mitigation would be necessary. Impacts on the 

transportation network on CCAFS and KSC could be mitigated by effective programs designed 

to encourage employee carpooling, by employer-sponsored vanpools, or by staggering work 

schedules. While carpooling programs have met with limited success in the past, regulations 

provide for CCAFS to order staggered work schedules among its three largest contractors, 

Martin Marietta, General Dynamics, and McDonald Douglas (Lt. Col. Penley, Commander 

CCAFS, personal communication with Janice Morrissey, SAIC, September 25, 1989). Plans call 

for adding a third lane incoming to CCAFS on Cape Road at the south gate early in 1991. 

This would mitigate, but not eliminate, traffic impacts occurring after that date. Other 

mitigation measures include continuing double laning and 1-way traffic flow through the 

industrial area at North Cape Road and providing three lanes both inbound and outbound on 

Cape Road. A professional traffic study by military Traffic Management Command is needed 

to identify specific mitigation measures to alleviate cumulative impacts. Mitigation of impacts 

on off-base roads in the vicinity of Port Canaveral would fall under the jurisdiction of the Port 

Authority. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

102 

3.12 Noise 

3.1.2.1 Regional and local impacts 

Construction 

Noise impact analysis focuses on the potential for loss of hearing in human and animal 

receptors, health and welfare effects on people, and structural damage. 

Construction noise at the LCs and at the proposed sites for the new SMAB and PFCF 

would be generated by vehicles and equipment. Table 3.4 lists peak and attenuated noise 

levels expected from operation of construction vehicles and equipment. 

The nearest location where the public could be exposed to noise from construction at 

CCAFS is about 4 mi to the west at KSC. Table 3.4 shows that noise from construction 

vehicles and equipment attenuates to between 54 to 89 dBA at 400 ft from the source. 

Extrapolating from this, at 4 mi from the source, increased noise from construction would be 

imperceptible. Therefore, significant adverse impacts to public health would not be expected 

from construction associated with the expansion of the Titan IV program. 

Occupational exposure to unsafe noise levels nearer the source would be reduced to 

acceptable levels by the use of hearing protection equipment; therefore, significant impacts to 

occupational health and safety would not be expected. 

Pre-launch processing 

Noise would be generated in the launch vehicle assembly•process by mechanical 

equipment, such as cranes, and by diesel locomotives and rail cars during transport of core 

vehicles, SRMs, and components. Typical locomotive noise levels at a distance of 50 ft are 

about 88 dBA (Canter 1977). Cranes produce about 100 dBA at the source, decreasing to 55-

70 dBA at 400 ft. As with construction noise, the increase noise from operations in the ITL 

Area would be confined to the vicinity of the facilities, and would not affect off-site 

populations. Therefore, no significant noise impacts would be expected. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

103 

Table 3A. Peak and attenuated noise levels expected from operation of vehicles 

and equipment during construction for the Titan N program at 

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida' 

Source 

Noise level 

(Peak) 

Distance from source 

50 ft 100 ft 200 ft 400 ft 

Heavy trucks 95 84-89 78-83 72-77 66-71 

Pickup trucks 92 72 66 60 54 

Dump trucks 108 88 82 76 70 

Concrete mixer 105 85 79 73 67 

Jackhammer 108 88 82 76 70 

Scraper 93 80-89 74-82 68-77 60-71 

Dozer 107 87-102 81-96 75-90 69-84 

Paver 109 80-89 74-83 68-77 60-71 

Generator 96 76 70 64 58 

Shovel 111 91 85 79 73 

Crane 104 75-88 69-82 63-76 55-70 

Loader 104 73-86 67-80 61-74 55-68 

Grader 108 88-91 82-85 76-79 70-73 

Caterpillar 103 88 82 76 70 

Dragline 105 85 79 73 67 

Shovel 110 91-107 85-101 79-95 73-89 

Dredging 89 79 73 66 60 

Pile Driver 105 95 89 83 77 

Ditcher 104 99 93 87 81 

Fork Lift 100 95 89 83 77 

Noise levels given in decibels (A-weighted) (dBA). 

Source: Golden et al. 1979. 

Launch 

Launch of Titan IV vehicles produces noise from the combustion of fuel and the 

interaction of the exhaust jet with the atmosphere. Although the Titan IV—Type 2 (SRMU) 

has been designed to generate an instantaneous thrust 8% greater than the Titan IV—Type 1, 

acoustic calculations indicate that because of design differences, the Titan IV—Twe 2 (SRMU) 

would generate about the same amount of noise as the Titan TV—Type 1 (MMC 1988). The 

noise occurring at Titan IV launch would be intense, of relatively short duration, and at low 

frequencies. Near the launch pad, the maximum sound pressure would reach a sound level of 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

104 

about 170 dB, a level that can cause hearing damage. Workers are routinely protected from 

launch noise by evacuation and by wearing protective devices when inside launch operations 

buildings that are acoustically designed to reduce noise levels below 115 dBA. At a distance of 

about 2 mi from the launch pad, a maximum sound pressure of 125 dB would be anticipated 

for about 30 seconds after liftoff. This noise level is roughly equivalent to the sound 

experienced at 200 ft from a jet takeoff. At distances of 5 and 10 mi from the pad, noise 

levels of about 110 and 100 dBA would be anticipated for about 2 min after launch. 

The nearest uncontrolled location where the public could be exposed to launch noise is 

about 4 mi away at KSC. The nearest communities to the LCs are about 10 mi away. 

Because Titan IV launches would occur infrequently (six per year maximum) and would involve 

very short exposure duration (1-2 min), no significant adverse public health impacts would be 

expected from launch noise. Launch noise is usually perceived in nearby communities as a 

rumble in the distance. Although some individuals might be annoyed at this, infrequent launch 

noise is commonly accepted as part of the ambient environment in these communities. 

When launch vehicles reach supersonic speeds, they produce pressure waves known as 

sonic booms. The characteristics of the shock pattern depend on the size of the launch vehicle 

and its exhaust plume and its trajectory characteristics (altitude, speed, and curvature). Other 

factors such as air turbulence, winds, and temperature variations of the atmosphere affect the 

pressure wave and determine how the sonic boom sounds at the surface. Sonic booms of 

launch vehicles tend to be focused by the curvature of the flightpath produced by the pitchover 

maneuver necessary to place the vehicle into orbit. Focusing results from the accumulation 

and reinforcement of the pressure waves; this causes the sonic overpressure to be magnified in 

a small area. The impact of the focused sonic boom for a specific vehicle is based upon the 

magnitude of the focusing effect, the location where the focus boom intersects the earth's 

surface, and the frequency and timing of launches. At CCAFS, the ascent track for launch 

vehicles is over open ocean. No problems have ever been reported as a result of sonic booms 

from CCAFS launches; therefore, no impacts would be expected from the expanded Titan IV 

program. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

105 

3.1.22 Cumulative impacts 

Construction activities for expansion of the Titan IV program would overlap other 

CCAFS construction projects; but, because of the distance from the nearest public receptor, 

significant public health impacts would not be expected and the ambience of local communities 

would be unchanged. The brief, infrequent but intense noise levels associated with the 

proposed launches of the Titan IV vehicles would correspond to the brief increase in noise 

resulting from other launches at CCAFS, but because launches would not occur simultaneously, 

a cumulative impact on noise intensity would not result at a given point in time. However, the 

Titan IV program in combination with other launches at CCAFS would increase the number of 

launches by up to 18 per year, or 1 every 3 weeks, thereby increasing the frequency of launch 

noise disturbances in the region per year. No significant public health impacts would be 

expected; however, annoyance would increase slightly among sensitive individuals. 

3.1.2.3 Mitigation 

Significant noise impacts to off-site receptors would not be expected from the proposed 

action; therefore, mitigation would be unnecessary. Occupational exposure to noise is regulated 

by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (29 CFR 1910.95). Workers would wear 

ear protection or other noise-attenuating equipment and would be exposed to noise for only 

specified lengths of time. Vehicles would be equipped with mufflers and noise-abatement 

devices to minimize noise levels during operation. 

3.13 Air Quality 

3.13.1 Regional and local impacts 

Potential air quality impacts of the expanded Than IV program at CCAFS are discussed 

in the following sections according to the nature and timing of the activities causing the 

pollutant emissions. Emissions would result from (1) one-time construction activities, 

(2) periodic pre- and post-launch processing, and (3) periodic launches of the Titan IV-Type 1 

and 2 vehicles. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

106 

Construction 

The new SMAB would be built on a site that currently contains a fuel/oxidizer railcar 

storage facility, which would be dismantled. Construction of the new SMAB would result in 

emissions of PM-10 from site demolition, earthmoving, and structure erection. Construction 

would last 18 months. For typical construction activities, the EPA has estimated an average 

monthly TSP emission factor of 1.2 tons/acre (EPA 1985). A recent EPA report (EPA 1988) 

provides estimates of PM•10/I'SP ratios for construction activities, based on measurements 50 m 

downwind of construction areas. The average PM-10/TSP ratios for various earthmoving 

operations ranged from 0.22 to 0.27. To be conservative, an average PM-10/TSP ratio of 0.3 

was assumed for the new SMAB construction. Multiplying this value by the monthly TSP 

emission factor of 1.2 tons/acre, a PM-10 emission factor of 0.36 tons/acre•month was 

calculated. 

The total area to be disturbed by construction of the new SMAB would be 16.5 acres. 

Conservatively assuming that the entire area is actively disturbed for the duration of the 

construction period and that no dust suppression measures are implemented, the total PM-10 

emissions from construction were calculated to be: 

Total PM-10 = (0.36 ton/acre•month)(16.5 acres)(18 months) 

= 107 tons 

A dust suppression (watering) program would reduce PM-10 emissions by at least 50% (EPA 

1985) to about 54 tons. 

Modifications to LC-40 and construction of the PFCF would include structure 

demolition, modification, and new structure erection. The surface areas disturbed by these 

activities would be less than an acre; therefore, PM-10 emissions would be 1-2 tons/18 months, 

much less than for construction of the new SMAB. This would not have a measurable impact 

on off-site air quality. 

The EPA Industrial Source Complex Short-Term (ISCST) dispersion model (EPA 1987) 

was used to estimate the increased atmospheric PM-10 loading from Titan N program 

construction activities, using the above emissions rate without dust suppression measures. With 

conservative assumptions, the maximum predicted increase in PM-10 levels in uncontrolled 

areas (the nearest land areas outside CCAFS and KSC, over 10 km from the proposed SMAB 

site) would be 7 mg,/m3 on a 24-hr basis and 0.2 itg/m3on an annual basis. These increases 
NIRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 107 

would be less than 5% and 1% of the 24-hr (150 μg/m3) and annual (50 p,g/m3) NAAQS, 

respectively. Since existing PM-10 concentrations in the area are well below the NAAQS, 

these minor increases would not threaten the continued attainment of NAAQS in the area. 

Also, these minor impacts would be temporary, lasting only for the duration of construction. 

Other emissions associated with construction would be from various earthmoving and 

equipment engines, including pile driving hammers. The pollutants emitted would be NO., 

SO2, hydrocarbons (which are precursors in the formation of ozone), CO, and PM-10. The 

amounts of these emissions would be very small compared with the construction-related PM-10 

emissions estimated previously, and the impacts to uncontrolled areas would be insignificant. 

Pre-launch processing 

Various ground-support activities associated with each launch would cause relatively 

minor emissions of VOCs used in coating, fabrication, and cleaning operations for launch 

vehicle components, the MSTs and UTs, and ground support equipment. Small amounts of 

hydrazines, N204, NO. and CO would be released during liquid fueling operations for the 

launch vehicles. Emissions of hydrazine (fuel) and N204(oxidizer) vapors would be minimized 

by fuel vapor incineration systems (FV1S) and oxidizer vapor scrubber systems (OVSS) at each 

LC. An FVIS and OVSS already exist at LC-41, and FVIS and OVSS units of the same 

design would be installed at LC-40 for the Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) program. Air pollution 

permits have been granted previously for the FVIS and OVSS units at LC-41. The new FVIS 

and OVSS units at LC-40 would require similar permits from the FDER (see Sect. 4.1.1). 

Diesel-fired backup electrical generators and miscellaneous transport vehicles would periodically 

emit NO. CO, VOCs, SO2, and PM-10: 

Quantitative estimates of NO,, CO, VOCs, CO2, and PM-10 emissions during pre-launch 

processing would be similar to previously calculated emissions for Titan programs (USAF 1986; 

USAF 1988a). (Estimates from these sources are not repeated here.) Emissions would slightly 

degrade local air quality near support facilities, but impacts would be temporary. The increased 

number of launches would increase the total annual emissions from pre-launch processing; 

however, the emissions per launch would remain constant. Because pre-launch processing 

would occur a maximum of six times per year, impacts of these emissions to regional air quality 

are not expected to be measurable off-site. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

108 

Launch 

For both the Titan IV-Type 1 and Type 2 (SRMU), the dual SRMs (stage zero) would 

be ignited at liftoff and continue burning for slightly over 2 min, placing the launch vehicle at 

an altitude of roughly 50 km. At this point, the stage one engine would be ignited and the 

SRMs would separate from the core vehicle about 20 seconds later. Nitrogen (41% wt.), water 

(35% wt.), and carbon dioxide (18%), the stage one exhaust products, would be emitted to the 

atmosphere at an altitude of 29 miles. 

The primary combustion products from the SRMs for both vehicle types are shown in 

Table 3.5. These data are based on thermochemical model calculations (App. D) and are 

effective at the nozzle exit plane of the SRMs. The solid propellants for Types 1 and 2 have 

slightly different chemical formulations, resulting in somewhat different effluent compositions. 

The elements and compounds in Table 3.5 comprise over 99.9% of the SRM effluent mass; 

other trace constituents would be emitted in quantities too small to be of concern with regard 

to air quality. The total (both SRMs) solid propellant weights for the Titan IV—Type 1 and 

Type 2 (SRMU) vehicles would be 1,180,000 lb and 1,360,000 lb, respectively. The SRMU 

solid propellant weight is about 15% greater than that of Type 1. As a comparison, the total 

solid propellant weight for a pair of Space Shuttle SRMs is 2,216,696 lb, 63% greater than for 

the SRMU. 

The combustion products shown in Table 3.5 would be distributed along the vehicle 

trajectory to an altitude of roughly 50 km. However, because of the gradual acceleration of 

the vehicle off the launch pad, the emissions per unit length would be much greater near 

the ground, forming what is known as a "ground cloud." For Space Shuttle [Space 

Transportation System (STS)) and other large space vehicle launches, it is typical for the 

buoyant ground cloud to rise 1 km or more before stabilizing. Its height then remains 

relatively constant as it is transported and dispersed downwind. 

Air pollutants in the combustion products that are of primary concern are Ha and 

A1203. The other combustion products (1) would be nontoxic, (2) would react rapidly to 
. , 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 109 

Table 3.5. Combustion products at the nozzle mit plane for 

Titan IV-Type 1 and Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) 

stage zero boosters' 

Combustion 

Product 

Titan IV-Type 1 Titan IV-Type 2 

(SRMU) 

Wt. % Wt. (tons) Wt. % Wt. (tons) 

A1203 30.45 180.2 35.88 244.2 

CO 27.50 162.7 21.93 149.3 

CO, 2.97 17.6 2.49 17.0 

Cl- 0.05 0.3 0.25 1.7 

FeCl2 0.39 2.3 0.00 0.0 

HC1 20.67 122.3 21.14 143.9 

H2 2.48 14.7 2.21 15.1 

H2O 6.97 41.2 7.69 52.3 

N2 8.50 50.3 8.34 56.8 

'Total emissions from two solid rocket motors; emissions would be distributed along 

a trajectory from ground level to an altitude of 50 km. 

form nontoxic compounds, or (3) would be emitted in insignificant quantities. The Ha in 

SRM exhaust clouds tends to partition between gaseous and aerosol phases (Cofer et al. 

1985) and can be toxic above certain concentrations. The National Research Council 

(NRC) recommends that 1-hr average Ha concentrations "in connection with community 

exposure during space-shuttle launches" not exceed a level of 1 ppm (NRC 1987). 

A1203, which exists as a crystalline dust in SRM exhaust clouds, is quite inert 

chemically and is not toxic. However, many of the dust particles are small enough (PM-10) 

to be retained in the lung (Cofer et al. 1985). Thus, it is appropriate to compare A1203 

concentrations with NAAQS for PM-10. The shortest averaging time for which a PM-10 

NAAQS exists is 24 hr, a standard of 150 lig/m3is applicable. 

During the early stages of formation and transport, the ground clouds generated by 

STS and Titan launches contain large amounts of SRM effluent in both gaseous and aerosol 

form. For the most part, the aerosols are water droplets containing dissolved HCI and 

particulate A1203 from SRM exhaust. The larger aerosols tend to settle out of the cloud 

near the launch pad, therefore, the greatest deposition is near the pad and amounts rapidly 

decrease downwind. The mass of aerosol deposited is influenced by the quantity of deluge 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 110 

1 JUNE 2015 

water used, the amount of water produced by combustion, and the water content and 

temperature of the ambient air that mixes with the ground cloud. Ground clouds from STS 

launches contain substantially greater amounts of water than Titan ground clouds, because 

of the vehicle's larger SRMs, main engine exhaust (H2+ 02—> H20), and greater deluge 

water requirements. Thus, Titan ground clouds are drier than STS ones, and produce 

generally smaller amounts and areal extent of acidic aerosol deposition. 

In addition to the near-field acidic deposition which occurs with STS and Titan 

launches, there is a possibility of acid precipitation from naturally-occurring rain showers 

falling through the ground cloud. Such an event occurred after a 1975 Titan III launch at 

Cape Canaveral, and resulted in rain of pH 1 about 5 km (3 mi) from the launch pad and 

pH 2 about 10 km (6 mi) away (Pellett et al. 1983). For STS launches, model predictions 

have indicated the possibility of acid rain with pH <1 at distances up to 20 km (12 mi) from 

the launch pad and pH 52 up to 200 km (120 mi) away (NASA 1978). 

In order to estimate ground-level concentrations of the SRM exhaust products 

downwind of the CCAFS launch pads, the Rocket Effluent Exhaust Dispersion Model 

(REEDM) was utilized. This model was developed specifically to predict air quality impacts 

of space vehicle launches and has been enhanced over the past two decades through the 

joint support of NASA and the USAF. The version of REEDM used for this analysis is 

currently used at VAFB in support of various launch activities. The VAFB REEDM 

version contains site-specific algorithms to handle the unique terrain and wind-field 

conditions at VAFB. For simulation of Titan IV effluent dispersion at CCAFS, the 

VAFB-specific terrain/wind algorithm was disengaged, so that REEDM was executed in a 

flat-terrain mode. 

The REEDM model was executed with four expected worst-case meteorological 

conditions. The required meteorological input data for REEDM consist of vertical 

atmospheric profiles of wind direction, wind speed, temperature, and turbulent intensity. 

Four historical meteorological cases were selected for the CCAFS analysis, based on the 

judgement of Eastern Space and Missile Center (ESMC) staff experienced in running 

REEDM for CCAFS launch operations. Selected meteorological parameters for the four 

CCAFS cases are summarized in Table 3.6. 

The REEDM model was executed for a Titan IV-Type I launch. Concentrations of 

Ha and A1203 discussed below are for a Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) launch, which would 
Wind speed (m/s) Wind direction 

Local Temperature 

Case Date time Surface 500 m Surface 500 m inversions 

Winter, cold 1/12/87 0739 4.1 

morning 

Summer, light 7/12/87 0715 2.1 

wind 

Summer, on-shore 8/16/88 0615 1.0 

flow 

Fall, sea breeze 11/11/88 1313 2.5 

11.3 310° 320° 200 m-500 m 

(moderate) 

5.1 220° 239° Surface200 m (weak) 

6.2 153° 165° Surface200 m (weak) 

2.1 32° 319° None below 

10,000 ft 

(3,048 m) 

NRQ APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 111 

Table 3.6. Cape Canaveral Air Force Station meteorological parameters for four 

typical worst-case dispersion conditions used as input to the 

Rocket Effluent Exhaust Dispersion Model 

generate more HCl and A1203than a Type 1 launch. The concentrations for Type 2 

(SRMU) were obtained by multiplying the Type 1 concentration predictions by the 

appropriate factors to account for the greater fraction of these constituents in the Type 2 

(SRMU) exhaust (see Table 3.5) and for the greater (15% more) solid propellant weight for 

the Type 2 vehicle. 

The results of the four REEDM runs for CCAFS are summarized graphically in 

Fig. 3.3. The four curves represent maximum predicted plume-centerline concentrations as a 

function of distance for the four meteorological scenarios. Because HCl and A1203are 

assumed by REEDM to disperse identically, without deposition or chemical conversion, a 

single curve is used to represent concentrations of both compounds for each scenario. 

Maximum 1-hr HCl and 24-hr A1203concentrations at a given distance can be obtained from 

the left and right scales, respectively. 

Maximum 1-hr Ha concentrations beyond the distance of the nearest CCAFS 

property boundary were predicted by REEDM to be well below the NRC recommended 

1-hr short-term public emergency guidance level (SPEGL) of 1 ppm for all meteorological 

scenarios. The highest predicted 1-hr Ha concentration beyond this distance was 0.22 ppm, 

which occurred for the summer, light wind scenario. 
112 

(£w/6r1) NOLLVELLN3ON09 C031V 

8 0 8 0 U) 0 

I 

Val V 03110E11NOONn 

1S31:1V3N 01 3oNvism 31VINIXOldidc1V 

• 

• 

I 

• 

• 

J

I 

-J -J 

U- 

(wdd) NOIIVUIN3ONOO IOH 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 'JUNE 2015 

113 

The maximum predicted 24-hr A1203concentration beyond the distance of the 

nearest CCAFS property boundary was 25 μg/m3, which is well below the 24-hr NAAQS for 

PM-10 of 150 isg/m3. In 1986, the maximum measured 24-hr TSP concentration in the 

Titusville and Merritt Island area was 104 itgie (FDER 1987). Assuming that all the TSP 

generated by the Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) launch was in the PM-10 size range, the 

maximum predicted total PM-10 concentration would be 129 itg/e. This is quite a 

conservative estimate because it assumes that the highest yearly 24-hr particulate matter 

concentration attributable to other sources would occur on the same day as the highest 

estimated concentration from a normal launch. 

3.1.3.2 Cumulative impacts 

Lower atmosphere 

Because of the brief and sporadic nature of atmospheric emissions associated with 

the Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) and other launch programs, the long-term cumulative air 

quality impacts of the combined launch programs at CCAFS are not expected to be 

significant. Short-term (24 hr or less) cumulative air quality impacts would not occur 

because launches for the various programs would not be conducted at the same time. The 

relatively small emissions of criteria pollutants associated with ground support operations 

would have little incremental impact in an area that presently meets air quality standards 

with ambient concentrations well below the NAAQS. 

Upper atmosphere 

The past two decades have been marked by increasing concern about the effects of 

man's activities on the upper atmosphere. In regard to space vehicle launches, this concern 

has focused on the potential cumulative role of exhaust constituents in depleting the ozone 

layer (Gine 1982), which tends to protect biological organisms from adverse levels of 

ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Sunburn and skin cancer can result from excess exposure to UV 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

114 

radiation in the 290-310 nm wavelength range (UVB), which is partially absorbed by the 

stratospheric ozone layer. 

The ozone layer is mostly contained within the stratosphere, a region of steady or 

increasing temperature with height, which extends from roughly 10 km to 50 km above the 

earth's surface. The vertical distribution of ozone within the stratosphere varies 

substantially, depending on the time of year and on latitude. However, the bulk of the 

ozone is concentrated in the lower half of the stratosphere (Webb 1966). 

With regard to potential ozone layer effects, the SRM emissions, primarily HC1, are 

the main concern. Photochemical reactions involving chlorine are thought to be very 

important in the destruction of stratospheric ozone. As stated earlier, the stage-one 

Titan IV–Type 2 (SRMU) engine would not be ignited until the vehicle reached an altitude 

of roughly 50 km, and would produce combustion products of less concern to the ozone 

layer. The total SRM burn time and SRM separation/stage-one ignition altitude for the 

Titan IV-Types 1 and 2 (SRMU) would vary somewhat, but for the purpose of ozone layer 

effects assessment, do not differ appreciably. 

The potential effect of SRM exhaust on the ozone layer was studied extensively by 

NASA prior to STS launches (NASA 1978; Potter 1978). The latter reference contains a 

reassessment of stratospheric ozone depletion from STS launches, which was performed after 

new information became available regarding the rate constants for some chemical reactions 

important to ozone destruction. The reassessment of a hypothetical 60 STS launches/year, 

assumed to occur indefinitely, was conducted for NASA by five independent research 

groups. The revised model estimates for northern hemisphere ozone reduction from the 

five research groups ranged from 0.23% to 0.28% (Potter 1978). 

A comparison of modeled ozone-layer effects by Gille (1982) found that even for a 

large number of shuttle launches, the decrease in total stratospheric ozone was much smaller 

than perturbations resulting from natural or anthropogenic causes. Gille has summarized 

estimates of the expected magnitudes and directions of the total ozone perturbations from 

these causes as follows: 

1. Solar variability—increase or decrease from 7 to 20%. 

2. Current and projected (1990) commercial supersonic and subsonic aircraft—increase 

from a few percent to 20%. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

115 

3. Continued chlorofluoromethanes released at. the 1977 rate—decrease of 17%. 

4. Space Shuttle launch rate of 60/year—decrease from 0.2 to 0.3%. 

The reference cited for the finding in item (2) was a 1979 report by the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT). A more recent DOT report in the same series 

(DOT 1981) revised these estimates, stating that the existing and projected 1990 commercial 

aircraft fleets would cause only a 1% increase in stratospheric ozone. The latter report also 

stated that model estimates were quite sensitive to the injection altitude of the aircraft 

emissions, with flights above 15 km (49,000 ft) causing stratospheric ozone depletion and 

lower altitude flights causing stratospheric ozone production. 

Rosenberg and Newton (1983) indicate that an STS launch rate of 24 per year 

would decrease stratospheric ozone by 0.1% and increase UVB at the earth's surface by 

0.2%. These figures are consistent with the estimate that a 1% decrease in stratospheric 

ozone results in a 1-2% increase in ground-level UVB (Gille 1982). A decrease in 

stratospheric ozone in the range of 0.1-0.25% is about two orders of magnitude smaller 

than the measured variations in total ozone that occur annually as well as variations 

predicted due to global chlorofluorocarbon emissions. These findings do not suggest that 

the slight decrease in ozone attributed to STS exhaust would not have an adverse effect on 

biological organisms—but rather that any effects would not be discernible because they 

would be masked by other larger-scale variations. 

Although the proposed action would increase Ha emissions from the existing 

Titan IV program, the following discussion of ozone layer effects considers the 

Titan program as a whole, since the program has been and continues to be evolutionary. 

As indicated in Table 1.1, a total Titan IV launch rate (CCAFS and VAFB) of 8 per year is 

planned in the early 1990s. The annual Ha emission rate under this plan was compared 

with the annual STS Ha emissions at the hypothetical launch rate of 60 per year, which 

has been the case used for several modeling studies. Using the worst-case assumption that 

all Titan IVs launched are the slightly larger SRMU vehicle (60% of STS vehicle Ha 

emissions), the Ha emission rate for the Titan IV program would be 8% of the STS 

program at 60 launches per year. It might also be conservatively assumed that the Titan IV 

program was extended indefinitely, as was assumed for the STS modeling studies. Assuming 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

I JUNE 20'15 

116 

that additional ozone depletion is approximately proportional to the additional HC1 

emissions represented by the entire Titan IV program, the net decrease in ozone for 

launching 8 Than IV-Type 2 (SRMUs) per year would be 0.02%. 

This perturbation would be indistinguishable from effects caused by other natural and 

man-made causes. However, the problem of stratospheric ozone depletion by man-made 

chemicals is global in nature; and the cumulative effects of many small sources, taken 

together, can add up to serious adverse effects, even though each individual source seems 

insignificant. 

Given the desired payload weights for the Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) program, the 

only alternative vehicle is the STS. The Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) represents an 

environmentally favored alternative to the STS because the atmospheric HCl emissions per 

launch are only about 50-60% of those for the STS. 

In summary, the incremental effects of the proposed action on stratospheric ozone 

and on ground-level UVB are expected to be far below the effects attributable to other 

natural and man-made causes. Still, the global nature of the ozone depletion problem 

implies that all sources of depletion must be weighed in considering control strategies. 

Rosenberg and Newton (1983) have discussed the benefits of liquid rocket boosters (LRBs), 

which would affect the ozone layer much less than the SRMs and also cost less. Rosenberg 

and Newton also indicated that NASA is funding studies that could lead to the development 

of LRBs to replace the SRMs currently used with the STS. If LRBs prove reliable, they 

may replace SRMs on future unmanned booster systems such as Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) 

as well. 

3.133 Mitigation 

Construction impacts 

PM-10 emissions from grading, fill, and excavation activities associated with 

construction would be controlled by water application as soil moisture conditions warrant. It 

is expected that implementation of a watering program would reduce potential PM-10 

emissions by at least 50% (EPA 1985). Other construction activities associated with the 
NfRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

117 

Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) program would involve relatively little or no soil disturbance and 

PM-10 emissions. 

Pre-launch processing impacts 

Emissions from all routine fuel and oxidizer loading and transfer operations would be 

minimized through incineration and scrubbing of hazardous vapors. The potential for 

emissions from accidental spills would be minimized through the use of redundant systems 

for flow metering and cutoff in case of leaks. Propellant transfer systems would be situated 

over catch basins, where accidental spills could be quickly neutralized through water dilution 

where applicable, allowing for prompt cleanup in the event of a spill. Hazardous propellant 

handling operations are undertaken only if Potential Hazard Corridor (PHC) forecasts 

indicate that off-base or on-base populations would not be exposed to adverse vapor 

concentrations from accidental spills. 

Launch impacts 

Although no steps are taken specifically to reduce launch-related emissions, the 

deluge water, which is applied to the launch pad area and exhaust stream for cooling and 

overpressure suppression, does remove some air contaminants from the exhaust. However, 

the amount removed is probably a small fraction of the total exhaust emissions, because the 

exhaust is in contact with this water for only a brief period during SRM firing. 

Mitigation of potentially adverse air quality impacts from the exhaust cloud is 

accomplished through dispersion forecasts which affect the decision whether to launch a 

vehicle at the scheduled time. CCAFS maintains extensive meteorological monitoring and 

forecasting facilities. One function of the meteorological facilities and staff is to provide 

forecasts of the PHC before launches and associated operations. The CCAFS 

meteorological forecasting staff uses site-specific dispersion models, together with real-time 

or forecast meteorological input data and potential source strength data, to predict the 

length and angular width of PHCs. The PHC forecast would be used to determine whether 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

118 

to launch, in order to prevent both off-base and on-base populations from being exposed to 

adverse effluent concentrations. 

Mitigation of potential cumulative air quality impacts could take the form of controls 

on the type, number, and frequency of launches from the planned programs at CCAFS. 

However, given the currently planned launch rates of space vehicles from CCAFS and the 

transient nature of the associated emissions, mitigation of cumulative impacts on air quality 

is considered unnecessary. 

3.1.4 Surface Water 

3.1.4.1 Regional and local impacts 

Construction 

Soil that is exposed during construction of the new SMAB and PFCF would be 

subject to erosion by wind and rain; soil transport could increase the sediment load and 

turbidity of the Banana River. Proper erosion control measures, such as straw-barriers and 

berms, would be taken to minimize the movement of soil and contaminants (e.g., chemicals 

and construction materials such as oil and grease) into the Banana River. 

Pre-launch processing 

Effluents from the new SMAB would include stormwater runoff and treated sanitary 

sewage. Stormwater runoff from the SMAB and associated facilities (e.g., parking lots and 

storage areas) would be collected and diverted to a retention pond on the northwest side of 

the site in accordance with permit requirements established by the St. Johns River Water 

Management District. The retention pond would be designed to retain runoff long enough 

for suspended particulates to settle. Clarified runoff would then be discharged to the 

Banana River via a buried pipeline in accordance with limitations set in the permit. 

Sanitary wastewater from a work force of less than 200 personnel would be treated 

on-site by a secondary waste treatment facility. Treated effluent from the facility would be 
NR9 APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

119 

discharged to a drainage field on the southwest side of the site. This discharge of treated 

domestic wastewater would be in accordance with USAF and state requirements (AFR 

88-15, Florida Administrative Code 17-6, and FDER domestic wastewater permit conditions). 

Effluents and/or stormwater runoff from other Titan IV program support facilities in 

the ITL area would not change because of the proposed action. 

Launch impacts 

Approximately 400,000 gal of deluge and washdown water would be required per 

Titan IV launch at LC-40 and LC-41. About 300,000 gal would be deluge water, some of 

which would be dispersed by the SRM/SRMU exhaust (MMSLS 1988). About 320,000 gal 

would be collected in the launch duct sump, which drains to percolation ponds at LC-40 and 

LC-41 (Fig. 2.4), preventing release of this deluge and washdown water to surface water 

bodies. The remaining 80,000 gal would be blown by the exhaust onto uncontrolled areas of 

the launch facility, where it would either percolate into highly permeable soils or vaporize 

and disperse into the atmosphere. Some deluge water also would be expected to fall 

directly into the Atlantic Ocean or Banana River. 

In addition, 44,400 gal of coolant water from the new OVSS would be required for 

each launch. This wastewater also would drain to percolation ponds in controlled areas at 

the LC-40 and LC-41 sites. Three percolation ponds covering 1.2 acres are located near the 

flame bucket and oxidizer scrubber unit. These ponds are connected by open culverts; if 

364,000 gal of wastewater were collected in them simultaneously, the water depth would be 

about 0.5 ft. No direct discharge to surface water would occur, and no direct impacts to 

surface waters would be expected. 

Launch operations from LCs 40 and 41 would produce a ground cloud that could 

deposit A1203or Ha in solid, aerosol, and/or droplet form. Most deposition from the 

ground cloud would occur within the near-field area reasonably close to the launch site. 

The exhaust ducts at both launch complexes force the exhaust plumes eastward. Launches 

frequently occur during the mornings, when prevailing winds are from the west or southwest. 

Under such wind conditions, deposition from the ground cloud could reach the Atlantic 

Ocean, where it would be diluted. With winds from the east or southeast (infrequent), 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

120 

deposition would occur into the wetland areas adjacent to the sites and, to a lesser extent, 

onto the Banana River. Because of the limited extent of deposition in the river and the 

volume of water available for dilution, impacts would not be significant. Impacts to wetlands 

are discussed in Sect. 3.1.8. 

3.1.4.2 Cumulative impacts 

Construction in the ITL area and the launch complexes would be independent of 

construction for other programs and base activities; however, construction schedules may 

overlap. With use of Best Management Practices (e.g., straw berms) at all CCAFS 

construction sites, erosion and sedimentation would be minimized and no significant impacts 

would occur to water quality of CCAFS wetlands or the Banana River. 

Launches of MLV program vehicles would occur at LCs 17 and 36 (see Fig. 1.2) 

which are located several miles east of the Banana River. Therefore, cumulative surface 

water impacts that may result from ground cloud deposition in the Banana River would not 

be expected. 

3.1.4.3 Monitoring and mitigation 

Best Management Practices would be used during construction to minimize the 

potential impacts of soil erosion and materials transport. For example, hay bales or plastic 

skirts installed between exposed soils and any on-site drainage ways would limit potential 

runoff. Significant impacts to surface waters would not be expected, and mitigation of 

construction impacts would not be necessary. 

The water quality of the Banana River is monitored monthly by the FDER. 

Significant changes in quality could warrant mitigative actions at Titan IV launch and 

support facilities. If so, the FDER would advise the USAF of measures to be implemented. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1*JUNE 2015 

121 

3.13 Geology and Groundwater 

3.15.1 Regional and local impacts 

The launch water requirements described in Sect. 3.1.4.1 would not impact 

groundwater supplies at CCAFS because all such water would be drawn from municipal 

supplies (USAF 1986). Although there are no water supply wells within 500 ft of the 

percolation ponds (MMSLS 1988), the potential exists for contamination of groundwater in 

the surficial aquifer by deluge and washdown water as it infiltrates into permeable soils 

underlying the percolation ponds. 

MMSLS (1988) provides a limited discussion of groundwater impacts from 

wastewater discharges following launch. The following analysis is based on that discussion. 

One of the effects of disposal of wastewater through percolation ponds would be slight 

groundwater mounding beneath the launch complex. If all of the available wastewater 

(364,000 gal) were to infiltrate into 10 acres of ground surrounding the percolation ponds 

on the east side of the LC-41 site, the average water level rise per launch would be 0.3 ft 

(assuming that the aquifer has a porosity of 0.3—a larger porosity would reduce the impact). 

The maximum groundwater velocity in the surficial aquifer is estimated to be 110 ft/year 

(based on several assumptions: maximum hydraulic gradient = 0.01, average hydraulic 

conductivity = 9.3 ft/day, and effective porosity = 0.3). 

Good management of the percolation ponds would prevent surface runoff from 

reaching wetlands on the west side of LC-41. Based on the preceding analysis, a minimum 

of 11 years would be required for groundwater to reach these wetlands, which are 1200 ft 

west of the percolation ponds. Although mixing with natural groundwater is expected to 

dilute contaminants released by a given launch to acceptable levels, a. groundwater 

monitoring program has been established to provide regulatory control, allowing appropriate 

and timely mitigative action should the need arise (see Sect. 3.1.5.3). 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

122 

3.1.52 Cumulative impacts 

The cumulative impact of previous launches on groundwater is unknown. As stated 

in Sect. 3.1.5.1, a single launch would be insufficient to contaminate groundwater to such an 

extent that it could conceivably affect nearby wetlands. It is acknowledged, however, that 

contaminated groundwater from repeated Titan IV launches as well as other launches at 

CCAFS could have a long-term impact on groundwater and nearby wetlands. 

There would be no significant impact on municipal water supplies because the 

shallow groundwater resources at CCAFS are insufficient and unsuitable as a potable water 

supply. 

3.1.5.3 Monitoring and mitigation 

A network of five groundwater monitoring wells has been installed around LC-40 

LC-41 (Fig. 2.4) so that changes in groundwater quality can be observed. This would allow 

timely implementation of mitigating measures if contaminated groundwater migrated toward 

sensitive wetlands. One well is a background monitor well upgradient and northeast of each 

launch site. Two other wells are centrally located in percolation ponds on the west and east 

sides of each complex. Another two wells are located 75 ft west of each complex perimeter 

and between the launch site and the wetlands. All monitor wells are drilled to a depth of 

15 ft, screened from 3 to 15 ft, and capped with a seal made of bentonite and a 

combination of bentonite and portland cement. Each well will be monitored quarterly for 

Florida primary and secondary drinking water standards. In addition, electrical conductivity, 

total organic carbon, and total organic halogen analysis will be performed until sufficient 

background data are obtained and potential groundwater quality changes are known. 

If monitoring of groundwater identifies levels of contaminants that are above levels 

approved by FDER, treatment of the contaminated water could be required. If solvents are 

identified as contaminants, treatment would most effectively occur by (1) pumping the 

contaminated water to the surface and treating by air stripping, and (2) passing the 

contaminated water through an activated carbon column for sorption of the contaminant, or 

to biological treatment, depending on the contaminant. If metals are identified as the 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 *JUNE 2015 

123 

contaminants, treatment of the contaminated groundwater would most effectively occur by 

pumping the water to the surface and treating by precipitation or by ion exchange to 

remove the metal. 

3.1.6 Terrestrial Ecology 

3.1.6.1 Regional and local impacts 

Construction 

Construction activities would cause negligible impacts to terrestrial flora because only 

ruderal vegetation would be disturbed. 

Launch 

Launch activities could impact vegetation and wildlife in three ways: fire, acidic 

deposition on vegetation and fauna, and noise. Occasional small brush fires are sometimes 

associated with launches, and vegetation within 20 m (66 ft) of the perimeter of the launch 

pads could be singed. Brush fires are usually successfully contained and limited to the 

ruderal vegetation within the launch complexes. Past singing has not permanently affected 

the vegetation near the pads. Wildlife transients that do not flee the area within the 

perimeter fence could be injured or killed; however, mortality from such incidences is 

historically reported in post-launch inspection summaries to be very low. 

Wet deposition of Ha could damage or kill vegetation and wildlife in high 

deposition zones. USAF environmental contractors who observed the June 1989 Titan IV 

launch from LC-41 reported no evidence of wet deposition outside the pad fence perimeter 

(personal communication, Paul Schinalzer, Bionetics Co., with R. L Graham, ORNL, 

July 19, 1989). 

Noise exceeding 95 dBA from Titan IV launches could possibly cause a temporary 

hearing loss in sensitive wildlife living near the launch pads. Brattstrom and Bondello 

(1983) found that fringe-toed lizards, desert kangaroo rat, and Couch's spadefoot toad all 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

124 

suffered immediate hearing loss when exposed to off-road vehicle sounds of 95 dBA for less 

than 9 min. No other reports are known to document wildlife hearing losses associated with 

short-term exposures to loud (95 to 120-dBA) noises. The 95–dBA radius of impact for a 

Titan IV launch is estimated to be about 24 km (15 mi) (Sect. 3.1.2). After the June 1989, 

Titan IV launch at CCAFS, Florida scrub jays did not respond to alarm calls (personal 

communication, D. Breininger, Bionetics Co., with R. L Graham, ORNL, July 19, 1989). In 

contrast, following the STS mission-34 launch, scrub jays west of the pad displayed normal 

behavior and responded to calls. Wildlife that are heavily dependent on sound (as opposed 

to visual) information could be more susceptible to predation because of a short-term 

hearing loss. Because of the low number of Titan IV launches at CCAFS (six per year), 

wildlife hearing loss would not be expected to significantly affect population densities. 

Because the sonic boom from the Titan IV launches would occur over open waters, 

no significant noise impacts on wildlife are expected from the sonic boom. Sea birds and 

surface-swimming mammals may exhibit startle responses. 

3.1.6.2 Cumulative impacts 

Construction would not result in cumulative impacts on vegetation at CCAFS 

because activities would be concentrated in previously disturbed or man-made areas. 

The cumulative ecological impacts of acidic deposition from launch activities at CCAFS and 

KSC cannot be addressed in detail without information regarding the extent and intensity of 

near-field and far-field deposition from Titan IV launches. Assuming the worst 

case—deposition extent and intensity similar to that from Space Shuttle launches-22 ha 

(46 acres) of scrub vegetation adjacent to each of the launch pads might experience a 

partial loss of tree and shrub species and an increase in grass and sedge species as has been 

observed near the Space Shuttle launch pad 39 (Schmalzer et aL 1985). Because far-field 

deposition is not likely to occur over the same area for each launch, there may, in fact, be 

no cumulative impacts because vegetation is likely to recover during the interval between 

deposition episodes. 

A maximum of 18 launches is scheduled to take place at CCAFS each year between 

1989 and 1991 (USAF 1989a), and roughly one-half of these would be Titan IV launches. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

125 

If the worst case is assumed that (1) each launch would impair the hearing of sensitive 

animals residing within a given noise impact zone (e.g., launch noise exceeds 95 dBA) and 

(2) noise impact zones of the various launches overlap in areas where sensitive wildlife 

reside—then sensitive animals could be affected 18 times per year. Depending on the 

duration of hearing loss, the survival of sensitive species may be affected. 

3.1.6.3 Monitoring and mitigation 

Because three federally listed threatened species (Florida scrub jay, indigo snake, and 

the southeastern beach mouse) inhabit the area, a monitoring program will be initiated to 

collect baseline population information to evaluate impacts from the launches 

(see Sect. 3.1.9.4). Florida scrub jay and wood stork responses to launch noise will be 

studied, and the USAF will develop a plan for investigating long-term noise effects on 

surrogate species. Acidic deposition from launches will be monitored and baseline data 

collected for the vegetation surrounding the LCs so that possible changes due to deposition 

or burning can be evaluated. 

3.1.7 Aquatic Ecology 

3.1.7.1 Regional and local impacts 

Aquatic biota in the 0.3 ha (0.8-acre) wetland would be displaced by construction of 

the new SMAB. There would be no dredging or alteration of aquatic habitat in the Banana 

River. Spill and stormwater containment practices during constriction would minimize the 

amounts of eroded sediments and other contaminants that reach surface waters; therefore, 

impacts to the aquatic ecosystem from construction of the SMAB would be insignificant. 

Construction at LC-40 and LC-41 would involve minimal land disturbance. Sediment 

control measures would be used during construction, and minimal erosion from the site 

should result. Because no surface water bodies receive direct runoff from the sites during 

deluge water discharge, there should be no impacts to surface waters or their associated 

biota. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

126 

Operation of the SMAB and other support facilities would not alter aquatic habitats 

in the surrounding Banana River. The only surface discharge from the site would be from 

the stormwater retention pond. This effluent would not be expected to contain levels of 

chemical contaminants or sediment that would adversely affect aquatic biota. 

Deposition from the ground clouds associated with each Titan IV launch could occur 

into the wetlands and Banana River to the west of both launch complexes. Aquatic 

resources including fish and insects that occur in the area receiving the heaviest deposition 

of Ha from the ground cloud could be adversely affected by deposition. Hawkins, 

Overstreet, and Provancha (1984) have reported adverse effects of deposition associated 

with Space Shuttle launches. The concentration of Ha in the ground cloud associated with 

the Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) launches should be less than 0.25 ppm (see Fig. 3.3) and 

should have significantly less effect than that associated with the Space Shuttle. However, 

the potential does exist for temporarily increased acidity to affect biota in adjacent wetlands 

and the Banana River. 

3.1.72 Cumulative impacts 

Construction in the ITL area and SMAB site could have minor impacts on aquatic 

resources of the Banana River in the site vicinities. With use of Best Management 

Practices for construction, erosion and sedimentation would be controlled to acceptable 

levels. Modifications to and discharge from LC-40 and LC-41 will not affect aquatic biota 

in the adjacent wetlands. Deluge water would discharge to grassy areas on the sites; gate 

valves would prevent water movement off-site. Potential cumulative impacts from acidic 

ground cloud disposition would be expected from six Than IV launches per year (and 18 

total launches at CCAFS), but are likely to be undetectable in the Banana River and on-site 

wetlands because of their dilution capacity. 

3.1.7.3 Monitoring and mitigation 

Because the proposed action would include construction of a 1.6-acre replacement 

wetland along the western portion of the SMAB site, further mitigation of aquatic ecological 
N.R0 APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

127 

impacts would be unnecessary. Dilution of ground cloud deposition in the wetlands west of 

the launch sites would minimize impacts to aquatic biota. If necessary, the water level in 

the wetlands could be manipulated to increase the flow from the Banana River into the 

wetland to increase dilution capacity. 

3.1.8 Floodplains and Wetlands 

3.1.8.1 Regional and local impacts 

To prevent flooding of the SMAB site, portions of the low-lying areas would be built 

up with fill (loamy sand with shell) to raise the site to a level of 9 ft above mean sea level 

(MSL). This elevation is above both the base (100-year) and critical action (500-year) 

floodplains. In addition, the SMAB facility would be designed to collect stormwater and 

channel it to the Banana River. Because of the small area affected by the proposed 

construction relative to the floodplain of this lagoon system (the Banana and Indian Rivers 

together have an open-water area of 150,000 acres in Brevard County and drain 540,000 

acres), the action would have no effect on flood potential in the drainage basin. A Sect. 

404 dredge-and-fill permit has been obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (see 

Sect. 4.1.2.4). 

Construction of the SMAB would require the removal of about 0.8 acre of wetland 

vegetation (primarily woody shrubs) along the southern causeway portion of the site. The 

total area of vegetation, both wetland and non-wetland, on the SMAB site is 14 acres. 

Because the SMAB is located on a man-made causeway, it is likely that all vegetation on 

the site is secondary growth, with no unique plant communities. Removal of wetlands 

vegetation would destroy animal habitat that does not support threatened or endangered 

species and is not unique to the area. The wetlands represent a small percentage of the 

12,000 acres of wildlife habitat managed on the CCAFS (George 1987). Prior to 

construction of the SMAB, a new wetland of 1.6 acres would be created along the western 

edge of the site. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

128 

3.1.8.2 Cumulative impacts 

Impacts to wetlands at the Titan IV launch and support facilities sites would not 

exacerbate impacts from other CCAFS activities or launches. To the contrary, the creation 

of 1.6 acres of wetland along the western portion of the site would be a net positive effect 

on wetlands at CCAFS. 

Depending on meteorological conditions, deposition of Ha and A1203from the 

ground clouds from various launches at CCAFS could impact the biota and water quality in 

these areas. Impacts would result from decreases in pH associated with the HCl deposition. 

The wetlands to the west of the launch complexes are lagoons with recharge occurring from 

groundwater, rainfall, and gate access from the Banana River. [These gates are used by the 

Fish and Wildlife Service to control inflow for mosquito control (C. Hall, Bionetics, personal 

communication with V. R. Tolbert, ORNL, June 14, 1989)1 The only organisms that might 

be affected would be those occurring in the upper 0.5-1 m of the wetland area. Natural 

buffering should raise the pH to normal levels within a few hours after deposition occurred. 

Deposition of A120, should be minimal, and the A120, should be nontoxic because of its 

insolubility at the normal pH of the receiving waters (USAF 1986). 

3.1.83 Monitoring and mitigation 

The following mitigation activities are proposed for the wetlands disturbance at the 

SMAB construction site: 

1. The wetland creation will have an approximate area of 1.6 acres which is 2:1 ratio to 

the lost wetland for saltwater marshes wetland type. 

2. The new wetland area will be created prior to construction at the wetland loss. 

3. New wetland area shall be graded to an acceptable elevation. For the proposed site, 

the recommended elevation is at 2.5 ft or less above the mean sea level. 

4. Plants, removed from the wetland loss area, shall be transplanted at the created 

wetland area. Additional wetland-type plants will be purchased and planted in 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

129 

accordance with the recommendations of local nurseries who are familiar with the 

wetlands habitat. 

5. A minimum of 4 in. of organic topsoil, taken from the wetland loss and other areas 

on-site, shall be spread and mulched over the new wetland. 

6. Since the mitigation is performed on-site the effects on local and regional ecology 

and faunal diversity are kept to a minimum. 

7. A monitoring program on a 4 to 6 month cycle shall be conducted over 3 or more 

years to ensure that the new wetlands are taking hold. 

8. A report of each monitoring program, including picture of the new wetlands, shall be 

submitted to the St. Johns River Water Management District to show how the 

mitigation of the wetlands is progressing. 

If wetlands receive repeated deposition of HCl and the normal buffering capacity is 

reduced, inflow from the Banana River could be increased to improve buffering capacity. 

3.1.9 Threatened and Endangered Species 

3.1.9.1 Facility lighting impacts 

The impacts of security and operations lighting at the LCs and ITL Area on 

endangered sea turtle nesting is a major concern associated with all CCAFS launch 

programs. Lights that emit in the ultraviolet, violet-blue, and blue-green wavelengths, such 

as high-pressure sodium lights, disorient endangered sea turtle hatchlings. If these illuminate 

sea turtle nests on the beach, hatchlings move inland rather than seaward and subsequently 

suffer increased mortality (USAF 1988d). 

As indicated in Sect. 1.1.4.1, light management plans designed to reduce beach 

lighting are being developed for all existing facilities at CCAFS. With the approval of the 

FWS and the implementation of these plans, significant impacts to endangered sea turtle 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

130 

populations would not be expected. Light surveys have been completed for LC-40 and 

LC-41 and light management plans are currently under development for these facilities. 

When the LC-40 and LC-41 plans are approved by the FWS, complete implementation, 

including replacement of light controls and fixtures, is expected to take about one year. 

3.1.9.2 Habitat destruction or disturbance 

The FWS has designated no critical habitat for the Florida scrub jay or the 

southeastern beach mouse at CCAFS, although the predominant on-site coastal scrub, 

strand, and dune vegetation are excellent habitat for both species. Construction activities 

associated with renovations of LCs 40 and 41 to support the Titan IV program will not 

destroy or significantly disturb scrub jay or beach mouse habitat. Most construction will 

occur on previously disturbed land; therefore, impacts to habitat will be minimal, and 

populations of threatened species will not be adversely affected. 

Acidic deposition from hydrogen chloride (HC1) in the ground cloud that forms 

following ignition and combustion of the Titan IV SRMs may injure or destroy vegetation 

very near the launch pads and along the path of the ground cloud; however, habitat or 

forage will not be altered to the extent that populations of threatened species will be 

adversely affected. 

A high-risk zone exists within the perimeter fence of LCs 40 and 41 extending about 

600 ft (182 m) out from the launch pad. During launch, this area will experience intense 

heat and pressure (noise, vibrations), and concentrations of SRM exhaust will be extremely 

toxic. The zone is industrial in nature, and areas where structures or pavement are not 

present are covered with only grass. There is little if any suitable habitat for either the 

scrub jay or the beach mouse within the high-risk zone. 

3.1.9.3 Launch effects 

In response to FWS concerns about the potential effects of the Titan IV vehicle 

ground cloud and launch noise, the USAF prepared a Biological Assessment (USAF 1989e; 

see Appendix B) to provide current information on the populations of the Florida scrub jay 
N,R0 APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 A:ME 2015 

131 

and the southeastern beach mouse near LCs 40 and 41 and to project impacts to these 

species from Titan N launches. The FWS subsequently issued a Biological Opinion 

regarding the potential effects of Titan IV launches on the two species (FWS 1990; see 

Appendix B) which stated" ... it is the Service's Biological Opinion that the operational 

phase of the Titan N program is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 

scrub jay or the southeastern beach mouse." Because of the potential for mortalities within 

the vicinity of either launch complex, the FWS issued an incidental take exemption to the 

USAF under Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. The terms of 

the exemption are stated in the Opinion, which is provided in Appendix B of this EA. 

3.1.9.4 Cumulative impacts 

Cumulative impacts are the direct and indirect impacts of the Titan N program in 

combination with the identifiable effects of other actions at CCAFS. Two other launch 

programs are planned at CCAFS during the same time period as the Titan N program: the 

MLV I, which will launch Delta vehicles, and the MLV II, which will launch Atlas vehicles. 

The Delta vehicle uses SRMs having a similar chemical composition as the Titan, but in 

much smaller quantities. The Atlas vehicle does not use SRMs. Launches of Delta and 

Atlas vehicles will occur at LCs 17 and 36, which are located several miles south of LCs 40 

and 41 (see Fig. 1.2). 

Potential cumulative impacts to the scrub jays and beach mice could result from 

habitat destruction or disturbance associated with the three programs and from vehicle 

launches. Neither the MLV I nor II program will destroy or significantly disturb habitat or 

forage for either species; therefore, cumulative impacts to habitat would not be expected. 

Delta launches will produce a ground cloud containing HC1, but it will not directly or 

indirectly affect the populations of scrub jays or beach mice near LCs 40 or 41; therefore, 

cumulative impacts from launch vehicle emissions would not be expected. 

The implementation of light management plans to reduce beach lighting from all 

CCAFS facilities during the nesting season should reduce adverse impacts to sea turtles. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

132 

3.1.93 Monitoring and mitigation 

In consultation with the FWS regarding impacts to protected species, the USAF 

agreed to establish a monitoring plan to measure the effects of the ground cloud and noise 

from a Titan III launch vehicle on surrogate species of a rodent and bird. 

The Titan III vehicle has one-third less power than the Titan IV; however, the FWS 

believes the results from this test will be applicable. The proposal calls for setting up 

transect lines extending outward from LC-40 for a distance of 2,000 feet. Monitoring 

stations will be established at appropriate intervals beginning at the security fence. Cages 

will be placed at different heights within the vegetation, each cage holding one surrogate 

bird. To determine the effect on beach mice, a rice rat will be placed in a cage in an 

excavated burrow. In addition, at each location, measuring devices will be used to record 

noise levels and concentration of chemicals in the cloud. The launches of two other Titan 

Ts will be videotaped to record the dispersion of the cloud over the test area. Results of 

the two monitoring periods will provide further information to the FWS so that a realistic 

number of "incidental takes" of scrub jays and beach mice can be established for the Titan 

IV program. The results of these tests will also set the protocol for similar monitoring of 

Titan IV launches at LC-41. The USAF and FWS will conduct joint field inspections of the 

habitat immediately following launches. 

In addition, the USAF has agreed to leg-band and color mark scrub jays at both 

pads for the purpose of future monitoring during the Titan IV launches. The results of the 

banding effort will provide information on home range, density, mortality, and 

emigration/immigration resulting from the launch activity. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

133 

3.2 VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE 

3.2.1 Man-Made Environment 

3.2.1.1 Regional and local impacts 

A maximum of 15 construction workers would be expected to be hired for the 

expanded Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) program. About 21 additional operations employees 

would be required. In-migration and project-induced growth would be negligible. A 

previous EA evaluated impacts to community resources from the Titan IV—Type 1 program 

(USAF 1988b) and projected a population increase of 474 personnel and their families. No 

adverse socioeconomic impacts have resulted from the existing Titan N program 

(Sect. 3.2.1.2), and no impacts to regional and local community resources would be expected 

from the expanded Titan IV program. 

3.2.12 Cumulative impacts 

Cumulative impacts to community resources would be dependent on existing and 

planned launch programs and operations at VAFB. The principal planner of the City of 

Lompoc was contacted to determine whether impacts have occurred as a result of projectinduced population growth during the year that it has been underway. No impacts from the 

Titan N program have been evident. Since the Space Shuttle program at VAFB was 

discontinued in 1986, employment and activity in the business sector have declined. Sharp 

growth in services such as restaurants occurred during the 1980s to accommodate the 

construction phase of the Space Shuttle program. Thus, a large surplus in those services 

now exists (personal communication from T. Martin, Principal Planner, City of Lompoc, to 

Janice Morrissey, SAIC, June 15, 1989). 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

134 

Rental housing has experienced no adverse impacts, and possibly some benefits, as a 

result of the USAF actions at Vandenberg. Although the ownership housing stock is 

strained, this has not been directly attributable to activities at VAFB (personal 

communication from T. Martin, Principal Planner, City of Lompoc, to Janice Morrissey, 

SAIC, June 15, 1989). No adverse cumulative impacts on the housing market would be 

expected. 

No impact on utilities is expected. The municipal wastewater system is at 60% 

capacity. Although the water table is overdrafted, the number of people associated with 

Titan IV would not affect water service (personal communication from T. Martin, Principal 

Planner, City of Lompoc, to Janice Morrissey, SAIC, June 15, 1989). 

Traffic flow near the base is not a problem. Traffic has decreased substantially since 

completion of SLC-6 for the Space Shuttle program. Therefore, no impact on 

transportation would be expected. 

Industrial wastes generated during construction associated with the proposed action 

would consist of materials such as metal, concrete, lumber and other building materials 

which would be disposed of at an approved Class III or Class II landfill, either onbase or at 

the Brevard County Solid Waste Disposal Facility, as prescribed by the USAF in the project 

specifications. No additional industrial wastes would be generated by operations. The 

useful life of the landfill used would be incrementally reduced, but not significantly. 

Hazardous wastes generated during project construction would consist of materials 

such as waste oils, hydraulic, cleaning and cutting fluids, waste antifreeze and paint wastes. 

These materials would be containerized, then transferred to the EPA-permitted RCRA 

hazardous waste storage facility on North VAFB for subsequent recycling or disposal at a 

Class I landfill. The North VAFB facility has a capacity of 45,760 gallons and stored an 

average of 15,400 gallons in 1987. Disposal at a Class I landfill would contribute to the 

reduction of the overall life of the landfill but not significantly. 

If asbestos is encountered during refurbishment, it would be removed by a licensed 

contractor in accordance with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(40 CFR 61) and disposed of in accordance with VAFB OPLAN 855505-89. 

The quantities of industrial and hazardous wastes expected as a result of the 

proposed action would not result in significant impacts. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

135 

3.2.1.3 Mitigation 

Because no impacts to population, facilities and services, transportation, economy, 

and land use are expected to occur, no mitigation measures are necessary. 

3.2.2 Cultural Resources 

The proposed action involves only internal modifications to existing structures at 

SLC-4E and internal modifications to Bldg. 398. Thus, no historic or archaeological sites 

would be affected by these actions. The USAF has received a determination of no effect 

from the SHPO regarding the proposed action. Correspondence is reproduced in App. C. 

3.2.3 Noise 

3.2.3.1 Regional and local impacts 

Construction at SLC-4E and Bldg. 398 would consist primarily of interior 

modifications. Few, if any, heavy vehicles would be needed. Noise from construction would 

be concentrated near the site and would not be perceptible at the nearest receptor, about 

3 mi away. Therefore, impacts from construction noise would not be significant. 

Noise levels associated with launch of Titan IV vehicles at VAFB would be the same 

as those described for CCAFS (Sect. 3.1.2.1) The nearest uncontrolled locations where the 

public could be exposed to launch noise from SLC-4E are about 3.4 mi away along Ocean 

Ave. At these locations, noise levels would be about 125 dB total sound pressure, or 

113 dBA. In Lompoc, the nearest community (about 9 mi from SLC-4E), noise levels 

would be about 103 dBA. Because Titan IV launches would occur infrequently (4 per year 

maximum) and would involve very short exposure duration (1-2 min), no significant adverse 

impacts would be expected from launch noise associated with the expanded Titan IV 

program. Some individuals might be annoyed briefly. 

The nature of sonic booms was discussed in Sect. 3.1.2.1. Space launches from 

VAFB are into polar orbit, and some launch trajectories from VAFB travel over the 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

136 

Channel Islands. Although the coastal communities near VAFB would not be affected by 

sonic booms, the Channel Islands to the south of VAFB might experience focused sonic 

booms with overpressures up to 10 lb/ft2 (USAF 1989d). Potential noise impacts to wildlife 

on the Islands are discussed in Sect. 3.2.7. 

3.2.32 Cumulative impacts 

The brief, infrequent but intense noise levels associated with the proposed launches 

of Titan IV vehicles would correspond to the brief increase in noise resulting from other 

launches at VAFB, but because launches would not occur simultaneously, a cumulative 

impact in noise intensity would not result at a given point in time. However, the Titan IV 

program and other launches at VAFB would increase the frequency of launches per year, 

thereby increasing the number of launch noise disturbances in the region per year. 

To assess cumulative noise impacts during the period of 1990-1995, the maximum 

number of Titan IV launches (4 per year) was considered with the other USAF launch 

programs at VAFB, specifically (1) 1 to 2 launches per year of the Atlas and Scout missiles 

from South VAFB, (2) up to 3 launches per year of the Than II vehicle from SLC-4W, and 

(3) about 10 launches per year of Minuteman missiles from North VAFB (USAF 1988f). 

This represents a maximum to 19 launches per year, or a maximum launch frequency of 

about 1 every 3 weeks. The launches of Minuteman missiles from North VAFB (up to 

10 per year) make only a minor noise contribution to South VAFB and adjacent 

communities because the launch site is in the northernmost portion of VAFB. No 

significant cumulative noise impacts would be anticipated from all USAF launch operations, 

although annoyance among sensitive individuals might increase slightly. 

3.233 Monitoring and mitigation 

Significant noise impacts to off-site receptors would not be expected from the 

proposed action; therefore, mitigation would be unnecessary. Occupational exposure to 

noise is regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (29 CFR 1910.95). 

Workers would wear ear protection or other noise-attenuating equipment and would be 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

• 

1 JUNE 2015 

137 

exposed to noise for only specified lengths of time. Vehicles would be equipped with 

mufflers and noise-abatement devices to minimize noise levels during operation. 

In addition, a monitoring plan to be developed for the Titan N program at VAFB 

would include noise measurement at selected locations. 

3.2.4 Air Quality 

3.2.4.1 Regional and local impacts 

Construction 

Construction activities at VAFB would involve minimal earthmoving operations, 

which are typically the major source of construction-related emissions. The only modified or 

new structures requiring such operations would be two concrete trailer pads for fuel and 

oxidizer systems at SLC-4E and a 20 x 100 ft paved transporter storage area adjacent to 

Bldg. 398. The area of land disturbed would be much less than an acre; therefore, fugitive 

dust emissions would be small and significant air quality impacts would not be expected. 

Pre-launch processing 

Pre-launch atmospheric emissions per launch at VAFB would approximate those 

described for CCAFS (see Sect. 3.1.3.1) and in previous assessments for the Titan N 

program (USAF 1986; USAF 1988b). The only new equipment expected to affect the 

amounts of pre-launch emissions is an OVSS which would be installed at SLC-4E and would 

replace an Oxidizer Vapor Burner. The new OVSS would provide a greater range in 

operational flow rates and greater efficiency, and would result in lower emissions of NO, 

An Air Permit Application for the OVSS has been submitted to the Santa Barbara County 

Air Pollution Control District (USAF 1988e). 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

138 

launch 

The rate of launches from SLC-4E (planned rate of two per year with a maximum of 

four per year) would not change under the proposed action. The only change at VAFB 

from actions assessed in previous documentation (USAF 1988b) is that some VAFB 

launches would be Titan 1V—Type 2 (SRMU) vehicles, rather than Type 1. The marginal 

increase (15%) in solid propellant weight for the SRMU would have the potential for slight 

increases in the air quality impacts of launch emissions. The combustion products from a 

Type 2 (SRMU) launch and the rationale for the following analysis were discussed in 

Sect. 3.1.3.1 (see Table 3.5). 

The air quality impacts of the SRMU launches were estimated using the REEDM 

model (see Sect. 3.1.3.1). For the VAFB launch impact analysis, four seasonal worst-case 

meteorological cases were chosen. These seasonal meteorological scenarios are summarized 

in Table 3.7. The meteorological profiles input for these runs were selected through 

consultation with VAFB staff experienced in using the REEDM model. 

The results of the four VAFB REEDM runs are summarized graphically in Fig. 3.4. 

The four curves represent maximum predicted ground-level plume-centerline concentrations 

as a function of distance for the four meteorological scenarios. One-hr HC1 and 24-hr 

A1203concentrations at a given distance can be obtained from the left and right scales, 

respectively. 

The maximum Ha concentration beyond the nearest VAFB property boundary was 

predicted to be approximately equal to the NRC-recommended SPEGL 1-hr limit of 1 ppm 

for the autumn meteorological scenario. This result is 4-5 times higher than the highest 

HCl concentration predicted for the CCAFS scenarios and is most likely the result of the 

higher terrain at VAFB, which reduces the effective height of the plume above ground-level 

receptors. As is the case with all potentially hazardous launch-related activities, VAFB 

meteorological forecasting staff would conduct dispersion modeling before launch to ensure 

that adverse concentrations do not occur over populated areas inside or outside VAFB. 

The maximum predicted A1203concentration beyond the distance of the nearest 

VAFB property boundary was 105 μg/m3. Although no PM-10 monitoring data were 

available for VAFB, a maximum 24-hr background PM-10 concentration of 35μg/m3was 

estimated, based on TSP measurements in Santa Barbara County (see Sect. 2.2.2.1). This 
>- 0 

z 

1.11 

7) — I 

Z CC 0 

1.1.1 

2 cc 

e 

 I 

Ow. 

• LL 

0 7.1 

CC co " 

< > I 

LLI 

CC CC () ww11 I 

PI 0 

F.: 0 Q3; 

• w Z I 

9dVA 3ths1no 

V3E:IV ONV11S3LIV3N 

01 3ONV1S10 

I 

139 

ORNL-DWG 89M-13638R 

0 0 

(cw/611) NOLIVEIIN3ON00 

EO

ZIV 

0 0 0 

0 

0 

T.: O t' o 

.c 

c„ 

0.5e • 0 r.

c o C1/ re et1 

._ 0 • 

cou 

.c 

.ca .c 0 

*- 

EE O 

• 0 E E 2 

0c 0. 0 

• E 

E 

. 0 '8 

0 

(5 P. ■•■ 

CO E' o" 

CL imce • 

o g 

u 

o 

TILLI 

0 CC 

..1C ;Tr a 

0 o 

ec .8 2 

31 74 ai -6 0 0 

E mm 

in >c co 2 

7.5 fr Aa 

601.5 CP 

'0 I" lib 0 42 

Er. co G g 

22 

ra 

DISTANCE FRO 

0 to 

0 

0 

(wdd) NOLLY11:11N3ON00 10H 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

140 

would yield a total maximum 24-hr PM-10 concentration of 140 μg/m', which is below the 

24-hr NAAQS of 150 '4g/in', but above the CAAQS of 50 mg/m3. The maximum predicted 

total PM-10 concentration is considered to be an extremely conservative value, since 

maximum background and modeled impacts are assumed to coincide in time. It is also 

conservative because all plume A1203was assumed to be in the PM-10 size range and 

because no depletion of particulate matter by deposition was accounted for by the model. 

Table 3.7. Vandenberg Air Force Base meteorological parameters for four 

seasonal worst-case dispersion conditions used as input to the 

Rocket Effluent Exhaust Dispersion Model 

Date 

Local 

time 

Wind speed (m/s) Wind direction 

Temperature 

Surface 500 m Surface 500 m inversions 

Winter 2/20/88 0330 1.5 1.8 90° 330° Surface-100 m 

(strong); 

100-900 m 

(weak) 

Spring 3/21/88 0400 1.0 2.6 240° 343° 150-350 m 

(strong); 

350-600 in 

(weak) 

Summer 8/12/87 0400 1.0 2.5 260° 250° 500-800 m 

(strong) 

Fall 11/12/87 0400 1.0 3.1 65° 18° Surface-100 in 

(strong); 

100-500 in 

(moderate) 

3.2.4.2 Cumulative impacts 

Lower atmosphere 

Given the brief and infrequent nature of the emissions associated with VAFB launch 

programs, cumulative impacts on lower atmosphere air quality would be minor. Air quality 

in the VAFB area is currently quite good, except that ozone levels are near the NAAQS. 
NFRO,APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

141 

Incremental emissions of ozone precursors (NO, and VOCs) from the Titan IV-Type 2 

(SRMU) program would be very minor. Also, it should be emphasized that no change in 

the number of launches at VAFB is proposed; the only change with regard to launches is 

that some vehicles would be Titan IV—Type 2 (SRMU) rather than Type 1. 

Upper atmosphere 

The incremental impacts of the VAFB Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) launches on upper 

atmosphere ozone levels would be very small compared with impacts from other natural and 

man-made causes (see Sect. 3.1.3.2). However, because stratospheric ozone depletion is a 

global-scale problem, many small "insignificant" sources can cause significant cumulative 

effects. Given the current alternative vehicles [Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) or STS] for 

launching the desired payloads, the Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) would have less impact on 

upper atmosphere ozone levels, since the HCl emissions per payload would be about 50-

60% of those for the STS. 

3.2.43 Monitoring and mitigation 

A monitoring plan will be developed for the Titan IV program at VAFB and will 

include air quality sampling. 

Construction and pre-launch processing 

The proposed action would involve very little grading, fill, or excavation activity at 

VAFB. PM-10 emissions associated with such earthmoving operations would be controlled 

by watering as soil moisture conditions warrant. 

Emissions from all routine fuel and oxidizer loading and transfer operations would be 

minimized through incineration and scrubbing of hazardous vapors. The potential for 

emissions from accidental spills would be minimized through the use of redundant systems 

for flow metering and cutoff in case of leaks. Propellant transfer systems would be situated 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

142 

over catch basins in which accidental spills could be quickly diluted, neutralized (if 

necessary), and promptly cleaned up. Hazardous propellant handling operations are 

undertaken only if PHC forecasts indicate that off-base or on-base populations would not be 

exposed to adverse vapor concentrations from an accidental spill. 

Launch 

Mitigation of potentially adverse air quality impacts from the exhaust cloud would be 

accomplished through dispersion forecasts that affect the decision whether to launch a 

vehicle at the scheduled time. VAFB maintains extensive meteorological monitoring and 

forecasting facilities. One function of the meteorological facilities and staff is to provide 

forecasts of the PHC before launches and associated operations. The VAFB meteorological 

forecasting staff uses site-specific dispersion models, together with real-time or forecast 

meteorological input data and potential source strength data, to predict the length and 

angular width of PHCs. The PHC forecast would be used to determine whether to launch, 

in order to prevent both off-base and on-base populations from being exposed to adverse 

effluent concentrations. 

3.2.5 Surface Water 

3.2.5.1 Regional and local impacts 

Approximately 220,000 gal of deluge and washdown water would be required per 

Titan IV launch at SLC-4E. About 170,000 gal would be deluge water (USAF 1988b), 

some of which would be dispersed by the SRM/SRMU exhaust. (The quantity of deluge 

water differs from that used at CCAFS because of launch operations procedural 

differences.) About 150,000 gal would be collected in the flame bucket and directed to a 

wastewater retention basin [exhaust duct sump (EDS)] for temporary storage at SLC-4E. 

The entire exhaust duct system (flame bucket, exhaust duct, and EDS) has a capacity of 

280,000 gal (USAF 1988b). The remaining 70,000 gal would be blown by the exhaust onto 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

. . 

1 JUNE 2015 

143 

uncontrolled areas of the launch facility, where it would either percolate in the soil or 

vaporize and disperse into the atmosphere. 

Past deluge and/or washdown discharges (earlier Titan program launches) have 

impacted the surface water quality of Spring Canyon Creek. Significant increases in iron, 

lead, copper, zinc, calcium, magnesium, chloride, and pH have occurred downstream of 

SLC-4 (USAF 1988b); pH levels decreased and aluminum increased upstream. For the 

Titan IV program, the RWQCB will consider surface water beneficial uses, including aquatic 

life, and will require mitigation measures to protect the beneficial uses and prevent further 

degradation of surface water quality (see Sect. 3.2.5.2). 

Deluge water applied during the launch is largely consumed (evaporated) and forms 

part of the ground cloud. Washdown water applied to the launch pad after launch 

comprises the major portion of the water in the sump. The water in the sump would be 

transported to SLC-6 for treatment in an existing wastewater treatment system. The 

wastewater will be analyzed prior to treatment, and if hydrazine compounds are detected, 

they will be removed by ultraviolet/ozone treatment. The pH will be adjusted, and metals 

will be precipitated out of solution. Dissolved solids will be removed in a reverse osmosis 

(RO) unit. Reject water from the RO unit will be evaporated in ponds. Treated water will 

be stored in appropriately lined basins, and reused on-site, as needed. 

Because the launch pad drains into the flame bucket and the exhaust duct sump, 

(EDS), stormwater discharges can constitute a significant portion of the wastewater collected 

between launches. The RWQCB has requested information on the quality of stormwater 

runoff to determine if residues in the retention basin contaminate stormwater to the extent 

that treatment is necessary prior to discharge (see Sect. 3.2.5.2).. 

Impacts, particularly to Spring Canyon Creek, can also occur as the result of 

interaction of the ground cloud with surface waters during launching of Titan IV vehicles. 

The impact of the ground cloud on surface water quality is a function of the composition of 

the exhaust cloud, duration of its contact with the water, wind speed and direction, and 

other atmospheric conditions. Calculation of the ground cloud deposition from future 

SLG7 launches on surface waters in Honda Creek suggests that the pH levels in the stream 

would be depressed; however, the buffering capacity of the stream would minimize the 

actual pH depression (USAF 1989d). 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

144 

Two concerns are associated with the ground cloud. The primary concern is the 

formation of large quantities of HCI. Short-term acidification of surface water may result 

from direct contact with the ground cloud and through deposition of HCI as dryfall or with 

precipitation. Because launches do not occur during rainfall or storm conditions, wet 

deposition should be limited primarily to the SLC-4E vicinity. Short-term acidification of 

waters in Spring Canyon Creek could occur under certain atmospheric conditions (see 

Sect. 3.2.4). Water quality samples taken in Spring Canyon Creek upstream of the SLC-4 

launch area have shown depressed pH and alkalinity levels, which would be indicative of 

deposition from a ground cloud. These water quality parameters returned to levels reported 

for other VAFB streams downstream, indicating neutralization by the natural buffering 

system in the creek (USAF 1988b). The lower pH values upstream and the lower levels of 

Ca and Na (Table 2.4) indicate that much of the natural buffering capacity of the upstream 

portion of Spring Canyon Creek may have already been expended by past ground cloud 

neutralization. 

The second concern associated with the ground cloud of the Titan IV is the 

potential impact of A120, on surface water quality. Previous water quality sampling in 

Spring Canyon Creek has shown occasional high values of aluminum, which would be 

indicative of A120, deposition. Because Titan IV launches will continue and Titan IV-Type 

2 (SRMU) launches will release 15% more exhaust products, the concentrations of 

aluminum in the creek would continue to be elevated. The concentration of aluminum 

would continue to increase in the sediment of the streambed and might continue causing 

elevated levels into the water column on occasions. Most of the A120, would remain in the 

streambed sediments because of its low solubility. 

Based on the acidic deposition calculations for SLC-7 (USAF 1989d), deposition 

from Titan launches from SLC-4 could occur into Canada Honda Creek and Bear Creek. 

As discussed in Sect. 22.2.2, no information exists on the water quality of Bear Creek. 

However, based on the pH and buffering capacity of surface waters in the area, the impacts 

to both Bear Creek and Canada Honda from launches at SLC-4 should be minor. 
NR, 0APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

145 

3.232 Cumulative impacts 

The current water quality in Spring Canyon Creek (Sect. 2.2.1.2) reflects the 

cumulative impacts of launches from SLC-4E and SLC-4W. With continued launches and 

possible stormwater discharge to the creek, surface water in Spring Canyon Creek will 

continue to be degraded. Deposition onto Spring Canyon Creek and its watershed from the 

ground cloud associated with each launch will continue to reduce the pH and alkalinity 

upstream of the site. Concentrations of aluminum will continue to accumulate in the 

streambed sediments as the result of continued launches at SLC-4. 

3.2.53 Monitoring and mitigation 

A surface water monitoring plan will be implemented as part of the Titan N 

program. If water quality problems are noted, the RWQCB will advise the USAF of 

appropriate mitigation measures (personal communication, Bill Meese, RWQCB, to V. R. 

Tolbert, August 17, 1989). 

A valve would be installed between the flame bucket and the EDS at SLC-4E to 

preclude contamination of stormwater with chemicals existing in the EDS. The stormwater, 

which would be segregated in the flame bucket, would be tested before being released 

through the retention basin into Spring Canyon Creek. The stormwater would bypass the 

EDS, which would serve only as a spill containment structure. There is currently no 

requirement to test or prevent the discharge of stormwater. However, the RWQCB has 

requested further information on runoff quality to determine if residues from the launch pad 

will contaminate stormwater and if treatment would be necessary prior to discharge (USAF 

1988f). Treatment of stormwater, if necessary, would mitigate stormwater impacts to surface 

water quality in the Spring Canyon drainage. 

Deluge water and washdown water from launches would collect in the flame bucket 

and EDS. This water will be pumped into tanker trucks and removed to SLC-6 for 

treatment as described in Sect. 3.2.5.1. This action would mitigate water quality impacts of 

deluge water discharge to Spring Canyon Creek associated with previous Titan (III and 

34D) launches from SLC-4E. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

146 

326 Groundwater 

32.6.1 Regional and local impacts 

The impact on the groundwater supply at South VAFB would be insignificant for 

Titan IV launches at SLC-4E. Based on the preceding launch water requirements and a 

launch rate of two per year, annual groundwater withdrawn for deluge and washdown water 

would be about 0.3% of annual groundwater supplies currently consumed at South VAFB. 

It would take 300 years to deplete all the groundwater in storage at the projected 

consumption rates with or without SRMU program implementation. Thus, short- and longterm impacts on groundwater supplies are none and small, respectively, as a result of the 

SRMU program. 

The impact on groundwater from deluge water in the ground cloud is uncertain. An 

unknown quantity of deluge water would condense and fall back to earth a short distance 

from the launch site, but much of it is expected to vaporize and disperse into the 

atmosphere. 

As noted in Sect. 3.2.5.1, deluge and washdown water collected in the EDS system 

would be trucked to SLC-6 for treatment and disposal (EG&G, Inc. 1989) Water from the 

EDS may be contaminated with heavy metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and 

rocket propellants. Treatment and disposal at SLC-6 would preclude any groundwater 

impacts near SLG4E. Impacts of an accidental leak are discussed in Sect. 3.3.2.4. 

3.2.6.2 Cumulative impacts 

Cumulative impacts to groundwater could result from the unmitigated discharge of 

wastewater from the Titan IV launches and from a maximum of five additional annual 

launches in other programs at VAFB (see Sect. 3.2.3.2). This is not likely, however, 

because wastewater from launches at SLC-4E will be collected and treated. 

The groundwater resource at SLC-4E is presently insufficient and unsuitable as a 

potable supply. 
NEO, APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

147 

3.2.6.3 Monitoring and mitigation 

Groundwater monitoring will be conducted as part of the planned comprehensive 

monitoring program for the Titan IV. If monitoring of groundwater identifies levels of 

contaminants that are above levels approved by the RWQCB, treatment could be required. 

If solvents are identified as contaminants, treatment would most effectively occur by 

(1) pumping the contaminated water to the surface and treating by air stripping, and 

(2) passing the contaminated water through an activated carbon column for sorption of the 

contaminant, or to biological treatment, depending on the contaminant. If metals are 

identified as the contaminants, water would be pumped to the surface for treatment by 

precipitation or ion exchange. 

The flame bucket, EDS, and retention pond at SLC-4E will be routinely inspected 

for leaks and resealed, if necessary. 

3.2.7 Terrestrial Ecology 

3.2.7.1 Regional and local impacts 

Construction activities associated with the proposed action would have negligible 

impacts on terrestrial vegetation. Only ruderal vegetation within the launch pad area would 

be affected. 

Launch activities associated with the proposed action could impact vegetation and 

wildlife in three ways—fire, acid deposition on vegetation and fauna, and noise (see Sect. 

3.1.7.1). Because of the drier climate at Vandenberg, brush fires are of greater concern at 

VAFB than at CCAFS. Likewise, vegetation recovery times from acid deposition damage 

may be longer at VAFB than at CCAFS because of the water stress that plants experience 

due to the drier climate. Plant species are also different at VAFB and may respond 

differently to acid deposition. Studies at CCAFS showed that different species showed 

different responses to the same amount of acid deposition. Furthermore, although there are 

no threatened and endangered wildlife species residing sufficiently close to the launch pad 

to be affected by fire or acid deposition, several candidate 2 plant species (soft-leaved 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

148 

Indian paintbrush, San Luis Obispo monardella, black-flowered figwort, and perhpas 

Hoffman's sanicle) are likely to exist within the area that might be impacted by fire or acid 

deposition. 

Least terns and pinnepeds using the shoreline at Vandenberg could possibly 

experience noise levels in excess of 95 dB and a temporary hearing loss. However, given 

the low number of Titan IV launches at VAFB (two per year), wildlife hearing loss would 

probably not be a significant impact to wildlife populations. The focal region of sonic 

booms has not been identified for Titan IV missiles launched from SLC-4. However, it is 

reasonable to assume that it might also include parts of the Channel Islands (USAF 1989d). 

Sonic booms from Titan IV missiles launched from SLC-4 could produce temporary hearing 

losses and startle responses in wildlife on the Channel Islands. As the Channel Islands are 

important breeding grounds for California sea lions, northern fur seals, Guadalupe fur seals, 

and harbor seals, the effect of sonic booms on these four pinnepids is important. Both 

California sea lions and Northern fur seals on the Channel Islands have been observed to 

run (stampede) in response to sonic booms. If this occurred during critical points in the 

reproductive cycle, it could cause adults to abandon a breeding ground, nursing females to 

abandon their pups, or pups to be crushed by stampeding adults, although none of these 

effects have been observed. Field studies for San Miguel Island found that only harbor seal 

pups less than 2 hr old could be separated from their mothers during a major startle (USAF 

1989d). On San Miguel Island, 100-120 harbor seal pups are born each year over a 75-day 

breeding period, with a maximum of two or three per day born during the peak period. 

Thus, a single sonic boom could cause three mother-pup separations at most. However, the 

potential exists for certain insignificant impacts to occur. Therefore, in compliance with the 

requirements of Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act, a Small Incidental Take 

Permit may be needed. 

3.2.72 Cumulative impacts 

The cumulative impacts to terrestrial wildlife and vegetation from the construction 

aspects of the expanded Titan N program are expected to be insignificant because 

construction would occur in previously disturbed areas. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

149 

Four Titan IV vehicles would be launched annually from VAFB and five launches 

for other programs would also be expected at south VAFB (see Sect. 3.13.2). Assuming 

acid deposition extent and intensity similar to that from Space Shuttle launches (a very 

conservative assumption for reasons noted in Sect. 3.1.6.1) and plant responses similar to 

those observed at CCAFS, 22 ha (46 acres) of vegetation directly adjacent to SLC-4 and 

other vehicles. Launch pads could change in plant species and cover. If species at VAFB 

are more sensitive to acid deposition than at CCAFS, more land could possibly be affected. 

At present, there are no data on the effects of acid deposition to plant species at VAFB so 

it is difficult to predict the possible effects of acid deposition on vegetation. As at CCAFS, 

the effect of these possible vegetation changes on wildlife might be positive or negative. 

Because far-field deposition is not likely to occur over the same area for each launch, far 

field deposition may have no cumulative impacts as the vegetation is likely to recover during 

the long interval between deposition episodes. 

The cumulative impact of launch noises on sensitive wildlife (threatened, endangered, 

and protected species) can be analyzed only qualitatively. Including the Titan IV, a total of 

up to 19 launches could take place at North and South VAFB each year. If the worst case 

is assumed (1) that each launch will impair the hearing of sensitive animals living within a 

given noise impact zone (e.g., launch noise exceeds 95 dBA) and (2) that noise impact 

zones of the various missile launches overlap in areas where sensitive wildlife reside, then 

sensitive animals could be impacted 19 times per year. Depending on the duration of 

hearing loss, the worst-case scenario could affect the population and ultimately the survival 

of sensitive wildlife species. 

Similarly, if the focal regions for the sonic booms from 19 launches overlap and fall 

on the Channel Islands, the marine mammal wildlife of the islands could be subjected to 

sonic booms once every 3 weeks if the launches were regularly spaced in time. The impact 

of such frequent sonic booms is unknown, although field observations of startle responses to 

single booms suggest there would be no significant impact. However, laboratory mice 

exposed to repeated sonic booms at either short (10-min) or long (24-hr) intervals did show 

cumulative impacts (i.e., inner ear bleeding) (Manci et al. 1988). It is not known whether 

this effect would occur in other mammals, whether 4-week intervals between exposures 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

150 

would produce cumulative effects, and whether such temporary ear damage would have any 

lasting effects on animal populations. 

32.73 Monitoring and mitigation 

As three candidate species for federal listing as threatened species (soft-leaved 

Indian paintbrush, San Luis Obispo monardella, black-flowered figwort, and perhaps 

Hoffman's sanicle) are likely to exist within the area that might be impacted by fire or acid 

deposition, a monitoring program will be initiated to collect baseline population information 

on these species and to evaluate any impact to the populations from the launches. Least 

tern and harbor seal responses to local launch noise will be studied. Acid deposition from 

the launches will also be monitored and baseline data collected on the vegetation 

surrounding the launch complexes so possible changes due to deposition or burning can be 

evaluated. 

A possible mitigation measure with regard to noise effects on local and Channel 

Island wildlife is to schedule launches to avoid seasons of the year that are most critical to 

wildlife (e.g., breeding seasons). As such seasons vary among animals, it would be necessary 

to identify the most sensitive species and/or time of year critical to the most species. The 

National Marine Fisheries Service has recommended that the USAF continue to pursue a 

small-take permit to cover all launch operations at VAFB as they affect protected marine 

mammals on-base and on the Channel Islands. 

3.2.8 Aquatic Ecology 

32.8.1 Regional and local impacts 

Effects on water quality from discharge of deluge and washdown water from SLC-4E 

to Spring Canyon Creek are discussed in Sect. 3.2.5.2. Impacts to existing aquatic resources 

in Spring Canyon Creek would be lessened by transport of deluge and washdown water to 

SLC-6 rather than discharge to the creek. However, impacts associated with deposition 

from the ground cloud onto the creek would continue as long as launches occur at the site. 
. NERO. APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

151 

Deposition onto Spring Canyon Creek and its watershed from the ground cloud 

would continue to reduce the pH and alkalinity upstream of the site and maintain a poor 

environment for the majority of aquatic biota in the creek. According to Versar (1987), 

diversity and abundance in Spring Canyon Creek are already very low, with no fish or other 

wildlife dependent on the biotic character of the creek for foraging. 

Lesser impacts to aquatic biota in Canada Honda Creek and Bear Creek could occur 

as the result of deposition of the acidic ground cloud onto surface waters and watersheds. 

The unarmored three-spined stickleback, an endangered species, occurs in the downstream 

portion of Canada Honda Creek and potentially could be impacted by water quality 

degradation. 

3.2.8.2 Cumulative impacts 

Between 1990 and 1995, about 12 Titan IV launches are planned from SLC-4E. 

The cumulative impact to existing aquatic biota would result from continued water quality 

degradation associated with ground cloud deposition. Deposition onto Spring Canyon Creek 

from the ground cloud would exacerbate the already poor environment for the aquatic biota 

that inhabit VAFB ephemeral streams. With continued launches, the potential for impacts 

to aquatic biota in Canada Honda Creek and Bear Creek would increase with potentially 

decreased buffering capacity, as seen in Spring Canyon Creek. Although there is no 

information on current impacts to Bear Creek, its small size makes deposition a greater 

contribution to the overall water quality than in larger streams. Therefore, the potential for 

impacts to existing aquatic biota would increase. 

3.2.8.3 Monitoring and mitigation 

The USAF will develop and implement a comprehensive monitoring plan for 

environmental resources at VAFB to detect potential adverse impacts requiring mitigation. 

Water quality and aquatic biota sampling will be included. 

Mitigation of impacts to water quality or protection of Spring Canyon Creek for 

beneficial biotic use might be required by the RWQCB for permitting of stormwater 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

152 

discharge. Upstream of SLC-4, where Spring Canyon Creek is affected by deposition from 

the ground cloud, alkalinity could be artificially increased during launches to raise the pH 

level of the creek and minimize the effects of fluctuations in pH and alkalinity on biota. 

Similar mitigation measures to protect aquatic biota of Canada Honda Creek and 

Bear Creek may be necessary if monitoring of water quality and aquatic biota show 

cumulative effects from ground cloud deposition from launches. This is particularly 

important for Canada Honda Creek, which contains a population of federally listed, 

endangered unarmored three-spined sticklebacks. 

3.2.9 Floodplains and Wetlands 

3.2.9.1 Regional and local impacts 

Deluge discharge from SLC-4E would not affect the wetland area in Spring Canyon. 

Stormwater discharge to the creek could help provide recharge and maintain soil saturation, 

thereby helping to maintain the extent of the wetland area in the Canyon. Cattails and 

rushes are particularly tolerant of low pH waters and are used in filtration ponds in surface 

mining areas in the eastern United States to remove heavy metals and reduce the acidity of 

streamflow. These vegetation types in Spring Canyon could help reduce water quality 

effects of stormwater discharge and downstream water quality effects of ground cloud 

deposition. Historically, the effects of acidic deposition on vegetation have been minimal. 

3292 Cumulative impacts 

Significant adverse impacts to wetland areas in Spring Canyon are not expected to 

result from the Titan IV program; therefore, there should be no cumulative impacts to 

wetland areas. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

153 

3.2.9.3 Monitoring and mitigation 

Because there has been no observed impacts to wetland areas in Spring Canyon, no 

mitigation measures are proposed. Monitoring of wetlands will be included in a 

comprehensive monitoring program planned for the Titan IV program. 

33 IMPACTS OF ACCIDENTS 

3.3.1 Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 

3.3.1.1 Storage and assembly 

Because the launch vehicle storage and assembly facilities are not much closer to offbase land areas than to LC-40 and LC-41, the potential impacts of an accident involving 

ignition of the SRMs during assembly at CCAFS are discussed in the context of a launch 

accident in Sect. 3.4.1.3. 

33.1.2 Liquid propellant handling 

Liquid propellant spills can result in the generation of a cloud or plume of toxic 

vapor. The liquid propellants used in large quantities on the Titan N core vehicle are N20, 

and Aerozine-50 (a mixture of equal portions of hydrazine and unsymmetrical 

dimethylhydrazine). The mass of N204used is nearly twice that of Aerozine-50. Previous 

studies have indicated that for a given amount of propellant, N204has greater potential than 

the hydrazines for toxic air quality effects (USAF 1989c). Although the hydrazines have 

lower recommended exposure limits than N20, (NRC 1985a NRC 1985b), the latter 

evaporates much faster at typical ambient temperatures. Thus, for Aerozine-50 and N20, 

spills of comparable mass, the plume of N20, would travel farther downwind before 

atmospheric dispersion reduced the concentrations below recommended safety limits. 

Spills of N20, or Aerozine-50 during on-pad transfer operations have the potential to 

generate hazardous concentrations at distances of several kilometers or more from the spill 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE . • 

1 JUNE 2015 

154 

site (USAF 1986). For this reason, a number of safety procedures are employed to 

minimize exposure of unprotected populations to hazardous concentrations. First, the 

propellant loading systems are designed with redundant safety features, including meters and 

automatic shutoff valves, that would cause propellant flow to be stopped in the event of a 

leak. Second, if a propellant spill occurred, it would be contained in a catch basin and 

diluted with water to reduce the evaporation rate and allow prompt cleanup. Finally, before 

any operations involving hazardous propellants are conducted, meteorological and dispersion 

model forecasts are employed to determine the size and orientation of the PHC. If the 

PHC would overlay uncontrolled areas, the nearest of which are about 8 mi away from LC40 or LC-41, or unprotected CCAFS or KSC populations, the propellant handling 

operations would be postponed until more favorable meteorological conditions were 

expected. 

33.13 Launch 

An accident shortly before or during launch of a Titan IV vehicle has the most 

potential for adverse air quality impacts, as compared with other accident hazards related to 

vehicle assembly and liquid propellant handling. The worst-case air quality impacts of 

launch or launch-pad accidents are discussed with respect to two general types of 

combustion events: conflagration and deflagration. 

Conflagration is defined here as an accident involving the burning of large solid fuel 

fragments that have become dislodged, by whatever means, from the SRM casing. For this 

analysis, conflagration is assumed to take place at the launch pad either before or shortly 

after launch. The rate at which the solid fuel would burn depends on the size of the solid 

fuel fragments and on the air pressure. When ignited within an SRM, the solid fuel burns 

very rapidly at the high pressures generated by the exhaust gases. However, if the solid fuel 

were to break into large chunks and ignite, it would burn more slowly, perhaps for an hour 

or more. The air contaminant of primary concern for a conflagration event is HCI. 

Deflagration is defined here as a rapid, explosive type of combustion involving the 

hypergolic liquid propellants (/4204, N2114, and UDMH) in a fully fueled vehicle on the 

launch pad or shortly after liftoff. Obviously, the SRMs would also be affected by such an 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

155 

event. If the explosion were caused by a properly functioning command destruct, the SRMs 

would likely disintegrate into relatively small chunks, which would be more widely dispersed 

than they would in the conflagration event described above and would also burn more 

quickly. If the command destruct did not work, the solid fuel would probably break into 

larger fragments and burn as described for the conflagration event. Thus, HCl impacts for a 

conflagration event are expected to be greater than or equal to those for a deflagration 

event. 

The REEDM model has been enhanced in order to simulate both the conflagration 

and deflagration events described previously. For the deflagration event, the REEDM 

model assumes that 80% of the N20, and 20% of the N2H, and UDMH remain 

uncombusted after detonation. These assumptions are based on observations made after a 

1986 Titan 34D vehicle destruct at VAFB, which occurred at an altitude of 300 ft above the 

launch pad. Note that N20, dissociates almost completely in the ambient air, forming NO2. 

Therefore, all impacts from N20, propellant are discussed in terms of NO2. 

In order to provide an indication of the potential air quality impacts from 

conflagration or deflagration events at CCAFS, the REEDM model was run without the 

VAFB-specific terrain/wind algorithms disengaged. The meteorological scenarios considered 

for the CCAFS REEDM accident simulations were the same as for the routine launch 

modeling for CCAFS (Sect. 3.1.3.1). 

REEDM model results for Than IV SRMU deflagration and conflagration events at 

CCAFS are summarized in Table 3.8. Except for NO2, the maximum predicted 

concentrations beyond the distance of the nearest uncontrolled areas (outside CCAFS and 

KSC, 10 mi from LC-40) were below the SPEGLs recommended by the NRC (NRC 1987, 

NRC 1985a, NRC 1985b). The maximum predicted 1-hr NO2concentration was 1.09 ppm, 

which is only slightly above the NRC SPEGL of 1.0 ppm. As is done with other potentially 

hazardous operations, the CCAFS meteorological forecasting staff would use dispersion 

models to forecast the PHC before launch operations are conducted. These forecasts would 

be used to determine whether to launch, in order to prevent adverse exposures to people 

off-site, at CCAFS, or at KSC in case of accidents. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

156 

Table 3.8. Rocket Effluent Exhaust Dispersion Model-predicted air quality impacts for 

deflagration and conflagration events at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 

Maximum 1-hr 

concentration 

National 

Research 

Air outside CCAFS/KSCa Meteorological Council 1-hr 

Event pollutant (ppm) scenario SPEGLb(ppm) 

Conflagration HCI 0.66 Winter, cold morning 1.0 

Deflagration N2H, 

UDMH 

0.07 

0.04 

Summer, light wind 

Summer, light wind 

0.12 

0.24 

NO2 1.09 Summer, light wind 1.0 

'Cape Canaveral Air Force Station/Kennedy Space Center. 

bShort-term public emergency guidance levels (SPEGLs) recommended by the 

National Research Council (NRC 1987, NRC 1985a, NRC 1985b). 

The occurrence of fire and/or the explosion of a Titan IV vehicle during operation 

could result in the loss of some vegetation and wildlife. These impacts should generally be 

contained within the launch complex, which supports only limited numbers of both plant and 

animal species. However, under unusually dry and windy conditions, a successful Titan 34D 

launch at CCAFS ignited a groundfire which escaped the launch complex and burned 

20 acres of adjacent scrub forest. 

A worst-case accident would be for an early inflight termination if the vehicle 

destruction system failed to destroy the vehicle. If such a worst-case accident occurred, it is 

possible that some liquid propellant would enter the surface waters. The degree of impact 

would depend upon the amount of propellant released and the depth of the water column 

receiving the propellant input. Based on the dispersion model for the Titan BIC and BID 

launch failure, the radius of the contaminated water column could vary from 800 to 8000 ft, 

depending on the amount of propellant released (USAF 1988a). Such an accident would 

cause short-term impacts to water quality and aquatic resources (see Sect. 3.2.8.1). 
. , NRO,APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

157 

332 Vandenberg Air Force Base 

33.2.1 Storage and assembly 

Assembly of most Titan IV vehicle components (including SRM segments) at VAFB 

would take place at SLC-4E. Thus, the worst-case assembly-related accident probably would 

take place at SLC-4E, involving accidental ignition/explosion of one or more SRM segments. 

This type of accident would probably cause air quality impacts of severity lesser than or 

equal to an on-pad detonation of a fully fueled vehicle. Therefore, the analysis of launchrelated accidents in Sect. 3.3.23 provides an upper bound on the potential air quality 

impacts resulting from the worst-case assembly accident. 

3.3.2.2 liquid propellant handling 

The types and amounts of liquid propellants used for Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU) 

launches at VAFB would be essentially identical to those used at CCAFS. Safety 

procedures for handling the propellants at VAFB would also be the same as procedures at 

CCAFS. However, at VAFB, the nearest uncontrolled (off-base) area is less than 4 mi from 

SLC-4E. Also, based on the analysis of normal launch air quality impacts (Sect. 3.1.4.1 and 

3.2.4.1), it appears that the unique terrain and meteorological conditions at VAFB could 

cause air contaminant concentrations for the same source size to be several times larger 

than at CCAFS. As at CCAFS, PHC forecasts would be used at VAFB to determine 

whether to conduct hazardous propellant transfers, thus protecting off-base and on-base 

populations in the event of accidental spills. 

33.23 Launch 

The analysis of potential air quality impacts associated with a launch accident at 

VAFB was identical to the analysis for CCAFS, except that the VAFB analysis utilized the 

VAFB-specific wind/terrain algorithms of REEDM and the four VAFB meteorological cases 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

158 

used for the routine launch analysis described in Sect. 3.2.4.1. The REEDM results for the 

conflagration and deflagration events (Sect. 3.3.1.3) are summarized in Table 3.9. 

For the worst-case (fall) meteorological scenario, maximum concentrations of N2H4 

and NO2beyond the distance to the nearest land area outside VAFB (4 mi from SLC-4E) 

were several times greater than the NRGrecommended SPEGLs. The VAFB 

meteorological forecasting staff would utilize real-time and forecast meteorological data, 

together with atmospheric dispersion models, to predict the extent of the PHCs in order to 

prevent such impacts from occurring. To prevent adverse impacts to on-base and off-base 

populations, launch operations would be postponed, if necessary, until more favorable 

meteorological conditions prevailed. As noted in Sect. 3.4.1.3, normal launches always carry 

the risk of fires which can burn a sizeable area if prompt control is not achieved. 

Table 3.9. Rocket Effluent Exhaust Dispersion Model-predicted air quality impacts for 

deflagration and conflagration events at Vandenberg Air Force Base 

Maximum 1-hr 

concentration 

outside Vandenberg 

National 

Research 

Council 

Air Air Force Base Meteorological 1-hr SPEGLa 

Event pollutant (ppm) scenario (ppm) 

Conflagration HCl 0.68 Fall 1.0 

Deflagration N,H, 

UDMH 

033 

0.17 

Fall 

Fall 

0.12 

0.24 

NO2 4.29 Fall 1.0 

aShort-term public emergency guidance levels (SPEGLs) recommended by the 

National Research Council (NRC 1987; NRC 1985a; NRC 1985b).. 

33.2A Failed liner at SLC-6 evaporation pond 

Groundwater could be contaminated by the contents of the SLC-6 evaporation ponds 

should a major leak occur. The impacts could be minimized or prevented by weekly 

inspection for leaks and/or installation of a double liner and leak detection system in the 

ponds. 
NRO, APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

159 

The single-layer liners of the SLC-6 retention basins would be inspected for leaks 

between launches. If leaks were found, the damaged liner would be repaired or replaced, 

with a leak detection system and a new primary liner placed above it. If a significant 

amount of water subsequently appeared in the leak detection system, contaminated water 

would be transferred to an operable retention basin, and the failed liner would be repaired 

without impact to groundwater. 
NRO,APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

4. PERMITS AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE 

4.1 CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION 

4.1.1 Air Quality 

The FDER regulates air pollutant emission sources in Florida and requires permits 

for construction, modification, or operation of many sources (FDER 1986). Emissions from 

mobile sources, such as aircraft and space launch vehicles, are exempted from permit 

requirements. Stationary ground-based sources associated with space vehicle launch 

programs such as the FVIS, OVSS, paint spray booths, and diesel-fired electrical generators 

are subject to review and permitting by the FDER. Construction permits for the OVSS and 

FVIS at LC-41 already exist. Operating permits are pending. New stationary sources that 

would require similar permits are the FVIS and OVSS at LC-40. Applications for 

construction permits for the LC-40 FVIS and OVSS have been submitted. Permits may also 

be required, at the discretion of the FDER, for new backup diesel generators. 

4.12 Water Quality 

4.12.1 Stormwater discharge 

Florida's stormwater discharge permitting program is designed to prevent adverse 

effects on surface water quality from runoff. A stormwater discharge permit will not be 

required for the VIB, LC-40, or LC-41 because the planned modifications will neither 

increase stormwater runoff rates nor reduce the quality of the existing runoff (Ralph Maloy, 

FDER, personal communication to V. R. Tolbert, ORNL, June 6, 1989). The St. Johns 

River Water Management District of FDER issued a stormwater permit for the new SMAB 

in May 1989 (SJRWMD 1989). 

161 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

162 

4.1.2.2 Sewage treatment 

The VIB, LC-40, and LC-41 already have potable water and sanitary waste disposal 

permits. If new water lines (not replacement lines) are necessary to support the increased 

deluge water needs at LC-40 and LC-41, a general permit from FDER would have to be 

obtained. An FDER permit for construction and operation of the sewage treatment facility 

at the proposed SMAB is pending (personal communication, Lee Miller, FDER, with V. R. 

Tolbert, ORNL, September 26, 1989). 

4.1.2.3 Industrial wastewater discharge 

Wastewater from the LC-40 and LC-41 Titan IV program operations includes deluge 

and washdown water discharged during launch activities. An application has been filed with 

the FDER under Chap. 17-4 regulations to permit discharge from LC-40 and LC-41. The 

permit would be issued based on demonstration that discharge would not significantly 

degrade surface water or groundwater. A groundwater monitoring program will be required. 

4.1.2.4 Floodplain' s and wetlands 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq.) authorizes the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill 

material into navigable waters of the United States. For the purposes of Sect. 404, 

navigable waters are defined to include wetland areas. Consequently, disturbance of 

wetlands on the proposed SMAB site will require a Sect. 404 permit from COE prior to site 

preparation. Creation of a 1.6-acre wetland at the SMAB site would also be covered by the 

permit. A dredge-and-fill permit is also required from the St. Johns River Water 

Management District under Chap. 12-12 of the Florida regulations (personal communication, 

Perry Jennings, St. Johns River Management District, to V. R. Tolbert, ORNL, June 7, 

1989). The joint COE-FDER permit.was issued for the SMAB construction in August 

1989. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

163 

The existing launch complexes (40 and 41) are not on a floodplain. With use of 

proper sediment control measures, proposed actions at these sites would not affect wetlands; 

therefore, a permit would not be required. 

4.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.), is 

intended to prevent the further decline of endangered and threatened plant and animal 

species in the United States and to help restore populations of these species and their 

habitats. The Act, which is jointly administered by the U.S. Departments of Commerce and 

the Interior, requires that each federal agency consult with the FWS and/or the NMFS to 

determine whether endangered and threatened species are known to occur or have critical 

habitats on or in the vicinity of the site of a proposed action. Consultation with the FWS 

and NMFS is included in the ecological impact analysis conducted as part of the NEPA 

review and is reported in NEPA documents. Correspondence with the FWS and NMFS 

requesting consultation regarding potential impacts of the proposed action on endangered or 

threatened species is presented in App. B and App. C, respectively. 

4.1.4 Spill Prevention 

A Spills Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP) is required by 

EPA under its Oil Pollution Prevention regulation to prevent any discharges of oil or 

petroleum products into U.S. waters. CCAFS has integrated a SPCCP into OPLAN 19-01, 

the Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan. 

No discharges of oil/petroleum or fuels are expected from the new SMAB, LC-40, or 

LC-41. The only potential sources of oil/petroleum products during operation of the SMAB 

would be lubricants used to maintain heavy equipment and an aboveground fuel storage 

tank for backup diesel generation. Fuels stored at the launch complexes are in paved and 

curbed areas designed to contain the volume of the tanks. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

164 

Spills of oil/petroleum products that may be federally listed hazardous materials 

would be collected and removed for proper disposal by a certified contractor in accordance 

with IAW OPLAN 19-14, Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan. 

4.1.5 Coastal Zone Management 

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Pub. L 92-583) declared that national 

policy is to preserve, protect, develop, restore, and/or enhance the resources of the nation's 

coastal zone. While the Act defines the "coastal zone" as that which extends inland from 

the shoreline only to the extent necessary to control shore lands, it also excludes from the 

coastal zone lands that are used solely at the discretion of or held in trust by the federal 

government. The Act requires that federal agencies that conduct or support activities that 

directly affect the coastal zone do so, to the maximum extent practicable, in a manner that 

is consistent with approved state coastal zone management programs. 

For the new SMAB, the USAF has determined that the project is consistent "to the 

maximum extent practicable" with the coastal policies and objectives of the state of Florida 

for those potential impacts from the project that could occur on nonfederal land and within 

Florida's designated coastal zone. 

This EA, which provides the supporting documentation for this consistency 

determination, will be submitted to the state of Florida for consistency review. 

4.1.6 Historic Resources 

Consultation with the SHPO regarding a proposed federal action is required under 

Sect. 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In compliance with this requirement, 

the USAF has consulted the Florida SHPO with regard to the expansion of the Titan IV 

program at CCAFS. The SHPO has determined that no adverse impacts would result from 

the proposed action (see App. C). 
. NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

165 

4.2 VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE 

4.2.1 Air Quality 

The proposed action at VAFB would not require additional air pollution permits. 

However, the Air Force plans to replace an existing OVSS at SLC-4E with a new, more 

efficient, higher-capacity system. This action would result in a decrease in NO2emissions 

from oxidizer vapor scrubbing at SLC-4E. A permit application for the new OVSS been 

submitted to the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (USAF 1988e). 

4.2.2 Water Quality 

The wastewater management plan for launches at SLC-4E requires the approval of 

the California RWQCB, Central Coast Region. 

4.2.2.1 Stormwater discharge 

Currently, no requirement exists to test or permit stormwater discharge. The 

California RWQCB has requested information on the quality of stormwater runoff from 

SLC-4 to determine if it has contaminated water collecting in the EDS and flame bucket to 

the extent that a permit would be required. 

4.2.2.2 Sewage treatment 

The RWQCB regulates wastewater treatment facilities discharging their effluents to 

the surface. Sewage discharge from the outlying areas of VAFB that do not discharge to a 

sewer are regulated by RWQCB Order 89-98 (personal communication from Bill Meese, 

RWQCB, Central Coast Region, personal communication to V. R. Tolbert, ORNL, June 7, 

1989). 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

166 

4.2.2.3 Industrial wastewater discharge 

Industrial wastewater discharge is regulated by the California RWQCB. Because of 

the potential for surface water and groundwater contamination, the RWQCB has determined 

that unmitigated discharge of wastewater from SLC-4 is no longer acceptable. In an 

Industrial Wastewater Management Plan submitted to RWQCB in June 1989, the USAF 

proposes to collect wastewater from SLC-4 and transport it to SLC-6 for treatment in an 

existing plant that was built for the Space Shuttle program. Prior to treatment, the water 

quality of the wastewater will be analyzed. If hydrazine is present, it will be removed in an 

ultraviolet/ozone treatment system. The pH will be adjusted, metals will be precipitated, and 

salts will be removed in a reverse osmosis unit. Treated water will be discharged to lined 

evaporation ponds and recycled for use during subsequent launches. 

4.2.2.4 Floodplains and wetlands 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.0 1251 et seq.) authorizes the COE to 

issue permits for discharge of dredged or fill materials into navigable waters of the United 

States. Wetlands areas are considered navigable waters under Sect. 404. No dredge or fill 

activities would be associated with the proposed action at VAFB; therefore, a permit will 

not be required. 

4.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Sect. 4.1.3 describes the consultation required regarding threatened and endangered 

species. Consultation with the FWS and NMFS with jurisdiction in the VAFB region has 

been completed. Correspondence is included in App. B and App. C. 

4.24 Spill Prevention 

No discharges of oil/petroleum or fuels are expected from SLC-4. Lubricants and 

fuels stored on-site would be in bermed areas, containing any spills. Any spill of petroleum 
N R 0 APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

167 

products or fuels that may be federally listed hazardous materials would be collected and 

removed for proper disposal by a certified contractor in accordance with IAW OPLAN 

19-14, the Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan, and VAFB Operations Plan 

855505-89, Hazardous Waste Management Plan. 

4.25 Coastal Zone Management 

Launches from the existing SLC-4 site are consistent "to the maximum extent 

practicable" with the coastal policies and objectives of the Act and will not affect nonfederal coastal lands (see Sect. 4.1.5). 

4.2.6 Historic Resources 

Consultation with the SHPO regarding a proposed federal action is required under 

Sect. 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In compliance with this requirement, 

the USAF has consulted the California SHP() with regard to the expansion of the Titan IV 

program at VAFB (see App. C). 
NERD APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

5. REFERENCES 

Barton, D. F., and R. S. Levy 1984. An Architectural and Engineering Survey and Evaluation 

of Facilities at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Brevard County, Florida, Resource 

Analysts, Inc., Bloomington, Ind. 

Banks, R. C., R. W. McDiarmid, and A. L Gardner 1987. Checklist of Vertebrates of the 

United States, the U.S. Territories, and Canada. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Resource Publication 166. 

Bionetics, Inc. 1988. STS-27 Launch Effects Summary Report, Bionetics Co., John F. 

Kennedy Space Center, Fla. 

Brattstrom, B. H., and M. C. Bondello 1983. "Effects of Off-Road Vehicle Noise on Desert 

Vertebrates," pp. 167-206 in R. H. Webb and H. G. Wilshire (eds.), Environmental 

Effects of Off-road Vehicles• Impacts and Management in Arid Regions. SpringerVerlag, New York. 

Breininger, D. R. 1989. "A new population estimate for the Florida scrub jay on Merritt 

Island National Wildlife Refuge," Florida Field Naturalist, 17:25-31. 

Brevard County Job Service 1988. Brevard Economic Indicator, 4th Quarter 1988, 

Geographic Research Division, Merritt Island, Fla. 

Brevard County Research and Cartography Division 1988. 1988 Data Abstract, Merritt 

Island, Fla. 

CARB (California Air Resources Board) 1987. California Air Quality Data: Summary of 

1986 Air Quality Data. Annual Summary, Vol. XVIII, California Air Resources 

Board, Sacramento, Calif. 

California Department of Education 1987. California Public School Directory, Bureau of 

Publications, Sacramento, Calif. 

California Population Research Unit 1986. Projected Total Population of California 

Counties, July 1, 1985 to July 1, 2020, Sacramento, Calif. 

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) 1985. Traffic Volumes on the California 

State Highway System, Sacramento, Calif. 

Canter, L W. 1977. Environmental Impact Assessment. Mc-Graw-Hill Book Company, 

U.S.A. 

Cocoa Beach Area Economic Development Council 1988. Cocoa Beach Area Economic 

Profile, Cocoa Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, Merritt Island, Fla. 

169 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

170 

COE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mobile District) 1989. Final Geotechnical Report for 

the Proposed Solid Motor Assembly Building Site, Jan. 25. 

Cofer III, W. R., R. J. Bendura, D. I. Sebacher, G. L Pellet, G. L Gregory, and G. L 

Maddrea, Jr. 1985. "Airborne measurements of Space Shuttle exhaust constituents," 

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Journal 23:283-87 (February). 

Edward E. Clark Engineers-Scientists, Inc. 1986. Environmental Resources Document: John 

F. Kennedy Space Center, NASA, prepared for Engineering Development Directorate, 

Kennedy Space Center, Fla., Miami, Ha. 

Cox, J. 1984. Distribution, habitat, and social organization of the Florida scrub jay, with a 

discussion of the evolution of cooperative breeding in New World jays. Gainesville, 

Florida: Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida. 

Cox, J. 1987. Status and distribution of the Florida scrub jay. Gainesville, Florida: Florida 

Ornithological Society Special Publ. No. 3. 

Darmer, Jr., K. L, E. R. Kinkead, and L C. DiPasquale 1974. "Acute toxicity in rats and 

mice exposed to hydrogen chloride gas and aerosols. American Industrial Hygiene 

Association Journal, October. 

EG&G, Inc. 1989. Wastestreams from the HSSF, associated with routine use of the SLC-6 

Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWII), letter from Wayne Bithell, Project 

Manager, EG&G Vandenberg Operations Division, to Lt. Col. David P. Schmarje, 

Department of the Air Force, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. 

Environment Reporter 1988. "Florida Water Quality Standards," pp. 141-48, The Bureau of 

National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1985. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission 

Factors, Volume I: Stationary, Point, and Area Sources (Fourth Edition). USEPA 

Publication No. AP-42, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park N.C. September. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1987. Industrial Source Complex (ISC) 

Dispersion Model User's Guide - Second Edition (Revised), Volume I, 

EPA-450/4-88-002a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 

N.C. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1988. Gap Filling PM-10 Emission Factors for 

Selected Open Area Dust Sources, EPA-450/4-88/003, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 

Extine, D. D., and I. J. Stout 1987. "Dispersion and habitat occupancy of the beach mouse, 

(Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris)," J. Mamm. 68:297-304. 
NEO,APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

171 

FDER (Florida Department of Environmental Regulation) 1986. Chap. 17-2, Florida 

Administrative Code—Air Pollution Sources. Oct. 20. 

FDER (Florida Department of Environmental Regulation) 1987. Summaries of ambient air 

quality data in tabular form. Bureau of Air Quality Management, Tallahassee, Fla., 

Sept. 16. 

FDER (Florida Department of Environmental Regulation) 1989a. 

Water Standards, 17-550310. 

Florida Primary Drinking 

FDER (Florida Department of Environmental Regulation) 1989b. Florida Secondary 

Drinking Water Standards, 17-550320. 

Gille, J. C. 1982. "Ozone," Advances in Space Research 2(3), 67-70. 

George, D. H. 1987. Fish and Wildlife Management Plan for Cape Canaveral Air Force 

Station, Florida, Pan Am World Services, Inc., Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, 

Fla. 

Golden, J., R. P. Ovellete, S. Saari and P. N. Cheremisinoff 1979. Environmental Impact 

Data Book, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich. 

Greenwood and Associates 1987. Archaelogical Survey for Construction of Titan IV Space 

Launch Vehicle Program Facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Pacific Palisades, 

California, Dec. 

Hawkins, W. E., R. M. Overstreet, and M. J. Provancha 1984. "Effects of Space Shuttle 

exhaust plumes on gills of some estuarine fishes: a light and electron microscopic 

study," Gulf Research Reports 7(4):297-309. 

Jordan, Tom 1989. Student Projections and Classroom Needs Through 1993-94 School Year, 

Brevard County School District, Rockledge, Fla. 

Levy, R. S., D. F. Barton, and T. B. Riordan 1984. An Archaeological Survey of Cape 

Canaveral Air Force Station, Brevard County, Florida, Resource Analysts, Inc., 

Bloomington, Ind. 

Malhotra, S., and D. Manninen 1981. Migration and Residential Location of Workers at 

Nuclear Power Plant Construction Sites, prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Wash., Patrick AFB 1988. 

Economic Resource Impact Statement. Cost Analysis Division, Comptroller, Patrick 

Air Force Base, Fla. 

Manci, K M., D. N. Gladwin, R. Villella, and M. G. Cavendish 1988. Effects of Aircraft 

Noise and Sonic Booms on Domestic Animals and Wildlife: a Literature Synthesis, 

NERC-88f29, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service., National Ecology Research Center, Ft. 

Collins, Cola 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

172 

MMC (Martin Marietta Corporation) 1988. Accident Risk Assessment Report, Than IV NUS 

404, Phase II, Western Test Range, MCR-87-2518, Martin Marietta Aerospace, 

Denver, Cola 

MMSLS (Martin Marietta Space Launch Systems) 1988. Letter from H. G. Senter, Martin 

Marietta Space Launch Systems, to Lt. G. L Ellison, 6555th Aerospace Test Group, 

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., pertaining to Industrial Wastewater Permit 

Application, May 12, 1988. 

Morton, H. J. 1989. Letter (#523-369), from H. J. Morton, EG&G, Inc. to Major Lance 

Bradley, 6555 ASTG/LVF, Cape Canaveral AFS, Florida, April 5. 

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) 1978. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Space Shuttle Program, Washington, D.C. April. 

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) 1984. 1983 Sea Turtle Nesting 

Survey at Merritt Island and Cape Canaveral, Florida, NASA Tech., Mem. 83095. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) 1987. "Ecology of east Florida 

sea turtles," Proceedings of the Cape Canaveral, Florida Sea Turtle Workshop, Miami, 

Feb. 26-27, 1985. NOAA Rep. NMFS 53. 

NRC (National Research Council, Committee on Toxicology) 1985a. Emergency and 

Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Airborne Contaminants, VoL 4, 

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

NRC (National Research Council, Committee on Toxicology) 1985b. Emergency and 

Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Airborne Contaminants, VoL 5, 

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

NRC (National Research Council, Committee on Toxicology) 1987. Emergency and 

Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Airborne Contaminants, Vol. 7, 

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

Pan Am World Services, Inc. 1987. Eastern Test Range, Base information guide: Cape 

CanaveraL Facilities, Utilities, Instrumentation, Communications. Patrick Air Force 

Base, Fla. 

Patrick Air Force Base (Patrick AFB) 1988. Economic Resources Impact Statement, 

prepared by Cost Analysis Division, Comptroller. September 30. 

Patrick Air Force Base (Patrick AFB) 1989. Application for Industrial Wastewater Discharge 

Permit for Than IV Launch Facilities, submitted to Fla. Dept. of Environmental 

Regulation. 
N130,APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

173 

Pellett, G. L, D. I. Sebacher, R. J. Bendura, and D. E. Womom 1983. "HCI in Rocket 

Exhaust Clouds: Atmospheric dispersion, acid aerosol characteristics, and acid rain 

deposition," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 33:304-11. 

Potter, A. E, 1978. Revised Estimates for Ozone Reduction by Shuttle Operation, NASA 

Technical Memorandum 58209, NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, 

Houston, Tex. May. 

Provancha, J. A., and M. J. Provancha 1989. "Long-term trends in abundance and 

distribution of manatees (Trichechus manatus) in the northern Banana River, 

Brevard County, Florida," Marine Mammal Science 4:323-338. 

Provancha, M. J., P. A. Schmalzer, and C. R. Hinkle 1986. Vegetation Types John F. 

Kennedy Space Center, Bionetics Co., Kennedy Space Center, Fla. 

Reish, D. J. and M. L Hallisey 1983. A Checklist of the Benthic Macroinvertebrates of 

Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Florida Scientist 46:303-13. 

Rosenberg, S. D., and R. A. Newton 1983. STS SRB Atmospheric Contamination - An 

Area of Future Concern. Paper presented at American Institute of Aeronautics and 

Astronautics, Shuttle Environment and Operations Meeting, Oct. 31, 1983, Washington, 

D.C., pp. 234-240. 

Schmalzer, P. A., D. E Hickson, and C. R. Hinkle 1988. Vegetation Studies on Vandenberg 

Air Force Base, California, NASA Tech. Mem. 100985. 

Schmalzer, P. A., C. R. Hinkle, and D. Breininger 1985. Effects of Space Shuttle Launches 

STS-1 through STS-9 on terrestrial vegetation of John F. Kennedy Space Center, 

Florida, NASA Tech. Mem. 83103. 

Shane, S. H. 1983. "Abundance, distribution, and movements of manatees (Trichechus 

manatus) in Brevard County, Florida," Bulletin of Marine Science 33(1):1-9. 

Stearns Catalytic 1987. Hydrogeology Study of Space Launch Complexes 3 and 4, Vandenberg 

Air Force Base, California. 

SJRWMD (St. Johns River Water Management District) 1989. Permit # 42-009-0836NG. 

Stormwater permit for new Solid Motor Assembly Building at CCAFS, May 23, 

Palatka, Fla. 

University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research 1987. Florida County 

Populations by Age and Sex. Gainesville, Fla. 

University of Florida 1988. Florida Statistical Abstract, 22nd Ed., Bureau of Economic and 

Business Research, College of Business Administration, The University Presses of 

Florida, Gainesville, Fla. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

174 

USAF 1978. Space Shuttle Program Vandenberg AFB, California. Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Headquarters Space Division, Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif., 

January 1978. 

USAF 1983. Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Space Shuttle 

Program, Vandenberg AFB, California, Headquarters Space Division, Los Angeles Air 

Force Base, Calif. 

USAF 1986. Environmental Assessment, Complementary Expendable Launch Vehicle, Cape 

Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, Headquarters, Space Division, Los Angeles Air 

Force Station, Calif. 

USAF 1987. A Biological Assessment of Impacts to the Threatened Florida Scrub Jay 

(Aphelocoma coerulesens coeruksens) Resulting from the Proposed Construction of a 

Test Operations Control Center on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. 

USAF 1988a. Supplement to the Environmental Assessment, U.S. Air Force Space Division, 

Titan IV Program, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., Headquarters Space 

Division, Los Angeles Air Force Station, Calif. 

USAF 1988b. Environmental Assessment, Titan IV Space Launch Vehicle Modification and 

Operation, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, Department of the Air Force, 

Headquarters, Space Division, Los Angeles Air Force Station, Calif. 

USAF 1988c. Environmental Assessment, Titan IV Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade Testing at 

Edwards Air Force Base, California, Headquarters Space Division, Los Angeles Air 

Force Station, Calif. 

USAF 1988d. Biological Assessment of Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Marine Turtles 

(Caretta caretta and Chelonia mydas) Resulting from Operations at Launch Complexes 

40 and 41 on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCFAS), Florida. 

USAF 1988e. Vandenberg Air Force Base, Titan Program Air Permit Application, Space 

Launch Complex Four East, Oxidizer Vapor Scrubber System, submitted to the Santa 

Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, Santa Barbara, Calif., November 1988. 

USAF 1988f. Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Commercial Expendable 

Launch Programs, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, Headquarters Space 

Division, Los Angeles Air Force Station, Calif., January 1988. 

USAF 1988g. Environmental Assessment: U.S. Air Force, Space Division, Medium Launch 

Vehicle (MLV) Program, Cape Canaveral, Florida, May. 

USAF 1989a. Medium Launch Vehicle H (MLV H) Program, Cape Canaveral Air Force 

Station, Florida, Environmental Assessment, Department of Air Force, Headquarters 

Space Division, Los Angeles Air Force Station, Calif., February 1989. 
, NRC; APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

175 

USAF 1989b. Requirement for Light Management Plans—Cape Canaveral AFS (CCAFS), 

Fla. 

USAF 1989c. Final Environmental Assessment, Modifications to and Operations at the 

Hypergolic Maintenance and Checkout Facility, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, 

Department of the Air Force, Headquarters Space Division, Los Angeles Air Force 

Base, California. January 1989. 

USAF 1989d. Construction and Operations of Space Launch Complex 7, Vandenberg Air 

Force Base, Calif, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Department of the Air 

Force, Headquarters, Space Division, Los Angeles Air Force Station, Calif. 

USAF 1989e. Biological Assessment of Potential Impacts to Federally Listed Threatened 

Species: Florida Scrub Jay and Southeastern Beach Mouse (Aphelocoma coerukscens 

coentkscens and Peromyscus polionotus niveivenizis). Titan IV Launch Program, 

Launch Complexes 40 and 41, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Brevarcl County, 

Florida. Department of the Air Force, Headquarters, Space Systems Division, Los 

Angeles Air Force Base California. December. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census 1983. County and City Data Book 1983. U.S. Government 

Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 1988. Endangered and Threatened Species of the 

Southeastern United States, Region IV Office, Atlanta, Ga. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 1989. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants, 50 CFR Pts. 17.11 and 17.12, January 1, 1989. 

Versar 1987. Environmental Assessment for the Repair and Restoration of Space Launch 

Complex 4 at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, Department of the Air Force, 

Headquarters Space Division/DEV, Los Angeles, Calif. 

Webb, W. L 1966. Structure of the Stratosphere and Mesosphere, Academic Press, New 

York, pp. 109-17, 258-59. 
NRQ APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

6. LIST OF AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACT TEL) 

6.1 U.S. AIR FORCE 

6.1.1 Headquarters, Space Systems Division 

DEV 

Dan Filson, Robert Mason 

DEE 

Sam Sampres 

DEG 

Lt. Col. R. M. Riccardi, Maj. Dan Berlinrut 

PAM 

Rick Huling 

WE 

Lt. Dawn Stewart 

6.1.2 Patrick Air Force Base/Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 

Public Affairs Office 

6550 ABG/DEEV 

Olin Miller, Mr. Smith, Chuck Foster 

6555 ASTG/LVF 

Maj. Lance Bradley 

WE 

Bill Boyd 

ESMC/JAN 

Capt. Thomas Epting 

177 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

178 

6.13 Vandenberg Air Force Base 

WSMC/WE 

Capt. Ken Carey 

WSMC/SEY 

Daryl Dargitz 

SSD/DEC 

Paul Toft 

6595 ATGITSLB 

Capt. Ed Greer 

1 STRAD/ET 

Kathy Lindholm 

Sarah Berry 

Larry Gordon 

6.2 FEDERAL AGENCIES 

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Laguna Niguel Field Office 

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville Office 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile (Ralph Etheridge, Michael Thompson) 

63 STATE AGENCIES 

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (Perry Jennings, Lee Miller, Ralph Maloy) 

Florida State Historic Preservation Officer 

California State Historic Preservation Officer 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Bill Meese) 
, NRC? APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

179 

6.4 LOCAL AGENCIES 

Susan Cossey, Chamber of Commerce, Merritt Island, Fla. 

Don George, Pan Am World Services, Inc., Cocoa Beach, Ha. 

Charles Johnson, Brevard County Job Service, Merritt Island, Ha. 

Robert S. Kamm, Brevard County Division of Traffic Management, Merritt Island, Fla. 

Dick Martens, Water/Wastewater Division, Brevard County Utility Services, Merritt Island, Ha. 

Tom Martin, Principal Planner, City of Lompoc, Lompoc, Calif. 

6.5 OTHERS 

Eldon Milner, Martin Marietta Corporation, Littleton, Colo. 

Fred Meyer, Rod Cummins, Bechtel National, Inc., San Francisco, Calif. 

Michael C. Philo, Florida Power and Light, Cocoa, Ha. 

Carlton Hall, Paul Schmalzer, D. Bruninger, Bionetics, Inc. 
. , NRQ APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

7. LIST OF PREPARERS 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge, Tenn.) 

Andrea W. Campbell M.S., Biology Co-project 

leader, noise 

Robin L. Graham Ph.D., Ecology Terrestrial 

ecology 

Edward J. Liebsch M.S., Meteorology Air quality 

R. Dickinson Roop MA., Ecology Co-project leader, 

noise 

William P. Staub Ph.D., Geology Groundwater 

Virginia R. Tolbert Ph.D., Ecology Surface water, 

aquatic ecology 

Science Applications International Corporation (Oak Ridge, Tenn.) 

Janice C. Morrissey MA, Sociology Man-made 

environment 

181 
. NRo, APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

APPENDIX A 

FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSIs) 

FOR PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS 

. ON THE TITAN IV PROGRAM 
NE 0 APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) 

COMLEMENTARY EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM 

CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, FLORIDA 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

INTRODUCTION 

To support the Department of Defense (DOD) Space Program, and to ensure 

access to space through a secondary launch capability using expendable 

launch vehicles, the U.S. Air Force (USAF) proposes to renovate and 

modify Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), 

Florida, to accommodate the proposed Complementary Expendable Launch 

Vehicle (CELV) program. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The proposed action calls for the renovation and modification of an 

existing launch complex (Launch Complex 41) located on the northernmost 

extension of CCAFS. This action is required to support the USAF's CELV 

program utilizing modified Titan 34D space boosters known as Titan 34D7. 

The CELV program is designed to provide additional space launch 

capability for USAF launches in support of DOD programs. The payload 

capacities of the Titan 34D7 are compatible with those of the Space 

Shuttle. 

Launch Complex 41, which was used to launch Titan space boosters until 

1977, retains skeleton structures of the umbilical and mobile service 

towers, in-place fuel storage areas, and a launch pad. The renovations 

and modifications to the complex include tearout and refurbishment of 

structural, mechanical, and electrical systems; and modification of 

transport and fuel systems, including the installation of air pollution 

control devices for the fuel and oxidizer systems. 

Following renovation and modification of Launch Complex 41 facilities, 

systems and space vehicles will be tested to validate their performance 

A-3 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 A-4 

against design requirements. Initial Launch Capability (ILC) for the 

proposed CELV is October 1988. 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 

Air Quality 

The proposed CELV program will not significantly impact air quality of 

CCAFS or surrounding areas. Primary constituents of the ground level 

exhaust cloud produced by the solid rocket motors (SRMs) of the 

Titan 34D7 will be carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HC1), and 

aluminum oxide (A1203). Because the nearest uncontrolled area 

is 16 kilometers (km) from the launch site, it is expected that the 

general population will not be exposed to HCl concentrations greater 

than the current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

permissible limit of 5 parts per million (ppm). In addition, concentra—

tions of CO and A1203 are predicted not to exceed the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), anywhere beyond the immediate 

area adjacent to the launch complex. As part of the renovation of 

Launch Complex 41, air pollution control devices will be installed to 

control the emissions of Aerozine 50 and nitrogen tetroxide 

(N204). In addition, spill control and containment facilities 

are sufficient to retain emergency or accidental spills and prevent 

release of hazardous fumes to the atmosphere. 

Soils 

Implementation of the CELV program, including the refurbishment of 

Launch Complex 41, will not involve new excavation and will not impact 

soils on CCAFS. 
NRQ APPROVED FOR RELEASE A-5 

1 JUNE 2015 

Hydrology 

No significant impacts to ground water or surface water hydrology will 

result from the CELV program. All water use for the CELV program will 

come from municipal water supplies and will be stored prior to use in a 

1,000,000-gallon tank located on CCAFS. Some ground water recharge will 

occur as. che result of deluge water and fire suppressant and launch 

complex washdown water flowing directly off the pad and discharging to 

grade. All water discharged to grade will percolate into the surficial 

water table and flow toward the Banana River. 

Water Quality 

No significant long-term adverse impacts to water quality will occur as 

a result of the CELV program. All deluge water and fire suppressant 

water collected in the flame bucket will be analyzed prior to discharge 

to grade. If this water is contaminated, it will be removed and 

disposed of offsite in an appropriate manner. Spill control and 

containment facilities are provided for all fuel tank areas to prevent 

the accidental release of propellants to the environment. The potential 

exists for a short-term, localized impact on water quality in the 

unlikely event of an early inflight failure of the Titan 34D7 vehicle. 

Due to the hypergolic nature of the liquid fuels, and the activation of 

the vehicle destruct system following a near-pad flight failure, minimal 

contamination of surface waters is expected following such an.event. 

Surface water quality will not be significantly impacted by deposition 

of HCl or A1203 from the ground cloud produced during liftoff of 

the Titan 34D7 vehicle. Any HC1 deposited in surrounding surface waters 

will be rapidly neutralized by the extensive buffering capacity of the 

Banana River and adjacent marshes. In addition, any A1203 deposited 

in surface waters will remain insoluble and will not be toxic to aquatic 

life. 

Biota 

No significant Impacts to the biota of CCAFS and surrounding areas are 

expected to result from the CELV program. No additional habitat will ae 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

A-6 

lost or permanently disturbed due to the proposed activities. No 

critical habitat for threatened or endangered species will be lost due 

to the CELV program. Aquatic organisms will not be significantly 

impacted due to deposition of HC1 or A1203 from the ground level 

exhaust cloud. 

MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT 

Population 

The renovation and modification of Launch Complex 41 and the subsequent 

launch program of the CELV will have no significant impacts on 

population and housing on CCAFS or surrounding communities. The CELV 

program will utilize existing personnel available at CCAFS, Patrick Air 

Force Base (PAFB), or surrounding communities. 

Socioeconomics 

Launch Complex 41 was established is the mid-1960s. The proposed CELV 

program is compatible with the surrounding land use, will not require 

additional acreage outside the boundaries of the complex, and will not 

require new utility services, new transportation access, or additional 

employment. No significant impacts to the socioeconomics of CCAFS or 

Brevard County, Florida, are anticipated. 

Safety 

Safety aspects of prelaunch, launch, and postlaunch phases of the 

proposed CELV program have been addressed in the T34D7 Accident Risk 

Assessment Report (ARAR) (see Appendix A). This.report addresses the 

Titan 34D7 flight vehicle, support equipment, and Launch Complex 41 

facilities. All procedures during prelaunch, launch, and postlaunch 

phases of the CELV program will be carried out according to the ARAB to 

ensure optimal safety for all onbase personnel. 

Noise 

Noise pollution associated with the CELV program will not significantly 

affect the general public due to the distance between the launch site 

. • ' 
• . NRO,APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 A-7 

and the nearest unregulated area (i.e., 16 km). Noise produced during 

the launch will be of short duration and at worst will be an infrequent 

nuisance rather than a health hazard. 

Archaeology and Cultural Resources 

Launch Complex 41 or the surrounding area does not contain any unique 

archaeological or historical resources. No new construction is required 

offsite. As a result, the CELV program will have no adverse impacts to 

archaeological or cultural resources. 

FINDINGS 

Based upon the above, a finding of no significant impact is made. An 

Environmental Assessment of the proposed action, dated June 1986, is on 

file at: 

HQ Space Division 

P.O. Box 92960 

Worldway Postal Center 

Los Angeles, CA 90009 

ATTENTION: Mr. Robert C. Mason, SD/DEV 

) 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

A-8 

ruin= or NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (PONSI) 

TITAN IV SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLE MODIFICATIONS 

AND LAUNCH OPERATIONS PROGRAM 

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA 

1. PROPOSED ACTION 

In support of the Department of Defense (DOD) apace program and to 

provide assured access to space using expendable space launch vehicles, 

the United States Air Force (USAF), Headquarters Space Division proposes 

construction and modifications at Space Launch Complex 4 - East (SLC -4E) 

and associated facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Bass .(vArs), 

California for processing and launching of the Titan IV space booster. 

This action represents a continuation of the Titan launch program that 

began in the mid 1960s. 

SLC -4 is composed of two separate launch facilities: SLC-4W, which 

was used until February 1987 for Titan IIIB launches and is being 

modified for Titan II launches, and SIX -4E, which currently launches 

Titan 34D vehicles. The Titan 34D vehicle is being phased out and will 

be replaced by the Titan IV vehicle. A maximum of four Titan IV 

launches per year is possible. Initial launch capability (ILC) is 

scheduled for October 1989. 

The proposed action consists of vehicle design modifications to 

accommodate larger payloads, construction of facilities on North and 

South VAFB, and modifications to processing and support facilities on 

North and South VAFB. Titan IV components will be manufactured in 

various parts of the country and transported by plane or rail to VAFB 

where systems installation, tasting, and payload processing will be 

conducted in preparation for launch. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE A-9 

1 JUNE 2C5 North VAPB, a Materials Receipt and Inspection Facility will be 

constructed to provide component handling and distribution for the Titan 

IV program. Facility modifications on North VAFB will occur at the 

Payload Fairing and Processing Facility► (Bldg 8337), Vehicle Assembly 

(Bldg 8401), and the Material Support Facility (Bldg 5500). 

81dgs 8337 and 8401 are currently used for similar launch processing and 

will be modified to include new equipment, work areas, and new security 

fencing. Warehouse spar.. at 81dg 5500 will be used and five modular 

trailers will be installed at this location to provide office space. 

At SLC-4E, a new Mobile Service Tower (MST) Air Conditioning 

Building will be constructed at SLC-4E in place of the existing 

building. Modifications to SLC-4E will include: replacement of the 

MST; modifications to the Umbilical Tower; addition of a stairway from 

the fuel trailer pad area to the fuel incinerator pad; improvement of an 

intersection and repair of shoulders along two roads; and addition of a 

fuel vapor incinerator and concrete tailor pad, propane trailer pads, 

payload fuel trailer pad, and payload oxidizer trailer pad. 

In the SLC-4 area, modifications will include: enlargement of an 

existing fallback area for use as a temporary construction 

prefabrication area, improvenent of an existing road for use as a 

temporary construction haul road, reworking of existing road shoulders 

and burial of overhead utility lines to accommodate transport of 

prefabricated components, and addition of temporary contractor parking 

areas. Construction and modification activities in the SLC-4 area will 

require approximately 30,000 cubic yards of fill material which will be 

available from a new borrow site at SLC-4E and from the excavation of 

material for construction of the new MST Air Conditioning Building. 

The Titan IV program will also require the modification of the 

existing Receipt, Inspection and Storage (RIS) Facility (Bldg 945) which 

is located on South VMS. Modifications include: increasing its size; 

extension of paved areas; and addition of a modular office building, 

parking area, and a gaseous nitrogen trailer pad. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 A-10 

2. SUMMARY 0? ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

2.1 Meteorology and Air Quality 

Titan IV program will result in a temporary increase in air 

emissions during construction and a continuation of existing emissions 

from processing and launch operations. No significant increase in 

operational emissions over the amount previously generated for Titan 34D 

operations is expected. Air emissions from process operations will be 

mitigated by the use of control equipment and by compliance with 

stipulations in air quality permits submitted by the USA? to the Santa 

Barbara Air Pollution Control District. 

2.2 Geology and Soils 

Because the amount of new construction in undisturbed areas is 

small, no significant impact to geologic resources will occur as a 

result of the Titan IV program. Potential impacts to geologic resources 

from erosion will be prevented or mitigated by measures such as 

revegetation and erosion control treatment. 

2.3 Hydrology and water Quality 

Although the Titan IV program will obtain its water supply from an 

aquifer that is currently experiencing an overdraft, the proportion of 

water that will be extracted for the program is relatively insignificant 

in comparison to the amount currently consumed by ongoing programs at 

VAYB. There will be no impact to groundwater hydrology as a result of 

the Titan IV program. Impacts to surface water hydrology will be 

limited to the discharge of 50,000 gallons per launch and are considered 

insignificant. Potential impacts to groundwater and surface water 

quality will be mitigated by the adherence to waste discharge 

requirements specified by the Regional meter Quality Control Board. 

Such requirements may include testing of deluge water prior to 

discharge. Therefore, no significant impact to hydrology and water 

quality will occur. 

2.4 Biota 

The expansion of construction laydown areas for the Titan IV 

program will result in the loss of approximately one acre of dune scrub 
NRQ APPROVED FOR RELEASE. 

1 JUNE 2015 A-11 

habitat. Although dune scrub is considered a sensitive habitat and this 

particular location has not previously been disturbed, this loss is 

relatively small when compared to the size of this habitat within the 

project'area. This area will be restored after use as a construction 

laydown area. Other construction or use of areas for the Titan IV 

program will be limited to areas of previous disturbance. Therefore, no 

significant impact to local or regional biota will occur from 

construction or modification activities. 

Certain launch trajectories from Titan IV space vehicles will 

produce sonic booms that may intersect the surface on or near the 

Channel Islands, which pre important breeding grounds for a number of 

protected species of marine mammals and sea birds. Based on previous 

studies of the potential sonic boon effects associated with the Space 

Shuttle launch from vArs, it is expected that the Titan IV space vehicle 

will result in a sonic boom of a substantially lower magnitude. This 

determination is based on the size and shape of the vehicle and the size 

of its exhaust plume relative to the Shuttle. The lack of documented 

impacts to marine species during previous launches from VAIPB over the 

past 25 years and the existing noise environment of the Channel Islands 

contributes to the determination that Titan IV space vehicle launches 

will not result in any significant impact to any threatened or 

endangered species of the Channel Islands. To comply with Section 7(c) 

of the Endangered Species Act, the USAF is preparing a Biological 

Assessment to detail the lack of impacts to endangered or threatened 

plant and animal species from the proposed program. Because the Titan 

IV program is a continuation of existing launch activities and because a 

maximum of only four launches per year is planned, no significant 

Impacts to biological resources rill occur. 

2.5 Population 

The Titan IV program will not result in any increase in population 

on VAPB or in the surrounding area and, therefore, will not have a 

significant impact on the population of the VMS region. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 A-12 

2.6 Socioeconomics 

Thts. Titan IV program will not result in a change to any land use 

designation or an increase in the need for additional community services 

and facilities. A temporary increase in traffic may occur during 

construction, but will have no significant impact. No long-term 

increase in traffic will occur. No change in the economy is expected. 

Therefore, the Titan IV program will not have a significant impact on 

socioeconomics. 

2.7 Hazardous Waste 

The increase in the amount of hazardous waste generated at VAPT as 

a result of the Titan IV program will be mitigated by management 

practices, as stipulated by applicable federal and state regulations. 

The Titan IV program is being evaluated under the 0SAP hazardous waste 

minimization program and measures will be implemented to reduce the 

production of hazardous wastes where, feasible. Therefore, hazardous 

wait* from the Titan IV program will not have a significant impact on 

the environment. 

2.8 Safety 

The Titan IV program vill not result in an unreasonable or 

increased risk to the public. Potential impacts to public safety will 

be prevented by the safety and disaster preparedness plans for the 

program. Therefore, the Titan IV program will not have a significant 

impact on public safety. 

2.9 Noise 

The Launch of a Titan IV vehicle will result in temporary and 

infrequent high noise levels. The magnitude of this effect will be 

slightly greater than for the previous Titan 34D program, but does not 

represent a significant impact to the noise environment of VATS and the 

surrounding community. Therefore, the Titan IV program will not result 

in a significant noise impact on the environment. 

2.10 Cultural Resources 

The Titan IV program will involve some new construction in 

undisturbed areas. These areas have been evaluated by a qualified 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE A-13 

1 JUNE 2015 

archaeologist and have been found not to impact any known 

archaeological resources. One area of construction is in close 

proximity to a known site, therefore archaeological monitoring during 

earthwork activities will be accomplished. In the unlikely event that 

any uWaumn arcimmologicml resources are discovered during construction, 

activities in the area will cease or be redirected and the USAF will 

consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the National 

Park Service as required by the National Historic Preservation Act. 

2.11 Cumulative Impacts 

The Titan IV Space Launch Vehicle program is one of many programs 

being considered for development in the Santa Barbara County region. 

Other programs include military-related projects, oil and gas 

development projects, and urban/industrial development. 

The proposed Titan IV program is a replacement of the Titan 34D 

program which is being phased out. The natural environment is not 

expected to experience any impact of greater intensity than that of the 

previous Titan programs. Temporary increases in emissions would occur 

during the construction phase and a temporary increase in the noise 

level would occur during launch for a maximum of four times per year. 

Therefore, the net increase in impacts to the environment is not 

significant and will not result in any cumulative impact to the 

environment. 

3. FINDINGS 

Based upon the above summary, a finding of no significant impact is 

made. An Environmental Assessment of the proposed action, dated 

February 1988, is on file at: 

U.S. Air Force Headquarters Space Division/DEV 

P. O. Box 92960 

Los Angeles, California 90009-2960 

ATTN: Mr. Robert C. Mason, SD/DEV 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

A-14 

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) 

INCREASE IN LAUNCH RATE OF THE TITAN IV SPACE VEHICLL 

CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE BASE_ FLORIDA 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

INTRODUCTION 

To support the Department of Defense (DOD) space program and to ensure 

access to space through the use of expendable launch vehicles, the U.S. 

Air Force (USAF) has proposed the renovation of Launch Complex 41 on Cape 

Canaveral Air Force Base (CCAFB) to support the Titan IV program. An 

Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared for this program in July 1986 

and resulted in a FONSI. Subsequent to the submittal of this EA, the 

USAF proposed to increase the Titan IV launch rate from two to six 

launches per year. In compliance with National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) guidelines, a supplement to the EA for the Titan IV program has 

been prepared covering those actions associated with the proposed 

increase in launch rate. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The USAF proposes to modify the Titan IV program and program support 

facilities. Specific actions addressed in this supplemental EA are as 

follows: 

1. An increase in the projected number of launches from two per 

year to six per year, 

2. Expansion of the Titan Vertical Integration Building (V/B) and 

associated infrastructure to provide for the processing of an 

increased number of payload fairings, 

3. The addition of industrial processing facilities and the use of 

additional chemicals within the VIE expansion, and 

4. The use of backup mobile electrical generation units at Launch 

Complex 41. 
NRQ APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 A-15 

The Titan IV program is scheduled to achieve an initial launch capability 

of 1 October 1988. 

SMOIARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 

Air Quality 

The proposed Titan IV program modifications will not significantly impact 

the air quality of CCAFB or surrounding areas. Primary constituents of 

the ground-level exhaust cloud produced by the solid rocket motors (SRMs) 

of the Titan IV will be carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HC1). 

and aluminum oxide (A1203). Because the nearest uncontrolled area is 

approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) from the launch site, it is 

expected that the general population will not be exposed to HC1 

concentrations greater than the current Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) permissible limit of 5 parts per million (ppm). In 

addition, concentrations of CO and A1203 are predicted not to exceed the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) anywhere beyond the 

immediate area adjacent to the launch complex. Because of the short, 

infrequent nature of Titan IV launches and the limited impacts associated 

with individual launches, no significant reduction in air quality will 

result from increasing the frequency of launches from two to six per 

year. 

Air pollution control devices at Launch Complex 41 will control the 

emissions of Aerozine 50 and nitrogen tetroxide (N204). In addition, 

spill control and containment facilities are sufficient to retain 

emergency or accidental spills of propellants and prevent release of 

hazardous vapors to the atmosphere. 

Significant air quality impacts will not result from industrial 

operations in the VI/I. Based on six launches per year, estimated 

particulate emissions will not exceed NAAQS. The types of volatile 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

A—I6 

organic compounds (VOCs) to be used in the VIB all have threshold limit 

values (Tills), as established by the American Conference of Governmental 

Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), well in excess of the concentrations that 

will result from the proposed operations. 

Emissions associated with the operation of the backup mobile generators 

at Launch Complex 41 will not exceed any annual or short-term NAAQS. 

Soils 

The proposed expansion of the VIB facility and associated infrastructure 

will require about 7,650 cubic yards (yd3)-of fill material. Fill 

material will be clean sand obtained from a CCAFB upland borrow area. 

The total area to be filled will be approximately 2.36 acres. No other 

alteration to soil characteristics of CCAF3 will result from the proposed 

modifications to the Titan IV program. 

Hydrology 

All water used to support the Titan IV program will be obtained from 

municipal water supplies. The annual volume of water used as deluge, 

fire suppressant, and washdown water will increase from 800,000 gallons 

(gal) for two launches to 2.4 million gallons (MC) for six launches. 

Some ground water recharge will occur as the result of this water flowing 

off the launch pad or being discharged to grade. 

Titan IV program modifications will result in minor staffing increases at 

Launch Complex 41 and the VIB and associated increases in wastewater 

loads. Domestic wastewaters at Launch Complex 41 and the VIZ are treated 

at onsite extended aeration sewage treatment plants (STPs). These STPs 

are permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation 

(FINER) and discharge to infiltration systems that allow the treated 

wastewaters to percolate to ground waters. Wastewater loads at both 

Launch Complex 41 and the VIB will be well within STP design capacities. 
. NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 A-17 

Following discharge to grads, launch water and wastewater at Launch 

Complex 41 will percolate into the ground water table and flow west 

toward the Banana River. Water discharged from the VIB wastewater 

facility will percolate to the ground water table and flow toward a tidal 

lagoon, which is connected via culvert to the Banana River. 

No significant impacts to ground water or surface water hydrology will 

result from the Titan IV program. 

Water Quality 

No significant long-term adverse impacts to ground water or surface water 

quality will occur as a result of the Titan IV program. All deluge water 

and fire suppressant water collected in the flame bucket will be analyzed 

prior to discharge to grade. If this water is contaminated, it will be 

removed and disposed in accordance with the CCAFB Hazardous Waste 

Management Plan. Spill control and containment facilities are provided 

for all fuel tank areas to prevent the accidental release of propellants 

to the environment. The potential exists for a short-term, localized 

impact on water quality in the unlikely event of an early inflight 

failure of the Titan IV vehicle. Due to the hypergolic nature of the 

liquid fuels and the activation of the vehicle destruct system following 

a near-pad flight failure, minimal contamination of surface waters is 

expected following such an event. 

Surface water quality will not be significantly impacted by deposition of 

HC1 or A1203 from the ground cloud produced during liftoff of the 

Titan IV vehicle. Any HCl deposited in surrounding marine and estuarine 

surface waters will be rapidly neutralized by the extensive buffering 

capacity of these waters. In addition, any A1203 deposited in surface 

waters will remain insoluble and will not be toxic to aquatic life. 

Impervious areas at the VIB facility will increase by approximately 

1.58 acres as a result of VIB expansion and the paving of additional 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

A-18 

areas for roads and parking. Stormwatar runoff will be collected in a 

svale system and retained in a basin located adjacent to the VIB. Most 

of the water collected in this system will infiltrate into the ground 

water table. This stormwater system has been approved by the State of 

Florida and will not result in the significant degradation of ground 

water or surface water quality. 

The STPs at Launch Complex 41 and the VIB facility have design capacities 

well in excess of anticipated loads. These STPs will provide for 

adequate waste treatment and will not cause significant ground water 

quality degradation. 

Biota 

The proposed Titan IV program modifications are not expected to 

significantly impact terrestrial, wetland, or aquatic biota in the CCAFB 

vicinity. All proposed activities at Launch Complex 41 will be conducted 

within the existing launch complex boundary and will not result in the 

loss of any additional habitat. Wildlife in the vicinity of Launch 

Complex 41 have adapted to disturbances associated within normal 

operations and launch events. Terrestrial and aquatic biota will not be 

significantly impacted by ground•level exhaust clouds. 

The expansion of the VIB and associated infrastructure will not result in 

the significant loss of wetlands or other areas critical to the support 

of wildlife resources. Permit approvals for this action have been 

obtained from FDER and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Operations 

conducted at the VIB will not adversely affect local biota. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

• 

1 JUNE 2015 A-19 

MANMADE ENVIRONMENT 

Population 

Titan IV program modifications will have no significant impacts on 

population and housing on CCAFB or surrounding communities. The Titan IV 

program will utilize existing personnel available at CCAFB, Patrick Air 

Force Base (PAFB), or surrounding communities. 

Socioeconomics 

The Titan IV program is compatible with current and projected future land 

uses on CCAFB. The proposed program modifications will not require new 

utility services, social services, or additional transportation access. 

No significant impacts to the socioeconomics of CCAFB or Brevard County, 

Florida, are anticipated. 

Noise 

Noise associated with the Titan IV program will not significantly affect 

the general public. Noise associated with launches is infrequent and of 

short duration. 

Archaeology and Cultural Resources 

Facility expansions required for the proposed Titan IV program 

modifications are minor and will occur on previously disturbed lands. 

Because no undisturbed lands will be affected by the proposed actions, no 

impacts to archaeological or cultural resources will occur. 

FINDINGS 

lased on the preceding discussion, a finding of no significant impact is 

made. An EA for the Titan IV program and a supplement to the EA, which 

addresses proposed program modifications, are on file at: 

Headquarters Space Division 

P.O. Box 92960 

Worldway Postal Center 

Los Angeles, California 90009 

Attention: Mr. Robert C. Mason SD/DEV 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE A-21 

• 1 JUNE 2015 

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR TITAN IV 

SOLID ROCKET MOTOR UPGRADE TESTING 

AT EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE. CALIFORNIA 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

INTRODUCTION 

To support the U.S. Department of Defense Space Program and to ensure 

access to space through the continued use of Titan solid propellant rocket 

motors, the U.S. Air Force (USAF) proposes to test-fire five Titan IV solid 

rocket motors at Test Stand 1-C, located at the Air Force Astronautics 

Laboratory (AFAL), Edwards Air Force Base (AFB), California, during the 

period from July 1989 to August 1990. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The proposed action calls for the modification of an existing rocket 

motor test stand (Test Stand 1-C) and an associated receiving and inspection 

building located on Leuhman Ridge at AFAL to conduct the static test firings. 

Test Stand 1-C was used to test liquid rocket engines from 1965 until the 

early 1970s and was renovated in 1986 to test Titan solid propellant rocket 

engines (the 34D static rocket tests). Proposed test stand and receiving and 

inspection building modifications include refurbishment of and changes in 

structural, mechanical, and electrical systems; addition of a heat shield to 

protect the steel deflector plate; water collection basin improvements; and 

addition of instrumentation, control, and monitoring equipment. In addition 

to modifications to the test stand and associated buildings, an existing 

railroad spur will be upgraded to facilitate rocket motor transport. This 

upgrade will include improving roads, building a concrete-pad working area 

and asphalt parking areas, and modifying overhead high-voltage power lines. 

Following renovation of the test stand and associated facilities, five threesegment Titan IV solid propellant rocket motors will be test-fired over a 

period of approximately 14 months. The tests will be conducted to 

I. evaluate motor performance by measuring the thrust, motor case 

deflection, effects on fired cases and pressure of motors during firing; 

2. measure insulator erosion; 

3. evaluate nozzle performance by measuring force vectors, nozzle movement, 

and response time; 

4. monitor ignitor performance through pressure monitoring; and 

5. evaluate propellant performance by measuring burn time and rate. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 A-22 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 

Air Quality 

The proposed Titan IV rocket motor test firings will not significantly 

impact air quality at areas surrounding Edwards AFB. Primary constituents of 

the rocket exhaust will be aluminum oxide (A1203), hydrogen chloride (HC1), 

carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen (N2). Afterburning in the atmosphere 

oxidizes some of the constituents, particularly CO to CO2 and a small amount 

of N2 to NOx. A reasonable and conservative worst-case modeling analysis of 

the Titan IV motor exhaust indicates that the general population will not be 

exposed to HC1 concentrations greater than the National Academy of Sciences 

(NAS) recommended limit for short-term public exposure (limit of 3 parts per 

million NCI, 10-minute average). Maximum downwind concentrations of CO and 

NO2 are expected to be well below applicable federal and state standards. 

The maximum downwind concentration of particulate matter less than 10 

microns in diameter (PM10) from the test firings will exacerbate existing 

exceedances of the state 24-hour standard of 50 micrograms per cubic meter. 

However, the worst-case predicted PM10 impact from a rocket test is only 

approximately 20% of the existing maximum 24- hr PM10 concentrations in the 

region. Given the relatively small number of tests (5) in a 14 month period. 

This is not considered a significant impact. 

Soils 

Implementation of the Titan IV testing program involves refurbishing the 

water containment berm at Test Stand 1-C because of its deterioration from 

earlier tests. Refurbishing the berm will not significantly affect the soils 

at Edwards AFB or the surrounding area. The deposition of HCl from the tests 

is expected to be heavy in the immediate area of the test stand based on the 

results of the 340 test firing. The impacts of this deposition to soils are 

expected to be small due to the use of the carbonate buffer system, the 

previously disturbed nature of the area, and the.generally alkaline makeup of 

the soil. 

In addition, soil erosion will occur in the immediate vicinity of the 

test stand, since approximately 344,000 gal of deluge water will not be 

trapped in the water collection system. The erosion will be limited in area, 

but perhaps extensive near the test stand. Pre- and post-test mitigation 

measures are proposed to minimize impacts to soils. 

Hydrology 

No significant impacts to groundwater or surface water hydrology will 

result from the Titan IV motor tests. All water used for the tests will come 

from a water storage tank fed from wells on Edwards AFB. Most of the deluge 

(cooling) water used in the tests will be conditioned with a carbonate buffer 

to mitigate potential effects of HC1 absorption into the soil and low pH. 

Most deluge water will be deposited as acid mist (pH of 3 or lower) from the 

exhaust plume onto the ground surface near the test stand. The remainder of 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

A-23 

the deluge water not entrained into the exhaust gas stream will be collected 

and evaporated in concrete-lined channels and a basin located near Test Stand 

1-C. 

Water Quality 

No significant impacts on water quality will result from the Titan IV 

tests. All deluge water contained in the channels and basin will be 

evaporated. The amount of deluge water that will be deposited from the 

exhaust onto the rocks and soil nearby will be large but will evaporate 

leaving a residue of HC1 and inert nonhazardous compounds (mostly aluminum 

oxide and sodium chloride) on the ground surface. The amount of HC1 

deposition will have no significant impact on ground or surface waters. 

Ecological Resources 

No significant impacts to the ecological resources of Edwards AFB or 

surrounding areas are expected as a result of the Titan IV motor tests. 

Impacts to vegetation and habitat from acidic mist will be minor because much 

of the impact area has been previously disturbed. No critical habitat for 

threatened or endangered species will be lost as a result of the Titan IV 

test program. Adverse impacts to the desert cymopterus present in the area 

are unlikely because known populations occur outside the near-field 

deposition zone. Impacts to desert tortoises are presently uncertain because 

this species has only recently been observed in the area. Impacts to Mojave 

ground squirrels are presently uncertain because the presence of this species 

in the railroad spur construction area has. not been determined. Planned 

additional surveys and monitoring of these species by the USAF, in 

consultation with DFG and USFWS, will provide additional information to avoid 

or minimize any impacts from future use of the test facility. 

MANMADE ENVIRONMENT 

Population 

The renovation of Test Stand 1-C and the subsequent test program of the 

Titan IV rocket motors will have no significant impacts on population and 

housing at Edwards AFB or within surrounding communities. The Titan IV test 

program will utilize existing personnel at AFAL and Edwards AFB. Temporary 

staff from the USAF Space Division, Hercules, and their contractors will be 

on-site during renovation work and motor testing periods. 

Socioeconomics 

The proposed Titan IV test program is compatible with the surrounding 

land use, will require no_land purchase and no construction work beyond the 

boundaries of the air base, and will not require additional permanent 

employment. No significant impacts on the socioeconomics of Edwards AFB, Los 

Angeles County, or Kern County, California, are anticipated. 

Safety 

'All regulatory agency safety procedures and guidelines for rocket motor 

transportation and testing will be followed. Safety monitoring will be 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 A-24 

conducted during the tests. A protective clear zone of about 1 mile will be 

established around the test stand, and no one will be allowed into the 

immediate downwind area within the base boundaries. In addition, testing 

will only occur if the wind direction is such that the exhaust cloud will not 

proceed over housing areas. Thorough realtime dispersion monitoring, data 

analysis, and refinement of the rocket exhaust dispersion model will be 

conducted to determine if conditions would allow an easing of the wind 

restrictions for test firings. This process will ensure that if firings are 

conducted under alternate parameters, such testing would not in any way 

expose the general public to HC1 concentrations above the recommended 

standards or reduce the level of protection provided by the current 

parameters. Essential test personnel will be located in a protected concrete 

bunker near the test stand. Realtime monitoring of bunker air supply, test 

area exhaust cloud and deposition will be performed in conjunction with 

downwind cloud monitoring. Tests will not proceed until appropriate 

meteorological conditions are verified. 

Noise 

Noise levels associated with the Titan test program will not 

significantly affect the general public due to the distance between the test 

site and the nearest unregulated area (3 miles). Noise produced during the 

test firings will be of short duration (approximately 2 minutes and 13 

seconds for each event) and, at worst, will be a minor nuisance. Portions of 

the AFAL will be evacuated to minimize noise impacts to personnel on-site. 

Archaeological and Cultural Resources 

The areas surrounding Test Stand 1-C and the railroad spur do not 

contain unique archaeological or historic resources. As a result, the 

Titan IV test program will have no effect on archaeological or cultural 

resources. 

FINDINGS 

Based on the above, a finding of no significant impact is made. Copies of an 

Environmental Assessment of the proposed action, dated April 1988, can be 

obtained from 

HQ Space Division 

Post Office Box 92960 

Worldway Postal Center 

Los Angeles, California 90009-2960 

ATTENTION: Mr. John R. Edwards, SD/DEV 

John M. Hoffman, USAF Raphael O. Roig, GM-14 

Chairman, Edwards AFB Chairman, Space Division 

Environmental Protection Committee Environmental Protection Committee 
NRO.APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

APPENDIX B 

CONSULTATION WITH THE 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 
ROVED FOR RELEASE 

15 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS SPACE OPASION (AFSC) 

LOS ANGELES MR FORCE SASE. PO SOX !MO 

LOS ANGELES. CA10005.2110 

June 9, 1989 

Mr. David J. Wesley 

Field Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

3100 University Boulevard, South 

Suite 120 

Jacksonville, Florida 32216 

Dear Mr. Wesley: 

The U.S. Air Force (USAF), Space Division proposes to expand its existing 

Titan IV program at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Florida to 

provide increased launch capabilities. To support the expanded Titan IV 

program launches, the USAF proposes to modify existing launch complexes and 

support facilities at CCAFS and to build an additional Solid Motor Assembly 

Building (SMAB) at CCAFS. 

The facilities at CCAFS that would be affected by the proposed action are 

located in the northwest portion of the station, as indicated in the 

attached figures. The existing facilities include Launch Complexes 40 and 

41 and the Titan Integrate-Transfer-Launch Area, immediately to the south of 

the launch complexes. The Launch Complexes are located on previously 

disturbed industrial land, and the Integrate-Transfer-Launch Area is located 

on a man made island. the USAF proposes to build the new Solid Motor 

Assembly Building at a site on the narrow man-made causeway in the Banana 

River. 

Construction of the proposed SMAB would involve destruction of about 0.8 

acres of wetland habitat for the transporter tracks to the SMAB; and the 

western edge of the SMAB site the USAF would create 1.8 acres of new wetland 

habitat (see attached layout). Most of the site is already disturbed by the 

existing fuel storage area. Stormwater runoff and sanitary sewage would be 

collected, treated, and discharged from the site in accordance with the 

permit requirements of the St. John's Water Management District and the 

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 

To comply with the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered species Act 

of 1978, as amended, the Air Force is requesting your input regarding the 

proposed action. We are including a list of federally listed endangered and 

threatened species residing or seasonally occurring on CCAFS; please review 

it and update as necessary. We would appreciate your opinion regarding (1) 

any possible effects of the proposed project on such species, and (2) 

suggested measures to avo'd or minimize any adverse impacts on these 

species. The Air Force is continuing to evaluate its security requirements 

B-3 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 B-4 

to reach a workable solution to the concerns with the high intensity 

lighting, particularly at launch complexes disturbing the federally listed 

turtles (see attached Light Management Plan Guidelines). These items will 

be fully covered in the Environmental Assessment for this program. 

Mr. Dan Pilson can provide you with further details on the project if 

needed. His phone number is (213) 643-1409. As this project is on a tight 

schedule, we would appreciate hearing from your office as soon as possible. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT C. MASON, AICP 

Chief, Environmental Planning Division, 

Directorate of Acquisition Civil Engineering 

Attachments 

1. Endangered Species list 

2. Maps of CCAFS project area and SMAB layout 

3. Light Management Plan Guidelines 
NROAPPROVED FOR RELEASE 

.1 JUNE 2015 B-5 

Threatened and Endangered Species Associated with CCAFS 

Loggerhead [sea turtle] 

Green sea turtle 

Leatherback [sea turtle) 

Kemp's ridley [sea turtle] 

Eastern Indigo snake 

American alligator 

Atlantic salt marsh snake 

Gopher tortoise 

Florida gopher frog 

Florida scrub jay 

Kirtland's warbler 

Wood stork 

Bald eagle 

Arctic peregrine falcon 

Audubon's caracara 

Red-cockaded woodpecker 

Osprey 

Brown pelican 

Rothchild's magnificent frigate-bird 

Roseate spoonbill 

American oystercatcher 

Southeastern American Kestrel 

Florida sandhill crane 

Least tern 

West Indian manatee 

Southeastern beach mouse 

Florida mouse 

Sherman's fox squirrel 
. • 

illi011POSED 

SAAR SITE 

• . • 

."•••:INTICSIATE 

''..TRANSFER•LAUNCH 

4rJ(III.FAME A ., 

• *. • • . 

Z007/017 

06/0000FetiOVEti FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

B-6 

• 

ORMAWO WIMP 

. . 

• 
• 

0 3000 6000 FEET 

. NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

.1 JUKE 2015 B-7 

ORNLaWG 6940512 

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER 

. . 

COMPLEX 41 

• • • . • . 

::.'. • . 

COMPLEX 40 

4‘tb 

co 

O 

41/ 

• 

uouit) FUEL 

• STORAGE

aC 

NASA MISSION CONTROL CENTER ... • - • . : • 

• . . 

-SOUTH GATE 

.COMPLEX 16-PERSHING 

• • . 

'COMPLEX 14 - MERCURY ATLAS 

ATLAS AGENA , •. • • 

'COMPLEX 13•ATLAS AGENA 

. . 

' COMPLEX 43- 

WEATHER ROCKETS 

COMPLEX i7-DELTA 

AIR FORCE SPACE MUSEUM 

COMPLEX 25-TRIDENT (USN) 
P 

11 0 

II II 

11 11 

II 

II II 

4 4 

0 

B-8 

6 

5 

0 

z 

• ••••••••••••• 

• • 

ISIt 

)-11 

rl 

111•••••• •••■■••■•••• 10.1 

P........11•■•• .•■, 

• IV 

"'"..•••••••• • ••:.•••

■• 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 
APR 17 'a9 13:27 HOSD/DE LAAgB 6431170 

APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1. JUNE 2015 

I ' k , 11. I I/ I, 

The following are general.: guidelines for the development of light 

management piens at Cape Canaveral AFS (CCAFS). Florida. This information 

has bean compiled from correspondence and conversations with the U. S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in looking for ways to mitigate the adverse 

effects of lighting • from CCAFS on endangered species of turtles nesting at 

CCAFS. These guidelines will be updated as new information is learned from 

submittal of light management plans to the USFWS. 

What has been greed in principle with the USPWS is a four-part. interrelated 

approach to roach compliance within the next several years. All four parts 

must be Implemented In a coordinated effort to ensure compliance. The end 

product shall bo a Light Management Plan to be submitted to USFWS. 

1. Lighting Survey: 

- Each existing facility at CCAFS shall .imdergo a lighting survey. This 

survey shall identify those lights which could cause a disorientation 

problem (disorientation is defined as any kind of effects keeping the 

turtles from a direct path to the water) Our main concern at this time 

concerns the lighting shining directly on the shore and the beach. 

A secondary concern has to do with the composite glow from cluster of 

lights visible from the shore and the beach. The lights will be classified 

on the survey as either shining directly ,or indirectly (glow), on the 

beach. 

- Based upon the results of this survey. those lights identified will be 

evaluated to determine which of the following corrective actions is most 

appropriate. 

• elimination of the light 

-- redirection of the light 

-- shielding of the light 

-- use of tow profile lights rather than pole/building 

mounted 

▪ change to low pressure sodium 

-- installation of low light. cameras. or other appropriate 

technology 

• Based upon this determination. the facility operator shall implement 

the necessary action to correct the problem. 

-- For those corrective actions that are easy to accomplish 

(I.e., elimination, redirection or shielding). the corrective 

action shall be implemented no later than sixty (60) 

calendar days from the time these corrective actions are 

first identified. 

-- For those actions that require engineering/design and 

construction efforts, the appropriate method which can 

achieve the required results in the shortest period of time 

shall be implemented Immediately. Depending of which method is 

utilized, a compliance period shall be identified. The goal 

B-9 

PAGE.04 
NRO giftg/EWORREA 

1 JUNE 2015 

SD/DE LAAF B 5431•170 F4GE .05 

B-10 

is to have all required plans approved by the USFWS, end most 

mitigation MCIULITCX being implemented, within' two (2) years. 

• Fur those aCt10.11$ requiring Congressional funding, the 

action •-•• shall - be completed once funds are made available. 

• Upon the --.completion of lighting program at each facility. a Lighting 

Survey shall-be reaccomplIshed to ensure that the . cerrcctive actions 

are producing the desired results. If problems still exist, the above 

process shall be repeated. These will be an on-going . action performed 

yearly. 

2. New/Modified Facilities: 

..L1' 

- For new programs or programs that call for the modification to 

existing facilities, the following shall be Included in the design 

-- non-essential lights shall be eliminated • 

• 

lights shall be positioned so that they are not visible 

from the beach • 

• 

In the case of modifications, lights shall be redirected 

-- shielding of lights 

-- use of low profile lights rather than pole/building 

mounted . 

-- low pressure Sodium lights shall be used when feasible 

-- Installation of low light cameras or other appropriate 

technology as feasible 

- Upon completion of construction or modification, a Light Survey shall 

be conducted to ensure that the facility does not have the potential for 

disorientation. 

-- If the Light Survey identifies a problem. Item l above 

shall be implemented and repeated until the facility 

complies. 

3. Light Management Plan: 

• - Each facility which has the potential for causing a disorientation 

problem shall develop a Light Management Plan. This Light 

Management Plan shall become a required part of the facility 

operational plan. _ The goal of the management plan is to reduce to the 

maximum extent practicable. while still meeting AP mission - 

requirements, the.-± light being generated by each facility at CCAFS. 

This shall be . accomplished through but not limited to the following: 

-- If- the facility is not involved in any night work, all 

lights except for those necessary for security shall be 

turned off or eliminated. 

If night work is required, only those lights necessary 

for the scheduled work on a particular area shall be used. 

For example, on a launch complex, only the lights on the 

actual work level shall be used. This may require rewiring 

of light control panels to allow for the selective use of lights. 

Criteria. 
r1V7J.),I)t LNHP1:1 5 443 1 170 PAGE.06 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

.1- JUNE 2015 B-11 

-- To the maximum extent practicable, work shall be 

scheduled so that night work is not required during 

critical nesting and hatchlings periods (May thru October). To 

the extent that this is practicable, those facilities which can be 

dark (except for required security lighting) shall be dark. 

These periods need. to be identified but should only account 

for two, one month periods during the year. With enough 

planning, it seems reasonable that night work . could be 

scheduled to avoid these periods. 

. Existing facilities shall prepare the Light Management Plan In 

conjunction with Item I, Light Survey. At required, these portions of 

the Light Management Plan that require rewiring or other work, shall 

be incorporated into Item 2. 

- New or Modified Facilities shall prepare the Light Management Plan as 

a part of their operational plan. It shall be available to implement 

during the design and construction phase to ensure that appropriate 

light fixtures and light control panels ere designed and installed. 

4. Interim Measures: 

• Since some of those actions may take several years to accomplish, the 

Air Force shall continua and expand as necessary the following: 

-- Pan Am (or others) shalt continue in cooperations with 

the USFWS and the State of Florida to monitor nest locations 

and accomplish nesting surveys. If a potential 

diaorientation problem Is identified, the facilities involved 

shall be identified and an evaluation made to determine 

where they are in the compliance process. If the facility 

is not yet in compliance, the facility operator shall be 

contacted to determine if night work is pending during the 

critical periods and if it is whether or not it can be 

rescheduled and the facility left dark. If this is not 

possible due to Air Force mission requirements, 

appropriate temporary nest screens shall be installed to 

eliminate the immediate disorientation potential. 

5. Color. Spectrum of Light Waves: 

VV

Violet Blue Orton Yellow Orange Red 

••• I 

I 

400 nm 500 min 600 rim 700 

Turtle hatehlince exhibit attraotion 

towards ultraviolet. ymlet-bltio, 

and blue green lighting 

LIVID ultraviolet lightitt, IR. Infrared lighting 

molls lieneermt.r - rneasurtnwn 9f wave length 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE B-12 

United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

3100 University Blvd. South 

Suite 120 

Jacksonville, Florida 32216 

June 27, 1989 

Robert C. Mason 

Chief, Environmental Planning Division 

Headquarters Space Division 

Los Angeles Air Force Base 

P.O. Box 92960 

Los Angeles, California 90009-2960 

Dear Mr. Mason: 

This responds to your letter of June 9, 1989, requesting our comments on 

the proposed expansion of the existing Titan IV program at Cape Canaveral 

Air Force Station, Florida. We have reviewed the information contained in 

your letter, and we have several comments. First, for our office to 

properly evaluate this project, we need copies of two additional 

environmental assessments. One has to do with the reactivation of Complex 

41, and the other addresses the solid rocket motor upgrade. Prompt 

response to this request will speed-up our review. 

With reference to particular listed species, the Air Force should evaluate 

tne impact of the gas vapors expelled from the rocket engines on the 

Florida scrub jay and possibly the southeastern beach mouse and eastern 

indigo snake. We are concerned that the cloud of gas from the engines may. 

adversely impact these species that may inhabit the area around the launch 

pad. Attached to your letter were guidelines for light management on the 

facility. These guidelines appear to be general in nature. As we have 

previously discussed, it will be necessary to provide a more detailed plan 

as to how these guidelines will be implemented. 

With reference to the construction of the Solid Rocket Motor Assembly 

Building, the Service has reviewed the Army Corps' Public Notice 89IPD20408, with reference to the filling of wetlands for the building. It is 

our position that the filling aspect of this project will significantly 

impact fishery resources. 

We look forward to hearing from you regarding our requests for the 

assessments and the additional information on listed species. If we can be 

of further assistance, please contact our office. 

Sihcerely yours, 

David J. Wesley 

Field Supervisor 
, NIRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE B-13 

1 JUNE 2015 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

KEADOUARTERS SPACE SYSTEMS DIVISOR (AFSC) 

LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE SASE, PO SOX 52%0 

LOS ANGELES, CA 1110006.2540 

Mr. David J. Wesley 

Field Supervisor 

U.S. Dept. of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

3100 University Blvd., Suite 120 

Jacksonville, Florida 32216 

Dear Mr. Wesley: 

August 18,1989 

This responds to your letter of June 27, 1989, offering questions and 

commentary on the proposed expansion of the Titan IV launch program at 

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Florida. 

1. In response to your request, we have enclosed copies of two 

Environmental Assessments (EAs) prepared by the U. S. Air Force (USAF) 

for the Titan IV program: Environmental Assessment, Complementary 

Expendable Launch Vehicle (June 1986) and Supplement (May 1988); and 

Preliminary Final Environmental Assessment, Titan IV/Solid Rocket Motor 

Upgrade Program (August 1989). 

2. With regard to listed species, in the Preliminary Final EA for the Titan 

IV/SRMU program, we have included an analysis of the impacts of gas 

vapors in the exhaust cloud from the Titan IV/SRMU launch vehicle on 

terrestrial species inhabiting CCAFS, including the Florida scrub jay, 

southeastern beach mouse, and eastern indigo snake. 

3. The light management plan for the launch complexes (and support 

facilities for the Titan IV program, if necessary) is presently in 

preparation. The initial step in the development of the plan, a lighting 

survey, was recently completed.for the Titan launch areas. As you may 

know, we have prepared a draft light management plan for the MLV II 

program at launch complex (LC) 36. If the plan for LC 36 is approved by 

your office, it will be used as a.model for other CCAFS light management 

plans. The design specifications for the new Solid Rocket Motor Assembly 

Building (SMAB) proposed to be located on Harrison Island in the Banana 

River include low pressure sodium lights for all outside lighting. We 

anticipate working closely with you to develop a light management plan 

for the Titan facilities that both minimizes adverse impacts to the 

protected sea turtles and meets our needs for security and operational 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

B-14 

illumination. A draft light management plan for the Titan IV program is 

expected to be completed after the 1989 turtle breeding season has ended 

(October 1989), but before next year's season begins (May 1990). 

4. Your comments on the Army Corps of Engineers' Public Notice 891- 

PD20408 related to the application for a wetlands permit have been 

reviewed. The Architect/Engineer for the SMAB, Bechtel National Inc., has 

responded to your concerns in a letter to the Chief, South Permits Branch, 

Department of Army. We will work with your office and other regulatory 

agencies to resolve all concerns associated with fisheries resources. 

Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Dan Pilson of my office at (213) 643-

1409, should you have any further questions or comments. 

Sincerely, 

/xa c 

ROBERT C. MASON, AICP 

Chief, Environmental Planning Division, 

Directorate of Acquisition Civil Engineering 
OCT 27 '89 9:38 HOSD/DE LAAFB 6431170 

NRQ APPROVED FOR RELEASE B-15- 

1 JUNE 2015 

PAGE.01 

United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

3100 University Blvd. South 

Suite 120 

Jacksonville, Florida 32216 

October 18, 1989 

Mr. Robert C. Mason AICP 

Chief, Environmental Planning Division 

Directorate of Acquisition Civil Engineering 

Department of Air Force 

Headquarters Space Division 

Los Angeles Air Force Base 

P.O. Box 92960 

Los Angeles, California 90009-2960 

Dear Mr, Mason; 

We have reviewed the Preliminary Final Environmental Assessment for the 

Titan IV/Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade Program for Cape Canaveral Air Force 

Station, Florida. On 28 September 1989, Don Palmer of this office and I, 

accompanied by Air Force environmental staff and their consultant, 

inspected Complexes -40 and41 and the proposed site for the new Solid Motor 

Rocket Assembly Building. 

The information-provided in the-assessment clearly indicates that the 

operation of Complex 41, and possibly 40, may impact the threatened 

southeastern beach mouse and Florida scrub jay. These impacts are both 

from the toxic gas cloud generated from the firing of the rockets and the 

noise. Section 3.1.7. of the Assessment, entitled "Terrestrial Ecology", 

states that the gas generated from the firing of the rockets may kill scrub 

jays and possibly the southeastern beach mouse. Based on past firings of 

the Space Shuttle, the noise from the rockets has caused hearing loss in 

scrub jays: howovor, data wore not available to dotormino if this was a 

permanent effect or only transient in nature, ourin9 the site visit, three 

scrub jays were seen adjacent to Complex 41, well within the anticipated 

high deposition zone of the gas cloud. The condition of the scrub habitat 

around Complex 41 is suitable for scrub jays; however, no information was 

presented in the assessment regerdiny distribution or density of the birds. 

The habitat around Complex 40 is not of the same quality, although,no 

qualitative information was presented in the assessment. With reference to 

the southeastern beach mouse, the interdunal habitat,aisociated with 

Complex 411would appear to support this species, but again no specific 

information was presented. Under subsection 3.1.7.3., a monitoring program 

for these species is discussed, but no details regarding the protocol or 

responsible individuals were outlined. 
OCT E7 9:38 HQ5D/DE LAAFB 8431170 PAGE.02 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE B-16 

1 JUNE 2015 

Before the Fish and. Wildlife Service can evaluate the impact of the 

proposed actions on threatened and endangered species we need to know the 

abundance and distribution of the animals around the two Launch Complexes; 

the size, duration and direction of the gas cloud and the impact of the 

noise on the species of concern. We also need to know the specifics of the 

monitoring program including a protocol for conducting the work. This type 

of information should be collected and developed prior to operation—vf 

these facilities, and should be forwarded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Without these data, we do not believe the Air Force is able to 

complete its responsibility under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

We understand the Air Force will continue to work on environmental 

documentation, provide the information requested, and resolve any conflicts 

prior to launch. 

A great deal of effort is being expended by the Air Force in designing a 

light system to prevent disorientation of turtle hatchlings; the beach 

mouse and scrub jay should be equally considered. We find the information 

presented in the assessment lacking in detail regarding distribution and 

density of the above listed species. We believe the Air Force should 

collect distribution and density data on the southeastern beach mouse and 

scrub jay, and investigate the long-term effect of noise on the scrub jay, 

using a surrogate species. This information along with a detailed followup monitoring program should be submitted to the Service in the form of a 

request for formal consultation pursuant to Section 7. 

During the site visit at Complex 41, the by-pass road was discussed. This 

road will remove approximately one acre of scrub habitat that is occupied 

with scrub jays. This project was not coordinated with our office, nor is 

it addressed in the assessment. We, therefore, request the Air Force 

address this concern in the above consulLeLion or initiate a separate 

consultation for this issue. 

We look forward to hearing from you, and if you have a question regarding 

our comments or the Section 7 consultation process, please contact Don 

Palmer in this office. 

4incerely y9 rs, 

David J. Wesley 

Field Supervisor 
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE VED FOR RELEAS HEAOMAATIOti PACE MIMS mum (AM) 

LOS 0146ILLIS AIR FMCS SAW, PO SOX Arno 

LOS ANCIBIA. CA $000O-211.0 

Mr. David J. Wesley 

Field Supervisor 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

3100 University Boulevard, South 

Suite 120 

Jacksonville, Florida 32216 

December 4, 1989 

Dear Mr. Wesley: 

Enclosed is a Biological Assessment (Attachment 1) prepared in response to your 

letter of October 18, 1989 requesting additional information regarding the population 

distribution and density of two threatened species at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 

(CCAFS), the Florida scrub jay and the southeastern beactLanouse„-and the potential 

impacts to these, species from activities associated with the future Titan IV launch 

program at CCAFS. 

The assessment provides data from population surveys conducted in November 1989 

for both species. In addition, an estimate of the peak ground level hydrogen chloride 

concentrations in the near and far field area of the Titan IV launch complexes are 

shown in the assessment. Based on our findings presented in the assessment we do 

not expect any signifcant impacts on either the scrub jay or southeastern beach 

Mouse from the Titan IV program. 

Field surveys will be conducted during the course of the Titan IV program to monitor 

any effects on the scrub jays and southeastern beach mouse pre, during and post 

launch. We will confer with your office for specific requirements for the 

monitoring program. 

The 6550 ABO/DEEV is presently preparing appropiate environmental documentation 

for the by-pass road at complex 41 and will submit the document under separate 

cover to your office. 

In conjunction with our finding of no significant impact as 'documented in both the 

Environmental Assessment and Biological Assessment we request your office's 

concurrence with a "No Jeopardy" opinion in accordance with Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. 

If you have any further questions regarding the project or assessment, please 

contact Mr. Dan Filson of my office at (213) 643-1409 or Mr. Olin Miller at Cape 

Canaveral, Florida at (407) 494.7288, Your prompt action on this request would be 

appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

CATitrio"-- 

ROBERT C. MASON, MCP 

Chief, Environmental Planning Division 

Directorate of Acquisition Civil Engineering 

Attachment 

1. Biological Assessment 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

B-18 

• 02/01/90 11:46 22904 791 2404 JAA kiELV urrik.r, 

United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, 

3100 University Blvd. South 

Suite 120 

ladcsondla, Florida 32216 

February 1, 1990 

0 

Mr. Robert C. Mason Amp 

Chief, Environmental Planning. Division 

Directorate of Acquisition Civil Engineering 

Department of Air Force 

Headquarters Space"Division 

Los Angeles Air Force Base 

P.O. Box 92960 . 

Los Angeles, California 90009-2960 

FWS Log No. 4-1-90-021 ' 

Dear Mr. Mason: 

This represents the Biological' Opinion of the Fish and Wildlife Service in 

accordance with Section. 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file 

in this office. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

The project, entails the upgrading of existing Launch Complexes (LC) 40 and 

41, and the construction of .a Solid Rocket Motor Assembly Building on Cape 

Canaveral Air Force Station in Brevard County, Florida. The purpose of the 

work is to expand the Air Force's Titan IV launch program. The proposed 

action will result in the launch of 27 Titan IV rockets from 1991 through 

1995 (Air Force Environmental Assessment). 

CONSULTATION HISTORY 

On June 9, 1989, the Air Force requested our comments on the upgrade 

Program, and specifically' asked for information on Federally listed 

species. Prior to the June 9, 1989 request, the Air Force had been working 

with our office on general lighting requirements and modifications as they 

affect nesting sea 'turtles on the Air Force Station. On June 27, 1989 .we. 

responded to the Air Force and requested an evaluation of -the Impact of the 

program on the Florida scrub jay and southeastern beach mouse. We were 

especially concerned about the vapor cloud and noise generated from the 

rocket at the time of launch. The Air Force provided additional 

information on August 18, 1989; and on September 28, 1989 we. conducted a 

site inspection. On October 18. 1989 we informed the Air Force that we 

remained concerned about the project and requested more information on the 

vapor cloud and noise impact on the listed species. On December 4, 1989, 

the Air Force prepared a Biological Assessment on the two listed species: -- 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 B-19 

A draft of this Biological Opinion was provided to the Air Force on January 

30, at which time the Air Force provided comments and concurrence. This 

DioIosiool Op4o4on add *he colAub Jay and beaoh mouse °nips 4* Anticnot address nesting sea turtles. A separate opinion will be provided at a 

later date with reference to the lighting program and its impact on 

turtles. 

BIOLOGICAL OPINION 

The southeastern beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris) is one of 

several subspecies of beach mice that inniFT-nraine and IrTirdunal 

areas of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of Florida. The primary food item 

for this species is seeds from sea oats or other herbaceous plant, species. 

The beach mouse will consume invertebrates, particularly in the late spring. 

and early summer when seeds are scarce. Beach mice are burrow-inhabiting 

animals, and are located on the sloping side of sand dunes at the base of a 

shrub or clump of grass. Old burrows of ghost crabs are frequently used. 

The home range may contain up to 20 burrows, which are used for refuge, 

nesting and food storage. 

Breeding occurs from November though early January, with litters ranging In 

.size from two to seven, averaging four. Mice reach reproductive maturity 

In about six weeks, and there is a high infant and immature mortality rate. 

The historic distribution of the this subspecies was along the beach dunes 

from Ponce Inlet in Volusia County, south to Hollywood Beach in Broward 

County. All along this coast, however, the beach mouse has been 

extirpated, usually as a result of human development. Based on past 

trapping records, high numbers of beach mice were found on Cape Canaveral 

National Seashore, Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, Cape Canaveral 

Air Force Station, and several other localities south of Brevard County. 

At our request, the Air Force contracted with biological consultants to 

determine the density of -beach mice within what was considered a high risk 

zone around each of the complexes. A zone believed to contain toxic gas 

was defined by the Air Force as occurring for 0.4 mile (2,112 feet) radius 

from the launch pad immediately after each launch. The -density estimate of 

mice determined by the capture/recapture method was Be per acre. This 

indicates a healthy population of beach mice within this habitat. Trapping 

also revealed the density of beach mice outside of the 0.4 mile radius was 

equally high. 

The Florida scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens) is 

geographically isolated from other subspeciesfalinn Mexico and western 

United States. The scrub jay is found almost exclusively in peninsular 

Florida, but is restricted to scattered and often small, isolated patches . 

of scrub habitat. Federal lands with scrub jays are Avon' Park Air Force 

Range, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Merritt Island Naticinal Wildlife 

Refuge, and Ocala National -Forest. On state land; Jays are found in 

Jonathan Dickinson State Park in martin County. 

2 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 B-20 

Scrub jays are non-migratory, extremely sedentary, and have very specific 

habitat requirements. Scrub habitat occurs only on fine, white, drained 

sand, vegetated with sand live oak, Chapman oak, scattered sand pine, and 

rosemary. Scrub jays are rarely found in habitats with more than 50 

percent canopy cover over 9 feet in height. In general, scrub jay habitat 

consists of dense thickets of scrub oaks less than 9 feet tall, 

interspersed with bare sand used for foraging and storing of acorns. The 

habitat for the scrub jay greatly restricts the bird's distribution, and 

requires active management either through burning or mechanical clearing to 

maintain optimum habitat. The Service believes all optimum and 

less-than-optimum habitat on the Air Force Station is occupied by scrub 

Jays. 

Cox (1984, 1987) has stated that the scrub jay population has been reduced 

nearly in half as a result of habitat destruction since the beginning of 

the century. The three largest population centers are Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and the Ocala 

National Forest. These areas are estimated to have at least 80 percent of 

the known -population, total-fin 15,600 to zz,enn hfrds (Cox 1984). 

Breininger (1989) believes the 1984 estimate to be too high. .Mr. 

Breininger recalculated the estimate for the refuge using different 

criteria, and estimated the refuge to have 2,500 birds, not 6,000 as 

previously thought. The Air Force Station population was estimated by Cox 

(1984) to be 3,600 to 6,000 birds; however, the new estimate may be as low 

as 920 birds. The new statewide estimate may be approximately half (7,010 

to 10,978 birds) of the previous estimate. Based on information provided 

by the Air Force, the number of jays found within 0.4 mile radius of LCs 40 

and 41 may be from 60 to 199, or about 7 to 22 percent of the total 

population on the Air Force Station, At complex 40, the estimated 

population is 76 birds -on 132 acres of scrub, and at 41, the figure is 93 

birds.on 187 acres. These estimates are based on available suitable 

.habitat with the 0.4 mile radius of each complex. 

The 0.4 mile radius around each complex is that area tho Air Force believes 

may have the highest deposition of chemicals from the toxic cloud and the 

greatest noise produced by the launch vehicle. The cloud produced by the 

vehicle contains water vapor, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide, and 

aluminum oxide. The concentration of material in the cloud is 

significantly reducid further away from the pad. NoWever, based on cloud 

data from the space. shuttle program, and known toxicities the Service 

believes that if says or mice are found within 0.4 mile radtus of the Pad, 

mortality may result. Based on field inspections, scrub jays and beach 

mice are found within this potential "kill zone". The Air Force. 

acknowledges that wildlife found within the security fence, ,which is about 

600 feet from the pad, would be killed, but no information exists as to the 

impact on these species outside of this area. Within the security fence, 

no habitat exists for either species, and the occurrence of scrub jays 

inside the fence is transitory. 

3 
NRQ APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 B-21 

As a result of a January 8, 1990, meeting with Air Force representatives, a 

monitoring plan will be established to test the effects of,the toxic cloud 

and noise on surrogate species of a rodent and bird, using the Titan III 

rocket. This rocket has one-third less power then the Titan IV; however,. 

the Service believes the results from this test will be applicable. The 

proposal calls for setting up three transect lines extending outward from 

Complex 40 for a distance of 2,000 feet. Monitoring stations will be 

established at 600-foot intervals beginning at the security fence. Three 

cages will be placed at different heights within the vegetation, each cage 

holding one surrogate bird. To determine the effect on beach mice, a rice. 

rat will be placed in a cage in an excavated burrow. in addition, at each 

location measuring devices will be used to record the noise levels-and' 

concentrations of chemicals in the gas cloud. The Air Force will also -

videotape the launches of the two remaining Titan III's; recording the • - 

dispersion of the cloud over the test area. Results of the two monitoring 

periods will provide the Service with more complete information, to set a 

realiitic figure for incidental take for scrub jays and beach.mice, if. 

needed,' for the Titan /V program. The results of these tests, will setthe' 

protocol to conduct similar monitoring of Titan IV-launches . aiLC41.: The 

Air.Force willconduct joint field inspections of the habitat immediately' 

. following launches. 

/n addition to the monitoring, the Air Force will leg-band and color mark 

scrub jays at both pads for the purposevf future monitoring during the -

Titan /V launches. The results of the banding effort will provide 

information on.home range, density, mortality and emigration/immigration 

resulting from the launch activity. 

In a worse case scenario the Titan IV program, as planned, may.reduce the 

scrub jay population on the Air Force station by 20 percent. A confounding 

problem is that if scrub jays are killed as a result of the launches, birds 

outside of this area will emigrate into the empty habitat of the *kill -

zone' to set'up territories. These birds may then succumb-to the effects 

of usubsequent.launch. Both Ws will act as a *sink" for scrub jays, and 

will continue to decimate the station populatiowwith'each successive . 

launch. :It conceivable that if a "sink* situation occurs, it would be 

prudent. to develop,a.program to haze the birds from the area.' If this is • 

not practical, the Air Force may have to eliminate the scrub habitat within 

0.4 mile of each complex to discourage use by the birds. At the 

conclusion of the Titan IV program, It is anticipated the scrub vegetation 

will return, and the habitat will be reoccupied if left undisturbed. 

Further research will be required to confirm this. 

The estimated population of beach mice within the disturbed coastal scrub, 

which is primarily found within the 0.4 mile radius, is 5,732. for LC40 and 6,I77.for LC 41. During daylight hours, mice are found'in burroWs 

which may provide them with some protection from the effects of a launch. 

Actual impactef a launch will not be answered until the monitoring is • 

completed on the Titan III and possibly first Titan IV launches. . 

4 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 B-22 

The Air Force and the-Serviceare currently unable to provide an accurate 

level of-incidental take of either species, as required in a Biological 

Opinion. -Until monitoring is completed, information as to the impact of 

the launches is speculative. The Service, therefore, must assume for the 

purpose of this opinion that all beach mice and scrub jays found within the 

0.4 mile radius of-the launch pad may be killed directly or die as a result 

of secondary effects. Preliminary review of the data indicate mortality 

may not be as severe as .predicted. Therefore, it is the Service's 

Biological Opinion that the operational phase of-the Titan TY program is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued-existence of the scrub jay or the 

southeastern beach mouse-- --- 

The Service basis this decision on several reasons. With reference to the 

scrub jay, a maximum loss for a single launch on the Air Force Station 

represents between 0.54 to 2.0 percent of the revised statewide estimate. 

While the potential loss on the Station is significant for this immediate 

population, the loss statewide is not. The scrub jay is able to reoccupy 

habitat quickly when it is restored If a donor population is located within 

emigration distance. At the conclusion of the Titan IV program, the scrub 

habitat will grow back and scrub jays will occupy It. With the acquisition 

of private lands and the cooperation of private land owners to preserve and 

enhance scrub habitat, the recovery of this species is possible. 

Based on the trapping work conducted for this project for the combined 

LCs, the estimated population of the southeastern beach mice outside of the 

0.4 mile area but within a 0.7 mile of both LCs is 12,500 to 22,200 

animate. This number indicates a healthy population of beach mice within 

the immediate vicinity of the pads, and based on the leek of development nn 

the coastal strand of the Air Force Station, we believe the installation 

population is large and healthy. The potential loss of beach mice within 

the 0.4 mile zone will not reduce the ability .of this species to recover. 

The primary threat.to this species rangewide is the destruction of coastal 

habitat. The habitat within the affected area will not be destroyed, and 

at the conclusion of the Titan IV program, beach mice will reoccupy the 

area. 

The Service acknowledges that, depending on the results of the monitoring 

effort, the projected impact of the operational phase of the Titan IV 

program may be downgraded. If so, the level of incidental take and the 

conditions listed below in the reasonable and prudent measures will be 

adjusted. The conditions currently outlined below have bean coordinated 

and accepted by the Air Force, including the dates of execution in the 

terms and conditions section. If the level of take is changed, the 

conditions will have to be renegotiated with the Air Force. 

INCIDENTAL. TAKE 

Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act prohibits the taking of listed 

species without a special exemption. Taking is defined to mean harass, 

6 
NRQ APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 B-23 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 

attempt to engage in any such conduct. Taking can only be authorized 

through special provisions. Under the terms of Sections 7(b)(4) and 

7(0)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the 

agency action is not considered taking within the incidental take 

statement. 

The Service has reviewed the biological information and other available 

information relevant-to this action, and based on our review at our current 

level of knowledge relative to the impact of the operational phase of this 

program, and the monitoring program involved with the Titan III launches, 

we anticipate that no more than 200 scrub jays and 12,000 beach mice will 

be killed as a result of the launches. The Air Force is, therefore, 

authorized to take up to a maximum of 200 Florida scrub jays and 12,000 

southeastern beach mice on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station adjacent to I.Cs 

40 and 41. We believe the actual number will be less. 

When providing an incidental take statement, the Service is required to 

give reasonable and prudent measures it considers necessary or appropriate 

to minimize the take, along with terms and conditions that must be compiled 

with,•to implement the reasonable and prudent measures. Furthermore, the 

Service must also specify procedures to be used to handle-or dispose of .any 

individual specimens taken. The Service believes the following reasonable 

and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to reduce the impact of 

take on the statewide population of Florida scrub jays. 

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES 

Although Cape Canaveral Air Force Station has the potential to lose about 

20 percent of their extant population of scrub jays, we believe the 

following measures will offset this loss, and will not hinder the 

statewide recovery of this species. Cape canaveral Air Force Station has. 

been identified as one of the three population centers for scrub jays in 

the state; therefore, this installation is essential for the recovery of 

this.species.. Based upon this statement, the Service haS identified two 

options, from which the Air Force may select. Due to the potential for 

taking .of endangered species, the Air Force has agreed that mitigation 

will be conducted in an amount appropriate with the documented take. 

Because the amount of take is not known at this time, we are unable to give 

specific figures except in a worse case scenario. 

• 

The Air Force has worked with us to develop the following two measures and 

has agreed to implement one of the following, or a combination of the 

following, in amounts consistent with the documented take: 

1. There currently exist abandoned buildings, parking lots, and launch 

pads built in scrub joy habitat. These structures could be razed, and 

scrub vegetation planted. The Service believes that appropriate 

acreage. (3:1 ratio) of reclaimed scrub habitat is required to 

compensate for the loss of occupied scrub jay habitat. 

6 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 B-24 

2. Donate sufficient funds to a National Conservation organization 

established to purchase and manage lands. Lands purchased must be at a 

2:1 ratio (purchased to destroyed) and be occupied by scrub jays. 

Exact dollar figures to purchase appropriate acreage, and the agency to 

do this will be determined at a later date in consultation with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of Section 9 of the Act, the 

following terms and conditions, which implement each reasonable and• 

prudent measures described above respectively, must be met. 

1. If the Air Force selects the option of reclaiming habitat, a map of the 

Air Force Station outlining the area to be reclaimed and a draft 

schedule for reclamation and management must be sent to the FWS by 

October 1, 1990. All reclamation efforts must be completed by 

September 30, 1996. The. Air Force must guarantee a survival rate of 80 

percent of planted scrub vegetation after three years and control 

exotic vegetation. The Air Force will submit a yearly report for ten 

years to the Service indicattng the status of the project, including 

recolonization by scrub jays. 

2. The amount of funds and a schedule for transfer to a third party must 

be completed within two years of the date of this opinion. The Service 

oust be involved with the selection of the organization charged with 

the purchase-of the property. 

3. If in the course of the operational phase of the project a dead scrub 

jay or southeastern beach mouse is found, the carcass should be frozen 

immediately, and the Jacksonville Field Office notified within 24 hours. 

for disposition (904/791-2680). - 

This completes Section 7 consultation. If modifications are made in the 

project or if additional information becomes available, reinitiation of 

consultation may be necessary. 

Sincerely yours, i-2) 

d4vvv-A-, 

Donald T. Palmer 

Acting Field Supervisor 
NRO.APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 B-25 

LITERATURE CITED 

Environmental Impact Analysis Process; Biological Assessment Titan IV 

Launch Program Launch Complex 40 and 41. Cape Canaveral Air Force 

Station, Florida. Department of the Air Force, December 1989: 

Breininger, D.R. 1989. A new population estimate for the Florida Scrub 

Jay on Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. Vol. 17, No. 2. 

Florida Field Naturalist. 

Cox, J. 1984. Distribution, habitat, and social organization of the 

Florida Scrub Jay, with a discussion of the evaluation of cooperative 

breeding in New Worlds Jays. Gainesville, Florida: Ph.D. dissertation, 

University of Florida. 

Cox, J. 1987. Status and distribution of the Florida Scrub Jay. 

Gainesville, Florida; Florida Ornithological Society Special Publ. 

No, 3. 
B-26 

PPROVED FOR RELEASE 

2015 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE • 

HEADQUARTERS SPACE DIVISION WPM 

LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE SASE. ►0 SOX 1211110 

LOS ANGELES, CA 90009-29110 

June 9, 1989 

Mr. Ray Bransfield 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Endangered Species Office 

24000 Avila Road 

Laguna Niguel, California 92677 

Dear Mr. Bransfield: 

The U.S. Air Force (USAF), Space Division proposes to expand its existing 

Titan IV program at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California to provide 

increased launch vehicle processing capabilities to support launch of the 

Titan IV/Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade. The proposed changes for the Titan IV 

program at VAFB include modifications at Space Launch Complex 4 East 

(SLC-4E) to accommodate the Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade (SRMU), modifications 

to the Solid Rocket Sub-assembly Facility (SRSF, Building 398) at SLC-6, 

launch of up to four Titan IV/SRMU vehicles per year, and disposal of the 

washdown wastewater from Titan IV launches in evaporation ponds at SLC-6. 

The facilities at VAFB that would be affected by the proposed action are 

located in the southern portion of the base as shown in the enclosed figure. . 

Modifications at SLC-4E would occur in previously disturbed areas associated 

with the launch structure, and modifications to the SRSF, Building 398 would 

be internal. .Launch of the Titan IV/SRMU requires 15% more solid rocket 

propellant than the current Titan IV and is expected to require disposal of 

about 50,000 gal of washdown.mater per launch. The Air Force is developing 

plans for disposal of washdown water; this issue will be addressed along 

with any other items in the Environmental Assessment for this program. 

To comply with the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1978, as amended, the Air Force is requesting your input regarding the 

proposed action. We are including a list of federally listed endangered and 

threatened species residing or seasonally occurring in the project vicinity; 

please review and update it as necessary. We would appreciate your opinion 

regarding (1) any possible effects of the proposed project on such species, 

and (2) suggested measures to avoid or minimize any adverse impacts on these 

species. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 8 

Table 2. Scrub jay population estimate within 0.7 mile radius of 

LCs 40 and 41 at CCAFS based on KSC scrub jay density and habitat 

Habitat type 

Approximate 

area (hectares) Jays/hectare' Estimated population 

LC 40: 

Coastal strand 34 0.2 6.8 

Oak scrub 97.4 0.85 82.8 

Oak scrub (disturbed) 413 3.2 132.1 

Total 172.7 221.7 

LC 41: 

Coastal strand 42.8 0.2 8.5 

Oak scrub 83.7 0.85 71.1 

Oak scrub (disturbed) 44.5 3.2 142.4 

Total 171.0 222.0 

*Scrub jay population for LCs 40 and 41 combined is estimated to be 444 birds. 

'From Breininger, D. R. 1981. "Habitat preferences of the Florida scrub jay 

(Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens) on Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge". Unpub. 

Master's thesis, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida. 

Table 3. Scrub jay population estimate within 0.7 mile radius of LCs 40 and 41 

based on minimum and maximum territory size of scrub jays on 

Merritt Island, Florida 

1. Total available habitat = 344 ha 

2. Minimum territory size = 2.4 ha' 

3. Maximum territory size = 6.9 ha' 

4. Mean group size = 3.2 birds (mowed grass not present) 

3.7 birds (mowed grass present) 

5. Maximum population size = 344 x 3.2 = 159.5 birds 

6.9 

6. Maximum population size = 344 x 3.7 = 530 birds 

2.4 

*Scrub jay population for LCs 40 and 41 combined is estimated to be 160 to 530 birds. 

aFrom Breininger, D. R. and R. B. Smith 1989. "Relationships between habitat 

characteristics and territory size of the Florida scrub jay (Apheloconsa coetukscau 

comulescens)". Supplement to the Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, Vol. 70, 

No. 2. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

7 

Results are presented in Table 2. An estimated 444 jays were predicted within a 0.7-mi 

radius (1.1-km radius) of LCs 40 and 41. No confidence limits can be established for this 

estimate, therefore, a comparison was made using a different method. 

Estimate #2 was derived from data collected at KSC using color-banded birds from 20 

territories in disturbed and undisturbed scrub. Mean territory size of scrub jays was 2.4 ha in 

areas where mowed grass existed; unmowed territories averaged 6.9 ha. Mean group sizes were 

3.7 and 32 birds for territories with, and without mowed grass, respectively (Breininger and 

Smith 1989). Habitat analysis was conducted using aerial imagery as described for Estimate #1. 

Minimum and maximum population estimates of 160 to 530 birds, respectively, were calculated 

by dividing total available scrub jay habitat (344 ha) by mean territory size (2.4 ha and 6.9 ha) 

then multiplying by mean group size (3.2 and 3.7 jays/territory) (Table 3). Estimate #1, based 

on habitat-specific densities, gave an estimated population of 444 jays, which falls within the 

160-530 range. 

Breininger (1989) estimated between 920 to 1,840 scrub jays at CCAFS (based on bird 

densities per hectare and hectares of available habitat) which is about 10% of the state 

population reported by Breininger (1989) based on Cox (1984, 1987). The estimated population 

at LCs 40 and 41 ranges, therefore, between 9 to 58% of the CCAFS population, or 1 to 6% 

of the state population. 

3.2 SOUTHEASTERN BEACH MOUSE 

3.2.1 Species Description 

The southeastern beach mouse was listed by the FWS as a threatened species on 

May 12, 1989 (54 Federal Register 20598). The following species description is excerpted from 

the FWS proposed listing of the species (53 Federal Register 25185, July 5, 1988). The 

southeastern beach mouse is the largest of the beach mice, averaging 139 mm in total length 

and 52 mm in tail length. The mouse is restricted to sand dunes mainly vegetated by sea oats 

(Uniola paniculata) and dune panic grass (Paspulum amarulum) and to the adjoining scrub, 

characterized by oaks (Quercus sp.), sand pine (Pinus clausa), and palmetto (Serena repens). 

Extine and Stout (1987) studied dispersion and movements of Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris 

on Merritt Island. The habitat of these mice consisted of three contiguous zones of vegetation 
ORNL-DWG 89M-9559 

VEGETATIVE 

COMMUNITY TYPES 

SCRUB 

WETLANDS 

DUNE 

STRAND 

INDUSTRIAL 

COMPLEX OR 

OFFSITE 

miles 

6 

MIN 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

Fig. 2. Vegetation at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

5 

By far, habitat destruction has played the major role in the Florida scrub jay's decline, 

but there is evidence that, in St. Johns County at least, some scrub jays have been shot by 

vandals. In addition, the tameness and beauty of this bird make it desirable as a pet, and 

although illegal, it has been used for such a purpose in the past. Another threat to this 

vulnerable bird's existence is the suppression of fires to protect human interests. Historically, 

natural-caused fires were major factors in maintaining the sparse, low scrub vegetation preferred 

by A. c. coerulescens. 

Although the Florida scrub jay is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and 

Florida state law, these laws do not protect the bird from habitat destruction. To protect and 

manage the surviving populations, the Florida scrub jay was listed by the FWS as a threatened 

species on June 3, 1987 (52 Federal Register 20715). 

3.1.2 Distribution and Density of Scrub Jays near LCs 40 and 41 

Florida scrub jays extensively use the scrub vegetation surrounding the. perimeter fences 

at LCs 40 and 41 (Fig. 2), and nests have been observed within 660 ft (201 m) of LC-41. The 

population of scrub jays within a 0.7-mile (1.1-km) radius of the LC 40 and 41 launch pads was 

estimated using scrub jay density and habitat data from studies at the adjacent Kennedy Space 

Center. This distance was used because it includes the high-risk-for-injury/death zone that 

extends about 600 ft (182 m) from the pad. The methods and information that served as the 

basis of two estimates are as follows. 

Estimate #1 was calculated by multiplying scrub jay density estimates for coastal strand, 

coastal scrub, and disturbed coastal scrub habitats by the area [in hectares (ha)] of each of the 

respective habitats at LCs 40 and 41. Scrub jay density estimates were derived from data 

collected at five transects located in strand, scrub and disturbed scrub habitats in the vicinity of 

LC 41. Mean scrub jay density estimates for coastal strand (Transect 25), oak scrub, (Transects 

3 and 15), and disturbed oak scrub (Transects 6 and 7) were calculated as 0.2 jays/ha, 

0.85 jays/ha and 3.2 jays/ha, respectively (Breininger 1981). Habitat evaluation was conducted by 

interpretation of aerial infrared imagery of LCs 40 and 41, and ground truthing. Habitat areas 

were computed using an Alvin Model P1-655 compensating planimeter. 
NRQ APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

3. ECOLOGY OF THE THREATENED SPECIES 

3.1 FLORIDA SCRUB JAY 

3.1.1 Species Description 

The following species description of the Florida scrub jay is excerpted from the 

Endangered Species Technical Bulletin (Vol. IX, No. 6, 1986). The Florida scrub jay is a 

bluish-colored, crestless bird that reaches 12 inches (30 centimeters) in total length. A necklace 

of blue feathers separates its white throat from gray underparts, and a white line over the bird's 

eye often blends into a whitish forehead. Florida scrub jays are long-lived (10 years or more), 

sedentary, and permanently monogamous. They are omnivorous, eating almost anything they 

can catch, but they concentrate on lizards and arthropods in spring and summer, and acorns in 

fall and winter. 

The species Aphelocoma coerulescens is widely distributed in the western United States, 

but the Florida subspecies, A. c. coerulescens, is restricted to scattered and often isolated patches 

of oak scrub in peninsular Florida, which occurs on fine, white, -drained sand. These areas have 

high real estate value in this rapidly growing state, and as a result, many of the coastal areas 

inhabited by the Florida scrub jay have been cleared for construction of beachfront hotels, 

houses, and condominiums. Scrub habitats in the interior of the Florida peninsula are also 

changing; they are subject to development for citrus groves as well as for housing developments. 

In many areas, scrub jays are barely hanging on, and they will probably disappear from these 

areas within a few years as land clearing continues. 

In the past, scrub jays were reported to have occupied 40 Florida counties, but today 

they have been completely eliminated from some areas (40% of their historical locations), and 

their numbers have drastically declined in others. The Florida scrub jay's total population has 

dropped by about half in the past century, leaving between 15,000 and 22,000 known survivors 

in 1986. Of the remaining jays, over 80% occur only in two general areas: Merritt Island/Cape 

Canaveral (Brevard County) and Ocala National Forest (Lake, Marion, and Putnam Counties). 

Elsewhere, only small populations are scattered throughout peninsular Florida. Breininger 

(1989) reports a state-wide scrub jay population between roughly 7,000 to 11,000 birds. 

4 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

3 

2.2 Project Description 

In support of the Department of Defense (DOD) space program, the USAF proposes to 

expand its existing Than IV launch program at CCAFS. The proposed action would be to 

launch a maximum of 27 Titan IV vehicles from 1991 through 1995 and to increase payload 

capacity for Shuttle-class payloads by using some launch vehicles equipped with a larger solid 

rocket motor (SRM) known as the Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade (SRMU or Type 2 vehicle). 

To support the expanded Titan IV launch program, the USAF would have to modify existing 

launch complexes and support facilities at CCAFS. 

The planned launch schedule for the Than N is given in Table 1. From 1991 to 1995, 

there would be a transition to the use of Titan IV/SRMU (Type 2) vehicles. The launch and 

flight of a Titan N begins with ignition of the SRMs, which burn for about 2 min (Stage 0). At 

an altitude of about 31 miles (50 km), Stage 1 motors ignite, quickly followed by jettison of the 

SRMs. The payload fairings are jettisoned after about 4 min of flight, and Stage 1 

shutdown/Stage 2 ignition occurs after about 5 min. In less than 9 min from liftoff, Stage 2 is 

shut down and jettisoned and the payload is established in a low earth "parking" orbit. 

Table 1. Planned launches of Titan N vehicles from CCAFS 

Year 

Launch site 

LC-40 LC-41 Total 

1991 0 3 3' 

1992 3 3 6b 

1993 3 3 g 

1994 3 3 6C 

1995 3 3 6` 

Total 12 15 27 

"All Titan N (no SRMU). 

b50% Type 1, 50% Type 2 (SRMU). 

`All Type 2 (SRMU). 
NRQ APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

2 

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER 

' • COMPLEX 41 

ORNL-DWG 89.10582R 

LIQUID FUEL 

STORAGE 

NEW HYPERGOLIC STORAGE FACILITY 

SOUTH GATE 

COMPLEX 40 

ii ipA4 

_gsk 

i COMPLEX 16-PERSHING 

COMPLEX 14 (DEACTIVATED) 

MERCURY-ATLAS 

ATLAS-AGENA 

11111. 

COMPLEX 13-ATLAS-AGENA 

• . . 

* 

Ir 4. 4 1 

'940 'COMPLEX 36 A&BATLAS-CENTAUR 

COMPLEX 43- 

.WEATHER ROCKETS 

. . 

IA* COMPLEX 17-DELTA 

AIR FORCE SPACE MUSEUM 

COMPLEX 25-TRIDENT (USN) 

40V 

I 

EXISTING SOLID 

MOTOR ASSEMBLY 

BUILDING 

• COMPLEX 37 A & B (DISMANTLED) APOLLO-SATURN 

COMPLEX 34 (DISMANTLED) APOLLO-SATURN 

ATLANTIC 

.::OCEAN 

0 3000 6000 FEET 

HARBOR 

IZO77.1".0%,./Z1117"/ 

BASE BOUNDARY 

Fig. 1. Launch complexes and support facilities at Cape Canaveral Air Force 

Station, Florida. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerukscens coerulescens) and the southeastern beach 

mouse (Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris) are both listed by the U.S. Department of Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), as threatened species, pursuant to the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (50 CPR Part 17). This Biological Assessment has been prepared by 

the USAF as the initial step of formal consultation between the USAF and FWS regarding the 

potential for adverse impacts to these species because of future Titan IV program launches at 

launch complexes (LCs) 40 and 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Florida. 

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

2.1 Project Location 

CCAFS is located along the eastern coast of Florida near the city of Cocoa Beach in 

Brevard County. The base is about 15 miles (mi) north of Patrick AFB and adjacent to the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Kennedy Space Center (KSC). 

CCAFS occupies about 15,800 acres (25 mit) of a barrier island that is bounded on the east by 

the Atlantic Ocean and on the west by the Banana River. 

The facilities at CCAFS that would be affected by the proposed project are located in 

the northwest portion of the base, as indicated in Fig. 1. These include Launch Complexes 

(LCs) 40 and 41 and the Titan Integrate-Transfer-Launch (ITL) Area immediately south of the 

LCs. A new facility, the Solid Motor Assembly Building, is proposed to be constructed at a site 

near the ITL area on narrow man-made causeway in the Banana River. 

The LCs are located on previously disturbed land and are industrial in character. LCs 40 

and 41 were constructed in 1963-64. LC-41 was used by the USAF from 1964 to 1977 for 

Than launches from 1964 to the present. 

1 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO 

FEDERALLY LISTED THREATENED SPECIES: FLORIDA SCRUB 

JAY AND SOUTHEASTERN BEACH MOUSE 

(Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens and Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris) 

U.S. AIR FORCE 

TITAN IV LAUNCH PROGRAM 

LAUNCH COMPLEXES 40 AND 41 

CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION 

BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 

DECEMBER 1989 
a 043/017. 

oti/0tialgit li2RVF LEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 B-33 

Threatened and Endangered Species Associated with VAFB 

Peregrine falcon 

Bald eagle 

California least tern 

California brown pelican 

Least Bell's vireo 

Gray whale 

Guadalupe fur seal 

Southern sea otter 

Unarmored threespine stickleback 

Salt marsh bird's beak 

California sea lion . 

Harbor seal 

Stellar sea Hon 

Northern fur seal 

Northern elephant seal 

Caladidetsuattral 

Spotted bat 

Towsend's western big-eared bat 

Greater mastiff bat _ 

California black rail 

Western snowy plover 

Long-billed curlew 

White-faced ibis 

Ferruginous hawk 

Tricolored blackbird 

Western pond turtle 

California red-legged frog 

Arroyo toad 

Tidewater goby 

Salt marsh skipper butterfly 

Swamp sand won 

Hoover's baccharia 

Morning glory 

Soft-leaved Indian paintbruch 

Lilac 

La Graclosa thistle 

Surf thistle 

Beach spectacle-pod 

Lompoc yerba santa 

Roderick's fritillary 

Crisp monardella 

San Luis Obispo curly-leaved monardella 

Hoffman sanicle 

Black-flowered figwort 
NRQ APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 B-32 

Mr. Robert C. Mason 3 

contact Donna Brewer of my staff at (714) 643-4270 if any 

questions. 

Sincerely, 

Brooks Harper 

Acting Field Supervisor 

Enclosure 

1 "Construction Project" means any major Federal action which 

significantly affects the quality of the human environment 

designed primarily to result in the building or erection of manmade structures such as dams, buildings, road, pipelines, 

channels and the like. This includes Federal actions such as 

permits, grants, licenses or other forms of Federal 

authorizations or approvals which may result in construction. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

Mr. Robert C. Mason 

During the assessment or review process, your agency may engage 

in planning efforts, but may not make an irreversible commitment 

of resources. Such a commitment could constitute a violation of 

Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act (Act). If a listed 

species may be affected, your agency should request, in writing 

through our office, formal consultation pursuant to Section 7 of 

the Act. Informal consultation may be used to exchange 

information and resolve conflicts with respect to listed species 

prior to a written request for formal consultation. Our 

suggested list also includes a list of candidate species 

presently under review by this Service for consideration as 

endangered or threatened. It should be noted that candidate 

species have no protection under the Act. Therefore, you are not 

required to perform a Biological Assessment for candidate species 

nor to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service should you 

determine your project may affect candidate species. They are 

included for the sole purpose of notifying Federal agencies in 

-advance of possible-proposals and-listings -which at some time in 

the future may have to be considered in planning Federal 

activities. If early evaluation of your projects indicates that 

it is likely to adversely impact a candidate species, you may 

wish to request technical assistance from this office. 

Your letter also included a request for our input in suggesting 

measures that may avoid or minimize any adverse impacts on these 

species. To these ends, the Service suggests that your office 

prepare a detailed monitoring plan to determine the cumulative 

impact of all proposed launches from Vandenberg Air Force Base. 

This analysis should focus on the projected levels and 

frequencies of noise and disturbance associated with both the 

proposed Titan IV launches, and other smaller missiles from the 

Base. Please refer to our Biological Opinion 1-6-88-F-53 dated 

October 6, 1988 for suggestions for monitoring potential impacts 

from Titan II and IV launches. We would be happy to work with 

your staff in developing such a plan. It is the Service's desire 

that implementation of a comprehensive monitoring plan may remove 

or substantially reduce the need for additional formal 

consultation on proposed launch programs. 

Should you have any questions regarding the species on the 

enclosed list or your responsibilities under the Act, please 

B-31 

2 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 B-30 

United States Department addle Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

LAGUNA NIGUEL FIELD OFFICE 

24000 Avila Road 

Laguna Niguel, California 92656 

In Reply Refer To: 

FWS/LNFO (1-6-88-SP-932) 

July 12, 1989 

Robert C. Mason, AICP 

Chief, Environmental Planning Division 

Directorate of Acquisition Civil Engineering 

Department of the Air Force 

Headquarters Space Division (AFSC) 

Los Angeles Air Force Base 

P.O. Box 92960 

Los Angeles, California 90009-2960 

Dear Mr. Mason: 

This is in response to your letter, dated June-9.,-3.989, and 

received by us on June 13, 1989 requesting information - ow, listed 

and proposed endangered and threatened species which may be 

present within the influence of the proposed expansion of the 

Titan IV program at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara 

County, California. With the addition of the elegant tern 

($terna eleaans) a category 2 candidate, we concur with your 

suggested list of species (see enclosure). Further refinement of 

your proposed project deatails should result in a much shortened 

list. Please note that the National Marine Fisheries Service has 

authority over the endangered California gray whale and 

threatened Guadalupe fur seal and should be contacted for 

consultation on these species. The California sea lion, harbor 

seal, Steller sea lion, northern fut seal,•and northern elephant 

seal are not federally listed species however, they are afforded 

protection by the Marine Protection Act. 

Your agency has the responsibility to prepare a Biological 

Assessment if your project is a construction project which may 

require an Environmental Impact Statement. If a Biological 

Assessment is not required, your agency still has the 

responsibility to review its proposed activities and determine 

whether the listed species will be affected. 
CORE vEmrcLE 

ASSEMBLY BLDG 

(eLDG*840f ) / 

United Slates 

Penitentiary 

SUS-ASSEMBLY 

FACILITY 

(BLDG 398) 

MATERIAL 

SUPPORT 

FACILITY 

(SLOG 5500) 

PAYLOAD PAIRING 

PROCESSING AND STORAGE BLDG 

(BLDG 8337) 

' -SOF 

COAST 

GATE 

RECEIPT, INSPECTION; 

AND STORAGE • 

FACILITY 

(SLOG 945) 

X-RAY FACILITY 

(SLOG 946 

. • ' 

SLC-4 

Lompoc 

4 

BASE BOUNDARY 

0 6000 12,000 

°24' 

Lt, 1 

FEET 

ooftc 1 4 

SLC-6 

0 

Point 

Argue 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 B-29 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE B-28 

1 JUNE 2015 

Threatened and Endangered Species Associated with VAFB 

Peregrine falcon 

Bald eagle 

California least tern 

California brown pelican 

Least Bell's vireo 

Gray whale 

Guadalupe fur seal 

Southern sea otter 

Unarmored threespine stickleback 

Salt marsh bird's beak 

California sea lion _ 

Harbor seal 

Stellar sea lion 

Northern fur seal 

Northern elephant seal 

Candidate species 

Spotted bat 

Towsend's western big-eared bat 

Greater mastiff bat 

California black rail 

Western snowy plover 

Long-billed curlew 

White-faced ibis 

Ferruginous hawk 

Tricolored blackbird 

Western pond turtle 

California red-legged frog 

Arroyo toad 

Tidewater goby 

Salt marsh skipper butterfly 

Swamp sand wort 

Hoover's baccharia 

Morning glory 

Soft-leaved Indian paintbrush 

Lilac 

La Graciosa thistle 

Surf thistle 

Beach spectacle-pod 

Lompoc yerba santa 

Roderick's fritillary 

Crisp monardelia 

San Luis Obispo curly-leaved monardelia 

Hoffman sanicle 

Black-flowered figwort 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 B-27 

Mr. Dan Pilson can provide you with further details on this project if 

needed. His phone number is (213) 643-1409. As this is on a tight 

schedule, we would appreciate hearing from your office as soon as possible. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT C. MASON, AICP 

Chief, Environmental Planning Division 

Directorate of Acquisition Civil Engineering 

Attachments 

1. Endangered Species list 

2. Map of VAFB project area 
NRQ APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 9 

running parallel with the beach and dune lines. Zone 1 was seaward and supported sea oats; 

Zone 2 was characterized by clumps of palmetto and sea grape (Coccoloba uvifera), and 

expanses of open sand; Zone 3 was interior and consisted of dense scrub dominated by 

palmetto, sea grape, and wax myrtle (Myrica cenfera). Zones 2 and 3 were found to be the 

preferred habitats of the beach mice, whereas Zone 1 was marginal. 

Very little is known about the life history of any of the subspecies of beach mice. 

The food plants most utilized by beach mice are various beach grasses and sea oats. Beach 

mice also probably eat invertebrates from time to time, especially in late spring and early 

summer when seeds are scarce. 

Beach mice are burrow-inhabiting animals. Burrow entrances are usually placed on 

the sloping side of a dune at the base of a shrub or clump of grass. Often old burrows of 

ghost crabs are utilized, but more commonly the burrows are dug by the mice themselves. A 

beach mouse's home range may contain up to 20 burrows in different parts of the range. The 

burrows are used as safe refuges, nesting sites, and food storage areas. 

Along the Gulf Coast, much breeding activity was evident in November, December, 

and early January, and large numbers of immature animals were in the population at that time. 

Litter sizes range from two to seven, with an average of about four; young mice reach 

reproductive maturity as early as six weeks of age. In the laboratory, a female beach mouse is 

capable of producing 80 or more young during her lifetime, and litters are produced regularly at 

26-day intervals. Mortality is very high, however. Only 19.5% of the beach mice on the Gulf 

Coast survived more than the four months from January to early May. 

Beach mouse predators on the Gulf Coast dunes include raccoons, skunks, snakes, 

great blue herons, domestic dogs, and domestic cats. All of these predators occur on the 

Atlantic Coast and could prey on beach mice there as well. 

The original distribution of the southeastern beach mouse (P. p. niveiventris) was 

along the beach dune from Ponce (Mosquito) Inlet, Volusia County, south along the coast to 

Hollywood Beach, Broward County. Recent studies have disclosed that this mouse still occurs 

in good numbers at Cape Canaveral and smaller numbers to the north in Cape Canaveral 

National Seashore. To the south, from Sebastian Inlet to Hutchinson Island, only a few small, 

scattered remnant populations survive. South of Hutchinson Island, nearly all the beach dune 

habitat has been totally destroyed by housing and condominium developments. 

The dune grassland at Cape Canaveral is excellent, extensive habitat for beach mice 

(see Fig. 2), and the population density there is apparently high (see. Sect. 3.2.2). Northward, 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 10 

the habitat narrows to a single dune in Canaveral National Seashore, where population density 

appears to be lower. To the south, beach mice no longer occur on East Peninsula, where the 

habitat has been severely disrupted by development. Sampling from Sebastian Inlet to 

Hutchinson Island shows that only a few, small, fragmented populations of beach mice remain. 

The subspecies apparently no longer occurs in the southern part of its range where beach 

development has destroyed its habitat at Jupiter Island, Palm Beach, Lake Worth, Hillsboro 

Inlet, and Hollywood Beach. 

3.2.2 Distribution and Density of Beach Mice near LCs 40 and 41 

3.2.2.1 Survey method 

Four study sites were selected within distinct habitats in the vicinity of LC 40 on 

CCAFS (Fig. 3). Grid selection was based on the amount of homogenous habitat available, 

location in relation to potential impacts from launch vehicle emissions, and logistical constraints. 

Table 4 summarizes grid location, study design and trapping effort. 

Table 4. Study sites, sampling design, and trapping effort 

used to estimate densities of southeastern beach mice at 

LC 40, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida 

Trapping 

dates 

Rows 

and Grid area 

Grid Location (November 1989) columns (ha) Trap-nights 

1 Dune 19-23 5x20 0.76 400 

2 Strand 21-25 11x14 1.3 516 

3 Burned scrub 19-23 3x10 0.18 120 

4 Xeric hammock 19-24 3x6 0.1 90 

Grids were designed to accumulate capture-recapture data from a nested grid array of 

Sherman live traps set at 30 ft (10 m) intervals. Traps were baited with rolled oats each 

afternoon and checked the next morning. Each animal captured was fitted with a Salt Lake 

Stamp Co. Model FF ear tag and released at the point of capture. 
11 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 12 

Data analysis on capture-recapture data was completed with the microcomputer version 

of the program CAPTURE, developed by the Utah Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit (1984). 

The program conducts seven chi-square goodness-of-fit and between-model tests for eight 

statistical population estimation models. These tests assess the fit of the data to each model 

and selects the simplest model that provides the best fit to the data (Humphrey 1988). 

3,7 Analysis of data 

CAPTURE provided population estimates for three of the four grids and density 

estimates for Grids 1 and 2 (Table 5). 

Table 5. Probability models used to estimate population 

size and density of southeastern beach mice on 

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, and 

corresponding population/density estimates 

Grid Model Population 95% confidence Naive Adjusted 

selected estimate interval density density 

(± SE)a estimate estimate 

(n/ha)* (n/ha ± SE)a 

1 Mh 90 ± 9.05 71-108 117.8 64.36 ± 19.3 

2 Mh 282 ± 19.3 243-320 216.6 195.7 ± 24.4 

3 Mo 25 ± 3.22 18-32 138.8 none 

4 none 33 none 30a none 

aSE = standard error, n = population, and ha = hectares. 

bBased on minimum number of animals known alive on the grid. 

Density estimates could not be produced for Grids 2 and 3 because they were too small 

for analysis. Sample size of captures at Grid 4 was too small for either density or population 

estimates from the program. The population estimate of 3 animals for the grid and a naive 

density of 30 animals per hectare was based on the minimum number of animals known to be 

alive on the grid. 

A model which assumes heterogeneity of capture probabilities in the population (Mh) 

was chosen for Grids 1 and 2. Model Mo, which assumes equal capture probabilities within the 

population, was utilized to calculate the population in Grid 3. 
NRQ APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 13 

The population at Grid 1 was estimated to be 71-108 animals with a 95% confidence 

interval. A naive density, which is the population estimate of the grid divided by the grid area, 

was calculated at 117.8. The adjusted density estimate, which considers that animals captured 

on grid edges have home ranges extending outside the grid boundaries, was 64.36 ± 19.3 

[standard error (SE)]. Grid 2 had an estimated population of 243-320 animals, a naive density 

of 216.6 mice/ha and an adjusted density of 195.7 ± 24.4 mice/ha. Beach mice density for Grid 

3 could not be estimated by CAPTURE; however, a population estimate of 25 ± 3.22 (18-32 

with 95% confidence) was calculated. 

3.2.2.3 Summary of results 

Population Estimate for LC 40. Extrapolating the naive and adjusted beach mice 

densities from Grids 1-3 to all available habitats at LC 40 yielded a population estimate of 

11.024-15,199 (Table 6). 

Table 6. Beach mouse population estimate within 0.7 mile. 

radius of the launch pad based on study grids at LC 40, 

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida 

Habitat Area Naive Adjusted Population 

type (ha) density density estimates 

(n/ha)a (n/ha ± SE)* (individuals) 

Coastal dune 11.2 — 64.36 ± 19.3 298-1,153 

Coastal strand 34 — 195.7 ± 24.4 4,994-8,314 

Disturbed scrub 41.3 138.8 — 5,732 

Total suitable 

habitat 86.5 11,024-15,199 

en = population, ha = hectares, and SE = standard error. 

Although 3 beach mice were captured in xeric oak scrub hammock, these individuals 

were believed to have been transients from a nearby section of scrub that had burned 6 months 

prior. Therefore, no population estimate was calculated for dense, oak scrub habitat, which 

comprises about 97 ha of the potentially impacted area. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 14 

Population Estimate for LC 41. Assuming similar beach mice densities exist at LC 41 as 

calculated for LC 40 and extrapolating those densities to all suitable habitat, a population 

estimate of 13,042-18,940 is suggested (Table 7). 

Data obtained from trapping in selected habitats at LC 40 suggest that southeastern 

beach mice exist at moderate to very high densities in at least three distinct habitats: dune 

grassland, coastal strand and disturbed (burned) coastal scrub. To estimate populations, it was 

assumed that mice density in mechanically disturbed scrub would be similar to that in burned 

scrub, because the limiting factor of inhabitation is related to scrub density and canopy closure. 

Although no trapping has been conducted at LC 41 to determine mice densities there, it 

can reasonably be assumed that because the habitats are similar at both complexes, beach mice 

densities are similar. 

Table 7. Beach mouse population estimate within 0.7-mile radius of 

the launch pad at LC 41 based on beach mice densities obtained 

from LC 40, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida 

Naive Adjusted Population 

Habitat Area density density estimates 

type (ha) (Wha)a (n/ha ± SE)'' (individuals) 

Coastal dune 22.4 64.36 ± 19.3 577-2,305 

Coastal strand 83.7 — 195.7 ± 24.4 6,288-10,464 

Disturbed scrub 44.5 138.8 — 6,177 

Total suitable 

habitat 150.6 13,042-18,946 

an = population, ha = hectares, and SE = standard error. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

4. IMPACTS 10 THREATENED SPECIES 

4.1 HABITAT DESTRUCTION OR DISTURBANCE 

The FWS has designated no critical habitat for the Florida scrub jay or the southeastern 

beach mouse at CCAFS, although the predominant on-site coastal scrub, strand, and dune 

vegetation are excellent habitat for both species (Fig. 4). Construction activities associated with 

renovations of LCs 40 and 41 to support the Titan IV program will not destroy or significantly 

disturb scrub jay or beach mouse habitat. Most construction will occur on previously disturbed 

land; therefore, impacts to habitat will be minimal, and populations of threatened species will 

not be adversely affected. 

Acidic deposition from hydrogen chloride (Ha) in the ground cloud that forms following 

ignition and combustion of the Titan IV SRMs may injure or destroy vegetation very near the 

launch pads and along the path of the ground cloud; however, habitat or forage will not be 

altered to the extent that populations of threatened species will be adversely affected. 

A high-risk zone exists within the perimeter fence of LCs 40 and 41 (Figs. 5 and 6), 

extending about 600 ft (182 m) out from the launch pad. During launch, this area will 

experience intense heat and pressure (noise, vibrations), and concentrations of SRM exhaust 

will be extremely toxic. The zone is industrial in nature, and areas where structures or 

pavement are not present are covered with only grass. There is little if any suitable habitat for 

either the scrub jay or the beach mouse within the high-risk zone. 

4.2 EFFECTS OF LAUNCH VEHICLE EXHAUST AND GROUND CLOUD 

Launch of Titan IV vehicles will produce atmospheric emissions from the combustion of 

the SRMs (Type 1 or 2 vehicles). The combustion products listed in Table 8 would be 

distributed along the vehicle trajectory to an altitude of roughly 31 mi (50 km). However, 

because of the gradual acceleration of the vehicle off the launch pad, the emissions per unit 

length would be much greater near the ground, and would form a ground cloud. During the 

early stages of formation and transport, the ground cloud would contain large amounts of SRM 

chemical constituents [hydrogen chloride (Ha), carbon monoxide (CO), and aluminum oxide 

(A1203)] in both gaseous and aerosol form. 

15 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 16 

011111.-DWO 11014415511 

MANATEE 

WOOD STORK ROOKERY 

SEA TURTLE, BEACH MOUSE 

MANATEE SANCTUARY 

FLORIDA SCRUB JAY 

BEACH MOUSE 

"VeW.' 

•!•!•!•!..!.. 

LAGOON NOT USED 

BY MANATEES 

1 2 

ULM 

Fig. 4. Habitats of threatened and endangered spades at Cape Canaveral Air Force 

Station, Florida. 
17 

PREVIOUS 

DISTURBED 

AREA 

•■■■■•■• 1•1000 011•••••• 

0 

i A

,■•• .144 ■•■■• 

At 

. 

I 41 I 

yI r tilki 4P ti. :" f 

• / I. / / 

...• ' / / / / 

N 

0 

Or c 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 
18 

LLI 

U) 

w 

LU 

W 

W 

0 

LL 

a 

ua 

> 0 

a_ 

a_ 

0 

ct 

z 

1 JUNE 2015 
, NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 19 

Table 8. Combustion products at the nozzle =it plane for 

Than IV-Type 1 and Than IV-Type 2 (SRMU) 

stage zero boosters' 

Combustion 

Product 

Titan IV-Type 1 Titan IV-Type 2 

(SRMU) 

Wt % Wt (tons) Wt % Wt (tons) 

A120, 30.45 180.2 35.88 244.2 

CO 27.50 162.7 21.93 1493 

CO2 2.97 17.6 2.49 17.0 

Cl 0.05 03 0.25 1.7 

FeCl2 0.39 23 0.00 0.0 

HCl 20.67 122.3 21.14 143.9 

H2 2.48 14.7 2.21 15.1 

H2O 6.97 41.2 7.69 52.3 

N2 850 50.3 8.34 56.8 

'Total emissions from two solid rocket motors; emissions would be distributed along a 

trajectory from ground level to an altitude of 31 miles (50 km). 

4.2.1 Maximum Potential Gaseous HG Concentrations 

The Titan IV/SRMU EA (USAF 1989) describes far-field [greater than 3 miles 

(5 km) from the launch pad] ground-level Ha concentrations predicted by the Rocket Exhaust 

Effluent Dispersion Model (REEDM) for a 1-hr averaging period. The highest predicted 1-hr 

concentration was 0.22 parts per million (ppm). REEDM estimates for a 1-hr period were used 

as a basis for comparison with the maximum 1-hr public exposure level (1 ppm) recommended 

by the National Research Council. The peak ground-level Ha concentration predicted by 

REEDM beyond 3 miles (5 km) was 12.3 ppm. 

For a near-field [within 3 miles (5 km) of the launch pad] impact assessment, short-term 

maximum ground-level Ha concentration predictions are needed. Because the REEDM model 

is not an appropriate tool for predicting concentrations in the near field, other sources of nearfield model predictions were explored, and measured Ha concentration data were obtained for 

previous Titan III launches. Table 9 summarizes gaseous Ha modeling results ("box model" 

and REEDM) for the Titan IV-Type 2 (SRMU), which has 15% more propellant than the 

Titan IV-Type 1, and Ha measurements aloft for two Titan III launches. The Titan III SRMs 

contain about 2/3 of the propellant mass of the Titan IV SRMUs. The concentrations in the 
w 

0 w 

a 

LL 

0 

0 

0 

0 

z 

1 JUNE 2015 

20 

R 

a a ...... 

ca m 

..., 

••••4 A o 

,...., 

•••1 

O 111 vi

A TitanIV/SRMU 

03 30 1■1 10.1 

as 0 0 

1.74 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 21 

table are reported for gaseous Ha (the measured values were converted from gaseous plus 

aerosol Ha to gaseous Ha only) although some of the Ha in the SRM exhaust cloud exists 

as an aerosol. 

The assumptions used for the ground cloud box model calculation were: 

1) 5% of the SRM exhaust is contained in the ground cloud. This is roughly the 

fraction that would be produced in 6-7 seconds of SRM firing. After this time, 

the exhaust is assumed to be emitted well above ground level. 

2) The volume of the box is described by a pancake-shape with a diameter of 

1800 ft (600 m) and vertical depth of 300 ft (100 m). 

3) The Ha is uniformly mixed in the box volume. 

The dynamics of ground-cloud development are much more complex than those 

represented in a simple box model characterization. Near the launch pad and flame trench, 

(see Figs. 5 and 6) the HCI concentrations would be much higher (thousands of ppm) than 

those calculated for the uniformly mixed box (150 ppm). However, because of the extreme 

mechanically and thermally induced turbulence generated by the exhaust the ground cloud 

dilutes very rapidly. Supporting evidence has been offered by observations of two Titan III 

launches (Table 9), which indicated that the ground cloud volume was about 1-2 km' at 

4 minutes after launch (personal communication, E. J. Liebsch, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 

Oak Ridge, TN, with G. L Pellett, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, Nov. 7, 

1989). This is 35-70 times greater than the volume assumed for the box model calculation. 

Therefore, the actual ground cloud volume for a Titan IV launch probably exceeds that 

assumed for the box model calculation within a few seconds after launch. 

Another important factor is that the ground cloud typically ascends within one minute 

after launch, or within 0.3 miles (03 km) of the pad under most wind conditions. This does 

not mean that no exhaust constituents would remain at ground level. However, ground level 

Ha concentrations would be much less than those measured aloft, because most of the Ha 

will rise with the buoyant ground cloud. In fact, the peak Titan III ground cloud Ha 

concentrations measured aloft (Table 9) are probably much greater than the peak ground level 

concentrations at the same downwind distances. 

Based on the data and estimates in Table 9, Figure 7 presents a graphic representation 

of the estimated maximum potential ground-level Ha concentrations for the CCAFS vicinity 

following a Titan IV launch. The concentrations are conservative peak values. The exposure 

areas are shown as circles to indicate that the ground cloud could move in any direction for a 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 22 

OPIP4.47.VG 

,I2 ppm k'5 

'A 

CAPE CANAVERAL 

AIR FORCE STATION 

MERRITT ISLAND 

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER (KSC) 

KSC 

INDUSTRIAL 

kAREA

I 

LC . LAUNCH COMPLEX 

0 5000 

FEET 

PEAK CONCENTRATION OF HCI 

IN GROUND CLOUD 

LEN >150 ppm 

mg 12.150 ppm 

<12 ppm 

Fig. 7. Madmum potential peak ground-level hydrogen chloride (HCI) concentrations 

estimated for the normal launch of a Than IV vehicle. 
, NRQ APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 23 

given launch, depending on the wind direction. Obviously, only a narrow corridor downwind of 

the launch pad would receive gaseous Ha exposure after each launch. Also, the centers of the 

exposure radii are shown as being at the launch pad. In reality, the initial ground cloud 

position is probably skewed slightly toward the ocean, because the flame trenches at both 

LC 40 and LC 41 direct the initial SRM exhaust toward the east (see Figs. 5 and 6). 

Estimated peak ground-level concentrations of hydrogen chloride between 0.4 to 

3 miles (0.6 to 4.8 km) beyond the launch pad are less than 5% of the lowest lethal 

concentration value (3,200 parts per million) reported for laboratory rats and mice exposed to 

either hydrogen chloride gas or aerosol for 5 minutes (Darmer et al. 1974). Therefore, beach 

mouse fatalities would not be expected at these distances. Within 0.4 miles (0.6 km) of the 

pad, hydrogen chloride concentrations would exceed 150 ppm, and near the flame trench, could 

be as high or higher than the lowest lethal concentration. However, intense sound pressures 

and heat would also be present during the 2-3 seconds of combustion on the pad, therefore, 

fatalities and/or injuries to transient birds or mice near the pad could be expected from any of 

these factors. Because no data are available for the lethal concentrations of HC1 affecting 

birds, a similar conclusion regarding the effects of the gas cloud on scrub jays.beyond 0.4 miles 

(0.6 km) from the pad can only be extrapolated from experimental studies with mice. 

43 EFFECTS OF NOISE FROM LAUNCH 

The launch of a Than IV vehicle produces short-term, intense, low frequency noise as a 

result of the combustion of the SRM and the interaction of the exhaust jet with the 

atmosphere. Both Type 1 and Type 2 Titan IV vehicles will produce a maximum sound 

pressure of about 170 decibels (dB) in the immediate vicinity of the launch pad. Noise levels 

would attenuate with distance, and levels of about 125 dB would be expected at a distance of 

2 mi (3.2 km) for about 30 seconds following launch. This level is roughly equivalent to that of 

a jet taking off from a distance of 200 ft (66 m). Continuous or repeated exposure to these 

levels can cause hearing damage in humans. 

Information on the nature and effects of short-term exposure of wildlife to intense noise 

levels is sparse. Brattstrom and Bondello (1983) found that the fringe-toed lizard, desert 

kangaroo rat, and Couch's spadefoot toad all suffered hearing loss when exposed to off-road 

vehicle sounds of 95 dB (A-weighted) for less than 9 minutes. No other literature is known to 

document the effects of short-term exposure to noise within the 95-125 dBA range. Field 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 24 

surveys have been conducted following Space Shuttle launches from KSC and a June 1989 

launch of a Titan IV vehicle from LC 41. Two scrub jays in the near-field area east of LC 41 

did not respond to warning calls shortly after launch. In contrast, following the launch of 

Shuttle mission 34, scrub jays west of the pad displayed normal behavior and responded to calls. 

As part of the Titan IV monitoring program, field studies will be conducted immediately prior 

to and following each Titan IV launch to document the response of the scrub jay to calls. In 

addition, the USAF will work closely with the FWS to develop a methodology for investigating 

the long-term effects of intense noise levels on surrogate species for the scrub jay and the 

beach mouse. 

4.4 SECONDARY IMPACTS 

Secondary or indirect impacts to threatened species can result from habitat destruction 

associated with community growth and development induced by new economic activities, such as 

the Titan IV program. In-migration of workers and their families for construction and 

operation of the program has been estimated at 810, a population increase of less than 1% of 

the projected 1990 population for the region. Because this increase is negligible, it is highly 

unlikely that the Titan IV program will induce an increased demand for community services or 

that the regional economy will be stimulated. Thus, it can be concluded that neither the 

habitat or the population of scrub jays and beach mice will be indirectly and adversely affected 

by the effects of the Than IV program on residential and industrial growth in the region. 

4.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Cumulative impacts are the direct and indirect impacts of the Titan N program in 

combination with the identifiable effects of other actions at CCAFS. Two other launch 

programs ate planned at CCAFS during the same time period as the Titan IV program: the 

MLV I, which will launch Delta vehicles, and the MLV II, which will launch Atlas vehicles. 

The Delta vehicle uses SRMs having a similar chemical composition as the Titan, but in much 

smaller quantities. The Atlas vehicle does not use SRMs. Launches of Delta and Atlas 

vehicles Will occur at LCs 17 and 36, which are located several miles south of LCs 40 and 41 

(see Fig. 1). 
, NRQ APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 25 

Potential cumulative impacts to the scrub jays and beach mice could result from habitat 

destruction or disturbance associated with the three programs and from vehicle launches. 

Neither the MLV I nor II program will destroy or significantly disturb habitat or forage for 

either species, therefore, cumulative impacts to habitat would not be expected. Delta launches 

will produce a ground cloud containing Ha, but it will not directly or indirectly affect the 

populations of scrub jays or beach mice near LCs 40 or 41, therefore, cumulative impacts from 

launch vehicle emissions would not be expected. 

4.6 MONITORING AND MITIGATION 

The USAF will survey scrub jay and beach mouse populations near LCs 40 and 41 

during the Titan IV program. The frequency and methodology of the surveys will be defined 

during further consultation with the FWS. In addition, prior to each launch, a walk-through 

survey of the area within the high-risk zones at the LCs (see Figs. 5 and 6) and outward in the 

direction of the flame/exhaust will be conducted to roughly approximate the density of scrub 

jays and to identify nests during the breeding season. During launch, noise levels will be 

measured, and field investigations following launch will determine near- and far-field acidic 

deposition; injuries and fatalities to birds, mice, and other species; changes in pH in nearby 

wetlands; and the responsiveness of scrub jays to warning calls immediately after launch and for 

several days following launch. A beach mouse density and distribution survey will be conducted 

to establish baseline population data at LC 41 to validate data extrapolation in this assessment. 

The USAF will continue to work with the FWS to develop and implement an 

experimental program to document the .long-term effects of launch-related noise on surrogate 

species for the scrub jay and beach mouse. The surrogate species will be identified during 

USAF-FWS consultation. 

If future surveys indicate changes in the habitat or population of either species at LCs 

40 and 41, the FWS will be consulted and appropriate mitigation measures developed. If an 

incidental take occurs, individuals will be visually assessed, and a post-mortem examination and 

toxicology analysis will be performed, if required, to determine the cause of death. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 26 

4.8 SUMMARY 

This Biological Assessment of potential impacts to two federally listed threatened 

species, the Florida scrub jay and the southeastern beach mouse, has presented evidence to 

support a determination that significant adverse impacts to either species will not result from 

the U.S. Air Force Titan IV launch program. No suitable habitat for either species exists 

within the high-risk zone that extends about 600 ft (182 m) from the launch pad to the 

perimeter fence of launch complexes 40 and 41. During launch, intense heat and pressure and 

lethal concentrations of hydrogen chloride gas will be present within the high-risk zone, and 

transient birds or mice in this area could be adversely affected. Adverse impacts beyond the 

perimeter fence are not expected. Ground-level gaseous hydrogen chloride concentrations 

beyond 0.4 miles (0.6 km) from the launch pad will be less than 5% of the lowest lethal 

concentration reported for mice in laboratory studies. Temporary hearing loss may be 

experienced by both species, thereby increasing their susceptibility to predation; however, 

significant changes in population size would not be expected. Historical observations of Space 

Shuttle and earlier Titan program launches support the conclusion that adverse effects are 

unlikely outside the high-risk zone. 

Questions or requests for additional information regarding this assessment should be 

directed to: 

Mr. Olin Miller 

6550th ABG/DEEV 

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida 

(407) 494-7288 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 REFERENCES 

Brattstrom, B. IL, and M. C Bondello 1983. "Effects of Off-Road Vehicle Noise on Desert 

Vertebrates," pp. 167-206 in R. H. Webb and H. G. Wilshire (eds.), Environmental 

Effects of Off-road Vehicles: Impacts and Management in Arid Regions. Springer-Verlag, 

New York. 

Breininger, D. R. 1981. Habitat preferences of the Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens 

coerulescens) as Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished Master's Thesis, 

Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida. 

Breininger, D. R. 1989. "A new population estimate for the Florida scrub jay on Merritt Island 

National Wildlife Refuge," Florida Field Naturalist, 17:25-31. 

Breininger, D. R. and R. B. Smith 1989. "Relationships between habitat characteristics and 

territory size of the Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens)", 

Supplement to the Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, Vol. 70, No. 2. 

Cox, J. 1984. Distribution, habitat, and social organization of the Florida scrub jay, with a 

discussion of the evolution of cooperative breeding in New World jays. Gainesville, 

Florida: Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida. 

Cox, J. 1987. Status and distribution of the Florida scrub jay. Gainesville, Florida: Florida 

Ornithological Society Special Publ. No. 3. 

Darmer, Jr., K I., E R. Kinkead, and L C. DiPasquale 1974. "Acute toxicity in rats and mice 

exposed to hydrogen chloride gas and aerosols. American Industrial Hygiene Association 

Journal, October. 

Extine, D. D., and L J. Stout 1987. "Dispersion and habitat occupancy of the beach mouse, 

(Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris)," J. Mamm. 68:297-304. 

Humphrey, S. R. 1988. "Density estimates of the endangered Key Largo woodrat and cotton 

mouse (Neotoma floridana smalli and Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola), using the 

nestid-grid approach." J. Mamm, 69(3):524-531. 

U. S. Air Force (USAF) 1989. Preliminary Final Environmental Assessment, Titan IV/Solid 

Rocket Motor Upgrade Program, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, and 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. August 

Utah Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit 1984. CAPTURE computer program (available 

from Colorado State University, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology). 

White, Dr. Gary C., Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, 

Ft. Collins, CO 80523. 

27 
NRQ APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

APPENDIX C 

CONSULTATION WITH STATE HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION OFFICES AND THE 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

) 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 J NE 2015 C-3 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS SPACE INVUNCNI (APIC) 

LOS ANGELES At PONCE SASE. PO SOX $2510 

LOS ANGELES, CA 100052160 

June 9, 1989 

Mr. George W. Percy 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

Bureau of Historic Preservation 

Division of Archives, History 

and Records Management 

Department of State, The Capitol 

Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8020 

Dear Mr. Percy: 

The U.S. Air Force (USAF), Space Systems Division, is preparing an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the expansion of Titan IV program 

launches to include the use of Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade (SRMU). The 

proposed action involves modification of existing launch complexes and 

support facilities and the construction and operation of a new Solid Motor 

Assembly Building (SMAB) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), 

Florida. 

The facilities at CCAFS that would be affected by the proposed action are 

located in the northwest portion of the base, as indicated in Attachment 1. 

The existing facilities to be modified include Launch Complexes (LCs) 40 and 

41 and the existing Titan Integrate-Transfer-Launch Complexes (ITL) Area 

immediately to the south of the LCs. The LCs and the ITL Area are 

industrial in character and are located on previously disturbed land. 

The proposed new SMAB is to be constructed on a 45-acre site on the narrow 

man-made causeway in the Banana River. The construction would begin with 

the decommissioning of hypergolic propellant storage facilities and the 

removal of railroad tank cars and spur tracks at the proposed location. The 

SMAB would consist of an approximately 60,000 square foot, high-bay 

structure with railroad tracks integral to the design. Titan IV solidfueled rocket motor segments would be tested, assembled, and stored in the 

SMAB prior to transport to CCAFS LC 40 or 41. Because the causeway is manmade, no archaeological resources are expected to be disturbed during 

excavation and earthwork. There are no known historic structures on the 

causeway, although several sites eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places are located at various launch complexes nearby at CCAFS. 

To comply with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, the Air Force is requesting that you provide us with 

official comment regarding the potential for significant adverse impacts to 

any archaeological, cultural, and historic resources at CCAFS as a result of 

the proposed Titan IY/SRMU program. Correspondence from your office will be 

reproduced in an appendix to the EA. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE C-4 

1 JUNE 2015 

Mr. Dan Pilson can provide you with further details on this project if 

needed. His phone number is (213) 643-1409. As this project is on a tight 

schedule, we would appreciate hearing from your office as soon as possible. 

Sincerely, 

14><Wf grace-- 

ROBERT C. MASON, AICP 

Chief, Environmental Planning Division, 

Directorate of Acquisition Civil Engineering 

Attachment: Maps of CCAFs project area and SMAB layout 
C-5 

6 

5 

O 

a. 

• • •••••••••••• • i• 

Uq 

0 

•• •••■•••••■•■• • • .1.•1•Mlym• ••••• ••"* "."/ 

w 

LU 

w 

O 

LL 

0 

LU 

O in 

CY ZS 

O w 

z [-"" 
. • 

ORNIANO0 III-106111 

•

•'• 4

. 

{;1

isoiPosto . 

▪ [IT[ fir 

; TliANSPE

▪ 

R•LAUNCS 

4,11111.011It A 

• • . . 

. , 

ilia A.'S/ I • 

06/09/89 12:09 1, 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE C-6 

1 JUNE 2015 
06/09/89 12..08 %Z 

NRO.APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

ORNL-DWG 65-105U 

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER 

. , 

COMPLEX 41 

' . 

COMPLEX 40 

. • 

Lc/ 

.k; 4/ 

.• . 

4./ 

4 • 

41,/ • • UOUID FUEL : 

• STORAGE . • 

k " COMPLEX 43- 

, 

.

NASA MISSION CONTROL CENTER . :WEATHER ROCKETS 

• 

• . 

, 

• 

.$ .COMPLEX 16-PERSH1NG 

. 

••• COMPLEX 14 MERCURY ATLAS 

. . ATLAS AGENA 

, . 'COMPLEX 13-ATLAS AGENA 

C-7 

SOUTH GATE 

COMPLEX 7•DELTA 

. . . . 

. AJA FORCE SPACE MUSEUM 

COMPLEX 25-TRIDENT (USN) 

. • , 

0 3000 6000 FEET 
'NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

C-8 

June 30, 1989 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Jim Smith 

Secretary of State 

DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES 

R.A. Cray Building 

500 South Bronough 

Tallahassee. Florida 32399-0250 

Director's Office Telecopier Number (FAX) 

(904) 488-1480 (904) 488-3353 

Robert C. Mason, Chief 

Environmental Planning Division 

Department of the Air Force 

Headquarters Space Division 

Los Angeles Air Force Base 

P.O. Box 92960 

Los Angeles, California 90009-2960 

In Reply Refer TO: 

Susan M. Henefield 

Historic Sites Specialist 

(904) 487-2333 

Project File No. 891535 

RE: Your June 9, 1989, Letter and Attachments 

Cultural Resource Assessment Request 

Expansion of Titan IV Program Launches 

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Brevatd County, Florida 

Dear Mt. Mason: 

In accordance with the procedures contained in 36 C.F.R., Part 800 

("protection of Historic Properties"), we have reviewed the above referenced 

project(s) for possible impact to archaeolcgical and historical sites or 

propert',es listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of .Historic 

Places. The authority for this procedure is the National Historic preServation 

ACICTE 1966 (Public Law 89-665), as amended. 

A review of the Florida Master Site File indicates that no significant 

archaeological and/or historical sites are recorded for or considered likely to 

be present within the project area. It is the opinion of this agency that 

because of the project location and/cc nature•it is considered unlikely that any 

such sites will be affected. Therefore, it is the judgment of this office that 

the proposed project will have no effect on any sites listed, or eligible for 

listing, in the National Register of Historic places, or otherwise of national, 

state, or local significance. The project may proceed without further 

involvement with this agency. 

If you have any questions concerning our comments, please do not hesitate to 

contact us. Your interest and cooperation in helping to protect Florida's 

archaeological and historical resources are appreciated. 

GinIP/sinh 

Sincerely, 

" dtarar■ 

• George W. Director 

Division of Historical Resources 

and 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

Archaeological Research Florida Folklife Programs 

• 0... 

Historic Preservation Museum of Florida History 
C-9 

PROVED FOR RELEASE 

15 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS SPACE DIVISION (APSE) 

LOS ANGELES AM FORCE SASE, AO SOX 221410 

LOS ANGELES, CA 100011.2100 

June 9, 1989 

Ms. Kathryn Gualteri 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

Department of Parks and Recreation 

P. O. Box 2390 

Sacramento, California 95811 

Dear Ms Gualteri: 

The U.S. Air Force (USAF), Space Division proposes to expand its existing 

Titan IV program at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California to provide 

increased launch vehicle processing capabilities to support launch of the 

Titan IV/Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade. The proposed changes for the Titan IV 

program at VAFB include modifications at Space Launch Complex 4 East (SLC4E) to accommodate the Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade (SRMU), modifications to 

the Solid Rocket Sub-assembly Facility (SRSF, Building 398) at SLC-6, launch 

of up to four Titan IV/SRMU vehicles per year,.land disposal of the washdown 

wastewater from Titan IV launches in evaporation ponds at SLC-6. 

The facilities at VAFB that would be affected by the proposed action are 

located in the southern portion of the base as shown in the enclosed figure. 

Modifications at SLC-4E would occur in previously disturbed areas associated 

with the launch structure, land modifications to the SRSF, Building 398 

would be internal. 

To comply with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, the Air Force is requesting that you provide us with 

official comment regarding the potential for significant adverse impacts to 

any archaeological, cultural, and historic resources at VAFB as a result of 

the proposed Titan IV/SRMU program. Correspondence from your office will be 

reproduced in an appendix to the EA. 

Mr. Dan Pilson can provide you with further details on this project if 

needed. His phone number is (213) 643-1409. As this project is on a tight 

schedule, we would appreciate hearing from your office as soon as possible. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT C, MASON, AICP 

Chief, Environmental Planning Division, 

Directorate of Acquisition Civil Engineering 

Attachment: Map of VAFB project area 
••:* 

4%, 

-0 

A 

ll 

CORE VEHICLE 

ASSEMBLY BLDG 

MD0'84011 /1 

MEI 4 

rP,2_ 

FR 

Vandenberg 

United State 

.• 

Penitentiary 

0 

enue 

ii I 

SUB-ASSEMBLY 

FACILITY 

(BLDG 398) 

/ft— BASE BOUNDARY 

Point 

Argue 0 

• 

SLC- 6 

0 6000 (2,000 

/./777777722. 2), 

FEET 

A,Q 

,e‘r. 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 C-10 

MATERIAL 

SUPPORT 

FACILITY 

(BLDG 5500) 

PAYLOAD FAIRING 

PROCESSING AND STORAGE BLDG 

(BLDG 8337) 

' •SUR.F 

COAST 

GATE 

• • 

RECEIPT, INSPECTION; 

AND STORAGE ' • 

FACILITY ' , 

(BLDG 945) 

• X-RAY FACILITY 

(BLDG 946). 

SLC-4 

Lornoac 

PAGE.14 
C-11 

GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor 

. NRQ APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA — THE RESOURCES AGENCY 

OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 

POST OFFICE BOX Mead 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 942904001 

1918) 4404008 REPLY TO:USAF890613B 

July 12, 1989 

Mr. Robert C. Mason, AICP 

Chief, Environmental Planning Division, 

Directorate of Acquisition Civil Engineering 

Department of the Air Force 

Headquarters Space Division (AFSC) 

Los Angeles Air Force Base, P.O. Box 92960 

Los Angeles, California 90009-2960 

Re:Proposed Expansion of existing Titan IV program at Vandenberg 

Air Force Base. 

Dear Mr. Mason: 

The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) has reviewed your 

letter of June 9, 1989, requesting our comments regarding the 

potential for significant adverse impacts to historic properties 

resulting from the proposed undertaking. 

The activities that you have briefly described appear to 

constitute an undertaking. . That is, the project has the 

potential to change the character or use of historic properties, 

if any such properties exist. Therefore, as you apper to imply, 

the project is an undertaking subject to Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation-Act of 1966, as amended. 

Implementing regulations for Section 106 are found in 36 CFR Part 

800, which describes a process by which federal agencies can meet 

their responsibilities under Section 106. This process involves 

the identification and consideration of effects to historic 

properties, affording the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation the opportunity to comment on such effects. 

Before we can comment on the effects of the undertaking (the 

potential for significant adverse effect in your words) we need 

further information on the Area of Potential Effects (APE), 

historic properties within the APE, and the specific proposed 

facilities and activities as they may relate to, historic 

properties. We recommend that you follow the procedures outlined 

in 36 CFR Part 800 and will consider your correspondence a 

request for OHP participation in the Section 106 process pursuant 

to 36 CFR 800.1(c)(ii). 

• 

The project you described sounds familiar, but your letter does 

not reference previous correspondence, reports, or meetings. If 

we have information or have consulted on this project in the 

past, please inform us of the correspondence, preferably by OHP 

file number (located in the upper right hand corner of previous 

correspondence). 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 C-12 

Thank you for considering cultural resources during project 

planning. If you have any questions please contact Mr. Robert 

Jackson of my staff, at (916) 322-9602. 

Sincerely, 

Kathryn Gual ieri 

State Historic Preservation Officer 
■I• 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE C-13 

2015 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS SPACE SYSTEMS DIVISION (AFSC) 

LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE SASE, PO BOX 92960 

LOS ANGELES. CA90009.2960 

Ms. Kathryn Gualtieri 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

Office of Historic Preservation 

Department of Parks and Recreation 

P. 0. Box 942896 

Sacramento, California 94296-0001 

Dear Ms. Gualtieri: 

August 18,1989 

This letter is written in response to your reply(USAF890613B) to our letter of June 9, 

1989 (Attachment 1) in which you request further details regarding proposed U.S. Air 

Force actions at Vandenberg Air Force Base in support of the Titan IV launch 

program. The location of the Vandenberg facilities that would be affected by the 

proposed project and a description of the proposed actions that would occur are 

provided for your review in Attachment 2. 

In your reply of July 12, 1989, you indicated that the proposed project sounded 

familiar. Indeed it is, for it is an expansion of activities previously documented by 

the USAF in an environmental assessment of the Titan IV space launch vehicle 

modification and operation in February 1988. For- that assessment, an archaeological 

survey was performed by Greenwood and Associates and reviewed by your office (File 

No. USAF 870817A). A copy is included for your information (Attachment 3). 

The current proposed action involves construction work in previously disturbed 

areas at Space Launch Complex (SLC) 4-E and interior modifications at the Rocket 

Sub-assembly Facility (Building 398) at Space Launch Complex 6 and the launch of 

Titan IV/SRMU vehicles from SLC-4-E. Neither construction nor launch operations 

are expected to adversely impact historic or archaeological resources. 

We hope this additional information will enable you to provide us with official 

comment on the proposed action pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. If you have any further questions regarding the project, please 

contact Mr. Dan Pilson -f my office at (213) 643-1409. Your prompt action on this 

request would be appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

6,4cop.- 

ROBERT C. MASON, AICP 

Chief, Environmental Planning Division 

Directorate of Acquisition Civil Engineering 

Attachments 

1. Ltr, Mason to Gualtieri, 9Jun89 

2. Site and Project Description 

3. Archaeological Survey 

t, 
OCT 3 '89 13:48 HOED/DE LAAFB 6431170 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE2015 

PAGE.01 

C-14 

lws24e Aur A tg esou cos AosNev 

OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

DEPARTMENT OF PARK$ AND RECREATION 

POST °PPM' SOX 9425111 

SACRAMINTO. CALIPONNIA 04216.0001 

(516) 445.4006 

Ackert a. Masai, Mite 

Enviramental Plannim Division 

Los Angeles Air Forte Base 

Departtawrt of the Air Force 

P.O. sox 92960 

We Angeles, CA 90009-2960 

GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN Go 

REPLY 110: USAF89061313 

September 26, 3.989 

Project: Titan. TS Zonch. bcpansion Project 

Dear Mr. Mum: 

The Office of Historic Preservation (CETP) has ravished and provides 

the following comments on the supplemental drcirmentation you submitted 

in support of the cited project. That documentation provides the 

intonation we requested in our letter of Ally l2, 1989 and satisfies us 

that reasonable measures were taken to identify historic prcpecties 

within the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE). 

Aside from miscellaneous modifications to existing structures, the 

only area where historic prcpurties it be affected by the project was 

in the Space Launch complex 4E area. A historic property survey by 

Greenwood and Associates entitled ArchAeoloaical Survey Recort_for 

V 

reports that no historic 

prcparties are located in the APE. We are therefore satisfied that your 

pro3ecc will not arCwi. any =IP oliqibla pita°. 

Therefore, your agency has complied with 36 CFR 800.4(d) and 

fulfilled its respcnsibilities for this undertaking under Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 

Thank you for considering cultural resources during project 

planning. If you have any questions regarding our review of the cited... 

project, please telephone Thad Van alarm of our staff at (916) 322- 

9610. 

Sincerely, 

Kathryn nazi 

State is Preservation Officer 

• - 61 • I • .1 - ...L. - !t 

.• - _ IVY 
'PROVED FOR RELEASE C-15 

15 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

NEADOUARTENS SPACE DIVISION (APSC) 

LOS ANGELES AM PONCE SASE PO BOX MOO 

LOS ANGELES. CA900011421180 

June 9, 1989 

Mr. E. Charles Fullerton 

Southwest Regional Director, National Marine Fisheries Service 

U. S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

300 South Ferry Street 

Terminal Island, California 90731 

Dear Mr. Fullerton: 

The U.S. Air Force (USAF), Space Division proposes to expand its existing 

Titan IV program at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California to provide 

increased launch vehicle processing capabilities to support launch of the 

Titan IV/Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade. The proposed changes for the Titan IV 

program at VAFB include modifications at Space Launch Complex 4 East (SLC4E) to accommodate the Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade (SRMU), modifications to 

the Solid Rocket Sub-assembly Facility (SRSF, Building 398) at SLC-6, launch 

of up to four Titan IV/SRMU vehicles per year, and disposal of the washdown 

wastewater from Titan IV launches in evaporation ponds at SLC-6. 

The facilities at VAFB that would be affected by the proposed action are 

located in the southern portion of the base as shown in the enclosed figure. 

Modifications at SLC-4E would occur in previously disturbed areas associated 

with the launch structure, and modifications to the SRSF, Building 398 would 

be internal. Launch of the- Titan IV/SRMU requires 15% more solid rocket 

propellant than the current Titan IV and is expected to require disposal of 

about 50,000 gal of washdown water per launch. The Air Force is developing 

plans for disposal of washdown water; this issue will be addressed along 

with any other items in the Environmental Assessment for this program. 

This letter requests your input on this action. We are including a list of 

federally listed endangered and threatened species residing or seasonally 

occurring in the project vicinity; please review and update it as necessary. 

We are also consulting with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding 

the federally listed species under their jurisdiction. We would appreciate 

your opinion regarding (1) any possible effects of the proposed project on 

federally listed species. and (2) suggested measures to avoid or minimize 

any adverse impacts on these species. 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 C-16 

Mr. Dan Pil son can provide you with further details on this project if 

needed. His phone number is (213) 643-1409. As this project is on a tight 

schedule, we would appreciate hearing from your office as soon as possible. 

Sincerely, 

C/7 ,P--- 

ROBERT C. MASON, AICP 

Chief, Environmental Planning Division, 

Directorate of Acquisition Civil Engineering 

Attachments 

1. Endangered Species list 

2. Map of VAFB project area 

) 
NIRO.APPROVED FOR RELEASE C-17 

1 JUNE 2015 

Threatened and Endangered Species Associated with VAFB 

Peregrine falcon 

Bald eagle 

California least tern 

California brown pelican 

Least Bell's vireo 

Gray whale 

Guadalupe fur seal 

Southern sea otter 

Unarmored threespine stickleback 

Salt marsh bird's beak 

California sea lion 

Harbor seal 

Stellar sea lion 

Northern fur seal 

Northern elephant seal 

CaDdidate smclea 

Spotted bat 

Towsend's western big-eared bat 

Greater mastiff bat _ 

California black rail 

Western snowy plover 

Long-billed curlew 

White-faced ibis 

Ferruginous hawk 

Tricolored blackbird 

Western pond turtle 

California red-legged frog 

Arroyo toad 

Tidewater goby 

Salt marsh skipper butterfly 

Swamp sand wort 

Hoover's baccharia 

Morning glory 

Soft-leaved Indian paintbruch 

Lilac 

La Graciosa thistle 

Surf thistle 

Beach spectacle-pod 

Lompoc yerba santa 

Roderick's fritillary 

Crisp monardeila 

San Luis Obispo curly-leaved monardella 

Hoffman sanicle 

Black-flowered figwort 
// 

CORE VEHICLE 

ASSEMBLY BLDG 

(8LDC8400 

Vandenberg 

Villasks 

United States 

Penitentiary 

Ave 

/27 

BASE BOUNDARY 

0

I 6000 42.000 

I 

FEET 

YNEZ 

4 

‘4, 

• 

PAGE 14 

Lompoc 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE C-18 

1 JUNE 2015 

MATERIAL PAYLOAD FAIRING 

SUPPORT PROCESSING AND STORAGE BLDG 

FACILITY (BLDG 83371 

(BLDG 5500) 

' SURF 

COAST 

GATE 

RECEIPT,INSPECTIONS• '- 

AND STORAGE ' 

FACILITY - 

(BLDG 945) 

X-RAY FACILITY • 

(SLOG 946 

SOUTH . 

GATE 

SLC-4 

SUB-ASSEMBLY 

FACILITY 

(BLDG 398) 

Point SLC- 6 

Argue 0 

II IN 9 '89 8:18 
C-19 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 WIETNO OWES DIPAOTMIXT OP 00,041111C1 

fatWel Oesenie end amanita's Adinktietretion 

NAY AI. OAMMANI Gia$01011:01 OICRVVIr 

Southwest Region 

300 South Ferry Street 

Terminal Island, California 90731 

August 7, 1989 P/SWR14:BH 

Mr. Robert C. Mason, AICP 

Chief, Environmental Planning Division 

Directorate of Acquisition Civil Engineering 

Los Angeles Air Force Base 

P.O. Box 92960 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960 

Dear Mr. Mason, 

This is a response to your letter of June 9 requesting input on 

the proposed changes in the Titan XV program at Space Complex 4 

East on Vandenberg Air Force lase (VMS). Pursuant to Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act we find that the proposed project 

will not adversely affect any of the listed species, and formal 

consultation will not be necessary. 

However, due to the existence of pinniped populations on the 

mainland portion of the base and the Channel Islands, which are 

protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, we would like 

to urge you to continuo to pursue obtaining a small take permit 

to cover all the launch operations at VA'S. It is possible that 

the small take permit that was issued to the space shuttle 

program to cover disturbances of pinnipeds in the Channel Islands 

might be modified to accomplish this. However, effects on 

pinnipeds hauled out at mainland sites on the base also need to 

be considered relative to current and proposed programs. If you 

have any further questions please contact Jim Lecky of my staff 

at (213) 514-6664. 

Sincerely, 

E c_ putaLog„- E. C.I 

llerton 

Regional Director 
, NRO,APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

APPENDIX D 

THERMOCHEMICAL DATA FOR EXHAUST EMISSIONS 
MAP 31 'as e2:43 Hocuzs BAcci-ous 

NRO APP"OVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUG At;hi ANL YS TEM 

MI UM T UD IES 

October 29, 1987 

NNW, Suedes Ileeebtie Works 

Log #3-54 

Sown Neils Optimisation 

Titan IV Exhaust Plume Thermal Properties 

These comparative data are for the Hercules 126 inch SRMU and the CSD seven segment SRM, 

using best available data for the latter. 

Pressure vs titne at 60•P 

SRMU 0 sec 1090 psis CSD SRM Maximum pressure = 835 psis 

16 1100 Web action time = 112.4 sec 

25 1000 Action time = 123.8 sec 

35 1000 

100 580 

133 470 

Web action time 133 

Thermal properties at the nozzle exit plane were calculated using the Solid Propellant Performance (SPP) code. These calculations were run at action time average pressure for consistency 

with the specific impulse performance calculations, but pressure is not expected to have a, major 

effect on calculated temperature at the nozzle exit plane. 

The SPP edoal• «maiden astieyertsnatrie two dimensional two &moo Stvw stemming Rend exhaust 

composition. The oxide particle size distribution is based on an empirical correlation. 

Configuration 

Propellant QDI UTP-3001 

Action time, sec 139.6 1234 

Action time average P, psis 891 663 

Initial throat diameter, in. 32.5 39.8 

Nozzle exit diameter, in. 128.8 126.1 

Conditions at nozzle exit plan. 

Average oxide particle T, 

Gas temperature•R 

4189 

3781 

4189 

3630 

Average particle concentration, Wp/We 0.5013 0.4077 

Thermal emissivity 0.29 0.33 

Radiation thermal flux, BTU/ft=-see 43 ' 48 

The oxide particle temperature, 418r, is the melting point of aluminum oxide. The SPP 

calculation actually considers three particle size classes, and the smaller.particles are somewhat 

cooler than the average temperature given above. Also the oxide particle concentration and size 

distribution varies between the nozzle centerline and the exit ID. 

The plume emissivity and radiation thermal flux were estimated using the procedure defined 

in F. C. Price it el, Internal Environment of Solid Rocket Nozzles, Air Force Rocket Propulsion 

Laboratory, Edwards AFB, RP L-TDR-64-140,30 July, 1964. This procedure requires consideration 

of the variation in particle concentration and size distribution across the exit plane. These depend 

on nozzle expansion ratio and contour as well as thermochemical properties. 

ityrrskelk mpt4r 4.4.'L-4 

SUNNI 

D-3 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 J Ude nlEeg Z49, : BF071.14-is 

D-4 

Thermochemical data were calculated for one dimensional isentropic Row using the KENVIT, 

code, which uses the same free energy minimization algorithm as the NASA-Lewis code. JANNAF 

thermochemical data for the combustion products were used. The tEective gamma calculated by 

this code is the value for the isentropic exponent required to give the same thrust coefficient by 

the classical equation assuming fixed compoion as is calculated by the code assuming equilibrium 

flow. 

The weight basis for these data is 100'grams. In particular, note that the fixed composition 

heat capacity for the gas is given in cal/100 gm of total products. 

SILMU Chamber Throat Exit 

Pressure, psia 891 515.4 8.16 

Temperature, 'K 3452.3 3353.7 2245.0 

Weight % oxide particles 33.39 34.16 35.88 

Enthalpy, cal/100 gm -43642 -56334 -130496 

Moles gas/100 gm 3.3989 3.3713 3.2678 

Leentropic exponent, 7 1.1299 1.1298 1.1645 

Fixed composition 7 1.168 1.164 1.185 

Effective 7 1.1290 

Fixed composition Cp, cal/100 gm 

Total products 47.50 47.46 41.57 

Gas only 32.44 32.05 29.93 

EquilibriuM Cp, ca1/100 gm 93.35 87.63 49.99 

CSD SEM Chamber Throat Ddt 

Pressure, psis 683 381.5 9.76 

Temperature, IC 3293.2 3094.1 2007.5 

Weight S oxide particles 28.96 29.57 30.45 

Enthalpy, cal/100 gm -44485 -57168 •122591 

Moles gas/100 gat 3.6351 3.6104 3.5450 

Isentropic exponent, 7 1.1419 1.1445 1.1951 

Fixed composition 7 1.180 1.179 1.204 

Effective 7 1.1405 

Fixed composition Cp, cal/100 gm 

Total products 47.44 47.31 41.53 

Gas only 34.37 33.97 31.77 

Equilibrium Cp, cal/100 gm 80.43 73.95 44.05 

Calculated exhaust compositions are shown on the following pages. 

Lowell Smith Thermochemical calculations 251-6185 

Dennis Davis SPP Flow calculations 251-6323 

Monty Cunningham Thermal 2514765 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 JUNE 2015 

'c 31 psa D-5 

Hercules SRMU 

Conditions at Nozzle Exit Plane 

One Dimensional Ideal Equilibrium Flow 

PRODUCT 

Chamber pressers = 891 psis 

Exit pressure 74 8.16 psis 

Enthaply = -130496 cal/100 gm 

MW MOLES 

Expansion ratio = 15.67 

Exit temperature = 2245.0 K 

3.26783 moles gas/100 gm 

WT. PC?. MOLE PCT. VOLUME PCT. 

AL 28.98160 1.404330-07 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

AL CL 62.43450 1.589400-04 0.0009 0.0044 0.0049 

AL CL2 97.88750 6.485120-06 0.0063 0.0018 0.0020 

AL CL3 133.34050 3.316080-06 0.0044 0.0009 0.0010 

AL X 27.98947 1.060400-08 0.0000. 0.0000 0.0000 

AL N 40.06820 2.543490-13 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

AL 0 42.98000 2.106840-07 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

AL 0 CL 78.43390-7.5/254D-06 0.0059 0.0021 0.0023 

AL 0 II 43.98887 6.285060-06 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 

AL 02 58.98030 2.668840-08 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

AL 028 69.08827 1.030470-06 0.0006 0.0003 0.0003. 

AL20 69.96240 3.484390-09 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

AL202 85.96180 1.318400-00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

SI 204.93000 5.489450-06 0.0011 0.0002 0.0002 

SI CL 244.43300 9.110180-08 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

SI X 209.96707 7.061150-0e 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

SI 0 224.97940 2.648700-06 0.000a 0.0000 0.0000 

SIZ 4/7.96000 5.450860-13 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

C 820 30.02640 8.992330-06 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

C 84 16.04303 7.407539-10 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

C 9 26.01785 2.873080-10 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

C 0 28.01055 7.828250-01 21.9274 21.6265 23.9555 

C 0 CL 63.46385 2.777770-07 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

C 02 44.00005 5.667450-02 2.4942 1.5657 1.7343 

CL 35.45300 6.94618D-03 0.2470 0.1924 0.2132 

CL 0 51.45240 5.228120-08 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

CL2 70.00800 2.896820-08 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 

8 1.00707 1.827530-02 0.0184 0.5049 0.5592 

H AL 0 43.98887 1.204140-10 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

II C 8 27.02582 3.379620-07 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

R C 0 29.01852 5.179690-07 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

R CL 36.46097 5.798520-01 21.1420 16.0191 17.7442 

H 9 0 31.01407 6.108450-00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

X OA, 52.46037 1.649580-07 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

82 2.01594 1.097290.00 2.2121 30.3139 33.5785 

1120- 18.01534 4.267170-01 7.6875 11.7886 13.0581 

1 14.00670 2.771640-04 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

V 8 15.01467 1.096910-06 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

N 82 16.02264 8.086300-08 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

5 63 -17.03061-1.894758•00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

9 0 30.00610 2.793300-05 0.0008 0.0008 0.0009 

N 02 46.00550 3.931260-11 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

82 28.01340 2.977500-01 8.3410 8.2257 0.1115 

0 15.99940 1.219100.06 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 

0 8 17.00737 1.082220-03 0.0184 0.0299 0.0331 

02 31.99880 1.906380-06 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 

AL203(C) 101.96120 3.619190-01 35.8820 9.7222 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 Na 

08:4e wEPCLLES BACCHJS 

D-6 

CSD 7 Segment SRM 

Conditions at Nozzle Exit Plane 

One Dimensional Ideal Equilibrium Flow 

PRODUCT 

Chamber pressure = 663 psia 

Exit pressure = 9.76 psis 

Enthaply =. -122591 ca1/100 gm 

MW MOLES 

Expansion ratio = 10.04 

Exit temperature = 2007.3 K 

3.54499 moles gas/100 gm 

WT. PCT. MOLE PCT. VOLUME PCT. 

AL 26.98150 1.392470-09 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

AL CL 62.43450 9.559780-06 0.0006 0.0002 0.0003 

AL CL2 97.88750 8.700210-06 0.0009 0.0002 0.0002 

AL CL3 133.34050 1.522030-06 0.0020 0.0004 0.0004 

AL H 27.98947 1.855220-10 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

AL N 40.98820 1.387010-15 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

AL 0 42.98090 1.778650-09 "0.0000 0.0000 .0.0000 

AL 0 CL 78.43390 4.583740-06 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 

AL 0 H 43.98887 3.006560-07 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

AL 02 58.98030 1.809680-10 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

AL 025 59.98827 4.561420-07 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

AL20 60.96240 0.152840-12 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

AL202 85.96180 3.835260-12 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

C H2O 30.02640 1.476830-07 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

C H4 16.04303 7.274360-00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

C N 26.01785 7.214570..11 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

C 0 28.01055 0.816490-01 27.4965 26.5394 27.6912 

C 0 CL 63.46355 1.336920..07 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

C 02 44.00995 6.757090-02 2.0738 1.7580 1.9061 

CL 35.45300 1.490860.03 0.0529 0.0388 0.0421 

CL 0 51.45240 2.162790-00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

CL2 70.90600 7.347100-07 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 

rx 55.84700 1,945220-06 0.0011 0.0006 0.0006 

FE CL 01.30000 1.637720-06 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 

FE CL2 126.75300 3.075250-03 0.3898 0.0800 0.0867 

FE CL3 162.20600 4.151440-07 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 

FE 0 71.84640 1.248130-07 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

FE 02H2 89.86174 9.66944D-07 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 

H 1.00797 4.360470-03 0.0044 0.1134 0.1230 

H AL 0 43.98887 1.410380-12 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

H C N 27.02582 8.215800-07 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

R C 0 29.01852 2.745280-07 0.0000 0:0000 0.0000 

H CL 36.46097 5.668890-0/ 20.6603 14.7486 16.9913 

H N 0 31.01407 4.845900-10 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

H 0 CL 52.46037 2.300440-08 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

H2 2.01504 1.229340+00 2.4783 31.9835 34.6783 

H2O 18.01534 3.868440-01 6.9691 10.0644 10.9124 

N 14.00670 1.268920-00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

N H 15.01467 1.077450-09 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

N H2 16.02264 2.904760-00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

N H3 17.03061 2.808500-06 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 

N 0 30.00610 2.482900-06 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 

N 02 48.00550 8.240890-13 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

N2 28.01340 3.035530-01 8.5036 7.8975 8.5629 

0 16.99940 3.589650-07 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

0 0 17.00737 1.419500-04 0.0024 0.0037 0.0040 

02 31.09880 4.870850-08 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

AL203(C) 101.96120 2.986870-01 30.4544 7.7709