336 STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE DINONSTRATZON/VALZMTION 1/1PROGRAM ENYIRONNENT..(U) STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVEORGANIZATION WASHINGTON DC SYSTE. 0 RON AUG 8?UNCLASIFIEDF/a 14/2 M

mmmmomhhhhl

a,. E,.

1.1W

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS 963-A

T ~ '~ V ' ~wm * ' d5~-- . .

% • '% % "% , % % % • . . ...%* % ,... •. . ,. , ,.% ."

y

0o BOOST SURVEILLANCE AND

TRACKING SYSTEM (BSTS)S50DEMONSTRATIONNAUDATION PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAUGUST 1987

AU 2 0987 8 20 0 2..

, O., I _ '8s

-- "I " • "i "l",", STRATEGIC%-" ll DEFENSE INIIATVE.RGA IZAIO

Cover Sheet

Responsible Agency: Strategic Defense Initiative Organization

Proposed Action: Conduct Demonstration/Validation tests of the BoostSurveillance and Tracking System (BSTS) technology.

Responsible Individual: Capt. G. BrownEnvironmental Planning ManagerSDIO/EAP.O. Box 3509Reston, VA 22090-1509(202) 693-1081

Designation: Environmental Assessment

Abstract: The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO)and its proponents (U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force)plan to conduct Demonstration/Validation tests of theBSTS technology. These tests will demonstrate theability of the technology to perform required tasks,and will validate a future decision on whether toproceed with Full-Scale Development. Demonstration/Validation tests would be conducted at the NationalTest Facility, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station/Eastern Test Range, and at contractor facilities.Tests would include analyses, simulations, component/assembly tests, and flight tests. This documentaddresses the potential environmental consequences ofthe Demonstration/ Validation testing of the BSTStechnology.

Available to the Public: August 1987

Ae'A

iziCrImVE SUMMARY

The National Environmental Policy Act, the Council on Environmental Qualityregulations implementing the Act (40 CFR 1500-1508), and the Department ofDefense (DoD) Directive 6050.1 which supplements these regulations, directthat DoD officials take into account environmental consequences when author-izing or approving major Federal actions in the United States. Accordingly,this Environmental Assessment analyzes the potential environmental conse-quences of a proposed transition from Concept Exploration to Demonstration/Validation of the Boost Surveillance and Tracking System (BSTS), one of thetechnologies being considered in the Strategic Defense Initiative program.The tests and evaluations associated with Demonstration/Validation will accordwith the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and are currently structured to conformto the restrictive interpretation of the Treaty. The decision to proceed toDemons tration/Validation for BSTS would not preclude other technologies, norwould it mandate the eventual Full-Scale Development or Production/ Deploymentof BSTS.

..BACKGROUND

The President's announcement of a Strategic Defense Initiative on March 23,1983, initiated an extensive research program to determine the feasibility ofdeveloping an effective ballistic missile defense system to protect the UnitedStates and its allies from enemy missile attack. The Strategic DefenseInitiative Organization was established to plan, organize, coordinate, direct,and enhance the research and testing of technologies applicable to strategicdefense. Future implementation of a Strategic Defense System would be basedon the Strategic Defense Initiative research program.

Many technologies currently are being investigated. Among the technologiesbeing considered for Demonstration/Validation are space-based technologies:

" Boost Surveillance and Tracking System (BSTS).

o Space-based Surveillance and Tracking System (SSTS)

o Space-Based Interceptor (SBI)

and ground-based technologies:

o Exoatmospheric Reentry Vehicle Interception System (ERIS)

o Ground-based Surveillance and Tracking System (GSTS)

o Battle Management/Command and Control, and Communications (BM/C3).

DoD Directive 5000.1 calls for a staged approach to the DoD acquisitionprocess. In keeping with that mandate, DoD's major system acquisitionprocess consists of four distinct stages: Concept Exploration, Demonstration/Validation, Full-Scale Development, and Production/Deployment. These fourstages are separated by three major decision points (Milestones I, II, and

S-1I

%.'

*. . . . . . . .~ - ..-.

III). Prior to Milestone I, the Defense Acquisition Board vill reviev theresults of Concept Exploration and decide vhether the subject technology willbe carried forvard into Demonstration/Validation or remain in the ConceptExploration stage. The BSTS Strategic Defense Initiative technology isapproaching the end of Concept Exploration and is preparing for Demonstration/Validation.

IPOSE AM D

The purpose of the Demonstration/Validation program for BSTS is to determinethe ability of the technology to perform its intended function, and to providethe information necessary to make an informed decision vhether to proceed vithFull-Scale Development. These activities are the first steps needed to sup-port a decision to develop, produce, and deploy the BSTS technology, vhich isintegral to an effective strategic defense.

The function of BSTS vould be to detect and track intercontinental andsubmarine-launched ballistic missiles during their boost phase. The BSTSvould provide the necessary initial detection element of the proposedStrategic Defense System.

PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action is the Demonstration/Validation program for the BSTS tech-nology. This program vould demonstrate vhether the system can meet itsspecific performance requirements and vould provide the information necessaryfor the Defense Acquisition Board to recommend a Milestone II decision toproceed into Full-Scale Development.

BSTS Demonstration/Validation vould require the fabrication and ground testingof tvo competing design concepts. After a design reviev, one concept vould bechosen for further development into a limited capability sensor equippedsatellite. The satellite vould be launched into space for on-orbit evalua-tion. The Demonstration/Validation satellite vould use a conventional poversource.

Demonstration/Validation of BSTS vould address the folloving technologicalissues:

0 Computer Hardvare and Softvare: Verify thdE hardvare and softvarecan operate after exposure to radiation, accept information fromthe sensors, and operate in a space environment.

o Sensors and Detectors: Verify that sensors can be produced insufficient quantities and can operate vith an acceptable degree ofreliability in the different types of environments that may beencountered after deployment; verify the ability to detect andidentify targets.

o Spacecraft Platform: Verify that the platform can be controlled inspace and that all components can be integrated on the platform.

S-2

P P- .-. J 2.. 2**.

The Demonstration/Validation testing activities for the BSTS program fall intofour categories: analyses, simulations, component/assembly tests, and flighttests. The tests and their proposed locations are provided in Table S-1.

O-ACTION ALTEiMTIII

The no-action alternative is to continue vith Concept Exploration activitiesvithout progressing to the Demonstration/Validation stage at this time.

MV RWAL SETT11NG

The test activities of the BSTS Demonstration/Validation program vould becarried out at tvo competing contractor facilities (Lockheed Missiles andSpace Company and Grumman Aerospace Company) and tvo government facilities(Cape Canaveral Air Force Station/Eastern Test Range and the National TestFacility). The attributes of each of these government facilities as they 9.

relate to the proposed testing activities are as follovs.

The tvo contractors (Grumman and Lockheed) are established in aerospaceresearch, development, and demonstration activities and have the requisitefacilities, e.g., space chambers, radiation chambers, and anechoic chambers.Both companies are required to obtain all applicable Federal, State, and localpermits and authorizations necessary for facility operations as part of theconditions of their contracts.

The Eastern Space and Missile Center is the host organization for CapeCanaveral Air Force Station/Eastern Test Range, as vell as Patrick Air ForceBase. Patrick Air Force Base provides support for the people and mission ofthe Eastern Space and Missile Center. Cape Canaveral Air Force Stationincludes a system of missile launch facilities located along the AtlanticOcean in Brevard County, Florida. The Eastern Test Range includes a broadarea of the Atlantic Ocean vhich extends offshore from Patrick Air Force Base,Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, and Kennedy Space Center to the IndianOcean. The facilities of the Test Range are used to track launches. Launchand spacecraft operations are monitored and supported by the Air ForceSatellite Control Facility, the Consolidated Space Operations Center, and theMILSTAR satellite communication system.

The National Test Facility vill be constructed at Falcon Air Force Station inColorado. An interim facility vill be operated out of the Consolidated SpaceOperations Center, also located at Falcon Air Force Station, until construc-tion is complete.

a"IRIIA CONSEQUENC3S

Many of the tests for the BSTS Demonstration/Validation program vould be con-ducted at the contractor facilities of Lockheed Missiles and Space Company andGrumman Aerospace Company. These contractors have been selected through the

S-3

TABIS S-1.

Di STIXIN/VALIDATION TESTIDG FOR THEBOOST SURVEILUANC AND TRACKING SYSTEM

TEST TECHNIQUESTEST Component/

ACTIVITIES Analyses Simulations Assembly Flight LOCATIONS'1 )

Demonstration of X X Space Contractor (

platform attitude Chamber, facilities (2 '3 -control, maintain- Radiationability and sur- Chambervivability under X Cape Canaveral AFS/simulated space Eastern Testand battle con- Range )

ditions

Performance and X X Space Contractor 1

reliability of Chamber facilities (233

infrared sensormaterials, focal X Cape Canaveral AFS/plane array Eastefn Test - -assembly; and Range 4 )

evaluation ofproduction yields

Development and X X Space Contractortesting of an Chamber facilities (2 ,3 )

integratedassembly of the X Cape Canaveral AFS/optics and the Easter R)Testfocal plane array Rangeof detectors

111 Adequate facilities exist unless othervise noted.

121 Lockheed Missiles and Space Company and Grumman Aerospace Company are both under

competitive contract to develop BSTS.

131 Contractors are required to certify compliance vith all Federal, State, and localenvironmental lays and regulations necessary for facility operations.

14) Facility construction or modification required (excluding minor modifications).

S-4

4

TALS S-1 (Continued).

DgO STIATIOM/VALIDATION TESTING FOR TEBOOST SURVEILLANCE AND TRACKING SYSTEM

TEST TECHNIQUESTEST Component /

ACTIVITIES Analyses Simulations Assembly Flight LOCATIONS..

Development and X X Radiation Contractor (23)testing of signal Chamber, facilitiesprocessor and Anechoiccomputer hard- chamberware and softvare X Cape Canaveral AFS/

EasterMnTestRange

Development and X X Contractortesting of system facilities ( ' .pover unit forDemonstration/ X Cape Canaveral AFS/Validation flight Easte R)Testtest Range

Launch satellite X Cape Canaveral AFS/to test perform- astern Testance against tar- Rangegets on non-threattrajectories

Analysis and X X Nationalstorage of data Facilityfrom flight tests

Ii) Adequate facilities exist unless othervise noted.

(2) Lockheed Missiles and Space Company and Grumman Aerospace Company are both undercompetitive contract to develop BSTS.

( Contractors are required to certify compliance vith all Federal, State, andlocal environmental laws and regulations necessary for facility operations.

(4) Facility construction or modification required (excluding minor modifications).

S-5

p=.

DoD procurement process. The contractors are required to meet all Federal,State, and local environmental laws and regulations necessary for facilityoperations.

To assess the potential for and the magnitude of impacts from Demonstration/Validation at each government facility, a two-step methodology was utilized.The first step vas the application of assessment criteria to identify activi-ties with no potential for significant environmental consequences. Activitieswere deemed to present no potential for significant environmental consequencesif they met all of the folloving criteria (i.e., all "yes" answers):

,I

1. Are the facility and its infrastructure adequate for the proposedactivity (i.e., can the tests be conducted without new con-struction, excluding minor modifications)?

2. Is current staffing at the facility adequate to conduct the test,excluding minor staff level adjustments?

3. Does the facility comply with existing environmental standards?

4. Are the resources of the surrounding community adequate to accom-modate the proposed testing?

If a proposed test was determined to present a potential for impact (i.e., a"no" answer to any of the above questions), the second step vas to evaluatethe activity in the context of the following environmental considerations: airquality, water quality, biological resources, infrastructure, hazardous waste,land use, visual resources, cultural resources, noise, and socioeconomics. Asa result of that evaluation, consequences were assigned to one of threecategories: insignificant, mitigable, or potentially significant.

Environmental consequences were determined to be insignificant if, in thejudgment of the analysts or as concluded in existing environmental document-ation, no potential for significant environmental impacts exists. Consequenceswere deemed mitigable if concerns exist but it vas determined that allpotential consequences could be readily mitigated through standard proceduresor by measures recommended in existing environmental documentation. Ifserious consequences exist that could not be readily mitigated, the activitywas determined to represent potentially significant environmental impacts.

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station/Eastern Test Range would be used for onelaunch utilizing a new Titan IV booster. An existing launch complex would bemodified to accommodate the Titan IV launch. No new staff would be requiredfor BSTS activities. The environmental consequences of the launch complexconstruction and operation have been analyzed in "Environmental Assessment forthe Complementary Expendable Launch Vehicle (CELV) Program at Cape CanaveralAir Force Station," which concluded that any impacts would be mitigable. Airquality, vater quality, and biological resource impacts are mitigable by con-trol measures recommended in the environmental assessment. No significantimpacts are expected on Infrastructure, hazardous waste, land use, visual andcultural resources, noise, or socioeconomics. The overall environmental con-sequences associated vith ESTS Demonstration/Validation activities at CapeCanaveral Air Force Station/ Eastern Test Range are deemed to be mitigable

S-6

_ IxK~;I.

using the control measures described in the environmental assessment citedabove.

The environmental consequences of constructing and operating the National TestFacility at Falcon Air Force Station are deemed to be mitigable. The conse- -quences have been analyzed in "National Test Facility Environmental Assess-ment," vhich also identifies the necessary mitigation measures. The NationalTest Facility vould employ 2,300 vorkers in a new facility. Until the facil-ity is constructed, vorkers vould be located in existing facilities at FalconAir Force Station. Air quality, infrastructure, and land use impacts fromconstruction and operation vould be mitigable through the use of standardcontrol and conservation practices. No significant impacts are expected onwater quality, biological resources, hazardous vaste, visual and culturalresources, noise, or socioeconomics.

If the no-action alternative is selected, no significant environmental impactsare anticipated, as current Concept Exploration activities vould continue vithutilization of current staffing and facilities.

IRREVERSIBLE AND ABL COM ENTS OF RESOURCES

Development of the single BSTS candidate satellite through the Demonstration/Validation stage vould result in irreversible and irretrievable commitment ofresources such as electronic components, various metallic and nonmetallicstructural materials, fuel, and labor.

.1 .

s

S-7 p

TABLE OF CONTmTS

Section Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction .. .. . . . ..................... S-IBackground . ................ . . . . . . S-IPurpose and Need........ .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . S-2Proposed Action ........ ........................ S-2No-Action Alternative .... ... ...................... ... S-3Environmental Setting ...... ........... . . . . . . S-3Environmental Consequences. . . ... .. ........... S-3Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources.. . .. . S-7

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........ .... ............................ i

LIST OF TABLES .... .... ... ............................. ii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................. . iii

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

1.1 Background ........ ........ ....... 1-1 p""

1.1.1 Classes of Architecture......... ..... . 1-11.1.2 Stages of Strategic Defense Initiative Development. . 1-4

1.2 Purpose and Need .... ... .. ..................... 1-51.3 Proposed Action ......... .................. . 1-5

1.3.1 Analyses and Simulations .... .............. ... 1-71.3.2 Component/Assembly Tests. .............. 1-71.3.3 Flight Tests ........ .. .................... 1-7

1.4 No-Action Alternative ....... ................... .. 1-11

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 Cape Canaveral Air Force Station/Eastern Test Range .... 2-32.2 National Test Facility .... .. .................. ... 2-8

3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action . . . . . 3-3 .9

3.1.1 Cape Canaveral Air Force Station/Eastern Test Range . 3-33.1.2 National Test Facility ........... . . . . 3-5

3.2 Environmental Consequences of No Action . . . . ....... 3-83.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources . . 3-8

4. LIST OF PREPARERS

5. PERSONS/AGENCIES CONTACTED

6. REFERENCES

APPENDIX A - TEST ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIONS

4*%~

iI

' ~ ~. ~ ~. * .*'.* ~ ~ . ** -o***

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

S-1 Demonstration/Validation Testing for the Boost Surveillanceand Tracking System. . .... ............ S-4

1-1 Demonstration/Validation Testing for the Boost Surveillanceand Tracking System ....... .................... .. 1-8

2-1 Selected Environmental Characteristics, Cape CanaveralAir Force Station ....... ..................... .. 2-5

2-2 Selected Socioeconomic Indicators for the Supporting Region,Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and Kennedy SpaceCenter ........... .......................... 2-9

2-3 Selected Environmental Characteristics, National TestFacility ........ ......................... .2-11

2-4 Selected Socioeconomic Indicators for the Supporting Region,National Test Facility. . ............... 2-13

ft

p

P

5,

tt ,

/, ,. ,": ,' % :,'. ," ," ¢ ; ? _ ,' "". ',."" " " "";" 'o., •" o" --, .;'- -. .... .. . ... , -.-/.- ''.-'- 2- % '.- % " ,; --S.,

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

1-1 General Approach to Complete Environmental Assessment . . . . 1-2

1-2 Functional Concept of Boost Surveillance and TrackingSystem ....... ..................... 1-6

1-3 Boost Surveillance and Tracking SystemDemonstration/Validation Facilities . . . . . .. .. .. .. 1-10

2-1 Location Map of Cape Canaveral Air Force Station,Florida .. ...... ....................2-4

2-2 Location Map of Eastern Test Range .... ...........2-7

2-3 Location Map of National Test Facility at Falcon AFS,Colorado .. .. I. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .2-10

3-1 Method for Assessing Potential Environmental Consequences .3-2

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

The National Environmental Policy Act, the Council on Environmental Qualityregulations implementing the Act (40 CFR 1500-1508), and the Department ofDefense (DoD) Directive 6050.1 which supplements these regulations, directthat DoD officials take into account environmental consequences when author-izing or approving major Federal actions in the United States. Accordingly,this Environmental Assessment analyzes the potential environmental conse-quences of a proposed transition from Concept Exploration to Demonstration/Validation of the Boost Surveillance and Tracking System (BSTS), one of thetechnologies being considered in the Strategic Defense Initiative program.The tests and evaluations associated with Demonstration/Validation will accordwith the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and are currently structured to conformto the restrictive interpretation of the Treaty. The decision to proceed toDemonstration/Validation for BSTS would not preclude other technologies, norwould it mandate the eventual Full-Scale Development or Production/Deploymentof BSTS.

The approach followed to complete this assessment is presented in Figure 1-1.This section describes the test and evaluation activities that would becompleted for BSTS and identifies the contractor and government facilitieswhere the activities would be carried out. Section 2 characterizes thosefacilities and the surrounding communities and Section 3 assesses the potent-ial environmental consequences of the activities.

Demonstration/Validation of the BSTS technology would consist of a number oftests. Descriptions of these tests were developed from documentationdescribing the BSTS Demonstration/Validation program and interviews withprogram personnel who developed the documentation. Section 1.3 describes thetypes of tests, and their locations. Also, where possible, other factorsrelated to the tests, such as work force or hazardous materials requirements,have been described. .

The remainder of this section briefly describes the background of the Stra-tegic Defense Initiative program, the purpose of and need for the BSTS tech-nology, the proposed action, and the no-action alternative.

1.1 BAKGOUND

The President's announcement of a Strategic Defense Initiative on March 23,1983, initiated an extensive research program to determine the feasibility ofdeveloping an effective ballistic missile defense system to protect the UnitedStates and its allies from enemy missile attack. The Strategic DefenseInitiative Organization was established to plan, organize, coordinate, direct,and enhance the research and testing of technologies applicable to strategicdefense. Future implementation of a Strategic Defense System would be basedon the Strategic Defense Initiative research program.

1.1.1 Classes of Architecture

The Strategic Defense Initiative has produced several candidate architectureoptions and has promoted advanced technology concepts to support these

1-1 ,.

IL

Fru

5zz

zz

2 ww

O-J

Z II E n:~I~~(b us

-OU- vi WI tW610 1 1-

ell W zz~ 07

t1-2

architectures. The term "architecture" refers to the function and interrela-tionship of individual elements or subsystems within a possible system. Todate, three classes of possible architecture have been defined (20):

o Combined space-based and ground-based sensors and weapons to

counter long-range ballistic missiles

o Ground-based weapons to counter long-range ballistic missiles

o Airborne sensors and ground-based weapons to counter shorter-rangetactical ballistic missiles.

The combined space- and ground-based architectures would employ a series ofsatellites to sense, track, and destroy the threatening missiles and reentryvehicles (i.e., warheads) in the boost, post-boost, or midcourse phase oftheir trajectory. A ground-based system, which would back up the satellites,would intercept warheads in the latter part of their flight. Early evolvingsystems for both space- and ground-based architectures would use kinetic-energy weapons; later systems may use directed-energy weapons (lasers or par-ticle beans).

As currently envisioned, the ground-based architecture could meet an offensivemissile in the midcourse and reentry phases, although boost-phase interceptcapability (by use of ground-based directed-energy weapons) is currently beinginvestigated. A series of satellites would provide early warning, and ground-based intercept vehicles would then destroy the incoming warhead.

The third architecture would use airborne sensors to track shorter-range tac-tical ballistic missiles and ground-based weapons for target destruction. Theshorter flight times of tactical ballistic missiles would require fastidentification, tracking, discrimination, and reaction, which in turn wouldrequire greater sensor sensitivity and faster data processing.

Many technologies currently are being investigated to support the three archi-tectures described above. Among the technologies being considered forDemonstration/Validation are space-based technologies:

o Boost Surveillance and Tracking System (BSTS)

o Space-based Surveillance and Tracking System (SSTS)

o Space-Based Interceptor (SBI) -.

and ground-based technologies:

o Exoatmospheric Reentry Vehicle Interception System (ERIS)

o Ground-based Surveillance and Tracking System (GSTS)

o Battle Management/Command and Control, and Communications (BM/C ).

Among the space-based technologies, the BSTS would concentrate on a fullyresponsive system to detect ballistic missiles as they are launched. Ifdeployed, the BSTS would be an orbital sensor satellite system. It woulddetect the signals emitted by intercontinental or submarine-launched ballisticmissiles as they were launched and provide an attack alert. The BSTS would bemounted on a platform that included the power source and equipment for

1-3

controlling the orientation of the sensor in response to directions from theonboard computer. The sensor vould consist of an optical system vhich focusedthe signals emitted from incoming ballistic missiles onto the sensor array.The detectors responding to the booster radiation received vould provide amoving picture of the rocket. The detector's responses vould be converted bya signal processor into digital data vhich could be handled by the onboardcomputer. The computer vould control the orientation of the sensor (e.g.,track the rocket), and communicate vith BSTS ground stations.

This Environmental Assessment addresses the BSTS technology. Separate Envi-ronmental Assessments have been prepared for the other technologies being con-sidered for Demonstration/Validation. The potential cumulative environmentaleffects of testing several technologies at the same facility are addressed inthe Strategic Defense Initiative Demonstration/Validation Program Environ-mental Assessments Summary.

A decision vill be made as to whether the BSTS technology is ready to proceedto Demonstration/Validation based on examination of cost, schedule, readinessobjectives, affordability, initial operational capability, conceptual sound-ness, and environmental consequences.

1.1.2 Stages of Strategic Defense Initiative Development

DoD Directive 5000.1 calls for a staged approach to the DoD acquisitionprocess. In keeping vith that mandate, DoD's major system acquisition processconsists of four distinct stages: Concept Exploration, Demonstration/Validation, Full-Scale Development, and Production/Deployment. These fourstages are separated by three major decision points (Milestones I, II, andIII). Prior to Milestone I, the Defense Acquisition Board vill reviev theresults of Concept Exploration and decide whether the subject technology willbe carried forvard into Demonstration/Validation or remain in the ConceptExploration stage. The BSTS Strategic Defense Initiative technology isapproaching the end of Concept Exploration and preparing for Demonstration/Validation.

In Demonstration/Validation, the BSTS technology is tested to demonstrate itsability to perform the task. The Demonstration/Validation stage for the BSTStechnology includes the folloving test techniques:

1. Analyses: Examining and evaluating data to define or refine thecurrent knovledge of a technology

2. Simulations: The use of softvare models representing both the testarticle and the environment to determine performance abilities

3. Component/Assembly Tests: Demonstrating performance of componentsand assemblies under simulated conditions such as space or battleenvironments

1-4

4. Flight Tests: The use of flight-qualified devices and assemblies

in real flight environments to verify performance.

Some BSTS Demonstration/Validation activities may require modifications or L

additions to existing government facilities. Should this occur, the need forsupplemental environmental evaluation would be determined in conformance withCouncil on Environmental Quality and DoD regulations.

1.2 PURPOSE MID NEED

The purpose of the Demonstration/Validation program for BSTS is to determinethe ability of the technology to perform its intended function, and to providethe information necessary to make an informed decision whether to proceed withFull-Scale Development. These activities are the first steps needed tosupport a decision to develop, produce, and deploy the BSTS technology, whichis integral to an effective strategic defense.

The function of BSTS would be to detect and track intercontinental orsubmarine-launched ballistic missiles during their boost phase, as shown onFigure 1-2. The BSTS would provide the necessary initial detection element ofone alternative architecture of the proposed Strategic Defense System.

'-

1.3 PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action is the Demonstration/Validation program for the BSTStechnology. This program would demonstrate whether the system can meet itsspecific performance requirements and would provide the information necessaryfor the Defense Acquisition Board to recommend a Milestone II decision toproceed into Full-Scale Development.

Demonstration/Validation of BSTS would require the fabrication and groundtesting of tvo competing design concepts. After a design review, one conceptwould be chosen for further development into a limited capability sensor-equipped satellite. The satellite would be launched into space for on-orbitevaluation. The Demonstration/Validation satellite would use a conventionalpower source.

To date, Concept Exploration activities for BSTS have included: (1) develop-ment of signal processing and digital data processing components; (2) develop-ment of optical sensor manufacturing techniques; (3) development of wide-field-of-viev optics designs; (4) development of power generation techniques;(5) development of survivability techniques and equipment; (6) architecturedesign and performance testing of real-time signal processing components; and(7) study of phenomena associated with the boost phase of a ballistic missile.

Demonstration/Validation of the BSTS is needed to address the following tech-nological issues:

o Computer Hardware and Software: Verify that hardware and softwarecan operate after exposure to radiation, accept information fromthe sensors, and operate in a space environment.

1-5

,' "¢' ,? ',. .%." , / '. '.. ' . '. \. '.' " .. ',.,.,.,

U.a

gal 0maz 0

0 2-z/kto/z

ul

M2-

Izoz

1-6.

o Sensors and Detectors: Verify that sensors can be produced insufficient quantities and can operate vith an acceptable degree ofreliability in the different types of environments that may be ,0 %encountered after deployment; verify the ability to detect andidentify targets. 4

o Spacecraft Platform: Verify that the platform can be controlled inspace and that all components can be integrated on the platform.

The Demonstration/Validation testing activities for the BSTS program aredivided into analyses, simulations, component/assembly tests, and flighttests. Each of the categories specific to BSTS is described in greater detailin Appendix A. The BSTS test activities are described in Table 1-1 by theirtest technique and the location of the facilities vhere the test activitiesare proposed to be conducted. The folloving paragraphs provide additionaldescriptions of the test activities vhere appropriate. Figure 1-3 shovs thelocations of the test facilities. %

1.3.1 Analyses and Simulations

Both competing contractors (Grumman Aerospace Company and Lockheed Missilesand Space Company, vith support from subcontractors and vendors) vould conductanalyses and, vhere appropriate, simulation testing of the space platform,infrared sensor and optics, and computer hardvare and softvare components, forthe purpose of supporting conceptual design and ground demonstration activi-ties. These activities vould take place vithin existing contractor facilities. N-

Flight test data vould be analyzed, and the data and results stored for fur-ther refinement of BSTS and eventually for future testing and simulation. Thisanalysis and storage vould take place at the National Test Facility.

1.3.2 Component/Assembly Tests

Performance tests to determine the ability of the sensors to detect, identify,and track targets vould be conducted in a space environment chamber (vacuum,lov temperature); the sensors and platforms vould also be subjected to radi- .'.ation testing, and the platform antenna radiation pattern determined. It islikely that these vould be integrated chamber tests for all systems and vouldinclude simulation testing vith a scene generator. The testing vould occur atcontractor facilities.

1.3.3 Flight Tests

One limited capability satellite vould be launched from Cape Canaveral Air,*hForce Station aboard a Titan IV launch vehicle during Demonstration/ .:Validation. The performance of the satellite would be tested by trackinglaunches from vorld-vide locations. The launch vould be supported by theEastern Test Range and continuing spacecraft operation vould be monitored andsupported primarily by existing contractor ground stations. The Air ForceSatellite Control Center, the Consolidated Space Operations Center, and theMILSTAR communication satellite system may also provide support.

1-7

A•A S , t C .- -

TABLI 1-1.WIOnw TtATIOI/VALIDATION TzSTING Pm TEBOOSr SURVILAIMM AMW TRACflIG SYSTEM

TEST TECHNIQUES

TEST Component/ACTIVITIES Analyses Simulations Assembly Flight LOCATIONS ( "

Demonstration of X • Space Contractorplatform attitude Chamber, facilities ( 2''control, maintain- Radiationability, and sur- Chambervivability undersimulated space X Cape Canaveral AFS/and battle con- Easte RTestditions Range

Performance and X X Space Contractorreliability of Chamber facilities" 2'

infrared sensormaterials, focal X Cape Canaveral AFS/plane array Easten Testassembly; Range 4evaluation ofproduction yields

Development and X X Space Contractortesting of an Chamber facilities"'

integratedassembly of the X Cape Canaveral AFS/optics and the Easter 1 Testfocal plane array Rangeof detectors

11) Adequate facilities exist unless othervise noted.

(2) Lockheed Missiles and Space Company and Grumman Aerospace Company are both under

competitive contract to develop BSTS.

(3) Contractors are required to certify compliance vith all Federal, State, and localenvironmental lays and regulations necessary for facility operations.

(4) Facility construction or modification required (excluding minor modifications).

1-8

TABLI 1-1 (Continued). IDHOUSTRATION/VALIDATION TESTIN FOR TEBOOST SURVEILLANCE AND TRACKN SYSTEM 4.4

TEST TECHNIQUESTEST Component/

ACTIVITIES Analyses Simulations Assembly Flight LOCATIONS"

Development and X X Radiation Contractor "testing of signal Chamber, facilities12 .3

processor and Anechoiccomputer hard- chambervare and software X Cape Canaveral AFS/

Eastern TestRange

(4)

Development and X X Contractortesting of system facilities € ,3 .power unit for X Cape Canaveral AFS/Demonstration/ Eastern TestValidation flight Range 4 )

test

Launch satellite X Cape Canaveral AFS/to test perform- Eastern Testance against tar- Rangegets on non-threattrajectories "%

-'a

Analysis and X X National Tfststorage of data Facility(

from flight tests

II) Adequate facilities exist unless othervise noted. '

12) Lockheed Missiles and Space Company and Grumman Aerospace Company are both under

competitive contract to develop BSTS.

13) Contractors are required to certify compliance vith all Federal, State, and

local environmental laws and regulations necessary for facility operations.

Facility construction or modification required (excluding minor modifications).

1-9

Z' zocc

UU

4C

Lu.

<0

i-I-00

<0

1-10

if

S..

1.4 nO-ACTION ALTK&TIVI

The no-action alternative is to continue with Concept Exploration activitieswithout progressing to the Demonstration/Validation stage at this time.

~.. ~.a.

.'*

a,.

'a

I''S

'p

.4 ~S.

'S...

5'-.* 5***

'p

SW

a'.V.5'

1-11

2. ENIRONMNTAL SE1rING

The test activities of the BSTS Demonstration/ValidatIon program and thefacilities where they would be conducted were identified in Table 1-1. Thetests would be conducted at contractor facilities in Sunnyvale, California;Bethpage, New York; and Irvine, California. Tests would also be conducted at vgovernment facilities at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and the NationalTest Facility. This section describes the environmental setting of eachgovernment facility in terms of physical and operational characteristics ofthe facilities, permit status, and previous environmental documentation.Specific physical characteristics include facility size, base and test facil-ities, and environmental conditions. Operational characteristics include thesocioeconomic parameters of staffing, payroll, and housing, and the infra-structure characteristics of electricity, solid waste, sewage treatment,transportation, and water supply. >

Permits described are those that relate to air quality, water quality, andhazardous waste. Previous environmental documentation includes environmentalcompliance plans, base master plans, environmental assessments, and environ-mental impact statements. The socioeconomic characteristics of the countiesand communities surrounding the facility are also presented.

The data for each planned test facility are presented in tables and figures.The level of detail in these tables reflects the availability of pertinent Ileprogram and facility information. :4Many of the tests for the BSTS Demonstration/Validation program would be com-pleted in existing contractor facilities, specifically Lockheed Missiles andSpace Company in Sunnyvale, California, and Grumman Aerospace Company inBethpage, New York, and Irvine, California. The contractors have been sel-ected through the DoD procurement process, and are required to meet allFederal, State, and local environmental laws and regulations necessary forfacility operations.

The methodology used in developing the descriptions of the government facili-ties that would be used in the program involved identifying and acquiringavailable literature, such as environmental assessments, environmental impactstatements, and base master plans. The literature was reviewed and data gaps(i.e., questions that could not be answered from the literature) were identi-fied. To fill the data gaps, facility personnel were interviewed by tele-phone. Where this report utilizes information collected through telephoneinterviews, appropriate references are presented in the List of References,*Section 6; primary contacts for each facility are listed in Section 5. Thefollowing subsections describe the environmental setting of each of thegovernment facilities where Demonstration/Validation activities are planned.

Ten areas of environmental consideration are addressed: (1) air quality; (2)water quality; (3) biological resources; (4) infrastructure: electricity,solid waste, sewage treatment, water supply, transportation; (5) hazardousvaste; (6) land use; (7) visual resources; (8) cultural resources; (9) noise;and (10) socioeconomics.

2-1

Several of the resource areas, specifically air and water quality, are regu-lated by federally mandated standards. The treatment, storage, and disposalof hazardous vastes are also regulated by Federal standards. Where federallymandated standards do not exist, qualitative evaluations vere made. Adiscussion of each resource area is provided belov.

Air Quality

Air quality concerns at each facility vere evaluated in terms of the NationalAmbient Air Quality Standards and the location of the facility in an attain-ment or nonattainment area. For existing air emissions sources, the facilityvas evaluated based on the emission standards contained in the associatedState Implementation Plan. Possible air emissions sources, such as expansionof facilities and nev construction, vere evaluated using the Nev Source Revievrequirements.

Water Quality

Water quality concerns at each location vere identified and the facility'srecord of compliance vith permits is presented.

Biological Resources

The Endangered Species Act protects plants and animals threatened vith extinc-tion. A reviev of the environmental documentation of the geographic areasurrounding the facility vas conducted to determine the documented presence ofthreatened and endangered species.

Infrastructure

Electricity, solid vaste, sevage treatment, water supply, and transportationare infrastructure requirements that ultimately limit the capacity for grovth.Capacity and current demand are described for each facility.

Hazardous Waste

The Resource Conservation Recovery Act regulates how a facility can dispose ofits hazardous vaste. The record of compliance was revieved to determine thefacility's capability to handle any additional vastes and to determine anypotential disposal problems.

Land Use

Base master plans, environmental management plans, and other documentationvere revieved to determine any current conflicts betveen the facility andlocal standards, and to evaluate the probability of conflict resulting fromany planned expansions.

Visual Resources

Existing environmental documentation vas revieved to determine if aestheticconcerns vere an issue at any of the facilities.

2-2 0

~I w fII lv W A JXMWURUWWWU- JWV NWU iW- ILWVW% F WU IFU Yi~ ~ JJ i~' ~kZ2W.., YT~pr ~nu~~ iK.'.- -- RWL., - .-

Cultural Reourcs

Existing environmental documentation was reviewed to determine if any signifi-cant cultural resources in proximity to the facilities would be affected by wu

test activities.

Noise

Existing environmental documentation was reviewed to determine if noise con-cerns vere an issue at any of the facilities.

Socioeconomics

Key socioeconomic indicators (population, housing, employment, and incomedata) for the supporting region of each facility were examined to evaluate thepotential consequences of increased population, expenditures, and employment.

2.1 CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION/EASTERN TEST RANGE'-A

The Eastern Space and Missile Center is the host organization for Cape Canav-eral Air Force Station/Eastern Test Range, as well as Patrick Air Force Base.Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and Patrick Air Force Base are locatedbetween the Banana River and the Atlantic Ocean in Brevard County on Florida'seast coast (Figure 2-1), approximately 20 miles southeast of Titusville.Patrick Air Force Base is 10 miles south of Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. ,,.*

Patrick Air Force Base provides support for the people and mission of theEastern Space and Missile Center. Cape Canaveral Air Force Station includes asystem of missile launch facilities used to place satellites in orbit. Adescription of Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and its environment isprovided in Table 2-1. %

Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral is being recommissioned to support launch-es of the Titan IV vehicle. The process of preparing and launching a satellitetakes about 30 weeks and involves the following: (1) satellite check-out toensure that all systems are functioning correctly; (2) assembling the launchvehicle and mating the payload to the vehicle in a vehicle integration build-ing; (3) transporting the stacked assembly to the launch pad; and (4) launchof the vehicle. The Titan IV vehicle is lifted off and boosted to over100,000 feet by solid-fuel boosters before the liquid fuel second-stagevehicle fires.

The Eastern Test Range includes a broad area of the Atlantic Ocean whichextends offshore from Patrick Air Force Base and Cape Canaveral Air ForceStation on the coast of Florida (Figure 2-2) to the Indian Ocean. The rangefunctions as the test area for space and missile operations. It includes anetwork of tracking and data gathering facilities on islands in the Atlantic,supplemented by ships and aircraft (26). Its radar, optic, telemetry, andcommunications instrumentation acquire data that support launches from CapeCanaveral and the Kennedy Space Center (22). Launch and spacecraft operationsare monitored and supported by the Air Force Satellite Control Facility, theConsolidated Space Operations Center, and the MILSTAR satellite communicationsystem.

2-3

% % V %

Atlantic

0Oce an

____ OL I CO.N OO £ C NA EA

LACKE COSAT.O

PATICKCF

0EIN L CO0 CENTER

S2-

An sumnmn in Rn gn Vn XN wfw Awvm~nOLR hn w .. L.

wI

40.41 116 i

".4~ N.ji.4I .4 b3S..

L 4A4A aj

IL 9

'p S

. 4 .4 4 _

w W__ j ______1 _____d

tAU

IM6-

N _ _ _ _ _-5

A c

A .4 N 4 4

U. - - - U '

%. 4 I a

MG M- 0 Ii P%v4 -4d..4CA

0 A.MO - a OOS0

IN 0%4

VP * wag

C. 4A ccA(

.4 A4 MOC 04O

c .4 ON

dC a aU M-

S. *4

.4 CM 0 10 1 o - J. .

-k 4 -M0

L -

S.~64 00*~M

IN IsUI.a

31 Ad

-4 4U 1. u006~~- I 40 -*~ £ M4c C0

160 1

-CC OZ' 14 g b0

'8 6 ~ ~350,> 4

W .. 4~ Z

I- ~~~-W - 4 £

404

I IAL

* m

z w

(lu) < -

4 ? ....... oil

.. ... .. . . .. . ..

.... LL. V -

.... ....

z I-

LUU

1%.

4u4.

I2-

For socioeconomic purposes, the supporting region for Cape Canaveral Air ForceStation is defined as the surrounding Brevard County, and the community ofOrlando to the vest. Selected socioeconomic data for this area are presentedin Table 2-2.

Based on available data, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station is in compliancevith all Federal standards for air quality, water quality, and hazardousvaste. Environmental assessments are currently in preparation for tvo nevlaunch facilities at Cape Canaveral. The "Environmental Assessment for theComplementary Expendible Launch Vehicle (CELV) Program at Cape Canaveral AirForce Station" has been prepared to support refurbishment and operational act-ivities for the Titan IV vehicle (6). Environmental documentation is preparedfor individual launches from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (10).

2.2 NATIONAL TEST FACILITY

The National Test Facility vill be constructed at Falcon Air Force Station(23). An interim facility will be operated out of the existing ConsolidatedSpace Operations Center, also located at Falcon Air Force Station. Thisfacility is in El Paso County, Colorado, about 12 miles east of Colorado -Springs (Figure 2-3). The present mission of the Consolidated Space Opera-tions Center is to provide support for military space operations throughcommunications centralization and data link operations. The facility and itsenvironmental characteristics are described in Table 2-3.

The Consolidated Space Operations Center vas built to house tvo mission ele-ments: the Satellite Operations Center and the Space Shuttle Operations Center(24). The former performs command, control, and communications service func-tions for orbiting spacecraft. The latter was to conduct DoD Shuttle flightplanning, readiness, and control functions. The interim National Test Facilitycould be located at the Consolidated Space Operations Center because adequatesupport facilities are available (25).

For the purpose of socioeconomic assessment, the supporting region for thisfacility is defined as the surrounding El Paso County and the nearby communityof Colorado Springs. Selected socioeconomic data for these areas are con-tained In Table 2-4.

Based on available data, the Falcon Air Force Station, including the Con-solidated Space Operations Center and the proposed location of the NationalTest Facility, is in compliance vith Federal standards for air quality, waterquality, and hazardous vaste. Environmental documentation has been preparedfor both the National Test Facility (National Test Facility EnvironmentalAssessment)(23) and for the interim National Test Facility at the ConsolidatedSpace Operations Center (Categorical Exclusion, control number AFSPC86-1)(25).

2-8

V rgr **'~~~: ~ *~ .~ .. - ~:-:--~*r. k1

TABLE 2-2.SELECTED SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATORS FOR TUE SUPPORTING REGIONCAE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION AND KIUMEDY SPACE CENTER

Annual Change Annual Change

Area/Indicator 1970 1980 1984 1970-1980 (Z) 1980-1984 (Z)

Brevard County

Population 230,006 272,959 329,497 1.73 4.82Year-Round Housing 77,871 112,970 N/A 3.79 N/AVacancy Rate (Z) 11.9 9.9 N/A ....-Civilian Labor Force 87,987 121,034 140,078 3.24 3.72Unemployment (Z) 5.6 5.9 5.3 --Per Capita Income ($)'') 3,297 7,448 10,426 -

Median Family1 48Income ($)11,144 19,388 N/A

Orlando

Population 100,081 128,291 137,145 2.51 1.68Year-Round Housing 36,827 51,344 N/A 3.38 N/AVacancy Rate (Z) 8.0 7.2 N/A ....Civilian Labor Force 39,169 58,189 77,566 4.04 7.45Unemployment (%) 4.6 4.6 5.5 ....-Per Capita Income ($)( ) 2,985 6,735 9,439-- --Median Family

Income ($) 7,945 16,125 N/A -

References: 17, 18, 16, 19, 21

(1) Income figures refer to preceding year

2-9"

INTERIMFALCO AIRNATIONAL TEST FACILITY

FORCE STATION AT THE CONSOLIDATEDSPACE OPERATIONS

EL. PASO CO. 0

PROPOSEDNATIONAL TESTFACILITY

PUEBLO CO.

0 5 10 MILES

INDEX MAP SCALE

LOCATION MAP OF NATIONAL TEST FACILITY ATIA C O IC L R D OF G R -2-10

in ins

8 1

4. 9

41 -4 4 -

l.ogow .4 .4b

0 -4

,..0 -41'

I 4 T DN6 -I A C.4 1 .I.1 *

--

ci 0~ .As

IA.J

'Up $A U

2-1 I

MIM

I I

0 0 1

.44 .4 on q

4A 04 c65c UC M3

FA Ac .4 v~ 41£

a4 00

-1 .9 . 11i ; .4440,- 0 C .4 0.

10 -. 4 2 x 'S - 665 56V

.4 .4 S M4.

-~~4 .4 -c4' 4

401 AC w!4- -44

Ii ok V: 40a

1 11 ae 0 lU .4 .4C.

8 418. so 0 4IN 60 -%4 4

%. 4.'

f.t 36

*.C 1.

4o w-- co

0___- Uus8

01- 40 -' 4-46 Id .

w~ ~~~ A E~C

_____~~~~~~1 Id_____ __ ___ 3 C

-4 4c

cIu w-.4

2-12

TABLE 2-4.SELECTED SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATORS FOR THE SUPPORTING REGION

NATIONAL TEST FACILITY

Annual Change Annual ChangeArea/Indicator 1970 1980 1984 1970-1980 (Z) 1980-1984 (Z)

El Paso County

Population 235,972 309,424 349,066 2.75 3.06 -)

Year-Round Housing 72,913 116,770 N/A 4.82 N/AVacancy Rate (%) 7.3 7.7 N/A ....Civilian Labor Force 71,085 130,297 163,883 6.25 5.90Unemployment (Z) 5.5 7.6 5.4 ... -

Per Capita Income($) (') 2,920 7,027 9,812 ...-.Median Family 1

Income ($) 8,974 18,729 N/A "-

Colorado Springs

Population 140,512 215,105 247,739 4.35 3.59

Year-Round Housing 46,502 88,189 N/A 6.61 N/AVacancy Rate (X) 7.7 7.9 N/A ....-Civilian Labor Force 46,414 98,140 123,504 7.78 5.92Unemployment () 5.7 7.4 5.3 -- --Per Capita Income ($)(1) 3,001 7,404 10,292Median Failv 91 7 "

Income ($) 9,089 18,987 N/A

References: 17, 18, 16, 19, 21 *-

( Income figures refer to preceding year

.-

2N

3. DIRONMINTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section assesses the potential environmental consequences of the proposedBSTS tests. It is based on a comparison of the tests described in Section 1,and the facilities to be utilized at proposed test locations, as described inSection 2. Any identified environmental documentation that addresses thetypes of activities proposed for the facilities is incorporated by reference.

Many of the tests for the BSTS Demonstration/Validation program would be con-ducted at contractor facilities, specifically Lockheed Missiles and SpaceCompany in Sunnyvale, California and Grumman Aerospace Company in Bethpage,Nev York, and Irvine, California. The contractors have been selected throughthe DoD procurement process and are required to meet all Federal, State, andlocal environmental laws and regulations necessary for facility operations.

The approach used to complete the Environmental Assessment of the BSTSDemonstration/Validation program was described in Section 1. To assess thepotential for and the magnitude of impacts from Demonstration/Validation ateach government facility, a two-step methodology was utilized (Figure 3-1).The first step was the application of assessment criteria to identify activi- "-"ties with no potential for significant environmental consequences. Activitieswere deemed to present no potential for significant environmental consequencesif they met all of the following criteria (i.e., all "yes" answers):

1. Are the facility and its infrastructure adequate for the proposedactivity (i.e., can the tests be conducted without new construc-tion, excluding minor modifications)?

2. Is current staffing at the facility adequate to conduct the test,

excluding minor staff level adjustments?

3. Does the facility comply with existing environmental standards?

4. Are the resources of the surrounding community adequate to accom-modate the proposed testing?

If a proposed test was determined to present a potential for impact (i.e., a"no" answer to any of the above questions), the second step was to evaluatethe activity in the context of the following environmental considerations: airquality, water quality, biological resources, infrastructure, hazardous waste,land use, visual resources, cultural resources, noise, and socioeconomics. Asa result of that evaluation, consequences were assigned to one of threecategories: insignificant, mitigable, or potentially significant.

Environmental consequences were determined to be insignificant if, in thejudgment of the analysts or as concluded in existing environmental document-ation, no potential for significant environmental impacts exists. Consequenceswere deemed mitigable if concerns exist but it was determined that all poten-tial consequences could be readily mitigated through standard procedures, orby measures recommended in existing environmental documentation. If seriousconsequences exist that could not be readily mitigated, the activity wasdetermined to represent potentially significant environmental impacts.

3-1

DESCRIPTION OFDESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL

ACTIVITIES AT EVINALEACH FACILITY STTN AT

EACH FACILITY

T--"I-

COMPARISON OFACTIVITIESAGAINST

ENVIRONMENTALFACTORS

EVALUATE/ARE DESCRIBE

AEM CONCERNS BY "CI.,A ,NO- POTENTIALLY

MET / AFFECTEDENVIRONMENTAL

YESL RE

INSIGNIFICANT YES THE EIMPACT INSIGN IF ICANT

NO

<NRE EFFESALLYREADILY NO SINFCT

MITIGABLE IPC

YES

(MITIGABLE\

IMPACT

METHOD FOR ASSESSINGPOTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FIGURE 3.1

3-2

q - , ,- - . q% %. ,, , ,. . - -.. . -, .:. ,. . .. . -. . : . . . . . . . . . C. . .. .

The remainder of this section provides discussions of the potential environ-mental consequences for each government location proposed for the BSTS

Demonstration/Validation program. The impacts of the no-action alternativeand irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that vouldaccompany BSTS Demonstration/Validation are described at the end of thissection.

3.1 WIY3ROKUTAL CONS DICES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

3.1.1 Cape Canaveral Air Force Station/Eastern Test Range

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station/Eastern Test Range vould be used for onelaunch of the BSTS during Demonstration/Validation. This launch vould utilizethe nev Titan IV booster to place the test satellite in orbit. Supportfacilities at Patrick Air Force Base, the tracking facilities of the EasternTest Range, and other support from the Air Force Satellite Control Facility,the Consolidated Space Operations Center, and the MILSTAR satellite communi-cations system vould be utilized as needed. These activities are vithin thescope of operations at Cape Canaveral/Eastern Test Range.

Modification of Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral is required to accommodateTitan IV launches. Those modifications are in progress and vill supportseveral military space programs in addition to the proposed BSTS program (7).No nev construction or modification of Eastern Test Range facilities vould berequired (7).

The environmental consequences of the Titan IV Launch Complex construction andoperation have been analyzed in "Environmental Assessment for the Complement-ary Expendable Launch Vehicle (CELV) Program at Cape Canaveral Air ForceStation." Copies of this documentation may be obtained from the PublicAffairs Office at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

No nev staffing vould be required to support BSTS activities at Cape CanaveralAir Force Station/Eastern Test Range. All Titan IV launches, including anyutilized for BSTS launches, vould be staffed vith existing permanent facilityemployees (7). Existing permanent infrastructure support facilities forLaunch Complex 41 and the Eastern Test Range are adequate to support Titan IVlaunch activities (7).

The result of applying the four assessment criteria against the test activi-ties and the facility modifications they vould require shovs the potential for A.environmental effects related to the modification of the Titan IV LaunchComplex 41 at Cape Canaveral. Thus, a more detailed assessment addressing S..'

each of the environmental considerations for activities at Cape Canaveral vas ., ,completed.

The other three assessment criteria at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station aremet. With no staff increases there vould be no additional pressure placed onthe resources of the surrounding communities. In addition, the facilities atthe Cape Canaveral Air Force Station are currently in compliance vith allpermit requirements (8).

3-3

The Eastern Test Range was also assessed against the four criteria. The resultof this evaluation was a determination that the four criteria are met.

The results of the assessment of each of the environmental considerations arepresented below.

Air Quality

Cape Canaveral currently meets all State and Federal air quality standards(8). Launches would affect air quality through the releases of perchlorates,which combine with the atmosphere to form hydrochloric acid. The specificimpacts and their mitigation through use of an oxidizer vapor scrubber aredescribed in the environmental assessment for the Titan IV Launch Complexmodification (7).

Vater Quality

Current water discharges are permitted and monitoring shows no exceedances(8). Most washdown deluge water used during launches runs off onto the groundand is not monitored, but the water that is collected on the launch platform(30-40 percent of all vashdown water) is tested and has been found to be cleanenough for release. The impacts and their mitigations are described in theenvironmental assessment for the Titan IV launch complex modifications (7).

Biological Resources

Threatened and endangered species are present in the area of Cape Canaveral(9). Any activities that may affect these threatened and endangered speciesmust be reviewed and approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service as required bythe Endangered Species A, , , and may not proceed unless proper mitiga-tion is applied.

Infrastructure

Evaluation of the effects on each " 'astructure components is asfollows:

o Electricity is currently supplied by f .,a P,-ver and Light (12,14). No increases in demand over current rapa1?y would resultfrom BSTS test activities (7). Portable generators may be used tosupplement permanent power supplies during Titan IV launches (7).

o Solid waste is disposed offsite (8, 12, 14); additional increasesthat may result from BSTS activities would be only a small part ofthe approximately 14,000 tons generated annually. Thus, conse-quences are anticipated to be insignificant.

o Sewage treatment is currently at 80 percent of capacity (12, 13,14). As no staff increases are needed to support BSTS activities,potential increases in sewage generation rates are consideredminor. Thus, consequences are anticipated to be insignificant.

3-4

* r . . ..

o Vater is currently purchased from the City of Cocoa (12, 15). De-luge water would be required for one BSTS launch. This would repre-sent an insignificant increase in consumption.

o Transportation routes to the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station arecurrently congested (14). However, since no additional staff wouldbe required for BSTS activities there would be no increase in thecurrent congestion.

Hazardous Vaste

The existing hazardous waste storage facility is adequate for the management %of any additional hazardous vaste generated by BSTS activities (8).

Land Use

The modification of an existing launch platform would result in no conflictwith land use as specified in the base comprehensive plan (9).

Visual Resources N

The modification of the existing Launch Complex 41 would result ininsignificant changes to the visual resources of the area.

Cultural Resources

Modification of the existing Launch Complex 41 would not result in disruptionof undisturbed land. Thus, no impacts are anticipated on historical andarchaeological sites.

Noise

There are no specific standards for noise levels; however, the Titan IV is

less noisy than the Space Shuttle which has been launched from the adjacentKennedy Space Center with no significant impacts (11). Therefore, anticipatedimpacts are deemed insignificant.

Socioeconomics

No nev staff are projected to support BSTS activities. Thus, there would beno pressure on the housing and services provided by the surrounding commun-ities, and socioeconomic impacts of BSTS are anticipated to be insignificant.

The environmental consequences associated vith BSTS Demonstration/Validationactivities at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station/Eastern Test Range are antici-pated to be mitigable using the planned control measures (7).

3.1.2 National Test Facility

The National Test Facility would be used for analysis and application of datafrom flight tests of the BSTS in simulation exercises. The functions of theNational Test Facility for the BSTS tests are within the scope of thefacility's design. Environmental effects of construction and operation of the

Il

National Test Facility are presented in the "National Test Facility Environ-mental Assessment" (23). This environmental assessment estimated that minorerosion during construction and minor impacts on air quality, ecology, ground-vater supply, and vehicular traffic during operation vould occur. It con-cluded that vith the implementation of proposed mitigation measures, nosignificant impacts are anticipated. Copies of this environmental assessmentmay be obtained from the Public Affairs Office at Falcon Air Force Station.

Until the National Test Facility is constructed, the staff necessary tocomplete the BSTS tests vould be located at existing facilities at Falcon AirForce Station. The environmental consequences of the proposed use of theseexisting facilities vere addressed in a "Request for Environmental ImpactAnalysis," control number AFSPC 86-1 (25). The result of this request vas anassessment that the interim National Test Facility qualified as a categoricalexclusion in accordance vith U.S. Air Force Categorical Exclusion 2x. Thiscategorical exclusion states, "This is an administrative action utilizinginterior space for personnel and computer equipment." Thus, no furtherenvironmental documentation is necessary. The categorical exclusion refers tothe environmental impact statement for the Consolidated Space OperationsCenter (24). Copies of this document may be obtained from the Public AffairsOffice at Falcon Air Force Station.

Operation of the National Test Facility vould require a significant increasein the staff at Falcon Air Force Station. The previously completed "NationalTest Facility Environmental Assessment" (23) predicted the creation ofapproximately 2,300 permanent onsite jobs, as well as a daily average of 400visitors (because each visit is likely to last a minimum of several days,visitors vere counted as equivalent to employees). Including the visitors,the total maximum daily population vould thus be increased by 2,700. On theassumption that only 10 percent of the daily population vould be dravn fromthe local area, it vas predicted that more than 2,400 families vould relocateto the area. No estimates of the portion of the staffing specific to BSTShave been made. While it can be assumed that only a portion of the totalstaffing is relevant to BSTS, the consequences of complete staffing areincluded as a vorst-case analysis.

The result of applying the four assessment criteria against the test activi-ties and the facility construction they vould require shovs the potential forenvironmental effects related to the construction and operation of theNational Test Facility, the proposed staffing requirements of the facility,and the resulting socioeconomic presence in surrounding communities. Theassessment criteria for compliance vith permits is met by the existingfacilities. The results of the environmental assessment conducted for theNational Test Facility are summarized belov.

Air Quality

Current operations at Falcon Air Force Station are in attainment by Coloradostandards. Once the National Test Facility is constructed, operations arepredicted to add to an existing violation of the 1-hour and 8-hour carbonmonoxide Federal standard from automobiles at the intersection of PetersenBoulevard and Bighvay 94 outside the base (23). This addition can bemitigated through the use of van pools and other conservation measures.

3-6 i

~:

later Quality

All discharges are in compliance with current permits (2). The environmentalassessment for the National Test Facility predicts no significant impact ongroundwater or surface water quality (23).

Biological Resoures

No threatened or endangered species are identified in the vicinity of theNational Test Facility (23). Impacts to biological resources vere predictedto be insignificant (23).

Infrastructure

Evaluation of the effects on each of the infrastructure components is asfollows: a.-

o Electrical substation can be expanded to 25,000 kV with additionalcooling equipment. The National Test Facility will require theaddition of 13,000 kW, which could be accommodated by expansion of bthe substation (23). 6.

" Solid waste is disposed of offsite in a licensed landfill. The

amount of solid waste that would be generated by the National TestFacility has not been estimated, but it is anticipated to be arelatively small volume (2).

o Sewage treatment capacity is currently adequate but the construc-tion of the National Test Facility requires an expansion of thecapacity of the sewage treatment plant by 0.124 million gallons/day(23). The expansion could encroach on a flood plain. All impactsare anticipated to be mitigable (23).

o Construction and operation of the National Test Facility areprojected to increase water requirements from 0.37 milliongallons/day to 1.0 million gallons/day (23). Mitigation measuressuch as conservation, reuse, and drought-tolerant landscaping wouldreduce the projected water requirements to 0.5 million gallons/day(23). Additional mitigation measures would have to be implementedto prevent exceeding water supply.

o Transportation system capacity exceeds current traffic demands.The addition of the National Test Facility would create significantincreases in vehicular traffic, but would be below design capacity;however, increased delays would occur at some intersections (23).

Hazardous Vaste

Any hazardous waste would be disposed of in accordance with current applicableregulations (2, 4).

"S

3-7

N, i.%

land Use

There are no current land use or zoning conflicts (3). No conflicts are antic-ipated for the development and operation of the National Test Facility (23).Expansion of the sevage treatment plant could encroach on a flood plain. Thisimpact can be mitigated through the use of standard flood control measures.

Visual Resources

The current visual landscape is a rolling agricultural grassland (23). TheNational Test Facility vould have an insignificant additional impact on thevisual resources because it vill be adjacent to an existing building (23).

Cultural Resources

No cultural resources have been identified on the facility (23); therefore,impacts are anticipated to be insignificant.

Noise

Due to the administrative and industrial nature of existing facilities onFalcon Air Force Station, impacts from construction and operation areanticipated to be insignificant (23).

Socioeconomics

Unemployment in El Paso County of 5.4 percent (8,800 persons) in 1984, and anadequate availability of housing, indicate that the socioeconomic impacts ofthe grovth resulting from construction and operation of the National TestFacility vould be insignificant (23).

The environmental consequences associated vith the construction and operationof the National Test Facility are mitigable by the measures described in the"National Test Facility Environmental Assessment" (23)i No significantenvironmental consequences have been identified associated vith the operationof the interim National Test Facility based on the "Request for EnvironmettalImpact Analysis" (control number AFSPC 86-1) (24, 25).

3.2 ENVIRONHENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF NO ACTION

If the no-action alternative is selected, no additional environmentalconsequences are anticipated. Concept Exploration vould continue at currentlystaffed facilities vith no changes in operations.

3.3 IRREVRSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE CONITMNTS OF RESOURCES

Development of the single BSTS candidate satellite through Demonstration/Validation stage vould result in irreversible and irretrievable commitment ofresources such as electronic components, various metallic and nonmetallicstructural materials, fuel, and labor. This commitment of resources is notdifferent from those necessary for many other aerospace research anddevelopment programs; it is similar to the activities that have been carriedout in previous aerospace programs over the past several years.

3-8

4. LIST OF PEPAR S

Highest Technical Area ofName Degree Expertise Responsibility

Allen, Gerald R. BA Earth Resources EnvironmentalCoordination

Bateman, Richard L. PhD Water Resources FacilityDescription

Bitner, Kelly A. BS Earth Resources EnvironmentalAnalysis

Brukner, Doris BS Earth Resources Facility -

Description

Carnes, George MSEE Electrial Project .1

Engineering Description

Chapline, Robert L., Jr. AA Business Management Facility ZDescription

Cogsvell, John C. KS/NBA Systems ProjectEngineering Description

Davis, Rodney J. PhD Environmental EnvironmentalScience Analysis

Eckstein, David BA Environmental FacilityHydrology Description

Enfield, Susan E. BA Technical Editing Editing

Englohart, Richard V. PhD Nuclear ProjectEngineering Description

Faust, John BA Physics ProjectDescription

Gale, Nathan PhD Socioeconomics FacilityDescription NCEnvironmental AAnalysis

Golden, Bruce L. MA Earth Resources TechnicalDirector

Gorenflo, Larry PhD Socioeconomics, Facility '*

Cultural Resources DescriptionEnvironmentalAnalysis

4-1 J

Highest Technical Area ofName Degree Expertise Responsibility

Hallahan, Ed HS Operations Research ProjectDescription

Hastings, Tom KS Resource EnvironmentalManagement Analysis

Hazelvood, Doug BS Environmental FacilityEngineering Description,

EnvironmentalAnalysis

Hemming, Villiam MSEE Systems ProjectEngineering Description

Higman, Sally L. MPI/MA Land Use, EnvironmentalSocioeconomics Analysis

Hokanson, Sarah A. KS Earth Resources FacilityT.Description

Jennings, Anne B. BS Earth Resources FacilityDescription

Jordan, Julie K. MPA Transportation Environmental .

Analysis

Joy, Edd V. BA Land Use ProjectDescriptionEnvironmentalAnalysis

Koerner, John MA Geography, EnvironmentalVisual Resources Analysis

Reviewer%

Lam, Robert BA Industrial Arts, Graphics N

Drafting

Messenger, Salinda MS Ecology FacilityDescription

Miller, Jim NS Earth Resources Reviewer

Milliken, Larry BS Earth Resources ProjectDescription 4

Korelan, Edward A. HS Earth Resources FacilityDescription

4-2

Highest Technical Area ofName Degree Expertise Responsibility

Morrison, Al MSEE, MPA Electrical ProjectEngineering, Public DescriptionAdministration

Havecky, Dave MS Vater Resource FacilityManagement Description

Niehaus, Robert D. PhD Socioeconomics FacilityDescription,EnvironmentalAnalysis

Rothenberg, Martha BA Technical Editing Editing

Schinner, James R. PhD Terrestrial EnvironmentalBiology Analysis

Schveitzer, Eric NURP Urban Planning, EnvironmentalUtilities Analysis,

EnvironmentalCoordinat ion

Septoff, Michael MS Air quality, EnvironmentalMeteorology, AnalysisNoise

''S

P55%

I.

4-3 5

5. PUSOS/AGENCIU CONTACTED

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

BSTS Program Office Launch Support Environmental

HO SD/CNB CoordinatorP.O. Box 92960 6555 ASTG/LFLos Angeles APS, CA 90009-2960 Cape Canaveral AFS, FL 32925-5000

SDI Environmental Planning Office Interim National Test FacilityHO SD/DE Environmental Planning OfficeP.O. Box 92960 BQ AFSPACECOM/DELos Angeles AFS, CA 90009-2960 Peterson AFB, CO 80914-5000

Consolidated Space Operations Center Arnold Engineering and Development N

HO SD/CLNC CenterP.O. Box 92960 Environmental Planning OfficeLos Angeles AFS, CA 90009-2960 AEDC/DE -

Arnold AFS, TN 37389-5000

Eastern Space and Missile CenterESMC/XR Air Force Satellite Control Facility ri"vPatrick AFB, FL 32925-5000 Environmental Coordinator

AFSCF/DEOnizuka AFS, CA 94088-3430

4'N

5.%'.

%." •

5-x ;'V.

6. REFERENCES

1. Air Force Magazine: USAF U.S. Almanac 1986. 69(5).

2. Dennary, Andy, Civil Engineering Department, Peterson Air Force Base, A

Colorado. 11 May 1987. Telephone conversation with Edvard A. Morelan.1

3. Dennary, Andy, Civil Engineering Department, Peterson Air Force Base,Colorado. 21 May 1987. Telephone conversation vith Dave Navecky.

4. Dennary, Andy, Civil Engineering Department, Peterson Air Force Base,Colorado. 23 June 1987. Telephone conversation vith Anne B. Jennings.

5. Guide to U.S. Air Force Bases at Home and Abroad. Air Force Magazine.May 1987. 70(5): 188-202.

6. Mason, Robert, Space Division, Los Angeles Air Force Station. 4 June1987. Telephone conversation with Rodney J. Davis.

7. Mason, Robert, Space Division, Los Angeles Air Force Station. 22 June1987. Telephone conversation with Doug Hazelvood.

8. Miller, Olin, Environmental and Control Planning. Patrick Air ForceBase, Florida. 12 May 1987. Telephone conversation with Sarah A.Hokanson.

9. Miller, Olin, Environmental and Control Planning, Patrick Air ForceBase, Florida. 26 May 1987. Telephone conversation with Doris Brukner.

10. Miller, Olin, Environmental and Control Planning, Patrick Air ForceBase, Florida. 18 June 1987. Telephone conversation with Doris Brukner.

11. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 1978. EnvironmentalImpact Statement, Space Shuttle Program.

12. Stone, Dave, Air Force Representative to NASA for Civil Engineering,Patrick Air Force Base. 13 May 1987. Telephone conversation with Sarah .

A, Dokanson.

13. Stone, David, Air Force Representative to NASA for Civil Engineering,Patrick Air Force Base, Florida. 14 May 1987. Telephone conversationwith Sarah A. Hokanson.

14. Stone, David, Air Force Representative to NASA for Civil Engineering,Patrick Air Force Base, Florida. 26 May 1987. Telephone conversationvith Doris Brukner.

15. Stone, David, Air Force Representative to NASA for Civil Engineering,Patrick Air Force Base, Florida. 3 June 1987. Telephone conversationvith Doris Brukner. A

6-1

1K wAWW W wu NUFWUW W-6 WU PC WWI WV WW

16. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1973. County andCity Data Book 1972: A Statistical Abstract Supplement. U.S.Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

17. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1978. County andCity Data Book, 1977. A Statistical Abstract Supplement. U.S.Government Printing Office, Vashington, D.C.

18. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1983. County andCity Data Book, 1983. A Statistical Abstract Supplement. U.S.Government Printing Office, Vashington, D.C.

19. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1986. Vest: 1984Population and 1983 Per Capita Income Estimates for Counties andIncorporated Places. Series P-26, No. 84-V-SC. U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Vashington, D.C.

20. U.S. Department of Defense, Strategic Defense Initiative Organization.1987. Report to the Congress on the Strategic Defense Initiative.

21. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1985. Supplementto Unemployment in States and Local Areas. U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Vashington, D.C.

22. U.S. Department of the Air Force. 1970. Eastern Test Range of the ,.Eastern Space and Missile Center. Prepared by the Public AffairsOffice, Eastern Space and Missile Center, Patrick Air Force Base,Florida.

23. U.S. Department of the Air Force, Electronic Systems Division. 1987.Strategic Defense Initiative National Test Bed Program. National TestFacility Environmental Assessment.

24. U.S. Department of the Air Force. 1981. Final Environmental ImpactStatement. Consolidated Space Operations Center. Environmental ImpactAnalysis Process.

25. U.S. Department of the Air Force, HQ Space Command, Peterson Air ForceBase, Colorado. 22 May 1987. Memo to Anne B. Jennings. Subject:Requested CATEX information.

26. U.S. Department of the Air Force. 1987. The Space Coast Velcomes You toPatrick Air Force Base, Florida. Published by Blake Publishing Company,a subsidiary of Southwestern Bell Media, Inc.

27. U.S. Department of the Air Force with National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration. From Sand to Moondust . . . a Narrative of CapeCanaveral, Then and Now.

28. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District,Florida. 1973. Draft Environmental Statement. Canaveral HarborExtension.

6-2

29. U.S. Space Command, 2d Space Wing, Peterson Air Force Base, Complex.%1987. FY 87 Status of Funds. Prepared by Cost Branch, Peterson AirForce Base, Colorado.

30. Vuest, Bill, URS Corporation, Electronic Systems Division, Hanscom Air N,

Force Base, Massachusetts. 26 Kay 1987. Telephone conversation vithAnne B. Jennings.

"-

6-

'N-

.-

p.

,.-

6-.

a"APPOIDIX A

TEST ACTIVITY D8SCRIPTIOIS

The Demonstration/Validation test activities have been divided into four cate-gories: analyses, simulations, component/assembly tests, and flight tests.

This Appendix describes in greater detail the simulations, component/assemblytests, and flight tests identified in Section 1.3.

SIMULATION TESTIN

Simulation testing of a physical entity (machine, system component, etc.) isaccomplished by developing a computer model of that entity. The model theninteracts with data representing physical stimuli to assess the entity'scapabilities in real-vorld conditions. A simulation involves writing andrunning computer programs, with possible interfaces to other systems or systemelements. No impacts on the physical environment are involved other than thecommitment of manpower and electrical energy involved in computer operations. X%

COKPONENT/ASSEMBLY TESTING

The basic concept of component/assk mbly testing is to control the physicalconditions in which the hardware item is tested. Tests are typically con-ducted in specialized environments, and data are collected regarding the per-formance of the hardware item in that environment. The scope of the tests mayrange from single microchip components up to major subassemblies. This sec-tion describes those special environments and the tests to be performed. -.

Space Environment Chamber

A space environment chamber simulates some or all of the characteristics ofspace (thermal, vacuum, radiation, etc.) in order to closely emulate the spaceenvironment in which the test object is designed to operate.

Nuclear Radiation Chambers

The object of a radiation chamber is to determine the detrimental effects ofvarious types of radiation. Radiation testing (other than that involvingnuclear explosions) can be accomplished by exposing materials to:

o Radiation from a research or test nuclear reactor

o A beta/gamma radioactive source, such as cobalt-60 or cesium-137, inan exposure chamber or pool

o Nuclear particles in an accelerator (Van de Graff, cyclotron, etc.)in a target room (requires very large power source)

o X rays from an x-ray machine (requires large power source).A

A-1

The specific device used vill depend on the type of radiation, energy, andintensity desired, the size of the object, and the availability of thefacility.

Anechoic Chamber

This "black box" is typically used in measuring antennae radiation patterns.(Anechoic chambers also exist for other parts of the electromagnetic and audiospectra.) The valls of the room are constructed of materials that absorbvirtually all the radiated energy vithout reflection, refraction, or reradi-ation. It sometimes requires special refrigeration equipment to prevent undueheating of the room's interior.

None of these facilities typically consumes large amounts of pover or otherutilities, or generates any hazardous vastes.

FLIGHT TESTIJG

The government normally establishes flight ranges to test specific type sys-tems from a dedicated facility. For the purpose of the Strategic DefenseInitiative, flight testing can include missiles in ballistic flight trajec-tories or tests vith objects in orbit.

Missile Range

Missile ranges consist of a launch area vith launch pads and associated con-trol and support facilities, a safety area around the launch area, and acontrolled land/sea/air/space area for flight and impact. A missile rangecomprises large areas of the earth's surface and include tracking, communi-cations and recovery facilities.

Orbit Range

Orbit ranges are an extension of missile ranges; hovever, additional trackingand communication sites are required to follov test vehicles in orbit. TheConsolidated Space Operations Center vill be the centralized facility for allspace vehicle tracking information.

A-

A-2

IDc

t~j I.,.

e

p

P2

b

i--' J .zz~~{ &iZ~K 4' . . . . . ... . .