FAA issues SpaceX a launch license, saying 75 mitigation requirements “have been met or will be met”
In June of 2022, The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) decided that any foreseeable environmental impact that could result from the SpaceX Starship Superheavy project in Boca Chica, Texas would not be enough to require a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIA).
Instead, the FAA issued a “mitigated finding” at that time that required SpaceX to make more than 75 changes in its plans before they could receive a license to perform the most powerful rocket blast in history.
Environmental advocates pointed to the proximity of the historically powerful SpaceX launches to local communities in the Rio Grande Valley, including Port Isabel, South Padre Island, sacred native tribe lands, federally protected lands, and federally protected endangered species as foundational reasons to require the much more rigorous look at potential impacts that a full EIA would represent.
The FAA disagreed.
This Friday, the FAA issued SpaceX the permission it needed in order to launch Starship Superheavy in what it called a “written re-evaluation” of the project.
From the FAA’s news release:
In the Written Re-Evaluation, the FAA concluded that the issuance of a vehicle operator license for Starship/Super Heavy operations conforms to the prior environmental documentation, that the data contained in the 2022 Programmatic Environmental Assessment remains substantially valid, that there are no significant environmental changes, and all pertinent conditions and requirements of the prior approval have been met or will be met in the current action. Therefore, the preparation of a supplemental or new environmental document is not necessary to support the Proposed Action.
No steak on Monday after copious weekend sizzle
People from all over the world arrived in Boca Chica throughout the weekend to witness what would have been a historic event. Texas Public Radio’s own Gaige Davila was on the scene to witness.
Alas, a “frozen pressurant valve” prevented the first full test launch of Starship Superheavy on Monday, with Elon Musk tweeting that SpaceX would try again “in a few days”.
SpaceX will of course continue its push to make their plans a reality, and environmental advocates continue to criticize what they believe is a lack of oversight by federal agencies to protect something more valuable in the Rio Grande Valley than venture capital.
Some SpaceX supporters seem to be misinterpreting what Friday’s FAA license means
With not much news other than the issuing of the launch license on Friday, I spent some of the weekend pouring through reactions from locals on social media.
One pattern is certainly emerging–some SpaceX supporters have gone from dismissing what they’ve perviously treated as a very unlikely risk, to now fully believing there are zero environmental concerns with the SpaceX project in Boca Chica as a result of the FAA’s latest move.
However, history teaches us that this is not the case. We’ve seen plenty of examples throughout the decades from the FAA approving risky and uncertain ventures to outright environmental disasters of NEPA-approved projects.
That is not to say that this will happen at SpaceX. Only that it would be to the public’s benefit to understand that any industrial project can present risks.
NEPA is the law and framework that the FAA used to study the acceptable environmental impacts of the Starship Superheavy project and the Starbase operations.
Cassini-Huygens’ risky business (1997)
The Cassini-Huygens NASA spacecraft was NEPA approved to blast-off from Earth with 72 pounds of radioactive plutonium-238 as its power source. The project, which sent a space probe to study Saturn, raised concerns with environmentalists and anti-nuclear advocates at the time.
In fact, an accident during the launch of the probe would have been catastrophic for life on the planet, had the radioactive material been released and spread by the blast.
The Cassini-Huygens mission was successful and stands as an example of a project approved through NEPA that nonetheless took a calculated risk in terms of its potential impact on the environment.
The largest oil spill in history was NEPA approved (2010)
The Deepwater Horizon was a floating oil drilling rig operating in the Gulf of Mexico under full NEPA approval. In 2010, an accidental methane explosion began a chain of events that resulted in the largest marine oil spill in history.
The incident caused extensive environmental and economic damage to the region, which it has never fully recovered from.
A myriad of marine life species including fish, birds, marine mammals, sea turtles, and others were adversely affected by the spill as their sensitive habitats were permanently damaged. As a result, the regional fishing industry along The Gulf suffered from widespread business closures as seafood stocks became contaminated. The tourism industry also saw massive losses as the public avoided the region after the accident.
Residents living near the affected areas who were exposed to hazardous chemicals from both the spill and the dispersants used to break up the oil have reported a wide range of chronic health problems since the disaster.
Prior to the establishment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970, no federal agency was required to assess the environmental impact of any projects it oversaw or carried out. You can learn more about NEPA at ProtectNEPA.org.
This is all to say we have a federal process in place to take a look at the environmental impact of these kinds of projects. However, there are some examples of projects that made the regulatory cut, but failed to avoid disaster.
