The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

A SpaceX environmental report concluded that booster landings in The Bahamas will have no lasting impact on marine life, air quality, or water pollution. However, activists had previously called for a separate report that has not yet been released.  

The Environmental Management Plan (EMP), released last Thursday, outlines SpaceX’s strategy for monitoring and mitigating environmental risks as the company prepares for 19 more Falcon 9 rocket booster landings in Exuma Sound.

It was released two days after The Bahamas became the first country outside the United States to host a SpaceX booster recovery, following calls for greater transparency about the project. The Davis administration also released an environment baseline assessment for the project last week.

According to the EMP, the booster’s return would not disturb the seafloor or disrupt marine ecosystems, as the designated landing area is an offshore deep-water zone with sandy seabeds and occasional seagrass meadows.

A marine traffic survey found low vessel activity in the area, reducing the likelihood of conflicts with commercial or recreational boats.

In the worst-case scenario, where an anomaly causes the booster to break apart, up to 300 gallons of liquid propellant could be released into the ocean. However, SpaceX deemed this a negligible hazard, stating that most of the fuel would either combust, disperse into the atmosphere, or dissolve quickly in the water.

The EMP also forecasted that a sonic boom similar to a clap of thunder may be heard for less than a second in parts of The Bahamas during landings. It noted that noise exposure for marine life would be brief and that the booster’s landing burn, expected to generate 100-110 decibels, would not exceed safe exposure limits for humans or animals.

To address concerns about marine debris, SpaceX said a recovery team would salvage any floating wreckage. If some pieces cannot be retrieved, they will be safely sunk at sea.

SpaceX also ruled out concerns about air pollution, stating that its liquid-fueled engines produce only carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water vapour, and particulates, with no significant nitrogen oxides or sulphur emissions. Unlike solid rocket motors, which create harmful exhaust byproducts, the Falcon 9’s kerosene-based fuel was described as cleaner-burning.

While the EMP provides a detailed assessment of environmental impacts and mitigation plans, it is not a substitute for a full EIA, a process that typically involves broader stakeholder consultation, independent reviews, and a deeper analysis of long-term risks.

Environmental groups had previously called for the release of an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA), and with 19 more booster recoveries planned, it remains to be seen whether those calls will continue.

In a letter to Tourism Minister Chester Cooper before the EMP’s release, organisations such as the Bahamas Reef Environmental Educational Foundation (BREEF), Friends of the Environment, and EarthCare requested the publication of an EIA, economic impact studies, and details on government oversight of the project.

The Environmental Baseline Statement (EBS), submitted last March by BRON Ltd. on behalf of SpaceX, was also referenced in the EMP. However, an EBS differs from an EIA, as it compiles existing environmental data rather than assessing long-term risks and proposing extensive mitigation strategies.