Title : Final SEIS, U.S. Antarctic Prog.

Type : Antarctic EAM

NSF Org: OD / OPP

Date : October 01, 1991

File : opp93033

 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS

 OFFICE OF SAFETY, ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH

 202/357-7766

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FOR THE U.S. ANTARCTIC PROGRAM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 October 1991

National Science Foundation

Washington, D.C. 20550

PURPOSE

 The National Science Foundation (NSF) has prepared this Final

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on the U.S.

Antarctic Program (USAP) in accordance with Executive Order 12114,

Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, and with

provisions of the Antarctic Treaty. The Final SEIS updates the

1980 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and

assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of proposed

program actions. A Draft SEIS was made available in January 1991

for public and agency comment. This Final SEIS incorporates

changes to the Draft SEIS made in response to those comments and

includes an appendix containing those comments and USAP's

responses.

USAP FACILITIES AND ACTIVITIES

 The USAP currently operates three permanent year-round

stations in Antarctica (McMurdo, Amundsen-Scott South Pole, and

Palmer stations). In addition, aircraft refueling facilities and

field camps are established at sites on the continent and along the

coast each austral summer, from late October through late January.

USAP scientists may also conduct research at stations operated by

other countries. The USAP charters a number of vessels for

research and for supplying coastal stations. The USAP operates in

an extremely harsh environment. McMurdo and the South Pole

stations are inaccessible during the period from late February

through August and early October, respectively. Although Palmer

Station is accessible throughout the year, USAP winter personnel

there may be isolated for several months at a time.

 The USAP has a major, national role in scientific research and

investigation. This antarctic research program is firmly founded

on the use of the Antarctic Continent and its surrounding oceans as

a special, natural laboratory where unique environmental phenomena
exist. Some of these phenomena are important components of, or

represent special indicators of, global processes.

ALTERNATIVES

 Four alternatives are being considered by NSF for continuing

and implementing environmental protection measures for USAP

facilities and their operations. Safety and health will continue

to be overriding priorities for all USAP activities under each of

the alternatives. The alternatives differ mostly in the proportion

of USAP resources devoted to environmental protection. An

alternative of not continuing the USAP is not evaluated in this

Final SEIS because specific directives from the Executive Branch

require NSF to maintain an antarctic program.

 Alternative 1 (no further action) would continue the program

at the level of environmental protection in place during the

baseline 1989þ90 austral summer season. Alternative 2 [complete

the Safety, Environment, and Health (SEH) initiative] would

continue and complete the five-year SEH initiative begun in Fiscal

Year 1990 and would use U.S. environmental laws and regulations as

guidelines for environmental management. Alternative 3 (complete

the SEH initiative and streamline USAP activities) would have the

same environmental protection goals as Alternative 2 and, in

addition, would enhance prevention of environmental impacts by

consolidating activities and reducing the number of support

personnel. Alternative 4 (increase environmental protection

measures beyond those of the SEH initiative) would complete the SEH

initiative, and would make environmental protection and the

continued safety and health of personnel the overriding

considerations for all USAP activities. Alternative 3 is NSF's

preferred alternative.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Alternative 1þNo Further Action

 Materials and solid and hazardous waste management practices

under all alternatives pose minor risks to the environment. Under

Alternative 1, input of materials brought to Antarctica would

continue to increase if the USAP grows. Impacts would include

using more of the very limited available land for storage,

processing, and disposal of wastes. Impacts would be most apparent

at McMurdo Station where more storage yards and warehouses would be

needed. Open burning of combustible garbage at McMurdo and

Williams Field would be conducted under this alternative, as would

dumping at McMurdo, the South Pole, and some support bases. Total

removal from Antarctica (retrograde) of solid wastes would continue

at Palmer, and retrograding, dumping, and some burning would occur

at support bases and field camps. At McMurdo, impacts of solid and

hazardous waste management include potential land contamination and

scattering of wind-blown debris from operation of the dump and

inadequate storage and handling facilities. Disposal of solid

waste in snow pits at the South Pole and some remote camps and

support bases would continue, resulting in future impacts when

moving ice carries these wastes to the ocean. Inadequate storage

and handling of hazardous wastes at Palmer would continue to pose
a potential for releases. Hazardous wastes would continue to be

transported from Antarctica and disposed of in the United States in

compliance with U.S. laws and regulations. Existing solid waste

disposal methods appear to pose no immediate threats to human

health or the environment.

 Impacts to air and water quality from USAP operations would

continue at current levels. Air quality modeling indicates that

even with short-term peak emissions from open burning of solid

waste, all air quality standards are met at McMurdo Station, at

least at distances of 2 km or greater from the station (and

probably within 2 km). Atmospheric emissions at the South Pole and

Palmer Stations would continue to be less than those at McMurdo and

within air quality standards. Water quality impacts would result

from wastewater and surface runoff discharges, fuel spills, and

past waste disposal practices. Water quality modeling studies

indicate that when the submerged wastewater discharge pipe is

completed at McMurdo, the discharge would continue to have minor

local effects. The effects of wastewater discharges from Palmer

Station and sites that discharge to snow pits have not been

quantified, but are expected to be minor. Although unquantified,

impacts of surface water runoff may include deposition of

contaminants and sediment offshore. The occurrence of minor fuel

spills has been relatively frequent in the past because of

inadequate spill prevention facilities; such spills would continue

to occur under this alternative.

 Impacts to marine and terrestrial ecosystems include

collection of biological specimens, unnatural food sources, effects

on marine life of wastewater discharges, contamination from past

waste disposal practices and fuel spills, and effects of tourist

visits on ecological resources. Current operations have not caused

widespread or significant changes in natural ecosystems, although

small parts of McMurdo Sound near McMurdo Station (i.e., Winter

Quarters Bay)] appear to be significantly affected by past USAP

practices. Other areas have been affected by non-USAP fuel spills.

Taking of specimens for scientific research would continue at

current levels and should have no significant impacts on species

populations.

 Remedial actions would be taken at some deactivated sites

where past U.S. activities may have left solid wastes, petroleum,

or other potential contaminants. Cleanup of these sites under

Alternative 1 would be undertaken as opportunity allowed.

Environmental requirements would continue to have only minor

effects on the ability to conduct scientific research programs.

Environmental effects of USAP operations may cause a few sites to

be unavailable for research.

Alternative 2þComplete the Safety, Environment, and Health

Initiative

 A materials and solid and hazardous waste management study

would be completed under this alternative. Its recommendations

would be considered, and if appropriate, implemented at McMurdo and

the South Pole stations. The amount of materials brought to the

continent would level off as the source reduction program becomes

increasingly effective. Increased limitations on import of

materials and separation, recycling, and retrograding of wastes

would be emphasized. Under this alternative, environmentally sound
solid waste management practices would be continued or implemented

at McMurdo Station. Increased retrograding from the South Pole

would result in less waste being disposed of in snow pits. Total

retrograding would continue at other stations and field camps.

Improved hazardous waste management at all stations would reduce

the risk of spills and subsequent contamination. All hazardous

wastes from field camps would be returned, or if retrograding is

impossible, documentation of locations where such wastes are left

would allow retrieval. Impacts to air and water quality from USAP

operations would be somewhat reduced from those for Alternative 1.

Peak atmospheric emissions from open burning would be eliminated

under this alternative, but no other major reductions in air

emissions would occur. Wastewater and surface runoff discharges

and their effects would be monitored. Wastewater treatment would

be implemented only if a biological monitoring program indicates

that significant degradation of the marine environment is

occurring. Improved fuel spill prevention facilities and equipment

would help to reduce spills and their effects.

 Impacts to marine and terrestrial ecosystems from fuel spills,

unnatural food sources, wastewater discharges, and past disposal

practices would be reduced. No significant impacts would occur

from taking of specimens for research. Protection of natural

habitats would be improved by continued review and development of

USAP policies and procedures on tourist visits.

 Planning for remedial actions at deactivated sites and dumps

would include systematic investigations, prioritization of remedial

actions, and implementation of cleanups at those sites where the

costs are justified. Additional environmental protection

requirements would be placed on science programs, but these

restrictions should not significantly reduce the ability to conduct

research. Because some logistic support resources would be

diverted to implement environmental improvements, somewhat less

logistic support would be available for the science program.

Alternative 3þComplete the Safety, Environment, and Health

Initiative and Streamline USAP Activities

 The impacts of this alternative are similar to those of

Alternative 2, but the number of logistics and support personnel

deployed to Antarctica would be reduced as the program is

streamlined to increase efficiency; these personnel reductions

would be significant at McMurdo Station. In the short term,

reductions in support personnel would be masked to some extent by

increases in support staff to accomplish SEH tasks. Under this

alternative, materials brought to Antarctica and wastes generated

at USAP facilities would be reduced, resulting in less impact on

land and water resources. Long-term reductions in station

populations would reduce the impacts of air emissions and

wastewater discharges at McMurdo Station in comparison to

Alternative 2.

Alternative 4þIncrease Environmental Protection Measures Beyond

Those of the Safety, Environment, and Health Initiative

 Of the alternatives considered, materials and solid and

hazardous waste management practices implemented under Alternative

4 would result in the greatest decrease of materials brought to the
continent. This alternative would further reduce potential impacts

by allowing no solid waste disposal on the continent. Because this

alternative may require more support staff to clean up and restore

deactivated sites and dumps than the other alternatives considered,

it would have little initial impact in decreasing personnel. In

the longer term, however, the numbers of people would decrease

significantly, and materials needed to support the USAP, and the

wastes generated, would decline. Reductions in science programs

would further reduce hazardous waste generation, but cleanup of

deactivated sites could generate considerable volumes of

potentially hazardous wastes to be retrograded.

 Impacts to air and water quality would be significantly

reduced under this alternative over the long term as activities are

reduced. Implementation of wastewater treatment would reduce

discharge of conventional pollutants from wastewater by at least 85

percent; negligible water quality impacts would occur. Surface

water runoff would be treated if required to avoid impacts, and

additional fuel spill prevention and cleanup measures would make

minor but expensive reductions in the risk of spills and their

impacts.

 Impacts to marine and terrestrial ecosystems would be reduced.

Impacts to marine communities would be minimized by use of primary

and secondary wastewater treatment and by minimization of fuel

spill risks. Taking of biological specimens would be reduced as

the science program declines, and protection of marine and

terrestrial habitats from impacts of tourism would be maximized by

greatly restricting visits.

 Remedial actions would be undertaken where feasible at

deactivated sites unless cleanup would pose unacceptable risks to

safety, health or the environment. These cleanups would require

increased energy consumption and logistics support and a

concomitant decrease in logistic and budgetary support for

scientific research programs.

 Significant reductions in science programs could result from

(1) strict environmental requirements for any projects supported

and (2) diversion of support (funds, staff, facilities, and

transportation) from research activities to environmental

protection and cleanup actions. Implementation of Alternative 4

could also lead to significant reductions in research on globally

important environmental issues. Alternative 4 is not the preferred

alternative because it would significantly affect the science

program and provide little gain in environmental protection.

MITIGATION

 The USAP proposes to implement Alternative 3 with mitigative

measures designed to ensure that environmental impacts will be

avoided or minimized. Implementation of the preferred alternative

would complete the SEH initiative and would enhance prevention of

environmental impacts by consolidating activities and reducing the

number of support personnel. Already, USAP has taken significant

steps to implement some of the SEH measures, and the proposed

action would continue full implementation of this initiative.

Proposed mitigative measures would:

 Establish a USAP-wide materials and solid waste management
 planning process directed towards interim use of incineration

 and a goal of possible total retrograde of solid wastes in the

 long term.

 Use U.S. regulations as management guidelines for handling

 hazardous wastes at USAP facilities.

 Develop plans to identify and implement appropriate fuel and

 hazardous material spill prevention measures.

 Develop and implement a comprehensive land-use planning

 program that would minimize environmental impacts; reduce

 interference between science and logistics; increase

 efficiency in energy consumption and the use of land, labor

 and materials; and protect Specially Protected Areas, Sites of

 Special Scientific Interest, and historic monuments.

 Develop and promulgate additional USAP policies on tourism and

 a tourism management plan.

 Adopt monitoring requirements of the Clean Water Act for

 stations discharging to the ocean.

 Improve energy conservation measures at USAP stations.

 Institute a systematic site identification and investigation

 program to determine cleanup priorities at potential remedial

 action sites, including investigation of historic values.

 Initiate monitoring programs, including basic research

 projects, that identify key ecological parameters prone to

 ecosystem stress, include appropriate baseline research, and

 focus on effects of Antarctic operations and mitigation of

 impacts to ecosystems.

 Provide qualified staff at McMurdo Station to develop and

 manage environmental projects and programs.