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 HE ALTH 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 op erates 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 summe r, 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 e nvironment. 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 f or 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 labora tory where unique environmental phenomenaexist. 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 resou rces 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 acti on) 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 initiat ive) 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

A lternative 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 U SAP 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 co mbustible 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 retrog rading, 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 posea 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 disp osal 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 wast ewater 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 spi lls 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 disposa l 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
Quarte rs 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

pop ulations.
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 allow ed. 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 Safe ty, 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 stati ons. 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 soundsolid 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

un der 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

t hat 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 s ources, 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 a nd 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. Ad ditional 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 environmenta l 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

A lternative 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 thecontinent . 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 consid ered, 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 p rograms 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

t errestrial 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 envi ronmental 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 sign ificant 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

en vironmental 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.

P roposed mitigative measures would:

Establish a USAP

- wide materials and solid waste managementplanning process directed towards interim use of incineration

and a goal of possible total retrograde of solid wastes in the long term.

U se 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 comprehen sive 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 Prote cted 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 d ischarging 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 investiga tion 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 operat ions and mitigation of impacts to ecosystems.

Provide qualified staff at McMurdo Station to develop and manage environmental projects and programs.