Title : Supplmnt. EAM to Temp. Incinerator EAM Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : May 29, 1991 File : opp93030 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF SAFETY, ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: May 29, 1991 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Supplemental Environmental Action Memorandum (Installation of Temporary Incinerator at McMurdo Station, Antarctica) To: Files (S.7 - Environment) (S.7.1 - Hazardous Wastes) REF: Environmental Action Memorandum (Installation of Temporary Incinerator at McMurdo Station, Antarctica); Dated March 19, 1991. Background Near the close of the 1990-1991 austral summer research season in Antarctica, the Senior U.S. Representative, Antarctica, announced a set of decisions on waste reduction and waste management for McMurdo Station's operations (attached). The decisions included calls for elimination of open burning and cessation of operation of the Fortress Rocks landfill at McMurdo Station. The decisions were made as part of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) continuing five-year Safety, Environment and Health Initiative. During the antarctic winter period, which began March 1, 1991, with fewer U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) personnel on station, less waste of all types is generated making the successful initiation of such waste management and clean up at McMurdo easier and more effective. Originally, plans called for a phasing out of the open burning at Fortress Rocks to be completed by the 1991-1992 summer season, that begins in October 1991. This would be coupled with USAP's continued and increasing removal of McMurdo's solid and liquid wastes from the continent. The need to properly dispose of accumulations of surface debris including asbestos-containing materials, however, has accelerated this action to a 1991 austral winter beginning. The decision on February 8, 1991 to close the landfill necessitated contingency planning and materials staging so that there would be options to adequately handle waste food, food- contaminated wastes, and selected domestic, combustible wastes during the 1991 winter period. During the entire austral winter (between end-February and end-August annually) and part of the austral summer (between end-August and end-January annually) McMurdo Station is completely isolated from ship transport by sea ice. Also, there is an inability to land aircraft during the winter period. Air transport is possible for a brief period annually during the last weeks of August (known as Winter Fly In); and, air transport is normally available annually between the start of October and end-February. In light of the approaching isolation of the 1991 winter period, materials for a temporary incinerator were transported to McMurdo Station on the last in-coming flights of the 1990-1991 season. These shipments were made to provide contingency for disposal of waste food, food-contaminated wastes, and selected domestic, combustible wastes during the isolated winter period. The USAP is now building a temporary incinerator on-site to serve for the remainder of this winter season with plans for a more efficient, commercial incinerator to be installed during the 1991-1992 season. This environmental action memorandum focuses on USAP's environmental considerations for alternatives to, site selection for, and installation and operation of, a temporary incinerator while it is being fabricated. The USAP is examining the tempo- rary incinerator as an interim measure to the disposal of waste food, food-contaminated wastes, and selected domestic, combust- ible wastes. As USAP's efforts to identify workable alternatives to the disposal of all solid wastes continues, for the present situation at McMurdo Station, USAP believes that in the interim incineration of waste food, food-contaminated wastes, and selected domestic, combustible wastes offers the most environ- mentally-compatible near-term solution. In the future, as other options become available and prove workable, USAP recognizes that it may have the option to cease all waste burning at the station. Purpose of the Environmental Action Memorandum NSF's Division of Polar Programs has prepared this environmental action memorandum to provide the cognizant officials of all USAP components, and interested parties, with an understanding of environmental issues pertinent to the proposed action. The assessment was conducted pursuant to Executive Order 12114, and Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting Recommendation XIV-2 (Human impact on the antarctic environment: Environmental impact assessment). The assessment addresses the environmental implica- tions of initiating operation of a temporary, two-chambered incinerator at McMurdo Station to dispose of waste food, food- contaminated wastes, and selected domestic, combustible wastes in a manner appropriate to the context of isolated winter operation in Antarctica. This assessment examines whether this action will significantly affect the quality of the environment at that location. Impacts on Station Operations The decisions noted in the Background section above placed immediate restrictions on the disposal of all solid wastes generated, or stored, at the station. Activation of an alternate outdoor waste disposal site was not authorized. To date, the last waste burn at the Fortress Rocks landfill occurred on March 2, 1991. Waste Management and Separation Protocols. The success of the waste management and cleanup efforts rest primarily with individuals. To provide guidance on appropriate waste-related actions, and to assure proper disposal of wastes, station-wide waste management and separation policies and protocols were, and are still being, established and implemented along with programs of personnel re-education, and protocol quality control and enforcement. The protocols established five distinct categories of solid waste: 1) burnable food wastes, food-contaminated wastes and selected domestic, combustible wastes; 2) scrap metal; 3) construction- and demolition-related debris and scrap; 4) non-specific burnables (e.g., cardboard, scrap lumber and broken pallets); and, 5) recyclable cardboard. Category 1 would be processed through the temporary incinerator during winterover (some cardboard would be added to assist adequate combustion of food-related wastes normally having high water content). At the close of the 1990-1991 season at end-February 1991, there were 52 flat racks at McMurdo Station. As of April 16, 1991: 13 of the flat racks were full of demolition debris and scrap metal; 5 were in the process of being filled with demolition debris and scrap metal; 6 were full of food wastes, food-contam- inated wastes and selected domestic, combustible wastes; and, 28 were in the process of being assembled for use. Currently, Category 1 wastes are being placed in plastic bags, and stored in flat racks at the Fortress Rocks landfill area. Given that: 1) there are now 261 winter personnel at McMurdo Station; and, 2) estimates of Category 1 waste production indicate about 5.0 pounds per person per day (Reed and Sletten 1989, Pearson 1991); it is estimated that there are about 117,450 pounds of Category 1 wastes accumulated, to date, at the Station. Using the same production and population estimates, accumulations of Category 1 wastes during the winter period are expected to add an additional 120,060 pounds (for a March 2, 1991, to August 31, 1991, total of 237,510 pounds of Category 1 wastes). Near the end of August, with Winter Fly In, station population is expected to double (approximately 432 personnel may be on station). This population is expected to produce about 64,800 additional pounds of Category 1 wastes until the station opens formally for the austral summer season at the start of October 1991. Adding this increment of Category 1 wastes to that accumulated during the winter period gives an estimated on- station total of 302,310 pounds. During the time from May 2, 1991 until about October 1, 1991, these wastes will be subjected to potential wind dispersion away from the outdoor storage site; and, with increasing warm austral summer tempera- tures, scavenging antarctic birds will likely exacerbate dispersion. This would interfere with the normal eating habits of antarctic birds. Aside from waste food, food-contaminated wastes, and selected domestic, combustible wastes, all other solid waste at McMurdo Station has been held in a very limited number of appropriate containers (i.e., construction wastes are being held in flat rack containers; recyclable solid wastes from other sites are being held in triwall cardboard containers) since implementation of the Directive. Overall, the impacts on station operation involve: 1) total shutdown of landfill operations; 2) accumulation of solid wastes including waste food, food-contaminated wastes, and selected domestic, combustible wastes; and 3) planning for fabrication, procurement, or lease of waste shredders, balers and incinera- tors. The civilian contractor has been tasked to identify and gather pertinent quantitative information to prepare bid solicitations for a variety of remedial services. Argonne National Laboratory was tasked to research specifications for a commercially-available, more efficient interim incinerator for installation early in the 1991-1992 summer season. Assessment of the potential environmental impacts of this commercial interim incinerator is part of an overall assessment of actions to be undertaken during the 1991-1992 season. Consideration of Alternatives The Following alternatives have been considered by the USAP in addressing disposal of waste food, food-contaminated wastes, and selected domestic, combustible wastes generated at McMurdo Station during the 1991 winter season: o Alternative I. No action. This alternative would allow waste food, food-contaminated wastes, and selected domestic, combustible wastes to accumulate at the station. o Alternative II. Incinerate in a temporary incinerator built on-site. The proposed action. o Alternative III. Disposal of waste food, food-contaminated wastes, and selected domestic, combustible wastes through the wastewater system at McMurdo Station. o Alternative IV. Ice Staging or Ocean Dumping of waste food, food-contaminated wastes, and selected domestic, combustible wastes accumulated at McMurdo Station. o Alternative V: Storage, Handling and Retrograde on the Annual Supply Ship. o Alternative VI: Utilize the two-chambered incinerator now in operation at New Zealand's Scott Base. The Affected Environment McMurdo Station Land Use McMurdo Station (77o51žS, 166o40žE) is the major support station for the USAP. The station is located on Ross Island, Antarctica. The U.S. Navy began constructing McMurdo Station in 1955. It was intended to be solely a logistics base for the United States' expeditionary presence at the time. NSF assumed the management of McMurdo in 1970, and the station has evolved from a temporary logistics base into an established, year-round station respons- ible for both logistics and support of antarctic scientific research. Currently, the station consists of more than 100 structures, extensive storage yards, an ice pier, an annual sea- ice runway, a skiway, a helicopter landing area, and other ancillary structures and features (e.g., communications antennae and roads). In recent years (e.g., during the 1988ž89 austral summer season), the average population at McMurdo ranged from about 1150 in November to about 600 in February. The austral winter (late February through early October) population at McMurdo ranges between 100 and 270 people, depending on construction and maintenance operations and science support activities. During the current 1991 winter period there are 261 personnel inhabiting McMurdo Station. Utilities. Power at McMurdo is supplied by six diesel-electric generators each having capacities of 800 to 900 kVa. The water plant at McMurdo consists of two desalination units, each rated at 150,000 L/d (40,000 gal/d) ž a total capacity of 300,000 L/d (80,000 gal/d). During the 1980ž81 season, a solid waste management area, the "Fortress Rocks Landfill", was built to replace a dump site along the shore of Winter Quarters Bay. The Fortress Rock Landfill (Fig. 1) is located along the road to Arrival Heights and is surrounded on two sides by a chain-link fence to control access and help keep loose materials from blowing away. Before the Directive noted above, waste food, food-contaminated wastes Figure 1. McMurdo Station Facilities and such selected combustible wastes as napkins, packing materials and scrap lumber were transported to the landfill daily or as need arose. To the degree feasible, plastic was removed from this waste by hand before burning. Combustibles at the dump were soaked with waste fuel (fuel tainted by other petroleum products or by water) and were burned every 10 to 14 days. The ash remaining after a burn was scraped into a depression and was covered with fill. Scrap metal and other waste materials that were not burned or recycled were and are, as yet, sorted and stored for return to the United States each year on the annual cargo ship. About 400 vehicles other than aircraft are used at McMurdo. These include such diesel-powered, heavy equipment as front-end loaders, caterpillar tractors, cranes, and scrapers. There are trucks, vans, tracked-vehicles, a hovercraft, and snowmobiles. The numbers of vehicles vary from year to year as program requirements change. Operations. Operations at McMurdo occur throughout the year. During the winter months, however, activities are greatly curtailed, the station population is reduced to a minimum, and no flight operations occur except for a mid-winter airdrop of mail and supplies (i.e., no landings).Resupply operations by sea begin in early January with the arrival of a U.S. Coast Guard ice- breaker to open a channel for resupply ships (one for cargo and one for fuel) and to provide transportation and support for science parties, and other operations. Current Plans The USAP is making major changes in its materials and solid and hazardous waste management system. Several studies on solid and hazardous waste management have been conducted recently (e.g., Reed and Sletten 1989) and others have been initiated. For example, a major study of McMurdo's waste management system is being conducted by Argonne National Laboratory to evaluate a wide range of issues including: 1) the development of a system to track all materials brought into the Antarctic by the USAP; 2) development of hazardous materials and waste storage areas; and, 3) the feasibility of installing a commercial interim incinerator at McMurdo Station. Climate, Weather, and Air Quality McMurdo Station is located on a southward-projecting peninsula of Ross Island, which is on the edge of the Ross Ice Shelf. Due to its location between the frigid interior of Antarctica and the more temperate open ocean, its weather is affected by cold air drainage flowing off the continent and ice shelf and by strong cyclones from the Ross and Amundsen Seas. Mean monthly temperatures at McMurdo range from ž3ųC (26ųF) in December and January to ž28ųC (ž18ųF) in August. Extreme maximum and minimum temperatures of 7ųC (42ųF) and ž51ųC (ž59ųF), respectively, were recorded during a 13-year period at McMurdo. The mean annual temperature is approximately ž18ųC (0ųF). Wind speeds at McMurdo may vary substantially in a short period but are quite persistent in direction, as shown by the wind rose in Fig. 2. The persistence of east winds at McMurdo appears to be primarily a function of the local terrain channeling air around Ross Island (O'Connor and Bromwich 1988; Schwerdtfeger 1984). Peak wind gusts are generally around 20 m/s (45 mph) in the summer months and 35 m/s (78 mph) in the winter months. Figure 2. Wind Rose for McMurdo Station. Based on 10 Years of Data (1973-1982) and Showing Predominant Easterly Winds. Although strong winds (over 100 mph) are relatively common, so are light winds; for example, over 13% of the observations for the 10-year period from 1973 through 1982 were reported as calm. The average annual wind speed at McMurdo is 5.27 m/s (11.8 mph). Precipitation occurs only as snowfall, at an average rate of 17.4 cm (6.84 in.) of water equivalent annually; and, ice fog is common throughout the year. Exposed areas of the station, not covered by snow or ice, exhibit the generation of fugitive dust. Vehicle traffic on unpaved roads, helicopter landings and takeoffs at unpaved pads, and wind erosion of areas used for construction fill are sources of dust. Ambient levels of particulates in the atmosphere are not moni- tored, so it is not known if levels are in excess of standards set to protect public health and welfare. Ecological Resources Marine ecosystems. The ocean waters at McMurdo Station can be described as cold, nutrient rich, with naturally low dissolved oxygen concentrations. Runoff occurs on the few days in mid- summer when air temperatures and sunlight are sufficient to melt snow. Drainage can include runoff from the Fortress Rocks landfill area and the hazardous waste storage yard, although generally drainage has been routed around these potential contamination sources. The subsurface geology and hydrology at McMurdo Station have not been characterized well enough to determine where contaminants or hazardous substances may accumulate. McMurdo Sound has dramatic spatial variations in primary production, current patterns, and benthic marine populations. Although conditions vary widely across the Sound, regional conditions are stable. For example, because the eastern part of the Sound near McMurdo Station has southward-moving currents that are rich in nutrients, the benthic populations that occur here are extremely diverse with infaunal densities among the highest in the world. Benthic populations are the most likely to be affected by man's activity at McMurdo. Marine mammals and birds. Ross Island and adjacent McMurdo Sound provide breeding sites for such marine mammals and bird species as Weddell seals, Adelie penguins, and Emperor penguins. About 1500 adult Weddell Seals use Erebus Bay each year to raise pups (Testa and Siniff 1987). Each year about 150,000 pairs of Adelie penguins and 36,000 pairs of Emperor penguins use this area for breeding (Wilson 1983). Weddell seals and migratory skuas are the most conspicuous wildlife in the immediate vicinity of McMurdo Station. Terrestrial ecosystems. Because more than 97% of Antarctica's 14-million-km2 (5.4-million-mile2) land mass is covered by ice, exposed rock and other substrate available to support terrestrial ecosystems is limited. Surface materials in the immediate vicinity of McMurdo Station have been disturbed by human activ- ity. Little vegetation exists in the immediate vicinity of McMurdo Station because of surface disturbance. A study of plant communities has recognized six plant associations in the Ross Island area, ranging from lichens and mosses to algae (Longton 1973). The terrestrial fauna of the Ross Island area are invertebrates; no terrestrial vertebrates are native to the area. The invertebrate groups range from protozoans to insects and mites. Historic Sites and Monuments Historic sites and monuments are recognized as part of the continent's scenic, aesthetic, and historic values. Historic sites and monuments likely to be affected by the USAP are in the vicinity of McMurdo Station on Ross Island. Sites and monuments within walking distance of McMurdo include Scott's "Discovery" Hut and Vince's Cross on Hut Point, the Richard E. Byrd Memorial at McMurdo Station, and the Polar Party Cross on Observation Hill. Other Ross Island historic sites include the huts at Cape Royds, Cape Evans, and Cape Crozier and the cross on Wind Vane Hill, all accessible by helicopter from McMurdo. Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) The most heavily protected areas in Antarctica are SPAs. Antarctic Treaty member nations designate SPAs to "preserve their unique natural ecological system". Also, Antarctic Treaty members have designated SSSIs, for which management plans are prepared. These areas are protected if there is "a demonstrable risk of interference" with scientific research or if the site is of "exceptional scientific interest". Environmental Considerations Solid Waste Management Solid waste management activities required for both logistics and the support of science result in significant use of land for buildings and outdoor storage at McMurdo Station. Space is needed to store waste generated at McMurdo, the South Pole, and field camps before retrograde the United States or New Zealand. Increases in solid wastes generated at McMurdo since 1985ž86 reflects in part increases in construction activity for a new Science, Engineering and Technology Center, for dormitories, and for other facilities projects. Increases in waste materials retrograded from McMurdo since 1988ž89 reflect an increased emphasis on recycling and removal from Antarctica. The ratio of the weight of materials removed from Antarctica to that brought to the continent each year has varied from 20% in 1981ž82 to 50% in 1980ž81. During the past three seasons, the ratios have increased to about 40%, reflecting an increased emphasis on retrograding. Recycled and retrograded materials. Many kinds of wastes generated at McMurdo are returned to the U.S. for recycling or disposal. Scrap metal is returned and recycled. Such large scrap items as vehicles from which usable parts have been removed are returned. Starting in the 1989ž90 season, source separation was initiated to segregate plastics, glass, and metals for return and potential recycling. Collection bins for these wastes have been are placed at convenient locations at McMurdo Station. Compactors have been purchased to improve the efficiency of transporting waste plastics and aluminum cans. Problems with retrograding waste materials for recycling or disposal have been identified. Food-contaminated wastes included in the materials retrograded would have to be taken to a U.S. Department of Agriculturežapproved incinerator for disposal upon returning to the U.S., a considerable expense. To avoid this problem, food cans, jars, and other containers would have to be washed at McMurdo, which in turn would require energy to produce hot water. Another problem would be identification of markets for these materials. Economically-feasible markets do not exist for antarctic waste materials other than metals, used engine oil and clean cardboard; nonetheless, legitimate receivers for such wastes are being sought in the United States, New Zealand, and other countries. At the present time, potentially recyclable materials for which a market is not available must be disposed of as solid waste upon return to the U.S. Materials returned to the U.S. for recycling or disposal reduce the impacts of the USAP on the antarctic environment. However, retrograding these materials does require use of such limited resources as support staff to package, store, load, and unload the materials; land areas for staging the materials prior to shipment; additional transportation costs; potential environ- mental, safety and health risks from the additional handling and transportation; and packing materials for return shipments, which have disposal impacts at their final destinations. Nonhazardous solid wastes. In the past, combustible solid wastes at McMurdo that were not removed for recycling or retrograding were disposed of at Fortress Rocks landfill. These materials included waste food and food-contaminated wastes from the galley, waste paper and garbage from dormitory and recreation buildings, such construction wastes as scrap wood, and used packing materials. A study of solid waste production (Reed and Sletten 1989) reported that during the austral summer: (1) production of food-related garbage taken to the dump averaged about 3800 pounds per day and 4600 cubic feet per day; and (2) per-capita produc- tion of landfilled garbage was about 5 pounds per day and 5 cubic feet per day. As these average and average-per-capita production estimates were made before the current source segregation and recycling programs were instituted, they may overestimate current production. Waste food, food-contaminated waste and selected domestic, combustible waste at McMurdo Station were recently estimated (Pearson 1991) at any where from about 5.0 to about 7.0 pounds per day per person. Table 1 clearly demonstrates that these combustible wastes, if incinerated, would lead to lower emissions of combustion products than would open burning. A small incinerator was installed at McMurdo in 1970, but was not large enough to handle the quantities of waste produced; its use was abandoned after 2 years (Reed and Sletten 1989). It should be noted that New Zealand incinerates its waste food, food- contaminated waste and other domestic, combustible wastes. The USAP considered utilizing the small, two-chambered incinerator at New Zealand's Scott Base about two miles from McMurdo Station. Again, the capacity of this device and its efficiency were considered inadequate for the quantity of wastes produced at McMurdo. In the past, food wastes from the galley were passed through grinders into the wastewater system, but these grinders are no longer in service. Plans call for their re-installation. Environmental impacts of current disposal methods for combustible wastes include the use of land for the storage and handling, the use of land for ash disposal, atmospheric emissions from burning, attraction of South Polar skuas to the uncovered food wastes at the dump during the austral summer, wind-blown garbage, and accumulated ash and residual materials that may be a source of contamination. Information on the levels of selected contam- inants at the landfill are now being determined by Argonne National Laboratory. Recently curtailed landfill operations consumed energy in several ways. The transport of dumpsters to the dump is expensive as the dumpsters are much heavier than their contents. The fuel used to ignite the dump, even though unsuitable for use in vehicles or aircraft, could be used for other purposes either at McMurdo or in the U.S. In addition, many of the wastes currently burned (e.g., paper and wood) might be used as fuels if appropriate burners were available, thereby replacing the use of some fossil fuel. The aesthetic impacts of burning and landfilling are important impacts of existing combustible solid waste disposal. Air emissions and wind-blown garbage are visible and suggest poor waste management practices, even though actual environmental effects are minor. Air Quality Natural, Ambient Air Constituents. It is important to note that other major air pollutant sources not controlled by the USAP can affect air quality in the vicinity of McMurdo Station. McMurdo Station shares Ross Island with an active volcano. Kyle and Meeker (1990) demonstrated that SO2 emissions declined from 230 Mg/day (507,062.6 pounds per day or 185,077,849.0 pounds per year) in 1983 to 25 Mg/day (55,115.5 pounds per day or 20,117157.5 pounds per year) and then increased from 16 Mg/day (35,273.9 pounds per day or 12,874,980.8 pounds per year) in 1985 to 51 Mg/day (112,435.6 pounds per day or 41,039,001.3 pounds per year) in 1987. In 1983, inferred HCl and HF emissions from the volcano were 1200 Mg/day (2,645,544 pounds per day or 965,623,560.0 pounds per year) and 500 Mg/day (1,102,310.0 pounds per day or 402,343,150.0 pounds per year), respectively. Table 1 shows a comparison of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and hydrogen chloride (HCl) estimated emissions from Mount Erebus, open burning at McMurdo, and proposed incineration at McMurdo. That is about 2% of the Erebus total. TABLE 1 Comparison of Estimated SO2 and HCl Emissions (Thousands of Pounds per Year) žÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄž Compound S02 HCl Mt. Erebusa 1983-185,078 - 20,177 1985- 12,875 1987- 41,039 Avg.- 64,792 965,623 Open Burnb 1200 Incinerat.c 1.3 0.34 žÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄž a Kyle and Meeker 1990 b Pearson 1991 c NSF 1990 In 1986, Meeker (1988) estimated emissions of about 11 tons/d of sulfur, about 40 times greater than the estimated total daily SO2 emissions for McMurdo Station given in Table 2 (assuming that the annual average pollutant emissions are distributed during a 120 day year). TABLE 2 Estimated Annual Air Pollutant Emissions at McMurdo Station Anthropogenic Sources. NSF (1990) noted that emissions of atmospheric pollutants at or near McMurdo Station result from such sources as boilers, furnaces, space heaters, electric generators, motor vehicle engines, burning of solid waste, fugitive dust, petroleum storage tank vapors, aircraft opera- tions, and ships. Quantitative estimates of air pollutant emissions are provided in Table 2 for the above sources with the exception of sporadic ship operations and fugitive dust emis- sions. These estimates were made with emission factor data from AP-42 (USEPA 1985a and 1985b) for each of the source types in Table 2, except for aircraft operations. Table 2 estimated emissions of fixed-wing aircraft are based on data that give amounts for the landing-takeoff cycle for differ- ent aircraft (Seitchek 1985) and represent only those that occur on the ground and during takeoff and climbout and approach and landing. Main air pollutants emitted by the above are nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2, collectively referred to as NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbons (HC), and particulate matter under 10 microns in diameter (PM-10). The PM-10 emission estimates in Table 2 are expected to be conservative, as total suspended particulate (TSP) matter emission factors were used to generate the estimates. Although such other trace pollutants as metals would also be emitted by some of these activities, their levels in fuels is highly dependent on the characteristics of the parent crude oil. From these data and extrapolations, open burning at the McMurdo dump is estimated to be responsible for relatively small fractions of the total annual pollutant emissions (less than 15% for any one pollutant) at McMurdo. Fugitive dust generation at McMurdo Station results from earthmoving operations, helicopter operations, and vehicle traffic (especially tracked vehicles) over unpaved roads and exposed substrate. Because the amounts of dust generated by these activities are difficult to model and have not been measured, they are not estimated here. Preliminary Incinerator Emissions Estimates. More recent draft work, conducted by Argonne National Laboratory (Pearson 1991) has attempted to compare potential environmental impacts of a new Incinerator Facility at McMurdo Station to those of other local sources. Preliminary, draft data indicates that the Facility would discharge less than 1.5% of the particulate NOx, CO2 and acid gas that is currently discharged from building space heaters, motor vehicles, and electrical generation and potable water production facilities. Table 3 compares emissions from such sources as well as the net increase in individual pollutants that would accrue from incinerator technologies recommended to the USAP by Argonne National Laboratory in their draft report (Pearson 1991). The analysis, focused on impacts to human health) indicated that pollutants released from vehicles and space heaters should be of most concern as their emissions are released close to ground level (in environs where personnel live and work). The electri- cal generation and potable water production facilities, perceived to be the largest sources of risk before the study, were shown to present little risk to community health as their discharges were concentrated in plumes carried out over the sea ice of McMurdo Sound. TABLE 3 Comparison of Sources of Products of Combustion at McMurdo Station (Thousands of Pounds per Year) žÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄž Compound Discharged CO2 H2O SOx NOx Part/HC HCl Electric Generation 27,207 9,069 17.1 111.6 10.6 >1.0 Water Distrib. 14,867 5,775 9.5 9.3 2.6 >0.5 Space Heating 1,460 1,732 2.9 2.8 1.4 >0.1 Surface Vehicles 6,311 2,478 .14 15.2 11.2 >0.01 Total Exist. 52,847 19,054 29.6 38.9 25.1 >1.6 Waste Incin. 609 394 1.3 .18 .62 .34 % Incre. 1.15 2.07 4.39 0.46 2.47 <21.25 žÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄž From: Pearson (1991-Draft Report) Assessment of the Location and Potential impacts of the Temporary Incinerator On March 11, 1991, the civilian contractor's Environmentalist concluded an assessment aimed at disclosing the potential impacts of the temporary incinerator. Questions based on environmental impact criteria had been posed by the Environmental Officer and included land use, pollution potential (impacts to environmental resources and biota), and human environmental values. Responses to the questions follow: LAND USE 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? NSF intends to install a temporary incinerator for winter 1991 operations which will handle less than 250 pounds per hour of waste food, food-contaminated wastes, and selected domestic, combustible waste. Construction of this indoor incinerator follows Universal Building Code (UBC) specif- ications. All non-burnable solid waste will be stored in a limited number of containers for handling and retrograde during the 1991-1992 summer season. 2. What alternatives has the contractor considered? o Shutting down all activity and remove all personnel before start of the 1991 winter period. This would be the only way to prevent generation of wastes normally burned or otherwise handled at the landfill. This alternative was not acceptable due to the amount of work to be completed during the winter season. o Storing all wastes over the winter season to be disposed of next austral summer. This would require the use of 75 flat racks for solid wastes (other than waste food, food- contaminated wastes, and selected domestic, combustible wastes) as determined by Antarctic Support Associate's Waste Management Specialist. Currently, there are not enough flat racks to handle this amount of waste, nor is there sufficient indoor space to store it (to avoid trash blowing about McMurdo Station). o Continued open burning of wastes at the Fortress Rock dump. This was not acceptable due to the presence of asbestos-contaminated materials at the landfill. o Burning winter season trash at another outdoor McMurdo location. This approach was not approved in the Directive. o Storing all wastes for subsequent retrograde. 3. What is the specific location of the proposed activity? Building 340 on the outskirts of McMurdo. 4. What alternative locations has the contractor considered? o Building 185 was originally chosen to house the incinera- tor. This site was rejected because of objections by McMurdo's Fire Marshall. The building is located next to a flammable storage area and has a wooden floor. o Buildings 340, 341 and 342 were then assessed for housing the incinerator. Of the three, Building 340 was chosen because it has a gravel floor and is downwind from the other nearby buildings; and, it is upwind from the center of town. Also, the Fire Marshall also agreed to this location. 5. Will aesthetic impacts of the area be handled? If so, how? Aesthetic aspects have not been directly addressed. Place- ment of the incinerator indoors is expected to improve (or, at least, not degrade) the overall aspect of McMurdo Station. 6. Will the activity have any other indirect impacts on the environment? No other indirect impacts are expected. Plans called for sensors (for incinerator stack temperature and carbon monoxide concentration). It was impossible, however, to procure and ship these sensors before the station closed for winterover. 7. Will the activity change the traditional use of the chosen site? Yes. The site has been used as cold storage by NSFA Public Works. Public Works will move the material presently stored in Building 340 to Building 185. Building 185 has been used to store tires and the hovercraft during the winter. These items will be moved outside. 8. Are the physical or environmental characteristics of the land suitable for the proposed activity? Yes. POLLUTION 9. Has protection of the environment and human health from unnecessary pollution been considered for the activity (includes such considerations as pollution abatement or mitigation, and waste management [e.g., of noise, dust, fuel loss, disposition of one-time-use materials, construction wastes])? The purpose of constructing and using an incinerator at McMurdo Station is to avoid using the landfill thereby precluding or reducing exposure of personnel to hazardous materials and eliminating open burning. Generally, incineration will produce less toxic air pollutants than open burning through controlled combustion at high temperatures. 10. Will the activity change ambient air quality at the site? Yes. Incineration of combustible waste should actually improve the ambient air quality during burning by reducing the amount of toxic air pollutants released to the atmosphere as compared to open burning. The incinerator will have a secondary burning chamber which will allow for higher temperatures to more completely burn the waste materials. 11. Will the activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the site? No. Water quality at the site will not be changed. 12. Will the activity change waste generation or management at the site? Yes. All activity at the site will be devoted to temporary (1991 season winterover) waste management. The building will not only house the incinerator, but will also house a waste bailer and compactor. 13. Will the activity change energy production or demand, personnel and life support, or transportation requirements at the site? Presently, there is no electricity supplied to Building 340. A line will need to be run to the building to supply electri- city for lights and to operate the bailer and compactor. Operating the incinerator will also increase the demand for fuel. Winter transportation to the site will increase, however, the overall amount of transportation within McMurdo will decrease due to the closer proximity to town. 14. Is the activity expected to adversely affect scientific studies or locations of research interest (near and distant, short-term and long-term)? No. 15. Will the activity generate pollutants that might affect terrestrial, marine or freshwater ecosystems within the environs of the station or inland camp? The activity will generate pollutants. The amount of pollutants will significantly decrease, however, when compared to those produced during open burning. 16. Does the site of the activity serve as habitat for any significant assemblages of antarctic wildlife? No. The site of activity is within McMurdo Station and no significant assemblages of antarctic wildlife (including substrate microorganisms, mosses or lichens) are known to be present. HUMAN VALUES 17. Will the activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? No. 18. What other environmental concerns are potentially affected by the activity at the site? Building 340 does not have a fire suppression system and does not meet UBC standards concerning this. It would be advisable to have a fire suppression system for the trash staging area and for the chimney. The temporary nature of this installation coupled with its import for disposition of wastes that could affect human health justifies its use under the circumstances. Specifications for Temporary Incinerator Designer: Mr. Mike Papula, Mechanical Engineer, Antarctic Support Associates. Size of Incinerator: Primary Chamber - 4' x 4' x 8' Secondary Chamber - 4' x 4' x 11' Total Height - 12.5' Size of Incinerator with Support Structure: 12'w x 19'l x 17'h Type of Brick: Refractory Firebrick. New and used firebrick purchased in New Zealand. Firebrick is capable of withstanding a temperature of approximately 5,000ųF. Fuel Type / Use Rate: JP-8 / approximately 6.5 gallons per hour. Expected Maximum Temperature Generated: Approximately 1,500ųF Wastestream Constituents to be Burnt: waste food, food- contaminated waste and selected domestic, combustible waste, cardboard Expected Volume of Wastes to be Incinerated Winter 1991 Use Only: 1300 pounds per day; 250 pounds per hour; 6-8 hours per day. Frequency of Incinerator Use: 6 days per week; 6-8 hours per day The figures attached to this Environmental Action Memorandum show the overall character of the temporary incinerator. Assessment of Alternatives Alternative I. No action. This alternative would allow waste food, food-contaminated wastes, and selected domestic, combust- ible wastes to accumulate at the station. Estimates has shown anywhere from about 5.0 to about 7.0 pounds per day per person of waste food, food-contaminated waste and selected domestic, com- bustible waste generated at McMurdo Station. These estimates were made during the 1988-1989 and 1990-1991 austral summer seasons. If used to estimate the amount of such wastes that would accumulate during the 1991 austral winter, they provide an estimated total of about 237,510 pounds of Category 1 wastes (if accumulation during Winter Fly In is considered, the total increases to 302,310 pounds. USAP considered this level of accumulation unacceptable from environmental as well as safety and human health concerns. Alternative II. Incinerate in a temporary incinerator built on- site. The proposed action. It must be recognized that other natural, major air pollutant sources not controlled by the USAP can affect air quality in the vicinity of McMurdo Station. At this document's section where air quality aspects are considered, it is noted that the active volcano (Mount Erebus) is a signif- icant, if not overwhelming, source of air medium constituents identical to those associated with incineration. For example, Table 1 shows that on average Mount Erebus emits about 64,792 thousand pounds of SO2 per year while incineration, as it would be practiced at McMurdo Station would contribute only 1.3 thousand pounds per year (that is about 2% of the Erebus total). The USAP believes that Alternative II is the preferred one. Wastes to be incinerated have been maintained separate from other solid wastes. This precludes introduction of waste materials into the incinerator that may promote emission of unnecessary levels of toxic trace metals or products associated with the burning of plastics. Adoption of this alternative will preclude the use of valuable space on the Annual Supply Ship (for the return of more hazardous, regulated waste materials) as well as provide cost savings, in terms of ship fuel use. For example, if the accumulating wastes were returned to the U.S. as regulated waste compliant with U.S. Department of Agriculture ordinances, appropriate shipping containers would have to be procured and brought to McMurdo Station on the next Annual Supply Ship (to arrive by at least February 1992); and, the contained wastes would have to be transferred to a compliant establishment upon arrival at a U.S. port for disposal. USAP judges the amount of waste handling required to accomplish that approach to be unacceptable for the estimated 1,000,000 pounds of waste food, food-contaminated wastes, and selected domestic, combustible wastes that would accumulate before arrival of the Annual Supply Ship. Alternative III. This alternative calls for the disposal of waste food, food-contaminated wastes, and selected domestic, combustible wastes through the wastewater system at McMurdo Station. It is expected that Biological Oxygen Demand and Total Suspended Solids loadings in McMurdo Station's wastewater effluent could increase by from 30% to 40% if such wastes were added to the station's sewage system (Steven Railsback, Oak Ridge National Laboratory - personal communication). Such increases would be expected to reduce local oxygen concentrations of, and increase the size of the area affected by, sewage effluents alone. The USAP considered these consequences to be unacceptable in light of the naturally low dissolved oxygen concentrations characteristic of McMurdo Sound. Alternative IV. Alternative would allow Ice Staging or Ocean Dumping of waste food, food-contaminated wastes, and selected domestic, combustible wastes accumulated at McMurdo Station. The USAP has adopted a prohibition against such practices, making this alternative unacceptable. Alternative V: This alternative would involve storage, handling and retrograde of the accumulating waste food, food-contaminated wastes, and selected domestic, combustible wastes on the Annual Supply Ship. The Annual Supply Ship for the 1991-1992 season would arrive at McMurdo Station, at least, by the beginning of February 1992. By that time, station population would have reached its highest point, and amounts of accumulating wastes would have increased dramatically. This alternative would add 615,000 pounds to the already accumulated 302,310 pounds. There would then be about 917,310 pounds of waste food, food-contam- inated wastes, and selected domestic, combustible wastes awaiting retrograde. A singular problem arises with this alternative. During 1989, an informal review (including consultation with cognizant Federal agency officials) of the status of solid waste materials retrograde was initiated to identify unexpected barriers to removal of a range of solid wastes to the U.S. Significantly, it was found that for the types of wastes to be burnt in the tempo- rary incinerator (i.e., waste food, food-contaminated wastes, and selected domestic, combustible wastes), there are stringent U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations that virtually preclude importing such waste into the United States if it is not properly contained. For such wastes now on station during the 1991 winter period, this option is not available, as there: 1) are no supplies of appropriate containers (e.g., leak-proof waste barrels, garbage cans, cardboard boxes, or other types of containers) to package almost 1,000,000 pounds of waste food, food-contaminated wastes, and selected domestic, combustible wastes; 2) is neither adequate nor appropriate storage space even if such containers were available; 3) are no facilities for autoclaving, microwaving or otherwise making sterile this amount of waste. Return of this amount of waste that could otherwise be disposed in an environ- mentally-compatible manner through incineration also would overtax space limitations on the Annual Supply Ship for other more hazardous materials. Alternative VI: This alternative would make use of the two- chambered incinerator now in use at New Zealand's Scott Base. This base is about two miles from McMurdo Station. The USAP believed that the efficiency of this incinerator as well as its capacity would be inadequate for the quantity of wastes produced at McMurdo. FINDING In light of: 1) the need to adequately dispose of waste food, food-contaminated wastes and selected domestic wastes during the 1991 winter period; 2) the need to curtail access to the Fortress Rocks landfill area until the first phase of remediation efforts begin during the 1991-1992 season; and, 3) the readily apparent environmental benefications of the temporary incinerator when compared to both open burning and natural emissions to the atmosphere by Mount Erebus, the Environmental Officer believes that the proposed action is justified. In addition, the process of incineration (albeit with a temporary device constructed on- site) is expected to lessen the potential for environmental impacts associated with open burning at McMurdo Station. The assessment and implementation of this incineration option is one step in the evolutionary process towards establishment of a comprehensive materials and waste management program. It is instructive to inspect comments made by Richard Laws (Laws 1991) on the need to recognize the issue of scale when assessing potential damage to the vast ecosystem that is Antarctica. The Environmental Officer recommends, therefore, that the construction and use of a temporary incinerator be approved: for use until an interim commercial device, assessed to be environmentally-compatible, is emplaced at McMurdo Station. REFERENCES Kyle, P. H. and K. Meeker. 1990. Emission rates of sulfur dioxide, trace gases and metals from Mount Erebus, Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters 17(12):2125-2128. Laws, R. 1991. Talking Point: Unacceptable threats to antarctic science. New Scientist (No. 1762; 30 March 1991) page 4. Longton, R. E. 1973. A classification of terrestrial vegetation near McMurdo Sound, continental Antarctica. Canadian Journal of Botany 51:2339ž2346. National Science Foundation. 1990. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the U.S. Antarctic Program. December 1990. Washington, DC. O'Connor, W. P., and D. H. Bromwich, 1988. Surface Airflow Around Windless Bight, Ross Island, Antarctica. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 114:917ž938. Reed, S. C., and R. S. Sletten. 1989. Waste Management Practices of the United States Antarctic Program. Special Report 89-3, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire. Schwerdtfeger, W. 1984. Weather and Climate of the Antarctic. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., New York, NY. Testa, J. W. and D. B. Siniff. 1987. Population dynamics of Wedell seals (Leptonychotes weddelli) in McMurdo Sound, Antarc- tica. Ecological Monographs 57(2):149ž165. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1985a. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, 4th Ed. EPA Publication No. AP-42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1985b. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 2: Mobil Sources, 4th Ed. EPA Publication No. AP-42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Wilson, G. J. 1983. Distribution and Abundance of Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic Penguins: A Synthesis of Current Knowledge. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, Cambridge, England. 46 pp.