Title : Installation-Lights-McMurdo Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : February 07, 1992 File : opp93059 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: February 7, 1992 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Installation of Lights at The Pass, McMurdo Station Antarctica) To: Files (S.7 - Environment) This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, proposed actions to install lighting to facilitate the processing of solid wastes at McMurdo Station, Antarctica, during the 1992 austral winter season. The Environmental Officer posed a set of questions relating to the proposed project, and to the potentially affected environment. These questions were responded to by the civilian support contractor's Field Engineer (Environmental) on February 5, 1992; the questions and responses are shown below: Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses GENERAL In accordance with current waste management practices construction debris generated at McMurdo Station is segregated and retrograded to the continental United States (CONUS). As part of this process construction debris is stored in an outdoor pile in the area known as "The Pass", located east of bulk fuel tank J-5. During the 1991-92 austral summer Antarctic Support Associates (ASA) Operations personnel have been processing (grinding) construction debris using a tub grinder and placing the densified debris into containers. These containers will be sent to CONUS via ship. About 45,000 cubic feet of wooden construction debris remains at The Pass as of January 24, 1992. As much of this as possible will be retrograded on the 1991-1992 season supply vessel; but, some is expected to remain at the station for retrograde on the 1992-1993 season supply vessel. In the past construction debris generated during the winter was stored without being processed until the following summer. To prevent a large amount of construction debris from accumulating it is proposed that grinding and containerizing operations continue during the 1992 austral winter. During these months lighting would be required in the area to safely accomplish this task. Therefore, installation of lights in The Pass area is proposed. 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? Installation of lighting in The Pass is proposed. Lighting will allow construction debris to continue to be densified and placed in containers for retrograde to CONUS, rather than stored in outdoor piles until the following summer. What alternatives to the proposed activity have the Program and the Contractor considered? The Program has considered three alternatives: 1) the proposed lighting installation, to be connected to an existing power supply, 2) installation of lights powered by a generator, and 3) ceasing operations after dark (April-August) (i.e., the "no action" alternative). Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered by the Program and the Contractor? Please explain how. 1. Impacts of the Proposed Alternative: The proposed alternative would involve a minimal amount of blasting to erect two lighting poles (approximate pole height of 35 feet) and install electrical conduit between the light poles and the nearest source of electricity. Installation of the light poles would require blasting two holes in the ground approximately five feet in depth and 2 feet in diameter. Although some portions of the conduit may be covered by berming fill up over the conduit, a trench must be blasted under the road [National Electric Code (NEC) code requires rigid steel conduit to be buried at least 2' under a road]. The environmental impacts of blasting include production of dust, noise and a shockwave from the actual blast. Blasting may also throw rocks significant distances. Blasting preparation requires drilling numerous holes, which requires operation of a diesel- powered generator. Other impacts associated with the proposed alternative include a small increase in the station lighting energy demand. Approximately 3 kilowatts of electricity would be required to power the lights. The load would consist of five 400-watt light fixtures and some convenience outlets in the warm-up shack. It is proposed to run the lights constantly because cold, high-pressure-sodium lights take a long time to start up or simply won't turn on in extremely cold temperatures. The lights will also add to the "light pollution" generated by McMurdo Station. That is, artificial light which makes it more difficult to clearly view the night sky. 2. Impacts of Installing Generator-powered Lights: By using a generator the need to blast under the road to place conduit is eliminated. Impacts from using a generator include fuel use and resulting air emissions. There is also a potential for fuel spills to occur. The potential for the system to fail due to generator mechanical problems or the inability to leave the lights on at all times is greater with this alternative. 3. Impacts of "No Action" Alternative: This alternative does not require installation of new structures and does not increase power use as the other alternatives do. However, if construction debris is allowed to accumulate over the Winter the potential for blowing debris escaping from the area increases. During very high winds large pieces of debris such as plywood may become airborne, presenting a safety hazard in addition to being a source of pollution. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how could these impacts be mitigated by the Program or the Contractor? The effects of blasting would be mitigated by following prudent blasting procedures. Blasting mats would be used to prevent loose rock from being thrown and to minimize dust and noise emissions. A large area surrounding the site would be blocked off to prevent vehicular or pedestrian traffic during blasting operations. Standard procedures also include notifying McMurdo Station and Scott Base personnel of the planned blasting activity in writing and using the INET radio system. The NSF Station Manager proposes to run the lights constantly to avoid problems associated with starting up cold lights. If possible a schedule for working in The Pass may be coordinated so that the lights would not have to be run constantly, weather allowing. If regrading any is required, water would be used to suppress dust emissions. Light pollution will be minimized by using directional light fixtures. Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered by the Program or the Contractor? Please explain how. Yes. The proposed activity will affect waste processing activities by reducing the amount of waste left to be processed during the summer. This may have a small effect on staffing requirements. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. Where would the proposed activity be located, specifically? The lights are to be installed to provide light to the construction waste storage area located at The Pass just east of bulk fuel storage tank J-5. See attached map. Have alternative locations been considered by the Program or the Contractor? If yes, which are they; if no, explain why. No alternative locations have been considered. The location of the proposed lights is dictated by the location of the construction debris storage area. 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the propos- ed activity be handled by the Program or the Contractor? After blasting and installation of the light poles and conduit is complete the disturbed areas will be regraded and re-compacted to blend in with the surrounding area. Undue aesthetic impacts will be prevented by maintaining the area around the proposed facility in a clean, uncluttered manner, including clearing construction debris. 4. Would the proposed activity have any other indirect impacts on the environment? If yes, what are they; if no, explain why none are expected. If blasting ejects rocks then indirect impacts such as fuel spills from a pipeline or tank punctured by falling rocks are possible. Because of the close proximity of bulk fuel storage tanks and fuel lines it is especially critical that escape of rocks during blasting be prevented. Drilling holes in preparation for blasting requires use of a generator and compressor. The potential for a fuel spill to occur is inherent in using generators. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. Construction debris is currently processed at the site. The proposed light installation would allow this work to continue during winter months. 6. Are the physical and environmental characteristics of the neighboring environment suitable for the proposed activity? If yes, explain why; if no, explain why. The site is characterized by a high degree of human activity and does not serve as habitat for Antarctic flora or fauna. Noisy activities such as densifying construction debris using a tub grinder occur frequently in the area. Therefore the site is environmentally suitable for the proposed activity. The subsurface characteristics of The Pass require use of blasting to install the light poles, whereas in some other locations fill could be removed to install the poles without blasting. For this reason the site is physically less than optimal. However, as long as the mitigating measures identified above are followed, the site is suitable. IMPACT AND POLLUTION POTENTIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: 7. How has protection of the environment and human health from unnecessary pollution or impact been considered for the proposed 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])? Human health would be protected by following standard safety measures during blasting and other activities related to the proposed lighting installation. The activity would not generate one-time wastes, and does not require use or storage of any hazardous substances. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. A temporary change in air quality at the site may occur during construction. Sources of air pollution include dust emissions due to blasting and regrading activities and emissions resulting from fuel combustion in the air compressor generator. Because the generator would only be used for a short period of time (one day) and only a small amount of fill is to be removed and regraded, the change in air quality would be expected to be temporary and minor. 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. Areas disturbed by light pole and conduit installation would be regraded so as not to interfere with the current drainage pattern. The proposed activity does not involve a discharge to water. 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. The proposed activity would affect waste management but not waste generation. Processing construction debris would prevent a backlog pile of debris forming over the winter. 11. Would the proposed activity change energy production or demand, personnel and life support, or transportation requirements at the site? If yes, how; if no, why. The proposed activity would increase energy demand by approximately three kilowatts. No increase in staffing is proposed to grind debris during the Winter. Transportation would not be affected. 12. Is the proposed activity expected to adversely affect scientific studies or locations of research interest (near and distant, in the short-term and in the long-term)? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The effect of the proposed activity has been discussed with the Manager, Laboratory Services, ASA Science Support Division, the Supervisor, Communications, and the McMurdo Station Science Technician. The scientific activities nearest the proposed location (Cosmic Ray Laboratory, Little House Laboratory, Theil Earth Sciences Laboratory, and T- Site) are not sensitive to the proposed activities. There are no seismological studies in the vicinity. An auroral photometry research project, located at Arrival Heights, takes full sky pictures in the visible spectrum. Although it is expected that the proposed lights will add to the general glow of McMurdo Station recorded by the project, the activity is not expected to have a significant adverse impact. 13. Would the proposed activity generate pollutants that might affect terrestrial, marine or freshwater ecosystems within the environs of the station or inland camp? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The proposed activity will temporarily create dust and noise. The affected area would be very localized and is already characterized by a high degree of human activity. There are no significant assemblages of Antarctic wildlife in the immediate vicinity. Therefore these emissions would not be expected to affect any ecosystems. 14. Does the site of the proposed activity serve as habitat for any significant assemblages of Antarctic wildlife (for example, mosses or lichens, or antarctic birds or marine mammals)? No. Wildlife in the vicinity of the proposed site has historically been limited to skuas. The site is already used for a variety of human activities, including vehicular and pedestrian traffic, storage of materials and construc- tion debris, and processing construction debris. Blasting has occurred in the area before to create level surfaces for fuel tanks and materials storage. Such activities have not had an evident impact on skuas. In addition, Program offi- cials have reported fewer sightings of skuas during the 1991-1992 season (probably due to the lack of openly avail- able waste food brought about by advances in the Program's enhanced management of wastes. HUMAN VALUES 15. Would he proposed activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? If yes, how; if no, why. No, this site is not listed in the NSF publication, HISTORIC GUIDE TO ROSS ISLAND, ANTARCTICA (Revised 1989). OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 16. What other environmental considerations may be potentially affected by the proposed activity at the proposed (or chosen) site? For example, have impacts associated with decommissioning of the activity been considered (and how). It is expected that the proposed lights would be left in place indefinitely. If the lights are no longer required for processing construction debris they would be left in place in case they may be needed for another activity requiring lighting in the future. Based on past practices and environmental considerations, it is likely that decom- missioning would consist of cutting the light poles off at ground level. The conduit and base of the poles would be left in place. Finding The Environmental Officer, after reviewing the information presented above, believes that the proposed activity poses neither potentially minor nor transitory impacts to the antarctic environment. There are, in fact, anticipated environmental benefits as year round solid waste processing would be enhanced. The contractor and Program are authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. Sidney Draggan Attachment Site Plan Map