Title  : Earth Fill Materials-McMurdo
Type   : Antarctic EAM
NSF Org: OD / OPP
Date   : December 01, 1992
File   : opp93091


                                       DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS
                                        OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
                                                     202/357-7766

MEMORANDUM

   Date:  December 1, 1992

   From:  Environmental Officer, DPP

Subject:  Environmental Action Memorandum (Collection of Earth
            Fill Materials at McMurdo Station During the
            1992-1993 Season)

     To:  Safety and Health Officer, DPP
          Facilities Engineering Projects Manager, DPP
          Environmental Engineer, DPP
          Associate Manager (DOD), DPP
          Commander, Naval Support Force Antarctica
          Environmentalist, ASA

   REFs: Safety, Environment and Health Program Policy
         Memorandum 90-2.  October 1, 1990.  Authorization and
         Reporting Procedures for, Gathering and Use of Fill and
         Associated Activity, at McMurdo Station, Antarctica.

         Environmental Action Memorandum (Blasting for, and
         Placement of, Fill Rock at McMurdo Station, Antarctica
         During the 1990-91 Season), October 2, 1990.

         Memorandum, Subject: Review of "Environmental
         Assessment for Collection (and Placement) of Earth Fill
         Material."  November 17, 1990.

         Environmental Action Memorandum (Construction of
         Secondary Containment Around McMurdo Station's Bulk
         Fuel Storage Tanks), October 13, 1992.

         Initial Environmental Evaluation for the Proposed
         Replacement, Operation, and Decommissioning of Ice
         Wharves at McMurdo Station, Antarctica, May 23, 1992.

         Environmental Action Memorandum (Improvements to Scott
         Base Road), September 15, 1992.

This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and
location of, proposed actions to collect earth fill materials
from borrow areas in the vicinity of McMurdo Station, Antarctica
during the 1992-1993 austral summer season.  The Environmental
Officer posed a set of questions relating to the proposed
actions, and to the potentially affected environment.  These
questions were responded to by Antarctic Support Associates,
Inc.'s (ASA) Environmental Engineer, C. Andrews; Fleet
Supervisor, C. Hanson; Construction Coordinator, J. Rafal; and
Director of Engineering, C. Martin on November 20, 1992.  Back-
ground information about the proposed actions as well as the
questions and responses are shown below:


Background


The U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) has developed a policy, and
implementing procedures, to minimize the potential environmental
and aesthetic impacts associated with gathering of local fill.
The policy recognizes that the collection and use of local
antarctic fill materials for use in construction and other
purposes poses potential environmental and aesthetic impacts and
may be controversial.  Nonetheless, the USAP recognizes that
there is a genuine need for such material in construction and
other purposes and believes that the collection and use of this
natural antarctic resource can be managed with the goal of
minimizing such impacts.

The policy's goal is being achieved through:  1) a system for
considering, authorizing and reporting all instances of fill
gathering (including such activities as use of explosives to
facilitate fill gathering, and grading); 2) evaluation and
utilization of other materials, approaches or technologies that
can lead to minimization of fill gathering; and, 3) collection
and maintenance of information on collection of fill and
associated activities at McMurdo Station.

This Environmental Action Memorandum (EAM) is intended to
document how requirements of the policy are being met in light of
the need for fill material at McMurdo Station during the 1992-93
season.  Many of the specific proposed uses of fill material have
been addressed in extant Environmental Action Memoranda (see
References above).


         Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses


GENERAL


 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity?

    The purpose of the activity is to collect fill material for
    use in various projects in and around McMurdo Station.  Fill
    is to be collected by three methods: 1) scraping the top few
    centimeters at a time from the ground surface within an
    approved area to collect small rock (fines), 2) blasting and
    screening rock in a quarrying area to collect larger rock
    and fines, and 3) picking up existing large, loose rocks, in
    a third area.

    The projects requiring fill material are listed in Table 1
    along with the quantity of fill required by each project.
    In particular, collection of loose rock in the rock
    gathering area shown on the attached site plan is proposed
    to provide high-strength rock for use at the sewer outfall
    quay to reduce annual erosion and maintenance of the quay.

       What alternatives to the proposed activity have the
       Program and the Contractor considered?

       Alternatives considered include the proposed activity, do
       nothing, and alternative methods for generating some or
       all of the fill material, such as generating fines by
       blasting and crushing rather than dragging ground and
       hillside surfaces.

       Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered
       by the Program and the Contractor?  Please explain how.

       Yes.  The potential impacts of the proposed alternative
       include:

       1)  Generation of such air pollutants as dust (i.e.,
           particulate matter) and products of combustion during
           blasting, scraping, transport, and placement of fill;

       2)  Noise generation due to blasting and heavy vehicle
           traffic;

       3)  Alteration of natural or current land formations;
           this includes both the physical topography and the
           appearance, since the color of recently exposed rock
           differs from previously exposed rock.  Assuming the
           area where fines are gathered covers roughly 4.8
           hectares, an average of 15 centimeters (depth) of
           material would be removed.  Assuming general fill
           (i.e., no grade specification) is generated by
           blasting, and the blasting area covers 0.2 hectares,
           approximately 3.3 meters of material would be removed
           by blasting.

       4)  Potential personnel safety impacts relating to
           blasting and working with heavy equipment on a steep
           slope (in some cases vehicles have lost traction and
           slid for a distance down a hill being worked);

       5)  Scraping for fines, an activity that requires heavy
           vehicles to work for extended periods on a slope such
           that the engine is not properly lubricated, generally
           increases the amount of vehicle maintenance required;
           and

       6)  Stray rocks thrown during blasting have the potential
           to cause harm to people or structures (e.g., puncture
           nearby fuel lines or tanks).

       The impacts of generating all fill material by blasting,
       crushing and screening have also been considered.  This
       alternative (a quarrying and crushing system) would
       eliminate the need to scrape for fines.  The impacts of
       fill collection would be more localized to one, smaller
       area (a quarry).  Under this alternative, impacts
       numbered 4 and 5 above (relating to use of heavy vehicles
       on a slope) would be alleviated.  However, there are a
       number of impacts specific to operating crushing
       equipment.  These include significant noise and dust
       generation as well as safety issues.  Noise could be
       mitigated by placing the crushing equipment in a location
       where a natural earth barrier would minimize noise
       impacts outside the immediate area.  The capital cost of
       purchasing rock crushing equipment relative to the
       benefits must also be considered.

       If no action is taken (i.e., no fill is collected), the
       projects listed in Table 1 could not be completed as
       designed or proposed.  In many or all cases the projects
       could not be accomplished if local fill is not provided.

       Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts,
       how would these impacts be mitigated by the Program or
       the Contractor?

       The impacts would be mitigated as follows:

       1)  The Contractor has minimized the amount of fill
           required for various projects, and would continue to
           search for alternatives that minimize fill
           requirements.  For example, the Contractor considered
           using retaining walls to form portions of the
           secondary containment berms around existing bulk fuel
           storage tanks.  The size of the bulk fuel tank berms
           would contain 110% of the tank capacity, but are not
           unnecessarily large.  The fines used for road
           surfacing, known as grey fines, have been selected
           because of their resistance to erosion (see
           Environmental Action Memorandum dated January 10,
           1991).  Also, some fill material that may be
           generated by proposed road work would be reused in
           other locations;

       2)  Dust generation would be minimized by using water
           where feasible to suppress dust emissions;

       3)  Emission of combustion products and noise due to
           vehicles would be minimized by maintaining vehicles
           in good operating condition;

       4)  The impact of altering natural land formations would
           be mitigated by regrading the blasting and scraping
           areas to as close to a natural topography as
           possible.  This would be done at the end of the
           1992-93 austral summer season in the scraping area.
           The blasting area would be restored to natural
           appearing slopes after it has been determined that
           the site would no longer be used as a quarry.

       5)  Personnel safety concerns would be addressed by
           following applicable Institute of Makers of
           Explosives and U.S. Department of Transportation
           regulations for blasting.  Personnel using vehicles
           would be required to adhere to safe vehicle operating
           procedures.

       In addition to the specific actions listed above,
       environmental monitoring information related to bio-
       logical, chemical and physical parameters that may be
       indicative of fill gathering impacts would be collected
       as required by USAP's policy memorandum noted above.
       Such monitoring would include measurements gathered from
       the ambient air quality monitoring system installed by
       Idaho National Engineering Laboratories (T-325).  Also,
       the Contractor's Safety Environment and Health Division
       personnel would review the potential to collect
       information regarding impacts by assessing soil samples
       from areas where fill is collected as proposed during the
       1992-93 season, areas disturbed by earth moving in past
       years, and undisturbed areas.  The Crary Science and
       Engineering Center's Environmental Monitoring and
       Enforcement Laboratory would be used as appropriate for
       these purposes.

       The Contractor has established a computerized database
       for recording information regarding fill collection and
       placement activities during the 1992-93 season.  Informa-
       tion recorded will include the date, quantity of fill
       moved, source location, and project.
       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.  As noted above the proposed activity requires
       considerable use of vehicles, sometimes under unusually
       harsh conditions (e.g., working on the hill, transporting
       maximum weight loads).  This causes an increase in
       vehicle maintenance hours and decreases the amount of
       vehicle life available for other work.  However, fill
       gathering is an activity that occurs annually and has
       been factored into the vehicle planning and purchasing
       process.  The Contractor believes, therefore, that the
       need to obtain fill material justifies these indirect
       costs.


LAND USE AND PLANNING

 2. Where would the proposed activity be located, specifically?

    See attached site plan.

    Fines (roughly 7,600 cubic meters) would be produced by
    scraping two previously-approved areas: 1) on the hillside
    north of "downtown" McMurdo Station, east of cables running
    up the hill, and 2) the grey fines collection area on top of
    the hill.  These areas have been used for this purpose for a
    number of years and are NSF-approved areas for scraping for
    fines.

    General fill of various sizes would be collected by blasting
    in the area (i.e., Blast Site #1) across from Fortress Rocks
    that has been approved for such use.  Material would be
    excavated by drilling and blasting a variable burden and
    spacing pattern in the blasting area.  The Contractor would
    use 0.11 to 0.26 kilograms of explosives per cubic meter,
    depending on the type of material and how deep the
    excavation goes.

    In addition, the Contractor proposes to pick up loose rock
    from an area along the base of the hill behind the closed
    Fortress Rocks Dump, below the NSFA Transmitter Site.  The
    second attached McMurdo site plan shows a large area within
    which a relatively small quantity (roughly 38 cubic meters)
    of loose rock would be picked up.  Neither blasting nor
    scraping is planned in this area.  The loose rock is
    released from the steep upper part of the hill by
    freeze-thaw action and rolls to the lower portion of the
    hill where it sets on the rock or snow surface.  This solid
    rock, to be used along the edge of the quay, is expected to
    resist erosion better than most rock obtained from the
    quarry, much of which consists of clods of frozen stones
    rather than solid rock.

       Have alternative locations been considered by the Program
       or the Contractor?  If yes, which are they; if no,
       explain why.

       Yes. The following locations have been considered:

       1)  Scott Base transition area is known to be a good
           source of strong rock (geologically a tight-grain
           basalt).  This site is considered politically (due to
           proximity to Scott Base) and logistically (haul
           distances) undesirable;

       2)  The area near the old water plant on Observation Hill
           also contains a tight-grain basalt.  This site has
           been used by the Naval Support Force Antarctica
           (NSFA) in past years as a large source of fill
           material produced by blasting.  This site was
           rejected for aesthetic (i.e., visibility from town),
           historical, and political reasons (i.e., proximity to
           Scott Base);

       3)  The area behind Fortress Rocks former dump site and
           below the NSFA Transmitter Site has been previously
           used for gathering fill material.  Collection of
           loose rock material from this area is proposed.  Use
           of a portion of the area as a quarrying site using
           blasting, however, was considered and rejected
           because the rock quality may not be suitable; and

       4)  Importing fill material from outside Antarctica is
           cost prohibitive due to transport costs and cost of
           complying with the requirement that all non-
           indigenous "soil" be sterilized prior to importation
           into Antarctica.

 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the
    proposed activity be handled by the Program or the
    Contractor?

    Aesthetics relating to fill collection would be addressed by
    regrading the collection areas to a natural appearance at
    the end of the summer season or after fill collection
    activities have been completed in the area as noted above.
    In addition, fines would be scraped in areas that are not
    visible from town before the more highly visible areas are
    used, if necessary.

 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.

    Dust emissions may impact the solar radiation absorptive
    properties of ice- or snow-covered areas where the dust
    settles.  This darkening of the surface increases melting
    rates during the austral summer season, thus altering the
    natural state of the ice or snow field.  As a result an
    increase in the rate of erosion in surface water drainage
    ways may occur.  If the melt water passes through areas
    impacted by previous fuels spills or dumping, pollutant
    transport via surface water to McMurdo Sound may occur.
    However, dust emissions occur naturally.  The impact of dust
    caused by human activities on snow and ice fields relative
    to the impact of naturally occurring dust is currently
    unknown.  Ambient air quality data now being collected by
    T-325 (Idaho National Engineering Laboratories), that
    includes particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM-10),
    will provide some information regarding the amount of dust
    generated by McMurdo Station activities relative to
    background levels.

 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of
    the proposed (or chosen) site?  If yes, how; if no, why.

    No.  All of the proposed fill collection areas have been
    used for that purpose in previous years.

 6. Are the physical and environmental characteristics of the
    neighboring environment suitable for the proposed activity?
    If yes, explain why; if no, explain why.

    Yes.  All of the fill collection areas are distant from
    "downtown" McMurdo Station.  Fill collection in areas of
    high population activity would be inappropriate.  The
    blasting area does border the Arrival Heights road, which is
    used occasionally each day.  However, the Arrival Heights
    road would be blocked during blasting activities.  The slope
    of the fines collection area does make collection more
    difficult, as discussed in the response to the second
    question under #1 above.  The environmental characteristics
    of the fill collection and placement areas are suitable as
    these areas have been previously disturbed and are do not
    serve as wildlife habitat.

    The majority of locations where fill is to be placed are
    also remote from town.  Some work would occur for short time
    periods on roads in the main town area.  Since these roads
    are used very frequently by heavy vehicle traffic the fill
    placement activities are not expected to change normal
    conditions in these areas.


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])?

    The steps identified above to mitigate the impacts of the
    proposed activity are intended to protect human health and
    the environment.  Many of the projects for which fill is
    required are being undertaken to achieve USAP environmental
    protection initiatives, for example the bulk fuel tank berms
    and the Fortress Rocks Recycling Area.  Use of a particular
    source of fines for road maintenance has decreased the rate
    of erosion of the roads.  Consequently the amount of fines
    required for road maintenance has decreased.  The proposed
    activity only requires fuel to operate the heavy equipment.
    Proper vehicle maintenance is followed which enhances fuel
    efficiency of the vehicles.  Any fuel spills that occur
    would be reported to the Fire Station and cleaned up in
    accordance with station spill countermeasures procedures.
    The proposed activity does not require import of materials,
    one-time-use or otherwise.

 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at
    the proposed (or chosen) site?  If yes, how; if no, why.

    Yes.  During fill collection, transport, and placement some
    dust would be generated and vehicles would emit pollutants
    associated with fossil fuel combustion.  The activity would
    not establish an ongoing source of air emissions.

 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow
    (drainage), at the proposed (or chosen) site?  If yes, how;
    if no, why.

    No.  The fill gathering activities would be conducted so as
    to follow the existing contours of the land and therefore
    would not change drainage patterns.  The impacts of fill
    placement on drainage have been or will be discussed in
    project-specific Environmental Action Memoranda.

10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or
    management at the proposed (or chosen) site?  If yes, how;
    if no, why.

    No.  The proposed activity would not produce solid, liquid
    or hazardous waste other than empty explosives boxes
    (approximately 10 boxes per 1000 cubic yards of fill
    generated by blasting).

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.

    Fill gathering, transport, and placement will all be done by
    Contractor personnel who are already on site.  Energy in the
    form of fuel will be required to operate equipment.  Since
    the proposed activity occurs annually the required trans-
    portation, labor time, fuel, and life support has been
    included in the Contractor's annual planning.

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.  Fill gathering activities occur an adequate distance
    from locations of research interest to prevent impacts.  The
    Explosives Handler is required to notify station personnel
    through the National Science Foundation Representative of
    planned blasting activities in accordance with explosives
    use policy.

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.  Limited amounts of air pollutants would be produced, as
    identified in response to Question Number 8 above.  However,
    these pollutants are identical to pollutants caused by other
    frequently-occurring station activities (e.g., cargo trans-
    port), and are not expected to impact ecosystems beyond the
    impact caused by existing station activities.

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.  The blasting and fines collection areas have been
    disturbed by fill collection in recent years and do not
    serve as wildlife habitat.  Skuas do frequent the proposed
    rock gathering area.  Bones and bird droppings are visible
    on the ground.  The bones likely came from food waste taken
    by skuas from the Fortress Rocks Dump when it was open.  On
    November 24, 1992, the Contractor's Environmental Engineer
    observed two skua birds sitting in the rock gathering area,
    but they did not exhibit defensive behavior characteristic
    of skuas protecting nesting grounds.


HUMAN VALUES

15. Would he proposed activity encroach upon any historical
    property of the site?  If yes, how; if no, why.

    No.  None of the proposed areas for fill gathering or
    placement are listed on the Ross Island register of
    historical property.


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).

    With the exception of fill material placed below the water
    line at the sewer outfall quay, all fill material uses may
    be regraded to a natural state as part of decommissioning if
    required.  Fill used to cover the ice wharf would be removed
    for reuse the following year.

                             Finding

The Environmental Officer, after reviewing the information
presented above, believes that the proposed activities associated
with the collection of earth fill materials during the 1992-1993
season poses neither potentially minor nor transitory impacts to
the environment near McMurdo Station.  As noted in the Background
Section, the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) has a policy, and
procedures, to minimize impacts associated with gathering of
local fill.  The goals of the policy continue to be adhered to as
evidenced by the information in this Environmental Action
Memorandum.

During the 1990-1991 season, Deborah Schnell, Field Engineer with
Antarctic Support Associates reported that some earth fill
materials obtained at McMurdo Station, Antarctica are often
unsuitable as aggregate for construction and maintenance pro-
jects.  Much of that material consists of poorly graded cinders
that tend to ravel off the surface once in place.  That required
unacceptable, repeated applications to maintain suitable surfaces
for various projects.  Ms. Schnell identified a fill collection
area that contains aggregate more suitable for McMurdo Station's
construction and maintenance projects.  The aggregate at this
area is well-graded, and when wetted, exhibits a cementing
quality, setting up as a hard surface and requiring less frequent
replacement.  These characteristics made the aggregate more
suitable for use as repeated applications would be reduced.  For
this type of awareness and action that responsibly upheld the
environmental protection goals of the U.S. Antarctic Program, Ms.
Schnell received the U.S. Antarctic Program Environmental
Awareness Commendation for the 1990-1991 Season.

The civilian and military contractors are authorized to proceed
with the proposed activity as described in the Environmental
Action Memorandum.




                                 Sidney Draggan


Attachments
    Table 1
    Site Plan Maps
                             TABLE 1

Summary of Fill Quantity Requirements for 1992-1993
[Quantities in cubic meters]

12.7-25.4
cm
Fines
No Grade
Spec.
Project



Outfall Quay
  114

  380
Ice Pier

 3572

Road Maintenance

 1520

Human Waste Disposal Facility.

    9.12

Bulk Tank Berms and Pads

 1976(< 3.81 cm)
 7904
Fortress Rocks Recycling Area

  760

TOTALS
  114
 7837.12
 8284