Title : Waste Dairy Product-Disposal-McMurdo Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : February 10, 1992 File : opp93060 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: February 10, 1992 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Disposal of Waste Dairy Product at McMurdo Station, Antarctica) To: Files (S.7 - Environment) This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, proposed actions to dispose of waste dairy products 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 January 27, 1992; the questions and responses are shown below: Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses GENERAL The Naval Support Force Antarctica (NSFA) proposes to dispose of 5,000 gallons of waste dairy product (ice cream) through the McMurdo sewer system. The waste dairy product ingredients are as follows: nonfat milk, sucrose, cream, corn syrup, sweet whey solids, cellulose gum, guar gum, carrageenan, artificial flavor, vegetable mono and diglycerides, artificial color, and poly- sorbate 80. 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? Disposal of 5,000 gallons of spoilt dairy product through the McMurdo sewer system is proposed. What alternatives to the proposed activity have the Program and the Contractor considered? Retrograding the spoiled dairy product to the United States for disposal has been considered. However, according to NSFA waste food cannot be accepted under current NSFA waste disposal arrangements in Port Hueneme. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered by the Program and the Contractor? Please explain how. The main impact of disposing of the waste dairy product through the sewer would be the addition of liquid containing nutrients and biological oxygen demand (BOD) to McMurdo Sound. This addition may be quantified as follows: 5,000 gallons of waste dairy product are contained in one-half gallon, waxed boxes on 40 pallets. NSFA proposes to dispose of 250 gallons (two pallets) per day for 20 days. A discharge rate of about 250 gallons per day constitutes an increase of about 0.5 percent of the estimated daily sewage flow discharged through the McMurdo sewer outfall. The increase to the volume of sewered wastes which have high nutrient content and biological oxygen demand would be roughly 30 percent, assuming that 500 gallons of actual human waste (one- half gallon per person per day, 1000 people) and 180 gallons of food waste are discharged on a typical day. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how could these impacts be mitigated by the Program or the Contractor? The impact would be mitigated by discharging the waste at a controlled rate. The waste product would be thawed and discharged as liquid; liquids are characteristically more easily biologically digestible than particulate BOD, in addition to dispersing more readily. Also, the waste is proposed to be discharged from late January through February when the least amount of ice cover exists in the vicinity of the sewer outfall. Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered by the Program or the Contractor? Please explain how. Discharge of the waste dairy product as proposed would require a certain amount of staff time to transport the waste, open containers and empty the contents. NSFA would be responsible for this work. The activity would generate some solid waste requiring disposal, as discussed below. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. Where would the proposed activity be located, specifically? NSFA proposes to thaw and discharge the spoiled product through a floor drain in the laundry room located in Building 155. The floor drain feeds into the McMurdo sewer system, which discharges into McMurdo Sound. Have alternative locations been considered by the Program or the Contractor? If yes, which are they; if no, explain why. Use of the drain in the galley in Building 155 where food waste is currently discharged has also been considered. The laundry room offers a number of advantages, including more storage room for thawing the waste product and the potential to use laundry wastewater to wash down the drain at the end of each day. 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the propos- ed activity be handled by the Program or the Contractor? The main aesthetic concern associated with the activity is the production of odors. The waste product is still located in the frozen foods warehouse and has been frozen since the power outage was repaired. Although it does not meet NSFA medical requirements, the product has not degraded enough to produce odors which may be associated with sour milk products. The thawing rate of the waste product would be determined so that it is not stored in the laundry room any longer than necessary. Waste product which is thawed would be discharged as soon as possible without exceeding the approved discharge rate. Visual impacts would be minimal because the discharge activity would occur within a building. The sewer outfall is submerged, currently located approximately 160 feet from the shore at a depth of 60 feet. As the waste product would consist of less than 0.5 percent of the sewer flow, it is expected that dilution within the sewer system and at the outfall would be adequate to prevent the discharged product from being noticeable at the water surface. 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. Increasing the nutrient loading to McMurdo Sound could increase the growth rate of various marine plants and microorganisms near the sewer outfall. The growth of these could attract wildlife to the area. However, because the waste product discharge would be a relatively small quantity, would be temporary, and is expected to be effectively dispersed by currents, no detectable impact would be expected. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. Yes. The laundry room would temporarily be used for a non- typical use. Discharge of food waste to the sewer would not be a new occurrence. 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. During the proposed discharge period the area around the sewer outfall should be relatively free of ice and allow the discharged waste product to disperse. The sewage from McMurdo Station currently discharges into McMurdo Sound. The impact of this discharge is believed to be very localiz- ed and limited. According to research by El-Sayed and Mandellie (1965) and Holm-Hansen (1985) nutrient levels in antarctic waters are usually high; only very high levels of nutrient input, warming, and seawater dilution could be expected to alter (negatively or positively) the character of benthic communities near the McMurdo Station wastewater outfall [source: Environmental Impact assessment for Improvement of Sanitary Wastewater Management at McMurdo Station, prepared by the NSF DPP, December 1, 1989]. 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])? At this time NSFA does not plan to dispose of any other large quantities of food wastes other than galley waste (as is done now) through the sewer system. It is in the interest of NSFA and ASA personnel responsible for maintaining food storage facilities to take steps to minimize food loss due to spoiling. The importance of minimizing food spoilage to reduce waste production is also recognized. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. As discussed above, odor emissions would not be expected as the waste product would remain cold until it is discharged. A minimal amount of heavy equipment time would be required to transport two pallets per day to the discharge location. Relative to the total amount of cargo transport activity which occurs each day two short-distance trips would be insignificant. 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. Product discharge would occur inside a building. The increase in the volume of wastewater discharged through the sewer pipe would be insignificant (roughly 0.5 percent). 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. Yes. Each pallet holds 250 waxed cardboard containers of waste product. The proposed discharge rate would result in 500 containers per day requiring disposal. Because they are waxed and contaminated by food the containers would not be recyclable. NSFA proposes that the containers be processed in McMurdo through incineration. Incineration of food- contaminated wastes is standard practice at McMurdo Station. 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. No. NSFA personnel already present on site would be tasked to empty the containers. Energy would be required to trans- port two pallets per day to Building 155. The discharge process would not require energy. 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. Two science events gathered samples and/or made observations in the vicinity of the sewer outfall earlier in the season (Drs. McFeters and Oliver). However, no further research sample collection is planned during the months of January, February and March according to the ASA Manager, Laboratory Services, McMurdo. The proposed activity is not expected to have any long-lasting impacts on the sound which would affect future research. Wastewater samples are being collected every two weeks by the ASA Field Engineer, Environmental. These samples are analyzed for organic and inorganic pollutants, in addition to such standard wastewater parameters as BOD. If the proposed activity is approved the ASA Field Engineer, Environmental, would make note of whether spoilt waste product discharge is occurring when wastewater samples are collected. 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. As discussed above a small, temporary increase in the amount of nutrients and BOD released to McMurdo Sound may be expected. However, the increase would not be expected to substantially affect the marine ecosystem. 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)? Seals (mainly Weddell) and skuas frequent the area around the wastewater outfall. HUMAN VALUES 15. Would he proposed activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The two places affected by the proposed activity, (the laundry room in Building 155 and the sewer outfall) are not considered 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). Decommissioning would not present a problem as the proposed activity would not require erection of any permanent or temporary structures. Finding The Environmental Officer, after reviewing the information presented above, believes that the proposed activity poses only potentially minor and transitory effects to the nearshore marine environment at McMurdo Station. The contractor and the Program are authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. Sidney Draggan