Title : Human Waste Disposal-McMurdo Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : September 22, 1992 File : opp93075 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: September 22, 1992 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Construction of a Human Waste Disposal Facility at McMurdo Station, Antarctica) To: Facilities Engineering Projects Manager, DPP Environmental Engineer, DPP Files (S.7 - Environment) This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, proposed actions to install during the 1992-1993 austral summer season a human waste disposal facility at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. The Environmental Officer posed a set of questions relating to the proposed project, and to the poten- tially affected environment. These questions were responded to by Carol Andrews and Jeff Montroy, the civilian support con- tractor's Environmental Engineer and Project Engineer, respect- ively, on August 28, 1992; the questions and responses are shown below: Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses Background Urine and grey-water (water from sinks and showers) is collected in drums at field camps and at unsewered buildings at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. In past years these drums have been retro- graded to the United States for disposal. Antarctic Support Associates, Inc. (ASA) proposes to construct a facility to pro- vide an alternative to retrograding this wastewater. The pro- posed facility would discharge wastewater contained in drums returned to the station into the existing McMurdo wastewater system. The facility would be designed to dispose of approx- imately 150 208-liter (i.e., 55-gallon) drums of urine and 25 208-liter drums of grey-water each year. The proposed facility would use brine water discharged from the flash evaporators of McMurdo's water distillation plant to melt, flush out and dilute waste in the drums. The facility would consist of equipment for lifting and positioning drums, a brine supply line, a drain line connecting the facility to an existing sewer line, and a temporary storage area for full and emptied drums (see attached drawings). To reduce the cost of the facility it would not be enclosed in a building. This would restrict use of the facility to the austral summer months. In the future the need for a system to manage urine and grey- water collected in barrels will continue, but the volume of such wastewater is expected to decrease substantially. Approximately 90 percent of urine and grey-water barrels are generated within McMurdo Station, with only 10 percent coming from field camps. If funding is approved by the National Science Foundation, a number of buildings in McMurdo that have a significant number of people working in them (e.g., Buildings 191 and 143) would be connected to the McMurdo sewer system as part of the station's Utility Systems Upgrade. This is expected to significantly reduce the number of urine and grey-water barrels generated each year. GENERAL 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? The purpose of the activity is to provide a means of disposing of liquid human waste and grey-water generated at outlying field camps and facilities around McMurdo Station not connected to the station's sewer lines. What alternatives to the proposed activity have the Program and the Contractor considered? A number of options exist for the design of a urine and grey-water barrel discharge system. The selected system must include the following capabilities: 1. wash off the outside of drums, and collect wash water; 2. thaw the contents of the drums; 3. discharge of contents from the drums to the wastewater collection system at a controlled rate; and 4. rinse the inside of the drums, and discharge rinse water to sewer system. The ability to prevent spills, the escape of odors, and direct contact between personnel and the contents of the barrels, must be considered for each step. Four alternatives have been considered: 1) construction of the proposed facility; 2) construction of a similar facility within a building; 3) placement of the drums within a heated structure so as to melt their contents prior to discharge; and, 4) the "no action" alternative (i.e., continued retrograde of the drums to CONUS). Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered by the Program and the Contractor? Please explain how. Yes. The impacts of the proposed activity include an increase in the nutrient loading to McMurdo Sound. If the barrels are bled into the McMurdo sewer system at a rate of about 946 liters (~250 gallons) per day (i.e., five drums per day) the increase in the volume of wastewater discharged would be about 0.5 percent. The increase to the volume of actual urine discharged would be approximately 50 percent. These figures are based on an estimated total wastewater discharge rate of about 189251.0 liters (~50,000 gallons) per day, containing about 1893.0 liters (~ 500 gallons) of urine [about 2.0 liters (~one-half gallon) per person per day for 1000 people)]. The impact of temporarily adding this discharge to the existing system is expected to be minimal. The increase in flow volume would be insignificant (0.5 percent). No change in the physical behavior of the plume, therefore, is expected. The increase in nutrient content of the wastewater would be relatively significant. However, based upon an analysis of wastewater dispersion charac- teristics conducted for the National Science Foundation's Division of Polar Programs by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, no adverse impact on the biota of the bay due to the nutrient addition is expected. The waste barrels to be used would be poly-lined, so the liquid would not contain metals leached from the drums. The impact of increased nutrient loading due to construction of a similar facility within a building would be the same as the proposed activity. Although aesthetic impacts would be reduced, the labor and materials required to construct a building, some or all of which would be one-time-use materials, would be significantly increased, as would the cost of the facility. The impacts of continuing to retrograde the drums include the cost of retrograde and disposal. A significant amount of money has been spent in the past for urine- barrel disposal. Whether or not the money spent on disposal would be better spent on other projects, such as a wastewater treatment system in McMurdo, should be considered. This alternative does have the benefit of providing treatment for the wastewater in the U.S. before it is discharged. The pros and cons of the proposed alternative versus continued retrograde are summarized in the following table. TABLE 1 RETROGRADE DISCHARGE IN MCMURDO PROS the wastewater may receive advanced treat- ment prior to discharge. drums may be reused; fuel use required for transport to and from ship is avoided. CONS cost: discharge in U.S. was $8 per gallon in 1991 = $64,000 for 160 barrels; potential for spills increases due to more handling. the wastewater would not receive advanced treatment prior to discharge; set-up and operation of discharge system requires staff time. ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS FOR MANAGING U-BARRELS Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated by the Program or the Contractor? The impacts would be mitigated by discharging the waste at a controlled rate of less than about 946.5 liters (~250 gallons) per day. By slowly thawing the frozen waste using hot brine water the discharge would be diluted, preventing "slug loading" of the system with unusually high Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) wastewater. Release of odors from the facility would be minimized by placing the discharge point as near the drain as possible or by providing a covered system between the drum outlet and the facility drain. Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered by the Program or the Contractor? Please explain how. Connection of the facility drain line to the station sewer lines would require the temporary diversion of the sewer outfall. This diversion would occur at "night," when sewage flow rate is relatively low, and the water plant evaporators can be shut down. The connection procedure would be accomplished in one night. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. Where would the proposed activity be located, specifically? The facility would be located near the present sewer out- fall, adjacent to the macerator building. See attached map. Have alternative locations been considered by the Program or the Contractor? If yes, which are they; if no, explain why. Yes. The proposed location was selected to minimize the length of new pipe required and to utilize the brine discharge from the flash evaporators in the water distillation plant. A different system and location was considered which called for placing the drums in a heated "fish hut" which is currently near Building 175 to melt the contents. The drums would then be drained into the existing sewer line near the hut. The proposed activity was selected over this alternative system for a number of reasons, includ- ing odor control and best use of indoor space. 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the proposed activity be handled by the Program or the Contractor? Drums temporarily stored near the facility would be placed on pallets to provide a neat appearance and prevent them from being blown around by wind. Odor emissions would be minimized as discussed above regarding mitigating measures. 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 certain marine plants and microorganisms near the sewer outfall. This growth could attract more wildlife to the area, which is undesirable as it might change their natural behavior. However, because the waste discharge would be a relatively small quantity and is expected to be effectively dispersed by currents and buoyancy, no detectable impact is expected. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The proposed facility site is already characterized by a high degree of human activity and is near the existing sewage macerator and sewer outfall. 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. The facility would be placed near the macerator building in an area which is already basically level. Full and empty drums may be stored alongside the existing build- ing to minimize their aesthetic impact. The area is not characterized by frequent wildlife activity and is environ- mentally 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])? A controlled discharge rate would minimize impact on the sewer outfall and the natural environment. Pre-fabrication of the facility would minimize construction wastes generated on-site. Location of the facility near the macerator building would minimize the lengths of the new pipelines required. The facility operation procedures would include input from the ASA Safety Engineer to ensure that appropriate personnel protective equipment is used and proper procedures followed to protect the health of persons working at the facility. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. Yes. Some odors from the wastewater may escape during the emptying process. This would be minimized by connecting the brine supply line and drain line to the barrels to seal the system and avoid "indirect" draining of the wastewater into the sewer line. All necessary electrical equipment for the facility would be housed in the macerator building, and electrical power would be provided from the existing electrical service to the macerator. No electrical generation would be needed at the site. 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. Yes. A minor increase in the quantity of wastewater discharged through the existing sewer system would occur (approximately 0.5 percent at the maximum discharge rate). The proposed activity may have a minor impact on water quality due to addition of nutrients. No toxic pollutants are expected due to the proposed system. In past years, empty fuel drums were often used for holding urine and grey- water. As a result drums that were not cleaned out prior to re-use contained urine or grey-water contaminated with fuel or other substances. Discharge of this contaminated liquid into Winters Quarters Bay through the McMurdo wastewater discharge system was appropriately considered unacceptable, and the drums were retrograded to the United States. ASA personnel are confident that drums currently awaiting retrograde do not contain substances other than human urine and grey-water. The drums are new, that is, they have not been used to contain other liquids. The steel drums are color coded: yellow drums are used only for urine and grey drums are used for grey-water. The use of grey-water and urine drums is strictly overseen by the ASA Waste Retrograde Work Center. Retrograde Work Center personnel store empty drums in the fenced retrograde yard where access is limited, deliver them to buildings in McMurdo or to the Berg Field Center to distribute for use, and collect them when full. Full drums are stored in the waste retrograde yard. ASA will to devise a method for observing or testing the drum contents for evidence of contamination such as oil. However, because the contents of the drums are frozen such testing could be difficult. 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. Yes. The proposed system would decrease the amount of waste requiring retrograde and allow re-use of the drums. 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. Yes. 1 to 2 persons would be required for approximately 30 hours/week during the first year, less in following years after the backlog of drums has been eliminated. Electricity would be required to operate two 3/4 hp booster pumps to provide a high-powered spray to clean the drums. The system would flow into the existing pipeline by gravity so a pump would not be required. 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. Two Technical Science events will be performing research in the McMurdo Sound area during the 1992-93 austral summer season: T-321 (McFeters) and T-320 (Oliver). At the regional science meeting on 23 July 1992, John Oliver stated that he does not believe the project would have any impact on his research. A copy of this query form was sent to Dr. Gordon McFeters to solicit his opinion regarding poten- tial impacts on his project. His response is attached. Data regarding the date, type, and quantity of waste dis- charged at the human waste disposal facility would be recorded and supplied to scientists performing potentially affected research. Wastewater samples are collected every two weeks by ASA staff. These samples are analyzed for organic and inorganic pollutants. ASA staff will note during sampling whether or not the human waste disposal facility is discharging at the time of sample collection. 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 increase in the amount of nutrients and BOD released to McMurdo Sound may be expected. However, the increase is not expected to substantially affect the marine ecosystem which has a relatively capacity to assimilate nutrients. 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. There is no habitat on the quay. HUMAN VALUES 15. Would he proposed activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The outfall quay is not on the Ross Island list of historic places. 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). Current plans call for pre-fabricating the facility in CONUS and shipping it to the site complete. In the event the facility must be decommissioned, it can be easily removed and retrograded, with no materials or equipment left on site. The outfall quay and macerator may be relocated in the future based on recommendations by the science community. If this occurs, the pre-fabricated facility can be easily relocated to the new site. Finding The Environmental Officer, after reviewing the information presented above, believes that the addition of relatively limited and phased amounts of nutrient elements can be expected to engender effects that are no greater than those now arising from disposal of McMurdo Station's locally-produced wastewater. This is particularly true in light of the proposed use of the facility during only austral summer months and proposed upgrades to the station's utility systems. Accordingly, he anticipates that the proposed activity would pose less than minor and less than transitory effects to the nearshore marine environment at McMurdo Station. The contractor and the Program are authorized, there- fore, to proceed with the proposed activity. Sidney Draggan cc: T. Johnson, ASA Attachments McFeters Correspondence Site Map / Design Plans