Title : Finding, Food Waste Management Program at McMurdo Station Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : February 10, 1994 File : opp94017 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT AND NOT MORE THAN MINOR OR TRANSITORY IMPACT for FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AT MCMURDO STATION, ANTARCTICA FOR 1993 THROUGH 1996 National Science Foundation Office of Polar Programs Arlington, Virginia SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) Office of Polar Programs (OPP) has prepared an Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) and an Environmental Assessment (EA), a combined environmental document, for the implementation of a food waste management program at McMurdo Station, Antarctica from 1993 to 1996. The current food waste management program consists of the disposal of small volumes of liquid wastes, volume reduction, and storage of food wastes at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. Based on the analyses in the environmental document (IEE/EA), NSF-OPP has determined that implementation of Alternatives A2 and A3 (The continuation of the current food waste management program with the retrograde of food and food-related wastes from Antarctica to the United States and New Zealand on returning transport ships and, for New Zealand, on returning aircraft), is not a major federal action within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, nor is the action one which would have a greater than minor or transitory effect on the antarctic environment within the meaning of the NSF's implementing regulations for the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (45 CFR 641). Therefore, an environmental impact statement and/or a comprehensive environmental evaluation will not be prepared. BACKGROUND: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is responsible for the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) that supports a substantial scientific research program in Antarctica, often in cooperation with other countries. The USAP maintains three year-round stations in Antarctica: McMurdo Station on Ross Island; the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station; and Palmer Station on the Antarctic Peninsula. McMurdo Station is the major base for providing logistics support to scientific and operational personnel working at McMurdo Station, the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, and at numerous scientific field camps on the continent each austral summer. Logistic and operational support are provided by the Department of Defense [the Naval Support Force Antarctica (NSFA), U.S. Army, and U.S. Air Force], the U.S. Department of Transportation [U.S. Coast Guard], and a civilian contractor [currently Antarctic Support Associates, Inc. (ASA)]. McMurdo Station, the largest of the three U.S. stations, has a resident austral summer population of 1100 to 1200 people and a winter population of between 100 and 270 people. Food and food- related wastes average 100 tons per year which is similar to a town of 600 people in the United States. Food wastes originate in the galley at McMurdo Station and consist of food preparation wastes, plate scrapings, food scraps, perishable foods and cooking oil/lard. Food-related wastes include cardboard, food wrappers, napkins, and low density polyethylene plastic films which contain food residues. On December 30, 1992, NSF prepared an environmental assessment of the USAP's management of food wastes and food-related wastes at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. The environmental assessment addressed food waste management through June 30, 1995. NSF decided to dispose of food and food-related waste in a three- chambered, emissions controlled incinerator system, dispose of small volumes of ground food waste through the domestic wastewater system, and to retrograde a portion of accumulated food and food-related waste by ship to the United States. Because additional incinerator emissions monitoring data were unavailable by December 30, 1992, NSF decided to further re- evaluate the decision to incinerate after receipt of these data. On January 22, 1993, NSF published notice of the December 30, 1992 environmental assessment in the Federal Register inviting public comments for a 30-day period. NSF received written comments from the Environmental Protection Agency, Greenpeace, and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). These comments, and NSF's responses, are in the Appendix of the IEE/EA. NSF prepared an IEE/EA which incorporated these comments, the incinerator emissions monitoring data, and other additional information developed by NSF. On January 5, 1994, NSF published notice of this environmental assessment in the Federal Register, inviting public comments for a 30-day period. NSF received one written comment from EDF, who had no objection to the most recent environmental assessment for USAP management of food wastes (see Appendix of the IEE/EA). ALTERNATIVES: Five alternatives were considered for implementation, while the following five were studied and eliminated from further evaluation: o Alternative B1. Incinerate food wastes in three-chambered incineration system; o Alternative B2. Incinerate food wastes in both the temporary, two-chambered incinerator and the three- chambered incineration system; o Alternative B3. Utilize the two-chambered incinerator now in operation at New Zealand's Scott Base; o Alternative B4. Ice Staging or Ocean Dumping within the Antarctic Treaty Area for food waste and food-related wastes accumulated at McMurdo Station; and o Alternative B5. Open Burning. None of these alternatives would accomplish USAP's proposal to retrograde food wastes from Antarctica. The following five alternatives were considered for implementation. Alternative A1. Current volume reduction, disposal of small volumes of liquid food wastes, and storage of wastes at McMurdo Station. This alternative is the "No action" alternative required for comparison of the environmental effects of alternatives. This alternative is a continuation of the current practices for the reduction of the volume of food wastes, disposal of small volumes of liquid wastes through the wastewater system, and indefinite storage of food wastes at McMurdo Station. NSF recognizes the importance of protecting the environment in its waste minimization management and disposal plans. USAP's approach to managing food-related wastes requires looking at the broad picture -- not only at the waste and its effects -- but also at the sources of the waste and waste minimization methods. USAP has implemented several waste management and minimization practices, including placing restrictions on materials brought into Antarctica; implementing different methods of waste-handling for different wastes; and using education to change personnel expectations and behavior that otherwise exacerbate the problem. USAP has taken several steps to minimize the production of food waste. The civilian support contractor assumed responsibility for the food services operation at McMurdo Station on October 1, 1992. The contractor's detailed meal planning and improved management has resulted in a decrease in food waste. This includes preparation of quantities carefully calculated to match the station population and better planning for use of excess food at subsequent meals. A reduction in food waste has also been achieved through an innovative procurement scheme for some vegetable produce: vegetables are cleaned and prepared for cooking by a vendor in Christchurch, New Zealand. Excess leaf, stalk, and peelings are removed prior to shipment. USAP is designing and implementing extraction/filter devices that enable the capture of fatty acids from cooking oils. Recovery of reconstituted oil will enable reuse of the product. This alternative also includes indefinite stockpiling of accumulated food wastes at McMurdo Station. Alternative A2. Retrograde of food waste on annual supply ship to the United States. This alternative is similar to the No Action Alternative, except that food and food-related wastes would be removed from Antarctica rather than remain in storage at McMurdo Station. Alternative A3. Retrograde of food wastes to New Zealand by supply ship or aircraft returning to Christchurch, New Zealand. This alternative would require the concurrence of the host country, taking into account public opinion surrounding such a retrograde. Discussions are currently underway with New Zealand representatives regarding the possibility of continuing to retrograde food waste to New Zealand for land fill or incineration. Alternative A4. Retrograde food wastes by open Ocean dumping outside of the Antarctic Treaty Area. Open ocean dumping of food waste (i.e., pulped trash and pulped garbage) would be permissible under the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-220, Title II) if done beyond 50 nautical miles of 60øS. Alternative A5. Retrograde all food wastes to the United States via aircraft. This alternative would retrograde all food waste by aircraft to the United States for disposal. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: In the selection of the alternatives for implementation, several environmental factors were considered. A summary of major environmental effects are described in Table 1. Table 1. Comparison of major environmental effects. Alts Effects at Effects Costs Public McMurdo Outside of Health A1 High Volume No Direct approx. Some on- of Stored Effects $270,000 site Food Wastes for milvans hazards annually A2 Only Minor $3 million Low Hazard Temporary Volume to for double Storage existing shuttle for U.S. landfills 93/94 season; $390,000 for ship to Seattle; $17,650 for disposal in U.S. annually A3 Same as A2 Minor $64,000 for Low Hazard Volume to disposal in existing N.Z. New Zealand landfills A4 Same as A2 Minor Least Low Hazard addition to costly, ocean costs for removing plastics A5 Same as A2 Minor Very high Low Hazard addition to costs and existing high fuel U.S. use landfills Cumulative impacts and long-term effects and uses of resources Alternative A1 would have the greatest impact on the antarctic environment because the food waste would accumulate at McMurdo Station indefinitely. As noted in Table 1, there would be some public health hazard related to the continued storage of food- related wastes at McMurdo Station. In each of the other alternatives, food wastes are removed from Antarctica. However, the alternatives differ in overall costs and the consumption of fuel, a nonrenewable natural resource. Alternative A5 is the highest cost alternative and one which would consume the most fuel among the alternatives. While the fuel consumed in the long-term for the air transport of food wastes, is not a significant depletion of available resources, it is expensive and consumption of fuel that could be avoided. Ocean dumping of food wastes described in Alternative A4 is the least costly of the alternatives and, if conducted correctly, poses no significant, long-term harm to the ocean environment. However, as a matter of policy, the NSF-OPP does not wish to use the oceans for the disposal of food wastes. In Alternatives A2 and A3, food wastes from McMurdo Station would be added to those landfilled or incinerated in the United States and/or New Zealand. As noted above, the total food and food- related wastes from McMurdo Station is similar to a small, 600 person community in the United States. The volume of food and food-related wastes from McMurdo Station is an insignificant addition to volumes disposed of in the United States or New Zealand. Since supply ships must return after the annual resupply of McMurdo Station, the cumulative fuel use to transport 100 tons of food and food-related wastes to the United States or New Zealand on supply ships is not a significant increase in fuel consumption. Similarly, wastes returned to New Zealand by supply aircraft on return flights, creates a small increase in fuel consumption. Some minor increase in fuel use is expected in the transfer of food wastes from ships to disposal sites. Short-term uses of resources and effects In the short-term, Alternative A1 would use the least amount of natural resources, fuel, and would be the least expensive among the five alternatives. Alternative A5 would consume the greatest volume of fuel and would be the most costly to implement. Alternatives A2 and A3 are relatively expensive. However, they do provide NSF with a viable means to remove food wastes from Antarctica and fulfill the spirit of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Ocean dumping of food wastes in Alternative A4, would be relatively inexpensive. Food wastes would be expected to biodegrade in surface and deep ocean waters within a relatively short time. However, some material could move with currents and wash ashore. Irreversible and irretrievable uses of natural resources Fuel consumed in the transportation of food wastes in Alternatives A2 to A5 is an irretrievable use of an available natural resource. The air emissions from fuel consumption do not create a long-term or lasting effect. As noted above, Alternative A5 would have the greatest irreversible impact on the environment. Yet, this effect is minor as compared to the expected world-wide fuel consumption over the next several years. Mitigating Measures In the evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed action, several mitigating measures were identified to reduce environmental impacts. These measures, listed in the environmental document, have proven effective in past projects. The adoption Alternatives A2 and A3 for management of food waste at McMurdo Station provides: 1) Continue implementation and enhancement of waste minimization; 2) Continue grinding, maceration, dilution and discharge into the Ross Sea of limited amounts of liquid food wastes and water with food waste residue, with impact monitoring; 3) Retrograde food waste to the United States on the annual supply ship; 4) Retrograde food waste to New Zealand on aircraft or on the annual supply ship; and 5) Continue examination of the feasibility and environmental compatibility of using composting, pelletizing or other methods of waste reduction. Alternatives A2 and A3 were selected, even though there are less costly alternatives, because the removal of food and food-related wastes from Antarctica best fulfills the spirit and intent of NSF efforts to maintain the environmental integrity of Antarctica and continue responsible stewardship of natural resources. The selected alternatives, A2 and A3, provide for a reasonable and environmentally sound method to remove food and food-related wastes from Antarctica for appropriate disposal in the United States and/or New Zealand. The selected action is consistent with the NSF's efforts to provide a safe and healthful experience for USAP participants in Antarctica, and protect the antarctic environment. /s/ Carol A. Roberts ______________________________________ February 10, 1994 Dr. Carol A. Roberts Acting Director, Office of Polar Programs National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22230