Post on 30-Apr-2023
National Science Foundation
Office of Polar Programs
Alexandria, Virginia
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT CONCURRENCE
Activity: Use of Explosives to Support Scientific Research in Antarctica
[PGAN2201.IEE]
I have read the attached document and concur with the findings and recommendation. I concur that the
proposed activity can commence.
________________________________________ ________________________
Paul R. Sheppard Date
Executive Officer
Office of Polar Programs
National Science Foundation
Office of Polar Programs
Alexandria, Virginia
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT AND FINDING OF NO MORE THAN
MINOR OR TRANSITORY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Use of Explosives to Support Scientific Research in Antarctica
[PGAN2201.IEE]
FINDING
The United States Antarctic Program (USAP) proposes to continue the selective and controlled use of
explosives or other energetic materials at USAP facilities and research sites throughout Antarctica.
Explosives are used for construction and maintenance of support facilities and mitigation of physical
hazards at USAP facilities or field sites. Research uses of explosives would include detonation of explosives
for functions such as seismic imaging of subsurface environments and examining Earth’s crust. In addition,
USAP would continue to remain current with up-to-date explosives technology and implement innovative
methods as appropriate. Occasionally explosives or other energetic materials may be needed to support
specialized activities such as disposing of obsolete explosives or potentially unstable substances or
mitigating unsafe physical conditions. These types of specialized applications are relatively rare, and their
frequency is unpredictable, but generally involve a very small quantity of explosives. In addition, certain
energetic materials are used for specialized applications including Assisted Take Off (ATO) units on LC-
130 aircraft at remote field sites, flare guns, smoke grenades, and research rockets.
Based on the analyses in this environmental document, National Science Foundation (NSF) Office of Polar
Programs (OPP) has determined that implementing the proposed activity would have no more than a minor
or transitory impact on the Antarctic environment within the meaning of NSF's implementing regulations
for the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. Therefore, a comprehensive
environmental evaluation will not be prepared.
We recommend this activity proceed on the basis of implementing the Proposed Alternative (Alternative A).
This alternative would continue current explosive use in Antarctica much as it has in the past. The size,
location, and frequency of detonations would be similar to those of the past several years.
Recommending Official Carla Haroz Operations Manager Office of Polar Programs
Date Recommending Official Polly A. Penhale Senior Advisor, Environment Office of Polar Programs
Date
4/25/22 4/25/22
i
Table of Contents
FINDING ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................................................................. 3
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ........................................... 3
3.1 Operations Support .......................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Research Support ............................................................................................................................. 6
3.3 Logistical Support ........................................................................................................................... 6
3.4 Specialized Support ......................................................................................................................... 8
3.5 Specialized Disposal ....................................................................................................................... 9
4.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................................................................................. 9
4.1 Alternative A – Continue Current Use ............................................................................................ 9
4.2 Alternative B – Discontinue Use (No Action Alternative) ............................................................. 9
4.3 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed ..................................................................................... 9
5.0 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE STATE .................................................................. 9
5.1 Dry Land ....................................................................................................................................... 10
5.2 Snow/Ice ........................................................................................................................................ 10
6.0 IDENTIFICATION AND PREDICTION OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES OF
THE PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................................................................... 10
6.1 Direct Impacts ............................................................................................................................... 10
6.1.1 Impacts on Biological Resources .......................................................................................... 10
6.1.2 Impacts on Physical Resources ............................................................................................. 11
6.1.3 Impacts on Research and Research Support .......................................................................... 13
6.2 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................... 14
6.2.1 Indirect Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 14
6.2.2 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................... 15
6.3 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING .................................................................... 15
6.3.1 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 15
6.3.2 Physical Disturbance ............................................................................................................. 15
6.3.3 Research and Research Support ............................................................................................ 16
6.3.4 Health and Safety .................................................................................................................. 16
6.4 IMPACT SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 17
ii
7.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 27
8.0 IEE PREPARATION SOURCES ................................................................................................. 27
9.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 27
Figures
Figure 1. ATO Use in the USAP – Process Diagram .................................................................................. 7
Tables
Table 1. Summary of Environmental Impact Assessment Coverage for Use of Explosives ...................... 2
Table 2. Approximate Explosives Use from 2016/17 through 2020/21 in kg (pounds) ............................. 5
Table 3. ATO Use in the USAP - Summary of Existing Procedures .......................................................... 8
Table 4. Estimated Annual Emissions from the Use of Explosives .......................................................... 12
Table 5. Emissions from a Single ATO Mission in kg (pounds) .............................................................. 13
Table 6. Potential Environmental Aspects of the Proposed Action .......................................................... 18
Table 7. Summary of Impacts Resulting from Implementing the Proposed Action ................................. 21
Attachments
Attachment 1. ATO Components and Combustion Byproduct
1
National Science Foundation
Office of Polar Programs
Alexandria, Virginia
Use and Evaluation of Explosives to Support Scientific Research in Antarctica
[PGAN2201.IEE]
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The United States Antarctic Program (USAP) operates three permanent stations and numerous field camps
each year to support scientific research in Antarctica. Explosive materials are used for scientific research,
construction and maintenance of support facilities, and mitigation of safety hazards. Explosives provide a
low-cost and effective way to move rock and ice, which would otherwise require manual labor and
mechanical equipment.
In addition to explosive materials, USAP may use under controlled conditions other energetic materials or
devices such as Assisted Take Off (ATO) Propellant Units, small mechanical devices containing explosives
(i.e., squibs), signal flares, smoke grenades, and research rockets.
Past explosives environmental impact documentation includes 16 documents that designate different
locations and methods over the past 26 years. Table 1 provides a summary of prior environmental impact
assessment documents. The Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) for explosives use in Antarctica will
serve as a comprehensive and cohesive document by synthesizing information and considerations from the
prior 16 documents, evaluating alternatives, and establishing an action plan to meet future needs.
This IEE was prepared in accordance with applicable provisions of Annex I, Article 3 of the Protocol on
Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (the Protocol); the Guidelines for Environmental Impact
Assessment in Antarctica (ATS 2016); the Antarctic Conservation Act, as amended by the Antarctic
Science Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, 16 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 2401 et seq. (ACA); and
implementing regulations set forth in 45 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 641, Environmental
Assessment Procedures for National Science Foundation (NSF) Actions in Antarctica.
If explosives are proposed to be used in or adjacent to any sensitive or managed environments, such as
Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs), Antarctic Specially Managed Areas (ASMAs), Historic Sites
and Monuments (HSMs), freshwater bodies, marine environments, sea ice, coastlines, or where otherwise
prohibited, a site-specific supplemental environmental review will be prepared.
2
Table 1. Summary of Environmental Impact Assessment Coverage for Use of Explosives
Title Document Number Scope of Analysis
Continued Use and Evaluation of Explosives to Support Scientific Research in Antarctica, Amendment 2 (NSF 2006)
PGAN9601.AM2
1. Support operations 2. Scientific research
3. Specialized applications (typically one-time uses)
4. Other energetic materials 5. Impacts: physical disturbances, acoustic
releases, air emissions, material residues Continued Use and Evaluation of Explosives to Support Scientific Research in Antarctica, Amendment 1 (NSF 2004)
PGAN9601.AM1
1. Extended the window of applicability 2. Minor or transitory environmental effects
from existing and anticipated future use of explosives were sufficiently characterized and disclosed
Continued Use and Evaluation of Explosives to Support Scientific Research in Antarctica (NSF 1995)
PGAN9601.EAF
1. Management of explosives and personnel safety in the transportation, storage, use, and disposal
2. Impacts on Antarctic biological and physical resources
3. Impacts on research and research support
Management of Unreliable and Unsafe Explosives in Antarctica (NSF 1995)
PGAN9503.EAF
1. Safety of USAP personnel 2. Site selection for storage and detonation
3. Effects on wildlife
4. Effects on air quality
5. Effects on science
6. Short-term effects 7. Long-term and cumulative effects
Continued Use of Assisted Take Off (ATO) Units in Antarctica (NSF 1995)
PGAN0109.EAF
1. Risks to safety of USAP personnel and aircraft
2. Release of materials to the Antarctic environment
3. Disposition of ATO units 4. Effects on science
5. Effects on wildlife 6. Short-term effects 7. Long-term and cumulative effects
Removal of Ice Cornice Safety Hazard, McMurdo Station (NSF 1995)
MCST9508.EAF
1. Risks posed by ice cornices to the health and safety of scientists and support personnel
2. Impacts on operations and science from the loss of a key land/ice transportation route
3. Disturbance to the environment from explosives detonation
4. Short-term effects 5. Long-term and cumulative effects
3
Table 1. Summary of Environmental Impact Assessment Coverage for Use of Explosives
Title Document Number Scope of Analysis
ANDRILL Coulman High Project (NSF 2010) MCFC1100.R01
1. Develop and survey traverse route 2. Test hot water drill 3. Over-ice radar surveys 4. Oceanographic data collection 5. Remotely operated vehicle 6. Gravity and seismic data collection
(explosives use)
Seismic Test of Subsurface Hydrophones (NSF 2008) SPST9900.R03
1. Explosives to confirm buried hydrophones within the Antarctic Muon and Neutrino Detector Array at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station are in working condition
Mount Erebus Controlled-Source Seismic Experiment, Amendment 1 (NSF 2008)
MCST0800.R03.AM1
1. Detonate up to 14 charges that are intended to yield images of the magma chamber underneath Mount Erebus
Mount Erebus Seismic Investigation (NSF 2007) MCST0800.R03
1. Placing ten explosive ammonium nitrate/fuel oil charges down holes drilled in snow and ice, down crevasses, or packed on the surface rocks at various points around the flanks of Mount Erebus
Use of Explosives to Dislodge Ice Lenses in Rodriquez Well (NSF 2001)
SPST0100.RO5
1. Explosives used to open a hole in an ice lens in the existing South Pole Station water well
Evaluation of Explosives as a Contingency Snow Tunneling Method (NSF 1998)
SPST9900.R02
1. Test blasting to evaluate methods of effectively breaking ice for tunneling purposes
2. Use of explosives for removing solid debris from the ice as may be encountered in the course of the tunnel construction
South Pole Garage (Blasting; NSF 1997) SPST9800.R01
1. Explosives used to dislodge ice imbedded structures
Destruction of Jet Assisted Take Off (JATO) Igniters (NSF 1996)
PGAN9503.R01
1. Several methods for the destruction of aged JATO igniters including blasting caps, cadweld powder and straight electric firing
Use of Explosives atTransition (NSF 1996) PGAN9602.R02
1. Alter drainage pattern with the assistance of explosives to reroute the runoff away from transition
Use of Explosives at Willy Field (NSF 1996) PGAN9602.R01
1. Explosives used to dislodge ice imbedded structures
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the proposed action is to ensure future explosives needs are met to support USAP scientific
research and operations in Antarctica, including construction activities, while reducing or eliminating
potential environmental impact and ensuring safety of personnel.
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
The proposed action would involve selective and controlled use of explosives or other energetic materials at
USAP facilities and research sites throughout Antarctica. Explosives would be used for construction and
maintenance of support facilities and mitigation of physical hazards at USAP facilities or field sites.
4
Research uses of explosives would include detonation of explosives for functions such as seismic imaging
of subsurface environments and examining Earth’s crust. In addition, USAP would continue to remain
current with up-to-date explosives technology and implement innovative methods as appropriate.
Occasionally explosives or other energetic materials may be needed to support specialized activities such as
disposing of obsolete explosives or potentially unstable substances or mitigating unsafe physical conditions.
These types of specialized applications are relatively rare, and their frequency is unpredictable, but
generally involve a very small quantity of explosives.
In addition, certain energetic materials are used for specialized applications including ATO units on LC-130
aircraft at remote field sites, flare guns, smoke grenades, and research rockets.
Currently, explosives are primarily used in the McMurdo Shear Zone, with occasional use at McMurdo
Station and supported field sites, as well as sporadic use at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station and Palmer
Station. Explosives are typically used during the austral summer season but may be used occasionally
during the austral winter for certain construction or maintenance activities. Table 2 summarizes the quantity
of explosives used at USAP facilities and research sites over the past five years. During the past five
operating seasons, USAP explosives use has been highly variable (Table 2). While annual explosive use
ranged from 0 kg to a maximum of 38,960 kg per year during this period (Table 2), based on historic data, it
is projected that that the blasting events conducted by USAP under the proposed action may use up to
25,000 kg of explosives annually. Other types of energetic materials (e.g., ATO, flares, squibs) are used
intermittently in very small quantities and therefore future use cannot be predicted. In the long-term,
implementation of innovative methods could ultimately lead to a reduction of explosive resources used by
USAP.
Explosives used by USAP are primarily commercial (non-military) grade materials consisting of gelatin
dynamite, ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO) and emulsion type explosives, cast boosters, blasting caps,
detonating fuses, and seismic detonators. Explosives and certain energetic materials are stored in a series of
16 explosives magazines at McMurdo Station and are transported as needed to work sites and outlying
facilities. All explosive materials are strictly controlled during storage, handling, and transport. Depending
upon resupply logistics, McMurdo Station maintains the minimum quantity of explosives needed to support
USAP activities in a typical operating season. The shelf life of the material is carefully documented to avoid
maintaining excess or obsolete material in the inventory.
Implementation of the proposed action would be conducted in accordance with USAP’s standard operating
procedures and best practices regarding explosives use, covering blasting procedures and related support.
These procedures and best practices are currently in place to protect the health and safety of USAP
participants during the preparation, detonation, and monitoring of explosives use. Procurement, inventory,
and tracking records are maintained consistent with Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
regulations (27 C.F.R. § 555). Transportation of explosives generally follows the procedures outlined in
U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 C.F.R. § 173). In addition, all tests
and uses of explosives would be conducted under the direct supervision and control of a qualified
explosives expert and a certified safety engineer.
5
Table 2. Approximate Explosives Use from 2016/17 through 2020/21 in kg (pounds)
Use 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Construction 0 0 11,294
(24,899)
31,400
(69,225)
0
Research 0 0 59
(129)
0 0
Operations &
Maintenance
99
(218)
0 172
(379)
7560
(16,666)
1140
(2513)
Total 99
(218)
0 11,525
(25,407)
38,960
(85,891)
1140
(2513)
The Antarctic Support Contract (ASC) Blaster-in-charge, who is required to be a qualified explosives user
in the United States, evaluates each request for the use of explosives for construction or maintenance
purposes to determine the blast design and to calculate quantity of explosives needed.
The type and quantity of explosives that may be used for a specific application take into consideration
various factors – the intended purpose, ice depth and conditions, and geologic formations. This information
is compiled in a blast plan that also includes graphic blast hole layout, load factors, and timing sequence.
The blast plan also documents information such as, but not limited to, number of holes, hole diameter and
depth, powder per hole, and initiation method.
The onsite McMurdo Station Operations manager provides final ASC approval for all blasting activities
occurring in the McMurdo Station area.
3.1 Operations Support
Each year explosives are used to support certain types of operations at USAP facilities, including overland
traversing, construction, and maintenance projects. These typically involve mitigating crevasse hazards or
dislodging rock or accumulated ice and snow. Explosives are primarily used for these purposes at McMurdo
Station and in the McMurdo Shear Zone on the South Pole Operational Traverse’s route, with more
occasional use occurring at certain outlying support facilities. Explosives are used sporadically at
Amundsen-Scott South Pole and Palmer stations.
Typical projects may involve:
• grading or contouring land and ice areas for construction or related activities;
• excavating earth materials (soil/rock fines) for construction and facility maintenance;
• maintaining access roadways on land and ice;
• maintaining drainage ditches;
• dislodging buildings, sleds, or support structures imbedded in ice;
• mitigating crevasse hazards;
• removing ice accumulations or hazards (e.g., cornices);
• removing rocks or obstructions;
6
• severing cables used to secure structures; and
• other specialized applications involving use of small explosive-powered devices (e.g., squibs).
3.2 Research Support
Explosives are also used to support scientific research projects, and typically involve their application to
conduct seismic studies on land areas (rock or ice). The studies typically involve placing explosive charges
in holes drilled into the surface to create acoustic signals that can be analyzed for geologic profiles. Small-
scale use of explosives for seismic research is covered under a categorical exclusion per 45 C.F.R §
641.16(c)(ii) and not included as part of the proposed action.
Because the nature and extent of scientific research activities varies each year, the amount of explosives
needed to support a certain type of research at a specific location cannot be predicted until planning efforts
for that season are completed. The limited availability of transport options to transfer explosives safely to
remote field sites also require careful planning to identify the type and amount of explosives needed to
support a specific research project.
Research projects may also involve the use of energetic materials, such as the use of research rockets.
3.3 Logistical Support
Ski-equipped LC-130 aircraft provide the primary logistical support to USAP field camps at remote field
sites in Antarctica during the austral summer season, and can transport up to 10,800 kg (23,800 pounds) of
cargo. Ski takeoffs from unprepared runways at open field and high density altitude sites are feasible as long
as the LC-130 aircraft is able to accelerate to a safe takeoff speed. The LC-130 requires a takeoff speed of
greater than 65 knots. Key factors that influence the ability of the LC-130 aircraft to takeoff include the
gross weight of the aircraft, pressure altitude of the site, temperature at takeoff, and texture of the snow. In
addition, an increase in the aircraft’s forward velocity reduces the amount of time the nose ski is exposed to
stress caused by irregularities in the snow surface.
ATO units are the only aircraft modification available to provide additional thrust to the LC-130 sufficient
to allow takeoff with full cargo from unprepared ice or snow runways. Without the use of ATO units, the
aircraft may not be able to land at certain field locations or would need to reduce payload or burn additional
fuel during unsuccessful takeoff attempts prior to takeoff, resulting in increased risks to the aircraft and
USAP personnel, and increased air emissions.
It is anticipated that site conditions would require the use of ATO in an average of two takeoffs annually,
particularly at small field camps with unimproved (i.e., ungroomed) landing areas. The environmental
conditions at these remote field sites, typically inland and at high altitude on the polar plateau, do not
support local flora or fauna.
Eight ATO units are fired simultaneously on a LC-130 aircraft for each takeoff, with four units mounted on
each side of the fuselage. ATO units are comprised of two components: the ATO bottle (i.e., an MK6 steel
container with propellant and fibrous insert) and the ATO igniter. USAP follows specific procedures and
guidelines for operations associated with the storage, handling, and use of ATO units (Figure 1 and
Table 3).
8
Table 3. ATO Use in the USAP – Summary of Existing Procedures
Step Process Description Remarks
1. ATO is shipped to Antarctica (McMurdo Station) ATO is typically flown to Antarctica via LC-130 aircraft each season. Transport via vessel is also a feasible option.
2. ATO is placed in storage (McMurdo Station area) Primary storage is maintained in an explosive magazine and milvans at Arrival Heights (maximum 192 units). Secondary storage is maintained during the austral summer in a bunker at the airfield (maximum 48 units).
3. ATO is requested for LC-130 mission Determination is made by the Deployment Commander (DC) based on field conditions and mission requirements.
4. ATO is transported by ASC to loading area at runway and inspected/tested prior to deployment to aircraft
Additional Air Force procedures and documentation utilized.
a. Unserviceable units are transported back to storage
b. Serviceable units are transported to aircraft
5. ATO is mounted on aircraft; igniters secured 6. ATO igniters installed for takeoff 7. ATO is ignited for takeoff Decision is rendered by Aircraft Commander (AC)
based on field conditions – takeoff may be attempted first without ATO.
8. Post-flight inspection at runway (McMurdo Station) 9. ATO removed from aircraft a. Serviceable bottles are transported to storage b. Misfired bottles are transported to storage by
ASC, inspected, and identified for further disposition
c. Fully expended bottles and igniters are transported to storage by ASC, inspected, and identified for further disposition
Additional Air Force procedures and documentation utilized.
10. Expended ATO bottles and igniters processed for disposition
a. Bottles are “demilled” and retrograded for disposal
b. Igniters are retrograded as Defense Reutilization Marketing Office (DRMO) material
11. Defective ATO bottles (i.e., unserviceable, misfired units) are processed for disposition
3.4 Specialized Support
Other specialized applications using energetic materials to support research or logistics operations are
performed as needed. For example, flare guns and smoke grenades are used to aid in aircraft landings or
kept in inventory for emergency purposes. Use of these specialized energetic materials is limited in the
presence of flora and fauna to the extent practicable.
9
3.5 Specialized Disposal
Occasionally, explosives are needed to support specialized disposal of unstable materials such as obsolete
explosives or incendiary devices, unstable explosives, or chemicals. These types of specialized applications
are relatively rare and their frequency is unpredictable but, based on historical data, generally involve a very
small quantity of explosives or other energetic materials. These applications are typically performed on
snow-covered land or ice shelves away from USAP facilities or wildlife habitats, such as on the Ross Ice
Shelf between Williams Field and the Phoenix Runway. All expended and defective ATO units are
classified as a Department of Defense supply item for reuse, refurbishing, or disposal, and temporarily
stored in a manner to prevent releases of their components to the Antarctic environment. For final
disposition, these are retrograded to a DOD facility in the United States. No disposition of ATO units occurs
in Antarctica.
4.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Two alternatives to the proposed action are analyzed in this IEE: continue the current use of explosives
(Alternative A); and discontinue the use of explosives (i.e., the No Action Alternative, or Alternative B).
Alternative A has been identified as the Preferred Alternative.
4.1 Alternative A – Continue Current Use
Under Alternative A, USAP would continue to use explosives in Antarctica much as it has in the past. The
size, location, and frequency of detonations would be very similar to those of the past several years.
4.2 Alternative B – Discontinue Use (No Action Alternative)
Under Alternative B, the use of explosives in Antarctica would be discontinued. While the No Action
Alternative would not satisfy the purpose and need for the proposed action, this alternative was retained to
provide a comparative baseline against which to analyze the effects of the proposed action.
4.3 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed
Other alternatives were considered, but were not analyzed further after the initial review. Implementing a
reduced-scale alternative (i.e., minimized explosives use) would not satisfactorily meet the needs of USAP.
Certain research missions would not be able to be fully carried out without use of explosives. In addition,
the benefits to the scientific community from the selective use of explosives for certain applications would
be eliminated. Utilizing alternative methods as a substitute for explosives was also considered. This
alternative, however, would be prohibitive, as the methods and equipment employed to accomplish the same
types of tasks under Antarctic conditions are likely to result in significant operational and logistical impacts,
and could yield additional environmental risks and adverse impacts. In some cases, certain USAP operations
would have to be curtailed or eliminated because of unsafe conditions or logistically unfeasible factors.
USAP also considered implementing a research program to evaluate new explosive materials or
technologies to optimize efficiency, cost, and environmental impact. This would require additional funding
and significant logistical considerations that would affect existing processes and procedures. These
alternatives were therefore eliminated from further consideration.
5.0 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE STATE
Each of the three permanent USAP stations (McMurdo, Amundsen-Scott South Pole, and Palmer) and
several semi-permanent outlying facilities located on dry land and snow or ice-covered areas include
buildings, equipment, and infrastructure, which are routinely used to support the primary mission of USAP.
10
The area disturbed at each facility is considered a facility zone where operations are expected to continue
into the near future. The use of explosives or other energetic materials by USAP may affect dry land and
snow/ice-covered areas.
5.1 Dry Land
Each year USAP establishes numerous facilities and research sites in ice-free areas on dry land. McMurdo
and Palmer stations are coastal stations constructed on native rock and soils. Certain support facilities, such
as the Black Island Telecommunications Facility and the Marble Point Refueling Facility, contain routinely
used facility zones. Many of the facilities and areas of scientific study are located in the McMurdo Dry
Valleys ASMA, in southern Victoria Land in East Antarctica. Land surfaces in Antarctica are generally
characterized by bare rock, with boulders, pebbles, and other native fines (soil). Permafrost is commonly
present, consisting of frozen soil and rock. Biota present on land surfaces may include algae, fungi, lichen,
mosses, and small invertebrates.
5.2 Snow/Ice
Each year USAP establishes numerous facilities and research sites on land areas permanently covered by
snow or ice. Generally, these areas are devoid of any flora or fauna. Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station is
located in the interior of the continent on the snow-covered polar plateau. Several semi-permanent support
facilities have been established on snow-covered areas, including the Long Duration Balloon (LDB) camp,
Phoenix Airfield, and Williams Field near McMurdo Station. Each of these facilities has defined areas for
structures, roadways, and facility operations.
6.0 IDENTIFICATION AND PREDICTION OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
In this section, the environmental effects related to the proposed activities (operational support, research
support, specialized support, and specialized disposal) are presented for each of the two alternatives under
consideration.
6.1 Direct Impacts
A direct impact is a change in environmental values or resources that results from direct cause-effect
consequences of interaction between the exposed environment and an activity or action (e.g., decrease of a
limpet population due to an oil spill, or a decrease of a freshwater invertebrate population due to lake water
removal; ATS 2016).
6.1.1 Impacts on Biological Resources
6.1.1.1 Flora
Depending upon the location of explosives use, disturbances to land areas under Alternative A may
potentially affect any flora biota (e.g., moss, lichens) that may be present on rock or soils, particularly on
the Antarctic Peninsula. These organisms may be sensitive to physical disturbance and dust. USAP would
implement dust mitigation strategies to reduce any impact (e.g., the use of blasting mats). Further, proposed
use of explosives or other energetic materials in sensitive environments or protected areas
(ASPAs/ASMAs/HSMs) would require supplemental environmental review. Use of ATO units would have
no impact to flora, as LC-130 aircraft almost exclusively support inland areas or high-altitude sites on the
polar plateau, where there is no local flora. Impacts to flora species are expected to be less than minor or
transitory.
11
Under Alternative B (i.e., No Action Alternative), no impacts would occur to Antarctic flora as explosives
use would not be implemented. Current biological conditions would continue.
6.1.1.2 Fauna
Implementation of Alternative A would result in less than minor or transitory impacts on Antarctic fauna.
Explosives would not be used on sea ice or on coastlines where nearby sensitive bird and mammal
populations may be present. Because acoustic releases (e.g., noise, vibrations) to the environment may be
perceived by nearby faunal receptors, explosives would also not be used if any animals are observed near
blasting operations. USAP would delay explosives activities until individuals have vacated the area.
Furthermore, if required for the safety of wildlife, herding by trained and permitted personnel could be
employed to safely get animals out of harm’s way from blasting operations. Use of ATO units would have
no impact to fauna, as ATO units are used almost exclusively in areas where no local fauna are present.
Implementation of mitigation and monitoring measures, as discussed in Section 6.3, would ensure that
Alternative A would not result in a significant adverse effect on wildlife populations.
Under Alternative B, no impacts would occur to Antarctic fauna as explosives use would not be
implemented. Current biological conditions would continue.
6.1.2 Impacts on Physical Resources
6.1.2.1 Land and Ice
Implementation of Alternative A would result in minor impacts on land and ice environments. Physical
disturbances in the immediate area of each blast site would be a certain outcome because the explosives are
intentionally used to fracture or dislodge rock, ice, or snow surfaces to achieve the desired outcomes. Holes
are often drilled in the affected media to concentrate the charge at its most effective position and to
minimize the airborne release of dislodged materials. Physical characteristics of the affected media and
blasting design variables (e.g., charge quantity, depth) influence the extent of the disturbances. In addition,
particulate byproducts resulting from the detonation of explosives and other energetic materials as well as
residues from media affected by the blast (e.g., snow/ice, rock, soil) may be deposited in the immediate area
surrounding the blast site. The quantity of residual materials released as the result of an explosion is
expected to be very small and is not expected to alter or react with the surrounding environment.
Overall environmental effects would be no more than minor or transitory as physical disturbances resulting
from the use of explosives at long-term USAP facilities on either dry land or snow-covered areas because
they generally encompass previously disturbed areas. Impacts may be reversible as well. Seismic research
involves detonations only on the ice of the polar plateau. For these activities, explosive charges are placed
in or on the snow or ice and present no potential impacts to the underlying soil or geological substrata. The
disturbance of a small area of the snow surface is slight, and all evidence of a detonation is quickly erased
by Antarctic winds and/or accumulating snow. While physical disturbances resulting from the use of
explosives to support various long-term actions (e.g., construction and operational support) would not be
transitory in nature, they would be localized in extent. Further, the disturbance produced by using
explosives to expose rock surfaces for geologic research or for construction of new roads and buildings
would be similar to that of earth moving machinery. Adherence to blast plans, standard operating
procedures, and best practices would minimize the extent of physical disturbance to land and ice.
Occasionally, some explosives transported to the field site may not be properly or fully detonated. In these
instances, USAP would plan to use additional explosives to ensure all failed explosives are safely detonated.
In this case, physical disturbances would be the same as described for planned detonations. In the rare event
12
that failed detonations cannot be safely detonated or transported from the site, these unexploded ordinances
(UXO) would be abandoned in the field and tracked appropriately (Section 6.3.2). No impacts would occur
as abandoned explosives are expected to become rapidly buried in snow and ice, and remain inert.
Under Alternative B, no impacts would occur to land and ice as explosives use would not be implemented.
USAP would need to use heavy machinery or other mechanical tools for operational and research support.
Previous experience, however, has shown that properly placed explosive detonations can loosen frozen
earth for removal with less total disturbance than that caused by heavy machinery. Therefore, the benefits of
explosives use being less disruptive than heavy machinery would not be realized.
6.1.2.2 Air
Alternative A would release some air pollutants each time explosives and other energetic materials are
detonated. The air emissions from the use of the explosives, flares, ATO units, and other energetic materials
would mix and disperse in the ambient air, resulting in no more than a minor or transitory air quality impact.
These releases would include carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur
dioxides (SOx). The use of flares would also produce lead, carbon dioxide, total nonmethane hydrocarbons
(TNMHC), total suspended particulate (TSP), and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to
or less than 10 micrometers (µm; PM10). Smoke grenades and research rockets would also emit the same or
similar pollutants. The infrequent use of these devices would not result in any substantial effect on air
quality. USAP calculated estimated air emissions resulting from the use of 25 metric tons (Mg) of
explosives per year by using pollutant-specific emission factors for gelatin-based dynamite, which is the
type of explosive most commonly used (Table 4). These estimates represent maximum air emission
quantities.
Table 4. Estimated Annual Emissions from the Use of Explosives
Parameter
Emission Factor1
[kg released/Mg of explosive used]
Estimated Emissions2 in kg
(pounds)
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 52 1300 (2866)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 26 650 (1433)
Sulfur Dioxide (SOx) 1 25 (55)
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 2 50 (110)
Notes:
1 Emission factors for gelatin-based dynamite; emissions for ANFO materials
are 34 mg/Mg CO, 8 kg/Mg NOx, and 1 kg/Mg SOx 2 Emissions based on 25 metric tons used per year
The use of ATO units for LC-130 takeoffs would result in the release of ATO combustion byproducts. Table 5 presents the estimated annual ATO emissions (two missions, 16 bottles ignited).
13
Table 5. Estimated Annual ATO Emissions in kg (pounds)
Emissions Constituent Estimated Emissions in kg (pounds)
Hydrogen Chloride 122 (269)
Nitrogen 47 (104)
Hydrogen 11 (24)
Carbon Monoxide 111 (245)
Carbon Dioxide 156 (344)
Methane 0.1 (0.22)
Overall, Alternative A would result in no more than a minor or transitory impact on air quality. Air
emissions would be generated during operational, research, and specialized support activities, as well as
specialized disposal activities. Likewise, any delayed detonations of failed explosives would generate
measurable amounts of emissions into the air. Any pollutants released from detonations would remain
localized before being quickly dispersed by the Antarctic winds.
Under Alternative B, no air emissions would be generated from explosives use. The use of explosives,
however, would likely be substituted with the use of heavy machinery, which could potentially exceed the
production of particulate matter created by detonations. As such, it is possible that Alternative B could
produce more airborne particulate matter than Alternative A. Implementation of mitigation measures
(Section 6.3) would ensure impacts on air quality from increased particulate matter remain at no more than
minor or transitory levels.
6.1.3 Impacts on Research and Research Support
6.1.3.1 Research
Implementation of Alternative A would likely result in both beneficial and adverse impacts on scientific
research. When used to assist in gathering scientific data, explosives usage benefits the achievement of
research goals, especially in remote areas where alternative methods are limited by costly and logistically
challenging constraints.
Conversely, explosives could negatively affect ongoing or future scientific research by contaminating sites
or altering the biological or physical environment. Areas where sensitive studies are being conducted could
be irreversibly damaged for research purposes by explosives if special precautions are not taken. Mitigation
measures (Section 6.3) would be implemented appropriately to avoid or minimize the adverse impacts to the
extent practicable. Further, USAP would avoid explosives use if such use would infringe on the successful
completion of an ongoing or anticipated scientific investigation; therefore, any adverse impacts on research
would be no more than minor or transitory.
Under Alternative B, research projects could potentially be delayed or reduced due to the inability to use
explosives or the substitution for other less efficient research support methods. Such an effect would be
14
highly speculative, however, and unlikely to occur. Therefore, there would be no more than a minor or
transitory impact on research activities.
6.1.3.2 Research Support
Alternative A would benefit research support. Explosives have played a vital role in the efficient support of
research station operations in Antarctica for over 30 years. Under Alternative A, projects could move to
completion with the efficient use of explosives to loosen frozen earth, discover and mitigate dangerous
crevasses during overland traverses, and remove dangerous ice cornices.
While many of these research support activities could be done without explosives, it would likely result in
greater costs to personnel labor and logistical resources. For example, without the use of ATO units, LC-
130s supporting research missions may need to make repeated takeoff attempts at sites with unimproved
runways, and some remote field sites may not be accessible. Therefore, Alternative B would result in minor
impacts on research support, as the cost of operations would be greater than Alternative A, limiting support
resources for completion of research projects.
6.2 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
An indirect impact is a change in environmental values or resources that results from interactions between
the environment and other impacts – direct or indirect (e.g., alteration in gull population due to a decrease in
limpet population which, in turn, was caused by an oil spill; ATS 2016). Potential cumulative impacts are
those impacts resulting from incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions.
6.2.1 Indirect Impacts
USAP determined that no indirect impacts to biological resources or health and safety are anticipated.
Explosives use would be limited to direct impacts on these resources (e.g., wildlife disturbance due to
detonation noise or health and safety risk associated with handling explosives).
Implementation of Alternative A would result in indirect adverse impacts to physical resources, primarily
from modification of the natural landscape. While explosives use would primarily occur near established
stations and field camps, explosives for research purposes may occur in pristine environments and would
indirectly degrade the aesthetics and wilderness value of an area. However, explosives use in wilderness
areas would be limited in scale and impacts would be negligible in the context of the entire continent. The
terrain would continue to accumulate snow and quickly return to its natural state, thereby preserving the
wilderness value of the region. Further, proposed explosives use in or adjacent to any sensitive
environments (e.g., ASPAs, ASMAs, HSMs, freshwater bodies, coastlines, sea ice, or marine environments)
would require site-specific supplemental environmental review. Overall, explosives use under Alternative A
would have less than minor or transitory indirect impacts on aesthetics and wilderness values of the
Antarctic. Under Alternative B, activities that would typically be conducted with assistance of explosives
(e.g., grading or contouring and facilities maintenance) would instead be conducted using heavy equipment
and/or mechanical tools. Use of mechanical methods would cause greater disturbance compared to the use
of properly placed explosives, resulting in no more than a minor or transitory impact on physical resources
under Alternative B.
Alternative A would cause indirect impacts to research and research support operations in Antarctica.
Continued explosives use would have the potential to interfere with ongoing research experiments,
depending on the strength of the explosive and proximity to nearby research sites. For example, blasting
15
would cause ground vibrations and air emissions that would be detectable by seismological and air quality
monitoring experiments. Likewise, potential accidental releases, while rare, would cause the same indirect
impacts to research and research support. When use of explosives is proposed in proximity to active
research sites, users of explosives would coordinate with research sites to recognize potential concerns and
identify measures to minimize interference on research activities. In addition, there are rare cases where
UXO cannot be safely disposed of and are left in the field. Abandoned UXO would cause concerns
regarding future site disturbance, which could limit an area’s availability to be used in future research.
However, given the rarity of UXO abandonment and the vast nature of the Antarctic landscape, indirect
impacts to research would be minimal. Overall, explosives use under Alternative A would have less than
minor or transitory impacts on research and research support operations. Under Alternative B, no indirect
impacts on research or research support would occur.
6.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
It is unlikely that any significant cumulative impacts would result from any of the alternatives. If some
science projects were delayed or reduced as a result of selecting Alternative B, a decrease of discovery of
new scientific information could result. However, such an effect would be highly speculative. The small
levels of air emissions, dust, chemical residues, and waste produced under Alternative A would be no more
than minor or transitory and generally confined to established stations, field camps, and individual research
sites. The cumulative effects of physical disturbances from construction and maintenance activities
(gathering aggregate with explosives) would remain localized, and disturbances would occur mostly within
the existing station footprint. Overall, cumulative impacts under Alternatives A or B would be no more than
minor or transitory.
6.3 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING
Because the proposed action involves the use of explosive and incendiary devices, mitigating measures
would be employed to minimize or eliminate adverse impacts to the environment. In general,
implementation of the proposed action would be consistent with the policies and procedures outlined in
established standard operating procedures and best practices. USAP would monitor blasting events, track
explosives usage, and observe for any unexpected environmental consequences or incidents.
6.3.1 Biological Resources
To avoid possible harm to Antarctic mammals and birds, prior to implementing Alternative A, USAP would
survey an area for wildlife on land, ice, and snow surfaces. USAP would not conduct blasting events if any
animals are observed near blasting operations. USAP would postpone detonations until wildlife have
vacated the area.
Under certain conditions at USAP facilities, it may be necessary to herd and displace wildlife from an area
to avoid harm during construction or maintenance activities, including those involving the use of explosives
or other energetic materials. Removal of wildlife would only be conducted under an ACA permit issued by
the Office of Polar Programs of the NSF and would require a separate environmental review. Similarly,
explosives use in sensitive areas, such as the McMurdo Dry Valleys ASMA, are not considered in this IEE
and would require a separate environmental review.
6.3.2 Physical Disturbance
Mitigating measures would be incorporated into the design of each blasting event to minimize the physical
impacts to the terrain. The blast plan would specify the least amount of explosives needed to achieve the
16
intended goal, thereby limiting the extent of disturbance or the amount of excess explosive that may require
destruction at remote sites. In addition, blast patterns would be configured to minimize the uncontrolled
airborne release of materials (referred to as fly rock or fly ice) and may incorporate several smaller blasts to
loosen materials in a series of lifts. In some instances, blasts may be shielded with mats or grates.
Controlled blasting techniques would be used to ensure complete consumption of explosive charges.
In the event USAP cannot safely transport or remove failed detonations or UXO, USAP would document
these instances and locations for tracking purposes. Specifically, USAP would collect a GPS location for
where the UXO are left in the field, mark the area with black bamboo flags (i.e., hazard flags) if practicable,
and report the UXO occurrence. Depending on the location of the UXO, USAP may attempt to return to the
site the following season and use additional explosives to ensure the unexploded charge is detonated.
Should the attempt to detonate/recover UXO fail, the location would be recorded and the UXO would be
abandoned in the field. UXO are expected to remain inert if abandoned in the field; however, if UXO are
encountered during other USAP activities, the situation would be assessed to determine if safe handling and
removal is warranted. Any USAP activities that would occur in or near areas with known UXOs would
implement all necessary safety measures in accordance with established operating procedures and best
practices.
To mitigate any airborne emissions, USAP would use blast mats to reduce dust during blasting activities.
These would be placed over the blast area to contain matter ejected from the blast. Careful blast design by a
qualified shot-firer would also aid in minimizing dust and fly rock. Further, quarrying activities and dust-
heavy activities would be restricted to low-wind days.
6.3.3 Research and Research Support
Implementation of the proposed action could potentially contaminate ongoing or future scientific research
sites, or areas where sensitive studies are being conducted. USAP would avoid explosives use if such use
would infringe on the successful completion of an ongoing or anticipated scientific investigation. Research
activities are thoroughly planned each year to avoid potential conflicts. Logistical and science support needs
for the proposed action and other projects would be clearly defined during the planning process to ensure
that resources are available. Disruptions to ongoing and future research projects would be minimized
through advance planning and coordination.
6.3.4 Health and Safety
To protect USAP personnel from potential physical and acoustic effects during explosives use, a series of
measures appropriate for the facility, environmental setting, or specific explosives activity would be
implemented. In general, all personnel and critical property would be withdrawn to a safe standoff distance
when blasting occurs to avoid injury from debris. Depending on the charge load, a typical safe standoff
radius could be 152 meters (499 feet) or more. Blast notification procedures are also used at USAP facilities
to inform and protect personnel and operations. At McMurdo Station and nearby support facilities (e.g.,
Williams Field, Phoenix Airfield, and connecting roadways) a “Notice of Intent to Conduct Blasting
Operations” is issued 24 hours in advance. Additional notices and warnings are used to notify personnel and
operations of proposed detonations at regular intervals leading up to the blast event. When appropriate, the
facility’s Fire Department or other personnel may assist with securing the blast area. In addition, USAP
would only use the minimum amount of explosives needed to conduct the research or support activity in
question; thereby, minimizing any undue risk from excess explosive material. In general, USAP personnel
would continue adhering to safety procedures and general training required to work in the McMurdo Shear
Zone.
17
6.4 IMPACT SUMMARY
Potential environmental aspects resulting from the proposed action are identified in Table 6. An
environmental aspect is determined based on interactions between the proposed activity and the
environment. Table 7 presents a summary of impacts potentially resulting from the proposed action (this
summary assumes the successful use of preventive or mitigating measures). Potential environmental
impacts associated with the proposed action have been evaluated in this IEE, and have been compared to
criteria for extent, duration, intensity, and probability.
18
Table 6. Potential Environmental Aspects of the Proposed Action
Potential Environmental Aspects
Activity Combustion Byproducts
Noise Generation
Accidental Release
(defective components)
Planned Release
(explosive residue)
Alteration of Land
Surfaces (rock, ice)
Interaction with Biota
Alteration of Aesthetic
Environment
Interference to Other Research
Operational Support
Storing explosives and energetic materials ü ü
Disturbance to land and/or ice areas (grading and contouring; maintenance of access roads and drainage ditches)
ü ü ü ü ü ü ü
Excavating earth materials (fines) ü ü ü ü ü ü ü
Dislodging structures imbedded in ice ü ü ü ü ü ü
Mitigating crevasse hazards ü ü ü ü ü ü
Removing obstructions (ice accumulation, rocks, and other obstructions)
ü ü ü ü ü ü ü
Research Support
19
Table 6. Potential Environmental Aspects of the Proposed Action
Potential Environmental Aspects
Activity Combustion Byproducts
Noise Generation
Accidental Release
(defective components)
Planned Release
(explosive residue)
Alteration of Land
Surfaces (rock, ice)
Interaction with Biota
Alteration of Aesthetic
Environment
Interference to Other Research
Creating acoustic signals for land-based seismic measurements
ü ü ü
ü
Exposing rock and fossil specimens ü ü ü ü ü ü ü
Using research rockets ü ü ü ü
Logistical Support
Using ATO units to support LC-130 missions from unprepared runways at open field and high-density altitude sites.
ü ü
Specialized Support
Using energetic materials for specialized applications (flare guns/smoke grenades/small explosive-powered devices)
ü ü ü ü
20
Table 6. Potential Environmental Aspects of the Proposed Action
Potential Environmental Aspects
Activity Combustion Byproducts
Noise Generation
Accidental Release
(defective components)
Planned Release
(explosive residue)
Alteration of Land
Surfaces (rock, ice)
Interaction with Biota
Alteration of Aesthetic
Environment
Interference to Other Research
Specialized Disposal
Disposing of obsolete explosives/unstable explosives or chemicals/defective ATO units or igniters
ü ü ü ü
ü
21
Table 7. Summary of Impacts Resulting from Implementing the Proposed Action
Environmental Impact Evaluation
Mitigation of Impact Environmental Element Impacted
Nature of Impact Spatial Extent Duration Intensity Probability Significance
FLORA AND FAUNA
Noise disturbance to flora and fauna
(Mitigating crevasse hazards; removing obstructions; creating acoustic signals; specialized support; specialized disposal)
L1
Confined to the site of
the activity
L
Impacts will be short-
term
L
Minor disturbance
and recovery likely
M1
Disturbance possible but unlikely to
occur
Less than minor or transitory
• Survey for wildlife prior to implementing explosives activities
• If wildlife are observed, postpone detonations until wildlife have vacated the area
• Only conduct wildlife removal under ACA permit
• Conduct separate environmental review for explosives use in sensitive areas
Physical disturbance to flora biota (e.g., moss, lichens) present on rock or soils
(Excavating earth materials; exposing rock and fossil specimens)
L
Confined to the site of
the activity
L
Impacts will be short-
term
L
Minor disturbance
and recovery likely
M
Disturbance possible but unlikely to
occur
Less than minor or transitory
• N/A
LAND AND ICE
Land alteration
(Disturbance to land areas; removing obstructions; creating acoustic signals;
L M
Potential for medium-
term
L
Minor disturbance
H1
Likely to occur during the span of
No more than minor or transitory
• Adhere to established operating procedures, best practices, and blast plans
22
Table 7. Summary of Impacts Resulting from Implementing the Proposed Action
Environmental Impact Evaluation
Mitigation of Impact Environmental Element Impacted
Nature of Impact Spatial Extent Duration Intensity Probability Significance
LAND AND ICE
exposing rock and fossil specimens)
Confined to the site of
the activity
changes to land;
impacts likely
reversible
and recovery likely
the proposed action
Snow and ice alteration
(Disturbance to ice areas; mitigating crevasse hazards; removing obstructions; dislodging structures)
L
Confined to the site of
the activity
L
Potential for short-term changes to
ice; impacts likely
reversible
L
Minor disturbance
and recovery likely
H
Likely to occur during the span of
the proposed action
No more than minor or transitory
• Adhere to established operating procedures, best practices, and blast plans
Release of explosive residue and materials from planned and accidental detonations
(Disturbance to land and ice areas; mitigating crevasse hazards; removing obstructions; dislodging structures; creating acoustic signals; exposing rock and fossil specimens; specialized support)
L
Confined to the site of
the activity
L
Impacts are not likely to
alter or react with
the environment
L
Minor disturbance
and recovery likely
H
Likely to occur during the span of
the proposed action
No more than minor or transitory
• Configure blast patterns to minimize uncontrolled airborne release of materials
• Document and track unexploded ordnance with the goal to return the following season to completely detonate the unexploded charge where practicable
23
Table 7. Summary of Impacts Resulting from Implementing the Proposed Action
Environmental Impact Evaluation
Mitigation of Impact Environmental Element Impacted
Nature of Impact Spatial Extent Duration Intensity Probability Significance
AIR
Atmospheric emissions from combustion byproducts
(Disturbance to land and ice areas; mitigating crevasse hazards; removing obstructions; dislodging structures; creating acoustic signals; exposing rock and fossil specimens; specialized support; logistical support; specialized disposal)
L
Contributions to the local atmosphere
L
Short-term duration due
to rapid dispersal
L
Ambient air will be
minimally affected
H
Likely to occur during the span of
the proposed action
No more than minor or transitory
• Use blast mats to reduce dust • Restrict quarrying and dust-heavy
activities to low-wind days • Design blast in a way to minimize
dust and fly rock
RESEARCH AND
RESEARCH SUPPORT
Achievement of research goals and projects that use explosives (including logistical ATO use) or data generated through explosives use
(All activities)
L
Confined to the site of
the activity
L
Long-term duration, but
beneficial
L
Resulting impacts
would be beneficial
H
Likely to occur during the span of
the proposed action
No more than minor or transitory
• Not applicable; positive impact
24
Table 7. Summary of Impacts Resulting from Implementing the Proposed Action
Environmental Impact Evaluation
Mitigation of Impact Environmental Element Impacted
Nature of Impact Spatial Extent Duration Intensity Probability Significance
RESEARCH AND
RESEARCH SUPPORT
Potential contamination
(All activities)
L
Confined to the site of
the activity or
immediate vicinity
L
Impacts from
contamination likely
short-term and
reversible
M
Varying levels of
contamination may occur;
recovery likely
M
Possible but unlikely with implementati
on of mitigation measures
No more than minor or transitory
• Avoid explosives use if such use would infringe on the successful completion of an ongoing or anticipated scientific investigation
HEALTH AND SAFETY
Risk of injury
(All activities)
L
Confined to the site of
the activity
L
Risk of injury would
be short-term and
only occur during discrete
explosive use
M
Varying levels of
injury may occur,
although unlikely
L
Low risk with implementati
on of mitigation measures
Less than minor or transitory
• Secure storage and restrict access • Implement safety procedures
during blasting events
25
Table 7. Summary of Impacts Resulting from Implementing the Proposed Action
Environmental Impact Evaluation
Mitigation of Impact Environmental Element Impacted
Nature of Impact Spatial Extent Duration Intensity Probability Significance
INDIRECT IMPACTS
Degraded wilderness values
(Storing explosives and energetic materials; disturbance to land and ice areas)
L
Confined to the site of
the activity or
immediate vicinity
L
Impacts would be
short-term and
reversible
L
Affected environment would not be
subject to long-lasting
changes
H
Likely to occur during the span of
the proposed action
No more than minor or transitory
• Utilize structures/materials consistent with facility zone or master plans
• Conduct grading activities to match surrounding contours or remain consistent with facility zone or master plans
Interference with ongoing research
(All activities)
L
Confined to the site of
the activity or
immediate vicinity
L
Short-term impacts that would occur only during
discrete explosive
use
L
Disturbance unlikely with
proper project
planning
L
Unlikely to occur with
implementation of
mitigation measures
Less than minor or transitory
• Avoid explosives use if such use would infringe on the successful completion of an ongoing or anticipated scientific investigation
• Clearly define logistical and science support needs for the proposed action during the planning process
26
Table 7. Summary of Impacts Resulting from Implementing the Proposed Action
Environmental Impact Evaluation
Mitigation of Impact Environmental Element Impacted
Nature of Impact Spatial Extent Duration Intensity Probability Significance
INDIRECT IMPACTS
Increase in waste management resources
(storing expended and defective explosives and ATO units; shipping to a facility in the United States for final disposition)
L
Confined to the site of
the activity
L
Impacts would be
short-term and
reversible
L
Disturbance unlikely with
proper project
planning
L
Cumulative impacts are unlikely to
occur
Less than minor or transitory
• Adhere to established operating procedures, best practices, and waste management strategies
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Combined impact on each environmental element when taken into consideration with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities
L
Confined to the site of
the activity
L
Short term impacts
would be likely
reversible
L
Disturbance unlikely with
proper project
planning
L
Cumulative impacts are unlikely to
occur
No more than minor or transitory
• Adhere to established operating procedures, best practices, blast plans, and policies and procedures outlined in the Antarctic Treaty
1Key: L=Low M=Medium H=High
27
7.0 CONCLUSION
This IEE considers the potential environmental impact associated with continued use of explosives or other energetic materials at USAP facilities and research sites throughout Antarctica. Results of this evaluation indicate impacts from the proposed action would range from less than minor or transitory to no more than minor or transitory. This assessment was based on the spatial extent, duration, intensity, and probability of the identified potential impacts. The levels of predicted impacts are considered acceptable given the scientific benefits to be gained from explosives use. Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed action is implemented as specified in this IEE.
8.0 IEE PREPARATION SOURCES
Document Prepared by:
Mr. John Maier, Program Manager, AECOM 703-340-3110, john.maier@aecom.com
Ms. Charlene Wu, Deputy Project Manager, AECOM 703-682-5023, charlene.wu@aecom.com
Mr. Ben Obenland, Environmental Planner, AECOM 301-944-2414, benjamin.obenland@aecom.com
Consultation:
Mr. Nathan Williams, Environmental Manager, ASC 720-568-2256, nathan.williams.contractor@usap.gov
Ms. Laura Elliott, Environmental Analyst, ASC 720-568-2457, laura.elliott.contractor@usap.gov
Ms. Marci Beitch, Lead Environmental Specialist, ASC 720-568-2094, marci.beitch.contractor@usap.gov
9.0 REFERENCES
Antarctic Treaty Secretariat (ATS). 2016. Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment in Antarctica [Internet]. Available from: http://ats.aq/documents/recatt/Att605_e.pdf.
ATS. 1991. The protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic Treaty [Internet]. Available from: https://www.ats.aq/e/protocol.html.
Table 1-1. Constituents in a MK6 Rocket Motor (ATO Bottle)1
Item Composition Weight in kg (pounds)
Propellant Grain Ammonium perchlorate 24.5 (54.0)
Polyester resin 4.8 (10.6)
Styrene 2.9 (6.4)
Tert-butyl catechol 0.2 (0.5)
Cumene hydroperoxide 0.2 (0.5)
Lecithin, 10% in styrene 0.98 (2.2)
Copper chromite 0.05 (0.1)
Igniter FFFG black powder (primary charge) 0.0012 (0.003)
Aluminum potassium perchlorate pellets 0.045 (0.1)
1 Derived from project specifications and analysis.
Table 1-2. MK6 Rocket Motor Exhaust Composition1
Component Chamber Composition (percent)
Exit Composition (percent)
HCl 14.9 14.96
N2 7.47 7.48
H20 27.16 18.61
H2 16.6 25.19
OH 0.01 0
Cl 0.04 0
H 0.06 0
CO 26.43 17.81
CO2 7.28 15.93
CH4 0 0.03
Cu 0.04 0
1 Derived from project specifications and analysis.