PAUL R SHEPPARD - Antarctic Treaty

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





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




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).

7

Figure 1. ATO Use in the USAP – Process Diagram

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




Noise Generation

Accidental Release


Planned Release

(explosive residue)

Alteration of Land




Environment


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




Noise Generation

Accidental Release


Planned Release

(explosive residue)

Alteration of Land




Environment


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


the activity

L

Impacts will be short-

term

L

Minor disturbance

and recovery likely

M

Disturbance possible but unlikely to

occur


• 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





LAND AND ICE

exposing rock and fossil specimens)


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


the activity

L

Potential for short-term changes to

ice; impacts likely

reversible

L

Minor disturbance

and recovery likely

H


the proposed action


• 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


the activity

L

Impacts are not likely to

alter or react with

the environment

L

Minor disturbance

and recovery likely

H


the proposed action


• 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





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


the proposed action


• 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


the activity

L

Long-term duration, but

beneficial

L

Resulting impacts

would be beneficial

H


the proposed action


• Not applicable; positive impact

24





RESEARCH AND

RESEARCH SUPPORT

Potential contamination

(All activities)

L


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


• 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


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


• Secure storage and restrict access • Implement safety procedures

during blasting events

25





INDIRECT IMPACTS

Degraded wilderness values

(Storing explosives and energetic materials; disturbance to land and ice areas)

L


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


the proposed action


• 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


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


• 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





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


the activity

L

Impacts would be

short-term and

reversible

L


proper project

planning

L

Cumulative impacts are unlikely to

occur


• 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


the activity

L

Short term impacts

would be likely

reversible

L


proper project

planning

L

Cumulative impacts are unlikely to

occur


• 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, [email protected]

Ms. Charlene Wu, Deputy Project Manager, AECOM 703-682-5023, [email protected]

Mr. Ben Obenland, Environmental Planner, AECOM 301-944-2414, [email protected]

Consultation:

Mr. Nathan Williams, Environmental Manager, ASC 720-568-2256, [email protected]

Ms. Laura Elliott, Environmental Analyst, ASC 720-568-2457, [email protected]

Ms. Marci Beitch, Lead Environmental Specialist, ASC 720-568-2094, [email protected]

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.

Attachment 1. ATO Components and Combustion Byproducts

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.

PAUL R SHEPPARD - Antarctic Treaty

Documents

Transcript of PAUL R SHEPPARD - Antarctic Treaty