Title : S.Pole Camp Upgrade-2 new modules Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : June 29, 1992 File : opp93067 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: June 29, 1992 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (South Pole Station Summer Camp Upgrade, Including Installation of Two New Head Modules) To: Files (S.7 - Environment) BACKGROUND This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, proposed actions to upgrade housing facilities at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. These upgrades are part of a larger planned effort, currently limited by fiscal and program- matic constraints, to improve the safety of these housing facil- ities. The Environmental Officer posed a set of questions relat- ing to the planning for the proposed upgrade, and to the poten- tially affected environment. These questions were responded to by the civilian support contractor's Environmental Engineer, by its Senior Construction Coordinator, and by the Operations Manager of South Pole Station on June 17, 1992; the questions and responses are shown below: Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses GENERAL: The South Pole Station includes a group of buildings known as the "Summer Camp". In addition to housing the larger summer season population the Summer Camp is meant to serve as emergency housing in the event that the Dome would have to be evacuated. Due to the large amount of construction activity at the station in recent years the Summer Camp has been grown in both size and complexity. During the 1991-92 summer season the Summer Camp included 10 berthing Jamesways, one lounge/galley building, one back-up generator building, and two head modules. The existing head modules contain snow melters, toilets, sinks and showers. These existing head modules do not serve the needs of the Summer Camp's population adequately. By design, the existing modules can accommodate fifteen people; the Summer Camp housed 105 people during the 1991-92 season. Water shortages severely limited shower and laundry capabilities, and were a frequent cause of tension between personnel. To alleviate this situation the Contractor proposes to remove one of the existing head modules (called "3-2-1") and to install two new head modules. The 3-2-1 head module would be rehabilitated and used as a remote support building. The new heads would be constructed in the United States in modular sections and transported to South Pole Station as early as possible during the 1992-93 season. Well-insulated wooden construction is proposed. To comply with life safety codes, the entire existing Summer Camp is to be replaced eventually. The timing of this is limited currently by fiscal and programmatic constraints. The Jamesways would be replaced by modular berthing buildings. The new head modules to be installed this coming season would be used as part of any new Summer Camp. As part of the upgrade project the Contractor also proposes to install new floors and forced air heating systems in six James- ways. The new heating systems would replace preway heaters which are a extreme fire danger and do not heat the buildings evenly. 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? The design and installation of two new head modules and new heating systems at the South Pole Station Summer Camp is proposed. One of the two existing head modules would be removed, thereby providing three head modules for the 1992-93 season. What alternatives to the proposed activity have the Program and the Contractor considered? Three alternatives to the proposed head module installation have been considered: 1) addition of one new head module (i.e., leaving both of the existing modules in place); 2) replacement of both existing head modules; and 3), the "no action" alternative. The proposed alternative is preferred as it would provide the Summer Camp with increased life safety and an adequate number of amenities, given the expected camp population. Continued use of the existing 3-2-1 head module was rejected because of its small size (i.e., it was designed for use by no more than four people). A number of alternatives for supplying water to the head modules and disposing the wastewater produced have also been considered. These are listed and discussed in Attachment 1. Solar power was considered as an alternative to the proposed heating systems, which would burn JP-8 fuel. However, as the Jamesways are poorly insulated, solar heating was evaluated as a currently infeasible option. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered by the Program and the Contractor? Please explain how. Yes. The impacts of the proposed alternative would include: 1) creating two new sewer bulbs; 2) air emissions from the vehicle hauling water to the new modules aa well as emissions from the boilers used to heat the head modules, and 3) a slight increase in power consumption for heat tracing two new sewer outfalls. The improved energy efficiency of the new head modules would help to offset these impacts. If no action is taken there would be operational difficulties and aesthetic impacts, including personnel urinating outdoors near the Jamesways as has occurred in the past. The impacts of the alternatives considered for water supply and wastewater disposal are discussed in Attachment 1. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated by the Program or the Contractor? The impact of the new sewer bulb on buildings and the pipeline would be minimized by placing the bulb at an adequate distance to prevent any settling beneath buildings and by using piping that is flexible. The vehicle used to haul water would be properly maintained to minimize emissions. The new buildings would be well insulated to minimize fuel consumption for heating. Generation of construction debris would be reduced by using modular building sections for the head modules and by cutting the new heating system materials to size as much as possible before they are transported to South Pole Station. The environmental impact of the sewer bulbs would be minimized by limiting the kinds of materials and sub- stances discharged to sewage and grey water. Only such biodegradable, "environmentally-friendly" soaps as Simple Green would be used for cleaning and laundry. To reenforce existing U.S. Antarctic Program policies, signs would be posted advising personnel that such wastes as solvents, laboratory and photographic chemi- cals, or pharmaceutical chemicals, shall not be put into the station's wastewater system. Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered by the Program or the Contractor? Please explain how. Yes. Indirect costs include the cargo flights required to deliver materials to the station (four flights would be required to deliver the head module sections), and the impacts of personnel required for the proposed construction (approximately ten people). The proposed upgrades would improve safety and may improve personnel morale and productivity. These may result in a decrease in labor and operation costs. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. Where would the proposed activity be located, specifically? The proposed activity would take place at South Pole Station in the Summer Camp area. See attached map (Attachment 2) for the proposed locations of new head modules. Have alternative locations been considered by the Program or the Contractor? If yes, which are they; if no, explain why. A number of alternative locations have been considered. These are listed in Attachment 1. 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the proposed activity be handled by the Program or the Contractor? Aesthetic impacts associated with the construction projects would be managed through careful clearing of construction debris. The area would be maintained by the civilian contractor to preserve a clean, uncluttered appearance. 4. Would the proposed activity have any other indirect impacts on the environment? If yes, what are they; if no, explain why none are expected. The slight increase in power consumption associated with the proposed activity would require more fuel for the power plant, which in turn would require more fuel flights from McMurdo Station. Both the power plant and fuel transport would produce air emissions. However, the increase in power requirements due to the addition of another building and 100 feet of heat-traced pipeline has been calculated to be minimal. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The new head modules would be placed within the existing Summer Camp area. Head module "A" would be placed very near the location of the existing 3-2-1 head module. 6. Are the physical and environmental characteristics of the neighboring environment suitable for the proposed activity? If yes, explain why; if no, explain why. Yes. The area is already characterized by a high level of human activity. IMPACT AND POLLUTION POTENTIAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: 7. How has protection of the environment and human health from unnecessary pollution or impact been considered for the proposed activity (includes such considerations as pollution abatement or mitigation, and waste management [e.g., of noise, dust, fuel loss, disposition of one-time-use materials, construction wastes])? The proposed buildings are modular units which may be easily moved and used elsewhere, thus avoiding one-time-use materials. Fuel will be stored outside the new head modules in 209 liter (55-gallon) drums or in new 1041 liter (275-gallon) tanks (as it is at existing Summer Camp build- ings). With the exception of the new Summer Camp module erected last season, no secondary containment has been provided in the past for fuel storage at Summer Camp build- ings. The contractor is considering the feasibility of installing containment areas beneath the fuel storage drums and tanks. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. Emissions from the vehicle which would deliver water from the dome water system to the head modules would not significantly increase air emissions. Also, the increase in power required for heat tracing would be minimal. 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. Although there is no liquid water flow at the South Pole, blowing snow is a constant occurrence. Although many new buildings are elevated to prevent snow accumulation, the proposed buildings would be set on the snow surface for ease of construction. As they would be temporary buildings, likely be moved, construction of a building support system is not warranted. The proposed head module locations were selected in large part to orient the buildings relative to the prevailing wind direction to minimize any snow drifting behind the buildings and pipes. 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No permanent increase in solid waste generation rates would be expected. To decrease solid waste generation the Con- tractor considered installing an alternative hand-drying system to the paper towel dispensers used currently. How- ever, the alternatives, including electric hot air driers and cloth towels, were calculated to be infeasible because of chronic shortages of water and electricity. Approximately ten 1.21 meter3 (4'x 4'x 4') triwalls of construction debris consisting of wood, blue board insulation, sheet metal ducting and packaging would be produced by the construction of the new Jamesway heating system. The proposed new head modules would increase the wastewater generation rate by providing more showers and laundry facilities. However, this increase would be limited by the finite water supply. 11. Would the proposed activity change energy production or demand, personnel and life support, or transportation requirements at the site? If yes, how; if no, why. Yes. Equipment and labor would be required to haul water to the new head modules. Another 30.48 meter (100-foot) sewer pipe would very slightly increase power demands due to heat tracing. 12. Is the proposed activity expected to adversely affect scientific studies or locations of research interest (near and distant, in the short-term and in the long-term)? If yes, how; if no, why. No. Scientific research would be improved as the proposed facilities would allow the station to support the staff required for construction of new science facilities such as the Astro, Clean Air and Center for Astrophysical Research in Antarctica facilities. 13. Would the proposed activity generate pollutants that might affect terrestrial, marine or freshwater ecosystems within the environs of the station or inland camp? If yes, how; if no, why. No. Impacts are limited to minor air emissions. 14. Does the site of the proposed activity serve as habitat for any significant assemblages of Antarctic wildlife (for example, mosses or lichens, or antarctic birds or marine mammals)? No. There are no known assemblages of antarctic wildlife in the vicinity of the South Pole Station that would be affect- ed by the proposed activity. HUMAN VALUES 15. Would he proposed activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The 3-2-1 head module is the only affected existing property. It is not listed on the Antarctic Historic Sites and Monuments list, Appendix B, Final Supplemental Environ- mental Impact Statement. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 16. What other environmental considerations may be potentially affected by the proposed activity at the proposed (or chosen) site? For example, have impacts associated with decommissioning of the activity been considered (and how). The proposed buildings would be mobile and reusable. Given the projected South Pole Station construction activities it is likely that head modules such as this will be in demand for at least the next ten years. After that time the buildings may be retrograded for use elsewhere. Finding The Environmental Officer, after reviewing the information presented above, believes that the proposed activity poses neither potentially minor nor transitory impacts to the antarctic environment. There are safety benefits associated with completion of the proposed action. Also, there may be environmental benefits that accrue from completion of the proposed project (e.g., energy conservation). The contractor is authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. Sidney Draggan Attachments Attachment 1 ASA May 1992 SOUTH POLE Summer Camp HEAD MODULES SEWER AND WATER OPTIONS PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE: The Contractor proposes to use the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory's (CRREL) water well (constructed during 1991-92) to supply potable water to the Summer Camp head modules. Water would transferred to the head module holding tanks using the on-site 3,000-gallon tank on sleds filled with water from the main dome water system. Snow melters would be maintained at the head modules for use as back-up water supplies. The Contractor proposes to dispose of wastewater from the head modules using sewer bulbs. The proposed locations of the two new head modules and bulbs are shown on Attachment 2. If the pro- posed location of new head module "B" is too close to the skiway then the Alternative C location must be used. To minimize maintenance requirements and maximize the building life two new sewer bulbs are proposed. Insulated, heat-traced, high density polyethylene (HDPE) piping would be used to pipe waste water from the head modules to the bulbs. Impacts of the Proposed Alternative Water Supply Hauling water from the dome to the galley would be labor intensive and require equipment. The heavy machinery used to haul water will produce air emissions. Wastewater Disposal Creating new sewage bulbs leaves more permanent "imprints" of human activity, which is philosophically undesirable. Heat tracing to keep the pipe from freezing consumes electricity (approximately 100 feet at 8 watts per linear foot). WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES Alternative A: Construct a pipeline (in a tunnel "utilidor" or on the surface) from the CRREL water well (constructed 1991-92 season) to the Summer Camp head modules. Impacts þ Electricity would be required for the pipe heat-tracing. Given the long length of pipe required the electrical requirements could add up to a significant amount. þ Constructing a long utilidor would be a major construction project requiring significant labor and materials. þ A utilidor would be difficult to remove after it is no longer needed and would likely be abandoned in-place. þ The utilidor would cross a number of buried cables whose exact location is not known. Alternative B: Use the head module snow melters as the main water source rather than only as back-up sources. Impacts þ There is no waste heat supply, so fuel would be required solely to heat the snow melter. þ The quality of water obtained from snow melters would likely be less than water obtained from a below-grade well. þ Heavy equipment and labor would be required to collect snow. Alternative C: Construct water well(s) at the head modules. Impacts þ The water well(s) would have to be moved within a few years when the construction camp is moved. þ Because of the lack of a waste heat supply fuel would have to be used to maintain the well(s). þ A significant on-site construction effort would be required. This would increase station personnel, construction debris, and cargo requirements. WASTE WATER DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES Alternative A: Locate new head module "A" as proposed but pipe it into the existing sewer bulb. Impacts þ The sewer pipe would be perpendicular to the prevailing wind direction. As a result greater drifting downwind of the pipe would occur than if the pipe is placed parallel to the wind. Alternative B: Locate new head module "A" upwind of the existing sewer bulb and pipe waste water to the existing sewer bulb. Impacts þ The new head module would create a downwind snow drift which would impact downwind Jamesways, increasing the amount of snow-removal maintenance required to keep the Jamesways from being buried. Alternative C: Locate new head module "B" on the dome-side of the newest row of Jamesways. Impacts þ Personnel housed in the Jamesways farthest from the dome would be a longer distance from the head modules, i.e., there would be less of an even distribution. This increases the chance that people will urinate out of doors rather than in the head modules, which is aesthetically undesirable. Alternative D: Locate new head module "B" on the ski-way side of the newest row of Jamesways. Impacts þ This location may be too close to the skiway. Based on naval criteria a structure shall be no closer than 750 feet from the skiway centerline provided the structures are no taller than 50 feet above the snow surface. Alternative E: Install incinolets at one or both new head modules. Impacts þ Storing propane presents an explosion danger; according to policy agreed on at the April 1992 post season conference incinolets will not be used within buildings. þ For a facility which will produce a large quantity of waste water an incinolet is impractical. þ The incinolets would produce air emissions and ash (both of which would be extremely minor in nature). Alternative F: Store wastewater in a holding tank and haul to dome for disposal in dome bulb. þ The dome bulb(s) would fill faster and require replacement more often; this is a problem as finding new locations for dome bulbs is becoming difficult, given the number of existing bulbs and the need to avoid future building areas. þ Hauling waste water to the dome is labor intensive and requires equipment. Alternative G: Install grey water recycling systems in the head modules. Impacts þ It isn't possible to purchase and install grey water recycling systems and meet the construction schedule required to provide the new facilities for the 1992-93 season.