Title : Tunnel at South Pole Station Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : August 6, 1993 File : opp93114 OFFICE OF POLAR PROGRAMS ENVIRONMENT SECTION (202) 357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: August 6, 1993 From: Acting Environmental Officer Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (South Pole Tunneling) To: Director, Office of Polar Programs Manager, Polar Operations Safety and Health Officer Head, Safety, Health, and Environment Implementation Team Manager, South Pole Engineering Projects Environmental Engineer Environmentalist, ASA This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for a proposed action to construct an unlined tunnel from Amundsen- Scott South Pole Station to remote science facilities (approximately 1 km). This tunnel would provide safe access for people and be constructed with natural materials. The Acting Environmental Officer posed a set of questions relating to the proposed actions and to the potentially affected environment. These questions were responded to by the Mr. Donald Garfield, Cold Regions Research Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), on June 22,1993; background information about the proposed tunneling action as well as the questions and responses are shown below: ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION QUERY FORM GENERAL Please refer to Attachment 1, "South Pole Tunneling System Revised Operating Plan, April 1993" for general background information on this project. 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? WE PROPOSE TO CONSTRUCT AN UNLINED TUNNEL AT THE SOUTH POLE TO PROVIDE SAFE PERSONNEL ACCESS BETWEEN THE MAIN STATION AND REMOTE SCIENCE FACILITIES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1 KM AWAY. What alternatives to the proposed activity have the Program and the Contractor considered? ONE OPTION CONSIDERED, BUT QUICKLY REJECTED BECAUSE OF PERSONNEL SAFETY CONCERNS, WAS TO DO NOTHING. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED INCLUDED (1) OVER-SNOW TRANSPORT, (2) ELEVATED TRAMS, (3) ELEVATED COVERED WALKWAYS, (4) CUT-AND-COVER TUNNELS, AND (5) LINED TUNNELS. SEE ATTACHMENTS 2 AND 3. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered by the Program and the Contractor? Please explain how. BESIDES SAFETY AND RELIABILITY CONSIDERATIONS, THE REQUIREMENT FOR NON-IDIGENOUS MATERIALS WAS ALSO CONSIDERED. EXTENSIVE USE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INCREASES LOGISTICAL REQUIREMENTS AND CAUSES GREATER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. IF NO ACTION IS TAKEN TO PROVIDE SAFE PERSONNEL PASSAGE TO THE REMOTE SCIENCE FACILITIES, IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO CONDUCT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AS PROPOSED, SINCE ACCESS TO THE RESEARCH FACILITIES BY PERSONNEL WALKING ON THE SURFACE WOULD BE LIMITED BY WEATHER. TEMPERATURES OF -70 C ARE NOT UNCOMMON, AND THIS CAN CAUSE EXPOSED FLESH TO FREEZE WITHIN 30 SECONDS. BERTHING AND OTHER LIFE SUPPORT FACILITIES WOULD HAVE TO BE PROVIDED AT THE SCIENCE FACILITIES FOR PERSONNEL UNABLE TO RETURN TO THE MAIN STATION DUE TO WEATHER. OVER-SNOW TRANSPORT HAS SEVERAL DISADVANTAGES. SURFACE VEHICLES HAVE NOT BEEN DEVELOPED TO OPERATE RELIABLY AT -70 C. THESE VEHICLES WOULD ALSO CONSUME FUEL ON EACH TRIP, WITH RESULTANT EXHAUST EMISSIONS. HEATED STORAGE OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF AUXILIARY HEATING WOULD BE REQUIRED AT BOTH END POINTS TO AVOID THE NEED TO KEEP ENGINES RUNNING CONTINUOUSLY AT LOW TEMPERATURES. OVERLAND VEHICLES WOULD REQUIRE A MARKED ROUTE TO PREVENT PERSONNEL FROM GETTING LOST DURING LOW VISIBILITY CONDITIONS. ELEVATED TRAMS WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE DEVELOPED TO OPERATE RELIABLY AT -70 C. ANOTHER MAJOR DISADVANTAGE IS THAT THE TRAM WOULD HAVE TO BE ROUTED AROUND THE STATION'S AIRCRAFT RUNWAY, GREATLY INCREASING THE DISTANCE TRAVELLED TO ACCESS THE RESEARCH FACILITIES. PROVIDING STABLE FOUNDATIONS FOR A TRAM WOULD BE DIFFICULT. THIS TRAM ALSO WOULD REQUIRE ENERGY ON EACH TRIP, OR WOULD BE REQUIRED TO OPERATE CONTINUOUSLY. ELEVATED COVERED WALKWAYS SHARE TWO MAJOR DISADVANTAGES WITH THE ELEVATED TRAMS: THE WALKWAY WOULD HAVE TO BE ROUTED AROUND THE RUNWAY AND PROVIDING STABLE FOUNDATIONS FOR THE WALKWAY SUPPORTS WOULD BE DIFFICULT. IN ADDITION, LARGE AMOUNTS OF MATERIALS WOULD HAVE TO BE AIRLIFTED FOR THIS CONSTRUCTION. CUT-AND-COVER TUNNELS WOULD SERIOUSLY DISRUPT AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC DURING CONSTRUCTION ACROSS THE RUNWAY. THIS CONCEPT WOULD REQUIRE SPECIALIZED MACHINERY FOR CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS SHIPMENT OF LARGE QUANTITIES OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS FOR THE TUNNEL ROOF AND ITS FOUNDATION SUPPORTS. ALTHOUGH SUCH TUNNELS APPEAR MORE STABLE BECAUSE OF THE METAL ROOF, WHEN THE ROOFING BEGINS TO BUCKLE DUE TO HIGH SNOW LOADS, THE TUNNELS APPEAR MORE UNSTABLE THAN UNLINED TUNNELS. WHEN THIS OCCURS, MAINTENANCE COSTS ARE VERY HIGH, SINCE THE METAL ROOFING MUST BE REMOVED BEFORE THE SNOW CAN BE REMOVED. ALTERNATIVELY, THE TUNNEL COULD BE ABANDONED AND A NEW TUNNEL CONSTRUCTED. LINED TUNNELS, LIKE CUT-AND-COVER TUNNELS, APPEAR MORE STABLE, UNTIL THE LINERS BEGIN TO PLASTICALLY DEFORM. THESE CONTINUOUS LINERS WOULD THEN BE MORE DIFFICULT TO REMOVE THAN THE TUNNEL ROOF LINERS ABOVE. THIS OPTION WOULD REQUIRE SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION, AND WOULD ALSO REQUIRE THE LARGEST AMOUNT OF IMPORTED MATERIALS. THE PROPOSED UNLINED TUNNEL ALSO HAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, BUT TO A MUCH SMALLER EXTENT THAN THE OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED. AS WITH ALL OPTIONS, THIS OPTION CONSUMES ENERGY DURING CONSTRUCTION. ESTIMATED FUEL CONSUMPTION FOR THE ELECTRICAL GENERATOR AND DRILL RIG IS 30 LITERS PER HOUR. AIR EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL FUEL COMBUSTION INCLUDE NITROGEN OXIDES, CARBON MONOXIDE, AND UNBURNED HYDROCARBONS. ONCE TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED, ONLY NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION, SUCH AS WALKING OR SKIING, WILL BE USED IN THE TUNNEL. ALTHOUGH WE KNOW THAT THE TUNNEL WILL DEFORM SLOWLY, THE ABSOLUTE RATE IS NOT KNOWN. WE EXPECT THAT MAINTENANCE MAY BE REQUIRED AT 10-YEAR INTERVALS. THE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED TO PERFORM SUCH MAINTENANCE WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 4 WEEKS. THE PRESENT PLAN IS TO DISTRIBUTE THE SNOW BLOWN FROM THE TUNNEL TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF SNOW DRIFTING AROUND THE RUNWAY, SCIENCE FACILITIES, AND THE MAIN STATION. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated by the Program or the Contractor? THE CHOSEN ALTERNATIVE, AN UNLINED TUNNEL, MINIMIZES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, SINCE IT UTILIZES MAINLY INDIGENOUS MATERIALS (SNOW). CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ARE REQUIRED ONLY FOR THE TUNNEL PORTALS AND THE ESCAPE HATCHES. DURING CONSTRUCTION, AIR EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT WOULD BE MINIMIZED BY MAINTAINING EQUIPMENT IN PROPER WORKING CONDITION. THE LENGTH OF THE TUNNEL WILL BE MINIMIZED TO REDUCE FUEL USE, THE AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS REQUIRED, AND THE TIME REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT. THE TUNNEL WILL BE PROVIDED WITH ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING, BUT ALL PERSONNEL SHOULD CARRY FLASHLIGHTS WHILE IN THE TUNNEL TO USE IN THE EVENT OF A POWER FAILURE. LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN FINALIZED, BUT WILL BE EVALUATED IN THE PROOF-OF-CONCEPT TUNNEL. LIGHTS MAY BE INCANDESCENT OR QUARTZ HALOGEN FLOODLAMPS WITH 100 WATT LAMPS SPACED 15 TO 30 METERS APART. SUMMER LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS WILL BE MET USING NATURAL LIGHT TUBES TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered by the Program or the Contractor? Please explain how. TESTING COSTS HAVE BEEN MINIMIZED BY CONDUCTING CONUS TESTS OF THE EQUIPMENT. LOGISTICAL REQUIREMENTS WERE CONSIDERED BEFORE SELECTING THE UNLINED TUNNELING CONCEPT OVER OTHER ALTERNATIVES. THE UNLINED CONCEPT ALSO MINIMIZES THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. Where would the proposed activity be located, specifically? THE 2 M X 3 M TUNNEL WILL BE LOCATED ABOUT 5 METERS UNDER THE PRESENT SNOW SURFACE, AND WILL EXTEND FROM THE MAIN STATION TO THE SCIENCE FACILITIES LOCATED ACROSS THE RUNWAY ABOUT 1 KM AWAY. A MAP OF THE PROPOSED TUNNEL ROUTE IS ENCLOSED (LOWER RIGHT FIGURE ON ENCLOSURE 4). THE PROOF-OF-CONCEPT TUNNEL LOCATION HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED YET. THIS TUNNEL WILL BE 30 TO 100 METERS LONG, LIKELY NEAR THE SCIENCE FACILITIES, AND PREFERABLY LOCATED IN AN AREA THAT HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY RADAR SURVEY TO BE FREE OF BURIED DEBRIS. PRESUMABLY, THIS PROOF-OF-CONCEPT TUNNEL WILL BE SITED EITHER ALONG THE MAIN TUNNEL ROUTE, OR IN ANOTHER LOCATION WHERE IT MAY BE USED FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSE. Have alternative locations been considered by the Program or the Contractor? If yes, which are they; if no, explain why. YES. ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS FOR THE SCIENCE FACILITIES WERE CONSIDERED BY THE FOUNDATION AND THE SCIENTISTS WHO WILL BE CONDUCTING THE RESEARCH. ONCE THE LOCATION FOR THE SCIENCE FACILITIES WAS DETERMINED, IT WAS DESIRABLE TO ROUTE THE TUNNEL TO AVOID EXISTING OBSTACLES, BUT MINIMIZE THE TUNNEL LENGTH. A RADAR SURVEY CONDUCTED THIS YEAR INDICATES BURIED OBJECTS ALONG A SECTION OF THE PROPOSED TUNNEL ROUTE, SO THIS AREA WILL BE DETOURED. 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the proposed activity be handled by the Program or the Contractor? AFTER COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION, THE ONLY AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS WILL BE THE PORTALS FOR ACCESS TO THE TUNNEL, AND THE PORTIONS OF THE ESCAPE HATCHES EXTENDING ABOVE THE SNOW SURFACE. THE ESCAPE FOR THE PROOF-OF-CONCEPT TUNNEL IS OF PLYWOOD CONSTRUCTION, APPROXIMATELY 1 M BY 2 M AND WILL EXTEND ABOUT 1 M ABOVE THE SNOW SURFACE. THE BOX PROFILE WILL BE STREAMLINED TO MINIMIZE SNOW DRIFTING. ESCAPE HATCH DESIGN FOR THE FULL-LENGTH TUNNEL HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZED; HOWEVER, THESE STRUCTURES WILL BE DESIGNED TO FULFILL THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE, MINIMIZE SNOW DRIFTING, AND BE AESTHETICALLY ACCEPTABLE. 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. WE ESTIMATE TWO LC-130 FLIGHTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO TRANSPORT THE TUNNELING EQUIPMENT TO THE SOUTH POLE. DURING CONSTRUCTION, DIESEL ENGINES WILL PROVIDE POWER FOR THE TUNNELING OPERATION. THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR SPILLAGE OF ENGINE FLUIDS, ALTHOUGH SECONDARY CONTAINMENT PROVISIONS ARE BUILT INTO THE GENERATOR MODULE. THIS SECONDARY CONTAINMENT IS BUILT INTO THE MODULE FRAMEWORK, HAS A CAPACITY ABOUT 50% GREATER THAN THE FUEL TANK CAPACITY, AND HAS BEEN LEAK TESTED. THERE IS ALSO A POTENTIAL FOR HYDRAULIC OIL LEAKAGE DUE TO BROKEN HYDRAULIC LINES ON THE TUNNELER. IF A FUEL OR OIL SPILL DOES OCCUR, IT WILL BE REPORTED AND CLEANED UP IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATION PROCEDURES. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why . THE PROPOSED TUNNEL WOULD NOT AFFECT SURFACE ACTIVITY, ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED. IT IS DESIGNED TO SAFELY WITHSTAND SURFACE VEHICLE AND AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC. 6. Are the physical and environmental characteristics of the neighboring envoronment suitable for the proposed activity? If yes, explain why; if no, explain why. YES. PRELIMINARY TESTS OF 1/10 SCALE AND 1/3 SCALE TUNNELS, AS WELL AS ANALYTICAL STUDIES, INDICATE THAT THE TUNNEL WILL SAFELY WITHSTAND ANTICIPATED LOADING. IT WILL PROVIDE A SAFE PERSONNEL PASSAGEWAY WITH MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. IMPACT AND POLLUTION POTENTIAL AND EMVIRONMENTAL 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])? WASTE SNOW FROM THE TUNNEL WILL BE SPREAD BY BULLDOZER TO MINIMIZE SNOW DRIFTING POTENTIAL. NOISE PROTECTION WILL BE PROVIDED TO WORKERS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE GENERATOR AND SNOW BLOWER. THE GENERATOR MODULE IS PROVIDED WITH SECONDARY CONTAINMENT FOR ACCIDENTAL SPILLAGE OF FUEL, ENGINE COOLANT, OR LUBRICANT. ONE OR TWO CHANGES OF OIL FOR THE GENERATOR ARE ANTICIPATED (27 LITERS CAPACITY), AND WE PROPOSE TO DISPOSE OF USED OIL ALONG WITH STATION WASTE OIL. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. AIR QUALITY WOULD NOT BE SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED. DURING TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION, DIESEL EXHAUST WILL BE PRODUCED BY A 205 KVA GENERATOR AND A SMALL DRILL RIG. THE GENERATOR HAS THE SAME ENGINE AS A D7H LGP TRACTOR. BOTH THE GENERATOR AND DRILL RIG WILL BE OPERATING AT APPROXIMATELY 50% LOAD, SO TOTAL EMISSIONS WILL BE LESS THAN A D7H TRACTOR. FUEL CONSUMPTION IS ESTIMATED TO BE ABOUT 30 LITERS PER HOUR. ESTIMATED TOTAL FUEL CONSUMPTION IS 5,000 LITERS FOR THE PROOF-OF-CONCEPT TUNNEL, AND 22,000 LITERS FOR THE PROPOSED FULL-LENGTH TUNNEL. THE DIESEL GENERATOR PROVIDES ALL ELECTRICAL POWER REQUIRED FOR THE TUNNELING OPERATION. 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. NO. THE TUNNEL IS NOT NEAR THE STATION WATER WELL, AND THERE IS NOT EXPECTED TO BE ANY CONTAMINANTS IN THE TUNNEL. THE SNOW REMAINS FROZEN, SO THERE IS NO IMPACT ON DRAINAGE. BLOWING AND DRIFTING SNOW IS A CONSTANT OCCURRENCE AT THE SOUTH POLE STATION. RELATIVE TO CONSTRUCTION OF AN ON-SURFACE OR ELEVATED STRUCTURE, THE PROPOSED TUNNEL MINIMIZES CONCERNS RELATIVE TO SNOW DRIFTING. EXCAVATED SNOW LIKELY COULD NOT BE USED FOR DRINKING WATER DUE TO THE POSSIBILITY OF SURFACE CONTAMINATION AS THE SNOW ACCUMULATED. WITH THE RODRIGUEZ WELL NOW OPERATIONAL, MELTING SNOW FOR DRINKING WATER IS NOT REQUIRED. 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed (or chsoen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY WOULD ADD ONLY SLIGHTLY TO THE STATION'S NORMAL PRODUCTION OF WASTE OIL PRODUCTS (SEE QUESTION 7). THE TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION CREWS (SEVEN PEOPLE DURING FY94 FOR THE PROOF-OF-CONCEPT TUNNEL AND TEN DURING FY95 FOR THE PROPOSED FULL-LENGTH TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION) WOULD TEMPORARILY INCREASE SOLID WASTE AND WASTE WATER GENERATION RATES AT THE STATION. NO LONG-TERM INCREASES WOULD BE EXPECTED. 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. DURING CONSTRUCTION A CREW OF SEVEN PEOPLE DURING FY94 FOR THE PROOF-OF-CONCEPT TUNNEL AND TEN DURING FY95 FOR THE PROPOSED FULL-LENGTH TUNNEL ARE ANTICIPATED. PERSONNEL WILL HAVE TO BE TRANSPORTED FROM THE WORKSITE TO THE STATION FOR MEALS AND SHIFT CHANGES. TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION MAY AFFECT FLIGHT OPERATIONS WHILE TUNNELING UNDER THE SKIWAY. FUEL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION WERE ADDRESSED IN QUESTION #8 ABOVE. THIS PROGRAM IS A SCHEDULED ACTIVITY AND WILL NOT INCREASE THE STATION BERTHING OVER 125 LEVEL. 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. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY PLANNED TO MINIMIZE IMPACT ON SCIENTIFIC STUDIES DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE TUNNEL SHOULD HAVE ONLY A POSITIVE IMPACT ON FUTURE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES, SINCE YEAR-ROUND ACCESSIBILITY OF SCIENCE FACILITIES WILL BE IMPROVED. 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. DIESEL EXHAUST IS THE MAJOR ANTICIPATED POLLUTANT. CONSTRUCTION DURATION IS EXPECTED TO BE APPROXIMATELY ONE WEEK FOR THE PROOF-OF-CONCEPT TUNNEL AND THREE WEEKS FOR THE FULL-LENGTH TUNNEL. THE LATTER TIME ESTIMATE ASSUMES A TUNNEL LENGTH OF 1200 METERS, 20 HOURS PER DAY OPERATION, AND A DESIGN ADVANCE RATE OF 3 METERS PER HOUR. 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 AT THE SOUTH POLE THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE INSTALLATION OR OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED TUNNELS. HUMAN VALUES: 15. Would the proposed activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? If yes, how; if no, why. NO. THE ACTIVITY WILL BE MAINLY UNDER SNOW, AND THE TUNNEL PATH AVOIDS AREAS OF SCIENTIFIC OR HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL 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). DECOMMISSIONING OF THE TUNNEL WOULD INVOLVE REMOVAL OF ELECTRICAL POWER AND COMMUNICATION LINES, PORTALS, AND ESCAPE HATCH STRUCTURES. SINCE THE TUNNEL IS UNLINED, DECOMMISSIONING EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MINIMIZED. THE TUNNEL WILL LIKELY NOT BE BACKFILLED UPON DECOMMISSIONING, BUT WILL SLOWLY CLOSE IN DUE TO NATURAL CREEP OF THE SNOW. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH CONCERNS: 17. What occupational safety and health-related issues may have to be addressed during this activity (for example, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards [29CFR 1910], other consensus standards)? If none, explain why. TUNNEL ESCAPE HATCH LADDERS MUST MEET OSHA STANDARDS. LADDER LANDINGS WILL BE REQUIRED, SINCE THE TUNNEL FLOOR AT SOME LOCATIONS WILL BE NEARLY 9.1 METERS BELOW THE SNOW SURFACE UPON CONSTRUCTION, AND WILL PROBABLY EXCEED 9.1 METERS AT ALL HATCH LOCATIONS DURING THE DESIGN LIFE OF THE TUNNEL. ALSO, MOST CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL OCCUR IN THE TUNNEL. What steps would be taken to eliminate any problems, risks or hazards associated with those issues? Explain fully. REGARDING ACTIVITY IN THE TUNNEL, PAST EXPERIENCE AT CAMP CENTURY, GREENLAND, AND BYRD STATION, ANTARCTICA HAS SHOWN THAT SUCH TUNNELS ARE SAFE. HOWEVER, ALL TUNNELING PERSONNEL WILL BE EQUIPPED WITH RADIOS, AND PERSONNEL WORKING IN THE TUNNEL WILL BE PROVIDED WITH AVALANCHE-VICTIM LOCATORS. IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT OF A TUNNEL COLLAPSE, A SPECIAL DRILL BIT HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO RAPIDLY BORE A ONE-METER DIAMETER HOLE FROM THE SURFACE TO THE TUNNEL FLOOR. THIS DRILL BIT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE FULL- LENGTH TUNNEL, AND WILL BE STOWED ON THE DRILL RIG. 18. Are staff or participants aware of the potential safety and health issues or problems; and, are they prepared to deal with them effectively? If yes, explain how. If no, why not? YES. A SAFETY BRIEFING WAS HELD PRIOR TO FIELD TESTS AT DARTMOUTH SKIWAY THIS PAST WINTER. IN ADDITION TO THE ANTARCTIC ORIENTATION, DR. MURRAY HAMLET, A SPECIALIST IN COLD WEATHER INJURIES, HAS BEEN CONTACTED TO CONDUCT A BRIEFING PRIOR TO DEPLOYMENT TO ANTARCTICA. ALL PERSONNEL HAVE BEEN ALERTED TO POTENTIAL HAZARDS FROM ROTATING MACHINERY, AND ALL ARE AWARE OF EMERGENCY SHUT-DOWN PROVISIONS ON THE TUNNELING SYSTEM. 19. Identify all potentially hazardous materials, chemicals, or equipment that are proposed for use (for example, drilling fluids, and pressure vessels)? DIESEL FUEL, ENGINE ANTIFREEZE, HYDRAULIC OIL, ENGINE OIL, AND GREASE. POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS EQUIPMENT INCLUDES THE DRILL RIG, THE TUNNELER, AND THE CENTRIFUGAL BLOWER, ALL OF WHICH INCORPORATE ROTATING COMPONENTS. IN ADDITION, THE DRILL RIG AND TUNNELER HAVE HIGH-PRESSURE HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS. SAFETY PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED WHEREVER POSSIBLE ON THESE MACHINES. 20. If any physical hazards would be present, how would they be controlled (excluding cold temperature problems)? Explain fully. ANTICIPATED HAZARDS IN ADDITION TO THE EQUIPMENT HAZARDS DISCUSSED ABOVE, INCLUDE 0.3-METER DIAMETER ACCESS HOLES DRILLED AT 15-METER INTERVALS ALONG THE TUNNEL PATH FROM THE SURFACE TO THE TUNNEL; 0.9-METER DIAMETER ESCAPE HATCH HOLES SPACED AT 100-METER INTERVALS; AND AN EXCAVATED SWALE 7.6 METERS DEEP BY 10 METERS WIDE BY APPROXIMATELY 60 METERS LONG AT EACH END OF THE TUNNEL. THE 0.3-METER DIAMETER ACCESS HOLES WILL BE COVERED WITH PLYWOOD AND FLAGGED FOR FUTURE ACCESS IF NECESSARY. THE 0.9-METER DIAMETER ESCAPE HATCH HOLES WILL BE COVERED WITH PLYWOOD DURING THE SHORT PERIOD BETWEEN DRILLING THE HOLE AND INSTALLING THE ESCAPE HATCH. THE ESCAPE HATCHES WILL BE A PRIMARY MEANS OF ACCESS/EGRESS TO/FROM THE TUNNEL DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE EXCAVATED SWALE WILL BE FLAGGED DURING TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION. THE SWALE WILL BE FILLED IN ONCE THE PROOF-OF-CONCEPT TUNNEL IS COMPLETED. ON THE FULL-LENGTH TUNNEL, THE SWALES WILL BE FILLED IN ONCE THE PORTALS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED. THESE PORTALS HAVE NOT YET BEEN DESIGNED; HOWEVER, IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THEY WILL BE WOODEN STRUCTURES WITH OPEN STAIRWELLS. SMALL WINCHES COULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE STRUCTURES TO LIFT HEAVY OR BULKY ITEMS THROUGH THE CENTER OF THE STAIRWELL. IN CONCEPT, THE PORTAL CLOSEST TO THE STATION WOULD MEET UP WITH THE NORTH END OF THE BIO/MED ARCH. THIS ENTRANCE WOULD REMAIN BELOW THE SNOW SURFACE. THE PORTAL AT THE FAR END OF THE TUNNEL WOULD BE INTEGRATED INTO THE REMOTE SCIENCE BUILDING MASTER PLAN. THIS WOULD BE A STRUCTURE THAT EXTENDS ABOVE THE SNOW SURFACE TO ALLOW ACCESS TO THE TUNNEL FROM OUTSIDE THE SCIENCE BUILDING. THE WARM-UP SHACK MENTIONED IN ATTACHMENT 1 IS A SMALL SKI EQUIPPED STRUCTURE TO BE USED IN THE TUNNEL DURING CONSTRUCTION. IT IS DESIGNED TO BE TOWED ALONG THE TUNNEL AS EXCAVATION PROGRESSES. THE STRUCTURE IS ASSEMBLED FROM PREFABRICATED INSULATED ALUMINUM-SKINNED PANELS AND WILL BE ABOUT 1 M WIDE BY 2 M HIGH BY 2-1/2 M LONG. Finding The Acting Environmental Officer, after reviewing the information provided above, believes that the proposed activity will pose less than minor and less than transitory impacts/ no significant impacts to the environment near Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. The proposed activity is expected to have beneficial impacts by providing safe access to remote science facilities, by reducing the need for vehicles, and by using natural materials. The Program and the Contractor are authorized to undertake the proposed actions. Jane Dionne cc: Mr. Donald Garfield Attachment