Title : Berthing at McMurdo for Williams FIeld Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : August 19, 1993 File : opp94005 OFFICE OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR (202) 357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: August 19, 1993 From: Acting Environmental Officer Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Construction of Williams Field Replacement Berthing in McMurdo Station/Decommissioning of Building. 192) To: Director, Office of Polar Programs Manager, Polar Operations Safety and Health Officer Head, Safety, Health, and Environment Implementation Team Facilities Engineering Projects Manager Environmental Engineer Environmentalist, ASA This Environmental Action Memorandum (EAM) describes the need for a proposed action to provide berthing at McMurdo Station for a minimum of 150 persons who are presently housed at Williams Field. Berthing would be provided by constructing two 75-person complexes using modular structures delivered to McMurdo Station on the FY1994 vessel. This EAM also describes the need for decommissioning Building 192 which is located at the site of the proposed new berthing units. The Acting Environmental Officer posed a set of questions relating to the proposed actions and to the affected environment. These questions were responded to by Antarctic Support Associates' Environmentalist, Terry Johnson; Environmental Engineer, Carol Andrews; and Project Engineer, Doug Gleason, on 12 August 1993. Background information about the proposed relocation action and decommissioning as well as questions and responses are shown below. BACKGROUND Williams Field, situated on the Ross Ice Shelf thirteen kilometers from McMurdo Station, serves as the skiway for McMurdo Station and New Zealand's Scott Base. During the 1992-93 austral summer, Williams Field provided living accommodations and support facilities for 145 people, including 113 people assigned to the Antarctic Development Squadron (VXE-6), and 31 Contractor personnel {(Williams Field Public Works (24) and Food Services (8)]. In the past, up to 450 people have been housed at Williams Field. Buildings are constructed on sleds or skis. Periodically they must be moved because the Ross Ice Shelf, on which they sit, moves closer to the edge of the ice shelf, and the buildings, covered with snow, settle into the ice. For these reasons, Williams Field has been moved three times since its inception. The complex was last moved in the 1984-85 season. During the years when the complex is not relocated, buildings must be repaired and maintained. A utilities technician, a facilities engineer, and fifty percent of an electrician's time is dedicated to maintaining Williams Field facilities and removing snow from the buildings. Buildings include housing, shops, and maintenance facilities. The skiway complex is larger than many of the antarctic stations operated by other countries. From early October through mid-December, personnel and cargo are transported to McMurdo Station by wheeled cargo planes (C-5As, C- 141s, and C-130s) that land on an annual sea-ice runway at McMurdo. In mid-December, when the sea-ice deteriorates, air operations shift to Williams Field where ski-equipped LC-130 aircraft operate until late February. Maintenance and personnel buildings at the sea-ice runway are built on sleds and are pulled by LPG Caterpillar tractors to and from Williams Field. A Mobile Runway Support Facility is being constructed which would convert the present two-part configuration consisting of a "permanent" section, Williams Field, and a "mobile" section, the sea-ice runway, to a single, self-contained, mobile facility. Replacement berthing for 150 persons would be constructed in McMurdo to accommodate personnel who would no longer be housed at Williams Field. Environmental impacts of the Mobile Runway Support Facility concept are being assessed under a separate document. The intent of this EAM is to assess impacts associated with the proposed construction of new dormitories at McMurdo Station. Although the actual conversion to the Mobile Runway Support Facility would not begin until 1995, replacement berthing has become an immediate need because the present Williams Field berthing buildings are in need of considerable repair, and some are unsafe for habitation. Therefore, it is proposed to construct the replacement berthing at McMurdo Station for use beginning in October 1995. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT QUERIES AND RESPONSES GENERAL 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? The specific purpose of the proposed activity is to provide berthing at McMurdo Station for 150 persons housed at Williams Field. Berthing would be provided by constructing two, new, 75-person modular structures delivered to McMurdo Station on the FY1994 vessel. What alternatives to the proposed activity have the Program and the Contractor considered? The following eight alternatives have been considered: 1. No action 2. Move and renovate existing Williams Field berthing 3. Purchase three, used, 42-person complexes (single story) 4. Purchase three, new, 42-person complexes (single story) 5. Construct a new dormitory (similar to Dorm 209) (three story) 6. Purchase two, new, 75-person complexes (two story) 7. Increase the number of people housed in existing dormitories 8. Decrease the total number of people at McMurdo Station so that the air field personnel can occupy existing dormitory space at the current dormitory population density Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered by the Program and the Contractor? Please explain how. Yes. The Contractor, who has been tasked by NSF to design and procure Williams Field replacement berthing facilities, has considered alternatives numbered two through six above in detail. Attachment 1 summarizes certain impacts relating to the alternatives considered by ASA Engineering. Impacts of the other alternative actions are also projected below. 1. No action If no action is taken, personnel would continue to reside at Williams field in sub-standard facilities. Repair of the facilities to bring them in compliance with the Uniform Building Code is not feasible due to the poor condition of the buildings and cost (see Attachment 1; the cost per bed per year under this option is 40 percent higher than the cost of the preferred alternative).Some of the buildings may be irreparable, regardless of cost. 2. Move and renovate existing Williams Field III berthing Existing berthing could be moved to another location on the ice shelf or at McMurdo Station. However, after a recent, close inspection of the Williams Field berthing buildings, ASA Engineering has determined that the structures are irreparable. There is extensive water damage because water has ponded around the buildings for years as the surrounding snow level increased and many floors are frozen into the ice sheet. 3. Purchase three, used, 42-person complexes (single story) This alternative is determined infeasible because of 1) the large land area (2,650 square meters, or 28,500 square feet) required for single-story buildings, and 2) logistical constraints in shipping single-story buildings (there is inadequate space on the ship for units to be stacked). The negative environmental impacts of this alternative include: 1) buildings having poor energy efficiency (wall R-value less than 10 because low- efficiency fiberglass insulation was used and the windows would be large sources of heat loss) and 2) the expected useful life of the buildings being 10 years. 4. Purchase three, new, 42-person complexes (single story) For several of the reasons listed under alternate 3, this alternative is also not feasible. The modules should be stacked below deck on the vessel to protect them from water damage. The environmental impacts of this alternative include slightly lower energy efficiency (due to greater roof area) and higher maintenance costs because 18 heating furnaces would be required (as opposed to four in the two-story complex. 5. Construct a new dormitory (similar to Dorm 209) (three story) ASA Engineering estimates that it would take three years to procure materials and construct a new dormitory similar to Dorm 209, which houses 152 people and they would not be available until FY1997. Therefore, this alternative does not meet the Program need to provide new berthing facilities by FY1995. Also, the total construction cost would be twice the construction cost of the preferred alternative and it would require a 30- person construction crew. Because the amount of waste generated and air and water pollutants released by the station is directly related to the number of people on station, this alternative would have a greater negative environmental impact during the construction phase than the preferred alternative. Modular construction produces less construction debris on-site than conventional construction. After construction was completed, the environmental impacts generated from a three-story dormitory, with high energy efficiency, would be the least of the proposed berthing facility alternatives. The land required (810 square meters or 8,750 square feet) is less than half that required for the preferred alternative. High energy efficiency would minimize fuel consumption and resultant air emissions. The 40-year predicted life of the facility would reduce the long-term construction debris waste generation rate. On the other hand, a construction crew would be required at for three years (modular facilities would only require a crew for one year). 6. Purchase two, new, modular, pre-fabricated 75-person complexes (two-story) (Preferred Alternative) ASA Engineering proposes to pursue this alternative based on the 1) cost information (Attachment 1); 2) shipping requirements; and 3) availability for use by FY1995. Construction impacts include 1) seven additional construction crew required to connect the modules during the 1994 winter season) and 2) ground disturbance and dust resulting from site preparation. A site grading plan has not been prepared because it is anticipated that off-site fill material would not be required for the project. On-site regrading, including cutting into the hillside at the proposed site to make a level "bench" for each building, would be required. Alternatively, footings of varying heights may be used to allow the buildings to be set on a slope. Impacts from the additional seven construction crew would be greatly reduced by constructing modular buildings. Conventional construction methods as used for dormitories 206 through 209 would require approximately 30 construction crew for 15 months. Probable impacts relating to operation of the proposed new dormitories include air emissions from six or more furnaces burning approximately 2300 liters (600 gallons) of fuel per week during the 20-week austral summer season (45,400 liters or 12,000 gallons/year). The new dormitories would replace 12 Williams Field berthing units. It is expected that the new dormitories would use approximately one-third less fuel for heating than the current Williams Field berthing consumes, based on the greater energy-efficiency of the new buildings. This would save roughly 22,700 liters (6,000 gallons) per year. The minimum R-values for the new dormitories has been specified as 19 for walls and 30 for ceilings and floors. A small amount of the savings in heating fuel would be offset by fuel required to transport personnel to Williams Field from McMurdo Station. On the other hand, during October and November, when the ice runway is in use, air field personnel would not have to be moved from Williams Field to McMurdo, and then out to the ice runway, as currently done. The increase in transportation fuel use would roughly equal the amount of fuel required for one month's transport of personnel to Williams Field (see calculations below). Transportation to McMurdo Station (and then to the ice runway) would no longer be required during the first two months of the austral summer, but transport from McMurdo Station to Williams Field would be required for three months. This results in a transportation increase for one month of the season. This one month transportation increase corresponds to approximately 1300 liters (350 gallons) of fuel, as compared to 22,700 liters (6,000 gallons) per season expected to be saved by more efficient housing furnaces. Note that the transportation fuel estimate does not account for transport of some personnel to Williams Field during the ice runway period (for maintenance at Williams Field and work at the Pegasus runway). The estimate also assumes that the number of trips per month to transport personnel, food, and equipment to Williams Field does not increase after berthing is relocated. Calculation assumptions: the ice runway is in use for 2 months, Williams Field for 3 months, the distance from Williams Field to McMurdo is A, and the distance from McMurdo to the Ice Runway is B. CURRENT TRANSPORT FUEL REQUIREMENTS: [2 months x (A+B)] x (trips/month) x (fuel use/trip) = (2A + 2B) x (trips/month) x (fuel use/trip) FUTURE TRANSPORT FUEL REQUIREMENTS: [(2 months x B)+(3 months x A)] x (trips/month)(fuel use/trip)= (3A + 2B) x (trips/month) x (fuel use/trip) FUTURE - CURRENT: = 1A x (trips/month) x (fuel use/trip) FUEL FOR ONE MONTH = (1 month)(15.6 miles round-trip)(6 trips/day) x (30 day/month)(1 gallon fuel/8 miles) = 351 gallons x 3.785 = 1328 liters There are probable impacts associated with the proposed building location and current land uses which would be changed. The primary roadway used to access Building 175 and as an alternative access other buildings in the area would be removed. Vehicle access to the southwest entrance to Building 175 would require vehicles to drive around Building 141 (Fuels Barn) or Building 143 (Vehicle Maintenance Facility). Vehicle access to the northeast entrance to Building 175 would not change. Pedestrian access to Building 175 would also be altered. The proposed activity would displace Building 192, which previously was used for storage, mail distribution, and Trouble Desk functions, and currently houses NavalSupport Force Antarctica (NSFA) Public Works. At this time, the Contractor is planning to disassemble and retrograde Building 192. Attachment 5 includes a brief description and photograph of the building. Attachment 6 presents findings of an asbestos survey of the building. The impacts of dismantling Building 192 would include generation of noise and dust during disassembly of major portions of the structure, and generation of construction debris. Construction debris would include asbestos- containing waste (floor tile removed from the vestibule). 7. Increase the number of people housed in existing dormitories Under this alternative, three or four people would be housed in rooms which were designed for and normally house two people. Increasing room occupancy to four persons reduces the per person area from 9.2 to 4.6 square meters (100 down to 50 square feet). Although this alternative has fewer tangible environmental impacts, the quality of the "human environment" which results from such high-density housing clearly suffers. 8. Decrease the total number of people at McMurdo Station so that the air field personnel can occupy existing dormitory space at the current dormitory population density This alternative most closely follows recommendations of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), which endorses streamlining (population reduction and consolidation of facilities and activities) to minimize environmental impacts of the Program1. Steps have been taken to reduce personnel. For example, food services at McMurdo Station during the austral summer is now staffed by 58 people under the Contractor compared to 72 people in the 1992-93 season. Additional staffing reductions have or will occur in other support areas, including logistics and public works. However, these reductions are not sufficient to allow for the additional beds needed to accommodate all of the people formerly housed at Williams Field, even if some reduction in people working at Williams Field occurs. Therefore this alternative is not considered feasible at this time. ------------------- 1Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the United States Antarctic Program, Dated October 1991 Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated by the Program or the Contractor? 1) Minimize release of CFCs by specifying non-CFC expanding agents in the insulation; 2) Minimize ground disturbance by placing the buildings on "benches" which follow the existing land contours, and by selecting a previously-disturbed area in town. Alternatively, footings of different heights may be used to allow the buildings to be placed on a slope with minimal regrading. Dust from regrading activities would be suppressed using brine water as necessary. 3) Remove fuel-contaminated "soil" that may be uncovered during regrading activities. If the level of contaminants contained in the soil is above a maximum level set by NSF, the soil would be managed as if it were excavated from a recent fuel spill. The contaminated soil would not be used on site as fill material and off-site fill material may be required to create level areas for the buildings. Soil corings or test pits would be used to determine the likelihood of finding such contamination before full-scale excavation at the site begins. 4) Decrease Air emissions by using new furnaces which would be more efficient than old ones. Furnaces would be maintained at maximum operating efficiency to minimize emissions. 5) Prevent "urban sprawl", minimize the length of new utility lines and minimize the distance between the new dormitories and station facilities such as the galley by placing the buildings within the environs of the existing town. 6) Minimize impacts of removing the road/pedestrian access to Building 175 (which serves as the mail room/video rental/trouble desk and therefore is frequently visited by personnel) by locating and installing a convenient pedestrian route and walkways and/or small bridges over drainage 7) Minimize impacts related to increases in waste water from the increased personnel by specifying that the proposed buildings be equipped with low-flow toilets and water-saver shower heads. 8) To ensure adequate emergency vehicle access to the new buildings and Building 175, the Contractor would review separation distances between structures and the road designs to provide adequate access before finalizing the design and site plan. The McMurdo Station Fire Department would be consulted. 9) Mitigate potential impacts of decommissioning Building 192. Floor tile containing one to five percent chrysotile asbestos would be removed by personnel trained and certified in asbestos removal. The tile is non-friable and in good condition. The asbestos-containing tiles would be removed, packaged, labelled, and stored for retrograde in accordance with procedures specified by ASA Project Procedure 70.10 and the Contractor's waste management guidelines. The panels of the prefabricated, "T-5" design building would be disassembled intact and stored for retrograde. Because the building would be disassembled rather than demolished, little or no dust would be produced. Noise generation would be minimal. Samples from painted building panels would be tested as required by the Contractor's Hazardous Materials Manager to determine the appropriate waste classification and off-site disposal method, such as testing for lead-based paint. 10) Procure new, double-walled fuel tanks to include protection against spills caused by overfilling (exact size and design of these fuel tanks has not been selected yet). 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. One indirect cost would be the delivery of the building modules to McMurdo Station. The Contractor and NSFA have reviewed numerous options for fitting the modules on the FY1994 vessel. Up to 20 of the 32 building modules could be delivered by one vessel trip to McMurdo Station without displacing other cargo. Therefore, to meet the NSF tasking to construct berthing for 150 people by the start of the FY1995 season, the Contractor will propose a "double shuttle", that is, the vessel would go from Port Hueneme, California, to McMurdo Station, unload cargo, then to Littleton, to pick up more cargo, and back to McMurdo Station. Some increased cost would occur in transporting personnel to and from Williams Field. As discussed above, the increased transportation requirements approximately equal one month of transport between McMurdo Station and Williams Field. The actual increase depends on how long the ice runway is in use. Other indirect costs include: lost labor due to travel time between McMurdo Station and Williams Field for employees working at the air strip, hot meal transport from McMurdo to Williams Field (this should be offset by the increased efficiency of operating one galley instead of two), support of projects such as the Pegasus blue ice runway and the long duration balloon launches, and cost of decommissioning, retrograding, and disposing of the existing Williams Field berthing facilities. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. What is the specific location of the proposed activity? The new dormitories would be placed southwest of Building 175, in an area currently used for heavy equipment parking and an area occupied by Building 192. See Attachment 2. Have alternative locations been considered by the Program or the Contractor? If yes, which are they; if no, explain why. The Contractor has considered three alternatives to the proposed building location. These are shown on Attachments 2 and 3. Under Option 1, the buildings would be placed behind Dormitories 201 - 204, above the former Winter Quarters Bay dump area. Dormitory facilities known as "Vietnam Village" occupied this site until the late 1980's. This site is unsatisfactory because: 1) a massive amount of fill material would be required to prepare level surfaces for the buildings and relocated road; the unstable landfill underlying the site may still cause settlement a it did when Vietnam Village occupied the site and 2) placing the buildings and relocated road above the former dump would hamper the Program's ability to monitor and potentially remediate Winter Quarters Bay dump. Option 2 is the preferred location near Building 175. Option 3 would place the new dormitories in the vehicle parking area between existing Dormitories 206-208 and Building 155. This option keeps the new dormitories very close to existing dormitories and galley. However, ASA Engineering has rejected this site because it would not provide sufficient space for both of the proposed buildings and maintain adequate access for emergency vehicles. There would also not be enough slope down to sewer drainage lines. Under Option 4, the proposed berthing complexes would be placed in the current steel cargo yard above the existing jamesway berthing (the "9-Pack"). This site is not desirable because it is more distant from the galley and recreational amenities. Also, the cost of providing utilities, especially fire protection, are much greater at this site than at the preferred site. 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the proposed activity be handled by the Program or the Contractor? The new buildings would be an aesthetic improvement over Building 192 and the vehicle storage area. The Contractor would select a location that would minimize regrading and maximize the view from windows in Building 175 and the proposed new buildings. A pedestrian bridge may be placed over the surface water ditch to provide safe, convenient access to the proposed buildings and Building 175. The color of the proposed buildings has not yet been selected. The Contractor would propose colors which are coordinated with the station color scheme. Undue aesthetic impacts associated with disassembling Building 192 would be addressed through systematic clearing and packaging of the debris to be retrograded from Antarctica. 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. Yes. There are a number of indirect impacts related to the relocation of up to 150 people to McMurdo Station. Overall, this change is expected to reduce environmental impacts of the Program by concentrating personnel in one location, which allows streamlining of support requirements, such as power, water, facilities maintenance, and waste management. Two facets of this change, waste water management and water production, are discussed in more detail below. Increasing the number of people at McMurdo Station by 150 people would increase the amount of waste water generated by approximately 12 percent (assuming a base summer population of 1200 people), including waste water from the proposed dormitories and increased discharges from the galley. However, waste water which would have been discharged to the Williams Field sewer bulb, would be discharged directly to the McMurdo wastewater stream. If a waste water treatment facility is installed at McMurdo Station, this could be a positive impact because waste water from the proposed dormitories would be treated by the facility. Although an increase of approximately 12 percent in McMurdo Station water usage and power requirements may be expected, power and water generation at Williams Field would decrease. Williams Field generates water using a snow melter. With a population of roughly 150 people, this requires eight to ten trips per day by a front-end loader to the snow collection area, about one-half mile from the snow melter. Fewer trips to the snow collection area would be required if berthing is relocated to McMurdo Station. Impacts on the McMurdo Station water and power plants are not expected to be significant. The new reverse osmosis water plant, which has a capacity of producing up to 120,000 gallons of water per day using all three units, should be on line when personnel occupy the new berthing facilities. Given the past water production rate of 47,000 gallons per day during the austral summer (see Attachment 8), the new water plant is expected to provide sufficient water to the proposed dormitories. The new dormitories would be a minor addition to the electrical load on the power plant. Assuming a power use rate at the new dormitory of five watts per square foot, the increase would constitute less than a one-percent increase in the power plant production. There are also indirect environmental impacts related to construction of the proposed berthing complexes. These impacts include air emissions from the added vessel trip required to deliver building modules to McMurdo Station by February 1994. Approximately 934,000 liters (246,720 gallons) of "black fuel" and 63,000 liters (16,500 gallons) of diesel fuel would be combusted by the extra vessel trip. This estimate is based on a round-trip vessel transit time from McMurdo Station to Littleton and back (14 days) a one-way trip from CONUS to Littleton (18 days) and a fuel consumption rate of 7,710 gallons per day of "black fuel" and 517 gallons per day of diesel fuel2. Additional air emissions from an increase in transport of personnel and meals to Williams Field from McMurdo Station would also result from the proposed project. Over-head communications cables at the proposed building location would need to be relocated during the FY1994 austral summer season. Sewer, water, and power lines and transformers may also need to be relocated. The Contractor plans to perform telephone installation in the new facilities using winter-over personnel who will be on-site for other projects. 2 Fuel consumption rates for the MV GREENWAVE based on information provided by Dennis Hannan, Senior Vice President, Central Gulf Lines, to Carol Andrews, ASA, during 22 July 1993 phone conversation. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed or chosen site? If yes, how; if no, why? Yes, although the site has been disturbed by previous USAP activities. The proposed site is currently occupied by Building 192 on the northwest end, and is used for heavy equipment parking on the southeast end. 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 proposed site is in close proximity to existing dormitories, the galley, utilities, and other facilities. The buildings would be placed to minimize regrading requirements. Environmentally, the site is suitable as it is already characterized by a high degree of human activity and does not serve as wildlife habitat. IMPACT AND POLLUTION POTENTIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 7. How has protection of the environment and human health from unnecessary pollution been considered for the proposed activity (includes such considerations as pollution abatement or mitigation, and waste management [such as of noise, dust, fuel loss, disposition of one-time-use materials, construction wastes])? The proposed activity would not generate excessive noise. Assembling the modules would occur during the day. The majority of the work, including connecting electricity, water, and heating systems between modules would occur indoors. The location of the buildings would be selected to minimize regrading requirements. Two new fuel tanks would be installed to support the four new furnaces. The fuel tanks would be double-walled and include protection against spills caused by overfilling (the exact size and design of these fuel tanks has not been selected yet). 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed or chosen site? If yes, how; if no, why? Yes. Regrading during construction may temporarily cause airborne dust release, which the Contractor would minimize to the extent feasible. Operation of the proposed dormitory furnaces would add six new sources of additional air pollution from fuel combustion. It is estimated that these furnaces would consume approximately 45,400 liters (12,000 gallons) of fuel during the 20 weeks per year when these dormitories would be occupied. However, a overall fuel consumption reduction is expected of approximately one-third the quantity of fuel burned at the Williams Field berthing facilities in less modern, less efficient furnaces (see discussion under question number 1 above). 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the proposed or chosen site? If yes, how; if no, why? The increase in the number of personnel housed at McMurdo Station would increase the austral summer waste water discharge flow rate by roughly 12 percent. The proposed berthing facilities would include plumbing for toilets and showers which are selected to conserve water and minimize this flow increase. The characteristics of McMurdo waste water would not be expected to change due to the proposed project. The quantity of water used and waste water produced at Williams Field would decrease. Although regrading would create two level areas, surface water flow would not be interrupted or rerouted. The existing surface water ditch around Building 175 may be modified, perhaps by creating a channel with steeper side-walls than the existing ditch to create space required for the buildings. 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed or chosen site? If yes, how; if no, why? Yes. The proposed activity represents an improvement in waste management because it would eliminate a portion of the vehicle trips required to transport waste from Williams Field to McMurdo Station for processing and storage prior to retrograde. The proposed modular construction method would produce very little construction waste. The Contractor would specify that plywood used to protect the building windows during transport be screwed on and of the size and quality (preferable one-half-inch thick plywood, half sheets or larger) which may be removed and reused by the carpentry shop. As part of the proposed activity Building 192 would be removed and retrograded or moved to a new site. If the building is retrograded, it would constitute construction debris. Based on the building dimensions, approximately 40 cubic meters (50 cubic yards) of construction debris would be generated by the project, including roughly four cubic meters of asbestos- containing floor tiles. This would constitute approximately one milvan of waste; 45 total milvans of construction debris are predicted to be produced during the FY1994 season. 11. Would the proposed activity change energy production or demand, personnel and life support, or transportation requirements at the proposed or chosen site? If yes, how; if no, why? The proposed activity would relocate some energy production and life support requirements from Williams Field to McMurdo Station (see question #4). Transportation requirements between McMurdo Station and Williams Field would increase somewhat as personnel formerly housed at the air strip would commute to Williams Field, but transportation requirements during the ice runway period would decrease. 12. Is the proposed activity expected to adversely affect scientific studies or locations of research interest (near and distant, short-term and long-term)? If yes, how; if no, why? No. According to Dr. Steve Kottmeier, Manager, ASA Laboratory Services, there are no scientific studies currently located in or planned for the proposed berthing complex location. 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. The minor air emissions produced by the proposed activity would include (dust, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide). The minor increases in quantities of these pollutants should not result in noticeable impacts. Waste water constituents should not change. Waste water quantity would increase slightly and could have a minor effect on the marine ecosystem in the vicinity of the outfall. The waste would be discharged in a concentrated stream rather than slowly moving to the edge of the ice shelf and melting in McMurdo Sound. The ongoing waste water monitoring program o, should be detect adverse changes in waste water quality. 14. Does the site of the proposed activity serve as habitat for any significant assemblages of Antarctic wildlife (for example, mosses, lichens, antarctic birds or marine animals)? No. Wildlife at the location is limited to skuas passing through the area. The site does not serve as habitat for skuas or other wildlife. HUMAN VALUES 15. Would the proposed activity encroach upon any historical property of the proposed or chosen site? If yes, how; if no, why? No. Building 192, which would be removed as part of the project, is not on the list of Ross Island historic property. 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)? Decommissioning the proposed buildings would be relatively simple due to their modular design. No permanent, non- removable structures would be required by the activity. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH CONCERNS 17. What occupational safety and health related issues may have to be addressed during this activity (for example, OSHA standards or consensus standards)? If none, explain why. The following safety and health issues would be addressed for the proposed activity: 1) Excessive noise due to heavy equipment operation; 2) Traffic problems due to transportation of modules by trailer from the pier to the site; 3) Crane operations; 4) Electrical shock problems during connection of utilities in modules; 5) Explosive safety problems if blasting is necessary for construction (to be determined); and 6) Asbestos exposure during disassembly of Building 192. What step could be taken to eliminate any problems, risks or hazards associated with those issues? Explain why? The following steps would be taken: 1) Follow guidelines established in the Hearing Conservation Program contained in the ASA Safety and Health Manual. 2) Training of a vehicle operators to give a wide berth to heavy equipment operations. 3) Follow guidelines established in the Hoisting and Rigging Program contained in the ASA Safety and Health Manual. 4) Follow established guidelines in the Lockout/Tagout Program contained in the ASA Safety and Health Manual. 5) Follow proper procedures for explosive operations, (currently under development), if explosives use is necessary. 6) Follow ASA Project Procedure 70.10 "Asbestos Operations and Maintenance Program." 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. All personnel are trained, qualified, or experienced in the associated phases of their operations, and are required to attend safety meetings regularly. All Contractor personnel receive asbestos awareness training during deployment orientation at ASA Headquarters. Personnel removing asbestos- containing tiles would receive additional site-specific training and information regarding health hazards of asbestos. 19. Identify all potentially hazardous materials, chemicals, or equipment that are proposed for use? 1) Heavy equipment/oil and diesel fuel contained in equipment; 2) Cranes/mogas, oil, and hydraulic fluid contained therein; 3)Tractor/trailer combinations/fuel and oil contained therein; 4) Asbestos to be removed from Building 192. 20. If any physical hazards would be present, how would they be controlled. Uneven surfaces prior to grading operations may present a hazard. Heavy equipment operators at McMurdo Station have experience working on sloped and uneven surfaces, and would use safe operating practices based on this experience. Under high winds, which could hamper hoisting operations, crane operations would cease until conditions are acceptable. Wind also creates an eye injury condition that would be minimized by the wearing of proper goggles. Finding The Acting Environmental Officer, after reviewing the information presented above, believes that the proposed activity, poses less than minor and less than transitory potential impacts/less than significnat imapcts to the environment at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. There are, in fact, recognized environmental and safety benefits associated with completion of the proposed action in the form of less overall fuel consumption, reduction in population, concentration of waste water into one stream and consolidation of waste management activitites. The Contractor and the Program are authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. Jane Dionne Attachment 1: Replacement of Williams Field Berthing - Cost Comparison of Options Attachment 2 - 5: Location Options Attachment 6: Building 192 information and photograph Attachment 7: AECOM asbestos survey report for Building 192 Attachment 8: Summary of McMurdo Station Power and Water Consumption