Title : Astro Building-South Pole Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : December 23, 1991 File : opp93045 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: December 23, 1991 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Astro Building at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station) To: (Files S.7 - Environment) This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, a newly proposed facility to house the Antarctic Submillimeter Telescope and Remote Observatory at South Pole Station, Antarctica. The Environmental Officer posed a set of questions relating to the proposed project, and to the poten- tially affected environment. These questions were responded to by the civilian contractor's Environmentalist and Environmental Engineer on November 18, 1991; the questions and responses are shown below: Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses GENERAL A building is proposed to be constructed at the South Pole Station during the 1991-92 construction season to support the Antarctic Submillimeter Telescope and Remote Observatory projects conducted by the Center for Astrophysical Research in Antarctica (CARA). The building is known as the "ASTRO" facility. During the 1992-93 season construction of one or more additional buildings near the Astro building to house related CARA activities is also planned. This Environmental Action Memorandum addresses only construction of the ASTRO building planned for the 1991-92 season. The ASTRO building like the other proposed buildings are to be constructed using prefabricated modular building panels which have very high insulating properties. The building footings will be secured eight feet below the snow surface to provide a solid foundation. A solid foundation is particularly critical for this building as vibrations to the building would decrease the quality of telescope reception. The building will sit, therefore, on a raised snow platform but will not be completely elevated off the ground surface as will some of the other proposed buildings. An Environmental Impact Assessment was prepared by the Principal Investigator of CARA in 1991 which discusses the potential environmental impacts of the science activities associated with the proposed buildings. Therefore this Environmental Action Memorandum only addresses potential impacts of the building construction, with only limited discussion of the impact of activities that will be associated with the building after construction is complete. 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? Construction of a new building to support a telescope is proposed. What alternatives has the contractor considered? Four alternatives have been considered: 1) no action; 2) construction of a conventional building rather than a modular building; 3) construction of a building that is elevated above the snow surface; and, 4) construction of a modular building as proposed. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been con- sidered? Please explain how. The proposed alternative is believed to have the least overall environmental impact while still fulfilling the needs of the proposed research project. The project is required to support the Antarctic Submillimeter Telescope and Remote Observatory funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Because it is necessary to house the telescope receiver in a structure that will protect the instrument and persons operating it from the elements, the "no action" alternative was not considered acceptable. The potential impacts associated with construction of a modular building are less than impacts caused by on-site construction of a conventional structure. The amount of labor required for construction is reduced, which in turn reduces the contribution of workers to potential debris and waste generation (e.g., solid waste, sewage). Construction of a modular building also reduces the amount of construction debris generated by the project. The environmental impact of constructing an elevated structure that allows snow to blow underneath it may be less than the impact caused by a structure that sits directly on the snow. An elevated structure lessens disruption of the natural movement of snow. In addition, the useful lifetime of an elevated structure is greater as it is less prone to becoming buried by snow accumulation. As the research instruments to be used in the building require, however, a very stable base, it has been determined that construction of an elevated structure may not be appropriate for the ASTRO building. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated? The potential impacts of the proposed project include: 1) production of solid waste and sewage by the construction staff living at the station; and 2) additional fuel use to supply energy needed for construction and basic survival needs of the workers (e.g., snow melting for water, heating). The impact of solid waste generated by construction workers would be mitigated by managing the waste in accordance with current U.S. Antarctic Program waste management practices which call for waste minimization and recycling. The effect of extra fuel use may be mitigated by improvements to the fuel storage system to reduce and detect leaks. Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered? Please explain how. No. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. What is the specific location of the proposed activity? The proposed building is to be located approximately 1,000 feet grid east of the Clear Air Facility (see attached map). What alternative locations has the contractor considered? A number of potential locations for the proposed building were considered. The building must be far enough from the dome to prevent heat from the dome interfering with the infrared telescope reception. The proposed location was chosen as it is far enough from the dome to prevent interference yet close enough for personnel to safely walk between the proposed building and the dome. The potential influence of the proposed building on the existing research activities, including the Clean Air Facility and seismic instruments, also dictated selection of an acceptable location. 3. How will aesthetic impacts to the area be handled? Undue aesthetic impacts associated with the construction of the proposed facility will be addressed through careful clearing of any construction debris. The area around the proposed facility will be maintained by the civilian contractor to preserve a clean, uncluttered appearance. The building exterior, including aluminum siding, is expected to be more aesthetically pleasing than "a typical wood box". The aluminum siding also acts as an electromagnetic shield for the instruments. 4. Will the activity have any other indirect impacts on the environment? No. 5. Will the activity change the traditional use of the chosen site? Yes. The proposed building is within the aviation sector of the South Pole Station. However, the proposed building is far enough from the runway that it is not expected to conflict with aviation activities. 6. Are the physical or environmental characteristics of the land suitable for the activity? Yes, the land area surrounding the proposed facility is on a relatively flat snow field that supports no assemblages of antarctic wildlife. IMPACT OR POLLUTION POTENTIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 7. Has protection of the environment and human health from unnecessary pollution been considered for the 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])? Yes. Use of prefabricated building panels will result in minimal generation of construction-related waste. Any construction debris which is generated by the proposed project will be properly handled, packaged, transported and turned in to the retrograde unit at McMurdo Station by the civilian contractor. In addition, hazardous or toxic materials will neither be stored nor used at the site. Noise generation should be the same or less than a typical construction site. No unusually noisy equipment is called for as part of construction, and use of prefabricated building panels will reduce the need for using saws to cut materials on site. Equipment used to assemble the prefabricated units, which includes a crane, will be reused for other projects or removed from the station. 8. Will the activity change ambient air quality at the site? The only potential for impacting ambient air quality would result from a minor to moderate increase in electricity demand from the main power plant. Astronomy is a passive activity which does not use a large amount of fuel. Neither the building construction nor the research activities are expected to be a source of air pollutants. 9. Will the activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the site? As temperatures at the South Pole Station are never above freezing, there is no water flow at the site. Blowing snow is a constant occurrence at this station, however. As the building is to sit directly on the snow to minimize vibra- tions, the proposed building will have a localized effect on the flow of snow. This effect is not expected to cause any significant environmental impacts. 10. Will the activity change waste generation or management at the site? Waste generation will be increased temporarily due to the extra staff present at the station during the construction project. The impact of this temporary increase in waste generation will be mitigated as discussed above. An increase by one person in the South Pole Station winter population would be required to support the research activity associated with the proposed building. 11. Will the activity change energy production or demand, personnel and life support, or transportation requirements at the site? Temporary increases in demand for energy, personnel and life support requirements will occur due to the extra staff present at the station during the 1991-1992 austral summer season for construction. No permanent increases are expected. 12. Is the activity expected to adversely affect scientific studies or locations of research interest (near and distant, short-term and long-term)? No. The location of the building has been selected to avoid adversely affecting other scientific research projects. 13. Will the activity generate pollutants that might affect terrestrial, marine or freshwater ecosystems within the environs of the station or inland camp? No, the facility is not expected to generate such pollutants. 14. Does the site of the activity serve as habitat for any significant assemblages of Antarctic wildlife (for example, mosses or lichens, or antarctic birds or marine animals)? No, there are no known assemblages of antarctic wildlife that would be affected by the installation or operation of the proposed facility. HUMAN VALUES 15. Will the activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? No. OTHER CONCERNS AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT IMPACTS 16. What other environmental concerns are potentially affected by the activity at the site? For example, have impacts associated with decommissioning of the activity been considered (and how)? The buildings will not contain any known hazardous materials, such as asbestos, which would be hazardous or difficult to dispose of in the event that the buildings are decommissioned. The building has an expected life of five years after which time snow accumulation will render the building unusable. At that time the above ground portion of the building is to be dismantled and reused if possible. The building footings may be abandoned in place due to the difficulty of removing them. Use of the permanent footings is necessary to minimize vibrations to the building and telescope. 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. The contractor is authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. Sidney Draggan Attachment Map