Title : South Pole CARA Building Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : October 26, 1992 File : opp93083 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: October 26, 1992 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (South Pole CARA Building) To: Safety and Health Officer, DPP Head, Safety, Environment and Health Implementation Team, DPP Environmental Engineer, DPP Facilities Engineering Projects Manager, DPP Manager, Aeronomy and Astrophysics Science Program, DPP Environmentalist, ASA REFs: Environmental Action Memorandum (Evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessment and Finding on Establishment of the Center for Astrophysical Research in Antarctica); Dated October 22, 1991. Environmental Action Memorandum (Astro Building at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station); Dated December 23, 1991. This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, proposed actions to construct a facility to house projects conducted in association with the Center for Astro- physical Research in Antarctica (CARA). The Environmental Officer posed a set of questions relating to the planning for the proposed facility, and to the potentially affected environment. These questions were responded to by the civilian support contractor's Environmentalist, Mr. Terry Johnson, and by its Environmental Engineer, Ms. Carol Andrews, on April 22, 1992; the questions and responses are shown below: Background Construction of a building is proposed at the South Pole Station during the 1992-93 construction season to support the Antarctic Submillimeter Telescope and Remote Observatory, the South Pole Infrared Explorer (SPIREX), and the Cosmic Background Radiation Anisotropy (COBRA) projects conducted by the Center for Astro- physical Research in Antarctica (CARA). The proposed building would be known as the "CARA" facility. During the 1991-92 season the ASTRO building which houses related CARA activities was constructed. The proposed building is to be constructed using prefabricated modular building panels that would have very high insulating properties. The building would be elevated off the ground surface, with footings constructed on the snow surface. Attach- ment 1 shows the site plan for the facility while , Attachments 2 and 3 show the interior layout and exterior design of the proposed building. An Environmental Action Memorandum (EAM) was prepared the Division of Polar Programs (DPP) in 1991 evaluating an Environ- mental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Finding on the establishment of the Center for Astrophysical Research in Antarctica, prepared by the CARA consortium. That EIA discussed and assessed the potential environmental impacts of the science activities associ- ated with the proposed buildings. In 1991, another EAM was prepared by DPP based on information from Antarctic Support Associates, Inc. that authorized construction of the ASTRO building. This EAM, therefore, is tiered to the earlier EAMs and EIA and addresses primarily the potential impacts of constructing the new prefabricated building. Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses GENERAL 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? The proposed building would house activities of the Center for Astrophysical Research in Antarctica (CARA). What alternatives has the Program and the Contractor considered? Three alternatives have been considered: 1) No action. This alternative would not allow the planned research to proceed. 2) Construction of the proposed facility at a different location other than at the South Pole. The proposed location is considered optimal as it offers a clean environment without light or heat pollution that affect the quality of data to be obtained. The Antarctic Plateau offers the most clear, dark infra- red skies on Earth. 3) Modification of existing facilities to house CARA, e.g., Jamesways. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered by the Program and the Contractor? Please explain how. Yes. The proposed alternative is believed to have the least overall potential environmental impact while still fulfilling the needs of the proposed research project. In the short-term, modification of an existing building would incur fewer impacts: less fuel, less materials, and fewer construction personnel would be required. In the long-term, however, the proposed structure is believed to have fewer potential impacts: it would be more energy efficient and have a longer useful lifetime. The lifetime of an elevated structure is greater as it would be less prone to becoming buried by snow accumula- tion. The impacts associated with construction of a modular building are less than impacts caused by on-site con- struction of a conventional structure. The amount of labor required for construction is reduced, in turn reducing the contribution of workers to potential pol- lution (e.g., solid waste, sewage). Construction of a modular building also would reduces the amount of con- struction debris generated by the project. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated by the Program or the Contractor? The potential impacts of the proposed project would include: 1) production of solid waste and sewage by the construction staff living at the station, and 2) addi- tional fuel use to supply energy needed for construction and basic survival needs of the workers (e.g., snow melting for water, space heating). The impact of solid waste generated by construction workers would be mitigated by managing the waste in accordance with U.S. Antarctic Program waste management practices that call for waste minimization and recycl- ing. The effect of extra fuel use may be mitigated by on-going 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 by the Program or the Contractor? Please explain how. Yes. All such costs as transportation and labor have been estimated for construction. Although it is diffi- cult to assess the long-term maintenance costs, main- tenance costs for a new structure are expected to be less than for a modified existing structure. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. What is the specific location of the proposed activity? The proposed building is to be located approximately 61 meters West of the ASTRO building (see attached site plan). Have alternative locations been considered by the Program or the Contractor? If yes, which are they; if no, explain why. The location of the proposed CARA facility was dictated by the need to construct it near the ASTRO facility (already under construction). A number of potential locations for the buildings were considered before construction began on ASTRO (see the EAM for the ASTRO building). In general, the location was chosen to be far enough from the Dome and the Clean Air Facility to prevent interference yet close enough to walk safely between the CARA facilities and the station's dome. 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the pro- posed activity be handled by the Program of the Contractor? Undue aesthetic impacts associated with the construction of the proposed facility would be addressed through careful clearing of any construction debris. The area around the proposed facility would be maintained by the civilian con- tractor to preserve a clean, uncluttered appearance. The proposed prefabricated building's exterior is more aesthetically pleasing than a typical Jamesway. The aluminum siding and general design would match the ASTRO building and the station's new summer camp modules. 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. The activity would increase temporarily noise levels due to machinery, power generators, and aircraft required to support construction. Increased station population due to construction workers would increase temporarily solid waste and sewage generation rates. Use of solar energy would minimize the cumulative amount of fuel required by the building. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed or chosen site? If yes, how; if no, why? Yes. The proposed building is within the Aviation Sector of the South Pole Station. It is far enough from the runway, however, that it is not expected to conflict with aviation activities. 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 land area surrounding the proposed facility is a relatively flat snow field that supports no assemblages of antarctic wildlife. The elevated design of the building and the use of solar energy employ the intrinsic natural prop- erties of the site. The existing snow field would not be changed significantly as only minimal site preparation would be required. IMPACT OR 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 [e.g., of noise, dust, fuel loss, disposition of one-time-use materials, construction wastes])? Use of solar energy would reduce fuel dependency. Con- struction equipment (i.e., the Mantis crane and forklift) would be properly maintained to prevent fuel or other fluid losses during construction activities. Use of prefabricated building panels would result in minimal generation of construction-related waste. Any construction debris generated by the proposed project would be properly handled, packaged, transported and turned in to the retro- grade unit at McMurdo Station by the civilian contractor. In addition, hazardous or toxic materials would neither be stored nor used at the site. Noise generation should be the same or less than at a typical construction site. No unusually noisy equipment is called for as part of construction. Equipment used to assemble the prefabricated units (includes a crane) would be reused for other projects or would be removed from the station. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed or chosen site? If yes, how; if no, why? No. Exhaust gas emissions may be expected from construction equipment, however, such emissions would be only minor and temporary. 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the proposed or chosen site? If yes, how; if no, why? 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. The elevated design of the proposed building would allow snow to move under the building, greatly reducing or eliminating snow accumulation around the building. 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed or chosen site? If yes, how; if no, why? Yes. Waste generation would be increased temporarily due to the extra staff who would be present at the station during the construction project. The impact of this temporary increase in waste generation would be mitigated as discussed above. An increase in the South Pole Station Winter pop- ulation of approximately 15 summer positions and 4 winter positions would be required to support the research activity associated with the proposed building. The actual increase in personnel would be dependent on the number of new projects undertaken. Approximately 50 summer construction workers would be required. 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? Yes. During construction energy demand, personnel, life support and transportation requirements all would be increased. Approximately 25 C-130 aircraft flights would be required for material delivery. Long-term requirements may include transportation for personnel working at the CARA and ASTRO facilities, especially during the austral winter months. Construction of a tunnel from the main dome to the facilities is under consideration. Information to provide a basis for an independent environmental assessment of tunnel construction would be prepared by the contractor in cooperation with the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL). 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. The location of the building has been selected to avoid adversely affecting other scientific research projects. 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 facility is not expected to generate such pollutants. 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 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. Would the proposed activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? If yes, how; if no, why? No. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 16. What other environmental concerns are 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 buildings would not contain any known hazardous materials, such as asbestos, that would be hazardous or difficult to dispose of in the event that the facility is decommissioned. The modular design would improve the probability that portions of the building could be reused for other construction if the building is decommissioned. 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 near Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. The contractor is authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. Sidney Draggan Attachments Site Plan Interior/Exterior Layouts