Title : UV Monitoring Building as an addition Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : October 26, 1992 File : opp93084 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: October 26, 1992 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (The Construction of a UV Monitoring Building as an Addition to the Existing T-5 Building) To: Safety and Health Officer, DPP Environmental Engineer, DPP Facilities Engineering Projects Manager, DPP Manager, Polar Biology and Medicine Program, DPP Environmentalist, ASA This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, proposed actions to construct a small facility to house ultraviolet (UV) radiation monitoring equipment at Palmer Station, Antarctica. 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 Environmental- ist, Mr. Terry Johnson, and by its Assistant Project Engineer, Mr. Tom Meyer, on September 30, 1992; the questions and responses are shown below: Background The proposed building would be a wood structure approximately 269 cm (8'- 10") x 320 cm (10'- 6") x 363 cm (11'- 11") high. It would be attached to Palmer Station's T-5 Building by a 91.5 cm (3'- 0") long hallway. It would be used by Biospherical Instru- ments, Inc. The proposed building is to replace the existing UV monitoring tower that is attached to the Clean Air Facility. The existing tower has been determined to be a safety and health hazard and must be replaced. Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? The purpose of the activity would be to provide safer working conditions for personnel working with the UV monitor at Palmer Station. What alternatives to the proposed activity have the Program and the Contractor considered? The following alternatives have been considered: 1. cutting a hole in the roof of the T-5 Building for placement of the UV monitor; 2. building a new, separate building using new material; 3. no action; and 4. the proposed and preferred activity. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been con- sidered by the Program and the Contractor? Please explain how. Impacts of #1: The only area of the T-5 building where a roof penetration could be made is next to the main ingress/egress door. The problem with this location is that cold air would enter each time the door is opened, affecting the performance of the UV monitor. Environ- mental impacts associated with this alternative would be minimal to none. Impacts of #2: A separate building was not found to be a good option due to space (land-use) limitations at the station. Also, a separate electrical run would have to be made to provide power to the building. This altern- ative presents the greatest potential for environmental impacts. Impacts of #3: The no action alternative presents no environmental impacts but is unacceptable as it would not alleviate the unsafe conditions that currently exist. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated by the Program or the Contractor? The impacts to the environment would be minimal. Poten- tial environmental impacts would be associated with uncontrolled management of construction debris. All debris, however, would be managed according to estab- lished U.S. Antarctic Program waste management procedures. Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered by the Program or the Contractor? Please explain how. There would be no increase in construction personnel associated with of the proposed activity. An increase in power demand would be minimal as the proposed build- ing would be serving the same purpose as the existing one. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. Where would the proposed activity be located, specifically? The proposed building would be attached to the south side of the existing T-5 Building at Palmer Station, Antarctica (see attached map). Have alternative locations been considered by the Program or the Contractor? If yes, which are they; if no,explain why. No other locations have been considered as it is important to keep the UV monitoring operation in the same general vicinity that it is currently in. 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the proposed activity be handled by the Program or the Contractor? The proposed building would be attached to the T-5 Building and would have siding that is the same color of other buildings at the station. 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 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. No. The proposed building would be constructed of wood, batt insulation, drywall, and metal siding. No foam panels would be used. There would be no plumbing fixtures in the building. The building would not require extra personnel; there would be, therefore, no increase in the station population. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The proposed building would be attached to an existing building. The location is in an area that is currently used for UV monitoring and clean air analysis. 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 ground in that area is flat and no grading or disturbance of soils or rock is required. The wood frame is easily adapted to the terrain. IMPACT AND POLLUTION POTENTIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: III. 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])? The proposed building is relatively small. Very little waste would be generated during construction. There would be some dust and noise during construction from the sawing of wood. After the building is completed, there would be little or no impact to the environment. The building would only be occupied when the UV monitor is being repaired or undergoing routine maintenance and would not be used as a standard work place. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The building would be not used as a daily work area. An electric heater would be placed inside the building along with an exhaust fan. These items are necessary to control the temperature of the building so the operation of the UV monitor is no effected. 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. Electricity would be the only utility to the building. There would be no sewer or water. The building would be elevated to reduce snow accumulation. 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. There would be no sewer or water to the building. There would also be no increase in personnel necessary to maintain the building. 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. No. The building would only provide a safer work area for personnel when they are working on the UV monitor. There would be no increase in personnel. The increase in energy demand would be minimal. 12. Is the proposed activity expected to adversely affect scien- tific 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 proposed activity would enhance UV-monitoring science by providing a safer work area. 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. No hazardous materials or toxic substances would be used at the site. 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. The building would be attached to the T-5 building in an area where there is no antarctic wildlife. HUMAN VALUES 15. Would he proposed activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The proposed activity would take place in an area that is already used for similar activities. 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 building would be of wood and built on grade. It would be easily dismantled and retrograded upon decommissioning. 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 Palmer Station. The contractor is authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. Sidney Draggan Attachments Site Plan