Title : Construction of Replcmnt. Science Facility Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : June 01, 1988 File : opp93001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT SCIENCE FACILITY at McMurdo Station, Antarctica Prepared by the Division of Polar Programs National Science Foundation June 1, 1988 Approved: _______________________________ Date: ______________________ Sidney Draggan, Ph.D. Polar Coordination Specialist Approved: _______________________________ Date: ______________________ Peter E. Wilkniss Division Director TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . 4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Existing Site Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Proposed Site Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Building Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Environmental Assessment Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Use of Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Facility Environmental Management . . . . . . . . . . 6 Human Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Project Modifications Considered . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Environmental Impact Assessment Panel Meeting . . . . . . 7 Summary of Panel Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPLACEMENT SCIENCE FACILITY McMURDO STATION, ANTARCTICA OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Background The United States Antarctic Program (USAP) is the nation's program for research and presence in Antarctica. It is funded and managed by the Federal Government. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has overall funding and management (lead agency) responsibility for USAP and U.S. activities in Antarctica. NSF conducts detailed planning of logistics, and transmittal of logistics requirements to the Naval Support Force Antarctica, to the U.S. Coast Guard (primarily provision of icebreaker services), and to a civilian contractor (currently ITT/Antarctic Services, Inc.). NSF guides these support units in facilities management, design, planning, engineering, construction, and maintenance. USAP has, for a number of years, recognized the need for a replacement science facility to be constructed at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. The present science facilities are housed in temporary buildings which have expanded haphazardly to meet ever changing scientific needs. As a result, these facilities are inadequate, outdated, and in some instances may not meet recognized safety and environmental protection guidelines. In 1980, the USAP prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that reviewed the continuation of the Program (the EIS was programmatic in nature), including the construction of new facilities from time to time. Since the proposed action is within the program analysis of the EIS, this Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be considered part of the tiering process associated with that EIS. Proposed Action The National Science Foundation is now proposing to replace several existing scientific laboratory facilities (total of 15506 sq. ft.) at McMurdo Station, Antarctica, with a new, 41486 sq. ft. consolidated scientific laboratory facility. The design of this replacement facility to consolidate all laboratory-based scientific activities under one roof was undertaken to provide centralized and up-to-date facilities and more economical, safe, and environmentally compatible conditions for research activities at McMurdo Station. The proposed action includes the demolition of the Eklund Biological Center, Building 77, several Jamesway Buildings (used for housing) and a lavatory facility. Alternatives considered during planning for the proposed action included: o Do nothing; o Retain the present facilities including any necessary additions or improvements to them; o Curtail additional science activities within the Program; o Move the science activities of the USAP to another area (for example, Marble Point); o Construct more temporary buildings to support science activities of the Program; and o Use another site within McMurdo Station as the site of science activities (including the use of other existing buildings). PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NSF's Division of Polar Programs has conducted this environmental assessment to provide management of all USAP components, and interested parties, with an understanding of environmental issues pertinent to the proposed action. The assessment was conducted pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), the National Science Foundation's Proposal and Award Manual, Chapter VIII (NSF Manual No. 10), and Executive Order 12114. The assessment addresses the environmental implications of replacing several existing facilities with a consolidated scientific laboratory facility at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. This assessment examines whether this action will significantly affect the quality of the environment at that location. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ENVIRONMENT Existing Site Conditions The proposed site (MAP 1) measures about 2.5 acres and is bordered by Building 165 to the West, Building 77 to the North, Building 167 to the East and Building 157 to the South. The terrain of the site is on mild slopes of approximately 17 percent, in a North-South direction. In summer, a glacial melt drainageway meanders North- South through the westerly portion of the site. An unpaved roadway runs North-South through the middle of the project site. A new saltwater pipeline, mounted on metal supports, cuts across the southerly portion of the site. Other aboveground utilities crisscross the project site. Proposed Site Improvements Building Areas. Cutting (maximum of ~5 feet) and filling (maximum of ~15 feet) are required to give level areas for construction. The glacial melt drainageway (relocated in the past to its present position) will be relocated to the western border of the site, to avoid the construction site, as will the roadway. Construction areas are sloped North-South at five percent allowing for summer run-off, and windblown snow under the elevated structure. Water and sewer connections from existing utility mains will be required (as project construction is phased temporary connections for these systems will be required). ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed action involves the removal of existing facilities and the construction of a replacement building consolidating several research facilities at McMurdo Station, Antarctica, and does signify the potential for an increase in research or logistic activity within the Program. The replacement is expected to upgrade scientific capabilities and should allow for more efficient energy and waste management. Environmental Assessment Criteria To assist in the identification of potentially sensitive or critical environmental effects, the Division of Polar Programs used a set of 23 environmental impact criteria as a guide for this analysis. These criteria, in five categories, are shown below: I. USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1. Will the project change traditional use of the site? 2. Will the project use land for purposes unsuitable to its physical characteristics? II. POLLUTION 3. Has environmental protection been considered in demolition of the old facility (includes necessary decontamination, waste-handling, site rehabilitation)? 4. Has environmental protection been considered in construction operations (i.e., disposition of one-time use materials, construction wastes)? 5. Will the project change ambient air quality at the site? 6. Will the project change ambient water quality at the site? 7. Will the project change solid waste generation at the site? 8. Will the project change energy production or demand, personnel and life support, or transportation requirements at the site? 9. Will the project change radio wave propagation characteristics at McMurdo Station? 10. Will the project adversely affect scientific studies or locations of research interest (near and distant, short- term and long-term)? 11. Will the project affect terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems within the environs of McMurdo Station? III. FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 12. Will the project include measures and facilities to assure the containment of exogenous life forms (i.e., those life forms produced through recombinant DNA techniques or not indigenous to the Antarctic? 13. Will the project include measures and facilities for the management of biological laboratory wastes? 14. Will the project include measures and facilities for the management of laboratory chemicals that may be hazardous or toxic? 15. Will the project include measures and facilities for the management and containment of hazardous or toxic wastes? 16. Will the project include measures and facilities for the management (storage, use, disposal) of radioisotopes and radioisotope wastes? 17. Will the project interfere with studies of electromagnetic radiation? 18. Will the project include measures and facilities for assuring occupational health and safety? IV. HUMAN VALUES 19. Will the project encroach upon any historical property of the site? 20. What other aspects of the site and what environmental values associated with the site, that might be affected by the project, have been considered? V. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS CONSIDERED (includes alternatives and mitigative measures considered). 21. Have alternatives to the proposed action been identified; and, have the probable effects of such alternatives been considered? 22. Have measures have been identified and considered to mitigate adverse impacts of the project? 23. Have any modifications of the proposed project been taken or considered to minimize environmental impacts? Environmental Impact Assessment Panel Meeting On May 17, 1988, an environmental impact assessment panel meeting was held among relevant representatives of the Division, and the NSF's Committee on Environmental Statements and Office of the General Counsel to address these impact criteria (see Appendix A for panel membership). Summary of Panel Responses In the following paragraphs, the discussion of the panelists on environmental impact criteria and relevant environmental issues is summarized: USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES. Criterion 1. Received a no response. The panelists believed that the traditional use of the land parcel, McMurdo Station, will not be changed by the proposed action. The site of the proposed action is in the center of the station, already contains buildings, and is crisscrossed by utilities. Criterion 2. Received a no response. POLLUTION. Criterion 3. Received a yes response. The panelists felt that environmental protection has been considered in plans for demolition associated with the development of the proposed action. They noted that the site would not be restored to its state before establishment of McMurdo Station; but that, the site would be restored to a purpose suitable to McMurdo Station. All demolition- related activities (i.e., disposal of demolition materials, any necessary decontamination) will adhere to the laws, regulations, policies, and procedures under which the Program operates. Criterion 4. Received a yes response. Again, the panelists stated that environmental protection has been considered in construction operations associated with the proposed action. Such operations will adhere to the laws, regulations, policies, and procedures under which the Program operates. For example, they noted that construction litter control schemes are in place; and that the proposed building is pre-engineered (assuring that the amount of construction-associated wastes is minimal). Criterion 5. Received a no response. In the context of McMurdo Station, conduct of the proposed action would not change ambient air quality. At the immediate building site, air quality would not be significantly degraded by dust intermittently raised by trucks and construction equipment. Criterion 6. Received a no response. The panelists noted that in the context of McMurdo Station, the proposed action would have no impact on ambient water quality. At the immediate building site, there is no water; an acid neutralization tank is designed into the structure and hazardous substances are retrograded. Criterion 7. Received a yes response. The panel believed that the proposed action would increase solid waste generation at the immediate building site. They also noted that such an increase would be balanced by a commensurate increase in solid waste management, and that the science community's activities only contribute a small portion of the solid wastes generated at McMurdo Station. They felt the increase would not be significant. Criterion 8. Received a no response. The panelists first noted that such changes actually are directly attributable to the Program's intention to increase science activity. They felt that the proposed facility might result in more energy demand, although less than if the facilities to be replaced were brought up to the same standards through retrofitting. Criterion 9. Received a no response. The panelists believed that the building would in no way affect radio wave propagation at McMurdo Station. They did note that at the immediate building site electromagnetic characteristics would be affected as the proposed structure is a metal building; any effect here was considered insignificant as no electromagnetic radiation measurements for science are made within McMurdo Station (the Arrival Heights site is used for this purpose). The facility design includes a Faraday cage to shield internal instruments from external radio interference and to shield against spurious radio emissions from the building. Criterion 10. Received a no response. The immediate site was seen as having no research value by the panelists, and they felt that the proposed action would not adversely affect research sites or studies distant from the station, or in the short- or long-term. Criterion 11. Received a no response. The panel felt that the proposed action would not affect the status of terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems within the environs of McMurdo Station. FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. Criterion 12. Received a yes response. During the design of the proposed building "genetic engineering" studies were not identified as a type of study conducted at McMurdo Station; utility systems have been designed for the building, however, that could support the type of equipment needed to assure "biosafety" should the need arise. Present procedures for the containment of non-indigenous organisms will continue in the new building. Criterion 13. Received a yes response. The panelists noted that current procedures for the management of biological laboratory wastes will be improved in the new building. The project allows enhanced management of such wastes due to building design (i.e., proper loading docks, storage). Criterion 14. Received a yes response. The panelists pointed out that during design of the new facility provisions were made for the overall management (receiving, storage, handling, and disposal of) hazardous or toxic substances. Criterion 15. Received a yes response. Examples noted by the panelists included state-of-the-art, fail-safe air handling systems, and a neutralization tank for waste acids. Criterion 16. Received a yes response. The system for the management of radioisotopes and their attendant wastes will continue in the new facility. All Program participants are advised of their responsibilities relative to the ordering, receiving, storage, use, and disposal of radioisotopes. Waste radioisotopes are shipped to the U.S. for ultimate, and proper disposal. Criterion 17. Received a no response. The facility design includes a shielded cage as noted under criterion 8 above. Criterion 18. Received a yes response. The proposed facility was designed following current U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration requirements. Any exhausts from the building will issue from a stack higher than surrounding buildings. Safety and health facilities include showers, eye washers, air handling systems, and strict management procedures for biological, toxic and hazardous substance, and radioisotope waste management. The panelists felt the new facility would be safer than the facilities it will replace. The Program recently commissioned a study of the health and safety aspects of its current laboratory facilities. The study included consideration of the proposed new facility and recommendations made in the report have been factored into its design. The Program's Safety Panel has been briefed on the new facility (their report is pending). HUMAN VALUES. Criterion 19. Received a no response. The panelists felt that no historical property of McMurdo Station will be affected by the proposed action. At the immediate site of the proposed action, a statue of Admiral Byrd will be relocated to an, as yet, undetermined site. Criterion 20. Received a no response. The panel noted that an early photograph of what is now McMurdo Station depicted a site lacking in normally-accepted aesthetic value. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS CONSIDERED. Criterion 21. Received a yes response. Alternatives to the proposed action have been identified under the section titled Proposed Action of this environmental assessment (See page 4). These alternatives were found either to have unacceptable probable effects on the environment or on the conduct of the Program. Criterion 22. Received a yes response. At the outset of the design of the proposed project, a wide range of experts involved in various aspects of the Program were asked to comment on necessary design improvements or modifications. Examples include measures for containment of non-indigenous species, and the management of laboratory, toxic and hazardous substances, and radioisotope stocks and wastes. Criterion 23. Received a yes response. The panelists noted that throughout the project's design and implementation the expert input noted above has been factored into final designs to minimize adverse health, safety, and environmental impacts. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Following the environmental impact assessment meeting the responses of panelists were analyzed and summarized. Again, this environmental impact assessment addressed the environmental implications of replacing several existing facilities with a consolidated scientific laboratory facility at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. Overall, the discussion and responses provided by the panelists suggest that the proposed action will not significantly affect the quality of the environment at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. Given the findings of this environmental impact assessment, it is recommended that a finding of no significant impact be attached to the proposed action. APPENDIX A Chairman Dr. Sidney Draggan Information and Coordination Section Panelists Dr. Julian P. Shedlovsky NSF Committee on Environmental Statements Mr. Lawrence Rudolph Office of the General Counsel Mr. David M. Bresnahan Operations Section Mr. Robert Haehnle Operations Section Mr. George Fitzsimmons Operations Section Mr. Thomas Forhan Operations Section Dr. John Lynch Science Section Dr. Bernhard Lettau Science Section Dr. Polly A. Penhale Science Section Mr. Charles E. Myers Information and Coordination Section