Title : Hydroponics Project--South Pole Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : June 15, 1992 File : opp93065 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: June 15, 1992 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Hydroponics Project at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station) To: Files (S.7 - Environment) REF: Environmental Action Memorandum (Prohibitions Against Maintenance of Household Plants at U.S. Antarctic Program Stations and Facilities); Dated February 6, 1991. BACKGROUND This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, proposed actions to cultivate certain food crops for consumption by personnel at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station (hereafter referred to as South Pole Station). The proposed action includes activities to dispose of any crop wastes in a manner consistent with maintaining the quality of the environment at South Pole Station, and with established Antarctic Treaty and Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 requirements and U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) waste management procedures. A small facility for growing plants was created at the South Pole Station during past seasons using an existing structure under the station's dome. Although the system relies on artificial light for plant growth, it is known as "the Greenhouse". Several building deficiencies have precluded successful food production within the Greenhouse, to date. Such deficiencies include inadequate lighting, poorly designed trays, lack of personnel knowledge on how the operate the unit and a lack of operational training aids (i.e., manuals, videos and procedures). During the 1991-1992 austral summer season, interior renovation improvements were made to the Greenhouse, including installation of new trays, lighting, a heat exchanger and insulation. Mr. Phil Sadler, T-event 339, proposes to grow food in the greenhouse during the 1992 austral winter season. The plants are to be grown hydroponically. That is, the plants would be grown in trays of vermiculite; their roots would be exposed to a circulating water solution that contains nutrients. No soil would be used to cultivate these plants. Section 670.4, paragraph (f), of the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 prohibits introduction of non-indigenous animals and plants into Antarctica. However, section 670.7 "Food exception" states: "Paragraph (f) of 670.4 shall not apply to the introduction of animals and plants in to Antarctica for use as food so long as animals and plants used for this purpose are kept under controlled conditions. This exception shall not apply to living non-indigenous species of birds." The proposed activity would be allowed, therefore, under this exception. GENERAL 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? Hydroponic cultivation of fresh produce (tomatoes, lettuce, peppers and herbs) for consumption at the station. What alternatives to the proposed activity have the Program and the Contractor considered? Two alternatives have been considered: 1) the proposed activity of growing food plants and assuring adherence to appropriate waste management policies and procedures; and 2) the "no action" alternative. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered by the Program and the Contractor? Please explain how. Yes. The proposed alternative would cause a minor increase in power consumption. Approximately once per month the dilute nutrient solution would be discharged to the dome wastewater system and introduced to a wastewater pit. The non-edible portions of the plants would require proper handling and disposal. Introduction of non-native, non-crop plant species to Antarctica has also been considered as a potential impact. The possibility that a large, vascular plant accidentally released from the South Pole Station Greenhouse would establish itself in Antarctica is extremely minute. Native antarctic plants have adapted to the cold, harsh climate and unique soil conditions. The plants to be grown in the Greenhouse are temperate climate plants that could not grow under these natural antarctic conditions. Nonetheless, disposal of crop plant residues would be controlled and monitored to prevent distribution of any seeds or other plant propagules. This would ensure that the possibility of introductions is reduced to vanishingly small. Positive impacts associated with crop plant cultivation at South Pole Station include increasing the aesthetic appeal and nutrition of food by providing variety (a significant portion of the food consumed at South Pole Station is either frozen or dried). Also, the project could provide a room with full spectrum lighting. Exposure to full spectrum lighting is believed to help prevent depression associated with seasonal adjustive disorder among other benefits. No action would deprive the station residents of the benefits of the proposed activity. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated by the Program or the Contractor? The Greenhouse has been more fully insulated so as to minimize power consumption due to heat loss. High pressure sodium light bulbs proposed for use are very efficient in terms of light (i.e., lumens) generated per watt of electricity used. The Contractor will research whether replacing a portion of the high pressure sodium lights with metal halide lights may further reduce power consumption while providing equivalent or improved light for plant growth. The following types and numbers of crop plants would be grown in the Greenhouse: tomato (4), pepper (4), sweet pepper (5), cucumber (2), spinach (30) and lettuce (90). The amount of plant residue waste anticipated from these plants is small. It is estimated that less than 4.0 meters3 (about the volume of two standard triwall cardboard containers used by USAP [4'x4'x4']) would be needed to properly contain and stage such wastes before retrograding them to McMurdo Station. This waste would be retrograded to McMurdo Station for processing by incineration to ensure non-native plant species are not introduced to Antarctica. 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. Volunteers would plant and maintain the hydroponi- cally grown crops. Additional station staffing, there- fore, would not be required to support the proposed activity. As maintaining the greenhouse is a volunteer activity, open to all station personnel, the proposed activity would offer a measure of recreation during the austral winter. The only anticipated, negative indirect impact would be that the facility would occupy indoor space (that is in short supply and could be used for storage or other purposes). LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. Where would the proposed activity be located, specifically? The proposed activity would take place in a small building known as the Greenhouse which is within the South Pole Station dome. Have alternative locations been considered by the Program or the Contractor? If yes, which are they; if no, explain why. No. The Greenhouse is an existing facility. 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the proposed activity be handled by the Program or the Contractor? The Greenhouse would be maintained by station personnel in a neat and orderly fashion. Waste crop plant material would be placed in bags, stored and staged for retrograde in a container outside the Greenhouse. In this location the material would freeze, preventing its decomposition and attendant generation of odors. 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. The proposed activity would cause a very minor increase in the amount of waste generated at South Pole Station and processed in the interim incinerator at McMurdo Station. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The building has been a greenhouse for three seasons. Prior to that it was used as a paint storage facility. 6. Are the physical and environmental characteristics of the neighboring environment suitable for the proposed activity? If yes, explain why; if no, explain why. The local, indoor environment would be modified by providing light and heat to create a suitable environment for crop plant growth. The facility is located within the dome, an area characterized by a high level of human activity. The proposed activity is not expected to harm in any manner the relatively pristine, natural outdoor area surrounding the South Pole Station. The proposed activity would slightly increase the humidity of the air within the dome. Closed-cell foam insulation and a vapor barrier would be installed in the Greenhouse to minimize the effects of humidity on this building. IMPACT AND POLLUTION POTENTIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: 7. How has protection of the environment and human health from unnecessary pollution or impact been considered for the proposed activity (includes such considerations as pollu- tion abatement or mitigation, and waste management [e.g., of noise, dust, fuel loss, disposition of one-time-use materials, construction wastes])? Building modifications have been effected to minimize power consumption. Different lighting sources may be investi- gated to further reduce energy needs. Procedures have been established to assure the proper management (i.e., storage, staging and retrograding) of any crop waste. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. The crop plants would emit oxygen and water, primarily. The humidity inside the building would be raised above ambient levels. The incremental increase in water vapor emitted to the dome atmosphere is expected to be minor relative to other sources operating in the station. 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. At the South Pole, there is no liquid surface water. The proposed activity would take place within a building within the station's dome. It would neither cause accumulation of blowing snow nor would it affect the station's potable water production system. 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. The proposed activity would have a minor impact on the solid waste and waste water management system. Approxi- mately 760 liters of nutrient solution (water containing low concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium and 16 trace elements) would be discharged to the Dome sewer system approximately once per month. The nutrient formula- tion used for the existing system is obtained from a New Zealand supplier. The individual components of the formulation are referred to only as "A" and "B" Nutrients (which would be added to the watering system to a conduct- ivity of 2000 to 2800 æmoles for tomatoes and peppers and 800 to 1100 æmoles for lettuce. Information concerning the specific concentration of nutrients (N, P, K and trace elements) is not available on the package as New Zealand does not require such information to be divulged to the consumer. Typically, such formulations sold in the United States contain no more than 8.00 % total nitrogen, 18.00 % avail- able phosphoric acid, 38.00 % soluble potash and trace elements of varying amounts. The exact ratio of nutrients depends upon the type of plant grown. The nutrients in the New Zealand product are broken down into two packages. Nutrient A weighs approximately 410 grams, Nutrient B weighs approximately 585 grams. Each of these is mixed with five liters of water, and equal amounts of nutrients A and B are added to the system on an "as-needed" basis when the conductivity of one of the watering systems falls below the previous mentioned levels. Two triwall cartons per year of residual plant waste would be retrograded to McMurdo Station for incineration. 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 changes in personnel, life support or transportation requirements would be made due to the proposed activity. A minor increase in energy production would be required to operate the nutrient water circulating pump, to power the lights, and to heat the building. 12. Is the proposed activity expected to adversely affect scientific 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 is itself a study of the ability to grow food under harsh conditions. 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. The proposed activity is not expected to generate pol- lutants and has been designed to minimize the possibility of proliferation of non-indigenous species into the Antarctic. 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 area neighboring the South Pole Station does not serve as habitat for any assemblages of 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 not modify any land or structures. 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). The materials required for the proposed activity are already in place; and, they may be removed and reused for other projects or they may be retrograded from Antarctica. Finding The Environmental Officer, after reviewing the information presented above, believes that the proposed activity poses neither potentially minor nor potentially transitory impacts to the antarctic environment. There are, in fact, possible future health and science-related benefits. The Program and the civilian Contractor are authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. A followup memorandum shall report on the outcome of this effort. Sidney Draggan cc: Environmental Engineer, DPP Phil Sadler (T-339)