Title : New Traffic Control Tower-South Pole Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : July 09, 1992 File : opp93068 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: July 9, 1992 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Installation of a New Air Traffic Control Tower Facility at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station) To: LCDR C. M. Rhone, NSFA Electronics Engineer, DPP Files (S.7 - Environment) This Environmental Action Memorandum (EAM) describes the need for, and location of, a new Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower Facility (i.e., tower and shelter) at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. This new facility would replace an existing ATC tower and shelter at the station. It is proposed that installation could be accomplished during the 1992-1993 austral summer season. The Environmental Officer posed a set of questions relating to the proposed project, and to the potentially affected environ- ment. These questions were responded to by LCDR C. M. Rhone of the Naval Support Force, Antarctica on May 5, 1992; the questions and responses are shown below: Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses GENERAL A central goal of the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) is to provide a high level of safety for all personnel working within the program. The Special Initiative for Antarctic Safety, Environ- ment and Health has provided funding needed to improve selected components of USAP's air traffic control and communications capabilities. Installation of the proposed facility is expected to enhance accomplishment of USAP's safety goals. 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? The proposed activity would replace an AN/TSQ-60 Portable Air Traffic Control (ATC) Unit now existing at the South Pole Station with a newer LNS TT-070 Portable (ATC) Tower and shelter. The purpose of the activity is to upgrade USAP's ATC capabilities--providing greater margins of safety for air operations at, or near, the station. What alternatives to the proposed activity have the Program and the civilian and military contractors considered? The following ATC tower and facility alternatives were considered and investigated: þ the "no-action" alternative; þ LNS TT-070 Portable ATC Tower (the preferred alternative); þ TSQ-120; þ TSQ-97; þ Barton Fixed; þ Barton Portable; þ Barton Mobile; þ LNS CTC-250 Fixed; and þ LNS ANT-57. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered by the Program and the contractors? Please explain how. The "no-action" alternative was deemed unacceptable as it would disallow achievable improvements to USAP's air operations safety. Each of the other tower and facility alternatives were expected to have similar impacts (i.e., promotion to varying degrees of snow drifting and accumulation,and of electromagnetic noise). The expected impacts were not believed to be more than either minor or transitory in nature. The preferred alternative (the LNS TT-070 Portable (ATC) Tower) met the operational and performance criteria dictated by the unique character- istics of the antarctic location. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated by the Program or the contractors? The potential impacts noted above were determined to be manageable; they could be mitigated by careful facility use planning or modifications to facility design. The safety aspects of installing the proposed facility were given careful consideration with respect to potential environmental impacts. Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered by the Program or the contractors? Please explain how. In planning for this proposal such indirect costs as those associated with transporting materials and personnel to the South Pole were considered. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. Where would the proposed activity be located, specifically? The activity would be located at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station (see Attached Map). Have alternative locations been considered by the Program or the contractors? If yes, which are they; if no, explain why. No other locations were considered as a South Pole site would be required for both visual and radar access of the station's runway. The new LNS TT-070 Portable (ATC) Tower would be installed at the same location as the existing tower. 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the proposed activity be handled by the Program or the contractors? The shelter for the new LNS TT-070 Portable (ATC) Tower is in good material condition while the old shelter is deteriorated. The physical sizes of both shelters are similar; the new LNS TT-070 Portable (ATC) Tower is higher in the vertical aspect, however, improving visibility for ATC Technicians. The shelter that would be replaced is "Army green" in color while the new Tower would be "international orange and white". This color would be used for safety of flight considerations, improving pilots' ability to locate the new Tower visually. 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. As both old and new ATC towers and their accompanying facilities are aboveground they have the potential for changing natural movement of wind blown snow (i.e., to affect drifting). Also, the old and new facilities would be sources of electromagnetic noise. The new shelter is a self-contained unit housing communications and ATC equip- ment. Personnel manning and power consumption are not expected to change at the site. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The chosen site is currently occupied by an older shelter used for ATC. 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 site and neighboring environment have been used over the past several years for ATC and South Pole science support, respectively. 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 pollution abatement or mitigation, and waste management [e.g., of noise, dust, fuel loss, disposition of one-time-use materials, construction wastes])? Any waste generated during the decommissioning of the old ATC shelter and the installation of the new shelter would be managed by the military and civilian support contractors according to established USAP procedures; and the area would be left in a clean and orderly condition following these operations. Human wastes generated at the new shelter would be processed in an incinerating toilet; and, resulting ash would be retrograded from Antarctica via McMurdo Station. The existing fuel storage system would be retained for use with the new shelter; and, this system would be periodically inspected for leaks by the personnel manning the shelter. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The types of equipment and activity occurring at the site are not expected to change air quality. 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. There is no natural water flow at the site. 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. Yes. Hauling of sewage generated at the existing facility would be terminated; an incinerating toilet would be used with resultant ash retrograded from Antarctica. 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. Yes. There would be a slight increase in energy demand (i.e., use of an incinerating toilet). Other energy, personnel, and transportation requirements are expected to remain the same as at the existing facility. 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. The facility would generate some measure of electromagnetic noise. Although the South Pole is a recognized site for scientific studies that require electromagnetically-quiet conditions, no significant problems have been evidenced, to date, from the existing ATC facility. 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 ATC Tower and attendant facilities are self- contained and are not expected to be the source of any 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 mammals)? No. There are no significant assemblages of antarctic wildlife at the South Pole. 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 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). All electronic equipment now installed in the old ATC shelter would be removed and placed in the new ATC shelter. The old shelter (with sled) would be transferred to the civilian contractor for subsequent use. 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. In fact, there are recognized safety benefits that would accrue from completion of the proposed project. The civilian and military contractors are authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. Sidney Draggan Attachment (Map)