Title  : Demolition of Bldg.56,EBC-McMurdo
Type   : Antarctic EAM
NSF Org: OD / OPP
Date   : October 27, 1992
File   : opp93085


                                       DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS
                                        OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
                                                     202/357-7766

MEMORANDUM

   Date:  October 27, 1992

   From:  Environmental Officer, DPP

Subject:  Environmental Action Memorandum (Demolition of
            Building 56, Ecklund Biological Center, McMurdo
            Station, Antarctica)

     To:  Safety and Health Officer, DPP
          Head, Safety, Environment and Health
            Implementation Team, DPP
          Environmental Engineer, DPP
          Facilities Engineering Projects Manager, DPP
          Manager, Polar Coordinated Sciences
            Program, DPP
          Environmentalist, ASA




This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and
location of, proposed actions to decommission a scientific
laboratory facility at McMurdo Station.  The Environmental
Officer posed a set of questions relating to the planning for,
and conduct of, the decommissioning, and to the potentially
affected environment.  These questions were responded to by the
civilian support contractor's Environmentalist, Mr. Terry
Johnson, on October 26, 1992; the questions and responses are
shown below:


Background


The United States Antarctic Program (USAP) is completing
construction of a new science facility to replace the present,
outdated Ecklund Biological Center (EBC) and Thiel Earth Sciences
Laboratory (TESL) at McMurdo Station, Antarctica.  The new
facility is complete enough to house all equipment and services
that were once the within the EBC, the TESL and several outlying
buildings.  The 1992-1993 austral summer season marks the
beginning of a new era of scientific investigation at McMurdo
with the use of the new, modern facility and the close of the old
EBC and TESL.  The information contained in this document
examines the environmental impacts that may be associated with
the decommissioning of the EBC.


Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses


I.   GENERAL


 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity?

    The purpose of the proposed activity would be to demolish
    Building 56, the Ecklund Biological Center.  The EBC has
    served as the primary laboratory for scientific research at
    McMurdo Station since 1969.  With the imminent completion of
    construction of the Crary Science and Engineering Center
    (CSEC), all laboratory services have been moved from the EBC
    and are now conducted in the CSEC.  The EBC is no longer
    needed to support scientific research at McMurdo Station.

        What alternatives to the proposed activity have the
        Program and the Contractor considered?

        The Program and Contractor have considered three
        alternatives:  1) the proposed and prepared alternative;
        2) using the building to house other functions at
        another location; and 3) "no-action".

        Have probable impacts of all alternatives been
        considered by the Program and the Contractor?  Please
        explain how.

        Impacts of #1:  Removal of the old structure will
        support the removal of certain substandard materials
        (e.g., flooring containing asbestos) from Antarctica
        through USAP's normal retrograde channels.

        Impacts of #2:  Using the building for other purposes
        would eliminate the need to demolish the building and
        would present no environmental impacts that might result
        from the demolition procedure.  It is generally recog-
        nized, however, that the building is in poor condition
        and that reuse of the building would be economically
        infeasible.  In addition, although laboratory safety and
        health surveys done to date do not indicate a problem,
        parts of the building might evidence laboratory chemical
        contamination.  If such contamination is evidenced by
        on-going surveys, those parts of the building would be
        identified as potentially hazardous waste and retro-
        graded from Antarctica.

        Impacts of #3:  No action would leave the building as it
        is.  This would present no environmental impacts associ-
        ated with its demolition.  Should parts of the building,
        however, be contaminated, the no action alternative
        could present health and safety risks to individuals
        working in or passing near the abandoned facility.
        Also, removing the aesthetically unappealing building
        would create space within the existing town that might
        be used for new purposes, reducing tendencies toward
        "urban sprawl".

        Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts,
        how would these impacts be mitigated by the Program or
        the Contractor?

        The chosen alternative would involve potential
        environmental impacts associated with the demolition of
        the building.  Such impacts would include increased
        noise and dust, additional demolition debris to be
        retrograded, and the potential to release asbestos
        fibers from old flooring tiles.

        Noise and dust would be mitigated by manually
        disassembling the major portions of the structure.
        Demolition requiring the use of heavy equipment would be
        accomplished while wetting down the structure with water
        to reduce dust propagation.  Wetting would be done so as
        not to create runoff that could migrate from the site.

        All demolition debris would be handled to avoid material
        being blown by the wind from the area to the surrounding
        environment.  All debris would be packaged and made
        ready for retrograde from Antarctica following estab-
        lished USAP waste management procedures.

        As a result of an asbestos survey conducted by AECOM
        Technology Corporation during the 1991-1992 austral
        summer season, the floor tiles used in the EBC were
        found to contain 1-5 percent chrysotile asbestos.
        Potential release of these fibers to the environment
        during demolition would be mitigated by having the tiles
        removed by a certified asbestos abatement firm prior to
        the startup of the demolition.  The removed tiles would
        be packaged, properly labeled and turned in for retro-
        grade following U.S. regulations for asbestos containing
        materials.
        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
        because of the proposed activity.  Abatement of asbestos
        containing materials requires the hire and deployment of
        an asbestos abatement firm.  This cost has been factored
        into the project.


LAND USE AND PLANNING

 2. What is the specific location of the proposed activity?

    Building 56 is located at McMurdo Station, Antarctica,
    between the new CSEC Building, the Chalet, and the MEC
    (Building 136).  See attached map.

        Have alternative locations been considered by the
        Program or the Contractor?  If yes, which are they; if
        no, explain why.

        No.  The EBC is a fixed site and demolition would occur
        at this site.

 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the
    proposed activity be handled by the Program or the
    Contractor?

    Undue aesthetic impacts associated with the demolition of
    the building would be addressed through careful, systematic
    clearing and packaging of the debris to be retrograded from
    Antarctica.  The area where the building stood would be
    landscaped so as to blend into the surrounding area.
    Removal to the building itself would improve the aesthetics
    of the station.

 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.  All impacts have been previously described.

 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of
    the proposed or chosen site?  If yes, how; if no, why?

    The science support activities formerly housed in the EBC
    have been moved to the nearby CSEC building.  Any new use of
    the site after demolition of the EBC is complete has not
    been determined.


 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 neighboring environment provides adequate room for
    personnel and equipment needed to decommission the facility.


IMPACT AND 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])?

    Some of the activities that would take place to ensure
    protection of the environment have been discussed in
    previous sections of this document (i.e., abatement of dust,
    noise and asbestos and the disposition of demolition
    debris).

    An additional area of concern would be the disposition of
    any water that may have collected annually beneath the floor
    of the EBC.  The occasional appearance of this water is
    thought to result from convection heat melting the perma-
    frost beneath the EBC.  It is not believed that this water
    is being, or has been discharged by the laboratory.  Dis-
    position of this water was addressed in a previous Memoran-
    dum prepared by the Environmental Officer, NSF/DPP.
    Analyses of the water by the New Zealand Department of
    Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) confirmed that the
    water could be disposed of on-site with no environmental
    impacts.  Based upon those findings the same procedure would
    be used to dispose of any existing water.

    Human health would be protected from potential exposure to
    asbestos containing floor tiles by having them removed by a
    certified asbestos abatement firm prior to initiating the
    demolition.  In addition, the building would be surveyed for
    contamination by laboratory chemicals and reagents, radio-
    isotopes, and lead-based paint prior to demolition work
    beginning.  Should contamination be detected, safety
    precautions and special handling, packaging and labeling of
    waste materials would be used following procedures developed
    by the Safety and Health Officer, NSF/DPP.

 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at
    the proposed or chosen site?  If yes, how; if no, why?

    The activity has the potential to change ambient air quality
    by contributing dust as a result of the use of heavy equip-
    ment in demolition.  This would be mitigated by appropri-
    ately wetting the materials with water prior to using the
    equipment.

 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow
    (drainage), at the proposed or chosen site?  If yes, how; if
    no, why?

    No, the activity would not have a lasting impact on water
    quality.  Water removed from under the building might con-
    tain trace levels of some pollutants, as discussed in the
    Environmental Officer's Memorandum dated October 4, 1990.
    Levels of pollutants noted in the memorandum were not deemed
    of concern by staff of the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency (see Table 1).  Regrading that would effect surface
    water flow patterns is not planned.

10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or
    management at the proposed or chosen site?  If yes, how; if
    no, why?

    Yes.  The amount of waste requiring retrograde during 1993
    Fiscal Year would increase as a result of this activity.
    All salvageable items would be recovered from the building
    to minimize the amount of waste produced.

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?

    Only temporary changes in personnel and transportation would
    take place at the site during the demolition process.  Life
    support may be necessary for personnel performing the
    asbestos abatement.  Equipment needed for this would be
    brought to the site by the asbestos abatement subcontractor.
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?

    The proposed activity would not affect scientific research.
    All science support operations formerly housed in the EBC
    have moved to the CSEC Building.

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 could generate pollutants that might
    affect terrestrial, marine or freshwater ecosystems and
    human health should they be improperly handled; specifically
    in the case of health risk:  asbestos containing materials.
    Procedures following U.S. regulations would be used to
    preclude the unnecessary discharge of any pollutants.

14. Does the site of the proposed activity serve as habitat for
    any significant assemblages of Antarctic wildlife (for
    example, mosses, lichens, antarctic birds or marine
    animals)?

    No.  The site of the proposed activity currently is occupied
    by a building.  The area around the building is character-
    ized by a high degree of human activity and does not serve
    as habitat for any indigenous antarctic wildlife.


HUMAN VALUES

15. Would the proposed activity encroach upon any historical
    property of the proposed or chosen site?  If yes, how; if
    no, why?

    Although the EBC has been used for many years and may have
    sentimental value to many of the researchers who have used
    it, it is not listed on any Antarctic historic register.
    The fact that it has been deemed unsafe is ample justifica-
    tion for decommission.
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 decommis-
    sioning of the activity been considered (and how)?

    The proposed activity is one of decommissioning an outdated,
    unsafe facility.

                             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 McMurdo Station, Antarctica, if undertaken as
described.  From his analysis, the Environmental Officer does not
believe the work holds potential for impacts to the environment;
nonetheless, due to the past uses and contents of the structure,
there may be risks to both human safety and health.  The finding
of this Environmental Action Memorandum shall be coupled with the
findings of the Safety and Health Officer, Division of Polar
Programs who shall authorize all work connected with the
decommissioning.




                                 Sidney Draggan


Attachments