Title : Potable Water Well-South Pole Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : December 20, 1991 File : opp93042 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: December 20, 1991 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Potable Water Well and Associated Facility at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station) To: Files (S.7 - Environment) This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, a newly proposed potable water well (and associated facility and equipment) at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, Antarctica. The Environmental Officer posed a set of questions relating to the proposed project, and to the potentially affected environment. These questions were responded to by the civilian contractor's Environmentalist and Environmental Engineer on November 21, 1991; the questions and responses are shown below: Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses GENERAL A new water well is proposed to provide potable water to the South Pole Station. Plans for the well have been designed by the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL). Con- struction support for the proposed project is to be provided by Antarctic Support Associates, Inc. (ASA). The physical features of the project include the actual well, a shelter for the well (i.e., the water well house), pumps, hoses, a heat exchanger, a boiler to develop the initial well hole, and various instruments (including equipment to measure well depth and temperature of the water in the well). The proposed well would use waste heat from the station's elec- trical generators to melt ice to water that would be pumped to a certain depth below the ice surface (see Attachment 1). A cavity containing melted water would be formed by the process and serve as a reservoir. Water would be pumped from the well and distrib- uted to users at the station, including buildings within the dome and the summer camp buildings. A buried water line would convey water between the well and the station's generator building. The proposed well has been designed to produce about 600 gallons per day during the winter months and about 2,000 gallons per day during the summer months while maintaining a reserve of melted water in the cavity. The estimated life of the system is expected to be, at least, five years. The proposed project would replace the current system of producing water. This is now done by melting snow dug from a snow pit using a front-end loader. The snow pit is located a significant distance (one-half mile) from the station's dome to ensure that the snow is not contaminated by sewage or air emissions. Thirty minutes is required for each trip to the snow pit, with six trips required each day to supply just the main station during the summer. Further effort is required to supply snow to the summer camp snow melters. Concerns regarding the current system include: 1) personnel safety, as daily trips of the front-end loader are required [during the winter in total darkness at extremely cold tempera- tures]; 2) the labor and fuel intensiveness of the current operation; 3) limited water storage capacity, with the volume of water stored in the station tanks being just adequate with no safety margin; 4) lack of fire protection capability under the current operation; and, 5) risk of potable water contamination due to the use of an open-topped snow melter. The current system and proposed well both use waste heat from the power plant. Improvements to the waste heat recovery system are planned that would increase the efficiency of waste heat recovery. 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? The purpose of the activity is to install a new system for supplying potable water to the South Pole Station Dome buildings and Summer Camp. The new system is designed to increase the safety of the water supply by ensuring constant availability of water and by reducing the contamination potential. Also, the proposed project is intended to decrease the amount of energy required to supply water to the station. What alternatives has the contractor considered? Two alternatives have been considered: 1) no action, and 2) the proposed alternative. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered? Please explain how. The potential impacts of constructing the proposed well include: 1) the potential for spilling fuel [JP-8] required during well development and start up; 2) the potential for melting and bringing to the surface contam- inated water due to the presence of existing sewage bulbs, waste dumps or spills; 3) air emissions from construction activities; and, 4) production of additional solid waste and sewage by the construction staff. The impacts of the existing system, or "no action alternative", include: 1) using more fuel to accomplish the task than may be necessary; 2) air emissions and oil leaks from the front-end loaders used to move snow from the snow pits to the snow melters, and 3) contamination of the water during the transport or melting processes, both exposed operations. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated? The potential for spilling fuel would be mitigated by carefully inspecting and maintaining all fuel transport and storage equipment. The potential for encountering contaminated water is minimized by careful selection of a well location distant from known waste disposal areas. Water from the well will be sampled and analyzed to detect contaminants to prevent consumption of contam- inated water. The impact of solid waste generated by construction workers would be mitigated by managing the waste in accordance with current U.S. Antarctic Program waste management practices that call for waste minimization and recycling. The effect of extra fuel use may be mitigated by improvements to the fuel storage system to reduce and detect leaks. Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered? Please explain how. No, the indirect costs of the proposed activity have neither been identified nor considered. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. What is the specific location of the proposed activity? The proposed well would be located approximately 400 feet out on the 270 degree radial from the center of the dome (Attachment 2). What alternative locations has the contractor considered? No other locations for the well were considered for the 1991-1992 austral season. 3. How will aesthetic impacts to the area be handled? Much of the proposed project will occur below the surface, with only the water well house exposed. Undue aesthetic impacts associated with the construction of the proposed well and facility will be addressed through careful clearing of any resulting construction debris. The area around the proposed facility will be maintained by the civilian contractor to preserve a clean, uncluttered appearance. 4. Will the activity have any other indirect impacts on the environment? No. 5. Will the activity change the traditional use of the chosen site? No. 6. Are the physical or environmental characteristics of the land suitable for the activity? Yes, the land area surrounding the proposed facility is on a relatively flat snow field that supports no assemblages of antarctic wildlife. IMPACT OR POLLUTION POTENTIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 7. Has protection of the environment and human health from unnecessary pollution been considered for the 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])? Yes. Efforts will be made to minimize generation of construction-related waste. Any construction debris generated by the proposed project will be properly handled, packaged, transported and turned in to the retrograde unit at McMurdo Station by the civilian contractor. In addition, hazardous or toxic materials will neither be stored nor used at the site. 8. Will the activity change ambient air quality at the site? It is anticipated that an overall improvement in ambient air quality would be realized due to the reduction in the quan- tity of fuel required to melt snow and due to the elimina- tion of the use of front-end loaders now used for potable water production. During construction of the well the potential for impacting ambient air quality would result from direct and indirect fuel use. Only new JP-8 fuel is to be used (i.e., no waste fuel oil will be burned). Electricity will be supplied by the existing power plant. 9. Will the activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the site? As temperatures at the South Pole Station are never above freezing, there is no water flow at the site. 10. Will the activity change waste generation or management at the site? Waste generation will be increased temporarily due to the extra staff (approximately 10 persons) who will be present at the station during the construction phase of the proposed project. The impact of this temporary increase in waste generation will be mitigated as discussed above. No permanent increase in South Pole Station population would result from the proposed project. If the proposed well requires only infrequent maintenance, a decrease in the South Pole Station staff needs would occur as personnel would no longer be required to make snow runs. 11. Will the activity change energy production or demand, personnel and life support, or transportation requirements at the site? Temporary increases in demand for energy, personnel and life support and transportation requirements will occur due to the extra staff present at the station during the austral 1991-1992 summer season. No permanent increases are expected. 12. Is the activity expected to adversely affect scientific studies or locations of research interest (near and distant, short-term and long-term)? No, in fact, scientific research may be enhanced because fuel combustion at the station will be reduced due to the elimination of front end loader runs to the snow pits, thus improving ambient air quality. 13. Will the activity generate pollutants that might affect terrestrial, marine or freshwater ecosystems within the environs of the station or inland camp? No, the well is not expected to generate such pollutants. 14. Does the site of the activity serve as habitat for any important significant assemblages of Antarctic wildlife (for example, mosses or lichens, or antarctic birds or marine animals)? No, there are no known assemblages of antarctic wildlife that would be affected by the installation or operation of the proposed well or facility. HUMAN VALUES 15. Will the activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? No. 16. What other environmental concerns are potentially affected by the activity at the site? For example, have impacts associated with decommissioning of the activity been considered (and how)? The well and associated buildings will not contain any known hazardous materials, such as asbestos, that would be hazardous or difficult to dispose of in the event that the buildings are decommissioned. The well would be abandoned at the end of its useful life, leaving a cavity beneath the surface. The cavity is expected to form with a dome-shaped roof which is resistant to collapsing due to overlying weight. Over geologic time the cavity will refill with snow and ice and will not be a permanent aberration in the ice shelf. 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 may be environmental benefits that accrue from completion of the proposed project. The contractor is authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. Sidney Draggan Attachments