Title : Summer Camp Modules-South Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : December 20, 1991 File : opp93043 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: December 20, 1991 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Installation of Summer Camp Modules at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, Antarctica) To: (Files S.7 - Environment) This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, newly proposed summer camp building modules at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, Antarctica. The Environmental Officer posed a set of questions relating to the proposed pro- ject, and to the potentially affected environment. These questions were responded to by the civilian contractor's Environ- mentalist and Environmental Engineer on October 22, 1991; the questions and responses are shown below: Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses GENERAL The South Pole Station currently includes a group of buildings called summer camp. These buildings serve as dormitory space during the austral summer and as emergency shelter during the austral winter in the event that the main buildings located in and around the dome were to be destroyed by fire or other unexpected catastrophe. At the present time summer camp consists of a number of structures known as Jamesways which are constructed of insulated canvas over a wooden support system. The Jamesways do not meet fire safety codes, have less than optimum insulation, and inadequate toilet/shower facilities. The proposed new buildings are to be constructed using prefabricated modular building panels which have very high insulating properties. Specialized windows which provide protection from ultra-violet light and also serve as emergency exits are included in the design. The buildings meet or exceed contemporary building codes including the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which specifies such items as the number of stairways, and firewalls, that must be present to meet the code. Construction of one building is planned for the 1991-1992 season. Construction of three additional summer camp buildings of similar design is planned for the future. The existing Jamesways would be dismantled after construction of the new buildings is complete. 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? Construction of new summer camp buildings at the South Pole Station is proposed to replace the existing summer camp that consists of Jamesways. What alternatives has the contractor considered? Four alternatives have been considered: 1) no action; 2) remodeling the existing Jamesways; 3) replacing the existing buildings with new Jamesways; and, 4) the proposed alternative. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered? Please explain how. The proposed alternative is believed to have the least overall environmental impact. The new buildings would use contemporary technology to produce a living environ- ment functionally superior to the other alternatives and that would be more pleasing aesthetically. The con- temporary technology employed by the proposed buildings includes a solar heating system that would minimize fuel use, consequently reducing the potential for environ- mental impact from fuel transport, storage and combus- tion. The proposed buildings would also provide more comfortable living quarters, including access to toilet and shower facilities within each building. Aestheti- cally the proposed buildings are believed to be prefer- able over Jamesways (see attached drawing of proposed building). The proposed alternative is also expected to have a greater lifetime with less maintenance than any of the other alternatives. This is due in part to the buildings being constructed on a truss system raised above the snow surface to allow snow to blow under rather than accumul- ate around the buildings. Finally, the proposed alternative would provide far superior personnel safety through reduced fire hazard. The proposed buildings include fire walls, fire doors and numerous emergency exits. The solar heating system will allow use of the existing preway heaters, that are considered a fire hazard, to be discontinued. In addition, the building materials have greater fire resistance than the existing canvas and wood Jamesway structures which are partially buried by snow, making emergency exit other than through the main entrance difficult, if not impossible. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated? The potential impacts of the proposed project include: 1) production of solid waste and sewage by the construc- tion staff living at the station; 2) additional fuel use to supply energy needed for construction and basic survival needs of the workers (snow melting for water, fuel for heating); and, 3) potential emission of relatively small amounts of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The impact of solid waste generated by construction workers would be mitigated by managing the waste in accordance with current polar waste management practices which 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. Use of the solar heating system, once installation is complete, will also mitigate impacts of the proposed building construction. The prefabricated modular building panels are made of a polyurethane (walls and base) or polystyrene (roof) core sandwiched between wood boards. This material was chosen in part because of its very high insulating value (R-33 for walls and base, R-45 for the roof). CFCs are used in the production of the polyurethane core panels. The potential impact from release of CFCs from the building materials has been considered and determined to be insignificant (see attachment 1). Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered? Please explain how. No. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. What is the specific location of the proposed activity? The proposed buildings would be located just north of the existing summer camp structures, approximately 600 feet southwest of the dome. (Attachment 1.) What alternative locations has the contractor considered? No other locations for the facility were considered. 3. How will aesthetic impacts to the area be handled? The area at the current summer camp location is characterized by a high level of human activity as it provides accommodations and support facilities for staff working at South Pole Station. Undue aesthetic impacts associated with the construction of the proposed facility will be addressed through careful clearing of any construc- tion debris. The area around the proposed facility will be maintained by the civilian contractor to preserve a clean, uncluttered appearance. To prevent blowing debris on the site, construction work, such as making minor changes in the size of the proposed building panels, is to be done in a specified enclosed area where debris can be contained and collected. In selecting certain design features of the proposed buildings aesthetic impacts were considered. For example, the placement of solar panels manufactured by different companies (to determine which performs best) calls for placing only one type of panel on a given side of a building, rather than intermixing different designs. The colors chosen for the exterior of the buildings are also intended to be aesthetically pleasing. 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, the activity will be the same as the current use of the site, i.e., the proposed building would replace existing summer camp buildings. 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. Use of prefabricated building panels will result in minimal generation of construction-related waste. Any construction debris which is 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. Noise generation should be the same or less than a typical construction site. No unusually noisy equipment is called for as part of construction, and use of prefabricated building panels will reduce the need for using saws to cut materials on site. Equipment used to assemble the prefabri- cated units, including a crane, will be reused for other projects or removed from the station. 8. Will the activity change ambient air quality at the site? 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. However, the impacts related to such fuel use may be offset by future reductions in fuel use due to the solar heating system. 9. Will the activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the site? Because temperatures at the South Pole Station are never above freezing, there is no water flow at the site. Blowing snow is a constant occurrence at this station, however. The proposed buildings are to be built on a truss system above the snow surface, allowing snow to blow under the buildings as it would if they were not present. 10. Will the activity change waste generation or management at the site? Waste generation will be increased temporarily due to the extra staff (approximately 40 persons) who will be present at the station during the construction project. The impact of this temporary increase in waste generation will be mitigated as discussed under number 1 above. No permanent increase in South Pole Station population would result from the proposed project. 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 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 solar heating system, 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 facility is not expected to generate such pollutants. 14. Does the site of the activity serve as habitat for any 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 facility. HUMAN VALUES 15. Will the activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? No. The Jamesways to be replaced were installed in 1975, and are not considered historical property. 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 buildings will not contain known hazardous materials, such as asbestos, that would be hazardous or difficult to dispose of in the event that the buildings are decommissioned. 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