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The United States Antarctic Program (USAP) is completing construction of a new science facility to replace the present, outdated Ecklund Biological Center (EBC) and Thiel Earth Sciences Laboratory (TESL) at McMurdo Station, Antarctica.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