Title : S.Pole Power Upgrade Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : November 27, 1992 File : opp93088 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: November 27, 1992 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (South Pole Power Upgrade) To: Safety and Health Officer, DPP Facilities Engineering Projects Manager, DPP Environmental Engineer, DPP Environmentalist, ASA This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, proposed actions to upgrade power generation facilities at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. The Environ- mental Officer posed a set of questions relating to the proposed project, and to the potentially affected environment. These questions were responded to by Antarctic Support Associates, Inc.'s (ASA) Environmentalist, Terry Johnson; and Project Engineer, M. Lesiak, November 19, 1992; the questions and responses, and background information on the proposed project are shown below: Background The increase in science activity and science support requirements at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station has led to a re-evalua- tion of the power facilities. Antarctic Support Associates is looking to design, procure and build new power generation modules. The new modules would be located to effectively provide power to the Summer Camp and to serve as an emergency power plant for the entire station. Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses GENERAL 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? The specific purpose would be to provide for the expected power needs of the South Pole Station Summer Camp and to establish reliable emergency backup power to the Amundsen- Scott South Pole Station in the event of failure of the main station power plant. What alternatives to the proposed activity have the Program and the Contractor considered? Two alternatives have been considered: 1) "no-action"; and, 2) construction of a new emergency power plant and two electrical vaults to house new distribution equip- ment. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered by the Program and the Contractor? Please explain how. The proposed alternative is believed to have the least overall environmental impact while still fulfilling the needs of on-going and future research projects. The project is required to support all components of the South Pole Station. In order to maintain year round activity at this station, it is necessary to supply adequate power to the main station facility and to outlying research facilities, and necessary to house required electrical gear, the "no action" alternative is not acceptable. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated by the Program or the Contractor? The major potential impact of the proposed project would be that electrical vaults could cause melting of surrounding snow and ice. Proper vault design would include necessary ventilation to keep the vault temperature well below freezing. Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered by the Program or the Contractor? Please explain how. Yes. The proposed alternative would reduce future labor and material costs as well as maintenance costs since the number of parts in the overall system would be held to a minimum. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. Where would the proposed activity be located, specifically? One vault would be located outside the existing power plant arch and the other would be located approximately 396 meters away from the power plant arch, in close proximity to the existing emergency power plant building. Have alternative locations been considered by the Program or the Contractor? If yes, which are they; if no, explain why. No, since the best location for the electrical gear would be as close as possible to the power source (i.e., just outside the power plant arch) and as close as possible to both the center of the electrical load and the emergency source of power (as close as possible to the existing emergency power plant.) 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the proposed activity be handled by the Program or the Contractor? Access to the buried vaults would be provide by a "man" hole that would protrude above the snow surface. Ventilation ducts would also protrude above grade. Blowing snow would accumulate and would eventually bury the "man" hole and the ventilation ducts. Periodic maintenance would include the removal of such accumulations to keep these required appurtenances clear of snow and ice. 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. The emergency generator, when running, would give off fuel exhaust and heat to the environment. A small amount of heat would be given off to the environment via the ventilation ducts in the electrical vaults. The "no-action" alternative would generate about the same amount of heat that would ultimately be transferred to the environment. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No, since both vaults and the emergency power plant would be located where no activity had taken place before. 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 land area surrounding the proposed facility is on a relatively flat snow field that supports no assemblages of antarctic wildlife. 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])? Construction waste would be held to a minimum since the vaults would arrive on-site in prefabricated, knock down panels ready to be assembled. Also, labor would be minimal because of the prefabricated panels. The emergency power plant would arrive on-site as two factory-assembled containers, ready to be plugged in to the vault distribution system. In addition, hazardous or toxic materials would neither be stored nor used at the site. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. The proposed activity would not change ambient air quality beyond the impact generated currently by the existing power plant. 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. As 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. No localized effect on the flow of snow would be expected as the vaults would be buried beneath the snow surface. The presence of access and ventilation ducts for the vaults would lead to minor and controllable snow accumulation. Periodic removal of such accumulations would keep these access and ventilation openings clear of snow and ice. 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No, since the generators and the electrical vaults would generate no additional waste. 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, the new generators and electrical distribution system proposed would eliminate several existing code violations and provide a more reliable emergency power plant than the existing electrical emergency power plant and distribution equipment. This would improve the life support capability at the station. 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. No. The new equipment is similar to and would be located in the same approximate locations as the old equipment. There would be no adverse effects to scientific studies or research due to the existing emergency power plant and distribution equipment. 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 facility is not be expected to generate such 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 known assemblages of antarctic wildlife at the site that would be affected by the installation or operation of the proposed facility. HUMAN VALUES: 15. Would he proposed activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? If yes, how; if no, why. No, since the vault would not be located near any feature that possesses an historical property. 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). The vaults would not contain any known hazardous materials, such as polychlorinated biphenyls or asbestos, that would be hazardous or difficult to dispose of in the event the vaults 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 near Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. There are recognized benefits to continued support of high quality science at the station from the proposed action. The contractor is authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. Sidney Draggan Attachment Site Plan