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