Title  : Construction of Replcmnt. Science Facility
Type   : Antarctic EAM
NSF Org: OD / OPP
Date   : June 01, 1988
File   : opp93001

                    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

         CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT SCIENCE FACILITY

                               at
                   McMurdo Station, Antarctica

                         Prepared by the
                   Division of Polar Programs
                   National Science Foundation

                          June 1, 1988

Approved: _______________________________      Date:
______________________
          Sidney Draggan, Ph.D.
          Polar Coordination Specialist

Approved: _______________________________      Date:
______________________
          Peter E. Wilkniss
          Division Director

                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ACTION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    3
  Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    3
  Proposed Action  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    3

PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT  . . . . . . . . . .    4

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . .    4
  Existing Site Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    4
  Proposed Site Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    5
  Building Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    5

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    5
  Environmental Assessment Criteria  . . . . . . . . . . . .    5
      Use of Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    5
      Pollution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    5
      Facility Environmental Management  . . . . . . . . . .    6
      Human Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    6
      Project Modifications Considered . . . . . . . . . . .    7
  Environmental Impact Assessment Panel Meeting  . . . . . .    7
  Summary of Panel Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    7

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   11

APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   12
                    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

                  REPLACEMENT SCIENCE FACILITY

                   McMURDO STATION, ANTARCTICA

OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Background

The United States Antarctic Program (USAP) is the nation's program
for research and presence in Antarctica.  It is funded and managed
by the Federal Government.  The National Science Foundation (NSF)
has overall funding and management (lead agency) responsibility for
USAP and U.S. activities in Antarctica.  NSF conducts detailed
planning of logistics, and transmittal of logistics requirements to
the Naval Support Force Antarctica, to the U.S. Coast Guard
(primarily provision of icebreaker services), and to a civilian
contractor (currently ITT/Antarctic Services, Inc.).  NSF guides
these support units in facilities management, design, planning,
engineering, construction, and maintenance.

USAP has, for a number of years, recognized the need for a
replacement science facility to be constructed at McMurdo Station,
Antarctica.  The present science facilities are housed in
temporary buildings which have expanded haphazardly to meet ever
changing scientific needs.  As a result, these facilities are
inadequate, outdated, and in some instances may not meet recognized
safety and environmental protection guidelines.

In 1980, the USAP prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) that reviewed the continuation of the Program (the EIS was
programmatic in nature), including the construction of new
facilities from time to time.  Since the proposed action is within
the program analysis of the EIS, this Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) will be considered part of the tiering process
associated with that EIS.

Proposed Action

The National Science Foundation is now proposing to replace several
existing scientific laboratory facilities (total of 15506 sq. ft.)
at McMurdo Station, Antarctica, with a new, 41486 sq. ft.
consolidated scientific laboratory facility.  The design of this
replacement facility to consolidate all laboratory-based scientific
activities under one roof was undertaken to provide centralized and
up-to-date facilities and more economical, safe, and
environmentally compatible conditions for research activities at
McMurdo Station.  The proposed action includes the demolition of
the Eklund Biological Center, Building 77, several Jamesway
Buildings (used for housing) and a lavatory facility.

Alternatives considered during planning for the proposed action
included:

o Do nothing;

o Retain the present facilities including any necessary additions
  or improvements to them;

o Curtail additional science activities within the Program;

o Move the science activities of the USAP to another area (for
  example, Marble Point);

o Construct more temporary buildings to support science activities
  of the Program; and

o Use another site within McMurdo Station as the site of science
  activities (including the use of other existing buildings).

PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

NSF's Division of Polar Programs has conducted this environmental
assessment to provide management of all USAP components, and
interested parties, with an understanding of environmental issues
pertinent to the proposed action.  The assessment was conducted
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the
Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations for Implementing the
Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40
CFR Parts 1500-1508), the National Science Foundation's Proposal
and Award Manual, Chapter VIII (NSF Manual No. 10), and Executive
Order 12114.  The assessment addresses the environmental
implications of replacing several existing facilities with a
consolidated scientific laboratory facility at McMurdo Station,
Antarctica.  This assessment examines whether this action will
significantly affect the quality of the environment at that
location.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ENVIRONMENT

Existing Site Conditions

The proposed site (MAP 1) measures about 2.5 acres and is bordered
by Building 165 to the West, Building 77 to the North, Building 167
to the East and Building 157 to the South.  The terrain of the site
is on mild slopes of approximately 17 percent, in a North-South
direction.  In summer, a glacial melt drainageway meanders North-
South through the westerly portion of the site.  An unpaved roadway
runs North-South through the middle of the project
site.  A new saltwater pipeline, mounted on metal supports, cuts
across the southerly portion of the site.  Other aboveground
utilities crisscross the project site.

Proposed Site Improvements

Building Areas.  Cutting (maximum of ~5 feet) and filling (maximum
of ~15 feet) are required to give level areas for construction.
The glacial melt drainageway (relocated in the past to its present
position) will be relocated to the western border of the site, to
avoid the construction site, as will the roadway.   Construction
areas are sloped North-South at five percent allowing for summer
run-off, and windblown snow under the elevated structure.  Water
and sewer connections from existing utility mains will be required
(as project construction is phased temporary connections for these
systems will be required).

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

The proposed action involves the removal of existing facilities and
the construction of a replacement building consolidating several
research facilities at McMurdo Station, Antarctica, and does
signify the potential for an increase in research or logistic
activity within the Program.  The replacement is expected to
upgrade scientific capabilities and should allow for more efficient
energy and waste management.

Environmental Assessment Criteria

To assist in the identification of potentially sensitive or
critical environmental effects, the Division of Polar Programs used
a set of 23 environmental impact criteria as a guide for this
analysis.  These criteria, in five categories, are shown below:

I.  USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES

 1.      Will the project change traditional use of the site?

 2.      Will the project use land for purposes unsuitable to its
         physical characteristics?

II.  POLLUTION

 3.      Has environmental protection been considered in
         demolition of the old facility (includes necessary
         decontamination, waste-handling, site rehabilitation)?

 4.      Has environmental protection been considered in
         construction operations (i.e., disposition of one-time
         use materials, construction wastes)?

 5.      Will the project change ambient air quality at the site?

 6.      Will the project change ambient water quality at the site?

 7.      Will the project change solid waste generation at the
site?

 8.      Will the project change energy production or demand,
         personnel and life support, or transportation
         requirements at the site?

 9.      Will the project change radio wave propagation
         characteristics at McMurdo Station?

10.      Will the project adversely affect scientific studies or
         locations of research interest (near and distant, short-
         term and long-term)?

11.      Will the project affect terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems
         within the environs of McMurdo Station?

III.  FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

12.      Will the project include measures and facilities to
         assure the containment of exogenous life forms (i.e.,
         those life forms produced through recombinant DNA
         techniques or not indigenous to the Antarctic?

13.      Will the project include measures and facilities for the
         management of biological laboratory wastes?

14.      Will the project include measures and facilities for the
         management of laboratory chemicals that may be hazardous
         or toxic?

15.      Will the project include measures and facilities for the
         management and containment of hazardous or toxic wastes?

16.      Will the project include measures and facilities for the
         management (storage, use, disposal) of radioisotopes and
         radioisotope wastes?

17.      Will the project interfere with studies of
         electromagnetic radiation?

18.      Will the project include measures and facilities for
         assuring occupational health and safety?

IV.  HUMAN VALUES

19.      Will the project encroach upon any historical property of
         the site?

20.      What other aspects of the site and what environmental
         values associated with the site, that might be affected
         by the project, have been considered?

V.  PROJECT MODIFICATIONS CONSIDERED (includes alternatives and
mitigative         measures considered).

21.      Have alternatives to the proposed action been identified;
         and, have the probable effects of such alternatives been
         considered?

22.      Have measures have been identified and considered to
         mitigate adverse impacts of the project?

23.      Have any modifications of the proposed project been taken
         or considered to minimize environmental impacts?

Environmental Impact Assessment Panel Meeting

On May 17, 1988, an environmental impact assessment panel meeting
was held among relevant representatives of the Division, and the
NSF's Committee on Environmental Statements and Office of the
General Counsel to address these impact criteria (see Appendix A
for panel membership).

Summary of Panel Responses

In the following paragraphs, the discussion of the panelists on
environmental impact criteria and relevant environmental issues is
summarized:

USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES.

Criterion 1.  Received a no response.  The panelists believed that
the traditional use of the land parcel, McMurdo Station, will not
be changed by the proposed action.  The site of the proposed action
is in the center of the station, already contains buildings, and is
crisscrossed by utilities.

Criterion 2.  Received a no response.

POLLUTION.

Criterion 3.  Received a yes response.  The panelists felt that
environmental protection has been considered in plans for
demolition associated with the development of the proposed action.
They noted that the site would not be restored to its state before
establishment of McMurdo Station; but that, the site would be
restored to a purpose suitable to McMurdo Station.  All demolition-
related activities (i.e., disposal of demolition materials, any
necessary decontamination) will adhere to the laws, regulations,
policies, and procedures under which the Program operates.

Criterion 4.  Received a yes response.  Again, the panelists stated
that environmental protection has been considered in construction
operations associated with the proposed action.  Such operations
will adhere to the laws, regulations, policies, and procedures
under which the Program operates.  For example, they noted that
construction litter control schemes are in place; and that the
proposed building is pre-engineered (assuring that the amount of
construction-associated wastes is minimal).

Criterion 5.  Received a no response.  In the context of McMurdo
Station, conduct of the proposed action would not change ambient
air quality.  At the immediate building site, air quality would not
be significantly degraded by dust intermittently raised by trucks
and construction equipment.

Criterion 6.  Received a no response.  The panelists noted that in
the context of McMurdo Station, the proposed action would have no
impact on ambient water quality.  At the immediate building site,
there is no water; an acid neutralization tank is designed into the
structure and hazardous substances are retrograded.

Criterion 7.  Received a yes response.  The panel believed that the
proposed action would increase solid waste generation at the
immediate building site.  They also noted that such an increase
would be balanced by a commensurate increase in solid waste
management, and that the science community's activities only
contribute a small portion of the solid wastes generated at McMurdo
Station.  They felt the increase would not be significant.

Criterion 8.  Received a no response.  The panelists first noted
that such changes actually are directly attributable to the
Program's intention to increase science activity.  They felt that
the proposed facility might result in more energy demand, although
less than if the facilities to be replaced were brought up to the
same standards through retrofitting.

Criterion 9.  Received a no response.  The panelists believed that
the building would in no way affect radio wave propagation at
McMurdo Station.  They did note that at the immediate building site
electromagnetic characteristics would be affected as the proposed
structure is a metal building; any effect here was considered
insignificant as no electromagnetic radiation measurements for
science are made within McMurdo Station (the Arrival Heights site
is used for this purpose).  The facility design includes a Faraday
cage to shield internal instruments from external radio
interference and to shield against spurious radio emissions from
the building.

Criterion 10.  Received a no response.  The immediate site was seen
as having no research value by the panelists, and they felt that
the proposed action would not adversely affect research sites or
studies distant from the station, or in the short- or long-term.

Criterion 11.  Received a no response.  The panel felt that the
proposed action would not affect the status of terrestrial or
aquatic ecosystems within the environs of McMurdo Station.

FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.

Criterion 12.  Received a yes response.  During the design of the
proposed building "genetic engineering" studies were not identified
as a type of study conducted at McMurdo Station; utility systems
have been designed for the building, however, that could support
the type of equipment needed to assure "biosafety" should the need
arise.  Present procedures for the containment of non-indigenous
organisms will continue in the new building.

Criterion 13.  Received a yes response.  The panelists noted that
current procedures for the management of biological laboratory
wastes will be improved in the new building.  The project allows
enhanced management of such wastes due to building design (i.e.,
proper loading docks, storage).

Criterion 14.  Received a yes response.  The panelists pointed out
that during design of the new facility provisions were made for the
overall management (receiving, storage, handling, and disposal of)
hazardous or toxic substances.

Criterion 15.  Received a yes response.  Examples noted by the
panelists included state-of-the-art, fail-safe air handling
systems, and a neutralization tank for waste acids.

Criterion 16.  Received a yes response.  The system for the
management of radioisotopes and their attendant wastes will
continue in the new facility.  All Program participants are advised
of their responsibilities relative to the ordering, receiving,
storage, use, and disposal of radioisotopes.  Waste radioisotopes
are shipped to the U.S. for ultimate, and proper disposal.

Criterion 17.  Received a no response.  The facility design
includes a shielded cage as noted under criterion 8 above.

Criterion 18.  Received a yes response.  The proposed facility was
designed following current U.S. Occupational Health and Safety
Administration requirements.  Any exhausts from the building will
issue from a stack higher than surrounding buildings.  Safety and
health facilities include showers, eye washers, air handling
systems, and strict management procedures for biological, toxic and
hazardous substance, and radioisotope waste management.  The
panelists felt the new facility would be safer than the facilities
it will replace.  The Program recently commissioned a study of the
health and safety aspects of its current laboratory facilities.
The study included consideration of the proposed new facility and
recommendations made in the report have been factored into its
design.  The Program's Safety Panel has been briefed on the new
facility (their report is pending).

HUMAN VALUES.

Criterion 19.  Received a no response.  The panelists felt that no
historical property of McMurdo Station will be affected by the
proposed action.  At the immediate site of the proposed action, a
statue of Admiral Byrd will be relocated to an, as yet,
undetermined site.

Criterion 20.  Received a no response.  The panel noted that an
early photograph of what is now McMurdo Station depicted a site
lacking in normally-accepted aesthetic value.

PROJECT MODIFICATIONS CONSIDERED.

Criterion 21.  Received a yes response.  Alternatives to the
proposed action have been identified under the section titled
Proposed Action of this environmental assessment (See page 4).
These alternatives were found either to have unacceptable probable
effects on the environment or on the conduct of the Program.

Criterion 22.  Received a yes response.  At the outset of the
design of the proposed project, a wide range of experts involved in
various aspects of the Program were asked to comment on necessary
design improvements or modifications.  Examples include measures
for containment of non-indigenous species, and the management of
laboratory, toxic and hazardous substances, and radioisotope stocks
and wastes.

Criterion 23.  Received a yes response.  The panelists noted that
throughout the project's design and implementation the expert input
noted above has been factored into final designs to minimize
adverse health, safety, and environmental impacts.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Following the environmental impact assessment meeting the responses
of panelists were analyzed and summarized.  Again, this
environmental impact assessment addressed the environmental
implications of replacing several existing facilities with a
consolidated scientific laboratory facility at McMurdo Station,
Antarctica.

Overall, the discussion and responses provided by the panelists
suggest that the proposed action will not significantly affect the
quality of the environment at McMurdo Station, Antarctica.

Given the findings of this environmental impact assessment, it is
recommended that a finding of no significant impact be attached to
the proposed action.
                           APPENDIX A

Chairman

Dr. Sidney Draggan
Information and Coordination Section

Panelists

Dr. Julian P. Shedlovsky
NSF Committee on Environmental Statements

Mr. Lawrence Rudolph
Office of the General Counsel

Mr. David M. Bresnahan
Operations Section

Mr. Robert Haehnle
Operations Section

Mr. George Fitzsimmons
Operations Section

Mr. Thomas Forhan
Operations Section

Dr. John Lynch
Science Section

Dr. Bernhard Lettau
Science Section

Dr. Polly A. Penhale
Science Section

Mr. Charles E. Myers
Information and Coordination Section