TL: GREENPEACE WORLD PARK BASE - ANTARCTICA 1987-1992 Treading Lightly: A Minimal Impact Antarctic Station SO: Greenpeace International (GP) DT: March, 1994 Keywords: environment greenpeace antarctica terrec agreements / GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL Keizersgracht 176 1016 DW Amsterdam The Netherlands Phone: +31 20 523 6555 Fax: +31 20 523 6500 Printed on 100% chlorine-free paper ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was written by Henk Haazen and edited by Ken Ballard. The science and remediation sections were written by Ricardo Roura. Annex 1 was written by Andy Henderson. Technical aspects of World Park Base were developed by various people over the years of its operation. These people included Ian Balmer, Marc Defourneaux, Justin Farrelly, Andy Henderson, Henk Haazen, Simon Reedman, Keith Swenson. Members of overwintering base teams made the systems work, and contributed their own improvements. The teams were: 1987: Kevin Conaglen, Justin Farrelly, Gudrun Gaudian, Cornelius van Dorp 1988: Sjoerd Jongens, Wojtek Moskal, Sabine Schmidt, Keith Swenson 1989: Liz Carr, Phil Doherty, Lilian Hansen, Bruno Klausbruckner 1990: Marc Defourneaux, Lilian Hansen, Marcus Riederer, Ricardo Roura 1991: Oz Ertok, Wojtek Moskal, Sabine Schmidt, Keith Swenson Contributors to the alternative energy project in 1991 included Andy Henderson, Sjoerd Jongens, Jim Oates, Jon Piri, Simon Reedman, Markus Riederer, Graeme Slack (Independent Power (NZ)). Louise Bell was responsible for lay-out and design. March 1994 Contents INTRODUCTION 1. BASE BUILDINGS 1.1 The site 1.2 Construction 1.3 Maintenance 1.4 Personnel 2. POWER GENERATION 2.1 General description 2.2 Waste heat recovery 2.3 Exhaust filters 2.4 Fuel handling and storage 3. SUPPORT SYSTEMS 3.1 Fresh water supply 3.2 Ventilation system 3.3 Heating and cooking 3.4 Lighting system 3.5 Communications system 3.6 Fire fighting equipment 3.7 Food storage 4. WASTE HANDLING 4.1 Waste water treatment 4.2 Sewage treatment 4.3 Garbage handling, storage and retrograding 5. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY 5.1 General description of initial system 5.2 General description of upgraded system 5.3 Results of upgraded AE system 6. FIELD OPERATIONS 6.1 General description 6.2 Travel 6.3 Huts, field camps and depots 6.4 Fuel storage and handling 6.5 Waste management 7. SCIENTIFIC WORK 7.1 General description 7.2 Avoiding impact 8. REMOVAL OF WORLD PARK BASE 8.1 General description 8.2 Impact avoidance procedures 8.3 Remedial actions 8.4 Remedial action for fuel spills 8.5 Remedial action to re-establish soil relief 9. CONCLUSION ANNEX 1: TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF UPGRADED ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEM ANNEX 2: LIST OF EQUIPMENT SUPPLIERS INTRODUCTION As part of a campaign to protect Antarctica, Greenpeace established a small base at Cape Evans on Ross Island (77ø 38'S, 166ø 24'E) in the southern (austral) summer of 1986/87. Named World Park Base, it was to be the focal point of future campaigning activities, providing a 'watchdog' presence in the Antarctic. During its existence, it enabled Greenpeace to gain first hand experience of operating a base on the continent and to monitor and publicise the activities of other nearby stations. Antarctica is seen by millions of people worldwide as a special place. Its freedom from the pollution levels found in most other parts of this planet means that an entirely different attitude towards waste disposal and material handling has to be adopted by personnel operating on the continent. Greenpeace's approach in establishing and operating World Park Base was to minimise environmental impact, and thereafter work on reducing it further. This report documents the technical aspects of World Park Base (WPB) in the hope that other Antarctic operators can benefit from Greenpeace's experiences in running an Antarctic operation with minimal environmental impact. This report is not a manual of how to set up an Antarctic station from a technical viewpoint. Rather, it describes the problems that were encountered during the establishment and operation of the base, and the methods that were used to solve those problems. It should be further noted that although the most appropriate and suitable technology available at the time was chosen for the base, there may well be even better alternatives available now. During the five years that World Park Base existed, many improvements and modifications were made, and sometimes several attempts would be needed before a particular problem was satisfactorily resolved. It became clear through the operation of World Park Base that not all problems require technological solutions. Sometimes a more effective approach is a change in attitude or behaviour on the part of station or expedition personnel. 1. BASE BUILDINGS 1.1 The site On-site investigations in the Cape Evans area were carried out in 1985/86 and 1986/87 before construction began. The site at Home Beach was carefully chosen in order to minimise the base's potential impact on the local environment and its wildlife, to avoid large scale excavations, to have a fresh water supply nearby and to be accessible for resupply purposes. An additional factor in the site selection was that it had already been used by previous expeditions and thus had been modified from its original state. 1.2 Construction The main base building was constructed in 1987 from prefabricated units, which were designed and manufactured by a German polar construction and engineering company. Between 1988 and 1990 several structures were added. Eventually, base buildings consisted of an L-shaped main building and a small food storage and emergency building. The main building comprised an accommodation unit housing a common living area, four separate bedrooms, a bathroom, radio room, medical and science room, coat room and a room containing snow melting equipment. A cold porch was also attached. The engine room was housed in the same building, separated from the other facilities by a walkway. A lean-to was used for storage. The short side of the L-shaped building was formed by another unit joined to the main building by a walkway which housed a workshop, science lab, dark room and field equipment store. The latter unit, called the FOS hut, had been acquired from the Footsteps of Scott Expedition which had previously had a base at the site. All the buildings were constructed of insulated, prefabricated panels made from untreated plywood over pine framing. The main living quarters were insulated with glass-wool, while styrofoam was used for the workshop and maintenance areas. Before the base was transported to Cape Evans, the structure was completely assembled in a warehouse in Auckland, New Zealand. All technical installations were checked, and any painting or carpentry work was completed, in order to ensure as little environmental impact as possible during the actual construction in the Antarctic. This exercise proved extremely worthwhile, as various minor problems with the buildings and technical installations became apparent. These problems were easily rectified in New Zealand but would have been far more difficult to solve at Cape Evans. At the same time, the structure and equipment was totally repackaged for transport to the Antarctic, in order to save both the time and the space involved in retrograding redundant material from Antarctica. This also enabled the equipment to be handled more efficiently during transport and offloading. At Cape Evans, all equipment and structures were transported ashore using helicopters. Extreme care was taken to avoid disturbing wildlife in the area, and strict precautions were designed to avoid any impact from the operation and refuelling of the helicopters. An area of 40 square metres of soil was levelled and the wooden foundation beams of the base buildings were laid directly onto this surface. The floor panels were then keyed and bolted together on top of the foundation. Wall and ceiling panels were added, and the structure was largely completed in less than two weeks. The buildings and all the technical installations were completed and operating by the end of the third week. It was found that anchors and stakes for guy wires and aerials could be set directly into the permafrost, and cement was not used anywhere during construction. The original base was designed to accommodate four persons. In later years, a workshop and laboratory building and two more bedrooms were prefabricated and added to the original structure as it became apparent that extra space was needed for the wintering teams. These additions were simple to construct and install, with minimum excavation necessary. 1.3 Maintenance The buildings proved to be mostly maintenance-free for the five years the base was operating at Cape Evans. Some of the exterior panels were never painted at all and were as durable as those that were painted. One problem encountered was that the extremely dry air caused the timber to shrink slightly and open up cracks between the wall panels. This was easily rectified by affixing battens over the exposed seams. 1.4 Personnel During the initial construction period, annual resupplies and eventual removal of the base, an important part of the daily routine was a clean-up period at the end of the working day. Every visible nail, wood chip and scrap of waste was collected for eventual removal from the Antarctic. Precautions were always taken to avoid scattering waste and debris (for example, whenever possible, sawing of wood was done inside to contain sawdust and wood chips), and the clean-up periods helped ensure that everyone involved took responsibility for their activities. The winter-over teams were meticulous in their efforts to keep the base surroundings clean of all litter and other debris. They reported that garbage from previous expeditions and occupants of the area was still being uncovered and removed several years later. Construction and resupply personnel working at the base were carefully briefed before departure from New Zealand to ensure minimal environmental impact. As much as possible, Greenpeace attempted to ensure continuity of personnel on resupply teams from year to year. This not only avoided mistakes and the need for costly repairs, but also ensured that environmental standards remained high as people became accustomed to the extra precautions required for working in this region. 2. POWER GENERATION 2.1 General description. The primary power plant consisted of two 18.4 kW, three cylinder Perkins diesel generators, each driving a Leroy Somer 3-phase alternator. One generator was able to supply sufficient power for the base systems, while the second acted as a standby unit and was only used to supply the base power requirements while routine maintenance was done on the primary generator. Each year during resupply, the engine with the highest running hours would be removed and a new one installed. This ensured there was always one new engine at the start of each winter. Enough spare parts were kept at the base to totally rebuild an engine if necessary. All wintering personnel underwent a basic diesel mechanics course before departure from New Zealand and were capable of operating the generators in case of emergency. However, for normal operations, one team member was designated responsible for the operation and maintenance of the power plant. 2.2 Waste heat recovery Each diesel engine had two cooling water circuits. The primary circuit was routed through a heat exchanger and radiator with a thermostatically controlled fan to remove excess heat not absorbed by the heat exchanger. The secondary cooling water circuit from the heat exchanger was plumbed into a snow-melter unit which consisted of a stainless steel tank divided into two compartments. The hot 'cooling' water was piped through an 800 litre melting tank where snow and ice could be loaded directly from outside the base. The bottom compartment was a 600 litre holding tank which supplied the basic freshwater demands of the base. This system allowed the recovery of most of the waste heat produced by the engines, which would otherwise have been dissipated into the atmosphere. 2.3 Exhaust filters In 1987, engine exhaust emissions were assessed theoretically, using manufacturer's specifications. This assessment calculated that the bulk of engine emissions was composed of carbon dioxide, with sulphur dioxide and sulphuric acid as major pollutants. Installation of catalytic converters on the exhausts was considered but rejected, as they would not have removed sulphur-- one of the most significant pollutants. Further investigations were undertaken to find a system that could remove all compounds of concern. After long consultations, a New Zealand company engineered two exhaust filters that utilised a chemisorbant substance as the main filtration medium. Initial tests indicated that this system would remove nearly all of the sulphur dioxide content of the exhaust emissions. Unfortunately, once installed, the system did not work as expected. After only one week's running time, the filters became totally congested and prevented the engines from operating efficiently. After this experience efforts were concentrated on reducing exhaust emissions by utilising alternative energy sources and shutting down the generators for several hours every day. This is described more fully below, and in Annex 1. In addition, in 1990 a carbon flow filter was installed on the fuel lines to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions from the engines. In recent years, exhaust filters for diesel engines have become more effective and widespread. For example, the Brazilian station Commandante Ferraz has recently installed a new system on their power plant, although Greenpeace has no information as to its effectiveness. 2.4 Fuel handling and storage During the first year that World Park Base was operated, the fuel used was a mixture of 60% diesel and 40% kerosene. This formula was designed to lower the pour point of the fuel (the temperature at which waxing occurs), to ensure that the fuel could be used during winter temperatures of -40øC. However, the oil company that supplied this fuel did not mix the two completely, and in temperatures of -30øC the fuel began to wax up. The drums then had to be rolled inside the base to thaw out before use--a laborious process. The following years the base was supplied with Jet A-1, a kerosene-based aviation fuel with a low heavy metal content. No waxing problems were encountered and the diesel engines ran satisfactorily and reliably on this fuel for the remaining lifetime of the base. Two years supply of fuel was always stored in 200-litre drums (approximately 420 drums at any time), and base personnel always used the oldest fuel first. This worked out very well and no corrosion problems were encountered. In fact, after resupply the drums were in good enough shape for return to the manufacturer, who would recondition them for further use. The only problem noted with this arrangement was that paint tended to flake off the surface of the drums and blow around the vicinity. One solution to this problem may be a different surface coating--or none at all if the drums are to be in the Antarctic for only a few seasons. The fuel types and approximate amounts stored at the base were as follows: (table omitted here; unscannable) Initially, the drums were stored on timber baulks close to the ground surface. This proved unsatisfactory, as frozen snow and ice tended to accumulate around the bottom of the drums, making it difficult to move them when required. Other fuel handling and storage techniques were considered, such as bulk storage on site, resupplied by pumping fuel ashore through pipelines, but these methods created their own problems. Large tanks can potentially create large spills and need containment berms constructed around them, along with other high levels of accident and emergency precautions. In addition, pumping fuel long distances through pipelines is also problematic, with a high possibility of leaks or spills. By keeping fuel in 200-litre drums the chances of large scale contamination is reduced and the effects of a spill are controllable. The problem of frozen-in drums was solved by constructing a storage rack from simple scaffold piping that kept the drums a meter above the ground surface. This was a cheap and easily assembled and dismantled structure that proved effective in keeping the fuel supply accessible, tidy and easy to maintain. The drums, which were a heavy duty type, were transported to the base at low altitudes, underslung from the two Hughes 500 expedition helicopters. A small boat and recovery equipment were always on standby in case of a dropped load, but fortunately this never occurred. During all fuel handling operations, clean up materials, empty containers and fire fighting equipment were kept close at hand in case of a rupture or spill from a drum. On occasions, the helicopters would be refuelled from the Cape Evans Jet-A1 supply. This was always done with the helicopters standing on a large, oil-tight tarpaulin that could contain any spillage that occurred during fuel transfer. 3. SUPPORT SYSTEMS 3.1 Fresh water supply Snow and glacial ice were the principal sources of fresh water for World Park Base. Snow was usually collected, with buckets and wheelbarrows, from a snow drift around the base. After collection, snow and ice would be loaded directly into the snowmelter through a hopper on the roof of the base. It would then be melted by heat generated from the main engine cooling water which was piped through a stainless steel coil at the bottom of the tank. After storage in a holding tank, the water would be run through a filter, a pressure pump, and an ultraviolet water steriliser. The steriliser killed all types of bacteria, avoiding the use of chemicals. This proved to be a trouble-free system. Apart from the melting tank needing regular cleaning to remove sediments, the water supply system functioned satisfactorily throughout the lifetime of the base. 3.2 Ventilation system During the first year of base operation, it became obvious that the ventilation system was inadequate. While there was a good air extraction unit, the system supplying fresh air was insufficient, causing a backdraft through the exhaust flue from the oil fired stove in the kitchen. This effect was particularly marked during conditions of high barometric pressure. To alleviate this problem, a separate air intake system was installed. This consisted of a fan drawing in air over radiator- type coils, warmed by the secondary engine cooling water loop after it had passed through the snowmelter. A supplementary system for warming incoming air consisted of electric heating coils, powered by the wind generator. The heated air was then ducted into the main living spaces and satisfactorily solved the backdraft problem caused by low air intake pressure. 3.3 Heating and cooking As originally designed, the base interior was primarily heated by small, 2 kW electric heaters in every space. This was not very efficient, as significant amounts of energy were lost in the generation of electricity to power the heaters. In any case, these heaters were not used most of the time, as other heating sources, such as the stove and the storage heaters mentioned below, provided sufficient heat. Installed in the kitchen area was a simple oil fired stove that ran off the same fuel as the generators and served as the main cooking facility. In the first year of base operation, this stove was used almost continuously as a heat source, in an attempt to reduce the fuel consumption of the generators. During the first resupply, two storage fan heaters which were powered by a 3 kW wind generator were installed (see section 5). These units had an electrical heating element which stored heat in surrounding thermal bricks. This stored heat could then be released when needed with the help of the built-in fan. The temperature inside the living part of the base was kept at between 11 and 18øC. The workshops and labs were kept at 4øC. 3.4 Lighting system Initially, the base was supplied with standard, domestic 220 V light fittings and bulbs. These were changed after the first year to energy saving fluorescent bulbs. The base also had an emergency lighting system consisting of wall mounted torches powered by rechargeable batteries wired directly into the main power supply. This system was switched on automatically in the event of a power failure. 3.5 Communications system The primary system was an Inmarsat MCS9000 satellite communications system, providing 24 hours-a-day telex and telephone facilities. At first, problems were experienced at certain times of day when the satellite was not high enough above the horizon to be visible by the communications dish. This was solved by installing the radome on a ten metre high steel tower. This tower was erected as close as possible to the base buildings, both to minimise disturbance to the surrounding area and to avoid long cable runs. The tower was stayed with heavy duty, 25 mm diameter guy wires that would be clearly visible to birdlife in the area. The VHF aerials, and later, solar panels, were also installed on this tower. Secondary communications were provided by a high-frequency radio installation that was able to reach commercial HF radio stations and also link to Greenpeace's own radio station in the Greenpeace office in Auckland, New Zealand. The radio system was used for routine radio schedules, ordering spare parts and social communications. The main antenna for the HF link was a directional V-antenna, pointing north from a 23.5 metre mast located approximately 100 metres north east of the main base building. In an attempt to reduce the potential risk of bird strikes, some of the guy wires were flagged during the first resupply. This was abandoned when it became clear that the guy wires were not the main threat to birds, and that flagging itself created a problem in high winds when material would be torn from the stays and blown away. The main threat to birds proved to be the long antenna wire, which could not be flagged due to the risk of breakage. During the entire period the base operated at Cape Evans, five birds are suspected to have been killed by striking aerials and antennas, mostly in blizzard conditions. Also installed on the base was amateur radio equipment for contact with ham radio enthusiasts worldwide, and a Uosat satellite link that was part of a scientific project run in conjunction with the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom. 3.6 Fire fighting equipment Two breathing apparatus sets, spare air cylinders, and fire fighting equipment were kept at the main entrance to the base. The air bottles were exchanged at every resupply for freshly charged units and the equipment was regularly checked and tested. The base was equipped throughout with 5 kg dry powder fire extinguishers. These were charged with carbon dioxide, rather than nitrogen (which becomes unusable at temperatures below -20øC). They were regularly inspected and shaken at intervals to ensure the dry powder did not compact. Carbon dioxide extinguishers were installed in the kitchen area and radio room, and battery operated smoke detectors were positioned around the base. Base personnel (and ships' crews), undertook an intensive fire fighting course in New Zealand before departure for the Antarctic. One of the base team was always on nightwatch, carrying out regular fire patrols around the base and outbuildings. 3.7 Food storage The main food supplies were kept in the small emergency shelter located approximately 30 metres north of the main buildings. Food for daily use was kept inside the base and frozen food was stored in three chest freezers in the lean-to storage area. As a supplement to the food supply, the base ran a small hydroponics system that provided some fresh salads and vegetables for the wintering personnel. Hydroponics systems require no soil and can be used under artificial light. 4. WASTE HANDLING 4.1 Waste water treatment During the first two years of base operation, domestic waste water (grey water) was passed through a coarse strainer made from air conditioning unit filters, before being collected in a holding tank. The strainer removed all small food scraps and most fat and grease. The grey water would then be pumped into smaller (60 litre) drums that were rolled down the beach and emptied into McMurdo Sound (North Beach), usually into a tide crack. This system avoided having to install a pipeline, which would have caused further disturbance to the area, and would have required heating. Subsequently, a larger filtration system was installed, which consisted of a 1.6 x 0.6 m steel cylinder filled with layers of differing grades of gravel and sand, with a coarse filter at the top of the unit. Grey water trickled through this filtration system into a collection tank installed underneath, and was then disposed of into the sea as above. This system worked well for the first year of its operation, but proved too time consuming to maintain. In addition, over time, bacterial growth in the sand column became a problem. Therefore, for the last few years of base operation, a more sophisticated filtration system was put in place. Meshes of 300 and 132 micron diameter were used to remove small food particles, while replaceable pads absorbed fats and greases. Waste water was pumped through this system under pressure before being collected in a holding tank. In this system, the tank and filters were easy to clean, and the absorbent pads were regularly replaced. The waste water from this cleaning process, along with the residues from the holding tank, was designated as 'heavy duty grey water' and retained in empty fuel drums for retrograding. On average, 100 to 200 litres of filtered grey water a day were released into the waters of McMurdo Sound. All detergents and cleaning materials used at the base were biodegradable, and extreme care was taken to avoid introducing any environmentally harmful products into the grey water system. Grey water was regularly monitored for BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand), a high BOD reading being an indication of high levels of organic pollution. 4.2 Sewage treatment During the first year of operation a chemical toilet system was used at the base, with treated sewage being returned to New Zealand in 200 litre barrels. The neutralising agent was a bio- degradable product called Aqua-Kem. However, the operation and handling of this system was both labour intensive and unpleasant, and alternative methods of waste treatment that would be more suitable were investigated. After the feasibility of installing a sewage treatment plant had been assessed and decided against, a composting toilet system was chosen as the best method of dealing with human waste. The main reasons against using a sewage treatment plant were that every unit considered required a separate building, and would need a significant amount of energy to avoid freezing of the sewage in the settling tanks. Also, these systems needed regular maintenance and were technically more complicated than a composting toilet. The first composting toilet that was installed, a unit called a Bio-Loo, was unsuccessful because its capacity was too small to allow the sewage to form into compost before it had to be emptied. The Bio-Loo was therefore replaced by a larger model called a Rota-Loo. This system consisted of a large circular tank, 1.8 metres in diameter and 1.2 metres high, that was subdivided into four smaller compartments. These were rotated under the toilet every four months so that each compartment could be filled in turn. Evaporation of moisture in the chambers was aided by two thermostatically controlled electric heating elements in the collection tank. Odours and evaporated moisture were vented through an exhaust flue and fan that ensured a positive flow of air out of the toilet space and buildings at all times. After twelve months of composting, the sewage formed a black, almost odourless humus, with 15-30% of the volume of the original waste, which was stored in empty 200 litre barrels for retrograding. On average, each wintering team produced three barrels of composted sewage a year (compared to the thirty barrels that were produced with the chemical toilet system). Composting was aided by the addition of a handful of peat moss after each use. This moss was transported in sealed bags and stored inside the base to ensure there was no contamination of the surrounding environment. As required under the Agreed Measures, a permit was obtained (from the New Zealand government) before importing the peat moss into the Antarctic. Some organic waste, such as coffee grounds and tea leaves, were also thrown into the composting toilet to assist the decomposing process. The Rota-Loo worked very well, year after year, with a minimum of maintenance and no mechanical breakdowns, proving that this simple technology has a place in the Antarctic. It would also be possible to use a similar system on larger stations, although the system does require a reasonably constant number of users. 4.3 Garbage handling, storage and retrograding World Park Base was established according to a firm principle that everything brought into Antarctica should be taken out again. With that in mind, much surplus packaging was removed before transportation to the Antarctic. However, the first wintering party soon realised that a more efficient and convenient method had to be devised to deal with the relatively large volumes of paper and cardboard waste that were being generated at the base. During the first year of operation, some paper waste was burned at the base--an undesirable practice that was never repeated after that one occasion. The first attempt at reducing the volume and manageability of our paper and cardboard waste was to bring in a small hand- operated bailing machine to compress and bundle these wastes. However, in practice this machine proved cumbersome in operation, and a better solution was to use strapping tape and buckles to produce easily handled, compact bales of paper, cardboard and plastic. This system worked well and could be carried out anywhere on the base without needing any special tools or equipment. All other garbage was separated at source and stored in marked, empty fuel drums. To avoid wind and bird scattering, once the drums were full, the tops were reattached with steel wire. An even better garbage storage system might be that used by the British Antarctic Survey, who cut 30 centimetre square holes in the top of the drums, and, when the drums are full, screw on a plywood or metal cover with sheetmetal screws, sealing it with silicon. This appears tidier and easier to seal securely. For an average year with a winter team of four people, the following amounts of garbage and waste were retrograded and, where possible, recycled upon return from the Antarctic. (Table omitted here). In New Zealand, local regulations meant that all food products had to be incinerated once imported into the country. All the used equipment and machinery that was brought back from the base each year was either refurbished for further use, or sold. 5. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY 5.1 General description of initial system The intention in installing an alternative energy (AE) system was to demonstrate that such systems are feasible and desirable in Antarctica and that it is not necessary to have large diesel power generation plants running year round, 24 hours a day. The experiment demonstrated that the use of alternative energy need not mean that any work programmes must be abandoned or that an adequately comfortable lifestyle cannot be maintained--even in the coldest place on earth From the first year of operation at World Park Base, small solar and wind powered electrical generators were used to charge batteries at remote sites such as field camps and radio repeaters. During the 87/88 resupply, a 3 kW wind generator and a 600 watt solar panel array with matching battery bank were installed. This system was designed to reduce fuel consumption by decreasing the overall load on the diesel generator system, and to explore the reliability and usefulness of an AE system in the Antarctic. The electricity generated by the solar and wind powered generators was used to charge standby batteries for the main HF radio, storage heaters and the heating element in the air intake. Once this system had been operating for a couple of years, a more general alternative energy system was designed. Measurements were made of the overall energy usage on the base and, in association with an AE consultant, an initial strategy was formulated for the design and installation of such a system. This upgraded system was installed during the 1990/91 resupply (see Annex 1 for more details on approach and design considerations). General description of upgraded system The study of energy usage showed that there was sufficient existing power generation capacity on the base in the form of the main wind-generator, solar panels and diesel generators, but that improvements in efficiency were needed. This could be achieved by installing appropriate energy storage systems, both thermal and electrical, that had enough capacity to meet the requirements of the base during its quiet or "sleep time" period, so that the diesel generators could be shut down for eight hours or more in every 24 hour period. An additional kerosene heater was installed to heat some areas of the base. This created excess diesel power generation capacity because electrical power was no longer being used to heat those areas. If the AE system failed to supply sufficient power to fully charge the storage batteries, then excess diesel generation capacity was channelled toward charging the system. This was done through a load management system that automatically charged up the storage batteries during the daytime off-peak hours, thereby ensuring that the diesel generators were kept running at maximum efficiency. 5.3 Results of upgraded AE system It is important to note that the modified system installed at World Park Base was highly conventional and simple. It did not provide an uninterruptable power supply, and its success depended to some extent upon the willingness and ability of base personnel to practise basic energy conservation. Records of AE usage were kept over a period of 294 days after the installation of the upgraded AE system, and the daily usage is shown in Figure 1 (omitted here). The base ran on alternative energy for an average of 9.3 hours per day. The average daily hours of use for each month are shown in Figure 2 (omitted here). Predictably, use of the AE system peaked in October and November, during the long field trips when three of the four base personnel were away from the base. However, it also appeared that AE usage increased as the base personnel adapted to the system, and even at midwinter at least 10 hours of AE usage per day could be expected. The AE system therefore met the original design specifications of eight hours usage per day almost immediately. Indications were that at least 10 to 12 hours of AE operation per day could be achieved with fine tuning. During the final year of base operation, 22,641 litres of diesel were used, compared to an average of 34,944 litres for previous years. This amounted to a savings of about 36% of the annual fuel consumption. The financial savings from reduction in fuel consumption alone would have paid for the system upgrade within three to four years. Besides the obvious fuel savings, an added advantage of reducing the running time of the diesel generators to 16 hours per day or less, at maximum rated capacity, was the increased efficiency in power generation. This in turn meant cleaner burning, better fuel economy, less environmental pollution from the exhaust emissions, and less wear and tear and maintenance on the engines. Running World Park Base on AE for approximately 39% of the time resulted in an overall reduction in fuel consumption of approximately 36 per cent. However, the addition of the kerosene heater would be expected to have increased fuel consumption by about 7%, so there must have been some other additional increase in energy efficiency. This may have been due either to the passive energy conservation measures undertaken, or to more efficient use of the diesel generating sets. However, a negative impact of the wind generator was the death of two skuas that flew into the rotating blades during a territorial dispute. Several more improvements would have been undertaken had the decision not been made to decommission World Park Base. Some of the improvements under consideration were: * to convert as many loads as possible to DC (direct current). This would have reduced the loads on the inverters, and avoided inverter losses; * to scavenge more waste heat, in particular from the engine exhaust gas; * to develop a means of storing waste heat. Perhaps something similar to the electric storage heaters could have been fitted with glycol loop heat exchangers for thermal charging; and * to modify the electrical storage heaters so that they allowed a finer regulation of the diesel generator load. It may have been possible for several elements in each heater to be switched on and off by the load shedders. 6. FIELD OPERATIONS 6.1 General description Field travel was undertaken to carry out scientific work and to inspect other Antarctic operations. Areas visited included Ross Island, Erebus Bay, Dellbridge Islands, Ross Ice Shelf, Mina Bluff, Black Island, the coastal areas of South Victoria Land (from the Stranded Moraines to Cape Roberts), and the Dry Valley region of Victoria Land. 6.2 Travel The base was equipped with three skidoos (four in the final year), two large and one small "Nansen" type sledges (a total of four in the last year), and one steel box sledge. Cross country skis were also used. Travelling was done on the sea ice, glacier ice, frozen lakes, and ice free areas. Skidoo travelling was limited to sea ice and glacier ice and, in ice free regions, to those areas where the snow cover was thicker than approximately 30 cm. In general, and especially when using skidoos, care was taken to stay at a sufficient distance from seals or birds to avoid disturbance. Whenever possible, Greenpeace personnel walked on snow patches, stream beds, frozen lakes, or rock surfaces rather than on sensitive soils and plant cover. Depending on the soil characteristics, personnel either would walk in single file or would spread out to avoid formation of a compacted track. 6.3 Huts, field camps and depots A small outpost, including one fibre glass "Apple Hut" (approximately 5 m2) and a wooden shed (approximately 4 m2), were located on the Ross Ice Shelf near the southern end of Hut Point Peninsula, in the vicinity of Scott Base (NZ) and McMurdo station (US). Between the summers of 1988/89 and 1990/91 a fibreglass "Melon hut" (approx. 11 m2) was located at Marble Point. In addition, small caches were maintained at Butter Point and Herbertson Point (the latter was moved and added to Butter Point in February 1989), Lake Brownsworth and Lake Vanda. These mostly consisted of one or two 60 litre drums of fuel and 20-40 person- days of emergency food (one or two survival boxes). A survival tent was kept on the Barne Glacier during the winter months of 1990. All outposts and caches were removed in 1990/91 or 1991/92. ln ice free areas, tents were deployed whenever possible in previous campsites (i.e. of other programmes) or on snow patches, which can be found in depressions of the terrain even in the Dry Valleys. The tents were secured with a minimum number of rocks, using those left by previous camps whenever possible. The disturbed rocks were always returned to their original position when the camp was dismantled. Care was taken to avoid scattering by wind or burial of stores and waste, and the area around the camp was always inspected before departure. 6.4 Fuel storage and handling Fuel was stored in 200 or 60 litre drums or in jerry cans, depending on the location of the depots and on the length of the field trips. Where small portable generators were used, they were mounted on drip trays to contain any leaks that may have occurred. Refuelling of skidoos or generators was done with care, using funnels and jerry cans fitted with adequate spouts. On extended field trips, a hand pump and 60 litre drums were used to refill jerry cans. Rags and a drip tray were kept handy to minimise and control small leaks. Refuelling of cooking stoves was always done inside the huts or tents, using funnels and one-litre fuel bottles. Any soot accumulation on the snow (e.g. from generators) was cleaned up whenever possible by collection and storage in plastic bags. 6.5 Waste management Garbage and human wastes generated on field trips were separated and returned to World Park Base for storage and eventual retrograding. Where the field party was travelling with skidoos, human faeces were collected in 60 litre plastic containers with a 20 cm diameter screw-on cap. During field trips in which skidoos were not used, faeces were retained in plastic bags and returned to huts or to the base for retrograding. Except at field camps, where it was collected in the 60 litre containers, urination was done in the open, far from sensitive areas (moss patches, streams, etc.) and, whenever possible, on snow or ice. 7. SCIENTIFIC WORK 7.1 General description In the Cape Evans region, scientific projects were carried out on the sea ice, on the beaches, in the lower sections of the ice free area, on the ice-cored moraine and on the Barne Glacier. Further afield, scientific work was done at Cape Barne, Cape Royds, different locations on the Ross Ice Shelf, Lakes Vanda and Brownsworth in the Wright Valley, Lakes Frixell and Bonney in the Taylor Valley, and at lakes in the Strand Moraines and Black Island. Science projects are further described in The Scientific Report of the Greenpeace Antarctic Expedition Programme, 1986-1992. 1 1 The Scientific Report of the Greenpeace Antarctic Expedition Programme, 1986-1992. Greenpeace International, Keizersgracht 176, 1016 DW Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Phone: (31) 20 523 6555 Fax: (31) 20 523 6500. 7.2 Avoiding impact The procedures used to minimise the impact of field work and travel were also applied to scientific work. In particular, no samples or measurements were taken from live animals. Samples were sometimes taken from dead animals, but only those carcasses that were unlikely to become scientifically valuable in the future (e.g. those found on first year sea ice, which would have disappeared with the next thaw). Fish, plankton and plants destined for specific projects were the only live organisms sampled. Where required, relevant permits for sample collection were obtained from New Zealand authorities. The visual impact of sampling or leaving temporary measuring devices (e.g. dialysis membranes in lakes), as well as the possibilities of disturbance to sensitive soils, vegetation or wildlife, were taken into account when conducting the projects. In particular, where possible the use of powered devices such as skidoos or power ice augers was avoided, other alternatives (e.g. walking or skiing, using a manual ice auger, etc.) being preferred. 8. REMOVAL OF WORLD PARK BASE 8.1 General description The base was dismantled and removed during the 1991/92 season. A complete description of removal operations, including environmental aspects, is available.1 1 The Greenpeace Report of the Antarctic Environmental Impact Monitoring Programme at World Park Base, 1991/92. A draft IEE (Initial Environmental Evaluation 2) was circulated widely for comment among interested scientists, and, after comments received were incorporated, to all the Antarctic Treaty Parties. Removal of the base followed the principle that removal operations should not increase the existing impact of the base. To achieve this, impacts of the removal operation were assessed before the operation began, and mitigation measures were carried out during the operation. Once the removal programme was completed, impacts resulting from the operation of the base over five years were addressed. 2 Initial Environmental Evaluation: Removal of World Park Base, Cape Evans, Ross Island, Antarctica, 1991/92. All measures taken to reduce impact were discussed at each level of responsibility, from the expedition coordinators to the work teams removing the structures. When necessary, precautions were modified in order to achieve high environmental standards that were also workable in practical terms. 8.2 Impact avoidance procedures Procedures to minimise impact included: * immediate clean-up of small particles generated during the removal of structures; * containment of light materials that could be blown away; * careful handling of sensitive materials or substances; * preparation of a ready response kit in case of fuel or chemical spills; and * a method of extraction of structures buried in the permafrost that minimised further soil disturbance. Weather conditions were taken into account when planning dismantling activities (e.g. dust-producing activities were carried out on calm days whenever possible). A work routine was established to guard against worker fatigue, in order to minimise accidents that could have had an environmental (as well as a human) impact. Station-wide clean-ups were held every day and, once the structures were dismantled, twice daily. Additional clean-ups were conducted simultaneously with the most "dirty" activities (e.g. wood chips were picked up as soon as they were produced). As a consequence, no foreign objects larger than 1-2 cm that originated from base operations, and that were visible at the time of the base removal, were left on site. In general, these procedures did not significantly slow the removal of the base, but did minimise the impact of a period of intense human activity at the site. 8.3 Remedial actions Once the structures and other materials were cleared from the base site, the problems caused during the previous operations of the base were addressed. These consisted primarily of fuel spills and changes in the soil relief. This remediation work required a careful approach, as remedial action can easily result in an environmental impact that is as great or greater than the impact it is supposed to address. The aims of the remedial action were: * to remove hazards to seals and birds posed by fuel in the soil; * to restore the natural relief of the soil surface; and * to minimise impact on soils and soil biota. In deciding what remediation work should be done, the main principle was that remediation should not result in a greater impact than the original. All impacts, including those resulting from remediation, were documented. 8.4 Remedial action for fuel spills Fuel contamination of soil, either from World Park Base operations or by previous occupants of the site, was the main impact that needed attention. Greenpeace was concerned to ensure that spilt fuel could not be picked up by the local fauna. Comments were solicited from several Antarctic environmental and soil scientists. Remedial options suggested ranged from to removal of all contaminated soil to complete reliance on natural degradation. Several treatment options were investigated as alternatives, or in addition to removal. Most of these options were rejected: * Biological treatment The introduction of micro-organisms alien to the Antarctic was not considered acceptable, as it would have been a breach of the Agreed Measures and Article 4.6 of Annex II to the Protocol. Moreover, the effect on local micro-organism communities could not be predicted. The application of fertilisers to promote the breakdown of hydrocarbons by naturally occurring micro-organisms was rejected as it would merely have replaced one contaminant (hydrocarbon) with another (fertiliser). Neither the effect on local micro- organisms nor the final fate of fertilisers were predictable. * Chemical treatment The use of dispersants or solidification agents were rejected because the introduction of chemicals would have been an additional impact to the original fuel contamination. * In situ physical or thermal treatment Cleaning with air, water and steam, or the use of thermal heating methods or incendiary devices to burn off the fuel were all rejected because they would have resulted in physical changes to the soil (including changes to the permafrost), and they would have tended to spread pollution over a larger area than the original spill. In particular, burning would have resulted in the permanent presence of residual materials and would have transferred pollutants from the soil to the atmosphere. * Off/on physical/thermal treatment The use of water or steam was tested in New Zealand with similar sediments to those found at Cape Evans. These methods were rejected because they resulted in a greater volume of contaminated material, created large amounts of contaminated waste water, and would have resulted in a larger mechanical impact on soils by removal and replacement of all contaminated soil. The strategy eventually selected was a combination of removal, burial and natural degradation. This option addressed the main hazards, and at the same time allowed for the monitoring of fuel spills, thus providing information to evaluate the need for further remediation. In cases where the contamination was estimated as heavy enough to pose some risk of staining for birds or seals, the top 15 cm of soil was removed and replaced with clean beach sediments. Less contaminated soil was left undisturbed wherever possible, and the fuel spills are to be monitored over time. Analysis revealed that most of the fuel was contained in the upper 5-10 cm of the soil, over a total area of 100-110 m2. The amount of fuel present in the soil, estimated as less than 200 litres before remediation procedures, was reduced to no more than 50 litres after the uppermost part of the fuel contaminated soils were removed. One year later, the backfill in most of the treated spill sites had not been removed by wind action or other processes, and was therefore still shielding wildlife from the remaining fuel. However, the backfill had become contaminated with hydrocarbons from the soil below, with fuel being present in low but detectable quantities (up to 340 mg/kg). 8.5 Remedial action to re-establish soil relief When the base was removed, the natural soil surfaces were re- established by backfilling depressions, levelling mounds, breaking down compacted soil and ground icing, smoothing out the ground surface and re-establishing the boulder cover. Restoration of the natural relief was intended to ensure that natural processes acting on the soil surface, such as wind erosion and deposition, snow accumulation, meltwater drainage and freeze/thaw effects, would continue roughly as before the base was built, thus minimising the risk of soil degradation that could have been triggered by the modification of any of those processes. It also ensured that the visual impact was kept to a minimum, although a remaining visual impact was caused by a large snow drift that had formed around the base (about 1400 m2) and was left in situ. One year later, there was still some evidence of soil disturbance in the form of small depressions where the main building and fuel rack used to be, and some small pieces of litter (such as paint flakes). The snow drift had disappeared completely. In most cases, these disturbances were considered to be remains of the initial impact of the base, and not secondary processes of soil degradation that had developed afterwards. 9. CONCLUSION World Park Base, although small, was nevertheless highly technical, providing life support in one of the parts of the planet most hostile to humans, and also most pristine. World Park Base was not perfect, and although the most suitable technologies at the time were investigated and, where possible, utilised, there would always have been room for improvements, particularly as better technologies are constantly developed. Greenpeace's aim, from a technical point of view, was to have a minimal impact on the surrounding environment, to retrograde from the Antarctic all wastes and outdated equipment, and to run the base on solar and wind technology as far as possible. With regard to waste products and equipment, this goal was achieved completely, apart from exhaust emissions and grey water. With regard to power generation, the base was run on alternative technology for 39% of the time in its final year of operation, and Greenpeace was working towards making this 100% before the decision was made to remove World Park Base from Cape Evans. Technically, it should be possible to utilise alternative energy as the primary source of power generation for many existing Antarctic stations. The main obstacles to achieving this would seem to be the attitudes of Antarctic operators, who seem unaware of the amount of pollution caused by the traditional means of power generation using internal combustion engines, and unwilling to invest resources in developing the alternatives. The general level of awareness on the part of many station personnel towards their impacts on the Antarctic environment could easily be raised by appropriate instruction and example. Using the insights gained by operating its own Antarctic base, Greenpeace has tried to raise that level of awareness and instil in people a sense of the uniqueness, fragility and value of the Antarctic environment. The installation, operation, and eventual removal of World Park Base has shown that it is possible to live and work in Antarctica with minimum adverse impacts on the environment, through attitudes and awareness that promote the goal of preservation and protection above all else. The continent of Antarctica, its ecosystems and wildlife, should be regarded as an inheritance to be preserved and passed on intact to future generations. It is true to say that in this place in particular, individual efforts and practices can and will make a difference towards the preservation and protection of this globally important region. ANNEX 1. TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF UPGRADED ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEM. 1. Existing AE installation The alternative energy systems that were in use at World Park Base before the modifications were carried out at the beginning of 1991 consisted of a 3 kW, 130 V DC wind generator and an array of solar panels installed on the satellite communications tower. The energy they created went directly into a storage heater for heating the base, and into a battery bank for later retrieval via a 12 to 220 volt inverter. The wind generator was installed on a 12 metre high triangular mast sited approximately 20 metres east of the main base building. Daily average wind speeds at Cape Evans ranged from a low of eight knots in June to 13 knots in April, and the average daily power output of the wind generator varied between 34.3 kWh in April to 21 kWh during the month of June. The solar panel array had a maximum output of 600 W during the summer months. 2. Design strategy for AE upgrade When it was decided to upgrade the alternative energy system, the project team considered: energy generation; energy usage; energy storage; energy distribution; energy management; energy conservation; and restrictions imposed by the existing base structure. After examining the load distribution of the base power demands over a 24 hour period it was concluded that: it was possible to identify an invariant (base) load component in the daily load cycle; it was reasonable to associate peak loads with the personnel's active period; and a significant portion of the invariant (base) load was heating requirements. The strategy chosen was: to reduce the base electrical load through the use of kerosene heaters. This represented a more efficient use of fuel than electrical heating; to supply the remaining base electrical load with the AE system, but only during the personnel's quiet period (i.e. the base would be put "to sleep" for approximately eight hour when the diesel generators would be shut. down). 3. Design considerations for new system Design criteria not only included energy conservation and cost efficiency, but also utilisation of existing equipment, efficient and minimal use of space, safety to wildlife and the environment, safety to humans, ease of monitoring, and ease of troubleshooting. The existing base electrical set up was a three phase, alternating current (AC) system. Any interfaces, load distribution schemes and load management systems needed to take this into account. In practical terms the system had to fulfil the following power requirements: (Table omitted here) The estimate of total energy requirement was considered to be generous, because: Storage heaters would be the primary space heating units in the engine and radio rooms, which would be charged during the day by the diesel generators. The "supply heating" allocation would therefore only have to cope with back-up heating requirements. The engine block heater would normally not be used. The freezers were located in the unheated lean-to. They were thermostatically controlled, and it was considered unlikely that they would run 24 hours a day, particularly in winter. A more realistic estimate of the capacity required from an AE system was therefore about 31 kW. 4. Required AE system capacity Any AE system's capacity is a function of: the amount of excess power available to charge the storage system(s); the capacity of the storage system; and the capacity of its interface with the existing alternating current system. The excess generating capacity is the sum of the AE system capacity and any excess diesel power generation capacity. This was estimated to be: Wind generator 26.4 kWh (running 24 hours) Excess diesel 36.6 kWh (running 16 hours) Total 64.0 kWh The figure of 64.0 kWh assumed: an average power supply from the wind generator of 1.1 kW over a 24 hour period; an average excess of 2.35 kW diesel generating capacity over a 16 hour period. This is the difference between the average peak power demand (12.5 kW) and 90% of rated generator capacity (14.85 kW); no available solar power (i.e. winter conditions). Methods of storing the excess power then had to be found. Considering that the AC system already in place was three phase, it was convenient to assume a thermal storage capacity equivalent to three 1 kW heaters, one per phase, running each for eight hours, equivalent to 24 kWh of power. The storage capacity of the AE system is then: Electrical (battery bank) 40 kWh Thermal (storage heaters) 24 kWh Total 64 kWh An estimate of the required capacity of the AC system interface can be made by dividing the electrical power demand (approximately 40 kWh) by the period of operation (eight hours). This gives an average delivery of 5 kW, which is a liberal estimate. A more conservative figure would be 31 kW divided over eight hours which would be about 4 kW. This average figure, of course, does not take into account short term demands such as radio or Inmarsat transmissions, or transient surges such as electric motor start ups. Any interface configuration had to take these short term and transient loads into consideration. Because the sleep time loads were distributed across three phases it was convenient to have three interfaces, i.e. inverters, in the system. This required a minimum continuous power rating of about 1.5 kW per inverter. 5. Design conclusions With an aim of providing only for sleep time loads, it was clear that the AE system already in place did not lack generating capacity but rather lacked thermal and electrical storage capacity, adequate power delivery from the electrical storage system to the AC system, and some scheme for scavenging excess generator capacity and channelling it into power storage units. The upgrading of the AE system basically consisted of: (1) Replacing the battery bank with one that had the capacity required to meet the sleep time load; (2) Replacing the existing single inverter with three inverters, one per phase, capable of meeting the sleep time load requirements; (3) Installing a load management system to maximise the operating efficiency of the diesel generator sets and to divert excess electrical power into the battery bank; (4) Replacing the existing single 2.4 kW storage heater with three 1 kW storage heaters; (5) Installing at least one more kerosene heater in the workshop/laboratory area. As it was, the only source of heat for this area was an electric heater which was insufficient for the rapid temperature drops that occurred when the door was opened; (6) Modifying the wind generator and solar panel array. 6. New system Installation/operation 6(a) Energy storage A large capacity battery bank was installed, which was able to supply power for all the requirements identified in the design considerations, except for the accommodation heating. This was made up of 24 GNB ABSOLYTII 2 VOLT CELLS (TYPE 85A39) connected in series. These cells were 1560 Ah (amphours) each, giving a total storage capacity of 1560 Ah at 48 volts, or 74.9 kWh. This represented a usable capacity of around 37.4 kWh, since the useful storage capacity of a battery bank is only half that of the quoted capacity. Even deep cycle batteries have a seriously degraded life expectancy if they are continuously discharged below 50% capacity. The advantages of using these particular batteries are that they are completely sealed, have fire retardant containers, no outgassing occurs, and they recover completely after freezing. A system operating voltage of 48 V DC was chosen, to reduce the problems of power loss in long cable runs, particularly in the case of the wind generator cable. The installation provided for three separate charging sources. The primary charging source was the wind generator, and during the summer months, the solar panels. Second, excess diesel generating capacity was diverted (with load shedders) into the batteries via the inverters' internal battery chargers. These could deliver a total of 60 amps at 48 V DC. Finally, as a backup, battery chargers connected in series could deliver 75 amps to the batteries powered by the diesel generator. These could be switched into the system if the primary and secondary systems were insufficient to charge fully the battery bank. 6(b) AC System Interface We replaced the existing inverter with three TRACE 48 V DC/234 V AC inverters, type 2248, one per phase. These units are fan cooled and are rated at 1.5 kW continuous, 2 kW periodic (for 30 min.) and 7 kW surge. As mentioned above, they also incorporate built in battery chargers. 6(c) Load management system The diesel engine in use was run at its maximum, most efficient capacity, with the help of three EBERLEE adjustable load shedders, Type LA-3G 465 91, one per phase. These units monitored the per-phase power consumption of the base and switched loads on and off, via relays, using a three tiered priority system. This kept the load as close as possible to the most efficient value (as dictated by the manufacturer). The desired load was 90% of the rated diesel power generator capacity. 6(d) Storage heaters Three 18 kWh storage heaters were installed, one per phase. They were thermally charged with the help of the load shedders, using excess generating capacity of the diesel power generating set. These were not ideal, as they drew 2.5 kW, making fine load management difficult, but they proved worthwhile and kept the base at a comfortable living temperature. 6(e) Kerosene heater An additional kerosene heater was also installed in the workshop/laboratory room (estimated fuel consumption 0.31 litres per hour). This unit, together with the existing kerosene cooker and the storage heaters, kept the base heated during the time that the generators were turned off. 6(f) Wind generator and solar panels The system operating voltage chosen was 48 V DC. Although this is not a standard voltage for small, independent power installations, the suppliers of the wind generator and inverters gave assurances that there would be no problem in modifying the existing equipment. Using 48 V, rather than 12 or 24 V, considerably reduced the problem of power loss in long cable runs, particularly in the case of the wind generator cable. A new winding for the wind generator motor was made and installed in order to change its output voltage to 48 V. This did not affect its power rating. Two new solar panels of the same type as the existing installation were installed, and the array configuration modified to give four sets of four panels connected in series with a working voltage of 48 V. New regulators for both the wind generator and solar array were also installed. ANNEX 2. LIST OF EQUIPMENT SUPPLIERS The following is a list of suppliers for World Park Base. It is not a complete list, but contains those names felt to be most useful for the purposes of this report. Greenpeace in no way endorses these particular suppliers or their products, and further notes that technologies have advanced since the base was built. Nevertheless, Antarctic operators wishing to use some of the ideas outlined in this report might find these addresses useful in tracking down equipment and supplies. Base buildings and original kit set technical installation Supplied by: Christiani and Nielsen Ingenieurbau Aktiengesellschafl Basedowstrasse 12 2000 Hamburg 26 West Germany BRD. Base diesel power generation Equipment used: Perkins diesel D3.152 electropack coupled with a Leroy Somer LSA 41/14 ARPI alternator Manufactured by: Perkins Diesels Peterborough PE1 5NA England. and Monteurs Leroy Somer Bd Marcellin Leroy 16015 Angouleme France. Tel. (45) 919 111 Telex. 790 044 SIRET 671 820 223 00012 Waste Heat recovery Equipment used: 2 Bowman EH200-3401 heat exchangers. Supplied By: E.J.Bowman ( Birmingham ) Limited Chester street Birmingham B6 4AP England. Tel: (02) 1359 5401 Telex: 339 239 Bowman G Fax: (02) 1359 7495 Catalytic fuel filter Equipment used: Carbon Flo in line Manufactured by: CARBONFLO (UK) IIMITED Salisbury. SP2 OQW, England. Supplied by: Morland energy Management LTD P.O.Box 46 Kaukapakapa New Zealand. Tel. (0880) 5362 Elevated fuel storage system Supplied by: Boral Acrow limited 38-44 Bruce Mclaren Road Private Bag, Henderson Auckland 8 New Zealand. Tel. (09) 836 5099 Fax. (09) 837 2378 Airhandler ventilation system Equipment used: Temperzone RCMD 400, (customized). Supplied by: Temperzone Private Bag Otahuhu, Auckland New Zealand. Tel. (09) 275 0735 Fax. (09) 275 5637 Fresh water filtration and disinfection Equipment used: Triangle re-usable and cleanable fiber filter. Ultra Violet Sterilizer S/F 900 Sterifloo. Supplied by: Contamination control Limited P.O.Box 14-621 Auckland 6 New Zealand. Tel. (09) 570 9135 Fax. (09) 527 7654 Composting toilet Equipment used: Rota Loo fitted with two 200 W heating elements. Supplied by: Environment Equipment (A'Asia) PTY. Ltd 149 Market St. South Melbourne Victoria 3205 Australia. Tel. (03) 587 2447 Fax. (03) 587 2082 Emergency lighting system Equipment used: C.E.A.S W2701. Manufactured by: GEAS Ligt und Stromverogungstechniek Juchostrabe 40 D-4600 Dortmundt 1 Germany. Tel:(0231) 51730 Alternative energy system 1) Equipment used: Inverters, 48VDC, 50 Hz, Turbo, Standby. Supplied by: Trace Engineering Co. (Steve Johnson) 5917 195th N.E. Arlington, WA 98223 U.S.A. Tel. (206) 435 8826 Fax. (206) 435 8826 2) Equipment used: Batteries, Absolyte 85A39, 24 cells. Supplied by: GNB industrial Battery Co. (Donna Carter) Woodlake Corperate Park 829 Park View Boulevard Lombard, IL 60148 U.S.A. Tel. (708) 629 5200 Fax (708) 629 2635 3) Equipment used: External battery chargers, PC75-14.8-220. Supplied by: Todd engineering (Ben Todd) 28706 Holiday Place Elkhardt Indiana 46517 U.S.A. Tel. (219) 293 8633 Fax. (219) 295 8527 4) Equipment used: Disconnect switch, DS200. Supplied by: Alternative Energy engineering (Dave Katz) P.O.Box 339 HP Redway, CA 95560 U.S.A. Tel. (707) 923 2277 Fax. (707) 923 3009 5) Equipment used: Battery capacity meter, Curtis 967. Supplied by: Chloride NZ. (Brian Ellis) Hutt Park Rd Lower Hutt P.O. 36-026 Moera, Lower Hutt New Zealand. Tel.; (04) 684 269 Fax. (04) 686 687 6) Equipment used: Load shedders, Eberle LA3G 46591. Current transformers, 50/5 A. Supplied by: Eurotec, (Malcolm Fraser) 172 Marua RD Mt Wellington P.O.box 14-543 Auckland 6 New Zealand. Tel. (09) 591 990 Fax. (09) 525 3334 7) Equipment used: Solar Panels LX145GT and solar charge controller SC30-48m. Supplied by: Solarex Pty Limited, (Graham Hall) 78 Biloela St. Villawood 2163 NSW Australia Tel. (02) 727 4455 Fax. (02) 727 7447 8) Equipment used: Kerosene heater exhaust fans, lPSCO ZRS170. Supplied by: IPSCO (Roger Perret) 30 Salsyard Rd. Otahuhu P.O.Box 22343 Auckland 6 New Zealand. Tel. (09) 276 3639 Fax. (09) 276 2219 9) Equipment used: Windgenerator HR3. Supplied by: Northern Power Systems, (John Kueffner) 1 North Wind Rd. Moretown, VT 05660 U.S.A. Tel. (802) 496 2955 Fax. (802) 496 2953 10) Equipment used: Brick Storage Heaters, Unidare FS18. Supplied by: Electricorp Marketing, (Sue Boardman) P.O. Box 1020 Wellington New Zealand. Tel. (04) 710 089 Fax. (04) 711 449