- Email: [email protected]
An operating philosophy for the US Antarctic program
Marine l'ollution Bulh'tin, Volume 25.9 Prin~ed in Great Britain
12, pp. 25(1 252, 1992.
I ) 0 2 5 - 3 2 6 X / 9 2 $5 I)0+i).00 © 1992 Pergamon Press Lid
An Operating Philosophy for the US Antarctic Program SIDNEY D R A G G A N and PETER WILKNISS
Division of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC 20550, USA
In the early days of Antarctica's exploration, there was scant consideration among expeditioners of human impact on its environment. Today, several national programmes of research in Antarctica have become regular undertakings. The time of the antarctic explorer and adventurer, where rules and sanctions were scant, is past. With their on-site laboratories; arrangements for accommodation; fleets of aircraft, ships, and land vehicles; and requirements for materials influx and removal, these programmes possess the characteristics of 'big science'. As such they cannot, and do not, conduct their business as in the past. They require an overarching philosophy to guarantee compatibility with Antarctica's unique environment so as to ensure its value to future scientific investigation.
The United States has been interested in Antarctica since 1838, and through various governmental and private sponsorship mechanisms we have continued to express this interest. Early US activity in Antarctica, like that of other nations, was of an expeditionary nature (NSF, 1988). For these activities, adventure and survival were the foremost concerns. There was no carefully considered or formally stated operating philosophy for US Antarctic expeditions. Widely held notions of the importance of science, safety and environmental awareness did not, for the most part, dampen the adventurous spirit of early Antarctic undertakings. Various executive branch pronouncements have articulated and established formal government definition of a US presence on the Antarctic Continent (United States Antarctic Policy and Program, 1970, 1982; US Policy for Antarctica, 1976). These documents set forth policy and clarified managerial responsibilities for US Antarctic activities. They set the stage for creating the organizational and operational structures and mechanisms needed to manage an isolated, climatically taxing and logistically complex undertaking. Early implementation of these policies, structures and mechanisms clearly mirrored societal notions about the environment, safety, and health. In the United States and elsewhere, these notions rarely incorporated or viewed environmental considerations as high priority. On the other hand, attention to human safety and health considerations has, for some time, been taken as a given. In Antarctica, as in the United States and other 250
parts of the globe, the results of less-than-careful environmental practices are now recognized. They have changed attitudes and are forcing enlightened planning and enhanced environmental stewardship. In recent years, as a result of these changing attitudes and in light of global environmental change, the Antarctic Continent has become an increasingly visible symbol for environmental quality. With the Antarctic in this spotlight, the level of environmental stewardship practiced by the US Antarctic Program (USAP) has come under welcome scrutiny--and at times pointed criticism. This scrutiny has invariably highlighted the considerable value of Antarctic scientific research. Also, it gives us opportunities to enhance our understanding of Antarctica and how to protect it.
Origins of the Philosophy
As noted in its Environmental Protection Agenda (NSF, 1988), the USAP has matured to the point of having a keen sense of values: the value of the nearly pristine nature of Antarctica's environment for its own sake; the value to humankind of the scientific research on the Antarctic continent; and the value of the lives and health of people working there. This seminal document has formally added several previously unarticulated dimensions to US policy for Antarctica and to USAP operations. This sense of values has been most clearly expressed in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Special Initiative on Safety, Environment, and Health in Antarctica. Participants in the US Antarctic Program-whether they are administrators, military or civilian support contractors, or scientific researchers--are working to make these values a continuing reality in a threatened global environment. The Special Initiative, begun in fiscal year 1990, has a continuing focus on integrating project planning and implementation with environmental protection--to achieve enlightened stewardship of a unique scientific laboratory. An important step in establishing this new operating policy was an assessment of the legal foundations for USAP's environmental efforts (National Science Foundation, 1989). This assessment detailed lhe USAP's environmental responsibilities under US law and many international mandates; it also identified gaps in existing US legislation. The assessment set the stage for a plan to carry out projects in such areas as environmental assessment, monitoring and management; site
Volume 25/Numbers 9-12 clean-up and remediation; and enhancement of legal enforcement and compliance mechanisms by the USAP.
Elements of the Philosophy The USAP's operating philosophy is based upon broad, yet reasonable and practical, assumptions: • The Antarctic Continent can be viewed primarily as a closed environment. • Inputs to, and outputs from, operating environments (i.e. stations, field camps, and vessels) can be controlled. • While all human activities entail some measure of change to or impact on the environment, those factors can be effectively minimized, mitigated, or controlled through information-intensive approaches that foster early consideration of potential changes or impacts. • All USAP participants are amenable to adopting project planning approaches, as well as mind-set and lifestyle changes, that may be necessary to minimize, mitigate or control the effects of their activities. • These assumptions are expected to evolve, often dynamically, in tandem with the dynamic character of the USAP's operating environments. The National Science Foundation, as lead manager for the USAP, believes that implementing this operating philosophy requires thinking differently than in the past. It means that we must espouse recognized approaches to planning and conducting scientific or logistic projects efficiently and effectively. Such approaches include Total Quality Management, Systems Analysis and Systems Engineering, Operations Research, and Environmental Management. Environmental Management includes such approaches as land-use planning, environmental monitoring and environmental assessment, and safety and health assessment. For the USAP, the process of environmental assessment is meeting with great success as the vehicle to initiate, document (for retrospective analysis), and report on (for programme accountability) the implementation of these approaches. The USAP will use all practical means and measures to foster and maintain Antarctica's natural conditions while promoting and supporting scientific endeavours in a safe and healthful manner. The elements of USAP's philosophy are built around a central operational objective: supporting basic scientific research that can be accomplished best in Antarctica. The rationale underlying this objective rests in the relatively untouched character of the Antarctic and the continent's value as a unique, natural scientific laboratory. Accomplishing our science objective requires us to work constantly and effectively to maintain the conditions that define the rationale. Should USAP be unable to actively foster Antarctic stewardship, it will fail to achieve its central objective. To do all of this, USAP has a proactive stance; it depends on direct participation by all USAP participants in such scientific, operational and logistic planning activities as land-use planning, systems engineering and environmental assessment and monitoring. Also critical are environmental awareness/education efforts and oversight/enforcement activities. No part of the USAP, whether scientific or operational, is exempted from
recognizing and addressing the costs of what have been viewed in the past as 'externalities'. These once unconsidered, uncontrolled, and unreported aspects of science in Antarctica are now a key focus in the annual planning cycles for all projects. Individual commitment and timing are central here. That is, a proactive and systematic planning process leads, not follows, decisions. This is especially true in the considerable successes USAP has achieved under its Special Initiative.
Implementation of the Philosophy Environmental management
One of the earliest results of framing and planning our operating philosophy is the ongoing effort to 'streamline' USAP operations (NSF, 1991). Through operations research and environmental assessment, various operations for a continuing United States Antarctic Program were systematically examined. One of these alternatives included streamlining programmes to decrease effects of the human presence on the Antarctic Continent. Logistics and support personnel would be reduced and operations consolidated to maximize efficiency and reduce environmental impacts; a long-term effort would focus on minimizing nonscientific activities. For example, every effort would be made to cut the number of military and civilian contractor staff needed to support research at USAP stations. Still under study is the full degree to which the number of USAP personnel can be reduced on the continent, without posing risks to safety and health or placing unrealistic limits on our capacity for scientific research. Areas now being evaluated include 1. consolidating military and civilian support and administrative functions; 2. streamlining support operations wherever possible; 3. moving many administrative functions to New Zealand or the United States (increasingly feasible as additional satellite communication capabilities arc developed between 1990 and 1992); 4. scheduling more science projects and support operations for winter if an all-season runway at McMurdo Station (the chief staging area) can be developed; and 5. using more prefabricated construction for fewer workers. The USAP also has been making considerable progress in developing new approaches to materials and waste management. These approaches--now being consolidated into a system of cradle-to-grave materials and waste management--focus on materials import limitations, waste segregation, recycling, and increased waste removal (i.e. retrograde) from Antarctica. In addition, as a way to protect the health of personnel, USAP has adopted incineration as an interim approach to processing selected food and domestic wastes. The waste feedstock is carefully monitored, the interim incinerator is subject to conscientious maintenance, and a programme of stack gas emission and ambient air testing is underway. Near the close of the 1990-91 season, McMurdo Station's Fortress Rocks site was closed when materials containing asbestos were found among materials to be retrograded. These materials and all ground surface 251
Marine Pollution Bulletin
debris were removed from the site this past season, and over 5.5 million pounds of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes were returned to the United States. When the shipment reached Keyport, Washington, on 6 March 1992, it was inspected by a representative of the Washington State Department of Ecology, who noted that the shipment represented "an absolutely superb operation" and that "all Federal agencies should follow this standard of safety". As a result of careful, proactive planning, preparation, and documentation at McMurdo, processing of the waste by a contractor took only 3 days rather than the anticipated 10 days.
Environmental assessment The USAP made substantial contributions to a June 1991 workshop on Antarctic environmental impact assessment, convened by the Council of Managers of the National Antarctic Programs. The workshop produced The Antarctic Environmental Assessment Process: Practical Guidelines. These serve to clearly identify the kind of information needed early in project or activity planning to support the preparation of useful environmental assessments. The guidelines conform to recommendations promulgated at Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings, as well as the recently adopted Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. NSF has drafted procedures to implement environmental impact assessments required by Executive Order 12114 (Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, 44 FR, 1957). The procedures were approved by the US Office of Management and Budget and submitted to the Federal Register for public comment. Relevant concerns have not been addressed, and these rules became effective on 3 September 1992. Under these procedures, USAP has completed the Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the US Antarctic Program, five Initial Environmental Evaluations, and over 50 environmental action memoranda on USAP proposed actions or activities during the 1990-91 and 1992-93 seasons. Environmental monitoring Monitoring the environmental impacts of our operations is a relatively new undertaking. The USAP has established an Environmental Monitoring and Enforcement Laboratory ( E M E L ) at a new Science and Engineering Center at McMurdo Station. The E M E L is dedicated solely to the support of USAP environmental, safety, and health management efforts. Studies and information from the laboratory are meant to assure and document USAP compliance with a wide variety of national and international environmental protection mandates. Also, information gathered from work done in the Laboratory will support USAP enforcement of violations of environmental or industrial hygiene regulations and policies. This will provide a sound basis for future environmental assessments and decision making. Conservation and preservation Conservation and preservation include efforts to clean-up abandoned sites such as Old Palmer Station 252
on the Antarctic Peninsula. Most recently, during the 1990-91 season, a joint USAP-National Park Service team surveyed East Base to document items of archaeological and historical value still present at that site and to prepare for clean-up efforts during the 1991-92 season. Last seasoffs work ended on 6 March 1992 at East Base, after an 8-person crew containerized, labelled, and removed a variety of wastes from the site. Cleared of debris, the site's old dump areas were surveyed and covered with gravel. Warning signs were posted in four languages to indicate that East Base is a protected, historic monument that dates from the late 1940s.
Conclusion Critical to continued successful development of the USAPs new operating philosophy is a recognized and responsive organizational structure that accepts responsibility for implementing the philosophy and has the authority to enforce and refine it. The USAP now has that structure and the proactive, systems management approach so fundamental to other programme components. Another key is an assumption mentioned earlier-that USAP participants are amenable to the planning approaches (as well as mind-set and lifestyle changes) necessary to minimize, mitigate, or control changes or impacts brought about by their activities in Antarctica. We recognize that moving this assumption from theory to practice requires more education for all USAP participants. Whether they are administrators, military or civilian support contractors, or scientific researchers, they need to be fully informed about the context of working and living on the world's coldest continent. The USAP has launched special efforts to develop that enlightened cadre. Special training classes and instructional materials (e.g. in waste minimization and management and in project planning) based on Total Quality Management approaches are now employed before participants reach the Antarctic; follow-up education and awareness training are planned through a ~College of the Antarctic'. This on-site educational experience aims to strengthen an understanding of Antarctic science, the awareness of each participant's role, and the goal of not compromising this rich natural resource. National Science Foundation (1988). Safety in Antarctica. Antarctic Safety Panel, Publication No. NSF-8878. Washington, DC. National Science Foundation (1988). US Antarctic Program: Environmental Protection Agenda. Division of Polar Programs, Washington, DC. National Science Foundation (1989). A National Science Foundation Strategy for Compliance with Environmental Law in Antarctica: A Report to the Director from the Office of the General Counsel. Publication No. NSF 90-4, Washington, DC. National Science Foundation (1991). Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the US Antarctic Program. Washington, DC. United States Antarctic Policy and Program (1970). National Security Decision Memorandum 71, July 10. United States Antarctic Policy Programs (1982). Presidential Memorandum 6646, February 5. US Policy for Antarctica (1976). National Security Decision Memorandum 318, February 26.
12, pp. 25(1 252, 1992.
I ) 0 2 5 - 3 2 6 X / 9 2 $5 I)0+i).00 © 1992 Pergamon Press Lid
An Operating Philosophy for the US Antarctic Program SIDNEY D R A G G A N and PETER WILKNISS
Division of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC 20550, USA
In the early days of Antarctica's exploration, there was scant consideration among expeditioners of human impact on its environment. Today, several national programmes of research in Antarctica have become regular undertakings. The time of the antarctic explorer and adventurer, where rules and sanctions were scant, is past. With their on-site laboratories; arrangements for accommodation; fleets of aircraft, ships, and land vehicles; and requirements for materials influx and removal, these programmes possess the characteristics of 'big science'. As such they cannot, and do not, conduct their business as in the past. They require an overarching philosophy to guarantee compatibility with Antarctica's unique environment so as to ensure its value to future scientific investigation.
The United States has been interested in Antarctica since 1838, and through various governmental and private sponsorship mechanisms we have continued to express this interest. Early US activity in Antarctica, like that of other nations, was of an expeditionary nature (NSF, 1988). For these activities, adventure and survival were the foremost concerns. There was no carefully considered or formally stated operating philosophy for US Antarctic expeditions. Widely held notions of the importance of science, safety and environmental awareness did not, for the most part, dampen the adventurous spirit of early Antarctic undertakings. Various executive branch pronouncements have articulated and established formal government definition of a US presence on the Antarctic Continent (United States Antarctic Policy and Program, 1970, 1982; US Policy for Antarctica, 1976). These documents set forth policy and clarified managerial responsibilities for US Antarctic activities. They set the stage for creating the organizational and operational structures and mechanisms needed to manage an isolated, climatically taxing and logistically complex undertaking. Early implementation of these policies, structures and mechanisms clearly mirrored societal notions about the environment, safety, and health. In the United States and elsewhere, these notions rarely incorporated or viewed environmental considerations as high priority. On the other hand, attention to human safety and health considerations has, for some time, been taken as a given. In Antarctica, as in the United States and other 250
parts of the globe, the results of less-than-careful environmental practices are now recognized. They have changed attitudes and are forcing enlightened planning and enhanced environmental stewardship. In recent years, as a result of these changing attitudes and in light of global environmental change, the Antarctic Continent has become an increasingly visible symbol for environmental quality. With the Antarctic in this spotlight, the level of environmental stewardship practiced by the US Antarctic Program (USAP) has come under welcome scrutiny--and at times pointed criticism. This scrutiny has invariably highlighted the considerable value of Antarctic scientific research. Also, it gives us opportunities to enhance our understanding of Antarctica and how to protect it.
Origins of the Philosophy
As noted in its Environmental Protection Agenda (NSF, 1988), the USAP has matured to the point of having a keen sense of values: the value of the nearly pristine nature of Antarctica's environment for its own sake; the value to humankind of the scientific research on the Antarctic continent; and the value of the lives and health of people working there. This seminal document has formally added several previously unarticulated dimensions to US policy for Antarctica and to USAP operations. This sense of values has been most clearly expressed in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Special Initiative on Safety, Environment, and Health in Antarctica. Participants in the US Antarctic Program-whether they are administrators, military or civilian support contractors, or scientific researchers--are working to make these values a continuing reality in a threatened global environment. The Special Initiative, begun in fiscal year 1990, has a continuing focus on integrating project planning and implementation with environmental protection--to achieve enlightened stewardship of a unique scientific laboratory. An important step in establishing this new operating policy was an assessment of the legal foundations for USAP's environmental efforts (National Science Foundation, 1989). This assessment detailed lhe USAP's environmental responsibilities under US law and many international mandates; it also identified gaps in existing US legislation. The assessment set the stage for a plan to carry out projects in such areas as environmental assessment, monitoring and management; site
Volume 25/Numbers 9-12 clean-up and remediation; and enhancement of legal enforcement and compliance mechanisms by the USAP.
Elements of the Philosophy The USAP's operating philosophy is based upon broad, yet reasonable and practical, assumptions: • The Antarctic Continent can be viewed primarily as a closed environment. • Inputs to, and outputs from, operating environments (i.e. stations, field camps, and vessels) can be controlled. • While all human activities entail some measure of change to or impact on the environment, those factors can be effectively minimized, mitigated, or controlled through information-intensive approaches that foster early consideration of potential changes or impacts. • All USAP participants are amenable to adopting project planning approaches, as well as mind-set and lifestyle changes, that may be necessary to minimize, mitigate or control the effects of their activities. • These assumptions are expected to evolve, often dynamically, in tandem with the dynamic character of the USAP's operating environments. The National Science Foundation, as lead manager for the USAP, believes that implementing this operating philosophy requires thinking differently than in the past. It means that we must espouse recognized approaches to planning and conducting scientific or logistic projects efficiently and effectively. Such approaches include Total Quality Management, Systems Analysis and Systems Engineering, Operations Research, and Environmental Management. Environmental Management includes such approaches as land-use planning, environmental monitoring and environmental assessment, and safety and health assessment. For the USAP, the process of environmental assessment is meeting with great success as the vehicle to initiate, document (for retrospective analysis), and report on (for programme accountability) the implementation of these approaches. The USAP will use all practical means and measures to foster and maintain Antarctica's natural conditions while promoting and supporting scientific endeavours in a safe and healthful manner. The elements of USAP's philosophy are built around a central operational objective: supporting basic scientific research that can be accomplished best in Antarctica. The rationale underlying this objective rests in the relatively untouched character of the Antarctic and the continent's value as a unique, natural scientific laboratory. Accomplishing our science objective requires us to work constantly and effectively to maintain the conditions that define the rationale. Should USAP be unable to actively foster Antarctic stewardship, it will fail to achieve its central objective. To do all of this, USAP has a proactive stance; it depends on direct participation by all USAP participants in such scientific, operational and logistic planning activities as land-use planning, systems engineering and environmental assessment and monitoring. Also critical are environmental awareness/education efforts and oversight/enforcement activities. No part of the USAP, whether scientific or operational, is exempted from
recognizing and addressing the costs of what have been viewed in the past as 'externalities'. These once unconsidered, uncontrolled, and unreported aspects of science in Antarctica are now a key focus in the annual planning cycles for all projects. Individual commitment and timing are central here. That is, a proactive and systematic planning process leads, not follows, decisions. This is especially true in the considerable successes USAP has achieved under its Special Initiative.
Implementation of the Philosophy Environmental management
One of the earliest results of framing and planning our operating philosophy is the ongoing effort to 'streamline' USAP operations (NSF, 1991). Through operations research and environmental assessment, various operations for a continuing United States Antarctic Program were systematically examined. One of these alternatives included streamlining programmes to decrease effects of the human presence on the Antarctic Continent. Logistics and support personnel would be reduced and operations consolidated to maximize efficiency and reduce environmental impacts; a long-term effort would focus on minimizing nonscientific activities. For example, every effort would be made to cut the number of military and civilian contractor staff needed to support research at USAP stations. Still under study is the full degree to which the number of USAP personnel can be reduced on the continent, without posing risks to safety and health or placing unrealistic limits on our capacity for scientific research. Areas now being evaluated include 1. consolidating military and civilian support and administrative functions; 2. streamlining support operations wherever possible; 3. moving many administrative functions to New Zealand or the United States (increasingly feasible as additional satellite communication capabilities arc developed between 1990 and 1992); 4. scheduling more science projects and support operations for winter if an all-season runway at McMurdo Station (the chief staging area) can be developed; and 5. using more prefabricated construction for fewer workers. The USAP also has been making considerable progress in developing new approaches to materials and waste management. These approaches--now being consolidated into a system of cradle-to-grave materials and waste management--focus on materials import limitations, waste segregation, recycling, and increased waste removal (i.e. retrograde) from Antarctica. In addition, as a way to protect the health of personnel, USAP has adopted incineration as an interim approach to processing selected food and domestic wastes. The waste feedstock is carefully monitored, the interim incinerator is subject to conscientious maintenance, and a programme of stack gas emission and ambient air testing is underway. Near the close of the 1990-91 season, McMurdo Station's Fortress Rocks site was closed when materials containing asbestos were found among materials to be retrograded. These materials and all ground surface 251
Marine Pollution Bulletin
debris were removed from the site this past season, and over 5.5 million pounds of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes were returned to the United States. When the shipment reached Keyport, Washington, on 6 March 1992, it was inspected by a representative of the Washington State Department of Ecology, who noted that the shipment represented "an absolutely superb operation" and that "all Federal agencies should follow this standard of safety". As a result of careful, proactive planning, preparation, and documentation at McMurdo, processing of the waste by a contractor took only 3 days rather than the anticipated 10 days.
Environmental assessment The USAP made substantial contributions to a June 1991 workshop on Antarctic environmental impact assessment, convened by the Council of Managers of the National Antarctic Programs. The workshop produced The Antarctic Environmental Assessment Process: Practical Guidelines. These serve to clearly identify the kind of information needed early in project or activity planning to support the preparation of useful environmental assessments. The guidelines conform to recommendations promulgated at Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings, as well as the recently adopted Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. NSF has drafted procedures to implement environmental impact assessments required by Executive Order 12114 (Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, 44 FR, 1957). The procedures were approved by the US Office of Management and Budget and submitted to the Federal Register for public comment. Relevant concerns have not been addressed, and these rules became effective on 3 September 1992. Under these procedures, USAP has completed the Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the US Antarctic Program, five Initial Environmental Evaluations, and over 50 environmental action memoranda on USAP proposed actions or activities during the 1990-91 and 1992-93 seasons. Environmental monitoring Monitoring the environmental impacts of our operations is a relatively new undertaking. The USAP has established an Environmental Monitoring and Enforcement Laboratory ( E M E L ) at a new Science and Engineering Center at McMurdo Station. The E M E L is dedicated solely to the support of USAP environmental, safety, and health management efforts. Studies and information from the laboratory are meant to assure and document USAP compliance with a wide variety of national and international environmental protection mandates. Also, information gathered from work done in the Laboratory will support USAP enforcement of violations of environmental or industrial hygiene regulations and policies. This will provide a sound basis for future environmental assessments and decision making. Conservation and preservation Conservation and preservation include efforts to clean-up abandoned sites such as Old Palmer Station 252
on the Antarctic Peninsula. Most recently, during the 1990-91 season, a joint USAP-National Park Service team surveyed East Base to document items of archaeological and historical value still present at that site and to prepare for clean-up efforts during the 1991-92 season. Last seasoffs work ended on 6 March 1992 at East Base, after an 8-person crew containerized, labelled, and removed a variety of wastes from the site. Cleared of debris, the site's old dump areas were surveyed and covered with gravel. Warning signs were posted in four languages to indicate that East Base is a protected, historic monument that dates from the late 1940s.
Conclusion Critical to continued successful development of the USAPs new operating philosophy is a recognized and responsive organizational structure that accepts responsibility for implementing the philosophy and has the authority to enforce and refine it. The USAP now has that structure and the proactive, systems management approach so fundamental to other programme components. Another key is an assumption mentioned earlier-that USAP participants are amenable to the planning approaches (as well as mind-set and lifestyle changes) necessary to minimize, mitigate, or control changes or impacts brought about by their activities in Antarctica. We recognize that moving this assumption from theory to practice requires more education for all USAP participants. Whether they are administrators, military or civilian support contractors, or scientific researchers, they need to be fully informed about the context of working and living on the world's coldest continent. The USAP has launched special efforts to develop that enlightened cadre. Special training classes and instructional materials (e.g. in waste minimization and management and in project planning) based on Total Quality Management approaches are now employed before participants reach the Antarctic; follow-up education and awareness training are planned through a ~College of the Antarctic'. This on-site educational experience aims to strengthen an understanding of Antarctic science, the awareness of each participant's role, and the goal of not compromising this rich natural resource. National Science Foundation (1988). Safety in Antarctica. Antarctic Safety Panel, Publication No. NSF-8878. Washington, DC. National Science Foundation (1988). US Antarctic Program: Environmental Protection Agenda. Division of Polar Programs, Washington, DC. National Science Foundation (1989). A National Science Foundation Strategy for Compliance with Environmental Law in Antarctica: A Report to the Director from the Office of the General Counsel. Publication No. NSF 90-4, Washington, DC. National Science Foundation (1991). Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the US Antarctic Program. Washington, DC. United States Antarctic Policy and Program (1970). National Security Decision Memorandum 71, July 10. United States Antarctic Policy Programs (1982). Presidential Memorandum 6646, February 5. US Policy for Antarctica (1976). National Security Decision Memorandum 318, February 26.