Title : Hut Point Initiiative-McMurdo Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : October 14, 1992 File : opp93079 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: October 14, 1992 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (The Hut Point Initiative at McMurdo Station, Antarctica) To: Safety and Health Officer, DPP Facilities Engineering Projects Manager, DPP Environmental Engineer, DPP Environmentalist, ASA Commander, Naval Support Force Antarctica Files (S.7 - Environment) Background The Naval Support Force Antarctica (NSFA) has been tasked with restoring the Hut Point Area by removal of fuel handling and storage infrastructure. Some of the infrastructure (i.e., fuel tanks) was removed during the 1991-1992 austral season. Budget constraints have delayed full implementation of this restoration initiative. The Environmental Officer posed a set of questions to NSFA relating to the proposed project, and to the potentially affected environment. These questions were responded to by LT Ronald E. Newell and ABF1 Baldwin on September 11, 1992; the questions and responses are shown below. GENERAL 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? To remove McMurdo's Fuel Tank "D-7", the old fuels pump- house, and the piping associated with these pieces of infrastructure as part of an on-going project to return Hut Point Area to a more natural state (see attached Map). What alternatives to the proposed activity have the Program and the Contractor considered? 1) the proposed and preferred alternative; and 2) to halt operations at Hut Point and to leave the existing structures in place. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered by the Program and the military support contractor? Please explain how. The main impact of dismantling the tank and associated pipes would involve the be possibility of oil leakage or spills with resultant soil or marine contamination. There always is the potential for leakage or spillage from fuel handling activities, especially in the Antarctic. Chances for these would be reduced as the USAP has developed a spill contingency plan for the McMurdo Station Area, and continues programs of training for appropriate response in the event of fuel spills. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated by the Program or the military support contractor? The possibility of oil spillage would be reduced by thoroughly draining and cleaning the "D-7" tank and pipes prior to removal. This method already has been proven successful with the removal of Tank "D-6". Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered by the Program or the military support contractor? Please explain how. The Hut Point Initiative has required prior project planning as well as contract negotiation for the services of a demolition company. Scrap metal generated from these decommissioning activities would require transportation back to the U.S. via the annual resupply vessel. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. Where would the proposed activity be located, specifically? Hut Point is located at the southernmost end of Hut Peninsula on Ross Island, Antarctica. Have alternative locations been considered by the Program or the military support contractor? If yes, which are they; if no, explain why. The decommissioning site is dictated by the location of present infrastructure. 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the proposed activity be handled by the Program or the military support contractor? There would be less than minor and less than temporary aesthetic impact to the area during decommissioning activities. During the dismantling effort there would be some increase in human activity and use of heavy equipment in and around Hut Point for approximately three weeks. 4. Would the proposed activity have any other indirect impacts on the environment? If yes, what are they; if no, explain why none are expected. Yes, as the locations of McMurdo's Ice Runway varies from year to year, the removal of the existing, permanent pipe- lines may necessitate running fuel hose lines across the Hut Point Area in the future. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. Yes, no longer would the pumphouse or fuel tank "D-7" be used in the annual tanker fuel off-load. 6. Are the physical and environmental characteristics of the neighboring environment suitable for the proposed activity? If yes, explain why; if no, explain why. Yes, dismantling would occur during the warmest part of the austral summer when the area is free of ice and snow. IMPACT AND POLLUTION POTENTIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: 7. How has protection of the environment and human health from unnecessary pollution or impact been considered for the pro- posed activity (includes such considerations as pollution abatement or mitigation, and waste management [e.g., of noise, dust, fuel loss, disposition of one-time-use mater- ials, construction wastes])? The work's anticipated less than minor and less than temporary impact on the environment is of a similar nature to much of the work taking place during the summer: heavy equipment operation, some noise, dust, and scrap material to be removed. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. The air quality would improve with the elimination of fuel vapor emissions from the tank and the pump house. 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. The proposed activity could be expected to improve water quality in the area as there would be less possibility of small fuel leaks. 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. The proposed activity could be expected to improve waste management by precluding unnecessary fuel leaks in the area. 11. Would the proposed activity change energy production or demand, personnel and life support, or transportation requirements at the site? If yes, how; if no, why. Yes, the removal of the pumphouse would negate the need for electricity at and transportation to pumphouse. 12. Is the proposed activity expected to adversely affect scientific studies or locations of research interest (near and distant, in the short-term and in the long-term)? If yes, how; if no, why. No, there are no scientific investigations going on at this site. 13. Would the proposed activity generate pollutants that might affect terrestrial, marine or freshwater ecosystems within the environs of the station or inland camp? If yes, how; if no, why. Yes, it is possible for fuel to spill from the pipeline or due to tank failure which could affect the water and soil. However, such a possibility is more probable if nothing is done. 14. Does the site of the proposed activity serve as a habitat for any significant assemblages of Antarctic wildlife (for example, mosses or lichens, or antarctic birds or marine mammals)? The general area does not serve as a habitat for antarctic wildlife. HUMAN VALUES: 15. Would the proposed activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? If yes, how; if no, why. No, on the contrary, the pump house is situated approxi- mately 45 meters yards from Scott's Hut. Its removal, would help to return the area to its historical state. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 16. What other environmental considerations may be potentially affected by the proposed activity at the proposed (or chosen) site? For example, have impacts associated with decommissioning of the activity been considered (and how). None, if the building, tank and associated pipelines are removed. Finding The Environmental Officer, after reviewing the information presented above, believes that if safety considerations (e.g., work in gas-free environments, appropriate staging of spill response materials) are adequately addressed the proposed activity would pose less than minor and less than transitory impacts to the antarctic environment near McMurdo Station. In fact, there are recognized environmental protection and safety benefits that would accrue from completion of the proposed project. The military support contractor is authorized to proceed with the proposed activity contingent upon favorable findings of any safety assessment of the activity. Sidney Draggan Attachments Map