Title : Hallett Station Cleanup Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : November 1, 1993 File : opp94009 National Science Foundation Office of Polar Programs ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT AND NOT GREATER THAN MINOR OR TRANSITORY IMPACT Hallett Station Cleanup - Phase I Site Stabilization NOVEMBER 1, 1993 I. Findings The National Science Foundation (NSF) has prepared an Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) and an Environmental Assessment (EA) as a combined environmental document, for waste stabilization of Hallett Station, Antarctica. Based on the analyses in the environmental document (IEE/EA), NSF Office of Polar Programs (OPP) has determined the proposed action, implementation of Alternative A is not a major federal action, within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 nor is the action one which would have a greater than minor or transitory effect on the Antarctic environment within the meaning of the NSF implementing requirements for the Protocol on Environmental Protection in the Antarctic Treaty (45 CFR 641). Therefore, an environmental impact statement and a comprehensive environmental evaluation will not be prepared. The selected alternative, A, provides for the stabilization of wastes at the Hallett Station and is reasonable and consistent with NSF's efforts to improve the Antarctic environment. [signed]_______________________ [November 1, 1993]__ Mr. Erick Chiang Date Manager Polar Operations Section Office of Polar Programs II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION The NSF Office of Polar Programs (OPP) proposes to stabilize fuel, solvents, other hydrocarbons, and antifreeze wastes stored at Hallett Station, Antarctica. Phase I, the proposed action, would stabilize wastes which could leak from storage containers. Phase II, an action to be evaluated at a later date, would dismantle storage tanks and remove wastes for retrograde to McMurdo Station. The phasing of the cleanup and reclamation of Hallett Station is intended to reduce potential negative impacts on the local penguin population and minimize environmental effects on the Antarctic environment. Hallett Station was established in March 1957 as one of the original International Geophysical Year (IGY) stations. The station is located on the Antarctic coast at 72 deg 19'S, 170 deg 13'E (See Attachment 1). The station, operated jointly by the United States and New Zealand until a March 6, 1964 fire destroyed the main scientific building, was occupied by U.S. scientists who conducted biological research during the austral summer months from 1965 to 1973. The station provided communications and weather reporting for the air route between Christchurch, New Zealand and McMurdo Station, Antarctica. In addition, it served as an alternate landing field when Williams Field in McMurdo Sound was closed. Since the station's closure in 1973, the United States and New Zealand have attempted to reclaim the approximately 22.2 hectare- site to the original pristine environment. Buildings, equipment, and rubbish have been successfully removed. In 1988, a joint U.S. Navy and civilian contractor team removed approximately 189,250 liters of off-specification diesel fuel-marine (DFM) from a 378,500-liter fuel tank. Still remaining, however, is a fuel cache of: 1) Approximately, 53,000 liters of off-specification DFM, salt water, and sludge contained in a large fuel tank; 2) Four aircraft tanks (2.13m x 1.83m x 0.81m), three with lubricating oil and one with antifreeze; 3) Two 3028-liter tanks containing lubricating oil; 4) One cylinder tank (2.29m x 1.22m x 0.76m) of antifreeze; and 5) Twenty-nine, 208-liter drums consisting of; one DFM, four gear oil, two kerosene, one solvent, five mogas, seven oil, and nine white gas drums. Several proposals by the Naval Support Force, Antarctica (NSFA) and Antarctic Support Associates (ASA) have been made to remove the fuel cache. The most recent was developed during the 1990-91 season (See Attachment 2). However, this cleanup plan was not implemented. On December 4, 1991, a site visit by Dr. Gary Miller, Ornithologist, University of New Mexico, and Mr. Craig Martin, ASA Director of Engineering, revealed that the drums (item 5, above) and the smaller tanks (items 2, 3, and 4, above) although not leaking, had significant deterioration. The failure of aging fuel containers (items 2 to 5, above) could leak wastes, contaminate snow and soil, and/or negatively impact the penguin population. II. ALTERNATIVES To stabilize the most potentially damaging wastes from the fuel cache, several alternatives were considered. In one alternative, it was suggested that the wastes should be burned on-site to eliminate any potential damage from leaking containers or spills. Waste Regulations (45 CFR 671.12) for the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) require that fuel (both liquid and solid); and fuel, oil and chemical drums that constitute waste must be removed from Antarctica. Although, the latter may remain in place if removal would prove to be damaging to the environment. The suggested alternative would fit the definition of "open burning" in the regulation which is very specific: "Open burning of wastes is prohibited at all permanent stations, and shall be phased out at all other locations by March 1, 1994. If it is necessary to dispose of waste by open burning prior to March 1, 1994, allowance shall be made for the wind direction and speed and the type of waste to be burnt to limit particulate deposition and to avoid such deposition over areas of special biological, scientific, historic, aesthetic or wilderness significance." Hallett Station is no longer a permanent facility. The fuel, solvents, and other hydrocarbons could be burned before March 1, 1994. However, it would be difficult to make allowances for the direction and speed of the wind to limit particulate deposition. The fuel contains sediment and contaminants that could increase air pollution and effect penguins nesting nearby. The potential for damage to the penguin population is unacceptable. The alternative was not further evaluated. In another alternative, it was suggested that the wastes could be brought back to McMurdo for retrograde to the United States this season. To minimize the possible effects on the local penguin population, it was determined that the stabilized wastes should remain on-site for one winter before removal and dismantling of remaining storage tanks. Two alternatives were considered: Alternative A For on-site storage this winter, transfer contents of smaller tanks containing wastes into 101 new 208-liter drums and overpack into 322-liter overpack drums and replace 29 old drums in overpacks. Alternative B No Action (required for analysis of effects). Leave the area as is with the expectation of cleaning-up the site next summer. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES 1. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems Either alternative has the potential of impacting the local terrestrial habitat and resident penguin population. An Adelie penguin rookery with approximately 80,000 birds is nearby. The closest colony is approximately 16 meters from the site. Work in Alternative A can disturb penguin breeding and possibly injure individual birds who may venture into the work area. Although spills could negatively impact the colony, the work would be conducted in an area away from the largest concentration of birds. On-site personnel could quickly and efficiently clean up any spills with minimal disturbance to birds. Alternative B could have negative impacts on the penguin colony. At present, some birds are nesting in and around some of the drums. Even the smallest leakage from a tank or drum could have harmful effects, because a spill would not be immediately cleaned up. Alternative B could cause chronic effects on penguins due to the emissions of volatile compounds should leaks develop. In addition, a tank or drum failure could complicate the next season's site reclamation, cause environmental damage, and add to overall clean-up costs. Mitigation measures in Alternative A will minimize the disturbance to the penguin colony and avoid toxic material entry into aquatic ecosystems. Attachment 3 is a report by Dr. Miller who made several recommendations to minimize rookery disturbance during the penguin breeding season. The immediate work area will be fenced to keep out birds. Workers would be required to regularly survey the surroundings to ensure that penguins do not enter the work area. Should penguins penetrate the barrier, workers would herd them away taking care not to handle the birds. October 25 to November 18 is the most sensitive period for the penguins. They are building nests during, finding their mates, and laying eggs. Once the eggs are laid, penguins resist leaving their nests. Dr. Miller suggests that the digging out of snow covered drums and overpacking of these drums should begin after November 18. These recommendations will be followed. Alternative A would have no adverse effect on water quality. Precautions would be taken to minimize fuel spills. In the event of a spill, chances of the spill reaching open water are minimal because personnel would be on-site to mitigate any spills or leaks from tanks or drums. Alternative B could impact land and water quality if tanks or drums fail due to corrosion. Although the site is approximately 460 meters from the shore, wastes could reach the water. 2. Land Uses In Alternatives A or B, no construction would be required which would alter the terrain or produce related waste and debris. In Alternative A personnel working at the site will live in tents, removed when the project is completed. All solid waste, including kitchen garbage and human waste, will be managed on- site to prevent litter and retrograded to McMurdo Station. All solid and human waste will be retrograded to McMurdo for processing and disposal. Containers for storing solid waste will be provided by ASA Waste Management. Separate containers will be provided for human waste. Drums containing solvent and antifreeze will be identified and properly labeled for transport to McMurdo. Spill control equipment (drip pans, oil adsorbents, spill kits and drums) will be available to contain and clean up any spill. Personnel working at the site, will receive spill response training from the McMurdo spill response team. A spill contingency plan specific to the cleanup action will be prepared for them to follow in the event of a spill. 3. Science Projects The site is approximately 600 meters from Specially Protected Area (SPA) No. 7. SPA's are areas of outstanding scientific interest listed and in the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora and are accorded special protection to preserve their unique ecology. Hallett Station is important for its rich avifauna and diverse vegetation. No research by NSF or others is currently ongoing or planned for the SPA. All cleanup activities will be conducted outside the SPA boundaries. No impacts to the area will be expected from Alternative A. Alternative B could affect potential science projects involving the penguin colony or site ecology. 4. Cumulative Impacts Alternatives A has a positive cumulative effect, in that the risk from leakage of waste fuel is significantly reduced as compared to Alternative B. Cumulative effects of Alternative A, as well as B are not considered to be significant or long-term, because the site is to be cleaned-up next season. VI. CONSULTATION WITH OTHERS Ms. Carol Andrews Environmental Engineer, Antarctic Support Associates (ASA) Mr. Dave Bresnahan Systems Manager, Office of Polar Progarms (OPP) Mr. Erick Chiang Manager, Polar Operations Section, OPP Mr. Robert S. Cunningham Manager, NEPA Compliance, OPP Dr. Jane Dionne Acting Environmental Officer, OPP Ms. Anita Eisenstadt Office of General Counsel, NSF Dr. Bernhard Lettau Program Manager, Polar Oceans and Climate, OPP Dr. Polly A. Penhale Program Manager, Polar Biology and Medicine (PBOM), OPP Mr. Terry Johnson Environmental manager, ASA Mr. Eric Juergens Director, Saftey, Environment & Health, ASA Mr. Craig Martin Director Engineering, ASA Dr. Gary Miller Principle Investigator, University of New Mexico Dr. Neil Swanberg Associate Program Manager, Polar Biology and Medicine (PBOM), OPP ATTACHMENTS 1. Map of Hallett Station 2. Hallett Station Clean-Up Plan 3. Miller, G., Potential Impacts of Final Cleanup of Fuel Containers at Cape Hallett for the 1992/1993 Austral Summer: Report on inspection visit 4 December 1991.