Title : Airdrop of Fuel-Weddell Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : March 31, 1992 File : opp93061 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: March 31, 1992 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Emergency Airdrop of Fuel at Weddell Sea Ice Camp) To: Files (S.7 - Environment) Ocean Projects Manager, DPP Field Projects Manager, DPP REFS: Environmental Action Memorandum (Assessment of Soviet Proposals for Systems for Management of Liquid and Gaseous Wastes from the Drifting Station in the Weddell Sea). Dated January 11, 1991. Environmental Action Memorandum (Weddell Sea Ice Camp). Dated October 10, 1991. BACKGROUND This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, proposed actions to conduct an emergency airdrop of fuel to the Drifting Weddell Sea Ice Camp, during the 1992 austral winter season. Initial notification of the need for the airdrop to the 20th Military Airlift Squadron at Charleston AFB, SC, was on March 27, 1992. This fuel drop would be critical in maintaining uninterrupted science support to the camp and to support flight operations in the event of emergency. The Environmental Officer posed a set of questions relating to the proposed project, and to the potentially affected environment. These questions were responded to by the civilian support contractor's manager for the camp, the Ocean Projects Manager, DPP, the Field Projects Manager, DPP, and MAJOR S. Gaidelis, Terminal Operations, Naval Support Force Antarctica between March 27-31, 1992; the questions and responses are shown below: Environmental Assessment Queries and Responses GENERAL: 1. What is the specific purpose of the proposed activity? To airdrop sufficient (115 drums each containing 51 gallons), appropriate (MILSPEC JP-4) fuel to the Weddell Sea Ice Camp to assure continued personnel safety and to allow continued support of the science effort. What alternatives to the proposed activity have the Program and the Contractor considered? þ The "no action" alternative (i.e., to do nothing about the risks to safety and science posed by lack of appropriate fuel. The alternative was rejected by the Program. þ To filter existing, contaminated fuel. Inadequate filtering equipment was available at the ice camp. þ Await delivery of appropriate fuel either from the Russian vessel associated with the expedition; or, from the Nathaniel B. Palmer. These alternatives were highly problematic and would not assure safety in the short-term. þ Conduct a one-time, two-pass emergency airdrop with recovery of all materials dropped including parachutes (the preferred alternative). Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered by the Program and the Contractor? Please explain how. Yes, the concern for safety and the continuance of science were given extraordinary weight in assessing options and in making the decision to deliver fuel in a quick and safe manner. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated by the Program or the Contractor? The fuel airdrop could result in some broken drums that may cause spillage. Mitigation measures considered included not using large fuel-filled bladders in the airdrop. Only small, partially-filled 55 gallon drums would be used. Six spill containment systems currently staged on the ice floe would be used should drum breakage and fuel spillage occur. There is the remote possibility of drums getting to open water and not being recoverable. There is no known solution for this unlikely occurrence. Past U.S. Antarctic Program experience with such airdrops of fuel (two times according to Terminal Operations) has been a 100 percent success rate; Department of Defense planning factors assume a 25% loss rate. Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered by the Program or the Contractor? Please explain how. No such assessment of indirect costs has been conducted. LAND USE AND PLANNING: 2. Where would the proposed activity be located, specifically? On an ice floe at approximately 72øS Longitude; 54øW Latitude. Have alternative locations been considered by the Program or the Contractor? If yes, which are they, if no, explain why. Not applicable. 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the proposed activity be handled by the Program or the Contractor? None are expected as attempts would be made to contain any spillage should it occur; and, all wastes including excess fuel and empty drums would be retrograded at the conclusion of the expedition. 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. If drop precedes without fuel spillage there would be zero impact. All wastes would be removed from camp at pull out including all drums. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No change is anticipated. The expedition is using fuel in drums now. Contamination of existing fuel is resulting in significant use of filters and possible passage of contam- inants to aircraft (a situation unacceptable to the Program. 6. Are the physical and environmental characteristics of the neighboring environment suitable for the proposed activity? If yes, explain why; if no, explain why. Unless spillage or loss occurs, there should be no impact. Any impacts are anticipated to be both minor and transient. 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 proposed activity (includes such considerations as pollution abatement or mitigation, and waste management [e.g., of noise, dust, fuel loss, disposition of one-time-use materials, construction wastes])? Human safety would be at risk without this emergency fuel drop. Fuel is at camp at present. Fuel drums and packaging is configured to minimize chances of spillage. All material would be removed from camp at pull out. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. Only minor or transient impact is expected from the combustion of these fuels. 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No such impact is anticipated. 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. Yes, there would be more drums and packing to haul out. 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, life support and safety would be enhanced by provision of usable fuel. 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. Scientific studies would be hampered without appropriate fuels. All helicopter flights other than emergencies have been suspended until clean fuel arrives. Helicopters are needed to provide safe egress in emergency and to support on-going science. 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, fuel spilled or dropped into the sea could have transient impacts on seawater quality as well as on marine life. 14. Does the site of the proposed activity serve as habitat for any significant assemblages of Antarctic wildlife (for example, mosses or lichens, or antarctic birds or marine mammals)? No. HUMAN VALUES: 15. Would the proposed activity encroach upon any historical property of the site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. 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). Previously established plans have been set for removal of all wastes from the camp for retrograde to either the U.S. or to Russia. Finding The Environmental Officer, after reviewing the information presented above, believes that the proposed activity poses neither potentially minor nor transitory impacts to the antarctic environment. There are, in fact, anticipated safety- and science-related benefits. The Program, the civilian contractor and the military support contractors are authorized to proceed with the proposed activity. A followup memorandum shall report on the outcome of this emergency airdrop. Sidney Draggan cc: Environmental Engineer, DPP John Evans, ASA