Title : Two Day Tanks-McMurdo Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : October 08, 1992 File : opp93076 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: October 8, 1992 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Installation of Two Day Tanks at McMurdo Station, Antarctica To: Safety and Health Officer, DPP Facilities Engineering Projects Manager, DPP Environmental Engineer, DPP Commander, Naval Support Force Antarctica Files (S.7 - Environment) REFs: Safety, Environment and Health Program Policy Memorandum 90-2. Authorization and Reporting Procedures for, Gathering and Use of Fill and Associated Activity, at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. Dated: October 1, 1990 Background The Naval Support Force Antarctica (NSFA) has been able to obtain two relatively large fuel tanks that are in good condition from a site in Greenland. Neither has surface or internal rust or corrosion. The minimum expected useful remaining life of each is about 25 years. The NSFA proposes to install one or more of these tanks for use within McMurdo Station or at Marble Point, Antarctica. The tanks are 94625.3 liters (25,000 gallons) and 37850.0 liters (10, 000 gallons) in size. Both could be used as either day tanks at McMurdo's Fuel Fill Stand or as slop tanks. Also, the 94625.3 liter tank could be used at Marble Point as a day tank or a slop tank. In order for the tanks to be used, the Director of Engineering, Antarctic Support Associates, Inc., has noted that: 1) the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) needs assurances from NSFA that the tanks were built to standard fuel tank codes; 2) if the tanks have ladder or platforms they need to meet applicable codes; 3) that the tank's interior coatings must be compatible with their intended use (and, if not, the tanks must be refinished before installation at McMurdo Station or other USAP facilities in Antarctica). In addition, he has requested that information be provided on the types of gauging and overflow protection systems, if any, associated with the tanks. These considerations make it clear that a safety assessment should be conducted prior to USAP authorization of tank installation. Also, consideration must be given to the use of materials for the tanks containment berms. It is likely that local earth fill materials will be used for these purposes, and any use of such materials shall conform to USAP policies on the collection and use of local earth fill materials. This Environmental Action Memorandum is drafted under the assumption that the subject fuel tanks and the planning for their installation have met all requirements noted above. The Environmental Officer posed a set of questions to NSFA relat- ing to the proposed project, and to the potentially affected environment. These questions were responded to by LT Ronald E. Newell on August 20, 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 install two bulk day tanks (for fuels storage) with accompanying containment berms at the Truck Fill Stand at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. What alternatives to the proposed activity have the Program and the military support contractor considered? Two alternatives have been considered: 1) the "no- action" alternative; and 2) using the bulk storage tanks as day tanks or slop tanks, at McMurdo Station or at Marble Point. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered by the Program and the military support contractor? Please explain how. The proposed activity is not expected to entail any adverse environmental impacts; and it would greatly reduce the chances for fuel to contaminate the ground. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated by the Program or the military support contractor? There always is the potential for leakage or spillage from fuel tanks, especially in the Antarctic. Chances for these would be reduced as each tank would have secondary containment. In addition 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. 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 proposed activity would help to eliminate costs associated with the clean-up of potential fuel spills. In addition, use of these fuel tanks is expected to provide a cost savings of about $90,000 when compared with purchase of new tanks. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. Where would the proposed activity be located, specifically? The proposed activity would be located where the Truck Fill Stand is currently located, across from Building 141. Also, consideration has been given to placement of the tanks at Marble Point (see attached maps). Have alternative locations been considered by the Program or the military support contractor? If yes, which are they; if no, explain why. The day tanks would have to be in close proximity to the bulk storage tanks at McMurdo Station. 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the proposed activity be handled by the Program or the military support contractor? The site (within McMurdo Station) of the proposed installation is characterized by high human activity, and similar infrastructure is in place already. Aesthetic impacts would be minimal and installation of fuel tanks with improved containment capabilities would lessen the likelihood of aesthetic impacts associated with leaking or spilt fuels. 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. The proposed activity will have mainly positive impacts on the environment--by improving fuels handling and by reducing the potential for fuel spills. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. No. The proposed McMurdo site is already a Truck Fill Stand; and, any proposal to place a fuel tank at Marble Point would not conflict with the traditional use of that site as a helicopter refueling station. 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. There are already fuel tanks being used near the proposed location of these day tanks. 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])? Any construction activity undertaken to emplace the fuel tanks and to provide surrounding berms shall be done to minimize impacts to surrounding areas. U.S. Antarctic Program policy related to the collection and placement of earth fill materials shall be adhered to. All debris associated with this work shall be removed for appropriate handling. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. Air quality would be impacted only by temporary dust emis- sions, that would be minimized by keeping the work area wet down. 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. Construction of the berms may change the normal drainage patterns of the area; but, this is not expected to affect the quality of water flowing through the area. 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed (or chosen) site? If yes, how; if no, why. Yes. It should reduce the potential for fuel spills. 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. No. The activity does not deal with any of the above. 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. Activity is not directly associated with scientific studies; its completion with attendant decrease in fuel spillage may benefit 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. No. The activity is not expected to generate air or water pollutants. 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. Proposed activity will be built in the same location as the old fill stand. 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). No other environmental considerations may be potentially affected. When the tanks are decommissioned, any waste associated with that activity would be handled in accordance with established USAP policy; and such decommissioning would be the subject of prior environmental assessment. Finding The Environmental Officer, after reviewing the information presented above, believes that if the safety and conservation of earth fill materials considerations are adequately addressed the proposed activity would pose less than minor and less than transitory impacts to the antarctic environment. 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 a favorable finding of any safety assessment of the activity and upon appropriate conserv- ation of earth fill materials at McMurdo Station. Sidney Draggan Attachments cc: Terry Johnson, ASA