Title : Fuel Cache at Patriot Hills Type : Antarctic EAM NSF Org: OD / OPP Date : October 09, 1992 File : opp93077 DIVISION OF POLAR PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 202/357-7766 MEMORANDUM Date: October 9, 1992 From: Environmental Officer, DPP Subject: Environmental Action Memorandum (Establishment of a Fuel Cache at Patriot Hills) To: Safety and Health Officer, DPP Field Projects Manager, DPP Environmental Engineer, DPP Aviation Projects Manager, DPP Files (Environment - S.7) This Environmental Action Memorandum describes the need for, and location of, proposed actions for establishment of a fuel depository of approximately sixty (60) fuel drums near the region of Patriot Hills during the 1992-1993 austral summer season. 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 Operations Coordinator, Mr. Richard J. Campbell on September 25, 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 establish a depot of approximately sixty (60) fuel drums in the region of Patriot Hills for deployment and redeploy- ment transits of U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) subcontracted Twin Otter aircraft support. What alternatives to the proposed activity have the Program and the Contractor considered? 1. No action (no fuel cache). 2. The proposed action. This is the preferred alternative as there are no reasonable alternatives available that would ensure timely and safe movement of the aircraft. Have probable impacts of all alternatives been considered by the Program and the Contractor? Please explain how. 1. There would be no environmental impacts associated with the no action alternative. Impacts to scientific investigation would be considerable 2. The only other feasible alternatives to the preferred action would involve reliance on the support of other national antarctic programs (e.g., those of the United Kingdom or Chile). In addition, prevailing weather conditions in the Peninsula region are an important is a factor in aviation. Without a fuel cache, transit aircraft would have to stop at Marsh Base (Chile) or at Rothera (United Kingdom), where there would be a high likelihood of weather-related delays. Aircraft would be delivered late. Delays during deployment often affect research time available for grantees. Redeployment delays incur additional charges to USAP until the aircraft is north of 60§ South latitude. Should the chosen alternative involve potential impacts, how would these impacts be mitigated by the Program or the Contractor? Under antarctic conditions, and in fact, in all uses of fuels there is the potential for fuel leakage or spillage. With procedures now operative within the USAP, it is anticipated that there is a relatively small risk for a fuel spillage at this site. These risks are lessened by utilizing double walled, air transportable drums which are leak tested prior to transportation. Equipment to fuel Twin Otter aircraft is self-contained and used by the Aircraft Engineer. Chances of leaks or spills are considered minimal. In the remote event of a leak or spill, a Spill Kit will be available at the site for cleanup. Increasingly, USAP personnel are being trained in the areas of spill containment and response planning. Have measures to assess the indirect costs of the proposed activity been identified or considered by the Program or the Contractor? Please explain how. Yes. The only indirect cost incurred would be replacement of any lost fuel product in the event a drum leaked or was buried beyond recovery due to drifting. Loss by burial is most likely not a factor as the drums will be staged in a "blue ice" area at Patriot Hills. LAND USE AND PLANNING 2. What is the specific location of the proposed activity? The Patriot Hills region of the Ellsworth Mountains, approx- imately 80§20' South Latitude, 81§25' West Longitude. Have alternative locations been considered by the Program or the Contractor? If yes, which are they; if no, explain why. No. This location is preferred for movements of the aircraft during its deployment and redeployment transit flights, as constrained by the range of the aircraft. This site increases the safety and flexibility of aircraft transits, allowing deployment options of continuing to Byrd Surface Camp, South Pole or Siple Coast. 3. How would any aesthetic impacts to the area from the proposed activity be handled by the Program or the Contractor? Aesthetic impacts are considered to be minimal due to existing activity in the area. Please note that this area is frequently used by non-governmental, commercial interests, (tourist activity), that often include a full field camp with related support equipment and materials (including Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants [POL] products). 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. Also see above: in the event a drum failed, a fuel spill of up to fifty gallons may occur. Also, note that fuel drums are double-walled and leak tested prior to air transportation. 5. Would the proposed activity change the traditional use(s) of the proposed or chosen site? If yes, how; if no, why? No. Patriot Hills is typically used by non-governmental aircraft as a fuel stop enroute to the South Pole. 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. The blue ice area at Patriot Hills is a solid, stable staging area capable of supporting wheeled aircraft. IMPACT AND POLLUTION POTENTIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 7. How has protection of the environment and human health from unnecessary pollution been considered for the proposed activity (includes such considerations as pollution abate- ment or mitigation, and waste management [e.g., of noise, dust, fuel loss, disposition of one-time-use materials, construction wastes])? The fuel drums staged at Patriot Hills are double walled and would be leak tested prior to air transport. Empty drums would be returned to McMurdo Station on annual depot re- supply flights, once each season. No noise, dust or waste is anticipated. 8. Would the proposed activity change ambient air quality at the proposed or chosen site? If yes, how; if no, why? No. The depository of fuel drums would not affect air quality at this location. 9. Would the proposed activity change water quality or flow (drainage), at the proposed or chosen site? If yes, how; if no, why? No. There is no existing water supply due to ambient air temperature (frozen). 10. Would the proposed activity change waste generation or management at the proposed or chosen site? If yes, how; if no, why? No. No waste is anticipated to be generated. Empty fuel barrels would be recycled annually. 11. Would the proposed activity change energy production or demand, personnel and life support, or transportation requirements at the proposed or chosen site? If yes, how; if no, why? No. No energy production, personnel support or transporta- tion requirements at Patriot Hills are anticipated. 12. Is the proposed activity expected to adversely affect scientific studies or locations of research interest (near and distant, short-term and long-term)? If yes, how; if no, why? No. Only a small staging area on the blue ice is required. Although no research interests in the region are antici- pated, the area is large enough to accommodate researchers, aircraft, vehicles, buildings, equipment, etc. without compromise. 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. Pollutants would not be generated. In the remote event a drum leaked, only a small area of ice around the drum might be contaminated. Remediation would be easily accomp- lished with a shovel, pick and open-head drum. 14. Does the site of the proposed activity serve as habitat for any significant assemblages of Antarctic wildlife (for example, mosses, lichens, antarctic birds or marine animals)? No. This remote location in the interior of Antarctica does not serve as a habitat or breeding ground for any indigenous species of plant or animal. HUMAN VALUES 15. Would the proposed activity encroach upon any historical property of the proposed or chosen site? If yes, how; if no, why? No. The site has neither current nor anticipated historical value. 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 decommis- sioning of the activity been considered (and how)? No other environmental affects are envisioned. Decommission of the site by the USAP as a fuel depot would result in its being returned to its original state. Finding The Environmental Officer, after reviewing the information presented above, believes that the proposed activity, if conducted as described in this Environmental Action Memorandum, poses no potential for impacts to the environment near Patriot Hills, Antarctica. The contractor and the Program are authorized to proceed with the proposed activity contingent upon the resoluton of any safety or health concerns. Sidney Draggan Attachment Map