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