Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-fqc5m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T12:17:40.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The type and spatial distribution of past waste at the abandoned Wilkes Station, East Antarctica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2013

Kirstie Fryirs
Affiliation:
Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, 2109, Australia (kirstie.fryirs@mq.edu.au)
Ian Snape
Affiliation:
Australian Antarctic Division, Channel Highway, Kingston, Tasmania, 7050, Australia
Nadia Babicka
Affiliation:
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, PO Box 1057, Dickson, ACT 2602, Australia

Abstract

Legacy waste is a significant problem in Antarctica. This is particularly the case where waste generated on stations prior to the 1980s was incinerated, placed in landfill sites or disposed of at sea. Although several Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) reports from the 1980s recognise that there are contaminated sites at the abandoned Wilkes Station, there has been no systematic attempt to classify the waste or define the spatial scale of the problem, making development of strategic and systematic clean-up or preservation programmes difficult. This article reports on a project to classify the waste remaining on Clark Peninsula using categories listed in Annex III, Article 2 of the Madrid Protocol (1991). 536 sites with one or more waste items have been identified in nine categories that are based on the degree of waste hazard, recyclability, heritage value and waste management potential. Fuel drums, petroleum hydrocarbons waste and contaminated sediment occur at 38% of the sites. This waste includes around 1020 partially full fuel drums. Heritage items that illustrate expedition life at Wilkes occur at about 10% of the sites. Solid, non-combustible waste, including scrap metal, copper wire and pipe, and steel mechanical parts, occurs at 25% of the sites. Potentially hazardous or harmful waste including electrical batteries, plastics including fuel bladders, food remains, treated timber and containers containing persistent compounds occur at 28% of sites. Although hazardous substances, such as caustic soda, explosives and asbestos, occur at only 9% of the sites, these items represent significant contamination and heath issues for the sites and for visiting explorers. Any future clean-up operations will require more than just the physical removal of waste. Preservation, removal and treatment of various types of waste from Wilkes will be required as part of a multi-year, multi-strategy approach.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AAD (Australian Antarctic Division). 2010. Opportunistic clean up of debris in the vicinity of Wilkes. Internal policy document. Kingston, Tasmania: Australian Antarctic Division.Google Scholar
ADEF (Australian Department of External Affairs). 1959. Australians accept custody of Wilkes Antarctic Station. Press release. Canberra: ADEF.Google Scholar
AHC (Australian Heritage Council). 2011. Australian heritage database. URL: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl (accessed 1 July 2011).Google Scholar
Anon. (Anonymous). 1992. Wilkes: history or heap of junk. Australian Geographic 25: 125.Google Scholar
Anon. (Anonymous). 1994. Cleanup of Wilkes. Report from Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting 18 in Kyoto. URL: http://www.ats.aq.Google Scholar
Anon. (Anonymous). 2012. Wilkes Station history. URL: https://sites.google.com/site/wilkesstationhistory (accessed 21December 2012).Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting) 32. 2009. Management plan for Antarctic specially protected area no. 136, Clark Peninsula, Budd Coast, Wilkes Land. URL: http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM32/att/Atcm32_att039_rev1_e.doc (accessed 10 August 2012).Google Scholar
Australian Government. 2006. Condition of Heritage Sites and Collections in the Australian Antarctic Territory. State of the environment report. Australian Government, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. URL: http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/indicator/449/index.html (accessed 10 August 2012).Google Scholar
Babicka, N. 2000. Development of a Web-GIS as a tool to assist with management of contaminated sites in Antarctica. Unpublished Master of Applied Science disseration. Sydney: University of New South Wales, Department of Environmental Sciences.Google Scholar
Clark, L. and Wishart, E.. 1989. Historical recording of Wilkes. Aurora 9 (1): 46.Google Scholar
COMNAP (Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs). 2007. Waste management in Antarctica. Proceedings of the 2006 workshop held by the COMNAP Antarctic Environmental Officers Network, 10–11 July 2006. Hobart: Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs.Google Scholar
Deprez, P.P., Arens, M. and Locher, H.. 1999. Identification and preliminary assessment of contaminated sites at Casey Station, Wilkes Land, Antarctica. Polar Record 35: 299316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fryirs, K., Hafsteinsdottir, E.G., Stark, S.C. and Gore, D.B.. In review (Antarctic Science). The distribution of heavy metals in contaminated waste at Wilkes Station, East Antarctica.Google Scholar
Gore, D.B. 2009. Application of reactive barriers operated in frozen ground. In: Margesin, R. (editor). Permafrost soils. Berlin: Springer-Verlag: 303320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gore, D.B., Revill, A.T. and Guille, D.. 1999. Petroleum hydrocarbons ten years after spillage at a helipad in Bunger Hills, East Antarctica. Antarctic Science 11: 428430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madrid Protocol. 1991. Protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic Treaty. URL: http://www.ats.aq/documents/recatt/Att006_e.pdf (accessed 1 February 2012).Google Scholar
McDonald, I. 1998. Clean-up of buried Antarctic base. Media release. Canberra: Office of Senator Ian McDonald.Google Scholar
McMahon, F. 1967. The ANARE Station at Wilkes, Antarctica. Aurora 1: 69.Google Scholar
Northcott, K.A., Snape, I., Connor, M.A. and Stevens, G.W.. 2003. Water treatment design for site remediation at Casey Station, Antarctica: site characteristics and particle separation. Cold Regions Science and Technology 37: 169185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, A.S., Snape, I., Sark, J.S., Johnstone, G.J. and Townsend, A.T.. 2006. Baseline metal concentrations in Paramoera walkeri from East Antarctica. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52: 14411449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Revill, A.T., Snape, I., Lucieer, A. and Guille, D.. 2007. Constraints on transport and weathering of petroleum contamination at Casey Station, Antarctica. Cold Regions Science and Technology 48: 154167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research). 2002. Guidelines for handling of pre-1958 historic remains whose existence or present location is not known. URL: http://www.scar.org (accessed 29 August 2012).Google Scholar
Sheppard, D.S., Claridge, G.G.C. and Campbell, I.B.. 2000. Metal contamination of soils at Scott base, Antarctica. Applied Geochemistry 15: 513530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snape, I., Cole, C., Gore, D., Riddle, M. and Yarnell, M.. 1998. A preliminary assessment of contaminants at the abandoned Wilkes Station, East Antarctica, with recommendations for establishing an environmental management strategy. Hobart: Australian Antarctic Division.Google Scholar
Snape, I., Riddle, M.J., Jonathon, S.S., Coleen, M.C., King, C.K., Duquesne, S. and Gore, D.B.. 2001a. Management and remediation of contaminated sites at Casey Station, Antarctica. Polar Record 37 (202): 199214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snape, I., Morris, C.E. and Cole, C.M.. 2001b. The use of permeable reactive barriers to control contaminant dispersal during site rehabilitation in Antarctica. Cold Regions Science and Technology 32: 157174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, J.S., Riddle, M.J., Snape, I. and Scouller, R.C.. 2003. Human impacts in Antarctic marine soft-sediment assemblages: correlations between multivariate biological patterns and environmental variables. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 56: 717734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, J.S., Snape, I. and Riddle, A.J.. 2006. Abandoned Antarctic waste disposal sites: monitoring remediation outcomes and limitations at Casey Station. Ecological Management and Restoration 7 (1): 2131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, J.S., Snape, I., Riddle, M.J. and Stark, S.C.. 2005. Constraints on spatial variability in soft-sediment communities affected by contamination from an Antarctic waste disposal site. Marine Pollution Bulletin 50: 276290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swallow, J. 1986. Building repairs. Report on Wilkes for the Antarctic Environmental Committee. Hobart: Australian Antarctic Division.Google Scholar
Thearle, D.T. 1990. Clean-up of Wilkes Station. 1st Construction Regiment, 17th Construction Squadron, reconnaissance report. Hobart: Australian Antarctic Division.Google Scholar
Tin, T., Flemming, Z.L., Hughes, K.A., Ainley, D.G., Convey, P., Moreno, C.A., Pfeiffer, S., Scott, J. and Snape, I.. 2009. Impacts of local human activities on the Antarctic environment. Antarctic Science 21 (1): 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, A.T. and Snape, I.. 2008. Multiple Pb sources in marine sediments near the Australian Antarctic Station, Casey. Science of the Total Environment 389: 466474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Townsend, A.T., Snape, I., Palmer, A.S. and Seen, A.J.. 2009. Lead isotopic signatures in Antarctic marine sediment cores: a comparison between 1M HCl partial extraction and HF total digestion pre-treatments for discerning anthropogenic inputs. Science of the Total Environment 408: 382389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woinarski, A.Z., Snape, I., Stevens, G.W. and Stark, S.C.. 2003. The effects of cold temperature on copper ion exchange by natural zeolite for use in permeable reactive barriers in Antarctica. Cold Regions Science and Technology 37: 159168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar