255 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
TWO CC COLUMNS
* - DUPLICATE ANALYSIS IS NOT
WJTHIN CONTROL LIMITS
IRP SITE STUDY BOUNDARY
-------
the excavation pits using compacted clean fill materials. The sites were graded, but not to their
original topography. Therefore, the amount of excavated material did not equal the amount of fill
material.
In December 1998, the cleanup of Parcel A began by clearing and grubbing the areas to be
excavated (Figure 2-19). A total of nine 55-gallon drums were excavated. Seven of the nine
55-gallon drums were empty and deteriorated. These drums and other metal debris at the site
were transported to the Andersen AFB Landfill for disposal (Table 2-14). One drum of asphalt
was transported to IRP Site 3 5/Waste Pile 1, near Andersen AFB Landfill, for asphalt recycling.
Another drum, with approximately 25 gallons of liquid, was consolidated and transported to the
U.S. mainland for disposal as hazardous materials (IT/OHM, 1999b).
After the disposal of drums and debris, approximately 36 cubic yards (CY) of soil were
excavated and stockpiled at the site. One six-point composite confirmation sample was collected
at 6 feet bgs. One four-point composite sample was also collected from the stockpiled soil. These
soil samples were analyzed for VOCs, PAHs, and SVOCs. As presented in Appendix B, no
COCs were detected in either sample at concentrations exceeding the cleanup standards.
Subsequently, the excavation pit was backfilled with the stockpiled soil and other site fill
materials. The backfilled area was graded and compacted to 85 percent of the maximum dry
density (IT/OHM, 1999b).
Between February and April 1999, after clearing and grubbing at Parcel C, approximately 1,400
CY of soil were excavated and stockpiled at the site (Table 2-14). A total of 34 discrete
confirmation samples (including three duplicate samples) were collected at depths ranging from
2.5 to 5 feet bgs. Additionally, 17 composite samples (including one duplicate sample) were
collected from the stockpiled soil (Table 2-14).
The excavation at Parcel C was completed in two stages. At the end of the first stage, three of 22
confirmation samples collected from the excavation pit had lead concentrations that exceeded the
cleanup standards. Consequently, the second stage of excavation was continued and 12
additional confirmation samples were collected until the results of the confirmation samples
indicated that all impacted soil had been removed from the excavation pit (Appendix B).
Based on analytical results from 17 confirmation samples collected from the stockpiled soil,
approximately 970 CY had acceptable lead and antimony concentrations. However, 530 CY of
soil had lead concentrations exceeding the cleanup standards (Appendix B). The 530 CY of
lead-impacted soil were transported to the Andersen AFB Landfill for disposal (Table 2-14). The
excavation pit was then backfilled with the 970 CY stockpiled soil mixed with 350 CY of
imported fill and 80 CY of clean topsoil from Site 19. The amount of excavated material
exceeded the amount of backfill material and site grade was slightly lower than its original
topography. The backfilled area was graded and compacted to 85 percent of the maximum dry
density (IT/OHM, 1999b).
Approximately 4 CY of asbestos-containing transite pipe were removed from Parcel C and
transported to the Andersen AFB Landfill for disposal (Table 2-14).
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
2-16
July 2002
-------
TABLE 2-14. REMEDIAL ACTION AT AT IRP SITE 19, ANDERSEN AFB, GUAM.
Remedial Location/COCs
Excavated
and
On-Site
Stockpiled
Soil
(CY)
Confirmation Sami
5ling
Disposal Sites
Backfilling Source
Confirmation
Analysis
Total
Number of
Confirmation
Samples
from
Excavation
Pit
Number of
Clean
Confirmation
Samples from
Excavation
Pit
Total
Number of
Confirmation
Samples
from
Stockpile
Number of
Clean
Confirmation
Samples from
Stockpile
Andersen AFB
Landfill
Andersen
AFB Landfill
Asphalt
Recycling
Center
Off-Island
Hazardous
Disposal
Facility
Backfill
using Clean
Portion of
Stockpiled
Soil
(CY)
Backfill
using
Clean
On-Site
Topsoil
(CY)
Estimated
Backfill
Clean
Imported
Fill
(CY)
Parcel A
Grid Cell F5/benzo(a)pyrene
36
VOCs,
SVOCs,
PAHs
1
1
1
1
Seven empty,
deteriorated 55-
gallon drums
One 55-
gallon drum
of asphalt
One drum with
25 gallons of
liquid
36
None
None
Parcel C
Grid Cell E3/lead and
antimony
1,400
lead and
antimony
34
31
17
12
530 CY of lead-
impacted soil and
about 4 CY of
asbestos-
containing
transite pipe
None
None
970
80
350
Notes
COCs = Constituents of Concern, CY = Cubic Yards
Duplicate samples are included in the reported number of samples
All clean fill materials were supplied using on-isiand sources
AH potential hazardous materials were tested before sedmg off-island for disposal
Clean portion of stockpile soil - Portion of stockpile with sample results below cleanup standards
Clean confirmation samples - All detected analytes were below cleanup standards
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
I
Page 1 of 1
July 2002
-------
Control Act, or any other disposal requirements. Upon removal and disposal of the oil/water
separator, the cleanup standard for confirmation soil beneath the oil/water separator was
established using the Residential PRGs, or risk-based remedial goal options (cleanup standards).
If the selected remedial action had not been implemented, actual or threatened releases of COCs
from Site 39 might have presented an imminent and substantial impact to public health, welfare,
or the environment. The remedial actions were completed in June 1999 and included the
excavation, removal, and disposal of waste materials and impacted soil at Site 39.
In March 1998, an Action Memorandum was prepared for the site including the
above-referenced removal actions. The March 1998 Action Memorandum was approved by the
USEPA and GEPA. The extent of excavation was based on confirmation of soil sample
analytical results. After the completion of remedial actions, the sites were restored by backfilling
the excavation pits using compacted clean fill materials. The remedial areas at Site 39 were
graded, but not to their original topography. Therefore, the amount of excavated material did not
equal the amount of fill material.
As presented in Figure 2-20, the small surface and subsurface benzo(a) pyrene-impacted areas
near grid cells E6, A6, C2, and the stormwater outfall required cleanup. The soil beneath the
empty buried drum near grid cells F3 and F4 was impacted by benzo(a) pyrene, benz(a)
anthracene, benzo(b) fluoranthene, dibenz(a, h) anthracene, and indeno(l, 2,3-cd) pyrene also
required cleanup. Finally, the buried tar-like material containers near grid cells C3 and C4 and
the oil/water separator and its contents required removal and cleanup.
In May 1998, the removal action for the oil/water separator began by clearing and grubbing the
areas around the oil/water separator (Figure 2-21). The liquid, oil/water mixture, and sludge from
the oil/water separator were analyzed and determined to contain PCBs. The PCB-impacted
liquid, oil/water mixture, and sludge were placed in 175 containers (55-gallon drums) and
shipped off-island for disposal as hazardous waste material. The PCB-impacted sediments from
the oil/water separator were placed in 36 containers (2,800-pound bulk bags) and shipped
off-island for disposal as hazardous waste material. Similarly, the TPH-impacted rinsate water
from decontamination of the oil/water separator was placed in 40 containers (55-gallon drums)
and shipped off-island for disposal as hazardous waste material. A total of 6,150 gallons of
non-hazardous liquid from the oil/water separator and the oil/water chambers were shipped to an
on-island facility for disposal and recycling (IT/OHM, 1999c).
After disposal of the oil/water separator and its contents, 846 CY of soil were excavated and
stockpiled at the site. A total of 55 composite confirmation samples (including 2 duplicate
samples) were collected from beneath the former oil/water separator at depths ranging from 1 to
11 feet bgs. Additionally, one composite sample was collected from the 100 CY of stockpiled
soil originating from the excavation of the oil/water separator pipeline. These soil samples were
analyzed for PAHs, pesticides/PCBs, total lead, and Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
The excavation at the location of the oil/water separator was completed in four stages. At the end
of the first stage, seven of 21 confirmation samples collected from the excavation pit had
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
2-18
July 2002
-------
5.244 CUBIC YARDS OF
PAH IMPACTED SOIL, 132 CUBIC
YARDS OF PAH/CRESQl IMPACTED
SOIL, AND 315 CUBIC YARDS DF
METAL DEBRIS WERE REMOVED
242 CUBIC YARDS OF ASPHALT DEBRIS
AND B DRUMS OF ASPHALT WERE
RECYCLED. J1 DRUMS OF CRESOIL
WERE REMOVED. 14 CONFIRMATION
5AMPLES INDICATED THAT THE SITE
WAS CLEAN THE CLEAN STOCKPILED
SOIL WAS M]X£D WITH 1.000 CUBIC
YAROS OF CLEAN IMPORTED FILL
TD BACKFILL THE SITE,
5,412 CUBIC YARDS DF IMPACTED SOIL
AMD S50 DRUMS WER£ REMOVED
36 CONFIRMATION SAMPLES INDICATES
THAT THE EXCAVATION PIT WAS CLEAN.
WITH THE EXCEPTION DF 9£N20 RATION i
KASPYR
3A'5'cD on HJMAh
AMD ECOLOGICAL R SK
AS"ESSM"WT THER- is no
RfSK ASSOCj^TED fe H
mis CO^Fe^C - "HIS
COKCbM^-T OK
IRF SITE 39/
-KAHMOJ3 SUBSTATION
STUDY BOUNDARY
H2 CUSIC YARDS GF
BEN20«A>PYREN£ IMPACTED
SOIL WERE REMOVED
B CONFIRMATION SAMPLES
INDICATED THAT THE
EXCAVATION PIT WAS CLEAN.
140 CUBIC YARDS OF CLEAN
IMPORTED FILL WERE USED TO
BACKFILL THE EXCAVATJGfc PITS
GUAM POWER altj-:^rv\
ELE3TP. dAL SUBSTATION \
TIC OIL/*ATER SEPARATOR AND ITS
CONTENTS WERE REMOVED S4S CUBIC
YARDS OF IMPACTED SOU WERE REMOVED
30 CONFIRMATION SAMPLES INDICATED
THAT THE EXCAVATION PIT WAS CLEW
ONE CONFIRMATION SAMPLE INDICATED
THAT 100 CUBIC YARDS OF STOCKPILED
SOIL WAS CLEAN. THE CLEAN STOCKPILED
SOIL WAS MIXED *ITH 1,000 CUBIC YARDS
OF CLEAN IMPORTED FILL WAS USED TD
BACKFILL THE EXCAVAT\m PIT
APPROXIMATE boundary of
REMEDIATED AREA
SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
SAMPLE ID
DEPTH IN FEET BELOW
GROUND SURFACE
PAH*, m/xx>
— *— IRP SITE STUDY BOUNDARY
' GWQ SLOCK IDENTIFICATION
Figure 2-21 Remediated Areas at IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation Andersen AFB, Guam
-------
PCB concentrations exceeding the cleanup standards. After the second stage of excavation, nine
of 22 confirmation samples collected from the excavation pit contained PCBs and pesticides
exceeding the cleanup standards. After the third stage of excavation, only one of 11 confirmation
samples collected from the excavation pit contained pesticides that exceeded the cleanup
standards. Finally, following the fourth stage of excavation, the results of the last confirmation
sample indicated that all impacted soil had been removed from the excavation pit (Appendix B).
All 846 CY of the excavated soil from the location of the oil/water separator were transported to
Andersen AFB Landfill for disposal (Table 2-15). Based on sample results, 100 CY of stockpiled
soil from the oil/water separator pipeline were not impacted by any COC. Subsequently the
oil/water separator excavation pit was backfilled with the 100 CY of stockpiled soil mixed with
1,000 CY of imported fill. The backfilled area was then graded and compacted to 85 percent of
the maximum dry density (IT/OHM, 1999c).
In September 1998, the remedial action for the small benzo(a) pyrene hot spots near grid cells
E6, A6, C2, and the stormwater outfall began (Figure 2-21). After clearing and grubbing,
approximately 192 CY of soil were excavated and stockpiled at the site. A total of 19 composite
confirmation samples (including two duplicate samples) were collected at depths ranging from 1
to 5 feet bgs. These soil samples were analyzed for PAHs. As presented in Appendix B, with the
exception of one final confirmation sample, COCs were detected in all other confirmation
samples at concentrations exceeding the cleanup standards. Consequently, all 192 CY of the
excavated soil from the hot spots near grid cells E6, A6, C2, and stormwater outfall were
transported to Andersen AFB Landfill for disposal (Table 2-15). The excavation pits near grid
cells E6, A6, C2, and the stormwater outfall were backfilled with 140 CY of imported fill. The
backfilled area was then graded and compacted to 85 percent of the maximum dry density
(IT/OHM, 1999c).
In July 1998, the remedial action for the benzo(a) pyrene, benz(a) anthracene, benzo(b)
fluoranthene, dibenz(a, h) anthracene, and indeno(l ,2,3-cd) pyrene in soil at the vicinity of the
empty buried drum area near grid cells F3 and F4 began (Figure 2-21). After clearing and
grubbing, approximately 5,412 CY of soil and 850 containers (55-gallon empty and deteriorated
drums) were excavated and stockpiled at the site. A total of 70 composite confirmation samples
(including eight duplicate samples) were collected at depths ranging from 1 to 14 feet bgs. These
soil samples were analyzed for PAHs. A total of 16 samples were also analyzed for PCBs and
eight samples were analyzed for dioxins (Table 2-15).
The excavation at the location of the empty buried drum area was completed in five stages. At
the end of the first stage, 15 of 25 confirmation samples collected from the excavation pit had
PAHs exceeding the cleanup standards. No PCBs or dioxins were detected in any of the samples
analyzed for PCBs/dioxins at concentrations above action standards. After the second stage of
excavation, none of the 10 confirmation samples collected from the excavation pit floor
contained PAHs exceeding the cleanup standards. The excavation pit floor was confirmed to be
clean. The excavation of the walls continued after the third stage, and six of nine confirmation
samples collected from the walls of the excavation pit had PAHs exceeding the cleanup
standards. After the fourth and fifth stages of excavation only three of 27 confirmation samples,
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
2-19
July 2002
-------
TABLE 2-15. REMEDIAL ACTION AT IRP SITE 39, ANDERSEN AFB, GUAM.
Remedial Location/COCs
Excavated
and
On-Site
Stockpiled
Soil
(CY)
Confirmation Sampling
Disposal Sites
Backfilling Source
Confirmation
Analysis
Total
Number of
Confirmation
Samples from
Excavation Pit
Number of
Clean
Confirmation
Samples from
Excavation Pit
Total
Number of
Confirmation
Samples from
Stockpile
Number of
Clean
Confirmation
Samples from
Stockpile
Andersen
AFB
Landfill
Andersen
AFB
Landfill
Asphalt
Recycling
Center
Off-Island
Hazardous
Disposal Facility
On-Island
Nonhazardous
Disposal and
Recycling
Facility
Backfill
using Clean
Portion of
Stockpiled
Soil
(CY)
Estimated
Backfill
Clean
Imported
Fill
(CY)
Buried Tar-Asphalt Container Area
Grid Cells C3 and
C4/Tar/Asphalt
5,244
VOCs, PAHs,
SVOCs,
PCBs,
Pesticides,
Dioxin<4)
13
12
11
9
1,416 CY of
PAH-
impacted
soil, 132 CY
of
PAH/cresol-
impacted
soil, and
315 CY of
metal debris
242 CY of
asphalt
debris and
8(55-
gallon)
drums of
asphalt -
1 lcontainers (55-
gallon drums)
with liquid and
solid cresol
None
3,757
1,000
Motes1
COCs - Constituents of Concern; CY = Cubic Yards 1 = TRPH analysis was performed on the first 21 samples only.
Duplicate samples are included in the reported number of samples. 2 = Dioxin analysis was also performed on the Stormwater Oufall samples.
All clean Fill materials were supplied using on-island sources 3 ~= PCB analysis was performed on the first 16 samples and dioxin analysis was performed on the first 7 samples samples only
All potential hazardous materials were tested before seding off-island for disposal 4 = Dioxin analysis was performed on 3 samples and PAH analysis was performed on the first 5 samples only.
Clean portion of stockpile soil = Portion of stockpile with sample results below cleanup standards
Clean confirmation sample results - All detected analytes were below cleanup standards.
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
Page 2 of2
July 2002
-------
Based on stockpile sample results, no COCs were detected in nine of 11 stockpiled soil samples
and approximately 3,757 CY of the excavated soil were not impacted. Therefore, the excavation
pits at the buried tar-asphalt container area near grid cells C3 and C4 were backfilled with a total
of 3,757 of excavated soil and 1,000 CY of imported fill. The backfilled area was then graded
and compacted to 85 percent of the maximum dry density (IT/OHM, 1999c).
Human health and ecological risk assessments were performed at Site 39 for benzo(a) pyrene,
detected at the empty buried drum area near grid cells F3 and F4, and dioxins, detected in
surface soil site wide. In addition to benzo(a) pyrene and dioxin as COCs, other COPCs were
also considered for the human health and ecological risk assessments.
Conservative and realistic present and future scenarios were used in the evaluation of potential
risk to receptors that may be exposed to the site. The selected ecological receptors included
representative key trophic level species and generic plants including musk shrew, Norway rat,
feral dog, Micronesian starling, and the monitor lizard. Based on risk assessment results, there is
negligible ecological risk associated with any of the benzo(a) pyrene, dioxin, and other COPCs
at Site 39 (Appendix C).
For the human health risk assessment, cancer and noncancer risks associated with exposure to
benzo(a) pyrene, dioxin, and other COPCs were evaluated for hypothetical receptors including
groundkeepers, sportsmen, trespassers, and residents. Based on the human health risk
assessment, there are no adverse health effects associated with benzo(a) pyrene, dioxin, or any
other COPCs at Site 39 (Appendix C).
2.7 Description of No Further Action Alternative
The No Further Action alternative was selected for the Harmon Annex OU because all COCs
have been removed from these sites and the sites are already in a protective state posing no
current or future risks to human health and the environment.
2.7.1 No Further Action Alternative for Site 18
No storage (for greater than one year), release, or disposal of hazardous substances, petroleum
products, or their derivatives has occurred at Site 18. There are no current or future human health
or ecological risks associated with the site and remediation is not required at Site 18. Therefore,
the No Further Action alternative is proposed for this site.
2.7.2 No Further Action Alternative for Site 19
After removing the COC-impacted soil and debris from Site 19, the statutory requirements of
Section 121 of CERCLA were met. Soil removal at Site 19 eliminated site COCs and
then-potential exposure to human health and the environment. The implementation of the soil
removal did not create any short-term risk, nor any cross-media consequences. Any residual risk
remaining at the site to human health and the environment is minimal. The implementation of
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
2-21
July 2002
-------
TABLE 2-16. SUMMARY OF PERTINENT ARARs FOR IRP SITES 19 AND 39, ANDERSEN AFB, GUAM.
Act or Authority
Requirement
Requirement's Impact on Soil Removal and Off-site Disposal
Federal Chemical-Specific ARARs
USEPA Region IX Preliminary
Remediation Goals (PRGs)
Screens and establishes Risk-based Cleanup Goals
for chemicals in soil, air, and water.
Soils exceeding PRGs were excavated and removed from the site.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide ACT (FIFRA)
60 CFR 32094
Regulates the disposal and storage of pesticides
and their containers.
Soils impacted by pesticides were excavated and remove^ from the
site.
Toxic Substances Control ACT (TSCA)
60 CFR 761
Regulates wastes containing PCB constituents.
Soils, liquid, sludge, and sediments impacted by PCBs were
excavated and removed from the site.
Federal Location-Specific ARARs
Endangered Species Act
16 USC 1531 and 50 CFR 200,402
Promotes actions to conserve endangered species
or habitats.
All migratory routes for endangered species were examined prior
to soil removal and off-site disposal. There were no endangered
species, or migratory routes, at or near the site.
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
Clean Air Act (CAA)
40 CFR 50
Regulates the air quality against National Ambient
Air Quality Standards.
Air monitoring plan was established during soil removal action.
The dust control measures were implemented using water trucks
and spray.
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
(HMTA)
40 CFR 100-177
Regulates the transportation of hazardous waste
materials on national highways in accordance with
Department of Transportation (DOT).
All excavated impacted soils and hazardous waste materials that
were disposed of at an off-island landfill were handled in
accordance with HMTA and DOT.
Territorial (Guam)-Specific ARARs
Resource Cunsei vation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)
40 CFR 261,262,263, and 268
Tracks the destiny of hazardous waste from
"cradle to grave."
All hazardous waste materials were handled, stored, and
transported off-site at the Andersen AFB landfill in accordance
with RCRA.
Solid Waste Management Act, 10 Guam
Code Annotated (GCA), Chapter 51
Regulates solid waste collection and disposal on
Guam.
All solid decontamination wastes (i.e., non-hazardous waste) were
transported and disposed at Andersen AFB landfill in accordance
with Guam's solid waste management.
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
Page 1 of 1
July 2002
-------
3. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The community response regarding the Harmon Annex OU is an important part of this ROD due
to the land transfer issue. In this section, a summary of public involvement and comments are
presented.
In an effort to inform and involve the local community, the RAB was established in 1995
comprising community members, elected officials, Air Force officials, and representatives from
regulatory agencies. Since 1995, the RAB has regularly held quarterly meetings that were open
to the public. During the RAB meetings, the progress of the environmental investigations at
Andersen AFB's IRP site was discussed. The RAB served as a major focal point for
environmental exchange between Andersen AFB and the local community.
Furthermore, the RI and Proposed Plan for the Harmon Annex OU was released to the public in
November 2000 and February 2001, respectively. Later, Andersen AFB published a notice of
availability for the RI and Proposed Plan reports regarding the Harmon Annex OU in Guam's
Pacific Daily News from 06 through 08 February 2001. The notice also included the dates of
public comment period from 06 February to 08 March 2001. A public meeting was held in the
Hilton Hotel on 22 February 2001 in Guam where representatives from USEPA, GEPA, and
Andersen AFB responded to public inquiries regarding the Proposed Plan for the Harmon Annex
OU.
Upon completion of the public comment period, no written comments were received from the
public. A transcript of questions and comments generated at the public meeting are presented on
the following pages.
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
3-1
July 2002
-------
ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE HARMON PROPOSED PLAN MEETING MINUTES
22 February 2001
ATTENDEES
Board Members and Support
Col. E. Schoeck (AAFB) - Installation Co-chair
Mr. C. Crisostomo - Mediator
Mr. J. Jocson - RAB Member
Mr. M. Gawel - RAB Member
Mr. F. Castro - RAB Member
Ms. M. Quenga - RAB Member
Mr. E. Artero - RAB Member
Ms. J. Duwel - RAB
Mr. T. Quillen - TechLaw for USEPA
Mr. W. Leon Guerrero - GEPA
Mr. D. W. Longa - GEPA
Ms. G. O. Garces - GEPA
Mr. L. Richman - GEPA
Mr. D. Perez - GEPA
Ms. J. Poland - AAFB
Capt. O. D. Leff- AAFB
Capt. M. Escudie - AAFB
Mr. J. Torres - AAFB
Mr. G. Ikehara - AAFB
Mr. D. Agar - AAFB
Mr. J. Hill - AFCEE
Mr. J. Sullivan - PACAF
Mr. G. Fujimoto - PACAF
Public
Mr. J. Iglesias - for Congressman Underwood
Mr. C. Arnsfield - IT
Mr. Brian Gilkison, IT
Mr. P. Ono - IT
Ms. N Acedera - IT
Mr. K. Damiro - BOP
Dr. J. Rosacker - UNITEC
Mr. T. Towers - Weston
Mr. J. Floden - UNITEC
Mr. T. Ghofrani - EA
Mr. R. Shambach - EA
Mr. D. Mercadante - EA
Mr. J. Lazzeri - EA
Mr. J. Morrell - EA
Mr. M. Price - EA
Dr. M. Knight - URS
Mr. M Bone - Foster Wheeler
Mr. S. Seyedian - Foster Wheeler
Ms. M. Donahue - Earth Tech
Mr. D. Griffin - Earth Tech
Mr. D. Baxley - Earth Tech
Mr. J. Fern - Earth Tech
Mr. G. Del son - Earth Tech
Ms. T. Torres Mr. C. Herndon - RAG
Mr. J. A. Flores - BEI
Dr. S. Hewins - Texas A& M University
[Please note that the comments in brackets are added for further clarification]
Introduction:
Mr. G. Ikehara introduced Mr. C. Crisostomo as the meeting mediator. Mr. C. Crisostomo stated that
during this portion of the program, the study, cleanup, and the Final Proposed Plan for the three sites
at Harmon Annex were to be presented. Mr. C. Crisostomo pointed out that the locations of these
sites were indicated on maps located on tripods at the entrance of the meeting room. Writing
materials were provided to the public for note taking and/or writing of questions that might come up
during the presentation. Additionally, post cards were provided for any written comments that could
be submitted later to Andersen AFB by 08 March 2001. Mr. C. Crisostomo then introduced Mr. J.
Torres to present the Harmon Proposed Plan.
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
3-2
July 2002
-------
At Site 19, metal debris, asbestos containing transite pipe, and 55-gallon drums were identified
during the detailed site inventory. Soil samples were collected and dioxin, benzo(a) pyrene,
antimony, and lead concentrations exceeded Residential PRGs. Because of the urgency in
transferring Harmon Annex, Andersen AFB decided to establish conservative cleanup standards
based on the USEPA Region IX Residential PRGs and remove the drums, asbestos piping, and
impacted soil from Site 19. About 530 cubic yards of impacted soil (exceeding Residential PRGs),
nine 55-gallon drums, and other metal debris were transported to the Andersen AFB Landfill for
disposal. About 4 cubic yards of transite pipe was removed from the site and shipped to an off-island
hazardous disposal and recycling facility. After removing the impacted soil and conducting
confirmation sampling, the excavated areas were backfilled with clean fill.
At Harmon Substation, Site 39, an oil/water separator, tar/asphalt drums, asphalt and metal debris,
and electrical power components were identified. Soil samples were collected and benzo(a) pyrene
and dioxin concentrations exceeded Residential PRGs. The impacted soil, drums, and debris were
removed from Site 39 and transported to the Andersen AFB Landfill for disposal. The excavated
areas were then backfilled with clean fill. Also, the oil/water separator with its PCB-impacted
contents was removed from Site 39 and transported to an on-island disposal facility. About 7,998
cubic yards of benzo(a) pyrene impacted soil, 850 empty drums, and 315 cubic yards of metal debris
were transported to the Andersen AFB Landfill for disposal. Also, 6,150 gallons of non-hazardous
liquid from the oil/water separator was transported to an on-island, nonhazardous disposal and
recycling facility. A total of 175 drums (55-gallon) with liquid/sludge, 2,800 pounds of
PCB-impacted sediments, 40 drums of TPH-impacted liquid, and 1 1 drums of liquid/solid cresol
were transported to an off-island hazardous disposal and recycling facility.
Additionally, groundwater monitoring at the Harmon Substation began in 1995 and in 1996 three
monitoring wells were installed at Harmon Annex. Based on sampling and monitoring of the wells at
Harmon, only nickel and chromium were detected at concentrations above EPA standards. However,
nickel and chromium detection is related to premature deterioration of the stainless steel pumps and
the well screens.
Mr. J. Torres then summarized his presentation by indicating that the remedial investigation
extended from July 1996 to December 1997, followed by cleanup work from May of 1998 to June of
1999. Andersen AFB is now proposing No Further Action for Sites 18, 19, and 39. The final
remedial investigation and cleanup reports have all been completed and approved by the USEPA and
GEPA, and the Final ROD is expected to be completed by October 2001 after incorporating any
public comments. Mr. J. Torres then opened the forum for any questions or comments from public.
Q/A:
1st Question by Mr. E. Artero?: Once the contaminated soils are excavated where do they go?
1st and only response by Mr. J. Torres: That depends on the soil. If soil is tested to be hazardous,
it will be shipped off-island. If the soil is non-hazardous waste and meets PRGs
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
3-4
July 2002
-------
9th Question by Ms. T. Torres: What do you mean by No Further Action?
1st and the only response by Mr. G. Ikehara: As Mr. J. Torres explained, No Further Action
means that all cleanup actions have already been taken to completion and there is no other human or
ecological risk at the site; therefore, no further remediation is needed at the site.
10th Question by Ms. C. Herndon: If any other drum is found at these sites in the future, who will
be responsible for the cleanup?
1st and only response by Mr. G. Ikehara: As long as the waste is related to Andersen AFB
activities, Andersen AFB will be responsible for the cleanup.
11th Question by Ms. T. Torres: Wouldn't moving of contaminated soil to the Andersen AFB
Landfill pose a future problem?
1st and only response by Mr. G. Ikehara: Before moving any soil to Andersen AFB, the soil will be
tested to make sure that it is not hazardous. If it is hazardous soil, it will be shipped off-island for
disposal. If the soil is not hazardous waste, and below industrial PRGs, it can be transported to the
Andersen AFB Landfill for disposal.
2nd and only response by Ms. J. Poland: The impacted soils at Harmon were removed so that
these sites are safe for future residential use. When soils are impacted at levels between Residential
and Industrial PRGs, they can be safely disposed at the Andersen AFB Landfill. Furthermore, the
Andersen AFB Landfill includes a liner that prevents any potential leaching to groundwater.
Andersen AFB's Landfill is the only permitted landfill on-island and complies with the most
stringent environmental regulations.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. G. Ikehara reiterated that any other questions or comments
could be sent to Andersen AFB. There are two repositories where hard copies of the Harmon
Proposed Plan are available for public review. The two repositories are the Nieves M. Flores
Memorial Library in Hagatna and the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Library at the University of
Guam.
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
3-6
July 2002
-------
4. REGULATORY COMMENTS AND AIR FORCE RESPONSES
In this section of the ROD, all USEPA and GEPA comments will be presented along with the USAF
responses. All original USEPA and GEPA comments are presented as received, in reference to the
May 2001 Draft Record of Decision for Harmon Annex Operable Unit (Draft ROD). However, the
responses are presented in reference to this Final ROD.
Response to USEPA Comments on the
May 2001 Draft Record of Decision
for Harmon Annex Operable Unit
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
The Draft Record of Decision for Harmon Annex Operable Unit (Draft ROD) was reviewed for
completeness and technical adequacy considering historical site information and the USEPA
Guidance document Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other
Remedy Selection Decision Documents (ROD Guidance) dated July 1999 (EPA 540-R-98-031,
found at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/remedy/rods/).
GENERAL COMMENTS
The ROD should contain an Administrative Record Index for the site.
Response to General Comment. 1: The following sentence will be added to the first paragraph
of Page 2-7:
"A complete Administrative Record Index is presented in Appendix A. "
The ROD should include a placeholder section for regulatory comments and DOD responses to
comments on the ROD.
Response to General Comment 2: The following section will be added to the ROD to include
the regulatory comments and USAF responses:
"4. REGULATORY COMMENTS AND AIR FORCE RESPONSES
In this section of the ROD, all USEPA and GEPA comments will be presented along with the
USAF responses."
The Air Force should provide more justification in the ROD for not conducting an ecological risk
assessment at Site 19.
Response to General Comment 3: A short discussion will be added to Section 2.6.2 as follows:
"An ecological risk assessment was not conducted at Site 19; however, a habitat inventory was
conducted that identified grassland and Tangantangan forest containing mostly non-indigenous
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
4-1
July 2002
-------
fauna. In addition, no rare, threatened, or endangered species have been observed in the site or
vicinity. Given a possible future residential use for the site, the decision was made to perform
cleanup using EPA Region IX Residential PRGs as cleanup goals. A comparison of PRGs to the
residual COC concentrations and the ecological receptors observed at Site 19 indicated no risk to
the human health or the environment. "
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Page 1-1, Title. Please remove the subtitle: "Statutory Preference ... is Not Required". These
statements should be within a Statutory Determinations section. Insert a new section, either
after 1.3 or after 1.4 that reviews the statutory requirements of CERCLA 121 and the
regulatory requirements of the NCP. The applicability of the five-year review should also be
in this new section.
Response to Specific Comment 1: The statement "Statutory Preference for Treatment as a
Principal Element is Met and Five-Year Site Review is Not Required" will be omitted from the
title of the Declaration.
According to the USEPA Interim Final Guidance on Preparine Superfund Decision Documents:
The Proposed Plan. The Record of Decision. Explanation of Significant Differences. The Record
of Decision Agreement, Report No. OSWER 9335.3-02, Chapter 9, Exhibit 9-2, Statutory
Determination is not required for documenting a No Action Decision. Consequently, no
Statutory Determination will be added after either Sections 1.3 or 1.4.
Page 1-2, First Paragraph. Replace the word remedial in the first sentence with removal.
Response to Specific Comment 2: The first paragraph of Page 1-2 will be revised to state that:
"This removal action was protective of human health and the environment and complied with
federal and territorial (Guam) requirements that were legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate."
Page 1-2, First Paragraph. I don't like the phrase "not impacted by the COCs detected in the soils
that were eventually removed from Sites 19 and 39". Perhaps change the sentence to " No
COCs were detected in the groundwater under the Harmon Annex above (detection limits,
background levels or health based action levels, whichever is true)".
Response to Specific Comment 3: The first paragraph of Page 1-2 will be revised to state that:
"No COCs were detected in the groundwater under Harmon Annex above MCLs, or PRGs for tap
water, with the exception of chloroform, chromium, and nickel These compounds do not represent
groundwater contamination because chloroform is associated with laboratory contamination and
chromium and nickel are attributed to corrosion of the stainless steel piston pump and well
screen."
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
4-2
July 2002
-------
Decision Summary, Section 2.1. The Draft ROD does not identify the National Superfund database
identification number (e.g., CERCLIS) for the site. This number helps to identify the site for
future information inquiries. Please revise Section 2.1 of the ROD to provide information
related to the CERCLIS number for Andersen Air Force Base and, if applicable, the Harmon
Annex.
Response to Specific Comment 4: The following sentence will be added at the end of the second
paragraph on Page 2-5:
"The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) identification number for Andersen AFB is GU657] 999519. "
Decision Summary, Section 2.2. The second sentence of this paragraph states that "either
cesspools, open pits, oil/water separators, or surface debris were suspected as the source of
surface soil contamination by COCs...." This language is confusing as the "source" of the
constituents of concern (COC) should be an operational process that took place at the
Harmon Annex. For example, 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, and 4,4'-DDT are listed in the 4th
paragraph as COCs and these compounds are pesticides. It seems that the pesticide
application process and the area to which the pesticides were applied should be identified as
the "source" of these compounds. It is not clear from the text presented in the Draft ROD
whether the basins listed above happened to just be accumulation points for these
contaminants or whether the areas were in fact the "source" of the COCs. Please revise the
Draft ROD to more clearly describe the source of the COCs described in Section 2.2, 4th
paragraph.
Response to Specific Comment 5: The fourth paragraph of Section 2.2 will be revised to state
that:
"At these seven AOCs, surface and subsurface samples were collected from abandoned cesspools,
open pits, oil/water separators, and waste piles. Based on laboratory analytical results, 4,4'-DDD,
4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT, antimony, lead, and/or benzo(a) pyrene were detected in soil samples
collected from these accumulation points at concentrations that exceeded the Residential PRGs
(EA, 1997). Subsequently, in 1998, material from the cesspools, open pits, oil/water separators,
contaminated waste piles, and suspected asbestos containing material were removed from the
seven AOCs and transferred to the Andersen AFB Landfill for disposal. The features were
backfilled to grade with clean material"
Decision Summary, Section 2.2, 4th paragraph. The last sentence of this paragraph mentions
"action limits" related to the remediation that took place at the Harmon annex AOCs. The
specific action limits that were applied are not specified. This information would be useful
for assessing the nature of the remedial activities that took place at the AOCs. Please revise
the Draft ROD to specify the action limits that were applied to the Harmon Annex AOC
remedial activities. In addition, the Air Force may want to provide information on Guam and
EPA Region IX regulatory interaction related to the AOC remedial actions.
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
4-3
July 2002
-------
Response to Specific Comment 6: The fourth paragraph of Section 2.2 will be revised to state
that:
"Confirmation soil sampling and analyses at the seven AOCs indicated that all impacted soils
were removed such that the analytical results were below Residential PRGs (IT/OHM, 1999a). "
Decision Summary, Section 2.3. Section 2.3, Highlights of Community Participation, does not
mention a Community Relations Plan for Andersen Air Force Base. Please revise the ROD to
reference the Andersen Air Force Base Community Relations Plan, if such a document
affected community involvement in the remedial activities that took place at the Harmon
Annex.
Response to Specific Comment 7: The first paragraph of Section 2.3 will be revised to state
that:
"In August 1992, to inform and involve the local community, Andersen AFB conducted 67
interviews with local government officials, residents, and concerned citizens to determine the level
of community concern and interest in the environmental investigations. These community
interviews provided the basis for the 1993 Community Relations Plan (CRP) (ICF Technology,
1993). The 1993 CRP described activities to keep the nearby communities informed of the
progress of the environmental investigations at Andersen AFB sites and provide opportunities for
input from residents regarding cleanup plans. In response to the USEPA request, Andersen AFB
conducted 27 additional interviews in 1998, and updated the CRP (EA, 1998).
The USAF has promoted community relations and encouraged public involvement in cleanup
decisions through the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB), established in 1995. Currently, the RAB
is comprised of community members, elected officials, USAF officials, and representatives from
regulatory agencies. The RAB meets on a quarterly basis to discuss program progress and to
advise the community on the status and plans for the various IRP sites. "
Decision Summary, Section 2.3. Section 2.3, Highlights of Community Participation, does not
mention the February 22, 2001 public meeting that took place for the Harmon Annex
Operable Unit Proposed Plan. Even though this meeting is discussed in Section 3,
Responsiveness Summary, of the Draft ROD, the occurrence of the meeting should also be
mentioned in Section 2.3 as it was a significant community participation milestone.
Response to Specific Comment 8: The following paragraph will be added following the last
paragraph of Section 2.3:
"In February 2001, the Proposed Plan for the Harmon Annex OU was released to the public for
review and comments, with a public comment period from 06 February to 08 March 2001. A public
meeting was held in the Guam Hilton Hotel on 22 February 2001 where the Proposed Plan was
presented and representatives from USEPA, GEPA, and Andersen AFB responded to public
comments. The results of the public meeting and responses to public comments are presented in
Section 3 of this ROD."
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
4-4
July 2002
-------
Decision Summary, Section 2.5. The third paragraph in Section 2.5, Site Characterization,
mentions background threshold values (BTV) that were, established for the Andersen Air
Force Base project. The ROD does not provide a reference to additional information
regarding the derivation of the BTVs. Please revise Section 2.5 of the ROD to provide a
reference for the derivation of the BTVs used during the Harmon Annex remedial activities.
Response to Specific Comment 9: The third paragraph of Section 2.5 will be revised to include
a reference to BTVs, as follows:
"Some metal concentrations in Guam soils occur naturally at relatively high concentrations.
Background threshold values (BTVs) were establishedfor each metal based on cumulative
probability plots of the entire surface soil data set (JCF Technology, 1996). The data set for each
metal was evaluated to distinguish background populations from contaminant populations. " At
the August 2001 Remedial Program Manager (RPM) meeting, USEPA and GEPA requested that
BTVs for specific metals (particularly arsenic and manganese) be reviewed using the updated soil
analytical database with a consideration for the effects of grain size. A review of the updated
database revealed no change in BTVfor arsenic (62 mg/kg). However, the review resulted in an
increase of the BTVfor manganese from 3,150 mg/kg to 7,100 mg/kg (EA, 2001).
Decision Summary, Section 2.5. Section 2.5, Site Characterization, does not describe or provide a
reference to the conceptual site models (CSM) used during the risk assessment or the
remedial actions at the Harmon Annex. Conceptual Site Models are useful tools for
understanding the occurrence and exposure pathways of the contaminants identified at
environmental remediation sites. The CSM for IRP Site 39 is included in Appendix E of the
Draft ROD yet the CSM is not discussed or referenced in Section 2.5. No CSM information
is presented for IRP Site 18, if applicable, or IRP Site 19. Please revised the Draft ROD to
present CSMs and provide a discussion of the CSMs that were used to described
contamination for the IRP Sites at the Harmon Annex. This discussion will help frame a
better understanding of the remedial actions that took place at the Harmon Annex IRP Sites.
Response to Specific Comment 10: The following Conceptual Site Model section will be
inserted immediately after Section 2.5, as follows:
"Conceptual Site Models (CSMs) are useful in assessing the fate and transport of COPCs and
evaluating potential exposure pathways relative to present and future receptors. In order to
expedite the property transfer of Harmon Annex sites to GovGuam, the USAF established
conservative cleanup standards based on the stringent USEPA Region IX Residential PRGs
rather than conducting human and ecological risk assessments. A CSM that is applicable to Sites
18,19, and 39 is presented in Appendix E of the Final El for Harmon OU (EA, 2000). "
Decision Summary, Section 2.5.2. The fourth paragraph in Section 2.5.2, Site 19 Contaminant
Characteristics, discusses dioxin sampling results. The fourth sentence in this paragraph
states "As shown in Table 2-5, only dioxin results analyzed by Method 8290 were used due
to a more sensitive detection limit." The meaning of this sentence is not clear - specifically it
is not clear specifically what the Method 8290 results were "used" for, in this discussion of
the remediation process. In addition, more information on the dismissal of the Method 8280
results would be appropriate in the ROD considering Method procedures, sample
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
4-5
July 2002
-------
characteristics, laboratory quality control, and aspects of the data validation that support
discounting the use of the Method 8280 results. Please revise Section 2.5.2 of the ROD to
provide this additional information on the dioxin results for IRP Site 19.
Response to Specific Comment 11: The third sentence of the fourth paragraph of Section 2.5.3
will be revised to state that:
"As presented in Tables 2-4 and 2-5, at Parcel A, in the fill area on the southwest corner of the
site, benzo(a) pyrene, manganese, and dioxins were detected at concentrations above Residential
PRGs (Figure 2-14). The initial dioxin subsurface soil samples collected from Site 19 during the
RI were analyzed using USEPA Method SW8280. As the Method SW8280 reporting limits (RLs)
for individual congeners were above their respective Residential PRGs the data set did not meet
DOOs. Subsequently, one subsurface soil sample was collectedfrom each of two locations
(AAFB04S19S022 andAAFB04S19S023) in Parcel A. These subsurface samples were analyzed
for dioxins using Method SW8290. As presented in Table 2-5, Method SW8290provided
significantly lower RLs than Method SW8280. Sample AAFB04S10S023, as analyzed by Method
SW8290, also included dioxins at concentrations above Residential PRGs. However, in
accordance with an agreement between the USAF, GEPA, and the USEPA Region IX, the
subsurface dioxin cleanup standard was established at 1.0 microgram per kilogram (fig/kg) and
no cleanup was recommended for dioxins at Parcel A (IT/OHM, 1999b). "
Page 2-8, Section 2.5.1. Please include more information from the Decision Summary, No Further
Action Planned for IRP Site 18 (dated September, 1997), to justify this conclusion. Four soil
samples in 42 acres does not sound like enough, unless you include the trenching,
geophysical work and soil vapor testing that was also performed. Also explain that the four
samples were biased in that they were taken from the only areas that had any potential
sources of contamination.
Response to Specific Comment 12: The first and third paragraphs of Section 2.5.2 will be
revised as follows:
"Site 18 is located in an undeveloped area of the Harmon Annex. Based on several record
searches, site reconnaissance, geophysical survey, 21 test ditch excavations, and 14 active and 1
passive soil gas samples there was no supporting evidence that the site was ever used as a landfill
(EA, 2000). No stressed vegetation, stained soil, or fill materials were identified at Site 18 that
could be deemed as evidence of waste disposal activities. "
"Four biased surface soil samples (including one duplicate sample) were collected at Site 18. All
surface soil samples were collectedfrom 2.0 to 4.0 inches (0.2 to 0.3 feet) bgs and were analyzed
for semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and metals (inorganics). "
Page 2-9, Section 2.5.2. Please change the last sentence in the second paragraph to something like:
"The drum was wrapped in plastic and was subsequently disposed of (insert
off-island, into main base landfill, recycled, etc.).
Response to Specific Comment 13: The last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 2.5.3
will be revised to state that:
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
4-6
July 2002
-------
"The drum was wrapped in plastic and was subsequently disposed of off-island. "
Page 2-10, Second Paragraph. Same comment as above.
Response to Specific Comment 14: The second paragraph of Page 2-11 will be revised to state
that:
"This drum was wrapped in plastic and was subsequently disposed of off-island "
Page 2-10, First Paragraph. The statement "the potential for exposure is unlikely" is not sufficient
to explain why a hot spot of COCs found at a depth of 10 feet do not pose a risk. Either
provide a conclusion from a risk assessment that the site wide risk is acceptable, or you may
have to have an institutional control with a restriction against digging to that depth.
Response to Specific Comment 15; The fifth paragraph of Section 2.5.3 revised to read:
"As presented in Tables 2-4 and 2-5, three subsurface soil samples and a duplicate soil sample
were collectedfrom between 10 and 14 ft bgs, in the southwest corner Jill area of Parcel A
(Figure 2-14). Benzo(a) pyrene (SVOCs by USEPA MethodSW8270) was detected in a single
sample (AAFB04S19S030 at 140 fig/kg) at a concentration that exceeded the Residential PRG (56
fig/kg), but less than the Industrial PRG (360 /ng/kg). This result was considered suspect as
benzo(a) pyrene was not detected in the same sample using the more accurate USEPA Method
SW8310, and benzo(a) pyrene was not detected in the duplicate sample (AAFB04S19S031D)
using either Method SW8270 or SW8310. Manganese was detected in a single sample
(AAFB04S19S023 at 7,090 mg/kg) at a concentration that exceeded the Residential PRG (3,120
mg/kg). However, this manganese concentration is just below the revised BTV of 7,100 mg/kg
(EA, 2001). Total dioxin (Toxicity Equivalent Quotient [TEQ] by USEPA Method SW8290) was
detected in subsurface soil sample AAFB04S19S023 (0.0164 fig/kg) at concentrations exceeding
the Residential PRG (0.0038 fig/kg), but less than the industrial PRG (0.03 fig/kg). This TEQ
concentration is considerably lower than the subsurface dioxin cleanup standard of 1.0 fig/kg
established by the USA F, GEPA, and the OSWER directive (IT/OHM, 1999c), and no further
action is required.
Page 2-10, Third Paragraph. What does impacted by dioxins mean. Is this above or below action
levels. If this is above action levels, then the statement "at depths unlikely for potential
exposure" is again not sufficient. If so, then either provide a conclusion from a risk
assessment that the site wide risk is acceptable, provide an institutional control with a
restriction against digging to that depth, or do the following. Move and edit the second
paragraph down from this one up and explain that the agreement between EPA and the Air
Force about dioxin concerns an EPA OSWER Directive (1998, number 9200.4-26) that says
that dioxin cleanup levels should be 1 ppb in soil. The Air Force decided to be more
conservative than the EPA cleanup level for near surface soils.
Response to Specific Comment 16: The third sentence of the third paragraph of Page 2-11 will
be revised to state that:
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
4-7
July 2002
-------
"The subsurface fill area on the northern portion of Parcel B also included samples with dioxins
at concentrations above the Residential PRG. As mentioned earlier, USEPA Method SW8280 was
usedfor dioxin analysis during the initial subsurface soil sampling at Site 19. To compare the
dioxin sample results of Method SW8280 and Method SW8290, one subsurface soil sample each
was collected from the same locations in Parcel B as samples AAFB04S19S019
andAAFB04S19S032. These subsurface samples were analyzedfor dioxins using Method
SW8290. When comparing dioxin sample results of Method SW8280 and Method SW8290,
Method SW8290 provided significantly lower RLs, below the respective Residential PRGs (Table
2-5). Subsequently, the USAF, GEPA, and the USEPA Region IX established the subsurface
dioxin cleanup standard at 1.0 ug/kg and no cleanup for dioxins was necessary at Parcel B
(IT/OHM, 1999c)."
Page 2-11, First Paragraph. Again, a statement like "Risks to groundwater ... are unlikely" is not
sufficient. Its probably best to just delete this sentence.
Response to Specific Comment 17; The last two sentences of Section 2.5.3 will be revised to
state that:
"As presented in Table 2-6, no VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, pesticides/PCBs, or metals have been
detected consistently in any of the samples collected from IRP-38 at concentrations above the
MCLs or PRGs for tap water, with the exception of chromium However, chromium is attributed
to corrosion of the stainless steel piston pump and well screen and it is not believed to represent
groundwater contamination."
Decision Summary, Section 2.5.2. The second-to-last paragraph in Section 2.5.2 (page 2-10), Site
19 Contaminant Characteristics, references an agreement between the USAF and USEPA
Region IX related to the dioxin cleanup standard applied at the Harmon Annex. The sentence
describing this agreement provides a reference to "USEPA, 1998." The only reference
provided in Section 4, References, of the Draft ROD for USEPA, 1998 is a reference to the
U.S. EPA Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals. It seems that a references should be
provided for OSWER Directive 9200.4-26, the April 13, 1998 directive from Tim Fields
related to dioxin cleanup levels. Please revise Section 2.5.2 of the ROD to address this
discrepancy.
Response to Specific Comment 18: The reference to "(USEPA, 1998)" will be corrected to cite:
"(IT/OHM, 1999b) "
Section 2.6. This entire section is confusing. The second paragraph on page 2-13 says that a risk
assessment was performed for any residual COCs left behind, then a general overview of the
RA process is provided in Section 2.6.1. However, Sections 2.6.3 and 2.6.4 say that no risk
assessment was necessary. It might be better to end Section 2.6 with a statement that the sites
were cleaned to meet either PRGs or to levels determined to be protective in a Risk
Assessment. Then move directly to the individual site discussions beginning with Section
2.6.3.
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
4-8
July 2002
-------
Response to Specific Comment 19: Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 will be omitted and the last
paragraph of Section 2.6 will be revised to state that:
"To expedite the transfer of Harmon Annex sites to GovGuam, the USAF established
conservative cleanup standards based on the stringent USEPA Region IXResidential PRGs. An
Action Memorandum was developed and soils above the residential PRGs were removed except
for one location, the PAHs at the buried drum area of Site 39. Based on a human health risk
assessment, the residual PAH concentrations at the buried drum area resulted in acceptable risks
to human health."
Page 2-17. In the first paragraph of the page, delete the two sentences "Therefore, no human ... using
the stringent Residential PRGs". Change the second paragraph to: The cleanup of hot spots at
Parcels A and C was proposed to protect human health from exposure to COCs. The Air
Force selected the most stringent cleanup standards, those for Residential PRGs. Because all
COCs were removed to meet the Residential PRGs, no risk assessment was necessary. The
cleanup standards for Site 19 were: (Then continue on with the bullets).
Response to Specific Comment 20: The third paragraph of Page 2-15 will be omitted and the
second paragraph will be revised to state that:
"The cleanup of hot spots at Parcels A and C was proposed to protect human health from
exposure to COCs. Andersen AFB selected the most stringent cleanup standards, those for
Residential PRGs. Because all COCs were removed to meet the Residential PRGs, no risk
assessment was necessary. The cleanup standards for Site 19 were:"
Page 2-17. In the last two paragraphs, should the references to Site 39 really be Site 19.
Response to Specific Comment 21: The fourth sentence of the fourth paragraph of Page 2-15
and the sixth sentence of the last paragraph of Page 2-16 will be respectively revised to state
that:
"After the completion of remedial actions, Site 19 was restored by backfilling the excavation pits
using compacted clean fill materials. "
"Another drum, with approximately 25 gallons of liquid, was consolidated and transported to the
U.S. mainland for disposal as hazardous materials (IT/OHM, 1999b). "
Page 2-18, first Paragraph. Change the language for the composite samples to include the number
of samples in the composite, i.e., a composite of X samples ...
Response to Specific Comment 22: The second and third sentences of the first complete
paragraph of Page 2-16 will be revised to state that:
"One six-point composite confirmation sample was collected at 6 feet bgs. One four-point
composite sample was also collected from the stockpiled soil. "
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
4-9
July 2002
-------
Page 2-18, fourth Paragraph. Change the paragraph to read: "Based on analytical results from the
17 confirmation samples collected from the stockpiled soil, approximately 970 CY had
acceptable lead and antimony concentrations. However, 530 CY of soil had lead
concentrations exceeding the cleanup standard. The 530 CY ...".
Response to Specific Comment 23: The first and second sentences of the fourth complete
paragraph of Page 2-16 will be revised to state that:
"Based on analytical results from 17 confirmation samples collectedfrom the stockpiled soil,
approximately 970 CY had acceptable lead and antimony concentrations. However, 530 CY of soil
had lead concentrations exceeding the cleanup standards (Appendix B). "
Page 2-23, Section 2.7. Edit the first sentence to "... have been removed from these sites and the
sites are already ...".
Response to Specific Comment 24: Section 2.7 will be revised to state that:
"The No Further Action alternative was selected for the Harmon Annex OU because all COCs
have been removed from these sites and the sites are already in a protective state posing no
current or future risks to human health and the environment "
Decision Summary, Section 2.7.3. The text in Section 2.7.3, No Further Action Alternative for Site
39, mentions residual dioxin remaining at the site and references the Risk Assessment that
was conducted to assess residual risk related to this compound at this site. Following
excavation activities described in Section 2.6.5, it seems that residual benzo(a) pyrene
concentrations remain at IRP Site 39 in addition to dioxin. Section 2.7.3 does not mention
that residual concentrations of this compound remain at IRP Site 39 nor does this section
provide a reference to the risk assessment that supports leaving concentration of this
compound in place at the site at levels exceeding the EPA Region IX PRGs. Please revise
Section 2.7.3 of the ROD to address residual benzo(a) pyrene remaining at IRP Site 39.
Response to Specific Comment 25: The first sentence of the second paragraph of Section 2.7.3
will be revised to state that:
"Residual dioxin and benzo(a) pyrene risks remaining at the site are acceptable to human health
and the environment in accordance with risk assessment results presented in Appendix C. "
Page 2-24, Section 2.8. Change the phrase 'significant comments' to 'substantive comments'.
Response to Specific Comment 26: The second sentence of Section 2.8 will be revised to state
that:
"Upon closure of the comment period, no substantive comments were receivedfrom either the
public or the Territory of Guam "
Decision Summary, Table 2-16. Table 2-16 summarizes Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARAR) for IRP Sites 19 and 39. This Table does not identify some of the
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
4-10
July 2002
-------
following which appear to be ARARs for the site: Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL); RCRA regulations on land disposal restrictions
(LDRs) and on landfills; Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requirements governing the
management of asbestos containing materials such as the transite pipe removed from Parcel
C at IRP Site 19 and PCB materials from the oil-water separator; GovGuam's listing the
Micronesian Starling as endangered, as described in Section 2.6 of the Screening Ecological
Risk Assessment contained in the RI Report for Harmon Annex; and ARARs that may have
been considered related to the historic or archeological aspects of the IRP Sites. Please revise
Table 2-16 to included these ARARs, to the extent they are applicable to the work described
in the ROD. Also, RCRA is listed as a territorial ARAR. It should be listed as a Federal
ARAR.
Response to Specific Comment 27; Table 2-16 will be revised to expand the ARARs, as shown
attached.
ERRATA
1. Declaration, Section 1.2. The second line in the second paragraph in this section
references a document as "(1989a)." Please revise this reference to indicate USEPA as the
author of this referenced document.
Response to Errata 1: The "(1989a)" will be replaced by "(USEPA, 1989a).
2. Decision Summary, Section 2.5.3. In the fifth paragraph, sixth line, of Section 2.5.3,
Site 39 Contaminant Characteristics, please delete the word "was" between the two
sentences.
Response to Errata 2: The sixth line of Section 2.5.4 will be revised as requested.
3. Decision Summary, Section 2.7.3. The second paragraph of Section 2.7.3,
Description of No Further Action Alternative, references Appendix B for the risk assessment.
The risk assessment is presented in Appendix E. Please revise the Draft ROD to address this
discrepancy.
Response to Errata 3: The first sentence of the second paragraph of Section 2.7.3 will be
revised to state that:
"Residual dioxin and benzo(a) pyrene risks remaining at the site are acceptable to human health
and the environment in accordance with risk assessment results presented in Appendix C. "
4. Decision Summary, Various Tables. Tables 2-3, 2-4, 2-7, 2-8, and 2-9 contain
incomplete screening references in the column headers. The "Screening Basis" columns
reference "1998 USEPA IX Residential" and "1998 USEPA IX Industrial." These column
headers apparently should reference " 1998 USEPA Region IX PRGs" for Residential and
Industrial scenarios. A similar discrepancy may be seen in Table 2-11. Please revise the
tables in the ROD to provide clear information in the column headers.
Response to Errata 4: The heading for Tables 2-3, 2-4, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, and 2-11 will be corrected.
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
July 2002
4-11
-------
5. REFERENCES
Andersen Air Force Base (AFB), 2000. Final Management Action Plan, Andersen Air Force Base,
Guam. December.
Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR), 1994. Brochure of the Yellow Bittern.
Funded by the Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Programs. Hagatna, Guam.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA), 1997. Phase II Environmental Baseline Survey for
P.L. 103-339 Parcels: Harmon Annexes, Camp Edusa, Andersen Radio Beacon Annex,
Harmon POL Storage Annex No. 1, Andersen South Administrative Annex for Andersen Air
Force Base, Guam. April.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA), 1998a. Final Community Relations Plan for the
Installation Restoration Program, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. December.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA), 1998b. Draft Site Characterization Summary
Report for Site 19/Landfill 24, Harmon Annex, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. January.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA), 1998c. Site Characterization Summary Report for
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. January.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA), 1998d. Final Decision Document No Further
Response Action Planned (NFRAP) for Site 18/Landfill 23, Harmon Annex, Andersen Air
Force Base, Guam. February.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA), 2000. Final Remedial Investigation for Harmon
Annex Operable Unit, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. November.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA), 2001. Technical Memorandum on the
Recalculation of Background Threshold Value (BTV) for Manganese in Soil, Installation
Restoration Program (IRP) Sites, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. December.
Guam Department of Commerce, 1999. Guam Annual Economic Review 1997-1998, Table p2.
Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA), 1997. The Wellhead Protection Program, Water
Resource Management Program, Harmon, Guam. pp. 3
Guam Waterworks Authority (GWA) 1999. Personal communication with F. Jaleco.
ICF Technology, Inc., 1993. Community Relations Plan for the Installation Restoration Program,
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. November.
ICF Technology, Inc., 1995. Phase I Environmental Baseline Survey Report For Andersen Air Force
Base. Volume 1: Harmon Annex; Volume 2: Camp Edusa; Volume 3: Andersen Radio
Beacon Annex; Volume 4: Harmon POL Tank Farm; Marbo Annex, Part I; Andersen Air
Force Base, Guam. Final. January.
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
R-l
July 2002
-------
ICF Technology, Inc., 1996a. Operable Unit 3 Remedial Investigation Report. Review Draft. June.
ICF Technology, Inc. (ICF Technology), 1996b. Records Search for Andersen Air Force Base,
Guam. Final. February.
IT/OHM Remediation Services Corp., 1999a. Remediation Activities at Areas of Concern 1, 2, 3,4,
5, 12, and 22. Public Law Parcels 103-339, Harmon Annexes, Andersen Air Force Base,
Guam. September.
IT/OHM Remediation Services Corp., 1999b. Remediation Verification Report for IRP Site
19/Landfill 24, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. June.
IT/OHM Remediation Services Corp., 1999c. Remediation Verification Report for Harmon
Substation, Andersen Air Force, Guam. June.
Mink, J. F., 1976. Groundwater Resources of Guam: Occurrence and Development. WRRC
Technical Report 1, Water Resources Research Center, University of Guam, September,
285 pp.
Public Utility Agency of Guam. 1992. Water Facilities Master Plan Update, Barrett Consulting
Group, Honolulu, Hawaii. 275 pp.
United States Air Force (USAF), 1995. Environmental Restoration Program, NFRAP Guide, A
resource for making, Documenting, and evaluation No Further Response Action Planned
Decisions. United States Air Force, June.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IX, 1988. Guidance for
Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA. Interim Final.
EPA/540/G-89/004. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1989a. Interim Final Guidance on
Preparing Superfund Decision Documents: The Proposed Plan, The Record of Decision,
Explanation of Significant Differences, The Record of Decision Agreement. Report No.
OSWER 9335.3-02. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. October 1989.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IX, 1996. Drinking Water
Regulations and Health Advisories, Report No. EPA/822-B-96-002, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water,, Washington, D.C. August.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IX, 1998. EPA Region IX
Preliminary Remediation Goals Table (Update). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region DC, San Francisco. June.
Ward, P. E., Hoffman, S. H., and Davis, D. A., 1965. Hydrology of Guam: U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 403-H. 28 p.
Final Record of Decision
Harmon Annex Operable Unit
R-2
July 2002
-------
Appendix A
Andersen Air Force Base
Administrative Record Index
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
27-Nov-96 Administrative Record Index
LABAT-ANDERSON
INCORPORATED
Ol-Jun-84 SOW, Phase I Records Search
Ol-Aug-84 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Landfill Closure
Plan for Sites 01, 02, 03, 29, and 35
Ol-Mar-85 Phase I, Record Search Report
HQ AFSEC/DEVP
Branch, James B
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Environmental
Science and Engineering, Inc.
30-May-85 Base Letter to Governor of Guam Regarding Phase I Sachse, Billy E, Col
Record Search 43 CSG/CC
2
3
05-Jun-85 Newspaper Article, "Air Force Probes Waste
Disposal- Sites"
17-Jun-85 Newspaper Article, "Dump Site Study to Sample
Water"
The Pacific Daily
News
The Pacific Daily
News
13-Aug-85 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Phase Branch, James B
18-Oct-85
19-Mar-86
08-Apr-86
Sep-86
08-Oct-86
I Record Search
Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Phase II
Presurvey Conference
Congressman Letter to Secretary of the Air Force
Regarding Phase I Record Search
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Landfill Closure
Plan for Sites 01, 02, 03, 29, and 35
Phase II, Technical Operations Plan,
Confirmation/Quantification Survey
EPA Region IX Letter to US General Accounting
Office Regarding DoD Management of IRP and
Phase I Record Search Comments
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Sachse, Billy E, Col 9
43 CSG/CC
Synar, Mike 10
Guam House of Representatives
Branch, James B 11
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Battelle 12
Takata, Keith 13
EPA Region IX
Dec-86 RCRA Facility Assessment Report, Solid Waste
Management Units
13-Mar-87 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding SOW, Stage 1
Comments
Science Applications
International Corp.
Crisostomo, Charles
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
14
15
lof 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
19-May-87 GEPA letter to Base Regarding Site 01 Monitoring Crisostomo, Charles 16
Wells Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
19-Jun-87 GEPA Letter to OEHL Regarding Sites 01, 02, and 03 Crisostomo, Charles 17
Monitoring Wells Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
29-Feb-88 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Landfill Closure Crisostomo, Charles 18
Plan for Sites 01, 02, 03, 29, and 35 Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
01-Jul-88 GEPA Letter to Guam Attorney General Regarding Solivio, Rolando B 19
Legal Action for Landfill 5 Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
ll-Aug-88 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Draft Crisostomo, Charles 20
Final Report, Apr 88 Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
17-Aug-88 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Crisostomo, Charles 21
Landfill Closure Plan Modification Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
30-Sep-88 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Approval of Landfill Crisostomo, Charles 22
Closure Plan Modification Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
30-Sep-88 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Crisostomo, Charles 23
Landfill Closure Plan Modification Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
01-Nov-88 Revised Landfill and Waste Pile Closure Plan Battelle 24
Ol-Jan-89 Phase II Stage 1, Final Confirmation/Quantification Battelle 25
Report, Volume I of VI
Ol-Jan-89 Phase II Stage 1, Final Confirmation/Quantification Battelle 26
Report, Volume I of VI, Appendices A-G
Ol-Jan-89 Phase II Stage 1, Final Confirmation/Quantification Battelle 27
Report, Volume II of VI, Appendix H-J
Ol-Jan-89 Phase II Stage 1, Final Confirmation/Quantification Battelle 28
Report, Volume III of VI, Appendices Kl-K2a
Ol-Jan-89 Phase II Stage 1, Final Confirmation/Quantification Battelle 29
Report, Volume IV of VI, Appendix K2b
2of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC.
DATE
SUBJECT OR TITLE
AUTHOR or
CORP. AUTHOR
FILE
NUMBER
Ol-Jan-89
Ol-Jan-89
Ol-Jan-89
Ol-Jan-89
09-Jan-89
09-Feb-89
21-Feb-89
24-Feb-89
24-Feb-89
27-Mar-89
Phase II Stage 1, Final Confirmation/Quantification Battelle
Report, Volume IV of VI, Appendix K2c
Phase II Stage 1, Final Confirmation/Quantification Battelle
Report, Volume VI of VI, Appendices L-N
Phase II Stage 2, Quality Assurance Project Plan
Phase II Stage 2, Work Plan
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on
Phase II Stage 2 Health and Safety Plan
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Landfill Post Closure
Permit
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Landfill
Modified Closure/Post Closure Plan
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Landfill
Post Closure Permit
Newspaper Article, "Notice to Public"
Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Modified Landfill
Closure Plan
03-Apr-89 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Approval for
Amended Modified Landfill Closure Plan
03-May-89 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Exchange of
Information and Comments on Landfill Closure Plan
22-May-89 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments in Base
Letter of 3 May 89
25-May-89 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Groundwater
Monitoring Comments in Base Letter of 3 May 89
Ol-Jul-89 RCRA Post-Closure Permit Application, Sites 01, 02,
03, 29,and 35
10-Aug-89 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding RCRA Post-Closure
Permit Application
3of 43
Battelle
Battelle
Crisostomo, Charles
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Castro, Fred M
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Castro, Fred M
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Castro, Fred M
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
The Pacific Daily News
Green, Frederick L, Col
43 CSG/CC
Castro, Fred M
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Green, Frederick L, Col
43 CSG/CC
Castro, Fred M
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Castro, Fred M
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Harding Lawson Associates
Green, Frederick L, Col
43 CSG/CC
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
20-Sep-89 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Landfill Cover,
Fence, and Test Results
3 l-Oct-89 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Landfill Closure
Cover and Test Results
Castro, Fred M
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Green, Frederick L, Col
633 ABW/CC
46
47
06-Nov-89 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments for FTA
and RCRA Landfill Closure Permit
22-Nov-89
Ol-Dec-89
13-Sep-90
28-Sep-90
Solivio, Rolando B
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Landfill Closure Plan Solivio, Rolando B
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Science Applications
International Corp.
Phase II Stage 2, Informal Technical Information
Report, Vol I of III, Analytical Data
Ol-Dec-89 Phase II Stage 2, Informal Technical Information
Report, Vol II of III, Analytical Data
01-Dec-89 Phase II Stage 2, Informal Technical Information
Report, Vol III of III, Analytical Data
02-May-90 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Fire Training Area 2
03-May-90 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on
Approved Landfill Closure Plan
03-Aug-90 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Fire Training Area 2
Concrete Cap
Science Applications
International Corp.
Science Applications
International Corp.
Castro, Fred M
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Castro, Fred M
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Castro, Fred M
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
29-Aug-90 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Landfill Closure Plan Castro, Fred M
Deficiencies
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Landfill Closure Plan DeGovanni, George, Col
Modification
633 ABW/CC
Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Landfill Closure Plan DeGovanni, George, Col
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Modification
633 ABW/CC
03-Jan-91 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on
Modified Landfill Closure Plan
Castro, Fred M
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
04-Feb-91 EPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments EPA Region IX
on Comprehensive Groundwater Monitoring Evaluation
4of 43
59
60
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
14-Mar-91
22-Mar-91
28-Mar-91
15-Apr-91
30-Apr-91
15-May-91
20-May-91
24-May-91
28-May-91
31-May-91
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Fire
Training Area 2, "Decision for Remedial Action"
08-Jul-91
16-Jul-91
18-Jul-91
Castro, Fred M
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Newspaper Article, "Air Force Continues Waste Sites The Pacific Daily News
Cleanup"
Modified Landfill Closure Plan
News Release, "Public Hearing for Modified Closure
Plan on Base Landfill"
Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Negotiations for
Modified Closure Plan for Base Landfill
Public Hearing Meeting Minutes, 14 May 91
Science Applications
International Corp.
633 ABW/DEV
Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Requirements of
DeGovanni, George, Col
633 ABW/CC
Mackey, Gary W
633 ABW/DEV
Schauz, William G, LtCol
Public Notification for Modification of the Closure Plan 633 ABW/DE
Base Letter to EPA Region IX Regarding Cover Design Schauz, William G, LtCol
for Modified Landfill Closure Plan and Stage 3 SAP 633 ABW/DE
Base Letter to US Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Nault, Gary S
Consultation on Endangered Species Act, Landfill 2 633 ABW/DEV
Base Letter to US Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Nault, Gary S
Consultation on Endangered Species Act for
Topographic Survey, Landfill 2
633 ABW/DEV
03-Jun-91 US Fish and Wildlife Service Letter to Base Regarding Smith, Robert P
Consultation for Clearing Vegetation, Landfill 2
US Fish and Wildlife Service
06-Jun-91 US Fish and Wildlife Service Letter to Base Regarding Smith, Robert P
Consultation on Endangered Species Act, Landfill 2 US Fish and Wildlife Service
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Negotiated Modified Brown, Joanne M
Landfill Closure Plan Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Base Letter to US Fish and Wildlife Service
Regarding Consultation to Install 11 Boreholes
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Approved
Modifications for Landfill Closure Plan
Nault, Gary S
633 ABW/DEV
Castro, Fred M
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
5of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
26-Jul-91 EPA Region VII Letter to EPA Region IX Regarding Baxter, Terry E 76
Review Comments for Stage 3, SAP EPA Region VII
02-Aug-91 EPA Region IX Letter to AFCEE-ESO/ER Regarding Hagemann, Matthew 77
Comments for Exploratory Borehole Locations EPA Region IX
22-Aug-91 US Fish and Wildlife Service Letter to Base Kramer, William R 78
Regarding Consultation for Endangered US Fish and Wildlife
Mariana Crow and Mariana Fruit Bat, Landfill 2 Service
28-Aug-91 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Alternative Cover Schauz, William G, LtCol 79
Design for Landfill Cap 633 ABW/DE
03-Sep-91 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Using a Synthetic Schauz, William G, LtCol 80
Cover for Landfill Cap 633 ABW/DE
04-Sep-91 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Comments on DeGovanni, George, Col 81
Modifications on Closure Plan for Landfill Area 633 ABW/CC
13-Sep-91 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Borehole Drilling Trowbridge, Julia A 82
633 ABW/DE
15-Sep-91 Documentation Report, Disposal Activities of Landfill ICF Technology, Inc. 83
1 and 2
16-Sep-91 Base Letter to GEPA Requesting Amendment to Trowbridge, Julia A 84
Modified Closure Plan 633 ABW/DE
24-Sep-91 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Stage Brown, Joanne M 85
3 SAP Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
24-Sep-91 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding for Exploratory Brown, Joanne M 86
Borehole Locations Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
26-Sep-91 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Failure to Receive Trowbridge, Julia A 87
Review Comments on Phase II Stage 2 RI/FS Report 633 ABW/DE
ll-Oct-91 Newspaper Article, "Notice to the Public Regarding The Pacific Daily News 88
Availability of Amended Closure Item for Modified
Closure Plan"
ll-Oct-91 Base Letter to EPA Region IX Regarding Review Schauz, William G, LtCol 89
Comments on Proposal for Borehole Locations 633 ABW/DE
31-Oct-91 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Site Inspection for Castro, Fred M 90
Borehole Activity Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
6of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
Ol-Nov-91 Groundwater Monitoring Plan
Ol-Dec-91 Phase II Stage 2, Final RI/FS Technical Report,
Vol I of VI
Ol-Nov-91 Phase II Stage 2, Final RI/FS Technical Report,
Vol II of VII, Appendices A and C-F
Ol-Nov-91 Phase II Stage 2, Final RI/FS Technical Report, Vol
III of VII, Appendix G1 (Part 1)
Ol-Nov-91 Phase II Stage 2, Final RI/FS Technical Report,
Vol IV of VII, Appendix G1 (Parts 2a-c)
Ol-Nov-91 Phase II Stage 2, Final RI/FS Technical Report,
Vol V of VII, Appendix G1 (Part 3)
Ol-Nov-91 Phase II Stage 2, Final RI/FS Technical Report,
Vol VI of VII, Appendix G2 (Parts la-b)
Ol-Nov-91 Phase II Stage 2, Final RI/FS Technical Report,
Vol VII of VII, Appendix G2 (Parts 2a-b)- G5,
H and K
Science Applications
International Corp.
Science Applications
International Corp.
Science Applications
International Corp
Science Applications
International Corp
Science Applications
International Corp
Science Applications
International Corp
Science Applications
International Corp
Science Applications
International Corp
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
05-Nov-91 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Modification Request
for "Conceptual Design Report, Landfill Operable Unit
Cap Design"
03-Dec-91 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments for
Synthetic Cap, "Conceptual Design Report, Landfill
Operable Unit Cap"
13-Dec-91 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on 16 Sep
91 Letter Requesting Amendment for Modified Landfill
Closure Plan
13-Dec-91 SOW, RI/FS Stage 3, Part U
23-Dec-91 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Placing Topsoil
Cover on Site 27
Castro, Fred M.
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Brown, Joanne M
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Brown, Joanne M
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
AFCEE/ESR
Schauz, William G, LtCol
633 ABW/DE
99
100
101
102
103
Ol-Jan-92 RI/FS Stage 3, Final Landfill Unit Work Plan
14-Jan-92 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Alternative Cover
Designs for Landfill Cap, Site 02
14-Jan-92 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Draft
Design Drawings, Specifications, and Correspondence
for Alternative Cover Designs and Comments for
Landfill Cap, Site 02
7of 43
ICF Kaiser Engineers
Schauz, William G, LtCol
633 ABW/DE
Schauz, William G, LtCol
633 ABW/DE
104
105
106
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
22-Jan-92 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Field Castro, Fred M 107
Sampling Plan for Landfill 2 Test Pits and Background Guam Environmental
Soil Samples Protection Agency
06-Feb-92 Newspaper Article, "Notice to Public Regarding The Pacific Daily News 108
Andersen AFB Proposed Placement on the NPL"
27-Feb-92 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Boreholes Drilling Schauz, William G, LtCol 109
and Sampling Analysis 633 ABW/DE
Ol-Mar-92 Groundwater Dye Tracing Study, SAP ICF Kaiser Engineers 110
17-Mar-92 SOW, RI/FS Stage 3 and FTA Cover AFCEE/ERS 111
Ol-Apr-92 Geologic and Hydrogeologic Report of Landfill ICF Kaiser Engineers 112
Complex
07-Apr-92 US Fish and Wildlife Service Letter to Base Kramer, William R 113
Regarding Consultation for Surveying Sampling US Fish and Wildlife Service
Site and Drilling Wells
22-Apr-92 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Castro, Fred M 114
Groundwater Dye Tracer Study Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
15-May-92 US Fish and Wildlife Service Letter to Base Regarding Smith, Robert P 115
Consultation to Define and Locate Landfill Boundaries, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Fill Trenches, and Conduct Topographical Survey
19-Jun-92 US Fish and Wildlife Service Letter to Base Regarding Kramer, William R 116
Consultation Comments to Define and Locate Landfill US Fish and Wildlife Service
Boundaries, Fill Trenches, and Conduct Topographical
Survey
30-Jul-92 SOW, Landfill 5 Cap AFCEE/ESR 117
Ol-Aug-92 Fact Sheet, "Environmental Cleanup at Andersen 633CES/DEV 118
Air Force Base"
06-Oct-92 JACE Letter to EPA Region IX Regarding Andersen Swenson, Raymond T, LtCo 119
AFB CERCLA Federal Facility Agreement, Remaining Air Force Legal Services
Issues Agency, Regional Counsel (JACE)
07-Oct-92 EPA Region IX Letter to HQ PACAF/DE Regarding Anderson, Julie 120
Andersen AFB CERCLA Federal Facility Agreement EPA Region IX
19-Oct-92 Guam Attorney General Letter to SAF/ESO Barrett-Anderson, 121
Regarding Federal Facility Agreement Elizabeth
Guam Attorney General
8of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
18-Dec-92 SOW, RI/FS, OU-4 AFCEE/ESR 122
29-Jan-93 Federal Facility Agreement: EPA Region IX, GEPA, EPA Region IX 123
and USAF
Ol-Mar-93 EE/CA, OU-1, Landfill 5 ICF Technology, Inc. 124
Ol-Mar-93 RI/FS, Health and Safety Plan, OU-1 ICF Technology, Inc. 125
15-Mar-93 EPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Levine, Herbert 126
Draft Final Work Plans and SAPs for OU-2 and OU-3 EPA Region IX
15-Mar-93 EPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Levine, Herbert 127
EE/CA for Landfill 5 and CRP EPA Region IX
Ol-Apr-93 Landfill 5 Cap Construction, Site Safety and Health Hensel-Phelps 128
Plan Construction Co.
Woodward-Clyde
Ol-Apr-93 Landfill 5 Cap Construction, Erosion Control Plan Hensel-Phelps 129
Construction Co.
Woodward-Clyde
Ol-Apr-93 Landfill 5 Cap Construction, Sampling and Analysis Hensel-Phelps 130
Plan Construction Co.
Woodward-Clyde
06-Apr-93 TRC Meeting Agenda, 06 Apr 93 633 CES/DEV 131
07-Apr-93 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Castro, Fred M 132
EE/CA for Landfill 5 Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Ol-May-93 Landfill 5 Cap Construction, Construction Quality Plan Hensel-Phelps 133
Construction Co.
Woodward-Clyde
15-May-93 Newspaper Article, "Public Notice for EE/CA, The Pacific Daily 134
Landfill 5"
22-Apr-93 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on CRP News Castro, Fred M 135
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Ol-May-93 Fact Sheet, "Landfill 5 Removal Action at Andersen 633 CES/DEV 136
Air Force Base"
10-May-93 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on EE/CA, Castro, Fred M 137
Technical Specifications, Construction Quality Plan, Guam Environmental
and Sampling and Analysis Plan for Landfill 5 Protection Agency
9of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
12-May-93
12-May-93
28-May-93
Ol-Jun-93
Ol-Jun-93
21-Jun-93
28-Jun-93
15-Jul-93
19-Jul-93
29-Jul-93
23-Aug-93
26-Aug-93
Ol-Sep-93
07-Sep-93
07-Oct-93
GEPA Letter to Hansel Phelps Construction Co.
Regarding Comments on Clearing and Grading of
Landfill 5
TRC Meeting Minutes, 12 May 93
Castro, Fred M
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Stanfill, Ronnie A, Col
633 ABW/CV
Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Revised Landfill 5 Poland, Joan
Cap Construction Quality Plan (CQP) and Comments 633 CES/DEV
on GEPA's CQP and SAP Comments
Technical Specifications, Landfill 5 Cap Design
ICF Technology, Inc.
RI/FS, Expanded Source Investigation Work Plan, ICF Technology, Inc.
OU-6
US Fish and Wildlife Service Letter to Base Regarding Smith, Robert P.
Reinitiation of Endangered Species Act Section 7 US Fish and Wildlife Service
Consultation 1-2-92-F-08, Landfills
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments for Landfill Wuerch, Victor
5 Cap Construction Quality Plan, Technical Guam Environmental
Specifications, and Sampling and Analysis Plan Protection Agency
EPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments Levine, Herbert
for Expanded Source Investigation Work Plan EPA Region IX
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on
Expanded Source Investigation Work Plan
Informal Technical Information Report, Title II
Services, Landfill 5 Cap
SOW, RI/FS, OU-6
Wuerch, Victor
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
AFCEE/ESR
EPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments Levine, Herbert
for OU-6 Basewide Work Plan and SAP EPA Region IX
Basewide Health and Safety Plan, OU-6
ICF Technology, Inc.
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments for RI/FS, Wuerch, Victor
Basewide Work Plan and SAP, OU-6 Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
EPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments Levine, Herbert
For RI/FS, Work Plan and SAP, OU-2 EPA Region IX
29-Oct-93 RPM Meeting Minutes, 8-10 Sept 93
Poland, Joan
633 CES/CEVR
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
1 Oof 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC.
DATE
SUBJECT OR TITLE
AUTHOR or
CORP. AUTHOR
FILE
NUMBER
Ol-Nov-93
RI/FS, Health and Safety Plan, OU-1
ICF Technology, Inc.
154
Ol-Nov-93
RI/FS, Health and Safety Plan, OU-2
ICF Technology, Inc.
155
Ol-Nov-93
RI/FS, Health and Safety Plan, OU-3
ICF Technology, Inc.
156
Ol-Nov-93
RI/FS, Health and Safety Plan, OU-4
ICF Technology, Inc.
157
Ol-Nov-93
RI/FS, Health and Safety Plan, OU-5
ICF Technology, Inc.
158
Ol-Nov-93
Community Relations Plan
ICF Technology, Inc.
159
04-Nov-93
EPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments
for RI/FS, Work Plan and SAP, OU-3
Levine, Herbert
EPA Region IX
160
Ol-Dec-93
Landfill 5 Cap Construction, Certification of
Closure Report
Hensel-Phelps
Construction Co.
Woodward-Clyde
161
Ol-Dec-93
Landfill 5 Cap Construction, Operation and
Maintenance Manual
Hensel-Phelps
Construction Co.
Woodward-Clyde
162
06-Dec-93
EPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments
on RI/FS Work Plan and SAP, OU-1
Levine, Herbert
EPA Region IX
163
16-Dec-93
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on RI/FS
Basewide Work Plan and SAP, OU-6
Wuerch, Victor
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
164
Ol-Jan-94
Fact Sheet, "TRC Update"
633 CES/CEVR
165
Ol-Jan-94
Final Inspection Report, Landfill 5 Cap
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
166
07-Jan-94
Base Letter to EPA Region IX Regarding Base
Comments on RI/FS Work Plan, OU-2
633 CES/CEVR
167
ll-Jan-94
EPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments
on RI/FS Work Plan and SAP, OU-4
Levine, Herbert
EPA Region IX
168
13-Jan-94
EPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding
Comments on RI/FS Basewide SAP, OU-6
Levine, Herbert
EPA Region IX
169
21-Jan-94
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on RI/FS Wuerch, Victor
Work Plan and SAP, OU-1 Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
170
Ol-Feb-94
RI/FS, Landfill 2 Cap Construction, Cost Evaluation
Report
ICF Technology, Inc.
171
1 lof 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
Ol-Feb-94 Final Landfill 5 Cap Construction Report Hensel-Phelps 172
Construction Co.
Woodward-Clyde
Ol-Feb-94 RI/FS, Natural Resource Survey Report, Vol I of II ICF Technology, Inc. 173
Ol-Feb-94 RI/FS, Natural Resource Survey Report, Vol II of II ICF Technology, Inc. 174
Ol-Feb-94 Fact Sheet, "Dye Tracer Project Near Completion" Guam Coastal 175
Management Program
08-Feb-94 EPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments Levine, Herbert 176
on RI/FS Work Plan and SAP, OU-5 EPA Region IX
17-Feb-94 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on RI/FS Wuerch, Victor 177
Work Plan and SAP, OU-4 Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
18-Feb-94 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on RI/FS Levine, Herbert 178
Work Plan, OU-3 Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
21-Mar-94 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on RI/FS Wuerch, Victor 179
Work Plan and SAP, OU-5 Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
07-Apr-94 TRC Meeting Minutes, 17 Feb 94 Stanfill, Ronnie A, Col 180
633 ABW/CV
14-Apr-94 SOW, RI/FS, OU-6 AFCEE/ERD 181
10-May-94 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Landfill Complex Poland, Joan 182
Dye Trace Project Sampling 633 CES/CEVR
Ol-Jun-94 SOW, RI/FS, OU-3 AFCEE/ERD 183
23-Jun-94 EPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments Levine, Herbert 184
on RI/FS Work Plan and SAP, OU-4 EPA Region IX
01-Jul-94 Final Geologic and Hydrogeologic Report, Landfill ICF Technology, Inc. 185
Complex
25-Jul-94 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on RI/FS Wuerch, Victor 186
Work Plan and SAP, OU-4 Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
02-Aug-94 SOW, RI/FS, OU-3 AFCEE/ERD 187
Ol-Sep-94 RI/FS, Final Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum, ICF Technology, Inc. 188
OU-3
12of 43
-------
DOC.
DATE
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
AUTHOR or
SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR
FILE
NUMBER
Ol-Sep-94
Ol-Sep-94
09-Sep-94
Ol-Oct-94
RI/FS, Final Work Plan Addendum, OU-3
RI/FS/RD, Data Summary, Conclusions, and
Recommendations for Initial RI Activities at Landfill
29, War Dog Borrow Pit, and Waste Pile 6
SOW, RI/FS, Mod 1 for OU-2
ICF Technology, Inc.
ICF Technology, Inc.
AFCEE/COR
RI/FS, Final Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum, ICF Technology, Inc.
OU-2
189
190
191
192
Ol-Oct-94
Ol-Oct-94
Ol-Oct-94
RI/FS, Final Work Plan Addendum, OU-2
RI/FS, Informal Technical Information Report
Ecological Habitat Survey of OU-3
ICF Technology, Inc.
ICF Technology, Inc.
RI/FS, Final Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum, ICF Technology, Inc.
OU-4
193
194
195
Ol-Oct-94
Ol-Oct-94
RI/FS, Final Work Plan Addendum, OU-4
ICF Technology, Inc.
RI/FS, Final Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum, ICF Technology, Inc.
OU-5
196
197
Ol-Oct-94
19-Oct-94
Ol-Nov-94
RI/FS, Final Work Plan Addendum, OU-5
SOW, RI/FS, OU-5
ICF Technology, Inc.
AFCEE/ESR
RI/FS, Final Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum, ICF Technology, Inc.
OU-1
198
199
200
Ol-Nov-94 RI/FS, Final Work Plan Addendum, OU-1
ll-Nov-94 SOW, RI/FS/RD, Test Pit and Test Trench
Excavations
ICF Technology, Inc.
AFCEE/ERS
201
202
29-Nov-94 TRC Meeting Minutes, 07 Nov 94
Saunders, Ralph S, Jr, Col
633 ABW/CC
203
Ol-Jan-95
Ol-Jan-95
Fact Sheet, "Andersen Air Force Base's
Environmental Investigation"
633 CES/CEVR
RI/FS, Final Basewide Sampling and Analysis Plan, ICF Technology, Inc
OU-6
204
205
Ol-Jan-95
1l-Jan-95
RI/FS, Final Basewide Work Plan, OU-6
ICF Technology, Inc
Meeting Minutes for Telephone Conference with Base, ICF Technology, Inc
GEPA, and EPA Region IX Regarding Monitoring Well
Pumps, OU-2
206
207
13of 43
-------
DOC.
DATE
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
AUTHOR or
SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR
FILE
NUMBER
Ol-Feb-95
03-Feb-95
15-Feb-95
24-Feb-95
09-Mar-95
10-Mar-95
20-Mar-95
24-Mar-95
06-Apr-95
Ol-May-95
08-May-95
18-May-95
19-May-95
22-May-95
24-May-95
26-May-95
RI/FS/RD, Final Groundwater Dye Trace Program
and Well Cluster Proposal for the Landfill Area
RI/FS/RD, Data Summary, Conclusions, and
Recommendations for Initial RI Activities at Waste
Pile 7, Waste Pile 5, and MARBO Laundry
RAB Meeting Minutes, 15 Feb 95
RPM Meeting Minutes, 15-16 Feb 95
ICF Technology, Inc.
ICF Technology, Inc.
633 CES/CEVR
633 CES/CEVR
EPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments Schutz, Michelle
on Draft Groundwater Monitoring Plan EPA Region IX
SOW, RI/FS, OU-1
RI/FS/RD, Data Summary, Conclusions, and
Recommendations for Initial RI Activities at
Relocated Waste Pile 6 and Relocated Landfill 29
24-Mar-95 RAB Meeting Minutes, 24 Mar 95
SOW, RI/FS, OU-6
AFCEE/ESR
ICF Technology, Inc.
Saunders, Ralph S, Jr, Col
633 ABW/CC
AFCEE/ESR
EPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments Schutz, Michelle
on RI/FS Base Background Soil Field Sampling Plan EPA Region IX
20-Apr-95 RAB Meeting Minutes, 20 Apr 95
SOW, RI/FS, OU-1
Saunders, Ralph S, Jr, Col
633 ABW/CC
AFCEE/ESR
Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Comments on Drilling Poland, Joan
Pilot Holes 633 CES/CEVR
RAB Meeting Minutes, 18 May 95
RI/FS/RD, Soil Gas Results, Conclusions, and
Recommendations Report, OU-3
RPM Meeting Minutes, 19-22 May 1995
Saunders, Ralph S, Jr, Col
633 ABW/CC
ICF Technology, Inc.
633 CES/CEVR
Newspaper Article, "Putting the Lid on an Old Problem" 633 CES/CEVR
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on
Monitoring Wells Report, MARBO
Wuerch, Victor
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
Ol-Jun-95
RI/FS, Basewide Health and Safety Plan, OU-6
14of 43
EA Engineering,
Science and Technology
226
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
06-Jun-95 EPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments Schutz, Michelle
on Draft Groundwater Monitoring Plan
22-Jun-95 EPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments
for Soil Gas Results, Conclusions, and
Recommendations for OU-3
29-Jun-95
20-Jul-95
21-Jul-95
24-Jul-95
08-Aug-95
23-Aug-95
18-Sep-95
Ol-Oct-95
Ol-Oct-95
11-Oct-95
12-Oct-95
15-Nov-95
SOW, EE/CA for FTA 2 and Landfill 9 in OU-4
SOW, RI/FS/RD, OU-3
Base Letter to EPA Region IX Regarding Responses
to EPA Comments on Soil Gas Results, Conclusions,
and Recommendations Report for OU-3
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Soil
Gas Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Report for OU-3
EPA Region IX
Schutz, Michelle
EPA Region IX
AFCEE/ESR
AFCEE/ERD
633 CES/CEVR
Wuerch, Victor
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Draft Wuerch, Victor
Groundwater Monitoring Plan Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
SOW, Third-Party Data Validation
AFCEE/COR
Base Letter to EPA Region IX Requesting Modification Poland, Joan
to Testing Methods Specified in QAPP 633 CES/CEVR
RI/FS/RD, Final Groundwater Monitoring Plan
RI/FS, Final Basewide Health and Safety Plan
ICF Technology, Inc.
EA Engineering,
Science and Technology
EPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments Schutz, Michelle
on QAPP EPA Region IX
RAB Meeting Minutes, 12 Oct 95 Jaroch, Victor D, Col
36 ABW/CV
Base Letter to EPA Region IX Regarding Responses
to Comments on Soil Gas Results, Conclusions, and
Recommendations Report for OU-3
01 -Dec-95 Final Management Action Plan
29-Jan-96 RI/FS, Data Summary, Conclusions, and
Recommendations for Initial RI Activities at
Waste Pile 3
Poland, Joan
36 CES/CEVR
EA Engineering,
Science and Technology
ICF Technology, Inc.
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
15of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
Ol-Feb-96
06-Feb-96
15-Feb-96
16-Feb-96
22-Mar-96
Ol-Apr-96
Ol-Apr-96
RI/FS, Final Records Search
ICF Technology, Inc.
26-Jun-96
04-Mar-96
12-Jan-96
Ol-Sep-93
19-Apr-01
15-Oct-92
16-Oct-92
16-Oct-92
EPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments Schutz, Michelle
on Media Sample Data Report, OU-3 EPA Region IX
RAB Meeting Minutes, 15 Feb 96
RPM Meeting Minutes, 15-16 Feb 96
Jaroch, Victor D, Col
36 ABW/CV
36 ABW/CV
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Responses to GEPA Wuerch, Victor
Comments on Soil Gas Results, Conclusions, and
Recommendations Report for OU-3
Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
RI/FS/RD, Groundwater Elevations and Water Level ICF Technology, Inc
Map, Informal Technical Information Report, MARBO
Annex and Harmon Annex, Vol I of II
RI/FS/RD, Groundwater Elevations and Water Level ICF Technology, Inc
Map, Informal Technical Information Report, North
And Northwest Fields, Vol II of II
26-Jun-96 RAB Meeting Minutes, 16 May 96
SOW, EE/CA, Landfills 21, 23 and 26, Hazardous
Waste Storage Area 1, and Waste Pile 4,
OU-4
SOW, EE/CA, Landfills 14, 15, and 16, and PCB
Storage Area
SOW, RI/FS, OU-2
Jaroch, Victor D, Col
36 ABW/CV
AFCEE/COR
AFCEE/COR
AFCEE/ERD
EPA Superfund Technical Assistance Grants Fact Sheet HQ USEPA
Newspaper Article, "Andersen Landfill Waiting for The Pacific Daily News
Cleanup"
Newspaper Article, "EPA Puts Andersen on Superfund The Pacific Daily News
Priority List"
Newspaper Article, "Andersen is Named to Superfund" Tropic Topics
Newspaper Article, "Andersen Cleanup Contract The Pacific Daily
Awaits Agreement" News
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
Ol-Jul-94
Base Newsletter, Jul 94
633 CES/CEVR
259
20-Jul-95
EPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Review of Schutz, Michelle
Purge/Stablization Test for Groundwater Monitoring Wells EPA Region IX
16 of 43
260
-------
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
AUTHOR or
SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR
EPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Response to Schutz, Michelle
Comments of Purge Stablization Test EPA Region IX
Base Letter to EPA Region IX Regarding Proposed Poland, Joan
Landfill Groundwater Monitoring Well Network 36 CES/CEVR
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Review of Draft Wuerch, Victor
Media Sample Data Report, OU-3 Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Review Comments Wuerch, Victor
on RI, OU-3 Guam Environmental
Protection Agency
RAB Meeting Minutes, 15 Aug 96 Jaroch, Victor D, Co
36 ABW/CV
RPM Meeting Minutes, 24-25 Sep-96 36 CES/CEVR
Newspaper Article, "Chamoru Nation Seeks U.S. The Pacific Daily
Help in Local Cancer Study" News
Base Newspaper Article, " Community Relations Vital Poland, D. Joan
for Environmental Program" 633 CES
Newspaper Article, "Angel Santos Stakes Claim to Brooks, Donovan
Land" Pacific Daily News
News Release, "Public Notice, Schedule of Proposed Pacific Daily News
Deadlines for Completion of Draft Primary Documents:
Work Plan, Sampling & Analysis Plan, RI Report,
Feasibility Report, Proposed Plan, & ROD"
Letter from Atty Peter Sgro, Jr., to Base Regarding Sgro, Jr., Peter R.
Elevated Levels of Cadmium and Lead; Failure to Atty-At-Law
Adhere to Quality Control & Quality Assurance of
Drinking Water & Necessity for Public Hearings
GEPA Fax to Base Regarding Approval of the Damian, Francis
Reseeding of LF-5 GEPA
Fax Documents to Base Concerning Fact Sheet from Sgro, Jr., Peter R.
Atty Peter Sgro, Jr., on the EE/CA for LF-5 Atty-At-Law
Community Relations Plan & Letter to PUAG & GEPA
Fact Sheet, "Andersen AFB Restoration Advisory 36 CES/CEVR
Board (RAB)"
Installation Restoration Program Site Tour
RAB Charter Revisions
17of 43
36 CES/CEVR
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
26-Sep-95 RAB Letter Concerning Trichloroethylene Brown, Joanne M. 277
Contamination Senator, Guam Legislature
06-Jan-96 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Schutz, Michelle 278
Comments on the Basewide QAPP USEPA Region IX
Ol-Apr-96 Newsletter Article, "Air Force Plans the Installation of 279
Air Stripper"
Ol-Aug-96 Newspaper Article, "Harmon Cliffline Permits Revoked" Sterne, Bernadette 280
Pacific Daily News
19-Aug-96 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies Poland, D. Joan 281
of the Draft OU-3 Feasibility Study Report 36 CES/CEVR
22-Aug-96 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments Schutz, Michelle 282
on the OU-3 RI Report USEPA Region IX
23-Aug-96 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Extension for Review Wuerch, H. Victor 283
of the OU-3 RI Report GEPA
30-Aug-96 Newsletter Article, "Defense Cleanup" Pasha Publication 284
18-Sep-96 Base Fax to USEPA Region IX Fax to Base Regarding Ikehara, Gregg N. 285
Second Attempt to Drill Hole in IRP 52a Well 36 CES/CEVR
04-Oct-96 USEPA Region IX Letter to GEPA Regarding Burnett, Bryant K. 286
Reported Drums Located on Marine Drive, Guam USEPA Region IX
ll-Oct-96 Base Letter to Guam Governor Requesting AF Deloney, John M. Colonel, 287
Reconsidering Revocation of Harmon Cliffline Permit USAF 36 ABW/CC
15-Oct-96 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies Poland, D. Joan 288
of Draft NFRAP for IRP Site 7/LF-9 36 CES/CEVR
15-Oct-96 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal Poland, D. Joan 289
of Copies of Draft NFRAP for IRP Site 7/LF-9 36 CES/CEVR
16-Oct-96 News Article, "Landowners Threaten Forcible Eviction" Loerzel, Adrienne 290
Pacific Daily News
21-Oct-96 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Schutz, Michelle 291
Comments on the OU-3 Focused Feasibility Study USEPA Region IX
Report
22-Oct-96 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on the Wuerch, H. Victor 292
OU-3 Focused Feasibility Study Report GEPA
23-Oct-96 Newspaper Article, "Well Contamination Needs Close (Editorial) 293
Scrutiny" Pacific Daily News
18of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
29-Oct-96 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies Poland, D. Joan 294
of the Consensus Statement and the Revised Primary 36 CES/CEVR
Document Deadlines
29-Oct-96 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal Poland, D. Joan 295
of Copies of the Consensus Statement and the Revised 36 CES/CEVR
Primary Document Deadlines
29-Oct-96 Water Issues Between the Air Force & Public Utilities Quintanilla, R. 296
Agency of Guam PUAG
Ol-Nov-96 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies Poland, D. Joan 297
of the Draft OU-2 RI Report & Appendices 36 CES/CEVR
15-Nov-96 Extended Draft Final RI Report for OU-3, MARBO & Wuerch, H. Victor 298
Updated Risk Assessment Concurrence Guam EPA
21-Nov-96 RAB Meeting Minutes, 21 Nov 96 EA Engineering 299
Ol-Dec-96 OU-3, Remedial Investigation Report Vol 1 - Text, ICF Technology 300
Final
Ol-Dec-96 OU-3, Remedial Investigation Report Vol 2 - ICF Technology 301
Appendices A through D, Final
Ol-Dec-96 OU-3, Remedial Investigation Report Vol 3 - ICF Technology 302
Appendix E, Final
Ol-Dec-96 OU-3, Remedial Investigation Report Vol 4 - ICF Technology 303
Appendices F-l through F-7, Final
01-Dec-96 OU-3, Remedial Investigation Report Vol 5 - ICF Technology 304
Appendices F-8 through J, Final
09-Dec-96 RPM Meeting Minutes, 21-22 Nov 96 EA Engineering 305
02-Dec-96 Revised Risk Assessment Procedures Schutz, Michelle 306
USEPA Region IX
02-Dec-96 EPA Region IX Comments on Draft Final NFRAP for Schutz, Michelle 307
IRP Site 7/LF-9 USEPA Region IX
05-Dec-96 Amend Deadlines on Federal Facilities Agreement Schutz, Michelle 308
USEPA Region IX
09-Dec-96 Newspaper Article, "Asphalt from Bellows Pit Honolulu Star Bulletin 309
Recycled for Isle Potholes"
17-Dec-96 GEPA Fax to Base Regarding Review & Approval of Wuerch, H. Victor 310
Draft Final NFRAP for IRP Site 7/LF-9 GEPA
19of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
18-Dec-96 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Schutz, Michelle 311
Procedure for Completion & Deletion of National USEPA Region IX
Priorities List Sites
19-Jun-05 Article, "Community Involvement in Guam Helps Save Bureau of Planning 312
More than $175,000" Man, Land & Sea
Ol-Jan-97 OU-3, Focused Feasibility Study Report, Final ICF Technology 313
Ol-Jan-97 Final NFRAP for IRP Site 7/LF-9 EA Engineering 314
Ol-Jan-97 Fact Sheet, "Technology: Air Stripping" 36 CES/CEVR 315
06-Jan-97 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Requesting Ripperda, Mark 316
Extension to the Comment Period for OU-2, RI Report, USEPA Region IX
MARBO Annex
08-Jan-97 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base & GEPA Regarding Schutz, Michelle 317
30 Day Extension to Review Draft Final OU-3 RI Report USEPA Region IX
09-Jan-97 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Review Ripperda, Mark 318
of the Draft RI Report for OU-2 MARBO Annex USEPA Region IX
09-Jan-97 Base Letter to RAB Members Regarding Transmittal Jaroch, Victor D. Colonel, 319
of Quarterly RAB Meeting Minutes, 21 Nov 96 USAF 36 ABW/CV
23-Jan-97 Base Letter to RAB Members Regarding Next Jaroch, Victor D. Colonel, 320
Quarterly RAB Meeting USAF 36 ABW/CV
24-Jan-97 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on the Draft Wuerch, H. Victor 321
RI Report for OU-2 GEPA
27-Jan-97 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies Poland, D. Joan 322
of the Draft Final OU-3 (MARBO Annex) Feasibility 36 CES/CEVR
Study Report
27-Jan-97 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Poland, D. Joan 323
Transmittal of Copies of the Draft Final OU-3 36 CES/CEVR
(MARBO Annex) Feasibility Study Report
29-Jan-97 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Response Opalski, Dan 324
to Review & Amendment of QAPP for Federal Facility USEPA Region IX
Cleanup Sites
29-Jan-97 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies Poland, D. Joan 325
of the Final Revised Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs) for the RI/FS Activities
3 l-Jan-97 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on the Wuerch, H. Victor 326
Draft RI Report for OU-2 GEPA
20of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
31-Jan-97 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Phase II
EBS for P.L. 103-339 Parcels
Wuerch, H. Victor
GEPA
327
31-Jan-97 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Response
to the Potential Impacts of the Eureka Laboratory Fraud
Case of Federal Facilities Cleanup
Ol-Feb-97 Fact Sheet, "Harmon Annex"
12-Feb-97 Peer Review Report of Draft Final Focused Feasibility
Study for OU-3
13-Feb-97 Technical Document to Support NFRAP Declaration
IPR Site 7/LF-9
19-Feb-97 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Requesting Approval
to Use Triangle Laboratories & Data Chem Labs to
Conduct Dioxin and Furan Analyses
19-Feb-97 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Requesting
Approval to Use Triangle Laboratories & Data Chem
Labs to Conduct Dioxin and Furan Analyses
21-Feb-97 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Deadline
Extension Request for Draft Feasibility Report for OU-2
26-Feb-97 Base Letter to Guam EPA (GEPA) Regarding
Transmittal of NFRAP Documents for IRP Site 7/LF-9
Opalski, Dan
USEPA Region IX
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
26-Feb-97 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal
of Final NFRAP Documents for IRP Site 7/LF-9
Ol-Mar-97 OU-2, MARBO Annex, Remedial Investigation Report
Vol 1 - Text, Final
Ol-Mar-97 OU-2, MARBO Annex, Remedial Investigation Report
Vol 2A - Appendix A-C, Final
Ol-Mar-97 OU-2, MARBO Annex, Remedial Investigation Report
Vol 2B - Appendix A-C, Final
Ol-Mar-97 OU-2, MARBO Annex, Remedial Investigation Report
Vol 3A - Appendix E -F, Final
Ol-Mar-97 OU-2, MARBO Annex, Remedial Investigation Report
Vol 3B - Appendix G, Final
Ol-Mar-97 OU-2, MARBO Annex, Remedial Investigation Report
Vol 4A - Appendix H-I, Final
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
ICF Technology
ICF Technology
ICF Technology
ICF Technology
ICF Technology
ICF Technology
336
21of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
Ol-Mar-97 OU-2, MARBO Annex, Remedial Investigation Report
Vol 4B - Appendix J-L, Final
Ol-Mar-97 OU-2, MARBO Annex, Remedial Investigation Report
Vol 5 - Appendix M-O, Final
01-Mar-97 OU-2, MARBO Annex, Remedial Investigation Report
Vol 6 - Appendix P-T, Final
03-Mar-97 RPM Meeting Minutes, 12-13 Feb 97
04-Mar-97 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Notification of Laboratories to be Utilized by EA
Engineering
30-Mar-97 Action Memorandum - Request & Document
Approval of Proposed Action for Site 39/Harmon
Substation
02-Apr-97 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of the Draft Final RI Report for Groundwater (OU-2)
02-Apr-97 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal
of the Draft Final RI Report for Groundwater (OU-2)
03-Apr-97 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Evaluation
of Base Response to Quality Assurance Questionnaire
03-Apr-97 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of Copies of the Draft Final Basewide
Sampling & Analysis Plan, QAPP
03-Apr-97 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of the Draft Focused Feasibility Study Report for
Groundwater (OU-2)
03-Apr-97 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of Copies of the Draft Focused
Feasibility Study Report for Groundwater (OU-2)
03-Apr-97 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of Copies of the Final OU-3 Focused
Feasibility Report Revision Pages
03-Apr-97 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of the Final OU- Focused Feasiblity Report
Revision Pages
03-Apr-97 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal
of Copies of the Final OU-3 RI Revision Pages
ICF Technology
ICF Technology
ICF Technology
EA Engineering
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Opalski, Dan
USEPA Region IX
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
22of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
03-Apr-97 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of the Final OU-3 RI Revision Pages
08-Apr-97 RAB Quarterly Meeting Minutes, 20 Feb 97
09-Apr-97 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of Draft Final Phase II EBS for
P.L. 103-339 Parcels
Poland, D. Joan 349
36 CES/CEVR
Higgle, Albert F. Colonel, 350
USAF 36 SPTG/CC
Poland, D. Joan 351
36 CES/CEVR
29-Apr-97 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding
Comments on the Draft Final OU-2 RI Report
07-May-97 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on
the Draft Final Basewide Sampling & Analysis
Plan, QAPP and the Draft Final RI Report for
Groundwater OU-2, MARBO Annex
Ripperda, Mark
USEPA Region IX
Wuerch, H. Victor
GEPA
352
353
07-May-97 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding
Comments on the Draft Final QAPP
15-May-97 Base Letter to Mr. Tony Artero Regarding
Assessment of Disposed Materials on Lot #10080
19-May-97 List of Interviewees for the IRP Community
Relations Plan Revisions
20-May-97 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding
Comments on the Focused Feasibility Study Report
for MARBO Annex OU-2 USEPA Region IX
29-May-97 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Clarification
to the QAPP for Federal Facility Cleanup Sites
Questionnaire
29-May-97 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Requesting
Modifications to the OU-4 Work Plan for IRP Site
27/Hazardous Waste Storage Area 1 & OU-5 Work
Plan for IRP Site 34/PCB Storage Area
29-May-97 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Requesting Modifications to the OU-4 Work Plan for
IRP Site 27/Hazardous Waste Storage Area 1 & OU-5
Work Plan for IRP Site 34/PCB Storage Area
03-Jun-97 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on the
Focused Feasibility Study for MARBO Annex OU-2
19-Jun-97 Base Letter to RAB Members Regarding Next Quarterly
RAB Meeting & Minutes of 15 May 97 RAB Meeting
Ripperda, Mark 354
USEPA Region IX
Riggle, Albert F. Colonel, 355
USAF 36 SPTG/CC
36 CES/CEVR 356
Ripperda, Mark 357
USEPA Region IX
Poland, D. Joan 358
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan 359
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan 360
36 CES/CEVR
Wuerch, H. Victor 361
GEPA
Riggle, Albert F. Colonel, 362
USAF 36 SPTG/CC
23of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
30-Jun-97 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Approval
to Use Method SW 3540 A/8310 for PAH Analysis
08-Jul-97 Summary of Community Interviews
1 l-Jul-97 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of the
Draft Proposed Plan for MARBO Annex OU
(Soils & Groundwater)
1 l-Jul-97 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of the Draft Proposed Plan for MARBO
Annex OU (Soils & Groundwater)
1 l-Jul-97 Base Letter to Mr. Tony Artero Regarding Completion
of Field Work on Lot 10080 by AF's Environmental
Assessment Contractor
Ripperda, Mark 363
USEPA Region IX
36 CES/CEVR 364
Poland, D. Joan 365
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan 366
36 CES/CEVR
Riggle, Albert F. Colonel, 367
USAF 36 SPTG/CC
30-Jul-97 Base Letter to RAB Members Regarding Introductory
Relative Risk Assessment Workshop for 31 Jul 97
30-Jul-97 Recommended Community Relations Activities for
FY98
McGoldrick, Tim Colonel, 368
USAF 36 ABW/CV
36 CES/CEVR
369
Ol-Aug-97 Fact Sheet, "Vertical Landfill Expansion"
14-Aug-97 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of the Draft Final MARBO Annex OU-2
(Groundwater) Focused Feasibility Study Report
14-Aug-97 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of the Draft Final MARBO Annex OU-2
(Groundwater) Focused Feasibility Study Report
25-Aug-97 GEPA Fax to Base Regarding Comments on the Draft
Proposed Plan for MARBO Annex OU
29-Aug-97 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of Copies of the Draft Final Proposed Plan
for MARBO Annex OU (Soils & Groundwater)
29-Aug-97 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of the Draft Final Proposed Plan for MARBO
Annex OU (Soils & Groundwater)
Ol-Sep-97 Fact Sheet, "Landfill 7"
23-Sep-97 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Air Force Response
to GEPA Comments on the MARBO Annex OU
Focused Feasibility Study Report
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Wuerch, H. Victor
GEPA
Poland, Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, Joan
36 CES/CEVR
36 CES/CEVR
Wuerch, D. Victor
GEPA
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
24of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
Ol-Oct-97 Final MARBO Annex OU-2 Focused Feasibility
Study Report
Ol-Oct-97 Final Basewide Quality Assurance Project Plan
Ol-Oct-97 Final Proposed Plan, MARBO Annex OU
Ol-Oct-97 IRP Newsletter, "Restoration Advisory Board
Recommends Cleanup Priorities"
08-Oct-97 News Release, "Notice of Availability, MARBO
Annex OU Proposed Plan"
14-Oct-97 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of the Draft Decision Summary NFRAP for IRP Site
18/LF-23 & Copies of the Final Proposed Plan for
MARBO Annex OU & Inserts for MARBO Annex
OU-2 Focused Feasibility Study Report
20-Oct-97 Base Letter to GPA Authorizing Installation of Power
Connection for IRP Contractor OHM
Montgomery Watson
36 CES/CEVR
36 CES/CEVR
Pacific Daily News
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
378
379
380
381
382
383
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
384
22-Oct-97 RPM Minutes, 22 Oct 97
28-Oct-97 USEPA Letter to HQ ACC Regarding Clarification of
Requirements for Administrative Record Files
21-Nov-97 RAB Meeting Minutes, 16 Oct 97
24-Nov-97 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of the Draft Decision Summary NFRAP for ERP Site
3/WP-3 & Copies of the Draft Site Characterization
Report for WP 1, 2, & 3
24-Nov-97 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of Copies of the Draft Decision Summary
NFRAP for IRP Site 3/Waste Pile 3 & Copies of the
Draft Site Characterization Report for WP 1, 2, & 3
Ol-Dec-97 Final Quality Program Plan, Interim Remedial Actions,
Main Base, MARBO, & Harmon OUs, Vol 1
EA Engineering
Luftig, Stephen D.
USEPA
EA Engineering
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
385
386
387
388
389
390
Ol-Dec-97 Final Environmental Cleanup Plan, Interim Remedial
Actions, Main Base, MARBO, & Harmon OUs, Vol 2
04-Dec-97 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments
on the Draft Decision Summary NFRAP for IRP Site
18/LF-23
Ripperda, Mark
USEPA Region IX
391
392
09-Dec-97 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments
on the Draft Decision Summary NFRAP for IRP Site
3/Waste Pile 3
25of 43
Ripperda, Mark
USEPA Region IX
393
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
09-Dec-97 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments
on the Draft Decision Summary NFRAP for IRP Site
3/Waste Pile 3
Ripperda, Mark
USEPA Region IX
393
09-Dec-97 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal
of Copies of the Proposed Remediation Activities Project
Memorandum for Waste Piles 1 & 2
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
394
09-Dec-97 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of
the Proposed Remediation Activities Project Memorandum
for Waste Piles 1 & 2
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
395
10-Dec-97 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal
of Copies of the Draft Bioventing & Vapor Extraction
Pilot Study for FTA-2
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
396
10-Dec-97 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of the Draft Bioventing & Vapor Extraction Pilot Study
for FTA-2
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
397
15-Dec-97 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of the Draft ROD for Soils & Groundwater
MARBO Annex OU
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
398
15-Dec-97 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of the Draft
ROD for Soils & Groundwater MARBO Annex OU
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
399
15-Dec-97 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Modification to QAPP to Incorporate Method SW 8290
for Analysis of Dioxins & Furans
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
400
15-Dec-97 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Modification to QAPP
to Incorporate Method SW 8290 for Analysis of Dioxins
& Furans
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
401
Ol-Jan-98 Final Bioventing & Vapor Extraction Pilot Study
Work Plan FTA-2
EA Engineering
402
28-Jan-98 GEPA Fax to Base Regarding Comments on the
Draft Bioventing & Vapor Extraction Pilot Study
Work Plan for FTA-2
Wuerch, H. Victor
GEPA
403
Ol-Feb-98 Base Letter to GEPA Requesting Adjustments to
AF Permit
Hodges, William Colonel, 404
USAF 36 ABW/CC
02-Feb-98 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of Copies of the Action Memorandum
& Site Characterization Summary Report for IRP
Site 39/Harmon Substation
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
405
26of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
02-Feb-98 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of the
Final Bioventing & Vapor Extraction Pilot Study
Work Plan for FTA-2
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
406
1 l-Feb-98 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments
on the Draft Final MARBO Annex OU ROD
25-Feb-98 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of the NFRAP for IRP Site 18/LF-23
Ripperda, Mark
USEPA Region IX
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
407
408
26-Feb-98 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of the Site Characterization Report for IRP Site 19/LF-24
26-Feb-98 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of the Draft Basewide Groundwater Summary Report
Ol-Mar-98 Decision Summary, NFRAP, BRP Site 3/Waste Pile 3
Ol-Mar-98 Site Characterization Report, Waste Piles 1, 2, & 3
Vol 1 - Text
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
ICF Technology
ICF Technology
409
410
411
412
Ol-Mar-98 Site Characterization Report, Waste Piles 1, 2, & 3
Vol 2 - Appendices (2 of 2)
Ol-Mar-98 Fact Sheet, "Asphalt Recycling Operations"
04-Mar-98 RPM Meeting Minutes, 18 Feb 98
23-Mar-98 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Modification of the
Target Analyte List in the Basewide QAPP
23-Mar-98 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Modification of the Target Analyte List in the
Basewide QAPP
24-Mar-98 Technical Document to Support NFRAP Declaration
for IRP Site 3/Waste Pile 3
ICF Technology
36 CES/CEVR
EA Engineering
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
36 CES/CEVR
413
414
415
416
417
418
26-Mar-98 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Approval for Addition of OHM Services Corp to the
QAPP
26-Mar-98 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Approval for
Addition of OHM Services Corp to the QAPP
26-Mar-98 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of Copies of the Final Decision
Summary NFRAP for IRP Site 3/Waste Pile 3
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
419
420
421
27of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
26-Mar-98 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of the Final Decision Summary NFRAP
for IRP Site 3/Waste Pile 3
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
422
31-Mar-98 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding
Modifications to the QAPP Target Analyte List
31-Mar-98 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding
Modifications to the QAPP
Ol-Apr-98 Fact Sheet, "Andersen AFB Restoration Advisory
Board (RAB)"
15-Apr-98 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on the
Action Memorandum & Site Characterization
Summary Report for IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
& Addition of OHM Services Corp., EMAX Inc.,
to the QAPP
16-Apr-98 RPM Meeting Minutes, 16 Apr 98
16-Apr-98 Technical Document to Support NFRAP Declaration
for DIP Site 18/LF-23
Ripperda, Mark
USEPA Region IX
Ripperda, Mark
USEPA Region IX
36 CES/CEVR
Wuerch, H. Victor
GEPA
36 CES/CEVR
36 CES/CEVR
423
424
425
426
427
428
30-Apr-98 Town Hall Meeting Minutes Regarding Landfill 7
Located in Base Housing
Ol-May-98 Final MARBO Annex OU Record of Decision
Ol-May-98 Base Letter to GPA Authorizing Installation of
Power Connection for IRP Contractor OHM
Miclat, Marriane
36 CES/CEVR
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
429
430
431
15-Jun-98 RAB Meeting Minutes, 16 Apr 98
15-Jun-98 US Dept of Interior to Base Regarding Concurrence
of Base Finding for IRP Site 8/LFs 10A, 10B, IOC,
& IRP Site 33/Drum Storage Area 2
15-Jun-98 UOG Letter to Base Regarding Resignation of Dr.
John Jenson from RAB & Nomination of Mr. John
Jocson to RAB
EA Engineering 432
DiRosa, Roger 433
Refuge Manager
GNWR
Jenson, John W. Ph. D., 434
UOG, WERI Institute
Ol-Jul-98 Final Site Characterization Summary Report for
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
EA Engineering
435
10-Jul-98
Press Release, "AAFB Conducts RAB Meeting"
36 CES/CEVR
Pacific Daily News
436
21-Jul-98 RAB Meeting Minutes, 16 Jul 98
EA Engineering
437
28of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
Ol-Aug-98 Newsletter Article, "Air Force Recycling Effort Paves
Island Roads"
Ol-Aug-98 Final Groundwater Summary Report for AAFB
Ol-Aug-98 Site Summary Report for FTA-2
Ol-Aug-98 Operation & Maintenance Plan, FTA-2, Soil Vapor
Extraction System, AAFB
25-Aug-98 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of the Final Groundwater Summary Report for AAFB
04-Sep-98 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal
of Copies of Updated Draft Community Relations Plan
04-Sep-98 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of Updated Draft Community Relations Plan
04-Sep-98 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of Final MARBO Annex OU ROD
Bureau of Planning
Man, Land, & Sea
EA Engineering
Jacobs Engineering
Jacobs Engineering
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
13-Oct-98 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of the Draft
Decision Summary NFRAP for IRP Site 11/Lfs
15A& 15B
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
446
13-Oct-98 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of Copies of Draft Decision Summary
NFRAP for IRP Site 11/LFs 15A & 15B
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
447
19-Oct-98
Ol-Nov-98
05-Nov-98
USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding
Comments on the Draft Community Relations Plan
Ripperda, Mark
USEPA Region IX
Final Spring 1998 Groundwater Data Monitoring Report EA Engineering
Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of Draft Quality Program Plan (Vol 1) & Draft
Environmental Cleanup Plan (Vol 2) for MARBO
Annex OU
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
448
449
450
05-Nov-98 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of Copies of the Draft Quality Program
Plan (Vol 1) & Draft Environmental Cleanup Plan
(Vol 2) for MARBO Annex OU
1 l-Nov-98 News Release, "Notice of Availability, ROD for the
MARBO IRP Sites"
12-Nov-98 News Release, "Notice of Availability, ROD for the
MARBO IRP Sites"
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
36 CES/CEVR
Pacific Daily News
36 CES/CEVR
Pacific Daily News
451
452
453
29of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
13-Nov-98 News Release, "Notice of Availability, ROD for the
MARBO IRP Sites"
23-Nov-98 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of the
Draft EE/CA for IRP Site 34/PCB Storage Area
36 CES/CEVR
Pacific Daily News
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
454
455
23-Nov-98 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of the Draft EE/CA for IRP Site 34/PCB
Storage Area
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
456
23-Nov-98 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of the Draft NFRAP for IRP Site
27/Hazardous Waste Storage Area 1
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
457
Ol-Dec-98 Base Letterto USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of the Draft EE/CA for IRP Site 10/LF-14
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
458
01 -Dec-98 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of the
Draft EE/CA for IRP Site 10/LF-14
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
459
08-Dec-98 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of the Project Memorandum for the
Proposed Remediation Activities for P.L. 103-339 AOCs
08-Dec-98 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of the
Project Memorandum for the Proposed Remediation
Activities for P.L. 103-339 AOCs
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
460
461
10-Dec-98 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of the Draft EE/CA for IRP Site
31/Chemical Storage Area 4
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
462
10-Dec-98 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of the Draft EE/CA for IRP Site 16/LF-21
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
463
10-Dec-98 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of the
Draft EE/CA for IRP Site 16/LF-21
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
464
10-Dec-98 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of the
Draft EE/CA for IRP Site 31/Chemical Storage Area 4
16-Dec-98 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of the Final Community Relations Plan
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
465
466
16-Dec-98 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of Copies of the Final Community
Relations Plan
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
467
16-Dec-98 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of the
Draft Decision Summary Report for IRP Site 32/Drum
Storage Area 1
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
468
3 Oof 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
28-Dec-98 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on the
Draft EE/CA for IRP Site 31/Chemical Storage Area 4
29-Dec-98 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on the
Draft EE/CA for IRP Site 34/PCB Storage Area
06-Jan-99 RAB Meeting Minutes, 15 Oct 98
06-Jan-99 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on the
Draft NFRAP for IRP Site 27/Hazardous Waste
Storage Area 1
06-Jan-99 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of the Draft Decision Summary Report for IRP
Site 33/Drum Storage Area 2
06-Jan-99 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of Copies of the Draft Decision Summary
Report for IRP Site 33/Drum Storage Area 2
15-Jan-99 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments
on Draft NFRAP Decision Document for IRP Site
27/Hazardous Waste Storage Area 1
16-Jan-99 USEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Agency
Draft EE/CA for IRP Site 34/PCB Storage Area
Ol-Feb-99 Final Decision Document NFRAP for IRP Site 11/
LFs- 15A & 15B
Wuerch, H. Victor
GEPA
Wuerch, H. Victor
GEPA
EA Engineering
Wuerch, H. Victor
GEPA
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Ripperda, Mark
USEPA Region IX
Ripperda, Mark
USEPA Region IX
EA Engineering
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
13-Feb-99 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding
Comments on Draft EE/CA for IRP Site 16/LF-21
13-Feb-99 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding
Comments on Draft EE/CA for IRP Site 31/Chemical
Storage Area 4
19-Feb-99 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding
Comments on Draft EE/CA for IRP Site 10/LF-14
19-Feb-99 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding
Concurrence of Sample Purge Field Change Request
19-Feb-99 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding
Comments on Draft Decision Summary Report for
IRP Site 32/Drum Storage Area 1
19-Feb-99 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on the
Draft Decision Summary Report for IRP Site
32/Drum Storage Area 1
Ripperda, Mark
USEPA Region IX
Ripperda, Mark
USEPA Region IX
Ripperda, Mark
USEPA Region IX
Ripperda, Mark
USEPA Region IX
Ripperda, Mark
USEPA Region IX
Wuerch, H. Victor
GEPA
478
479
480
481
482
483
31of 43
-------
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
AUTHOR or
SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR
Dept of Interior Letter to Base Regarding Review of
the Proposed Work Plan for IRP Sites 28 & 12
GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on the Draft
EE/CA for IRP Site 16/LF-21
Final Basewide Quality Assurance Project Plan,
Revision 2.0
Cover Letter & RAB Meeting Minutes, 21 Jan 99
Base Letter to GWA Regarding Status of Tumon-Maui
& MW-2 Water Wells & Possible Exploratory Activity
at Harmon Annex
Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of the Draft NFRAP for IRP Site 11/LFs ISA & 15B
Final NFRAP Decision Document for IRP Site
27/Hazardous Waste Storage Area 1
Final EE/CA for IRP Site 34/PCB Storage Area
News Release, "Vacancy Announcement Andersen
AFB Restoration Advisory Board Members"
News Release, "Vacancy Announcement Andersen
AFB Restoration Advisory Board Members"
News Release, "Vacancy Announcement Andersen
AFB Restoration Advisory Board Members"
RAB Meeting Minutes, 15 April 99
News Article, "Officials Disagree on Wells"
Base Letter to Guam National Wildlife Refuge
Regarding Conducting Environmental Investigations
at IRP Site 36/Ritidian Dump Site
Final EE/CA for IRP Site 10/LF-14
Final EE/CA Report for IRP Site 16/LF-21
RPM Meeting Minutes, 19 May 99
Decision Summary Report for IRP Site 33/Drum
Storage Area 2
Ritter, Michael
Guam NWR
Wuerch, H. Victor
GEPA
EA Engineering
EA Engineering
Gehri, Mark J. D.
Colonel, USAF
36 ABW/CC
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
EA Engineering
EA Engineering
36 CES/CEVR
Pacific Daily News
36 CES/CEVR
Pacific Daily News
36 CES/CEVR
Pacific Daily News
EA Engineering
SantoTomas, Jojo
Pacific Daily News
Larcher, Shawn D.
Capt, USAF
36 CES/CEV
EA Engineering
EA Engineering
EA Engineering
EA Engineering
Final EE/CA for IRP Site 31/Chemical Storage
Area 4
32of 43
EA Engineering
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
04-Jun-99 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of Copies of the Final Draft, EE/CA for
IRP Site 34/PCB Storage Area, Site 10/LF-14, Site
16/LF-21, & Site 31/Chemical Storage Area 4
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
503
04-Jun-99 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of the Final Draft, EE/CA for IRP Site 34/PCB Storage
Area, Site 10/LF-14, Site 16/LF-21, & Site 31/Chemical
Storage Area 4
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
504
09-Jun-99 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of Copies of the NFRAP Decision
Document for IRP Site 27/Hazardous Waste Storage Area
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
505
09-Jun-99 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of the NFRAP Decision Document for IRP Site
27/Hazardous Waste Storage Area
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
506
12-Jun-99 News Article, "Notice of Availability for IRP Sites:
LF-14, PCB Storage Area, Chemical Storage Area 4, &
LF-21"
36 CES/CEVR
Pacific Daily News
507
13-Jun-01 LF-14, PCB Storage Area, Chemical Storage Area 4, &
LF-21"
36 CES/CEVR
Pacific Daily News
508
14-Jun-99 News Article, "Notice of Availability for IRP Sites:
LF-14, PCB Storage Area, Chemical Storage Area 4, &
LF-21"
36 CES/CEVR
Pacific Daily News
509
15-Jun-99 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of Memos Discussing the Discontinuation of
Groundwater Monitoring at NWF and Harmon
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
510
15-Jun-99 Fax Letter to Base Authorizing Air Force Limited
Right of Entry to IRP Site 36/Ritidian Dump Site to
Conduct Environmental Survey
Artero, Tony 511
Landowners Representative
Ol-Jul-99 Remediation Verification Report, HIP Site 19/LF-24
Ol-Jul-99 Remediation Verification Report, HIP Site 39/Harmon
Substation, Vol 1
IT Corporation
IT Corporation
512
513
Ol-Jul-99 Remediation Verification Report, IRP Site 39/Harmou
Substation, Vol 2
IT Corporation
514
06-Jul-99 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Transmittal of Copies of the Draft EE/CA Reports for
IRP Site 21/LF-26
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
515
06-Jul-99 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of the Draft EE/CA Reports for IRP Site 21/LF-26
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
516
33of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
21-Jul-99 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding
Appointment of Mr. Gregg Ikehara as New AAFB
Remedial Project Manager (RPM)
21-Jul-99 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Appointment of Mr.
Gregg Ikehara As New AAFB Remedial Project
Manager
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
517
518
30-Jul-99 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Notification of a New
Project Laboratory with Columbia Analytical Services
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
519
30-Jul-99 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Notification
of a New Project Laboratory with Columbia Analytical
Services
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
520
30-Jul-99 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies
of the Remediation Verification Reports for TKP Site
39/Harmon Substation, Site 19/LF-24, & AOCs 1,2,3,4,
5,12, & 22 at Harmon Annex
Ikehara, Gregg N
36 CES/CEVR
521
30-Jul-99 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal
of Copies of the Remediation Verification Reports for IRP
Site 39/Harmon Substation, Site 19 LF-24, & AOCs 1,2,3,
4,5,12, & 22 at Harmon Annex
Ikehara, Gregg N
36 CES/CEVR
522
02-Aug-99
03-Aug-99
Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of
the Final Decision Summary Report for IRP Site 32/Drum
Storage Area 1 & the Basewide QAPP, Rev 2
Ikehara, Gregg N
36 CES/CEVR
Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of Ikehara, Gregg N
Copies of the Final Fall 1998 and Spring 1999 Groundwater 36 CES/CEVR
Data Monitoring Reports
523
524
03-Aug-99 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of
the Final Fall 1998 and Spring 1999 Groundwater Data
Monitoring Reports
06-Aug-99 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of the Final
NFRAP Decision Documents for IRP Site 27/Hazardous
Waste Storage Area
06-Aug-99 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal
of Copies of the Final NFRAP Decision Documents for
IRP Site 27/Hazardous Waste Storage Area
06-Aug-99 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal
of Copies of the Draft Project Work Plans for IRP Site
34/PCB Storage Area, IRP Site 10/LF-14, IRP Site 16/LF-21
& IRP Site 31/Chemical Storage Area 4
Ikehara, Gregg N
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
525
526
527
528
34of 43
-------
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
AUTHOR or
SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR
Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the Ikehara, Gregg N.
Draft Project Work Plans for IRP Site 34/PCB Storage Area, 36 CES/CEVR
IRP Site 10/LF-14, IRP Site 16/LF-21 & IRP Site 31/Chemical
Storage Area 4
USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Ripperda, Mark
the Draft Decision Summary NFRAP for IRP Site 21/LF-26 USEPA Region IX
Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Proposed Variance Request Ikehara, Gregg N.
for Columbia Analytical Services Laboratory 36 CES/CEVR
Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Proposed Ikehara, Gregg N.
Variance Request for Columbia Analytical Services 36 CES/CEVR
Laboratory
USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Approval of the Ripperda, Mark
Proposed Variance Request USEPA Region IX
USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Approval of the Ripperda, Mark
Remedial Verification Report for IRP Site 39/Harmon USEPA Region IX
Substation
USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Approval of the Ripperda, Mark
Remedial Verification Report for HIP Site 19 LF-24 USEPA Region IX
USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments on
the Draft Project Work Plans for IRP Site 34/PCB Storage
Area, IRP Site 10/LF-14 IRP Site 16/LF-21 & IRP Site
31 /Chemical Storage Area 4
Ripperda, Mark
USEPA Region IX
Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Draft EE/CA for IRP Site 2/LF-2 & IRP Site 5/LF-7
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Final Decision Summary NFRAP for IRP Site 21/LF-26
Technical Document to Support NFRAP Declaration for
IRP Site 21/LF-26
EA Engineering
36 CES/CEVR
RPM Meeting Minutes, 9 Sep 99
Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of the
Basewide QAPP Revision 2 & Final Reports for IRP Site
27/Hazardous Storage Area 1, Site 32/Drum Storage Area 1,
& Site 33/Drum Storage Area 2
EA Engineering
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of Ikehara, Gregg N.
Copies of the Draft RI Report for Harmon Annex OU 36 CES/CEVR
Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the Ikehara, Gregg N.
Draft RI Report for Harmon Annex OU 36 CES/CEVR
35of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
12-Oct-99
12-Oct-99
12-Oct-99
Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of Ikehara, Gregg N.
Copies of the Final Decision Summary for IRP Site 21/LF-26 36 CES/CEVR
Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Final Decision Summary for IRP Site 21/LF-26
Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of the Draft EE/CA for IRP Site 26/FTA-2
12-Oct-99 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Draft EE/CA for IRP Site 26/FTA-2
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
544
545
546
547
13-Oct-99 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Draft EE/CA
Report for IRP Site 2/LF-2
16-Oct-99 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments on
Draft EE/CA for IRP Site 5/LF-7 & IRP Site 2/LF-2
22-Oct-99
Wuerch, H. Victor
GEPA
Ripperda, Mark
USEPA Region IX
22-Oct-99 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Draft Decision Wuerch, H. Victor
Summary NFRAP for IRP Site 21/LF-26
GEPA
Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of Ikehara, Gregg N.
Copies of the Draft EE/CA for IRP Site 8/LF-10A, 10B, & 10C 36 CES/CEVR
22-Oct-99 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies the
Draft EE/CA for IRP Site 8/LF-10A, 10B, & 10C
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
548
549
550
551
552
26-Oct-99 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Draft EE/CA
Report for IRP Site 5/LF-7
Wuerch, H. Victor
GEPA
10-Dec-99 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Draft EE/CA Salas, Jesus T.
for IRP Site 26/FTA-2 GEPA
553
554
10-Dec-99 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Responses to Comments for Ikehara, Gregg N.
RVR of IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, IRP Site 19/LF 24 & 36 CES/CEVR
AOCs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,12, & 22
555
16-Dec-99 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Ripperda, Mark
the Draft RI Report for Harmon Annex
23-Dec-99 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on the Draft
EE/CA Report for IRP Site 8/LF-10A, 10B, & 10C
01 -Jan-00 Final EE/CA for IRP Site 5/LF-7
01-Jan-00 Draft Proposed Plan, Harmon Annex OU
18-Jan-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of Action Memorandum for IRP Site 34/PCB Storage
Area, IRP Site 16/LF-21, IRP Site 10/LF-14, & IRP Site
31 /Chemical Storage Area 4
USEPA Region IX
Salas, Jesus T.
GEPA
EA Engineering
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
556
557
558
559
560
36of 43
-------
DOC.
DATE
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
AUTHOR or
SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR
FILE
NUMBER
18-Jan-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of Ikehara, Gregg N.
Action Memorandum for IRP Site 34/PCB Storage Area, IRP 36 CES/CEVR
Site 16/LF-21, IRP Site 10/LF-14, & IRP Site 31/Chemical
Storage Area 4
18-Jan-00 Action Memorandum to Request and Document Approval of the Ikehara, Gregg N.
Proposed Removal Action for IRP Site 34/PCB Storage Area 36 CES/CEVR
18-Jan-00 Action Memorandum to Request and Document Approval of the Ikehara, Gregg N.
561
18-Jan-00
18-Jan-00
Proposed Removal Action for IRP Site 16/LF-21
Action Memorandum to Request and Document Approval of
the Proposed Removal Action for IRP Site 10/LF-14
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Action Memorandum to Request and Document Approval of Ikehara, Gregg N.
the Proposed Removal Action for IRP Site 31/Chemical Storage 36 CES/CEVR
Area 4
562
563
564
565
27-Jan-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of Ikehara, Gregg N.
Copies of the Draft Proposed Plan for HIP Sites in the 36 CES/CEVR
Harmon Annexes
566
27-Jan-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the Ikehara, Gregg N.
Draft Proposed Plan for IRP Sites in the Harmon Annexes 36 CES/CEVR
27-Jan-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of Ikehara, Gregg N.
Copies of the Draft Final RI Report for IRP Sites in the 36 CES/CEVR
Harmon Annexes
567
568
27-Jan-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the Ikehara, Gregg N.
Draft Final RI Report for IRP Sites in the Harmon Annexes 36 CES/CEVR
27-Jan-00
28-Jan-00
31-Jan-00
31-Jan-00
01-Feb-00
03-Feb-00
07-Feb-00
Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the Ikehara, Gregg N.
Draft Final EE/CA for IRP Site 5/LF-7 36 CES/CEVR
RAB Meeting Minutes, 21 Oct 99
Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of the Draft Final EE/CA for IRP Site 2/LF-2
EA Engineering
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the Ikehara, Gregg N.
Draft Final EE/CA for IRP Site 2/LF-2 36 CES/CEVR
Final EE/CA for IRP Site 2/LF-2
USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding Comments on
the Draft EE/CA for IRP Site 8/LF-10
EA Engineering
Ripperda, Mark
USEPA Region IX
Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the Ikehara, Gregg N.
Draft Final Decision Summary Document for IRP Site 1/LF-l 36 CES/CEVR
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
37of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
ll-Feb-00 Base Letter to Mangilao Mayor Nonito Bias Regarding
Termination of Mayor as a RAB Member
Scboeck, Edward
Colonel, USAF
36 ABW/CV
577
ll-Feb-00 Base Letter to RAB Members Regarding Quarterly RAB
Meeting
Schoeck, Edward
Colonel, USAF
36 ABW/CV
578
16-Feb-00 RPM Meeting Minutes, 16 Feb 00
18-Feb-00 News Article, "S6M for Cleanup"
25-Feb-00 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on Draft RI
Report for Harmon Annex OUs IRP Site 18/LF-23, IRP
Site 19/LF-24 & IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
EA Engineering
Loerzel, Adrienne
Pacific Daily News
Salas, Jesus T.
GEPA
579
580
581
28-Feb-00 News Article, "GovGuam Seeks Quick End to Land-Return
Issue"
29-Feb-00 Dept of Interior Letter to Base Regarding Formal Section 7
Consultation for IRP Site 9/LF-13, IRP Site 13/LF-18, IRP
Site 14/LF-19, & IRP Site 15/LF-20
Loerzel, Adrienne
Pacific Daily News
DiRosa, Roger
GNWR
582
583
22-Mar-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of the Draft Final NFRAP Report for IRP Site
28/Chemical Storage Area 1
22-Mar-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Draft Final NFRAP Report for IRP Site 28/Chemical Storage
Area 1
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
584
585
28-Mar-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of the Draft Final NFRAP Report for IRP Site 17/LF-22
28-Mar-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Draft Final NFRAP Report for IRP Site 17/LF-22
26-Apr-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of the Draft NFRAP for IRP Site 30/Waste Pile 4
26-Apr-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Draft NFRAP for IRP Site 30/Waste Pile 4
02-May-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Final Decision Summary Document of IRP Site 1/LF-l
02-May-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of the Final Decision Summary Document of IRP
Site 1/LF-l
Torres, Jess F.
36 CES/CEVR
Torres, Jess F.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
586
587
588
589
590
591
38of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
04-May-00 RAB Meeting Minutes, 04 May 2000
09-Jun-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Draft Decision Summary NFRAP for IRP Site 4/LF6
09-Jun-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of the Draft Decision Summary NFRAP for IRP
Site 4/LF6
EA Engineering
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
592
593
594
22-Jun-00 RPM Meeting Minutes, 22 June 00
03-Aug-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Draft Decision Summary NFRAP for IRP Site 251 Fire
Training Area 1
25-Aug-00 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding GEPA Comments on the
Draft Decision NFRAP for IRP Site 4/LF-6
29-Aug-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Draft Final EE/CA Report of IRP Site 8/LFs 10A, 10B, 10C.
3 l-Aug-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of the Draft Final EE/CA Decision Summary NFRAP
Report for Site 4/LF-6
3 l-Aug-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Draft Final Decision Summary NFRAP Report for Site 4/LF6
3 l-Aug-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of Final NFRAP Dec. Summ. Rpt for Site 4/LF-6
3 l-Aug-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of
Final NFRAP Dec. Summ. Rpt for Site 4/LF-6
07-Sep-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Final Spring Groundwater 2000 Monitoring Report for
MARBO Annex & Northwest Field Operable Units
07-Sep-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of the Final Spring Groundwater 2000 Monitoring
Report for MARBO Annex & Northwest Field Operable Units
15-Sep-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Draft Quality Program Plan & Environmental Cleanup Plan
For Site 24/LF-29 MARBO Operable Unit
15-Sep-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of the Draft Quality Program Plan & Environmental
Cleanup Plan for Site 24/LF-29 MARBO Operable Unit
EA Engineering
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Salas, Jesus T.
GEPA
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
39of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
22-Sep-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Draft Environmental Cleanup Plan for Site 2/LF-2 Main Base
Operable Units
22-Sep-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region TX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of the Draft Environmental Cleanup Plan for Site 2/LF 2
Main Base Operable Units
03-0ct-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of the Draft Environmental Cleanup Plan for Site 5/LF 7
03-0ct-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Draft Environmental Cleanup Plan for Site 5/LF 7
26-Oct-OO USEPA Region IX Letter Regarding EPA Comments on Draft
Environmental Cleanup Plan for Site 24/LF 29 and Site 2/LF 2
Ol-Nov-OO Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Spring 2000 Groundwater Monitoring Report for Main Base
Operable Units
Ol-Nov-OO Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of the Spring 2000 Groundwater Monitoring Report for
Main Base Operable Units
06-Nov-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Draft Remedial Verification Report for Site 38/MARBO
Laundry Facility and Site 20/Waste Pile 7 AAFB
06-Nov-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of the Draft Remedial Verification Report for Site
38/MARBO Laundry Facility and Site 20/Waste Pile 7
06-Nov-00 Base Letter to RAB Members Regarding Next Quarterly
Meeting
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
Schoeck, Edward
Colonel, USAF
36 ABW/CV
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
15-Nov-00 RPM Meeting Minutes, 15 November 00
16-Nov-00 RAB Meeting Minutes, 16 Nov 00
16-Nov-00 GEPA Letter to Base Designating Walter Leon Guerrero
as an EPA Representative
22-Nov-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Final Asphalt Recovery Status Reports for Site 351 Waste
Pile 1 and Site 29/Waste Pile 2
EA Engineering
EA Engineering
Salas, Jesus T.
GEPA
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
617
618
619
620
22-Nov-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of the Final Asphalt Recovery Status Reports for Site
35/Waste Pile 1 and Site 29/Waste Pile 2
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR 2
621
40of 43
-------
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
DOC. AUTHOR or FILE
DATE SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR NUMBER
22-Nov-OO Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study for Urunao Dumpsites 1 & 2,
Urunao Operable Unit, AAFB
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
622
22-Nov-OO Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Final Remedial Investigation Report for Harmon Annex
Operable Unit, AAFB
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
623
22-Nov-OO Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies for the Sampling and Analysis Plan for Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study for Urunao Dumpsites 1 & 2,
Urunao Operable Unit, AAFB
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
624
30-Nov-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of the
Final Environmental Cleanup Plan Report for Site 24/Landfill
29, MARBO Operable Unite, AAFB
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
625
30-Nov-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies of the Final Environmental Cleanup Report for Site
24/Landfill 29, MARBO Operable Unit, AAFB
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
626
05-Dec-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies of for
the Amendment of the Record of Decision of the MARBO
Operable Unit
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
627
05-Dec-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies for the Amendment of the Record of Decision of the
MARBO Operable Unit
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
628
13-Dec-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Variances for IRP IRP
Basewide QAPP, 3/99 for AAFB
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
629
13-Dec-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Variances for
IRP Basewide QAPP, 3/99 for AAFB
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
630
13-Dec-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies for the Draft Proposed Plan for the Harmon
Operable Unit
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
631
15-Dec-00 USEPA Region IX Letter to Base Regarding a Request for
Variances (13 Dec 00) for IRP Basewide Quality Assurance
Project Plan (3/99) for AAFB
Ripperda, Mark
USEPA Region IX
632
15-Dec-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies for the
Final Environmental Cleanup Plan Report for Site 5/LF 7,
Main Base Operable Unit, AAFB
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
633
15-Dec-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies for the
Final Environmental Cleanup Plan Report for Site 2/Landfill 2
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
634
41of 43
-------
DOC.
DATE
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
AUTHOR or
SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR
FILE
NUMBER
15-Dec-00 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies for the Final Environmental Cleanup Plan Report for
Site 2/Landfill 2, AAFB
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
635
15-Dec-00 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies for the
Final Environmental Cleanup Plan Report for Site 2/Landfill 2
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
636
16-Jan-01 Base Letter to RAB Members Regarding Quarterly RAB
Meeting
Schoeck, Edward Colonel,
USAF ABW, CV
637
23-Jan-01 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on the Record of Salas, Jesus T.
Decision Amendment for the MARBO Annex OU Site GEPA
24/Landfill 29
638
23-Jan-01 GEPA Letter to Base Regarding Comments on the to the Salas, Jesus T.
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Remedial Investigation/ GEPA
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for Urunao Dumpsites 1 & 2
639
24-Jan-01 News Article, "Private Firm to Remove Unexploded Ordnance"
Duenas, Joseph E.
Guam Variety
640
06-Feb-01 News Article, "Notice of Availability for Proposed Plan
for the Harmon Annex Operable Unit"
36 CES/CEVR
Pacific Daily News
641
07-Feb-01 News Article, "Notice of Availability for Proposed Plan
for the Harmon Annex Operable Unit
36 CES/CEVR
Pacific Daily News
642
08-Feb-01 News Article, "Notice of Availability for Proposed Plan
for the Harmon Annex Operable Unit
36 CES/CEVR
Pacific Daily News
643
08-Feb-01 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies for
the Final Asphalt Removal Report, Site 6/Landfill 8, AAFB
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
644
08-Feb-01 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies for the Final Asphalt Removal Report, Site 6/LF 8
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
645
13-Feb-01 Base Letter to RAB Members Regarding the Proposed Plan
for the Harmon Annex Operable Unit
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
646
19-Feb-01 News Article, "Public Notice Announcement for the RAB
Meeting and the Proposed Plan for the Harmon Annex
Operable Unit Meeting
36 CES/CEVR
Pacific Daily News
647
20-Feb-01 News Article, "Public Notice Announcement for the RAB
Meeting and the Proposed Plan for the Harmon Annex
Operable Unit Meeting
36 CES/CEVR
Pacific Daily News
648
21-Feb-01 RPM Meeting Minutes, 21 Feb 01
EA Engineering
649
42of 43
-------
DOC.
DATE
Andersen AFB, Guam - AR DOCUMENTS
Sorted by: Document Date and AR/IR File Number
Date of Report: 6 August 2001
AUTHOR or
SUBJECT OR TITLE CORP. AUTHOR
FILE
NUMBER
21 -Feb-01 News Article, "Public Notice Announcement for the RAB
Meeting and the Proposed Plan for the Harmon Annex Operable
Unit Meeting
36 CES/CEVR
Pacific Daily News
650
21-Feb-01 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
Copies for Draft EE/CA for Site 36/Ritidian Dump Site,
Northwest Field Operable Unit
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
651
21 -Feb-01 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies for the
Draft EE/CA for Site 36/Ritidian Dump Site, Northwest Field
Operable Unit
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
652
21 -Feb-01 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies for the
Revision for ARAR's in the MARBO ROD Amendment
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
653
22-Feb-01 Base Letter to USEPA Region IX Regarding Transmittal of
the Revised MARBO ROD Amendment
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
654
00-Feb-01 Final Quality Program Plan & Final Environmental Cleanup
Plan for Site 24/Landfill 29 (CD-ROM)
Arnsfield, Chris
IT Corporation
655
00-Feb-01 Final Quality Program Plan & Final Environmental Cleanup
Plan for Site2/Landfill 2 (CD-ROM)
Arnsfield, Chris
IT Corporation
656
00-Feb-01 Final Quality Program Plan & Final Environmental Cleanup
Plan for Site 5/Landfill 7 (CD-ROM)
Arnsfield, Chris
IT Corporation
657
16-Mar-01 Base Letter to EA Engineering Regarding Site 15/LF 20
Natural Resources Clearance
Poland, D. Joan
36 CES/CEVR
658
26-Mar-01 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Final SAP for RI/FS
Urunao Dumpsites 1 & 2, Urunao OU
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
659
27-Mar-01 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies for the
Final EE/CA report for Site 8/Landfills 10A, 10B, 10C,
Main Base Operable Unit AAFB
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
660
17-May-01 RPM Meeting Minutes, dtd 17 May 01
22-May-01 Base Letter to GEPA Regarding Transmittal of Copies for
the Agency Draft Harmon Annex OU Record of Decision
EA Engineering
Ikehara, Gregg N.
36 CES/CEVR
661
662
Bolded items indicate applicability to the Harmon Annex Record of Decision
43 of 43
-------
Appendix B
IRP Sites 19 and 39 Confirmation Sample Results
(IT/OHM, 1999)
-------
Confirmation Soil Sample Analytical Results for IRP
Site 19 Parcel A, Parcel B, and Parcel C
-------
Table 2-1
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for Parcel A
IRP Site 19/Landfil! 24, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample ID
HAS19S453
Location
Excavaooo
Sample Depth (ft bgs)
6
COC Number
58-071 HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
98L241
Date Collected
i i ( i. 1
28-Dec-98
Aoaiyte
Units
EPA
Method
Btv'"
LPA PkG R«
¦i)
EPA PRG
Intlust"1
Concentration
\ olatile Orpnic Compounds (VOCs)
8260a
Acetone
NA
1 *00,000
6 100,000
44 9
Benzene
NA
620
1,400
0 29
U
B r omod ichiorome thaoe
NA
980
2,300
030
u
2 Butanooe ("Methyl etbyl ketone)
NA
6 900.000
27,000,000
59
u
Carbon disulfide
NA
350,000
UOO.OOO
0 15
u
Carbon tetrachloride
NA
230
S20
091
u
Cbtoroben2ene
NA
54,000
180,000
023
u
Chloroform
NA
2*0
520
0 49
u
Cbloromethane
NA
1,200
2.600
24
u
D t b ro mometban e
NA
NA
NA
040
u
1 i Dicbloroeibene
NA
52
120
0 62
u
cis- 1,2-DicbJorcxrthcne
NA
42,000
150,000
0 34
u
Ethylbeozete
NA
230,000
230,000
0 45
u
2-Hexanont
NA
NA
NA
\ 4
u
Methylene cblonde
NA
8.500
20,000
0 47
u
±-Metbyl-2-pentaiJone (MIBK)
NA
NA
NA
13
u
Napbthaiene
NA
NA
NA
046
u
1 1,2^2-Tetrachiorocthaoe
NA
360
870
0J8
u
Tetracbloroetheoe fPCE),
NA
4,700
16.000
0.28
u
Toluene
NA
520.000
520,000
036
u
\ 2.3-TnchJorobesazeoe
NA
NA
NA
0.29
u
1.2 ^-Tncbtorobenzeoe
NA
480.000
1.700,000
0.49
u
1 1 \ -Tnchbroethaoe
NA
680,000
1,400.000
0.38
u
1 1 .2-Tnchioroccbane
NA
820
1.900
0.27
u
T nchioroetbeDe
NA
2.700
6.100
0.30
u
Tnchloroftuorometiune
NA
380,000
1300,000
0,33
u
Vinyl chlonde
NA
21
48
1.2
u
m Xylene
NA
210,000
210,000
0 87
u
o-Xyleoe
NA
280,000
280,000
0.39
u
|
>
iX
1 L
NA
370 000
370,000
0 87
u
Notes.
NA Not Applicable
PRC denotes Preliminary Rcmedjanon Goal
(l) Background Thnsshofd Vahie
m EPA Run 9 Rmiknul PRG (M*y. 1991)
01 EPA Reran 9 lnduaul PRG (May. 1998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG aod BTV
D«u Qualifiers
U The snafyte was analyzed for, but not dnmri The noemcd numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL)
J The anatyu was poctovdy identified. the quart mam on u m estmuman
UJ The analyse analysed far. but not detected. The reported MDL it qpproxrmate and may or may not represent
the actual hmtt of quanmaixxi necessary to aeeuratciy wad preeaaely mtarn the analyte ra tbe sample
B The analyte was found m an —oawnwi Wank.
R The data are unusable due to defictenoca m the ability to analyse the aampie and meet QC emma
6TU/99
Pifel of3
tblM-xb
-------
Table 2-1
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis Tor Parcel A
IRP Site 19/Landflll 24, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sampk ID
HAS19S453
Locarioo
Excavation
Sample Depth (H bp)
6
COC Number
58-071 HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
98L241
Date Collected
28-Dec-98
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
BTV,h
EPA PRG Res
id
EPA, PRG
Induct
Concentration
Sem*-Volanle Organic Compounds (SVOCs)
8270B
Acenapbtbene
NA
2.600.000
28.000 000
1.200
L
Aceniphtbylene
NA
NA
NA
1.200
l
Anthracene
NA
14,000 000
220.000.000
780
L
Beozo(4>aothracenr
NA
560
3,600
800
t
Beti20pvTrDc
NA
560
3.600
3 5
V
Nocss
NA Not Applicable
PRG denote* Prehrnmarv Remediation God
(,) Background Thrahoid Value
01 ETA Rcpon 9 Roidentul PRG (Mly, 199t)
01 EPA Region 9 Industrial fRG (M»y. 199S)
Value m BOLD exceed the residential PRC and BTV
Data Qualifier?
U The malyte waa analyzed for, bis not detected. The anooauad manencal value is at or below the Method Deucnon Limit (MDL)
J The analyte waa pcsioveiy idenafied. the quanotanan a an esomaoon
VJ The analyte vat analyzed for, but not dwrcted The reported MDL ts approximate md may or may not rcproent
the actual Jimn of quantitation "^-"7 to accumtiy md precisely measure the analyte m the sample
B The analyte was found in an aoociated Wank.
R The daa are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to malyze the sample and meet QC cntena.
6^11^99
Page2 of 3
tbl_2-l.xls
-------
i
f ^ *3> i* x 1 *¦
Table 2-1
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for Parcel A
1RP Site 19/Landfill 24, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample ID
HAS39S450
HAS39S45I
Location
Dioxin Hot Spot« Same
asEA 04S19S02.3
EUcavatKM
Sample Depth (ft bgs)
15
6
COC Number
58-067HA
58-067HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
47581
47581
Date Collected
21 Dec-98
:j Dec-98
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
Subsurface Clean-lp Goal
Coutei
itrxnon
Dioxins
tii/kg
8290
Too! WHO TEQ
1 0
0 016-4
0 00160
Notes Data Qualifiers
NA Not Applicable U Tbe analyte wu analyzed for. but Dot detected Tbe associated numerical value is at or below the MDL
J Tbe anatyte was positively identified. tbe quanatanoa u as estimation
UJ Tbe analyte was analyzed for, but not detected Tbe reported MDL is approximate and may or may oot represent
tbe acnuai hrrut of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure tbe analyte to tbe sample
B Tbe aaaJyte was found a an associated blank, as well as in ebe sample
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies m tbe ability to analyze tbe sample and meet QC cnteru
6/11/99
Pige3 of 3
tbl_2-l.xls
-------
Table 2-2
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for Parcel B
IRP Site 19/Landfill 24, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample ID
HAS39S413
HAS39S414
Location
Dioxin Hot Spot - Same
as EA 04S19S0I9
Dioxin Hot Spot - Same
as EA 04SI9S032
Sample Depth (II bgs)
45
5
COC Number
58-063 HA
58-063HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
48480
48480
Date Collected
l2-Dec-98
12-Dec-98
Analyle
Units
EPA
Method
Concentration
Dloilni
pg/kg
8290
Total WHO TEQ
0.0006 I
00005
Data Qualifiers.
U The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected The associated numerical value is at or below the method detection limit (MDL)..
J The analyte was positively identified; the quantitation is an estimation.
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
B The analyte was found in an associated blank, as well as in the sample.
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria.
-------
Table 2-3
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for Parcel C
IRP Site 19/Landfill 24, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample ID
HAS19S537
HASI9S538
IIASI9S539
HAS19S540
HASI9S541
Location
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Sample Depth (ft bgs)
5.0
50
50
50
50
COC Number
58-083HA
58-083HA
58-083HA
58-083IIA
58-083I1A
Sample Delivery Group Number
99B07I
99B07I
99B07I
99B07I
99B07I
Date Collected
1
05-Feb-99
05-Feb-99
05-Feb-99
05-Feb-99
05-Feb-99
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
BTV1"
EPA PKG
Res'"
F.PA PRG
Indust"'
Concenti
ration
Metals
mi/kg
601 OA
1
Antimony
63
30
750
4.4 U
4.2 U
4.2 U
9 06 J
4.3 U
Lead
166
400
• 1,000
24.3
6.77
4.78
387
5.28
Notes:
NA Not Applicable
PRG denotes Preliminary Remediation Goal
10 Background Threshold Value
"'EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May, 1998)
"'EPA Region 9 Industrial PRG (May, 1998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG and BTV
Data Qualifiers:
U The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL).
J The analyte was positively identified; the quantitation is an estimation.
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
B The analyte was found in an associated blank.
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria.
S Applied to all field screening data.
6/11/99
Page I of 7
tbl 2-3 xls
I
-------
Table I-J
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for Parcel C
IRP Site 19/Landflll 24, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample ID
HAS19S542
IIAS19S543
HAS 19S544
HASI9S545
HASI9S546
Location
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Sample Depth (fit bgs)
50
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
COC Number
58-083HA
58-083HA
58-083HA
58-083HA
58-083HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
99B07I
99B07I
99B071
99B07I
99B07I
Date Collected
05-Feb-99
05-Feb-99
05-Feb-99
05-Feb-99
05-Feb-99
Analyte
Unit)
EPA
Method
BTV01
EPA PRG
Res1,1
EPA PRG
Indus!
Concentration
Metals
mf/kf
(01 OA
Antimony
63
30
750
5.23 J
4.3 U
4.4 U
6 26 J
4 3 U
Lead
166
400
1,000
24.3
45.6
5.07
47.9
26.6
Notes:
NA Not Applicable
PRG denotes Preliminary Remediation Goal
"'Background Threshold Value
w EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May, 1998)
,J,EPA Region 9 Industrial PRG (May, 1998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG and BTV
Data Qualifiers:
(J The analyte wis analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL).
i The analyte was positively identified; the quantitation is an estimation.
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
B The analyte was found in an associated blank.
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria
S Applied to all field screening data.
6/11/99
I'agc 2 of 7
Ibl 2 3 xls
-------
Table 2-3
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for Parcel C
IRP Site 19/Landfill 24, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample ID
HAS19S547
HASI9S548
HASI9S549
HAS19S550
HASI9S55I
Location
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Duplicate of
HASI9S537
North Wall
North Wall
Sample Depth (ft bgs)
5.0
50
50
2.5
25
COC Number ,
58-084I1A
58-084HA
58-084HA
58-084HA
58-084IIA
Sample Delivery Group Number
99B071
99B07I
99B07I
99B07I
99B07I
Date Collected
05-Feb-99
05-Feb-99
05-Feb-99
05-Feb-99
05-Feb-99
Analyte
Ualti
EPA
Method
BTV'"
EPA PRG
Res'"
EPA PRG
Indus!'''
Concentration
Metals
mg/fcg
601 OA
Antimony
63
30
750
4.1 U
4.2 U
4 3 U
4.1 U
5.9 J
Lead
166
400
1,000
5.21
21.3
17.7
15.6
27.8
Notes:
NA Not Applicable
PRG denotes Preliminary Remediation Goal
'"Background Threshold Value
'¦"'EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May, 1998)
"'EPA Region 9 Industrial PRG (May, 1998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG and BTV
Data Qualifiers:
U The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL)
J The analyte was positively identified; the quantitation is an estimation.
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
B The analyte was found in an associated blank.
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria
S Applied to all field screening data.
6/11/99
I'age 3 of 7
ibl 2-3 xls
I
-------
Table 2-3
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for Parcel C
IRP Site 19/Landflll 24, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample ID
HAS19S552
HASI9S553
HAS19S554
HASI9S555
HAS19S556
Location
East Wall
East Wall
South Wall
South Wall
West Wall
Sample Depth (ft bgs)
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
COC Number
58-084 HA
58-084HA
58-084HA
58-084 HA
58-084 HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
99B07I
99B071
99B07I
99B07I
99B07I
Date Collected
05-Feb-99
05-Feb-99
05-Feb-99
05-Feb-99
05-Feb-99
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
BTV""
EPA PRC
Res"'
EPA PRG
Indus!,J>
Concenti
ration
Metals
mg/kg
<01 OA
Antimony
63
30
750
4.1 U
4.7 U
4.3 U
27 8
183
Lead
166
400
1,000
50.5
50.2
43.6
998
83)
Notes.
NA Not Applicable x
PRG denotes Preliminary Remediation Coal
(l'Background Threshold Value
EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May, 1998)
|J'EPA Region 9 Industrial PRG (May, 1998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG an
Data Qualifiers:
U The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL)
J The analyte was positively identified, the quantitation is an estimation.
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample
B The analyte was found in an associated blank
id BTV R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria
S Applied to all field screening data
6/11/99
Cage 4 of 7
tbl 2 3 xls
-------
Table 2-J
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for Parcel C
IRP Site 19/Landflll 24, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample ID
HAS19S557
HAS19S558
HAS19S590
HAS19S59I
HAS19S592
Location
West Wall
Duplicate of
HAS19S554
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Sample Depth (II bgs)
2.5
25
50
50
50
COC Number
58-085HA
58-085IIA
58-091 HA
58-091IIA
58-091 HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
99B071
99B07I
99E006
99E006
99E006
Date Collected
05-Feb-99
05-Feb-99
26-Apr-99
26-Apr-99
26-Apr-99
Analyte
Unlu
EPA
Method
BTV
EPA pr<;
Res'"
EPA PRO
Indus!01
Concentration
Metals
mg/kg
601 OA
Antimony
63
30
750
32.2
4.2 U
4.6 U
4.4 U
43 U
Lead
166
400
1,000
1,140
85
37.7 J
56.4 J
14 7 J
Notes:
NA Not Applicable
PRG denotes Preliminary Remediation Goal
'''Background Threshold Value
EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May, 1998)
,J'fiPA Region 9 Industrial PRG (May, 1998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG and BTV
Data Qualifiers:
U The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL),
i The analyte was positively identified; the quantitation is an estimation.
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
B The analyte was found in an associated blank.
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria
S Applied to all field screening data
I
6/11/99
Page 5 of 7
ibl 2-3 xls
-------
Table 2-3
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for Parcel C
IRP Site 19/Landflll 24, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample (D
HASI9S593
HASI9S594
HAS19S595
HASI9S596
HASI9S597
Location
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
North Wall
West Wall
West Wall
Sample Depth (ft bgi)
5.0
5.0
2.5
2 5
2.5
COC Number
58-091 HA
58-091 HA
58-091 HA
58-091 HA
58-091 HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
99E006
99E006
99E006
99E006
99E006
Date Collected
26-Apr-99
26-Apr-99
26-Apr-99
26-Apr-99
26-Apr-99
Analyte
Unlti
EPA
Method
BTV
EPA PRG
Res'"
EPA PRG
Indus!
Concent
ration
Metals
mg/kg
60I0A
Antimony
63
30
750
4.4 U
4.3 U
5.3 U
4.7 U
5.2 U
Lead
166
400
1,000
18.2 J
32.9 J
63.5 J
82.9 J
65.3 J
Notes:
NA Not Applicable
PRO denotes Preliminary Remediation Goal
'"Background Threshold Value
"'EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May, 1998)
l"EPA Region 9 Industrial PRO (May, 1998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG and BTV
Data Qualifiers:
U The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL).
J The analyte was positively identified; the quantitation is an estimation.
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
B The analyte was found in an associated blank
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria.
S Applied to all field screening data.
6/11/99
Page 6 of 7
Ibl 2 3 xIs
, - - - ¦ , , 5
-------
Table 2-3
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis Tor Parcel C
IRP Site 19/Landflll 24, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample ID
HAS19S598
HAS19S599
HASI9S600
HAS19S60I
Location
South Wall
Duplicate of
HAS39S596
Excavation Floor
South Wall
Sample Depth (ft bgi)
2.5
2.5
5.0
2.5
COC Number
58-091 HA
58-091 HA
58-092HA
58-092IIA
Sample Delivery Group Number
99E006
99E006
99E006
99E006
Date Collected
26-Apr-99
26-Apr-99
26-Apr-99
26-Apr-99
Analyte
llnita
EPA
Method
BTV
EPA PRG
Res'1'
EPA PRG
Indus!
Coneenti
-ation
Metals
m|/k|
6QI0A
Antimony
. 63
30
750
4.9 U
4.6 U
4.4 U
5,1 U
Lead
166
400
1,000
184 J
72.6 J
65.3 J
61.2 J
Notes:
NA Not Applicable
PRO denotes Preliminary Remediation Goal
'"Background Threshold Value
U,EPA Region 9 Residential PRO (May, 1998)
-------
Confirmation Soil Sample Analytical Results for IRP
Site 39 Oil/Water Separator
-------
Table 2-1
Couiir*inati(j» Soil Sample Analysis for the Oil/Water Separator
IRF Site 39/Harmoii Substation, Andersen APB, Guam
Sample n)
Samplr Depth lip (fart)
KASJ9.S122
01 I'VvaEtr ^epsiraicy
Flcmr
COC Nynlur
58-02IHA
Sample PeHyery Graiip Pi matter
91G031
Pait Colkcttd
Aoadytc
Unite
EPA
EPAFftG
F,PA JRC
MeUind
afv'fl>
Kts1*
Inaiut"1
Comvfllrilbn
Tnial PtiroJtuiu Hvdr«itari»nl
ms^kg i
41JI.I :
ToW-l KwWeiabW Prtfllsurc HydTicirbSJis
MA
Na
NA
no
PciychJorjiialEiI BiphCiiyli ^PCBs)
HR/1«6
WK1
Af^lor 101$
NA
NA
9,0 u
Alt>{Jftr ] 321
NiS
NA
KA
8,9 u
AM£l« IIS
MA
*A
KA
!J U
AtPBbr [2-4?
KA
?JA
Ha
3,1 U
Ajtrdlwr 1J4S
KA
NA
Ma
S.J u
Aracior 11S4
I
Na
MA
ma
5..; u
Andor LJSJ
]
KA
MA
NA
1J«
Tpm pCSs
1
KA
200
1J9
Otiittfltrjm Kic!ii Strata
rnmt
IfA
NA
iNA
KA
JiflO us
MW
>0*1
jDnnTtna-fiWC (LiadinE)
KA
4ID
3.300
NA
deia-SHC
NA
KA
NA
NA
Aldnti
NA
16
1SD
NA
HsplacM** spoilt
Kft
W
130
NA
Raratrw-Chlnrtlanr
TUA
ijm
NA
alpto-CWOnlMje
ISA
ijm
lZ,tKW
NA
4,4'-DD£
NA
I.TfJO 1
13,000" ~~l
NA
X3i;lilifn
NA
Ss
190
NA
kntWh
-
NA
1&0M
32D„aoa
NA
4j4M©D
HA
I.4W
1 ?,
37,000,10(0
NA
PjTCl*
NA
2400Cutt»
NA
BnsfM »>inthni«n«
NA
560
1^0#
NA
Chryseoe
NA
Jh.QCO
360,000
NA
Benr»(b)flu(™?tiiCTC
NA
iMt
J.tOO
NA
JkiRoWfliioranflieoe
NA
J,M0
3400a
NA
BeiBa(i)pyrt5ie
NA
SG
3«0
NA
Dit»SnflO{<^l>II5Ul[«eil€
MA
56
iSO
NA
lndsno< U.U'eOpymiB
NA '"
! JW
3(ftXt
NA
Metafc
MZ1
L™1 !
164 1 ' '400
rr,-^r ~r"
L-
bxt rfatdH* Brim jitMMf vfree
MA 3*3tAp$kta&itfHGiAttmyud
m icfilqrTTOAfl1 Tfvrjhjte P'otue
'* EPA Jltgim S> BaUcmrinl Wt ItAft, IfSBJ
"• JrftJ teg** * tarhOTtar/>M 1% J mi
V'.rluw mSQLP
ir
Vgmg mwm wMKBrmit per ArapwB
Dzfe Quafifl*#,'
V 7l« web** *** eimkxtdji*; tm net AzpiwG t& til!fitMscmotiug date.
9 J MS9AVRI HP Site 39
P»g« 1 Dflt
-------
Table 2~1 (continued)
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Oil/Water Separator
]|£P Site 39,'Harmon Substation* Andersen AFB, Guam
ajatyic ID
KAS39SJ23
KAS39S287
Oil^'sKr SepSrtWr
Fiooi
Rjc.iampic ftf
KAS39S123 for
additimo.1 amplyres
Sajnale Diplli be? iTtd)
C0C Number
5S-02IHA
JS-W6HA
Sinip |g Delivery (a hflyp N limber
98C3MJ
9SI037
02.S*p-9«
AdiJyit
tlillu
EPA
Mrtllti
BTV'
fcj* PRc;
Rn
m
if A PRG
ConceoirWn*
TofaJ PitraLeufn HfdrGCArboiS
411J
Tola Recoverable HvTB
NA
NA
NA
520
NA
PriyeHnntittefl Bipjiiii)1i (MTfc)
1*6^6
MSI
Aradcr 1DL6
NA
NA
NA
8 £
NA
ArsdGr 7 22 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
Atxlar I2J2
NA
NA
NA
I &
NA
AKXfa 124 2
NA
NA
MA
JJ
NA
Aiaektf 1248
NA
NA
NA
S.3
NA
Araclar 1254
NA
NA
NA
3.4
NA
AfDckr I26(i
HA
NA
NA
J2J
NA
T»tt( PCBs
HA
HOT
IJW
12]
NA
Qtowroni Field Screen
m
NA
NA
NA
300
US
KA
R«lxjilc>
soil
Eamma-BHC (Lindane)
NA
420
3,200
NA
i5
itefei-BKC
NA
NA
NA
NA
Alinr»
NA
2(i
[*0
NA
1.5
HeplathloT cpcmde
NA
m
330
V/L
1.?
gan^?4>|ordJtit
NA
t.WO
12.000
NA
tSJ
NA
1,600
12,000
NA
20
4.4-F1PE
"NA
1,700
13.HO
NA
224
Bseltm;
NA
2S
J90
NA
Erdnr.
NA
16,000
320,000
NA
? 8
4/f-OBD
NA
2,400
19.0D0
NA
13. J
4.4-DDT
NA
1,700
15.300
NA
Lifi
Erdnr. aldcftyde
NA
i6.au>
320,000
NA
5.0
M=ttoycMor
NA
270,000
Na
40
PotyiiuiifcHr Hydrocarbons fPAHl)
1310
Aimtaeea;
NA
14,0Q0JK»
220.000,000
NA
16
?]!JOrUltfl£Tl»
NA
2.000,000
37,000jWO
XA
3.7
SNrttilt
NA
UflGyOOO
26,000^000
NA
23
BeuioCa}3itih»cM±
NA
jm
3Am
NA
3,1
Puvsenc
NA
J«jOO0
360,000
NA
23
B fi ttbcOs) II u ftram dims
NA
5W
J.«XJ
NA
4.i
Benao(k)llyerai>dtwt
NA
S,M0
34000
NA
33
Ekrnic(a)pyfeat
NA
5*
360
NA
2.8
Dit^mcj i.hiBJiihracgnt
NA
56
360
NA
8.0
InicmrfL
^^dljav
NA
fW
3.400
NA
34
Lead
166
400
IjODO
20.5
T!<
ttKI
fig* d'intWJ bdwr gnimivf
W M" J»hteit*JWa*stb>ic4
Baabpvxma' Thresh eM fa!**
4V £PA Ktgwe PMtsrJ-mmil PtG f'Mtf, IXS}
"> EPAMvpm fUsrtSQ (Mot l?Mj
^Valuer tM SQtO &$4 ctcntal limit a§cpiuaifftjjiBp /wcMawy ^ tmiprrnveip mrasvrt she EUwrJ>vi /h ittmsmpLe.
^ 31w: JiRf 4ii*vJHfnlr tiue to ifaficTtnnci m thr io ataiyze the ssapLe jmdmmet QC
$ Apptmi 4i> d^/r^fd tcFctrunz date.
JR?Sttt39
r4gc.2of23
-------
Table 2-i (continued)
Confirmation SoiJ Sample Analyst J for the OJl/Water Separator
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Andenen AFB, Guana
Sample n>
HASJ9S12J
HAS3?S126
1 .outloii
OiL'^'iltr Se^ifaw
OiVWjwt Sep tsi.m
fjoor
FioO"
SamptrDtpth bgs (kct)
1
COOumlw
58-OltKA
5».D2UiA
Samplt DdntiyCirOlrv iNuP^bfr
9SG03]
Una CdIIkimJ
04-.-u!-98
.. . 1 KB*
Kl'A j-kc
Jtl>A PKC
AtwIjpW
umit
Method
BTV1 |
Rrt®
CoiKnitrafJon
Tstal PetroSium Rydixvcartmm;
•n^kg
418.1
TWH
NA
NA
NA
32C
160
Polyehtorusaied 1 kphcn yls (PCBrt
HiA&
MM
^Ksclor 1016
NA
NA
hA
S» U
9 J U
Arotiof ]22J
NA
NA
NA
8 7 U
92 U
AnsclAr 1232
NA
NA
HA
S6 U
9 2
Areolar 1242
MA
NA
na
12 U
3 4 U
Afoclor H4S
NA
MA
Ma
i.2 U
5 fi U
•ArockrUW
NA
MA
N'A
3» V
3 6 U
ArotJorlldO
NA
NA
NA
27.4 J
119
Total PCli
NA
204
w»
27,6 I
111
FicU Seidell
US'*#-.
MA
NA
HA ^
NA
JOT US
SflO US
l*ei(ieUei
ntfta
8081
SaiEHia-BKC (Ltsiara)
NA
420
3,?W
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Js'A
Aitkin
NA
?fi
ISO
NA
MA
bisgtictlor epannSe
NA
49
330 1
'"Sa
NA
piritna'Chtofdara;
NA
l,6W>
12,000
h'A
NA
aJpfffl-ChiHrdrnt
NA
1,600
12^09
NA
NA
«,4'-D0E
RA
ixodd"
NA
NA
Dieldnn
Nft
se
3S0
NA
NA
Ensnn
NA
Ifi.OW
220.OW3"
NA
NA
4,4'-DDD
NA
2.400
tf.OOC
r ' na-'7
MA
4.4'-DDT
NA
1,700
13.W
h'A
NA
Eriann rtdehyds
NA
1-6,006
320,000
N'A
MA
MerJwujreWtjr
NA
27ruy>fl
iJOOMO
KA
NA
f eljrsutttur Arcntalfc Hrdrocirtmitj (PAftO
WW*
831(1
Apfhrpt^nc
NA
i*0oa,(m
mmwon f na
NA
Flunraiifnffmc
NA
±,wnjm
fl, DM,000
NA
NA
J*y»nt
MA
1,500,000
»,W*JjC»0
MA
MA
ItamXUanSlrtswe
NA
5,600
NA
Ma
MA
56.000
3#MM0
Wa
NA
t *1 trttf MtsdvUvf PMG tfiHf. imj
"• SPA XttHm 9 imhsmat «K Oft*. HWJ
Vakics m MK& the MiHkrtnd
a'mater mii^giwu pff kiSegfvm
iigfkjjf sTtwctr mre**gmmi p^htgfrfm
U Um\i {Mp£j
J Thrfmtfrte maxtk* ^^(LtBeiraott fr a* Mfjwvrtftci-
UfThenabteMiifittlygtdfafaimpfbtetHd ^t*&cft*f*i&LU48F*e*ti*6trt*dMaywrm*i>a9t**p*tt4W
the £U3wrf lunar p/jptum-itpffwy^ rtte&wry tow+ty endt» *uj4.v mMtr* Whgnvwflrtf m tbesemph
S 7*ic flnen^4e waiJfauiyl t* 4*1 tiuASftMtf Man4
it T&ufdafua're ««j*4jJXh1'? il^f todi^^eiitiwiiM ^ilbSilylaamiijMetheaaj^ifi^ind/nm^QCirftmM,
S Jcpphffi X& ell jfi>wnU3^ s&tffl
9]«eKRVR lRl> Silt 39
Page 1 of 2 L
-------
Table 2-1 (continued)
Cunfirnjatiuu Soil Sample Analysis for (be Oil/Water Separator
IRP Site 39/Harmoti Substation, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sittpk ID
HAS39S127
n
HA$39$12g
OcLAVitcr Sep3fUQ[ j
Pbfr 1
Oilfft'KCI S^rpdn
FIikv
LCr
5a mphf Pepti* hfii 1 f«eO
1
7
COC
5S-«I2tHA
S3-P21HA
Sample Unlivery Group Number
98GBH
SSCIOJ]
Dait CeilnNei
as-iui^s
M-luMI
Aiwljl*
Uniu
EPA
Mflbod
BTV"
EFA PRC
e-AJ-Htr
1nrli«i5lu"
Cencfpti*ali«i
Tool Pe(TOl»nm HydTwritrboiil
41 f .1
T'X>H
NA i
NA
19ft
I 10
Pnlytlitoririatrd biilienvte (fCBi)
WS/lii
Arable* 10LG
IN K
NA
b'A
5,3
v i
9-1
Aroctoi IZ11
MA
NA
NA
3,1
u!
9,1
U
Aroclor 1332
¥ih
NA
NA
«!
9.0
U
AnitJot 1142
HA
NA
NA
3-3
u
1.J
U
Afoclar J 2-^S
NK
NA
m
5-5
u!
5.5
u
Aioclcr 125*
NA
NA
NA
3.fi
u
3-6
u
AtocEot IW>
NA
NA
W.%
3Z.S
4fi.5
Total PCB»
KA.
2M
UJO0
izs
4rtJ5
OftiBkron Fl*ld Scrtrn
ntfltp
r*A
HA
Nft
NA
jtio
L"S
S(K)
us
Fesl hciJei
tllW]
jS3j*un*-B$JC (LmdMis)
na
420
i^oo
WA
NA
dritt-SHC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
AMrin
NA
16
im;
J*A
NA
Heptacklof frpg*ii3e
ha
4»
nc
NA
NA
mni a - 0310T efam e
N*
1,600
iZdbB
NA
NA
ilpliaChlordifit
NA
I.6QD
MA
NA
4.4VDDI
HA
1,W
15,tWft
NA
NA
Dielcrin
KA
2>
t$0
NA
NA
Endrui
NA
CS.-000
3SMJ00
NA
NA
4,4-OTD
MA
2,400
19.DO0
NA
NA
4,4'-nm"
!KA
1,700
13-POft
NA
NA
Fr&irin .aldehyde
KA
tS.CHJO
3iIJ,D0Ci
MA
NA
MeihoxydiJor
NA
2iQ.«m
5,3«qjO«J
NA
NA
roiynutJiM' Aromatic Hjdr«artian» tPAHi)
l»««f
Rjm
An'-h^acert#
N*
l4,00ti,CKXJ
Twmdfim
NA
NA
niKjumihow!
NA
2.C«WJOO
37,000, two
NA
NA
P>nnus
KA
I30MW
26.000,000
NA
NA
p. tr^zfH a>irt1hr^ pn e
KA
56D
1.600
NA
NA
Chjyswe
NA
56„000
360,000
NA
KA
po^to^nwJBtitiieric
Ma
5W
3,6W
NA
NA
Benanfr)fIucin(Hii«i»t
NA
5,600
3WW«i
NA
NA
n«tiziK°ft)oyicn*
NA
*6
m
NA
NA
UibCKIDf sJjtoMhMWIW
NA
56
360
NA
NA
]^dci)C41.S-cd'tt^vrerjc
NA
5W
3.e<»
NA
NA _
Mrtili
7*2!
l.cad
iw-
1 400
].«W
| 20.2
1 !9.7
kft Jtre^nd
b'of A&wcphit .'ft** A»atye*d
fSr Sack$r6M*Kt TAr&haid Jfnht%
EPA RzxiQn 9 ft«$i jtovrouf FfiC 199i)
n' IPA feyew 9 /«fl^Miw«J- y*tCr ifMfly, |F05W.I
if| Jf4$it0 «iored Hfcr randmtiol PKG
J**?**? n\iliigram£ pr* kthfg^etm
Ufft£ ArPCftf tnlrrrT$T,-3mv pp fiilngfOJn
jfattni Qtaji^fWs:
£f I7rr dwAfrrtc twur anoftarri for hut mm 77te rrr mtmencoi k^iiW Isncrtor -jJuhWi*- iA* fr-iethod irfmif {S4DL)
J 7heitx*?ytt-wtx?paRlivciyida>$ft*4-fktfufnftiadtiakwt&tmaiTon.
UJThta^yiEvmntmtyimifr^bvttK&neipL The npswudMSL n ¦ip.traia^fW* md mm? *- trior rQ* r*pr*?**t
,'htzrtvef frmittf qimmkttit* fmu&y fc*a*w*iity ihrwrtpl*-
j8 1** Bitaltfs* -mmi/wad m dw iftexmtwd MidL
R five dssa Qt"4 Id d^ks'escl'cr in tfr# fl"&l"6iy duitrfjsnr ftfiftxiplji arid rttaei QC em^ria.
$ to- eif field ^crc*iTM,Er sLi/a.
9lMROTlVRmpSi«39
Pa£t d flfll
-------
Table 2-1 (cotHtauetf)
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis far (he Oil/Water Separator
IRP Site 39/Barmon Substation, Anderses AFB, Guam
Sample IS . ,
KAS39S125
HASJ9S139
Location
OitAViisf SeflMslar
Floor
OiVK'aier Separator
F]»ar
Sampit BtpUt fc-gi fftrti
cue IS'mibtr
SS.02JHA
S8-0i[HA
Sample Beli*ci? X
NA J NA
Chryjen*
MA
S«,W
3«^W
NA NA
b?nzofb)f]uon[ii)rcnt
NA
S«
a.eflo
NA 1 isiA.
"iMnzoftJflti wan chew
NA
1®0
itJM
Na f .NA
Bei2D(i"Jpyms
NA
S
™
NA JMA
Dibcili^i.tjBnihnujnoe
NA
56
j(iO
HA NA
IrxJsnrtl JJ-iiJ)pyiene
'NA
5I»
3.6M
NA ' KA
Metal*
*W1W
1*21
Lead
16* f 400 ! COM
19 i
| .IM .
Mete;
Ajs dcnci^ |^HUid sarjesn
NA Not ApphcaMcJ IVotAnafyiti
'¦1 Thrvfk&fii folk**
'v Sf/ *i*is* ?P.*m*i}wl MtG (Ma>
'v £P4 s*tm [fintomwr we (itfiy J99?}
VaitHta jfi fiOLD EJH?eeJ the rej^DEaaalffiG
mgfiyg tfmarm mittigrwm per Mkfjgram
i^l^dfrooei micn3$p?imjper kdtqnvm
•Efci# Qvri^Hn
1/ 1*4 tmefytr wgt wwfyndfir bid net faticwi TV auoeiaiirf n«i>in«a( if «f ar Ww Iftc £fctwi»n ttoill fftifttl
/ T^rMafyfenmpsninthfSlmitfltii
IM 71c Mnoifimt/kr tas nwl Ijftr MDi- is Spprvsimatt ma^' twgrmmit
B Itemaiym-msjlvmiimavllltxMtaiiisxtk
S Jfpboifg
9l9&S
-------
Table 2-1 (continued)
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Oil/Water Separator
1RJP Site 39/Harmon Substation* Andersen AFB, Guam
HAS39S 112
HAS39SSJ5
l..qratn'iR
Gl LAy iter Sepsrifcor
VMMI
WW*ke Sefuraicr
Wall
Sample Deptli bgs fltei}
MA
MA
COC
5S4&2HA
5S.K2KA
Samplt DcliTWy G-mmp Kumh*r
9SG0JI
980® 1
Dat» Cullrelrd
Units
ifa
rvitihwj
tl6.Jlit.p8
flfijyl 95
EFA PUG
EFA PHi:
jmC.
Gcmcfltrmjni
1M2J Prtrokum Fi'dnocatbOM
nts/kg.
418J
TRPH
NA
NA
5W0
^olythlwinaM Btplmiyii ff CTW
MfHtg
MSI
i+J
AhkLot 1016
KA
NA
NA
»2
#2
Atoclm 3221
tiA
Ma
HA
* 1
Araelor 1232
HA
MA
NA
9 0
90
AsmJoi 1342
?yBuclea> Amwnatit Bytirtitarfaom ffAHU
MPH
B3W
Anthracene
NA
4,4001.000 ao.oocijiMO
NA
T*A
Fluotantfccne
NA
IttW.WU
S7,m.W
NA
Na
E*ygtK
NA
1,500,000
it,ooc,i»o
MA
na
Zfefun3(*>gHthin»gena
NA
iSO
3.H«
MA
NA
Chrystna
NA
J&.M0
a^OOO
na
ka
Beniotijflupnnfliene
NA
SW»
J,WO
NA
NA
lknzcfli.)fliK?ran Hague
m
3,600
36JXO
m
NA
Benzo(a)pymte
NA
SS
360
NA
NA
Dtbenao(a}i)aitBgaaaie
NA
Si
3firt
NA
NA
Imtamfl JJ-wflpyTwit
NA
5W
3,600
NA
NA
Mtiifa.
74S1
LtaA
(66
400
65-0
4iM
Jtafer
Irgi drrsstci hcfcm jrou.rf!jtiigfaae
NA Not Appiiarbfs /iMe*
rt:' Back^mmet Jhnsaiwld Hater
EPA Xtptme Snidmuii PRS (Utf imj
":'EPA fm,o« i trm'uilTvrl PkG /-mi
ysltmmHQl£ia:eKdilleratiir*lts!i,MC
ypams par Ubjensp*
MK&jt *w-ii$r(Mnxpw kriegmm
acwQueig)0T
fh*-o*trly*f~T7 0*efjvmdfir bwimstdaicint fhe ^lacwritd immrrrzM} whieu w pr the Mutxnf Pacetttsm llmu fhf&Lt
J wax ^tTxinvelF kimrtified
W7b*tmaiytewatmrnfyaxlfir tMtamtotnpmttm
rt* aaaat hmri ttftpmwntntea w*GO"**t)i S*4p?temfy ittHFE A* t» fl* toiapit
$ lireenniyr*%wfixt*rfwo*stMcwtoibM*-
g yie-deflaflrpiisMi^niw-^ rfffSboifrmw llhf snrfJ!™;
S liftpi«d « ai'fil0 scrtrmtf rims
P15S8TOSVR ta?S«39
Pagcfi of21
-------
Table 2-1 (continued) „
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Oil/Water Separator
IRl* Site 39/Hantiflm Substation* Andersen AFB. Guam
$atnplt BP
HAS39SH)
SIAS39SH2
LofcfttlttB
OilfWsier Separator
W»11
OilA^jier Sepsnnor
Wall
San pit Ptpia btKlttt)
NA
NA
COC Nunibo-
5*-«J2HA
5S-C23HA
Sail pit Ptllvtry ,N Umb«>
JMi- Cflllectid
Anilyit
Until
iMaJ Petroleum flydncftrbou
msflts
-^MWEDMMd PMaMWC
4J&1
fcfA fKC
Jkl'AfKlG
Indmi'"
?BGQ3I
95GOJI
os^M-y
06-lul-W
ClUttaiEritton
TRPH
16
|*oly£la|®ruiirtl*d Hipbrnvb- ^FCTis)
. Jlg%
imai
Ajiacfcr It! 16
NA
NA
NA
9.3
9.2
Arwlfr 13 JI
Aimitii P32
Arfcclfr 1242
Ar-ficluf 1^48
NA
NA
IMA
'U
NA
T(A
NA
JJ
"9.0
Na
MA
Ma
3 J
3 3
NA
HA
NA
5 J
55
AMeloff J5s4
ArflclOff J 260
TsulPOht
NA
NA '
Ha
NA
J.S
3,6
MA
NA
5-7
5.C
NA
500
.MS
Otmiicran. Field Sfrwn
NA
MA
Fetflcldea
iiJaMB
too
us.
5WJ
gaama-BHC (L imtenr)
NA
420
3jT
NA
4-
2.400
19.(00
1.4
I4J
l.lflO
ntm T~
1.4
392
Enlnnalddhyic
MA
MeilwivditDr
NA
t&MG
jmroo
Z70,«*>
5JOO.OOO
10
%2
II
l^ilyitTKletr Aromitk- Bydricartflm (tAflrt
wt/ve
»i#
AiKhrasene
MA
M.OOOjUW
jja,owM»n
1,7
TJ
1.7
It
fluaiuiCbeaE
NA
24XW.0OO
37,OOOyOOC
3J
V
3,1
u
Pyrow
NA
EJOfli,0DO
34«yx»
2.4
V
2,3
u
Benzo(>.}uUhT3mtc
MA
SAO
3M9
:;j
V
i2 U
Chr>sftic
f
NA
5&.000
3,1
u
2.J V
fldz^"bjHu(jnjithcDC
MA
5W
1 J,600
u
42
11
Benzol k)iBonu«tJi«fw
HA
5.60C
! 36JWO
4.&
u
3.9
u
BenzOl.^jpume
N/1
56
1 J40
X9
u
!J
11
rtitorK«aJl)lTinh(JCeM:
MA
&
m
V-2
u
S.!
u
lndcv« f 1,2,3-aOnvnnK
ma
5£»
3.5
u
3.S
u
Metah
74J1
LtK
166
40U
l.UOO-
31J
44,e
dwhfitm ,rer(&s*
NA t**»)
"' £r,4 Ajs**, # w«ir«i pus f.ub,, ««j
Values m BOLD cscttdihz rcsrdm&cd PRG
rajfi'Xf ^encwes mrBqjramsper kiiagrcrm
tit&KHES, miL'iQrwxrpir krktgmm
0am
4/ Tig »atnt>v wsj &noiyZt>dfar, feu nor aittmlad. Ptc ast&crmad niimmatf value m^y isekrw ike AfaiAu>J Cmu-tim Jj*m fht&Lj.
J Th*\fmafyt4 omtf pioiiimrfy sdatfyfcd; ihr fumtrkitivf a wi emmr^iDii
Tkt**ai)p* fiMeriytvtffbr, butAai defected. The /rpvrtett MDL u tippraxurmtr djiM may- $r musy nor ivpy^*g.»H'
ikt 11Stu&i krtif e^NsMetiffrr /mctsgar? tajr6tvnstmfy--amdpf^Asefv maaivf due aae^yii ¥*¦ fit* liliy'f
5 Tbt OB OTTOCi^itdMn^k.
Tbt
-------
Table 2-1 (continued)
Confirmation Sail Sample Analysis for the Ofl/Water Separator
1RP Site 39/Harmon Substation-, Andersen AFB, Guam
Enlliplt ID
HAS3»S]4J
HASM52S9
Location
OOi'lVaicr Stpiramr
Wall
Pipeline!
Satnpk Rpplh i>£4 flfeit>
KA
7
COC fiymUtr
58435-5 Hi^
5&-W3HA
Samuir thrfmrrf 43r»tp Number
9SOQ31
981037
Date Celltcttfi
02-Sep98 (
A«*M<
t'MH
EPA
Mcth*»i«
mjVltS
*18-1
TRFH
na i
na n
KA
200
N'A
Ffllycbtarhmtd Biphcavli (PCBs)
nfift
8«JJ
Areolar ;(H6
NA
NA
NA
95 U I
38
L"
Aroei&c j22i
NA
NA
NA
9 4 U
87
U
ArocJw I2S2
MA
tja
NA
5 a u
S(i
li
Aracloc 124*
NA
NA
NA
34 u
3 2
U
Aiocla 1246
MA
NA
NA
J6 U
52
u
AKJClCf 1254
NA
NA 1
NA
37 U
14
u
AKKiar 1260
HA
NA
NA
5 S 13
(Ml
Tci|»] PCBi
MA
JDD
UOO
,—
«CJ
Ohmkroa Field 5cw*ti
r
JiA
«A
HA
NA
5M US
NA
PctliCkles
garufra-BHC (Lindane)
NA
4^S
UOtt
MA
61
ei
delu-SHC
na
NA
NA
NA
4 I
u
AJiJnp
NA
26
iai>
NA :
2!
Ul
Weplaslilor rporn^e
N*
4?
310
NA
37
t;
Eaiunn-CWordaive
NA
LMJO
12,003
NA
?L 0
alpbwOiiwtae
NA
]JW
12,000
HA
199
¥
4-4-DDE
NA
1.700
IJ,W»
NA
18»
T>ifcld*iji
NA
18
IW
NA
16
U
Brntrtii
KA
32tM3(»
NA
15
u
4.4--RDI)
NA
ijm
19JMO
NA
Bit
J
4,4-DDT
NA
1,700
13,000
NA
224
Enctrtlj iMifcftyite
NA
IS,™
S2O,{»0
NA
95
c
MtitanvebLnr
NA
270,000
1.300.0D0
Na
is
u
|-oij7»iicte«r AronwtK Bydrocjptwm fPAHi)
#&*5
8111
Antfewene
NA
1-4,000.000
Ma
t 6
u
FJjoranflitne
NA
2,1500,000
37,000,000
NA
it
ir
Fjtmk
NA
i,5i»,«e
26,0001000
NA
22
u
Prnii>{a)a,T5£rai«CIK
NA
560
3,#00
NA
its
f
NA
56.OTC.
340,000
"NA
59
j
Benzotb^flunranthsde
NA
JM
J.«»
NA
12 4
j
BeitzofJ^flwmnlteie
NA
5M0
36,000
NA
3 S
V
Bcrawansyrene
NA
se
MO
NA
IS
J
T »b«mo(i,Ji'hri!hr?£iiw
NA
5<
3(0
NA
t%
u
Itilcnef 1,1 J-cdlpwrEtiE
NA
r sso
3,€O0
NA
i ii
J
M*1Uh
5421
Lead
m
400
t.ooo
49 1
1 -II
footer HkXAQwtitfitrs
U 7h€&Ki^>rte»anafyt*dft*, tn^nm J*r*£t*d. T^kl fllWCWTWl mmuniii VBhrr u AT ti* bektw Ifte MitkiKt D&ertiun L*mH \MDL\
.Nt* fk'$i Afipimbie* Sol Anvtyzrd J 7^<* ras^-fir ¦wi* ptftun/tfy i^tigwpvmii4OT 4J-mi
Sacisrautf^ ?Juh(#^jjy *ifliW UJ Tht dmofcr* •mtur fuuxtyx*tif#r_ but tot ck&gatef Tkt rrpcrttti MD& k gEyrp.tamtg end wwy m wusu mtf rijpntjai1^
^"' 9 PR*i ?&&$) fJbe e0Oi£r} Sfmii qffmMfti&tltfti ntE^&QiryfajBfzffijrxrt^&Kfpim^
^ EPA Mtgrtm P imiu&rwf FRSx fMsw IP&8} |r -£kt »jut£rl>u# i%iurJii3*Miif ifl m anacHuvd lifank.
^ &{jiJD cxeed tk* /tutknrtc! ?&<+ & Tlt-rfaa1 cv-p Mfiv«wWr «fwf Pc dtfwtminm j?r At-trtoifity itc n7iWl)rt* Ww jwmjtfc *nfcl M*tar £?£! eMSGrfct
iqrfr defteies miiiigmm* per 4MiAgOTi| $ ie a!lfield icnemn* liata
Hgfii $ite39
Page Sof21
-------
Table 2-1 {continued}
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for (be Oil/Water Separator
JRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Andersen ,4FB» Guam
:$»nS0l« in
• i
!IaS>9S266
HASJ9S26I
Laeitmn.
Pipelines
WfMllp!?
Saira pit Dfpdh CfS ^feel> __
7
7
(jyC Numbr"-
Sfc'WKA
i?-C43RA
Sant|>lt Df livery tiwp Number
93J037
Ojh Calkcled
.
03-&W-9S
02.SepSiS
AnatjH
Unto
E?A
Mrlhul
eKTkT"
fjiriusilw
CsiKCA
t-ilnh
Peljthlnriniiesi Biptienyl; (PClf)
HP**
TOflJ
Awclor 1016
NA
,...*V.
NA
6-S
u
1.6
u
Arocior 1231
Ka
NA ,
NA
8.S U
V
Aa'oclot t2J2
NA
** J
NA I
4,7
u
B.4
U
Ajocior 124J
NA
NA 1
NA i
3,2
u
3.1
C
AJWlOI 124?
NA
MA
NA
iJ
u
3.5 U
An»;sot 1154
TCA
?JA i
NA [
3JI
t
3.4
1.'
AraelBr J26P
NA
MA
NA
163
5J
U
iwal Pitts
Wk
I,100
_. 165
Pmfciiln
SMI ..
n-BHC £ Lutdifli)
KA
430 '
j,iW;
u
Ul
6,7
U!
dile-BHC
NA
NA
MA
i.3
u
4,0 Li
Alftnn
NA | ft
m
5.1
Ul
2S
UJ
Heptauklsr tpOTttfe
i*ta
49
m
7.5
u
5.4
u
ptttions.O.loidirse
>-
IjMH
uw>
37.1
)
J."i
V
s.lpha'CfciSprdanc
[i
i ,4aUt>
LiSKM
22.4
I
u
W'Mt
>iA
],1l»
IS, WW
¦«7
344
PiiUirtB
NA
IS
m
32
u
15
u
Ejtflrtn
f NA
iww
J2a
u
PkiyRieciEii' Aromatic Hydrocarbons (TaBi)
iwfl(a.ltkni!im«tie
I
NA
54
340
?.i
V
7.6
Lr
IjjjdeiwJ1 i
(
HA
5&a
2,000
3.1
V
3,1
u
fcKUJs
&wm
j «H»A
i.emi
If* f
5 1.000
yy
1 is
jgjrtfati}Ms fctow pwtti iwtfixx
NA NotAp/tilcabk'/NmAmaiyza!
fT* S/?rkX7vufti1
EPA McxTm»*aidir*M{PM6(Mtv. t9W
"' EPA McgHm 9 todwmai FSB Otqy. 1*W
£ufi£a?-j F'A{j
d*tTBf*t trlfltyrtimtp*r Itf^fthsn#
i*jp'hg ncflfref ip*flr«fwnu per toiagr&s:
£tau£taatpto*- 1
C/ T%*n+ib$*lva3&*iii}Z*rf/&', ififAcidfTt&ed, Tkr&tSMimltd makenexii vmhx a *• flr t/mkrw the MethodDttwZiai Linfi iMBLk
J fetf* tsatnaom.
yim t tpfrimfMDL is (fprWmaic gutd may isr-may /K^tt^rum\
dh^iHM*4#af 4m*iN 'if ¦frua"^^f{\of> *nxznoiiryf&iK*>u***1^tiwdpri&y*fyw£unirt-tht ffxaipt* ih iheMmpiz.
ft wjfeiW ^ tffp taTrtriHfHJ1 Aiadt
£ T-k-rirtfl imiafcir d*riW^ewicin m tteviffTity to merfiz.iht itmpltiind
$ ApfHlmS *» milfiold act*wm!g tkrt
-------
Table 2-1 (continued)
Confirmation Sail Sample Analysis for the Oil/Water Separator
IRI* Site 39/Hsrmoii Substation, Andersen AFB, Guam
Samp le ID
HAS3PSJ64
Location
('ipsSmcs
SaHJJlk: Btpili 6g! (f«l)
7
C0C Number
iS-£
NA
],700
tS,ll™inir|t1*nT!
NA
5«
3.600
y*
u
BerttoOrtK-uCnaittfittH
NA
i ' S,6QQ
M,0(»
3-7 U
B«m«»iyi=n>5
: NA
i 56
3®
—
A. .'
V
P&*n£Gfa,h^ariskniE£nie
NA
i 56
3®
14 U
Indiihflf S ,2,3-edlfVvfiSnfi
NA
S«3
3.«M
3.1
u
¦Mctali
60S DA
l^c&d.
4
-------
Table 2-1 (cautioned) >*f -,! ¦¦ -
CoafirtnatJoo Soil Sample Analysis for the Oil/Water Separator
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation. Andersen APB, Guam
kartipl# ID
HAS2JS266
K.*.539S2G'
LocaHM
PioeLtnej.
Proelnws
Sample Pf«h Dt*
NA
CCJC Numlwr
S1-043HA
Santplt Ptliv«Tf gruif *uiah«
9BM03
9SWJ1
Pat* C-aliMt jtf
C'.Se
Aiulin
Hum
EPA
Method
| stv,l-1
EPA PRC
s&L-
Elf A FRlU
lnduttA
CtiKtr
tritjon
FokvchloriBalHi BijihmTii CrtBl)
MS'k£
8091 |
Aiotlef Wlfi
I NA
NA
»»
U
91)
u
Ajoclpr (23 ]
! I NA
NA
NA
».s U
i9
u
Ajoclor 1232
I NA
NA
Na
8?
d
a
11
Afoclor 1242
NA
NA
NA
11
"U
ja
u
Aiocloi
NA
NA
NA
33
•j
54
V
MOilor I35<5
[ NA
NA
NA
3.5
u
it
u
Aiooioj l2tti . !
\ NA
NA
NA
67.9
5S If
rood rca* l
! NA
200
1.300
n 9
L =
PtiUkkm
inai
giminfi'BHC fljiufuw}
>1A
•aid
MA
NA
3.209
Ul
MA
0*2
70
4,2
IN* \
2S
ISO
0,29
UJ
13
Heptactiitor epcxn
gurcnia-Ciiiprdane
HA
49
3M
KA
1,6M3
I2JJUO
0 679
1,52
J,7
ptm-Oiioidiw;
WA
44'-DDE
thtldrm
h'A
t.wp
' 1,700 "
OjfloO
1.02
HA
Etldnn
K.<
18
7$, o«>
13.000
~"l«l
m
ut
1.6
U
16
32^000
1-3
U
IS
4,4'.DDD
MA
2,440
(9.000
39S
14
4.4" .DDT
HA
lindrqi aMchyide
NA
t.7BQ
16.000
JSfi
164
atywo
¦7.0 i
9 S
Mrlhoiytniof
Ulyiwtlnr Arorojl'r BydrmrtTborat tT ABi)
jA.
MM
sk riotm
fJMJM
7.9
so
AMtaceiK
FluCTUiteit
Pyrenc_
lergnCafantlpiceat
Chiyroie
MA
"na~
MA
NA
NA
I*.fl00>000
£000,000
t ,590.000
m
56.000
smaoojooo
374KM.OOO
3«^OW9,OOa
3,600
WOO
14
;!3
3-1
2J
11
2,3
3.1
2,2
Bcmo(b)fliwratmtnni£
NA
m
3,600
44
4 i
Bgnyn{ig}Flitfiranitigit£_
Tift
3.600
JfiJKK)
BensnJtljpjT!*
NA
SS
3W
2.8
P ¦ ,h aif
NA
St
3W
7.9
!!25U
m
i,6aa
sum
BuSI tO.'mTUi
j 4
U
„L.
Ham
demdtKX ib|dm,|T^3kr^|
HA
!/> Maekpmnd Velste
t:' EPAMipm ibwMMCMr, !Wt)
£P4 Mt^os 9 InAisnol PRC mm iSWj
VahtM P K'W «ti-J#i i«« r&wlmnalPJtG
ptr ktefmm
aS^S titnot*? mwjngrwss prr hSefgmm
¦frg j ^ Ln ¦¦iimi.mi.MMiiiBii ¦¦ imww
0mQwO(&#f'
If f%« i^omih^jibr,bmrrariliatx*ed th*nvmcrxmivokt tsttf c*-bekmjfoMitfod Detection LiMil fhiDLi
J Th#$witttwasfXJitxvriyidni!fi£d;limquanntSftmtisM*ihm4ix£M
W thf imev aimfysaed/Isps baf a& dtfafait- Tbt) tqrufSfid WDL is apprmimalt mrdmiry tp
tkf hmit qj1'to mrtpnstz&afymeasure theitnemjnt m At jfampkL
$ Tt+i&alyto-iuaijfijuwtiA aA&£3vct£aEdbfe&t
M 71* dtit& titt UBWsnbic Jus ip fifLmFTB vt tb* tUbrlity to AmSir" f som^he andwtwf QC
S AjSfAtti & (rft&cid Mjrmtuqj deta
91U 8TOVH!RFSsit3e
Page XI of 21
-------
Table 2-1 (continued)
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Oil/Water Separator
IRP Site 39/Karnwn Substation, Andersen AFB, Guam
^nJFiplc ~>
HA5?9SlAft
«ASJ9S3«
Location
Pipeline*
MA5395268 after
O v erotc Lio n
Swnfste Bt|>rt Pgts {feet)
NA
¦
KA
COC -S'unsbtr
58-WHA
i
5MJ5JHA
San pit PtrnvHT UrotJD Numwr
ssitrai
SSJ951
Dale Collrrtrd
02-Sci>-98
05-Ckf-98
Ana tit*
Unltj
EPA
Meir**!
bt\h"
EPA FKC
RtS *'
EPAPRG
liudui!p>
Caneentminn
Frtlychlormared BiphtTiyls (PCBi)
sou
AtdcIct 3 0 S-S *
NA
tfA
NA
9,7
"]
Ma
Aiuilw i211
NA
TU
NA
9.«
U I
NA
Articior 12.32
NA
NA
NA
93
L'
NA
A/odor 1M '
NA
NA
NA
3J
V
NA
Ateclar 12*8
NA
NA
¥>A
i.S
U
NA
12Sa
NA
NA
NA
3.8
L"
NA
Afocha 12B0
NA
NA
NA
fijo i;
NA
Tula! FC&
NA
200
IJOO
HA
futtekdts
«gA«s
Sflil
¦jajoros-BHC (ttcdsne's
MA
<120
MOO
16
Id
0.75 I.'
dclla-BHC
NA
HA
NA
45
If
0.45 V
Ai"tna
NA
16
180
31
yi
0,11 U
HeptachJw sfOTjite
NA
49
330
41
c
041 U
Ssmini'Qitotdaiic
NA
1,600
12,006
r 40
i)
0,«t U
alpSta-CWCfllaiie
NA
1,600
12,000
41
u
0*1 u
4.4*-bt)E
KA
i,too
U,k«l
1I7S
201
Dieldtm.
NA
JS
1W
rro
u
1.7 U
Ertirtn
NA
I6.0UC-
320,000
170
u
17 U
4,4'-OIJD
NA
2>4fl0
W,000
313
-¦4
13 U
4,<'-hot
NA
1,7100
13,000
1T»
!3,3
Eptfrm alsJehyde
NA
]iben*D RatdenaaS PJift (May. i9$1$
''J,> EPA RecfiiVT ft foekiimal P&G /EJUfJ
Vftiina *t excerei the nzndmtusf PJtG
mj&%$ dtxfxti rtttSitgrnmsper hlqpmrt
kyiy cLtxutt4f micrvgmms per hJognam
£Ma QvakfhrL-
U 7heencbiew*s-atia$x*dfi*,iikiMaeJtimfid. 77* nmHtrwt yrt'°r v et rr btJm-MrfM iAmtJ {MDtX
J 71c smai^Yf mt pearfJttdji Jetan^Kf, rh* quMtitow* dj a#
UJ7*amaivre»msaiwfytidfa'L9+nt*ii+*#t£, lb* tt oppfwmMe and n^DrA^nMrqsrtie^
ih*ac^iifMtetfqu$w¥Vm»*Z***WWa^mth^p*Km&meaMvreikeawfb**iKtiie3empi*
B J%e lifunlj^e it 4* iw*t
k Th* dot* utw *vui±Ahit! n\t* to m fa* ainirty to th* wmpte. and B\tn $C cmtrw
8 Jtf&itTfi fiU? K^nmn^r/iblix
91WWR IRP Site 39
Page 12 of 21
-------
Tabic 2-1 (continued)
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for ike Oil/Water Separator
ERP Site 39/Har*nt»o Substation, Aodcrsefi AFB, Guam)
¦S^mjitelEl
][AS3teZ69
LBsaiiiMi
Pipelines
Iwptb bj"S (I«t>
hTA
COC*nmb«r
58JMSHA
Rampli D«li*tr? Croup Number
SSW37
Oa'.t f'allcclrd
W-S^.08
Ainlyt*
Unil*
EPA
. MKhoi
BTV'"
EPa !*«.€
SirAFifi'"
.. TndnsM11*..
ConetntratlcB
P'OK'cEircri^Ac^d Sipheh-^ts (PCS^l
PftltR
SMI
Amclar lOli 1
MA
NA
NA
4 t
Li
ArwJnr 12 ?1
Na
Ma 1
KA
*6
U
Areclor J 31?
l*JA
MA
NA
w
1
Amciot i;*?
m
MA
"JIA
3;
U
AraclDr I24fi I
"¦ifr
SA
NA
5>
tr
Araclot 12.54
?JA
JJA
NA
3 *
U
AmkIoi IJSO
WA
NA
5 J
u
Tettl FCBs
KA
100
1,3M
—
FritlEife
us**
80S1
jcaHnts. bHC (Lindane)
Na
420
IJ®
Ul
dclm-UHC
NA
NA
KA
* 0
(J
AJdrin
NA
26
t»0
2$
ID
Hcpfinbloi cpo j lie
NA
4f
330
V
gamnu-Chkmfcuie
NA
12,000
5 5
u
lllM>-Chl
NA
1AW
1W0
1! t:
4,4'-l3DI
m
1,700
O,0M)
?rs
Eninr altBTii^di
NA
16.MX)
320.000
94
i:
Metaojrehkn
NA
rw.oofl
imw»
n l:
Polymicfeir Artmirtk H yHWirlWt* l,0OQ
2»,CXWjOM
16
U
FtwDTanthens
NA
2,000,000
37JK»,0(K!
$3
t;
Pyrcne
NA
l,i«XMW
26yW0.!Wfl
22
L'
BaisotajMEhtaeetw
NA
560
xm
30
y
Cfr>sciK
1NA
J«.«0
IKi.OOd
7'i.
u
Pen30(b)fliMH3PMNtlS
NA
S«5
3,-MXt
4J|) II
ietiJotfcltlMitaiUltens
'MA
i,«x>
I" 16.000
3 7
n
Benz^aJpyiDX
MA
5S
360
21
y
Dibtaao(siJiJanlljr»cCTic
tJA
34
S6S
7b
u
ipflSrujf l,2,3-td>p«*nc
m
fU
3.6CO
3 3
V
MetaJi
raj/ki
MM
Late
m
400
f.DCO
34 4
£gf JitrraifM jo^SCS
h',4 ^
ffj ^fsc^g¥aum^
EPA Rcgsm fXartewlPtiC fMgy I9M)
"' EPA Stgmn SinAiMm milhgnwu JW Wagnm
ugdkjg £(mw twurflPfTYam^ptr hiogram
Dam Qturif^trv
U Tkr JUrafyrt. >hu ctndifT^d1 rr^f The txSM&mavat MtUMtrrefl w»kr* tg a,1 a** b*4&^ &W jUatkcd jLamf fMfrL}
J R* smpiyrt hhsi p/txirr+riy wi&ifrfltti, i»l* ^uiiuufKkH ta tor mmaimtiif.
O/Jfm emtyui uw amlmtiiM iur Mr dNMtoC
¦Ar opiuf iipnu f fMnwnm pmemry W memqify andpn«»$> «m« l*» ai
J TJj fBiflh— woj^fanrf pt 1U1 Mmitd H*«4
92M68$MWURPSi(e3
-------
Table 2-1 {continued)
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for tbe Oil/Water Separator
IRF Site 39/Karuwg Substation, Andersen AFB, Guam
SjiwN n>
WAS3?S3TO
Location
Fipeiuxj.
KAS3 S alio after
Ovrrtttin."j0n
Sample Depth bjs (frel)
NA
NA
COC Number
il-UMHA
5B-Q36HA
Sample Miwry Group NumtMr
98103?
SSI 147
[tale Collected
Ol-SW-1)!!
Anifrtc
linlB
EPA
Wl-Hinri
irrv"11
CPA PRl.
R«®
EPA Pfit.
ftiiust™
Conuntralliin
PajyEJiLonnitcd Sisfarnvii (PC'BS)
P-WBJ!
mi
ArtJclor tOlS
NA
NA
NA
96
U
NA
Afutjac t221
NA
tvA
NA
9S
L"
NA
AtocJar e232
Na
t*h
NA
94
L"
NA
/jodor S242
NA
m
NA
m I"
NA
Arocloi 11^8
NA
NA
HA
57
U
NA
Actielor 12J4
NA
NA
NA
31 li
NA
Aroeler 1260
NA
NA
NA
S9
L1
NA
Tnlsl FCIl
NA
200
r IJOO
HA
»>«r»raiej
«*e
aoai
gannrTW-BHC (t.iTicbms)
NA
430
3,200
LSD
Uf
090
U
dcito-PHC
NA
NA
NA
W
u
J.54
i:
Aldnn
HA
26
ISC'
62
UJ
C»J?
u
H^pti^nlor q34xid&
NA
4S
3K>
81
u
0 49
u
samraii-Chlij«it»ns
NA
1,600
HOCK)
78
IJ
0 4-7
LI
alpha-Chluitlani
NA
new
12.000
8t
u
0«
0
4.4-OT3;
NA
],7W
13000
1140
5 97
I>ifil4traj
NA
2*
190
340
u
2 I
D
Etirinn
MA
njm
120(000
330
u
ZJ0
V
«,4'-DEN)
NA
1,400
I9J000
JOO
u
i a
u
i,4'-orn-
NA
1,700
) 3,000
<7M
2J l
Endr»i3cle>vcle
NA
16,000
33MHW
110
u
1.2
u
MelfewrcMaf
NA
210,000
SJOOJOO
1TO0
u
90
11
fvljFfiDTlor Ammm: Brdmvtrans (TAJQ»)
HE*5
B3M
AhIIiim*!*!
NA
14,900,000
320,000,000
11
u
NA
FluoTHChciie
NA
aMKMMO
37,000,000
3.9
11
NA
Pynrpe
NA
UftJ.OOTJ
26.DOOJOOO
2A
u
NA
B Btt? o{^ ^ Ifaraettfi
NA
569
J,600
3,1
u
NA
Chrysene
NA
36,W»
360,000
2.4
u
NA
len*0{fc>J' kJ uyz-um
jDein Qrtaiifrtrz
V Tftcgaab** mmanefy^^r k* rmi JwticttJ TktiiJe£
-------
Tabte 2-J (continued) -fi: ; •' '
Confirmation Ml Sample Analysis for the Oil/Water Separator
IRP Site 39/Harmon Snbslatioti, Andersen AfB, Guam
t ED
HAE39S!"]
HASJ9K372
LocsUJun
ThpgUnet
PipttmiB
Safli|>]r Depth bgj {left)
NA
NA
COC Kumfctr
JiUOMHA
5S-044HA
BurniLt tlgftvtry G ruip Nnrnbtr
9|!B5*f
9STOJ7
Pat* (.'pllttKO
Aniljrf*
Pflhxhloriiiaml flinlwwlf fPClll
Uniti
PKf*e
MA
iWl
BTV
EPA pro
Ite"1
KTA PUG
Wmi"
M-Scp-ga
EaHHMHP*!
D2~;ei)-»s
CortrenfMHon
Aroclor WIS
NA
MA
NA
9 D
AiflcU?? 122!
NA
MA
MA
3,J
Awicl©- 3211
MA
Ma
UK
i.t
Awdof 3241
MA
MA
.NA
J.2
MA
MA
NA
Apaelor 325s
Ma
NA
K A
1,5
Aroclo' J 260
NA
Total PC*!
NA
If A
200
NA
5.5
1,300
P«(tkidM
80S!
5-6
3.6
it
.caunma-BHC (Linnme*
delta-BHC
JNA
"n/T
AMhb
HeptorJiior fpcuMc
gainmR-OiJarJme
NA
NA
NA
420
NA
2*
4%
1,6CKJ
M®
0.W
UJ
NA
0 42
HO
0J9
JJ
UJ
3 JO
0.38
12,000
0.J7
U
73
44
3 0
40
3,8
tf
t;j
u
s;
alpha-Qilordaiw
NA
1,600
12.000
0J?8
40
4.^-DPE
N*
1,700
13, OW
4t3
tHsUarin
NA
n
190
U
IS*
fcntiriii
NA
!&.£*»
330,000
16
4.4--DDD
NA
3,400
!9,000
«.ss
14
M'-DDT
NA
1.700
]3,«0
31
Indnn aldetavde
ISA
I6.0OG
320,000
10
MetiiajjsMor
NA
27Q.OCO
MflO.OOO
rolynwltir AwbiIIi Bjw>mirtNi«
MJ9
63
u
Axuitracnu:
.
NA
14,000,000
220,000.000
«2
U
1-t
U
FIswmMhaie
NA
Zjosdfioa
J7.CW.W0
LP
u
J-S
U
Pvmene
... ( -..
m
1.5WJ,OD6
2WKM5,™
11
u
1.A
0
Bcitz waVnLhTacrTK
1
m
SW
3.600
r;.7
J
3.2
u
OiF>-seiie
m
«4,«»
neMKfci
11
u
23
u
Benioftjltaorambeiie
NA
j«e
3.«C
io
u
494
3
aenio(li:)(lo(ii3nthenB
NA
5,«»
W,0fM
IS
u
4.0
u
B#nro(iii)pyrH>e
M'A
5S
sm
94.1
J
2,9
u
D)bCTizo»i!CtirBc;sp£
i NA
S4
360
41J
u
IJ
u
!ndrajn(l,JJ-cil)p¥i?IJe
NA
tm
17
u
J.?
u
Metilt
tneifct
MiM
UBd
1 f ?«,
400
1,000
r 1M
3?
.Veto'
dej|«£i Wow J retail Hi^e*
}iA lit* tkpfhti&it. f'Stf A All hied
ScCiij,i utmjS
m SFA Sigim SHankmiit W5 (Mitt, 1W)
m SPA »Indmtnai fMG OitQ. JfWJj
?riflfu-^r m *j&xn£ tkf ftMfkzmpi PjRG
7n$&g eSnUMM
*et limp Haw i3le*c*iaL TlhP f kpm ltd MDL Xs *a|ywiiMpM^f iijjv a**«5Pffcf tdCTt
ft Taedcks arciMMaiiy'f.oW ip jr. thfmbitity to |Z)«4i[>jMe ik* tanrfuV&rd Q€:aeMxrm'.
£ AppHmi to jsii JuM §c»'aiiiinfr
9I5esMVR)RPSits39
Fage 15 of21
-------
Table 2-1 (continued)
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Oil/Water Separator
IRP Site 39/Hannoii Substation, Andersen A.FB, G«am
SampItlB
SlAS39a7i
HAS39S24L
tocafion
PipcliTies
QzlAVzi^r
Wadl
SimpJr Orpili 6*i (fn#
2
KA
COG Nurabcr
S-B-044HA
58-W5HA
Sampte Delivery Grtup Number
9SI0J7
MOST
Rati Collided
K-5siv?g
C2-SW-9S
Analvte
lulu
EPA
BTV"
ETA HWCi
EPA PBti
ComtlllritiQdl
FAtychlarlnalcd fikptenfb (F(!Bs)
Utrttfi
SCSI
AjockiT lUlii !
NA
NA
NA
9.6
U
84
C
AiotUjr 121',
NA
NA
NA
9,5
U
8,4 l:
j\F»ch)r 1252
Na
NA
NA
»4
V
1.3
t;
^¦nnLkfir J *32
NA
MA
NA
3,4 U
3.0
AlOCier 1I4S
NA
NA
NA
5.7
u
5,ft
y
ftTociur I2AJ
NA
NA
MA
1.1
u
3J
L>
ArtX-lcjr [ISO
NA
NA
MA
<9
u
S.2
u
Total ?C 8i
NA
200
!JQ0
PfiFlkldrs
8*11
gatmna-BHC JLindsnt)
NA
«20
JJOft
Q.TS
UJ
0.66
u
dete-BHC
NA
NA
MA
tLttl0
o.fi^S
J
93*
ir
alpbs-CJihudane
MA
1,600
!2.0QO
u
0.36
V
M-DOS
MA
1,700
U.OOO
}»
1-D8 :
IMdnn
NA
S3
190
1-7
u
SlS
'u
Evd^n
NA
i&OOO
320.0M
16 'J
!.4
V
4,-f-DDD
NA
2MH
W-,M»
ns
L.J
11
4,4-DDT
m
1,-JWJ
j s.m
32J8
J
1,3
u
EnW
u
3-5
u
P}TM«
NA
1,560JH»
2b,i»OJJO0
2-4
u
2, J t-
BenzDCsknteaccEic
NA
J6Q
J,<00
3J L'
2.9
u
Qirvscne
NA
56,0cm
3»,QQ0
24
u
2,1
u
Bfiij;o(fc)(luCTMithene
NA
S<50
j.wa
J.t
u
BcnJodlt'JfiucHnjiiithenc
NA
5,600
J6.066
29.7
u
SeDttrtatevrme
NA
54
m
•12.6
2.6
0
r*ibazDta.h)«iiUii3":«ie
NA
>6
360
8J
u
7,5 U
Iwtennf ] ,2 J-cdJpyme
NA
¦WJ
3-Z
u
Mttal*
¦tfkl
fHAA
Lemi
166
4W
2.W0
36.7
92$
u
NbflCf.'
b%* ¦rffjrarcf beiem tfizuftd svrjh££
NA iVc* Applicable t'ftor stfiatyzai
tiJ TArtciAfiJd' Hafcae
EPA jtfgMM 9 *miltmei /Wtf ate;, 1993}
"> spa hishm j mmm6S9\RVR. IRP Site 39
Page 16 of
-------
Tahle 2-1 (cootieoed) vv 1 *
Confirm utioQ Soil Sample ADa]ysi$ for the Oi Water Separator
I Elf Site 39/Harmo® Substation. Andersen AFB» Goam
Samplt It"
HAS3JS2I2
KASJ95J3?
Ucilnn
Oil'Tfc'ater Sepsrslu;
TVil:
OilU'atp- S«TMiraio*
Wall
Ssmpie Depth bp
NA
NA
rOC Number
M-O^SHA
5S-0SJHA
Ssmplt Dvlimrv Group Nuniwr
ssim1?
9&IQJ1
Datf Co!]ret«<
02 Ssp 9S
as-Oo-w
Arcalytf
Until
Ef A
nrv!"
i,l»A i'RC
^ m£L...
tPA WIG
Inrtusr*^'
CipaniriliDii
FoljreNlsiimlMi Hkphepyb (PCS*!
.ct*!;
wsi
fcpniar LOU
na
NA
M
9-J
~
11
L"
A rata 2221
MA
NA
m
9 1
u
] 1
•j
Awdof 1232 !
KA
NA
NA
9,0
u
I]
U
Aseclor 1242
HA
!MA
NA
3-1
u
4,0
u
Aiwkr 124B
HA
Ma
NA
5.5
L'
6.6
0
Aractor J 254
NA
IS'A
NA
5.6 U
4,3 11
Aroclcr 126®
NA
NA
NA
fjt
u
Li
T«»«i FCB»
NA
ioa
t,ire>
—
OhvfcrOn FhM Srnrcn
rnffv
l*A
NA
NA
MA
NA
TO
US
P»HeW*i
soil
^Lindane)
MA
<20
3J0C
0.71
u
4S7
Uf
d=lt»-BHC
NA
NA
NA
0 43
u
0.S I
Ul
Aldnn
NA
&
ISO
O-JO
u
§J6
u
Hep"EM«T ^jairte
NA
4»
i3U
W9
u
0.47
u
gantnu-Cbliictafit
•
NA
}.m
IZflOO
DJSS
I
o.«
u
a>phtt)-Cb^tiTttartt
!
NA
!,<*»
liOOO
0-»
u
047
Li
¦W-DDE
NA
],«»
13,000
R3
].f J
Ditidnii
fiA
rt
TO
u
2.0
UJ
Endfo
TiA
]6,«MO
320.000
u
J.9
UJ
«t.#-DDD
NA
2j«»
19JJW
3-«
J
1,7
u
M-DDT
MA
1,™
13,300
<1SJ
J
1" U
liiKtnn aldehyde
NA
14000
mm
1.0
tl
Ul
Meftaitythkif . _.
NA
270 jMQ
8.2
u
9,3
UJ
P»ly*nebar Ai-smitk HwdnxarMni (IfAH*}
J»eM
S31I
(MifciMnit
NA
] 4.000,000
I20.D00.600
1.7
u
Z -0
u
iFLuOIMItlWH
NA
2.imOBO
3.S
u
4.6
y
Pyre™«
MA
U10J300
2i.0MhtXB
2-J
u
2J
u
Bccao(»)BjilftrijanK
NA
SlSW
3.600
3J
u
3.1!
i]
Chiyjeiw
NA
isgooo
2.1
u
2.S
u
BenznfljJftuoiartJiene
NA
56P
3.60a
«
u
5.J
u
Bcn*n(i)fliiorznHiene
NA
J,SCO
J6.KH1
3.9
u
4.t
u
BennMslpyioe
» NA
56
3fiO
I 2.8
V
J.4
u
Kfcetim^lijpitiipitene
NA
5S
M0
S.l
u
*.8
u
fiuhiM iJi, J-edhwrene
NA
5«C
3,MO
1 , %i
U ! 1.3
u
"WflW
M11A
Lead
P 1SS
4W | 1,090
17.0
\ 43,?
J
&> tiaMltl jrflMMflHStK*
m Afar 4fp!&T&t*fH6i4Mifytml
tJ'' Sui-lytiMmd Thmiaid ¥^hte
EPA Stgim f tommmna! PAG !Hv>
EPA Xtfum t AwtaunaT PMGiMey, tfMi
VfriMCiin &OI&
.<**-¦% dvmtf *r$tfWrr*#tr bte&rt*
Ujf/iig d*tr£*ttf mitrtSsJumj fur i*{trgrfun
£*ta Qmtifter*;
if 7frf flLtffjVM i*^£m*(yt6ffarr but eft*ii£taiJt4< Th& TiuvcMed Ammcricai itthtt ET ti &¦ fegfem- ihc AfefftorfDtinifaiHi JUa# fMDl}
J ?af f-n^rff -nrr/miiYnrnfr « eu%afyncifiita am *rf dfariuuKf 25w! nqM/wrf MDL u ay^unuuiiM; ami map &r may enar raprejwm
rt* "Wfefld &tmt cf^unmtafifm ¦ta»y is acXum&y suuiprtc±uefy mt^rrr Ac 4nnh** m mmpk.
£ Tbw torgfrt# wmjmMfi u jpi asaaoaME' MmA.
F Tt\rdafi!B*TfmiiMal>UihMied*fi£iisttM}tAf(\c&biht)rmanaIyt±tf!i±m*pJrii*dm*ct 'QCc*VW,
S A&pincd fa a xc**arv\f cutm,
9i P6S9',RVR IRP Site 39
Pa^c 37 of 21
-------
Table 2-1 (contiaued)
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Oil/Water Separator
IRP Site 39/Haiuion Substation, Andersen AFB. Guam
Sample ID
HASJ9S33«
HAS39S339
Location
Oi^TV'uer Sepn»»f
Wall
Pjpelj.ics
Sample Xicvth b*s (!««>
NA
6
COC Vijnibfr
J«4)52HA
SS-052HA
Sannpv DcMV«y Ureup Number
flJfiJl
9SJ051
dim- Collf [ted
0J-O«t-9(
OS-Od-98
AialMt
Unity
EPA |
1
ITV™
t,?* ?RC
He*"1
EPd PRG
Indust"1
ConcfBtnUra
Fclvt tilarinatfp9i«tM "
NA
5<
J60
34
u
2.i
u
Dibenzol a,b'|!Mhraien?
NA
56
3«0
5.8
i:
7.5
u
JntlentH" IJ J-cfflpwenc
NA
*»
3,(00
4J
u
3.1
u
M«*1b
mj/kc
Ml OA
Lw4
IAS
4M
1.000
47.1
i
«30l2S
R
ViM
NA .'Vb/ Applubat k; / AW A kn bpctd
m jpfoj^y p'wfam
EPA Jfcgawr S Hwnimmi PMC {Ma>\ IP**}
m EPA A^KH 9 htAuXwi PUG (May, li9i)
VMsecsm BOW fsc^i^ejrKM "fii* OAstyf* *>*Twmtfz*dfnrr Wjim ikttc+cd- wtW entr a* Muw ihw l^Mharf £S*nbcSwp Limi fMJCNLj
J Tbt &Vt$Y(4 inap^a^^idat^hd, thtspxaMutton warn *KjauJEJi>i
W7M§r*C^^imsiUiahawdJar, Htf dkfcfgtxd. The- wppa*rfM%L tf ^ fttir oraty ffpr wprmaf
*4e 4mW k>ntf aftpjemawtiim nm^m^y W oonurcn^ *i*|l ^nixv** fllf m ihesarrtpk
B rite ¦nrwtHMr m*u/m*4 in an d!ueW M**Jc.
X I^c-rfflfiQarr UTi^hrtL/i 4^# f» ^^-iLULits tw fifHtrfr tv cnvl)rc The sw*plM Bird meet QC csiUrm
S Applied*e ctiptfsi ifrttmflg fam.
9]9S*9'»RVRllf Sile39
Psecf8of2l
-------
T&fek 2-1 {continued)
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Oil/Water Separator
1RP Site 39/Harujoii Substation, Andersfcto AFB, Guam
Sample ID
HAsa»sa««
HA5J9SJ4;
Lucstian
OilU'iMr StjtaraUjf
Floor
dal^Water bcpaiaim
Htxz
Samplfc EHtplh bgs ({*«)
7
7
COC iVumlur
iS-(i52ilA
58.M2HA
S,ample Peliwrj &Wlf> N uiHtKf
SSJDSl
^SiOJ]
Daii MIjtIhI
155-Oet-SS
ltS-Ort,9S
AcilyK
1/sitj
Wa
MclM
CTV"'
KK4 HUG
R«lfl
tPA TlcC
Induct'11
C'enctfitntjnii
J"u»»eli twinned Bdf>henvl( (TCBs)
*
S0«]
HA
NA
KA
9,8
10
U
Artdw i 221
NA
NA
NA
9.7 tl
99
U
AroclQf 1232
MA
NA
NA
W.4
u
9.B
U
Aj^c^w ;242
NA
NA
NA
J.S
u
3A
U
ArVyrlitf 124&
NA
NA
NA
s.s
u
W
U
Aifjclfif -254
NA
MA
NA
J-l
0
3,9
u
^.roclof 12£0
NA
NA
NA
6.0
u
i !
u
Totat FCBf
KA
200
UDO
—
—
OSimlcT»a F>eW Screen
re1«
NA
NA
NA
NA
SOD
u
1«0
u
fo-tlcWN
"ft1* -
WSJ
parauiiii-BlfC (tindirif)
NA
420
3£W
a.*r«
u
0.7?
u
ctela-BHC
NA
NA
NA
tl.44i 1.1
0 47
u
Aldrii!
NA
26
>80
ajj
If
0-tt
i;
HecuishjcFr epdjudA
NA
Afr
330
i.n
0 JI
L-
gainrwCWMdai*:
MA
1.6MJ
12,000
Lit
1
t ii
J
aJpbp-^Wiifd^Lbi!;
NA
1,600
12.000
m
216
414I>D0E
MA
J.700
UJMO
154
«.l
Djddttn 1
NA
2S
1P0
LI
u
IS
L
Enthin
NA
16,001
320,000
1,7
XI
1.7
U
4,4'-DCH>
NA
2.403
19,000
13,9-
10.7
4,4'-DPT
NA
l,fl»
13,000
1Q«
ll.T
J
Emtmi aliihjid*
NA
IMOO
320,006
I,!
IJ
1.1
U
McthoK>diUv
NA
2m<*»
5,300,000
1,7
II
8 9
U
PaMmttair AremMe Sy drMU-tMxis
Ult
Ant&rannt
NA
14,000,000
i.8 U
;j
ir
fltteranliiEOf
NA
ZjOOtylKlO
l7,WQ,Vm
4,0
Li
4,1
u
Pjraw
"NA
i.:«c,ooo
SAWfi.ami
ZJ
U
2,5
u
B«iaa[*"lwuhimeen
«A
m
J,60C
JA
u
3-5
If
Chrawne
NA
J6O.0CC
2^
u
tf
u
B«nzM"b)itu(inQthEnc
Na
Mft
?,SM
«-5
u
4.<
If
B«lK>
:S5,3
J
27 J
I
Mater1
hfi danitBt im'swp^maiijup^DSit
if A A'tf Agpkc&hit / ,vkx 4 Mditys4$'
In Fafar
m EFAtOga** fimfmMi ff.C (Me?, 19M)
SPA «tG ihfef, iMtj
Kaiyeajn 9QLD jsuuxi £be ^dfnruiP P&Q
mgfkg tktweies mUirgmmifrnf k3iltft£*mimF}YirtiKSiTmp?e*ndm*ctQC£ftiix%ti,
JE Apptofrita sfolD.
93 Site 39
Page 19 of21
-------
Table 2-1 (continued)
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Oil/Water Separator
1RF Site 39/Harmon Substation, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample IP
t
HAS39SJ42
KAS39SJ43
Location
ChWalet Sepafalof
Floor
7]|MLiiws
SsnapJr B*l"h l»S' ffeti)
11
COC Number
Sl'OJZl-tA
iS-OiJHA
Sample Drti*f«r Group [Nunttrtr
981311
98 KB1
Pitt
05-Ocl-WJ
Ui-QeI-?S'
Amilyii
Uolti
EPA
Metlwd
prv«
EP* fRG
* a*
EPA PRG
lndinl"'
CmcrrKrilna
jP
Na
NA
NA
S.4
li
5 4
c
ToUt PCBl
NA
200
l.»0
__
Ohmiffen Field Scrtm
hs%e_
ffA
NA
NA
NA
13?
360
s
firiicUe
e
ami
gumni cUmfatxau
UJ Hhe awE^i* mu £«*.»«* dLeJeeted Jhe npsrtai MDL u q^rraomSc and map et- ma? mx rqs*cpenr
tb* dGtkPi hifiif gf gwifrJlMIMrt flnrorary to jucumitdy andpfwcutdy m&mire the nmnfyU irr th* frUr/9ln
& 7bt wvAfpwmi j!t> giLHA-iAyia?
Jf 7$* jLoip pr* due to dsfta&cres ui chr trhikiy to- Mofyft Atummpif uzd xdrt ^C-nniBrra
,{ 4ppimi fa /JeW icrnyioi^ date
9l968WWfcISFSttc39
Page 20 of
-------
Table 2-1 (continued) ¦ - ; ~ ¦ ¦
CwDfinnatian Sair Sample Analysis for the QjJ/Water Separator
IHP Site 3PflHarnHJii Substation, Andersen AFB. Guam
Simpta ID
HASJ95144
I
HA&J9SJ4S
Lataiinn
PipehiKS
J'ljielJUss
Sample Ihrptt b*» (feet)
9
|
9
CO€ Naitlrtf
5!!-«2KA
71-95 2HA
Ssmptu Deli*fi*j" GK5»p Number
¦wof:
9ST051
UaU> Colltcted
¦|J5-Ocr-9S
dS.£>c«-93
A [)»>}+»
Unit*
EPA
Method
BTV'*1''
El'A PRC
Hts
EPAFRG
m
ConccntistkM!
fUvriilortlltiM: Biahtrrj'h (PCBs>
MS^I
8CS!
AtocJot 1!);6
T.A
m
NA
1.6
U
»0
u
Aiocior S2JI
NA
NA
NA
IS
u
6,5
u
Araclw 1232
NA
HA
NA
84
u
S !
D
ArocJor I14J
NA
fJA
KA
3,1
u
3 Jt
u
Atoetor li-4?
NA
tMA
NA
5,i
u
5 4
u
Aroctor 1254
NA
NA
NA
j 4
L1
3 5
u
Aroclor UtO
N"A
NA
NA
: .1
u
5 5
u
Total PCBi
TfA
jSs
1JO0
—
llhwiltitm- Field Screes
NA
NA
}JA
NA
im
:js
IGG
l.'S
fntKMti
W^kl
S08I
gamma-EHC {Lindane)
NA
420
3^200
0 6?
U'
flTO
L
deta-BBC
NA
NA
NA
0 40
u
0 42
u
Aldnn
MA
26
ISO
tf28
u
0,29
t
HeptacUoi qxwide
NA
49
33«
"
u
0,38
t"
pntma-Qiloniinf
NA
1,600
13,000
915
u
01"
u
»lpl«-ChloTiiaiK
NA
i.wo
13,000
036
u
0J8
il
4,^-DDE
NA
t,7«t
I3,«KI
111
61
Diddna
NA
ZE
190
2J
u
Efldnn
NA
l-tjooo
! », . ,
NA
m.m I s,20o.ooo
1,«
u
so
u
foipiucitar Anmutw* l^nKiriwi (PAHi)
N**i
saio
/iLlhnMXJic
NA
2M,0WJ5M
1.6
u
1.6
li
!Fhii;rati1tirw
NA
IJMM^OO
3T,000,«00
3,i
u
3,7
u
Pvrers
NA
UOOjOW
2isrooa,a»
u
Z.l
1)
fJema<»)w¥tfuaKn<
NA
i&4
iMft
w y
i.i
u
Chcvsene
NA
56,01c
160,000
t2 i;
us
u
•HttmrtfctflBWtiiehrart
MA
MU
2..60tt
4.0
u
ct
u
Box^i}<>-)fli#oriiuurRe
NA
IjSOff
36,000
3.1
u
3.9
u
Bcnt9(a)|iyMit£ i
MA
56
1 360
2.7
u
2.8
L"
Btbd^afLhl^nthii^iiaoc ;
NA
36
3«f
7.6
u
s.o
u
Me* of 1 i, J.ikiwJji Bdfniti^Brfr ifiW4eittwwypaH
UJ Iffcr iwo^yrty was
-------
Confirmation Soil Sample Analytical Results for IRP
Site 39 PAH "Hot Spots"
-------
Table 2-2
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the PAH Hot Spot at "A6"
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample ID
HAS39S291
I1AS39S292
Location
Excavation
Excavation
Sample Depth bgj (feet)
1 0
1 0
COC Number
58-048HA
58-048HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
981110
981110
Date Collected
l4-Sep-98
14-Sep-98
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
EPA PRG
Res'"
EPA PRG
Indiiit"'
Conceotration
Poiynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Mg/kg
8310
Anthracene
14,000,000
220,000,000
1 8 U
1 7
U
Fluoranthene
2,000,000
37,000,000
40 U
39
U
Pyrene
1,500,000
26,000,000
25 U
24
U
Benzo(a)anthracene
560
3,600
34 U
33
U
Chrysene
56,000
360,000
24 U
24
U
Bcnzo(b)fluoranthene
560
3,600
6 94 i
43
U
Bcnzo(k)fluoranthene
5,600
36,000
4 2 U
4 1
U
Benzo(a)pyrene
56
360
30 U
29
U
D to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample
S Applied to all field scteenmg data
9im*> R\R IRP Site 39
Page I of I
-------
Table 2-3
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the PAH Hot Spot at "C2"
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample ID
HAS39S293
HAS39S294
HAS39S295
HAS39S296
HAS39S297
Location
Excavation
Excavation
Excavation
Excavation
Excavation
Sample Depth bgs (feet)
1 0
1 0
1 0
1.0
i 0
COC Number
58-048HA
58-048HA
58-048HA
58-048HA
58-048HA
Date Collected
1 l-Sep-98
1 i -Sep-98
11-Sep-98
11-Sep-98
II-Sep-98
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
Btv"'
EPA PRG Res
(J)
EPA PRG
Indus!(3)
Concentration
Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
ug/kg
8310
Anthracene
NA
14,000,000
220,000,000
1.7
U
1.7
U
1 7
U
1.7
U
1.8
U
Fiuoranthene
NA
2,000,000
37,000,000
3.8
U
3.9
U
39
U
3.9
U
40
U
Pyrene
NA
1,500,000
26,000,000
24
U
4.82
J
24
U
2.4
U
2.5
U
Benzo(a)anthracene
NA
560
3,600
3.2
U
32
U
3.2
U
3.3
U
34
U
Chrysenc
NA
56,000
360,000
2.3
U
2.4
U
2.4
U
2.4
U
2.4
U
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
NA
560
3,600
43
U
43
u
43
U
4.3
U
4.5
U
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
NA
5,600
36,000
4.0
U
40
u
40
U
40
U
42
U
Benzo(a)pyrene
NA
56
360
29
U
2 9
u
29
U
29
U
30
U
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
NA
56
360
8.3
U
8 3
u
83
U
84
U
86
U
Indeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene
NA
560
3,600
3.5
U
3.6
u
36
U
36
U
37
U
Ohmicron Field Screen
ug/kg
NA
NA
NA
NA
32
S
32
s
120
S
110
S
39
S
Notes.
NA Not Applicable / Not Analyzed
''' Background Threshold Value
EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May, 1998)
''' EPA Region 9 Industrial PRG (May, /998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG.
Data Qualifiers:
U The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is at or below the MDL
J The analyte was positively identified, the quantitation is an estimation
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample
B The analyte was found in an associated blank, as well as m the sample
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria
S Applied to all field screening data
91%S9/RVR IRP Site 39
Cage I of 2
-------
Table 2-3 (continued)
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the PAH Hot Spot at "C2"
IRP Site 39/Harmoa Substation, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample 10
HAS39S298
HAS39S299
HAS39S300
HAS39S301
I1AS39S305
Location
Excavation
Excavation
Excavation
Excavation
Dup of -300
Sample Depth bgs (feet)
1 0
1 0
1 0
I 0
1 0
COC Number
58-0481LA
58-048HA
58-048HA
58-049HA
58-049HA
Date Collected
11-Sep-98
II-Sep-98
11-Sep-98
11 -Scp-98
1.1-Sep-98
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
BTV'°
EPA PRG Res
(i)
EPA PRG
Indus!(3)
Concentration
Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
ug/kg
8310
Anthracene
NA
14,000,000
220,000,000
1 7
U
1 9
U
1 9
U
1.9
U
39
U
Fluoranthene
NA
2,000,000
37,000,000
3.9
U
32 5
J
28.1
J
19.7
J
8.7
U
Pyrene
NA
1,500,000
26,000,000
2.4
U
30 2
J
37.6
J
2.7
U
54
U
Benzo(a)anthracene
NA
560
3,600
33
U
46 !
24.4
154
9 61
i
Chrysene
NA
56,000
360,000
2.4
U
27 1
J
14.9
J
2.6
U
53
U
Benio(b)fluoranthene
NA
560
3,600
4.4
U
53.8
28 9
136
J
185
J
Bcnzo(k)fIuoranthene
NA
5,600
36,000
4.1
U
37.0
24.9
13.3
J
9 1
U
Benzo(a)pyrcne
NA
56
360
3.0
U
58.4
43.4
21.4
23
J
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
NA
56
360
8.4
U
9.3
U
94
U
9.4
u
19
U
Indenof 1,2,3-cd)pyrene
NA
560
3,600
36
U
67.9
39.2
J
17.8
J
22.4
J
Ohmicron Field Screen
Ug/kR
NA
NA
NA
NA
46
S
210
s
390
s
210
s
NA
Data Qualifiers:
U The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is at or below the MDL.
J The analyte was positively identified, the quantitation is an estimation.
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
B The analyte was found in an associated blank, as well as in the sample
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability io analyze the sample and meet QC criteria
S Applied to all field screening data.
Notes:
NA Not Applicable /Not Analyzed
u> Background Threshold Value
u' EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May, 1998)
w EPA Region 9 Industrial PRG (May, 1998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG.
9196?' ''R IRP Site 39
i
c 2 of 2
-------
Table 2-4
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the PAH Hot Spot at "E6"
Sample ID
HAS39S302
HAS39S303
HAS39S304
Location
Excavation
Excavation
Duplicate of -303
Sample Depth bg$ (Feet)
1 0
1.0
1.0
COC Number
58-049HA
58-049HA
58-049HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
981110
981110
981110
Dale Collected
14-Sep-98
14-Sep-98
14-Sep-98
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
EPA PRG Res
CI
EPA PRG
Indust'1'
Concentration
Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
M/kg
8310
Anthracene
14,000,000
220,000,000
4 72 J
3.9
U
2.0 U
Fluoranthene
2,000,000
37,000,000
29 J
8.7
U
46 9 J
Pyrene
1,500,000
26,000,000
21 J
5.4
U
33 8 J
Benzo(a)anthracene
560
3,600
9.08 J
7.3
U
27 6
Chrysene
56,000
360,000
9.32 J
17.9
J
132 J
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
560
3,600
18.2
27.8
J
25 8
Benzo(k (fluoranthene
5,600
36,000
14.9
9 1
U
21.7
8enzo(a)pyrene
56
360
24.3
28.6
J
37 2
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
56
360
9.0
U
19
U
99 U
lndeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrcne
560
3,600
27 5
J
26 4
J
33 2 J
Ohinicron Field Screen
fg/ke
NA
NA
NA
120
S
140
S
NA
Notes:
NA Not Applicable / Not Analyzed
PRG denotes Preliminary Remediation Goal
EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May, 1998)
EPA Region 9 Industrial PRG (May. 1998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG
Data Qualifiers:
U The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is at or below the Method
Detection Limit (MDL).
J The analyte was positively identified, the quantitation is an estimation
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
S Applied to all field screening data
919O80/RVR IRP Site 39
-------
Table 2-5
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the PAH Hot Spot at the Stormwater Outfall
Simple ID
HAS39S257
HAS39S258
HAS39S289
HAS39S290
Location
Drain Area
Drain Area
Pole Area
Pole Area
Sample Depth bgs (feel)
5.0
5.0
1.5
1.5
COC Number
58-042HA
58-042HA
58-042HA
58-042HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
981037/4672lrl
981037/4672 lrl
981037 /46721M
981037/4672 lrl
Dale Collected
01-Sep-98
01-Sep-98
03-Sep-98
03-Sep-98
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
EPA PRG
Res'"
EPA PRG
Indust'1''
Concentration
Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
8310
Anthracene
14,000,000
220,000,000
1.6
U
3.4
U
1.7
U
1.8 U
Fluoranthene
2,000,000
37,000,000
3.7
U
7.6
U
3.9
U
4.0
U
Pyrene
1,500,000
26,000,000
2.3
U
7.34
J
2.4
U
2.5
U
Benzo(a)anthracene
560
3,600
3.1
U
6.4
U
3.3
U
3.4
U
Chrysene
56,000
360,000
2.3
U
4.6
U
2.4
U
2.4
U
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
560
3,600
4.1
U
8.5
U
4.3
U
9.93
J
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
5,600
36,000
3.9
U
7.9
U
4.1
U
4.2
U
Benzo(a)pyrene
56
360
2.8
U
5.8
U
3.0
U
7.83
J
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
56
360
8.0
U
16
U
8.4
U
8.7
u
lndeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
560
3,600
3.4
U
7.0
U
3.6
U
3.7
u
Ohmlcron Field Screen
UB/kR
NA
NA
NA
17
S
66
S
31
S
136
s
Dioxins
MS/kg
8290
Subsurface Clean-up Goal
Total WHO TEQ
i.O
0.0014
0 0038
0.0051
0.0050
Notes:
bgs denotes below ground surface
NA Not Applicable /Not Analyzed
PRG Denotes Preliminary Remediation Goal
EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May, 1998)
' EPA Region 9 Industrial PRG (May, 1998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG
Data Qualifiers:
U The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is al or below the
Method Detection Limit (MDL).
J The analyte was positively identified; the quantitation is an estimation.
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not
represent the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample
B The analyte was found in an associated blank.
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria.
S Applied to all field screening data
')|%S<):R\R IRPSite 39
-------
Confirmation Soil Sample Analytical Results for IRP
Site 39 Buried Drum Area
-------
1C
Table 2-6
Conflrmatioo Soil Sample Analysis for the Buried Drum Area
Sample ID
HAS39S241
HAS39S242
HAS39S243
HAS39S244
HAS39S245
Location
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Sample Depth bgs (feet)
10
10
10
10
10
COC Number
58-039HA
58-039HA
58-039HA
58-039! 1A
58-039HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
981003
981003
981003
981003
981003
Date Collected
28-Aue-98
28-Aue 98
28-Auk-98
28-Aug 98
28-Aub 98
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
EPA PRG
Res'"
EPA PRG
Indust'1'
Concentration
Polychlorinated Biphenylj
(PCBs)
MB/kg
8081
Aroclor 1016
NA
NA
79
U
79
U
79 U
79
U
79 U
Aroclor 1221
NA
NA
78
U
78
U
78 U
78
U
78 U
Aroclor 1232
NA
NA
78
u
78
u
78 U
78
U
78 U
Aroclor 1242
NA
NA
28
u
28
u
28 U
2 8
U
2 8 U
Aroclor 1248
NA
NA
47
u
47
u
47 U
4 7
U
4 7 U
Aroclor 1254
NA
NA
3 1
u
3 1
u
3 1 U
3 1
U
3 1 U
Aroclor 1260
NA
NA
49
u
49
u
49 U
49
U
49 U
Total PCBs
200
1.300
Notes
NA Not Apphcable / Not Analyzed
PRG denotes Ptehmmary Remediation Goal
''' EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May, 1998)
EPA Region 9 Industrial PRG (May, 1998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG
Data Qualifiers
U The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL)
J The analyte was positively identified, the quantitation is an estimation
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample
S Applied to all field screening data
PVR IRP Site
P.ii't- 1 of 10
-------
Table 2-6
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Buried Drum Area
Sample ID
HAS39S246
HAS39S247
HAS39S248
HAS39S249
HAS39S250
Location
Excavation Floor
West Wall
West Wall
North Wall
North Wall
Sample Depth bgs (feet)
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
COC Number
58-039HA
58-039HA
58-039HA
58-039HA
58-039HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
981003
981003
981003
981003
981003
Date Collected
28-AuK-98
28-Aur-98
28-Aub-98
28-Aug-98
¦i 28-Auk-98
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
EPA PRG
Res
(ii
EPA PRG
Indus!(I>
Concentration
Polychlorinated Biphenyij
(PCBs)
PSlH
8081
Aroclor 1016
NA
NA
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
Aroclor 1221
NA
NA
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
Aroclor 1232
NA
NA
7.8
7.8
7.8
Aroclor 1242
NA
NA
2.8
2.8
28
Aroclor 1248
NA
NA
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
Aroclor 1254
NA
NA
3.1
3 1
3.1
3.1
Aroclor 1260
NA
NA
49
U
49
U
49
4.9
4.9
Total PCBs
200
Jj300_
Notes.
NA Not Applicable /Not Analyzed
PRG denotes Preliminary Remediation Goal
EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May, 1998)
•EPA Region 9 Industrial PRG (May, 1998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG
Data Qualifiers:
U The analyte vras analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL)
J The analyte was positively identified; the quantitation is an estimation.
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample
S Applied to all field screening data.
91%89/RVR IRPSitc
Cage
2
of 10
-------
Table 2-6
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Buried Drum Area
Sample ID
HAS39S251
HAS39S252
11AS39S2S3
HAS39S254
Location
Bast Wall
East Wall
South Wall
South Wall
Sample Depth bgs (feet)
NA
NA
NA
NA
COC Number
58-040HA
58-040HA
58-040HA
58 040HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
981003
981003
981003
981003
Date Collected
28-Aur 98
28-Aug-98
28 Aug 98
28 Aug 98
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
EPA PRG
Res'"
EPA PRG
Indus!
Concer
tratlon
Polychlorinated Bipbenylj
(PCBs)
pg/kg
8081
Aroclor 1016
NA
NA
79
U
7 9 U
79
U
79
U
Aroclor 1221
NA
NA
78
U
78 U
78
U
78
U
Aroclor 1232
NA
NA
78
u
78 U
78
U
78
U
Aroclor 1242
NA
NA
28
u
28 U
28
U
28
U
Aroclor 1248
NA
NA
47
u
47 U
47
U
47
U
Aroclor 1254
NA
NA
3 1
u
3 1 U
3 1
U
3 1
U
Aroclor 1260
NA
NA
49
u
49 U
49
U
49
U
Total PCBs
200
1,300
Notes
NA Not Applicable / Not Analyzed
PRG denotes Preliminary Remediation Goal
v> EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May, 1998)
EPA Region 9 Industrial PRG (May, 1998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRO
Data Qualifiers
U The analyte was analyzed for, but not delected The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL)
J The analyte was positively identified, the quantitation is an estimation
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample
S Applied to all field screening data
9I%8'% "" R IRP Site
P- ¦ 3 of 10
-------
Table 2-6
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Buried Drum Area
Sample ID
HAS39S373
HAS39S374
HAS39S375
HAS39S376
HAS39S377
Location
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Sample Depth bgs (feet)
14
14
14
14
14
COC Number
58 055HA
58-055HA
58 055HA
58 055HA
58 055HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
98J147
98J147
98J147
98J147
98JI47
Date Collected
20-Oct-98
20 Oct 98
20-Oct 98
20-Oct-98
20 Oct 98
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
EP\ PRG
Res"'
EPA PRG
liidust1"
Concentration
Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHj)
8310
Anthracene
14,000,000
220,000,000
1 7
U
I 7
U
1 6
U
1 7
U
1 7
U
Fluoranthene
2,000,000
37,000,000
38
U
38
U
37
U
38
U
3 7
U
Pyrene
1,500,000
26,000,000
24
U
23
U
23
U
24
U
2 3
U
Benzo(a)anthracene
560
3,600
32
U
3 2
U
3 1
U
32
U
3 2
U
Chrysene
56,000
360,000
23
U
23
U
22
U
23
U
2 3
u
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
560
3,600
42
U
42
U
4 1
U
43
U
4 2
u
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
5,600
36,000
40
U
39
U
38
U
40
U
3 9
u
Benzo(a)pyrene
56
360
29
U
2 8
U
28
U
29
U
2 8
u
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
56
360
82
U
8 1 U
80
U
83
U
8 1 U
lndeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene
560
3,600
3 5
U
34
U
34
U
3 5
U
34
u
Ohmlcron Field Screen
NA
NA
NA
130
S
20
US
20
US
32
S
20
US
Notes
NA Not Applicable/Not Analyzed
PRG denotes Preliminary Remediation Goal
''' EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May. 1998)
EPA Region 9 Industrial PRG (May, 1998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG
Data Qualifiers
U The analyte was analyzedfor, but not detected The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL)
J The analyte was positively identified, the quantitation is an estimation
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample
B The analyte was found in an associated blank
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria
S Applied to all field screening data
OI'KiMMU R 1RP Site
I'jyc 4 of 10
-------
Table 2-6
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Buried Drum Area
Sample ID
HAS39S378
HAS39S379
HAS39S380
HAS39S38I
HAS39S572
Location
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
North Wall
Sample Depth bgs (feet)
14
14
14
14
5 to 10
COC Number
58-055HA
58-055HA
58-055HA
58-055HA
58-089HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
98J147
98JI47
98JI47
98JI47
99D124
Date Collected
20-Oct-98
20-Oct-98
20-Oct-98
20-Oct-98
21 -Apr-99
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
EPA PRG
Res"'
EPA PRC
Indust
Concentration
'
Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
8310
Anthracene
14,000,000
220,000,000
1.7
U
1 6
U
1.6
U
1.6
U
1 6
U
Fluoranthene
2,000,000
37,000,000
3.7
U
3.7
U
3 7
U
36
U
24.4 J
Pyrene
1,500,000
26,000,000
2.3
U
23
U
2.3
U
2.3
U
50.6 J
Benzo(a)anthracene
560
3,600
3.2
U
3 1
U
3 1
U
3.1
U
28 9 J
Chrysene
56,000
360,000
2.3
U
23
U
2.2
U
2.2
U
182 J
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
560
3,600
4.2
U
4 1
U
4 1
U
4 1
U
58.9 J
Benzo(k)fluoranthcne
5,600
36,000
3.9
U
39
U
38
U
3.8
U
10 1 J
Bcnzo(a)pyrenc
56
360
2.8
U
2.8
U
2 8
U
28
U
55 4 J
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
56
360
8.1
U
80
U
80
U
7.9
U
3.64 J
lndeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
560
3,600
3.4
U
34
U
3 4
U
34
U
41 2 I
Ohmicron Field Screen
ME/kR
NA
NA
NA
20
US
25
S
20
US
20
US
20
US
Notes:
NA Not Applicable / Not Analyzed
PRG denotes Preliminary Remediation Goal
''' EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May, 1998)
EPA Region 9 Industrial PRG (May, 1998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG
Data Qualifiers.
U The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL)
J The analyte was positively identified; the quantitation is an estimation
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample
B The analyte was found in an associated blank.
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria
S Applied to allfield screening data
RIRPSiie
5 of 10
-------
Table 2-6
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Buried Drum Area
Sample ID
HAS39S575
HAS39S576
HAS39S578
HAS39S580
HAS39S581
Location
North Wall
East Wall
East Wall
South Wall
South Wall
Sample Depth bgs (feet)
1 to 5
5 to 10
5 to 10
5 to 10
1 to 5
COC Number
58-089HA
58-089HA
58 089HA
58-089HA
58 089HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
99DI24
99D124
99D124
99D124
99DI24
Dale Collected
21 -Apr-99
21 -Apr-99
21-Apr-99
21-Apr 99
21-Apr-99
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
EPA PRG
Res(,)
EPA PRG
Indus!,J)
Concentration
Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
ffc'kg
8310
Anthracene
14,000,000
220,000,000
2 74 J
1 6
U
I 7
U
I 7
U
1 7
U
Fluoranthene
2,000,000
37,000,000
127 J
36
U
38
U
38
U
194
J
Pyrene
1,500,000
26,000,000
124 J
22
U
24
U
23
U
32 4
J
Bcnzo(a)anlhraccne
560
3,600
71 6
30
U
32
U
3 2
U
20 7
Chrysene
56,000
360,000
49 6 J
22
U
23
U
23
U
133
J
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
560
3,600
89
40
I)
42
U
42
U
28
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
5,600
36,000
41 1
38
U
40
U
39
U
133
Benzo(a)pyrene
56
360
77.5
27
U
29
U
29
U
25 1
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
56
360
92 U
78
U
82
U
82
U
84
U
lrideno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
560
3,600
79 6
33
U
35
U
35
U
26 2
J
Notes
NA Not Applicable /Not Analyzed
PRG denotes Preliminary Remediation Goal
EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May. 1998)
EPA Region 9 Industrial PRG (May. 1998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG
Data Qualifiers
U The analyte was analyzed for, but not delected The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Until (MDL)
J The analyte was positively identified, the quantitation is an estimation
UJ The analyte was analyzedfor, but not detected The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample
B The analyte was found in an associated blank
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria
<>|VoM; R\ R 1RP Site
i
!
6 of 10
-------
Table 2-6
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Buried Drum Area
IRP Site 39/IIarmon Substation, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample ID
HAS39S582
HAS39S583
I1AS39S607
HAS39S608
HAS39S609
Location
Soulh Wall
South Wall
West Wall
West Wall
West Wall
Sample Depth bgs (feet)
5 to 10
1 to 5
4
4
NA
COC Number
58-090HA
58-090HA
58 094 HA
58-094HA
58-094 HA
Sample Deliver} Group Number
99DI24
99DI24
99E027
99E027
99E027
Date Collected
21-Apr-99
21 -Apr-99
05 May-99
05-May-99
05-May-99
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
EPA PRG
Res'"
EPA PRG
lndust'"
Concentration
Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
pg/kg
8310
Anthracene
14,000,000
220,000,000
I 7
U
1 7
U
1 6
U
1 7
U
1 6
U
Fluoranthene
2,000,000
37,000,000
41 1
J
71 8
J
37
U
38
U
36
U
Pyrene
1,500,000
26,000,000
39 6
J
62
J
18
J
23
U
22
U
Bcnzo(a )anthracene
560
3,600
21 2
51 7
18
32
U
3 1
U
Chrysenc
56,000
360,000
14 7
J
38 5
J
10
J
23
U
22
U
Benzo(b)fluoranihene
560
3,600
30 9
86 9
26
42
U
40
U
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
5,600
36,000
13 8
38 9
16
40
U
38
U
Benzo(a)pyrene
56
360
25 9
87.S
27
29
U
27
U
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
56
360
82
U
6 38
J
79
U
82
U
7 8
U
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
560
3,600
19 7
J
80
30
J
35
U
3 3
U
Notes
NA Not Applicable / Not Analyzed
PRG denotes Preliminary Remediation Goal
''' EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May, 1998)
EPA Region 9 Industrial PRG (May, 1998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG
Data Qualifiers
U The analyte was analyzedfor, but not delected The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL)
J The analyte was positively identified, the quantitation is an estimation
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample
B The analyte was found in an associated blank.
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria
»|%r
H IRP Site
i
P 7 of 10
-------
Table 2-6
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Buried Drum Area
Sample ID
HAS39S610
HAS39S6II
HAS39S612
HAS39S613
HAS39S614
Location
West Waif
North Wall
North Wall
East Wall
East Wall
Sample Depth bgs (feet)
NA
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
COC Number
58-094HA
58-095HA
58-095HA
58-095HA
58-095HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
99E027
99E049
99E049
99E049
99E049
Date Collected
05-May-99
06-May-99
06-May-99
06-May-99
06-May-99
Analyte
lioiti
EPA
Method
EPA PRG
Res'1'
EPA PRG
Indust12'
Concentration
Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbon! (PAHj)
8310
Anthracene
14,000,000
220,000,000
1.6
U
17
J
1.7
U
1.6
U
1 8 U
Fluoranthene
2,000,000
37,000,000
3.6
u
210
3.8
U
12 J
140
J
Pyrene
1,500,000
26,000,000
2.3
u
no
J
2.4
U
97 J
98
J
Benzo(a)anthracene
560
3,600
3.1
u
53
3.2
U
58 J
60
Chryscne
56,000
360,000
2.2
u
27
J
2.3
U
3.7 J
34
J
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
560
3,600
4.1
u
46
43
U
74 J
69
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
5,600
36,000
3.8
u
28
4.0
U
6.1 J
41
Benzo(a)pyrene
56
360
2.8
u
47
2.9
U
8.3 J
79
Dibenzo(a,h)anihracene
56
360
7.9
u
8.2
U
8.2
U
8.0
U
85
U
lndeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene
560
3,600
34
u
45
3.5
U
34
U
70
Notes.
NA Not Applicable / Not Analyzed
PRG denotes Preliminary Remediation Goal
''' EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May, 1998)
EPA Region 9 Industrial PRG (May, 1998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG
Data Qualifiers:
U The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL)
J The analyte was positively identified; the quantitation is an estimation.
UJ The analyte was analyzedfor, but not detected. The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample
B The analyte was found in an associated blank.
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria.
9I%8*>'RVR IRP Site
Page 8 of 10
-------
>
Table 2-6 (continued)
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for Buried Drum Area,
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample 10
HAS39S241/2
HAS39S243/4
HAS39S245/6
HAS39S247/8
HAS39S249/50
Location
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
Excavation Floor
West Wall
North Wall
Simple Depth bgs (feet)
10
10
10
NA
NA
COC Number
58-041 HA
58-041 HA
58-041 HA
58-041 HA
58-041 HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
46643
46643
46643
46643
46643
Date Collected
28-Aug-98
28-Aug-98
28-Aug-98
28-Aug-98
28-Aug-98
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
Subsurface Clean-
Up Goal
Concentration
Dioxins
eg/kg
8290
Total WHO TEQ
1.0
0.0081
0.0098
0 0052
0 0059
0.0052
Notes: Data Qualifiers:
NA Not Applicable / Not Analyzed U The analyte was analyzedfor, but not detected. The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL).
J The analyte was positively identified, the quantitation is an estimation.
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The reported MDL ts approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample
B The analyte war found in an associated blank.
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria
919689/RVR IRP Site 39
P.i 0 of 10
-------
T able 2-6 (continued)
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for Buried Drum Area,
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample ID
HAS39S251/2
11AS39S253/4
HAS39S255
Location
East Wall
South Wall
Dup of-241/2
Sample Depth bgs (reel)
NA
NA
10
COC Number
58-041 HA
58-041 HA
58-041 HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
46643
46643
46643
Date Collected
28-Aug-98
28-Aug-98
28-Aug-98
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
Subsurface Clean-
Up Goal
Concentration
Dioxins
f>8'kg
8290
Total WHO TEQ
1.0
0.0063
0.0059 I 0.0099
Notes: Data Qualifiers:
NA Not Applicable/Not Analyzed U The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL).
J The analyte was positively identified; the quantitation is an estimation.
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
B The analyte was found in an associated blank.
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria.
91%89/RVR IRP Site 39
Page 10 of 10
-------
Confirmation Soil Sample Analytical Results for IRP
Site 39 Miscellaneous Container Area
-------
Tab It 2-7
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for (he Miscellaneous Container Ares
IRP Site 39/Harmou Substation. Andersen AFB. Guam
Sunpfc ID
SimpkDcplh bf (ftef)
CQC Kumbtr
Due Collected
Arnlyti
EPA
Me&ed
y EPA Region 9 Residential PRO (May. 1998)
"* EPA Fegloft 9 Industrial P&G (May. f«W?
Values 0* BOLD exceed the residential PUG
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
KA
KA
KA
KA
KA
KA
KA
HA
HA
HA
NA
NA
U400.000
$aa
ffiB.QOQ
6,100,000
Mos
2,300
J5D.OQO
m
S«,G00
w
UOQ
HA
52
42,000
230,000
NA
NA
m
4,700
SKMPO
HA
440,006
MOJXtt
120
2,700
310,000
II
210,900
NA
2*0,000
KA
mjm
27,000,000
1,100,000
520
110,000
520
2,€00
120
150,000
230,000
KA
20,000
KA
NA
m
523,000
NA
1,700,000
MO^OOO
$tIOO
UOOiOOO
41
210)000
510,000
052
25
042
0*1
15
040
on
$51
052
$40
651
12
*9?
J^SSU
osr
054
2*
04?
$52
040
0J2
£>53
a 32
ti
U
If
u
u
u
V
u
u
u
u
u
u
»
y
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
il
U
u
Dota Qjwtfi/wj-
V The anal^ie hw* analyzed far, bat nm dft^cted The associated numerical value is at or below the HDL
J The artsiyfs wot potiUvdy identified, the quantitation ig an estimation
UJ The analyte woj analysedfcr, but net detected Tht reported MDL is approximate and may sr may net represent
the actual iimti cf quantitation awe ems ry t& accurately and precisely measure the snaiyte in tht sample
B The anolytt wi /mud in an estoeteted btenK as wet! as in tb% sample
& Tht data are vrwsatde due to deficiencies in the ability io amityze the sample and mcei QC criteria
S Applied io ait field screening data
9E96S9/RVR IRP Site 39
Pig* I of 9
-------
Table 2-7 (continued)
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Miscellaneous Container Area
Simpte ID
HAS39SS6I
RASWSm
Location
Po#ti Pete
Duplictce of
HAS39S56S
Simple Depth bis (feet)
16
16
COCNumbtr
5S-0S7HA
sa-og?HA
Otpyiwt
NA
S6
360
tt)
u
«
U
8mzo(!>)i?iioiranlfoie
m
560
3,600
160
V
160
u
Bcnzo(k)niieivtnlhm
NA
5,600
36.000
170
V
no
a
BeMO
2 JO,000
210
u
2ta
u
Butyl bcnzylptHhaliE*
NA
930,000
930,000
190
u
190
u
Ctffaiale
NA
22,000
150,000
m
u
2£C
u
CHrysenc
NA
ss,tm
360.000
23s
u
230
u
Di*nbo(yf pftftAlate
NA
NA
NA
2«J
u
200
u
Dtbenso(iJi>tnthnicaic
NA
56
5W
n
u
tl
u
DibenzofuriB
NA
210,000
3,200.000
233
u
260
u
Fltionnthenc
HA
2,000,300
57.000,000
m
u
m
u
lAdenod.U-cd) pyrcne
NA
560
3,600
m
u
110
u
NapHtJoJene
NA
55,000
mjoo0
m
u
340
u
PwucMotopfemal
NA
2,300
15,000
20a
u
200
u
pbeittfllhfenc
NA
NA
NA
160
u
no
u
Pvtcoe
NA
\J500JXC
2fi.000.00d
220
u
230
u
hrijnuekir Aromitk Hydrocarbons (f AHi)
HID
Anthracene
NA
14,000,000
220^000,000
177
i
if
tr
FLtiofmOiene
NA
2,000,000
37,000,000
20
u
4!
u
Pyrcnt
NA
J ,300,000
M.000,00©
n
u
7 32
1
B«nzo(»)an0tiaEGnt
HA
560
3,600
17
u
10$
1
OtfytMe
NA
55,300
360,000
m
J
7 5*
J
BeraoOJOuorstnlhere
NA
560
3.600
22
u
395
BouoOOfluomdiene
NA
S.600
36,000
21
u
1M
J
Benzo(a)pyie»c
NA
56
360
IS J
1
l>3
J
Dibenro(alh)anlhra£cne
NA
H
560
<3
u
SS
u
JJ-edfrrviTTW
NA
m
9.600
11
u
25
1
Notes
HA Net Appllcpbfg / Not Analyzed
"' Background Threshold Value
EPA Rtglon 9 Raldtrttlal PRG (May, I9ty
EPA Rrgton 9 Industrial PRO (May. !99S)
Vstaa in BOLD acted the residential PRG
Data Qualifiers'
V The analylt was analyzedfor, hut not detected Pie atsocfcled numerical value a at or behw the MDL
J The /snafyi* was potlUvely idem/fed, the quantitation is aft estimation
VJ The anotyie was ttnalytedfor, fat not delected The reported MDL is appr&xmaie and may vr may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure iht artalyte In the sample
S The analyte was fcuttd in an associated Monk ss weft as in rA« sample.
ft The data art unusable due to defiei&ttftj in the ability to analyze ike sample and meet QC criteria
5 Applied ioslifield screening data.
919689^ ^ Site 19
°*ge 2 ot9
-------
Table 2-7 (coo tinned)
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Miscellaneous Container Area
lRf Site 39/Harmon Substation. Andersen AFB. Guam
SiaptelD
Stnipk Ptptfr bp
COCNdmbtr
Dit< Collected
A»*lyt«
tatktfta
G«wia BHC (Lttrime)
Odtt BHC
HepacMct Epoiidc
Gtfltntt-CfiJortfi*
Alpha
4,4' DDE
Dwljnu
44* DDD
AJt DDT
Endnii Aldehyde
Mnhoaychlor
CPA
Method
BTV
HA
HA
NA
MA
HA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
gFAPftGJfe*
NA
tm
IfiOO
IJOfr
t6/m
3,400
1t7Q0
1^006
E?A S>»G
3,306
NA
MO
12,000
t2,GC0
13,000
JSti
320,000
19,000
»,eoo
moos
5,300,000
HAS39SS68
Power Pete
\6
JJA£*
HAS59&STQ
Duplicate sf
HAS39S561
5# OI7BA
9*
frtt
$41
55
J 7
12
16
U
042
04P
ja
17
15
1 I
19
U
JL
u
u
u
y
i
u
0
u
u
u
tfotei
JM Not Applicable/Net Analyzed
frj Bockgromd Threshold Ydue
'¦" SM «(*<«! P Residential PSG (May WS)
'" EPA Region 11nduttiial PSG (May, Iftt)
Values rn BQIM exceed the ratdeiUdl PRG
Data Qualifiers
V Tht analytt hoi atiitiyied/&¦> bit r$& delecled The associated numerical value is si cr bgbvt the MDL
J Tht onatyit mm» posittwiy identified tfo quatttifflim is an estimation
VJ Tht tmafyt* wot analyzed for. not detected T&e reported MDL is approximate and may or may n& represent
the actual Bmft qffv&ttitGiiM necessary so ae&tmtefy and precisefy measure $h* tmaiyta in the sample
8 The cnchie wsi found in an associated blank, as Wf m in the sample.
H IIte date ere unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria
S Applied tfi allfieid screening dttifr
9tM80/RVR. IRP Site 39
I
Fige.? of 9
-------
Table 2-7 (continued)
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Miscellaneous Container Area
IRP Site 39/Harin»n Substation, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample ID
HAS39S385
HAS39S386
HAS39S387
HAS39S3S8
1IASJ9S403
Location
Segment t
Segment (
Segment 2
Duplicate of
HAS39S385
Re-sample of
HAS39S386
Sample Depth bgi (feci)
Various
Various
Various
Various
Various
COC Number
58-058HA
5S-058HA
58-0581JA
58-058HA
58-058HA
Simple Delivery Group Number
98K080
98K080
98K080
98KOSO
98K080
Dale Collected
OS-Nov-98
05-Nov-98
OS-Nov-98
05-Nov-98
' 05-Nov-98
Analytt
Units
EPA Method
EPA PRG Res"1
EPA PRG
Ittdust"'
Concentration
Polynuclesr Aromatic
Hydroctrbom (PAHs)
W(/H
8310
Anthracene
14,000,000
220,000,000
1.9
U
1.9
V
1.9
U
1.9
U
1.9
U
Fluoranthene
2,000,000
37,000,000
44
U
4.2
U
4.3
U
4.2
U
4.2
U
Pyrene
!,500,000
26,000,000
2.7
U
2.6
U
2,6
U
2.6
U
2.6
U
Benro(a)anlhra cene
560
3,600
3,7
U
10.9
J
3,6
U
3.5
U
3,5
U
Chrysene
56,000
360,000
2,7
U
42,3
J
7,29
J
2.5
U
2.6
U
Benzo(b)fluoianthene
560
3,600
4.9
u
126
7.65
J
4.6
U
4,7
U
Benzo(k)fluoraiUliere
5,600
36,000
4.6
V
24,3
J
4.5
y
4.4
O
4,4
u
Beti7o(a)pyrene
56
360
3.3
u
31.5
3,2
U
3.2
U
32
u
D ibenzo(a,h)anthracene
56
360
9.4
u
30.3
S
9,3
U
9.0
U
9.1
u
Itideno(!,2p3-cd)pyrene
560
3,600
4,0
u
207
3.9
U
3,8
U
3,9
u
Oh micron Field Screen
PBtkS
NA
NA
NA
30
s
1,070
S
97
S
NA
41
s
Notes:
NA Not Applicable /Not Analyzed
PRG denotes Preliminary Remediation Coal
"J EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May, 1998)
U} EPA Region 9 Industrial PRG (May, 1998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG
Data Qualifiers:
U The anafyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL),
J The anafyte was positively identified; the quantitation is an estimation,
UJ The anafyte was analyzedfor, but not detected. The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the anafyte in the sample,
S Applied to all field screening data.
9t968°',fvR IRP Site 39
D->ee4 of 9
-------
Table 2-7 (continued)
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Miscellaneous Container Area
IRP Site 39/Harinon Substation. Andersen A IB, Guam
Sample ID
HAS39SJ93
Local ton
Segment 1 & 2
Sample Depth bgs (fttt)
Various
COC Number
58-059HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
Date Collected
05-Nov-98
Aailytc
UnlU
EPA Method
Subwrittt Cteaii-lip Coal
Conwatratloii
Dloxfnt
Pgftg
8290
Tola! WHO TEQ
00055
Notes ¦
NA Not Applicable/Not Analyzed
919689/RVR IRP Site 39
-------
Table 2-7 (continued)
Confirmation Soli Sample Analysis for the Miscellaneous Container Area
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample ED
HAS39S4I5
HAS39S420
HAS39Sm
HAS3SS423
HAS395424
Location
Ejcciva&m Segm0
0.34
UJ
OJJ
UJ
0,32
UJ
0.2$
UJ
0 26
UJ
B romffdidiloromethme
980
2*300
0.36
w
0J2
UJ
S.14
UJ
0.29
UJ
0.27
UJ
7-Bultncfie (Metfryi ethyl fcetone)
6,mswx>
27,000,fl00
?J
UJ
£.4
UJ
*6
UJ
5.7
UJ
5.3
UJ
Cirton disulfide
350,000
1,300,000
0,17
UJ
oje
UJ
OJ*
Uj
0.14
UJ
0.13
UJ
Carbon tetrachloride
230
520
U
UJ
0.S9
UI
1.0
UJ
O.BS
UJ
0.B1
UJ
Chlorobeuefie
54,000
iso.ooo
0.2?
UJ
W5
UJ
0.26
UJ
0.22
UJ
0.20
UI
CbfoTDlbrni
240
520
0,59
UJ
0.53
UJ
0.55
UJ
0.47
UJ
0,44
UJ
ChlDTUmelhane
IJQ0
2,500
2.8
UJ
1.6
UJ
2-7
UJ
2.3
UJ
21
UJ
Dtbromomcthtne
NA
NA
fl.4»
UJ
0,44
UJ
0.45
UJ
039
UJ
036
u
1,1-Dichloroetheiic
52
m
0,74
UJ
0 M
UI
0.70
UJ
0.60
UJ
0.55
UJ
cis- r ,2* Dichloroediene
42,000
150,000
0,40
UJ
0.37
UI
0t3S
UJ
0.32
UJ
0.30
UJ
Elhytbenzene
230,000
230,000
0.J4
UJ
0.49
UJ
0.51
UJ
0.44
UJ
0.40
UI
NA
NA
1.7
UJ
1.6
UJ
1-6
UJ
1.4
UI
13
UJ
Methylene ditaHde
3,500
20,000
0.57
UJ
2,23
1
331
J
2,19
J
3.12
J
4-Mei/iyJ-J-pCTmmJM (MJ8K)
M
NA
1,6
UJ
3.4
UJ
1.5
UJ
1.3
UJ
1.2
UJ
Naphthalene
HA
NA
0,55
UJ
0.30
UJ
0.51
UJ
0,44
UJ
0.4I
UI
f, 1,2,2-TeMchhwwthiiie
W
870
0.46
UJ
0.42
UJ
0,43
UI
0.37
UJ
. 034
UJ
Tetnchlatoeltinie (PCE)
4,700
16,000
0.34
UJ
0.30
UJ
0 31
UJ
0.2?
UJ
0.25
UJ
Toluene
320,000
520,000
0.43
UJ
0.453
J
0.41
UJ
0,35
UJ
0.32
UJ
1X J-Trkhlorobenzeftc
NA
MA
035
UJ
0.32
UI
0,33
UJ
0,21
UJ
0.2£
UJ
f J£ ,4-Ttic hJw>beo za\ e
480,000
1,700,000
0-58
UJ
0 53
UJ
0,5$
UI
0,47
UJ
0.44
UJ
JJJ-Trichloroeibuft
650,000
1,400,000
0.46
UJ
0,42
UJ
0.43
UJ
0.3?
UJ
0.34
UJ
1 f f ,2*TficfaronMtfrifte
520
1,900
0.32
UJ
0,2?
UJ
0.30
Ui
0.26
UJ
0.24
UJ
TricMoroetlcne
2,700
«,I0O
035
UJ
0.32
UI
0.13
UJ
0,2$
UJ
0.26
UI
TrichlorofliionHnetfaane
330,000
1,300,000
0.39 „
UJ
0.36
UJ
037
UJ
032
UJ
0,29
UJ
Vinyl chloride
21
48
tA
UJ
1.3
UJ
13
UJ
IJ
UI
1.0
UJ
2*0,000
210,000
1.0
U!
0.94
UJ
0.97
UJ
0.83
UJ
0,77
UI
o-XyloM
210,000
280,000
0.47
UJ
0,42
UJ
0 44
UI
0.3S
UJ
0.35
UJ
P-Xytene
370,000
370.000
!A
UJ
0.94
1JJ
0.57
UJ
0,S3
UJ
0.77
UJ
Notes:
NA Not Applicable / Not Analyzed
PRG denotes Preliminary Remediation Goal
EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May. 1998)
EPA Region 9 industrial PRG (May. 1998)
Values in BOLD acted the residential PRG
Data Qualifiers;
tf The molyte Has analyzedfor, but not detected. The associated numerical value Is al or below the Method Detection Limit (MBL).
J The analyse war positively identified: the quantitation is an estimalwn.
VJ The anafyte was analyzedfor, but not defected. The reported MDL b approximate end may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyse in the sample-
B The anafyte was found in an associated blank
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies In the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria.
9i96S°'T>,'~ 'RP Site 19
-------
Table 2-7 (continued)
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis Tor the Miscellaneous Container Area
fRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample ID
EiAS 395419
HAS39S420
HAS39S421
HA539S423
HAS3SS424
Locllios
Eicavi&cfl Segment 5
Excavation Segment 3
Duplicate of 4i9
Excavinr-n ScgmenM
Hxcjvatioa Scgfncnl4
Simple Dtpili b(( (Ted)
V
6'
6
NA
NA
COCNimbir
5S-^HA
58 064 HA
58 064HA
SS C66HA
58-OMHA
Sample Delivery CrmpNutnbfr
9SLI68
9ILI6S
9SL16S
9SU36
5SL236
Dale Cotieclftt
15 Dec n
\% E*C 9*
» nec9t
21 Dec 91
21 D*c
A>*lyte
Units
EPA Mtilisd
EPA PRG
lW,f
Ff A PRG
Indutr'1'
CeiiEMtnOsB
Sendvatatlle Or|iik CompOWd* (SVOCt)
S2TO&
Accniphlhene
2,600,000
28>«K),O00
8,600
U
7,800
U
8,100
U
3,500
U
3,200
U
AcentpfaAytene
NA
NA
f<600
U
7,800
U
2,000
U
3>400
u
3^00
u
Anthracene
14,000,000
120,000,000
5,600
U
5,000
U
5,200
U
2,100
u
2,100
u
B«zfl(j}antfiFic«ne
560
3,600
5,700
V
5,200
U
5,400
U
2 300
u
2,100
u
&cruofa)pyTCTc
56
HQ
3,100
U
23&G
U
2.900
U
1,20S
u
1400
u
Bfiitzo(b)(hiiiEiitihcne
3,600
5400
u
4,800
u
5,000
U
2,(00
u
2,000
u
Bmioftjfiuortulfiera
5,600
36,000
5,600
u
5,105
ir
5*300
U
zm
II
2,100
u
B ento{gti t)p«ry lefts
na
NA
3,400
UJ
3,100
D
330
U
1,400
u
1.300
u
Sisf^-etfaylMtyl) phihkle
32,030
2)0,000
7,000
V
MBO
u
6,600
U
2,100
V
2,600
u
Btrtyl bcnzylplilhiiBle
930,000
930,000
6,300
u
5,700
u
5,900
u
2,500
u
2,300
u
Ctrbizafe
22,000
15Q.COO
6,600
u
6,000
u
6,100
u
2,600
u
2,400
u
Chjysera
56,000
360,000
7,500
u
6J00
u
5,000
u
3(OO0
u
2,tOO
u
Di n-butyl pfcthalite
NA
NA
6,600
u
6,000
u
6,200
u
2,700
u
2,500
u
Dihenio(iJt}*Mhr»c«rt
56
360
2,?00
U
2.400
u
2,500
u
U00
u
990
u
Dibcnzoftirtn
2*0,000
3,200,000
8,600
u
7,800
u
8,100
u
3,500
u
3,200
u
FLoofifithen#
2,000,000
37,000,000
6,400
u
5,800
u
6,000
u
2,600
u
2,400
II
Indenof 1 XJ-Cd) pyrate
560
5,600
3*590
UJ
3,200
u
3,300
u
1,400
u
1,300
u
Naphthalene
55,000
1»,000
n.ooo
u
10,000
u
10,000
u
4 500
u
4,200
u
foi&clik! to phenol
2,500
15,000
6,600
u
6J530
u
6,100
u
2,700
u
2300
u
PhTTunlhTnte
NA
NA
5,500
u
5,000
u
5,100
u
2,200
u
2,000
u
Fyrene
1,500,000
26,000.000
7.500
u
6,000
u
7,000
u
3,000
u
2.800
u
Nyiidtir A»Mlic fffdmarfeMtf (?AHi)
®310
Anthracene
14,000,000
220,000,000
6 32
I
i J
u
19
u
16
u
16
u
fluoriflliiene
2,000,000
37,000,000
141
I
15 6
1
42
u
5 52
i
36
u
Pyitne
1,500,000
26,000,000
28
u
25
u
26
u
39 6
j
12 9
J
Befizo(i)iAthncM«
560
3,600
38
u
517
J
35
u
8 71
3
2 51
1
Cfaysene
56.000
3£0,0GG
27
u
3?
J
7 91
116
j
22
u
&enzo(b)niHKii3llKse
560
3,600
13?
I
mm
i
116
J
329
76
J
Bm2o(li)(lwrWEtbm
5,600
36,000
443
1
43
UJ
44
OJ
95
1
416
J
Benza(i)pyreiie
56
160
34
UJ
3 i
UJ
32
UI
13 3
1
27
UJ
Dib^n2o(i^i)s&ibficeflc
56
560
97
UJ
ss
UJ
91
UJ
904
j
77
UJ
560
J.600
33 3
3
727
3
366
1
912
j
42 3
J
Nates
Atf Not Applicable /Not Analyzed
PRG denotes Preliminary Remediation Goat
w EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May, J9P8)
lff EPA Region $ Industrial PRG (May, 1998)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG
919689/RVR JRP Site 39
Data Qualifiers
U The analyte was analyzed for, but tu>t detected The associated numerical value Is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL)
J The anatyte was positively identified, the quantitation is atr estimation
UJ The anatyte way analyzed far, but not detected The reported MDL ts approximate and may or may noi represent
the actual limit t>fquantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the smlyte en the sample
8 The analyie was found in an associated blank
R The data are unusable due to defictenaes m the abthiy to analyze the sample and mtet QC criteria
Ptge 1 of9
i
-------
Table 2-7 (continued)
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Miscellaneous Container Area
IRP Site 39/Harraon Substation, Andersen AFB, Guam
Simple ID
HAS39S4I9
IIAS39S42&
HAS39S42I
HAS39S423
HAS39S424
lotilion
Excavation Segroem 3
Excavation Scgfncr.i 3
Duplicate of-419
Excivabcn Segment 41 Excavation Segment 4
Simple Iteptli bfi (ftcl)
6'
<*
e
NA
NA
COC Nnnbtr
58-064HA
5S-064HA
S8-064HA
5M66HA
5B-Q46HA
Simple Ddlviry Group Nnwlwr
98L16S
98L16S
9SLI6R
5IL236
ntin
DatiCotleclcd
15-Dw98
25-0«9I
fSDcc^n
2J-D sz-n
\ 2l~Dec-93
Analyle
Unto
EPA Mcib«d
EPA PRG
Rts1'1
EPAPftG
fndiwt^
Co*«olratJDE
ijoo
13,000
J.34
J
3.7?
J
5,61
J
SJ4
UJ
0.73
U
Dieidriit
28
190
2.0
u
IJ
u
1.8
VI
3.15
Ul
206
j
Gfldnn
16,0-30
320,000
1.9
u
i.7
u
!.S
UJ
r.s
V)
r.s
UJ
4,4-DDD
2,400
J9,000
1,6
u
\A
D
1.4
UJ
u
UJ
7.1$
J
4.4'-DDT
!t?0O
13,000
U
u
1.3
U
4.28
J
20.1
J
30.6
I
Endrin aldehyde
two
320,000
i.2
V
t.t
If
l.t
UJ
0.96
UJ
S.95
U|
MttboxycMor
270.000
5,300,000
9.1
u
SJ
u
9.1
w
1M
U|
7,7
UJ
PolyibhHniMd BiphtnyU (tCBi)
J
-------
Table 2-7 (continued)
Confirmation Soil Sample Analysis for the Miscellaneous Container Area
IRP Site 39/Harinon Substation, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sampl* ID
HAS39S426
Loeirioa
E*Mvarion Segment* 3
&4
Stmpk Diplfc btt{fnl)
NA
COCtambtr
5S-06THA
Ssropt* Deliver)1 Group Nambcr
47581
Date Colltclid
21-Dec-SS
AfiaJyW
tfitffi i
E>A MHh&dl
Sabsarfac* Oun^Up Coil
Con«jtfr*tiot>
Dtoiiai
m
1190 I
Total WHO TEQ 1 1
: 1,0 | 0 0060
Notes:
NA Not Applicable / Not Analysed
PRG denote Preliminary Remediation Goal
EPA Region 9 Residential PRG (May, 1998}
EPA Region 9 Industrial PRG (May, 1993)
Values in BOLD exceed the residential PRG
Date Qiuslifiirs:
U Hie analyte wuj annljiedfor, but not detected. The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL}.
J The analyte wot positively identified.* the quantitation is an estimation,
UJ The analyle was analyzed far, but not detected. The reported MDL is approximate end may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately snd precisely measure the enalyle m ike sample.
8 The anafyle was found itt ait associated blani.
It the data are unusable doe to deficiencies in the abtlity to analyze the sample end meet QC criteria
S Applied to all field screening data.
919689/RVR HU> Site 39
f
Page 9 of9
-------
Soil Sample Analysis Results for IRP Site 39 Site Wide
Dioxin Sampling
-------
Table 2-8
Soil Sample Analysis for the Site Wide Dioxin Sampling
Sample ID
HAS39S153
HAS39S154
HAS39S155
HAS39S156
HAS39S157
Location
Site 39 Harmon
Substation
Site 39 Harmon
Substation
Site 39 Harmon
Substation
Site 39 Harmon
Substation
Dup of-153
Sample Depth bgs (feet)
0.1-0.3
0.1-0.3
0.1-0.3
0.1-0.3
0.1-0.3
COC Number
58-026HA
58-026HA
58-026HA
58-026HA
58-026HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
46267
46267
46267
46267
46267
Date Collected
16-Jul-98
16-Jul-98
17-Jul-98
17-Jul-98
!7-Jul-98
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
Concentration
Dioiins
fig/!cg
8290
Total EPA TEQ
0.00921
0.01727
2.2066
0.01692
0.00940
Total WHO TEQ
0.00862
0.01465
1.4121
0.01415
0.00880
Notes:
NA Not Applicable / Not Analyzed
Data Qualifiers;
U The analyte was analyzedfor, but not detected. The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL).
J The analyte was positively identified; the quantitation is an estimation.
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
B The analyte was found in an associated blank.
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria.
S Applied to all field screening data.
919689/RVRIRP Site
Page I of 6
-------
Table 2-8
Soil Sample Analysis for the Site Wide Dioxin Sampling
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample ID
HAS39S200
HAS39S20I
HAS39S202
HAS39S203
HAS39S204
Location
Site 39 Harmon
Site 39 Harmon
Site 39 Harmon
Site 39 Harmon
Site 39 Harmon Substation
Substation
Substation
Substation
Substation
Sample Depth bgs (feet)
0.1-0.3
0.1-0.3
0.1-0.3
0.1-0.3
0 1-0 3
COC Number
58-033HA
58-033HA
58-033HA
58-033HA
58-033HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
46460M
46460
46460
46460
46460
Date Collected
04-Aug-98
04-Aug-98
04-Aug-98
04-Aug-98
04-Aug-98
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
Concentration
Dioxlns
8290
Total EPA TEQ
0.00930
0.01440
0.01668
0.01060
0.02100
Total WHO TEO
0.00753
0.01146
0.01377
0.00912
0.01718
Notes: Data Qualifiers:
NA Not Applicable / Not Analyzed U The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL).
J The analyte was positively identified; the quantitation is an estimation.
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
B The analyte was found in an associated blank.
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria.
S Applied to all field screening data.
9I968°">.vr irp Site
-------
Table 2-8 (continued)
Soil Sample Analysis for the Site Wide Dioxin Sampling
Sample ID
HAS39S205
HAS39S206
HAS39S207
HAS39S208
HAS39S209
Location
Site 39 Harmon
Substation
Site 39 Harmon
Substation
Site 39 Harmon
Substation
Site 39 Harmon
Substation
Site 39 Harmon Substation
Sample Depth bgs (feet)
0 1-0.3
0.1-0.3
0.1-0.3
0 1-0.3
0.1-0 3
COC Number
58-033HA
58-033HA
58-033HA
58-033HA
58-033HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
46460
46460
46460
46460
46460
Date Collected
04-Aug-98
04-Aug-98
04-Aug-98
04-Aug-98
04-Aug-98
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
Concentration
Dioxins
8290
Total EPA TEQ
0.02100
0.00866
0 00773
0.01910
0.00710
Total WHO TEQ
001790
0.00787
0.00700
0.01636
0.00678
Notes:
NA Not Applicable / Not Analyzed
Data Qualifiers:
U The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL)
J The analyte was positively identified; the quantitation is an estimation.
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
B The analyte was found in an associated blank.
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria.
S Applied to all field screening data.
919689/RVRIRP Site
I'age 3 of (>
-------
Table 2-8 (continued)
Soil Sample Analysis for the Site Wide Dioxin Sampling
Sample ID
HAS39S210
HAS39S211
HAS39S212
HAS39S213
HAS39S214
Location
Site 39 Harmon
Substation
Site 39 Harmon
Substation
Site 39 Harmon
Substation
Site 39 Harmon
Substation
Site 39 Harmon Substation
Sample Depth bgs (feet)
01-0.3
0.1-0.3
0.1-0.3
0.1-0.3
0.1-0.3
COC Number
58-034HA
58-034HA
58-034HA
58-034HA
58-034HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
46460
46460
46460
46460
46460
Date Collected
07-Aug-98
07-Aug-98
07-Aug-98
07-Aug-98
07-Aug-98
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
Concentration
Dioxliu
eg/kg
8290
Total EPA TEQ
0.00660
0.05550
0.42020
0.12470
0 01370
Total WHO TEQ
0.00589
0.04501
0.36385
0.11005
0 01226
Notes:
NA Not Applicable / Not Analyzed
Data Qualifiers:
U The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL).
J The analyte was positively identified, the quantitation is an estimation.
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
B The analyte was found in an associated blank.
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria.
S Applied to all field screening data.
91968r"t>VR IRP Site
1
4 of 6
-------
Table 2-8 (continued)
Soil Sample Analysis for the Site Wide Dioxin Sampling
IRFJ5tte39/fifciniio^^
Sample II)
HAS39S406
HAS39S407
HAS39S408
HAS39S409
Location
HAS39S155A
HAS39SI55A
HAS39S155B
HAS39S155B
Sample Depth bgs (feet)
05
1 5
0.5
1.5
COC Number
58-062HA
58-062HA
58-062HA
58-062HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
47480rl
47480rl
47480rl
47480rl
Date Collected
07-Dec-98
07-Dec-98
07-Dec-98
07-Dec-98
Analyte
Units
EPA
Method
Concei
itration
Dloxlns
l»g/kg
8290
Total WHO TEQ
0.0207
00015
0.0353
0.0622
Notes: Data Qualifiers:
NA Not Applicable / Not Analyzed U The analyte was analyzedfor, but not detected The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL)
J The analyte was positively identified, the quantitation is an estimation
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample
B The analyte was found in an associated blank.
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria
S Applied to all field screening data.
919689/RVRIRP Site
l
Page 5 of 6
-------
Table 2-8 (continued)
Soil Sample Analysis for the Site Wide Dioxin Sampling
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Andersen AFB, Guam
Sample ID
HAS39S410
HAS39S411
HAS39S412
Location
HAS39S155C
HAS39S155C
Duplicate of
HAS39S406
Sample Depth bgs (feet)
0.5
1.5
0.5
COC Number
58-062HA
58-062HA
58-062HA
Sample Delivery Group Number
48480rl
47480r2
47480rl
Date Collected
07-Dec-98
07-Dec-98
07-Dec-98
Analyte
Unit!
EPA
Method
Concentration
Dioxlns
8290
Total WHO TEQ
0.0010
.00162*
0.0217
Notes: Data Qualifiers:
NA Not Applicable / Not Analyzed U The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The associated numerical value is at or below the Method Detection Limit (MDL)
* preliminary result J The analyte was positively identified; the quantitation is an estimation.
UJ The analyte was analyzed for, but not detected. The reported MDL is approximate and may or may not represent
the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
B The analyte was found in an associated blank.
R The data are unusable due to deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet QC criteria
S Applied to all field screening data.
9196r
H IRP Site
'e 6 of 6
-------
Appendix C
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments
(IT/OHM, 1999)
-------
Final
Confirmation Human Health Risk Assessment
For IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
Prepared by:
IT Corporation
312 Directors Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee
July 26,1999
Revision 1
-------
Table of Contents ——
Page M-
List of Tables iii
List of Figures iv
List of Acronyms v
M.l Introduction 1
M.2 Data Evaluation 1
M.2.1 Data Sources and History 2
M.2.1.1 Background 2
M.2.1.2 Site Investigation and Remediation History 2
M.2.2 Data Validation 2
M.2.3 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern 4
M.2.4 Summary Statistics of Site-Related Data 5
M.2.5 Chemicals of Potential Concern 7
M.3 Exposure Assessment 8
M.3.1 Characterization of Physical Setting & Site Background 8
M.3.2 Conceptual Site Model 9
M.3.3 Source and Exposure Media 10
M.3.4 Release Mechanisms and Transport Pathways 10
M.3.5 Receptor Scenario and Exposure Pathway Assessments 10
M.3.6 Quantification of Exposure-Point Concentrations 13
M.3.6.1 Exposure-Point Concentrations in Soil 13
M.3.6.2 Exposure-Point Concentrations in Ambient Air 13
M.3.7 Quantification of Chemical Intake 14
M.3.7.1 Inhalation of Chemicals in Air 15
M.3.7.2 Incidental Ingestion of Chemicals in Soil 15
M.3.7.3 Dermal Contact with Chemicals in Soil and Dust 16
M.3.8 Justification of Intake Model Variables 16
M.3.8.1 Groundskeeper 17
M.3.8.2 Trespasser 17
M.3.8.3 Resident 18
M.4 Toxicity Assessment 18
M.4.1 Evaluation of Cancer Effects 19
M.4.2 Evaluation of Noncancer Effects 21
P \RISK2\HUMAWGUAMVGUAM2^EC1 WFD, 7/27/99(3 21 pas) i
-------
Table of Contents (Continuedx
Page M-
M.4.2.1 Noncancer Toxicity Reference Values 21
M.4.2.2 Target Organ Toxicity 22
M.4.3 Dermal Toxicity Values 23
M.4.4 Sources of Toxicity Information Used in the Risk Assessment 23
M.4.4.1 Toxicity Values 23
M.4.4.2 Gastrointestinal Absorption Factors 24
M.5 Risk Characterization 25
M.5.1 Risk Characterization Methodology 25
M. 5.1.1 Cancer Effects of Chemicals 25
M. 5.1.2 Noncancer Effects of Chemicals 27
M.5.2 Risk Characterization Results 28
M.S.2.1 Cancer Risk 28
M.S.2.2 Noncancer Hazard 28
M.6 Uncertainty Evaluation 28
M.6.1 Uncertainty Terminology 28
M.6.2 Sources of Uncertainty 29
M.6.2.1 Selection and Quantification of COPC 29
M.6.2.2 Estimation of Modeled Exposure Point Concentrations 30
M.6.2.3 Selection of Hypothetical Receptors and Potential
Exposure Pathways 30
M.6.2.4 Quantification of Intakes 30
M.6.2.5 Toxicity Assessment 30
M.6.2.6 Risk Characterization 32
M.6.3 Site-Specific Uncertainty 32
M.7 Summary of the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment 33
M.8 References 34
Appendix M: Attachment 1 -Data Used to Complete Confirmation HHRA
Appendix M: Attachment 2 - Toxicological Profiles for Chemicals of Potential Concern
P \IUSK2VHUMAN\GUAM\GUAM2\SEC1.WPD, 7/27/99(3.21 pm)
ii
-------
List of Tables
Number Title Follows Page M-
M-l Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern, Total Soil 4
M-2 Variables Used to Estimate Potential Chemical Intakes and Contact
Rates for Receptors 7
M-3 Toxicity Values Applied to Evaluate Chemicals of Potential Concern 8
M-4 Groundskeeper Intake Doses and Risk Hazard Estimates for Exposure to Total
Soil 28
M-5 Trespasser Intake Doses and Risk Hazard Estimates for Exposure to Total Soil . . 28
M-6 Residential Intake Doses and Risk Hazard Estimates for Exposure to Total Soil. . 28
M-7 Summary of Risks and Hazards from Total Soil 28
P VRlSK2VHOMAN\GUAMVGUAM2\SECl.WPD, 7/27/99(3:21 pm)
iii
-------
List of Figures
Number Title Follows Page M-
M-l Conceptual Site Exposure Model 8
P \WSK2VHUMANV0UAM\GUAM2\SEC1 WPD. 7/27/99(3 21 pm)
iv
-------
List of Acronyms
AAFB
Andersen Air Force Base
cm2
square centimeters
COPC
chemical(s) of potential concern
CRQL
contract-required quantitation limit
CSEM
conceptual site exposure model
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
g/m3
grams per cubic meter
GAF
gastroinstestinal absorption factor
Harmon Substation
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
HEAST
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
HHRA
human health risk assessment
HI
hazard index
HQ
hazard quotient
ILCR
incremental lifetime cancer risk
IRIS
Integrated Risk Information System
IRP
Installation Restoration Program
kg
kilogram
m3
cubic meter
mg/day
milligrams per day
MDC
maximum detected concentrations
NCEA
National Center for Environmental Assessment
PAH
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PRG
preliminary remediation goal
RfC
reference concentration
RfD
reference dose
RME
reasonable maximum exposure
SF
slope factor
UCL
upper confidence limit
P \RISK2VHUMAN\GUAM\GUAM2\SEC 1.WPD, 7/27/59(3.11 pm)
V
-------
M.1 Introduction
This Appendix presents a confirmation human health risk assessment (HHRA) to assess residual
risk from Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Site 39/Harmon Substation (Harmon Substa-
tion), Andersen Air Force Base (AAFB), Guam. This HHRA was performed to verify the results
of the removal actions performed by the United States Air Force under the IRP. These activities
are discussed in detail in the body of this report. Determining the presence or absence of residual
risk will support risk management decision regarding additional remediation requirements, if any,
and land use options for the site. Residual risk to human health from environmental media
remaining at Harmon Substation was characterized in accordance with U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) guidance for performing baseline risk assessments (EPA, 1989a; EPA,
1991a; EPA, 1992a,b,c). The location and layout of Harmon Substation are described in Section
1 of this report and depicted in Figures 1-2 and 2-1, respectively.
The remainder of this Appendix is organized as follows: Section M.2 discusses site history,
analytical data validation, selection of chemicals of potential concern (COPC), and estimation of
source-term concentrations for each COPC in each medium. Section M.3 describes the processes
used to determine exposure scenarios, plausible receptors, exposure pathways, exposure-point
concentrations (for COPC), and estimate dose or contact rates for each COPC. Section M.4
provides the toxicity assessment and describes the hazard evaluation (i.e., the adverse health
effects associated with each of the COPC) and the dose-response evaluation, (i.e., the relationship
between dose or contact rate and the magnitude of the adverse effect). Section M.5 presents the
risk characterization that quantifies the risk to each receptor through combining output from the
exposure analysis with that from the toxicity analysis. Finally, Section M.6 describes the uncer-
tainty evaluations, and qualitatively addresses uncertainties associated with assumptions and
parameters used in the HHRA.
M.2 Data Evaluation
Data were collected from the site and evaluated in accordance with EPA guidelines. This process
includes evaluating sample collection and analytical methods, evaluating the quality of the data,
and comparing the data to EPA Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) (1998). The
purpose of this selection process is to identify any chemicals that could be harmful to human
health if they are present at the site, identify those chemicals that are likely to be site-related, and
evaluate the acceptability of the analytical data for use in the quantitative risk assessment (EPA,
1989a).
P.VRISK2\HUMAN\GUAM\GUAM2\SEC2.WPD. 07-27-99(2:56 pen) M-1
-------
M.2.1 Data Sources and History
M.2.1.1 Background
A large number of samples from Operable Unit 3 investigations were used to develop threshold
values for inorganic chemicals at AAFB. Lead was the only inorganic chemical evaluated as a
potential COPC at Harmon Substation. Lead concentrations were below the PRG for lead,
therefore comparison with background was not required in order to characterize risk from lead at
the site.
M.2.1.2 Site Investigation and Remediation History
Historical information regarding site usage and environmental investigation and remediation
activities is provided in the body of this document. Section 1 provides general background
information, and Section 2 provides remediation background information.
M.2.2 Data Validation
Data validation is an after-the-fact, independent, systematic process of evaluating data. Data are
compared to pre-established criteria to confirm that the data are of acceptable technical quality.
Specific criteria are reviewed to determine whether the data meet the established data quality
objectives for the project. There are five principal quality objectives:
• Precision
• Accuracy
• Completeness
• Comparability
• Representativeness.
To verify that these objectives are met, field measurements, sampling and handling procedures,
laboratory analysis and reporting, and nonconformances and discrepancies in the data are
examined to determine compliance with appropriate and applicable procedures. The procedures
and criteria for validation are defined in the Andersen Air Force Base, Final Basewide Quality
Assurance Project Plan (AAFB, 1997), the U.S. EPA SW-846, "Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Waste," Update II (EPA, 1994a), and the U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program National
Functional Guidelines for Inorganic and Organic Data Review (EPA, 1994b).
.The validation process for data from Harmon Substation was divided into two phases. The first
phase considered field data to verify the completeness, accuracy, and representativeness of field
P \1USK2\HUMAN\GUAM\GUAM2\SEC2.WPD. 07-27-99(2:S6 pm) M-2
-------
sampling. The second phase dealt with analytical chemical validation. The important field data
reviewed in the validation process are:
• Field logbooks
• Specific field forms for sample collection and handling
• Analytical Request (AR)/Chain-of-custody (COC)
• Field instrument calibrations
• Field personnel training
• Variances and surveillance of field activities.
The primary analytical data and parameters reviewed in the validation process are:
• Organic constituent analyses:
- Holding times and preservation
- Gas chromatography or high performance liquid chromatography performance
- Initial and continuing instrument calibration
- Surrogate recoveries
- Internal standards
- Method blanks
- Laboratory control samples
- Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates
- Compound quantitation and identification
- Field duplicate precision
• Inorganic constituent analyses:
- Holding times and preservation
- Instrument performance checks
- Initial and continuing calibrations
- Matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate evaluations
- ICP serial dilution and interference checks
- Laboratory control sample checks
- Duplicate sample analysis
- Compound quantitation and identification
- Field duplicate precision.
The data used to complete confirmation HHRA is presented in Attachment 1 to this Appendix. A
subset of the data was validated by a third party (Jacobs Engineering, Inc., California). The
remaining sample data were validated by contractor chemists assigned to the project who are
experienced in data validation protocols. Detailed data quality assessment reports are available
upon request, for all data packages containing data used for risk assessment purposes.
P.\RISK2\HUMANVC5UAMVGUAM2\SEC2 WED, 07-27-99(2:59 pm) M-3
-------
All environmental sampling data are evaluated for suitability for use in the risk assessment.
Analytical results for chemicals are reported using Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
and Contract Laboratory Program data qualifiers. Chemicals flagged with a "U" qualifier are
considered to be not detected, or detected at a concentration below the normal, random "noise" of
the analytical instrument. Estimated quantitative results such as those identified by a "J" qualifier
are used in the assessment. The "J" qualifier describes an estimated value when a compound is
present (spectral identification criteria are met), but at values less than the contract-required
quantitation limit (CRQL), or when quality control samples suggest that the sample results may be
in error (e.g., when spike samples are outside of required limits or when holding times are just
outside limits). Data with a "UJ" qualifier are treated as not detected for the purposes of data
evaluation and risk assessment. If validation of the data reveals that samples must be rejected
(assigned an "R" qualifier), the rejected data are not used for the risk assessment. The data
utilized in this risk assessment have been validated, and determined suitable for use in a Human
Health Risk Assessment to address potential residual risk from soil at Harmon Substation.
M.2.3 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern
Chemicals of potential concern are selected following the validation of data, compilation of
summary statistics, and comparison with site background and PRGs (EPA 1989a, 1998). The
COPC selection criteria for chemicals to be retained as COPC, as recommended by EPA (1989a,
1998), are illustrated in Table M-l, and are as follows:
• Frequency of Detection. Chemicals were eliminated if they were detected
infrequently (5 percent or lower frequency of detection), providing there was no
evidence that infrequent detection reflected a "hot spot" location.
• Risk-Based Screening. The risk-based screening is applied in a phased manner.
First, the maximum detected concentration (MDC) of a chemical is compared with
the corresponding EPA (1998) PRG value for residential soil; chemicals are ex-
cluded from further consideration if the MDC is less than or equal to the PRG. If
the MDC exceeds the PRG, the source-term concentration, based on the best-fit
distribution of the data, is then compared with the PRG. A chemical is excluded
from further consideration if the source-term concentration is less than or equal to
the PRG.
• Background. If the mean chemical concentration of a sample is less than the mean
of the background concentration, the chemical is excluded from further consider-
ation as a COPC. If the mean of the chemical concentration is marginally greater
than the background mean, a statistical analyses may be performed to determine if
the sample mean is statistically greater than the background mean.
P \RISK2VHUMAN\GUAKW3UAM2\SEC2 WPD, 07-27-99(2 56 pm) M-4
-------
Table M-1
Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern, Total Soil *
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
(Pago 1 of 2)
Range of values, pg/kg
Risk-Based
Source-Term
Detection
Detected Concentrations
Detection Limits"
Statistical
Mean 95% UCL Screening Criterion
Concentration
Chemical
Frequency
Minimum Maximum
Minimum
Maximum Distribution"
uu/kq pg/kge
pg/kgd
COPC?"
Mg/kg»
oxin
OXIN (WHO) TEQ
39 / 39
0.001 - 1.4121
NA
NA
NP
6.06E-02 1.38E-02
3.80E-03
Y
1.38E-02
organic*
ad
32 1 35
5990 - 149000
NA
NA
U
3.18E + 04
4.00E+05
N(a)
—
>lynuctear Aromatic Hydrocarbon* IPAHl
<
ithracene
8 / 88
2.74 - 29.4
NA
NA
U
2.12E+00
1.40E+06
N(a)
—
mo(a|anthrac«r«9
27 / 88
2.51 - 71.6
NA
NA
U
9.53E+00
5.57E+02
N(a)
—
>nzo(e)pyrene
29 / 88
6.22 - 87.5
NA
NA
L
1.21E+01 1.66E+01
5.60E+01
Y
1.66E+01
•nzo(b)fiuorenthene
35 / 88
6.94 - 126
NA
NA
U
1.76E + 01
5.60E + 02
N(a)
—
•ruo(k)ftuorenthene
25 / 88
1.94 - 41.1
NA
NA
U
7.45E+00
5.60E+03
N(a)
—
lrysene
28 I 88
3.7 - 188
NA
NA
U
9.43E+00
5.60E+04
N(a)
—
benzo(a,h)anthracene
5 / 88
3.64 - 30.3
NA
NA
U
5.79E+00
5.60E+01
N(a)
—
loranthene
21 / 88
5.52 - 289
NA
NA
U
1.85E+01
2.00E+05
N(a)
—
(eno(1,2,3-cdlpyrens
29 / 88
7.27 - 207
NA
NA
U
1.72E+01
5.60E+02
N (a)
—
rene
23 / 88
4.82 - 241
NA
NA
U
1.43E+01
1.50E+05
N(a)
—
sticlde*
4'-DDD
21 / 36
3.63 - 166
NA
NA
U
1.42E+01
2.36E+03
N(a)
_
4'-DDE
34 / 36
1.11 - 1380
NA
NA
U
2.05E+02
1.666+ 03
N(a)
—
4-DOT
30 1 38
4.28 - 1080
NA
NA
U
1.05E+02
1.666+03
N(a)
_
pha-Chlordane
9 / 38
1.02 - 22.4
NA
NA
U
2.48E+00
1.60E+03 h
N(a)
--
aldrf n
5 / 36
2.06 - 4.52
NA
NA
U
2.96E+00
2.80E+01
N(a)
—
drin aldehyde
3 / 36
3.76 - 8.87
NA
NA
U
2.11E+00
1.60E + 03 i
N(a)
—
imma-Chlordene
11/36
0.585 - 37.7
NA
NA
U
2.79E+00
1.60E+03 h
N(a)
—
ptachlor Epoxide
6 1 36
0.879 - 4.95
NA
NA
U
9.91 E-01
4.88E + 01
N(a>
—
iychlorlnated Blphenyls (PCB|
oclor 1254
3 1 51
84.3 - 208
NA
NA
L
1.03E + 01 5.47E+O0
3.70E + 01
Y
5.47E+00
oelor 1260
13 / 48
27.6 - 178
NA
NA
U
2.85E + 01
1.98E + 02
N (a)
—
latlle Organic*
N(a)
stone
5 / 12
18.5 - 37
NA
NA
U
1.30E + 01
1.40E+05
—
>thyiene chloride
9 / 12
1.62 - 12.3
NA
NA
U
3.61E + 00
8.50E + 03
N(a)
—
ota! soil equals post-remedial surface, subsurface, and stockpile soil sampled and remaining on-site.
tatistlcal Distribution: L ¦ Lognormal distribution; NP = Nonpars metric distribution for data sets with greater than 50% detects if data set fails normal and lognormal;
« Distribution not determined If maximum concentration Is less than screening criteria.
5% Upper confidence limit calculated for chemicals wtlh maximum detected concentrations greater than screening criteria.
ased on Region 9 preliminary remediation goals (PRG) for residential soil ingestion, adjusted, If necessary to reflect an incremental lifetime cancer risk of 1E-6 and a hazard
idex of 0.1 (EPA, 1998, PRG Table, 1 May, EPA Region 9).
P'|m»k2Wlln«riOu»m\Rev1\R«v10rtmTbmHJ-7j4iW-l COPCWZMW (3:01 PUyDO
I
-------
Table M-1
Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern, Total Soil *
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
(Page 2 of 2l
' Rationale for exclusion of chemical as a contaminant or potential concern (COPC):
(a)« maximum detection Is less than screening criteria.
' N = Chemical is not chosen as a COPC; Y ¦ Chemical Is chosen as COPC.
* Concentration used in risk assessment equal to 95% UCL or maximum value, whichever is less.
h Based on PRO for chlordane.
1 Based on PRG for endrln.
1 Derived, see text.
" Detection limits were either unreliable or unavailable and are not reported.
NA * Not available
TEQ * TCDD equivalent concentration for dhndna
-------
• Chemical Specificity. Analytical results that were not specific for a particular
compound were excluded from further consideration, unless toxicity values were
located that sufficiently reflect the toxicity of the chemical (e.g., PCBs for Aroclor
1248, chlordane for alpha-chlordane).
M.2.4 Summary Statistics of Site-Related Data
The statistical methods used in data evaluation are discussed in this section, and reflect EPA
guidance (EPA, 1989a). Summary statistics for soil samples from Harmon Substation are
included in the COPC Table (Table M-l). The following information was tabulated in each:
• Chemical name
• Detection frequency
• Range of detected concentrations
• Range of detection limits
• Statistical distribution
• Mean concentrations
• 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL) on the mean
• Risk-based screening criterion
• COPC selection
• Source-term concentration.
Because of the uncertainty associated with characterizing contamination in environmental media,
the UCL of the mean was estimated for each chemical in each specific media. In general,
"outliers" were included in the calculation of the UCL because high values in site-related data are
seldom outliers. Inclusion of outliers increases the overall conservatism of the risk estimate.
Chemical data sets containing five or more samples are tested for normality and lognormality
using the Shapiro-Wilks test (EPA, 1992d), from the software package STATISTICA™
(StatSoft, Inc., 1995). UCL estimates are performed only for those chemicals whose MDCs
exceed their PRG. If statistical tests support the assumption that the data is normally distributed,
the UCL for a normal distribution is calculated. If the statistical analysis shows the data to be
lognormally distributed, the UCL is calculated for a lognormal distribution. If the data fit both
normal and lognormal distributions, the UCL is calculated for the distribution that appears to
provide the best fit.
The UCL is calculated for a normal distribution as follows (EPA, 1992a):
UCL = x + ^ „ _ i x (s/yfn)
V SK2XHUMANVGU AMvGUAM2\SEC2 WPD. 07-57-99(2:56 pm) M-5
-------
where:
n
x
s
a
sample arithmetic mean
critical value for student's plus distribution
0.05 (95 percent confidence limit for a one-tailed test)
number of samples in the set
sample standard deviation.
The UCL is calculated for a lognormal distribution as follows (Gilbert, 1987):
UCL = e
where:
y = sample arithmetic mean of the log-transformed data, y = In x
Sy = sample standard deviation of the log-transformed data
n = number of samples in the data set
Ho 95 = value for computing the one-sided upper 95 percent confidence limit on a
lognormal mean from standard statistical tables (Land, 1975).
A nonparametric confidence limit is used when the data fit neither a normal nor a lognormal
distribution as identified with a Shapiro-Wilks test. This occurs commonly in environmental
chemical concentration data sets when most of the data points are nondetects or very low
concentrations, and one or two data points are relatively high, yielding a skewed distribution with
a large tail to the right. Although lognormal parameters can be estimated for these data sets, their
use in UCL estimation is generally not appropriate, resulting in the estimation of UCLs orders of
magnitude above the MDC. Treating these data sets as lognormal effectively ignores the fact that
most of the data were nondetects or very low values, and incorrectly imposes the MDC as a
reasonably conservative estimate of average. The nonparametric UCL is introduced to address
this problem while not failing to capture the size of the upper tail in truly lognormal distributions.
The nonparametric UCL is the UCL on the median, rather than the mean, because the median is a
better estimate of central tendency for a nonparametric distribution. It is estimated by ranking the
data observations from smallest to largest. The rank order of the observation selected as the UCL
is estimated from the following equation (Gilbert, 1987):
P \RISK2\HUMAN\GUAM\GUAM2\SEC2 WPD, 07-27-99(2:56 pm) M-6
-------
u = p(n + 1) + Z, _a - P)
where:
u = rank order for data point selected as the UCL
p = quantile on which UCL is being calculated; p = 0.5
n = number of samples in the set
a = confidence limit; 95 percent
Z1.a = normal deviate variable for one-sided UCL = 1.645.
For data sets of small samples sizes (less than 10), the nonparametric UCL is generally the MDC
Analytical results are presented as nondetects, whenever chemical concentrations in samples do
not exceed the detection or quantitation limits for the analytical procedures of those samples.
Generally, the detection limit is the lowest concentration of a chemical that can be "seen" above
the normal, random "noise" of an analytical instrument or method. To apply the previously men-
tioned statistical procedures to a data set containing nondetected values, a concentration must be
assigned to the nondetect. In this assessment, a value of one-half the detection limit is assigned to
nondetected values (EPA, 1989a).
M.2.5 Chemicals of Potential Concern
This risk assessment evaluates risk from chemicals in total soil sampled, analyzed, and remaining
at Harmon Substation. Summary statistics and the selection of COPC for chemicals detected in
total soil (surface and subsurface) remaining at the site are presented in Table M-2. A total soil
approach is applied, because post-sampling backfilling activities at Harmon Substation make it
difficult to positively identify the locations of sampled strata. Samples collected from surface soil
may now represent subsurface soils; and samples collected from subsurface soil may now
represent surface soils. Assessment of risk from chemicals in "total soil" is the only practicable
media evaluation option for Harmon Substation, because it is possible that, in the future any given
soil unit could end up as either on- or off-site surface or subsurface soil.
It is possible that stockpile or other soil from Harmon Substation will be removed by nearby
residents or contractors in the future and applied as fill material at either on- or off-site construc-
tion projects. As discussed in Section M.3.5 below, the construction worker receptor scenario is
P VEUSK2W!MANSGUAM\aUAM2\SEC2 WTO, OT-27-99(2-5€ pm) M-7
-------
Table M-2
Variables Used to Estimate Potential Chemical Intakes
and Contact Rates for Receptors
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
(Page 1 of 2)
Pathway
Variable
Groundskeeper
Trespasser
Resident*1 j
General Parameters Used in All Intake M
odels I
Exposure Duration (years)
Adult
Child
25*
NA
NA
10b
NA
NA
NA
24
6
Exposure Frequency (days/year)
250*
52b
350
Body Weight (kg)
Adult
Child
70*
NA
NA
45b
NA
NA
NA
70
15
Averaging Time-Noncancer (days)
9125 d
3650"
2190
Averaging Time-Cancer (days)
25550 •
25550 •
25550
Inhalation of Resuspended Dust from Soil
inhalation Rate (m3/hour) Adult
2.5*
1.9"
NA
Inhalation Rate-Air (m3/day)
Adult
Child
NA
NA
NA
NA
20
10
Inhalation Factorlrtl (m3-yr/kg-day)
NA
NA
10.9
Exposure Time (hours/day)
8*
6"
NA
Incidental Ingestion of Soil
Ingestion Rate-Soil (mg/day)
100*
100*
NA
Ingestion Rate-Soil (mg/day)
Adult
Child
NA
NA
NA
NA
100
200
Ingestion Factor^, (mg-yr/kg-day)
NA
NA
114
Dermal Contact with Soil
Skin Adherence-Soil (cm2)
5000"
3700"
NA
Skin Adherence-Soil (cm2)
Adult
Child
NA
NA
NA
NA
5000
2000
SFS.„, (mg-yr/kq-day)
NA
NA
344
Adherence Factor (mg/cm2)
0.2°
0.2 s
0.2"
Absorportion Factor (unitless)
CSV
CSV
CSV
P.MUSK2\HUMANV3UAM«3UAM2\TBLKl-2.WPEV07-27-99(3:2p)
-------
Table M-2
."O'M i"i! *>
Variables Used to Estimate Potential Chemical intakes
and Contact Rates for Receptors
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
(Page 2 of 2)
' EPA.1991, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual
Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors, Interim Final.
b Assumed; see text.
c Refer to Section 6.3.8.
"Calculated as the product of ED (years) x 365 days/year.
•Calculated as the product of 70 years [assumed human lifetime (EPA,1989, Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A)] x 365 days/year.
' Calculated, see text
8 EPA, 1992, Dermal Exposure Assessment Principles and Applications, EPA/600/8-91/011B
hEPA, 1996, Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs), EPA Region IX, San Francisco,
California, August.
NA = Not Applicable.
csv - Chemical-specific value.
P \RlSK2\mJMAN\GUAKW5UAM2\XBLM-2 WPDAT7-27-99(3:2p)
-------
not evaluated, because a more conservative estimate of risk from soil ingestion is included in the
evaluation of risk to the groundskeeper.
Based on the PRG-based selection procedures and criteria previously described, the COPC for
total soil at Harmon Substation, as selected in Table M-l, are:
• Total WHO Dioxin (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, samples were analyzed for
total rather than individual dioxins)
• PAH (Benzo(a)pyrene)
• PCB (Aroclor 1254).
M.3 Exposure Assessment
Exposure is the contact of a receptor with a chemical or physical agent. An exposure assessment
estimates the type and magnitude of potential exposure of a receptor to a COPC found at or
migrating from a site (EPA, 1989a). The exposure assessment included the following steps:
1) Characterization of the physical setting
2) Identification of chemical sources, release mechanisms, and migration pathways
3) Identification of potentially exposed populations or receptors
4) Identification of potential exposure pathways
5) Estimation of exposure concentrations
6) Estimation of chemical intake or contact rates.
The exposure assessment includes the development of the conceptual site exposure model
(CSEM) (Figure M-l) and the development of inputs used in the risk assessment. The latter are
presented in Table M-2, Variables Used to Estimate Potential Chemical Intakes, and Table M-3,
\
Toxicity Values Applied to Evaluate Chemicals of Potential Concern.
M.3.1 Characterization of Physical Setting & Site Background
Section 1 of this report describes the physical characteristics of this site, including communities
that may be in the area that may be affected by chemicals at the site.
Harmon Substation is located in the Harmon Annexes of AAFB, Guam. The site, which is heavily
overgrown with swordgrass, is approximately nine acres in size. The surrounding land is either
industrial (Harmon Substation) or undeveloped/vegetated. There are no residential or recre-
ational areas adjacent to the site. The nearest surface water body is the Philippine Sea, which is
P \tOSK2\HUMAN\GUAM«3UAM2VSEC2 WPD, 07-27-99(2:56 pm) M-8
-------
Figure M-1
Conceptual Site Exposure Model
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
SOURCE MEDIUM
RELEASE/TRANSPORT
MECHANISM
EXPOSURE MEDIUM
EXPOSURE ROUTE
HYPOTHETICAL RECEPTORS
'S
3
3
3
U.
3
U.
ft
5
Resident
(Future)
Sportsman
(Current and
Trespasser
(Current and
Groundskeef
(Future)
Construction
(Future)
1
2
1
1
1
TOTAL SOIL
(Surface and
Subsurface)
Plant Uptake
Wild
Game
Direct Ingestion
Soil
Incidental Ingestion
•
2
•
•
2
Dermal Contact
•
2
•
•
2
Dust Emissions
Air
Dust Inhalation
Volatilization
¦ w
P-
• - Evaluated - complete exposure pathway.
1 = Incomplete exposure pathway.
2 = Not evaluated - complete exposure pathway (see text Section M.3.5 for explanation).
P VRisk2\Human\Guam\Ou*m2VFigM-l .ppt, 7/27/99 3,05 PM
-------
>
Table M-3
Toxicity Values Applied to Evaluate Chemicals of Potential Concern
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
Orai Orai Inhalation Inhalation Dermal Dermal
Chemical of Gastrointestinal Soil Slope Reference Slope Reference Slope Reference
Potential Absorption Absorption Factor Dose Factor Dose Factor Dose
Concern Factor Factor (kg-day/mg) (mg/kg-day) (kg-day/mg) (mg/kg-day) (kg-day/mg) (mg/kg-day)
ioxin
ioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) 0.0 1.00E-02 1.50E+05 ND 1.10E+05 ND 1.67E+05 ND
AH
enzo(a)pyrene 0.5 1.00E-02 7.30E+00 ND 3.10E+00 ND 1.46E+01 ND
CB
roclor 1254 0.9 6.00E-02 2.00E+00 2.00E-05 2.00E+00 ND 2.22E+00 1.80E-05
D a No data
,3,7,8-TCDD = 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
AH = Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
CB = Polychlorinated biphenyl
oxicological references used to derive the data in this table are listed in Appendix M, Attachment 1, Toxicological Profiles for Chemicals of Potential Concern.
1 ilM.3 inMt 103 Pt
-------
located approximately one mile west of the site. In Chapter 1.0, see Figure 1-1 "Location Map
Harmon Annexes, Andersen AFB, Guam" and Figure 1-2, "Location Map IRP Site 39/Harmon
Substation, Harmon Annexes, Andersen AFB, Guam," for the precise location of this site.
Harmon Substation is a former waste disposal site. There is little recorded information available
regarding waste disposal practices and previous historic land use at the site. Most available
information originated in a report addressing buried drums found at the site in 1989, during
excavation activities related to the petroleum, oil, lubricants pipeline which borders the northern
edge of the site. Additional investigation and remediation-related information is provided in
Section 2, supra.
Removal actions were conducted at Harmon Substation beginning in April of 1998. The
objectives of the remedial actions were to:
• Clean, remove, demolish, and remediate the "oil/water separator system"
• Remediate the "buried drum area"
• Remediate the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) "hot spots"
• Remediate the "miscellaneous container area"
• Perform confirmation sampling and analysis following all remedial activities
• Evaluate dioxin contamination
• Ensure safe and compliant off-site transportation and disposal of all wastes, contam-
inated soil and related debris
• Backfill the excavations
• Prepare a remedial verification report.
The removal actions have been completed. A complete account of operational and remediation
activities at Harmon Substation is presented in Chapters 2 and 3 of this document.
M.3.2 Conceptual Site Exposure Model
The CSEM provides the basis for identifying and evaluating potential risks to human health in the
HHRA. The CSEM (Figure M-l) includes both current and future land-use scenarios for Harmon
P \JUSK2\HlMAN\GUAMvGUAM2\SEC2.WPD, 07-27-99(2:56 pro) M-9
-------
Substation, receptors appropriate to all plausible scenarios, source media, chemical release and
transport mechanisms, exposure media, and potential exposure pathways. By graphically
presenting all plausible pathways and exposure routes, the conceptual site model facilitates the
consistent and comprehensive evaluation of risk to human health, and helps ensure that potential
pathways are not overlooked. The elements necessary to construct a complete exposure pathway
and develop the CSEM include:
• Source (i.e., chemicals in environmental media)
• Chemical release mechanisms
• Chemical transport pathways
• Receptors
• Exposure pathways.
Chemical release mechanisms and transport pathways are not required for direct receptor contact
with a source medium.
M.3.3 Source and Exposure Media
Source and exposure media at Harmon Substation include soil and air (Figure M-l). Soil may be
further divided into subsurface and surface soil, although "total soil" is evaluated in this HHRA,
for the reasons presented in Section M.2.5. Surface and groundwater and sediment were
eliminated as media of potential concern within the baseline characterization and remediation
activities for this site (Chapter 3).
M.3.4 Release Mechanisms and Transport Pathways
Potential chemical release mechanisms and transport pathways considered in this assessment
include soil dust emissions and volatilization into air (Figure M-l). Again, water-related
pathways were eliminated in Chapter 3, Supra.
M.3.5 Receptor Scenario and Exposure Pathway Assessments
The objective of these assessments is to identify potential human receptors that may be exposed to
site-related chemicals at Harmon Substation. This is applied to both current and future land-use
scenarios. At Harmon Substation, plausible current receptors include the sportsman, trespasser
and the remediation worker. In this HHRA current risk is only characterized for the trespasser.
Current (as well as future risk to) the remediation worker is excluded from this risk assessment,
because it is assumed that the remediation worker is cognizant o£ and appropriately protected
from, all chemical and physical hazards at the Site, in accordance with applicable Occupational
P\RISK2\HUMAHVGUAM\GUAM2\SEC2WPD. 07-27-99(2.56 pin) M-10
-------
Safety and Health Administration requirements. Therefore, neither current nor potential future
risks to the remediation worker are characterized herein.
The sportsman receptor scenario is not characterized for reasons discussed below.
The risk assessment identifies potential future contaminant sources, as well as release mechanisms
and pathways, through which receptors may be exposed to site-related chemicals.
The future land use projected for Harmon Substation is industrial, although the site could also be
used for residential purposes some time in the future. There are several plausible receptors, who
may be exposed under future land-use scenarios for Harmon Substation. The following receptor
scenarios are evaluated in this assessment because they provide information that is useful for
making decisions regarding additional remediation requirements and land use options for the Site:
• Groundskeeper
• Trespasser
• Resident.
As shown in the CSEM (Figure M-l), each of the receptors evaluated could potentially be
exposed to soil via the following exposure routes:
• Incidental ingestion of soil
• Dermal contact with soil
• Inhalation of chemicals that are released from soil as dust.
Groundskeeper (Occupational Receptor): The site is currently used for military/industrial
purposes. This land use scenario is likely to continue into the future. The groundskeeper
receptor scenario is an occupational worker scenario that generally captures the upper risk for
incidental ingestion, inhalation and dermal exposure to surface or total soil. The scenario consists
of daily maintenance activities that expose the groundskeeper to chemicals in soil for many years.
Currently, workers, including groundskeepers are not present at this site. Thus, the grounds-
keeper scenario is only evaluated for future land use purposes.
Trespasser: Quantification of risk for the trespasser includes the possibility of current as well as
future land-use conditions. The (7 to 16-year-old) trespasser scenario is presented as the only
plausible current (along with future) receptor scenario for Harmon Substation. This scenario
captures potential risk from Harmon Substation during the time period from the completion of
P:\RISK2NHUMAtW5U AKWKJAM2\SBC2.WI>D, 07-27-99(2:56 pro) M-l 1
-------
recent remediation actions until some unspecified time in the future, when the site is transitioned
to an alternative land use.
Resident: The residential risk scenario is evaluated for a hypothetical on-site resident exposed
to total soil at Harmon Substation. Even though a residential scenario at this site is unlikely, this
residential risk scenario is evaluated in order to provide risk managers an estimate of site risks and
hazards based on EPA (1998) Region IX default parameters and assumptions used to derive the
PRGs. The residential scenario combines the child and adult receptor scenarios in accordance
with Region IX EPA (1998) policy. This scenario often provides the upper boundary for both
cancer and noncancer risk from a site. Generally, the adult resident scenario provides the higher
cancer risk estimate. Potential risk to an off-site resident from soil removed from the site and
used off-site is also covered by this receptor scenario.
Construction Worker: The construction worker scenario is generally the most conservative
measure of risk from exposure to subsurface soil. The construction worker scenario is not
evaluated, because total, rather than surface and subsurface soil, is evaluated in this HHRA.
Where total soil is evaluated, the groundskeeper scenario provides a more conservative risk
characterization, and evaluation of the construction worker scenario provides no additional
benefit.
Sportsman: This scenario consists of the hunter who enters the site while hunting wild pig or
other game. The sportsman is not evaluated as a plausible current scenario, because it is believed
that the sportsman does not hunt at this site, and neither pig nor deer have been spotted.
Furthermore, it is highly probable that even if the sportsman was hunting at this site, the impacts
from Harmon Substation alone would be negligible, given the small size of the site relative to the
large foraging and grazing ranges generally associated with wild pig and deer.
The sportsman receptor scenario is not characterized as a future receptor scenario, because the
resident receptor scenario provides a much more conservative measure of risk from soil inhalation
and dermal exposure pathways. Generally, the sportsman is only included (in addition to the
residential receptor) if there is a significant chance of capturing additional risk from direct
ingestion of wild game.
A careful analysis of the risk from hunting and consumption of wild deer and pigs across AAFB
was conducted in the HHRA for IRP-16 (ICF Kaiser, Inc., 1999). That risk assessment used
P.VRJSK2\HUMANV3UAM\GUAM2\SEC2.WPD. 07-27-99(2:56 jan) M-12
-------
actual animal sample tissue studies to determine that "the [cancer] risk estimated for ingestion of
deer and wild pig meat were zero, because the carcinogenic COPCs selected at Site 16 were non-
detect in all of the deer and pig tissue samples. Therefore there are no concerns for cancer risk
resulting from these (sportsman and residential) exposure scenarios". The HHRA for IRP 16
further indicates that it is appropriate to extrapolate this conclusion to other IRP Sites at AAFB.
The IRP 16 HHRA further states that, "Generally, home ranges for deer and wild pig cover areas
50 to 100 times the size of an IRP site. Therefore, these data are appropriate for use in assessing
environmental impacts at Site 16, and for hunters across the base" (ICF Kaiser, Inc., 1999).
M.3.6 Quantification of Exposure-Point Concentrations
M.3.6.1 Exposure-Point Concentrations in Soil
The source-term concentrations estimated for the COPC in total soil are selected as the exposure-
point concentration for the direct contact pathways (ingestion and dermal contact), and as the
source-term concentration from which chemical concentrations in air are estimated for the indirect
pathway (inhalation). Table M-l presents the source-term concentrations for the chemicals
evaluated for COPC selection. Adopting the source-term concentration as the exposure-point
concentration is consistent with EPA (1992a) guidance, which specifies that the mean is the
appropriate exposure-point concentration to use to estimate risk from chronic exposure. The
source-term is generally the UCL on the mean (or the MDC, whichever is smaller) on an
unweighted data set, rather than the mean itself. This compensates for uncertainty about the true
mean caused by sample limitations. Application of the unweighted UCL is generally a good
screening approach when limited site data are available. However use of a more rigorous
goestatistical estimation process will provide significant reduction in the overall uncertainty of the
risk assessment, when estimating a representative site-mean where significant site data are
available.
M.3.6.2 Exposure-Point Concentrations in Ambient Air
COPC concentrations in ambient air potentially arise from volatilization of volatile organic
compounds and COPC-bearing dust from soil resulting from activity on the site. COPC concen-
trations in ambient air inside a building can arise from resuspension of COPC-bearing removable
surface dust. The model used to estimate exposure-point concentrations for indirect exposure via
ambient air is presented in the following paragraphs.
P \RISK2\HUMAN\GUAM\GUAM2\SECZWPD. 07-27-99(2:56 pm)
M-13
-------
Dust Emissions. Inhalation exposure to particulate emissions from soils arises from construction
or other site activities that raise dust. Therefore, the most appropriate approach for estimating
chemical concentrations in ambient air is the use of an activity-based dust loading equation (DOE,
1989):
C=(D)(C^(CF,)
where:
C, = chemical concentration in air (mg/m3 of air)
D = dust loading factor (g of soil/m3 of air)
C, = chemical concentration in soil (mg/kg)
CFj = conversion factor (10"3 kg/g).
Plausible values for D include 6x10"* grams per cubic meter (g/m3) for construction work (DOE,
1983), and 1 x 10"4 g/m3 for all other occupational work (NCRP, 1984).
Volatilization From Soil. The volatilization model applies only to compounds with Henry's
law constant greater than 10"s atm-m3/mol and molecular weights less than 200 g/mol (EPA,
1991a). Chemical-specific toxicity parameters for COPC are listed in Table M-3. The organic
COPC in Table M-3 are not treated as volatile because their molecular weights are greater than
200 g/mol; thus, the volatilization model was not applied in this assessment and the requisite
volatilization model is not reported.
Exposure point concentrations in soil, dust, and ambient air for all the receptors and pathways
that were quantified, are listed in the far right column of Table M-l.
M.3.7 Quantification of Chemical Intake
This section describes the models used to quantify dose and intake rates for COPC relative to the
exposure pathways previously identified. Table M-2 presents the dose and intake values applied
in this HHRA and relevant source references. The intake model variables generally reflect 50th or
95th percentile values, which, when applied to the exposure-point concentrations derived (as
described in Section M.3.6) ensure that the estimated intakes represent the reasonable maximum
exposure (RME). The RME scenario also accounts for exposures to sensitive subpopulations
such as infants, children, elderly persons, and pregnant and nursing women. Models were taken
or modified from EPA (1989a and 1998) unless otherwise indicated. The intake equations for the
P:MUSK2VHUMAN\GUAM\GUAM2^EC2.WPD, 07-27-99(2:56 pm)
M-14
-------
residential receptor are distinguished from the other receptors because these equations have age-
adjusted parameters to include both adult and child residents based on EPA (1991a) guidance and
the precedent set by EPA (1996a). Chemical intakes calculated with the models described below
are presented in the receptor-specific risk characterization tables (Tables M-4 through M-6).
M.3.7.1 Inhalation of Chemicals in Air
The following equation is used to estimate the inhaled dose of COPC in air for all except the
residential receptors (EPA, 1989a):
7 _ (Cg)(IR^(ET)(EF){ED)
(BW)(AT)
where:
I, - inhaled dose of COPC (mg/kg-day)
C, = concentration of COPC in air (mg/m3)
IR, = inhalation rate (m3/hour)
ET = exposure time (hours/day)
EF = exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = exposure duration (years)
BW = body weight (kg)
AT = averaging time (days).
M.3.7.2 Incidental Ingestion of Chemicals in Soil
The ingested dose of COPC in soil is estimated for all except the residential receptors from the
equation (EPA, 1989a):
_ (Q(IR^EF)(ED)(CF^
s (BW)(AT)
where:
I, = ingested dose of COPC in soil (mg/kg-day)
C, = concentration of COPC in soil (mg/kg)
IR, = ingestion rate of soil (mg/day)
EF = exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = exposure duration (years)
CF4 = conversion factor (10"® kg/mg)
BW = body weight (kg)
AT = averaging time (days).
P.\RISK2\HUMAN«3UA1v1V3UAM2\SEC2.WFD. 07-27-99(2:56 pre) M-15
-------
M.3.7.3 Dermal Contact with Chemicals in Soil and Dust
Unlike the methodologies for estimating inhaled or ingested dose of COPC, which quantify the
dose presented to the barrier membrane (the pulmonary or gastrointestinal mucosa, respectively),
dermal dose is estimated as the dose crossing the skin that is systemically absorbed. For this
reason, dermal toxicity values are also based on absorbed dose. The absorbed dose of COPC for
all except the residential receptors is estimated from the equation (EPA, 1992b).
{C^AF){ABS)(SAXmiED)(CF^CF^
DAD-
(BW)(AT)
where:
DAD =
average dermal absorbed dose of COPC (mg/kg-day)
c. =
concentration of COPC in soil (mg/kg)
AF =
soil-to-skin adherence factor (mg/cm2-event)
ABS =
absorption fraction (unitless, chemical-specific value).
SA, =
surface area of the skin available for contact with soil (cm2)
EF =
exposure frequency (days/year)
ED =
exposure duration (years)
CF4 =
conversion factor (10"6 kg/mg)
CF5 =
conversion factor (1 event/day)
BW =
body weight (kg)
AT «
averaging time (days).
The dimensional integrity of this equation is maintained through assuming that one exposure event
occurs in each exposure day.
M.3.8 Justification of Intake Model Variables
In keeping with EPA (1991b) guidance, variables chosen for the RME receptor for ingestion rate,
exposure frequency, and exposure duration are generally upperbounds. Other variables, e.g.,
body weight and surface area are generally central or average values. In the case of contact rates
consisting of multiple components, e.g., dermal contact with soil, consisting of absorption factor,
and adherence factor, the conservatism built into the individual variables assures that the entire
estimate for contact rate is more than sufficiently conservative.
The averaging time for noncancer evaluation is computed as the product of exposure duration
(years) times 365 days per year, to estimate an average daily dose over the entire exposure period.
For cancer evaluation, averaging time is computed as the product of 70 years, the assumed human
P \RISK2\HUMAN«3UAMV3UAM2^EC2.WPD, 07-27-99(2 56 pro)
M-16
-------
lifetime, times 365 days per year, to estimate an average daily dose prorated over a lifetime,
regardless of the frequency or duration of exposure. This methodology assumes that the risk from
short-term exposure to a high dose of a given carcinogen is equivalent to long-term exposure to a
correspondingly lower dose, provided that the total lifetime doses are equivalent. This approach
is consistent with current EPA (1986) policy of carcinogen evaluation, although it introduces
considerable uncertainty into the cancer risk assessment.
Justification for each of the variables used in the intake equations described in the previous section
is presented in the following sections. The intake variable values applied in this risk assessment
are summarized in Table M-2.
M.3.8.1 Groundskeeper
The groundskeeper is assumed to be a 70 kilogram (kg) adult, who uses the site 8 hours per day,
approximately 5 days per week, for a total of250 days per year, for 25 years (EPA, 1991b). The
respiratoiy rate for the groundskeeper is assumed to be 20 cubic meters (m3) per 8-hour workday
(2.5 mVhour), and the soil incidental ingestion rate is assumed to be 100 milligrams per day
(mg/day), comparable to that of an agricultural worker.
Clothing provides partial protection against dermal contact with soil, restricting potential contact
to approximately 25 percent of the body, or approximately 3,200 square centimeters (cm2) (EPA
1992b). EPA (1992b) recommends a default value of 0.2 mg/cm2, the lower end of the range of
0.2 to 1.0 mg/cm2, as an average coefficient for soil-to-skin adherence.
M.3.8.2 Trespasser
The trespasser is assumed to be a nearby child resident who makes sporadic visits to Harmon
Substation. Based on the demographics of the area and the distances from centers of popula-
tion to the site, it is assumed that the trespasser makes one successful entry per week (52 days
per year), and spends 6 hours per day in the restricted area. The 6 hours per day is assumed
to be spent in contact with surface soil.
EPA (1995) defines the trespasser as a 7 to 16-year-old youth with an average BW of 45 kg
exposed for 12 years. A respiratory rate of 31.6 L/minute, equivalent to an inhalation rate of
1.9 m3/hour, is estimated for the 45-kg youth engaged in moderate activity (EPA, 1990). An
ingestion rate of 100 mg/day is assumed for persons over 6 years old to account for incidental
soil and dust ingestion by a resident (EPA, 1991b). EPA (1989a) permits the development of
P \R3SK2\HUMAN\GUAM\GUAM2\SEC2 WPD. 07-27-99(2S6 pm)
M-17
-------
a fraction term to reflect the proportion of his total daily exposure to soil that a receptor
obtains from the contaminated media. It is assumed that the 6 hours per day that the trespasser
spends in contact with surface soil, on sites where surface water is not present, represents 38
percent of his daily exposure to soil (potential exposure to soil throughout his waking hours,
assumed to be 16 hours per day).
The surface area of the child for dermal contact is estimated to be 3,700 cm2 (EPA, 1996a). The
soil adherence factor is assumed to be 0.2 mg/cm2 (EPA, 1992b).
M.3.8.3 Resident
The resident receptor scenario is applied to account for both the on- and off-site resident who
could be exposed to soil at or from Harmon Substation, respectively. In keeping with EPA
Region IX guidance, the residential receptor is a 30-year residential exposure divided into two
parts (EPA, 1998). First, a 6-year exposure is calculated for a child, which accounts for a lower
body weight (15 kg) and inhalation rate (10 m3/day), and the highest soil ingestion rate of 200
mg/day (EPA, 1998). Second, a 24-year exposure duration is assessed for older children and
adults by using an adult body weight (70 kg) and inhalation rate (20 m3/day), and a lower soil
ingestion rate of 100 mg/day (EPA, 1998).
The surface area of the adult for dermal contact is estimated to be 5,000 cm2 (EPA, 1998). The
surface area available for dermal contact for the residential child is estimated to be 2,000 cm2
(EPA, 1998). The soil adherence factor is assumed to be 0.2 mg/cm2 (EPA, 1992b).
M.4 Toxicity Assessment
Toxicity is defined as the ability of a chemical to induce adverse effects in biological systems. The
purpose of the toxicity assessment is two-fold:
• Identify the cancer and noncancer effects that may arise from exposure of humans to
the COPC (hazard assessment); and
• Provide an estimate of the quantitative relationship between the magnitude and
duration of exposure and the probability or severity of adverse effects (dose-
response assessment).
The latter is accomplished by the derivation of cancer and noncancer toxicity values, as described
in the following sections and discussed in detail in Attachment 2 to this Appendix.
P:\RISK2\HUMAN\GUAM\GUAM2\SEC2.WPD, 07-27-99(2:56 pm)
M-18
-------
M.4.1 Evaluation of Cancer Effects
A few chemicals are known, and many more are suspected, to be human carcinogens. The
evaluation of the potential carcinogenicity of a chemical includes both a qualitative and a
quantitative aspect (EPA, 1986). The qualitative aspect is a weight-of-evidence evaluation of the
likelihood that a chemical might induce cancer in humans. The EPA (1986) recognizes six
weight-of-evidence group classifications for carcinogenicity:
• Group A - Human Carcinogen: Human data are sufficient to identify the chemical as
a human carcinogen.
• Group B1 - Probable Human Carcinogen: Human data indicate that a causal
association is credible, but alternative explanations cannot be dismissed.
• Group B2 - Probable Human Carcinogen: Human data are insufficient to support a
causal association, but testing data in animals support a causal association.
• Group C - Possible Human Carcinogen: Human data are inadequate or lacking,
but animal data suggest a causal association, although the studies have deficiencies
that limit interpretation.
• Group D - Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity: Human and animal
data are lacking or inadequate.
• Group E - Evidence of Noncarcinogenicity to Humans: Human data are negative
or lacking, and adequate animal data indicate no association with cancer.
The toxicity value for carcinogenicity, called a cancer slope factor (SF), is an estimate of potency.
Potency estimates are developed only for chemicals in Groups A, Bl, B2 and C, and only if the
data are sufficient. The potency estimates are statistically derived from the dose-response curve
from the best human or animal study or studies of the chemical. Although human data are often
considered to be more reliable than animal data because there is no need to extrapolate the results
obtained in one species to another, most human studies have one or more of the following
limitations:
• The duration of exposure is usually considerably less than lifetime.
• The concentration or dose of chemical to which the humans were exposed can be
only crudely approximated, usually from historical data.
• Concurrent exposure to other chemicals frequently confounds interpretation.
P \SUSKTHUMANv3UMjfvGUAM2\SECXWPD, 07-77-99(2:56 pro) M-19
-------
* Data regarding other factors (tobacco, alcohol, illicit or medicinal drug use,
nutritional factors and dietary habits, heredity) are usually insufficient to eliminate
confounding or quantify its effect on the results.
• Most epidemiologic studies are occupational investigations of workers, which may
not accurately reflect the range of sensitivities of the general population.
• Most epidemiologic studies lack the statistical power (i.e., sample size) to detect a
low, but chemical-related increased incidence of tumors.
Most potency estimates are derived from animal data, which present different limitations:
• It is necessary to extrapolate from results in animals to predict results in humans;
this is usually done by estimating an equivalent human dose from the animal dose.
• The range of sensitivities arising from genotypic and phenotypic diversity in the
human population is not reflected in the animal models ordinarily used in cancer
studies.
• Usually very high doses of chemical are used, which may alter normal biology,
creating a physiologically artificial state and introducing substantial uncertainty
regarding the extrapolation to the low-dose range expected with environmental
exposure.
• Individual studies vary in quality (e.g., duration of exposure, group size, scope of
evaluation, adequacy of control groups, appropriateness of dose range, absence of
concurrent disease, sufficient long-term survival to detect tumors with long in-
duction or latency periods).
The SF is usually expressed as "extra risk" per unit dose, that is, the additional risk above
background in a population corrected for background incidence. It is calculated by the ex-
pression:
-/W
where:
p(d) = the probability of cancer associated with dose = 1 mg/kg-day
p(0) = the background probability of developing cancer at dose = 0 mg/kg-day.
The SF is expressed as risk per mg/kg-day. To be appropriately conservative, the SF is usually
the 95 percent upper bound on the slope of the dose-response curve extrapolated from high
J> \RJSK2VHUMANSGUAM\GUAM2\SEC2.WFD, 07-27-99(2:56 pm)
M-20
-------
(experimental) doses to the low-dose range expected in environmental exposure scenarios. The
EPA (1986) assumes that there are no thresholds for carcinogenic expression; therefore, any
exposure represents some quantifiable risk.
The oral SF is usually derived directly from the experimental dose data, because oral dose is
usually expressed as mg/kg-day. When the test chemical was administered in the diet or drinking
water, oral dose first must be estimated from data for the concentration of the test chemical in the
food or water, food or water intake data, and body weight data.
The EPA (1999) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) expresses inhalation cancer potency
as a unit risk based on concentration, or risk per fig of chemical/m3 of ambient air. Because
cancer risk characterization requires a potency expressed as risk per mg/kg-day, the unit risk must
be converted to the mathematical equivalent of an inhalation cancer SF, or risk per unit dose.
Because the inhalation unit risk is based on continuous lifetime exposure of an adult human
(assumed to inhale 20 m3 of air/day and to weigh 70 kg), the mathematical conversion consists of
multiplying the unit risk (per ng/m3) by 70 kg and by 1,000 ng/mg, and dividing the result by 20
m3/day. Relevant toxicity input values applied in this HHRA are presented in Table M-3.
M.4.2 Evaluation of Noncancer Effects
M.4.2.1 Noncancer Toxicity Reference Vaiues
Many chemicals, whether or not associated with carcinogenicity, are associated with noncancer
effects. The evaluation of noncancer effects (EPA, 1989b) involves:
• Qualitative identification of the adverse effect(s) associated with the chemical; these
may differ depending on the duration (acute or chronic) or route (oral or inhalation)
of exposure
• Identification of the critical effect for each duration of exposure (i.e., the first
adverse effect that occurs as dose is increased)
• Estimation of the threshold dose for the critical effect for each duration of exposure
• Development of an uncertainty factor, i.e., quantification of the uncertainty assoc-
iated with interspecies extrapolation, intraspecies variation in sensitivity, severity of
the critical effect and slope of the dose-response curve, and deficiencies in the
database, in regard to developing a reference dose (RID) for human exposure
P-\RJSK2\HUMANY3UAM\GUAM2\SEC2 WPD. 07-27-99(2:56 pro)
M-21
-------
• Identification of the target organ for the critical effect for each route of exposure.
These information points are used to derive an exposure route- and duration-specific toxicity
value called an RfD, expressed as mg/kg-day, which is considered to be the dose for humans, with
uncertainty of an order of magnitude or greater, at which adverse effects are not expected to
occur. Mathematically, it is estimated as the ratio of the threshold dose to the uncertainty factor.
For risk assessment purposes, chronic exposure is defined as equal to or greater than seven years,
i.e., at least 10 percent of expected lifespan; subchronic exposure is defined as 2 weeks to 7 years.
The child exposure scenario, however, is considered chronic, because the exposure duration (6
years) exceeds 10 percent of the time that an individual spends as a child.
IRIS (EPA, 1999) and the Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) (EPA, 1997)
express the inhalation noncancer reference value as a reference concentration (RfC) in units of
mg/m3. Because noncancer risk characterization requires a reference value expressed as mg/kg-
day, the RfC must be converted to an inhalation RfD. Because the inhalation RfC is based on
continuous exposure of an adult human (assumed to inhale 20 m3 of air per day and to weigh 70
kg), the mathematical conversion consists of multiplying the RfC (mg/m3) by 20 m3/day and
dividing the result by 70 kg.
M.4.2.2 Target Organ Toxicity
As a matter of science policy, EPA (1989a) assumes dose- and effect-additivity for noncancer
effects. This assumption provides the justification for adding the hazard quotients (HQ) or hazard
indices (HI) in the risk characterization for noncancer effects resulting from exposure to multiple
chemicals, pathways, or media. EPA (1989a), however, acknowledges that adding all HQ or HI
values may overestimate risk, because the assumption of additivity is probably appropriate only
for those chemicals that exert their toxicity by the same mechanism.
Mechanism of toxicity data sufficient for predicting additivity with a high level of confidence are
available for very few chemicals. In the absence of such data, EPA (1989a) assumes that
chemicals that act on the same target organ may do so by the same mechanism of toxicity, i.e.,
target organ serves as a surrogate for mechanism of toxicity. When total HI for all media for a
receptor exceeds 1 due to the contributions of several chemicals, it is appropriate to segregate the
chemicals by route of exposure and mechanism of toxicity (i.e., target organ) and estimate
separate HI values for each.
P \R1SK2\HUMANV3UAM«3UAW2\SEC2.WPD. 07-27-99(2.56 pm) M-22
-------
As a practical matter, since human environmental exposures are likely to involve near- or
subthreshold doses, the target organ chosen for a given chemical is the one associated with the
critical effect. If more than one organ is affected at the threshold, the more severely affected is
chosen. Target organ is also selected on the basis of duration of exposure (i.e., the target organ
for chronic or subchronic exposure to low or moderate doses is selected rather than the target
organ for acute exposure to high doses) and route of exposure. Because dermal RfD values are
derived from oral RfD values, the oral target organ is adopted as the dermal target organ. For
some chemicals, no target organ is identified. This may arise when no adverse effects are
observed or when adverse effects such as reduced longevity or growth rate are not accompanied
by recognized organ- or system-specific functional or morphologic alteration.
M.4.3 Dermal Toxicity Values
Dermal RfD values and SFs are derived from the corresponding oral values, provided there is no
evidence to suggest that dermal exposure induces exposure route-specific effects that are not
appropriately modeled by oral exposure data. In the derivation of a dermal RfD, the oral RfD is
multiplied by the gastrointestinal absorption factor (GAF), expressed as a decimal fraction. The
resulting dermal RfD, therefore, is based on absorbed dose. The RfD based on absorbed dose is
the appropriate value with which to compare a dermal dose, because dermal doses are expressed
as absorbed rather than exposure doses. The dermal SF is derived by dividing the oral SF by the
GAF. The oral SF is divided, rather than multiplied, by the GAF because SFs are expressed as
reciprocal dose. The GAFs, dermal SFs, and RfDs for the COPC are presented in Table M-3.
M.4.4 Sources of Toxicity information Used in the Risk Assessment
M.4.4.1 Toxicity Values
Selection of toxicity values is discussed in detail in Attachment 2 to this Appendix. Generally,
they are chosen using the following hierarchy:
• EPA's on-line IRIS database (EPA, 1999) containing toxicity values that have
undergone the most rigorous Agency review
• The latest version of the annual HE AST, including all supplements (EPA, 1997)
• Other EPA documents, memoranda, or former Environmental Criteria and Assess-
ment Office or National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) derivations
for the Superfund Technical Support Center.
P \RISK2\HUMANOTAM\GUAM2\SEC2 WPD. 07-27-59(2:56 pro)
M-23
-------
All toxicity values, regardless of their source, are evaluated for appropriateness for use in HHRA.
When toxicity values are not located, the primary literature is surveyed to derive a toxicity value.
The use of surrogate chemicals is also considered, if the chemical structure, adverse effects, and
toxic potency of the surrogate and chemical of interest are sufficiently similar.
M.4.4.2 Gastrointestinal Absorption Factors
GAFs used to derive dermal RfD values and SFs from the corresponding oral toxicity values, are
obtained from the following sources:
• EPA's on-line IRIS database (EPA, 1999)
• Oral absorption efficiency data compiled by the NCEA for the Superfund Health
Risk Technical Support Center of the EPA
• Federal agency reviews of the empirical data, such as Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry Toxicological Profiles and various EPA criteria documents
• Other published reviews of empirical data
• Primary literature.
GAFs obtained from reviews are compared to empirical (especially more recent) data, when
possible, and are evaluated for suitability for use for deriving dermal toxicity values from oral
toxicity values. The suitability of the GAF increases when the following similarities are present in
the oral pharmacokinetic study from which the GAF is derived and in the key toxicity study from
which the oral toxicity value is derived:
• The same strain, sex, age, and species of test animal were used.
• The same chemical form (e.g., the same salt or complex of an inorganic element or
organic compound) was used.
• The same mode of administration (e.g., diet, drinking water, or gavage vehicle) was
used.
• Similar dose rates were used.
The most defensible GAF for each chemical is used in the HHRA.
P.VRISK2\HUMAN\GUAM«3UAM2\SEC2 WPD, 07-27-99(2:56 pm)
M-24
-------
When quantitative data are insufficient, a default GAF is used. As noted by EPA (1989a), the
gastrointestinal absorption of many metals is limited, and 0.05 is a reasonable default for metals.
EPA (1989a) did not recommend a default value for organic chemicals. A compilation of data for
19 organic chemicals presented gastrointestinal absorption efficiencies ranging from 0.5 to 1.0
(Jones and Owen, 1989). All but three of these chemicals had absorption efficiencies of at least
0.9, indicating that organic chemicals are generally readily absorbed. The arithmetic average of
the absorption efficiencies for the 19 organic chemicals, 0.91368 (equivalent to 0.9 when rounded
to one significant figure), appears to be a reasonable default GAF for organic chemicals, and is
used when quantitative data are insufficient.
M.5 Risk Characterization
Risk characterization combines the results of the exposure assessment and toxicity assessment to
yield quantitative expressions of risk for each of the receptor scenario evaluated in the HHRA.
Quantitative estimates are developed for individual chemicals, exposure pathways, and exposure
media for each receptor. The results of the risk characterization are presented as quantitative
expressions of cancer risk and noncancer hazard. The risk characterization is used to guide risk
management decisions.
Generally, the risk characterization follows the methodology prescribed by the EPA (1989a), as
modified by more recent information and guidance cited in Section M. 1 of this document. The
EPA methods are, appropriately, designed to be health-protective, and tend to overestimate,
rather than underestimate, risk. Risk results are generally highly conservative, because risk
characterization involves multiplication of the conservatisms built into the estimation of source-
term and exposure-point concentrations, the exposure (intake) estimates, and the toxicity dose-
response assessments.
M.5.1 Risk Characterization Methodology
Although some chemicals induce both cancer and noncancer effects, the risks for each type of
effect are calculated separately for each receptor and each site. The COPC identified at Harmon
Substation in Table M-l may present carcinogenic risk and/or noncancer hazards to the receptors
discussed above.
M.5.1.1 Cancer Effects of Chemicals
The risk of exposure to potential chemical carcinogens is estimated as the probability of an
individual developing cancer over a lifetime. In the low-dose range, which would be expected for
J> TOSK2\HUMANvGUAM\GUAM2\SEC2 WFD, 07-27-99(2:56 pm)
M-25
-------
most environmental exposures, cancer risk is estimated from the following linear equation (EPA,
1989a):
ILCR = (CDT) (SF)
where.
ILCR = incremental lifetime cancer risk, a unitless expression of the probability of
developing cancer, adjusted for background incidence
CDI = chronic daily intake, averaged over 70 years (mg/kg-day)
SF = cancer slope factor (mg/kg-day)"1.
The use of the preceding equation assumes that chemical carcinogenesis does not exhibit a
threshold, and that the dose-response relationship is linear in the low dose range. Because this
equation could generate theoretical cancer risks greater than 1 for high dose levels, it is consid-
ered to be inaccurate at cancer risks greater than 1 x 10"2. In these cases, cancer risk is estimated
by the "one-hit model" (EPA, 1989a):
JLCR = l-e'{CDr}{SP>
where:
ILCR = incremental lifetime cancer risk, a unitless expression of the probability of
developing cancer, adjusted for background incidence
6-(cdixsf) _ ^ exponential 0f the negative of the risk calculated in the equation above
As a matter of policy, the EPA (1986) considers the carcinogenic potency of simultaneous
exposure to low doses of carcinogenic chemicals to be additive, regardless of the chemical's
mechanisms of toxicity or sites (organs of the body) of action. Cancer risk arising from simulta-
neous exposure by a given pathway to multiple chemicals is estimated from the equation (EPA,
1989a):
Riskp =ILCRich9nt j +ZLCR(c/)enC) + ...ILCR^cherrfj
where:
Riskp = total pathway risk of cancer incidence
ILCR(chemi) = individual chemical cancer risk.
P \R3SK2\HUMANiGUAMVQUAM2^EC2.WPD. 07-27-99(236 pra)
M-26
-------
Cancer risk for a given receptor across pathways and across media is summed in the same
manner.
The site-specific residential risk characterization for Harmon Substation was completed for the
selected COPCs, through first dividing the source-term concentration by the PRG (EPA, 1998),
and second multiplying the quotient by the target risk (10"*) for the appropriate COPC. Relying
on the Region EX residential PRG value and a target risk level of 10"* ensures the derivation of
highly conservative cancer and noncancer risk values for the combined child and adult resident.
These values will adequately protect either on- or off-site residents in the vicinity of Harmon
Substation.
M.5.1.2 Noncancer Effects of Chemicals
The hazards associated with the noncancer effects of chemicals are evaluated by comparing an
exposure level or intake with a RfD. The HQ, defined as the ratio of intake to RfD, is defined as
(EPA, 1989a):
HQ = HRfD
where:
HQ = hazard quotient (unitless)
I = intake of chemical (mg/kg-day)
RfD = reference dose (mg/kg-day).
This approach is different from the probabilistic approach used to evaluate cancer risks. An HQ
of 0.01 does not imply a 1 in 100 chance of an adverse effect, but indicates that the estimated
intake is 100 times lower than the RfD. An HQ of unity indicates that the estimated intake equals
the RfD. If the HQ is greater than unity, there may be concern for potential adverse health
effects.
In the case of simultaneous exposure of a receptor to several chemicals, an HI is calculated as the
sum of the HQs by (EPA, 1989a):
HI ~1^I RfD ^ +I2/RfD2 + .Ji/RJD,
where:
P:\RISK2\HOMANVJUAM>OTAM2\SEC2.WPD, 07-27-99(236 pro)
M-27
-------
HI = hazard index (unitless)
I, = intake for the ifc toxicant (mg/kg-day)
RfD, = reference dose for the i* toxicant (mg/kg-day).
If HI for a given pathway exceeds 1.0, individual HI values are calculated for each target organ
M.5.2 Risk Characterization Results
l
Cancer and noncancer risk from total soil at Harmon Substation was characterized separately for
the groundskeeper, trespasser, and resident receptor scenarios. Cancer risk is reported as an
incremental lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) value and noncancer risk is reported as a HI value. The
ILCR and HI are reported by receptor scenario for each COPC in Tables M-4 through M-6
Table M-7 provides a summary of total site ILCRs and His from Harmon Substation, for all the
potential risk characterized receptor in Tables M-4 through M-6..
M.S.2.1 Cancer Risk
Cancer risk from Harmon Substation, as it currently exists, is within acceptable risk limits for
AAFB. Total site ILCR for each of the three COPC selected for Harmon Substation are below
the recommended EPA target risk level of 1 x 10"4 for each of the receptors evaluated. The only
COPC that marginally approaches a point of interest is dioxin (WHO TEQ), for the resident
receptor scenario. The resident scenario has an ILCR of 3.63 x 10"6 for dioxin TEQ, and an ILCR
of 3.98 x 10-6 for the total site. The total site ILCR is 8.67 x 10-7 for the groundskeeper and
3.10 x 10-6 for the trespasser.
M.5.2.2 Noncancer Hazard
Noncancer hazard from Harmon Substation, as it currently exists, is within acceptable risk limits
for AAFB. The PCB Aroclor 1254 is the only COPC selected for Harmon Substation with
published hazard toxicity values. Total site HI for Aroclor 1254 is well below the AAFB target-
level HI of 1.0 for each of the receptor scenarios evaluated. Total site HI are 4.46 x 10-4 for the
groundskeeper, 5.16 x 10-5 for the trespasser, and 5.64 x 10-3 for the resident.
M.6 Uncertainty Evaluation
M.6.1 Uncertainty Terminology
Generally, risk assessments carry two types of uncertainty. Measurement uncertainty refers to the
usual variance that accompanies scientific measurements, e.g., instrument uncertainty (accuracy
and precision) associated with chemical concentrations. The results of the risk assessment reflect
P \RISK2\HUMA>TvGUAM\GUA}vQ\SEC2.WPD, 07-27-99(2 56 pm) M-28
-------
Table M-4
Groundskeeper Intake Doses and Risk Hazard Estimates for Exposure to Total Soil
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
(Page 1 of 2)
Inhalation of COPC
Source-Term Concentration in Dust from Total Soil
Concentration in Air Cancer Noncancer ILCR from HQ from
Chemical (mg/kg) (mg/m3) (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) Inhalation Inhalation
Dioxin
Dioxin TEQ 1.38E-05 1.38E-12 0.62E-14 2.69E-13 1.06E-08 NA
PAH
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.66E-CI2 1.66E-09 1.16E-10 3.25E-10 3.60E-10 NA
PCB
Aroclor 1254 5.47E-03 5.47E-10 3.83E-11 1.07E-10 7.65E-11 NA
Total Pathway ILCR and HI 1.10E-08 NA
Total ILCR and HI
COPC = Chemical of potential concern
TEQ = TCDD equivalent concentration for dioxins
PAH = Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyl
ILCR = Incremental lifetime cancer risk
HQ = Hazard quotient
HI = Hazard index
NA = Not applicable
P:MUik2\Hunum\Guam\R«vlUtovlDnfl\Tbral&3-7.]ds\M-4 pmftpVWW? (3.0J PMVDO
I
-------
>
Table M-4
Groundskeeper Intake Doses and Risk Hazard Estimates for Exposure to Total Soil
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
(Page 2 of 2)
Ingestion of COPC Dermally Absorbed
in Total Soil ILCR from HQ from Dose of COPC ILCR from HQ from
Cancer Noncancer Incidental Incidental Cancer Noncancer Dermal Dermal Sum ILCR SUM HI
(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) Ingestion Ingestion (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) Contact Contact
Chemical
Dioxln
Dloxin TEQ
PAH
Benzo(a)pyrene
PCB
Aroclor 1254
4.81E-12 1.35E-11 7.22E-07 NA 4.81E-13 1.35E-12 8.02E-08 NA 8.13E-07 NA
5.81E-09 1.63E-08 4.24E-08 NA 5.81E-10 1.63E-09 8.48E-09 NA 5.12E-08 NA
1.91E-09 5.36E-09 6.50E-10 2.68E-04 1.15E-09 3.21E-09 2.55E-09 1.79E-04 3.28E-09 4.48E-04
Total Pathway ILCR and HI
Total ILCR and HI
7.65E-07 2.68E-04
9.12E-08 1.79E-04
8.87E-07 4.46E-04
COPC = Chemical of potential co
TEQ = TCDD equivalent concentr
PAH = Polynuclear aromatic hydr
PCB = Polychlorinated blphenyl
ILCR = Incremental lifetime canc
HQ - Hazard quotient
HI = Hazard index
NA = Not applicable
P \ftakf \OuMn\Reyl\ReylDi*»Tl>nil*3-7 *»M-4 pnSkf\mi/99 (3 03 PMyDO
-------
Table M-5
Trespasser Intake Doses and Risk Hazard Estimates for Exposure to Total Soil
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
(Page 1 of 2)
Inhalation of COPC
Source-Term Concentration in Total Soil
Concentration in Air Cancer Noncancer ILCR from HQ from
Chemical (mg/kg) (mg/m3) (mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day) Inhalation Inhalation
Dloxln
Dio»n TEQ 1.38E-05 9.26E-15 3.34E-17 2.34E-16 3.68E-12 NA
PAH
Benzo(a)pyrene 1.66E-02 1.12E-11 4.03E-14 2.82E-13 1.25E-13 NA
PCB
Aroclor 1254 5.47E-03 3.68E-12 1.33E-14 9.30E-14 2.66E-14 NA
Total Pathway ILCR and HI 3.83E-12 NA
Total ILCR and HI
COPC = Chemical of potential concern
TEQ = TCDD equivalent concentration for dioxins
PAH = Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyf
ILCR = Incremental lifetime cancer risk
HQ = Hazard quotient
HI = Hazard index
NA = Not available
P.VUsK\Htim«!i\Gu«n!\RCTl \ftev 1 DrtflMtm I TnptMfflW (3 03 PM)/DO
-------
Table M-5
Trespasser Intake Doses and Risk Hazard Estimates for Exposure to Total Soil
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
(Page 2 of 2)
Ingestion of COPC
Dermally Absorbed
in Total Soil
ILCR from
HQ from
Oose of COPC
ILCR from
HQ from
Cancer
Noncancer
Incidental
Incidental
Cancer
Noncancer
Dermal
Dermal
Sum ILCR
SUM HI
Chemical
(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)
Ingestion
Ingestion
(mg/kg-day) (mg/kg-day)
Contact
Contact
Dloxln
Dioxin TEQ
1.56E-13
1.09E-12
2.34E-08
NA
3.23E-14
2.26E-13
5.38E-09
NA
2.87E-08
NA
PAH
Benzo(a)pyrene
1.88E-10
1.31E-09
1.37E-09
NA
3.89E-11
2.72E-10
5.68E-10
NA
1.94E-09
NA
PCB
Aroclor 1254
6.19E-11
4.33E-10
1.24E-10
2.17E-05
7.70E-11
5.39E-10
1.71E-10
2.99E-05
2.95E-10
8.16E-05
Total Pathway ILCR and HI
2.48E-08
2.17E-05
6.12E-09
2.99E-05
Total ILCR and HI
3.10E-08
S.16E-05
COPC = Chemical of potential con
TEQ * TCDD equivalent concentrat
PAH = Polynuclear aroma tic hydro
PCB a Polychlorinated biphenyl
ILCR = Incremental lifetime cancer
HQ = Hazard quotient
HI = Hazard index
NA = Not available
Pmk2\HwmnVO»nARev l\Rev I Dr*fl\Tbm 1 U-7jdi\M-5 Tnf«nVM7/W (3 03 PMVDO
-------
Table M-6
Residential Intake Doses and Risk Hazard Estimates for Exposure to Total Soil
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
EPA Region 9
Source-Term
Residential Soil PRG
Concentration
Residential
Chemical
pg/kg
MQ/kg
ILCR
HI
Dioxin
Dioxin TEQ
3.8QE-03
1.38E-02
3.63E-08
NA
PAH
Benzo(a)pyrene
5.60E+01
1.66E+01
2.96E-07
NA
PCB
Aroclor 1254
9.70E+01
5.47E+00
5.64E-08
5.64E-03
TOTAL
8
3.98E-Q6
5.64E-03
PRG = Preliminary remediation goal
TEQ = TCDD equivalent concentration for dioxins
PAH = Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PCS = Polychlorinated biphenyl
ILCR = Incremental lifetime cancer risk
HI = Hazard index
NA = Not available
P:\Rltk2\Human\Ooam\Rev1Wev10ram\Tbm1A3-7 Jd«^ R«s\7/27/99 (3:04 PM)/DO
i
-------
>
Table M-7
Summary of Risks and Hazards from Total Soil
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
Total Site
Total Sile
Receptor
ILCR
HI
Groundskeeper
8.67E-07
4.46E-04
Trespasser
3.10E-08
5.16E-05
Resident
3.98E-06
5.64E-03
ILCR * Incremental lifetime cancer risk
HI = Hazard! index
oi.m ,w, m iBnui fhmK mmai " 99 (3s "DO, ¦, " >' ; 1 » >
-------
the accumulated variances of the individual measured values used to develop it. A different kind
of uncertainty, called informational uncertainty, stems from data gaps, i.e., the fact that additional
information is needed to complete the database for the assessment. Often the data gap is
significant, such as the absence of information on the effects of human exposure to a chemical or
on the biological mechanism of action of an agent (EPA, 1992c).
Reliance on a simplified numerical presentation of dose and risk without consideration of
uncertainties, limitations, and assumptions inherent in the assessment process can be misleading.
For example, a lifetime cancer risk of 10** may be calculated for a given exposure scenario.
However, if the uncertainty in this estimate is several orders of magnitude, the real risk may be
higher than the risk from another scenario that has a calculated lifetime risk of cancer of 10'5 but a
smaller degree of uncertainty.
Alternatively, a lifetime cancer risk of 10"2 may be calculated and appear to represent an unaccep-
table risk. The actual risk, however, may be one, two, or even three orders of magnitude smaller.
Situations like this occur frequently, because the estimated risk reflects conservative assumptions
on lifestyles and land-use scenarios, maximum or near-maximum values for almost all modeling
and exposure variables, limited information and uncertainty in the calculational parameters, and
conservative assumptions in the toxicity value derivations.
M.6.2 Sources of Uncertainty
As noted previously, uncertainties are associated with the information and data used in each phase
of the HHRA. Uncertainties associated with information and data are evaluated in this section to
provide a sound, balanced basis for evaluating the overall quality of the risk assessment results.
Sources of uncertainty, as well as the direction of bias that results (i.e., whether conservatism is
increased or decreased) are presented in the following sections.
M.6.2.1 Selection and Quantification of COPC
Uncertainty associated with the selection process used to determine the COPC and estimation of
source-term concentrations arises from the following:
• Estimated source-term concentrations are uncertain. For statistical purposes, if a
chemical is positively identified at a site and has at least a single positive hit, all the
samples with nondetects are assumed to have a value equal to half the detection
limit and are included in the data set. These procedures introduce a conservative
bias into the risk assessment.
P:\RISK2\HUMAN\GUAM\GUAM2\SEC2 WPD, 07-27-99(2:56 pm)
M-29
-------
• Soil in the area is heterogeneous in nature. The direction of bias is unclear.
• Limited number of samples results in the calculation of wide confidence intervals on
the mean concentration and high source-term concentrations. Where the 95 percent
UCL exceeded the maximum value, the maximum value was chosen as the source-
term. The use of elevated confidence limits imparts a conservative bias upon the
risk assessment.
• Laboratory analytical techniques have a degree of uncertainty associated with them.
These uncertainties are documented by using data qualifiers to reflect the degree of
certainty of measurement. The direction of bias is unclear.
• UCLs are used for source-term concentrations according to EPA (1989a). This
means that 95 percent of the time, the actual mean concentration can be less than the
value used in the exposure assessment. Conversely, 5 percent of the time, the actual
mean concentration can be greater than the value used in the exposure assessment.
Therefore, the exposure assessment may underestimate the exposures in 5 percent of
the cases, and overestimate exposures 95 percent of the time, imparting an overall
conservative bias to the risk assessment.
M.6.2.2 Estimation of Modeled Exposure Point Concentrations
Uncertainty associated with the modeled exposure point concentrations arises from calculating air
concentrations. Uncertainty is introduced in the form of a dust-loading factor that converts
chemical concentrations in soil to concentrations in air. In general, fate and transport modeling
imparts a conservative bias upon the risk assessment.
M.6.2.3 Selection of Hypothetical Receptors and Potential Exposure Pathways
Generally, the hypothetical receptors and exposure pathways are chosen to "cover" the most
highly exposed individual or subpopulation, introducing a conservative bias to the risk results.
M.6.2.4 Quantification of Intakes
Ingestion rates, inhalation rates, exposure durations, and exposure frequencies are based on
upperbound values (EPA, 1991b), even though it is well established that serial multiplication of
ultraconservative variable values lead to gross overestimation of chemical intakes.
M.6.2.5 Toxicity Assessment
Considerable uncertainty is associated with the qualitative (hazard assessment) and quantitative
(dose-response) evaluations of a toxicity assessment. Hazard assessment of carcinogenicity is
evaluated as a weight-of-evidence determination (EPA, 1986). Positive animal cancer test data
P \RJSK2,0HUMAN\GUAMvGUAM2\SEC2WPD. 07-27-99(2:56 pm)
M-30
-------
suggest that humans also contain tissue(s) that may manifest a carcinogenic response; however,
the animal data cannot necessarily be used to predict the target tissue in humans. In the hazard
assessment of noncancer effects, however, positive animal data suggest the nature of the effects
(i.e., the target tissues and type of effects) anticipated in humans (EPA, 1989b).
Uncertainty in hazard assessment arises from the nature and quality (sensitivity and selectivity) of
the animal and human data. Uncertainty is decreased when similar effects are observed across
species, strain, sex, and exposure route; when the magnitude of the response is clearly dose-
related; when pharmacokinetic data indicate a similar fate in animals and humans; when postulated
mechanisms of toxicity are similar for humans and animals; and when the COPC is structurally
similar to other chemicals for which the toxicity is more completely characterized.
There are many sources of uncertainty in the dose-response evaluation for cancer (i.e., com-
putation of a slope factor or unit risk) and noncancer effects (i.e., computation of an RfD). First
is the uncertainty regarding interspecies (animal-to-human) extrapolation, which, in the absence of
quantitative pharmacokinetic, dosimetric, or mechanistic data, is usually based on consideration of
interspecies differences in basal metabolic rate. Second is the uncertainty regarding intraspecies,
or individual, variation. Most toxicity experiments are performed with animals that are very
similar in age and genotype, so that intragroup biological variation is minimal, but the human
population of concern may reflect wide heterogeneity, including unusual sensitivity to the COPC.
Even toxicity data from human groundskeeper exposure reflect a bias because only those
individuals sufficiently healthy to attend work regularly and those not unusually sensitive to the
COPC are likely to be occupationally exposed. Third, uncertainty arises from the quality of the
key study (from which the quantitative estimate is derived) and the database. For cancer effects,
the uncertainty associated with some quality factors (e.g., group size) is expressed within the 95
percent upper bound of the SF. For noncancer effects, additional uncertainty factors may be
applied in the derivation of the RfD to reflect poor quality of the key study or gaps in the
database.
Another source of uncertainty regarding quantitative risk estimation for carcinogenicity is the
method by which data from high doses in animal studies are extrapolated to the dose range
expected for environmentally exposed humans. The linearized multi-stage model, which is used in
nearly all quantitative estimations of human cancer risk from animal data, is based on a non-
threshold assumption of carcinogenesis. An impressive body of evidence, however, suggests that
epigenetic carcinogens, as well as many genotoxic carcinogens, have a threshold below which
P \R]SK2\HUMAN\GUAM\GUAM2\SECZWPD, 07-27-99(2:56 pm)
M-31
-------
they are noncarcinogenic (EPA, 1996b); therefore, the use of the linearized multi-stage model is
ultraconservative for chemicals that exhibit a threshold for carcinogenicity.
A further source of uncertainty for noncancer effects arises from use of an effect level in the
estimation of an RfD or RfC, because this estimation is predicated on the assumption of a
threshold below which adverse effects are not expected. Therefore, an additional uncertainty
factor is usually applied to estimate a no-effect level. Additional uncertainty arises from estima-
tion of an RfD for chronic exposure from less-than-chronic data. Unless empirical data indicate
that effects do not worsen with increasing duration of exposure, an additional uncertainty factor is
applied to the no-effect level in the less than chronic study. Uncertainty also arises from the
presence of chemicals (e.g., lead) for which there are no EPA-approved toxicity values, and for
which quantitative risk characterization is not possible. In this case, however, lead concentrations
in soil are clearly below those that might be associated with adverse effects (EPA, 1994c).
M.6.2.6 Risk Characterization
Risk characterization is the process of quantifying the risk of cancer due to exposure to carcino-
gens. Following EPA (1989a) guidelines, this assessment uses the one-hit model to estimate risk.
However, there is uncertainty associated with the one-hit model, and with other risk models,
because most studies of carcinogenic effects provide limited dose-response information for risk
estimation (ICRP, 1990).
This effort to identify potential uncertainties associated with each step of the risk assessment is
not intended to discredit the calculated results, but to point out that risks are calculated for
hypothetical receptors under a definite, strict method. Refinements of sampling plans, analytical
techniques, data statistical evaluation, exposure assessment models and parameters, hazard
evaluation, dose-response assessment, and risk characterization could reduce these uncertainties.
M.S.3 Site Specific Uncertainty
Additional uncertainty exists that is related to site-specific variables and factors. Typically, there is
statistical uncertainty associated with smaller numbers of samples. In general, where the number
of samples is less than approximately 30, statistical confidence will be low, and complimentary
uncertainty will be relatively high. In this HHRA uncertainty related to sample size is minimal due
to the relatively large number of samples (n = apprximately 80) collected and analyzed for this
relatively small (9 acre) IRP Site. Uncertainty may also result from data gaps associated with
horizontal or vertical gaps in the spatial distribution of sample locations. Again, sampling of the
P:\RISK2VHUMANVC5UAM\GUAM2\SECZWED, 07-27-99(2:56 pen) M-32
-------
Harmon Substation IRP was extensive and thorough (see Sections 2 and 3, above). Thus
uncertainty associated with spatial sampling data gaps should be minimal.
Potentially significant uncertainty could exist with respect to potential future hunting and game
meat consumption associated with AAFB IRP sites. At present it is believed that hunting of wild
pigs and deer does not take place at Harmon Substation, however the more significant question is;
what contribution will COPC in soil at Harmon Substation make to tissue in deer and wild pig
across AAFB? And, how much of that game meat will eventually be ingested by humans? More
extensive tissue sampling and modeling would be needed to answer these questions with certainty
Of particular concern is the potential for biotransfer of dioxin and PCB to humans, from pig tissue
uptake associated with pig rooting activities at the site. However, at Harmon Substation, it is
reasonable to assume that additional modeling will not reveal significant additional risk, because
the source term concentrations for PCB and dioxin and associated risk to human health from
Harmon Substation are relatively low (see Tables M-l and M-4 through M7), and the site is
relatively small.
Another potential site-specific source of uncertainty that may have impacted the characterization
of risk from Harmon Substation, relates to the movement of site soils following the completion of
sampling activities at the site. In general, post-remedial (and post-sampling) backfilling opera-
tions at the site should have helped to reduce risk from site soil through making what little
contamination there is at Harmon Substation even less accessible than it was prior to backfilling
operations. However, there is a very slight chance that backfilling activities could have brought
additional contaminated soil to the surface. This would have increased potential for human
exposure to COPC at the site.
In conclusion, site-specific uncertainty at Harmon Substation appears to be within reasonable
limits. This conclusion is supported by the relatively low concentrations of COPC in soil
remaining at the site, and associated relatively low human health risk levels demonstrated in Table
M-7.
M.7 Summary of the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
A HHRA was performed following the methodology of EPA (1989a) and subsequent EPA
(Region IX) guidance (EPA, 1998). Risk from Harmon Substation was characterized for three
hypothetical receptors; a groundskeeper, a trespasser, and a resident. Each of these receptors was
P \RISK2\HUMANV3UAM«JUAM2\SEC2.WPD. 07-27-99(2 56 pm)
M-33
-------
theoretically exposed to total soil at Harmon Substation. According to the results of this HHRA,
both total site ILCR and total site HI for Harmon Substation are within acceptable risk limits.
M.8 References
Andersen Air Force Base (AAFB), 1997, Final Basewide Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP), October.
Gilbert, R O., 1987, Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring, Van
Nor strand, New York, New York.
ICF Kaiser, Inc., 1999, Final Environmental Engineering/Cost Analysis Report, 1RP Site
16/LandfiU 21, May.
International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP), 1990,1990 Recommendations of
the International Commission for Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 60.
Jones, TD. and BA Owen, 1989, Health Risks from Mixtures of Radionuclides and Chemicals
in Drinking Water, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, ORNL-6533.
Land, C. E., 1975, "Tables of Confidence Limits for Linear Functions of the Normal Mean and
Variance," in Selected Tables in Mathematical Statistics, Vol. IE, American Mathematical
Society, Providence, Rhode Island.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), 1984, Radiological
Assessment: Predicting the Transport, Bioaccumulation, and Uptake by Man of Radionu-
clides Released to the Environment, NCRP Report No. 76.
Statsoft, Inc., 1995 STATISTICA ™for Windows, Computer Program Manual, Tulsa,
Oklahoma.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 1989, A Manual for Implementing Residual Radioactive
Material Guidelines, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, ANL/ES-160, DOE-
/CH/8901.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1999, Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS), National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH, on line.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1998, Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals
(PRGs) 1998, online, http://www.epa.gov/region 09/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1997, Health Effects Assessment Summary
Tables, FY 1997 Update, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC,
9200.6-303(97-1), EPA 540/R-97-036, PB97-921199.
P VRISK2\HUMAN\GUAM\GUAM2VSEC2.WPD. 07-27-99(2:56 pro)
M-34
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1996a, Soil Screening Guidance: Technical
Background Document, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/540/R-95/128,
NTIS No. PB96-963502.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1996b, Soil Screening Guidance: Users Guide,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, Publication 9355.4-23, April.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1995, Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region
4 Bulletins, Human Health Risk Assessment (Interim), Waste Management Division, Office of
Health Assessment, EPA Region 4, Atlanta, GA, November.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1994a, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Update II, SW-846, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1994b, Contract Laboratory Program National
Functional Guidelines for Inorganic and Organic Data Review, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1994c, Guidance on Residential Lead-Based
Paint, Lead-Contaminated Dust, and Lead-Contaminated Soil, Memorandum from L. R.
Goldman, Assistant Administrator, to EPA Regional Directors, July 14, 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1992a, Supplemental Guidance to RAGS:
Calculating the Concentration Term, Interim Final, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, DC, Publication 9285.7-081.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1992b, Dermal Exposure Assessment: Princi-
ples and Applications, Interim Report, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/8-91/01 IB, including Supplemental Guidance August 18, 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1992c, Guidance on Risk Characterization for
Risk Managers and Risk Assessors, Memorandum from F. Henry Habicht II, Deputy Adminis-
trator, to Assistant Administrators, Regional Administrators, February 26.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1992d, Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles
and Applications, Interim Report, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/8-91/01 IB, January.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1991a, Risk Assessment Guidance for Super-
fund: Volume I —Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based
Preliminary Remediation Goals), Including Revisions to Chapter 4 (November 1992), and
Appendix D: Corrections to RAGS-Part BSections 3.3.1 and3.3.2 (April 1993), Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. Publication 9285.7-0IB.
P.\R1SK2\HUMANV3UAMVGUAM2«EC2 WTO. 07-27-90(2 36 pm)
M-35
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1991b, Risk Assessment Guidance for Super-
fund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance Standard
Default Exposure Factors,' Interim Final, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
OSWER Directive: 9285.6-03.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1990, Exposure Factors Handbook, Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, EPA/600/8-89/043.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1989a, Risk Assessment Guidance for Super-
fund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part a), Interim Final, Office of Emer-
gency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, EPA/540/1-89/002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1989b, General Quantitative Risk Assessment
Guidelines for Noncancer Health Effects, Prepared by the Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment, Cincinnati, Ohio for the Risk Assessment Forum, ECRAO-CIN-538.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1986, "Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assess-
ment", Federal Register, 51(185): 33992-34003.
P MUSK2\HUMANVGUAM\GUAM2\SECZWPD. 07-27-99(2.56 pm)
M-36
-------
Appendix M: Attachment 1
Data Used to Complete Confirmation HHRA
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
-------
Dat» Used la Cwnplato CtKiSNiwlInn HHRA
RtP Sfta 39/Httmmi SubkiMfcn
Aridersan Aw F<*ce Rosa, Gu&m
ff'tflO I of S3»
AMKTEZt
RESULT QUALIFIER
unit
AKALYSfS
LOCATION
IA.WLE fit'MilER
DEPTH RAN9E
SAIWUE DATE
WM TEQ
0.00192
~toxin*
01OXIN-153
A533S153
0,00
D.33
m orai
TEa
0-61496
UoYbH!
010XIN-1S4
*8396164
0,08
0,33
m*m
(IS TEQ
1,4171
(Movln*
0)0X1^156
4839B*bS
cm
033
7ttW$
SINTEQ
O.C1415
»*¦
Hoxhw
CTdXIN 1&e
ASftSeWft
HM
0.13
mm*
(IN TM
amss
Dtoilr*
0HJJCIM.1E3
AS 39S TBI
am
0.33
7 mm
tlN TW
Q.00753
t>afc4
Piajifim
W0XIN.2P0
A8WGJOO
am
0,33
et*m
CIN TEQ
0.01146
Dimclm
noxirttoi
Anjssi&i
OB
a, &s
Qf4iBb
«H TEQ
o.own
wflfn
Dfcmta*
DK3KlM-7f\7
*3385701
D^oe
033
AK/ASl
N tea
Q.00»12
pafltu
Dta*™
wo maw
ASMSZD3
OjOD
0,33
mm
iin Ten
a.oi7i*
PtaRhn
DWWN204
A S365204
OJfffl
0.33
a.ob
a. 33
RMWB
VIM TEQ
o.otetia
Krodni
DIOXIN-ZOi
A&3«S10«
0,00
0.33
wfma
mi£Q
0.0007 H
1Unfits
Wotdnu
0lOX(N20a
AS3682M
0.08
OM
mm
014 "Ha
O.OD&BI
Uoxms
OJOKtN 210
AS3B8210
<1-08
(1,33
nfjfm
tlNTEO
OtMkiB
DIOXIK 211
AB3ft331t
O.OR
0.33
mm
281*8
KIN TEQ
0J9O9G
DioxInB
DIOKIM-24112
10
m
aninfljs
x« lEa
0,15051
P0*B
Ufaxltii
Mcn-asa
MA
NA
iimrae
kin lea
0.0083
JWftlJ
Wojtlni
M0A-M4
AS3SS3t4
NA
m
itjs/w
WT60
0,020?
mH
Pwtfm
DKJXiM-we
AB3BS4SM
0-6
OS
M7£Q
O.OOfB
W&Q
DJftwll
DIOXJIMQ?
A3393^07
1,5
u
1 mm
XIN TEQ
0,0353
Dif»lm
DrO*iH40i
AA3SS409
0 6
o.s
i mm*
KIN TEQ
O.0S22
w*«
Dfoxhn
tMOXW-409
A33BSIOA
1.B
1.5
i mm
j
-------
Data Used to Complete Conflnnntkm HMRA
IRP Sir# JllHurnicin Subiratinri
Anctarft«n Air fnrcfl BkM, Guam
(Tsflfi Z #1 i3]
lRAMEJER
RESULT 9UAUFIER
TOW
ANALVSlST
LOCATION
SjlMFtE^UMUKJi
DEFTH HAIIOE
KAMPlf DATE
-ad
IB
1.4 y
PaMteldiJ
OWS-141
AS39B141
NA
NA
7tm 0
4'.DDD
\t.sae«
7
7
9/2.M
4M1DO
T4 V
j>0W
OWS-20?
AH33S7(I7
NA
ha *
mm
4'-000
13 1/
Faatfckfea
OWS-269
AS39S2.ira
NA
NA
4'OOD
«.«B
Peitleldcni
owe 271
AS39#2?t
NA
m
9/i.m
*^oro
14 LI
VQikU
Pa«lfcNiJ«6
OliVS-372
A3393372
m
NA
mum
p,pbL3v<«..nHkiMi'a4, iip m ifc- o*», tmm. wo pm
-------
Duta Dead to OompliiB Cqaifrnnatlm HHRA
IRP Site 39iHvffiwn SubilBtlon
Andersart Air Farci Base, Guam
(Pi*» 3*f53t
4METJW
RESULT OUALIPIEK
UNIT
ANALYSIS
LOCATION
SAMPLE NUMBER
MPTH RAKOI
SAMPLE DATE
•DOD
13,5
CIVSJ75
ASS&S27B
3
3
O/J/93
DD&
u y
0
faatloMm
CiWS-291
Asaeezsi
Ma
NA
aflw
•ODD
AM J
*Oi*B
OW3-i91
AMtSisa
ma
NA
6/2/SW
'ODD
ta ? j
FaatlcM«i
owa-lin
AMftSta?
7.17
7,33
&/2i'»a
DDD
1,7 M
P«itlcii|#»
OVV3-337
A333Q3J7
tiA
NA
I0/BW8
DDO
s,a u
rtlAtf
l%rtteW#t
owe 43®
A0MS338
NA
fCW88
¦ODD
1,3 U
mrtm
Fkvilddu
AS39S33Q
a
6
10/S/9S
ooo
1Q.»
HCJ/fcff
fvrftoklai
OV¥W40
AS396540
7
7
lQff/9V
•ODD
10,7
*0*i
owa-9*i
JVS3ft8a41
7
1
10^/96
-ODD
1-* U
PhKtJci4*i
OW9-342
AS3AS3M2
11
11
l0/5««
OT©
6,67
0gAff
f»rt(ckl«i
OWs-34-3
A538S343
a
8
icwe^i
DDD
11.P
Pa-rllc khc
owa 344
Ad3BS344
A
0
lO/CMB
HDD
#,06
«g*«
piiftHOkkH
DWS-34G
AB38B34B
s
9
10re/BB
-COf?
IB.(
t
J»»rt«ckl«i
MEA^MB
A3399416
Ha
m
1W1B/tS
¦OOD
i.«J
PfcrtteU.*
Mca-*ib
AS3HS41B
Kk
HA
1i/1WiB
-DOD
17.3
HI**
Ra«toW»t
MGA4.IJ
*83811417
HA
NA
I^IBOT
-non
10.1
mm
PBttlcUas
MCie
M39941i
HA
MA
12115ns
DDD
t.« u
W'N
pBKrtfctlJft*
MCA-413
AE39S419
&
7
12|1 S^BB
DDD
1,4 U
PV&0
PMloidtav
MCA-42Q
9
7
tran
1.4 U
RenrtfcWra
MCA414
AB38&421
n
7
1SF/15/98
ODD
1A U
mfce
MCA-«a
AS3»3423
m,
MA
JJ/21/9#
0130
7.15
i%atidld>i
MCAJM
A339S424
NA
NA
u/n/»a
'4JOO
379
M*0
psitteWf*
MCA425
ASJ9542i
TJA
NA
1 mi/98
'-ODC1
1.S U
M^S
MCA&se
Asawsee
n
1«
*mm
'-ODD
i.b g
pqlk f
FMtlnlriH
MCA-870
1#
14
'-ODE
1.11 J
P*rtcWt»
owa-iii
AS35S14f
NA
NA
7»m9
¦-C06
371
PimfcAjfl's
PW8-W2
A«dasf42
l#A
NA
mm
-DOE
IBS
cafea
OWB2E9
7
7
j,7/»a
'-DDE
MI
RirticHM
DW£.?{W
AiiaBSJflO
7
7
B/1/9B
'-DC*
»84
wufcfl
OWS29I
ASSBSli)
1
7
mm
"-0W
1330
0W3-294
AS39SM4
7
7
sfim
"-OIJF
gsd
OWS-tflfl
7
1
mt»8
"-tltJE
m
j«*b
PntlslMv
0WS-2B7
A9W9247
NA
NA
mtw
DOE
td60
Haiku
tatfckfe*
0WS-2S9
A99992Qd
Nfc
N*
9{W%
-W)£
t«?Mq
P*iUcMr
OWS271
A339B271
f*A
KA
mm
DOE
fS0
«e*g
Psftteldeti
OWS-272
mmnn
m
MA
afzjBS
"¦DDI
B93
fVtctfetdoS
A3309}7B
a
3
9/Z^B
'-DUE
1.99 J
Fiaihslrfm
DW&-?B 1
Asatsaai
NA
NA
%mw
'001
Wl^a
PwHtrtctef
0W8-Z«Z
ASM 8282
NA
NA
%f7}3%
-006
224
tfUfV#
PtntkUM
0W6-1J3
A839&287
7.17
7.33
mm
'-ODE
1.6 J
R»ltieW»«
d W-A3T
AsaiWM
HA
NA
mum
'•OOi
85.1
ntRkMn#
OWR.330
AE^ifeJW
MA
NA
mnm
'-COG
13,2
m*-v
PnllcWn
OWS-33S
A539S33S
tf
a
wmm
¦-UD€
1M
PMgldda*
OV*S-340
AS39S340
t
7
%omm
-DDE
53,1
w**
ftMtfclrfH
OWE-341
AS396M1
7
7
\om,ma
'-DOE
3,7
«H«fl
Phtrtkidfl.
DVVS-342
A3S9S342
11
11
luwm
j
-------
Oetn Usbt3E
flt
MI*S
PcnUaliles
0W5-34R
ftfM9334f5
9
e
io/5/og
¦>A'-om
31.0
pMtHrfl*
mcAA i e
AS39S41S
Mk
f|A
l,4'-DDi
21.5
PMItClM*
MCA-41«
AfW0S419
m.
NA
1JjlRiifi
i,4"0CE
4
'.~¦.DOT
1.4 U
wAfl
ftailfcldH
CWS-141
*S9#S141
MA
NA
-fww
',4*-0DT
Ml
jwflw
PhhIcWm
0WS-»4i
AS3dSl42
MA
NA
imm
,4* DOT
234
0W«-25i
ASW3ZS9
?
1
SfflSB
4-DDT
BUS
M&Q
FMftckJai
ov«-s«o
A990S2OT
tan
PnittirM**
ow»-jatlclttoB
0Wfir343
n
f
io/5/aa
.*'•001
?6.4
mfiv
OWS-344
A53M.JJ4
9
3
1D<5/Ua
A'DPT
40 1
mjAiJ
P»ilteW«i
ciwst-346
A»3f8346
0
H
tn/s/it
A' -DOT
15.2
jjflAa
P*tMcld*«
MCA-416
AS39B411
m
NA
TZ'IBfM
,4" DDT
Id.B
jm/to
f*WtekjM
MCA-41A
AS5M54ia
MA
NA
«/18»9
A' dor
3CJ®
taitlcM*)
MdA 4 if
A83S54t?
NA
MA
12/1S/M
A' -nor
32,*
FWil'icldei
MCA-Utt
AS3iS41i
MA
NA •
f2/1G/M
4-OOT
1.7 0
Piitlctdii
MCA-419
AS3BS41B
i
J
12JTEj9f)
-toot
1.3 U
hp*itcM*(
MCMIO
ASa#34JD
A
7
1MB#W
f-Ot)T
4,29
PaattaMtai
MCA-419
AS33S4J1
7
]Mnn(qUiHtiiWHiK(UkH«^i( «lf M ft<» Ml, HDAB. J:
I
-------
Dale tjspd to Cnrtifjletc Conffrmfltitirt HHftA
1W Sllfl 3^/Hafmon St^tmJon
Anderson A If Fufc* »9!», Qtwi
fPags B til 131
smTm
HIStXT WAItFlffi
OTTI
¦AAW-YStt
LOCATION
SAMTtS raUBRR
06PTM RAHOf
WWtf will
XJf
201
#**»
FSi-itlcldei
MCA4>:J
AaaaS'tja
NA
HA
12/21/aa
3DT
sae
wrtffl
PiJMCHM
MCA424
AS3SS4^4
HA
m
1?,'21,<9B
DDT
29.9
«"T*n
0.21 u
mfci
hitkMx
DWS-M3
AK3BS3CI
9
p
10OPQ
Fin
0.28 u
xtft?
Pwtlold#*
0W8-M4.
ASaaS344
0
ft
IDfSTBB
¦rfci
0,29 U
Wkfl
PntiaJdH
CJWS^IB
9
ft
IIWB/ftt
?ln
0.33 U
Ptoitkjdi!*
MCA-*lfi
AK3SS41B
NA
NA
12*1B«U
rln
0,Z# U
f%rifcW«i
MCA-41B
AS39S41S
NA
NA
Tl/TS/90
lEfl
0,3 u
Mb I
PHlfaMta
MC*417
A53&8417
NA
MA
Wimn
rln
0.3? u
PotrUcMa*
MCA 419
AflflM41B
NA
NA
12/1 was
Tfei
OAS U
hitJcldaa
MCI419
AS3I5419
B
*
12/1WBB
rNll
DJ2 U
«|A«
teBtfeW»i
MC*4W
AS3QS4ZQ
e
7
14/1 SAW:
i*1n
ojs y
pa*o
nnftfeUsc
MCA 418
ASSd&iJI
s
7
(2/1S/ftfl
^rfcr*
ass u
MCA-111
AS3»S42a
UA
NA
urtijaa
Mn
D-2B U
PesikHmi
MCA-424
AS 355 42 4
MA
NA
U/21/S6
Wrt
OJHi U
Wff«
AICA4JS
A59W425
NA
NA
t2/%1/09
Ir^n
0,31 U
rata
F%atjc.(da>
A9Afi6fl0
ia
Ifl
4/1 $/S9
'rln
0,3 f U
Ml/fcg
WCA-570
AS9312S79
ie
19
4/13/99
Hmdrnm
0,zv y
PB^I
fettteWtM
0W3-1#1
ASMS 141
NA
Ha
jmim
¦hfrCHmkM
3.9 LJ
Jtf/kp
OWS-143
AflAS514}
MA
MA ¦
item
-'Nt-CHon^m
19,*
mfoa
Pfciticftf»S
ABSdS2S9
7
7
dfl&V
*»€Nanfain»
It A J
OWS-ZdD
A53US20O
T
?
itoCMonlint
3.0 U
Wf#
owewi
AS39fi2«l
J
1
sum
«¦«»¦ MM! J.i.u n|
-------
Data U««/Bb
ipte-ChlonlNi*
1.4 U
OWS-3J8
^S»a33Q
HA
MA
I|j1m Chlarchn*
0 39 U
hftleUd
QViS^I3A
Asossaasi
0
a
1 mm
Ipha-ChfcKiwt#
t.m
wwfca
RSrtlUfcl#*
[1MIS-340
AS9SS34D
7
i
WW
Ipha-Gtfwitaw
2,ft
rt**aa
ftattcfctoa
OVIS-341
A3a9S34t
T
7
io©fua
fyht-Chltniarw
5.30
o
PaitlcMflo
owaoAi
A33SBM1
11
ii
TO.nsmi
lj*»-Cli tartan*
1,?* J
OWitMd
ASM 6343
g
§
twm
IptiB-ChkirdiiPM1
0.39 IP
fVHRicU««
OVIS-344
AS3S3344
n
s
tmm
iphMJfcfmtfm*
0.38 1/
OW8-3WS
AK?8P3*S
t
8
\ommm
OA* U
Fwtteldet
MCA-415
A838S41S
ma
NA
IMBfM
¦phi-Cfefarfana
oat U
MCA 416
AS38S410
MA
NA
nmm
"plM-CAfMam
OJ» u
09*9
PdRlfeJllflS
MCAr417
A6.19&H7
HA
NA
13/tSfflfl
ipht-C(itert«w
0.42 U
hillttlci
MCAJta
AS3BS41S
MA
MA
iphl-Ghhidana
tt.4SIJ
fVretioHfls
MC^4t9
A&3DS41Q
•
7
12i1B?9B
iphc-CMMunt
C42 U
AgfltB
FurtfCfbJfl*
MCA-420
AK3AS420
6
7
12/IEiW
ipha-CMtwdni#
tL49tll
flwtfciclaa
MCA41i
AS39S421
n
7
12mm
ipha-CUhmtM*
asr u
AplcB
PaaWcWa*
WICA4M
AS39S423
m
m
\2fi\m
0 3T u
MCA 444
AS3SS4J4
m
m
1MW*
ph^GMwififw
a.m ii
RwrteJdw
MCA-43S
A339S42S
HA
NA
12/21/iH
ph*4jMB«tan
0.41 u
#bAb
PbiMcWq*
MCA-B68
AB39S6BB
18
n
*mm
Via4)Mmjgna
0 <2 *J
Piwitolchpif
MCA-eTO
A«1»Sir7ft
trf
jfl
4-ti am »
oHw-BIIC
0,48 U
FwtJcW"*
OWS-W1
A3306141
NA
KA
7/5(31
ilta-iHC
*3 y
Paatklilsi
OWS-142
A539814Z
MA
NA
mm
»H»-BHC
4.1 U
WAff
F^WtlcftfW
AS3»S?Sy
7
7
»{2tm
llllrWC
8.1 U
W0*llT
FWloidft*
owa-son
A!9388ZQd
7
7
9/2im
4irBMC
4 U
OW5-3B1
Assesiat
7
1
mm
0.4 U
W/lfff
F^atfcWaw
QW-2M
ASWZ04
1
1
8/H9B
U-i2 U
FmlcWvs
ows-iefl
A93SS2«a
7
7
f/2/lD
gftt-BHC
*~2 U
OWMB7
AS3SE297
NA
m
S/ZJWS
sfctiHC
4 y
aaM
ftoMlefcfat
Dws-a«0
AS39B289
HA
m
aftn-IHC
M2 U
imum
Pftatkteaa
OWS271
A&aiBzn
m
m
mm
4.4 0
m fH
Ptatlfittai
OWS 2?l
Asaaaart
m
HA
mm
0.46 li
PitfoS
J^HffcWdi
OWS 2?s
A5JBS27S
,i
a -
»n*aHc
fl.M U
mtei
PfcBifcWaa
om !6i
AS3MZ8T
NA
NA
mm
iltt-fiHC
a.43 u
eaten
P»«tkSd«»
owri !9J
AS.1A32J5?
ha
NA
mmi
•Sta-iHG
2-1 U
Rtmldcfai
OW5 123
.45398287
7.17
r.as
mum
JWWltlPlinwrtCiiwi-BiMmJWH***1 * I* >• B»» B"H WW.M1 f
1
-------
Data Uitid to Corrpist* C
1-8HC
{M3 V
m^w
PniitkftioB
MCAStT
AC33CJ f7
WA
MA
12/I5WO
i-aiiC
0.49 U
mkv
PatCleides
MOM 10
A33A5UV0
NA
m
WIRfBfl
•-DHC
05? U
MC4-41S
AS}d&41f
9
1
*-BHC
0,46 U
mfct
PwHcktoi
MCA4iO
AQ0A642O
0
1
wwm
i-BHC
tiaa u
PhMcMbi
M^A-114
UMg4;i
ft
7 .
12J1G/BB.
*-9HC
ail u
ftnrtldtfBi
MC 1*1-423
AS3954Z3
NA
NA
12/2 i»a
¦-4HC
O il u
faiilddai
MCM14
A63W414
HA
NA
12/2 W&
»BMC
0.41 U
MCA-42B
Aft30S4£5
m
NA
wzw a
*0WC
D.45 tJ
«rrt«i
P«itfcld«i
MCABM
AB3M5M
10
10
4mm
0,47 W
Ptrtddn
AS30597O
10
iff
4/1W »
4
PbiIIcIcIbs
QWS-273
AB3«S2TI
m
WA
mm
idrfri
1>? u
Jbtlfcfchrv
OWS.2IS
*8308371
3
3
mtm
¦drill
1.0 u
mjflio
Fvitfckllt
0WS-I81
AWM2«t
m
m
mm
1 drin
1M U
«*«
P*rtfcld»i
0WS262
A63M2ft2
m
NA
3/J/0B
Idtfti
e.i o
<%att£ Mai
QWS.f J3
ASSiSte?
7.17
7.33
same
kJrirj
3 il
f*nlcd»«
0WS-3OT
AE3d633/
M
MA
1WS/B8
Irtrir*
10 u
P%«lcWte«
0iiW-33e
Asddsdsg
NA
MA
IWI
IdWn
1J u
PS flog
Fmwtiekf»*
OWS.J3i
AMiSjajg
A
S
i amiss
1,B U
mm
PftMckfas
OW&-340
AS395340
7
7
1CWSW9
Mrtn
T J9 1/
mflm
PMttjWlW
0W6.M1
AS39S341
t
J
10/5/3(4
ifcMn
i.e I*
PMtloWirti
0"
-------
Oftta Uiad to Complain Confirmation HHRA
IftP Sit* 33/Harimri SubsMlori
Artdsr»art Air For<5» 8ab«, Guam
IPB0B 8 n! 631 '
JttM£l£K
HEfiVLT QUALIFIER
utcr
ANALVSII
W1CATIW
SjWP?.KW^fBt8.
Wirt (tAWOE
samplc date
ilrfpfci
Ijfl 1/
Mfltf
PsMIcMh
MCA-418
AS3»8418
HA
1J/1 Mt8
Mrh
1,3* J
mJb#
PtiflMiliit
Mf:*V *17
ASIWS417
HA
MA
izns^s
lWrfcl
1,0 1/
»*l
P»»tlddw
MCA-41B
A539541I3
NA
NA
17fl5fflS
4diln
3.0 U
«*•
faitlcidv*
MCA413
AS39541B
8
7
rfdfJn
1M If
PMi|tChf«S
MCA 420
AS3&8420
9
7
?2/IG,'9B
ildrin
%m u
failfcldaa
MCA-41fi
AS399421
9
7
12/15/40
iWrin
ais j
MjAh
PaitlcMfi"
MCA «13
mmmn.
MA
HA
1211 !«fl
5klr!r»
2X6 J
Mlfti
PatticMaa
MCA-4?4
AS 3934 24
NA
MA
t2«l/90
*Mrtn
2.9C J
Rittflcid®*
MCA-42S
AS39S429
NA
NA
lSlrtUM
*Mrln
f.7 U
mfca
^es^Eshivm
MCA &9B
A83S3B08
IB
16
1.1 u
W*fl
fWftfcUM
MCA-C70
AE3BSB7Q
18
1*
4/f3«9
¦dill)
1.0 u
M&9
OWB-141
A33««141
MA
NA
7i'n,'9B
dFin
T9tJ
W&B
Pa#tWd«*
QWM42
/WBS142
NA
?IA
7/RflB
'tMn
1i U
fla*tle«M
CIWa-2f8
A8»Wt?6S
7
7
8tt/3«
fttvtlcidif
OWB.123
AS90S.2B7
7.17
7.33
mm
"rfrtw
1A II
wjflw
itafWkJM
owrs-a»7
AKSBS337
WA
NA
IO/S.^9
9.f U
aaflw
fotfckfM
OWS-338
A5JfS33t
HA
NA
iQism
¦cIfIh
h*- u
P9&#
F*»0<;ldsi
OWS-|3»
Aft3#633d
e
a
10/WJ9
idiin
1.7 tl
FnatfoMM
OW&-IMO
A^tsua
7
7
i bis we
iHckl««
MtA-tM
A533S42S
m
NA
1?rt f.«9
i«n
t.7 U
«/fc«
PattlcMfma
MCAftBB
ftflMRSflft
is
1B
fciSU. A 1Nf 3# Pj* ft *. Iillin, $10 W»
-------
Dita Utwl tc CampteW CwiffcrmrtJon HHflA
iflP Site 39/Hflfmon Subitatton
AndBTian Ah ¥etcm Bm&, Guam
WW* 9 of 531
AMT-TES
msult oiMnFtm
UNIT
ANWVSIS
L0CAT1OT
SAMP1.K NUMBER
OEminANOE
6AMP1E Mil
'(IT
1,7 U
jigfta
Pwbckioi
MCA.S3tJ
AS39SSTO
m
1«
iii ^ctahyd*
1 u
rtlAfl
FmIMii
OWR-141
M3M141
WA
NA
fci ild'fryiJ*
10 u
m*t
PmUcWbS
OWi-142
AE3iSl43
MA
NA
7WfflB
rill
0,0 l>
wfcl
DWB-25«
AE3DEJB8
7
7
rti rtMliytf*
Ifl u
wfcfl
PtatUBklm
OWB-ZBCI
AdABSJOO
7
7
sraree
•[n BfrJthyiiB
8,4 tl
^ibAb
PHtlclflM
OWB281
^Baasjei
1
7 <
m® b
Hn alifvhfd*
0.B7
FflitbJdfli
DWS-IA4
AS3S32Q4
7
7
.•In fHMtydt
7.01
mlkfl
PgitfeMsi
ow^zec
AS399200
7
7
9/2.1S
tEn aldnhyifo
fl,* If
P«»lHd.i
OViS-267
*S39&20?
NA
NA
vwn
ib iMaNyriB
9.4. U
^vtMdai
OVfft-2«
NA
HA
wtmi
rhi itMifdp
ORB IJ
fturilEMm
OWS.J71
AS39S371
NA
NA
B/iTJB
rin riMijidt
10 u
MB/kB
Ffttfteldaa
OW8 2?f
AS3.M272
HA
WA
a/z/fifi
chlAliyri*
t u
*p/ta
FtoflsMn -
OWS-27B
M3DS37S
a
.1
a urn*
WiikMiytf*
O.ff? tl
w*o
PmttaWfrt
0W8 2«1
W8398ZBI
NA
NA
arm*
rtrt
i y
ftaiHcfefai
OWS*Jf!2
AS3§53SZ
NA
NA
mmmB
iin indthydv
6 O
#nr/k(
P»gtfoWff»
OWS-113
A93tEZ«T
7.17
7.33
fl/l/BB
'rti ritfthytta
1.2 U
rnika
FMtfcftto*
QWS-537
A93tR33?
MA
NA
ItJjSrtlB
'rbr ildoliftli
er.1 u
Pwtldda*
QW5-33B
A3W0338
MA
NA
ic/sm*
rti aldihyri*
d.»: u
m*<9
OW0-M#
AB3i«9M#
V
«
1 n«9i
rtiMJMnfda
1.1 U
m&n
r«(ticM*f
Om-MQ
A339SM0
7
1
fin tkktvyde
1,1 u
PouIcMm
UVV3-341
A3336J4I
1
1
10(5rt«
1 rbi aldihyita
c„ea u
owg-3«a
A6303342
11
11
rhi ^IdsNytft
C.ec U
mtt.v
niftlcMff
owe wa
AS3*Elf3
s
0
wmm
tij94 y
.o?
PkitlcM«i
cwrt-a«
AKJ963S4.
»
a
1D/6AI
if th »Wfh?d*
14 U
hrtkfdn*
OWS260
AS3flfi2aO
7
7
mm
tinu-fHC (Umlarw)
§.7 II
mft d
Pi»tlcl4«<
0W9 J©1
AsaaRioi
7
7
mrm-SHG lUndana)
o.a? u
Hl^D
PMtlcldis
0WS-2B4
AS3SS?W
7
7
a&tBB
imfli-OMO (UnJ«n*J
li
tfl'Vg
PtaitibWii
OVW5.2MF
AS393ZSS
7
7
ntni-BHC {LMuro}
7 U
jWi^f
OV*S-2$7
AS3#9Itf?
NA
m
mzmw
Tim«-BHC (Urofrmi
flj u
fSttfckUi
OVtffi-J!Od
Asmidi
NA
NA
WJfH#
-------
®nt9 Liincf To Cwnp!»i» Confirmation HHRA
IftP £|ta 39/Hnimon Suhitatbn
AndBrsen JUr F«rcn Basis, Guam
(Pifla 10 nF B3J
AFUUHETSR
RIXULT OlULTFrFH
(j.trr
ANALYSIS
JXJCATiOM
SAMMJENUMUKk
OEITH
RAHIjiE
SAMPLE DAW
mnmi-BHC (LlMim)
9,7 Q
fflW
PusiiekJfH
Qm-tn
A33Ba£71
KA
MA
to'aa
*nm»-BHC fllndun#)
?,a y
JJB/ks
PnatieMai
OWS-Z77,
AS3BBJ77
KA
NA
¦mrm-BHC iLfndam)
0,75 U
mfon
fturllcW»B
om-2?$
AS39S77B
3
3
sajsa
(Ufidaw)
O.BB o
AmUcM**
cism-im
A,%aA32.9l
HA
NA
jmrrm-BHC f UndantJ
0.72 y
P»«BeW««
OWS-Jil
A5398282
N/l
MA
a mm
jfltfnoHHC (Eiild ana)
3,6 U
ugfto
pBSlkldd E
OW3-12.1
HS3i9?8I
l.u
7,.13
noise
•mni-SH'C
4,8 U
Md^a
l%#||cW»i
OWS-S3S
NA
NA
tmrn
lUndM*)
Q.Ofl U
Hfl*S
Pwncidci
CWS-33P
AS3V&33S
fl
6
•mmi-flrtt lifedvM)
Q JWiitw-9HC (LMml
am u
™*a
J%*tfckAu
MCA-Alfl
A8A9&419
ft
7
nmm
ammi-BHC QLMim)
0,78 u
Wfttl
PwEtehrw
MC*-*3C
Asaw*zQ
e
f
isntiim
ajittW-BHC
a»«
mM
Pw»tlckf«rt
wcA-tia
A.6389421
«
7
nmm
OB# U
fv*a
MCA-423
*53994 2.t
WA
NA
timm
irnifwBHQ {Undml
O-UfcU
F*«ttettei
MCA-424
A0396414
NA
NA
12/21/98
¦mim-aHQ {L(r*Jw*|
o.«e u
WtfcQ
IV>*tJicklet
MCA4«
A63984J6
NA
NA
12/21/30
wrm^fHC (IHwil
O-Tfl U
«Aa
(McUiit
MCA-508
AEJBSBCfl
1«
19
4f»aw«>
kt«t»'9HC {LMtat}
0,70 U
mrtw
^wucUm
MCA-&7D
A53K570
7
-------
Oats Used to Complete Confirmttlon HHRfl
1RP Sit* 39 fHarmon Substation
AnddrMn Air Forcfl Baa*, Guam
tPftg* 11 ol B.»|
•METER
RESULT WAUFIIR
TJNTT
AflttTSW
IOCATCOM
WMP5.RKUMBBR
DEPTH
RANGE
SAWPIf DftTf
rwCtildftfam
Mi J
M*0
P%«tlcW«s
0W5-341
ASJ3S341
?
7
io/srae
JtpHCWflttfllM
3,46
«Ag
P»#KcMin
0W8-3A2
^JlSliS342
11
*1
tWSfflNJ
ni-CtlkHliin*
0,30 U
jiflrtcfl
Paitlddii
0W»,a49
0
0
KWB8
M'OiMmm
OJS U
MAW
Pfl»tfcJdHI
AS3SS54*
S
fl
1IW90
M-ClsiofrfM*
a.ar u
Fttitlclifii
0WR.M5
AS39S345
9
ft
1(l/5/«t
rm'Cfckmlini
i .Tfl a
WB*fl
foBrl1cki»i
MCA-41S
A333S4 IB
NA
NA
I2/16/8B
nt-ChfChiani
0,3T U
vaM
PumicMJi*
MCA-113
A8S9341B
Ma
1JA
12,'15,^8
rtChlerdirt*
0.38 U
ite>tlcld«
ASMs4f?
MA
MA
l2'iE,Ǥe
MHHitartimi
o,4i y
PuMieMn
MQM1a
AS39341B
NA
NA
uncfSB
meCMbnNiw
0.45 tf
mflm
RMtiaU**
MfsA^n
#
J
rv-Chtatjant
041 U
W&B
faatlcldmi
MCA-420
AS3»M£0
«
7
12/we
ri*GNl»8*fi*
OSJ u
Mj/kfi
taticM*f
MCA41A
AS399421
a
7
12/1EMB
TwCFtfadm*
0» V
If ftfl
Ppartl4
0,41 U
P»ttldd*t
MCA-970
AKM>SB?0
16
!G
3}m
-c«e« EproMf
0.34 U
Pttifcldm
OWS 141
A83ft8141
NA
NA
7mm
¦crtk*1 EpaMkfc
3.9 U
fB^3
PifticHlai
0WS-H2
AS3WI2
INA
NA
7 mm
-=hlw EMStdi
3,7 U
mi'kg
Pnffcldta
OWS*JBI>
AS34B2S9
7
7
9/2/98
w#ifet Ef*wW»
is u
mMsf
NftteWni
0W5-2M
AS39S3tO
1
7
9iW&
xMw Ep»M»
3,0 U
mtu
PorteWoi
OW5-2ai
7
7
drtw Em>M»
2,07
«*8
PtwtlEkftM
0W6ifl4
ASa9ft28«
7
1
wm
uNtwEpaMb
o.&re j
FflrtlcfclM
OWS-JiO
AS39S2A9
7
1
vane
E|wW»
3 J® U
j^ka
PndciAia
omtnj
A33»9ltllf
NA
m
a/2/4 b
**k* BpmM*
3.0 U
J*/kO
P*«ieid«t
owa-ies
A39»S2S9
NA
MA
mm
ichfaf EtmUc
0-3© U
OW6-271
A33»02?1
MA
flA
9fV9b
Khfc* Et*«frf(
4 U
Ml/to
Ftvtfcltfu
OWa-272
AC396272
NA
NA
wznm
Mslilor EpoaM*
0,4 U
Fe»lfcW*»
OWB-2JS
AS 3a 52 ?&
3
3
B«/WS
lEtilorEp&M*
Q.M J
wfro
0WS-2BJ
AB3QS281
NA
NA
&i2(M
sflfcfal Cpojtftfi
CU* U
m0*
P»ttlcM«i
0W9 M2
ARABSZB2
fM
NA
a?m a
'•MxEp&M*
1,» u
mfc b
0VIS-1J3
AD39S287
7.17
7,33
B/zm
icMor Epw&U
0,4? U
«Af
OWi-33T
A»A9S33T
MA
NA
«i/5/98
icNtor EpwMi
2.4 U
wflw
PinkkJfli
owa^e
ASJft3cU«i
OWS-WI
Aa39S342
11
11
ICI/K.HS
whltr EpnriW*
0,3? U
Ranlckh*
f]W8 343
A9 598343
8
ft
10W1S
ichferEmniM*
O.W u
M/Vl
ftpattcfdac
OWS-344
A535S3M
0
9
whlur EjMJdOt
Q, 39 u
wfca
P*«ICfd«<
OWS.14S
Aa3»fL1<16
B
a
lO^^R
w^W EpoMt
2,0* J
PtrttcWflB
MCA-H5
AS3SS415
HA
NA
12f13^Si
•efctorEpwAi*
a.3* u
PMCte'dmr
MCA-479
A5305416
MA
NA ¦
IJflSiUfl
ICtllMT Gpaxtdfr
0,39 U
«rt»
PMKKIdfiC
MRA41?
A339&41?
HA
NA
12f(Sf9fl
nfHlvt £p«?*M#
O^SJ u
#*jAg
PlltMllH
MCA-41 a
AS39S41fl
NA
NA
12/iSfsa
vditor Ef**Wt
0-48 u
WCA-4IA
AS39S419
e
7
unsm
•*». nwrita" ' MO" •
-------
P#tn Used to Complete ConHnnatlnn HHflcA
tRP Site 3SWHeri*KHi $ui>st®t[cn
Andersen Alt Force l«we. Smpi
IPaflB 13 Of &3)
JLESULT QUALUFTESl
VNTI
analysis
LOCATION
SAMFLmWBER
DIPTH RAWOE
SAMPLE DAT1
wtacMor EfHKklft
D.43 U
Ptslteidaa
MCA-120
Aflsas^ao
fl
7
^Jtaehtor 5miM*
0,43 U
P«»McH*«
MCA-flTfl
Asmstti
0
7
umm
¦»p4*ehk>f EpwWt
0.37 tl
WfcQ
MCA-J23
W39S423
HA
m
•\zmtm
^phchtaf Epwitfi
4«l
pake
PhHc.M«
MCA-424
ASMS4M
HA
m
nmtm
¦aljKchtor EpokMt
1,44 J
UQfcQ
ftsHteW®*
*3395-123
UA
HA
12/21/M
>Ul«htor Ipojiftfe
0,4 i iJ
pafc$
MftA-5di
AB3SBB09
19
IB
•lifJJ.'BS
iplncMof £w*M»
0.« U
m/kn
P»rtkldM
MCA-B70
AS3&S570
Ifl
te
4/13/30
9,2 U
PDNUfcichw
(W544.1
AS3»S14!
NA
NA
»lfwx]fefiliir
ft* U
P»»ricidw
OW8-tAa
A3-305142
MA
NA
Tmm s
¦KlCtiytMar
78 U
Wktt
flMlfalifet
OW8-2W
A530S269
7
7
awraa
flhofycMor
TOO U
W*§
AtHCUti
OWS-ZDO
AStaasififi
7
J
B«/»8
«hwyet*af
7# U
fMicMai
DWS-2l5t
A&3BSZOT
7
7
mm*
1.9 U
fwilald«
A63»«2««
7
7
Bwm
•thwyBWor
7.9 O
mAv
Faiii£ki*t
QWB-im
Afl3BS200
T
7
mm
*H«wjfehluf
00 U
«/kfl
PiflkMn
om~i*7
A&9l3J,fl7
NA
NA
amas
3
"M7
?^a
wm
nndHfir 10)6
b.b y
Polfchter1n»tBd Sfphanyk |K3i|
0liW»-T2B
ASJOS(15
7,17
7.33
mm a
>;VH.ifc,l#»hii D
-------
0eto Usecf to Oomplvt* Confirm ntkin WHUA
IflP Sits 39/HBiwion SubltAtkm
AmJtrMfi Mr forct Bu»e. Guam
|R»I« 13 of S3]
•iAMETI!
MESIfLT QUALIFIER
UNIT
ANALYSIS
JJOCATMIN
SAMl'Ll^VMUiS
DEPTH RANGt
SAIWFU6 DATE
• sMc* tote
9-3 U
pnfyrftMnilw* BipMnyfl «*C3»I
UW3-12B
Af393»20
/.17
?.3&
rmm
Hchlw 1
OWS-141
A3MS141
NA
MA
imm
Khior 101«
»-2 U
M&9
Wy9htoth»t«nl Pph®riy1» (PCU*I
0WS1U
AS3IS142
NA
NA
7 mm
«Mir Itrltf
9.5 U
Mydilclhilii ^Iphiiriylit IPCHe}
OW9.H)
A3399143
NA
NA
7 mm
*Mof 1010
7.9 y
Pclythlbrk-at«d (PCfls)
OFUJM-341
ASS91241
1t>
10
Bimaa
¦chlar 1018
7.9 M
Po^cMnlfWKsd etptwnyh |PCft*l
OftUM-242
A530Sii44
10
10
waate
"CWor 101#
t.» u
D0A4
FolvcMartiaitMl BtpMnyb (PCSsi
OPIUM-J43
A8396243
ia
to
d*ir 1019
7.8 l.t
w/fcg
Ps^chitorfnitsd
DdUM-344
A0308244
m
io
a-jeng
•chkir 1D10
7.® U
PoyehkKFnjt«l & phenyl* |PC8a)
cnuM-MR
AS399245
in
10
BWB/SB
¦eMor 1018
7.9 U
MyeMfffl^vted Pptwtyl^ I^CSa)
DHUM249
Ai39S248
10
10
W2B?B&
chfcw 1019
7.0 U
WflflciJ
PoiycNarlpHtHil ilptwrfHrli (TC&sl
DflUM'247
AS39RS47
MA
NA
Ptiiatm
•ehfctr 1018
7,9 U
wfcg
PitychfclslnHli*! Blpii*fj|fti IPCB*|
tf?UW349
AS395241
NA
Kft
mizBtm
-cMBf (019
7Jt U
WBflOQ
P#Tychiar1i1«teil nphatiylf PGB*(
OHUM240
AS39S24S
NA
NA
W1W SB
chtot ioia
7.0 U
f>*B
Mfchtarlriatid Biphatyla IPCte)
CnUM-2B0
AS339260
NA
HA
B/2WQ9
¦aWm ftHfl
7,« U
ms An
Wyehbdn-»l»tf Blplwnyti (Pc8«l
DRUM^il
AI3M251
MA
MA
mms
•ctiwr lol e
7,8 U
in/kg
PotyChkHtitlsil Bii>hMiv[( CR.ifli]
DRUM2B1
AB3&3252
NA
MA
smm
<«hh>f 10t9
7-9 U
Bplwnyli ff"C0il
DmJM-2R9
AS39S2S3
NA
HA
umvpso
ustitor 101fc
7,0 U
Wl/kg
PolyeMarin*i«il iif Itetiyla {PC0*'l
DflUM3B4
A63982B4
HA
NA
wimB
?etiRor KM a
ILB U
Palychkirtrtlai Pptanifl* PGB*I
0WS-2S8
AiUIISZSfi
7
7
mm*
ictikjf IOt 8
BB U
Wlfltfl
Fa(yeMittivi|*d (UphMiyli (PCBiJ
owsst^o
A6.1»320Q
7
7
m ««
'Ofctor 101#
H,6 U
M/kp
Polyah1l)ftift«i Mit«l Mphan^f (FtBi)
OW9H7
AS39829?
NA
MA
*W99
hilar f019
3,8 U
HS^H
ftaJyclTlttrfrHWrf
t>W9'2Q9
NA
MA
eaiss
cMur 101 8
8 kJ
Po*yctik>ftfli*»'i S^hsn^t frCB*>
OWS-271
A5WZ71
NA
NA
ichtor 101 a
w u
wjiftg
fMyrtita rtniwrf eipfw^i er-Ci®)
OW6-272
A8.1*827Z
MA
NA
mm*
whhr101a
«.e u
Pn^iterlntW e^twr^i*
OW8-27B
AC.1t9J7B
3
3
E/I/Bfl
c htdf i01«
e.4 u
W*ff
ftiiyetitoffriand ('PcBs}
0W3JB1
AS39S2S1
MA
NA
9/2^99
•ediw 1010
9,2 U
WyrtikwirMt^ ei^hBTiyl* ittBi}
0W5-2B2
AS3»G2S2
MA
NA
fi/I/88
«et*>F 1019
11 U
Pelyc}>.,o»ln«t«d (P€Bsl
0W-M7
AS39S337
NA
NA
thkir T01Q
11 LJ
l^tyiclilol(rwl«e| 6(phirMs ffCPft}
mvs-aas
AS3»53^Q
NA
HA
59/5/90
chfcjf tola
f,4 U
Pwyc»iteHf»ft«# sfeihinvlc irtEi»)
i?W5-J3fl
8
fl
"ty/Sif»a
'(libr 1018
9,0 Lf
falystiMiMltwi N|>Nin^i (PCisI
0W8-84O
A«»9Ba40
7
7
io/Si«n
¦eWter 1018
TO U
fm-H
Poivcli^rlnatwl (fCB#)
OW5-341
A539B341
7
7
in/sms
cnhgr torn
9.® u
woAg
PotycHaTlrmwd ©phmfIt |f>cet|
0WM42
A&395342
11
11
10,n5(»a
rehtor TQIfi
e.e u
PolycHoT»T»lMj Biptnhfh |PC8#|
OW5-343
AS39&343
9
9
io/5fsa
cWor 1010
e.a u
Nythhrlnrttd B^ptwvyli [PCBsl
0W6-M4.
A639&344
9
B
lOflfSH
K*tor lOIB
a u
WfcWotlr^Ml Blplw^lt IfCW
om-MS
ARa»S34S
9
»
lOS/fB
icMw 1211
BJS u
mi
PdyfiMorlriMtd BEphMiyli
tswa-ias
AS399122
7-1 > .
7,33
H
—- *•* *<«. rw
-------
Halt UskI to Compter# Confirmation HHRA
1RP SJM SAjHarirmn SufaitaHon
AndsrsAn Air Fare* Suae, Gunm
(PUB* 14 'I
>,R,\MET£K
RjjStV.T QUALIFIER
UNIT
ANALYSIS
LOCATIUJJ
sample i>umber
«fT« RANSi
SOMPIE BATE
(ochfeir 12211
8,7 U
PafyeWorts*t«»rf bphtwi^i (Kiflsi
OWS-tJB
Aa3ii)13a
7 17
7.33
7/BWB
[«chMT 1 221
B.7 M
cpJkf
Pclyctiferfnrt*"! Bphtnylit irC9#l
CWS-1I5
AS3H5126
T.17
7.33
ttnmti
fochk*
«.# II
mfcs
Pt^yehforhBtwi Hphtnylc (P£l!i1
OWS.1J0
ASAilGlSrt
t,l?
7 Si
Jl&ma
'schlw 1221
».l u
mAw
PWychfdffciateif Blfilitnyis (PCBsJ
OIV8-127
ASM B127
7.17
7,33
mm
wMdt 1«1
0.1 u
Ai^dHilrhilirf ^phinyh (KJsJ
<5W£ 120
AS3»$12B
T.1T
7.3J
rma a
"weMor f221
n,a u
7\ilychlartfi*t«4 PIphariylR
CiWfi.12#
Aft 33H£a
7.T7
?.-M
imm
T»hhr 1211
9.B u
W»*0
f^lvchionnatad flfrtiwiyfc (PCE«>
OWE. 130
ASW5130
7.T7
7.J3
¦ftm a
'vcfttor 1221
9.1 U
mi*9
PMfnhlQiIiWtdil ftPmnyfe tfeft*}
«Wfi-132
AS.188132
NA
NA
fimm
-ocbhr 1221
St u
m^w
F»i*rchJc>*wt*t ITCBd
DMUN-24&
A&39524S
ia
10
mmv
•«chfc>r1221
TB U
PolvcWottn«l-«-i fPOBiI
DMUM-240
AS3W249
10
10
Bt3Bim
orhlar f32f
7.8 U
«*sg
H9lyiehloibta(«4 BlpJwPi^i PCHi|
tWIM-247
A»1»e247
NA
NA
SfZB!9tt
Twhtor 1221
7,8 (i
«I^SH
Mych>|Biliir«4 Blph«nyl« (PCiil
OTUM-24B
A3»9&2«g
HA
NA
Bf2Sfm
©chtef 1221
7,e u
wiAff
Rjfjffehloifcuml ftihwivlt ffCSil
DOU(^24a
ASM 92 49
NA
NA
mms&B
aeMor 1221
1M U
MJ/fcfl
Mrfvapyfc (pC9e)
PWNt-MO
AS3eS2S»
NA
MA
ttiwaa
'vcNor 1221
7.8 U
MJVfl
PofvchJuitiatsd Kp1wty4« (PCBiJ
DWJM-2B1
NA
MA
a^yias
1221
tM U
0ip1wifi« (PCBil
DWfcWM
AS38G292
NA
NA
gjzsruB
-ocWof 1221
7.8 U
B^riJ*nvl» JPCS*|
Df»UM?S3
A»S8829A
»A
NA
9mm
'fleKhf 1221
T.*U
«Aoff
n^lyctilorlriflatf B^hcnylc (PCEIi)
OnUM-2S4
AS20S264
NA
NA
wmm
'oohfcu Mil
ttj tl
My£hk»rir*le
AS3M20D
7
7
ifipe
'"nafilor 1221
B.fi U
Rgilf gfitorfmiivK
AB3962»1
7
7
S/2*0B
editor 1221
a.a u
PoJychforffBJtBd {Hphonfis |PCB«5
flHV9>29t
At39Sj>«4
7
7
«**>r 1221
B.O U
PolyehlDrfiwlBd Hiph«iy(i! jPCiil
OWS-2BB
AS30B?fla
7
7
wwa
oehlor 1211
8J U
PbtyditorlnalMf' A'phanvN' jfCSal
OWS-2«7
AS30S207
MA
NA
mifm
bcWw 1221
3J J
ftftg
PetVcnhjflniinJ 3fph*nrvti (PCSil
o*mm
*SJ952flf
NA
NA
mm
nchJor 1221
6J U
^jfyc(ifOi#iilK( Wphpnyh tPCCel
OWS271
A8J8S271
NA
HA
mm
nelitw 1221
ft.l W
FMydilorlilil^ BipfcmrFl JfCiiJ
OWSZ7Z
ABd®6272
MA
NA
BW{9B
»Woc 1221
i.i tl
etAg
P'otyciitofh<<*d Aiphariyti dPCBs)
omm
AS3&S27S
3
11
mm
¦jeliot »221
b.4 y
WAfl
RilyciilatlrivMl Prphdfiylt |PCBl|
OWS281
ASJ9S2B1
NA
riA
3I2{98
MNnr 1221
i.i w
RdtfcfilOilriilM] HlpharnYlT
owS'jai
AS9962D2
NA
f*A
W2 rto
oehlar 1221
11 u
f%ljcH«tlrirtw)' BiphonyJt fPCB*)
PW8 337
AWB8337
NA
HA
achlnr 1221
11 U
at*?
Pa(fOl*Mirnt«d (PCB*1
ows-m
AS3BA3^ft
MA
NA
»0/5M8
Mhktr 1221
8k* V
«j*u
PofyoWn^ist«l 0tpb»nv
OWS-Ml
A4M3341
7
T •
l«5Jta
ocWw 1121
B.7 U
«*o
Pt»lvt-MoTfr>»t»J CHp^anyi* IPCBi^
OWE 342
At5393342
11
11
10&/B8
cwMor 1221
b.7 ir
nalycMai>ft>itnri' Rfphanyii (PCB»^
OWS-.>l3
*SiW»&>43
9
a
odhltor 1221
8,S 11
MyShtadnKnj |PCB«I
0KV»-34i
A639S344
&
3
)
-------
twin Usad to Cofnptfflt# Cunfltrnmlon HHFtA
IRP Sltfl 39fliwifwn Sutiits&in
AntfBfMti At Foro Bum, Guntn
(p30* ll> of 55£
AMEI£K
RESULT QUALIFIER
UWT
ANALYSIS
LOCATION
SAMTLE MJMBZR
DEPTH RAM3E
I AMPLE DATE
Wor 1121
MJ/k»
f%iyc*ilorlnm«tf Bipiwnytt ireBil
0\1S'34-5
A539S^5
9
B
10,WS»
Mar K32
G.0 Lf
WAS
Pntnehlnrlnfltad ftlphnnyJn jPCB*|
QWfl-i?Z
AC 303121!
7-f?
7 A3
7,WO
«W 1232
8,9 U
Mycliloffciatfld Blphwifh (PC0i|
01«S-1J3
A539S123
T.17
733
7/waa
: liter 1133
iJ U
WfcHtflrihstwd afpfwhrfli f#
{JWS-12B
AS3BS128
7,17
7.93
itsm
ihlor 1232
a,i u
*9^9
Ml(icWoiw«t»«l Bljahpnyfs (TCIW
OWS-129
^S39S3ja
T.17
7,3.1
imm
ihlof T 232
fl.7 U
«#*9
PdJyiAfe)rtntlPi(
OW® 1M
AiS9Sl30
7.17
7,33
immB
ihbf 1232
0 u
M&S
ft^dlkmnatMt Bfahinvt* IPCBcl
fiwu-m
*«3#S13Z
NA
MA
j mms
•¦hk* 1232
9 y
ftll^dibrinrtM Wphinyt (PC0*|
OW9-1i»
j«S3iM13i;
HA
MA
yum
;hfc*> 1 *32
»,1 u
mtea
PolyeMorlfwtod e|»h«nyia iCC#»l
fltWHI
A1391141
NA
MA
i)«ma
:*tlor 1 tiz
9 l#
PotvcMailnsltd Blp#«anyl» |PCii>
OW8 142
AfiSl9S1«Z
NA
NA
'mms
ehkx 1232
»,3 U
SIpfMnytai iPCdt)
OWS-143
/IS3»S143
HA
HA
jwtan
-*Hor 1231
7,fl U
My«hiolrin«1»4 mptonylt
DRUM 241
AM98241
ID
10
Q{2BM&
4for123Z
7.1 U
j*B/ko
MycMaihattd Biph«ift» PCBtl
WUWI4I
10
10
mmB
flhfcr1232
7.8 li
fw^hktrtralf-tf RPptiani^t {PCai)
ORIIMI43
A939B243
10
TO
BlZWB
oNor 1231
7.i U
ft>^i CPCi«)
CWM-253
AB3I&2S3
NA
MA
mme
chfcw 1232
?.B U
PB^i
DnUM-2S-l
AM)WiS4
NA
MA
6mm
iihtor 1331
i,B u
ft>!voWorfri*l*ri Bfphanyk |PCB«|
OHWI.JB9
AS.1PS^0
7
7
mm
•cNtor 1i.1t
u.7 u
WS*fl
Autychtarli«tH §H#hw(rt* |K:B*|
OVW6-a«0
AW9S290
7
7
mm
•ehlor 1231
0,4 U
J»8*B
PatyEtflflrtiat«i BTphariyl* |FCHit|
OWS-Sfll
7
7
mm
•chior 133*
8A U
pe*n
faFyehlarlnurtatl (ypfwnylt {PC9t|
OWS-Jfl'l
A539S2A4
7
7
turn
ehtsr 1231
«,7 U
vobm
NlyeNor1n*l*d BlptHnyb IPCBil
OWS-2B6
J
7
»nm
•cht* 1132
i.e «
P&W
PdjrChlorttwlstJ |F*CBtl
0WS-3«
M3982AI
m
HA
mm
«M#i< 1232
0.5 U
tmi*t
erptieriflt ff>C8i|
0WS-J03
AS39ft2flf
NA
m
»&w
"chtor 1232
0.8 U
Mvs4iMriat«d Blphifiyli (TCBi)
0W&-271
AS3iSl?1
NA
m
ammv
xtftlw 1232
6 2 U
Pdf'ihlorffWlWrt IPCBil
owe 272
A639ft27«
HA
EftmQ
•chfctf 1242
9.4 U
JW/»B
Pol|ffMisrlrM«*d Brphwfli
OWS-275
A53SJS27B
A
3
mm
•cfutor (232
g,» y
mAo
Po^chtwlrwrtiirf Blch«ny1i VCB<)
0W&-281
AS39S291
m
NA
mm
xsWor *132
9 U
PolywhterinaMd PIptnnyHl riri(ti*cl Blphxtvyl* (PCftt)
OWS-33S
AS3Sfi339
e
e
JO.'SfSB
*cWwr 153 J
(,« U
J'olychJDrtBBtKl B%]K«nvla (PCBi)
OW6.34D
AfJ3S34C
J
7
uysm
JChtnr 1J32
t.9 U
mm
PotyijWorlrnlar) |f%l^(
OW(li-34.1
A539JS-M1
J
7
W/iB
«Mer1Z32
s.0 ii
MjftNsitiilifl Btftisnyh IPCBil
OWS-342
A333S342
11
11
10/B/VS
4-
-------
Data U«itf ScmplM* ConWm«rofl HHfW
IRP Site 39/Hflrmpn Substation
Andersen Atr Forpe Bust*. Guam
[Pfega 10 5:31
¦JWMKTJnt
RESULT OTAJLIFIER
UNIT
axalvsjs
iOCAtWfN
SAMWJi NUMBER
DEPTH RAffGE
SAMPUE DATE
ichtef 1232
8.ft U
111*8
PutyohMnaM Mptuwiyftt |PCB«>
aws.14.1
AS3BS34.3
»
a
10/lRW
xhhtr 1232
B.4 U
nlydhlprinvMd Hphwiyta IFCEW
OW&-344
AB39S3^4
»
&
iQ/s.f&n
•ichbr 123:2
H.S U
FMycfflHlttartad QlphMwlA IPC He}
0WS4J4S
AS39S34B
n
g
IQmtBB
achhir 1142
3.2 U
Mpflqj
Miehfarinitotf fflphenfli iPPBs)
OWS-112
AS39S122
7.17
7.33
•;«Ww1S42
3,2 U
p£*^ohN>rtrwi#il ^»N(nrb IPC 8*1
|PCfle|
QW3-1 fa
A33S9126
7.1?
7.AS
imm
•otWor 1242
3.3 u
ftftychfeMlrjalwd B^ilwnirh- {PCtel
OWS-127
AS38S12T
7.17
7,a*
imm
ocWw 1241
3.3 t>
Mtttkg
PtriyaMxlnitad {Sphwiyk |PCBa>
flWR-IZS
AR3BS128
7,17
7,33
7WB
dCNer 1242
3.2 U
«r*f
FV>»ycnNtrinaiset Biphtrvvk IPca#i
OWfi-tli
M>S3»ai2A
7,1?
7,33
7 Wi8
odlbr 1242
as u
#»A«
PtflycFftortmM B^ihaWfIk IfCfcl
OWS-1M
AB38S130
7-1?
1.32
mm
cotlter 1142
3.3 y
t*fka
R^HbtllmM;VI|yta»r 1* (PCB»(
OW8-133
AB3&B133
NA
MA
jmmn
ustitor 124S
3.3 V
Pelychhi^frurt;#*} SfptHinfli §1Cfl«1
OWS-1.1G
A»aa«i3S
NA
ha
imms
octiter 1242
3,3 «
Pt1ych}oFt-«t«t B(phflnf1« fCOsf
OWS-141
ASM 5141
NA
WA
limn
oolib&r 12+2
3-, 3 U
W&9
SIp+wamTpHf PC8« f
CWi-142
ASMS141
HA
HA
itm*
ocWor 124?
1.4 U
»Afl
flffttmftirii {PCB«(
OW8-149
AS393143
HA
HA
7/hm9
BcMor ,1242
2.9 U
ra*t
MpfttorinittKl enptwivliiPC^il
mUM-241
AS3BS241
to
to
0«1(M
oeNat 1142
2.8 U
upftf
WVJM242
AS^9B242
JO
ID
¦asm
ocW«* 1142
a,a i>
«*#
MysNorSnvtetf Pptwiy1i;lKBij
WrUMi43
A630S243
10
10
#tt8VBn»
acMor T242
2.9 1/
kjAm
RgiycrMnmd^DVhtnvt* lMrivl* (PCH^
OBUM24«
Asmtiua
MA
WA
0fTMB
twMer 11*1
2.S U
vgj*9
PDr^ehltarfnilmf BfptanyltfWJB*!
DRUM350
AS30B2SO
NA
hlA
itoam
«**#¦ U4t
2,B U
«rA(
' MycMftflnateil flptwnvlt (PCIs)
MUM2i1
A8M9261
NA
hlA
M29fM
«Mwt343
2 M U
«A|f
PWyBtlWflllfirHJfwnndi fPC|»)
MUM 252
A.f3fl«2B2
m
MA
mm #
enhlor 1J42
IB U
wifcp
PrJytWofV
own 337
A8M833F
NA
MA •
lOilfdll
ocNw1I42
4 y
Fotifciitortriloi Blp^riyts fPCBs)
ows-a.ia
A339S3.4A
NA
MA
10ffirt)8
IMrtOP 11«
3 a
Jfit#
Pdt^;h(ortnr1»i Slpfwr^l* fKBs^
OWG-330
A5395338
A
fl
lod ,iin
acHo-f 1242
9.6 U
tnM
PdychrMtiilad S(ph*niylB IPC An)
OWS-340
A&IS%Ma
7
7
ios/9a
l>:Wk3»4uMdVl(f«Myp<<1MK>AI A,VIIha Ml. 111*3,3; 10Nt
-------
Data Ui«d m Cornet a Confirmation HIIRA
tRP Ska 33/Hirmoo SdbMflifoti
Afidorxftii Ale Force Bam, Guam
* METES
RBffAT OUALEFlEH
wir
ANALYSIS
imsrmft
MUMMER
OEWW H4WGE
SAMPLE DATE
Nar 1242
3,fl U
MB* 9
FelychlMlnitMi Bljjhwiyl* |PCBt|
0W&-341
AE3SS341
7
7
ion/98
hlsjr 1242
3.2 U
FtolychtoriniM BptiMitfi IPCB*|
0W6-342
ft E39S342
11
n
Not 1242
0.2 U
WJ'Vo
P*Q
OftHM-341
Asaa^41
10
10
BfSBtm
•Afar 1249
4,7 U
Sfpfwrtyfi |PCB<|
DffU)W-242
AM9S242
w
!0
ti&ti&e
-ihtar 1249
4.7 U
/•flftfl
MvohMn«t>xi 0'ph«r»y1» |PCB*|
DmiM-z4a
^9^243
v>
io
W2B/GB
Ator tZ*a
4.7 U
W*fl
Poi
QRIUM.263
HA
MA
BUB/SB
eMui 124B
4.7 U
mlka
MychlgilnaM B|ph«nvl« I'PCEM
0WJM2S4
M39S284
HA
NA
mm*
eMoc 124*
6.2 if
WjAp
F\iil*thbrfrt#t«l PplMFiylt WW
OWfi-259
A3383258
1
?
a/?«8
shkir 1240
5.9 u
Wftfl
MphlnriruM (PCfrt
OW0-SW
A9MB290
t
7
mm*
dtm j 24a
«.1 y
nvfrg
PUyetilarlnatMl in:8c}
QWS-201
MS38ti201
7
T
9/2/9 i
ctrior tHB
g.1 u
«fl*B
PotTfchlufTTwUd BfilHnifli (PC6#5
trtVS-284
AS39E2Q4
7
7
mm*
ehkir 134H
€.3 L)
Ifl^ka
Prt^chtortrwtel ew«n)rt*
3
*nm
•ofctor 1248
S U
iWsAfl
PbtyclilotMtl»tf Brt|>h«ny|*
-------
EtefP Used to Cftmpltle CciMlrnattan HMftA
IRP Sit a 39/Maimon Substation
Anderson Ah" Fore# Bps*, Guam
(fSgo 1ftuf 0S|
J^AMIj-TER
iiisuli ooAutira
UNIT
ANALYSIS
1,CM1ATH1N
SAMF3.K MIMI1I5H
depth RANSE
8AMPlf HATE
(Wfitor 1-2*6
1 U
W'kg
ftolycNiMinilad Biptwfifh IfCBil
OW8-339
AB39S333
ft
a
10»/9B
oohkw t2*9
rs fl u
mfca
Palynhilarlttftlfld Blplmnyta
rtW5-34fl
AS51»S3M
1
7
tOmt9B
oeWor 1248
B 11
«*B
tiphanyli GPCBiI
OWS.341
AB3B«341
1
7
ncMor 13f*S
B.2 U
(PCHsJ
owa -34 Z
AS35M&342
11
11
warn
ochtor 1249
E,Z U
Potydtoiln st«il Bphnnyl" PCBsl
dWS-343
Afl.1ei343
9
a
11»(W3B
ochloi' 1548
M U
wfc a
PalycHk)'hi«t«6 BtD'wfT^* fPCSil
OWS-344
A539&344
s
A
10/B»S
octila; 114 H
R.4 U
MVfcB
FoffChMtGnstftd attrt-flnytn CPC0t>
OW9-34&
9
»
TOBfW
od+ir 1254
35 U
FutychknlnaM BIpFiirirti (FCBs)
OWS-122
A93SS122
?,1?
7, S3
l/wae
odMop 13*4
3.4 11
Htfita
Potirelito>!h«t*d rtpfwpylt (PCB«>
OW9-123
A939B123
7,17
7.33
limn
loMor 12S4
a.4 u
fW|fehWifP(W« BIpNhtfi (FCB«
OWB-T26
A93B312&
7.1?
7,.«1
}tm$
ochbr 1SB4
3.11 U
PolyohbrifMtwd, B)pfavnyi* (PCB»)
0Wft1i8
AS399126
7.17
7.33
7/sim
ocWbr I2S4
3,0 U
ftgfkg
Myehlorto«t»d B^Nanyto (l*Cfl«|
flWS-UI
A333S1M
1M
t.Xi
Mt9E
nfihtar 1254
3J U
PrtyoNkjriiwwd Blpfr^nyb (PCii)
0we-123
AS9BS12S
7.1 T
7.33
7/e«B
oehlbr 1214
3,6 U
MyoMorlmtBd B^H«ny|i. (pC9#>
owfriaa
A839S129
t.%r
7.33
ttms
odMot «8*
as y
091*9
MfichkvlnilHiCBjplMnvtt tPGB«|
OW8.I30
T-ir
7,33
7 WBS
oeMor 13C4
a.fl u
«%
flalyeMorinatiul fHph»i>yh [PCR4
OW8 133
Aesasise
NA
MA
yrt.'ss
ocMorl3S4
1.8 If
W*B
ftotychiBifiiitnl BFplHnyli jPCBaf
OWS-136
A&39&13R
NA
WA
?{«m
oohlol" 1JS*-
3.0 U
fttfdihjrinitvii Btplianyii 4FCBa|
DWS-141
AB3DS141
NA
NA
7fd!9B
iirthr 1354
3,ft u
Po>^ohtortnn*
DFtU(k^24li
A339S2-15
trt
If!
aeNar 1254
1.1 U
JfllAffl
M|fch(nft-pm«i Btphiwiyf* *0
tehfdiarlrurtad fflphnrrvli cN(jr 12P4
3.3 U
MtfrS
MycNapttltKf fl^ihanylt fPCDs}
OWE-2 (31
^539S2S1
MA
NA
mm
astiof 7294
3,« U
MfctitoirmM Blphtnyl* If"CB»l
aW&-2S2
AS.1#f5?82
NA
NA
a/2 OB
n%m nOwn^uMklUllMhl ,idl, iVWUlll fin, IKtNt, JiWfW
-------
D*ta Used to Cnmplirt® Confl/mallon HKKA
IRF Slta 39/Htrman Skibslatlon
Aiiflernen Ah Fares iiia, Guam
(PW 19 «f B*(
AMEfEU
RESULT Q(JaL[F]I£K
UNIT
AKAf.YSlS
JOCiHaN
SAKTLE KlfMRER
&IPTH WANtlE
SAMPLE DATE
1364
4.3 W
R*rt:Kk»Nnfft«fI eyihinyta fPC6h|
OVra-J37
A53tS337
NA
NA
10,1/98
Mar 1234
4.3 U
W*B
h%cWaifc*at«f BtyhanfHa (FCfls)
OWfB-330
AS39S33ff
m
NA
Wr»tT
Mar12S4
3.3 U
#fo/kg
MfcMarfriatxt Mphvnyh fCB#l
OWS M»
ASM 6339
e
e
«w»B
Hbr12S4
S.fl u
Poifctfcr«r«!rt*tw^t pew
OWS-94D
AS308340
7
7
i Mp+W1i*ti| (FCBaJ
*«
Rnfrflh»fln«Kl ftSph#nrl» «PC8*>
OW8-34S
*338834.1
9
9
\ofcm
hbr I2S4
3.4 y
ftjlychtoriiiiiad (Hphsnffs i[FCH«l
OWi-344
A53B9344
6
B
l*)r 1264
9J6 U
IfftB
MrtMofllWtod Btphptitfa (PC8»>
OWi-34 B
A&3DS34G
S
9
titer t2S4
W,»
HQ Act
ft>lycMorkirti«i etfil^Hnyk* (PCS#
MCA-1ZS
AB3QS<4Z3.
¦NA
riA
fcbr J2S4
153
JWychlorfnetod IVphonyft fl*CHsf
MCA-124
AB3BS4?4
m
m
12/21 met
liter t»4
ioe
HQ Alt
PotyohtorlnrtMj Sfphm^i lFCa«>
MCA-426
A839542G
NA
NA
12iZlA9
ihtor1240
119
«G*fl
Pgl)vfiliylrtti«) BI|>lMnyt«
owe 122
AB398122
>1?
7,3a
*br f MO
lit
«¦*«
Pnfvchfcvirnrtiid BJpth»ffy1« (PCB*}
OW5-J23
AS3M123
7.17
7.33
7/8193
-•Kfe# mo
2?.e j
UB*fl
Wyfl^tertnitwl B^h«nyl» tydild 6tph«nnrt» (fCBe't
MUM 248
AS3OTMe
na
MA
DflilB
tfite# % ZM
4 .9 U
Wfoa
PuslyoWnrtnitwi BlphMwl* (PCBaj
0HUM146
AS39S24#
«A
NA
sMsc 1280
4,9 y
#w%
^lycMDrliutiifl flfptiartyla (PCBuJ
OTUM2BD
A839S1&C
MA
NA
waeffli
cWorlltf?
4.» U
vgflei
P«ily0hh»rtnat*d 0l)4wll)flli (PCS«)
oftuM-itai
A£398p1
MA
nA
smms
s*lw 1390
4,» u
Pol^eMnrlnarait IHphanyh (PCBrt
OltliMJBJ
AB3fiS?l>2
MA
NA
mws
rtitar 1200
4.9 U
W"«8
ftjIychlWuatinJ Biphenv^ (PCS*)
DRUM-2B3
A830BJB3
NA
NA
B/2B/B8
dhlor 1200
48 U
wjflm
PolyufctorWtm! Biplwnylc (PCEhtJ
CTUM-ZS4
A9M62B4
MA
NA
9/?a/BB
nh(9r12SO
00.2
mj^o
Bot^dhffDrin atari Bfphtnfte (PCBst
0V/S-2Sd
AS3fl^(i9
1
7
SlIiSB
chlor tim
iaa
Wkn
Wyrtitorlnatiil Bi^hapylk rPC9*>
ows-aea
ASMEJflO
J
7
9/2JBB
fhtor 1230
5.3 U
MM
f^^£hfOrtnat®d Hpfmrrii* fl>C3C^
flWftlfll
7
J
WI&9
thtor 1Z5Q
5.2 U
fVlyChki'inarlml Blp^wnfli (PCCi I
aws-j«4
AS3SS2A4
7
7 ¦
mm
fjhfc.r 12»
07.9
P9^8
f^^clitorlnalail Blphan^U IPCiil
OWB-2ii
A83BS7M
7
7
mmn
nhlpr IJflO
5.3 U
Ml* B
PMycNailnnlMl 9|phflir|rfi |PCB»|
OWB-2U7
AS3S51#?
HA
HA
mm
chlai 1ZTO
5,3 U
wirtif
frilfchkjTitat^d BSphanfJi
rjV*fl-28*
M39S2«»
NA
MA
9/2 im
%
-------
i3gtn Usgd Id Cwmptoto Cunllitnulliin HHRA
1RP &lla 39/HaifitHin Sutafitrtfoft
Aflrlnraan Air For«t Biid, Guam
Page 20 of 53!
UtAMETER
RESULT gUALS^Iitt
WIT
AfiAIAMS
LVCiTOOJI
DEPTH RANOE
SAMPLE DATE
<«cMc* 12B0
6,6 U
mba«
FVJ^hlrtrin»t
OWS 54Z
A9388341
11
il
wrnsm
fochlor 1290
5,4 if
«fl«P
fth»cWcdn««l Btahwylt 1PCB«>
OWS-34S
ASJ8&M4
8
s
imm
rooftfor 1260
5,J it
MpMaHiwwl ipCB*}
owe-3*«
AB30S344
9
V
1W5/9B
raeMoi 1280
8.1 M
Piikg
Pcly<£ifeftisfM* mptunyls (-PCBbI
CHW5-WS
AS3flfi.346
ft
»
lortwa
rdhncarM
f.t If
KflAf
%!yinnlii> AroRralSc H(N#roc*rbon« (fAH«l
DWB-141
*5398141
fJA
NA
netm
nrtwioWMi
f.7 U
W'fcfl
Mynucbir AkhtisiJc Wpdnsfrjrbamj (FAHil
ows-mj
A93BSM2
Nfl
IVA
7mHm
nthrJKWM
ra*a
Palynuditf Af«n«ts HydtDoatona IPAKt)
DUTMI1H7
AS3BSJS7
IS
ft
a/1 WO
rtthracsra
3.4 U
faljrjiudaiT Anmrih: Hyd^wtrbant IPAHl)
OUT FALUS0
A63952EB
B
&
snmn
rrthfUCW*!
1.8 u
09*0
ArtmuBlio Hfdf«*flis|fiiu(t«ir Amniitfe Hfrfrotatfnuct»i( Atorrnrtk:- H^tucwborpH IPAHtl
A«-28»
A€3»92t1
1
1
on4('9©
fflhMam*
1.7 11
-------
DMA U$a
OWS-3A9
A594S»ia
6
ft
10^8
rlCMH
1,8 U
mlkq
Mytwclrar Aremtrtlc l+ifdrw«rti<*H mm
iiK#na
1.1 u
fiQ/kn
PolyruJcf»»r Arnmptltc Hyrtrwc irbonc (TAH*}
0W5*342
A939S342
11
11
mmme
liriMnt
i,i u
Mvfmiflw Arw»*4fc Hyd*06*r1wti (PAHd
0W-34J
A5395343
S
8
mi&m
iractn*
1# u
mflm
Wywujli^r A(UW«(c Hydrocvton* {PAN*}
OWft-344
A«aaS344
8
*
'irK4n*
1.# u
if
ftriynuetoBr A mrnallc Myrirncaf hma IPAHf)
OWB-345
AB59S345
a
9
10 M/on
hr*c»n*
1,7 U
FWytUJcE#*r ArorriitHo HydmcirbMli Vt29m
¦wmatrw
1,7 U
«Ad
P^tynuekir Awnitlc Hydtocvrfenrn if**. Hi I
WUM-J77
ABWf-377
14
14S
wzom
>k*whb
1,7 U
W&9
ftrfytiuefcjf Aramaib l-Sdroc^licrc* |FANk|
t>rtUM^7d
Aft3ftfi37#
14
14.S
i owotm
iwmcarm
IB U
w/i
14
r4.s
twzww
l.t 11
Wfl»Q
MyTHIcfeaf Aral«itlc HyAee't'Wi® (PAHt)
DfltlM-3el
A&3»saal
14
14.5
io mm
firvcnria
1.0 U
w*«r
AromttSc 1 fyifrocsrtwjr* |P»Hi|
MCA-J95
AS39SJ»B
3
7
i mm
liraCanA
1.9 U
MjrVg
hrivnuetov Ansrairtlc HvdrDCWban* (PflHi)
MCA- 380
AS38«3tt>
3
7
11/5J90
hr«*na
1,9 U
Pdyf»iJek« An»ffl»1fc H^(jleo«rfa«r*» (PAMil
MCA-307
AfcJMaa?
Z
i
1
hMcwfl
l.ft u
wft D
P«iyiuKl«ar Aram xib ^'Chncarlion*
MCA-305
A33!MUQa
7
hrjctriA
10 U
PtiJvnucfcsaf Aramatfc Mydidcarbarui IPAHil
MCA-399
ASJK383
MA
NA
1 ttfJBS
hrrarw
1,4 U
wA?
Mymciiv Aro"m*tt Hyd)9c»t9tit IPAHil
MCA-391
A&39S3A1
NA
flA
hracans
fi.t u
mfri
PtlyrtiieMw Arontftb Hydrcrfnufcnn* (PAIIi)
MCA-Sit
AS-mUfW
NA
MA
iimm
hrWMTW
t.B U
PcJY'iuctafif Aram*tfc HydroeartrarM IPAHil
MCA-aas
AS3B6403
3
7
n j&m
hncHw
18.# J
hlfitMcliir Aramittc Nfdwrtsiii PANi)
MCA4I1
AS3SS41B
NA
HA
iz^iB^aa
ht*C»lV>
h* U
Aram«tl0 | I^NltaMitHJTMi IPAHal
MCA^ie
A&3D941«
NA
NA
1
toaewia
SB J
(WynUclB* AnjwiitJc Hydroo^fbon* CAHt)
MM417
AS398417
NA
NA
hr«*|»
1.8 U
Uflfkfl
PpivnuclBtf Afamjith; Hydr&eart«n» fAHil
MCA-4 19
A539S41B
NA
NA
UC1S/98
tvawrw
J
MynucteK Aromatic HfdFonrb4i«i (fW(l)
MCA-419
A33B3419
D
7
temm
hiaosrw
11 U
Mynucliiaf ArofrullB Hydroearbont PAN*!
MCA-420
Aistwao
B
7
nmm
hracaTW
1.0 U
fWym pc!m» AlflflwUc HydwstfMnt (PAHi)
MGA-418
A83t9421
e
7
wm&B
brawns
1.« \i
PuhTHpefttw AnMnnlo H^dfaciHtiani iFAHe^
mcywj.i
AS399423
NA
NA
1 a/21/SB
hrtCtrw
1J W
Putynunffltfl Arcwrwrtc Hyd rosartxuli (PAH*)
MCAAM
AS39B424
NA
NA
\2,'2\t9B
hraew»
2D 4 J
telyfiuclMf Amtfwtte HpirocBrtwr'i
-------
Oa|a Used tv Complin Confirmation tlilRA
(RP SK0 ^SiH^mon Saitrsintten
Andersen Air Fores Bftfta, Quam
(Pin* lief S3)
HjVMf.tu;
REWLT Ql'ALU'lER UOTT
analysis
LOCATION
SAMPLE MUMBH.
DEPTH
1
.s
ffl
SAMPLE OATC
ithracana
1.7 V
wnAfl-
f^lyjvifctai' Awmatlft Hydro^artjona (PAW«(
RftUM-tft?
A£339KB8S
fi
10
4,<2lid&
ilfiricum*
1.7 V
PB^nuchuir Arwrwtlfc Hifdrocaiboni IPaKbI
PWIW-B83
AS398533
1
5
W1/M
*hrww»
1fl If
WB/fcfl
Myninliii Animal hi Hydrocarbons (PA He}
A3SSBeo7
4
4
S/B/ftS
IttirHWM
1.7 k>
fMtymi«l»w Arwnstte Hyirocslrana fWMt
DFIUIW-0Oi
AKHiRfiW
4
4
ithrawn#
T,H kt
FH'*!
ft%wjufew Awmrtb Hyrirecartmn* leftist
BHUM-eOB
AB39S809
NA
HA
Hhraomw
i n Li
im/hQ
Fotfntntaat Atenwtte HftffWKifcani PAH*l
EmUM 61 ti
ASW5B10
NA
MA
5(5/38
irhTKBdA
17 J
iWFAfl
Mjmmhir Afnmrtte H^mexiharti (FAN*}
MUM #11
AS39501T
2,&
2.$
Srtra#
ilfirroiw
1,1 u
W*0
Mynuctair Arowjrtle Hydrocarbon* (PAHi|
ORUW-#f J
AS39S6U
Z$
z.s
6f«M
J,fl LI
F&9
RcifflUtfm Aiomalkr Hfdroe+rb***
WUW-#13
ASJ9SQ13
2.5
2 5
BfR/Bft
-lUneiM
1.8 ti
mfrii
Pc^nuctair Aroowtfo HydTfvcarhoria ^PAJk|
DRIIW-«f4
A639SSt4
2S
2.5
&fR,D9
vwMHlMiflhrant
3,? tl
tmUm
Aromatic HyrfMNDtrtmna tPAHa)
OiWB.MI
AS39S141
NA
NA
7^8/98
3.2 tl
Pcrfpiuctair Aram*tfc WfchoGmrtKirm (FAHsJ
own-wa
NA
«A
ItK99
tnie^wnllinKwi*
3.1 U
Mfnuefcac ArawiiWc Hjd ronrbflis iPAttaj
OUTFALL 21?
Asaas^R?
$
s
Mtas
wH^iaratncwMi
(1.4 U
«»*¦
JfefyntfotMr A»n«tte Hydrrtc*»|ron» 100 mean#
3.1 U
wAfli
foVlnJcbw AramMla Hyifcue»liftn» (PAKi)
CWS.207
AS39S?H7
m
NA
9/2/fe
'nsofi}anlhraettn
3 U
PoiynooKtsr Aiwrwtlc (PAHa}
OW8-J«»
A83M2U9
m
fJA
V.U9E
17.7 J
«•*«
Palynuctow Anxmilc Hyikccvtisps IPAI-h)
QW3-271
Asaasan
m
NA
WW
'nzxHi}flnlhracfliM
i-2 u
a
Pnlymiclnsr Armnrfte HydtVicarbon* (PAMs)
0W« 272
AS39H272
HH
tJA
g/a/aa
'¦nto^ijorthrtcwi*
3.3 U
#F8^a
Patynueta&r AinriMki Hv^nOHtwns |PAHt)
OWS27S
ASWS276
3
WWTS
"¦wa^inUip^esM
2,b y
RiFynuehap Anxnatte h^-rfmcurban* JMHsf
OW1-3B1
A539B3BI
JdA
WA
O/J^S
"nzoWsntincMt
3! U
mfct
MflUXlliM* AfftmaWc Hydlttorboni
DLfTFALLIBI
A33ES2i(l
1.B
1 S
8,'3/M
inn(a)iniir«c«M
3.4 II
RolyiMJOtoliT AtvmtHc Hydiwrnbrtn* ff"AHit
DlfffALLJSO
AS38SZB0
Id
1,S
3^ U
#«*•
FWyniiclMr Arwirfte Hfrtramhrac?an*
3,3 U
tnfaa
Mymcliif Aramntle HydiKirhiins (PAHt)
A8-2M
AS3B523?
1
P
n/14/se
mimi)anlta*cin*
31 il
fiq/ktf
MytroicilMr Arofiirfte MydKwi'ltdM [PaNiI
U2-2S»
AS3682S3
1
1
i/ll/flB
TO^JpnttaKStRt
8,2 U
frtfta
?Gtfmri*»* Aromatte (PaH»|
CI-JM
AfWBS294
1
1
W11/9B
^ix^i.tanthmarM
32 U
WflAf
Aslynucliiar Awmatte H*itnc*Aofw (PAHn|
C2-7B5
AS3
C2-.10O
A»8gs3O0
1
m i/ie
15,4
P&W
P&timMEfe*' Anxnattc Hyrtruc*fcort» (PAHl)
ct^oi
Afi 30^301
1
r
sfn™
>nHM*nlFirae*M
t flH J
w*m
Pol^nuclaar Aromatic Hf^'ocarbona (PAIN
ei-Mi
A53dS30a
1
1
m\4im
7.3 U
P»[ynuclwr Aromatic MvrfrocwrtKBi* (PAHli
tff-303
AS395303
1
1
8/1-1 (SB
>Ftzo(a}*iitf**KMN
Z7.«
pgtkg
Palymmi'oM- Arorn«tte HydracarbiMia {PAHk)
Pfl.303
AS39».tn«
1
8.81 J
Potynuctaai Aismallt Hyd'Maibuna (PAHil
cz m»
AS30EM5
1
1
fl/1 i/»e
tnsoManttmMra
3.B U
PGlymicfsir A torn, lie Mydnxarlinria fPAH*}
ows-aar
AS.1«<3a3?
HA
MA
lP^/&0
¦,w((Jiiiihnc«n«
3.9 U
fiUlk i
Mfnudaar AnemalPc Mf IPAHil
0W5.33S
A539S333
HA
NA
t
-------
Data Uiod to Ccwnpfrtfl Ctn»fJrmalfon HHRft
|RP site 3®W«rn»n Subslotkin
AmforaM Air Forca Bast, Guam
33 b* S3)
AM«rot
RESULT QUALIFIER
uwr
MfALY&IS
LOCATWtr
SAMPUEWMitR
DEPTH
flANOi
SAMPIE OATf
io(i)v(Uiiaoanl
1,9 u
wi*g
WyBKetoaf Afflmalw Hytifoc^fcnni (PAMri)
fiwe-a^a
AS:J9e3;J(l
«
S
iWBrtW
•O^MttnaBp*
3.4 U
fjgfltfl
FWynutJUiar Arammlc hydrocarbon nftwnt
3 U
MfAp
ftrtynuekuir AmnKfc Hydfocflrhnm AH«>
MCA-38B
AB39S309
HA
NA
1 ire,18
'6{*0*nlh»c*iM
18 U
pbAh
nntyrwel#* A«mt**le
MCA 991
A839(i3»1
hA
m,
11/BJ»B
ig{a)Brdhmk|H
1SU
Pctyr«jd«p Arcirnitlc H*dPOC*rl«wn IPAtliJ
MCA-3BZ
A&39S3B2
HA
HA
ii/eM
3.S U
mfcg
PUlvTMcteal Al-offMtto iPAH*t
WCA3ff«
A#3»fl4t"3
3
7
ii/G/ve
t«WiRlht«*n»
10.4 J
mka
Mv*iud«* AtOTWite >ly4traMitMqt JPAH4
MCA-41G
A53»S41C»
NA
m
nmm
so{i$xftlfinK«M
«.S4 J
PSfrimiclBw Afwnttfc Hydrocarbon* (PAH«J
MCA419
A5303416
m
m
wmmt
t»(i)«n4hrae«nt
en.i
FtfeO
ftitynufllaM *fMfwrto Hydra«flr1xvis (PAHs)
MQk*1t
m
NA
umm
ie,?
Pcfymtchtar Aromatic fiyriraeaitfiM (PAHll
MCA418
AS385+1B
m
NA
Wisma
C0(ll#nt}T*4*1M
Xi u
PVikQ
RntytwriMr Aromatkl Hyilroc»«t»n« CPAHi}
MCA419
AS39B41B
8
?
12/1BW8
¦ti»(()anttnDarM
S.t7 J
PD)ymwt«ii Aromttte Hfdracirtnna (PAHi|
MgA-4»>
At3«9420
e
7
1 Z'in/86
3.S U
fVifyr*Kiia»T Afomal Ic Hytfcnc wioiK |PAHi|
A630S421
&
7
tz/ia,ua
•leyjififcliMfw
>,71 i
Mfcff
Potyfliicfaar Awmallc (-fyAncarbOM (PAHal
HCAr4I3
A839S4I3
m
HA
i2ati»a
S S» J
JW%
Mfnuclair AranwUc HyAncwIiDm IPAHil
HCA424
AS39S^Z4
m
MA
12/21/33
io(«Jir#i»cw*
(4
wAfl
FWyiuctoir AromttJc HyAwntbon* IPAHsJ
MCA-411
M39S4iS
NA
MA
uaiai
17 IJ
fWjfnuclsar Aremitte (PAH*)
MCft.566
A839SCW
-10
ie
4/(3^0
M(aJ»rj|(wi5#n#
S flfl J
WlAs
Pd^nuctaar Arwm'ie H*'Ao«j«bafV» |PAH«)
MCA4570
AS395BTO
10
18
4H3'9S
ictoirrttin citnt
29.9
MkQ
FtMyMictaar Aromtile HtAi>carl»m
CnUM*b72
ASaassti
5
io
OilfBB
iw^irttwietw*
?i.e
0
Bon(a)Bith[KflM
81,?
raiymjclMr AmrnaMe HydnecMDciita (PAM«|
DFTlJM-fiRa
AH3BSBH3
t
fi
4«lfflB
1ft
iuVs
PolyiKisitsr Aromatic fPAHal
OTUM-9D7
A539CW7
*
4
3.1 U
mi*n
PalynticlaBi ArwnKle Mfidwcirbofi* {PAHat
onyn-aee
AaiftSflOB
4
A
5®,'96
-------
0»t» Usofj td ContpJoW ConfirtinBtion HHRA
ihp sit* ai/HHfntoti suteitmirtB
Ajnitaman Air Fu'cs Has#, Gimm
iP»Q» 74 of 63)
UUMSTE&
RRSU1.T CHrAUffCR
usnr
ANALYSIS
(¦OCATfO1*
SAMPLE NUMBER
DEPTH
PlANUE
SAMPLE &AT6
3.1 y
wAfl
Pi»Vnu«(*«r Aramatfci HYtJ»oo»rbon* (FAHbI
MUM 699
RM8«B03
MA
NA
B
MtxeC^WTlhweww
9,1 M
MynbclgMtiri«can*
S3
fflA)
Mpnuchar Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PA+(«|
DflUM-ai 1
AS39SQ11
S,S
1.15
6W»3
3.2 U
IMynLxHgar AiomStNc Hyrirccarboft* (PAHbI
OHUM-fllZ
A53SSB12
2,6
l.B
EMS
mnf^^hrram*
&,» J
PnlfRiJcfa«t Aromalip Hydro4*rt>4*.rufo?«}art#rtB*n*
TO
Mfnuclair Ar«i*,aite HpfrGcariiona (P*Hi)
~ffljH-fiia
AS39S014
1 R
2,6
6«f99
tnsoftiHymia
2.e y
wfy
tM|fnnN;lB<( /tomato HjifcefrBrfcorp
0«vs 1^1
A«3#SW 1
FfA
NA
mm
WrtMpinn*
i.a u
*1*0
Petynuclaar AromMlb fPAHa)
OW-1H
AS39914Z
NA
MA
-W2«(4p)
:vu»fi)pyfar Aromslki Wfdrccarbortt (PAHa|
cs-a«?
A836B2f>!j
1
1
13/11/38
a b u
Pclym^Lair Apornntfc HydrneMtKHW |PAH«J
CI-?M
».BM52dft
1
1
aii^g
¦wiao(«Jw»i*
3 u
unfa
RrtwucAw." ftrwn«l>c IPAMb}
«-2M
W39S2S?
1
iniso
VB6(ty|iyi«IW
3 li
mfc t
Mywctww AfWlKlle Hl^roc^lwrt* (PAfW
C2 298
#33«J»2»B
t
8/1IS1
*n»Mpfrtm
58.4
WolytiiieJp* A«m«te HydfMarl*™ |PAH«(
C2-299
Asamtm
1
I
flrt »/sa
TmHMwniw
4JU
mtkf
PchwcTwr Arwiwlle Hwlwwlwn* (PAMbI
t2-aoo
ASMS309
%
t
wi ?/3a
-mstyPfw*
*1,4
mM
f^lyi«#cl*ar Anumaltc tlydraca^en* |PAI k|
CJ.301
AS38S»t
1
1
9/11/90
ir*ro(i)pyT*fM
24.3
natkt
f^slyrmKitpM- Andmitte HyrfrM«rt»ri# |PAH»)
AS39S302
t
WW8
2».& J
m(H
Poiwuuertir ftrcHmtlc HydraciFtoiv SPAJHhl
FJ-3Q3
AS3»5303
1
1
9W8H
jnffsK*)pif«™
SJJt
W*u
Pohrnuctatr Arwtmhs HydfOtfartorw ^>AH*I
Ffl-303
A83983V4
1
1
ft/T #/BB
ww(*||nHM
2* 4
imifc#
Pcitvwul#* ArtuwWo Hydmf art«h* ff>AM®1
C2-3O0
A«3W?0B
1
I
9/11.HB
wnMPyMNi
3.4 11
mm
PoiynuelaA- AffimMie Mydbaetrtani (TAMtl
DWS*3a?
AS3B9%)7
NA
NA
10^/9B
irafafanm
3.* U
wr/kfl
hlnnucbs- Aitmrik> HyJusi^WI flfWlfcl
owa 330
AS33S330
bA
MA
to/Srta
srin^»)p/wt™
i,s u
«#*t
Af»n«lto Hydros (PAMtl
OWS-33S
A53H5339
fl
i -
3 U
Myr*ielfar Aromatic ftVdffKiAris^H (TAMll
0WS340
Asass:uo
J
1
tDfflfflft
*nzoMpyiwNi
a.i u
m'lq
PalynycNtai Arermrilc Hftlrocifbert* (PAHit
OV¥SJ4T
ASMM-ll
7
7
9«N^lVirNi
a.? u
«*¦
P^JirnuBlaBrAranwItoHyiifrKarfaihw (fAHif
OW»-3*2
AEMS,HZ
11
11
i a
iw* *w cm, Mtit*. **>«*<
I
-------
Dale Usftd m Coroplei« Confftmaflton HHRA
JRP Sits 39/Mi»m*m Substation
Andersen Air force »bs«, ©nam
|P«8» 76 af 13]
4AMltlR
RESULT OUAWFIER
inwr
Ajrairsr*
LOCATION"
IAMP1.® NirMRER
MPTrt RAi(1E
SAMPLE DATE
1.7 U
wifca
Palfniictaw Aromsllc H?droc«'bQt» (PAI-h|
OWS-343
AS39S343
9
9
10W9B
mWwmm
1.1 U
FalfiiUCfear Aromitk: Nfdi«irbslii IPAHbI
OWe-544
A6JDS344
9
0
1OIC/80
icxilpynm*
2.8 U
M3*fl
ftjlj^nucls* Anmwtk Mydftteifhsnn. (PAH*I
OWS-34B
AS3U834B
B
fl
inis/aa
-w(i)plfi»n»
2.B u
jWOfltfl
Ptttfnticttar Anwratfe H^lwoirlwi* IWHbJ
DHIM-373
AS3BSS73 ,
14
14,G
W.WM
io(«|pV»iWe
2.B U
Pslf nueb»r Anwjwfle Hytfroeirfeer* IPAIta}
IOTIIM334
AS38S.174
1i
14. ES
1Q>2DAS
zc(4pyiwH
2.B y
yv*Q
MifUibii AmnMtfe Hytfron«rtion» IPAHil
DHUM-37a
AB39&3T9
14
14. B
10/20/3 B
zeCakpynm
Z3 U
ft^a
Pnl|rnml«*r Arwrwtfe Hydro^trbow |PAH»}
MM-W
A«1B5378
14
14 6
10/tO»B
'Zo(4f5ffwl"
iji u
B
PDlfnuclaar Aremntta HyiirDOMtmna IP.AH*}
mmsctj
AS3&S3J7
14
1l.fi
10/20,>9 8
2.BU
«i"w
Pntymrebir Aramttlc Hpfmcirbens IPAHi)
DflUM-378
AS30&3T6
14
14.11
10/1U/5B
oDldpynnt
IB U
Nfnueb«r ^remiifc HfAecstaM !P!AH»f
DHUM-370
AS3SB378
14
14.5
HlHOfflB
¦"Nraw*
i m y
Folfnucte*/ Arom»tfc HyrinocwlKW* IPAHb}
WHJM.d90
Assssaao
14
14,8
mmm
™Ww»«»
ZM U
Myiunlaar AMJinitte HyrtnjeartK™ IPAH»1
Aft3»G3i1
14
m,s
!
MCA3flfi
AS39i33BS
»
7
31 Ji
Potynuchir Arom&ik: Hfdrtmvbcnt #WW
MCA-SflS
Asansaen
3
7
1T^,<9S
tZ0{«)p)MM
3.2 y
W&9
Fefyniitifaar Aramilfc HydriKHbiina tfWM
MCA-31?
A93983S7
2
5
1 tlSfQB
•*a|"hv*n*
3,2 U
Ffctfuuohtf ^fomilte Mfiroowbom PAH»^
MCA-38S
A^'iMsee
3
7
1irei9g
17 U
mflta
PttlfMKlaar ArflmMte Hyd'oorbcini (PAH«>
MCAaea
A9398;ma
m
HA
Hdfj/w
»fl<^PSrt*n*
18 U
Wfnucbw Aromatic ftydracaftanB (fAHlJ
MCA-311.
AS395391
MA
MA
11ASA«
17 U
PolynucMr Miffllth #AHll
MCA-332
A9&0S392
N A
HA
ii«/ee
izcMpyrtrw
3.2 U
ugfcg
Pfltynuctej* A/ciiiiiidc KfdMcirtiwrti (FAHii
MCA-88B
AS398403
3
7
iiA»9e
0.22 J
Wfcd
Palftiuelaar ArornUk: Hydros artigriE (FAHn)
NICA-tlB
ABM9411
Nft
HA
i2/io»a
uo^pyrw*
0.1S J
Polytiucba1 AronwiBc Hvlrar.irtmnB 4PM~h|
MCA-«li
AES#941fl
NA
NA
®s(tiWiw«
ao
wAa
tolVtwchMf Aromatic HydracaitctrtB tTAlk)
MCA-417
AB39S4-17
NA
NA
la/iwsn
mjpQP^Ki*
\7 J
palynuclbv AnjmiHk Hydroeirbona (PAHi)
NCA41B
Afi&S4lB
NA
NA
12/r6/ffB
ns(a}fip'»m
3.4 U
W*0
Polytiudift Arem*te H^ttBBibotw (PAH*1
MC4419
AS&fi41i
«
7
12/16^0
n»(4]pyrM»
3.1 u
PolJmueJ** A«Fm(Jo Hv*oflwlw» (PANtl
MCA 420
AS3&84J0
a
f
1 ?,»«>« B
npftjpymi*
3.2 U
W&9
Polf ATomtic H|diH
DRUH-&12
AS395E7;
i
10
us Mm
infMpyriM
7J.S
PoifnuElaM AranMlc Hydwwiiboni JTAHtJ
DBUM-57B
ASSflES^B
1
s
E.7 V
ugfefi
Pt4jfriui*»«r Aramitte Hfdrocartwn* (PAH#)
DWJM676
A33B867«
6
10
4«1fft»
noWpyiww
2.s y
mtei
Polynuei*ar Ar«m«tc Hfrftocwfcorn ##b)
0RilM-{>7m
A639SE7H
6
10
4/a im
xoiVFWMw
1.3 U
«rtg
Cotyriijcbar AremBtk. |lyWWTinf
2S.1
m*<9
Pc4vnucl«ar At«milie HfdnwwfwTn ffAMt)
0RUM-8B1
AM9S591
B
»;2ima
Tiu(i)pjw#ii
2S.8
«g/kg
PolVn1J's*<,*r AromnH: HfHtFOcnrbarre tf'AHs)
MUMGS2
ASSftSBftJ
5
in
4/21 /eg
iM|i)f»yrwp*
117,5
P3*#
P*jlyfli«l»* Awittalte M^liocurtNJftS n«fln>i»
(JflUM-fl ? 1
AsaftSftf1
1.5
2.fi
mm
ttM^pynfta
1.9 V
P
-------
Dwta Uved tn Cpmpl»tfl Confirmation HHfiA
IFlP Situ 39/ttarTnnn Suhsrtatlcn
AniltrSen Air forca Baaa, Guwn
(P*§« Jfl of 531
\MAMBTfcR
RESTILT QUALIFIED
LT.TT
ANM/V5IS
!.(,V Pilots
&ilMPT,lt MUMB1PR.
M*THBA«G6
«AMPtE DAT€
'nzStfUjpyWH-
E J J
ftflk#
PsNyfittcl"*' Af«iwlfc Hirdwc-wlwi* IPAUri
0»1UM-9t3
rt,a339013
2.5
2,e
6W;Si
?»
wrti#
Pulynuclsar Aftmttlo HyidKWarbst*. (PAHfct
DftUM-BH
AS39S61«
I,t>
2.S
mw(&)fluw»n#iiiw
42 V
MynunlMr Anomnte Hy *">:*••• fhara rf At-ftl
CWS-1'1 |
ASJflS 141
HA
WA
imm
yiluwawi»lfc Hydh>c«rton» pPAHfcl
OUTFALLZ57
A639S337
R
S
BhtQS
H,B U
WSlfff
PDnnucUar AWmaMc Hv*i,oartiar« [FAH*|
oiiTFAitiee
AS.19S8S0
B
a1
atma
irin{fa}Aka)<*>itliaria
12.4 J
Wrtt»
Palynytfcw AromMh: Hjrtoct<6t>n*
UWS-258
AS3iS2«9
7
7
mm
Nra»|t]jlffaAWi|
<3W$-2j®0
^i3fS2BO
7
7
mm
3J U
#«fta
Fttwuttwr Arcmttte WiMittoni irAMij
OWS-181
A9J9S2B1
7
7
#/2»B
SJ U
mm
PfehimucWr AwMk Mr4ftK*rt»o*» (PAHii
OW5-S«4
AS39S2S4
1
1
mm
4.1 U
m*it
PuM*lcl«»r ^mnn*llc H^flMJC«rtwn» (PAH*|
oWs-Zw
^33$S2M
7
7
9/2M9
XlZOftOflnowrthian*
4,1 if
rti/k«
7«I*iiic1«»t Awm*tte h*d!»c«1iw» ffAHil
OWB-207
HS3S52B7
m
m
Stt/88
¦«B»Hi)ftwwMi!l mi m
4 11
w*q
J%ly*iwA«r /I'onnlle (PAHi)
0WS-2ti
493#S2«8
HA
MA
sa/ra
2nra{b}||iBMMh*r*
fl.B4 J
™*e
^j%fWclAH*l
ci-i«a
A333SZ13
i
1
inyss
r»e|b)fctcif»rTth«rMi
4 .3 U
W/fc-f
fMyWtwMwM AWftlKlo WAH*!
C2-IS4
A33082B4
i
1
9/11A9
4,3 U
jwftn
PaMwcteat Awwrtki.Hvi&iKiirtiorit {PAIftl
CSjflS
Afla9959&
1
t
S/tl/IW
vwtfepiumnllMna
4,3 U
(•0*B
Polytwdw Awm«llc llifAoc*lwn» (PAff#|
C2-29S
AS3S&29»
i
1
B/nns
inawflflliKuwrrthan*
4.6 U
jUO Ac f
folynv;Mar ^iMm#t|g H^wsfcSM {PAWa|
C2J18;
A838B297
i
1
9/1 1j«B
4 a y
jwfcfl
Italy midaar Ansnilte HydnMsitoni (PAH»|
C2-2M
«MS2M
1
1
BJi t,»aa
wuBfl^tuawntteh*
Ea.e
hiKr«l*d*»r ^lotnil* Hlcdtoo»fliOf>« (PAH*!
CI-2 S3
A3»9S2»3
i
1
0/11/3B
NJ
flo(!fn»wlMf Af-»ni«jc- Hydw^rfcofit
claw
A33fii3»
i
1
W11»i
KtiKiMAuwiirtltin*
13.6 J
Jfltfkg
Patfffliicttar Aromatic: Hv^roctiboiiB (PAMa^
CZ-WT
AajBOfJCI
*
1
intA^|fly«rtrt{wM
10 2
PtrfyTTifcfwir Aromatic HpitQEtrbtttS (I'M tsl
EO-M2
Assssas;
i
1
*/i4/aa
m»o(li|fluw»rth#Rt
27 J J
ua/kg
Poljr nucrtmf Aromatic HrdrosJU'bcsnv (PAHb)
A839S303
i
1
9/14/08
nziHtHftjw>T*h*r»
?RD
Mynudn«r Arorrwlte *tyd«icar|miia CPWs>
E0-303
AS3BS304
i
»
3/H/B8
Hfn(bJlW«rc(Tar«
10,0 J
FWynuolMr Armrwtki H^woaftioiii (PAH«t
caaoo
AM«MB
t
1
Wl/«!
inw^bjftairanihm*
5.1 U
Pniymie<«ar Aramatle flytjrecBrtcnv (PAH»l
GWS-M7
A&JB9337
NA
NA
10/5/US'
6,1 «
jagAo
Pritfnuctflai Atumatlc H^drafiSfb'Oim- tPAHu)
OV&33B
AS3S833B
NA
MA
lOfi/Bt
^raopip/orwrtwm
34 U
tfirtu
WlpwulMr AfMTMtfa MiMweafhor* (*"iAIHhe|-
0WB-3I&
AS39HM9
e
0
•WHbJfamnlhwa
4.1 U
Pcfymiclsar Arom»ttc Ifydmear^Dna fPAH»t
OWS-J40
AS39S3HM(,JilfflM
-------
Ma Us id to Gunnels CDnflrmatkw HHHA
1RP Stifl 39/Hnrniun Subntsiion
Andarian AW Fn»c» Basil, Oram
(PaftA 37 of S3I
tMFI'tR
RESULT QUALIFIES
Unit
ANALIf'SfS
r/MZATOTS
SAMPLE Mini HOI
DPmfBA«cir
fiflMPlS OATt
4,2 y
l^lymjclMr Aromatic Hvdroeprb«fi» IF*Aht»>
CWUM-374
A8335374
14
14.5
1D«W9P
otbJllUOrtfYfbint
4,1 U
M|/»0
folynuclsar Aftifflttic Hydrocarbon {PAHs)
CflUM-37«
A8398376
14
14 M
mzmz
ilbtffcicnintHrHi
4.3 U
M|/lB
ftlynudHr Jtraraitlc Nyriroe wtom (PMIt)
DnuM^^e
ASWS.17e
14
14 15
mwm
Dp^fltwrvrtfwH
4.| U
MfWjctoqr Arcmajh: Hy4
14,B
io.'2om
*.i U
M*9
Polvmictoir Airwrwik Hjdwafbon* (PAHd
CflUWI-378
*6395376
14
14,S
wiivm
4.1 U
W<*fl
flulymjetoii Arwnaflia
DFftJM-a7»
Afi398a*fl
14
14,5
loao^a
a^hnnMhint
4.1 U
ftifyriuehir Aromatic tfycfreeartxiin (PAHiJ
DRUt-f-Sfifi
AB30&3SQ
14
14 M
xammn
4.1 U
Po^m-Mair Atonwlc HyufrccMtmi^i (PAHi)
DwuM-aat
A639&361
14
14,6
10Q0rtWJ
v^llwnn'tlMM
U
Mynuolair Art^iwJc Hytiroc^Fkofti jPAHi)
A639S3B5
3
7
11^8
11«
noflynuctekr AwrMtte Hydn>E)lfknn»
HtCAJim
Asawaefl
3
7
11 ritn'ro
'AH*)
I4GA-385
ASawgea
a
7
11,Wa
26 U
HBflta
Pnl^rnuctair Afcrstfb Hydrocarbon! {PAH*)
MCA-aea
A53«S3fl9
NA
mi A
! W#0
24 U
jtw/ka
fofynuctoir Aromitte Hyrirafiirtara ffAHtf
MCA-39t
AS3AS39I
IVA
HA
lime
J
falyniclnr Aromitlc Hytfnac»»1>wi* IPAWpi
MCA-3S2
AS3V3392
DA
MA
11««8
4k? W
(M|fftueb« jAromslfc 4 PAH* I
MCA-399
Aarjpe-iOO
3
1
n,«see
isCtyfluiiMnihani
74.7
vote
folptuelaar Aforrurtit HyBlriwurfiftrn, (TAf ta|
MCA-41E
AS9M4 ti
NA
m
1J/18/J0
x^bJfluoairiiiarM
22,1
JUAp
PotyniclMi' Awwiife Hyrfrectt'bOfl* (PAMl
(MCA4l"l
A83W19
HA
m
1Z/16/9B
71,7
Po%iiucto«r Aromstio HiKfrocwlioiw
MCA 41?
AS3UG417
NA
HA
52/15.190
'OfbJfiiHanttwn*
40.3
AilpuctairAwmitlc HydwirhoM (PAHil
MCA-41B
A5MS41B
MA
NA
12/iarae
)llHnntllM»
ft,6 J
cg/tig
AitynuciHr Arom«tkr ttyi^veaflionK (PJkHtl
MCA-ilB
AS»4e421
«
7
i imm
37-9
Aslynnhaf Aromrtfe HfdrtKiattMm
MCA433
ACS3QS423
m
m
tim/ws
•9{tp(MitinthDti*
76
Ugrfc g
f^rtynuElnr fvommia HTdrocwtwiw IFAJHc)
MCA-424
ASft89424
m
NA
tzmm
-a04H«r Hv«lNiE4rUArM (PAHs}
DRUM 57 B
A8398B75
i
E
4/aiw
nftjlhiMiinttitM
4 U
fUyftudBnr Aromatic hfyriroctrtsvis (PAM*}
~nUM-57S
AS.1»SB7fl
F
to
wima
'BltlJftMfMtWM
4.2 U
pg/lcj
Po(ynmsl»if Aromttk: Hyrirouarbwn (PAHW
DRUMI7B
Afia»BR70
a
io
4(2 W*
4.1 U
Polyrucfow Hydnxufftcfw
OPMM 880
A8398BB0
B
10
4«1«B
IS
Ri(*nucfwf ArijiYnrtfo HydrocartHSfw (PAH*|
omiMflii
ASaflSBSt
!
€
WW9
30.f
Mythic Kir Aromul# Hydrocirbom
OW8-141
AS39SM!
NA
NA
7/BMH
nfflnUMIflttMna
as y
Pb)ynud«ir Aromatic MydrocirtXini (PAHa)
owa.tia
A33i314J
NA
NA
//0iD8
-------
Uilft ifstd (o Complete Confirm#fion HHRA
IRP Sll« 39fl4nwwn Subswwion
Anderson Air Fores Bare, Quam
of 53}
"JtAMEftR
RISUit QUALIMM
U Ml
ANA1WS
LOCATION
RAMFI.K NUMBER
DEPTH
FIANCE
SAMPLE DATE
irmi^uDmrdhtfw
3,» !i
WA-i
Polymwteir ArerfiMfc FAHsl
WITFAtMi?
Aaaaaju?
5
5
'ruiofltyiiuonnihtiw
1A U
WynudHrAnmilir, ll^menlmu (PAHIj
QlFTFAU2Bfl
AB39ftJRB
S
5
e/was
'h?a(l(1lllMMnlhan*
3.8 y
PnSvnJc1&«r Aromulle Hydrocarbon* f AHbI
OW&-25S
A830S2S8
7
7
¦moo^ituonnhto#
a,a u
wfri
^olyniiRlur Ammnftlc Hydioirtrbm*
C3.-30O
A638SOOO
1
6/11»R
13 J J
M&1
f^J^tiudw' Afamitte HytfnnrbDfiP (PAHiJ-
0-30?
AS30SM1
!
1
m-uoa
I1.fi
potytiifcbw MuH'tlC HydiWJultKUM (PAHi]
EBftai
AS3HS90?
1
1
w*CpO(K«*nthen»
B.l U
mfr a
ftiiymrclaa" Amnitlc Hydracirfaons (TAIIc)
E3-30A
AS3933C3
1
!
21.?
PolyrnjclB™' ArwiaWc Hyiiraaartaam |PAHt!
EH-303
A8398304
1
T
M4 m
9.1 II
J*#.*#
Pc4yr»iobH ArMTPdc MjtJnn5»h«n« iPAffs}
CK-.HJtf
A9MS306
1
1
«^1 itta
•mappusniitliiM
4.B U
jt&'kg
PolyntKjlBst AfWTiMiQ HviJracatlior» (FAKs)
owa-;W7
AS399337
NA
HA
iD/sm
4.0 U
Po(yt*JCl»»t Ararrnrilc HfrtnrajrtKfrtt IPAHs}
ows-aas
Afl39»330
NA
NA
lO^^a
1zc u
Wftv
hMri«n
inm)(tirwt»inlh«n>
3,St)
***•
f^lynusiOfr AfOmrnlo N^I(w
DHUM-.lffl
A539S37®
t4
14 6
t dfram
UtfoWHWHrlliwiW
3,9 K
ftjfynuclew Arwnidic fcfln*(fAH«>
wmM-ar?
AS39H3/7
14
14,11
mmm
MAUmI brMHP 3t Akw Otto, MM}, Sil OPM
-------
Dala Used lo Compfatw Conflmurtlcjn HHRA
IBP Shi 3 3 (Harm an Substation
And«r« IPah«|
riniiM-afa
AS3§sa?e
14
1d.fi
10/9 Q/AD
3Qi]lliKnHtfi«ria
X«
u
itofyfiutthar Anvrnfle Hvf*flC«bBr» |PAHi|
rfflUM.3?Q
AB39B37&
14
14.5
icraowa
^ftuoranOwtw
3.0
u
m."w
fblynucfear Aromillc Hy-dioc»ta*i« IfAHfl
DAUM-300
AB336390
14
14,5
10J2W98
sftybranntan*
3,«
u
f
Aromatic HydwtoK IPAW»]
onUM-sai
A6M&3B1
14
14,E
10/2Q/96
^Jftonidhtt-Ww
4. A
u
Pofynuiliar Antwmle-H^rfnusarbom |PAH«1
MCA^IRR
ASMRlflilt
3
7
i M^se
^ninHammrift
'4.3
J
w^w
fti^mielrtr AtdniAlb.Hv4irtiirtinfla p"AH*>
MOA-MB8
A33DS39®
3
7
1 1/B«B
v(h)flii«amh4n*
4.S
u
m/**
PolynuelsiT Aromatic HydrnfiSfborii {PAMi}
MCA-3B7
AS3SS3A7
2
B
1W9H
rtftJUmmnthin#
4,4
u
ftriymekMf Aromitfc Mydrcearfooftt (PAHi)
MCA-38B
AS3SB3BB
3
7
T1,MB
oflijftwwirTtrwri*
23
u
ttfA*
MVnuehwr Alumni b Hyrfrcwnrljani FAWtJ
UCA^KI
ARMfUtftft
HA
NA
11WH
21
u
Mil*#
Potynuttaflr Aroniitlc Hydriscirboni PA Hi)
MCA-3B1
A93933d1
m
MA
1 WIB
efk)flNMmthMw
13
UJ
PrlyrnjcFeir Aromatic MydiooaHhwi
MCA-332
AS3BG31H
NA
NA
'o(k)flaEMith«nt
4.4
u
Palynuchiar Aromatic Hfdmwjarbon I (PAHif
MCA-3R0
AS3BS40S
7
11^/Bfl
¦HHflliiaiwm
7.50
J
MJtfl
rolymchir Arom*tfc NydiocntODI (PAHi|
WCA-41B
AS3BS41B
HA
NA
l2r1Si«B
SJ1
J
Aro«i«lfc Hptf ratr*bt»« {RAHf)
MCA-41#
A899S41«
MA
MA
nmm
31
Mjfca
PcffnUc(*ir Aranlitte Hrdfacarbon* (PAfltl
MCA-41?
A33B3417
NA
MA
iznSfSB
ofliJIhKilwilhwv#
s.as
J
hitynuc^Bir Aramitfc (Ifdrecwlnflt iuof«rih«fH
»,S
J
mf*Q
Myftuelsar Arjivwtto H^bwitIhhw (PAHi}
MCA-423
ASS9S423
m
m
1Z/21/1B
t^lluafanihfq*
J
PoJyrKjtJrtaf Aretnmilc tP*Hi[
MCA-424
AS39S424
m.
HA
12/21/M
o^nmc%4t A foni*lte HfdractrtMMi (PAHi)
»uw«ai
1
5
4/nna
13.8
nam
f^olyniidiar Aromtite HydrscptMrii iPAHil
cnuM'Sfii
AS39S5&2
i
10
4/ilw
39.B
ufl/fcs
ftrtjfriueJMr Arcin>tlc Hycsrti«s»w PAH»)
OTUM-M3
AS3W1W
1
5
4/JI/flt
1fl
wirtog
pd^rwe(««' Hirdrw*rt>o'ii
OnuM-607
AS3S9007
4
*
5/K/flfl
4
u
w/fcfl
Polfrftudair Arom^tle llydwcwb^ni {PAMt}
DnuM-flue
A&398M8
4
4
ra^iftiNnitliBn*
3.0
u
Pa^yiHKitir Af«m»!
-------
Data Ua«f to Cwnp(et« Cflntfntwrttein HHP A
|W Sfle i^i'Harmon Substation
Andoraen Air Fore* £Saa«r Guam
[Pags 30of S3)
ASWHTER
REBUT,T QUALIFIER
i»rr
AFALVS1S
I.OfrtTHIK
SAMPLE NIMHKR
DEFIW RANGE
SAMP If DATE
htytoris
2.2 U
Polpnuofftf Atwn»Ue Hydnoeinbona {PAK»|
0WB-26»
AB39S241
7
7
Ai'i/Bft
hry»tjw
2,1 U
no/kg
Putfnuctaar ArOfturtlo hyrimcartinni {f'AHsl
CJWr.KM
A&1SIS3fW
7
7
OW-W
hiyaerw
2,2 U
Ofyr^julpn A'shtwIIc Hydiocaitioni IPAKbI
QWB*20fl
ASJ9S2dn
7
7
mm
hrypm*
2,$ u
Mm/kg
Folynuclnr Armpafc Mrdrwtrbvni tf»AH»l
owB-aei1
AS39S21/
NA
NA
9/2/38
hr/nwT#
2,2 U
mIks
PofynudM; Aromatic H^drticarbarti
owft jsa
AiMaKjtly
HA
MA
ft a
hiya4)p*
11 w
tm*g
MtfiltjOtoar Aramitfc HfcfTOCwboni (f AHvJ
OIVS 211
AS395271
NA
«A
W»l
fiiysm*
2,3 If
fflAfl
Po»vrnjctuV Afomathe H]f4w«i«honi (RAH*)
nr
ayrrwiaflw
AS3PS219
IB
1.5
fl/a/w
2 4 U
>sftg
fMvrnielMr AmivuitB Hydnwirtem 4
ASaWM*
1
1
mtm
2,4 U
vafKQ
myiuieltv Ammttlo HytfrncfttMris IPAHa!
C228B
Asassaofi
1
1
muse
hrywn#
1A U
hlfnuctovr AmmaHg-HyA'DCBtiam pAKi]
C!-28fl
Asnaizae
i
1
tfiim
Iwywn*
2.4 U
tttfn
M*rilict»»r Alcffialb HyA«vtMiw JPAH«I
C2-2B7
AS39S?BT
i
1
wi wa
hfyMn*
5.4 If
mflm
n^uctair Aromntb HyA-raxtionB «r AfDitt»tie Hy«ifcn5»rt) |PAH«)
AS388JOO
*
1
an we
hqmn*
2,S U
WJA0
Rjijmuctotf Afumrtte HydrDcwiian»
C2-301
Asass-ifli
i
1
an i«e
hiyvtn*
932 J
#wt«0
ftitcniicteir Atonulb Hydn»"itxmi
EI-WI
A63SS302
1
1
4H4HHS
hiys»fi*
11M 3
*B^K
Pcif)fnucW«F' Anxnitlo HydrocaitiDrM ^AHb|
E3.3M
1
t
W14/90
rtiywrn
iaj 4
Pe1y*iu«#«r A'cwitlfc HjKfr«:»rboti» iPAHii
F8-303
AS3BS304
1
1
fl/14/W
ilflHM
11,3 U
FWynudaar Aremnl« Hfirowbwc twn* IfAMt-l
0WB-M5
ASd«934G
8
f
tWimM
htySMM
2,3 U
WvtfXl#* AfC*r»tis fPAHa)
wuw a? a
AsanaaTa
14
T46
10*0,1*8
-hiyMD*
£.3 U
Mfftg
PoKrtuchM Artwnath l^ctrnqiirbor* (PAH»I
0RI1W-374
AS398S74
$4
14 S
lo^oiBe
hpywra
2.2 U
/igfef
PntynuctwM Arorrmtki IffdracarbonC IPAHt)
DflUM-375
A139S37S
1*
14.5
10QCH1B
.NryHtw
1,3 U
m*t i
l^plyf«jdB*f ArotrnHs H^acwbwlW |MH»1
Aiaa«83?i
14-
14 5
ID/Za/BQ
irywnt
1,3 U
RilfiiuS^Har Aromatb N^dfTW«t»imB |?AHb(
DHUM 377
A33SR3T7
t +
US
ia»2l3/M
:iry»fNl
2.3 U
pilflsf
Parvnuctaar Arornnth) Hyrfrocartuma IPAHs}
DdUM 376
AS396378
14
14 fc
1tl(Jq/9ft
1 9 U
mbAa
ftitfJHK3a#r Ar«n«lb HyAwcfHana IPAH«!
nmiMvlJft
A339S3JS
14
14 5
10.'l 0.fl 8
hrynny
2.X U
itgrtsg
m^iiucMiar Aromftfc Hytrrocamom (pa>W
OTJM 3TO
A33S53TO
14
14 5
to^iXiaa
2.2 v
m/tfl
fcl|(mieln
-------
Ctata UeAd toCompIeto CwfirinstlDfi HHRA
IRP Site 39(H«ktw(i Subrtrtlofl
Andersen Ah Forct 8n«, Guam
cirt«pHf |f*ANi>
MCA--3BI7
ASSnsati?
2
5
1 !f5/98
.mm
3.6 U
FHynuiktr Atomolk Hydrocarbon* )PAH*1
MGA305
Aaassast
3
7
nro»e
otib
3! J
UQfcQ
Potynuckm Aronwto H»dmw«rt»
Mw-ana
AiU0S3i9
NA
NA
1I/S/98
-MfW
ia u
MO*#
Bolynuohw Aroimito Nydwttrtom jFAH«>
MM3BI
Aiuniufti
m
NA
*#«~
BQ ,8 J
mfcf
Palyauetor AkmtmHc Hytfrocufeom (WI«J
MCAflBJ
AS3BS3W
m
MA
t mm
'3*r»
2.# U
M/JIt4)
fotynuehw Ajfomalic H|Hf riHmrbwM IPAMs)
MCA-3»B
AS39S4C3
3
7
titetm
w»
j,a u
wito
Potynuclnar Aioiwrtle Hydiixurtiom jPAHl]
MCA-41B
AS3BS11E
MA
NA
14.9 J
pg.ta
Ptofyrnlctaar Afomnffc Kyrfrocatani ti7
MA
MA
WlijW
jmm
16 J
WynuclMir Aiwmrtlo Hydraeirfwif *B
PoTymjcl»flr Arecrwriic HydmcHtmi (PAHsJ
MCA-419
AS39S421
8
r
12/lBiBB
.¦WBW
ira J
w/k#
hilfnijcivsr Ap^rngtb HydTOCiibm* (PAHil
MCAJU3
AR998433
N*
NA
12,'21/et
1.2 u
Pij|^T5LKte»r /inifVrtJo Hydwir-iw>n« (PAMcf
MCA-414
AS333434
NA
NA
12S1/W
3(2.3 J
Polrnuref*n AiDmric Hydiwe wbiMI# (PAH>|
MCA-4-JB
Ae39642B
NA
MA
12/tl/M
<«m
18R J
Mh%«
MfmJete-if AromaMo Hittiwnrfctfr™ (PAH«|
MCA-G^a
AS308S#9
1B
Id
A/i3ma
|«*M
734 J
PclynLicteir Arwnric HydFUCit^cn" If Will
1WCA-B711
AS33SB70
10
Ifl
4/13/«9
ymrm
1B.2 J
miH
PWfrtudflir Afomillc Hydros itfcori# IPAW*|
DAUM472
AB 598571
6
10
*mm
y*ni
ia.e j
ftrfyfVUct® ir AmtTtjIiD Hydros irbCht IPAHil
0RUM-S7S
A933S57B
1
i
4/11/ga
tfwm
t,z u
fVynucW*' Atomiitic HyJrt";»ibci*« |PAH>|
DRUM-57&
A939SS7B
S
10
4/2 V»9
3.3 U
D
A wmirtle ttyilroe irlscnc (PAItfel
omiMt?7«
A930SB7fl
S
10
m urn
V«m
2.3 U
Au2
E
10
4/21/9B
C44t*
3B.6 J
FoJynucla®' Aramsllb HfEJrDCBrtOrt* IPAKi)
DRUM-BB3
AS396SS3
1
5
4/Jl/flB
fmtrrn
10 J
PQ*fl
PoJynmshlB Arwrnatki Hydr»artian« fPAM*^
DfiUM-flQ?
A9.-398A07
4
4
EM»
ft»M
3-3 V
«/kff
falyrvtilrtaf Anmstfe HyrfReartMni (PAHnJ
muM-flos
AS.1BS90fl
4
4
B.>5W0
ysm#
2.2 V
Wfto
Rilymiclur AnnmRlc Hydrcnrbom (PAHi|
DHUM.|K»
A53t5!K»
MA
NA
V5«W
2,2 U
PtjTyrwcTo-ar Aionrmte H*rfiws»rbMw {PAHs}
DBUM-ilO
*3396510
NA
NA
¥**m
21 J
P5fymicl»« ArewnHc Hy€ro5»rbo»*« IPAHri
csflUw-eti
Afe3fi9l1
t 5
2 6
Btm*
wm
2,3 U
jw»>g
PollffmctMi Aroirtitte f-t^J«nsifbo«i M|
CI11IM-014
AS39S014
2.5
2 S
§/SfB4
e.2 y
nuctear ArBiratfc ^ lj»droe#'l**Ti
0WS-T4T
*8395141
NA
WA
?jam
e<1 u
OWS-14-2
AS399142
NA
HA
7i»m9
«rm(i,H)iitthreMr*
s u
jqrtfl
MyniKlaaf AiomMte H^racirtenc (FVJkl
AS33a?67
i
5
mm b
ie u
Pdfnudfti HpitotiilWM (PAHll
OU1fALL25B
AS9SS35B
1
5
wi mm
*nro{j.h}«r*t?r»c*r»
7.8 U
Afornitk) Hy4rv«wbAn< (PAW«I
omzm
Aiaei2i»
7
7
mms
««|i.l4HiUiwcMia
7.9 U
FMyrmclair Arom*tte l^raeirtioni fPAllil
0W3JSQ
AS369Jfi(J
7
7
my me
«nt»(f.|$anflinBww
7,8 U
Wftj
fojyitLKlair Aromntlc h+yarocifbon* IPAliil
WWS.2A1
AS39S2B1
7
1 •
9j2ma
-snrc(i.h)>nttir*c-«n*
7.B U
MlftO
nolynucl«»r Af«milb l^yrfrrtSifbom PAHkl
owe 2f4
A1539S2M
7
1
tl/Z/98
«TiIB|a.h}anWiiac>n
7.9 U
wft|
Mymicto«r Awmitlc Hyilrm:(*t«»?ii IPABil
owa-iaa
AS3iSS«a
J
1
Mhaa
7.9 y
fidtfiiuclMr Arornub HyitfrKs«t»v IPAHw
owsjflr
A3398207
W
m
iti.m
r
-------
Pat# USid 19 Complete Confirmation HHRA
IFF Site S^Harrnan Substation
Andwmen Ah" Fgrco Bpse, Guam
52-5 J 5;1|
JtAMOTR
RESULT CHJAWTOR
ANALYSIS
LotAinw
SAMFtE DUMBER
DEPTff RANGE
SAWFt-E DATE
benasfahlanfaMtM
1A U
Potrfmckitf AlKTOatie Hydrocarbon* (PAH*1
owa-ifls
^S3»SZ8t
M
m
»iO/sa
tMrtms^hjNwithniewMi
40 U
OTfltf
Palyrtiittow Aromatic Hydraajtrbona (PAHal
OWE-271
AflflKl£J71
m
m
nman
btihH(aJs>>(4Mi«rw
s.3 y
MynlielBar APOTOilkt Hydrocarbon* iPAKll
DWB-272
AKMB27I
MA
NA
atzmn
b*ntt(aJOHttfincwM
ft. b y
MflAg
Ptfyntictoar AiGWMle HydrociriKin* iPAH*!
owsa?6
AS396275
3
3
112199
Mnz^a^^nthiicim
T-B U
Wynucbaf Ammmln Hydrocarbon* {PAU«|
OWS-23?
A53362et
N*
NA
Bf&si
baru»(i^Mrtthitc«ne
8.1 U
fWH
Mymuelfc* Ammatle Hv*™«rt»of* (PAI4a|
ows^nj
A8WS38I
NA
NA
umm
iMn^cAJanthMCMW
9 Lf
VQfcQ
FMynucfnr Aramtllc H^drofiMtrnt iPAHil
0WS-1Z3
AS3HS207
7.17
7.S3
mm*
a.4 y
Mymxtoar Arofflitfc HydrolartHmt (PAHll
oyrFAluap
AS3S52S#
I.H
IJ
9f3M&
fl.7 ti
Pf>tyTiijcl*Tr ArarnHle Hfirowrtori* (PAHi)
OUTMi.ia»
AB3BS2M
1 s
1,*
WliOtl
;?*rizc{«.h)*rtth«c*n*
8.7 U
wflw
frh™>crt»r Awnutlc Hvdrttatbonf IPAHi)
Afl-MI
AS3BSZ&1
1
1
fl.4 U
H»^0
Mynutitajr Aromatic ^AH«>
AM-1.42
AS3B«fta
1
1
i»/ i^an
8,3 U
i*fo«
MyrMckraT Amoiftkr Hydrocarbon* fPAHVt
C2«a
AR3D52B3
1
1
0^11/90
5#nx»Ct,Wirtfracwa
8.3 If
wflqj
JMMwolaar ^WJMltte K("rffan«t»nt
Cf.SSH
AS3aS2»4
1
1
wil/aa
0.3 U
rok)H-Rict9Br Anmntfc H^tncxdxmi (PAt la|
CZ-IBS
AS3ftSZtB
1
1
s^n/fln
8.4 U
«Aw
pohmuofctar Armii«|te-H^feeitliw»i
C3-199
AS399296
1
1
ani^B
waw^fcHrthmo**
0.* U
Ws/Vu
Pis%THK)tar Awafc Nvdroearbotii tfVMict
C2-257
M395297
I
1
9/ii^an
twiiaaWiJartlwaBiiia
e.4 y
mfci
»r##wr«rtks HyifrfleirSBrw (P*h»)
ci-ias
AS39S29B
t
1
SfUW
banMfali)BdlincwN
0,3 U
fiO*U
IVilyBude*Af™TUi»loH,f>J™;a[lwi« (pAH»}
cz-im
A3396299
1
1
BH1«0
•.4 u
jigftfl
Pofyrvudaar Aromatic Hydwrfaofta (P*H»5
ci-aoa
A$3AS3<30
i
1
9/1 tms
banaaQ^ti)arilnDana
*4 IJ
MjRiiitan Mmirtlk tty4raciriwnf
CI-30*
1
9iitm
b*idn(a^i^rihiMBia
a u
WAIH
PotymM^arAromMloMyifrcMarlKina IPAHal
ES-M2
A03OS3O2
.1
1
mum
btttM(a^>Mhrac«rw
IB U
JUKtf
PDtynuckw AfDfflBtlc.Hydraaarbortt IPAIIKI
EM3
^8996303
1
t
0/14/98
as u
«#l
^lynuelaar Aromatic HvEHnocarborw (PAHil
E6-J03
AS30&3O4
1
1
b*recc(
OWB-344
A530S344
a
§
m^aa
barney tflarthriwma
9 41
Mt/*0
BoV™»C#«af ^rnmatlc H^ro«rlini*
Dwa-a^is
A839334I1
a
3
lUflifflB
ianaO^^eailliiaiMria
B.2 U
PU&V
Fo^fnuclaar AiomBftk HyilnioartKim ('PHJ-kt
DnUM-373
AS39S372
14
14,5
idriwee
^np^^hjju-ilhntwmi
B.I U
nuclflif Aromatic H^waeHtom \PAH«k
OHUM-37+
A«!3»e374
U
14,6
I0/2Q/B8
9autyjtyarHhi&G«M
a U
Wflif
ft>tyfWCtpA' BpJracaftKMis (PAHs^
0RIIM-37B
A6.1M37li
u
14.5
W?WB8
wrou(«,t$0ttllww«w
B.3 U
m&9
Puiynwddar Arnmarlc Hy^rqcarboiM (PAHet
0F«lM-37«
ASflM37C
T*
14,6
10/20/tft
8.1 U
wf*9
Ra^«icl*if Anomntlo (PAIfch
Ijflll M-377
AS39S.177
H
14.5
io/2a/an
B.I U
Myruaebur Arwrmtlc Hydfi>««rbKba» Aiomani MifHrocBriiflna IPAHsj
ORUM-aea
AB3a&tHO
14
14,B
icMjo/aa
hwvn!(i,h)iriVwM>cn*
7.9 U
FWyrruolnw Aromalic 1+ydnj<;»ftwri» ftWIn)
nRUM-381
AS.1AS3II1
14
~ 4,6
lo/itvaa
bameta^lanihiKHrB
»,4 U
»AS
ft]lrnuclM< Arnmalte Ht^iscMha-na (PAHa!
MCA IB 5
AS 3953115
3
7 ¦
1 i/s/se
b«K>(a|$at#i»»w
m.3 J
PSjfl'W
Poi^nwcte* Aiomatlc HjrftSKaatHJiw IfAHal
MCA-3BQ
A539JUB0
3
7
11/5/11)
lieneofahierthfecafw
9.1 V
PcHyruciear Aromatic HfdroBaitMina PAH*j
MCA-3B7
Afi3»53fi7
3
$
1 Ti«/9«
iMnrofa.hJaRtinKanii
0 U
m/Ni
Mytiucliaf AmmMki HfdrecartMina fAIHa)
MUA-3B5
A^39S38S
3
7
tiWAmjn-i"»wnfl*l«i«-aUil wM a«C»I»-»h, MTM, M»IH
-------
Dai* Us«d toCompleia CwifirmAdon HHRA
IRP Sft« 29/Hnfrtion Substation
Antterson Air Fmsi inae, Guam
(Pap S3 of 131
UMETFR
RlSULI QlMUTlK
tra*
ANALYSES
LWA1WH
SAMTtEWMBIR
DEPTH RANOE
SAMPLE MTI
Kst)(puh|RMhni««mD
4» U
talyhLjclMr Afomarfe H(«lioca#bori* (PAJ-W1
MCA*38&
MA
tiA
11MB
wzefa.hlintliMM*
«# U
MP^O
Rjljnuclsir Aromatic Hydrocartaria (WW
MCA-391
AB3BS381
HA
MA
ITiWS
»rno» Amratfe HydrocurboM IPAMdI
MCA-ttB
AE398421
9
7
*M4
M*S
Mynuclatf Aimrnh)enti«**m
9,25 «f
rtjAfl
iMymielx* Aicxn«tl« Hrdni4irtMVti (PAHij
WCA-42G
Aft39S426
NA
NA
12/21/B8
«ncn(*,r4ariimaiiw
*3 U
no/kg
ftriyfivelfar Anomille NydrcKRrbont (PMI-fO
WCA-50S
A93V6S0O
18
f 9
4/13/99
«ncs(a4h)iiilMBcai*
e.e u
pa/tog
Pi»|yniucW«r fcnmttlc Hrdnic«ib«rt» IPAHil
MCA-SIO
A3398570
1a
IB
4(13(90
i>riE0(l,h4llnllmcMnt
3,84 J
wity
PolWiuctMr Afo«n«tte Wydro'Siftami
DflUKMlB
A336B57i
i
10
4«1»1
nwft^nVMKM#
BJ U
MJl/kS
PohcntKr^r Aroirwlte Hyifcwwdorw
fiflUM-Sffl?
AS»BS80
B
10
)IW»itjh)4qMMW
B.4 U
PolynKliir AmmiiJo Hydrwarbnrii fAHtf
DRUM 681
Aaws&ai
1
6
mm*
wa»|a1titanllhMO*Ni
6.1 u
woAcs
PvtynuclMr Aroniatk: Hfdmcatbcma IFAHt)
GHUf*ia2
Ai38SSH2
5
to
unm
9,M J
Awi»ilo
MUM-SB3
A0WW93
1
*
1.9 u
Wtflfl
P^tjfriUGlMr AMMtliC Kyiftftcarborii fAHl^
onun^eo?
ASM 5607
4
4
5/E/B9
eji u
vf/ke
F^l|niuc(pai* Arum vlk: HydrDcattrCni
OltUM-TOS
Asmsrns
HA
fM
s&m
omefehlMiKviH
7,9 U
Wrtlfl
PcliftuKft*f Arcmttlc H^dhKwtiortt (fAHal
DHUM-410
Asassaio
MA
KA
B/&/9B
awa(*h)«#ne«ii
8-2 U
PQtku
P«lynuis1t«r Ar«m«tte Hydnc«rtiww IPWfc}
CTUlM-eiT
AG39SH11
2.S
2.E
8.2 M
Pol|Mu«}t(r Aromatic Hpdroearbon* iPAHb}
muiifia
A83SB012
2.B
3.E
mm*
H Li
wAtf
FelVni*^«r AwmaBfi Hifdio»rl}o>i*
0RUM-M3
AS38S813
2.S
1,6
Bttm
ira*|
QWS2D0
AS3tSJ«0
7
7
Sf2fS&
onnHwnt
A5 D
WflAf
Myfwslaw Afio/TMrt: Hrdraearboni (PAPltl
0W3.78I
AsaasMi
7
7
B J2&&
DMfithimi
3.S U
rt)4f
MytwcMa* AfOfumfc: Hydn« •fboo*
WWS-184
A&393204
7
7
mm
rinnttiina
;1.6 U
ports
(Wtrnunlew ArtKIWfc Hydrof-Wboo* 1^"AMb|
OW9-J9B
A9393200
?
7
e.n,'m
flnnBwn#
3,7 U
MOfltfl
M*nwclew Arofrwilc Wdf«c»rboop JPAPPi)
0WS28 f
AS39O207
IM
MA
sam
uwntWtc
3J U
mtfkQ
Palyiwclssr Aromatic Hyit™?arhorit (PAHal
OWS-203
A6335ZA5
NA
NA ¦
s 12 tm
pr»rih*n»
1« U
™*a
Potynucbiar Aromarb Myriwa'bonB. (FAN*)
OWS J71
AS39Ri71
NA
NA
UtitW
ondliWM
3,8 U
M*Tiucli«f Aromatb HyifracafbOfl* CAHa)
OW5-27J
AB 59627 2
NA
NA
sum
amthww
3.9 U
ju»*a
MyiwDtaM Aminalte HylfVliaiiB (PAHlt
OW627S
AS3»6276
3
J
9,'2 fM
-------
4"
Djrffl Llanrt tu CanWrmHtinn HHRA
IftF Site 39/JHtarrnnl Substntkm
Andwafn Air Fare* £«¦, Gu&m
34 Of 131
¦tRAMEfER
heswlt flfimiFim
UHTT
ANALIfSW
i^cattou
sAMrrimjMaER
DlfTH RANfll
8AMP4I miE
|u4nnl(wn»
3,5 U
PotyhUclMr Art»Fmtlo Hydroea/ttortt IPAHll
OWS-281
AS39S281
KA
m
mm
fcjonnthwn
s,e u
fW*miele«f A/wrwrtto HjoiftjeirtHin#
OW-S-JiZ
(«S38BJBS
MA
M*
WWG
luonHitlwiM
3.7 u
HQ/kg
PWymictoM Aromatic Hydros: «irbor>* |Pft,H«>
OWS-123
AS39S3BF
7,17
7,33
mm
luOnnftMtH
3 8 u
«Ag
tolymictaaf Arwrwtito Hyo°a
PatymnS*»f Aramaic Hy
C2-284
AB79SZB4
1
1
ft/11/is
luanMftMWM
3.0 y
feifnucfvir nmnalk: HyifcucstnnB fPAHe)
C2-29E
Aa.lSS2«f!
1
1
mm*
hJQMRBMrw
3.0 U
pDlynuctoBf Arcmiithi PA»b>
C2-2B8
AE3DSZP4
1
1
m t,*aa
h«*RVmi«
4 U
FWynuuiiw Arttmiffc HydrocMbati* (PAHk}
CJ-297
A33#a?#7
1
t
tfitm
kftKlrtlmi*
&« U
W0S®
(Mrmjdtw Awmitte HyEftDcirb^m oi» lf*OB«rtnsn« ifAHil
OWS-339
A£»G3nfi
A
t
4 U
«»tff
Fd^ucImt Aumale Hyetoctfbcra (PAHl)
flWS34C)
AK3SS340
J
7
lOfS/BB
Juarantharaf
+,r *i
fVlyiiycitf*¦ AronwUc (iydrocirisont I^AHtt
OWS-341
AB3S5341
7
7
TO/S^B«
IWiMMnt
9M U
m&9
RaMiuclMr Aramtla HytltoMrboni
owit-saz
AB3B5342
11
11
las/sa
JunwittwM
a.a u
Ǥfca
^olyiiiieM«r Anflwtfe HyihvearlMm* FA Hut
0WS-M3
*£3093*3
0
9
lows®
luJnnthan*
35 U
flof
OWS544.
*8395344
0
0
10(5/38
3.T U
MfcQ
Pot^riivrtif Accmarle H'i'rirocHrtwinj (PAhk)
CWWS.WS
AS3B6946
e
9
10/S/Bl
MonntharM
3.i M
ml*o
Ri%n(ld(ar AramRtfC'JIydmeirbeni (PMW
0PUM373
AS3IS373
M
t4.fi
iomma
Itwnrrfhtna
3,ff U
PotynuclAM Atnnmte ffW-te}
ORUM-47*-
14
M.s
10/ZW9B
¦uDnmttwH
3.7 U
tWyfiiletaif Afamatfe- HytffDcmbcni (PAMbI
DRUM-37B
ASatS37B
14
14.S
ifl/«a/9a
towrtlrtnis
3&W
P^VhudOK Arolnitte H^rowthoni iffiHs)
ORIJM-373
A539S376
14
14JS
10/za/ga
¦cNnrrtfewm
3,7 U
m*B
Mjfmdfffflr Arotnatfc Hfd:ae*tbfn»
0RI.IMJ77
fi£39S377
14
145
mmw
a,7 »
mfte
Aj«i7Vtrtit Hfdwiitem
rmuM-3?e
A83a93lB
14
MR
t
-------
Oats Used (o Complete Confirmation KMRA
JRP Sit© 3£/Herrnon Siijatariw
Andviftftii A?r Fotct Basb, Guam
fjjM 35 of Ml
tAMgTHt
Rimx OUAUnEA
UNIT
ANALYST*
LOCATION
SAMPLE N11MB1R
OEftHfiAprae
RAM PIE DATE
s laiifliBf*
30 J
«i*i
Polymiclstr Aramptla hyiimearbent (PMbl
MCA4ti
NA
NA
I^ISfflB
wwMwm
iB.i J
pgAfl
Mymjebir Aromitk Hyrirecirboni (PAHi|
MCA-JIB
A534S41S
NA
UA
isuGfsa
-mmNn*
W»*fl
PtslywKj(»ir AramMb (PAH»(
MO A 4-17
AS39tW17
NA
m
12/15/9®
11 4
fi^O
Falvnuaktar Aiwnitle Hfrfmurttam (PAJ-il
MflA 41B
AR3UB410
NA
m
uns/sn
vwiHnw
Hfl J
WtfcQ
PtjI^ruiAi w Ararrratte Mydroamborm (PAHil
M£A4r9
ASMR4I9
«
7
la^iG^B
urthm#
13 6 J
wjAg
PbfymistBtr Ardtrallc Hy4rocatbons |PAHi)
MCA 420
A5345420
9
7
1W1BWB
MWlffiMIH
4.2 tl
Pgtynucfrv AfOltlallft HydfwjvtMfw |?AH»)
MCA-418
AB38S421
«
7
12/1S/3S
5.52 J
PotymiekiJir Areinjilto Hy^rncartioMi (PAHc)
MCA423
AS30S424
NA
NA
12 mm
if»rtnn»
3 6 11
W*B
ftriynHelajr AtottmIIe Hydf«BborB
MCA-424
AS31&424
HA
HA
pwflhtm
264-
ra^a
AwnpWc >tydrecwbolT* IfWi)
MCA-425
AJ5MS426
HA
NA
4ffnHriH
20 U
fWywoliif Afijitnatfe Hyd«c»rt*rti |W<»}
MGA-606
Aoiasses
19
19
4/13/03
VMHtlHM
#,1 U
MQ^W
f%tymjetaiir Aramnlle |PAIIi^
MC5AJ>70
tfl
tft
4/13^09
WinftHTW
S>4,4 J
Wynlehir Aramvttc Hydwinn
CWMMR72
AB395S72
E
lO
onnift«rw
127 J
w*®
Polfnudiflr Aronurlb HyHmcirtHnw P^Hi)
Cflliltfi
AS.1BSB7i
1
s
4/21/90
api ill MM Ml
3,6 U
l«8%
Pulynldibr Afomatlc HydKKilb«ni |PAHs>
0WUM-57fl
AB3D5S7#
E
10
enntHfw
3 a y
POfl"l
PotymKlsM' Arcmstte Hydractrbont IPAHs)
0RltM-S7B
A8368678
6
10
cttnttunt
3.B U
muIH
Rjl^fnuelmr Aromatic IPAH»)
DBUM.5«0
AiaftfiBSO
6
10
4aif»»
ounthtni
19,4 J
mi*§
nitynuefcur Arcrmrto {PAH*}
owiM-sei
AMAfifigl
1
s
4f2irtm
mtnlfiaiii
41 t J
«rtqgi
PbtyrRjchur Arerrwtle HvdKWirtwiw IPAHi}
0BUM8B2
AS3DSSR2
E
10
*Ki,»a
71,9 J
Pkll^fmclw Arormtlo Hy*oc«'hont (PAhta)
0RUM483
ASdOfiBaa
1
6
4«1«»ft
3.7 U
tmfot
Mynusbv AnentnHe Hy<|ncwiHma ffWto)
ASJBS4D7
4
4
S/S/9S
jfirth#rv»
i.a u
a
PolyiiUeltiT AromtiB HfifttKtflianB (PM)
DHUM-8B8
A83SSeo9
4
4
6/S»B
pnnHnnt
3,9 U
PotyfHJeh?«r AromatJc htyA^trbwii PAH*}
A»3»9aoa
NA
m
mm
AtfOttMM
3.8 U
mkv
f>)hfnucl»»r ArDtnatla Hydronjrtoni {FAH»l
DIIUM-010
A63»Spri* (PAHtl
CWUM4J1
A8»wt1
25
2-fi
s/a/as
ounlhm*
3.$ U
H'feff
fotyriLfcte# Antrvatlc HyrimsirtMns (PAHsf
AS3S3012
2.6
2LG
S/0/9B
ixinlhin#
12 J
faftfl
P«n«(1 ,2,3-c4jfpyrini
3,* V
«6*fl
folyflutl#* Aiomattc Hydracifbont (PAHsl
I3W5-286
A63SS29l§
7
t
$KtW
'•nofl ,2,3-td)pyi«r»t
3.* y
MJ'Vt
PulDnhchitr ftroTr«rtic 1-lydrot ittxm i IF'AHs)
OWS-207
A13SBJ07
NA
m
mm
1nno(1 J.J-cdjpjrtn*
3,3 U
M^nuotesr Aiomalb t+^tlraij ifbont ^PAHe)
OWB-288
Atsgslo^
NA
Ntk
mm
5ww(1,2,3«cqpyMiiB
1? U
Al*ff
PWyrmcitir AmmaHc lfyi»t>Girbcnt {PAt-te}
aWS'271
AS3SS2F1
N4
N*
9)2/99
!arK^fr?,9-«4lpynrM
3,5 y
m&9
PplyrHwIVflr Anermilte HyAwirbDn* (fAHr)
OWS-272
AW«272
NA
W
9ft/m
lm(1,3,»©iflpy»n»
44.3
tmtk«
PttlVmJClMf Awmitfci Hvdro^»fbon« CfAHc]
OWS-2?5
A5a#Si7S
A
3
Bftl» e
A? U
m&9
P^PVrtJ«)»»r AwmtllP (TAiWI
0W5-Z91
AS.195581
HA
TiA ¦
9wm
tafto(1 ,2,3-od5pp«fi»
3.S U
mike
Pnl^riiKilMP Awmrtlc H»drocarb»ri# |PAH»|
OWS-?82
M3ffS2fl2
NA
HA
9121*6
'*»(! |2,3-c
-------
Dote Us*t» to Compkn.* CwtirmMton HHfiA
ItV Slto 53(*t*itte Hydnooarbohi IPAHbI
OLirrALL2«0
A53fl*SJ»0
LB
t,&
4mn(i,VMHW*tw
3.T U
fotynuclw ATomllc Hydrocifbent [PAHil
Ai-201
A530E29T
1
T
mum
3.9 U
na^ff
Fbfyraiglstf Afomilfc Hvdrocifhonii [PAMi|
AJ2B2
A8MB2»|
1
1
w*m
ttonofi^.JNxftpufiwn*
3.3 y
«3*<1
PblynHelMf AuhmMIo l-fydrof.irtion* I'M H»|
Cj-293
Aeflessaa
t
1
amm
4w»(1 _2,3-cd(p*/j'«ri»
3 A 0
N|^iucl«9f Aromtlc Hfd^ccirbont PAHil
C2-204
A530Sad4
1
1
9 mm
3.« U
Ptflyrwotoir Aw«»1hf Hydrocarbon* rPAHil
£2 j!Jb
Aaaastae
1
1
»miaa
¦fwiof! ,3|3-otflp5fi*»w
aj y
wjAu
nuEf(iiidiw AmniBtlii Hyttroonrtxiria PAHt)
Citfi©
Ai^i9S9A
1
1
mtm
-|m»I i
3,7 U
jupftg
Potynuptew Aroirprtte (PAHi)
C2-337
AS3SBaff7
t
1
9/11/96
dtnofl^Mflpynn*
3J U
MJ^O
PkHtyHUCtaftf H^iDHUtOIH (FAHii
ca-stsn
Aaaasa^H
1
1
«nw
¦i-#r»0 ,2>3-ed)j>y»n»
07.B
mAb
fnVplLjc»fl«T AnmMttc HyttmisfaDni IPAHl}
C2-1S»
AS3*S£9B
1
«f11»8
"rtndfl ,2,3-cd)pyr»««
Si,* J
w/ka
Aramtk Nrdfoe*!**™ (PAHil
C3-400
A&3B330O
t
1
8/t1f99
17,11 J
Pnif Mkta«f Aramitta. NydrseirlMCU. 4PAHlV
C3 301
A&3M30t
I
1
af11l»9
dirto<|.J,^0W«W
27.6 J
PWynucfciir AfstnMlc Hydwcirbcni ff'AHrt
£e-J02
HS3ISW2
t
f
B/14/0B
dwn»(1 al,3katlJpyNiM
Iff,4 J
mfi*
Aromrtlo M-^dracirtmnil (PAH»1
|«-30S
AS3
7
IQ&/9B
^tH04T,a^«d)Fiw4n
&.SU
PDtvnuci««f Afom«i»e Kydrc^artarw IFAHtl
OWES-342
A63d$342
11
1*
iu&tm
3.3 VI
fw^flwcte»r AfemMto M*4re€JrflW«ww»
3.4 U
P"T«n®
3,6 U
Mf^m
Fafpnuctoar Arormrtfc tlydnMarlio'rfB (PAKs)
DRUM^Tfl
A33S337C
M
T4.fi
TDiJO/ffa
3 J U
vqAq
Pglyriucl*«r A™(turtle N^rocarfaom H*)
DHUM-3J"?
AS39S977
14
14,6
10/20/99
3A U
H) ikn
Fk>lyiiud»M AramaHc Hydr»c*rboii«
OftUWWa
AsSfiSMa
14
14.5
wmm
J*iwtt.l:-3-ciQpyniM
3.4 U
votk g
rolv*iuc***f Aromrtc Hydrocarbon* ff*AHf)
DftUM-373
AS39S379
14
14,6
TO20/98
Jarwfl .2 .^c^pywt*
SA U
#g/fca
MplUth* AfPfnayc Hif*irac*rbon»
Pplytiuote-M AwriWo Hydrotii rfw>n» WW
WM-3BT
AS39«36t
14
1t:«fWr»
MCA-MC
AM9S36«
3
7
1 wm
jtoirtU^edJ.jsyww
1» U
AfvtnttJc M^di^cerlWft*
MCA-381
AS3»Sr>67
a
B
t mm
J«no(1>21>c4^yMrM
3.e u
V1n« (PAH«t
MCA- 3§ 1
A63M331
r*A
t(A
i wan
-Mno(1J.3-o4fP*M
ins J
Ptelyiwcbai ArorMtfe Hytrimcifhrtn* (PAffet
«CA393
A83983I2
NA
MA
imm
3.9 U
m/*u
nj^yrnuGivir Aiemttto Nvdrn(si^ont fPAHif
MCA-aee
Aea»s4oa
3
7
1
ttanv| 1 A3-«Ml}pniii«fi»
20.4 J
(fQl^fl
PatyrmcfBrir AnMnift: H^kncarbonE fPAIfct
l/ICA-it5
A539S41&
HA
MA .
17/lR/fifi
J*rK?(1,23-bS) frpmnm
3A U
*8^9
Polynurfi ptr Aremitlc H^dn>c«tbonw |PAH»>
MCA4 1 IS
AS39S416
MA
NA
12/IS/Ai
f .3,3-«i|py«tm
32.® J
eg/kg
^Iljnuctoir Aiomtlte H^etrn^fhoiw iPArtt
MCA-417
A539S417
NA
HA
17/1BWI1
. W"Otf)l»y™i»*
27.7 J
PodfritiGfajif AmnUtlc HfdrDciflMm IPAHi)
MCA4t«
A83M*41«
NA
NA
12/16/9#
fitliSM^hmMVhwVSMfKl'ASLUltl jam, HW 14 0n*. *1Q W
I
-------
>
Dai ft Usut) to Complain Cotifirnimlon HHRA
IRP 39/Hpfffiarl SybjtnNon
Anderiwi All F«i» B«t, Guam
IPatM 37 Df 13)
IAMETES
RS8D11 QUALIFIER
MT
AJfAWfSW
LOCAtJOW
iAMPLE NUMBER
DEPTH RANGE
SAMPLE OATI .
flieft.SjMnlJpjywrrt
33 3 J
wiAfl
PD^HUcVrar Aromai-lc HfitroCMbora IPAHsl
MCA-418
A639S419
0
7
la/is/Mi
7,17 J
Wfltfl
PoMnuelMr AromaMt H^rilfiMarbofii jPAfk}
MCA-HO
AS38S420
a
7
no[l ,2,3-eS)pfr»rm
12 a
^*0
fetvnuelHT Arom*te hfrrfroc«ft»ni g
Ailymiotoar Amniotic Hyc4)pyi*n»
as j
FMyffudMT Arei**tfc HydtoearbttW tPAK»)
MCA*S?0
AB38BS ?0
IB
IB
4i1 J/M
41.1
tf|Am
«»<1l?d'Od)pyraM
3.B 11
«r^o
Polynudoiir Afomatic HyAoeJuhoni [MHt)
bWM B80
Assessed
h
10
4/11/SI
™cl,a,3ofli3fFBri«
19.2 J
Mjffci
Mynuctair Afom«lc tfttJrocwtw*
dRUm-Bbi
A539S5B1
1
6
4»1?B&
tfietl^^cdfavma
m? J
wjftu
Mynucbai' Ararnatb Hyiirwarbani (PAHtp
OFWM-982
A839S582
f
10
4,no|f,2>oJ|p>rw}«
3.3 U
Mytilfctear Aromittc Hpfrceirbnni (PAM»J
tmuM-eoQ
A53SS0O0
MA
MA
6«»9
3A U
HJrten
PurvnuclBar AnomMlc H^dnx:arbflFWin*
8.4 U
(*M*riU«toJir Arcunxilc Hjdnooafbont
Afia&gftia
2.6
2.6
70
V9&9
Po>ynucbnr ArcwristJi; mnJropjrbofli
DRUM Old
AS3A9014
2.5
2.P
mm
*0*
1,4 U
Nlymielaw Aromatje Hyiroear^on* ff"AJH«|
DWB-141
A839R141
NA
NA
itf-m
w»
2.3 U
Po1yiiiial»ar Anofrumhs HytfnDaatbofla fAHil
0W6-1W
AS39S142
m
MA
7miB8
4M
K,3 U
Mj*a
ftilfmJcftar An>mat(c Hfdvocirbctii ifAHil
0 UTFALL257
AS3932ET
3
E
&ftf9 A
ana
7.34 J
jHEf(Vg
pqJfWJolaar Arornatk) Hyd»flc#rb'v»t (WHU
OUTfALLZSB
AS 395266
&
E
8/1/9B
Ertn#
2.2 U
*3*9
Pdffnucli ar Aramatia HydraearbDiis (PAHsJ
0W-!6fi
ASMwm
?
1
mm
2.2 U
«Afl
RMimi^air Aromatic llydrocwbon* IPAIIU
ows-seo
A539$2Q0
7
1
atz&s
ani
2,2 U
W*«f
FVfftmjd»iP Aroftwttc Hydrosflpboree (PAHsJ
0W6-2«1
A633S2Q1
7
J
9/2/08
flM
2JL U
«Afl
CbiY>tudaf Acarfiaiit HydrocarbfinE IPAHtl
OW9 ifl4
AS39R2M
1
7
mm
§m
2J3 II
mm
PolynilrtB* AfOffWtto HytfcflCMtWM |PAH#>
OW8M0
AB39826S
7
7
mm
wm
2,3 M
m&§
PfJyfiucfew Aflyi«jc1tar Amrutlr; Hydroeaitsann 4PA14«|
AO 202
AS39B292
1
1
»'14^A
2.4 u
wi/ka
Poiypueitif Arem#3« Tly4«>eartMMn (hAHw
C2 293
AS3D3193
1
1
rti.'l 1/9B
«rnnir- •
r "" ¦~'hi H. "
i»-fl f i1*™'
¦¦»' ¦ .
1 *
V
-------
Ofttn Utnri tn Comp^id Confimnatffln HHRA
1RP Slfa 39/Hwmon Sutrttrtwn
Andersen Alt toroa Bart, Guam
fPaflB 3 H of 6 3}
¦VRAMETER
RESULT OUAIJUER
umr
ANALYSIS
WlCAIlOPl
SAMPLE NUMBER
OtPTH RANGE
SAMPLE bA
Mm
4.8Uf J
Wynui.'toaf Aromeik: f-fydrocafbtww |PAH*J
C3-234
A833S28*
T
1
9 nim
VNM
2.4 u
WAfl
ftolynu«eW*wvrta (PAW*)
Afi»9«ieS
1
1
mm
z a y
PblyfiuEltw Ananwtlc Hyifroeartwrn IPAHrt
0-2i«
AS39S35B
1
1
ammit
v»n»
2.e u
PtolY'niJtJ*® AfDtnrtla Hydi u-aatbafu IPAHa)
ea-a§7
ASM RIB 7
I
1
»mf9&
ywm
9.4 U
f»o||*lwfa«t AiWwllc Hyilrocarlmn* IFAH*)
C2-2B9
AB39379B
!
1
WIW
30.2 J
W««fl
Mytiiiciear Anminki Hy4ms«lfaani t^AWs}
a-i#o
AS38BIBS
1
9/11 j'flll
37.0 J
mm
PWynucnw AttMitb HygrocaitMni {PA-h*}
cs-aaa
1
1
B/1S/30
flaiM
2.1 U
Aiotnitto H^rncalbwt 4PAH*}
C2-3QI
AESSMflf
i
1
a/iwg0
fWmt
21 J
hbAq
PatynuclaM Arcmatte HyJr»caitrfrtit (PAW*}
fn-aoi
A«*98302
1
1
arwrae
,T1T«
s,i y
japflcg
PatynuQinii: w-wmiite Htjtfrccirtxmt CPAHct
18-303
AS39SSQ3
I
33. i J
po>vr
2jB li
Nyrmc^nf Annwttc HyiiiMC^ihoeu (PAtkl
owswe
ASSi«33B
MA
NA
wfatm
in»iw
2.1 y
mftm
PalynudflM AramMte HydxOEtfbon^fP'AHil
AS30S330
a
A
K«(W
2 J U
nt*9
RMpwdaaf AMdittt HytfrMSftoont (PAHai
0WS'3<0
AS383310
7
7
mm ma
2.6 U
Mrnuclftar Aramitic ItcdrMirtwr* fPAHil
trtf*5-S4l
AS39S3A1
J
7
w/hm
2.2 U
W&9
Pfil^nliai^ir Awmitlc tfAMil
OWB-3«2
AS398342
11
11
wmma
?nm
2 J y
mm
rapHKMfll- AranuUi: Hydro(iart»rit IPAH*^
OW3-343
Aaaaaws
»
B
lOj'GttH
mm
2.1 U
1*o(yAtK!*tf Ar«rtwli<: Hy-jKOi'bont IPAHi)
0W8-344
A#atBS4*
9
9
10fi(BB
¦frwm
Z2 V
MlfltfJ
PoTymicl«ir Aromatic Hydrocafbofw ICAHit
0W&-34S
Afld#994ti
t
6
lo/ayjts
Jrwtm
1A U
ffctyroielw Aromatic H^dMcirtjw* I^AH«>
DRUM-3?J
AS33HS73
14
14.5
fltm
3 .3 U
fftlynutlttar AmflMdo HyilrwirtKM* ffAHti
WWM474
ASWfi»?4
14
»4,f
ftm
2.3 U
Pdvmiclw Aromatic IMnocarbarK 1PAH*>
DTIllM-375
AS39B376
14
14 J
ft*nm
2.4 U
Wfrtifl
nulynuetov Aromatic HydroeWbOrHl {PAHnt
0«UM-3?P
A6J9S3TS
14
(4,5
^CW2tWB
yi»rt»
2.3 U
mHw
Ptotynuciav Anmftie. l^iinj^aitianB 1PAIW
mnu^T?
ASMW7T
14
M.G
\wma
front
Z.9 U
w<*«
MftMMHiw Aromftfe Ny<»Dc«ibciiia (PAt*4
OMtfM-Srt
M3DS?7B
14
14,&
lo^ona
2.9 V
jqjJkg
niiynuctoBr Anirnitte Hjitfrocsftuxii (TAHil
tmjM-aTS
A53B9aj»
14
14.11
rnmont
2.3 U
,W*0
Ptt^wMstair Aroitirfte K^lr(it«rtjun» )FAH»I
ORUM-S90
ABa#S3»0
\*
IJ.b
lofflOwf
n«i»
2.3 U
PUtymidla*! Arofnctla KytfrQCfiiticfH |FAKi|
otum set
A63&S3R1
U
14.6
IOffiO/89
pt*i«
1.1 U
Paryr»ucl»>r Arsmirtln HydrotnrbanB [PAHal
MCA^fiS
AR3fl$3iC»
3
7
i mm
Z.« t»
WlfntJGteii' Jkromattc H^drac#'hdlw IPAMi)
MCA-3flfl
AS39S398
a
7
i Ira™
.¦fin#
2M 0
rt/kD
Pdiimuctair Aromatle H^Jfocirtwn IfAHO
MCA-3B?
A5995397
2
5
\mm
¦>wnt
2.e U
«i/ve
Mffluek«f Aumltk H^droE«rhot» (PAhrtt
MCA-35S
AS»fl63aa
3
?
imm
Tin#
14 U
Wf* I
Mynucltir AranrmHc Hydro*;jfbohn
MCA'389
AaaessM
tiA
/J A
urzm
rtna
13 U
W^B
MyrHJCtoai" Arcni.jffc H|
MCA-392
ASMS391
MA
NA
11JS»9
'W
ot^B
Mfnucitir AromoUe HydhnsKliflrn |PAH«>
MCA339
Aswe^aa
3
1
11/C.<98
uni
4S.H J
Mynuoiaar Ammadc: Hyrtndnartnini 1PAH*>
K®MW
Aa48«41S
MA
m
wwm
™»
14 A J
*»/*•
Pofymiclair AnertWfte H^frrawrtani IPAH"}1
WCA-410
AS3£ii419
IVA
m
izmm
Wll
123 J
Potyimdaw Amrutle Hplrnc«ixma ff*A(-k]
MCA 417
AS3BS417
MA
TiA
wtmn
4#ni
0,«0 J
pyOtQ
P»(piucl«* Aicfiwtlc HyilrocarlwrH OPAHil
MCA-4 IB
AS3BS41B
NA
NA
iron
ZM U
wjflqj
Pdtyfiul£lfraf Atinnatb HydrD&srfmm fPAHft)
MCA-41»
«
7 .
12J1H9B
fillW
1.9 U
j^srfNi
Po^ucte»r Aromatic Hyifmeatbon* (P.AHi}
MCA-420
A&38t?4lrt
8
7
la/tB/sB
¦r*n#
ZJB U
Mi*3
ft>lyru«t«*r Amnwlte K^Jluoirtaon* |P»M*I
IVICA-41*
AS3HS43)
ft
7
v%mmn
¦TWM
WJ J
Pclynucmr Aram«Mc HfdMcirtieria |PAH»|
Asaas4Z3
NA
HA
12 nim
f TI>TY1I nur-ilTlimlllmrr" 1nnk1 Irtr. "f It Bl-Putt.
i
-------
»
Data LTs*tf to Camplntfl C on fir i nation HHRA
inP Slta 39MamlGrt Substation
Anderson Alt Fihc* ttasn, Guam
39 of fifll
K1SI1LT 0VM.[ili3t
UNTT
ANALYSIS
l-OCATIOM
SAMPLE NIJMBER
DEPTH RANGS
SAUIPUE BATE
-hp
IZ.t J
PntynvKl»ir Arsfnatlc Hydroeirbem lyHKBtMt Antnatk; Hydroctibrti) (PAH#)
twuM-eio
AS39S<91t>
NA
NA
Bftim
inft
no j
Pulynuchir AfOfMtk! Hydwjirfcfif** (PAI*J
ABS8S61t
2,5
2 B
s/fhi'as
Ml
zs u
Pftlviwctoir Arwmttc H*#oc"rtHira (PAMl
PflirM'iia
AS39SA12
1.B
2,6
$tmv
iff#
fi.7 j
mAg
ft»%tiuato«F ArfiTMBtki Hy«feoa*tb$r>* (PAH*|
DflUM 0t3
ABassvi?
2-&
15
nmm
wm
m j
l%iYi|uglBir Amiwtta HydrMsrliDnB (TAHif
PRI.IM0U
AC1BS«14
2,E
2 8
%mme
naphttwM
3 HOG I I
Swnfvnlitlla Drflirifc Cwnpoilfwi* |SVOC«J
MCA-4.15
A53K418
HA
NA
12/16/«t
'¦mphtfmw
720O U
ffli*a
fiomlvelftlia Ofinlc CocnfMund* IS'i/OC#
wcA-*ia
AS3M4.1S
NA
NA
¦nipMhvrai
73 Cenip If
Bamtvalatla Oigtwlc Campsurwla 16-VOCal
A538S41 §
S
J
12f1B»8
¦ni|9Mfi)4(irM
t,«k tr
*1^8
SBtnlralallla O Ff afilc CornpoMnl* {flVOCU
MCA>420
AS39S410
8
T
12rtS/SH
mrplLtfi^erMi
s.coo u
^f*lj
Smlwlillt 0'9*rJo Cam^iouridft <9VOC«l
MCA-419
AS38&421
S
7
12f15#9B
^napMhytarw
t«ou
SimhmMIki Organic Cnrr^iatinila {BVOCaj
MCA-423
ASA8S4?a
NA
NA
¦rwMtyfem
O'flarilc CBrrpoiindp (RV0C»!
MCA-424
AS3BSA14
NA
MA
34QO If
Sitni'tvt^llla Organic Compounda (BVOCa)
MCA 42B
NA
NA
12/21«B
inipMhyhiin
260 U
StmlvirfdIM Org unk? 'JtunfKig/Kh
MCA-51R
A&396SAB
19
ia ¦
4M3/B9
in*phth|fhi«W
200 Lf
AtjiVi
flsmlvnlslila drflanb Cbmpaand* fSVOCl)
MCA-fi/O
m
ia
-1 /1 Vo a
RSOrj U
HIJkfl
5#ml«3
-------
Data Used 1o Comptui* Confirmation HHHA
IFLP Sits 3 9 Harmon Subslnthm
AiwJurs&it Air Fbtca Batt, Guam
|P»Be 4lSJdB
Hmc™
S,«a? U
SAinrvEtiat-to Orginia f;(ntf»iund* jsvoci)
M0A-41S
A93SS4I9
fl
7
tWtiBB
5,000 U
3*tnl»e)«15l» Organic CurnfjotirrtJ* I3V0C*|
MGA-130
AS39S1?0
7
nmm
Tflmum
5,200 U
MB/bfl
9«rnivala(«t» Ofpante Cotmpowxti. f9V0C*l
MCA-418
A«JflB4I1
«
7
"¦tfniwft
t,»0 U
aamfoolatftfr Organfe CMtipvumil pWJCi 1
ASia««423
Nfl
NA
12S1/B0
stioo u
Mn
SmilwWIa Organic Compound* (SMQCit
MC^4Z4
AS38&424
MA
NA
12f2t»e
nitwKin*
2200 y
SirtwOlMitar Droanta Cnropoilftdt. (SVQCil
MCA 4ZS
AaaaM^e
HA
NA
12f21lBB
nrtuwrane
1*0 u
CQ/kg
BmritwMife Oromlc tMBJWirnf* ~S'/OOtt
1V»GA-BIKJ
ASMs&oe
Iff
IB
4/ia/a»
n#W*jei»
i7ti y
OflfJartB CwnpooruJ* ©V0C«)
MCA-B70
ASa06S7i>
19
ia
m au#
wtalilairtlmlcBnH
S4Q0 U
mfra
8#iri»c4atl«s Dreanto ComiNjurMj® ffiWCil
T4GA-4 IB
AS395411
NA
NA
wii(*)snthiKBr«
A BOD u
MSftO
Siirivobtlb Orgjinlo Cw>{iCHn
MCA-41R
AS3B3&1g
WA
NA
12/lSflB
s.too u
jUfAj
Offainc CcnnpDilnl* (©V0C«>
MCA-4W
AS3BS41S
fl
7
tJ/tUflld
*V9lri*Nhhl0*|if
s,m y
UvAf
SMDMntlfl Off miIg Ucnnpounda (BVQOiJ
MCA-420
AS3ttS420
IS
7
1 Z/li/BD
S.400 U
mm
SdntKtHnto arg-aiic ccmpMnd* ISVoct)
A33«3421
0
7
wiao{i)»iHh»c#n«
3,300 U
Or^wic Coinpound* (EVOC*)
MCA-423
AS3BS423
MA
MA
1*/2Mlfl
Hw{^aiitiiBcaiw
1,100 u
M&9
SmilwlatR* Organic CoinpoMKia (SV00«t
MCA-4J4
A«a»S42«
NA
MA
1217 i.»a
HaatftHMhracarn
230Q 11
mm
SaruK^irthi Orf artkf Compounda IBVOCi)
MCA426
Asaaa42B
m
HA
utzim
m u
mm
SamluolrtRa Qr^snla Gampoundr |5VOQ(}
MCASa©
A530S5SB
16
18
ITOil
mm
SamfvelatllB Orgarric Coirpaunria ISVOCk}
ur.A^ro
A33ASS70
10
IS
msm
MM I.I
fitMholitih 0rgi|4c OciTDQilrri* (6Vt)04
WCA-itS
A53fS415
MA
NA
Mfitim
2000 U
mm
SwrtJwJMSm OfHatric Ciwifraund* l&UOC*)
Afia4641Q
HA
tIA
ims/aa
saoo u
mm
RaiUftrtJlatlla Orginlc CcitnfWtind* ISVOC4
MCA-417
AS39fr117
NA
NA
inaolilcvTint
ZSDO V
wfiw
6tiriwiiit4lrl>g*nic Cwfraund* ISVOCif
MCA-4 111
A5393411
NA
m
iwtBflia
wufajpymw
3,1-00 U
«fl*S
8imhtl>latlli» OtQinlc Cwipour»d* |AV0Ca|
MM-419
A8W641?
<1
?
12/15/3 B
Tttnt(»)flvrwn»
*,®»u
mfoi
BmphiallatNa Drgjnfc Cempouncrc {fSVOC.a|
MCA^ISO
AS.1U3S426
0
7
U/iS/PS
wwaftOpyrirn
2;fidft U
«i/kfl
ImlwlWWa Organic Compot*ni« (SVC^C*)
MCA-41B
AS39&421
0
7
t2/1S/»S
wvv(*)pymit
i.ioo u
paM
0itfar>fc Com|»tJf»tf* W'/OCa)
MCA-4Z3
A0303413
HA
WA
12/11JW
V«ru
Wfo}
MmlvoMH* Organic Cwripourid'K {S\fOCt)
MCA^M
hSSSStlSA
NA
m
12/21/99
ww(i)|ifwia
t20# V
sign®
EM«
Iff
IB
4/13/B9
»teTii<»|b|ttlxw»rrthip-H»
45 QQ U
Wjfrf
ftahniv^irlll* Off anlc CompounrH ISWCut
MCA-41?
AB3W5417
HA
MA
12,'15>§a
?iY!0tt>|1hJ0ranlilRna
4B0Q U
MI^S
inritlvtiMlii n«pi(|l« CtMfDinlil (SVOCaj
MCA-41 a
ARJS9S41B
NA
NA
I2?is/»t
'wiM^fcJIklOiantbena
5,300 U
MI*fl
Serrtvii!*!!® Or^j anki Hii (3WC»|
MGA-425
AS39M25
NA
NA
1
mrcifc ffluorairiliana
»» u
ram
EimTvrtitlta Orgar*; CcrtTifmumlB (SVOCaJ
MCA-6CS
AsaasBoe
ie
1fl
+/13WB
imofcJIluBMitthan*
190 U
juaAfd
Sandwolsirha Orgumh; nrtnifmLrWa {SVnCi]
MCA-570
A538S57Q
18
1fl
4/1S/U&
KMfc2VtawW««'i
-------
Data Used to Compute ConiTrmatJon HOTA
1W Site 3S/Harm(in Substation
Andersen Air fore* ftusa, Gvvn
IPigt4t.lf*3'|
[AMPTF^l
SIM HUT QUALIFIER
1IOTT
ANALY«rtS
T.rtf:\Tif)h-
SAUfPLIC FfUMlER
Mm
MIVQE
SAMPLE DAT!
.m&fiilparvtort®
3200 U
MAS
s«mlvtila[llt OrtaiHG eomfKiUWJt ISYQCil
MCA-11S
A5393415
HA
12/1 WW*
inHtoN11|Hirylan«
2Bon y
«|.*B
SaraivQlaHhi Organic ComxiurHft (6VQC»|
MCA-41A
A839S416
NA
NA
12*16/98
>ntf||hB|»»r^leni
2800 1/
m*Q
Gmivabtfta fligarie CMfiauTtdf iSVQCll
MCA-411
AS3iS417
NA
MA
12f1iffli
i»(OM|p«(yliir*
3100 U
8wnhM»tiki Organic Cwupaupi* I3V0C»I
MCA-410
A8S98418
NA
•zotd»il)p»ryfc(n»
3,400 u
fg*n
SemlvataHIa -Organte Compound* )SVOCi|
MCA-41A
A539fH1G
0
7
3,100 U
M^/fcg
feumfooliitV* Organic Compo«j™(i |6VQC»|
MC*-410
A6393420
a
7
1WIBJHB
iio(gH)pnryiorn
3,20® U
VO/Kfl
stmewiiitu o»ig«nio Compound i pvocii
WOA-41B
AS3«8421
n
7
imm9
ix^flfrfjparytarw1
t.«o u
^fjfkg
Strntotallta Cfctjinb Compoundi <3V0Cil
MCA-€13
AS393423
MA
NA
T2/l 1/BB
aMDhQpwyfem
1,3(XI U
Wfrfl
BimLwblilto Organic Cempoundt ffiVOCtl
A£3aS424
NA
NA
12/21,IBB
>lfifflPWpAr|4»n*
wo u
B»mr«»(alfc towppiifidi #VOCiJ
MCA-42S
ABS9S425
NA
MA
f2,'2l,*e
'iatgh)}paTY%nB
TOO U
«/ky
Biwn<«3|{flit* Organic CombDlKKl* WVOCf)
MCA'BflB
A8S9S668
IB
1#
4/13/88
nalghRpsf^anp
100 u
VQ*B
Ssritivnlal life Orpinfn romjjc.i*idi {3VOCil
MCA-G70
AS399570
it
1«
4/15UM
ito|
M^A440
AH.1BS414
NA
NA
12/ts m
4W(J U
as^h
&omlVal»tl(fl Orgsitc Campaurxi* IBVOCoi
MCA-4t7
AR3AS417
MA
NA
12/15/90
imptJflusrsnMnn#
6100 U
S«m]vtMII« Organic Ctunpaund* ISVOCtt
MCA-418
A838541B
NA
NA
¦\mm&
aafkytiwwiUiin*
5,600 y
m^9
S«fwlvi3lBHI«i Orgmk Ooinpauraft IWOQtt
MGA4tS
Aft39C41d
#
7
12/1BJ»8
OdWWwiftrtin*
5,100 U
&wntvolatif« Orgaitk Oo>rpaunilt ISVOCL
MCAh«<}
A33»8420
«
7
wdWwmtiMMn*
woo w
wfca
SmiwiMl dfganlo Corr|wur*i« ISVOCe}
MCA-41«
AS3#S<21
ft
7
12/15WB
, izofKlfluanrihana
3300 y
6an4vQMn« a if ink! csmpaumit l&VOC#
MCA-423
AS3V8423
NA
NA
12/2 WB
wHPdNiwwillwn*
a.ioo u
OffMle OoriwKMfe (S^CKStf
M0A-4Z4
AS999424
MA
hIA
1K21/98
4911 HlJowTthana
22O0 If
Sacnlvalalla Ojjinic Cnrrpctiiodi ISVDC*}
MCA-416
AM4S426
NA
HA
12«i/ao
TiD^k|HyBHfpth«tii
m u
OifMric CcmjrawA* tSVOC*i
MCA-3 00
AS3«&EB»
10
ie
4^13WB
17D U
wa^o
SflmlvolitHI* Orqadc Oorrf»i>M» (SWCwJ
MCA-5 TO
AS3WB70
ia
1«
*Jt3&9
^I-tlhylhtrXyllphUntBtB
aw u
8an4vahrtfl» OrfMile CorrpaumrfB fSVOC*t
MCA-415
A&34«416
NA
NA
12/1B/BS
QfRliilwiylliitithilMt
E9CNQ if
ShtiIvicMM O'gtnla Cmnpaimdt PV0C«|
MCA-419
AS»9641«
W
MA
nmw
{l-CthylwcytlpHlliBMB
W»D U
W9*9
itmlvdall* Org iris CmpouMlt ffSVOCi)
MCA-417
AS39B417
NA
HA
\2rtmtis
f2-E»p»*^i(>hrhar»r«
84olatlfi» Dr^anb Ccmpouid* {SVOCcJ
MCA-12 3
AB39B423
MA
NA
ij«i,«e
2.SG0 U
W&9
Organic Carnpoundc (SVOC»5
MCA-»24
A63984Z4
NA
HA
12/21W«
42oiind« (SVOCil
MCA-4f 1
AS39S41*
MA
HA
17I1IMAB
iVlbMc^ifhthclits
s*oo u
3*rr>lV«fatlte Qrparriu Ocwn|»ounrfs |6VOG»|
MGA-417
AS398417
NA
NA
I2/TB«lf
d« |3VUC*I
MCA-420
AS395420
fl
7
w\me
!*»b#wylpW»«irtf
5,900 U
WSMN1
^emlvofstUa 0rg«|i4o Compottn(bAntyfctvthdrt*
mm u
S*Krivn]Mbi 0'{|J»fik Ccmp
-------
Otes Uwni to CompiULa Cftnflrmetton WRA
IRP Sit# 39/H»won Substation
&ndnr$an Ah Fut« Bass, Quern
«•«*» 42 of S3}
iaamfteh
jftlTSlIT.T OUAttWW
tiijt
AMAT.Y5IS
lOTATlOh
SAMI'LC NUMBER
DEPTH AANGE
SAMPtf DATS
jiyf birwylphthalm
fW it
Psmlvcifcitito Drpsrric Cnmprarrie (RVOCiJ
MCA-ifl0
AB3BSB60
IB
1«
4J1 &08
rt|fl
i*0 u
*t*d
|i]
WCA.-417
AS3KJ417
HA
MA
T2MS/9B
sboo 11
wflw
SwiuaMt* ftifrsiic COn^cHivIc (BVOCpj
MCA-U18
AS3R841B
MA
NA
dtfcMOrt
fi.scn u
PirtiB
GttnlvOliitVa Orfwilc Ojrnrailnti* (SVCCa)
MCA-411
AS39S410
0
7
12,r15/9Q
urbiXat*
1,000 II
«"
8Mnhr(i]*IIs Otjililc Cwrpouiid* (RVOCp)
MCA-423
AB39B423
fW
MA
12^2traw
iit»sri4
2,«q u
>>pAg
gairiMalatta O'0snlo Cott^lOMIvis al*tll)i Or§iqlo C(Mtnp<«uriiiB CSVOO»}
M0A-B70
ASAS&57Q
10
18
in m*
7100 U
^wmfvnMlla Org irifc Ccurtpnurwi* ISVOCiJ
ASS9S41S
NA
HA
nmm
¦lryiwi"
§200 U
wafco
flmilvdctil* CempoclmiB ISVOCtl
MC*-*1I
A81SB41«
NA
NA
12/iim
'-¦ryiin*
MOO U
mfc§
SainftnlffUlA OfgjnJo Cori>fX>i>M* |SVW^i|
ASi1«S417
HA
MA
nmm
>ryMiw
TODO U
raff's
S«mivcii^i« Ongmte Con>p<*iw* |SVOC*l
MCA-41B
AR.M5418
HA
MA
nmm
¦Ttyjrtrtt
TJt®
ratal
S+tnl vTrfjitlto Organle Compound* ISVOCiJ
WICMH
AS39S410
1
7
l2Jt5»R
irjfwr*
S.JOO u
wfa
Swn>«iel«ljla Onganic Coin^OUr*
22Q V
SMtniviOlttHai Otganlcr OQmpoufMM.' |SVIK;*|'
MCA-C9H
A8^l»3S«n
10
1 n
'iryurr#
130 U
HBfo
BMimh/alatHa DrgmlE CompoUrwf* ISVDCil
MCA-S^O
A139&S70
IB
10
!wiD(vJ0ii4tao*tM
2500 Uitianic can^itiunda {SVOGa>
MCA -41#
A93tai IB
NA
NA
imm*
2100 U
Wlkt
SpiTihtifKtl* Organic Cnrpaynita
MCA-419
AS3»S4?t
ft
7
nmm
2.**> U
GAmPvOTltta Organic Corralcrundc tSVOCa)
MCA 420
AS395429
«
7
tzmtm
b*n*s(ijijanlh!*«fi«
3,500 U
M»*fl
Bsmlvofiliia Otgimb Cuni|xmmdt |3Vt)Ca}
trlC A4 IB
A83afi42*
8
7
it,mm
MnaKfj^fithwvM
1,100 u
mfrQ
6eMnjtot% Ofointe CwmwwmJs (SVOCal
MCA-423
A83384M
MA
NA
nmm
690 Lf
M.1fcfl
8#rrHw^«W» Orflinfc Cowppimd# (6W0GW
AiaMSJ24
MA
HA
tititm
Mnsefalfllflttwacan*
1000 V
Sml^ulalite CtHPfwawtf* ISVOCel
MCA4i6
A03HS42S
NA
HA
i taim
'm rm>(» Jh) inthfsceri*
7B *>
wafts
aomfVDiirtfiD OrcjJirtle Ct)mpouFvdB ISVOCil
MC4 5S8
AS395888
ie
13
maim
wriW^JKjifirtMwwn*
ei u
ra/fcj
S»rniv«taUh Organic CowpwM»^* ISVOCal
MCA-570
Afl39SB70
ifilr»
7200 V
WiVg
fliwniirplfllitti OtgartM- Cmtip«urtd| OVtJC»l
MCMie
A938S41!!
NA
fJA
12/1B/9H
janwrfunm
7300 V
j^/kg
¦9flrril*ol»tH» Organic Compound* tSVOC«|
MCA-417
A53fS"l 17
MA
NA
I2^15ff»8
;Jtn*»fur»n
ima y
W§*«>
®»Mv»1a|i»» OrB«iJ<5 Cwnf»ur«l» (SVOCt)
MQA 418
AS35S41B
HA
HA
'.wnjtufurtn
SJSM U
S«fi4valaeir« Off Mik Catnpsundt (SVOCt)
MCA419
Agjaatfa
8
/
hwnrahinin
Tjm w
SwidvahtM* Off»nb Contpawiit (OVOUat
MCA-410
A3OT3120
0
7
1a/tW98
4,«»U
lipAo
S*nivaMII« OrfMik; Cemfkounda (RVno»j
MCA4+»
At33«9^21
B
7
is^tW&flr
3^00 t»
SHmtvolatira Off wis Orwupsunrt* I^VOCal
MUA423
A1S34B423
NA
NA
1H2WX
PilUMZtHMilllWuMmiMiIVHWIil *!!»&¦» WW, JlldFM
-------
Dntn Ut*d to Complst* CtHiflrmaEion HHRA
IRP SJh» 39/Harmon Suiwtnilon
Aftcforavri Air Fort* Basfr, Guam
(Ran* D-f 63)
JAM IMS
RESULT OTJA1IF1ER
TJKTT
ANALYSIS
[/•CATION
SAMFr.RWWRim
WPTH R/lNflE
SAMPLE DATE
mroftmirf
3.2M U
OTlti
Swfilwlatfi* OrginFc C-oinpoundi ISVOCrt
MCA-124
AS39B424
MA
HA
•nnfurtn
34i«i U
8«mlvqiwlhl ite Cnnip-nljnd« f9V£>C:«l
MCA^SS
A33Sa42C
WA
NA
12/21/90
•nirtinn
230 IT
W*fl
titntfvolatll* oigarte Gampamle CSVoct)
MCA-6W3
Ag39S38B
18
10
4/13/89
r,i-i»ftfur*n
iflG V
m#fcu
8»Wiwi»l»|U» Orotrtk? Oompewxi* {9Voc»l
MCA-670
A83986tO
10
1ft
4/13/B9
i-butyl
9300 W
w*a
S«P>*fol»Hb Om*nUS Compoiurf"
MCM16
ASMS41!>
MA
Mh
ismtm
"fltrtyl phtlwtai*
mm «
wfca
Samlvrffftli Orginlc CcmpountJt &VOCil
MCA-#19
AS39S4t»
NA
HA
izmm
i^btrty) phihclm
wkx> u
M/*-buT0 phfhilit#
flW© u
jvgfrg
(MmfvpJjtfe Offlprto Ccifnpgurvfit |GVOc«)
AB3BS419
HA
fiA
12/15.(§8
i-Wjt pknhahft*
5.B0C y
9»j*iWn! atlfl Ots*ntc Oomwiwdi (SV(ir,»i
MCA-41 fl
Aft39m1»
fl
1
uriiw
ibuMftithaht*
WHO U
HQfoQ
Orginlc Cnmpaumte ISVaCf I
~JCA-4I0
AS39S4SO
11
7
12/1SJ9H
ttaJytfftthab#*
8,200 U
P0&9
OiJTihfrfiHb Orftink: Conpctuncl* (SVtlCfl
MCA-4lf
AS395*21
Q
1
iz/is/ta
tbutrl pftthalate
3,™ U
wtfcg
(hniMitile Org«r+j C«n|>i»]M'l |SWjC«)
MCA-433
A&MS423
MA
NA
1 %li i/#b
pWhshit
MOO U
jigAw
Sfrntve4«!ll« Organic Comix>yp>df ISV%)C«)
MCA-424
AS39S4Z4
MA
NA
12/2 IAS
i-tHcty* phtfideta
iooi;i u
BAmivolstllv Ofigtrtic Curr>puLndi |6Vn>C»>
MCA-^25
A639S-485
m
NA
1K/21/B9
vbutyf phtfiatata
I(M 1/
rt*B
SamiwnliHifai Orgsrtic Cjomfi^uridi (3VOC*)-
hhthdit«
zoo u
Orafnfc Comt-oLrnti (BVoc*>
MCM70
A53i5570
ie
1«
4/1309
ofimhaiw
SO00 u
f«ril»ol»ilW 0*a*nte ISVOC*!
MftA-4tS
Ata#i*1R
MA
NA
n/iB«a
^firthrtw
8300 IT
5«rr#votati{B Organta Compovrrii t8*A>C»|
MCA-41B
AS3K410
HA
NA
12/lb/V*
VimtMhai
16900 J
rtJA s
SAmtvobfli* Drpanht C^nnfvcujtd ¦ {SVOC«)
MCA 417
A83W17
m
NA
12/1S/9B
61J00 U
StirivoMiib Organic CompoOfvJi BVOCt)
MCA-41#
A33»S41B
MA
NA
nmm
wanHiana
» «B L
HQfal
SMinfiwIatna O'HtMkr CS^rnpc*™!" {SWt>0«t
MCA4tS
A$W*ia
0
1
13/1SA6
ccartlh**
ft.«0 U
«,^D
stffHiPAiatii* Of jjntc CdtiHMund ¦ {&•/«;*)
kfiCA^^D
AS39S4-20
P
7
anMwm
ijwkj u
Orgmlc Ce>m(KiiM( (8VOC»l
MCA-41®
AS3W4H
0
?
iinsrta
wanfltwia
l aoa u
«lrtf
Otjinhj OwweUfWi BWJCil
MCA423
AS393433
MA
NA
nmm
OW4m
1400 U
S«rn)M)Utita DTginlc ComboUTldl 43VDC*1
MCA-4J4
AS3*84|4
MA
MA
OW1HWW
ZSPO L'
W»«fl
S#mtvo/»tt4 organic Compound* PVoc*}
MCA-42S
AS39S42S
HA
NA
oWKhpn*
18© U
eg/fc(t
SimivMitl# Or^sriie Compounds (SVOC*}
MCA-569
43395669
1$
10
4'Id,*90
urmthwn#
ISO u
WtkQ
9«m4v«l*t|a Orj»tito Ccw|wu™i* (SV0c«|
MCA-CW
Ai»*8$70
1«
m
4mm
!tneft,i3Ns£|t|(fyr#n»
aano u
mm
3^inTfvfiMln Qiqarfo ^firr^»uridt fSVOCil
WA-41R
A939841S
NA
flA
12/18rt9
bi«K1 ,1,5-odJpyff™
IfiCiCi (J
Mfj^a
fiilirtrf»l)te <5f<| into Compo unifc (SV0C«i
MCA 411
AS3flS41fl
WA
MA
12/15/98
'MM(1 ^t^-cdfpfnnm
aooo y
mfca
5«nfynfa NIa Org inlc Cmriwiunsfe (SVOCs)
MCA-417
A539S41J
NA
MA
ia/i«/w
wMtU-Otflpyrani
3200 U
«f*a
8ifnlifrt«lil» C?5 into Cc*i1|KiunilS (SVtJCsl
MCA-418
ABMB418
NA
NA
ia/is/»e
'9H0(1,2^C«l|ptlIWT«
9,500 U
M1'*B
S«inlyo|slSlQ diq ante OompciMMlv |SV(lCc)
MCA-419
A®38641»
fl
7
i2/ie/»e
'an^tfjs-aQpynrn
3,200 D
MHfltg
9*m1vd(ellks Qnjankt OMTpDund* ISVOCt)
MCA420
AiaflB42^
fl
J
12/18AQ
3,300 U
tmtoB
$nmlvol*tHa OTJ)in,lt Cnmpounda (SVOCst
A53BM21
fl
J
12/16/98
'»rrtC?,3,3-ai}pyTWi*
1.400 U
M>>*9
SamlvoiatH* Otflmlc CampeurHli ISVOC*)
MCA-423
AS3SS4Z3
NA
NA
12/21/9B
leno( t ,3-tjrflpyrefw
1,300 U
®«m1 vulBlita Onj inkj CotHpouml" ISVOCf'l
MCA-*24
MA
NA
12/21/flB
HOT U
SanivefaiMa Qrgnnls CompmliiSw |£VCIC*^
KCA-42E
ASJSS425
NA
HA
izmm
ww(l ,3.^
-------
Dels to Compi«iu9 Cftflffrttwiifnn WHRA
I HP S3tfl 39/Harmon SiAweitfln
Anrtoiiwn Air Fore# B«wb> Guam
ytAMEim
RESULT QUALIFIER
UNIT
AMA1YSI5
liOCAIiOM
SAMPX-B bomber
DErtM HftNGE
SAMPLE DAti
¦pMhahna
10,WO u
SrttrHjrrlall!* Orjj»fcta (?upif,p«ndi (StfDCt)
MCi-4^
AP39S4J1
«
7
umw
4pMMl«w
4.500 U
jwfta
Swrivolatil* Orfiwk Compoundi tSVDCil
MCA-423
AS335423
NA
m
12/21/99
tpMMbm
4,200 U
mfm
SacrfvelatMs Oruaflte CwupQUfid* WVOC»|
MCA424
AS385424
N A
m
-idMuImi*
440Q U
m^9
Qf||inio Cons|i«iwl* ffiVOCil
W«A 425
Aeafl6421
m
NA
=ipMhlHtHI
33JJ U
iwfcv
BitnlwjMfa tl/j«nki G«npci*f[f* (BWOCil
MCA-009
Aeastsvee
m
IS
340 If
W!*9
BamivatatHs DtjifiIc Cwrfipisiriii {3VQCi|
MCA«70
AS3BSB70
i«
1rt
49017 U
Wile*
Ofqtnki CnmjKrifriJf (BVOCil
MCA-#T5
A63B«#1B
m
MA
15/1B/M
ifltanNafApIiMml
SHMJ U
WB/*i
Salrrfuotati* Oifink tomjijinidt ISVOC ¦)
MCAi16
AWfig«nr
TtA
MA
12/1 BrfM
i frtuSilorejitunDl
5 boo y
B*mlwrf»Uta Oigantc Compound* ISVOCit
MCA-41"?
AsaasuiT
HA
W
13f1FiWI
int«d*>Wp^»no)
«&oc u
jjv/Ko
S»mhwk«lt» Organic Cowpcundi ISVQCil
MCA^Ii
A83SS418
NA
MA
12/15/BB
¦MtfpriifcwfJbWKS*
«,«w w
ifs/kB
GvmlvoteriM Organte Camtiauntff tSVOCO
MCA-410
AS3SSf18
«
7
tm&mti
inlsdMara^hlnal
4,090 II
twftn
Oriole Compourt*}*' ISVOCi)
MCA-tiO
ASaOS420
fl
/
«j(» Lt
B
R«m{wilatl«fO»g»it(e Compound* (SVOflnJ
MCA-41«
AftaasiJt
4
7
IJ/16W8
intacM«a(tM%|
2,TUQ= J
GawiVvotetlt Ocgmic CgrivgiaMn^B |BVOC«>
wcjwaa
A5355423
HA
NA
!2/21/ifl
'HirtacMdreifhtnol
2JSQ0 \i
H8*B
Bamtwolvth O-^anJc Cranpaumh (SVOC«>
hKA 4?4
A$a*m2&
NA
MA
¦tiftt/BS
intwMoropNno!
2 WO 0
MJjVd
fitmlwolalllA Offlime Compauod* lEVDCi>
MJA-425
AS39S4JH
HA
HA
1 Mi/at
irttjKhkin^ftwwl
100 11
MlA#
Sa)fll¥Olxti*. D«a«)i9 OntlpoundB PVOC*^
MCA-5fl6
A8396&
Mf^ao
AB30K42D
8
7
14ClBf»9
vHwttnfii
6,100 U
JUfllOfl
Suiyih/a^d* Otgiifo CortiJVotvolatili dfg ifJc C^ifip^uilln (QlVOCtl
MCA^Zi
AS3M42S
H k
MA
tmtm
sirwitftrttM
tan u
/mflm
Samhmlifir* Organic Ctunpoinh (SVQCt)
MGA.fi sa
A539REUIB
tn
ia
4/Ta/an
iwiiMum
MO U
5am(v(yff>llta Qitginlb'Confound* (SVOCs^
fttC*-5TO
AS3»B5?(J
t#
10
4{tms
•n*l«
7100 U
6#mtwi»llfl Offlirifc Corf1|K!liWJ» |8V©Ct^
MCA4tE
AS33641S
MA
NA
iz/iBwa
Mtla
SJOO I#
fflA B
SacnliMlill* Ongaqhr CgfT^uundk |£VOC»>
MCA.419
A539S419
NA
NA
12/is^aa
mis
133CO J
5«rrflvo<*lRt Orginlc C«miKi«N« (5VDG»>
MKMvr
A53B6417
HA
HA
iaftufoe
¦una
MM V
W&Q
Semlvotafiki OrgiriQ Cwnpcurxli KV(Hv»(
MCA41B
A6MB418
m
NA
TiH*
T.JWU
SaniiwoMto 0(i9*fc Cow9w*f» l3V0C«t
MCAMIB
A3MS41ft
e
I
1 iritis
6, BOD til
Snfiiiol»tlk» Oroario Ct*npoarKlB
MCA-420
A83fl84?0
ii
7
IJfltwa
-Tint
1\OT V
SunilMcJjstift Ofgjirmc; CtMnpAiintti |SV1>Ct>
MCA-418
A9398421
e
7
12fW»R
T»n»
3,000 U
Snrincbtlla Ofgaric Compoym}* {SVWT*t
MCA-423
AS30S423
NA
NA
12/21OT
T»ni
2,M»U
ngflt®
SHriirolatBa Ufgarie tSwrpounrt* BWfisI
MCft421
AW
1PH
lip
Irtfl/lB
ToM PitiDfctiirn HyiMxnrtim
OWS-lifl
AS39S1S0
7.17
1.3 J
"itttfstft
«S««WmrtKhMmWinmil W«*l .d». «ra» arm an., liitm, inO m
t
-------
bull Used to Cnmpliiti Conflrrnatlon HHftfl
|RP Sltft SidfHMriMm Subxlnlkai
AndersM'i Air f"mea Bas*r Guam
{Pjtflp 45 of S3)
UMHER
RESULT OLALLFitR
UWIT
ANALYSIS
LOCATION
SAMl'LE NCHUER
DEFT RAM Oi
6AM FIE DATE
H
190
me/kg
Tetaf P^lrotouni H? drtjdrfiflr*
0WS-1Z i
*!$39.312?
/,1?
7.33
7W&B
If
110
Total PwrolMjnn Hylrw»lK»i
ows. i is
A339S120
7.17
7,31
7 mm
¦H
290
mo.'ka
Tctst mtrolHim MydnxLsrbjrc
OWS-1Z9
AS39S1J9
7.17
7.3 J
7fSJSB
H
240
rnc.ica
TolaT fVtrolturn Hydrocarbon
OW5-130
AS3BS130
7.17
7.3a
7mm
H
2900
TomI pwtrobum HfdiuaatfM>|n
0W»*132
A8399^31
HA
NA
JtW9 8
¦H
140
m0.t90
Total PMraWum HpumcirtHHi
0V/S-13B
AS3Bai3E
NA
NA
.veins
•M
1*
1110,1:0
To1«l Frtfotouin Hf#rw?»rfKwi
OWS-II-J
A&3BS141
NA
J4A
rmmm
I#
irse/leo
Total Ptotfttfeum H^roisvtKiri
nwa-14?
A83i9142
HA
NA
vmz
100
mfl/fee
Total tatranuni itytrocfliban
aws-141
AS3»31rth«ra)
0,d3 u
Volall^ Ql^imk Connpcundi C*VC*J
MCAJI15
AS3954 1Er
NA
NA
12,'lBlBB
, t~Trfctibro*th«rw
0.35 U "
VofaHife Otflttiic Cotnpninli ri(rKMoKHlhiiia
0,3» U
PV?*<3
VdMHi Oiginfle Coi«^«ur|ilt (WCi}
MCfc-41®
A6M9416
MA
MA
izncmi
,2,2-TatfachlDrtiftltalM
0.38 U
«|Ai«
CCBupauralf |V«)C»|
MCA-41T
A0W5417
NA
NA
U/tB/VD
,2 .l-lVtraetitorrwl hans
o.4i y
Ml^B
VsiaHta Offirto Oomfwurrt# (VDCi|
MCA-419
AfldSMIB
«A
NA
14/16/®#
0.49 U
I'dlitttfe {Jr^inlc Compaurrrf* (VOC«|
MCA-41A
A3»S4|B
9
7
It/fS/tB
2^-TitKKHofoottwqa
5.42 u
ml**
Volnll« Orginia OorrtppwrHfe lWCt|
MCMIW
ABS9S420
9
7
t2/11W8i
3>fibigNmllini
0.43 U
mfcB
ValatM« Opinio C«rrip«
MCA416
A639S41S
NA
NA
12/1G/M
, £-TrMttormhirw
0.27 tl
Vhlatll* 0»B*f*1e CmnpBtntfi (VOC*)
WC^4t>
AS39S410
NA
HA
iWSM
„Z»Trt:Wbh»rfrNira»
0.2B u
m&v
Volatito Orpanlc Ccmpounitt f/OCs)
MCA-»1?
AE3BS417
MA
NA
12/I6«fl
i2-T rldiforMtbinB
u
jwsrfoa
VglttlN 0>u»oic Com|»0WliJ« IWClt
MCA-41f
AE 59341 (J
NA
HA
12M1ITO
2-TricHkwa£ll«-y»
0.32 V
Volitlla Drgante CMnpnutrfc (VOCk)
MCA-41B
AS39$Cs>
MCA-420
AS19S42Q
6
7
%insim
Z-Tiidikwiifhan#
D JO 11
iflAo
y«k#h» 0r^«t»c Co«npoi«Rl»
MCA-419
AS55S4Z1
S
7
12/1S/S0
l-TifdhlNiMithaM
0,W U
«(*8
VfllH0b Drp^iic CalnpoUfHls
MCA-4?.*!
*83*8423
NA
NA
12/2 WB
ft-TrtcMtovMtAana
0 24 U
«*ff
¥oM1i Opganle Comfuundc ivoctj
MCA-4 J4
AS399424
NA
NA
i m i^8
.i-TrfsNtararthjBW
0 u
W*iS
VoW|<* Organic Ouflnpoutnls IWC*}
MCA^26
AS3M42S
HA
NA ,
tJ/21,«tl
^-Titefilorowhaiw
0 23 ti
/«Aa
V
-------
Data UsmI to Cnrr^*Confirmation HHRA
JRF Sfw S&fHMimoji SiiisMtlnn
AndarMn Wr Fores Has®, Gimm
(Psfle 48 nf 631
RESIXT oi:ai,ifii»
UNIT
ANALYSIS
i.oc.^no.'s
SAMFLE XL'MBEK
UFFTW RAAltiE
SAWIPLF DAT1
.l-OteNewlbvi*
Q. 92 U
vefcy
Vplatito Orgjirdc CcwifwUnii |VOC«)
MCA-41#
AP3PS41«
HA
NA
1Zf1SfB0
. 1 'IJfchfciMMflima
6,03 l l
m».*«
Vfllstli* Onfl irtlc C«»poilrH|« (VOCs)
MfiA41T
A9J88J17
NA
NA
12/15/58
,l-OiiGML*xl»
MCA419
A53»S419
B
-f
.l-OWhlwwrtMw
O.W U
J*A«I
VctaH« Offlanlc GompoLnrH tVoC»)
MCA-120
A93»K42Cl
fi
y
1W*»9B
, 1-Pletikiriwtf'Mi hi
0.70 11
VolatBv Ofpanfc Cunpgundi (VbM
MCA-419
AS39S421
6
?,
qm u
pgflii
VoMRa Organte Comjtounrft tVOt#}
A£aS8423
m
NA
mzime
,1-DtehlMMfftari*
0.55 U
«W*U
Vtodttla Organic -CtunpQiJnfv IVtK>l
MCJMZ4
M3SS424
HA
MA
nmm
,1 -OfcWwtxnfvww
<1.56 V
Vofttlt Or§»wle ConffflUlnii (VOCil
hfCA-425
A636S429
NA
NA
temum
, 1-tMbhto*Mrthon«
tf
VMitls OrgBhJc Oomiponind* tVQCsl
MCAr6«a
A33asS9B
ie
in
A/13/#19
j-OfcMwwttww
e.e# u
kiAb
Vdvtlt Offlflnte oen^aunds IVOCll
MCAB70
A93»KS?»
16
10
4/13,-9 »
, 2,3 *T HtoMortMrii*™
0,33 U
WtflftSs 0Ǥaiic CMn^juwf* (VOCil
MCA-415
AS395H5
HA
NA
j.2,3-T rtchfofobBnremi
DJB y
M/frfl
VdfwtR* fltgaiifc) (V0C*|
MCA-410
Aa39S4f#
NA
NA
12/15WB
. Z, a-TffcWfw&wiwfw
0.3 U
{farts
Volctia 0(rie CompauFxte (VOCtl
MGA-41?
ASJasat?
MA
Na
1J/1S/99
, 2, 3-TfleNof©banwtii
0,32 U
wM
Volitlta Organle Oom|iciupui«. ftfocsl
MCfrJlia
Aajesaio
*14
NA
12,»15,<98
2,3T«lfllft!*»rob«W»M
0,39 U
Vdillk Offwte Ooripjurid* £V0C*l
MCA-H9
A3MB419
a
7
1f.<15.«tl
.Z,M"rfcMo«bw*»ew
0 92 U
mflvf
Vdatllt Oraafitc Cfimpound* (VOCsl
MC^4?Q
A330«42O
<
7
It/15»9
0,33 11
m&v
VoImM* Organic cenfMund* ft'oCil
MCA-413
ASJBB421
R
7
12<15WH
. 2,3-T^eMwetmrM*
O.W tf
VMMJt* Orgcnic Compound* WC»I
MCA413
AR3854J3
HA
MA
•nam*
J^-TrieMarabaitm*
U.Z0 u
WAO
Ogififc Cuipx/nd* {VOCtl
MCA-424
A53BS424
m
MA
izai/Bir
.1,3-TriehbMfeaniaiw
0.29 U
W*
MCA-426
AS3»S42B
NA
MA
mznm
,2,4-T rictrtjfotjarear*
0.» U
ifgiTtg
VW»ll» Ortfinlc ComfNUIvlf 1V00»)
MCA-e-iB
AS99SS«e
10
IS
4mm
, Z^a-TrichknrcibinfarMi
0.63 V
Vblttlfe Orgtnte Conv»im«f8 (VOCtl
MCA S 70
Ai-nanTO
m
IS
4/13^3
OMaiiun*
fl.7 U
miH
Vciltk Orgirkj |VI>Ct)
MCA41S
AS38S41I5
HA
NA
"Bul»r»or»
&.» U
VMmUb Org arte Conpouriite WQC«I
MCMK
*S3»341fl
HA
MA
IUtS/80
-0ul.*rKj«*i
6 u
mfra
\fol«tlfa Cowc|»upiJ* IV0C*J
MCA 41?
*83*8417
NA
f4A
U'l WW
Butane»»
GA U
VnlitUn Uf(|aMC CtThpoyMte (VOCH
MC^-41tl
AS>3»S419
NA
NA
flutanna
7.1 U
jjgAff
VolMHa Orginic CnrnpKmrfc (V(JC»|
MCA-419
A93B3410
rt
7
Bufwioni
9A U
VdIhHIb Ofljtnto C0rn|Hii»«i* (V0C»l
MCA-4ZO
A839B4iO
ft
?
urism
Buttraina
0« U
ugm
Volfrtilu OiginPc CompHjmia |VOC«|
MCA-4W
AS3fl««31
9
r
»Z/l5f9B
©utanefi"
ST II
t>oH
VokrtSlo Organic Coiripoiinct* |WOC«l
MCA^Z3
A33flS«3
NA
NA ,
!i/J I/i8
Butimrw
S3 U
Vi>UrrfJ* Qrganfe Co-mpsurHii JVOCil
MCA-124
AS393424
NA
NA
tkitinons
SB U
.MfliVg.
VolattlB Ornanto C«JHKot.ir«l» IVOCa)
mcA 42S
ASM$425
NA
«A
T2«t/9B
-Butanofw
B.3 1)
Valatlt# Orfanlc Canpouvlc )
MC*Bi8
AB3»SBfla
%«
4iiara9
t BIP» »*•, waliss, «a m
-------
~Ma Used 10 Ctxtiplat* ConNrroatkin HHRA
tfH" Stto aa^Honrtfio StiJitmUort
ftrtden im All Forcft Geaa, Guam
IPufl* 47 of E3>
^AMETER;
MSULI QUALIFIER
UNIT
ANALYSIS
LOOTIOff
SAMH.EmJWUHHt
MPTIIIIAMBE
SAMPLE DATE
uwirmna
i,6 U
VolMlf# Onjaiite Compound* (VOCsl
MCA-S7U
AS33S570
16
16
4/t3f8&
QKinsm
1,B u
psfoa
ValuHfo (Irgiri# 0
Fittea
W*1ta Oro*nfc? ©ornpourwl* IVOCil
MCA-419
A699S421
c
1
12/I6fea
wartcfl*
1.4 U
IHAfl
VWiiifl Om *«fo CwpdMrid# IV0C»I
MCA423
A«5984!3
NA
MA
utiim
t,i y
mj*b
Voiitle Org«nl& Cohnpouiui* [VOCsl
WCA-JM
A339sm
NA
NA
lartiwft
'rtwahOrF#
1.4 M
J*9*B
VDlatM OrQ«nlc Ccrnpound* IVOCit
MCA-425
AS39M25
HA
NA
12/2 Tfro
ivanon*
1J1 U
«*§
Vblfttt* £i|-0»Me Compoundf (WCf|
M0A-69B
AS3fe5«P
la
18
4/1.3^89
mmkmw
1.B U
m*9
VoliMIn Ogmfc C4ra|UK14ill (VOCi)
MCA-B70
AS 34 $570
10
1*
Aill/M
'mhyl-J-jMSMtdrwH#
1J U
mfc st
Wlttlb Organic CoTTipt^jniP (V0Ga>
MO
MCA-»16
AS.1«e41A
NA
NA
lertPitl-2-ptntarwn*
1.3 U
VahSIt Onjafir CornfiQund ¦ |VOC*|
MCA-417
AB3a
MCA41®
ASA3E418
NA
NA
ta^iwie
<«t%l-2 • pontine iw
1.* u
Wv
VoMla OiQinte r.DfnpHiiHii (VOCal
MCA^ia
A&396419
«
7
13/1K/flfl
tathytt+tpMnom
\a y
/•»*»
Votartto Organic CompoLrrfa (VOC«i
MC*-420
AR39S420
6
7
1?/18«B
latfifM-ptntwwnt
US 1}
Vototih» Druanlfr Cdmpaurtdi {VOCtl
MCA.-41A
AS3ft«421
9
7
12/is/sa
u n
W*9
WoliUflt COm|H»Lindl (VOC«|
MCM23
AS3BS423
NA
NA
tI/21/BB
¦MfivUZ^pvntKMn*
T.2 U
VofUlt* 6tgjriic Comp^vfplf (WJCt|
MCft.424
ASJP6424
MA
NA
12/21/B9
s»th¥H-mntin«»
11 U
WJt(B
V04MII* Campowrit (VDQt)
MC^-415
AMB&4J6
MA
NA
11/21 Wfl
1»tliy)*i-p9nt«miia
1,* y
rtiA}
Vt>V»W» Organic Campoufidi »fl
f.4 U
Vufillta Orfnfe ConrfKMinil* (VOCt}
MCA-570
AB3P6SW
1®
te
4/13/09
tHIl
at
Vdlitlta CdAp7IV»di (VOCii}
MCA-+1B
AS30941B
HA
NA
1?/1S»»
(erw
4.7 J
MJ^sg
lAilitlta flifnlc Cornpaurili (VOCi}
MCA-410
AS39D410
NA
NA
12/IS/9B
Ions
4,f U
t*6fca
VotallSi Offiillc CetnpauiHh (VOCtl
MCA-417
AS33H417
NA
MA
ISffS/99
't0h4
6.1 U
weAtfl
Vobti# Off »hks Oowpouwh fVQC«|
MCA 41S
AS»a8410
NA
HA
limm
ttfli
20?
VntAtto Organic Compound* tvons}
MCA-4^8
ASH38418
6
7
13H 5«8
(c™
29. 9
Wfcn
Vtaratlfn ^rjinki Ctompnimds (VOCs|
MCA-420
Afi3j»«4?ft
#
7
nmm@
[¦orn
sa u
m&a
Vo+flttfl Off ink; CempeunrfB IVQCtl
MCA-41#
AS3AS421
i
7
12f IB/IB
lorn
4.6 U
VMit la Organic Cnmpcurrf* P/UCil
MCA-4J3
AS39R433
NA
MA
12/21W
ton#
33
Ongthfc CompuufKhr (WCtl
A8SS6424
m
NA
imtfm
ten*
TKB
W^B
VDlatfln Orflanio. CompMIMlC EVOCi)
MCA-426
AS»!1426
NA
NA
umm
tern
B U
Voiathi Organic Campetinria iVOCsl
MCA-aoe
AS39B9ia
ia
4/1
(on*
6.2 U
mfcg
VtielUa Organic Compoumlv ftAOC Sj
MCA i m
AS^&570
fa
1«
4/1 J»
M?*
0.32 U
P9&1
Volwifcr Drgsnb ComtKluridt (V0C»i>
MCA415
A3A81?415
NA
NA
If/15/90
(WW
o.je u
m*g
Vnlxill* OrgAntC ftom|tauii(fa |VOC«>
MOA-M6
NA
NA
'2/lSf98
nna
BJ> U
¥cMI» Owntc CorapoiMtfi (VOW
MCA-41T
AS30S4J7
MA
NA
T2/1B/8H
tend
0,31 V
i
Vbtaffl* OnuNc Campnnifidii ^Vdc#
MCA-418
AS39S418
NA
NA
12/1 B.'BH
win
0.M U
VoWt« Qi(4Dlc Cumpourrt* (VOCsJ
MCf>f4l9
AS3fS41f
e
7
12,'tBfSB
nna
031 U
«*a
Vrr1«U« Drjafllc fo»rr^K»ur«dE IVtiCxj
MCA-4JD
AS39S4JV
i
7 .
12/1 MB
trm
0 32 11
w*a
VolitilB Organic Compounds fVOC*}
MCA-4t8
AS3#a421
e
7
17/1&/BB
0.ZB U
VoUMM Or}
-------
Date Uwtf to C#itipic.i# Cw>flrmnHon HHttA
IRP SlSfl 33/Harmon SUlBtriSwi
Anderson Alt Fo»c« R«», Guam
Pa as 48 of 531
RAM STIR
BISLXT (KjALITIER
IWF
Attwas
LOCATION
SWMTr.RKirMRER
OIPTH RAPfGE
jtAMPLE OATE
a,tt a
PSA'S
ValMHM Organic Ccaj^iourtda (VDCa)
MCA-44E
A&39S42B
WA
HA
11/J1,qa
'inn
0,3 U
HW&9
VoMII# ntjarite Compound* (VOCal
Mn*.&ae
ASaiilrigitlH
1*
IB
'¦Mm
a,si u
i
Valatlla Off ink: Compounds (VOCal
MCA-Bra
AS3SS5TO
10
te
4,'%3J99
ifflodWlhsmmaHiafM
a,34 u
m>$9
VWatlto Dif Mile CaenpoumH IVOCil
MCA-lia
A63364-1B
«A
«A
Mmm
HrwjJIietitowniiiHwia
0 3 U
pv\q
Wriatlfa Organic GwrtpsurKhi |V0C»l
*83®B418
fJA
NA
13716 Wfl
¦TKi4Jcl4o'(WMIharM
OJ u
M*§
Valktlle Organic Comijnunste IVOCil
WA-417
AS39 3417
NA
NA
u^i^Tid
¦fTwdfcNoFWTWthHW
0,32 U
vW#H* Ongafifc Compound* |VOC»|
MC*-418
AA39341Q
NA
NA
12/1S/B3
•«Ti(HHeWtowrrthim*
tsm o
M/fca
VtjfjUl# Oc<(*nte CompournJa IVOC*)
A4CA-418
AS33541SI
6
7
¦hutfteMMttVHHHhi*
0,32 U
VwifW# Otflwvte Cwnpwmd*
ASSSS4Z0
H
7
iznarao
w™4leMlJf«™Bw»l*
y
Volillf OigtnlB Componnrf* IVOCil
MCAilfl
AB33SM21
«
7
irraidWltoffttiilliBna
AUU
«p/hg
VolwlKe digmb Compound* IVOLTkJ
«3
As3as4Z3
NA
w^IbMotornIUmii*
#jt y
Valatla drgcnlc CampcHirate IVOCsl
MCA-4 J4
AS30&I24
NA
NA
i2«i«a
itnodlcHflr^iTivlfmw
o ja y
VoUCI* ciffltnk: CompourwH (V0C»|
MCA-426
Assg0929
NA
NA
imodiRhlflKWtWfllHiria
0,32 U
W&9
Valitb Oifihlc Compaumtt [VQCtl
AG33SS6S
10
16
4i'l
un«licNki(oiftiitlur»
O AS U
wfe*
Volvtl* Organic Compound* IVQC«I
MSA-BID
A339S570
18
10
4^1 im
;hor lH«ul(W«
d.ts u
Wfcs
Voftllt Ontnit Comtaeuftd* |V0C#|
MCA-415
A»399415
MA
NA
nmm
itan cflwifidit
O Ti U
Vatfill* Ougipte C«mp«UMta: IVdCai)
MC^-4t6
Aisaasvii*
MA
NA
tsimmi
-fcwi daulfWfl
0 15 M
Voiati* Orflatite Compcumf» |V
MCA4J4
AS3954Z4
NA
NA
mum
rtuJH (WM/KHb
CU+ u
pqMa
VditM Organfie CanpHitidi {VOC«|
MCA425
A639S426
MA
NA
12/21/90
'rtmn dhuHJrfa
0,15 U
mks
Voliilfei" Organic Comjioyrtfta
MCA-6B8
AB3BeS0i
ie
4/1 art ft
'rton
D.l® l>
Odggnfo CuiripoOKti (VO£«>
MCA-B70
AS3»SS7A
18
IB
*/i a m
xhM lotriiiAirLJt
1 U
«jfcU
Vol ft is Ornint Compstntf* iV'OCn^
MCA41S
AlS3S«At«
MA
NA
if mm
iton talrathfcirtcffl
0,81 U
WM
VblaUPB Oq|wd(» OgnpQiind* rtd(
at# u
m>H
Vobtla Drganla Oamnound*(WOCa|
MCA-120
AO9S4J0
«
J
12,»1SW8
ibcn tatradilorid*
1.0 u
mflm
Orianb- Cturfmutida (VOCel
MCA419
AS395421
t
7
urtsae
iboti lsb«ditoridi
0,18 U
m&9
VdiMitt arganis camfKUfida tvocai
MCA-423
AS399423
NA
NA
12/21/it
fbcn tatracMerict*
ftif U
VMatla Offanb Compound* IVOti)
MCA-U4
ASd96424
NA
NA
tbofttotracMortda
»J7 U
Vilatl* Oiguik Compound® I.VOtal
MC(\426
AS3»S4?S
NA
NA
mims
•rfcon tatrachfarUa
0.87 U
Vishtft Orgnrils Ccwt^hjwixJ* [vocd
A5I3SR5<1R
la
16
4(1 JM
''tontttraoiftorid*
i y
m**a
\Watl# Otf«rib Compuwitfa iVOCs)
MCA-S70
AS3SSQ70
16
IS
4rt 3W
iwofewmnto
111
pgftg
Vulitl* OrginFo CwpwnA iWCtl
MCA-S16
Ai3fl84lS
NA
NA
14/16WB
0 23 y
Wfta
Organic CompourKlft |VtlC*l
WA418
A93Hftd1fl
NA
NA
'orotj#nt**
0J3 u
MfftB
Valatla ftiwfe CwnpcmniJa (VOC«p
M€A*17
AS39M17
NA
NA
17/15/an
''~rciiMnnmi
n as u
M*«
Volstlla ^fd*nla Com^«Lin<
-------
Data Used to Complete Cnnflrmattrm HHRA
Wl* Sir* 3&/HsirrM»n Sub»t®tk>rt
fcndarsan Air foreq Eai<, Guam
CoerpoUhcb (VOCbI
AB30S-HP
m
HA
12/1W88
larafornt
os u
V4I1HI1 Drginlc Cumptuivlt (VOCll
MCA-tl?
AS39$«17
m
m
btqf«rm
a£3 u
Miikn
VaMte Qrniffo CcmpaundE (VOCtl
AS3OT«\a
TiA
HA
IZrtB/BS
brefetm
DSBtl
W*ll
Vc4«l|a Dl^intiiOonifMUnd* WC»I
MCA-41B
A339S410
«
7
12HBWB
hshtftefffi
0 53 U
W*9
Vfllitil* Or^nte Confipomicft
MCA-430
AS399420
8
7
12,n&W
towflwwi
OSS U
*0*3
VaMli Orotnle CompMHiit {VOCi)
AS34S421
0
T
12/15^0
tonifWiri
04T U
V-jMlt Otganb Compwjmfi EVOCf t
UCAA23
AS39£423
HA
NA
12/21^80
fafofefm
0-44 U
m*§
¦WdBlll* Orfitnla OmnpcUriSd WCNJ»f
MCA-424
A899Q424
m
NA
hurfonn
0,40 U
M9&9
VoMli 9ifftnlc Compound i iVOC«J
MCA-42B
AS39S42S
NA
NA
crrilomi
0,52 U
mfa
VoMM* Ornidb CqmpMinii iVOCi l
MCA-sea
AS39S5&9
16
IB
4H3MB
0-54 U
mAo
0«lp#lte Oornpwjridi M?C«J
MCA-6J&
A33MS70
id
78
4ft$m
^roniMthin*
3,7 U
*#<*«
V
MCA-417
A339S417
m
MA
torotn#fhana
3* U
wH
Valalll* Oigwtta C^niptiyndi WCR;«>
MCA-411
A839E410
MA
NA
Saromrfwtw
2 6 U
Vglilltn Olfaili! CdmpQiJfidi (WCi)
MCA418
A889841®
6
7
«HB«8
tararMham
2 J U
Voltlilg OrfarAe Campaundi WOCil
MCA-120
AS3«»m
fl
7
1Zf1G|BB
tofsinallBfw
21V
wAg
Vol«!!• OifarA: Cgm|i0Uti4i tk^ OnnfipMjnd# iVQCfl
MCA-417
A83QS417
NA
HA
1MSJBS
't ,2-C*CfitorDa^hpne
0.3d u
Jf*D
Vol«ti(n OfHAnlO ClQDApciy|i<#B (VOCij
MCA418
AftT*HS4lR
NA
NA
12/iG/aa
f,2-Dfclttaw1li*n«
0,«J LI
W*IP
VtolatUs Dfgink CompDumli IVOCrl
IMCA-4I9
A33 B#41B
a
7
I2/1S/B9
fJ-DfaNwiMhww
MCA-Set
4639saae
m
Ifl
4/T3/0BT
-1,2-0(chb(oathara
0,37 y
«*a
Votatlla C rgiri4c Canpoundit f/OCi>
MC4-BT0
^RMSS70
Tfi
4/13/fifl
'MJmofTirttl in*
0.4 d U
Vd«lll® OfgiHks Compounds (VDC»J
MCA-415
A53iS415
NA
MA
12*15/90
'¦HMnamattlimi
0,4 y
Vrdntlln at^anie Campnurnic (Vf1f!e>
MC4-41Q
AS3SS41f
NA
NA
12/15/90
h&mwin*tli irn»
0,41 0
WJ.'N
Vt(i1i|t tJf^»n(c CdlUKiiJwJ* IVDC«>
MCM1T
AA38K417
HA
NA
riMnornMtUtt*
0,44 U
VdalJb OtffBtilc Cornpnundr. (VDCil
fufr:^ 4ia
A538S418
NA
NA
UHKiB
3 +9 V
Veini!* Crgicik Compounds (Vdc«>
i
7
12f1iW
-------
Djrfn liaAd to Cnmpitrie CflnNrmntiitit HHRA
(IIP Sit* SS/Harnion Substation
Anrianrian Ait Frirt# Bsaa, Guam
(Papa 50 of S3!
RAMETIH
JWMJLT qiJAUPJER
lifert
ANALYSIS
LOCATfWN
iAMFijfi HUMIIEK
DErmRAMce
SAMIU DATE
anetttoiWJbjin"
(1.44 U
Mw*|i
Vafnijl" Ornanlc Cwi^povndi (VflHiJ
Ml:A 4IO
^33}IH42tl
B
7
12/m'frsi
'^<01 MHnvtlHW
0,*5 U
w*i
VWatlto Organtc Cofmpauntft tVPCi)
MC*-418
¦4S39S42I
n
7
11 fl 5/M
taraeiiHitham
ajfi u
ValatlFo 0-nr«*«r Cowpuutlda [V0C*>
MCA-4JCJ
AS39S423
«A
NA
uatm
bramaintfhifw
0,3® U
ViilitlM Orgarw: Cdftipoufult [VOCi>
MCA-4Z4
AS38S4?i»
MA
NA
is/ime
^jwnwrnetfiBiw
0.33 U
Valstlfa (tafivfG Compound! fVOCs?
MCA-423
A338S425
W.^
MA
12/2 me
hrOFtXunothan*
0.42 U
VoTotls Orflinfa Cafflp<*in4f f^'OCu)
l,»CA,5aB
Aj)3«S&0a
19
fit
4/13(W
branonrntftan*
044 y
oafta
Yof«tl»Or»Oiffwiri! Compound* (vacii
MCA-410
Aft3»J54,1«
r*A
m
12/16,»0B
kil|tyll»n»
u.s
mfcn
Vol«Jt» Orvjnko C«H»ipour«416JSBfl
tathylmw eWotW#
a.s7 u
Wg
VohnJte Onpinto CompaumJn (VOCi)
MUA-S1&
A&3B9419
9
7
1^1 BAB
Mfiybna cHarUa
2,23 J
Organfc CompDurxfi (VOCiJ
MCA-420
AS3SS420
6
7
1 J/1 B/fB
toltiykn* chtatM*
3 J8 J
W(tfl
Volitl» 0 rffwite CdTTpotrn)t |vqc«>
MCA^ia
A339W21
t
7
1ZMM96
Iftlhytans cMirMv
ZJO J
w*#
VclatlB €}(ianle CdinpM^* IWCa}
Mc*.*«ra
A3JSB423
NA
m
12/21/Bfi
kThffam* cWitW*
»A2 4
PS* j
NWatto Ct((«nte Conifourufa
M 38 5424
Hh
NA
i vi %m
lathybns cNwMt
3 J
VotailN.Orsinfc CaFt«poundt'W>C*J
MCMJ5
A93»B
AS^SSQB
10
IS
WW*
talhjffcro eWwrdB-
0^2 U
»#a
Vo/alMOtftmks CaiTifourv}* pJOCt}
MCAE7Q
A338S670
»8
IB
tn$99
i-Xy*wt#
OJfl u
«*9
VMmNb Ongonb CHTVOurxls ^DC«f
MCA-41S
AK38S415
NA
NA
ammo
-K^tofta
CJB 1#
VolatNa Organic Com|iauniic <'^DCb|
MCA-41B
A839&41S
NA
NA
nmm
I'tylw*
0.BS (1
VaMta Druatb C«/i(»ur»«lt (V/DCtl
M tSA-411
AS3S34! t
NA
NA
12/15/98
'•Kyfuift
0,B4 U
VohiElItt OrgarriC CoinfKHirHhr Ct|
KfCA^ffi
ASJSS'fTG
NA
NA
unsfou
'«pMN)kn*
0.40 li
it&kft
V^faf|jl9 Qf^aniis CorFipoii^dB
MCA-41 a
ASa5S41fl
NA
NA
'MfMhalw*
0,47 U
raAa
VoMlh Organic Cnrnpmnrlx (VOC»|
MCA 417
4 R:1fts5 417
NA
NA
12^15.10
lb*,
I
-------
Data Oaud to Complete Cwflrmmkict HMBA
WP Slfxi 39/H^fnion Su(*sta14 Mew
0J5 U
VolaHta Oiparile Conqpaunds |V0C»l
MCA-41S
AB39641#
ft
J
12/1BJA8
4thaton*
OJSC y
nflf-B
WoJatlte Urfiric Cbmpoundt tWCaf
MCA *420
AB33B420
#
J
12J16/9B
ttthikrm
0 31 y
mbu
Vetatlla OriJWTk CwTTOUFid* (VOC* I
MCA-4t3f
AS39S421
a
}
12/16f#e
iNMton*
0.44 y
lis'19
Votetite Ot funis Compouffcln C/OCi]
MCA-4 23
A63&W23
NA
NA
rtn\m
iMMin*
o.#i u
WBftO
V«UI* Oriank Cotneouhd* fJOCit
MCA-4H
At3®«41«
HA
NA
I3fl6fte
^ylani
0.BB u
Vcrisl ila or^ mic compouxla NQCai
MCft-417
AS39S417
NA
NA
12flBf9B
,|4ana
OJ4 U
Voltllto Org ante Compcunda {VOGt}
MCA-41H
A538S419
HA
NA
wmrtft
-yima
i.o u
Vollllb Onganlc Cwnp^unda WOCil
MCA-tlB
A839e4tO
8
7
llCi*|
MCA-424
AS39S424
HA
NA
mum
¦ylarw
0*1 U
Vda^flit orQtab OanfioKiidB (VllCil
MCA-42B
ASSS942B
MA
MA
mam
•'v(st)*
043 U
rnftn
Vnimib Orflante CamjMurnJ* (>/dc»|
MCA-1«e
AS39B8BB
18
Ifl
4/13 m
'ytaM-
O.SS U
™*D
Vniatlia Orpinl.- Compound* (V0C.ll
MCA-S76
AS3&6S70
16
Ifl
4mm
raditotwrtlihinft
0.32 U
mfcu
VdI*H» Organ*: Omfteunds (V0C*|
MCA415
AS99M1B
HA
MA
ISflSfflO
risMsiwtfwrw
ytv
m^s
Vdh|ijg Offaiift: CompOOMte (WCl|
MCA^fe
Aflf»S416
MA
NA
12/16/«e
raoMwMthma
0.26 If
UtWh 0'b«i4« Compoufid«i (VQCil
MCA-417
A#5»»B417
MA
MA
12/IRJiR
Tach)Sract^i»rr
0,3 U
0S(*B
Vriatto OrsMik C^mpMjnds !VDC*I
MCA-HB
AS^9S410
NA
MA
1 S.I IB OB
r«etltoRMttlsr»
0.34 11
m3'Vg
Volatll* Ort«ria ContpouNl* ft'OCel
MCA-lit
A83SS410
0
7
12.<15«i
ractitoiwlhww
0 30 U
m>*a
Vclarlla Orgiinle Cnrnpaurtd* [VOCil
MCA-420
A339B420
S
t
1 2/1 fiHSFl
'raeN«hW(i*rM
0.31 U
K**fl
VgMla Orginlc CwmpimmJa (VOC*)
f4CA-419
AB3SS421
B
1
17/tfi/BR
¦ nEHknoBttiam
0 27 U
Wj/kfl
VoMta 0rj|ahl« ConipnuniiB IVOCt)
MOA413
Asaa»42&
NA
MA
1?,'71«R
'racMcftaatlwt#
C.75 U
M*4
Vohrtte Of^inlo CbmpoUMi (VOC#^
MCA-434
ASMS424
m
m
"TacNbmBtlww
O.J7 U
MM
Valn'tfta 0rginl(t CijmpMjrKift JVDCb)
MCA4J6
AR19S42R
|4A
MA ¦
warn
' r*cHofJj«t hi^ff
OJ u
>1**0
voditiA oifltrifc CMMpoumii (VOcs>
MCABflfl
ASJ95068
in
18
4JT3/B8
'ftcNowatbarw
o.3i y
pvfce
VdatHs Organic Compcundi
MCA-S70
AS39SB-70-
18
10
4/lt3V«B
'IHTM
a,41 u
pofa
VolalB# Off mta Cwnpflurida (VQO»)
MCA-ili
AS 393410
NA
rlA
-------
D«ta Used to Cranium# ConflnrMtfon HHrtA
IRP Sitft 39fHarm(Mi BuMMlOn
Andft**en P*r F©r«(p lata, Guam
5Z Of W1
1KAMLTER
RBsnptr gUAUFJCR
DMT
AWJU.VS1S
LPC/lIION
sA>iPte- wmm
DEPTH MlVOi
RAMPLE DAT1
jIUMl*
0,38 y
V"lt»lNd Organic f^nrn|J«imls flrtSCx}
MCA-418
*S39B41S
m
NA
lIUMW
0.3? y
#oAo
VvFstH* Ore wife Canpeund* (V0C«J
MCA-*17
AS3SS41T
l>«A
NA
12(15«3
0.38 y
VrtfrtB* Orftnifl Communis (VQCt)
McA-ilB
t4A
l*A
12f1&«
¦feMIM
aja u
«#!«
VUffti* flcjint Compound* |VQC«}
MCAi14
ASMS.H9
4
7
o,«a 4
Vof«tl» Owtnlc ComioircU (VOCtf
MCrt.-4J0
M395420
0
7
ta/IB/Hfi
¦fan*
owi u
Vd Organic Ccwipa yrxJ* (VOOtl
MCMI9
ASM6421
0
y.
\2i\mm
D.35 U
rtifta
Valitil* Qi*(in1e: Canpauhrf* (WiC»|
MCA¦43^
Asans-iya
NA
NA
)2JZ1W9
•ldM«
0-3* U
talutlto Orgwnfc iSwfifwy^* IVOCM
MCA-434
AG39B424
NA
NA
¦luim
o at ii
juaJtoH
VnlM'to Organic CompoMtmls (VOCM
MCA-426
A93B34JS
HA
«A
i2ra«»B
llUMW
O,30 l»
Wislfs tlif ink: CSorrfitHindi |V0C<)
MCA-S8B
AS3flBl«8
Ifl
?«
4 fl 3^99
¦liliM
DA If
W*0
Vntslte Organic Compounds IWC*1
MIA670
ASMRSTO
18
10
IcMeraMtan*
0.33 II
«"«9
Vuliil* Organic Onrftounds IVOCd
MCA-4 tS
AS3JSHB
MA
NA
k.Pitoro*tf»»p»
0.29 U
MJtig
Volali# Ci/((ink> Comfniurxf* |VL>Ci|
fclCfl-418
As<9assrv#
0.3 U
00*0
VdrtBa Orflinte Cwnpflundt JVOCpI
MCA-417
AS3PS417
NA
NA
1£/1^9S
'fcWorBfibKW
»,3i u
W&Q
V«latK» OrKinkf CBtupqimdn |VOC»l
MCA.«tl
AS3«SAW
HA
MA
ivwm
1eMere*thaR*
D.13 y
Vei«tit« Offlsnl; C^rwuiidi (VdC«|
MCA -41f
Afci9fi41»
a
7
12/15/98
iehhmMitMM
0,32 u
HBflqj
Vdillk Drgtnlc Cotnpeunila JVOC tl
MCA-S30
A83SS420
«
7
12/1&/9U
D^Stl
iV/kg
WobtJIw Ofosrtlc Cwipoundi {TOCil
MCA-4K
A$»09421
n
T
iznena
BJiU
rtiVc
Vftktfc Or(i»»*te ConnpouMlt IV0C*l
MCH-IS3
*8309423
NA
m
\2ti\i9n
MtsmltaM
am u
MfcSfff
Witl* Organic C^mjMukfi
MOA-414
A&1#$M44
NA
nmm
Ichkimiitotta
ojb u
mhv
V9tatl« Dtfanfc Conwou^ri (VOCc)
MCA-42S
AS^tf342i
NA
MA
MCA-909
AB39S&D0
TO
ie
4/13j93
¦lehkuotthww
0.32 tl
WA»
Vokujl* Ofpwte Oori<0wndl (VOCii
MCA570
A63M5J0
IB
1«
4/1M8
0J7 U
VaMta-OtfMhi Cun^^ounrft ^WC«)
MCA-J1S
A5.16S41R
MA
NA
MCA417
AS399417
MA
HA
IZ/16/iB
teMotedhJorernrthpn*
o.sa u
«rt>o
Vtsljitln Otflanlc €»fli^l«und» (VOf;«|
MCA-41B
ASMB4ia
MA
NA
0.38 1/
wftfl
Vtolitfla Orgnrrie ComjiOLr>d» fVODrJ
MCA-41D
A53SB410
ff
7
wtzmn
DIM U
VcftaiU* OtqAiIc Cnm^Qurvd* {VOt»}
MCA-<}0
S
7
izmm
(chfarofluoroirnihan#
0,57 U
Velrtfla €ff trite Cn«)iiu™l* |VOC«}
MnA-41B
A3MS421
e
7
12i'1 S/98
loMmMaromMiMi
Q.3u* U
VdfarUa Orgvilc CampnumlK (VOC»)
MCA-423
A53SE423
NA
NA
11/21/9S
rcWowliidWflrt^hina
0,29 U
VWfltH® Qfg«nlc Ctimpijundi IWCil
MCA'444
AS3S6424.
NA
NA
12/21/38
0.31 IJ
Voi
M V
Vatetflo nrganlo Compnuid* (VOCn)
MCA-+2JJ
AsaaaiJ3
MA
NA ,
ij/ai.fo
nyf chlvtbU
10 u
«/*¦
Vofotf# Orjjanfe Compound* ^VOOs)
MCA 424
A639S424
NA
NA
It/ZlftB
rr^ efitortta
1,1 u
VflfntlB QrowFc C«l»ipwmd« *i ttWewWB
12 U
W*fl
vt, MMl. IrlO m
I
-------
--4.J ui«n «j I^OTmplfctn Confirmation HHRA
IJIP Sits 3d/Marffion Subslrtlwi
AmfnTSfln Air Farct Base, 6u»n
fig* E3 si S3}
.hfglfcR , .RiglJI.r f»Iiu»* ftrj*
AIL * 8t<*mw*«r Arw
M = Surhid Cwm *tm
PAH Mel Cpo* «t "*«*
MH Hot Spot*£ *CJ'
PAW Mttt Spc* 4 *EB"
r,Wl*1llfc_ iSflumIUUta.nl mfc.lBriSdf--7«7M,3'>9rH
'¦'J,
-------
Appendix M: Attachment 2
Toxicological Profiles
for Chemicals of Potential Concern
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
-------
Toxicological profiles are brief descriptions of the nature of the adverse effects associated with
the COPCs selected for evaluation because their concentrations in one or more environmental
media exceed a very conservatively derived risk-based screening concentration. It is important to
note that a discussion of adverse effects without a discussion of dose is incomplete and potentially
misleading, because virtually any chemical may be toxic at some dose, and many chemicals (e.g.,
nutritionally required minerals, vitamins, amino acids, etc.) enhance human health at some low
dose. An ever growing and compelling body of evidence suggests that many environmental
contaminants also enhance health at low doses (Hart and Frame, 1996).
When sufficient data are available, the EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) presents
the EPA's Reference Dose (R£D)/Reference Concentration (RfC) Work Group-verified chronic
toxicity values for threshold, or noncancer, effects, and the Carcinogen Risk Assessment
Verification Endeavor (CRAVE) Work Group-verified toxicity values for cancer risk (EPA,
1999). The toxicity values for noncancer effects include an RfD expressed in milligrams per
kilogram per day (mg/kg-day) for chronic oral exposure, and a RfC, in milligrams per cubic meter
(mg/m3), for chronic inhalation exposure. The inhalation RfC in units of mg/m3 may be converted
to an equivalent inhalation RfD by assuming continuous chronic exposure of humans with a body
weight of 70 kg and an inhalation rate of 20 m3/day. In other words, the RfC expressed as mg/m3
is multiplied by the inhalation rate of 20 m3/day, and the result is divided by the body weight of 70
kg to yield an inhalation RfD expressed as mg/kg-day.
RfDs and RfCs are usually derived from empirical benchmark doses (BMD) or concentrations
called no-observed-effect levels (NOEL) or no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAEL) from
animal toxicity or human epidemiology studies. If the data do not permit identifying a NOEL or
NOAEL, a lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) or lowest-effect level (LEL) may be
used. A frank-effect level (FEL), e.g., mortality, shortened life span or serious neurologic or
behavioral disturbances, is generally considered an inappropriate benchmark from which to
develop an RfD or RfC. Some RfD and RfC derivations employ a BMD that is a statistically
estimated dose for humans at which some low proportion of the population may experience some
minimally adverse effect. A BMD at which 10 percent of the population may be expected to
respond is expressed as BMD10. The RfD or RfC is derived by dividing the benchmark level (e.g.,
NOAEL or BMD10) by a series of uncertainty and modifying factors, collectively designated the
uncertainty factor (UF).
For cancer effects, IRIS presents an EPA cancer weight-of-evidence group classification that
reflects qualitatively the likelihood that the chemical is carcinogenic to humans. IRIS also
presents a slope factor (SF) for oral exposure, expressed as the risk per mg/kg-day ingested dose,
and a unit risk factor (URF) for inhalation exposure, expressed as the risk per |ig/m3 in ambient
air. These quantitative estimates are generally provided for chemicals in EPA weight-of-evidence
Groups A and B and C, if the data are adequate. The SF or URF is usually estimated as an upper
bound on the slope of the dose- or concentration-response curve from animal toxicity or human
epidemiology studies. The inhalation URF in units of risk per fig/m3 may be converted to an
equivalent inhalation SF in units of risk per mg/kg-day by assuming continuous lifetime exposure
of humans with a body weight to 70 kg and an inhalation rate of 20 m3/day. In other words, the
URF expressed as risk per ng/m3 is divided by the inhalation rate of 20 m3/day, and multiplied by
the assumed body weight of 70 kg and a conversion factor of 1000 ng/mg.
P VRISK2\HUMAN\iGUAM\GUAM2VATTACH2.WPD, 7/27/S90O6 m)
1
-------
Toxicity values are not estimated for acute toxicity and acute exposure is not evaluated in the risk
assessment. Nonetheless, the levels associated with acute lethality and data regarding the effects
of acute exposure to levels higher than ordinarily observed in chronic environmental exposure
provide additional perspective regarding the toxicity of the chemical. Therefore, this information
is usually included in the profiles. Lethality data for laboratory animals are generally expressed as
the oral dose associated with lethality of 50 percent of a test group (LDM) or the concentration in
air associated with lethality of 50 percent of a test group (LCjq). Occasionally the dose associated
with lethality in a low percentage of exposed individuals (LD^o ) is presented.
The toxicity profiles may also provide documentation for physical constants that are important for
chemical transport modeling, such as molecular weight (MW) in grams per mole (g/mole), the log
of the octanol/water partition coefficient (log K^), Heniy's law constant (H) in atmosphere-cubic
meter/mole (atm-m3/mole), the soil/water partition coefficient (Kj) in liters per kilogram (L/kg)
for metals, the log of the soil/organic carbon partition coefficient (log K^) (unitless) for organic
chemicals, difiusivity in air (DJ in square centimeters per second (cm2/s), diffusivity in water (Dw)
in cmVs, vapor pressure (VP) in atmospheres (atm), and solubility in water (S) in milligrams per
liter (mg/L). In addition, organic chemicals are designated as volatile organic compounds (VOC)
or semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC) based on their propensity to volatilize from
environmental media. VOCs generally have a MW less than 200 g/mole and H greater than 1E-5
atm-m3/mole (EPA, 1991).
The physical constants generally are taken from the most reliable source (i.e., the source that
provides the highest level of documentation). Values for interrelated properties are usually taken
from the same source (e.g., H is often estimated from VP and S; therefore, the same source is
usually used for all three property values). When one source provides several values for a given
property, professional judgement is used to select the most appropriate. Obvious outliers may be
dropped from consideration. The average or the midpoint of a range of values may be selected.
K,j values for metals and values for ionizing organic compound are based on a default pH of
6.8 (EPA, 1996). VP and S values are limited to those provided for normal ambient temperatures
(0 to 30°C), but the temperatures reported in the original sources for VP and S are not presented
in the toxicity profile, nor is any attempt made to extrapolate VP and S to any default
temperature.
The toxicity profiles provide documentation for the gastrointestinal (GI) absorption factor (GAF),
which is used to develop the dermal RfD and SF, the dermal absorption factor (ABS), which
describes the extent of dermal uptake from soil, and the permeability coefficient (PC) and tau (t),
which are used to estimate the rate of dermal uptake from water. Usually PC and x are taken
from EPA (1992), unless EPA (1992) provides no values, or professional judgement suggests that
a log K^, value other than the one provided by EPA (1992) is clearly more appropriate. In these
cases, PC is calculated as follows (EPA, 1992):
J^g(PQ=-2.72+0.71(logK^-0.0061(MfO
P-MUSK2\HUMANV3UAMVOUAM2\ATTACH2-WPD. 7/27/990-06 pm)
2
-------
where:
PC = permeability coefficient (cm/hour, calculated)
log K„, = log of the octanol/water partition coefficient (unitless)
MW = molecular weight
and x is calculated as follows (EPA, 1992):
T=
6-10(-2-72-00061^
where:
x = time for concentration of contaminant in stratum corneum to reach
steady state (hours, chemical-specific)
= effective thickness of the stratum corneum (1E-3 cm)
MW = molecular weight.
Biotransfer factors such as water-to-fish bioconcentration factors (BCF), soil-to-plant or plant-to-
animal transfer factors are not included, because the method for their derivation may be EPA
region-, program- or site-specific. Biota-sediment accumulation factors (BSAF) are included for
the few SVOCs for which values are available.
References for Introduction
Hart, R.W. and L.T. Frame, 1996, "lexicological Defense Mechanisms and How They May
Affect the Nature of Dose-Response Relationships," Biological Effects of Law Level Exposure
(BELLE) Newsletter, 5(1): 1-16.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1991, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:
Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-Based
Preliminary Remediation Goals), Interim, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Washington, DC, OSWER Publication 9285.7-01B.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1992, Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles
and Applications, Interim Report, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/8-91/01 IB, January.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: Users Guide,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, Publication 9355.4-23, April.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1999, Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS), National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH, on line.
PAJUSK2\HUMANNGUAM\GUAM2\ATTACH2.WPD, 7/17/990:06 pen)
3
-------
POLY AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS fP AHs1
The PAHs regularly observed in environmental media include acenaphthene, acenaphthylene,
anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,
bexuo(g,h,i)perylene, carbazole, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene,
indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene and pyrene. All are SVOCs except
naphthalene, which is a VOC. PAHs are the products of incomplete combustion of fossil fuels
or other organic matter, hence include both natural and anthropogenic sources (ATSDR,
1993a). The PAHs are ubiquitous, reflecting natural combustion, the widespread practice of
fossil fuel combustion, and wide dissemination via wind currents. Relevant physical
properties for selected PAH are compiled below:
MW
(g/mole)
logK^
(unitless)
H
(atm-mVmole)
logK^
(unitless)
D.
(cmVs)
D,
(cm2/s)
VP
(atm)
S
(mg/L)
Anthracene
178.2
4.45*
8.6E-5*
4.15*
3.24E-2®
7.74E-6*
2.2E-8*
r
Benzo(a)anthracene
228.29
5.66a
1E-6*
5.30*
5.10E-2*
9.00E-6'
2.9E-11*
r
Benzo(a)pyrene
252.3
6.16"
4.9E-7*
6.74'
4.30E-2*
9.00E-6C
7.4E-12*
3.8E-3*
Benzo(b)fhioranthene
252.3
6.12?
1.22E-5'
5.74*
2.26E-2'
5.56E-6'
1.3E-9*
r
Benzo(k)fluoranthene.
252.3
6.06*
3.87E-5*
5.74*
2.26E-2'
5.56E-6*
6.6E-10"
r
Chrysene
228.3
5.66d
1.05E-6*
5.30*
2.48E-2C
6.21E-6C
8.3E-12*
r
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
278.35
6.84d
7.3E-8*
6.52*
2.02E-2®
5.18E-6'
8.2E-12*
5E-T
Fluoranthene
202.26
4.95d
6.5E-6*
4.58'
3.02E-2®
6.35E-6®
6.6E-9*
2.06E-1*
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyreoe
276.3
6.58*
6.95E-8*
6.20*
1.90E-2®
5.66E-6*
1.3E-12*
6.23E-2*
Pyrene
202.3
4.88*
5.1E-6*
4.58*
2.72E-2*
7.24E-6e
3.3E-9*
r
P*\RJSK2\HUMAN\GUAM\GUAM2\ATTACH2.WPD, 7«7/»fW)6|ro)
4
-------
MW
logK„
H
logiL
D.
VP
S
(g/mole)
(unities s)
(atm-m'/mole)
(unitless)
(cm2/s)
(cm5/s)
(«tm)
(mg/L)
ND = no data, I = virtually insoluble in water.
'Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1993a, Update Toxicological
Profile for Polycystic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Craft for Public Comment, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia, October.
bMontgomery, J.H., 1996, Groundwater Chemicals Desk Reference, Second Edition,
Lewis Publishers, New York.
CU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1996, Soil Screening Guidance: Users
Guide, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, Publication
9355.4-23, April.
dU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1992, Dermal Exposure Assessment:
Principles and Applications, Interim Report, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/8-91/01 IB, January.
TJ.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1994, Technical Background Document
for Soil Screening Guidance, Review Draft, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Washington, DC, Publication No. 9355.4-17, EPA540/R-94/106, PB95-963532,
November.
f Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, (ATSDR), 1993b, Update
Toxicological Profile for Naphthalene, Draft for Public Comment, U.S. Public Health
Service, Atlanta, Georgia, October.
Jones and Owen (1989) report that the GI absorption of naphthalene is 100 percent. The GAF
of 1.0 from the Jones and Owen (1989) compilation is adopted for naphthalene. Toxicokinetic
studies of several PAHs summarized by ATSDR (1993a) provide limited quantitative
information regarding the extent of GI absorption. Qualitatively, these studies indicate that
absoiption is incomplete. A study of benzo(a)pyrene in rats suggested that GI absorption
ranges from 38 to 58 percent. The GAF of 0.5 (Jones and Owen, 1989), near the midpoint of
the range from the rat study, is selected for benzo(a)pyrene and the other PAHs for which
quantitative data are not available. A study in rats reported absoiption efficiency for
anthracene ranging from 53 to 74 percent; 0.7 is selected as the GAF for this evaluation. GI
absorption of pyrene, chrysene and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene is described as high; a GAF of 0.8
is assumed for these compounds.
Anecdotal evidence from using cloth diapers stored in contact with naphthalene indicates that
naphthalene is absorbed by the skin, but quantitative data are not available (ATSDR, 1993b).
Empirical data with pure compound dissolved or suspended in vehicles suggest that dermal
uptake of benzo(a)pyrene is extensive (ATSDR, 1993a). EPA (1998), recommends an ABS of
0.13 for all the PAHs, which is adopted and used herein. PC and t values are estimated as
follows:
P:\mKZWUMAMGUAMOJAM2\ATMCH2. WTO. 7/i7/S90« pa)
5
-------
Chemical
PC
(cm/hour)
T
(hours)
Anthracene
2.25E-1*
1.07E+0*
Benzo(a)anthracene
8.1E-lb
2.23E+0b
Benzo(a)pyrene
1.2E+0b
2.9E+0b
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
1.2E+0b
3.0E+0b
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1.11E+0*
3.03E+0*
Chrysene
8.1E-lb
2.2E+0b
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
2.7E+0b
4.4E+0b
Fluoranthene
3.6E-lb
1.5E+0b
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
1.9E+0b
4.2E+0b
Pyrene
3.24E-1*
1.50E+0*
'Estimated by the method of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1992, Dermal
Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications, Interim Report, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC, EPA/600/8-91/01 IB, January.
'Taken from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1992, Dermal Exposure
Assessment: Principles and Applications, Interim Report, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC, EPA/600/8-91/01 IB, January.
Data regarding the toxicity of acute oral exposure to the PAHs are generally scarce.
Prolonged exposure is associated with a number of renal, hematologic and other effects,
depending on the compound to which exposed.
A verified RfD of 3E-1 mg/kg-day for chronic oral exposure to anthracene was derived from a
NOEL of 1000 mg/kg-day, the highest dose tested, in a 90-day gavage study in mice (EPA,
1999). An uncertainty factor of 3000 was applied. Confidence in the RfD is low. The data
are inadequate to identify a target organ for prolonged oral exposure to anthracene.
Subchronic exposure to fluoranthene induces liver and kidney effects in orally treated mice
(EPA, 1999). A verified RfD of 4E-2 mg/kg-day for chronic oral exposure was derived from
a NOAEL of 125 mg/kg-day in a 13-week gavage study. The LOAEL was 250 mg/kg-day in
this study. An uncertainty factor of 3000 was applied. Confidence in the oral RfD is low.
The kidney and liver are chosen as the target organs for prolonged oral exposure to
fluoranthene.
Subchronic exposure to pyrene induces mild renal tubular degeneration and reduced kidney
weight in orally treated mice (EPA, 1999). A verified RfD of 3E-2 mg/kg-day for chronic
oral exposure was derived from a NOAEL of 75 mg/kg-day in a 13-week gavage study. The
P:\IUSK3VHUMAN\GUAM\CUAM3\ATrACK2.WPD, 7/27/S9036 pa)
6
-------
LOAEL was 125 mg/kg-day in this study. An uncertainty factor of 3000 was applied.
Confidence in the oral RfD is low. The kidney is chosen as the target organ for chronic oral
exposure to pyrene.
Acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzo(g,h,i)pery lene, fluoranthene, fluorene, phenanthrene and
pyrene are classified in EPA cancer weight-of-evidence Group D (not classifiable as to
carcinogenicity to humans) because of a lack of human data and inadequate animal data (EPA,
1999). Data regarding the carcinogenicity of acenaphthene were not located.
Benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, carbazole,
chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene are classified in EPA weight-
of-evidence Group B2 (probable human carcinogens) (EPA, 1999, 1997). Benzo(a)pyrene is
the most extensively studied member of the class, inducing tumors in tissues at the point of
contact of virtually all laboratory species tested by all routes of exposure. Although
epidemiology studies suggested that complex mixtures that contain PAHs (coal tar, soots, coke
oven emissions, cigarette smoke) are carcinogenic to humans, the carcinogenicity cannot be
attributed to PAHs alone because of the presence of other potentially carcinogenic substances
in these mixtures (ATSDR, 1993a). In addition, recent investigations showed that the PAH
fraction of roofing tar, cigarette smoke and coke oven emissions accounted for only 0.1-8% of
the total mutagenic activity in Salmonella of the unfractionated complex mixture (Lewtas,
1988). Aromatic amines, nitrogen heterocyclic compounds, highly oxygenated quinones,
diones, and nitrooxygenated compounds, none of which would be expected to arise from in
vivo metabolism of PAHs, probably accounts for the majority of the mutagenicity of coke
oven emissions and cigarette smoke. Furthermore, coal tar, which contains a mixture of many
PAHs, has a long history of use in the clinical treatment of a variety of skin disorders in
humans (ATSDR, 1993a).
Because of the lack of human cancer data, assignment of individual PAHs to EPA cancer
weight-of-evidence groups is based largely on the results of animal studies with large doses of
purified compound (EPA, 1999). Frequently, unnatural routes of exposure, including implants
of the test chemical in beeswax and trioctanoin in the lungs of female rats, intratracheal
instillation, and subcutaneous or intraperitoneal injection, were used.
EPA (1999) verified a SF for oral exposure to benzo(a)pyrene of 7.3E+0 per mg/kg-day,
based on several dietary studies in mice and rats. Recent reevaluations of the carcinogenicity
and mutagenicity of the Group B2 PAHs suggest that there are large differences between
individual PAHs in cancer potency (Krewski et al., 1989). Based on the available cancer and
mutagenicity data, and assuming that there is a constant relative potency between different
carcinogens across different bioassay systems and that the PAHs under consideration have
similar dose-response curves, EPA (1993b) adopted relative potency values for several PAHs.
These values and the corresponding oral SFs, based on a relative potency for benzo(a)pyrene
of 1.0, are presented below.
P\fUSK2\HUMA}AGUAM\GUAM2\ATTACH2 WPD, 7/T7/9S0-W pea)
7
-------
Relative Potencies and Slope Factors for PAHs
PAH
Relative
Potency
Oral Slope Factor
(/mg/kg-day)
Inhalation
Unit Risk
(/n g/m3)
Slope Factor
(/mg/kg-day)
BenzofaTpyrerie
r,o
7:3E*$
3JE4-8
Benzo|a]anthracene
0.1
7.3E-1
8.8E-5
3.1E-1
Benzorb]fluoranthene
0.1
7.3E-1
8.8E-5
3.1E-1
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
0.01
7.3E-2
8.8E-6
3.1E-2
Chrysene
0.001
7.3E-3
8.8E-7
3.1E-3
Dibenzora,h]anthracene
1.0
7.3E+0
8.8E-4
3.1E+0
Tndf.nnn 7 "Wrllnvrenp
ft.1
7^F.-1
8 RF-S
riF-1
Although the EPA has not verified SFs for Group B2 PAHs other than benzo(a)pyrene, the
SFs above represent reasonable estimates based on the data available. The relative potency
approach employed here meets criteria considered to be desirable for this type of analysis
(Lewtas, 1988). For example, the chemicals compared have similar chemical structures and
would be expected to have similar toxicokinetic fate in mammalian systems. In addition, the
available data suggest that the Group B2 PAHs have a similar mechanism of action, inducing
frameshift mutations in Salmonella and tumor initiation in the mouse skin painting assay.
Similar noncancer effects (minor changes in the blood, liver, kidneys) of the Group D PAHs
support the hypothesis of a common mechanism of toxicity. Finally, the same endpoints of
toxicity, i.e., potency in various cancer assays, and related data, were used to derive the
relative potency values (Krewski et al., 1989). The oral SF for benzo(a)pyrene of 7.3E+0 per
mg/kg-day, and the SFs presented above for the other Group B2 PAHs are adopted for the
purposes of this evaluation.
A recent EPA (1994) evaluation of the inhalation cancer data suggests adoption of an
inhalation SF for benzo(a)pyrene of 3.1E+0 per mg/kg-day, based on the incidence of upper
respiratory and digestive tract tumors in hamsters. Applying the relative potency estimates
presented above yield the inhalation SFs for the other Group B2 PAHs presented above.
P_\JUSK2\HUMA>W3UAMVGUAM2\ATTACH2-WPD, 7/27/99(3-06 pm)
8
-------
References foy PAT^g
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, (ATSDR), 1993a, Update Toxicotegical
Profile for Poly cyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Draft for Public Comment, U.S.
Public Health Service, Atlanta, Georgia, October.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, (ATSDR), 1993b, Update Toxicological
Profile for Naphthalene, Draft for Public Comment, U.S. Public Health Service, Atlanta,
Georgia, October.
Jones, TD. and BA Owen, 1989, Health Risks from Mixtures of Radionuclides and
Chemicals in Drinking Water, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, ORNL-6533.
Krewski, D., T. Thorslund and J. Withey, 1989, "Carcinogenic Risk Assessment of Complex
Mixtures," Toxicology and Industrial Health, 5: 851-867.
Lewtas, J., 1988, "Genotoxicity of Complex Mixtures: Strategies for the Identification and
Comparative Assessment of Airborne Mutagens and Carcinogens from Combustion Sources,"
1Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, 10: 571-589.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1992, Dermal Exposure Assessment:
Principles and Applications, Interim Report, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/8-91/01 IB, January.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1993 a, Risk Assessment Issue Paper for:
Derivation of a Subchronic RfCfor Naphthalene (CASRN 91-20-3), National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, Ohio, March 12.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1993b, Provisional Guidance for Quantitative
Risk Assessment of Poly cyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment, Cincinnati, OH, EPA/600/R-93/089.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1994, Risk Assessment Issue Paper: Status of
Inhalation Cancer Unit Risk for Benzo(a)Pyrene (CAS No. 50-32-8), National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH, November 18.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1997, Health Effects Assessment Summary
Tables, FY 1997 Update, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC,
9200.6-303(97-1), EPA 54Q/R-97-036, PB97-921199.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1998, Region 9 Preliminary Remediation
Goals (PRGs) 1998, online, http://www.epa.gov/region 09/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1999, Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS), National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH, on line.
P"\RJSK2\HUMAN\GUAM\GUAM2VA7TACH2 WPD. 7/17/99(3 IX pn)
9
-------
POLYCHLORINATED DTBENZO-p-DIOYTNS fPCDD) AND DIBENZOFITRANS fPCDF)
The PCDD/PCDF are a class of SVOCs including 75 possible positional congeners ofPCDD and
135 possible positional congeners of PCDF (EPA, 1994). PCDD/PCDF are not commercially
produced in the U.S.; they are produced as undesirable by-products during the manufacture of
chlorinated phenolic compounds for which 2,4,5-trichlorophenol is a synthetic intermediate
(ATSDR, 1989). The predominant source of PCDD/PCDF release to the environment is
emissions from incinerators (EPA, 1994).
The development of toxicity equivalency factors (TEF) to facilitate evaluation of exposure to the
PCDD/PCDF (see below) has encouraged refinement of the analytical techniques for these
compounds in environmental media, because it is assumed that only those homologues with
chlorine substituents in the 2,3,7,8-positions (including 7 PCDD and 10 PCDF congeners) exhibit
significant toxicity. Whereas formerly PCDD/PCDF analysis yielded estimates of specific
homologues (PCDD or PCDF with the same number of chlorine substituents, regardless of their
spatial arrangement), modern analysis identifies individual congeners, or at least homologues with
chlorine substituents at the 2,3,7,8-positions. The toxicologically significant PCDD/PCDF may be
evaluated individually or may be evaluated by converting their concentrations to equivalent
concentrations of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), or TCDD equivalents (TEQ),
which are summed to yield total TEQ. Physical constants are not available for all the
toxicologically significant PCDD/PCDF congeners; therefore, the physical constants for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD are usually applied to the individual congeners or to the TEQ. Relevant physical
properties of 2,3,7,8-TCDD are compiled below:
MW
(g/mole)
logK^
(unitless)
H
(atm-mVmole)
l°gK«
(unitless)
D.
(cm2/s)
D.
(cmVs)
VP
(atm)
S
(mg/L)
322.0
6.80*
5.4E-23"
6.6"
ND
4.9E-6b
8.4E-13b
3.2E-4k
ND = no data.
"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1992, Dermal Exposure Assessment-
Principles and Applications, Interim Report, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/8-91/01 IB, January.
'Montgomery, J.H., 1996, Groundwater Chemicals Desk Reference, Second Edition, Lewis
Publishers, New York.
Data were not located regarding the toxicokinetics of all the PCDD/PCDF that may be identified
in environmental media; however, TCDD is used as a surrogate for other members of these
chemical classes. Estimates of the GI absorption of TCDD range from 50 to 86% of the
administered dose in rats; comparable data were obtained for hamsters (EPA, 1985, ATSDR,
1989). The efficiency of absorption is greater when the test material is given in a corn oil vehicle
(70-86%) than when it is incorporated in the diet (50-60%) or soil (quantification not provided)
(EPA, 1985). An approximate GAF of 0.9 is adopted for this evaluation. Dermal absorption of
TCDD in methanol by rats after 24 hours approximated 40% of that absorbed by the GI tract after
an equivalent dose in ethanol (EPA 1985). EPA (1998) recommends an ABS of 0.03 for TCDD,
which is used herein. EPA (1992) provides a PC of 1.4E+0 cm/hour and a x of 8.1E+0 hours.
P"\RJSK2\HUMANVGUAM\GUAM2\ATTACH2.'WPD, 7«7/99(3H)6 jm)
10
-------
The PCDD/PCDF are among the compounds that bio accumulate in food chain pathways and are
of special concern for biomagnification from sediment in benthic fish. EPA (1995b) reported log
and BSAF values for the PCDD/PCDF as follows:
PCDD/PCDF Congener
log K„w
BSAF Value
2,3,7,8-TCDD
7.02s
0.059
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
7.50
0.054
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
7.80
0.018
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
7.80
0.0073
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
7.80
0.0081
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
8.20
0.0031
OCDD
8.60
0.00074
2,3,7,8-TCDF
6.5
0.047
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
7.0
0.013
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
7.0
0.095
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
7.5
0.0045
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
7.5
0.011
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
7.5
0.040
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
7.5
0.037
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
8.0
0.00065
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
8.0
0.023
OCDF
8.80
0.001
"Note that this value differs slightly from that provided by U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), 1992, Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications, Interim
Report, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, EPA/600/8-91/01 IB, January.
TCDD = tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, PeCDD = pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, HxCDD =
hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, HpCDD = heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, OCDD =
octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, TCDF = tetrachlorodibenzofuran, PeCDF =
pentachlorodibenzofuran, HxCDF = hexachlorodibenzofuran, HpCDF =
heptachlorodibenzofuran, OCDF = octachlorodibenzofuran. j
The BSAF values may be applied to the individual PCDD/PCDF congeners to derive a "BSAF'
that is applied to the total TEQ.
P:\JUSK2\HUMAN\GUAMVGUAM2\ATTACH2.WPD, 7/27/99(3:06 pan)
11
-------
The only effect in humans clearly attributable to TCDD is chloracne (ATSDR, 1989). The
epidemiological data, however, also associate exposure to TCDD with hepatotoxicity and
neurotoxicity, although the association is not strong. In animals, toxicity of TCDD is most
commonly manifested as a wasting syndrome with thymic atrophy terminating in death, with a
large number of organ systems showing non-specific effects. Chronic treatment of animals with
TCDD or a mixture of two isomers of hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin results in liver damage.
Immunologic effects may be among the more sensitive endpoints of exposure to the PCDDs in
animals. TCDD is a developmental and reproductive toxicant in animals. Data were not located
regarding the noncancer toxicity of the other PCDDs or PCDFs. No verified or provisional
noncancer toxicity values were located for any of the PCDD/PCDF.
Data regarding the carcinogenicity of TCDD to humans, obtained from epidemiologic studies of
workers exposed to pesticides or to other chlorinated chemicals known to be contaminated with
TCDD, are conflicting (ATSDR, 1989). The interpretation of these studies is clouded because
exposure to TCDD was not quantified, multiple routes of exposure (dermal, inhalation, oral) were
involved, and the workers were exposed to other potentially carcinogenic compounds. TCDD,
however, is clearly carcinogenic in animals, inducing thyroid, lung and liver tumors in orally
treated rats and mice (EPA, 1985). Similarly, oral treatment with a mixture of two
hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin isomers induces liver tumors in rats and mice. On the basis of the
animal data, TCDD and the hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins were assigned to EPA cancer weight-of-
evidence Group B2 (probable human carcinogen). All the PCDD/PCDFs are treated as probable
human carcinogens.
EPA (1997) presents provisional oral and inhalation SFs for TCDD of 1.5E+5 per mg/kg-day,
based on the incidence of liver and lung tumors in an oral study in rats. The inhalation SF,
however, is adjusted to 1. 1E+5 per mg/kg-day to account for route-specific differences in
absorption. In the absence of satisfactory congener-specific cancer data, EPA (1989) derived
TEFs for the other PCDDs and PCDFs, by assuming that all manifestations of toxicity of all
members of these classes are mediated by a common mechanism, i.e., binding to the intracellular
AH receptor of target cells. Applying the TEFs to the SF for TCDD, SFs are estimated for the
other PCDD/PCDF as follows:
Compound
TEF
Oral SF
(per mg/kg-day)
Inhalation SF
(per mg/kg-day)
Mono-, di- and tri-CDD
0
NA
NA
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1
1.5E+5
1.1E+5
Other TCDD
0
NA
NA
2,3,7,8-PeCDD
0.5
7.5E+4
5.5E+4
Other PeCDD
0
NA
NA
2,3,7,8-HxCDD
0.1
1.5E+4
1.1E+4
Other HxCDD
0
NA
NA
PARI SK2\HUMAWGUAMV3UAM2\ATTACH2.-WPD. 7/27/99(3-06 pm)
12
-------
4 i v
Compound
TEF
Oral SF
(per mg/kg-day)
Inhalation SF
(per mg/kg-day)
2,3,7,8-HpCDD
0.01
1.5E+3
1 1E+3
OCDD
0.001
1.5E+2
1.1E+2
Mono-, di- and tri-CDF
0
NA
NA
2,3,7,8-TCDF
0.1
1.5E+4
1.1E+4
Other TCDF
0
NA
NA
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
0.05
7.5E+3
5.5E+3
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
0.5
7.5E+4
5.5E+4
Other PeCDF
0
NA
NA
2,3,7,8-HxCDF
0.1
1.5E+4
1.1E+4
Other HxCDF
0
NA
NA
2,3,7,8-HpCDF
0.01
1.5E+3
1.1E+3
Other HpCDF
0
NA
NA
OCDF
0.001
1.5E+2
1.1E+2
TEF = toxicity equivalency factor, SF = slope factor, CDD = chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin,
NA = not applicable, TCDD = tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, PeCDD == pentachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin, HxCDD = hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, HpCDDs = heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin,
OCDD = octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, TCDF = tetrachlorodibenzofuran, PeCDF =
pentachlorodibenzofuran, HxCDF = hexachlorodibenzofuran, HpCDF =
heptachlorodibenzofuran, OCDF = octachlorodibenzofuran
The TEFs were derived not from cancer data, but from in vitro data such as enzyme induction,
which is hypothetically related to the carcinogenic mode of action. For example, the TEF of
0.001 for OCDD and OCDF is based on the appearance of "dioxin-like" effects and detectable
levels of OCDD late in a 13-week study in male rats treated with OCDD, and on in vitro
evidence of enzyme induction (EPA, 1989).
MUSK2\HUMAN\GUAM\OJAM2\AmCHlWFD. 7/I7/S9(3-0« pm)
13
-------
"References for PCDD/PCDF
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, (ATSDR), 1989, Toxicological Profile for
2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin, U.S. Public Health Service, Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1985, Health Assessment Document for
Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/8-84/014F, NTIS No. PB86-122546.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1989, Interim Procedures for Estimating
Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and -
Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989 Update, Prepared by the Risk Assessment Forum
for the Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, EPA/625/3-89/016,
NTIS PB90-145756/AS.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1994, Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like
Compounds, Review draft, June, EPA/600/6-88/005Ca.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1995a, Supplemental Guidance to RAGS:
Region 4 Bulletins, Human Health Risk Assessment (Interim), Waste Management Division,
Office of Health Assessment, EPA Region 4, Atlanta, GA, November.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1995b, Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative,
Technical Support Document for the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors,
EPA. 820.8.95. CC5, PB95-187290.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1997, Health Effects Assessment Summary
Tables, FY 1997 Update, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 9200.6-303 (97-1),
EPA-540-R-97-036, NTIS No. PB97-921199.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1998, Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals
(PRGs) 1998, online, http://www.epa.gov/region 09/.
P \R1SK2\HUMAKiOUAM\GUAM2VATTACH2 WD, 7/77/59(306 ptn)
14
-------
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS fPCB.O
The PCBs are a class of SVOCs including 209 possible individual congeners, each consisting of a
biphenyl structure and 1 to 10 chlorine atoms (ATSDR, 1995). The PCBs manufactured and used
in the U.S. are called Aroclors. The Aroclors are mixtures of several PCB congeners and related
compounds. Aroclors were used as dielectric and heat exchange agents in several open and
closed systems, but since the middle 1970s, use has been restricted largely to electrical
transformers and capacitors.
Analysis of PCBs in environmental media frequently involves "fingerprinting" the mixture, and
reporting the result as the Aroclor(s) that most closely reflect the fingerprint(s) (ATSDR, 1995).
Recently, however, more attention has been paid to analyzing and reporting individual congeners,
because of the possibility that certain congeners may be dioxirt-like in their action of toxicity. The
Aroclors most commonly identified in environmental media include Aroclor-1016, -1221, -1232,
-1242, -1248, -1254, -1260, -1262, and -1268. Relevant physical properties are compiled below:
MW
logK^
H
logK«
D.
Dw
VP
S
( plmrAe)
ftmirieRS*
(craVs)
(atari)
(mg/L)
Aroclor-1016
257.9«,b j
5.6 b
2.9E-4b j 4.96c
ND
6.8E-6c
| 5.3E-7b
4.2E-1"
Aroclor-1221
200.7«.b
4.7b
3.5E-3b
2.44.
I ND
7.5E-6c
8.8E-6b
5.9E-lb
Aroclor-1232
232.2n.fe
5.1b
1 04E4T
2.83c
| ND
[ 7.2E-6c
5.34E-6b
I 4.5E-1*
Aroclor-1242
266.5«,b | 5.6b
5.2E-4b
4.59c
| ND
| 6.1E-6c
[ 5~.34-7b
I 2.2E-lb
Aroclor-1248
299.5^.
6.2b
j 2.8E-3b
i 5.64c
1 ND
[ 6.6E-6.
| 6.5E-7b
I 5.7E-2b
Aroclor-1254
328*,b
, 6.5b
| 2.0E-3b
5.00c
\ nd
| 5.6E-6c
\ 1.01E-7b
1 3.5E-2b
Aroclor-1260
375.7«.b
| 6.8b
| 4.6E-3b
| 6.42c
| ND
[ 5.3E-6c
j 5.33E-8b
1 4.1E-2k
Aroclor-1262
389.*
1 ND
! ND
! ND
i nd
1 ND
L_5b
1 5.2E-2b
Aroclor-1268
453a*
ND
| 55
ND
j ND
IJslI
1 ND
I 3.0E-lb
ND = no data.
'Average molecular mass for the proportions of individual congeners in the commercial
product.
bAgency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1995, Update Toxicological
Profile for Pofychorinted Biphenyls, Draft for Public Comment, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia, August.
Montgomery, J.H., 1996, Groundwater Chemicals Desk Reference, Second Edition, Lewis
Publishers, New York.
P MUSK2\HUMAN\GUAMVGUAKa\ATTACH2 WPD, 7/27/99(3 «6 f*n)
15
-------
The PCBs are among the compounds that bioaccumulate in food chain pathways and are of
special concern for biomagnification from sediment in benthic fish. EPA (1995) reported a BSAF
for total PCBs of 1.85 for trout in the Great Lakes ecosystem. The BSAF of 1.85 is applied to all
PCBs in this evaluation.
Toxicokinetic data from laboratory animals suggests that the efficiency of GI absorption is
roughly inversely related to the degree of chlorination (ATSDR, 1995). The GI absorption of
mono-to hexachlorinated biphenyls exceeds 90 percent. Dichlorobiphenyl GI absorption
efficiency is approximately 95 percent, but the absorption efficiency of octachlorobiphenyl
approximates only 75 percent. GI absorption efficiency of Aroclor-1254 approximates 85.4
percent in ferrets and greater than 90 percent in monkeys. These data generally support the GAF
of 0.9, which is adopted for all PCBs in this evaluation. However, an oral-to-dermal absorption
factor of 1 is used for the cancer evaluation to be consistent with the application of the cancer SF
recommended by EPA (1999).
The PCBs appear to be readily absorbed by the skin when applied as neat compound or mixed
with a suitable vehicle (ATSDR, 1995), but efficiency falls off when soil is the medium of
exchange. The EPA (1992) recommended ABS of 0.06 for PCBs is used in this evaluation. EPA
(1992) provides PC and x values for 4-chlorobiphenyl and hexachlorobiphenyl. Generally, the
more highly chlorinated PCB congeners are the more persistent in the environment; therefore, the
PC of 7.1E-1 cm/hour and the t of 1.4E+1 hours for hexachlorobiphenyl are applied to all PCBs
in this evaluation.
The acute oral toxicity of the PCBs is low to moderate, as indicated by LD^ values in laboratory
animals ranging from 750 mg/kg (mink) to 4250 mg/kg (rats) (ATSDR, 1993). Death appears to
be due to respiratory depression and dehydration from diarrhea.
The best known incident involving oral exposure by humans is the "Yusho" incident in Japan, in
which persistent chloracne, gastrointestinal irritation and central nervous symptoms followed
ingestion of cooking oil contaminated with PCBs (Gaffey, 1983). Further investigation, however,
revealed that concentrations of polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF) and polychlorinated
quaterphenyls in the cooking oil were similar to those of PCBs, which confounds the
interpretation of the results of this study.
Prolonged oral exposure of laboratory animals leads to liver damage, signs of chloracne,
immunological effects, and neurological impairment, particularly of the young. A verified oral
RfD for Aroclor-1254 of 2E-5 mg/kg-day for chronic oral exposure is based on a LOAEL of
5E-3 mg/kg-day associated with chloracne and related signs and immunological effects in
monkeys treated with the test material in gelatin capsules for over five years (EPA, 1999). An
uncertainty factor of 300 was applied. Confidence in the RfD is medium. The immune system
and skin are considered the target organs for prolonged oral exposure to Aroclor-1254. A
verified oral RfD of 7E-5 mg/kg-day for Aroclor-1016 is based on a NOAEL of 7E-3 mg/kg-day
in a long-term perinatal and neurobehavioral toxicity study in monkeys. An uncertainty factor of
100 was applied to the NOAEL. The LOAEL (2.8E-2 mg/kg-day) was associated with low birth
P:\JUSK2\HUMANV3UAM1jGUAM2\ATTACH2 WPD, 7/27/99(3:06 pts)
16
-------
weights. The fetus is considered the sensitive target tissue for prolonged oral exposure to
Aroclor-1016. Confidence in the oral RfD is medium.
Occupational exposure to PCBs, which involved both inhalation and dermal exposure, was
associated with upper respiratory tract and ocular irritation, loss of appetite, liver enlargement and
increased serum concentrations of liver enzymes, skin irritation, rashes and chloracne, and, in
heavily exposed female workers, decreased birth weight of their infants (ATSDR, 1995).
Concurrent exposure to PCB contaminants, such as PCDFs, confound the interpretation of the
occupational exposure studies. Rats, mice, rabbits and guinea pigs intermittently exposed to
Aroclor-1254 vapors exhibit moderate liver degeneration, decreased body weight gain and slight
renal tubular degeneration; however, the accuracy of the reported exposure concentration is in
doubt. Neither verified nor provisional chronic inhalation RfC values are available.
EPA (1999) classified PCBs in cancer weight-of-evidence Group B2 (probable human
carcinogen) based on adequate evidence for liver tumors in laboratory animals and inadequate
data in humans. EPA (1999) established a tiered approach for estimating the cancer potency of
exposure to the PCBs. For the high risk tier, A SF of 2.0E+0 per mg/kg-day is verified as an
upper-bound for exposure to PCBs via ingestion in the food chain, ingestion of soil or sediment,
inhalation of dust or aerosol, or dermal contact with soil or sediment if an absorption factor is
applied. In addition, the SF of 2.0E+0 per mg/kg-day is used for any congeners considered to be
persistent or acting in a dioxin-like manner, and for any early life exposures. The high risk tier SF
for central tendency (CT) analyses is 1.0E+0 per mg/kg-day. EPA (1999) verified an
upper-bound SF of 4.0E-1 per mg/kg-day for the low risk tier, which includes ingestion of
water-soluble congeners, inhalation of evaporated congeners, and dermal exposure if no
absorption factor is applied. A SF of 3E-1 per mg/kg-day is recommended for the low risk CT
evaluation. The SF of 2.0E+0 per mg/kg-day is used for all exposure scenarios and exposure
routes in this evaluation because analytical data that demonstrate the absence of dioxin-like or
persistent congeners are not available, and the exposure of children or youths is plausible.
References for PCBs
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, (ATSDR), 1995, Update Toxicological
Profile for Potychlorinated Biphenyls, Draft for Public Comment, U.S. Public Health Service,
Atlanta, Georgia, August.
Gaffey, W.R., 1983, "The epidemiology of PCBs," In: PCBs: Human and Environmental
Hazards, F.M. D'itri and M.A. Kamrin, Eds., Boston: Butterworth Publishers.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1992, Dermal Exposure Assessment; Principles
and Applications, Interim Report, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/8-91/01 IB, January.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1995, Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative,
Technical Support Document for the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors,
EPA. 820.8.95.CCS, PB95-187290.
P \fUSK2\HUMAJAGUAMV3UAM2\ATTACH2 WPD.7/27/990-06 pm)
17
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1999, Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS), National Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH, on line.
P \RJBK2\HUMAN^rUAM\GUAM2\ATrACH2.WPD, 7/17/990-06 pra)
18
-------
FINAL
SCREENING ECOLOGICAL
RISK ASSESSMENT FOR
IRP SITE 39/HARMON SUBSTATION
ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE
GUAM
Prepared for:
United States Air Force
Andersen Air Force Base
Guam
Prepared by:
IT Corporation
5301 Central Avenue NE, Suite 700
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87108
July 1999
-------
Executive Summary
This screening level ecological risk assessment has been prepared in support of the U.S. Air
Force Installation Restoration Program. The scope of work for this project includes an
evaluation of potential risks to biota that may presently or in the future utilize IRP Site
39/Harmon Substation, Harmon Annexes, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. This document is
in support of the Remediation Verification Report for the site.
This risk assessment was performed in accordance with federal and regional EPA guidance on
ecological risk assessment (EPA, 1992; EPA, 1997; EPA, 1998a; Callahan, 1998). Both
conservative and realistic assumptions were used in the evaluation of potential risk to biota that
may use the site either at present or in the future. Ecological receptors selected for analysis were
a generic plant, insectivorous small mammal, omnivorous small mammal, predatory mammal,
insectivorous bird, and a predatory reptile. Emphasis in this assessment was on the protection of
upper trophic level receptors.
The results of this screening level risk assessment indicate no inorganics, volatile organic
compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)
present significant risk to terrestrial receptors at this site. Potential risks to insectivorous birds
from exposures to 4,4'-DDE and 4,4'-DDT were initially identified under the most conservative
modeling conditions; however, the evaluation of uncertainties associated with these predictions
makes such predictions of risk dubious and the actual risk is probably negligible. The screening
level assessment initially identified potential risk to all wildlife receptors from exposures to
dioxins and furans. Factors associated with uncertainties and ecological significance support the
conclusions that these risk predictions for the insectivorous bird and predatory mammal (and
thereby indirectly predicted for the predatory reptile) are overestimations and that the actual risks
to these receptors are negligible. The same is probably also true for the omnivorous small
mammal. However, the predicted risk to the insectivorous small mammal was relatively high,
and if this taxa is present on the site, it may be adversely affected by exposure to dioxins and
furans. Because the site is small, highly disturbed, and is not located in important natural habitat,
and because neither of the small mammal receptors represent ecologically significant or
protected species, it is concluded that the overall ecological risks at this site are negligible and
that there is adequate information to conclude that no further investigation or remediation are
required.
AIV7-99/WP/ AnderseirEco-risk_AppM_AgencyDraft.DOC
1
919689 21 00 60 30 7/28/99 5.02 PM
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
List of Tables iv
List of Figures v
List of Abbreviations/Acronyms vi
1.0 Introduction 1-1
2.0 Problem Formulation 2-1
2.1 Physical Setting 2-1
2.1.1 Climate 2-1
2.1.2 Geology 2-3
2.1.3 Topography and Surface Water 2-4
2.1.4 Soil 2-4
2.1.5 Groundwater 2-4
2.1.6 Land use 2-5
2.2 Ecological Setting 2-5
2.3 Site History 2-6
2.3.1 1989 POL Excavation 2-6
2.3.2 1997 Investigation 2-6
2.3.3 Post-1997 Excavation and Sampling History 2-10
2.3.4 Data V alidation 2-13
2.4 Constituents of Potential Ecological Concern 2-14
2.5 Fate and Transport Potential 2-17
2.6 Ecological Receptors 2-17
2.7 Exposure Pathways 2-23
2.8 Ecological Endpoints 2-25
3.0 . Analysis 3-1
3.1 Exposure Characterization 3-1
3.2 Ecological Effects Evaluation 3-4
3.2.1 Plant T oxicity Reference V alues 3-6
3.2.2 Wildlife Toxicity Reference Values 3-7
3.2.3 Reptilian Toxicity Data 3-10
4.0 Risk Characterization 4-1
4.1 Risk Estimation 4-1
4.2 Risk Results 4-2
Aiy7-99/WP/Andersen.Eco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDraft DOC jj 919689.21.00.60 30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
4.3 Uncertainty Analysis 4-6
4.4 Ecological Significance 4-9
4.5 Scientific/Management Decision Point 4-10
5.0 Summary 5-1
6.0 References 6-1
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-nsk_AppM_AgcncyDraft.DOC
iii
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
List of Tables
Table Title
1 List of Federal and Guam Endangered Species Found on Andersen Air Force
Base
2 Summary of Excavation and Sampling Activities at IRP Site 39/Harmon
Substation, 1998
3 Soil Sampling Results and Exposure Point Concentrations for Constituents of
Potential Ecological Concern Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
4 Ecological Endpoints IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Andersen Air Force Base,
Guam
5 Exposure Factors for Ecological Receptors IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation,
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
6 Transfer Factors for Constituents of Potential Ecological Concern at IRP Site 39,
Harmon Substation Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
7 Nonlinear Model Parameters for Modeling Constituents of Potential Ecological
Concern in Earthworm and Mammal Tissues Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
8 Toxicity Benchmark Information for Constituents of Potential Ecological Concern
at IRP Site 39, Harmon Substation Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
9 TCDD Toxicity Equivalency Factors for the Birds and Mammals
10 Hazard Quotients Based on Exposures to Maximum Measured Soil
Concentrations for Constituents of Potential Ecological Concern at IRP Site 39,
Harmon Substation Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
11 Hazard Quotients Based on Exposures to 95-Percent Upper Confidence Limit Soil
Concentrations for Constituents of Potential Ecological Concern at IRP Site 39,
Harmon Substation Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
12 Comparison of Exposures in the Mangrove Monitor Lizard to Those in the Feral
Dog and Micronesian Starling for Constituents of Potential Ecological Concern,
IRP Site 39, Harmon Substation Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDrafl.DOC jy 919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
^ "SV-N -• f f
List of Figures.
Figure Title
1 Ecological Risk Assessment Approach for IRP Site 39/Haraion Substation in
Comparison with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Approach for
Superfund Sites, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
2 Location Map, IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Harmon Annexes, Andersen Air
Force Base, Guam
3 Conceptual Model for Terrestrial Habitat of IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation,
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
4 Generalized Food Web for the Terrestrial Habitat at IRP Site 39/Harmon
Substation, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
v
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5 02 PM
-------
List of Abbreviations/Acronyms,
AFB "
Air Force Base
bgs
below ground surface
BHC
benzene hexachloride
BTV
background threshold value
COPEC
constituent of potential ecological concern
d
day
DDD
1,1 -dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane
DDE
1,1 -dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chloropheny ^ethylene
DDT
1,1,1 -trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane
Dept.
Department
EPA
Unites States Environmental Protection Agency
F
Fahrenheit
ft.
feet
HpCDD
heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
HpCDF
heptachlorodibenzofuran
HQ
hazard quotient
HxCDD
hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
HxCDF
hexachlorodibenzofuran
in.
inch(es)
IRP
Installation Restoration Program
Kow
octanol/water partition coefficient
kg
kilogram(s)
km
kilometer
LOAEL
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level
log
logarithm
m
meter(s)
MCL
maximum concentration level
mg
milligram(s)
mph
miles per hour
NOAEL
no-observed-adverse-effect level
OCDD
octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
OCDF
octachlorodibenzofuran
PAH
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB
polychlorinated biphenyl
PCDD
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
PCDF
polychlorinated dibenzofuran
PeCDD
pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
PeCDF
pentachlorodibenzofuran
POL
petroleum, oils, and lubricants
PRG
preliminary remediation goal
SVOC
semivolatile organic compound
TCDD
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
TCDF
tetrachlorodibenzofuran
AL/7-99/WP/Anderseti:Eco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDrafl.DOC
vi
919689.21 00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
¦ li i,
List of A bbrevia tions/A cronyms (Continued)
TEF toxicity equivalency factor
TEQ toxicity equivalency
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon
UCL upper confidence limit
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VOC volatile organic compound
WHO World Health Organization
° degree
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-risk_AppM_AgencyDraft.DOC
vii
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
1.0 Introduction
This screening level ecological risk assessment was performed to address the potential impact on
biota from exposure to chemical contaminants associated with Installation Restoration Program
(IRP) Site 39/Harmon Substation, located in the Harmon Annexes, Andersen Air Force Base
(AFB), Guam. This document is in support of the Remediation Verification Report for the site.
It specifically addresses potential risks to ecological receptors associated with soils from the site
that have recently undergone polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) and polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB) remediation. No assessment has been previously performed to address potential
ecological risks at this site. Therefore, the intent of this assessment was to focus on potential
risks to biota which may utilize the site either at present or in the future based on soil sampling
data collected during and after site remediation. Most species at the site are introduced, non-
native species, that infrequently utilize this highly disturbed site. The potential exists, however,
for habitat conditions to improve in the future followed by greater utilization by wildlife within
the area.
The ecological risk assessment methodology used in this assessment generally follows U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ecological risk assessment guidance (EPA, 1992; EPA,
1997; EPA, 1998a) and that recommended by EPA Region 9 (Callahan, 1998). The Guam EPA
does not currently have its own ecological risk guidance (Richman, 1999). Both conservative
and realistic assumptions were used in the evaluation of potential risk to biota that may use the
site either at present or in the future. This assessment contains a Problem Formulation section
that provides the introduction to the risk evaluation process. Components addressed within the
Problem Formulation section include a discussion of the environmental setting, site history,
selection of constituents of potential ecological concern (COPECs), a discussion of fate and
transport potential, potential ecological receptors, complete exposure pathways, and assessment
and measurement endpoints.
Problem Formulation is followed by the evaluation of exposure, toxicity, and predicted risks.
The characterization of exposure and toxicity are components of the Analysis Section of the risk
assessment. The Risk Characterization section contains discussions of the uncertainty and
ecological significance associated with the assessment of ecological risk for the site. The
ecological risk evaluation process concludes with a Scientific/Management Decision Point that
provides a recommendation of efforts that should follow this screening level ecological risk
assessment. Figure 1 illustrates the ecological risk assessment methodology used in this report
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-risk_AppM_Agency Draft. DOC
1-1
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
USEPA Eight-step Ecological Risk Assessment
Process for Superfund (EPA 1997)
STEP 1: Screening-Level Problem Formulation
and Ecological Effects Evaluation
Compile
Existing
Information
STEP 2: Screening-Level Preliminary
Exposure Estimate and Risk Calculation
STEP 3- Baseline Risk .Assessment Problem Formulation
Refinement of Conservative
Risk Calculation
I
Toxicity Evaluation
Assessment
Endpoints
Data
Collection
3
3
Conceptual Model
Exposure Pathways
Questions/Hypotheses
STEP 4: Study Design and Data Quality Objectives (DQOs)
- Lines of Evidence
- Measurement Endpoints
Work Plan and Sampling/Analysis Plan
z
SMDP (c)
STEP 5: .Verification of Field Sampling Design >MDP (d)
STEP 6: Site Investigation and Analysis of Exposure and Effects
Ecological Risk Assessment Approach
for IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
Scope of the current risk assessment for
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
Tier 2: Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment
STEP 3b: Problem Formulation
Toxicity Evaluation
Assessment
Conceptual Model
Endpoints
ZT T"
Risk Hypotheses
STEP 4: Study Design and Data Quality Objectives (DQOs)
- Lines of Evidence
- Measurement Endpoints
Woik Plan and Sampling/Analysis Plan
STEP 5. Verification of Field Sampling Design
STEP 6. Site Investigation and Analysis of Exposure and Effects
SMDP
-> SMDP
Tier 3: Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives
- Develop site-specific risk-based cleanup goals
- Evaluate remedial alternatives
Figure 1
Ecological Risk Assessment Approach
for IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation in
Comparison with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Approach for Superfund Sites,
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
919689 21 OO 60 30 81
04/26/99
-------
as it relates to that presented in the Superfund Guidance for Ecological Risk Assessment (EPA,
1997). The scope of this risk assessment is limited to the Tier 1 screening level assessment.
AL/7-99AWP/Andersen Eco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDraft DOC
1-3
919689.21 00 60 30 7/28/99 5*02 PM
-------
2.0 Problem Formulation
Problem Formulation is the first step of the ecological risk assessment process. This step
includes a discussion of the physical and ecological characteristics of the site, selection of
COPECs, potential fate and transport mechanisms, selection of ecological receptors, exposure
pathways, and ecologically relevant assessment and measurement endpoints. As discussed in
Section 2.8, the overall management goal of this assessment is to ensure the integrity of the
biological community within the terrestrial habitats of IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation. The
Problem Formulation step basically sets the stage for the evaluation of exposure and estimation
of risk which are discussed in Sections 3 and 4, respectively.
2.1 Physical Setting
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation is a 600-by-600-foot (approximately 8-acre) tract of vacant land
located within the Harmon Annexes section of Andersen AFB. Figure 2 presents a map of the
site in relation to the entire base and the island of Guam. Photographs of the site are presented in
Attachment 1. The following information on the physical characteristics of IRP Site 39/Harmon
Substation is based on information from various internal reports. The primary resources utilized
were the "Agency Draft Site Characterization Summary Report for IRP Site 39/Harmon
Substation" (EA, January 1998a) and the "Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam" (USFWS, 1995). The physical characteristics of the site and
surrounding area are included in this report so that potential receptors and potential exposure
pathways for contaminants can be evaluated. Additional information associated with the
physical setting of the site is presented in the Remediation Verification Report.
2.1.1 Climate
Guam lies at 13°27' north latitude, approximately 900 miles north of the equator. Guam's
climate is almost uniformly warm and humid year-round (USFWS, 1995). Temperatures on
Guam generally range from 72 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to 91 °F on a daily basis, with cooler
temperatures during the dry season. Relative humidity is between 65-75 percent in the afternoon
rising to 85-100 percent at night. There are generally two distinct climatic seasons on Guam.
Rainfall is heaviest from July through November, with January through May considered the dry
season. December and June are considered transitional months. Mean annual rainfall varies
considerably among years, averaging 86 inches (in.). Approximately 20-25 percent falls in the
dry season and 63-66 percent in the wet season with the remainder in the transitional months.
Severe droughts and intense downpours can be expected on Guam. Large rain events associated
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen.Eco-nsk_AppM_Agency Draft. DOC
2-1
919689.21.00 60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
919589^1.00.60 30 A4
Figure 2
Location Map, IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation,
Harmon Annexes, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
LEGEND
Installation Boundary
Site Boundary
Annex Boundary
•
Monitoring Well
Production Well
A
Exploratory Boring Location
0
la
1500 FT
SCALE
05S5 m
-------
with typhoons are not uncommon with as much as 24.9 in. of precipitation for a 24-hour period
(Ward et al., 1965). The period of greatest drought hazard is February through April.
Winds are typically from the east at less than 10 miles per hour (mph) but are variable in late
summer. Typhoons (winds from 75-150 mph) or supertyphoons (maximum surface winds over
150 mph) can hit Guam any time, but are more likely to occur during the rainy season with the
highest frequency of occurrence from July through September. Wind damage, flooding, and
high surf conditions can be associated with these storms.
2.1.2 Geology
The island of Guam has two distinct physiographic provinces, the Northern Limestone Plateau
and the Southern Volcanics. The Adelup Fault separates these two provinces. South of the fault,
the island is composed almost entirely of volcanics, and north of the fault the island is composed
almost entirely (excluding portions of Mt. Santa Rose) of limestone with karst topography
(Marianas or Barxigada Formations).
The Harmon Annexes are situated on a limestone plateau with surficial karstic features. The
surface geology consists of the Pliocene/Pleistocene-aged Mariana Limestone. The Mariana
Limestone consists of four facies: (1) reefal facies comprised of massive corals which grew in
situ (especially common to the cliff line) with cavernous and vuggy porosity; (2) detrital facies
comprised of coarse to fine grain reefal detritus deposited lagoonal setting; (3) molluscan facies
comprised of a fine grain detritus, with abundant casts and molds of mollusks and pelecypods,
deposited in a lagoonal setting and (4) fore-reef facies comprised of well bedded friable to
indurated white foraminiferal limestone deposited as fore-reef sand (Tracey et al., 1964).
The Miocene-aged Barrigada Limestone lies beneath the Mariana Limestone (approximately 300
to 400 feet [ft.] below ground surface [bgs]). It is the principal water bearing unit underlying the
northern half of Guam, and it is highly permeable and porous with numerous voids, fissures, and
solution openings. The Barrigada Limestone consists of a well-lithified to friable medium to
coarse grain foraminiferal limestone (Tracey et al., 1964).
The Eocene/Oligocene-aged Alutom Formation unconformably underlies the Barrigada
Limestone (approximately 600 to 800 ft. bgs) and consists of well bedded fine to coarse grain
volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks (Tracey et al., 1964).
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDraft DOC 2-3 919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
2.1.3 Topography and Surface Water
The Harmon Annexes are located on an undulating limestone plateau with sinkholes and other -
karstic features. Due to the high permeability of the limestone, streams and surface waters do
not exist. The nearest surface water body is the Philippine Sea, which is more than 1 mile west
of the site. Topography at IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation is hummocky with man-made basins
and mounds. The surface elevation ranges from 269 to 240 ft. above mean sea level. The
overall gradient is slight (less than 3 percent) and slopes toward the north. The topography on
the eastern portion of the site is undulating man-made mounds and depressions. The
permeability and porosity of the limestone in this area is veiy high, and as a result, no rivers or
streams are present.
2.1.4 Soil
Guam has five major types of soils including laterite (volcanic soils); riverine mud; coral rock;
coral sand; and argillaceous soils (mixtures of coral and laterite soils) (USFWS, 1995). At
Andersen AFB, the substrate is primarily limestone. A thin layer of soil (approximately 4-10 in.)
covers the northern limestone. Soils at Andersen AFB are rapidly drained, well aerated, highly
alkaline, and high in calcium.
In the area of IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, the undisturbed soil is a Guam cobbly clay loam.
The loam is well drained and overlies porous limestone. Typically 5 to 10 percent of the surface
is covered by gravels and cobbles (Young, 1988). The A horizon is characterized by a dark
reddish clay loam about 6 in. thick. The B horizon is a dusky red gravelly clay loam about 6 in.
thick. The C horizon or limestone bedrock, is often found at a range of 6 to 16 in. bgs. The soil
is neutral to mildly alkaline, and permeability of the soil is moderately rapid. However, the soil
at the site has been reworked and appears to be urban fill. In many areas, there is evidence that
organic material such as plants and wood were bumed. There is very little (if any) undisturbed
Guam cobbly clay loam at the site.
2.1.5 Groundwater
Groundwater in the Harmon Annexes and other portions of northern Guam occur as a freshwater
lens lying above seawater, the two separated by a layer of brackish water. All precipitation,
except that portion lost to evapotranspiration, contributes to the groundwater. The recharge to
the aquifer by precipitation is estimated to average 0.77 million gallons/day/km2 (Mink, 1976).
Groundwater in the Harmon Annexes has been monitored for contaminants as part of the IRP.
There are three groundwater monitoring wells (IRP-36, -37, and -38) and two public supply
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen.Eco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDrafl.DOC 2-4 919689.21.00 60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
wells (H-l and NCS-5) sampled biannually for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides, and metals. None of the wells are located on the site -
and the closest well, ERP-35, is located approximately 4,100 ft. northwest of the site. Historical
groundwater analytical results from the five wells have reported carbon disulfide and
chloroform, which were attributed to laboratory contamination (the carbon disulfide was
demonstrated to be the result of leaching from gloves used at the laboratory). Chromium and
nickel concentrations were detected above their maximum contaminant level (MCL). These are
suspected to be the result of corrosion of stainless steel screen and piston pumps.
Trichloroethene was detected in a sample from H-l at a concentration less than its MCL. The
most recent sample collected from H-l in April 1997, did not have detectable concentrations of
VOCs, SVOCs, or pesticides.
2.1.6 Land use
The property surrounding the Harmon Substation site is either for industrial use (including the
substation) or is unused and moderately vegetated. The property is accessible to the public, but
there is no residential use adjacent to the site. With the exception of the electric substation, and
the petroleum, oils and lubricants (POL) and electrical right of ways, the surrounding properties
are not developed and not utilized for recreation. The Micronesia Mall is located across Marine
Drive, 800 ft. south of the site.
2.2 Ecological Setting
The habitat at IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation is highly disturbed, with close to one-third of the
site currently unvegetated as a result of remediation activities. Three types of disturbance
communities are generally recognized as developing on disturbed ground on Guam. These are
the Mixed Shrub Forest, the Mixed Herbaceous Vegetation, and the Elephant Grass (Pennisetum
purpureum) Grassland (ICF Kaiser, 1996).. The current vegetation on the site is probably best
described as Mixed Herbaceous Vegetation. Vegetation cover on the site is of low to moderate
density, consisting of low-lying vines, sword grass, short grass, ferns and small trees. Part of the
site has maintained grass and is used as a right of way for overhead electric conduit. Animals
encountered at the IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation include monitor lizards (Varanus indicus),
island gecko (Gehyra oceanic), Pacific slender-toed gecko (Nactus pelagicus), Micronesian
gecko (Perochirus ateles), Slevin's skink (Emoia slevinis), moth skink (Lipinia noctua), and
brown tree snakes (Boiga irregularis). Although future succession of the plant community at the
site is largely dependent upon future use or disturbance of the site and surrounding lands, it is not
expected to revert to a native vegetation climax community.
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDraft DOC 2-5 919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5.02 PM
-------
There are several threatened and endangered species on Guam; however, no federally
endangered or threatened species or habitats of concern are associated with IRP Site 39 (Hirsh, -
1997; ICF, 1994). Table 1 lists the Federal and Guam Endangered species found on
Andersen AFB.
2.3 Site History
Historical aerial photographs and Air Force personnel interviews indicate the site was operated
in the 1950s for the disposal of household and office wastes. Specific information on disposal
practices and historical land use at the site is scant, though materials found at the site indicate it
was used for surface disposal and "landfilling" of construction-related wastes (debris and metal
containers), and electrical components. Excavation activities in 1989 related to a POL line
provide some of the earliest details on the types of waste disposed of at IRP Site 39 (OHM,
March 1998). Other, more specific information on the nature and extent of potential
contaminants is available from investigation activities performed during 1997 (EA, January
1998b) and subsequent remediation and sampling activities performed during 1998. The
information available from these sources is detailed below. Additional information regarding
site history is presented in the Remediation Verification Report.
2.3.1 1989 POL Excavation
The POL excavation activities along the northern edge of the site, as reported in an Action
Memorandum (OHM, March 1998), uncovered "several containers." Subsequent soil sampling
and analysis for PCBs revealed no detectable levels in the area. No other information was
available for this excavation, nor does it appear that other types of sampling occurred at this
time.
2.3.2 1997 Investigation
The investigation and sampling activities detailed within the following subsections became the
"drivers" for additional sampling activities. This section summarizes the findings from the 1997
investigation. Section 2.3.3 presents a summary of remediation and sampling activities at the
site following this investigation.
2.3.2.1 Site Reconnaissance
Site reconnaissance revealed that the site had been extensively excavated and graded as a landfill
and small borrow area. The following types of items were discovered on the site: 5-gallon pails,
30- and 55-gallon steel drums (sometimes up to 5 layers of stacked drums), asphalt/tar seeps,
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-risk_AppM_AgcncyDrafl.DOC 2-6 919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
Table 1
List of Federal and Guam Endangered Species
Found on Andersen Air Force Base3
Potential
Presence
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status15
IRP Site 39c
Mammals
Little Mariana Fruit Bat
Pteropus tokudae
Endangered"
No
Mariana Fruit Bat
Pteropus m. marianas
Endangered
No
Birds
Vanikoro Swiftlet
Aerodramas vanikorensis
Endangered
No
bartschi
Mariana Common Moorhen
Gatlinola chioropuz guami
Endangered
No
Guam Broadbill or Flycatcher
Myiagra freycineti
Endangered6
No
Mariana Crow
Corvus kubaryi
Endangered
No
Guam Micronesian Kingfisher
Halcyon c. cinnamomna
Endangered®
No
Guam Rail
Rallus owstoni
Endangered®
No
Guam Bridled White-eye
Zosterops c. conspicillata
Endangered"
Unlikely
White-throated Ground Dove
Gallicolumba x. xanthonura
Guam Endangered"
Unlikely
Mariana Fruit Dove
Ptilinopus roseicapilla
Guam Endangered"
No
Micronesian Starling
Alponis opaca guami
Guam Endangered
Unlikely
Rufous-fronted Fantai!
Rhipidura nrfifrons uraniae
Guam Endangered"
No
Cardinal Honeyeater
Myzometa cardinalis saffordi
Guam Endangered"
No
Trees
Hayun-lago
Serianthes nelsonii
Endangered
No
Ufa-haiomtano
Heritiera longipetiolata
Guam Endangered
No
1 Reptiles
Green Sea Turtle
Chelonia mydas
Threatened
No
Hawksbill Sea Turtle
Eretmochelys imbricata
Endangered
No
Leatherback Sea Turtle
lar,, =asasaa=5s=«e^==^—airia '¦====
Dermochelys cariacea
Endangered
No
a Source of information specific to Andersen Air Force Base is USAF (1995).
b Information on status was obtained from Virginia Tech (1998).
0 Information on the potential for a species to occur at a site was based on habitat information presented
in Virginia Tech (1998) and Pratt, et al. (1989).
d Presumed extinct on Guam.
e In captive breeding programs. (No longer found in wild).
Al/7-9S>/WP/Andcrsen:Eco-nsk_AppM_Agency Draft.DOC
2-7
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
electrical power components (including utility power poles), steel piping, nails, ash, an oil/water
separator containing liquid and sludge, and a stormwater outfall.
2.3.2.2 Geophysical Survey and Excavated Test Trenches and Pits
A geophysical survey indicated magnetic anomalies at the site and these areas (21) were
excavated with test trenches. Other test trenches and pits were excavated to determine the extent
of fill areas. The survey, in combination with the test trenches and pits excavated during the
investigation uncovered similar materials as observed in the reconnaissance: buried drums,
5-gallon buckets, construction debris, and tar and asphalt. Some of the drums contained asphalt
tar, while others were empty or their contents listed as "unknown." There are an "indeterminate
number" of drums at the site. The fill areas appear to be limited to the northern portion of the
site, which was used as a landfill and surface disposal area, and a portion of the west-central area
of the site. Soil sampling (Section 1.2.4) was concentrated in these fill areas and around the
stormwater outfall.
2.3.2.3 Soil Gas Survey
Soil gas sampling for the presence of VOCs was performed at 33 grid node locations and
suspected fill areas or mounds at approximately 4 ft. bgs. No target analytes were detected (see
Basewide Sampling and Analysis Plan, Appendix A, Table A-l for a list of target analytes). A
passive soil gas sampler was installed slightly north and west of the center of the site and
allowed to record soil gas concentrations at approximately four feet bgs for 18 days. No VOCs
were detected during this survey, either.
2.3.2.4 Soil Sampling
Thirty-four surface and subsurface soil samples (0.25 -10 ft. bgs) were collected at the site for
SVOCs, metals, and total organic compounds. The subsurface soil samples were also analyzed
for VOCs. Additionally, some of the 34 samples were selected for dioxin analysis. Surface
samples were biased to fill areas and depressions. Subsurface samples were collected from the
bottom of test trench excavations.
Samples from the fill areas indicated that PAHs and manganese were present above either EPA
Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) or site-specific metals Background Threshold
Values (BTVs). Dioxin concentrations exceeding PRGs were found adjacent to the stormwater
outfall and in a sample of buried ash. Direct sampling of the oil/water separator indicated the
presence of petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, and lead. Although no Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) listed wastes were discovered during the sampling, the unknown
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen-Hco-nsk_AppM_AgcncyDraft DOC 2-8 919689 21 00 60 30 7/28/99 5 02 PM
-------
contents of many of the drums precludes the assumption that no RCRA listed wastes are present
at the site.
Metals. One sample contained a level of manganese which exceeded the BTV of
3,150 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Mercury concentrations in five samples were detected
in the range of 0.28-0.62 mg/kg, but were later qualified as "estimated values" due to the
presence of mercury in the equipment blank.
SVOCs. SVOCs (particularly PAHs) were detected in ten samples, five of which exceeded
PRGs. The following lists include all detected SVOC compounds not qualified as "estimated
values":
• Fluoranthene
- • Pyrene
• Benzo(a)anthracene
• Chrysene
• B enzo (b) fluoranthene
• B enzo (k) fluoranthene
• Benzo(a)pyrene
• Ideno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
• Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dioxins. Dioxins were detected in 14 of the 26 samples analyzed for dioxins. These "hits"
were in the area designated as the landfill and in the stormwater outfall basin. The following
three dioxins were identified: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HpCDD),
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD), and 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachloro-dibenzofuran
(HpCDF).
2.3.2.5 Sludge and Water Sampling
These samples were taken from the sediment (sludge) and water in a buried vessel believed to be
an oil/water separator or a septic tank. A listing of detected metals, VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides,
and PCBs is included below. Additionally, one water sample had a detectable level of total
petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH)-diesel.
Metals. Copper, lead, and mercury were detected above the BTVs in one or both of the sludge
samples. Iron and manganese were detected above secondary maximum concentration levels in
two of three water samples.
AL/7-99/WP/Ajidersen:Eco-risk_AppM_AgencyDraft.DOC
2-9
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
VOCs/SVOCs. Detectable levels of the following analytes were found in one sludge sample:
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and napthalene. Information for this same sludge -
sample listed a detectable amount of 1,4-dichlorobenzene as an SVOC. One of the water
samples contained detectable levels of toluene.
Pesticides/PCBs. The following pesticides/PCBs were detected in one or more of the sludge
samples and one of the water samples:
• alpha-BHC
• alpha-chlordane
• gamma-chlordane
• 4,4'-DDE
• 4,4'-DDD
• 4,4'-DDT
• dieldrin
• endrin
• endrin aldehyde
• enosulfan II
2.3.3 Post-1997 Excavation and Sampling History
The field reconnaissance and sampling of 1997 provided target areas and contaminants for
remediation activities conducted during 1998 and 1999. Table 2 details these activities. The
following seven areas of the site were remediated: A6, C2, E6, the stormwater outfall, the
oil/water separator location, the buried drum area, and the miscellaneous container area.
Additionally, a site-wide sampling and analysis effort was completed to determine dioxin
concentrations.
Remediation efforts at a given location were typically followed by the sampling of both the soil
piles created during the excavation process (if any) and the in-place soils. Remediation
continued until the sampling indicated that soil concentrations no longer exceeded the PRGs or
BTVs set for the contaminants being removed. Thus, it can be expected that later sampling dates
have lower levels of contaminants than those determined during earlier sampling efforts.
The oil/water separator excavation was backfilled using approximately 1,000 cubic yards of
clean import fill and 100 cubic yards of soil that was removed during the excavation of the
empty 55-gallon drums and piping situated immediately north of the oil/water separator. The
100 cubic yards of soil was characterized by sample number HAS39S278. This sample had
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDrafLDOC 2-10 919689.21 00.60.30 7/28/99 5.02 PM
-------
Table 2
Summary of Excavation and Sampling Activities at
tRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, 1998 and 1999
Date(s)
Sample Location I
Sample
Analyte(s)
Number of
Samplesa,b
Samples Reported
As
Memo Information0
Site Wide Surface Soil Sampling
7/16-7/17/98
Regular Grid
Dioxins
5 (lab)
EPA TEQ
OHM
8/4-8/7/98
Locations Across
Dioxms
15 (lab)
WHO TEQs
9/11/98
12/7/98
the Site
Dioxins
7 (lab)
WHO TEQs
and 2/11/99
PAH Hot Spot at C2
5/19/98
Grid Node C2
PAHs/PCBs
7 (lab)
22 (field)
Vanous PAHs and
PCBs (lab)
Total PAHs and
PCBs (field)
OHM
10/23/98
9/98
Excavation of PAH contaminated area
9/11/98
Post-excavation
confirmation
10 (lab)
10 (field)
Various PAHs (lab)
Total PAHs (field)
PAH Hot Spot at A6
6/22/98
PAHs/PCBs
6 (lab)
Total PAH and
PCB
9/98
Grid Node A6
Excavation of PAH/PCB contaminated area
OHM
9/14/98
Post-excavation
confirmation
2 (lab)
2 (field)
Various PAHs (lab)
Total PAHs (field)
10/26/98a
PAH Hot Spot at Stormwater Outfall
4/28/98
Dioxins
5 (lab)
20 (field)
Total TEQ, WHO
TEQs and RGS
Screen (lab)
RGS Screen (field)
5/29/98
Grid Cell Bounded
by Nodes A2, A3,
B2, and B3
PAHs/PCBs
5 (lab)
18 (field)
Total TEQ, WHO
TEQs (lab)
Total PAHs and
PCBs (field)
OHM
10/26/98b
8/98
Excavation of contaminated area
9/1 and
9/3/98
Post-excavation
confirmation
4 (lab)
Various PAHs
PAH Hot Spot at E6
7/98
PAHs/PCBs
6 (field)
Total PAHs and
Total PCBs
OHM
10/26/98C
8/98
Gnd Node E6
Excavation of contaminated area
8/14/98
Post-excavation
confirmation
3 (lab)
Various PAHs
Oil/Water Separator Confirmation
7/6/98
1" Confirmation
Event
TRPH, PCBs, Lead
21 (lab and field)
Total TRPH, Vanous
and Total PCBs, and
Total Lead (lab)
Total PCBs (field)
9/2/98
2"° Confirmation
Event
PCBs, Pesticides,
PAHs, Lead
22
Various PCBs,
Pesticides, PAHs,
and Total Lead
OHM
10/5/98
3ra Confirmation
Event
PCBs, Pesticides,
PAHs, Lead
11
Various PCBs,
Pesticides and
PAHs
11/19/98
10/21/98
4lh Confirmation
Event
Pesticides
1
Vanous Pesticides
AL/7-99/WP/AndeTsen:Eco-risk_AppM_AgencyDraft.DOC 2-11 919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
Table 2 (Continued)
Summary of Excavation and Sampling Activities at
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, 1998 and 1999
Date(s)
Sample Location
Sample
Analyte(s)
Number of
_ a.b
Samples
Samples Reported
As
Memo Information0
Buned Drum Area Remediation
8/28/98
Confirmation
Sampling
(1st Confirmation
PAHs/PCBs
16 (lab and field)
Various PAHs and
PCBs (lab)
Total PAHs (field)
Event)
Dioxins
8 (lab)
WHO TEQs
9/25/98
Potholes
Screening
PAHs
21 (field)
Total PAHs
10/6-10/8/98
Excavation Walls
Screening
PAHs
3 (lab and field)
24 (field)
Various PAHs (lab)
Total PAHs (field)
OHM
12/4/98
10/20/98
Excavation Floor
Confirmation
Sampling
(2nd Confirmation
Event)
PAHs
10 (field and lab)
Various PAHs (lab)
Total PAHs (field)
12/28/98
3rd Confirmation
Event
PAHs
8 (lab)
Various PAHs
OHM
1/16/99
1/26 and
1/28/99
Test Pit
Investigation
PAHs
60 (lab)
Various PAHs
OHM
2/24/99
4/21/99
4"1 Confirmation
Event
PAHs
16 (lab)
Various PAHs
No memo issued
5/5 and
5/6/99
5"1 Confirmation
Event
PAHs
8 (lab)
Various PAHs
Miscellaneous Container Area
Segments 1 and 2
Confirmation
Sampling
PAHs
5 (lab)
5 (field)
Various PAHs (lab)
Total PAHs (field)
11/5/98
Dioxins
1 (lab)
WHO TEQs
Segments 1 and 2
Soil Stockpiles
PAHs
4 (lab)
4 (field)
Various PAHs (lab)
Total PAHs (field)
OHM
12/7/98
Dioxins
1 (lab)
WHO TEQs
11/6/98
Segment 1
Screening
PAH
8 (field)
Total PAHs
12/15 and
12/21/98
Segments 3 and 4,
Confirmation
Sampling
VOCs, SVOCs,
Pesticides,
PAHs/PCBs
5 (lab)
Various Analytes
12/21/98
Dioxins
1 (lab)
WHO TEQs
OHM
12/15 and
12/21/98
Segments 3 and 4,
Soil Stockpiles
VOCs, SVOCs,
Pesticides,
PAHs/PCBs
5 (lab)
Various Analytes
1/22/99
12/21/9B
Dioxins
1 (lab)
WHO TEQs
4/13/99
Power Pole Area,
Soil Stockpiles
VOCs, SVOCs,
Pesticides,
PAHs/PCBs
1 (lab)
Various Analytes
No memo issued j
duplicates included in the count
Laboratory analyses and in-field screening tests are indicated as "lab" and "field", respectively.
"The memo being referenced can be found in the References (Section 1.5).
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-risk_AppM_AgencyDraft.DOC
2-12
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
detections of gamma-chlordane; 4,4'-DDD; 4,4'-DDE; 4,4'-DDT; and Aroclor-1260. Assuming
an approximate 10:1 mixing of the clean fill with the on-site fill, the average concentrations of •
these constituents within the backfill soil are all less than the average concentrations for all other
soil samples from IRP Site 39 used to evaluate ecological risk (evaluating the Aroclors as total
PCB concentration). Because of the rehandling of these soils, sample HAS39S278 was not
included in the sample database used to evaluate ecological risk.
2.3.4 Data Validation
Data used in this assessment were only from those samples relevant to the conditions of the site
following past removal activities. Data validation is an after-the-fact, independent, systematic
process of evaluating data. The validation process for data from Site 39/Harmon Substation was
divided into two phases. The first phase considered field data to verify the completeness,
accuracy, and representativeness of field sampling. The second phase dealt with analytical
chemical validation. The important field data reviewed in the validation process were:
• Field logbooks
• Specific field forms for sample collection and handling
• Analytical Request/Chain-of-custody
• Field instrument calibrations
• Field personnel training
• Variances and surveillance of field activities.
The primary analytical data and parameters reviewed in the validation process were:
• Organic constituent analyses:
- Holding times and preservation
- Gas chromatography or high performance liquid chromatography performance
- Initial and continuing instrument calibration
- Surrogate recoveries
- Internal standards
- Method blanks
- Laboratory control samples
- Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates
- Compound quantitation and identification
- Field duplicate precision
• Inorganic constituent analyses:
- Holding times and preservation
- Instrument performance checks
AL/7-99AVP/Ander5 en :Eco-risk_AppM__Agcncy Draft. DOC
2-13
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
- Initial and continuing calibrations
- Matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate evaluations
- Inductively coupled plasma serial dilution and interference checks
- Laboratory control sample checks
- Duplicate sample analysis
- Compound quantitation and identification
- Field duplicate precision
A subset of the data was validated by a third party (Jacobs Engineering, Engineers and
Constructors, Sacramento, California). The remaining sample data were validated by Contractor
chemists assigned to the project experienced in data validations protocols. Detailed data quality
assessment reports are available for all data packages containing data used for risk assessment
purposes.
All post-remediation environmental sampling data were evaluated for suitability for use in the
risk assessment. Analytical results for chemicals were reported using Air Force Center for
Environmental Excellence and Contract Laboratory Program data qualifiers. Chemicals flagged
with a "U" qualifier were considered to be not detected, or detected at a concentration below the
normal, random "noise" of the analytical instrument. Estimated quantitative results such as those
identified by a "J" qualifier are used in the assessment. The "J" qualifier describes an estimated
value when a compound is present (spectral identification criteria are met), but at values less than
the contract-required quantitation limit, or when quality control samples suggest that the sample
results may be in error (e.g., when spike samples are outside of required limits or when holding
times are just outside limits). Data with a "UJ" qualifier were treated as not detected for the
purposes of data evaluation and risk assessment. If validation of the data reveals that samples
must be rejected (assigned an "R" qualifier), the rejected data were not used for the risk
assessment.
2.4 Constituents of Potential Ecological Concern
Confirmatory sampling (summarized in Table 2) was conducted in 1998 and 1999 to address
residual contamination in soil following the removal of PAH and PCB "hot spots" and other
remediation actions. These samples formed the basis for this risk assessment. Samples were
selected for inclusion in this assessment based on depth. The soil depth considered in this
assessment is 0 to 5 ft. bgs, which is expected to be the depth interval where the potential for
exposure to plants and wildlife is the greatest. When only composite boring samples
encompassing this depth interval were available for a given area, these data were also used in the
identification of COPECs and determination of exposure concentrations. The COPECs
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDrafl.DOC
2-14
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
Table 3
Soil Sampling Results and Exposure Point Concentrations
for Constituents of Potential Ecological Concern
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
Frequency of
Maximum
95-percent UCL
Constituent
na
Detection13
Concentration0
Concentration0,13
Inorganics
Lead
11
91
5.65E+1
4.41E+1
Volatile and Semivolatlle Organics
Acetone
7
43
3.70E-2
2.84E-2
Anthracene
53
11
2.94E-2
3.92E-3
Benzo(a)anthracene
54
41
4.88E+0
2.84E-1
Benzo
-------
Table 3 (Concluded)
Soil Sampling Results and Exposure Point Concentrations
for Constituents of Potential Ecological Concern
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
aNumber of samples used to determine exposure point concentrations for ecological receptors.
bIn percent
cln milligrams per kilogram soil.
dNondetections were included at one half the reported detection limit
UCL = Upper confidence limit of the mean.
Pesticides:
DDD = 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane.
DDE = 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene.
DDT = 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane.
Dioxins and furans:
TC = Tetrachloro-.
PeC = Pentachloro-.
HxC = Hexachloro-.
HpC = Heptachloro-.
DD = dibenzo-p-dioxin.
DF = dibenzofiuran.
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-risk_AppM_Agency Draft. DOC
2-16
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
identified for IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation are presented in Table 3. All detected organic
analytes were included as COPECs. These consist of VOCs, SVOCs (all being PAHs),
organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and
dibenzofurans (PCDFs). Lead (total) was the only inorganic analyte included in the
confirmatory sample analyses and was included as a COPEC. Table 3 also lists the maximum
measured concentrations from the samples evaluated for ecological risk and the 95-percent upper
confidence limits (UCL) for the COPECs. The maximum concentration was used as the most
conservative exposure point concentration, while the 95-percent UCL was used secondarily as a
conservative estimate of the mean exposure concentration for the site. For statistical
calculations, the nondetections were included at one half the reported detection limits.
2.5 Fate and Transport Potential
The potential fate and transport of chemicals in surface and subsurface soils from IRP Site
39/Harmon Substation to other locations and media is of key significance in addressing potential
exposure to ecological receptors at the site. As illustrated in the conceptual site model
(Figure 3), surface water runoff is insignificant, infiltration/percolation into groundwater is
expected to be insignificant at the site. No surface water bodies are adjacent to the site,
therefore, transport to aquatic habitats is not expected to occur. Direct contact with contaminated
soil is expected to be the major route of transfer of contaminants from environmental media to
biota. Biota exposed to COPECs at the site may serve as a food source to higher trophic level
organisms. This constitutes contaminant transport through the food web.
2.6 Ecological Receptors
Ecological receptors in this evaluation were restricted to those species that use or have the
potential to use the site either now or in the future. Because soils from the site contain
compounds that can biomagnify through the food-chain, such as chlorinated pesticides, PCBs,
dioxins, and furans, upper trophic level receptors were considered of greatest concern in this
assessment. A generalized food web for the site is presented in Figure 4. The receptors, or
groups of organisms selected, represent various levels of the trophic structure within the
terrestrial habitat of IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation. As recommended by EPA (1997), trophic
level position is emphasized to a greater extent than specific species in the selection of ecological
receptors. Although specific species are used for exposure modeling purposes, the intent is to
ensure protection of various species within a given trophic level. Emphasis is placed on
indigenous/endemic species and special status species in the selection of trophic levels and
receptor species. Because of the variety of plants at the site and the limited amount of
phytotoxicity data available in the open literature, a generic terrestrial plant will be used to
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen.Eco-risk_AppM_Agency Draft. DOC
2-17
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
represent the plant species at the site. Wildlife receptors used to represent the major trophic
levels at the site were:
• Musk shrew (Suncus murinus)—insectivorous small mammal
• Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus)—omnivorous small mammal
• Feral dog (Canis familiaris)—predatory mammal
• Mangrove monitor lizard ( Varanus indicus)—predatory reptile
• Micronesian starling (Aplonis opaca)—insectivorous bird
Musk Shrew. The musk shrew is found in Asia, as well as on Guam (McCoid et al., 1994).
Not much is known about this particular species of shrew. Information about North American
shrews, however, indicates the following about their life habits. They are small mammals that
have high metabolic rates and can consume approximately their body weight in food each day
(about 0.03 kg in the case of the musk shrew) (EPA, 1993; Silva and Downing, 1995). Most
species are primarily vermivorous (consume earthworms) and insectivorous (consume insects),
but some also eat small birds and mammals. Common food items of the shrew include
earthworms, slugs, snails, and insects. Less common are plants, fungi, millipedes, centipedes,
and arachnids. Shrews occupy a variety of habitats, including arid chaparral, open fields,
woodlots, marshy wetlands, and forest streams. Some species burrow underground while others
nest in tree stumps, logs, rocks, or debris piles (Burt and Grossenheider, 1976).
The musk shrew was selected as a receptor species because of its small size, high metabolic rate,
terrestrial nature, and insectivorous diet. The small size of the shrew makes it likely that
individuals of this species will have home ranges that are smaller than the Harmon Substation
site (i.e., less than about 8 acres). Their high metabolic rates, and the consequently high food
consumption rate, result in higher potential exposures to COPECs for shrews on the site. These
exposures through food ingestion are further emphasized in this species by its insectivorous diet
and, because it is terrestrial, by its expected high rate of incidental soil ingestion. The musk
shrew is used to represent insectivorous mammals in the potential food web at IRP Site 39 and is
used as a potential prey item for predators.
AI77-99AVP/Anders en:Eco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDra ft. DOC
2-18
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
PRIMARY
SOURCES
PRIMARY
RELEASE
MECHANISM
SECONDARY
SOURCES
SECONDARY
RELEASE
MECHANISM
PATHWAY
RECEPTOR
BIOTA
Exposure
Route
Torrestrialj Aquatic
Residual Soil
Contamination
from Past
Site Activities
Chemical
Migration
Surface and
Near-Surface
Soil
DIRECT CONTACT
Ingestion/
Uptake
•
Dermal
Contact
O
Uptake by
Biota
Food Web
Runoff
Surface Water/
Sediments
Off
Site
Insignificant Pathway
O Insignificant Exposure Pathway (not evaluated)
O Minor Exposure Pathway (evaluated qualitatively)
• Major Exposure Pathway (evaluated quantitatively)
Infiltration/
Percolation
Groundwater
Ingestion
Uptake
o
Cj
Ingestion
Cj
o
Dermal
Contact
o
o
Figure 3
Conceptual Model for Terrestrial Habitat of IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation,
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
I
-------
I
Predatory
Mammals
and Reptiles
Figure 4
Generalized Food Web for the Terrestrial Habitat at
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Anderson Air Force Base, Guam
-------
Norway Rat The Norway rat is common throughout the world in sewers and coastal wharfs.
It flourishes in areas of commerce and urban human settlement. It is a relatively large rodent
weighing about 0.25 kg and reaching 0.40 meter (m) in length. Most Norway rats are grayish-
brown but it is also familiar as the white laboratory rat. Norway rats are poor climbers and
seldom frequent trees. They nest in burrows less than two feet deep (Van Riper and Van Riper,
1982).
The Norway rat was selected as a receptor species to represent omnivorous mammals in the food
web, which are likely to comprise a larger fraction of the diet of the predators at the site than are
shrews. Like the shrew, the size of the Norway rat makes it likely that individuals of this species
will have home ranges that are smaller than the Harmon Substation site. Their broader dietary
habits and lower food requirements (per unit of body weight) provides a contrasting exposure
scenario to that of the shrew for this site. This species represents potential risks to other species
of rodents (particularly rats) that may inhabit the site.
Feral Dog. Feral dogs are domestic canines that have known little or no human contact. Not
much is known about their activities on Guam. They range freely on other Pacific islands,
sometimes in packs. These animals can be ferocious and on rare occasions have been known to
attack humans. Feral packs tend to associate in areas where human settlements are established,
such as at the edge of towns and cities (Van Riper and Van Riper, 1982). On Guam, feral dogs
are said to have reached substantial densities. It has been estimated that the population reached
30,000 at one time. Prey items include herbivorous ungulates, such as pigs, sheep, and possibly
even cattle where those are available. Other prey can include birds, domestic fowl, deer, rodents,
and monitor lizards (McCoid et al., 1994; Van Riper and Van Riper, 1982). Body weight and
size for Guam's feral dogs are unknown. Those on Hawaii are small, probably weighing about
12 kg.
The feral dog was selected to represent the larger, mammalian predators in the food web at this
site. Other such species include feral cats and (to some extent) feral pigs. These species have
been introduced into the ecosystems of Guam and have probably been detrimental to the native
species. Of these, only the feral pig is considered of economic value because it is hunted on the
island. The feral dog, however, was selected to represent this trophic guild because its smaller
size and more carnivorous diet will conservatively represent the exposures to the feral pig. Little
is known of the numbers and importance of feral cats on Guam.
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-risk_AppM_AgencyDraft.DOC 2-21
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
Mangrove Monitor Lizard. There are about 40 species of monitor lizards in the world.
Approximately two-thirds of them are from Australia and the other third is from Africa, the
Middle East, tropical Asia and some Pacific Islands (RHR, 1998). Monitors range in size from
about 0.5 to 3 m in length. They are diumal and are most commonly found in aquatic habitats.
Some monitors have been seen swimming in the ocean (Wildlife Associates, 1999). The
mangrove monitor lizard, the only monitor species found on Guam, ranges geographically from
extreme northeastern Australia, New Guinea, and the Solomon, Palau, Caroline, Marshall to the
Mariana Islands (McCoid et al., 1994). Some authorities speculate that this species was
introduced to Guam prehistorically, others estimate only 300 years ago. Evidence suggests that
monitor populations have declined on Guam since the early 1960's (McCoid et al., 1994).
On Guam, the mangrove monitor lizard reaches 1.5 m in length. It is an omnivorous and
opportunistic feeder. Documented prey items include insects, snails, rats, crabs, shrews,
earthworms, slugs, skinks and geckos and their eggs, snakes, wild birds and their eggs, domestic
fowl and their eggs, squid, toads, and the brown tree snake. The latter preys in turn on the
mangrove monitor lizard (USAF, 1995; McCoid and Witteman, 1993; McCoid et al., 1994).
Threats to the mangrove monitor lizard on Guam are believed to include the brown tree snake,
poisonous toads, feral dogs, effects of urbanization, and the effects of introduced species, such as
the declines in monitor's prey base caused by the introduced brown tree snake. It was selected as
receptor in this risk assessment because it represents the largest terrestrial predator on the island
that may predate European contact.
Micronesian starling. The Micronesian starling is a chunky, short-tailed black bird with a
heavy, slightly curved bill. The subspecies Aplonis opacus guami is endemic to the Mariana
Islands. This bird is not federally listed as threatened or endangered but is listed as endangered
by the Government of Guam. It was once the most numerous land bird on the island, but is now
found only in the housing areas at Andersen AFB and in the area to the south of the main base
(USAF, 1995). The Micronesian starling feeds mainly on papaya fruit and seeds, but will also
eat insects. It nests from January through June in the cavities of trees and rocky cliffs. Threats
to its survival include the brown tree snake, rats, and monitor lizards.
The Micronesian starling was selected to represent insectivorous birds that may forage at IRP
Site 39. Although its diet is more general, if not more herbivorous, than other possible choices,
it was selected because it is native to Guam and is listed as endangered by the Government of
Guam. In addition, it currently survives in and around urbanized areas of Andersen AFB and
therefore, has a higher potential for occurring in the area of IRP Site 39 in the future if the
AL/7-99AVP/Andersen:Eco-risk_AppM_AgencyDraft.DOC 2-22 919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
i ]. it-
populations can increase. Although the native yellow bittern (.Ixobrychus sinensis) may also
occur on site, use of the starling with similar food habits and smaller body weight make it a more
conservative receptor for exposure/risk assessment purposes. Other native species that may fill
similar roles are either highly limited in geographic range or possibly extinct. These include the
Mariana crow (Corvus kubaryi), the Guam broadbill (Myiagra freycineti), and the rufous fantail
(Rhipidura rufifrons). The Mariana crow was once common throughout Guam in forested areas
and coconut plantations, but is now confined to the localized area of limestone cliff forests at
Andersen AFB, with only about 50 individuals left (USAF, 1995). The Guam broadtail and
rufous fantail may be extinct since none have been observed in recent years.
2.7 Exposure Pathways
Routes of exposure for the ecological receptors are illustrated in Figure 3. Possible routes of
exposure include:
• Dermal
• Direct uptake by roots or through the shells of eggs
• Ingestion
• Inhalation
Ground nesting birds and lizards, small mammals, and rooting mammals, such as feral pigs, may
be dermally exposed to COPECs in surface soil at the site. Dermal exposure to birds and small
mammals is, however, expected to be limited because of their frequent grooming/preening
activities. Reptiles periodically shed their outer skin, with the frequency of shedding dependent
upon their growth rate. These provide mechanisms which are likely to reduce dermal exposure.
In order to err on the side of conservatism, incidental ingestion of soil was conservatively
overestimated in order to compensate for the absence of a quantitative evaluation of dermal
exposure for these species.
Potential uptake through the shells of bird and reptile eggs is difficult to estimate because of the
scarcity of data in this area. Researchers with the U.S. Geological Survey are currently
investigating PCB uptake through turtle shells (e.g., Henry, 1998; Gale, 1999). Although these
results have not yet been published, exposure to the developing embryo is much less than that
expected to occur through biomagnification and subsequent transference from the gravid female
to the egg (Gale, 1999). This route of exposure was not addressed in this screening assessment.
The more significant pathways are direct uptake and ingestion. Direct uptake of soil
contaminants by plant roots is expected to occur at the site. Likewise, incidental ingestion of soil
AlV7-99AVP/Andersen:Eco-risk_AppM_AgencyDraft-DOC
2-23
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
by wildlife receptors and exposure through the food web are also anticipated. Because standing
water does not exist at the site, exposure via consumption of water will not be addressed in this -
assessment. In addition, exposure in wildlife through inhalation is also considered insignificant
(Sample and Suter, 1994). Inhaled soil particles are likely to become trapped in the mucus lining
of the nasal cavity and throat, which may lead to subsequent ingestion. Absorption of COPECs
from soil particles directly through the lungs is also expected to be insignificant with respect to
daily dietary intake of soil.
Potential exposure routes for each of the selected receptors and the means by which exposure
will be addressed are presented below.
Dermal/Absorption Across Epidermis or Dennis
• Generic plant—Exposure is semi-quantitatively addressed through bioaccumulation
factors obtained from the literature.
• Micronesian starling—Dermal exposure is addressed through the use of a
conservative soil ingestion rate.
• Musk shrew—Dermal exposure is addressed through the use of a conservative soil
ingestion rate.
• Norway rat—Dermal exposure is addressed through the use of a conservative soil
ingestion rate.
• Feral dog—Dermal exposure is addressed through the use of a conservative soil
ingestion rate.
• Monitor lizard —Exposure is qualitatively addressed based on exposure of the
starling and dog to COPECs in the environment.
Oral Ingestion
• Micronesian starling—Exposure is quantitatively evaluated as ingestion of
earthworms and incidental ingestion of soil from the site.
• Musk shrew—Exposure is quantitatively evaluated as ingestion of earthworms and
incidental ingestion of soil from the site.
• Norway rat- Exposure is quantitatively evaluated as ingestion of plants and
earthworms and incidental ingestion of soil from the site.
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-risk_AppM_AgencyDraft.DOC 2-24 919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5 02 PM
-------
• Feral dog—Exposure is quantitatively evaluated as consumption of plants, shrews,
and rats and incidental ingestion of soil from the site.
• Monitor lizard—Exposure is qualitatively addressed based on comparative
exposures of the feral dog and Micronesian starling to COPECs in the environment.
2.8 Ecological Endpoints
The overall management goal for this effort is to ensure the integrity of the biological
community within the terrestrial habitats of IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation. Specifically, the
goal is to ensure protection of populations of biota that may use the site at present or in the
future. If a potential exists for a protected species to utilize the site in the future, then protection
at the individual level is also necessary. Although no protected species are currently found on
the site (Table 1), future recovery and expansion of such species (e.g., the Micronesian starling)
could change this situation. In this assessment, however, the probability of this happening in the
foreseeable future is considered small.
Assessment and measurement endpoints associated with the overall management goal are
presented in Table 4. Assessment endpoints focus on key components within the food webs and
on indigenous/endemic and protected species. Estimation of risk to plant populations is assessed
through direct comparison of soil concentrations with phytoxicity benchmark values. Potential
impacts on wildlife in this screening assessment are addressed through exposure modeling and
the estimation of risk through the comparison of exposure estimates to literature-obtained
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-risk_AppM_Agen cyDraft.DOC
2-25
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
Table 4
Ecological Endpoints
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation,
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
Management Goal
Assessment Endpoint
Measurement Endpoint
• Ensure the integrity of
biological communities
within the terrestrial
habitats of the site.
• Toxicity of soil to plants.
• Comparison of surface soil
chemistry data with phytotoxicity
benchmark values.
• Toxicity of soil to terrestrial
wildlife.
• Quotient method.
• Probability of wide-ranging
receptors adversely impacted.
toxicity information. Potential impacts on the monitor lizard are assessed qualitatively using
exposure and risk estimates for the feral dog and Micronesian starling as a conservative
approximations of risk to the lizard. In all cases, the likelihood of exposure (e.g., with respect to
degree or frequency of site use by the receptor) will also be used to evaluate potential risk to
biota.
AL/7-99/WP/Anders en:Eco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDraft.DOC
2-26
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5 02 PM
-------
3.0 Analysis
The Analysis Phase of this evaluation process focuses on the estimation of exposure and the
examination of toxicity data relevant to the COPECs and the ecological receptors of concern.
These components are key to the evaluation of potential ecological risk. Because of the absence
of site-specific biological monitoring data, exposure estimates in this assessment are based on
conservative models, and all toxicity benchmarks are based on information obtained from the
literature.
3.1 Exposure Characterization
The purpose of exposure characterization is to describe the contact or co-occurrence of biota at
the site with the COPECs. This effort focuses on specific ecological receptors and addresses the
potential for these receptors to be exposed to COPECs associated with IRP Site 39/Harmon
Substation. Ecological receptors that best represent biota associated with the habitats under
investigation were selected in Section 2.6. Components related to exposure, such as the
identification of pathways and the presentation of a conceptual model (Figure 3) and food web
(Figure 4), are also presented in Section 2.
As described in Section 2.6, ecological receptors in this assessment are exclusively terrestrial.
Plants that are exposed to COPECs through direct contact with potentially contaminated media
do not require exposure modeling. Potential risk to these organisms will be evaluated by direct
comparison of soil concentrations to toxicity benchmark concentrations for that medium.
For the shrew, rat, starling, dog, and monitor lizard the primary route of exposure was assumed
to occur through ingestion of potentially contaminated food (prey organisms) and soil from the
site. Therefore, the potential rate of exposure to COPECs was estimated through the modeling of
COPEC transfer through the food web and to the target receptor. The exposure models described
in this section are based on the habitat-specific food web shown in Figure 4. These were used to
estimate the potential daily intake of COPECs by each of the wildlife receptors. Conservatisms
were incorporated into the exposure modeling to ensure that the estimated exposures are more
likely to overestimate the actual exposure rather than to underestimate it. Receptor-specific
exposure parameters are presented in Table 5.
AL/7 -99/WP/Andersen : Eco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDraft.DOC
3-1
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5.02 PM
-------
Table 5
Exposure Factors for Ecological Receptors
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation,
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
Receptor
Species
Class/Order
Trophic
Level
Body Weight
(kg)a
Food Intake
Rateb
Incidental Soil
Intake
Dietary
Composition0
Micronesian starling
{Aplonis opaca)
Aves /
Passeriformes
Insectivore
0.0834°
0.0171
10.4%e
Earthworms: 100%
Musk shrew
(Suncus murinus)
Mammalia/
Insectivora
fnsectivore
0.03*
0.0048s
13%n
Earthworms: 100%
Norway rat
(Rattus norvegicus)
Mammalia/
Rodentia
Omnivore
0.250'
0.0140
2.4%J
Plants: 50%
Earthworms: 50%
Feral dog
(Canis familiaris)
Mammalia/
Carnivora
Carnivore
12.7K
0.555
2.8%'
Plants: 5%
Earthworms: 5%
Shrews: 10%
Rats: 80%
Mangrove monitor lizard
(Varanus indicus)
Reptilia/ Squamata,
Sauria
Carnivore
2.2m
0.00499
4.5%n
Animal prey: 100%
aBody weights are in kilograms wet weight.
In kilograms dry weight per day. Based on allometric equations from Nagy (1987), except where noted.
cDietary composition of feral dog based on information for the red fox from EPA (1993) with earthworms representing all invertebrates, shrews
substituted for birds, and rats representing all mammal prey. The dietary composition for the monitor lizard is based on the animal prey with the
highest COPEC concentration. All other species-specific estimations are based on general dietary trends and conservative assumptions.
dFrom Dunning (1993); mean of both sexes.
eFrom Beyer et al. (1994) for American woodcocks.
fFrom Silva and Downing (1995); average of both sexes for Guam.
9Based on intake rate equal to body weight with a wet-weight to dry-weight conversion factor of 0.16 (EPA, 1993)
hFrom Talmage (1999).
|From Silva and Downing (1995); mean of both sexes for Malaysia and Singapore.
'From Beyer et al. (1994) for the meadow vole.
kFrom Sample et al. (1996). Standard weight for laboratory dog.
'From Beyer et al. (1994) for the red fox.
mFrom Dryden (1965).
nFrom Beyer et al. (1994) for the box turtle.
-------
The potential daily intake of COPECs by each wildlife receptor (in milligrams per kilogram
receptor body weight per day [mg/kg-d]) was estimated from the concentrations of COPECs in -
each of the ingested media (prey and soil) and the daily ingestion rate of each medium by the
receptor. The potential rate of exposure to specific compounds was determined as the sum of the
compound-specific ingestion rates from all media. Conservatisms were incorporated into the
modeling to ensure that the estimated exposures are more likely to overestimate the actual
potential exposure rather than to underestimate it. The following describes the methods utilized
for the modeling of exposure for the wildlife receptors.
Exposure of the bird and mammals through ingestion pathways was modeled using the methods
described in the EPA's "Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook" (EPA, 1993). The basic model
for estimating the daily intake of a COPEC per kilogram of body weight (i.e., the estimated daily
dose of the COPEC) through the ingestion pathway is as follows:
D =Jh!
** BWr
where:
Drx = the estimated daily dose (mg/kg-day) of COPECs x in wildlife receptor R
Ckx = the concentration of COPECs x in the kth food type, including soil as one of these
types (in mg/kg dry weight for food and soil)
Fk = the fraction of the kth food type that is comes from the contaminated site
(assumed to be 1.0)
Ik = the ingestion rate of the kth food type (kg dry weight/day for food and soil)
N = the number of food items in the wildlife diet (including soil)
BWr = the body weight of wildlife R (kg wet weight)
When multiple food items were included in the diet, Ik was determined by multiplying the total
food ingestion rate of the receptor by the fraction of the diet composed of food item k. In the
case of soil, Ik was determined by multiplying the total food ingestion rate by the percent
incidental soil ingestion.
COPEC concentrations in plants, earthworms, shrews, and rats were modeled from the soil
concentrations used as the exposure point concentrations (either the maximum soil concentration
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDraft DOC
3-3
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
or the 95-percent UCL. These were generally modeled as linear relationships using transfer
factors; however, some were derived using empirically-derived nonlinear uptake models.
Table 6 presents the "transfer factors for the linear models and Table 7 presents the parameters for
the nonlinear models. For lead, the transfer factor for plants was from the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP, 1989), while the concentrations in the
earthworms and small mammals were based on nonlinear models (Sample et al., 1998a and
1998b). The transfer factors for the organic COPECs were principally derived from the
logarithm (log) of the octanol/ water partion coefficient (KoW), using the regression equation
from Travis and Arms (1988) for the soil-to-plant transfer factor, the equation developed by
Connell and Markwell (1990) for the soil-to-earthworm transfer factor, and the geometric mean
regression equation derived from data presented in Garten and Trabalka (1983) for small
mammals. The fraction of organic carbon in soil was conservatively estimated at 1.1 percent for
the Connell and Markwell equation. Soil samples from Operable Unit 3 showed total organic
carbon ranging from 1.1 to 12.2 percent (ICF Kaiser, 1996), with a mean of seven median values
of 4.2 percent. A fraction of body fat was conservatively estimated at 25 percent for the
estimation of whole-body COPEC concentrations in the shrew and rat. The soil-to-earthworm
transfer factors for 4,4'-DDD; 4,4'-DDE; and 4,4'-DDT were set at 0.26 based on measured
uptake reported by Beyer and Gish (1980). Dioxins and furans (as TCDD equivalent [see
Section 3.2.2]) and PCB concentrations in earthworms and dioxins and furans (as TCDD
equivalent) concentrations in small mammals were estimated using nonlinear models (Sample, et
al., 1998a; Sample, et al., 1998b).
In this assessment, exposures were initially calculated under the conservative assumption that
100% of the animal's ingestion comes from the point of maximum COPEC concentration (F*
equal to 1.0). Ninety-five percent UCL values, as exposure point concentrations, were also used
to provide a more realistic estimate of potential risk. The maximum and 95-percent UCL
concentrations of the COPECs are presented in Table 3. In addition, the potential effects of
foraging range and seasonal use on this conservative estimation are discussed in the uncertainty
and ecological significance sections of the report.
3.2 Ecological Effects Evaluation
Toxicological information was obtained from several sources in order to assess potential
ecological risk to biota at this site following exposure to the COPECs. Plant toxicity information
was primarily extracted from Efroymson et al. (1997). Wildlife toxicity reference values were
derived for birds and mammals using information presented in Sample et al. (1996) and other
AI/7-99/WP/Anderscn:Eco-risk_AppM_Agency Draft. DOC
3-4
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
Table 6
Transfer Factors for Constituents of Potential
Ecological Concern at IRP Site 39, Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
Soil-to-Plant
Soil-to-Earthworm
Small Mammal
Constituent
log Kow3
Transfer Factorb
Transfer Factor0
Uptake Factord
Inorganic
Lead
NA
9.00E-2
NL
NL
Volatile and Semivolatile Organics
Acetone
-0.24
5.33E+1
1.13E+0
1.77E-6
Anthracene
4.45
1.04E-1
1.93E+0
2.13E-2
Benzo(a)anthracene
5.61
2.22E-2
2.21 E+0
2.17E-1
Benzo(a)pyrene
6.11
1.14E-2
2.34E+0
5.91 E-1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
6.57
6.17E-3
2.47E+0
1.48E+0
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
6.84
4.31 E-3
2.54 E+0
2.55E+0
Chrysene
5.91
1.49E-2
2.28E+0
3.96 E-1
Dibenzo(a,h,)anthracene
6.50
6.78E-3
2.45E+0
1.29E+0
Fluoranthene
4.90
5.70E-2
2.03E+0
5.24 E-2
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
6.58
6.09 E-3
2.47E+0
1.51 E+0
Methylene chloride
1.25
7.34E+0
1.34E+0
3.50E-5
Phenanthrene
4.57
8.84E-2
1.96E+0
2.70E-2
Pyrene
5.32
3.26E-2
2.13E+0
1.21 E-1
Pesticides
gamma-Chlordane
6.32
8.61 E-3
2.40E+0
9.00E-1
4,4'-DDD
6.53
6.51E-3
2.60E-1e
1.37E+0
4,4'-DDE
6.53
6.51 E-3
2.60E-1e
1.37E+0
4,4'-DDT
6.53
6.51 E-3
2.60E-1*
1.37E+0
Dieldrin
5.37
3.05E-2
2.15E+0
1.34E-1
Endrin aldehyde
5.06
4.61 E-2
2.07E+0
7.21 E-2
Heptachlor epoxide
5.00
4.99E-2
2.06E+0
6.40 E-2
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Aroclor-1254
6.04
1.25E-2
NL
5.14E-1
Dioxins/Furans
TCDD
i 7.02
3.39E-3
NL
| NL
logarithm of the octanol-water partition coefficient (used only with organic constituents),
bFor organics, based on regression equation from Travis and Arms (1988). The value for lead from
NCRP (1989).
Calculated from the octanol-water partition coefficient based on the equation from Connell and Markwell
(1990), except where noted.
Based on regression of rodent uptake factors presented in Garten and Trabalka (1983) with octanol-
water partition coefficient.
eFrom Beyer and Gish (1980).
NL indicates nonlinear uptake mode! used (see Table 7 for modeling parameters).
AL/7 -99/WP / Andersen-.Eco-risk_AppM_AgencyDraft.DOC
3-5
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
Table 7
Nonlinear Model Parameters for Modeling Constituents of
Potential Ecological Concern in Earthworm and Mammal Tissues3
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
| Constituent
Bo
B,
j Earthworm models'3
1 Lead
-0.2180
0.807
PCB (Aroclor-1254)
1.410
1.361
| TCDD
3.533
1.182
| Musk shrew models0
I Lead
0.4819
0.4869
I TCDD
0.8113
1.0993
| Norway rat modelsc
I Lead
0.0761
0.4422
TCDD
0.8113
1.0993
aModels are of the form: In [tissue concentration] = B0 +B1 In [soil concentration], with
concentrations expressed as mg/kg dry weight and In is the natural logarithm.
bFrom Sample et al. (1998a).
°From Sample et al. (1998b).
literature sources and electronic databases (e.g., EPA, 1999). Much of the toxicological
information used in ecological screening assessments has been summarized elsewhere
(e.g., Eisler and Belisle^ 1996; Eisler, 1986; Sample et al., 1996). This section addresses the
specific toxicity-based reference values used in this assessment. The methodology used to derive
benchmark values in the absence of published values is also presented.
3.2.1 Plant Toxicity Reference Values
Plant toxicity benchmarks are primarily based on the information provided in Efroymson et al.
(1997) and (for PAHs) from Sims and Overcash (1983). The former are based on lowest-
observed-adverse-effect-levels (LOAEL) using 20 percent reduction in growth as the endpoint
and are limited to tests in soil, rather than tests using solutions. Although based on LOAELs,
these benchmarks are considered conservative and appropriate to the screening level assessment.
The endpoint is sublethal and reductions in plant growth may have no significant effects on the
reproductive potential or the continued existence of a plant population. Futhermore, these
benchmarks are primarily based on studies in which the chemical of interest is added freshly to a
soil (in the case or inorganics, often as the most soluble salt) and is typically more bioavailable
than the COPECs that have had a chance to bind with soil particles or are in a less soluble form.
Toxicity values specific to plants are presented in Table 8.
AL/7-99/WP/AndersemEco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDraft.DOC ^-6 919689.21.00 60 30 7/28/99 5 02 PM
-------
3.2.2 Wildlife Toxicity Reference Values
As recommended by EPA (1997), no-observed-adverse-effects levels (NOAEL) for chronic oral
exposure were used as benchmarks for toxic effects to wildlife (Table 8). NOAELs are defined
as the maximum dosage tested that produced no effect that would be considered adverse to the
long-term viability of the population. Therefore, the endpoints of particular interest in the
underlying studies are those associated with reproductive health, development, and mortality.
The methodology used to derive receptor-specific NOAELs is described below (Sample et al.,
1996).
NOAELw = NOAELt
' BWt Y
BW.
v y
where:
NOAELw = the no-observed-adverse-effect-level for the wildlife receptor species
(mg/kg-day)
NOAELy = the no-observed-adverse-effect-level for the test species (mg/kg-day)
BWj =: the body weight of the test species (kg)
BWw = the body weight of the wildlife receptor species (kg)
s = the class-specific scaling factor (s = 0.06 for mammals and -0.20 for birds
[Sample and Arenal, 1999])
Toxicity studies were considered to be chronic if they are conducted over a period of 26 weeks
(one half year) or more. Studies of lesser duration (i.e., 1 to 25 weeks) were considered
subchronic, unless they specifically included reproductive effects as endpoints (Sample et al.,
1996). When only subchronic oral NOAEL values were available, they were converted to
chronic NOAEL values by applying an uncertainty factor of 0.1 (Sample et al., 1996).
In cases when only a chronic LOAEL value was available for test data, an uncertainty factor of
0.1 is used to convert it to the chronic NOAEL. If only a subchronic LOAEL was available, then
an uncertainty factor of 0.01 is used to estimate the chronic NOAEL. This uncertainty factor is
the product of two uncertainty factors of 0.1, one to convert the subchronic value to a chronic
value and the other to convert the LOAEL to an NOAEL.
AL/7 -99/WP/Andersen:Eco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDraft DOC
3-7
919689 21 00 60.30 7/28/99 5 02 PM
-------
>
c
r
Q.
a
3
3
2
§
b
o
o
Table 8
Toxicity Benchmark information for Constituents of Potential
Ecological Concern at IRP Site 39, Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
Constituent of Potential
Ecological Concern
Plant
Benchmark8
Mammalian NOAELs
Avian NOAELs
Mammalian
Test Species'*
Test Species
NOAELb,c
Test Species
Body Weightb,d
Avian
Test Speciesb
Test Species
NOAELb,c
Test Species
Body Weightb,d
Inorganic
Lead
50®
Rat
8.0
0.35
Japanese quail
1.13
0.15
Volatile and Semivolatile Organics
Acetone
t
Rat
10.0
0.35
...
Anthracene
189
Mouse*1
100h
0.03
...
Benzo(a)anthracene
189
Mouse'
1.01
0.03
...
Benzo(a)pyrene
18g
Mouse
1.0
0.03
...
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
189
Mouse
1.01
0.03
—
...
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
189
Mouse'
i.o'
0.03
—
Chrysene
189
Mouse
1.o'
0.03
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
189
Mouse
1.o"
1.06
Fluoranthene
18s
Mouse
12.5h
0.03
...
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
18s
Mouse'
1.01
0.03
...
Methylene chloride
Rat
5.85
0.35
Phenanthrene
189
Mouse'
1.0*
0.03
—
Pyrene
189
Mouse*1
7.5h
0.03
...
...
Pesticides
gamma-Chlordane
—
Mouse
4.6
0.03
Red-winged blackbird
2.14
0.064
4,4'-DDD
—
Rat
0.8
0.35
Brown pelican
0.0028
3.5
4,4-DDE
—
Rat
0.8
0.35
Brown pelican
0.0028
3.5
4,4'-DDT
—
Rat
0.8
0.35
Brown pelican
0.0028
3.5
Pesticides
Dieldrin
—
Rat
0.02
0.35
Barn owl
0.077
0.466
Endrin aldehyde'
—
Mouse
0.092
0.03
Screech owl
0.01
0.181
00
V©
C7"1
00
S>
W
O
£
-o
2
-------
Table 8 (Continued)
Toxicity Benchmark Information for Constituents of Potential
Ecological Concern at IRP Site 39, Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
Constituent of Potential
Ecological Concern
Plant
Benchmark8
Mammalian NOAELs
Avian NOAELs
Mammalian
Test Speciesb
Test Species
NOAELb,c
Test Species
Body Weightb,d
Avian
Test Speclesb
Test Species
NOAELb'°
Test Species
Body Welghtb,d
Heptachlor epoxide1"
Mink
0.1
1.0
—
.
___
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Aroclor1254 408 Oldfield mouse
0.068
0.014
Ring-necked pheasant
0.18
1 0
Dioxins/Furans
2,3,7,8-TCDD —
Rat
0.000001
0.35
Ring-necked pheasant
2.14
1.0
aln milligrams per kilogram soil.
bFrom Sample et al. (1996), except where noted.
cln milligrams per kilogram body weight per day.
dln kilograms.
eFrom Efroymson etal. (1997).
designates insufficient toxicity data.
9From Sims and Overcash (1983).
hBased upon a toxicity Information from EPA (1999),
'insufficient toxicity data available for this compound,
'insufficient toxicity data available for this compound.
klnsufficient toxicity data available for this compound
The NOAEL for benzo(a)pyrene is used as a default.
The NOAEL for edrin is used as a default.
The NOAEL for heptachlor is used as a default.
-------
When possible, NOAELs for the wildlife receptor species were derived from test species that are
taxonomically close to the target receptor. Therefore, bird NOAELs were derived from avian
test species and mammal NOAELs were derived from mammalian test species. The chemical-
specific NOAELs from toxicity studies that were used to derive toxicity reference values for the
shrew, rat, dog, and starling are presented in Table 8.
Total dioxin-like toxicity for the wildlife receptors was based on the usage of wildlife toxicity
equivalency factors (TEF) for PCDDs and PCDFs, as recommended by the World Health
Organization (Van den Berg et al., 1998; EPA, 1998b). These TEFs are presented in Table 9.
TEFs were multiplied by site-specific concentrations measured in soil and the summed toxicity
equivalency (TEQ) used in the estimation of exposure. The toxicity values specific to 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) was used as the reference value is assessing the potential
risk from exposure to all dioxins/furans.
3.2.3 Reptilian Toxicity Data
Toxicological effects data for lizards and reptiles, in general, are very limited (Meyers-Schone,
in prep.). Available data are primarily limited to radiation dose and biomarker studies with little
information on how such effects relate to survival or reproduction, key toxicity endpoints for the
evaluation of potential population level effects. Most reptilian toxicity data is specific to turtles.
Information relevant to the PCBs indicate that turtles are able to store high concentrations of
chlorinated organics (e.g., PCBs and organochlorine pesticides) in fat tissues without apparent
adverse effects (Bishop et al., 1995). This may be associated with lower amounts of liver
microoxygenase activity in turtles than in mammals (Walker and Ronis, 1989). In addition, the
toxicity of organophosphate pesticides to reptiles appears more similar to that of birds than
mammals (Hall and Clark, 1982). Because of the scarcity of reptilian ecotoxicological data and
the evidence that, in some cases, reptiles may be as or less sensitive to specific chemicals than
birds and mammals, potential risks to the monitor lizard was qualitatively assessed using the risk
results from the Micronesian starling and feral dog.
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen Eco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDrafl DOC
3-10
919689.21 00.60.30 7/28/99 5 02 PM
-------
Table 9
TCDD Toxicity Equivalency Factors for the Birds and Mammals3
Dioxin/Furan
Mammalian TEF
Avian TEF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
0.01
<0.001
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
0.01
0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
0.01
0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
0.1
0.05
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
0.1
0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
0.1
0.01
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
0.1
0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
0.01
0.01
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
0.1
0.1
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1
1
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
0.05
0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
0.1
0.1
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
0.5
1
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1
1
2,3,7,8-TCDF
0.1
0.1
OCDD
0.0001
—
OCDF
0.0001
0.0001
aToxicity equivalency factors from EPA (1998b) and Van den Berg (1998).
HpCDD = Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
HpCDF = Heptachlorodibenzofuran.
HxCDD = Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
HxCDF = Hexachlorodibenzofuran.
OCDD = Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
OCDF = Octachlorodibenzofuran.
PeCDD = Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
PeCDF = Pentachlorodibenzofuran.
TCDD = Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
TCDF =Tetrachlorodibenzofuran.
TEF = Toxicity Equivalency Factor.
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDraft DOC
3-11
919689.2] .00 60.30 7/28/99 5.02 PM
-------
Ji
4.0 Risk Characterization
The assessment of potential risk is the culmination of the screening assessment. Risk
characterization in this assessment is divided into a direct comparison of estimated exposures to
toxicity-based benchmark screening values (the hazard quotient [HQ] assessment), an analysis of
the uncertainties associated with the HQ predictions of risk, and a final evaluation of the
ecological significance associated with the prediction of potential risk. The HQs are based on
exposures estimated from both the maximum and 95-percent UCL soil concentrations.
4.1 Risk Estimation
Potential risks to a trophic level are inferred when exposure to a particular receptor species is in
excess of the benchmark. Specific comparisons include the following:
• COPEC concentrations in soil samples compared to plant benchmark values (as
HQs).
• HQs for wildlife
• Risk to the monitor lizard based on comparisons of exposures to those of the
Micronesian starling and feral dog.
HQs were used to evaluate potential risks to plants, musk shrew, Norway rat, Micronesian
starling, and feral dog. HQs are specific to a particular receptor for exposure to a particular
COPEC. For the sword grass, the HQ is the ratio of the soil concentration to the plant toxicity
benchmark concentration. For the wildlife receptors, the HQ is defined by:
Exposure
HQ —
Benchmark
where:
HQ = the hazard quotient (unitless)
Exposure = the estimated dose of the COPEC for the receptor (in mg/kg-day)
Benchmark = the toxicological benchmark for the COPEC and receptor (in
mg/kg-day)
AL77-99WP/Anders etr.Eco-risk_AppM_AgencyDrafl.DOC
4-1
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
The HQ is greater than 1.0 when the estimated exposure to a COPEC for a receptor exceeds the
toxicological benchmark for that receptor. Because conservatism is employed to generally
overestimate exposure and underestimate the toxicity threshold represented by the benchmark,
HQ values greater than 1.0 do not necessarily indicate risk to the receptor; however, increasing
magnitude of the HQ above 1.0 indicates an increasing potential that risk may exist. HQ values
less than 1.0 were used to justify the exclusion of specific receptor/chemical pairs from further
consideration.
4.2 Risk Results
Table 10 presents the HQs for the ecological receptors modeled at IRP Site 39/Harmon
Substation based on exposure point concentrations represented by the maximum measured soil
concentrations. Based on the maximum concentrations, HQs for the plant were slightly greater
than 1 for lead and fluoranthene. Due to the lack of plant toxicity information, HQs for plant
could not be determined for the YOCs (acetone and methylene chloride), pesticides, and
dioxins/furans. In the musk shrew, HQs greater than 1 were found for benzo(a)anthracene,
phenanthrene, Aroclor-1254, and TCDD, with the first three being less than 3 and the last being
greater than 2,000. The Micronesian starling showed HQs greater than 1 for lead; 4,4'-DDD;
4,4'-DDE; 4,4'-DDT, and TCDD, although HQs for this receptor could not be determined for
any of the VOCs, SVOCs, and heptachlor epoxide due to the lack of avian-specific toxicity data.
The HQs for 4,4'-DDE and TCDD were relatively high (76 and 152, respectively) for this
receptor. In the Norway rat and the feral dog, only the HQ for TCDD exceeded unity; however,
the values for these HQs were 422 and 128, respectively. The COPECs that did not show HQs
greater than unity when the exposures were based on the maximum measured soil concentrations
were dropped from further consideration as potential ecological risk drivers in this assessment.
Table 11 presents the HQs for the ecological receptors modeled at IRP Site 39/Harmon
Substation with the 95-percent UCL being used as the exposure point concentration. For these
cases (limited to those COPECs that indicated potential risk based on the maximum soil
concentrations), none of the HQs for plants exceed unity. HQs for phenanthrene and TCDD still
exceed unity for the musk shrew, the former being less than 2, but the latter exceeding 100. In
both the Norway rat and feral dog, only TCDD showed HQs greater than unity (24.3 and 8.5,
respectively). With the exception of 4,4'-DDD, the Micronesian starling had HQs greater than 1
for the same COPECs as found with the exposures to the maximum concentrations; however, the
HQs for TCDD and 4,4'-DDT were less than 10, and that for 4,4'-DDE was less than 20.
AL/7-99AVP/Andersen:Eco-risk_AppM_AgencyDraft.DOC
4-2
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
Table 10
Hazard Quotients Based on Exposures to Maximum Measured
. Soil Concentrations for Constituents of Potential
Ecological Concern at IRP Site 39, Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
Musk
Norway
Micronesian
Feral
Constituent
Plant
Shrew
Rat
Starling
Dog
Inorganics
Lead
1.13E+0
4.87E-1
9.81 E-2
5.45E+0
6.22 E-2
Volatile and Semivolatile
Organics
Acetone
—
6.41 E-4
5.52E-3
—
5.52 E-4
Anthracene
1.63E-3
9.70E-5
1.94E-5
—
3.62E-6
Benzo(a)anthracene
2.71E-1
1.82E+0
3.53E-1
—
2.71 E-1
Benzo{a)pyrene
4.86E-3
3.45E-2
6.65E-3
—
1.25E-2
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
7.00E-3
5.23E-2
1.01 E-2
—
4.58E-2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
2.28 E-3
1.76E-2
3.39E-3
—
2.61 E-2
Chrysene
2.28E-3
1.59E-2
3.06 E-3
—
3.98E-3
Dibenzo(a,h,)anthracene
2.67E-3
1.98E-2
3.81 E-3
—
1.51 E-2
Fluoranthene
1.11E+0
5.51 E-1
1.08E-1
—
3.01 E-2
lndeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene
1.15E-2
8.60E-2
1.66E-2
—
7.68E-2
Methylene chloride
—
4.26E-5
5.02E-5
—
5.27E-6
Phenanthrene
3.83E-1
2.31 E+0
4.59E-1
—
9.32E-2
Pyrene
7.72E-1
6.72E-1
1.30E-1
—
6.30 E-2
Pesticides
gamma-Chlordane
—
1.67E-4
3.22E-5
4.31 E-4
9.01 E-5
4,4-DDD
—
1.41 E-3
2.25E-4
1.18E+Q
1.01 E-3
4,4'-DDE
—
9.09E-2
1.45E-2
7.60E+2
6.54E-2
4,4-DDT
—
5.53E-3
8.86E-4
4.62E+1
3.98E-3
Dieldrin
—
1.34E-1
2.59E-2
7.19E-2
1.35E-2
Endrin aldehyde
—
1.91E-2
3.74 E-3
2.60E-1
1.26 E-3
Heptachlor epoxide
—
1.40E-2
2.75E-3
—
8.58E-4
Polychlorinated Biphenyis
Aroclor-1254
5.20 E-3
1.26 E+0
2.42 E-1
9.45E-1
3.99E-1
Dioxins/Furans
TCDD equivalent
—
2.14E+3
4.22E+2
1.52E+2
1.28E+2
Bold indicates hazards quotients greater than 1.
— indicates insufficient toxicity information to determine the hazard quotient.
A177-99AVP/Anderscn:Ec o-risk_AppM_AgcncyDrafl.DOC 4.3
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
Table 11
Hazard Quotients Based on Exposures to 95-Percent Upper
Confidence Limit Soil Concentrations for Constituents of Potential
Ecological Concern at IRP Site 39, Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
Constituent
Plant
Musk
Shrew
Norway
Rat
Micronesian
Starling
Feral
Dog
Inorganics
Lead
8.82E-1
3.94 E-1
7.93E-2 4.42E+0 5.37E-2
Volatile and Semivolatile Organics
Benzo( a )anthracene
1.58E-2
1.06 E-1
2.05E-2
—
1.58E-2
Fluoranthene
6.89E-2
3.43E-2
6.74E-3
—
1.87E-3
Phenanthrene
2.45E-1
1.47E+0
2.93E-1
—
5.96E-2
Pesticides
4,4'-DDD
—
6.58E-4
1.05E-4
5.50E-1
4.74E-4
4,4-DDE
—
2.30E-2
3.68E-3
1.92E+1
1.66E-2
4,4'-DDT
—
2.69E-3
4.30E-4
2.24E+0
1.93E-3
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Aroclor-1254
1.15E-3
1.68E-1
3.18E-2
1.25E-1
8.63E-2
Dioxins/Furans
TCDD equivalent
1.24E+2
2.43E+1 9.41 E+0
8.50E+0
Bold indicates hazards quotients greater than 1.
— indicates insufficient toxicity information to determine the hazard quotient.
Because of the lack of reptile-specific toxicity information, HQs for the mangrove monitor lizard
could not be calculated. However, potential risk to this receptor was evaluated qualitatively by
comparison of the exposure rates (in mg/kg-d) of the monitor with those of the Micronesian
starling and feral dog. Table 12 presents these exposure rates. Based on the study by Dryden
(1965), the mangrove monitor lizard has a diverse diet, including both invertebrates and
vertebrates; however, plants were not recorded in the stomachs of these lizards except as detritus.
Therefore, the monitor lizard's exposure was based on a diet consisting entirely of one animal
prey type, either earthworms, musk shrews, or Norway rats. The prey type was determined by
the maximum COPEC concentration among these prey types, thereby maximizing the estimated
exposure in the monitor. As seen in Table 12, the estimated exposures in the mangrove monitor
lizard are all less than those of the feral dog and Micronesian starling. In the latter case, they are
typically one to two orders of magnitude less. These data indicate that unless reptiles are much
more highly sensitive to the COPECs at IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation than are birds and
mammals, risk to the monitor lizard is expected to be less than to the Micronesian starling and
probably less than that to the dog.
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-risk_AppM_AgencyDraft DOC
4-4
919689.21.00.60 30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
Table 12
Comparison of Exposures in the Mangrove Monitor Lizard to
Those in the Feral Dog and Micronesian Starling for
Constituents of Potential Ecological Concern,
IRP Site 39, Harmon Substation
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
Constituent
Micronesian Starling
Exposure
(mq/kg-d)
Feral Dog
Exposure
(mg/kg-d)
Mangrove Monitor Lizard
Exposure
(mg/kg-d)a
Inorganic
Lead
5.48E+0
4.01E-1
5.30E-2
Volatile and Semivolatile
Organ ics
Acetone
9.32E-3
4.45E-3
9.81 E-5
Anthracene
1.23E-2
2.52E-4
1.32E-4
Benzo(a )anthracene
2.31 E+0
1.88E-1
2.49E-2
Benzo(a)pyrene
4.38E-2
8.71 E-3
8.08E-4
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
6.64E-2
3.18E-2
3.05E-3
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
2.23E-2
1.82 E-2
1.76E-3
Chrysene
2.01 E-2
2.77E-3
2.50E-4
Dibenzo(a,h,)anthracene
2.51 E-2
1.05E-2
1.00E-3
Fluoranthene
8.72E+0
2.61 E-1
9.37 E-2
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
1.09E-1
5.34E-2
5.13E-3
Methylene chloride
3.63E-4
2.48E-5
3.85E-6
Phenanthrene
2.926+0
6.4 9 E-2
3.13E-2
Pyrene
6.38E+0
3.29E-1
6.86E-2
Pesticides
gamma-Chlordane
9.73E-4
2.88E-4
2.72E-5
4,4'-DDD
1.10E-2
4.87E-3
4.66E-4
4,4'-DDE
7.08E-1
3.14E-1
3.01 E-2
4,4'-DDT
4.31 E-2
1.91 E-2
1.83 E-3
Dieldrin
3.92E-3
2.18E-4
4.22 E-5
Endrin aldehyde
2.23E-3
8.06E-5
2.40E-5
Heptachlor epoxide
2.19E-3
7.37E-5
2.36E-5
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Aroclor-1254
1.04E-1
1.80 E-2
1.66E-3
Dioxins/Furans
TCDD equivalent
1.30E-3
1.03E-4
3.49E-5
aBased on 100 percent consumption of prey with maximum constituent concentration.
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-risk_AppM_AgencyDraftDOC 4,5
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
4.3 Uncertainty Analysis
A wide variety of factors contribute to the uncertainty associated with this ecological risk
evaluation. Uncertainty is inherent in all aspects of the risk process, including the selection of
indicator species, the estimation of exposure in these selected receptors, the characterization of
potential ecological effects related to this exposure, and the final evaluation of risk to these
receptors. For this assessment, conservatism was incorporated at many points in the process to
provide assurance that these uncertainties do not lead to an underestimation of the actual risk to
the ecological receptors at a site. Conservatisms, therefore, are more likely to lead to an
overestimation of the actual risk posed by the COPECs at a site. This is especially true when
multiple conservatisms are used, resulting in a multiplicative effect on the overestimation of risk.
For this reason, the interpretation of the risk results of this evaluation must be made in light of
the potential effects of the conservatisms used in obtaining the risk result. The purpose of this
evaluation is to identify whether COPECs can be eliminated from further consideration based on
a high probability that the HQs exceeding unity in Table 11 can be attributed to conservative
assumptions used in the estimation of exposure and/or the determination of the toxicity
benchmark rather than indicating actual risk to ecological receptors.
A general area of uncertainty for all HQs in this assessment is the bioavailability of the COPECs
at the site. In general, toxicity tests are performed using chemical amendments to food or soil
that are highly available to the test organism. It is conservatively assumed in this assessment that
the COPECs in the soil at IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation are as available as those in the test
organisms used to determine the toxicity benchmark. Under field conditions, however, depth,
age, and soil characteristics will affect bioavailability, generally making the COPECs less
available to receptors than in the laboratory conditions. The potential effects of other
uncertainties on specific HQ results are further discussed below.
The 95-percent UCL of phenanthrene in the soil at IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation resulted in an
HQ of 1.47 for the musk shrew. A principal source of uncertainty in this HQ is that
phenanthrene-specific toxicity information could not be found; therefore, the toxicity benchmark
is conservatively based on the NOAEL of benzo(a)pyrene, which is relatively highly toxic to
wildlife. Other conservatisms incorporated in this HQ are the use 100 percent earthworm
ingestion for the shrew, the use of the low-range total organic carbon content in the soil (which
maximizes the soil-to-earthworm transfer factor), and the use of the 95-percent UCL of the soil
concentrations as the exposure point concentration, which is approximately 1.8-times higher than
the calculated mean soil concentration of phenanthrene. These factors, in combination, are
AL/7-99AVP/Andersen:Eco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDraft DOC
4-6
919689 21 00 60 30 7/28/99 5 02 PM
-------
sufficient to indicate that the probably of risk to the musk shrew and other insectivorous small
mammals from exposure to phenanthrene at IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation is negligible.
The 95-percent UCL of lead in the soil at IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation resulted in an HQ of
4.42 for the Micronesian starling. A principal source of uncertainty in this HQ is the use of the
most conservative NOAEL as the toxicity benchmark for this receptor. The NOAEL is based on
a study that used Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) which found the LOAEL to be 11.3 mg/kg-
d) and the NOAEL (corresponding to the next lower dose tested, using increments of 1 Ox) to be
1.13 mg/kg-d (Sample et al., 1996). Another study, using American kestrels (Falco spar\>erius)
found a NOAEL of 3.85 mg/kg-d (Sample et al., 1996). Neither of these test species is more
closely related to the Micronesian starling than the other. Using the NOAEL from the American
kestrel, the HQ for the starling would be 1.26. Another conservatism incorporated in this HQ is
the use 100 percent earthworm ingestion for the starling (which does eat a variety of food types,
including plant material). The estimated concentration of lead in earthworms (at the 95 percent
UCL soil concentration) is about 4 times greater than that in plants, indicating that a more
realistic dietary mix for this receptor will further reduce its estimated exposure. These factors
are sufficient to indicate that the probably of risk to the Micronesian starling and other
insectivorous birds from exposure to lead at IRP Site 39/Harmon substation is negligible.
The 95-percent UCLs for 4,4'-DDE and 4,4'-DDT in the soil at IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation
also resulted in an HQ greater than unity for the Micronesian starling. The principal source of
uncertainty in these HQs is the use of the most conservative NOAEL as the toxicity benchmark
for this receptor. The NOAEL is based on a field study of brown pelican (Pelecanus
occidentalis) reproduction success as related to DDT concentrations in fish. This study found a
NOAEL of 0.0028 mg/kg-d (Sample et al., 1996); however, other potentially toxic constituents
were also present in these fish. A controlled study using American kestrels found a LOAEL of
0.87 mg/kg-d (Peakall et al., 1973), from which a NOAEL of 0.087 mg/kg-d has been estimated
(EPA, 1995). Neither of these test species is more closely related to the Micronesian starling
than the other. The less conservative toxicity benchmark results in HQs for 4,4'-DDE and 4,4'-
DDT of 0.321 and 0.0374, respectively. Therefore, actual risk to the Micronesian starling (and
other insectivorous birds) from exposure to these two compounds is dubious. Furthermore, as
with lead, the concentrations of4,4'-DDE and 4,4'-DDT in earthworms are about 40-times
greater than the concentrations in plants. Therefore, a more realistic dietary mix for this species
will significantly reduce the predicted exposure.
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-risk_AppM_AgencyDraft.DOC
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
The 95-percent UCLs for the dioxins and furans (as TCDD equivalent) in the soil at IRP Site
39/Harmon Substation resulted in HQs greater than unity for all ecological receptors for which -
toxicity information was available (excludes sword grass and the mangrove monitor lizard). The
HQs ranged from 8.5 (for the feral dog) to 124 (for the musk shrew). One source of uncertainty
for these HQs is the use of TEQs to evaluate all dioxins and furans on the basis of an estimated
equivalence to TCDD. The TEFs upon which the TEQs are based are essentially "order-of-
magnitude"-level approximations of relative toxicity and therefore may lead to significant
overestimations or underestimations of risk. The use of TEQs to estimate risk for total dioxins
and furans also assumes that the toxic effects are additive for the included compounds (Van den
Berg et al., 1998).
Another source of uncertainty in these HQs is the derivation of the toxicity benchmark values for
TCDD (upon which the final HQ is based). For this assessment, the toxicity benchmarks for
TCDD in both mammals and birds are based upon studies which there was a 10-fold difference
between the LOAEL concentration and the NOAEL concentration. Because the NOAEL-based
HQs for the Micronesian starling and feral dog were less than 10, the HQs for the LOAEL would
be less than unity for these receptors and related receptors.
Other sources of uncertainty in the TCDD HQs include receptor diets that emphasize animal prey
over plants and the use of 95-percent UCLs to calculate the exposure point concentrations rather
than the means. For TCDD, concentrations in earthworms are estimated to be 767-times those in
plants. Therefore, the dietary mix can significantly affect the exposure estimation. If the
calculated means of the samples are used to determine the exposure point concentration (as
TCDD-equivalent), the HQs for the shrew, rat, starling, and dog are 45.9, 8.99, 3.75, and 3.31,
respectively. One sample (HAS39S155), which was included in the database for this assessment,
had questionably high concentrations for PCDDs and PCDFs. Resampling of this location did
not confirm these high concentrations (OHM, February 11, 1999). Excluding this sample (but
retaining the resample data) reduces the means for the PCDDs and PCDFs such that the HQs for
the shrew, rat, starling, and dog are 15.6, 3.04,1.81, and 1.19, respectively. Although the
combined effects of these factors make the possibility for the existence of actual risk to the
Micronesian starling, the feral dog, and (probably) the Norway rat from exposure to dioxins and
furans dubious, they may not be sufficient to eliminate the possible existence of risk to the musk
shrew. This is also true for other species contained within the trophic levels that these animals
represent.
A L77-99/WP/Anders en:Eco-nsk_AppM_Agency Draft.DOC 4_g 959689.21 00 60.30 7/28/99 5.02 PM
-------
4.4 Ecological Significance
This section involves the examination of the conservatism assumptions incorporated into the
prediction of risk as ihey relate to the biological and ecological factors associated with the
receptors within the context of the existing site conditions. Aspects that are addressed include
the following:
• Foraging range/home range
• Seasonal use patterns
• Habitat quality
• Population level impacts
• Community level impacts
IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation is approximately 8 acres in area, and is highly disturbed due to
past site use, remediation, and surrounding land use. The results of this risk assessment indicate
that continued colonization of the site by plants will not be inhibited by residual chemicals in the
soil. In fact, future succession of the plant community is largely dependent upon future use
and/or disturbance of the site and surrounding areas. Based on current conditions, the site is not
expected to revert to a native vegetation climax community. Exposures in all wildlife receptors
were estimated based on the assumptions that the foraging range of the receptor equaled the size
of the site (i.e., the home range factor equaled 1), that no differences in use exist between
seasons (i.e., the seasonal use factor equals 1), and that the COPECs at this site are 100 percent
bioavailable. The size and remoteness of Guam, and the generally nonseasonal character of its
climate indicate that the assumption of nonseasonal use of the site by the wildlife receptors valid.
Also, as stated earlier, the assumption of a home range factor of 1 is probably valid for the musk
shrew and Norway rat. Most birds of the size of the Micronesian starling have home ranges
greater than 8 acres (Schoener, 1968), although such species as the American robin (Turdus
migratorius) and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), which are about the size of the
Micronesian starling, can have territorial ranges less than 8 acres. Therefore, it is likely that the
assumption of a home range factor of 1 for the starling results in an overestimation of the
expected exposure to these or similarly sized birds, especially given the poor quality of the
habitat at this site; however, this assumption cannot be ruled out as an extreme case. Similarly,
the range of a large mangrove monitor lizard probably exceeds the size of the site. However,
based on the relationship between body size and home range in lizards found by Turner et al.
(1969), monitors of about 200 grams or less could have home ranges smaller than this site. Wild
canids, such as coyotes (Canis latrans) (to use as a model for the feral dog) have home ranges of
6 square miles (approximately 4,000 acres) or more (Lindstedt et al., 1986). Therefore, the
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen.Eco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDraft.DOC
4-9
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
assumption of a home range use factor of 1 for this species and similar species will lead to large
overestimations of exposure.
Whether the current habitat conditions allow for these wildlife receptors or similar species to be
present on the site is not known. The site is of poor habitat quality and its use by wildlife will be
inhibited by these conditions and by surrounding development and land use. The results of this
assessment assume the site could support a sufficient food-base of earthworms to allow
insectivorous mammals, birds, and reptiles to be completely supported by the habitat on the site. .
Based on the current site conditions, this assumption is highly conservative. Furthermore, the
toxicity benchmarks used in this assessment are based on effects to individuals. For both TCDD
and 4,4'-DDT and its metabolites, the endpoints of these benchmarks are reduced reproduction.
Because of the small size of the site and its location in disturbed habitat, it is unlikely that the
few individuals that may be affected by exposures at this site will significantly affect local
population size or the local biological community. Although the Micronesian starling is listed as
endangered, and therefore, risks to individuals is of concern, it does not currently occur on the
site. Under current conditions, therefore, risks to this species are considered negligible.
4.5 Scientific/Management Decision Point
Once HQs are calculated and comparisons are made against screening criteria, the evaluation of
ecological risk is examined to determine the reasonableness of the risk prediction. A risk
management decision is made based on potential risk and the remedial options currently being
considered. Possible risk management decisions, according to EPA (1997), are as follows:
• There is adequate information to conclude that the ecological risks are negligible
and the ecological risk evaluation supports no further investigation or remediation
• There are sufficient lines of evidence to document potential or actual adverse
ecological effects. Thus, additional data collection and a revision of the risk
assessment or remediation may be warranted
• There is insufficient information to make an ecological screening decision, and site-
specific data needs should be re-evaluated and additional data should be collected
Each of the listed decisions are evaluated and a recommendation made based exclusively on
information obtained through the ecological risk assessment itself.
The results of this screening level assessment indicate no inorganics, volatile organic
compounds, PAHs, or PCBs present significant risk to terrestrial receptors at this site. Potential
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDraft.DOC
4-10
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
risks to insectivorous birds from exposures to 4,4'-DDT and 4,4'-DDE were initially identified
under the most conservative modeling conditions; however, the evaluation of uncertainties
associated with these predictions makes such predictions of risk dubious. The screening level
assessment identified potential risk to all wildlife receptors from exposures to dioxins and furans.
Factors associated with uncertainties and ecological significance support the conclusions that
these risk predictions for the Micronesian starling and feral dog (and thereby indirectly predicted
for the mangrove monitor lizard) are overestimations and that the actual risks are negligible.
This may also be true for the Norway rat, but the musk shrew, if present on the site, may be
adversely affected by dioxins and furans. Because the site is small and highly disturbed, and is
not located in important natural habitat, and because neither the Norway rat nor the musk shrew
represent ecologically significant receptor species or trophic levels (all other small mammals,
except for a few species of bats, are considered pest-species on Guam), it is concluded that the
overall ecological risks at this site are negligible and that there is adequate information to
conclude that no further investigation or remediation are required.
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-risk_AppM_Agency Draft. DOC
4-11
919689.2! 00 60 30 7/28/99 5.02 PM
-------
5.0 Summary
This screening level ecological risk assessment was performed in accordance with federal and
regional EPA guidance on ecological risk assessment (EPA, 1992; EPA, 1997; EPA, 1998a;
Callahan, 1998). Both conservative and realistic assumptions were used in the evaluation of
potential risk to biota that may use the site either at present or in the future. Ecological receptors
selected to represent key trophic levels at the site were a generic plant, musk shrew, Norway rat,
feral dog, Micronesian starling, and the mangrove monitor lizard. Emphasis in this assessment
was on the protection of upper trophic levels species. The results of this screening level
assessment indicate no inorganic analytes (limited to lead), volatile organic compounds, PAHs,
or PCBs present significant risk to terrestrial receptors at this site.
Potential risks to insectivorous birds from exposures to 4,4'-DDE and 4,4'-DDT were initially
identified under the most conservative modeling conditions; however, the evaluation of
uncertainties associated with these predictions makes such predictions of risk dubious and the
actual risk is probably negligible. The screening level assessment identified potential risk to all
wildlife receptors from exposures to dioxins and furans. Factors associated with uncertainties
and ecological significance support the conclusions that these risk predictions for the
insectivorous bird and predatory mammal (and thereby indirectly predicted for the predatory
reptile) are overestimations and that the actual risks to these receptors are negligible. This may
also be true for the omnivorous small mammal, but the predicted risk to the insectivorous small
mammal was relatively high, and if this species is present on the site, it may be adversely
affected by exposure to dioxins and furans through a diet high in earthworms. However, because
the site is small (approximately 8 acres), highly disturbed, and is not located in important natural
habitat, and because the small mammals do not represent ecologically significant or protected
species, it is concluded that the overall ecological risks at this site are negligible and that there is
adequate information to conclude that no further investigation or remediation are required.
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-risk_AppM_Agency Draft DOC
5-1
919689.21.00.60.307/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
6.0 References
Action Memorandum. March 12, 1998. Written to request and document approval of the
proposed removal action for Site 39/Harmon Substation.
Beyer, W.N., and C.D. Gish, 1980, "Persistence in Earthworms and Potential Hazards to Birds of
Soil Applied DDT, Dieldrin, and Heptachlor," Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 17, pp. 295-307.
Beyer, W.N., E.E. Connor, and S. Gerould. 1994, "Estimates of Soil Ingestion by Wildlife,"
Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 58, pp. 375-382.
Bishop, C.A., D.R.S. Lean, R.J. Brooks, J.H. Carey, and P. Ng, 1995, "Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons in Early Life Stages of the Common Snapping Turtle {Chelydra serpentina
serpentina) from a Coastal Wetland on Lake Ontario Canada," Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, Vol. 14, pp. 421-42.
Burt, W.H., and R.P. Grossenheider, 1976. A Field Guide to the Mammals, 3rd Edition. The
Peterson Field Guide Series, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Callahan, C. Personal communication. December. 1998
Connell, D.W., and R.D. Markwell, 1990, "Bioaccumulation in the soil to earthwonn system,"
Chemosphere, Vol. 20, pp. 91-100.
Dryden, G.L., 1965, "The Food and Feeding Habits of Varanus indicus on Guam. Micronesiea
Vol. 2, pp. 73-76.
Dunning, J.B. 1993. CRC Handbook of Avian Body Masses. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. (EA), January 1998a, "Agency Draft Site
Characterization Summary Report for IRP Site 39/ Harmon Substation, Andersen Air Force
Base, Guam."
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. (EA), January 1998b, "Final Summary of
Investigations Performed at IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation for Andersen Air Force Base,
Guam."
Eisler, R., 1986, "Polychlorinated Biphenyl Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: a
Synoptic Review," Contaminated Hazard Review Report No. 7. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C.
Eisler, R., and A. A. Belisle, 1996, "Planar PCB Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: a
Synoptic Review," Contaminated Hazard Review Report No. 31. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C.
A1/7-99/WP/Anderscn:Eco-risk_AppM_AgcncyDraft.DOC ] 919689.21.00 60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
Efroymson, R.A., M.E. Will, G.W. Suter, II, and A.C. Wooten, 1997, "Toxicological
Benchmarks for Screening Contaminants of Potential Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants: .
1997 Revision," ES/ER/TM-85/R3, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
EPA, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Gale, R., U.S. Geological Survey, Personal Communication, 1999.
Garten, C.T., Jr., and J.R. Trabalka, 1983, "Evaluation of Models for Predicting Terrestrial Food
Chain Behavior of Xenobiotics," Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 17, pp. 590-595.
Hall, R.J. and D.R. Clark, Jr., 1982, "Responses of the Iguanid Lizard Anolis carolinensis to
Four Organophosphate Pesticides," Environmental Pollution (Series A), Vol. 28, pp. 45-52.
Henry, P., U.S. Geological Survey, Personal communication. October 1998.
Hirsh, H., 1997, "Memorandum for CEVR, regarding OHM Remediation Services Permit
Request," Civil Engineering Squadron, U.S. Air Force, Andersen, Air Force Base, Guam.
ICF Kaiser, See ICF Kaiser Engineer's Group.
ICF Kaiser Engineer's Group (ICF Kaiser), 1996, "Final Remedial Investigation Report,
Operable Unit 3, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam," Andersen Air Force Base, Guam.
ICF Technology, Inc., 1994, "Natural Resources Survey Report, Volume I & II," Andersen Air
Force Base, Guam. February.
Lindstedt, S.L., B.J. Miller, and S.W. Buskirk, 1986, "Home Range, Time, and Body Size in
Mammals," Ecology, Vol. 67, pp. 413-418.
McCoid, M.J., R.A. Hensley, and G.J. Witteman, 1994, "Factors in the Decline of Varanus
indicus on Guam, Mariana Islands," Herpetological Review, Vol. 25, pp. 60-61.
McCoid, M.J., and G.J. Witteman, 1993, " Varanus indicusHerpetological Review, Vol. 24,
pp. 105.
Meyers-Schdne, L., in prep, "Ecological Risk Assessment Using Reptiles," Chapter 15.
Ecotoxicology of Reptiles and Amphibians. C. Bishop, D. Sparling, and G. Linder, eds., SET AC
Press. Pensacola, FL.
Mink, J.F., 1976, "Groundwater Resources of Guam: Occurrence and Development," WRRC
Technical Report 1. 285 pp.
Nagy, K.A., 1987, "Field Metabolic Rate and Food Requirement Scaling in Mammals and
Birds," Ecological Monographs. 57:111-128.
AIV7-99/WP/Anders en:Eco-nsk_AppM_Agency Draft. DOC
6-2
919689.21.00 60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), 1989, "Screening
Techniques for Determining Compliance with Environmental Standards: Releases of
Radionuclides to the Atmosphere," NCRP Commentary No. 3, Revision of January 1989,
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland.
NCRP, see National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.
OHM, see OHM Remediation Services Coip.
OHM Remediation Services Corp. (OHM), March 12, 1998, "Action Memorandum, Proposed
Interim Remedial Actions, IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam."
OHM Remediation Services Corp. (OHM), September 11,1998, Memo from D. F. DeSario
(OHM Project TM) to J. Poland (Andersen AFB Remedial PM) and J. Hill (AFCEE) titled,
"Preliminary Results of the Site Wide Surface Soil Sampling and Dioxin Analysis."
OHM Remediation Services Corp. (OHM), October 23,1998, Memo from D. F. DeSario
(OHM Project TM) to J. Poland (Andersen AFB Remedial PM) and J. Hill (AFCEE) titled,
"IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Remediation of the PAH Hot Spot at 'C2'."
OHM Remediation Services Corp. (OHM), October 26,1998a, Memo from D. F. DeSano
(OHM Project TM) to J. Poland (Andersen AFB Remedial PM) and J. Hill (AFCEE) titled,
"IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Remediation of the PAH Hot Spot at 'A6'."
OHM Remediation Services Corp. (OHM), October 26,1998b, Memo from D. F. DeSario
(OHM Project TM) to J. Poland (Andersen AFB Remedial PM) and J. Hill (AFCEE) titled,
"IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Remediation of the PAH Hot Spot at the 'Stormwater
Outfall'."
OHM Remediation Services Corp. (OHM), October 26,1998c, Memo from D. F. DeSario
(OHM Project TM) to J. Poland (Andersen AFB Remedial PM) and J. Hill (AFCEE) titled,
"IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Remediation of the PAH Hot Spot at 'E6'."
OHM Remediation Services Corp. (OHM), November 19,1998, Memo from D. F. DeSario
(OHM Project TM) to J. Poland (Andersen AFB Remedial PM) and J. Hill (AFCEE) titled,
"IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Oil/Water Separator Confirmation Sampling."
OHM Remediation Services Corp. (OHM), December 4, 1998, Memo from D. F. DeSario
(OHM Project TM) to J. Poland (Andersen AFB Remedial PM) and J. Hill (AFCEE) titled,
"IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Buried Drum Area Remediation."
OHM Remediation Services Corp. (OHM), December 7, 1998, Memo from D. F. DeSario
(OHM Project TM) to J. Poland (Andersen AFB Remedial PM) and J. Hill (AFCEE) titled,
"IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Miscellaneous Container Area Remediation."
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-nsk_AppM_AgencyDraft DOC 5.3 919689.21.00 60 30 7/28/99 5 02 PM
-------
OHM Remediation Services Corp. (OHM), January 16,1999, Memo from D. F. DeSario
(OHM Project TM) to J. Poland (Andersen AFB Remedial PM) and J. Hill (AFCEE) titled,
"IRP Site 39/Harmon~Substation, Buried Drum Area Remediation."
OHM Remediation Services Corp. (OHM), January 22,1999, Memo from D. F. DeSario
(OHM Project TM) to J. Poland (Andersen AFB Remedial PM) and J. Hill (AFCEE) titled,
"IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Miscellaneous Container Area Remediation - Segments 3
& 4."
OHM Remediation Services Corp. (OHM), February 11, 1999, Memo from D. F. DeSario
(OHM Project TM) to J. Poland (Andersen AFB Remedial PM) and J. Hill (AFCEE) titled,
"IRP Site 39/Harmon Substation, Dioxin Sampling."
OHM Remediation Services Coip. (OHM), February 24,1999, Memo from D. F. DeSario (OHM
Project TM) to J. Poland (Andersen AFB Remedial PM) and J. Hill (AFCEE) titled, "IRP Site
39/Harmon Substation, Buried Drum Area Test Pit Investigation."
OHM Remediation Services Corp. (OHM), April 29,1999, Memo from D. F. DeSario
(OHM Project TM) to S. Guha (Risk Assessor) titled, "Site 39/Harmon Substation Risk
Assessment Information Package."
Peakall, D.B., J.L. Lincer, R.W. Risebrough, J.G. Pritchard, and W.B. Kinter, 1973,
"DDE-Induced Egg-Shell Thinning: Structural and Physiological Effects in Three Species,"
Comp. Gen. Pharmacol. Vol. 4, pp. 305-313.
Pratt, H.D., P.L. Bruner, and D.G. Berrett, 1989, A Field Guide to the Birds of Hawaii and the
Pacific, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 409 pp.
RHR, see Rolling Hills Refuge.
Richman, L., 1999, Guam Environmental Protection Agency, March 1999, Personal
Communication.
Rolling Hills Refuge (RHR), 1998, Internet page www.rhrwildlife.com. Salinas, Kansas.
Sample, B.E., and C.A.Arenal, 1999, "Allometric Models for Inter-Species Extrapolation of
Wildlife Toxicity Data," Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 62, pp.
653-663.
Sample, B.E., and G.W. Suterll, 1994, "Estimating Exposure of Terrestrial Wildlife to
Contaminants," ES/ER/TM-125, Risk Assessment Program, Health Sciences Research Division,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko, and G.W. Suter II, 1996, "Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife:
1996 Revision," ES/ER/TM-86/R3, Risk Assessment Program, Health Sciences Research
Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-risk_AppM_AgencyDraft.DOC
6-4
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
Sample, B.E., J.J. Beauchamp, R.A. Efroymson, G.W. Suter, II, and T.L. Ashwood, 1998a,
"Development and Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Earthworms," ES/ER/TM-220,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Sample, B.E., J.J. Beauchamp, R.A. Efroymson, and G.W. Suter, II, 1998b, "Development and
Validation of Bioaccumulation Models for Small Mammals," ES/ER/TM-219, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Schoener, T.W., 1968, "Sizes of Feeding Territories Among Birds," ," Ecology, Vol. 49,
pp. 123-141.
Silva, M., and J. A. Downing, 1995, CRC Handbook of Mammalian Body Masse, CRC Press,
Baca Raton, FL.
Sims, R.C., and M.R. Overcash, 1983, "Fate of Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds (PNAs) in
Soil-Plant Systems," Residue Reviews, Vol. 88, pp. 1-67.
Talmage, S., 1999, Oak Ridge National Laboratories, personal communication, June 1999.
Tracey, J.I., Jr., Schlanger, S.O., Stark, J.T., Doan, D.B., and May, H.G., 1964, "General
Geology of Guam," U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 403-A, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington
Travis, C.C., and A.D. Arms, 1988, "Bioconcentration of Organics in Beef, Milk, and
Vegetation," Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 22, pp. 271-274.
Turner, F.B., R.I. Jennrich, and J.D. Weintraub, 1969, "Home Ranges and Body Size of
Lizards," Ecology, Vol. 50, pp. 1076-1081.
USAF, see U.S. Air Force.
U.S. Air Force (USAF), December 1995, "Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, Mariana Islands," 36 Air Base Wing, Civil Engineering
Squadron.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1992, "Framework for Ecological Risk
Assessment," EPA/630/R-92/001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment
Forum. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1993, "Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook"
EPA/600/R-93/J87a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1995, "Technical Support Document for the
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule: Risk Assessment for Human and Ecological Receptors,"
WHWP-50001, Office of Solid Waste, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-risk_AppM_AgencyDraft.DOC
6-5
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1997, "Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments," Interim Final..
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Response Team. Edison, New Jersey.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1998a, "Guidelines for Ecological Risk
Assessment," EPA/630/R-95/002F, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment
Forum. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1998b, "Report from the Workshop on the
Application of 2,3,7,8-TCDD Toxicity Equivalency Factors to Fish and Wildlife,"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1999. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
On-line database, maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1995, "Integrated Natural Resources Management
Plan for Andersen Air Force Base, Guam," December.
USFWS, see U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Van den Berg, M., L. Bimbaum, A.T.C. Bosveld, B. Brunstrom, P. Cook, M. Feeley, J.P. Giesy,
A. Hanberg, R. Hasegawa, S.W. Kennedy, T. Kubiak, J.C. Larsen, F.X.R. Van Leeuwen,
A.K.D. Liem, C. Nolt, R.E. Peterson, L. Poellinger, S. Safe, D. Schrenk, D. Tillitt, M. Tysklind,
M. Younes, F. Warn, and T. Zacharewski, 1998, "Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for PCBs,
PCDDs, PCDFs for Human and Wildlife," Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 106,
pp. 775-792.
Van Riper, S.G., and C. van Riper III, 1982, A Field Guide to the Mammals in Hawaii, The
Oriental Publishing Company, Honolulu, HI.
Virginia Tech, 1998, Fish and Wildlife Information Exchange Page, Internet Web Site
http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/WWW/esis/index.htm
Walker, C.H. and J.J. Ronis, 1989, "The Monooxygenases of Birds, Reptiles, and Amphibians,"
Xenobiotica, Vol. 19, pp. 1111-1121
Ward, P.E., Hoffman, S.H., and David, D.A., 1965, "Hydrology of Guam," U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 403-H, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Wildlife Associates, 1999, Internet page www.wildlifeassociates.org. Pacifica, California.
Young, F.J., 1988,1988 Soil Survey of Territory of Guam, United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in Cooperation with Guam Department of Commerce and
University of Guam.
AL/7-99/WP/Andersen:Eco-risk_AppM_AgencyDraft.DOC
6-6
919689.21.00.60.30 7/28/99 5:02 PM
-------