SDMS DOCID # 1150011

THE UNITED STATES NAVY INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM

FINAL

RECORD OF DECISION FOR SITES 63, 64, AND 77 SITE-WIDE OPERABLE UNIT

ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, GUAM

December 2010

THE UNITED STATES NAVY INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM

FINAL

RECORD OF DECISION FOR SITES 63, 64, AND 77 SITE-WIDE OPERABLE UNIT

ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, GUAM

December 2010

I Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources. gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and review ing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of I information, including suggestions for reducing the burden. to the Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704·0188}. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number . PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION. j 1. REPORT DATE (00-MM-YYYY) , 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To} 12-2010 Final 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Final Record of Decision for Sites 63 , 64, and 77, FA8903-08-D-879 l Site-Wide Operable Unit, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam 5b. GRANT NUMBER

I 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER ] Brenda Nuding, Summer Barbina, and Scott Moncri ef, P.O. AJJY20087006S2

5e. TASK NUMBER ] Task Order 0002 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME[$) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8 . PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 1 EA Engineering, Science, & Technology, Inc. NIA 1 P.O. Box 4355, Andersen AFB, Yigo, Guam 96929-4355 9 . SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(Sl AND ADDRESS(ESl 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment AFCEE I Unit 14007 APO AP 96543-4007 11 . SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) I NIA 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT ] Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 13 . SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 1 14. ABSTRACT This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedies for Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Sites 63, 64, and 77 located in the Site-Wide Operable Unit at Andersen AFB, Guam. This ROD summa1izes the history, enviro1m1ental background, extent of contamination, associated human health and ecological risks, public involvement, and rationale for the preferred remedies for Sites 63, 64, and 77. I

15. SUBJECT TERMS - Andersen AFB - Public Involvement - No Acti on 1 - Installation Restoration Program - Record of Decision 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF : 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c . THIS PAGE ABSTRACT OF PAGES ] u u u uu 1 9b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

St andard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39. 18

Table of Contents

Table of Contents...... i List of Tables ...... iv List of Figures...... v Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... vi

1.0 Declaration ...... 1-1

1.1 Site Name and Location...... 1-1 1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose...... 1-1 1.3 Assessment of Sites...... 1-2 1.4 Description of Selected Remedies ...... 1-2 1.5 Statutory Determinations ...... 1-3 1.6 Data Certification Checklist...... 1-4 1.7 Authorizing Signatures ...... 1-4

2.0 Decision Summary ...... 2-1

2.1 Site Names, Locations, and Descriptions ...... 2-1 2.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities ...... 2-2 2.3 Community Participation...... 2-3 2.4 Scope and Role of Operable Unit ...... 2-4 2.5 Site Characteristics...... 2-5

2.5.1 Physiography and Climate ...... 2-5 2.5.2 Geology and Hydrogeology ...... 2-6 2.5.3 Surface Water Hydrology ...... 2-7 2.5.4 Ecology ...... 2-7 2.5.5 Previous Site Characterization Activities ...... 2-8 2.5.6 Nature and Extent of Contamination ...... 2-10 2.5.7 Conceptual Site Model...... 2-12

2.6 Current and Potential Future Land and Resource Uses ...... 2-12

2.6.1 Land Use ...... 2-12 2.6.2 Ground and Surface Water Uses...... 2-13

2.7 Summary of Site Risks...... 2-14

2.7.1 Site 63 ...... 2-17

2.7.1.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment for Site 63 ...... 2-17 2.7.1.2 Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment for Site 63 ...... 2-18

2.7.2 Site 64 ...... 2-19

Final Record of Decision i December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

2.7.2.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment for Site 64 ...... 2-19 2.7.2.2 Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment for Site 64 ...... 2-20

2.7.3 Site 77 ...... 2-20

2.7.3.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment for Site 77 ...... 2-20 2.7.3.2 Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment for Site 77 ...... 2-21

2.7.4 Basis for Action – Sites 63, 64, and 77...... 2-21

2.8 Remedial Action Objectives ...... 2-22

2.8.1 Site 63 ...... 2-22 2.8.2 Site 64 ...... 2-22 2.8.3 Site 77 ...... 2-22

2.9 Description of Alternatives for Sites 63, 64, and 77...... 2-23

2.9.1 Description of Remedy Components ...... 2-23 2.9.2 Common Elements and Distinguishing Features of Each Alternative...... 2-25 2.9.3 Expected Outcome of Each Alternative...... 2-25

2.10 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives for Sites 63, 64, and 77...... 2-25

2.10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment...... 2-26 2.10.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements...... 2-27 2.10.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence ...... 2-27 2.10.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment ...... 2-28 2.10.5 Short-Term Effectiveness ...... 2-28 2.10.6 Implementability ...... 2-29 2.10.7 Cost ...... 2-29 2.10.8 State/Support Agency Acceptance...... 2-30 2.10.9 Community Acceptance...... 2-30

2.11 Principal Threat Wastes ...... 2-30 2.12 Selected Remedies for Sites 63, 64, and 77...... 2-30

2.12.1 Summary of the Rationale for the Selected Remedies...... 2-31 2.12.2 Description of the Selected Remedies for Sites 63, 64, and 77 ...... 2-32 2.12.3 Summary of Estimated Remedy Cost ...... 2-37 2.12.4 Expected Outcomes of Selected Remedies...... 2-38

2.13 Statutory Determinations for Sites 63, 64, and 77...... 2-38

2.13.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment...... 2-38 2.13.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements...... 2-39 2.13.3 Cost Effectiveness...... 2-39 2.13.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies ....2-40

Final Record of Decision ii December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

2.13.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element...... 2-41 2.13.6 Five-Year Review Requirements ...... 2-41

2.14 Documentation of Significant Changes ...... 2-41

3.0 Responsiveness Summary ...... 3-1

3.1 Stakeholder Comments and Lead Agency Responses...... 3-1 3.2 Technical and Legal Issues ...... 3-2

4.0 References ...... 4-1

Appendices

Appendix A Federal Facility Agreement Change Letters Appendix B Notice of Public Meeting and Document Availability

Final Record of Decision iii December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

List of Tables

Table 1-1 Data Certification Summary. Table 2-1 Public Notification of Document Availability. Table 2-2 Public Comment Period Requirements. Table 2-3 Non-Cancer Toxicity Data – Oral/Dermal. Table 2-4 Non-Cancer Toxicity Data – Inhalation. Table 2-5 Chemical-Specific Parameters. Table 2-6 Cancer Toxicity Data – Oral/Dermal. Table 2-7 Cancer Toxicity Data – Inhalation. Table 2-8 Summary of Contaminants of Concern and Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentrations for Site 63. Table 2-9 Site 63 Risk Characterization Summary – Non-Carcinogens. Table 2-10 Summary of Contaminants of Concern and Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentrations for Site 64. Table 2-11 Site 64 Risk Characterization Summary – Non-Carcinogens. Table 2-12 Summary of Contaminants of Concern and Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentrations for Site 77. Table 2-13 Site 77 Risk Characterization Summary – Non-Carcinogens. Table 2-14 Site 77 Risk Characterization for Ecological Receptors. Table 2-15 Common Elements and Distinguishing Features of Alternatives for Sites 63, 64, and 77. Table 2-16 Expected Outcome of Each Alternative at Sites 63, 64, and 77. Table 2-17 Summary of Pertinent Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and To Be Considered for Sites 63, 64, and 77. Table 2-18 Cost Estimate for Surface Soil Removal Alternative, Site 63, Andersen AFB, Guam. Table 2-19 Cost Estimate for Land Use Controls Alternative, Site 64, Andersen AFB, Guam. Table 2-20 Cost Estimate for Soil Removal Alternative, Site 77, Andersen AFB, Guam. Table 2-21 Description of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and To Be Considered for the Selected Remedy for Sites 63 and 77. Table 2-22 Description of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and To Be Considered for the Selected Remedy for Site 64.

Final Record of Decision iv December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Location Map of Guam. Figure 1-2 Location Map of Northwest Field and Main Base, Andersen AFB, Guam. Figure 1-3 Location Map of Sites 63, 64, and 77, Northwest Field and Main Base on Andersen AFB, Guam. Figure 2-1 Boundary of Site 63, Andersen AFB, Guam. Figure 2-2 Boundary of Site 64, Andersen AFB, Guam. Figure 2-3 Boundary of Site 77, Andersen AFB, Guam. Figure 2-4 Recommended Cleanup Areas for Site 63, Andersen AFB, Guam. Figure 2-5 Recommended Cleanup Areas for Site 64, Andersen AFB, Guam. Figure 2-6 Recommended Cleanup Area for Site 77, Andersen AFB, Guam. Figure 2-7 Human Health Conceptual Site Model for Sites 63, 64, and 77, Andersen AFB, Guam. Figure 2-8 Ecological Risk Conceptual Site Model for Sites 63, 64, and 77, Andersen AFB, Guam. Figure 2-9 Land Use Control Boundary for Site 64, Andersen AFB, Guam.

Final Record of Decision v December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AFB Air Force Base AR Administrative Record ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement

BCO Base Commanding Officer BGP Base General Plan bgs below ground surface BTV Background Threshold Value

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CES Civil Engineer Squadron CFR Code of Federal Regulation COC contaminant of concern COPC contaminant of potential concern CSM conceptual site model

DSI detailed site inventory

EA EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. ESD Explanation of Significant Difference ESI/VSI Expanded Source Investigation/Visual Site Inspection

F degrees Fahrenheit FFA Federal Facility Agreement FS Feasibility Study

GRA general response action Guam EPA Guam Environmental Protection Agency

HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Table HHRA human health risk assessment HI hazard index

ICF ICF Technology, Inc. ID identification IEUBK Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic IRIS Integrated Risk Information Systems IRP Installation Restoration Program

Final Record of Decision vi December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

lcy loose cubic yard LTGM Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring LUC land use control LUCMP Land Use Control Management Plan

g/kg microgram per kilogram MARBO Marianas/Bonins Command MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MEC munitions and explosives of concern mg/kg milligram per kilogram MMRP Military Munitions Response Program msl mean sea level

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response OU Operable Unit

PA/SI Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PRG Preliminary Remediation Goal

RA release assessment RAO remedial action objective RG remedial goal RI Remedial Investigation ROC receptor of concern ROD Record of Decision RSL Regional Screening Level

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 SLERA screening level ecological risk assessment SVOC semivolatile organic compound

TBC to be considered

URS URS Group, Inc. USAF United States Air Force USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USN United States Navy

VOC volatile organic compound

Final Record of Decision vii December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

This page is intentionally left blank

Final Record of Decision viii December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

1.0 Declaration

1.1 Site Name and Location

Facility Name: Andersen Air Force Base (AFB), Guam Site Location: Yigo, Guam Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Identification (ID) Number: GU6571999519 Operable Unit/Site: Three Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites located in the Site-Wide Operable Unit (OU): Site 63, Site 64, and Site 77

1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose

This decision document presents the selected remedies for IRP Sites 63, 64, and 77, located at Andersen AFB, Yigo, Guam (Figures 1-1 through 1-3). The selected remedies were chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the Administrative Record (AR) for these sites, including pertinent IRP documents, correspondence, and material related to the CERCLA investigations and cleanups.

This document is issued by the United States Navy (USN)1, as the lead agency. The USN is managing remediation of contamination at the Site-Wide OU sites listed above in accordance with CERCLA as required by the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP). The USN and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have jointly selected the remedies and the Guam Environmental Protection Agency (Guam EPA) has concurred with the decision, under the guidelines established in the Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) signed in

1 The Department of Defense is in the process of realigning installation management functions at Andersen AFB. On October 1, 2009, pursuant to the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report, administrative custody of all real property on Andersen AFB and responsibility for installation support functions, including Environmental Restoration Program responsibilities, transferred within the Department of Defense from the Department of the Air Force to the Department of the Navy. Title to Andersen AFB real property will remain with the United States and the Air Force will continue to utilize the Base. The Navy will also utilize portions of the Base. In accordance with the April 15 2008, Department of Defense Environmental Supplemental Guidance for Implementing and Operating a Joint Base, at the time of property transfer the Navy, as the new property manager at the Base, assumed responsibility "for all existing and future environmental permits, requirements, plans, and agreements" at the Base (Ch. 1.1.2) and was required to "honor all existing, previously negotiated Federal Facility Agreements in place" (Ch. 2.17.5 of the Guidance).

In January 2009, the Navy and the Air Force entered into a separate Memorandum of Agreement, which delegated installation support and authority back to the Air Force General who is the Andersen BCO under the authority, control, and direction of the Joint Region Commander, who is a Navy Admiral. This delegation includes the authority to sign RODs. The Andersen BCO and Andersen environmental staff continue to administer the FFA under Navy direction. Both the Air Force and the Navy notified USEPA of the change of administrative responsibility under the FFA (See Appendix A). Final Record of Decision 1-1 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam February 1993 by representatives of the USEPA Region 9, Guam EPA, and the United States Air Force (USAF) (USEPA et al., 1993).

1.3 Assessment of Sites

The response actions selected for Sites 63, 64, and 77 in this Record of Decision (ROD) are necessary to protect the public health or welfare or the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment.

1.4 Description of Selected Remedies

The USN has determined that remedial actions are required for Sites 63, 64, and 77 based on the results of a previously conducted Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI) (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. [EA], 2006) for Sites 63 and 64; an Expanded Source Investigation/Visual Site Inspection (ESI/VSI) (ICF Technology, Inc. [ICF], 1996), 1994 Phase I Release Assessment (RA) (URS Group, Inc. [URS]/EA, 2000), and 2003 Phase II RA (Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation/EA, 2005) for Site 77; followed by a Remedial Investigation (RI)/Feasibility Study (FS) (EA, 2009b) that included the three sites (Sites 63, 64, and 77).

The proposed remedial alternatives were developed and evaluated for Sites 63, 64, and 77 through an FS (EA, 2009b). Based on the results of the FS, the USN selected Soil Removal as the preferred alternative for Sites 63 and 77 and Land Use Controls as the preferred alternative for Site 64. The major components of the selected response actions are presented below:

Site Selected Remedial Action Performance Standard 63 Excavation and offsite disposal of 480 lcy RGs for antimony (94 mg/kg), copper (2,890 mg/kg), of metal- impacted surface soil lead (400 mg/kg), and zinc (2,350 mg/kg) 64 Land Use Controls  Prevent future residential exposures to chromium in subsurface soil at concentrations greater than the RG (1,310 mg/kg)  Prohibit the development and use of property for residential housing, elementary and secondary schools, child care facilities, and playgrounds  Limit and control any future excavation activities at the site (e.g., worker requirements, soil management, waste disposal) 77 Excavation and offsite disposal of RG for antimony (94 mg/kg) and lead (400 mg/kg) 1,248 lcy of antimony and lead-impacted soil. Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) will be managed in compliance with the Joint Region Marianas Explosives Safety Submission (JRM ESS). NOTE: lcy = loose cubic yard mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram RG = remedial goal

Final Record of Decision 1-2 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

1.5 Statutory Determinations

This section describes how the selected remedies satisfy the statutory requirements of CERCLA, §121 and the regulatory requirements of the NCP.

Site 63 and 77

The selected remedy for Sites 63 and 77, Soil Removal, is protective of human health and the environment, complies with promulgated requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost effective. The selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions can be used in a practicable manner at a site. It provides the best balance or trade-off in terms of balancing criteria, while also considering the bias against offsite treatment and disposal and considering state and community acceptance.

The NCP expects that treatment that reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the principal threat wastes will be used to the extent practicable. The principal threat concept refers to the source materials at a CERCLA site considered to be highly toxic or highly mobile that generally cannot be reliably controlled in place or present a significant risk to human health or the environment should exposure occur. A source material is material that contains hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that act as a reservoir for migration of contamination to groundwater or air, or that acts as a source for direct exposure. The selected remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy. The Soil Removal alternative does not include treatment, although excavation and offsite disposal would reduce the mobility and volume of contaminants of concern (COCs). If necessary, based upon the waste characterization sampling, the excavated soil at Sites 63 and 77 may be treated (e.g., stabilization) to meet disposal requirements of the receiving facility. MEC will be managed in accordance with the JRM ESS.

Because the selected remedy for Sites 63 and 77 will not result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining onsite at concentrations above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a five-year review will not be required.

Site 64

The selected remedy for Site 64, Land Use Controls, is protective of human health and the environment, complies with promulgated requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost effective.

The selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions can be used in a practicable manner at a site. It provides the best balance or trade-offs in terms of balancing criteria, while also considering the bias against offsite treatment and disposal and considering state and community acceptance.

Final Record of Decision 1-3 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

The NCP expects that treatment that reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the principal threat wastes will be used to the extent practicable. The principal threat concept refers to the source materials at a CERCLA site considered to be highly toxic or highly mobile that generally cannot be reliably controlled in place or present a significant risk to human health or the environment should exposure occur. A source material is material that contains hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that act as a reservoir for migration of contamination to groundwater or air, or that acts as a source for direct exposure. The selected remedy of Land Use Controls does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy because COC-impacted soil will remain onsite untreated.

Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining onsite above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory review will be conducted for Site 64 within 5 years after initiation of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy is, or will be, protective of human health and the environment.

1.6 Data Certification Checklist

The information included in the Decision Summary section (Section 2) of this ROD is summarized in Table 1-1. Additional information can be found in the AR file for Andersen AFB, which is available for public review at two information repositories that are located at the Robert F. Kennedy Library on the University of Guam campus, and the Nieves M. Flores Memorial Library in Hagåtña.

1.7 Authorizing Signatures

The following signature sheets document the decision by the USN and USEPA Region 9 to select Soil Removal as the remedial action for Sites 63 and 77 and Land Use Controls as the remedial action for Site 64, Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam, and the concurrence of Guam EPA in that decision.

Final Record of Decision 1-4 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam This signature sheet documents the USN and Andersen AFB co-selection of Soil Removal as the remedial action for Sites 63 and 77 and Land Use Controls as the remedial action for Site 64, Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam.

Date Brigadier General, USAF Base Commanding Officer2

2 Under Delegation of Authority from Commander Joint Region Marianas. See Footnote L Final Record of Decision l-5 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

This page is intentionally left blank

Final Record of Decision 1-6 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam This signature sheet docwnents the USEP A Region 9 co-selection of Soil Removal as the remedial action for Sites 63 and 77 and Land Use Controls as the remedial action for Site 64, Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam.

Angeles errera Date Assistant Director, Federal Facilities and Site Cleanup Branch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9

Final Record ofDecision 7 December 20 I 0 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

This page is intentionally left blank

Final Record of Decision 1-8 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam This signature sheet documents the Guam EPA concurrence in the selection of Soil Removal as the remedial action for Sites 63 and 77 and Land Use Controls as the remedial action for Site 64, Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam.

ERIC M. PALACIOS Date Administrator Guam Environmental Protection Agency

Final Record ofDecision 1-9 Decembe1· 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU. An

This page is intentionally left blank.

Final Record of Decision 1-10 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

2.0 Decision Summary

The Decision Summary identifies the selected remedies for Sites 63, 64, and 77, explains how the selected remedy fulfills statutory and regulatory requirements, and provides a substantive summary of the AR file that supports the remedy selection decision.

2.1 Site Names, Locations, and Descriptions

The following section presents descriptions of each of the three sites and their locations.

Site 63

Full Site Name: IRP Site 63 CERCLIS ID Number: GU6571999519 Site Location: Yigo, Guam Site Type: Former Waste Pile

Site 63 covers an area of approximately 8 acres, and is located approximately 2,000 feet northeast of IRP Site 21 (Figure 2-1). Site 63 is presently inactive, and was reportedly used for the disposal of waste materials, domestic trash, and excess equipment between 1946 and 1956. Site 63 is located within the Munitions Storage Area, which is actively secured by a chain-link fence and entry is restricted to authorized personnel only. Site 63 is not actively in use, and is rarely frequented by explosive ordnance disposal personnel. The terrain at Site 63 consists of shallow limestone bedrock with meager soil cover, but the surrounding area is also USAF property and is moderately to densely vegetated.

Site 64

Full Site Name: IRP Site 64 CERCLIS ID Number: GU6571999519 Site Location: Yigo, Guam Site Type: Former Chemical Storage Area

Site 64 is located approximately 3,500 feet west of the Base Sanitary Landfill and approximately 500 feet north of the petroleum, oil, and lubricants line between markers 21.4 and 21.6 kilometers (Figure 2-2). The site covers an area of approximately 3.5 acres. The site is undeveloped and sparsely vegetated.

Site 77

Full Site Name: IRP Site 77 CERCLIS ID Number: GU6571999519 Site Location: Yigo, Guam Site Type: Former Chemical Storage Area/Waste Pile

Site 77 is located west of the Main Base Airfield and approximately 2,000 feet north of the Andersen AFB Sanitary Landfill along the secondary access road to the Landfill Complex

Final Record of Decision 2-1 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

(Figure 2-3). The site covers approximately 37 acres. The site is a mix of secondary limestone forest and sparsely vegetated open areas. Asphalt and concrete pads and trenches are located throughout the site.

2.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities

This section provides background information, summarizes the series of investigations that led to the ROD, and describes the CERCLA response actions undertaken at the Site-Wide OU, Sites 63, 64, and 77.

Due to its primary mission in national defense, the USAF has long been engaged in a wide variety of operations that involve the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. On 14 October 1992, Andersen AFB was formally listed on the National Priorities List by the USEPA to investigate abandoned sites that may have been impacted by the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials.

The USN and USAF have conducted environmental investigations at the Site-Wide OU Sites 63, 64, and 77, in accordance with CERCLA under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, which was established by Section 211 of SARA.

As the support agencies, the USEPA Region 9 and Guam EPA provide primary oversight of the environmental restoration actions, in accordance with the FFA. The enforcement activities for Andersen AFB were initiated when the USAF entered into an FFA with the USEPA Region 9 and Guam EPA. The FFA, finalized on 30 March 1993, established procedures for involving federal and territorial regulatory agencies, as well as the public, in the environmental restoration process at Andersen AFB. The FFA was based on applicable environmental laws including CERCLA, Hazardous and Solid Waste Act of 1982, SARA, and the NCP.

The funding is provided by the Defense Environmental Restoration Account, a funding source approved by Congress to clean up contaminated sites on U.S. Department of Defense installations.

In accordance with USN policy, to the extent practicable, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) values have been incorporated throughout the CERCLA process culminating in this ROD. Separate NEPA documentation will not be issued.

Site 63

Site 63 has been evaluated in the following two environmental reports:

 Final Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection for Ten IRP Sites, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam (EA, 2006)  Final Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for Sites 63, 64, 65, 66, 72, and 77, Site- Wide Operable Unit, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam (EA, 2009b)

Site 63 was identified by records searches and review of aerial photographs of Andersen AFB. According to a drawing entitled Drawing M-1, Base Layout for Air Installations, Northwest

Final Record of Decision 2-2 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

Guam Air Force Base, 13 JAN 1949, Site 63 was an abandoned coral dump site. The historic aerial photographs also indicate that the site was active between 1946 and 1956. On a January 1959 aerial photograph, the site appeared to be inactive and covered by vegetation (EA, 2006). A search of site-related records was conducted to help further delineate the boundaries of Site 63. However, no additional information was available based on this search.

Site 64

Site 64 has been evaluated in the following two environmental reports:

 Final Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection for Ten IRP Sites, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam (EA, 2006)  Final Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for Sites 63, 64, 65, 66, 72, and 77, Site- Wide Operable Unit, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam (EA, 2009b)

Site 64 was initially identified by records searches and review of aerial photographs of Andersen AFB. In a review of aerial photographs dating from 1946 to 1994, Site 64 was visible and appeared to be used in conjunction with the area north of the present Landfill Complex. This area was identified by Conservation Officers from the Guam Department of Agriculture as an asphalt drum area (EA, 2006). Site-related records were searched to further delineate the boundaries of Site 64. No additional information was located.

Site 77

Site 77 has been evaluated in the following four environmental reports:

 Expanded Source Investigation/Visual Site Inspection (ICF, 1996)  Work Plans, Sampling Analysis Plans, and Cost Estimates for Solid Waste Management Units Release Assessment, Part 1, Andersen AFB, Guam (URS/EA, 2000)  Phase II RA (Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation/EA, 2005)  Final Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for Sites 63, 64, 65, 66, 72, and 77, Site- Wide Operable Unit, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam (EA, 2009b)

Site 77 was initially identified based on historical information from aerial photographs and Andersen AFB documents. According to the 1956 and 1975 Master Plans for the Base and aerial photographs dated 1946, 1956, 1984, and 1994, a large development occupied most of the area east and west of the secondary access road between the rear gate of the Munitions Storage Area/Beach Road and the Landfill Complex. The past activities were not documented; however, the area has been variously identified as the New Asan Village, a motor pool, an asphalt plant, and an engineering facility (URS/EA, 2000).

2.3 Community Participation

NCP Section 300.430(f)(3) establishes a number of public participation activities that the lead agency must conduct following preparation of the Proposed Plan and review by the support

Final Record of Decision 2-3 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

agency. The components of these items and documentation of how each component was satisfied for Sites 63, 64, and 77, at Andersen AFB, Guam, are described in Tables 2-1 and 2-2.

Responses to comments received during the public comment period are included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is provided as Section 3 of the ROD.

2.4 Scope and Role of Operable Unit

As with many large sites, the environmental problems at Andersen AFB, Guam, are complex. Due to past practices and activities at Andersen AFB, such as post-typhoon emergency debris disposal, potentially harmful materials have been disposed of in an uncontrolled manner at some locations. The Andersen AFB IRP has conducted numerous environmental investigations to locate past disposal areas and to determine if disposed materials have caused soil or groundwater contamination. As an aid in managing the overall environmental program, the USAF, with concurrence from USEPA Region 9 and Guam EPA, organized the environmental restoration work at Andersen AFB into six OUs as described below. RCRA corrective actions are taking place concurrently at Andersen AFB, and are managed under the Environmental Quality Program. The sites addressed by this ROD have been bolded.

Main Base OU (Sites 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, and 35) – RODs addressing the Main Base OU are either completed or in the process of completion. The sites were grouped in the following separate ROD documents.

Group 1: Sites 6, 9, and 12 Group 2: Sites 5 and 8 Group 3: Sites 4, 11, 25, 28, and 34 Group 4: Sites 3, 10, 13, 15, 21, 26, and 27 Group 5: Site 2 Ungrouped: Sites 29 and 35 Site 14

Final RODs for Groups 1, 2, and 3 were signed in September 2007, July 2008, and February 2008, respectively. The RODs for the remaining sites are currently under development.

Northwest Field OU (Sites 7, 16, 17, 21, 30, 31, and 36) – A Final ROD addressing Sites 7, 16, 17, 31, and 36 was signed in February 2008. The ROD for Site 21 is currently under development and it will be grouped with several Main Base OU Sites, as shown above.

Due to the presence of munitions and explosives of concern (MEC), Site 30 was transferred to Andersen AFB’s Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP). Under the MMRP, a ROD will be completed for Site 30 after a further investigation/feasibility study, with respect to the MEC, is completed.

Marianas/Bonins Command (MARBO) Annex OU (Sites 20, 22, 23, 24, 37, and 38) – A Final ROD addressing the MARBO Annex OU was signed in August 1998. Five-year ROD Reviews were completed in July 2004 and July 2009.

Final Record of Decision 2-4 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

Harmon Annex OU (Sites 18, 19, and 39) – A Final ROD addressing the Harmon Annex OU was signed in July 2005.

Urunao OU (Site 40) – A Final ROD addressing the Urunao OU was signed in July 2005.

Site-Wide OU (Sites 41 through 78) – The Site-Wide OU consists of IRP sites that have been added to the program in recent years, and is distributed geographically across the Main Base, Northwest Field, MARBO Annex, and Tumon Tank Farm. The sites are proposed to be addressed in separate ROD documents as follows:

Group A: Sites 45, 49, 59, 61, 67, 68, and 69 Group B: Sites 48, 56, 58, 70, and 73 Group C: Sites 47, 50, 51, 53, and 55 Group D: Sites 65 and 72 Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site 66 Group E: Sites 57, 71, 74, 75, and 76 Group F: Sites 44 and 46 Group G: Sites 41, 42, and 43 Ungrouped: Site 54 Site 78

Final RODs for Groups A, C, and F were completed in November 2008, and the RODs for the remaining sites are currently under development. Due to the presence of MEC, Sites 52, 60, and 62 were transferred to Andersen AFB’s MMRP. Under the MMRP, RODs will be completed for these sites after further investigations/FS are completed with respect to the MEC.

2.5 Site Characteristics

This section describes the physical characteristics of the three sites addressed in this ROD. Brief descriptions for each site are provided. Guam is the largest, most populated, and southernmost island in the Mariana Islands in the western Pacific Ocean (Figure 1-1). Relative to Guam, Hawaii is located 3,700 miles to the east-northeast and Japan is located 1,560 miles to the north. Guam is approximately 30 miles long, varies in width from 4 to 12 miles, and has a total land area covering approximately 209 square miles.

2.5.1 Physiography and Climate

Physiographically, the island of Guam may be divided into northern and southern regions, which are separated by the Adelup Fault. The northern region is a limestone plateau consisting of rolling hills and cliff lines ranging from 200 to 600 feet above mean sea level (msl).

Andersen AFB consists of multiple parcels of land located in Yigo and Dededo, on the northern half of Guam (Figure 1-2), and is situated on an undulating limestone plateau with surficial karst features. The property includes the Main Base (formerly North Field) and the Northwest Field. It is approximately 8 miles wide by 2-4 miles long, and covers approximately 24.5 square miles.

Final Record of Decision 2-5 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

Guam is located at 13º 27’ north latitude (approximately 900 miles north of the equator), creating a year-round warm and humid climate. The mean annual temperature is 81 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF). Daily temperatures range from the lower 70s to the upper 80s ºF. Relative humidity ranges from 65 to 80 percent in the afternoon and from 85 to 100 percent in the evening. Guam has two distinct seasons: a wet and a dry season. The dry season is typically from December to June, and the wet season occurs from July through November. Approximately 65 percent of the annual precipitation falls during these five rainy months, and the annual rainfall on northern Guam averages between 80 and 100 inches.

The dominant winds are the trade winds, blowing from the east or northeast with velocities between 4 and 12 miles per hour throughout the year. Storms may occur at any time during the year, although tropical storms and typhoons are more frequent during the rainy season. Large rainfall events associated with typhoons are common, with as much as 25 inches of rain in a 24-hour period (Ward et al., 1965).

These climatic conditions hold true for the sites covered by this ROD. The site-specific physiography is discussed in more detail in the sections below.

Site 63

Site 63 is situated in the Northwest Field and covers an area of approximately 8 acres, and is located approximately 2,000 feet northeast of IRP Site 21 (Figure 2-1). The site is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 612 to 630 feet above msl.

Site 64

Site 64 is located approximately 3,500 feet west of the Base Sanitary Landfill and approximately 500 feet north of the petroleum, oil, and lubricants line between markers 21.4 and 21.6 kilometers (Figure 2-2). The site slopes gently to the southwest with surface mounds throughout the site and a depression. Elevations range from 445 to 460 feet above msl.

Site 77

Site 77 covers approximately 37 acres located west of the Main Base Airfield and approximately 2,000 feet north of the Andersen AFB Sanitary Landfill along the secondary access road to the Landfill Complex (Figure 2-3). The site is relatively flat with small surface mounds located throughout the site. The elevations range from 476 to 505 feet above msl.

2.5.2 Geology and Hydrogeology

Sites 63, 64, and 77 are underlain by the Mariana Limestone, which is underlain by the Barrigada Limestone. The Barrigada Limestone is underlain by the volcanic deposits of the Alutom Formation.

The soil at the sites consists predominantly of upland limestone soils, predominantly Guam cobbly clay loam. This soil type is derived from sediments overlying porous coralline limestone. It is neutral to mildly alkaline with moderately rapid permeability. The surface layer is usually removed or mixed with underlying material during construction. The soil is composed

Final Record of Decision 2-6 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

of dusky red, gravelly, clay loam. The depth to limestone is usually 2-10 inches, unless landscaping has taken place. These soils are generally very shallow to shallow, well-drained, and range from flat to gently sloping on the interior to extremely steep along the cliff lines (Young, 1988).

Surface soils and bedrock are very porous and permeable and, as a result, no rivers or streams are present in the northern portion of the island. Precipitation, except that portion lost to evapotranspiration, contributes to the groundwater lens.

Groundwater resources on northern Guam are encountered at approximately 400-600 feet below ground surface (bgs). The groundwater surface at the Main Base and Northwest Field ranges between 3 and 4 feet above msl and the freshwater lens ranges between 100 and 160 feet thick. The important factors governing the volume of freshwater in the lens are: the effects of mixing freshwater and marine water, the permeability of the limestone formations, and the rate of recharge. Regionally, the groundwater flow direction in the Northern Guam Lens is from the limestone/volcanic contacts west toward the Philippine Sea (Ward et al., 1965). Faults, fractures, brecciated zones, joints, dissolution channels, or cavities can affect flow.

The aquifer beneath each of the sites presented in this report occurs in basal conditions, is highly permeable and porous, has estimated hydraulic conductivities ranging from 2 to 20,000 feet per day, and porosities ranging from 15 to 20 percent (ICF, 1995).

The following is a tabular summary of the geology and hydrogeology at Sites 63, 64, and 77.

Depth to Groundwater Proximity to Site Limestone Formation Soil (approximate) Shoreline 63 Reefal facies of the Guam cobbly- 480 feet bgs 4,420 feet Mariana Limestone clay loam 64 Reefal facies of the Guam cobbly- 455 feet bgs 6,000 feet Mariana Limestone clay loam 77 Reefal facies of the Guam cobbly- 489 feet bgs 2,200 feet Mariana Limestone clay loam

2.5.3 Surface Water Hydrology

No wetlands or surface water resources are located in the Northwest Field, the Main Base, or in the vicinity of Sites 63, 64, and 77. The geology in the region is dominated by highly porous limestone bedrock located below very shallow soils with moderately rapid permeability. As a result, stormwater runoff is slow and precipitation readily infiltrates into the vadose zone, preventing the formation of surface streams, rivers, and lakes.

2.5.4 Ecology

This section provides site-specific information related to the ecology at Sites 63, 64, and 77. The ecological receptor populations for each site are discussed in Section 2.7.

Final Record of Decision 2-7 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

Site 63

Site 63 consists of two major ecological habitat types: mixed scrub (50 percent) and secondary- growth limestone forest (50 percent).

Site 64

Site 64 contains two major ecological habitat types: mixed herbaceous habitat (50 percent) and secondary-growth limestone forest (50 percent).

Site 77

Site 77 contains two major ecological habitat types: mixed herbaceous habitat (50 percent) and secondary-growth limestone forest (50 percent).

2.5.5 Previous Site Characterization Activities

The previous site characterization activities for Sites 63, 64, and 77 are described in the following section. The screening levels for project sample results included the 2004 USEPA Region 9 residential and industrial Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) as well as the background threshold values (BTVs) for metals. The PRGs have been developed to establish screening criteria for potentially contaminated residential and/or industrial sites (USEPA, 2004). The USEPA Region 9 PRGs were used instead of the more recently implemented Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) because the risk screening process at Sites 63, 64, and 77 had begun before the RSLs were made available. RSLs are loosely based on PRG calculations and do not differ greatly from the PRGs. Use of the PRGs rather than the RSLs is not anticipated to significantly alter results of the Sites 63, 64, and 77 risk assessments. The decision to use the 2004 USEPA Region 9 PRGs was made with input from and in concurrence with representatives from the USEPA Region 9. Because some metal concentrations in soils naturally occur at high concentrations in Guam, BTVs were established (ICF, 1997; Andersen AFB, 2001; and EA, 2002). If a soil sample contained a metal at a concentration exceeding the PRG, the analytical result was compared with the BTV.

Site 63

The previous site characterization activities at Site 63 include a PA/SI (EA, 2006) and RI (EA, 2009b).

During the PA/SI conducted in 2005, a location survey was performed to delineate the site boundaries and a site reconnaissance was performed to document evidence of surface disposal. Sixteen surface soil samples were collected from 1 to 6 inches bgs and analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polycyclic aromatics hydrocarbons (PAHs), organochlorine pesticides, and metals. In addition, three subsurface soil samples were collected from test pits at depths from 1.3 to 1.5 feet bgs and analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), SVOCs, PAHs, organochlorine pesticides, and metals.

Based on the results of the PA/SI, an RI field investigation was conducted in 2007 (EA, 2009b). The RI consisted of a site reconnaissance/detailed site inventory (DSI), topographic survey,

Final Record of Decision 2-8 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

ecological survey, and the collection and analysis of surface and subsurface soil samples. Thirty-four surface soil samples were collected at depths up to 6 inches bgs and analyzed for PAHs and/or selected metals based on the results of the PA/SI. In addition, three subsurface soil samples were collected at depths ranging from 2.5 to 3 feet bgs and analyzed for VOCs, PAHs, and metals.

The analytical results for the surface and subsurface soil samples collected during the PA/SI and RI at Site 63 were used to conduct a human health risk assessment (HHRA) and a screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA). Based on the HHRA results, an FS was conducted for Site 63 to address metals contamination (EA, 2009b). Remedial action objectives (RAOs) and general response actions (GRAs) were developed and remedial alternatives were screened and analyzed. Details on the nature and extent of contamination can be found in Section 2.5.6.

Site 64

The previous site characterization activities at Site 64 include a PA/SI (EA, 2006) and RI (EA, 2009b).

During the PA/SI conducted in 2007, a location survey was performed to delineate site boundaries and a DSI was performed to document evidence of disposal. During the September 2000 preliminary site visit, approximately 100-300 deteriorated drums of asphalt were identified at the site. In some areas, the drums had deteriorated, leaving six- to eight-inch pools of asphalt on the ground. Eighteen surface soil samples were collected at depths up to 8 inches bgs and analyzed for PAHs and metals.

Based on the results of the PA/SI, an RI field investigation was conducted in 2007 (EA, 2009b). The RI consisted of a topographic survey, ecological survey, and the collection and analysis of surface and subsurface soil samples. Fifty-nine surface soil samples were collected at Site 64 at depths up to 4 inches bgs and analyzed for PAHs and/or selected metals based on the results of the PA/SI. In addition, 13 subsurface soil samples were collected during the PA/SI from test pits at Site 64 at depths ranging from 2 to 11 feet bgs and analyzed for VOCs, PAHs, and metals.

The analytical results for the surface and subsurface soil samples collected during the PA/SI and RI at Site 64 were used to conduct an HHRA and SLERA. Based on the HHRA results, an FS was conducted for Site 64 to address metals contamination (EA, 2009b). RAOs and GRAs were developed and remedial alternatives were screened and analyzed. Details on the nature and extent of contamination can be found in Section 2.5.6.

Site 77

The previous site characterization activities at Site 77 include an ESI/VSI (ICF, 1996), Phase I RA (URS/EA, 2000), Phase II RA (Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation/EA, 2005), and RI/FS (EA, 2009b).

Site 77 was initially identified during the ESI/VSI (ICF, 1996). The evidence that waste disposal had occurred at the site included the presence of seven asphalt mounds, two concrete pads, and eight corroded drums observed during the ESI/VSI (ICF, 1996).

Final Record of Decision 2-9 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam The site boundary was extended to encompass a 37-acre area that contained a large clearing (currently identified as the MEC area) and adjacent trench during the Phase I RA (URS/EA, 2000). Large quantities of metallic debris, including aircraft and automotive parts, sealed compressed gas cylinders (30 or more), welding rods, incendiary bomblets, bomb shells, 55-gallon reinforced drums, and ordnance fuses, were identified in a number of the cleared areas or buried within mounds (URS/EA, 2000).

During the Phase II RA conducted in 2004, a geophysical survey was performed to define the horizontal extent of suspected buried wastes at the site and a DSI was performed to document evidence of disposal. Andersen AFB Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel onsite for training activities during the Phase II RA requested that activities be suspended within the cleared area (referred to as the MEC area) located in the southeastern portion. Subsequently, a decision was made to exclude the MEC area from the Phase II RA (Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation/EA, 2005). Andersen AFB Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel removed two MEC items for disposal after the items were located by field personnel. Because MEC items were found at the site, the Base required an unexploded ordnance specialist to be present during any intrusive fieldwork. The MEC areas were subsequently removed from Site 77 and will be addressed in a separate ROD for Site UXO 00005A.

Forty-one surface soil samples were collected at depths up to 6 inches bgs and analyzed for SVOCs, PAHs, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides, and Target Analyte List metals. In addition, 11 subsurface soil samples were collected during the Phase II RA at depths ranging from 1.5 to 12 feet bgs and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs, PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, and metals.

Based on the results of the Phase II RA, an RI field investigation was conducted in 2007 (EA, 2009b). The RI consisted of a topographic survey, ecological survey, and the collection and analysis of surface and subsurface soil samples. Nineteen surface soil samples were collected at Site 77 at depths up to 4 inches bgs and analyzed for selected metals based on the results of the Phase II RA. In addition, three subsurface soil samples were collected at depths from 2 to 3 feet bgs and analyzed for metals.

The analytical results for the surface and subsurface soil samples collected during the Phase II RA (Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation/EA, 2005) and RI at Site 77 were used to conduct an HHRA and SLERA for the site. Based on the HHRA results, an FS was conducted for Site 77 to address metals contamination (EA, 2009b). RAOs and GRAs were developed and remedial alternatives were screened and analyzed. Details on the nature and extent of contamination can be found in Section 2.5.6.

2.5.6 Nature and Extent of Contamination

The following sections describe the nature and extent of contamination identified at Sites 63, 64, and 77.

Site 63

The analytical results for surface soil samples collected at Site 63 indicated that metals (antimony, copper, lead, iron, thallium, and zinc) exceeded screening levels (residential and/or Final Record of Decision 2-10 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

antimony, copper, lead, and zinc may pose potentially unacceptable non-carcinogenic risks to future resident children. When the total calculated risks were evaluated to consider the inherent site risks due to the naturally occurring background conditions, the resulting incremental risks posed by thallium to the resident child were well below the acceptable risk thresholds and therefore does not require further action. Iron was eliminated from the list of COPCs since it is an essential nutrient of low toxicity, and its reported maximum concentration is unlikely to be associated with adverse health impacts. No unacceptable risks were identified for any other exposure scenario at the site.

The SLERA concluded that there was a slight risk to ecological receptors posed by the surface soil concentrations of metals as well. No unacceptable risks were identified based upon the results of the subsurface soil samples collected at Site 63.

The estimated volume of surface soil with elevated antimony, copper, lead, and zinc concentrations is approximately 480 lcy (Figure 2-4). However, a significant portion of this volume is composed of surface soil that is only impacted by lead. Because the RG for lead is based on achieving an average concentration of 400 mg/kg, the volume of lead-impacted soil requiring removal can be minimized by focusing efforts on areas where lead concentrations are highest and where exceedances are collocated with other COCs. Cleanup volume was calculated by multiplying the estimated COC-impacted area by 1-foot depth for surface soil.

The source for the elevated COCs in surface soil at Site 63 is most likely attributable to former use of the site as a coral dump site. The contamination is generally located in the vicinity of identified debris and mounds.

Site 64

The analytical results for surface soil samples collected at Site 64 and the results of the HHRA, SLERA, and FS indicated that there are no unacceptable risks to human health or the environment. The analytical results for subsurface soil samples collected at Site 64 indicated that chromium exceeded screening levels (residential PRGs, industrial PRGs, and/or BTVs) (Figure 2-5) and, based upon the results of the HHRA and FS, may pose potentially unacceptable non-carcinogenic risks to future resident children. The estimated volume of subsurface soil with elevated chromium concentrations is approximately 10,148 lcy (Figure 2-5). To calculate the volume of impacted soil, the estimated area of contamination was multiplied by the excavation depths that were based on the sampling results and trenching data.

The source for the elevated COC concentrations in subsurface soil at Site 64 may be related to deteriorating drums and the former use of the site as a chemical storage area.

Site 77

The analytical results for surface soil samples collected at Site 77 indicated that antimony and lead at Site 77 exceeded screening levels (residential PRGs, industrial PRGs, and/or BTVs) (Figure 2-6) and, based upon the results of the HHRA and FS, these metals may pose potentially unacceptable risks to the future resident child and/or site worker. The SLERA concluded that there are also unacceptable risks to ecological receptors at Site 77 attributable to antimony and lead in surface soil as well. Final Record of Decision 2-11 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

The analytical results for subsurface soil collected at Site 77 indicated that antimony and lead exceeded screening levels (residential and/or industrial PRGs and BTVs) and, based upon the results of the HHRA and FS, may pose unacceptable risk to future residents (adults and/or children) as well as construction workers.

The estimated volume of surface soil with elevated antimony and lead concentrations is approximately 503 lcy. Cleanup volume was calculated by multiplying the estimated COC- impacted area by 1-foot depth for surface soil. The estimated area of subsurface soil with elevated antimony and lead concentrations is approximately 745 lcy (Figure 2-6).

The source for and the elevated COC concentrations in surface and subsurface soil at Site 77 may be related to use of the site for waste disposal. Antimony and/or lead contamination identified at the site appeared to be highly localized to a few relatively small and well defined areas.

2.5.7 Conceptual Site Model

Conceptual site models (CSMs) were developed for Sites 63, 64, and 77 to depict the potential relationship or exposure pathway between the chemical sources and receptors. An exposure pathway describes the means by which a receptor can be exposed to contaminants in environmental media. These pathways are presented in Figures 2-7 and 2-8, and are based upon current and reasonably likely future land uses at Sites 63, 64, and 77.

Although future residential land use is considered unlikely at any of the sites covered under this ROD, residential adult and child receptors were evaluated in the HHRA as a conservative measure to determine whether the site would be suitable for unrestricted land use or unlimited exposure, as described within this ROD.

2.6 Current and Potential Future Land and Resource Uses

2.6.1 Land Use

The USN, as owner of the property, has the authority to determine the future anticipated land use. The following is summary of current land use conditions at and around the three sites.

Site Current Land Use Surrounding Land Use 63 Industrial Use (USAF, 2006) Land at and surrounding Site 63 is designated as industrial. 64 Open Space Use (USAF, 2005) Land at and surrounding Site 64 is designated as open space. 77 Open Space Use (USAF, 2005) Land at and surrounding Site 77 is designated as open space.

The expected receptors for the sites are occasional users and industrial workers exposed to surface soil and construction workers exposed to subsurface soil. The land use for the three sites,

Final Record of Decision 2-12 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

as well as adjacent and surrounding land, is expected to remain the same for the foreseeable future.

2.6.2 Ground and Surface Water Uses

The sites covered under this ROD overlie the Northern Guam Lens aquifer, which is designated by the USEPA as a sole source aquifer, and supplies Guam with approximately 80 percent of its drinking water (Barrett, Harris & Associates, 1982). The groundwater in Northwest Field and the Main Base has been monitored regularly as part of the Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring (LTGM) Program at Andersen AFB (EA, 2009a). The initial round of groundwater sampling was collected for the Northwest Field and Main Base monitoring wells in November 1995 (Round 1) and on a semi-annual basis (twice a year) thereafter. During the May 1999 Remedial Program Managers meeting held in Hawaii (USAF, 1999), the USAF, USEPA, and Guam EPA reviewed the historical groundwater data and agreed to remove 10 monitoring wells, located in the Northwest Field OU, from the LTGM Program. Monitoring wells IRP-21, IRP-22, IRP-44, IRP-45a, IRP-46, and IRP-47; USGS-33 and USGS-99; and TH-B, and TH-C were removed from the LTGM Program because no COCs had been detected in any groundwater samples at concentrations exceeding the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) (EA, 1999).

The historical groundwater data set for the Main Base has established that there is no connection between the COCs observed in the soils at Sites 63, 64, and 77 and any groundwater contamination. Trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene have been observed in groundwater samples collected from Main Base monitoring wells at concentrations exceeding the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs. However, the groundwater contamination has been attributed to a likely source(s) of trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene in the vicinity of Building 18006.

The LTGM data collected at Andersen AFB strongly support a CSM that indicates most of the contaminants observed in surface and subsurface soil samples (i.e., PAHs, pesticides, PCBs, and metals) are relatively immobile and rarely observed in groundwater at concentrations exceeding drinking water standards (MCLs) (EA, 2009a). Groundwater and surface water were not identified as media of concern at any of the sites reviewed in this report; therefore, these media were not assessed in the HHRAs or SLERAs.

The following section discusses the results of groundwater monitoring in the vicinity of Sites 63, 64, and 77. The groundwater monitoring is being handled as a separate issue as part of the ongoing Base-Wide Andersen AFB LTGM Program.

Site 63

No groundwater monitoring wells are located within Site 63; one cross-gradient well (Well D) is located approximately 3,600 feet north of the site, but it has not been used to assess groundwater quality.

Final Record of Decision 2-13 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

Site 64

Although no groundwater monitoring wells are located within Site 64, two monitoring wells located in the vicinity have been used to assess groundwater quality (Figure 1-3). The closest monitoring well, IRP-55 (formerly called TH-E), is located approximately 1,500 feet northeast (downgradient) of the site. IRP-9 is located approximately 1,500 feet east (cross-gradient) of the site.

In the 27 rounds of sampling (collected from Fall 1995 to Fall 2009), none of the target analytes were detected in samples collected from either IRP-55 or IRP-9 (EA, 2009a).

Site 77

Although no groundwater monitoring wells are located within Site 77, one monitoring well located in the vicinity has been used to assess groundwater quality (Figure 1-3). The closest monitoring well, IRP-48, is located approximately 750 feet north (downgradient) of the site. In the 27 rounds of sampling (collected from Fall 1995 to Fall 2008), none of the target analytes were detected in samples collected from IRP-48 (EA, 2009a).

2.7 Summary of Site Risks

This section includes the basis for remedial actions at Sites 63, 64, and 77, and summarizes the HHRAs and SLERAs presented in the RI. A more detailed description of the HHRA and SLERA process is presented in the RI/FS (EA, 2009b).

The CSMs developed for the HHRA and SLERA of these sites are presented in Figures 2-7 and 2-8, respectively.

During completion of the HHRA, the risks for cancer and non-cancer contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) were calculated separately and the risks for each were then summed to determine cumulative risks. For cumulative cancer risks, the USEPA has established an acceptable risk level of 10-6, which represents a one-in-a-million increase in the lifetime cancer risk for the evaluated receptor (e.g., a resident or a site worker) if exposed to the site COPCs. The USEPA has determined increased cancer risk in excess of 10-4 (one-in-ten-thousand) is unacceptable. The risk range of from 10-6 to 10-4 may be evaluated in the risk management context to determine whether risk is acceptable for future site conditions (i.e., land use and potential users). For cumulative non-cancer risks, the USEPA has established a hazard index (HI) of less than 1.0 as acceptable.

For the COPCs, the toxicity values for carcinogens and non-carcinogens are presented in Tables 2-3 through 2-7. When available, values were taken from the Integrated Risk Information Systems (IRIS) database (USEPA, 2008). IRIS chronic reference doses, reference concentrations, and cancer slope factors are developed by USEPA and undergo an extensive process of scientific peer review. Therefore, IRIS values are judged as adequately verified.

Final Record of Decision 2-14 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

If toxic potency concentrations for COPCs were not available from IRIS (USEPA, 2008), Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) (USEPA, 1997) were used as a secondary data source. As HEAST toxicity values are not scientifically peer-reviewed for quality or scientific acceptability, toxicity values may not be derived in strict accordance with USEPA-approved methodologies.

The HHRA calculated the total risk for each of the contaminants and exposure scenarios identified. The total risk estimates and PRGs derived in the RI (EA, 2009b) were not considered appropriate for evaluating the remedial alternatives because they did not differentiate between the inherent risk due to naturally occurring background site conditions and site risk due to anthropogenic contaminants. Therefore, the incremental risk, which estimates only the portion of risk exceeding background, was calculated and used to evaluate the inorganic COCs identified in the RI during the FS. For contaminants that are not typically associated with background conditions (i.e., VOCs, PAHs, and other organics), the incremental risk is equivalent to the total risk.

Uncertainties Assessment

There are numerous uncertainties involved in the HHRA and SLERA processes. Uncertainties in the risk characterization can stem from the inherent uncertainties in the data collection and evaluation, the exposure assessment process including any modeling of exposure point concentrations in secondary media from primary media, and the toxicity assessment process. The sources of potential uncertainty are discussed briefly in the following sections.

Data Collection and Evaluation Uncertainties

The sampling plan can have a significant impact on the results obtained in calculating human health and ecological risks at a site. If samples are collected in areas that are expected to be contaminated (biased sampling), the exposure point concentration used in calculating risk exposures and risks is likely to overestimate the actual concentration encountered at the site from random exposure across the site. This sampling bias will generally result in an overestimate of exposures and risks at a site.

Another potential source of uncertainty is associated with cases where the detection limit of the chemical is greater than its screening value. A non-detect could occur at any concentration below its detection limit. Therefore, if the detection limit is greater than the screening value, the chemical could potentially be present in the sample at a concentration exceeding screening criteria but not be selected as a COPC. To minimize the impacts of this uncertainty, target quantitation limits were set as low as possible; however, limits to analytical methodology and interferences associated with sample matrices sometimes result in higher limits than targeted. In addition, in the SLERA, screening values were not available for individual PAHs because low molecular weight and high molecular weight PAHs were evaluated.

Uncertainty also results from the use of the detection limit for all non-detects; in reality, the actual amount present in a sample is between zero and the detection limit. An objective of the guidance is to include some quantitative value for COPCs when the analytical data indicate that those COPCs were not detected, so that an estimated potential intake and resultant potential risk

Final Record of Decision 2-15 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

can be calculated. For the HHRA, this approach is referenced in Risk Assessment Guidance, Part A (USEPA, 1989). However, this approach generally overestimates the average value and results in overestimates of intakes and subsequent risks, particularly for COPCs with low frequencies of detection.

Sources of Uncertainties in the Exposure Assessment Process

Uncertainty is associated with the assumptions used in estimating the exposures. For example, the models used in the SLERA assume a 100 percent area use factor for avian receptors. The site is approximately 10 acres; insufficient data are available to determine whether a 100 percent area use factor is an overestimate. The models also assume a 100 percent bioavailability factor for chemicals in soil and food items, which is likely to overestimate risks. To minimize the impacts of these uncertainties, site-specific data were used wherever possible.

In the SLERA, uncertainty is associated with the extrapolation of assumptions about the potential for adverse effects from individual organisms to populations. The intent of the SLERA, as set forth in the assessment endpoints, is to evaluate risks to populations. However, the evaluation methods used result in conclusions concerning the potential for adverse effects to individual organisms. Few methods are available to extrapolate the potential for adverse effects from the individual level to the population level. It was generally assumed that if there is no potential for direct adverse effects to individual organisms, then it is also unlikely for there to be the potential for direct adverse effects to populations. Similarly, it was assumed that if there is the potential for adverse effects to individual organisms, there is also the potential for adverse effects to populations.

Uncertainties of Toxicity Assessment

Numerous uncertainties are associated with the toxicity assessment. These are generally due to the unavailability of data to thoroughly calculate the toxicity of a COPC. These are described in more detail in the following sections.

Interspecies Extrapolation—The majority of toxicological information used in the HHRA comes from experiments with laboratory animals. Experimental animal data have been relied on by regulatory agencies to assess the hazards of human chemical exposures. Interspecies differences in chemical absorption, metabolism, excretion, and toxic response are not well understood; therefore, conservative assumptions are applied to animal data when extrapolating to humans. These probably result in an overestimation of toxicity.

Intraspecies Extrapolation—Differences in individual human susceptibilities to the effects of chemical exposures may be caused by such variables as genetic factors (e.g., glucose-6- phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency), lifestyle (e.g., cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption), age, hormonal status (e.g., pregnancy), and disease. To take into account the diversity of human populations and their differing susceptibilities to chemically induced injury or disease, a safety factor is used. USEPA uses a factor between 1 and 10. This uncertainty may lead to overestimates of human health effects at given doses.

Final Record of Decision 2-16 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

Exposure Routes—When experimental data available on one route of administration are different from the actual route of exposure that is of interest, route-to-route extrapolation must be performed before the risk can be assessed. Several criteria must be satisfied before route-to- route extrapolation can be undertaken. The most critical assumption is that a chemical injures the same organ(s) regardless of route, even though the injury can vary in degree. Another assumption is that the behavior of a substance in the body is similar by all routes of contact. This may not be the case when, for example, materials absorbed via the gastrointestinal tract pass through the liver prior to reaching the systemic circulation, whereas by inhalation the same chemical will reach other organs before the liver. However, these extrapolations are made when data are limited and may result in overestimates of human toxicity.

Toxicity Values—Some uncertainties are associated with the selected toxicity values. For example, in the SLERA, the toxicity reference values for plants and soil invertebrates tend to be relatively low due to the necessity that spiking of soil is performed with a soluble form of the metal of concern during toxicity tests. Metal speciation in soil is very different from that found in a soluble spiked solution; thus, the test does not necessarily accurately represent the chemical form or bioavailability that would actually be present onsite. In addition, avian toxicity values are the same regardless of the selected representative species, and are equivalent to those found in the test species (pheasant, chickens, and ducks; i.e., those tested by others for reference purposes). Therefore, these toxicity reference values do not reflect tolerance differences that may exist among the species of birds found onsite and the species used in toxicity reference values development.

2.7.1 Site 63

This section summarizes the approach and findings of the HHRA and SLERA performed for Site 63, as described in the RI/FS document (EA, 2009b).

2.7.1.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment for Site 63

An HHRA was performed for Site 63 as an element of the RI (EA, 2009b). The HHRA identified surface and subsurface soil as the media of concern, and risks were estimated for the following receptors:

 Occasional user and industrial worker exposure to surface soil  Construction worker exposure to subsurface soil  Future resident (adult and child) exposure to surface and subsurface soil

Following completion of the risk-based screening process, calculation of medium-specific exposure point concentrations, and assessment of cumulative risks for receptors and media of concern, the following risks were identified (Tables 2-8 and 2-9):

 Antimony, copper, thallium, and zinc were identified in the HHRA as non-carcinogenic COCs with the potential to pose unacceptable risk to future residents exposed to surface soil at Site 63. When the total calculated risks were evaluated to consider the inherent Final Record of Decision 2-17 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

site risks due to the naturally occurring background conditions, the resulting incremental risks posed by thallium to the resident child and antimony to the resident adult were well below the acceptable risk thresholds and, therefore, do not require further action. The following unacceptable risks were identified: — Antimony in surface soil was determined to pose unacceptable incremental risk to the future resident child (HI = 8.1) and contributed to unacceptable cumulative target organ risk to the blood (HI = 8.5). The selected RG for antimony (94 mg/kg) was derived based on achieving acceptable non-cancer risk for the resident child (HI = 1.0). — Copper in surface soil was determined to pose unacceptable incremental risk to the future resident child (HI = 1.7). The RG (2,890 mg/kg) was derived to be protective of future residents exposed to surface soil at the site and was calculated to result in an incremental HI = 1.0 for the future resident child. — Zinc (HI = 0.36) in surface soil was determined to contribute to unacceptable cumulative target organ risk to the blood (HI = 8.5). Because the risk was being driven by multiple COCs, the selected RG of 2,350 mg/kg was derived to minimize the cumulative target organ risk and was calculated to result in a non-cancer HI = 0.1 for the future resident child.

 Surface soil modeling predicted elevated risks from lead to resident children based on the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) modeling (USEPA, 1994 and 2002). An RG of 400 mg/kg was selected to mitigate lead risks based on the IEUBK lead modeling results to be protective of the resident child receptor. The other scenarios evaluated indicated no human health concerns. These scenarios included both non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic evaluations for occasional users and site workers.

Metals (antimony, copper, lead, and zinc) in surface soil were, therefore, identified as a COCs requiring remedial action at the site.

2.7.1.2 Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment for Site 63

An extensive qualitative habitat and biota survey was conducted at Site 63 as part of the RI (EA 2009b). Based on results of the survey, the ecological receptors of concern (ROCs) were identified as terrestrial plants, terrestrial invertebrates (earthworms), and terrestrial avian species (Mariana crow and yellow bittern). Surface soil was identified as the only media of concern.

Terrestrial plants are potentially at risk from surface soil concentrations of copper, lead, mercury, and zinc. Soil invertebrates may potentially be at risk from surface soil concentrations of copper, mercury, and zinc. The Mariana crow and yellow bittern were considered unlikely to experience adverse effects due to contaminants present in surface soil at Site 63.

Based on the overly conservative nature of the estimated risks as well as the type and distribution of COCs identified, a risk management decision determined that the potential risk posed to

Final Record of Decision 2-18 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

terrestrial plants and soil invertebrates would be adequately addressed by implementation of the human health-based RGs.

2.7.2 Site 64

This section summarizes the approach and findings of the HHRAs and SLERAs performed for Site 64, as described in the RI/FS document (EA, 2009b).

2.7.2.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment for Site 64

The HHRA was performed for Site 64 as an element of the RI (EA, 2009b). The HHRA identified surface and subsurface soil as the media of concern at Site 64, and risks were estimated for the following receptors:

 Occasional user and industrial worker exposure to surface soil  Construction worker exposure to subsurface soil  Future resident (adult and child) exposure to surface and subsurface soil

Following completion of the risk-based screening process, calculation of medium-specific exposure point concentrations, and assessment of cumulative risks for receptors and media of concern, the following risks were identified for Site 64 (Tables 2-10 and 2-11):

 Aluminum, cadmium, chromium, manganese, and vanadium were identified as non-carcinogenic COCs with the potential to pose unacceptable risk to the future resident child exposed to surface soil. However, when the risks due to the naturally occurring background conditions were factored in, the resulting incremental risks were all well below the USEPA’s acceptable non-cancer risk threshold (HI = 1.0).  Aluminum, manganese, chromium, and vanadium were identified as non-carcinogenic COCs with the potential to pose unacceptable risk to the future resident child exposed to subsurface soil. Aluminum, manganese, and chromium were also identified as non-carcinogenic COCs for construction workers exposed to subsurface soil at the site. However, when risks due to the naturally occurring background conditions were factored in, the resulting incremental risks were well below the USEPA’s acceptable risk threshold (HI = 1.0) for the identified COCs and receptors with the exception of resident children exposed to chromium. Chromium concentrations detected in subsurface soil at Site 64 were determined to pose unacceptable incremental risk to the future resident child (HI = 1.8). The selected RG (1,310 mg/kg) was, therefore, derived to reduce potential risks to acceptable levels and was calculated to result in an incremental HI = 1.0 for the future resident child.

Chromium in subsurface soil was, therefore, identified as a COC requiring remedial action at Site 64.

Final Record of Decision 2-19 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

2.7.2.2 Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment for Site 64

An extensive qualitative habitat and biota survey was conducted at Site 64 as part of the RI (EA 2009b). Based on results of the survey, the ecological ROCs were identified as terrestrial plants, terrestrial invertebrates (earthworms), and terrestrial avian species (Mariana crow and yellow bittern). Surface soil was identified as the only media of concern.

The results of the SLERA indicated that none of the COPCs identified at Site 64 are likely to pose ecological risks to any of the selected ROCs.

2.7.3 Site 77

This section summarizes the approach and findings of the HHRAs and SLERAs performed for Site 77, as described in the RI/FS document (EA, 2009b).

2.7.3.1 Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment for Site 77

The HHRA was performed for Site 77 as an element of the RI (EA, 2009b). The HHRA identified surface and subsurface soil as the media of concern at Site 77, and risks were estimated for the following receptors:

 Occasional user and industrial worker exposure to surface soil  Construction worker exposure to subsurface soil  Future resident (adult and child) exposure to surface and subsurface soil.

Following completion of the risk-based screening process, calculation of medium-specific exposure point concentrations, and assessment of cumulative risks for receptors and media of concern, the following risks were identified for Site 77 (Tables 2-12 through 2-13):

 Antimony was the only non-carcinogenic COC with the potential to pose unacceptable risk to the future resident child exposed to surface soil. When risks due to the naturally occurring background conditions were factored in, the resulting incremental risk posed by antimony (HI = 2.3) still exceeded the USEPA’s acceptable risk target (HI = 1.0). The calculated risk was largely driven by several small areas of highly localized contamination. The selected RG for antimony (94 mg/kg) was derived based on achieving acceptable non-cancer risk for the resident child (HI = 1.0).

 Surface soil modeling predicted elevated risks from lead to resident children and site workers. An RG of 400 mg/kg was selected to mitigate lead risks based on the IEUBK lead modeling results and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) directive (USEPA, 2002) to be protective of the most conservative surface soil receptor group (resident child).

 Antimony was the only non-carcinogenic COC with the potential to pose unacceptable risk to future residents (adult and child) as well as to the construction worker exposed to subsurface soil. When the risks due to the naturally occurring background conditions were factored in, the resulting incremental risk posed by antimony to the future resident Final Record of Decision 2-20 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

child (HI = 11), future resident adult (HI = 1.2), and construction worker (HI = 4.1) still exceeded the USEPA’s acceptable risk target (HI = 1.0). The selected RG for antimony (94 mg/kg) was based on achieving acceptable non-cancer risk for the resident child (HI = 1.0), which is also protective of all other receptors exposed to subsurface soil at the site.

 Subsurface soil modeling predicted elevated risks from lead to resident children and construction workers. An RG of 400 mg/kg was selected to mitigate lead risks based on the IEUBK lead modeling results and OSWER directive (USEPA, 2002) to be protective of the most conservative surface soil receptor group (resident child).

2.7.3.2 Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment for Site 77

An extensive qualitative habitat and biota survey was conducted at Site 77 as part of the RI (EA 2009b). Based on results of the survey, terrestrial plants, terrestrial invertebrates (earthworms), and terrestrial avian species (Mariana crow and yellow bittern) were identified as the ecological ROCs. Surface soil was identified as the only media of concern.

The results of the SLERA for Site 77 identified antimony and lead as the contaminants with the potential to pose unacceptable risk to terrestrial plants and soil invertebrates. Lead was also identified as a potential risk driver for avian receptors, represented by the Mariana crow and yellow bittern. These risks are presented in Table 2-14. The Mariana crow is a federally endangered species with only remnant populations surviving on Guam.

Antimony and lead contamination identified at the site appeared to be highly localized to two relatively small and well defined areas. These two contaminants were also responsible for driving potential risks to future resident children at the site. The calculated RGs for terrestrial plants and soil invertebrates were generally lower than the RGs selected to mitigate potential risks to human receptors. However, the toxicity reference values used to calculate these risks are not site-specific and are considered overly conservative. Further, recalculation of the ecological risk based upon removal of the identified areas of elevated concentrations of antimony and lead indicated that implementation of the human health based RGs would also be protective of ecological ROCs identified at the site. Therefore, implementation of the human-health based RGs of 94 mg/kg and 400 mg/kg is recommended at Site 77 to address potential ecological risks posed by antimony and lead, respectively.

2.7.4 Basis for Action – Sites 63, 64, and 77

The response actions selected in this ROD are necessary to protect public health or welfare or the environment from actual or threatened releases of pollutants or contaminants from Sites 63, 64, and 77, which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare.

Final Record of Decision 2-21 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

Response actions at Sites 63, 64, and 77 are warranted to mitigate unacceptable non-cancer and carcinogenic risks present at the sites, as well as to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts at the sites.

2.8 Remedial Action Objectives

The RAOs provide a general description of what the cleanup will accomplish. These goals typically serve as the design basis for the remedial alternatives, which will be presented in the next section.

2.8.1 Site 63

The following section presents the RAO for Site 63:

 Prevent future residential exposures to antimony, copper, lead, and zinc in surface soil at concentrations greater than their respective RGs:

— Antimony (94 mg/kg) — Copper (2,890 mg/kg) — Lead (400 mg/kg) — Zinc (2,350 mg/kg).

This conservative RAO was developed based on the current and reasonably anticipated future land use as an industrial area, as well as to address any unlikely future residential use. The above RAO addresses the identified unacceptable human health risks and slight risk to ecological receptors and also allows for unrestricted land use at Site 63.

2.8.2 Site 64

The following section presents the RAO for Site 64:

 Prevent future residential exposures to chromium in subsurface soil at concentrations greater than the RG (1,310 mg/kg).

This RAO was developed based on the current and reasonably anticipated future land use as open space, as well as to address the unlikely future residential use. The above RAO addresses the identified unacceptable human health risks at Site 64 by prohibiting residential development on or adjacent to the site. 2.8.3 Site 77

The following section presents the RAOs for Site 77:

 Prevent exposure of future residents and ecological ROCs to antimony in surface soil at concentrations greater than its RG (94 mg/kg).

Final Record of Decision 2-22 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam  Prevent human exposure to the following COCs in subsurface soil at concentrations greater than their respective RGs: — Antimony (94 mg/kg) — Lead (400 mg/kg)

.These RAOs were developed based on the current and reasonably anticipated future land use as open space, as well as to address the unlikely future residential use. The above RAOs address all identified unacceptable human health and ecological risks and allow for unrestricted land use at Site 77.

2.9 Description of Alternatives for Sites 63, 64, and 77

This section presents the remedial alternatives considered for Sites 63, 64, and 77 that were presented in the FS report (EA, 2009b), and are summarized below.

Remedial alternatives evaluated for Sites 63, 64, and 77 were identical, with the exception of site-specific differences related to the Soil Removal alternative. The alternatives are summarized below:

Alternative Designation Alternative Description 1 No Action No remedial actions or Land Use Controls (LUCs) 2 Land Use Controls LUCs 3 Soil Removal Excavation and offsite disposal of COC-impacted soil.

Each alternative evaluated is described in more detail, including remedy components, common elements and distinguishing features, and expected outcomes, in the following sections.

2.9.1 Description of Remedy Components

Three alternatives were developed to address remediation at Sites 63, 64, and 77. This section provides a summary overview of the components of these alternatives.

Alternative 1: No Action

 No treatment technologies  No containment or mitigation of contaminants at the site  No LUCs  No operations, maintenance, or monitoring requirements

Alternative 2: Land Use Controls

 Land Use Controls—The USN would enact LUCs through amendments to the Base General Plan (BGP) to ensure the continued protection of human health and the environment. The full scope of the LUCs would be presented in a Land Use Control Management Plan (LUCMP) to be developed by the USN in coordination with the USEPA

Final Record of Decision 2-23 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam and Guam EPA subsequent to approval of the ROD. The LUCMP would include: (1) a prohibition on the redevelopment of the site (particularly for residential use) without prior approvals from the USN, USEPA, and Guam EPA; (2) limitations and controls on any future excavation activities at the site (e.g., worker requirements, soil management, waste disposal); (3) a requirement that any intrusive activities be first approved by the 36 Civil Engineer Squadron/Civil Engineer Environmental Flight; and (4) a task to implement monitoring and enforcement of LUCs through the LUCMP. The LUCMP would also include additional provisions such as: (1) requirements for periodic (e.g., annual) inspections of the site to ensure compliance with the LUCs; (2) specification of periodic (e.g., annual) LUC-compliance reporting requirements; (3) protocols for property lease or transfer (NOTE: Currently, there are no plans for property lease or transfer); and (4) protocols for notification and correction of any LUC non-compliance events. The LUCs would remain in effect for as long as the site conditions are not suitable for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure. A length of 30 years was used for the purpose of cost analysis.  Five-Year Reviews—Following successful implementation of the above actions, the site would be suitable for continued use by the USAF as open space, but would not be suitable for unrestricted use and unlimited exposures (e.g., residential). Therefore, the USN, in conjunction with the USEPA and Guam EPA, would conduct five-year reviews to ensure that the Land Use Controls alternative is effective in the future in protecting human health and the environment. The reviews would focus on the site conditions, the current and planned future site use, results of nearby monitoring programs (e.g., the Base-Wide LTGM Program), and the LUC-compliance reports. The five-year reviews would be conducted until the site was deemed suitable for unrestricted use.  The Land Use Controls alternative would not result in any containment or mitigation of contaminants at the site.

Alternative 3: Soil Removal

Soil Removal at Site 63

 Soil removal would include excavation and offsite disposal of approximately 480 lcy of COC-impacted surface soil from Site 63 (Figure 2-4).  Removal of the soil containing COCs above RGs would effectively mitigate all unacceptable risks to human receptors identified in the HHRA and ecological receptors identified in the SLERA.  The Soil Removal alternative would render the site suitable for unlimited exposure and unrestricted use, allowing site closure under CERCLA.  No LUCs would be needed and no five-year reviews would be necessary under the Soil Removal alternative.

Soil Removal at 64

 Soil removal would include excavation and offsite disposal of approximately 10,148 lcy of COC-impacted subsurface soil from Site 64 (Figure 2-5).

Final Record of Decision 2-24 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam Soil Removal at 64

 Soil removal would include excavation and offsite disposal of approximately 10,148 lcy of COC-impacted subsurface soil from Site 64 (Figure 2-5).  Removal of all soil containing COCs above RGs would effectively mitigate all unacceptable risks to human receptors identified in the HHRA.  The Soil Removal alternative would render the site suitable for unlimited exposure and unrestricted use, allowing site closure under CERCLA.  No LUCs would be needed and no five-year reviews would be necessary under the Soil Removal alternative.

Soil Removal at 77

 Soil removal would include excavation and offsite disposal of approximately 1,248 lcy of COC-impacted surface and subsurface soil from Site 77 (Figure 2-6). The Proposed MPPEH Cleanup Area in Figure 2-6 is part of Site UXO 00005A and will be addressed under the Munitions Response Program.  The JRM ESS describes the protocols to be followed to address the hazards due to MEC. Procedures to follow to ensure worker safety during removal activities are described in the JRM ESS.  Removal of the soil containing COCs above RGs would effectively mitigate all unacceptable risks to human receptors identified in the HHRA and ecological receptors identified in the SLERA.  The Soil Removal alternative would render the site suitable for unlimited exposure and unrestricted use, allowing site closure under CERCLA.  No LUCs would be needed and no five-year reviews would be necessary under the Soil Removal alternative.

2.9.2 Common Elements and Distinguishing Features of Each Alternative

Table 2-15 provides a summary of the elements common to each alternative and features that distinguish one alternative from another.

2.9.3 Expected Outcome of Each Alternative

Table 2-16 provides a summary of the outcomes of each alternative.

2.10 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives for Sites 63, 64, and 77

In accordance with the NCP, the alternatives for Sites 63, 64, and 77 were evaluated using the nine criteria described in Section 121(b) of CERCLA and the NCP §300.430(f)(5)(i). These criteria are classified as threshold criteria, balancing criteria, and modifying criteria.

Final Record of Decision 2-25 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

Threshold criteria are standards that an alternative must meet to be eligible for selection as a remedial action. There is little flexibility in meeting the threshold criteria—the alternative must meet them or it is unacceptable. The following are classified as threshold criteria:

 Overall protection of human health and the environment  Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)

Balancing criteria weigh the tradeoffs between alternatives. These criteria represent the standards upon which the detailed evaluation and comparative analysis of alternatives are based. In general, a high rating on one criterion can offset a low rating on another balancing criterion. Five of the nine criteria are considered balancing criteria:

 Long-term effectiveness and permanence  Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment  Short-term effectiveness  Implementability  Cost Modifying criteria are as follows:

 Community acceptance  State/support agency acceptance

This section summarizes how well each alternative satisfies each evaluation criterion and indicates how it compares to the other alternatives under consideration. Unless otherwise specified, discussions apply to Sites 63, 64, and 77.

2.10.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether each alternative provides adequate protection of human health and the environment and describes how risks posed through each exposure pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled, through treatment, engineering controls, and/or LUCs.

The No Action alternative would not mitigate short-term and long-term human health risks associated with the exposure pathways at the impacted sites. The No Action alternative would not mitigate ecological risks associated with the exposure pathways at Sites 63 and 77.

The Land Use Controls alternative is protective of human health, but is not protective of the environment at Sites 63 and 77. The Land Use Controls alternative would eliminate exposure to residential receptors by preventing residential development on or adjacent to the sites. Although soil containing COCs above RGs would remain, there are no unacceptable risks to industrial workers at Site 64. The Land Use Controls alternative would require five-year reviews.

Final Record of Decision 2-26 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

Although the Land Use Controls alternative is protective of human health, it is limited in that the COC-impacted soils will remain onsite and potential land use will remain indefinitely restricted. In addition, ecological risks associated with Sites 63 and 77 would not be mitigated. The Soil Removal alternative is the only alternative that provides immediate and permanent protection from COC-impacted soils, allowing for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure to the sites.

The Soil Removal alternative is protective of human health and the environment. The Soil Removal alternative would remove COC-impacted soil from the sites, thus eliminating the exposure medium.

2.10.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

Section 121(d) of CERCLA and NCP §300.430(f)(1)(ii)(B) require that remedial actions at CERCLA sites at least attain legally applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal and State requirements, standards, criteria, and limitations which are collectively referred to as “ARARs,” unless such ARARs are waived under CERCLA Section 121(d)(4).

Applicable requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal environmental, State environmental, or facility citing laws that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance found at a CERCLA site. State standards that are identified by a state in a timely manner and that are more stringent than Federal requirements may be applicable.

Relevant and appropriate requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal environmental or State environmental or facility citing laws that, while not “applicable” to a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site (relevant) that their use is well-suited (appropriate) to the particular site. Only those State standards that are identified in a timely manner and are more stringent than Federal requirements may be relevant and appropriate.

Compliance with ARARs addresses whether a remedy will meet all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of other Federal and State environmental statutes or provides a basis for invoking a waiver.

The Land Use Controls and Soil Removal alternatives are compliant with ARARs (Table 2-17).

2.10.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to expected residual risk and the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time, once cleanup levels have been met. This criterion includes the consideration of residual risk that will remain onsite following remediation and the adequacy and reliability of controls.

Final Record of Decision 2-27 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

The No Action alternative would not be effective in the long-term because the identified unacceptable risks associated with COCs in soil under a future residential scenario would persist at the site.

The Land Use Controls alternative would be effective in the long-term for mitigating the identified risks for future residential receptors, but would not be protective of the environment at Sites 63 and 77. The LUCs would prohibit residential redevelopment of the site (i.e., eliminating the residential exposure pathway) and the LUCMP would contain provisions to ensure the proper implementation of LUCs in the event of property conditions or use changes. Although COC concentrations onsite would remain above RGs, the annual inspections and reporting requirements and the five-year review process would ensure the long-term compliance with LUCs.

The Soil Removal alternative would be effective and permanent in the long-term because COC-impacted soil (above RGs) would be removed from the site. Upon completion of the soil removal action, no restrictions on site exposure or future land use would be required.

2.10.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment

Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment refers to the anticipated performance of the treatment technologies that may be included as part of a remedy.

The No Action alternative does not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the COCs in soil.

The Land Use Controls alternative would not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of waste through treatment.

The Soil Removal alternative does not include treatment, although excavation and offsite disposal would reduce the mobility and volume of COCs at Sites 63, 64, and 77. If necessary, based upon the waste characterization sampling, the excavated soil may be treated (e.g., stabilization) to meet disposal requirements of the receiving facility.

2.10.5 Short-Term Effectiveness

Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to implement the remedy and any adverse impacts that may be posed to workers, the community, and the environment during construction and operation of the remedy until cleanup levels are achieved.

The No Action alternative would not be effective in the short-term because RAOs would not be achieved, although no new risks or environmental impacts would result from implementation of this alternative.

The Land Use Controls alternative would be effective in the short-term as LUCs would be quickly implemented (e.g., within 1 year) to achieve RAOs and no new risks to the community, site workers, or the environment would result.

The Soil Removal alternative would be effective in the short-term as the excavations could be quickly implemented (e.g., within 1 year) to achieve RAOs. The potential risks to

Final Record of Decision 2-28 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

remediation/site workers during the disturbance of site soil would be mitigated through engineering controls (e.g., dust suppression, proper personal protective equipment). No new risks to the local community or environment are anticipated.

2.10.6 Implementability

Implementability addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy from design through construction and operation. Factors such as availability of services and materials, administrative feasibility, and coordination with other governmental entities are also considered.

The No Action alternative requires very little technical or administrative effort.

The Land Use Controls alternative is a proven and accepted remedial alternative under the appropriate site conditions. The administrative feasibility of implementing the alternative would be relatively simple, as there would be very little coordination of resources and materials. Annual inspections and periodic site reviews, to be conducted in conjunction with the five-year review process, would be implementable with the existing Andersen AFB personnel to ensure that Land Use Controls are protective of human health and the environment.

The Soil Removal alternative is readily implementable as it would utilize standard excavation and disposal equipment and procedures. The required equipment and services are readily available.

2.10.7 Cost

The estimated present worth costs for the Land Use Controls and Soil Removal alternatives and cost summaries are presented below. There are no costs associated with the No Action alternative.

Present Worth Alternative Cost Short-Term and Long-Term Costs Considered Site 63 Land Use Controls $82,000 This alternative includes $10,000 for total short-term costs and $72,000 for total long-term and operation and maintenance costs. Soil Removal $356,000 This alternative includes no long-term costs. For a removal action with no ongoing monitoring, the present worth is equivalent to the estimated remedial action cost. Site 64 Land Use Controls $82,000 This alternative includes $10,000 for total short-term costs and $72,000 for total long-term and operation and maintenance costs. Soil Removal $1,926,000 This alternative includes no long-term costs. For a removal action with no ongoing monitoring, the present worth is equivalent to the estimated remedial action cost. Site 77 Land Use Controls $82,000 This alternative includes $10,000 for total short-term costs and $72,000 for total long-term and operation and maintenance costs. Soil Removal $2,993,000 This alternative includes no long-term costs. For a removal action with no ongoing monitoring, the present worth is equivalent to the estimated remedial action cost.

Final Record of Decision 2-29 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

2.10.8 State/Support Agency Acceptance

The Government of Guam has expressed its support for Alternative 3 for Site 63, Alternative 2 for Site 64, and Alternative 3 for Site 77. The Government of Guam does not support Alternative 1 on the basis that this alternative does not meet ARARs.

2.10.9 Community Acceptance

During the public comment period, the community expressed its support for Alternative 3 for Site 63, Alternative 2 for Site 64, and Alternative 3 for Site 77. The community does not support Alternative 1 on the basis that this alternative does not meet ARARs.

2.11 Principal Threat Wastes

The NCP expects that treatment that reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the principal threat wastes will be used to the extent practicable. The principal threat concept refers to the source materials at a CERCLA site considered to be highly toxic or highly mobile that generally cannot be reliably controlled in place or present a significant risk to human health or the environment should exposure occur. A source material is material that contains hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that act as a reservoir for migration of contamination to groundwater or air, or that acts as a source for direct exposure.

The COC-impacted soils at Sites 63, 64, and 77 do not constitute principal threat wastes based on the following:

 COCs are primarily metals that are relatively immobile in the highly alkaline limestone environment at each of the sites.  COCs are present at the sites in relatively low concentrations and are not of a highly toxic nature. No RCRA wastes were identified at the sites.

2.12 Selected Remedies for Sites 63, 64, and 77

The primary indicator of remedial action performance will be satisfying the RAOs for Sites 63, 64, and 77 and protecting human health and the environment. The performance measures are defined herein as the RAOs (see Section 2.8 – RAOs) plus the required actions to achieve the objectives, as defined in this section. It is anticipated that successful implementation, operation, maintenance, and completion of the performance measures will achieve protective and legally compliant remedies for Sites 63, 64, and 77.

The remedies for Sites 63 and 77 (Alternative 3 – Soil Removal), and Site 64, (Alternative 2 – Land Use Controls) were selected based upon the ability to protect human health and the environment, and cost effectiveness. This section describes the selected remedies and also provides specific performance measures for the selected remedies.

The remedy selection is based on the detailed evaluation of the remedial alternatives presented in the FS (EA, 2009b). It is expected that the remedies will remain in effect and be protective of

Final Record of Decision 2-30 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

human health and the environment until such time as the concentrations of COCs decrease to, or below, applicable cleanup levels.

The USN is responsible for implementing, maintaining, and monitoring the remedial action identified herein for the duration of the remedy selected in this ROD. The USN will exercise this responsibility in accordance with CERCLA and the NCP. The concurrence by USEPA and Guam EPA is required for any modification of the remedy inconsistent with the objectives of this ROD.

2.12.1 Summary of the Rationale for the Selected Remedies

The selected remedial alternative for Sites 63 and 77 is Alternative 3 – Soil Removal and the selected remedial alternative for Site 64 is Alternative 2 – Land Use Controls. The USN and USEPA believe that the selected remedies meet the threshold criteria and provide the best balance of tradeoffs among the other alternatives with respect to the balancing and modifying criteria. The remedies are expected to satisfy the following statutory requirements of CERCLA §121(b):

 Threshold criteria — Protection of human health and the environment — Compliance with ARARs  Balancing criteria — Long-term effectiveness and permanence — Toxicity, mobility, or volume reduction through treatment — Short-term effectiveness — Implementability — Cost  Modifying criteria — State agency acceptance — Community acceptance

The USN has selected the Soil Removal alternative as the preferred alternative for Sites 63 and 77 on the basis of the criteria above. The Soil Removal alternative is more expensive than the Land Use Controls alternative, but would permanently remove COCs from the sites and would allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposures at the sites.

The USN has selected Alternative 2 – Land Use Controls as the preferred alternative for Site 64 on the basis of the criteria above. As compared to other alternatives, the Land Use Controls alternative would control exposure to resident adults and children by prohibiting development of the land for residential use and would be easily implemented. The Land Use Controls alternative is also cost-effective because the costs associated with this alternative are proportional to its overall effectiveness.

Final Record of Decision 2-31 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam 2.12.2 Description of the Selected Remedies for Sites 63, 64, and 77

Descriptions of the selected remedies for Sites 63, 64, and 77 are presented below. It is important to note that the selected remedy for a site may change somewhat as a result of the remedial design and construction processes. Changes, if they occur, to the remedy as described in this ROD will be documented using a technical memorandum in the AR, an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD), or ROD amendment.

The selected remedy for Sites 63 and 77, Alternative 3 – Soil Removal, involves excavations and offsite disposal of soils containing COCs at concentrations exceeding RGs. Excavation and removal may be conducted using a trackhoe, backhoe, or front-end loader and dump trucks. Generally, COC-impacted surface soil will be excavated to bedrock or to a depth of 1 foot bgs, and COC impacted subsurface soil will be excavated to bedrock or a depth of 4 feet bgs.

Once the excavation has been completed, confirmation samples will be collected to determine if any additional soil remains containing COCs at concentrations exceeding the cleanup levels (RGs). The soil excavation at each site will continued until the risk associated at the site is acceptable for residential receptors. Based upon the waste characterization sampling, the excavated soil may be treated (e.g., stabilization) to meet disposal requirements of the receiving facility.

Removal of all soil containing COCs above RGs would effectively mitigate all unacceptable risks to human and ecological receptors identified in the HHRAs and SLERAs.

The following are site-specific descriptions of the selected remedies.

Soil Removal at Site 63

 Soil removal includes excavation and offsite disposal of approximately 480 lcy of COC- impacted surface soil from Site 63 (Figure 2-4). Because the RG for lead is based on achieving an average concentration of 400 mg/kg, the volume of lead-impacted soil requiring removal can be minimized by focusing efforts on areas where lead concentrations are highest and where exceedances are collocated with other COCs.

 Removal of soil containing COCs above RGs, the site would be rendered suitable for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure; therefore, the site could be closed under CERCLA and no five-year reviews would be required.

Soil Removal at Site 77

 Soil removal includes excavation and offsite disposal of approximately 1,248 lcy of COC-impacted surface and subsurface soil from Site 77 (Figure 2-6).  Removal of the soil containing COCs above RGs would effectively mitigate all unacceptable risks to human and ecological receptors identified in the HHRA and SLERA.

Final Record of Decision 2-32 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

Land Use Controls at Site 64

The remedy for Site 64, Alternative 2 – Land Use Controls, was selected based upon the ability to protect human health and the environment, and cost effectiveness. This section describes the selected remedy and also provides specific performance measures for the selected remedy.

The components necessary for implementation of the Land Use Controls alternative are as follows:

 Phase 1Development and Implementation of LUCs  Phase 2 Monitoring and Enforcement  Phase 3Periodic reviews

A detailed description of the actions that the USN will be required to perform to ensure proper implementation of the Land Use Controls alternative at Site 64 is provided in this section. This section provides a summary of: (1) site risks relevant to the selected remedy; (2) a description of the property, including current and anticipated future property ownership, land use, and restrictions; (3) a description of onsite structures; (4) a description of LUC objectives; (5) a list of applicable LUCs and other specific measures that are required to implement LUCs consistent with the selected remedy; (6) monitoring and reporting requirements; and (7) specific corrective actions to address non-compliant LUC events.

Risk Summary—There are no unacceptable risks to ecological receptors. There are no unacceptable cancer or non-cancer risks to human health associated with exposure to surface soil. There are no unacceptable cancer risks associated with exposure to subsurface soil. Unacceptable non-cancer risks associated with exposure to subsurface soil were identified for resident children.

Hazardous Substances—Chromium in subsurface soil.

Selected Remedy—LUCs

Purpose of LUCs—The purpose of the LUCs is to control direct exposure of future residents to contaminated subsurface soil within the site. The selected remedy does not include the removal of contaminated soil from the site. The selected remedy will result in contaminated subsurface soil remaining onsite at concentrations that could pose potential unacceptable risks to future resident children. LUCs shall be required to control direct exposure to the contaminated subsurface soil and to eliminate unacceptable exposure pathways. The area designated for LUCs at Site 64 is presented in Figure 2-9.

Property Ownership—The site is owned by the USN and is located within the Main Base portion of Andersen AFB, Guam.

Site Constraints—The site is located on the Main Base and site access is limited to personnel with access to the Base. There is no fencing to restrict access to the site; however, there are no

Final Record of Decision 2-33 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

human health risks to current users of the site (industrial workers and construction workers). The LUCs will include prohibiting development of the site for residential use.

Area Subject to Controls—Approximately 2 acres. The area defining the “restricted” LUC areas will be posted with appropriate signage.

Current Onsite Structures/Facilities—None

Future Land Use Restrictions—The designated LUC area is prohibited from residential development as long as the site conditions are not suitable for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure. In addition, disturbance of soil within the designated LUC area is prohibited.

Land Use Controls The following are the LUC performance objectives for Site 64:  Implement all LUCs.  Prevent future residential exposures to chromium in subsurface soil at concentrations greater than the RG (1,310 mg/kg).  Prohibit the development and use of property for residential housing, elementary and secondary schools, child care facilities, and playgrounds.  Limit and control any future excavation activities at the site (e.g., worker requirements, soil management, waste disposal).  The LUCs will be implemented through amendments to the BGP that will effectively act as deed restrictions. The USN will utilize the Andersen BGP as an administrative LUC to prevent uses that are inconsistent with the approved ROD. The BGP amendments will be completed within 60 days of the ROD approval. The BGP will: Identify the designated LUC area as prohibited from development and use for residential housing, elementary and secondary schools, child care facilities, and playgrounds.  Require dig and construction permits prior to intrusive activities within the LUC area.

The LUCs will be enforced through the LUCMP process. The LUCMP defines the LUCs and other specific measures that are required to implement LUCs consistent with the selected remedy at each IRP site.

Management of Land Use Controls Prepare and Maintain a LUCMP—The LUCMP shall serve as the operational “road map” for defining, implementing, maintaining, monitoring, reporting on, and enforcing LUCs at Site 64. The USN is responsible for implementing, maintaining, monitoring, reporting on, and enforcing the LUCs established in approved decision documents for IRP sites within Andersen AFB. The USN is responsible for maintaining the LUCMP to assure that activities within the designated LUC area are in accordance with the remedies selected in the approved ROD and other pertinent decision documents.

Final Record of Decision 2-34 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

The LUCMP includes protocols or a “process” for: (1) daily management of the LUCMP process, (2) annual inspections of Site 64 to ensure compliance with the LUCs, (3) specifications for annual LUC-compliance reporting requirements, (4) property lease or transfer (NOTE: Currently, there are no plans for property lease or transfer), (5) LUC modification or termination, and (6) notification process and relevant corrective actions for LUC non-compliant events.

Any activity that is inconsistent with the LUC objectives or use restrictions, or any other action that may interfere with the effectiveness of the LUCs will be addressed by the USN as soon as practicable, but in no case will the process be initiated later than 15 days after the USN becomes aware of the breach.

The USN will notify USEPA and Guam EPA as soon as practicable but no longer than 10 days after discovery of any activity that is inconsistent with the LUC objectives or use restrictions, or any other action that may interfere with the effectiveness of the LUCs. The USN will notify USEPA and Guam EPA regarding how the USN has addressed or will address the breach within 10 days of sending USEPA and Guam EPA notification of the breach.

The USN shall notify USEPA and Guam EPA 45 days in advance of any proposed land use changes that are inconsistent with the LUC objectives or the selected remedy.

The LUCMP will be reviewed annually to assure that land use restrictions and controls are maintained as per the remedy selected in the ROD. The annual LUCMP monitoring reports will summarize: (1) inspection activities performed in the prior year, (2) deficiencies or inconsistencies in maintaining the LUCs, (3) corrective actions taken, and (4) effectiveness of the corrective actions. The annual LUCMP monitoring reports will be used in preparation of the 5-year review to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy.

LUCs will be maintained until the concentrations of hazardous substances in the soil are at such levels to allow for unrestricted use and exposure.

The office on Andersen AFB responsible for implementing these actions is the 36th CES Environmental Restoration Office.

Lease or Transfer of Property—Site 64 is located on the Main Base, and there are no current plans for the USN to lease or transfer the property. Although the USN may later transfer these procedural responsibilities to another party by contract, property transfer agreement, or through other means, the USN shall retain ultimate responsibility for remedy integrity.

The USN will provide notice to USEPA and Guam EPA at least 6 months prior to any transfer or sale of Site 64 so that USEPA and Guam EPA can be involved in discussions to ensure that appropriate provisions are included in the transfer terms or conveyance documents to maintain effective LUCs. If it is not possible for the facility to notify USEPA and Guam EPA at least 6 months prior to any transfer or sale, then the facility will notify USEPA and Guam EPA as soon as possible but no later than 60 days prior to the transfer or sale of any property subject to LUCs. In addition to the land transfer notice and discussion provisions above, the USN further agrees to provide USEPA and Guam EPA with similar notice, within the same time frames, as to

Final Record of Decision 2-35 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

federal-to-federal transfer of property. The USN shall provide a copy of executed deed or transfer assembly to USEPA and Guam EPA.

The office on Andersen AFB responsible for implementing these actions is the 36th CES Real Property Office.

Dig and Construction Permits—No intrusive activities shall occur within the designated LUC area without prior written approval of the USN in the form of a dig and/or construction permit. If intrusive activities are conducted within the designated LUC area, the work would require an approved health and safety plan and procedures for the proper handling and disposal of displaced wastes and/or soils. Dig and construction permits shall be maintained as part of the LUCMP for Site 64. This permit requirement shall be subject to an annual review (see above section for reporting requirements) and will remain in effect as long as hazardous substances in subsurface soil remain at concentrations that prevent unrestricted use and unlimited exposure.

The office on Andersen AFB responsible for implementing these actions is the 36th CES Customer Service.

Base General Plan—The BGP will be amended within 60 days of ROD approval to identify the designated LUC area as prohibited from further residential development as long as the site conditions are not suitable for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure. AFI 32-7062 (Air Force Comprehensive Planning) requires that installations develop and maintain a BGP as a central repository for information deemed essential for planning and managing the installation’s physical assets, including environmental planning constraints such as the LUCs. AFI 32-1021 (Planning and Programming Military Construction Projects) requires installations to comply with their BGP to ensure that there are no conflicts with land use constraints stemming from the LUCs of the Environmental Restoration Program that would impact facility planning and construction. Any requests for invasive activities (i.e., utility or construction work) through excavation permits, such as AF Form 103, or the construction review process, as per AFI 32- 1001 (Operations Management), will be denied, unless the procedures for proposed land use changes described in the approved ROD, and amended to the BGP, are followed. The LUCs amended to the BGP will be monitored, maintained, enforced, and reported on through existing land use management programs, such as the BCE Work Clearance Form (AF Form 103) (Digging Permit) and the construction review process (AFI 32-1001). The USN shall notify USEPA and Guam EPA in writing in advance of any changes to the internal procedures that would affect the LUCs.

The USN shall not modify or terminate LUCs, implementation actions, or modify land use without approval by USEPA and Guam EPA. The USN shall seek prior concurrence before any anticipated action that may disrupt the effectiveness of the LUCs or any action that may alter or negate the need for LUCs. This requirement shall be reviewed as part of the regular 5-year ROD review (2014) and remain in effect as long as hazardous substances in subsurface soil remain at concentrations that prevent unrestricted use and unlimited exposure.

The office on Andersen AFB responsible for implementing these actions is the 36th CES Engineering Flight and the GeoBase section within 36th CES Engineering Flight.

Final Record of Decision 2-36 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

Monitoring and Reporting—Monitoring of the environmental use restrictions and controls will be conducted annually by the USAF. The monitoring results will be included in a separate report or as a section of another environmental report, if appropriate, and provided to the USEPA and Guam EPA. The annual monitoring reports will be used in preparation of the Five-Year Review to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy.

The annual monitoring report, submitted to the regulatory agencies by the USN, will evaluate the status of the LUCs and how any LUC deficiencies or inconsistent uses have been addressed. The annual evaluation will address whether the use restrictions and controls referenced above were communicated in the deed(s), whether the owners and state and local agencies were notified of the use restrictions and controls affecting the property, and whether use of the property has conformed with such restrictions and controls.

The office on Andersen AFB responsible for implementing these actions is the 36th CES Environmental Restoration Office.

Post Signage—Signs will be posted around the perimeter of the site and will meet the following requirements:

 Lettering shall be legible from a distance of at least 25 feet.  Signs shall contain contact information for USAF personnel for long-term oversight.  Signs shall be visible from surrounding areas and at potential routes of entry.  The warning signs shall contain language similar to the following:

WARNING – Subsurface Soil Contains Potentially Hazardous Substances. Digging or Excavating is Prohibited. Contact Environmental Management at 366-4692.

These requirements shall be fulfilled as soon as practical, and shall be monitored annually as part of the operation and maintenance activities.

Operation and Maintenance—Warning signs shall be posted by the LUC restricted area to prevent intrusive activities without USN approval. Annual site inspections shall be conducted to: (1) confirm that signage is intact, (2) determine that no unapproved structures have been constructed or intrusive activities have been performed, and (3) ensure that the LUCMP is properly maintained and all activities relevant to the designated LUC area (i.e., proper documentation of digging permits, etc.) are properly documented. The USN will be responsible for summarizing the findings of the previous calendar year in an annual LUC Compliance Summary Report. The LUCs shall remain in effect as long as hazardous substances in subsurface soil remain at concentrations that prevent unrestricted use and unlimited exposure.

2.12.3 Summary of Estimated Remedy Cost

The cost estimates for the selected remedy of Soil Removal for Sites 63 and 77 are presented in Tables 2-18 and 2-20, respectively and Land Use Controls for Site 64) are presented in Table 2-19. The information in the cost estimate tables is based on the RACER cost estimating

Final Record of Decision 2-37 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

program. However, there is uncertainty for the cost estimates due to a significant cost modifier increase added to the cost estimates as a result of future labor, expertise, and material demands associated with the future military buildup proposed for Guam.

Changes in the cost elements are likely to occur as a result of new information and the data collected during the engineering design of the remedial alternative. Major changes may be documented in the form of a memorandum in the AR file, an ESD, or a ROD amendment. These are order-of-magnitude engineering cost estimates that are expected to be within +50 to -30 percent of the actual project costs.

2.12.4 Expected Outcomes of Selected Remedies

Sites 63 and 77

The selected remedy for Sites 63 and 77 is the removal of soil containing COCs above RGs. Once the RGs have been achieved, the Site 63 will be rendered suitable for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure; therefore, the site could be closed under CERCLA and no five-year reviews would be required. The JRM ESS addresses the risk due to MEC.

Site 64

The selected remedy of Land Use Controls for Site 64 would effectively eliminate the potential for residential exposures to soil containing COCs above RGs by prohibiting residential development on or adjacent to the site through modification of the BGP. The site would remain suitable for continued use by the USAF as industrial/open space and industrial worker/occasional user exposures, but would not be suitable for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (e.g., residential). The time frame to achieve this land use is immediate as the land is already appropriate for non-residential/undeveloped use. Groundwater is unaffected by contaminants onsite and use of the groundwater would remain unchanged.

2.13 Statutory Determinations for Sites 63, 64, and 77

Under CERCLA §121 (as required by NCP §300.430(f)(5)(ii)), the lead agency must select a remedy that is protective of human health and the environment, complies with ARARs, is cost- effective, and uses permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, CERCLA includes: (1) a preference for remedies that employ treatment which permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as a principal element; and (2) a bias against offsite disposal of untreated wastes. The following sections discuss how the selected remedies meet these statutory requirements.

2.13.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Sites 63 and 77

The selected remedy of Soil Removal for Sites 63 and 77 will protect human health and the environment by removing COC-impacted soil from the sites, thus eliminating the exposure medium.

Final Record of Decision 2-38 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

Site 64

The selected remedy of Land Use Controls for Site 64 will protect human health by prohibiting residential development on and adjacent to the site, thus preventing potential exposure of residential receptors to COC-impacted soil at Site 64. The selected remedy will also protect the environment as no unacceptable ecological risks were identified onsite.

2.13.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

Remedial actions must comply with both Federal and State ARARs. ARARs are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, standards, criteria, or limitations of Federal and State environmental laws and regulations.

ARARs fall into three categories: chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-specific. Chemical-specific ARARs are health-based or risk management-based numbers that provide concentration limits for the occurrence of a chemical in the environment. Location-specific ARARs restrict activities in certain sensitive environments. Action-specific ARARs are activity- based or technology-based (such as with those covered under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976). Criteria to be considered, or TBCs, are non-promulgated advisories or guidance issued by federal or state government that are not legally binding and do not have the status of potential ARARs. However, in many circumstances, TBCs are considered along with ARARs and may be used in determining the necessary level of cleanup for protection of health or the environment.

Table 2-21 summarizes the ARARs and TBCs for the selected remedy at Sites 63 and 77 and describes how the selected remedy addresses each one. Table 2-22 summarizes the ARARs and TBCs for the selected remedy at Sites 64 and describes how the selected remedy addresses each one.

The selected remedies comply with the chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-specific ARARs. The implementation of a remedy is required to meet the substantive portions of these requirements and is exempt from administrative requirements, such as permitting and notifications.

2.13.3 Cost Effectiveness

In the USN’s judgment, the selected remedies are cost-effective and represent reasonable value for the money to be spent. In making this determination, the following definition was used: A remedy shall be cost-effective if its costs are proportional to its overall effectiveness (40 CFR 300.430[f][1][ii][D]). This determination was accomplished by evaluating the “overall effectiveness” of those alternatives that satisfy the threshold criteria (that is, protective of human health and the environment and ARAR-compliant).

The overall effectiveness was evaluated by assessing three of the five balancing criteria in combination: long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment; and short-term effectiveness. Overall effectiveness was then compared to costs to determine cost-effectiveness. The overall effectiveness of the selected remedies for Sites 63, 64, and 77 was demonstrated in the comparative analysis of alternatives Final Record of Decision 2-39 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

(Section 2.10 – Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives for Sites 63, 64, and 77) and are summarized below:

Incremental Long-Term Reduction of Toxicity, Present- Cost (if Effectiveness Mobility, or Volume Short-Term Alternative Worth Cost applicable) and Permanence through Treatment Effectiveness Site 63 1. No Action $0 $0 No No No 2. Land Use Controls $82,000 $24,900* Yes No Yes 3. Soil Removal $356,000 $0 Yes Yes Yes Site 64 1. No Action $0 $0 No No No 2. Land Use Controls $82,000 $24,900* Yes No Yes 3. Soil Removal $1,926,000 $0 Yes Yes Yes Site 77 1. No Action $0 $0 No No No 2. Land Use Controls $82,000 $24,900* Yes No Yes 3. Soil Removal $2,993,000 $0 Yes Yes Yes * Five-year ROD review.

2.13.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies

Sites 63 and 77 The USN has determined that the selected remedy of Soil Removal is a permanent solution for Site 63 because it would reduce the volume of COCs remaining in soil. Unacceptable risks were identified for potential future residents for Site 63 and ecological receptors. With the removal of soil containing COCs above RGs, the site would be rendered suitable for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure; therefore, the sites could be closed under CERCLA and no five-year reviews would be required. Removal of the lead and antimony impacted soil will eliminate the unacceptable risks posed to current (industrial workers and construction workers), potential future residents and ecological receptors by that material. The risk due to MEC will be addressed by the JRM ESS.

Site 64

The USN has determined that the selected remedy of Land Use Controls represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be used in a practicable manner at Site 64. Of those alternatives that are protective of human health and the environment and comply with ARARs, the USN has determined that the selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs in terms of the five balancing criteria, while also considering the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element and bias against offsite treatment and disposal and considering state and community acceptance.

The selected remedy manages the potential risks to human health and the environment by prohibiting residential development on or adjacent to the sites through modification of the BGP and, therefore, effectively eliminating residential exposures to subsurface soil containing COCs

Final Record of Decision 2-40 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

above RGs. No unacceptable risks were identified for current human receptors (industrial workers and construction workers) or ecological receptors.

2.13.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element

Section 121(b) of CERLA establishes the expectation that treatment will be used to address the principal threats posed by a site wherever practicable. The selected remedies do not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy because COC-impacted soil will be excavated and removed from Sites 63 and 77 and the COC-impacted soil will remain onsite untreated at Site 64. However, the COC-impacted soils at Sites 63, 64, and 77 do not constitute principal threat wastes as described in Section 2.11.

2.13.6 Five-Year Review Requirements

Sites 63 and 77

Pursuant to CERCLA §121(c) and NCP §300.430(f)(5)(iii)(C), because the selected remedy for Sites 63 and 77 will not result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining onsite above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory review will not be required within 5 years after initiation of the remedial action to verify that the remedy is, or will be, protective of human health and the environment. However, if the remedial action has not been implemented or the RAOs have not been attained within 5 years, the next five-year review would include a review of these sites. Specifically, the Technical Assessment for each site would ascertain what actions are still required and whether the remedy is protective of human health and the environment. In the event the remedial action cannot achieve the ROD RAOs, an amendment to the ROD or an ESD would be prepared to resolve the discrepancy. The risk due to MEC will be addressed by the JRM ESS.

Site 64

Pursuant to CERCLA §121(c) and NCP §300.430(f)(5)(iii)(C), because the selected remedy will result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at Site 64 above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory review will be required within 5 years after initiation of the remedial action to verify that the remedy is, or will be, protective of human health and the environment.

Five-year reviews will be conducted until concentrations of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining onsite are reduced to levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

2.14 Documentation of Significant Changes

The Proposed Plans for Sites 63, 64, and 77 were released for public comment on 13 March 2010. The Proposed Plan identified Soil Removal as the preferred remedy for Sites 63 and 77 and Land Use Controls as the preferred remedy for Site 64. The USN reviewed all written and verbal comments submitted during the public comment period. It was determined that no significant changes to the amended selected remedy, as originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary or appropriate. Final Record of Decision 2-41 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

This page is intentionally left blank

Final Record of Decision 2-42 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam 3.0 Responsiveness Summary

This section provides a summary of the public comments regarding the Proposed Plan for remedial action at Sites 63, 64, and 77 at Andersen AFB, Yigo, Guam. At the time of the public review period, the USN had identified Soil Removal as the preferred remedy for Sites 63 and 77 and Land Use Controls as the preferred remedy for Site 64.

3.1 Stakeholder Comments and Lead Agency Responses

A public meeting was held on 24 March 2010 at the Guam Marriot Hotel in Tumon, Guam. The meeting officially began at 6:30 PM and concluded at 7:45 PM, according to the transcript. The meeting was attended by 14 members of the community. Mr. Gregg Ikehara, Andersen AFB 36 Civil Engineer Squadron/Civil Engineer Environmental Flight (36th CES/CEVR), provided an opening statement. Mr. Joe Vinch, Environmental Engineer, gave a PowerPoint presentation discussing the proposed plan for Sites 63, 64, 65, 66, 72, and 77. The presentation provided a brief site history, summary of past investigative studies and related analytical results, and when applicable a summary of the human health and ecological risk assessments. The preferred remedial alternative was also presented.

Public Meeting Questions

After the presentation, two members of the community spoke regarding Sites 65 and 72. The questions and comments received were primarily focused on clarifying details of the presented material and were adequately answered during the meeting. A brief summary of individual questions and comments are included on the following pages. The complete transcript is available in the AR file for Andersen AFB, which is available for public review at the Robert F. Kennedy Library at the University of Guam and Nieves M. Flores Memorial Library in Hagåtña.

Mr. Jocson asked if Site 63 was a natural sinkhole or an abandoned quarry. Mr. Ikehara indicated that photographs taken in the 1940s and 1950s through to current time show that the site was never cleared as would be found in a quarry pit.

Colonel Wieder pointed out that there was a typo on one of the slides. It incorrectly states that there is a resident child that lives at the site. It should state residential children in the future.

Ms. Brown inquired why the base decided not to cleanup Site 64. She wanted to know if it was a financial reason. Mr. Vinch indicated that the decision to cleanup Site 64 was not a financial reason but was based off of risk. He stated that if there would be a change in the land use at the site, the base would go back and consider cleaning it up. With land use controls the base will limit what is done in the area and who has access to the area. Mr. Ikehara added that the base does prefer to cleanup the sites but in this case the site is located next to a fuel pipeline and therefore the site will remain an industrial area as long as the base has the capability for pumping fuel.

Colonel Wieder asked what category land use controls falls into: closed, pending study, or pending clean up. Mr. Ikehara indicated that the site is claimed as part of the remedy that has been instituted even though it requires 30 years of observation. Since the site requires 30 years Final Record of Decision 3-1 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam of observation, it has to be included in the base general plan and therefore is considered a remedy at this point. It is not considered a response complete, just a remedy in place and that remedy may change as land use changes for that particular area.

Colonel Wieder asks that if the land use, technology, or price changes, is the site continuously readdressed or will the base wait 30 years before re-evaluating the site. Mr. Ikehara confirms that the site will be re-addressed.

Mr. Gawel asked if the budget determines when the cleanup will be done and is there a priority among the sites. Mr. Ikehara indicated that these sites are all scheduled for action in 2011. The base prioritized the sites early in the program. The high risk sites were dealt with early in the program and they have now moved onto the low risk sites.

3.2 Technical and Legal Issues

No technical or legal issues were identified during the public review period of the Proposed Plan.

Final Record of Decision 3-2 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

4.0 References

Andersen AFB, 2001. Technical Memorandum on the Recalculation of Background Threshold Value for Manganese in Soil, Installation Restoration Program Sites, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. November.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2006. Public Health Assessment, Andersen Air Force Base, Yigo, Guam. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/anderson/and_p1.html. Accessed March, 2007.

Barrett, Harris, & Associates, 1982. Summary Report, Northern Guam Lens Study. December.

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. (EA), 1995. Exposure Pathway Analysis for Human Health and Ecology at Andersen Air Force Base. Prepared for Andersen Air Force Base, Guam.

------, 1999. Memorandum: Discontinuation of Groundwater Monitoring of 10 Wells in Northwest Field, Andersen AFB, Guam. June.

------, 2002. Memorandum for Recalculation of BTV for Manganese for Andersen AFB, Guam. April.

------, 2006. Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection for Ten IRP Sites Andersen AFB, Guam Final. June.

------, 2009a. Final Fall 2008 Groundwater Monitoring Report for Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. May.

------, 2009b. Final Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for Sites 63, 64, 65, 66, 72, and 77. December.

------. 2010. Final Proposed Plan, Sites 63, 64, and 77, Site-Wide Operable Unit, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. February.

Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation/EA, 2005. 2003 Phase II Release Assessment for Two Areas of Concern (AOC-4 and AOC-5) and Six Solid Waste Management Units (SWMU-15, SWMU-20D, SWMU-20E, SWMU-30C, SWMU-43, and SWMU-57). November.

ICF Technology, Inc. (ICF), 1995. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, Mariana Islands. Department of the Air Force, 36 Air Base Wing, Civil Engineering Squadron. December.

------, 1996. Expanded Source Investigation – Visual Site Inspection for Andersen Air Force Base. Final. February. Final Record of Decision 4-1 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam

------, 1997. Analysis of Background Threshold Values for Andersen Air Force Base, Guam.

Joint Region Marianas, 2013. Guam Explosives Safety Submission Munitions Response Site Guam Construction Support. Ammendment 5 Correction 1. April

United States Air Force (USAF), 1999. Minutes from May 1999 Remedial Program Managers Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii. May.

------, 2005. General Plan, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. August.

------, 2006. Final Environmental Assessment, Beddown of Training and Support Initiatives at Northwest Field, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. June.

URS Group, Inc./EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc. (URS/EA), 2000. Work Plans, Sampling Analysis Plans, and Cost Estimates for Solid Waste Management Units Release Assessment, Part 1, Andersen AFB, Guam. December.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) (Interim Final). EPA/540/1-89002. EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.

------, 1994. Guidance Manual for the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children. EPA/540/R-93/081(NTIS No. PB93-963510). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C. February.

------, 1997. Health Effects Assessments Summary Tables. EPA 540/R-95/036. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development and Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.

------, 2002. User’s Guide for the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children Windows® Version – 32 bit version. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. May.

------, 2004. Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goal Tables. Superfund Division. USEPA Region 9. San Francisco, California. October.

------, 2008. Integrated Risk Information System on-line database maintained on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/iris by USEPA Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati.

------, Guam Environmental Protection Agency, and United States Air Force, 1993. Federal Facility Agreement Under CERCLA Section 120.

Ward, P.E., S.H. Hoffman, and D.A. Davis, 1965. Hydrology of Guam. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 403H. 28 p.

Final Record of Decision 4-2 December 2010 for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Site-Wide OU, Andersen AFB, Guam ~ I I

TABLES

l J

I J Table 1-1 Data Certification Summary

Decision Summary Sections Site 63 Site 64 Site 77 List of contaminants of concern and Table 2-8 and Table 2-10 and Table 2-12 and their respective concentrations Section 2.5.6 Section 2.5.6 (Page Section 2.5.6 (Pages 2-10 to 2-11) 2-11) (Pages 2-11 to 2-12) Baseline risk represented by the Section 2. 7 .1 Section 2. 7 .2 Section 2.7.3 contaminants of concern (Pages 2-17 to 2-19) (Pages 2-19 to 2-20) (Pages 2-20 to 2-21) Cleanup levels established for Section 2.8.1 Section 2.8.2 Section 2.8.3 contanlinants of concern and the (Page 2-22) (Page 2-22) (Pages 2-22 to 2-23) basis for these levels How source materials constituting Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 01incipal tl1reats will be addressed CutTent and reasonably anticipated Section 2.6 Section 2.6 Section 2.6 future land use assu1nptions and (Pages 2-12 to 2-14) (Pages 2-12 to 2-14) (Pages 2-12 to 2-14) cuirnnt and potential future beneficial uses of groundwater used in the baseline risk assessment and Record of Decision Potential land and groundwater use Section 2.6 Section 2.6 Section 2.6 that will be available at the site as a (Pages 2-12 to 2-14) (Pages 2-12 to 2-14) (Pages 2-12 to 2-14) result of the selected remedies Estimated capital, annual operation Section 2.13.3 Section 2.13.3 Section 2.13 .3 and maintenance, and total present (Pages 2-39 to 2-40) (Pages 2-39 to 2-40) (Pages 2-39 to 2-40) worth costs, discount rate, and the and Table 2-18 and Table 2-19 and Table 2-20 number of years over which the remedy cost estimates are projected Key factor(s) that led to selecting the Section 2.12.1 Section 2.12.1 Section 2.12.1 remedy (i.e., describe how the (Page 2-31) (Page 2-31) (Page 2-31) selected remedy provides the best balance of tradeoffs with respect to the balancing and modifying criteria, highlighting criteria key to the decision)

Page 1of1 Table 2-1 Public Notification of Document Availability

I Reguirement I Satisfied by I Notice of availability of the Proposed Plan and Remedial Notice of availability of the Proposed Plan Investigation must be made in a widely-read section of a major was published in the Guam Pacific Daily local newspaper. News on 13 March 2010. Notice of availability should occur at least 2 weeks prior to the The public comment period began on beginning of the public comment period. 15 March 2010. Notice of availability must include a brief abstract of the Notice of availability included all of these proposed plan which describes the alternatives evaluated and components and is included in Appendix B identifies the preferred alternative (National Oil and Hazardous of this Record of Decision. Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Section 300 .430(f)(3)(i)(A)). Notice of availability should consist of the following See notice in Appendix B. information: • Site name and location • Date and location of public meeting • Identification of lead and support agencies • Alternatives evaluated in the detailed analysis • Identification of preferred alternative • Request for public comments • Public participation opportunities including: - Location of information repositories and Administrative Record file - Methods by which the public may submit written and oral comments, including a contact person - Dates of public comment period - Contact person for the Restoration Advisory Board

Page I of I Table2-2 Public Comment Period Requirements

Requirement Satisfied by Lead agency (USN) should make document available to public for Document was made available to the public review on same date as newspaper notification. on 13 March 20 IO. The notification of availability was made on 13 March 2010. Lead agency (USN) must ensure that all information that forms the The USN maintains information repositories basis for selecting the response action is included as part of the AR for the Andersen AFB AR file at the Robert file and made available to the public during the public comment F. Kennedy Library at the University of period. Guam and the Nieves M. Flores Memorial Library in Hagatila. Data and suppmting CERCLA primary documents produced for Andersen AFB are maintained as part of these files and are available to the oublic. CERCLA Section 177(a)(2) and NCP Section 300.430(f)(3)(i) The USN provided a public comment period requires the lead agency (USN) to provide the public with a for the Remedial Investigation and the reasonable opportunity (30 days) to submit written and oral Proposed Plan from 15 March 2010 to 14 comments on the Proposed Plan. April 2010. The lead agency (USN) must extend the public comment period by at The USN received no requests to extend the least 30 additional days uoon timely request. public comment period. The lead agency (USN) must provide a public meeting to be held at A public meeting was held on 24 March or near the site during the public comment period. A transcript of 2010 at the Guam Man:iot Resort & Spa. this meeting must be made available to the public and be maintained in the AR for the site (Pursuant to NCP Section 300.430(f)(3)(i)(E)). NOTE: AFB = Air Force Base. AR = Administrative Record. CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. NCP = National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. USN = United States Navy.

Page 1of1 Table 2-3 Non-Cancer Toxicity Data - Oral/Dermal

Oral to Dermal Oral RID Adjustment Adjusted Dermal Combined Sources of Dates of RID: 2 Contaminant of Chronic/ Value Factor RID < l (mg/kg Primary Target Uncertainty/ RID: Target Target Organ tll Potential Concern Subchronic (mg/kg-day) (GI ABS) tll bw-day) Organ Modifying Factors Organ (mm/dd/yy) Inorganics Antimony Blood glucose Chronic 4.0E-04 0.15 6.0E-05 1,000/1 IRIS 3/20/2008 and cholesterol Chromium, Total Chronic 3.0E-03 0.025 7.5E-05 None 300/3 IRIS 8/19/2008 Conner Chronic 3.7E-02 I 3.7E-02 Liver and kidney NA/NA HEAST 1997 Zinc Chronic 3.0E-01 I 3.0E-01 Blood 3/1 IRIS 3/20/2008 I. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Supeifund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment). Final Guidance. 2. Dermal toxicological values adjusted from oral values using USEPA (2004) recommended chemical-specific gastrointestinal absorption factors (GI ABS). RIDs arc multiplied by the GI ABS. 3. For IRIS values, the date IRIS was searched is provided.

NOTE: EPA-NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment. For EPA-NCEA values, the date of the article provided by EPA-NCEA is provided. HEAST = Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables. For HEAST values, the date of HEAST is provided. IRIS =Integrated Risk Information System. mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram. NA = Not applicable. RID = Reference dose.

Page I of I Table 2-4 Non-Cancer Toxicity Data - Inhalation.

Value Adjusted Inhalation Inhalation Primary Combined Sources of Contaminant of Chronic/ (RfC) (RID) Target Uncertainty/Modifying RfC:RID: Dates (l) 3 Potential Concern Subchronic (mg/m ) (mg/kg-day) Organ Factors Target Organ (mm/dd/yy) Inor~anics Antimony NA NA NA NA NA IRIS 3/20/2008 Chro1nium, Total Lungs and Subchronic l.OE-04 2.2E-06 300/1 IRIS 8/19/2008 blood Conner NA NA NA NA NA HEAST 1997 Zinc NA NA NA NA NA IRIS 3/20/2008 I. For IRIS values, the date IRIS was searched is provided. For EPA-NCEA values, the date of the article provided by EPA-NCEA is provided.

NOTE: EPA-NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment. CNS = Central nervous system. IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System. mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram. mg/m3 = Milligrams per square meter. NA = Not applicable or available. RfC = Reference concentration. RID = Reference dose.

Page I of I Table 2-5 Chemical-Specific Parameters

Contaminant of GI Potential Concern Absorotion Factor Reference ABS Reference Inorganics Antimony NA USEPA, 2004 0.15 USEPA, 2004 Chromium, Total NA USEPA, 2004 0.025 USEPA, 2004 Conner NA USEPA, 2004 1 USEPA, 2004 Zinc NA USEPA, 2004 I USEPA, 2004 NOTE: GI ABS = Gastrointestinal absorption factors NA = Data not available. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2004. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume/: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment). Final Guidance.

Page I of I Table 2-6 Cancer Toxicity Data - Oral/Dermal

Absorbed Cancer Weight of 3 Contaminant of Oral Cancer Oral Absorption Efficiency Slope Factor for Evidence/Cancer Date l > Potential Concern Slope Factor for Dermal (GI ABS)(IJ Dermal (Z) Units Guideline Description Source (mm/dd/yy) Inorganics Antimonv NA 0.15 NA oer (mg/kg-dav) NA IRIS 3120/2008 Chromiu1n, Total NA 0.025 NA per (mg/kg-dav) D IRIS 8/19/2008 Conner NA l NA per (mg/kg-day) D IRIS 3/20/2008 Zinc NA l NA per (mg/kg-day) D IRIS 3/20/2008 l. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2004. Risk Assessment GuidanceforSupeifund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment). Final Guidance. 2. Dermal Toxicological values adjusted from oral values using USEPA (2004) recommended chemical-specific gastrointestinal absorption factors (GI ABS). Cancer slope factors are divided by the GI ABS. } For IRIS values, the date IRIS was searched is provided.

NOTE: IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System. mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram. NA = Not applicable. Weight of Evidence: A - Human carcinogen. B 1 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates that limited human data are available. B2 - Probable human carcinogen - C - Possible hu1nan carcinogen. indicates sufficient evidence in animals D - Not classifiable as a human carcinogen. and inadequate or no evidence in humans. E - Evidence of non-carcinogenicity.

Page I of I Table 2-7 Cancer Toxicity Data - Inhalation

Unit Risk Inhalation Cancer Slope Factor Weight of Unit Risk - Inhalation CSF Contaminant of Evidence/Cancer Potential Concern Value Units Value Units Guideline Description Source Date (I) Inorganics Antimony NA lh1g/m' NA per (mg/kg-day) NA IRIS 3/20/2008 Chromium, Total l.2E-02 1/110/m·' 4.2E+Ol per (mg/kg-dav) A IRIS 8/19/2008 Conner NA l/uo/m-' NA per (mg/kg-day) D IRIS 3/20/2008 Zinc NA I/iwlm' NA per (mg/kg-day) D IRIS 3/20/2008 I. For IRIS values, the date IRIS was searched is provided. For EPA-NCEA values, the date of the article provided by EPA-NCEA is provided.

NOTE: EPA-NCEA = National Center for Environmental Assessment. IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System. mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram. NA = Not applicable. ftg/m3 = Micrograms per cubic meter.

Weight of Evidence: A - Human carcinogen. D - Not classifiable as a hu1nan carcinogen.

Page I of I Table 2-8 Summary of Contaminants of Concern and Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentrations for Site 63

Concentration 2004 USEPA Region 9 Contaminant of Detected PRG Frequency of Exposure Point Statistical Media Concern Minimum Maximum Units BTV Residential Industrial Detection Concentration Measure Soil Onsite - Antimony 0.86 660 mg/kg 63 31 410 24/24 317 95UCL-C Direct Contact - Conner 14 10,700 mg/kg 72 3,100 41,000 24/24 4,990 95UCL-C Surface Soil Lead 1.1 F 5,100 mg/kg 166 400 800 46146 671 Mean Zinc 20 14,000 mg/kg 111 23,000 100,000 24/24 8,400 95UCL-C NOTE: Mean indicates that the arithmetic mean was used. 95UCLM-C indicates that 95 percent upper confidence limit of the mean is based on non-parametric Chevbshev test. BTV = Background Threshold Value. mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram. PRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal. USEPA= United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Page 1 of 1 Table 2-9 Site 63 Risk Characterization Summary - Non-Carcinogens

Scenario Timeframe: Future Receptor Population: Resident Recentor Aue: Child Exposure Contaminant of Non-Carcinogenic Incremental Medium Point Concern Primarv TarP"et Organ Hazard Quotient Surface Soil Site 63 Blood glucose and Antimony 8.1 cholesterol Copper Liver and kidneys 1.7 Lead Not applicable Not applicable Zinc Liver and kidneys 0.36 Incremental Hazard Index Total = 10.2

Page 1of1 Table 2-10 Summary of Contaminants of Concern and Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentrations for Site 64

Concentration 2004 USEPA Region 9 Frequency Contaminant Delecled PRG of Exposure Point Slalislical Media of Concern Minimum Maximum Units BTV Residential Industrial Detection Concentration Measure Soil Onsite -Direcl Contact - Chromium 380 1,500 mg/kg 1,080 210 450 8/8 1,500 Maximum Subsurface Soil NOTE: Maximum = 95 percent upper confidence of the mean exceeds the maximum detection concentration; therefore, the maximum detected concentration was used. mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram. BTV = Background Threshold Value. NA = Not applicable. PRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal. USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agencv.

Page 1 of I Table 2-11 Site 64 Risk Characterization Summary - Non-Carcinogens

Scenario Timeframe: Future Receptor Population: Resident Receotor A!!e: Child Exposure Contaminant of Non-Carcinogenic Incremental Medium Point Concern Primary Target Organ Hazard Quotient Subsurface Site 64 Chromium None 1.8 Soil Incremental Hazard Index Total = 1.8

Page 1of1 Table 2-12 Summary of Contaminants of Concern and Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentrations for Site 77

Concentration 2004 USEPA Region 9 Contaminant of Detected PRG Frequency of Exposure Point Statistical Media Concern Minimum Maximum Units BTV Residential Industrial Detection Concentration Measure Soil Onsite - 95UCLM- Antimony 0.34 645 mg/kg 63 31 410 43/49 136 Direct Contact - KMC Surface Soil Lead 1.0 33,000 mg/kg 166 400 800 48/48 921 Mean Soil Onsite - 95UCLM- Antimony 0.47 440 mg/kg 63 31 410 11111 411 Direct Contact - KMC Subsurface Soil Lead 1.9 9,800 mg/kg 166 400 800 12/12 857 Mean NOTE: Mean indicates that the arithmetic mean was used. 95UCLM-KMC indicates that the 95 percent upper confidence limit of the mean is based on the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier (KM) Chevbshev tesl. BTV = Background Threshold Value. mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram. PRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal. USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Page I of I Table 2-13 Site 77 Risk Characterization Summary - Non-Carcinogens

Scenario Timeframe: Future Receptor Population: Resident Receptor AQe: Child Non-Carcinogenic Exposure Contaminant of Incremental Medium Point Concern Primarv Tar2:et Or2:an Hazard Quotient Surface Soil Site 77 Blood glucose and Antimony 2.3 cholesterol Lead Not annlicable Not annlicable Subsurface Site 77 Blood glucose and Antimony II Soil cholesterol Lead Not ann!icable Not ann!icable Incremental Hazard Index Total = Scenario Timeframe: Future Receptor Population: Resident Receptor A~e: Adult Non-Carcinogenic Exposure Contaminant of Incremental Medium Point Concern Primary Target Organ Hazard Quotient Subsurface Blood glucose and Site 77 Antimony 1.2 Soil cholesterol Scenario Timeframe: Future Receptor Population: Construction Worker Non-Carcinogenic Exposure Contaminant of Incremental· Medium Point Concern Primary Target Organ Hazard Quotient Subsurface Blood glucose and Antimony 4.1 Soil Site 77 cholesterol Lead Not annlicable Not annlicable

Page 1 of 1 Table 2-14 Site 77 Risk Characterization for Ecological Receptors

SUMMARY OF SELECTED REMEDIAL GOALS TO ADDRESS ECOLOGICAL RISKS AT SITE 77 RO for RO for NOAEL LOAEL HQ= HQ= USEPA Region Selected Contaminant EPC BTV NOAEL LOAEL 1.0 1.0 9 Residential RO of Concern (mo/b) (mg/kg) HQ HQ (mg/kg) (mg/kg) PRO (mg/kg) (mg/kg) SURFACE SOIL Terrestrial Plants Antimonv 136 63 27 NA 5.0 NA 31 94 Lead 5,370 166 45 NA 120 NA 400 400 Soil Invertebrates Antimony 136 63 1.7 NA 78 NA 31 94 Lead 5,370 166 3.2 NA 1,700 NA 400 400 Mariana Cro\V Lead 4,038 166 146 15 30 3,500 400 400 Yellow Bittern Lead 4,038 166 181 18 NA 1 2,400 400 400 I. NOAEL HQ= 1.0 is unachievable; calculated risk driven largely by dietary components rather than soil concentration.

BTV = Background threshold value. NA = Not applicable. EPC = Exposure point concentration. PRO = Preliminary Remediation Goal. HI = Hazard Index. HQ = Hazard Quotient. LOAEL = Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level. NOAEL = No Observed Adverse Effect Level. USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency. mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram.

J

Page 1of1 Table 2-15 Common Elements and Distinguishing Features of Alternatives for Sites 63, 64, and 77

I Alternative I Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Common Elements of Alternatives for Sites 63, 64, and 77 Long-term reliability of rcmedv None Moderate Hi2h (Permanent) Estimated time for completion of Im1nediate Short Requires develop1nent of Land Short (within 1 year). Requires development of a in10Jementation Use Control Manaoement Plan. \vork olan. Estimated time to reach remediation Indefinite Indefinite Immediate upon completion of re1noval action. goals Estitnatcd annual operation and $0 $24,900 (every 5 years) $0 1naintenancc cost Discount rate 7 nr>rcent 7 oercent 7 nercent Number of years over which cost is 0 30 0 orojccted Use of presumptive remedies and/or None None Non-time-critical removal action innovative technoJoaies Distin2uishin1?. Features of Alternatives Site 63 Quantity of untreated waste and None None Approximately 480 loose cubic yard of antilnony, copper, lead, and treatment residuals to be disposed of zinc-impacted soil with relatively low degree of hazard. Following offsite and the degree of hazard characterization of waste, soil may be stabilized to meet remainina in such material reauirements of the disoosal facilitv. Estimated capital cost $0 $10,000 $356,000 Estimated total present \VOrth $0 $82,000 $356,000 Site 64 Quantity of untreated waste and None None Approximately 10, 148 loose cubic yard of chromium-impacted soil treatment residuals to be disposed of \Vith relatively low degree of hazard. Follo\ving characterization of offsite and the degree of hazard waste, soil 1nay be stabilized to meet require1nents of the disposal remaininsr in such mate1ial facility, Estimated capital cost $0 $10,000 $1,926,000 Estimated total present worth $0 $82,000 $1,926,000 Site 77 Quantity of untreated waste and None None Approximately 1,248 loose cubic yard of anlimony and lead- treat1nent residuals to be disposed of impacted soil with relatively low degree of hazard. Follo\ving offsile and the degree of hazard characterization of \Vaste, soil may be stabilized to 1neet remaining in such material requirements of the disposal facility. The volu1ne of MEC-impacted soil to be screened is estimated at 29,000 Jcv. Esti1nated caoital cost $0 $10,000 $2,993,000 Estimated total oresent \VOrth $0 $82,000 $2,993,000

Page I of 1 Table 2-16 Expected Outcome of Each Alternative at Sites 63, 64, and 77

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Al ternali ve 3 Available uses of land upon Not applicable Non-residential/undeveloped use Land would be available for achieving cleanup levels would be available at Sites 63 and unlimited and unrestricted use, 64; however, land would remain including residential. unavailable for any potential use at Site 77. Time frame to achieve Nol applicable Land is already appropriate for non- Land would be available for available land use residential/undeveloped use at Sites unrestricted use immediately upon 63 and 64. Land would remain completion of the removal action. unavailable for use al Site 77. Available uses of Ground waler is unaffected by Groundwater is unaffected by Groundwater is unaffected by groundwater upon achieving contaminants onsite and use of contaminants onsite and use of contaminants onsite and use of cleanup levels groundwater would remain groundwater would remain groundwater would remain unchanged. unchanged. unchan2ed. Time frame to achieve Nol applicable Not applicable Not applicable available groundwater use Other impacts or benefits No mitigation of onsite Exposures to industrial and All exposure risks would be associated with alternative contaminants or reduction in site residential receptors would be eliminated by removing exposure risks. eliminated by prohibiting contaminated soils from the site, development on or adjacent to the resulting in unlimited use and site. No mitigation of onsite unrestricted access. contaminants.

Page I of I

Table 2-17 Summary of Pertinent Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and To Be Considered Guidance for Sites 63, 64, and 77, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam

CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC Authority/ Requirement Medium Determination Synopsis of Requirement No chemical-specific Federal or territorial Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements have been identified. LOCATION-SPECIFIC Authority/ Requirement Location Determination Synopsis of requirement Federal National Historic Preservation Act Historic Artifacts Relevant and Appropriate Requires action to recover and preserve artifacts if alteration of terrain threatens (16 USC 469), 36 CFR 65 significant artifacts. National Historic Preservation Act, Historic Landmarks Relevant and Appropriate Requires action to preserve historic properties / planning of action to minimize Section 106 (16 USC 470 et seq.), harm to National Historic Landmarks if the property is included in or eligible 36 CFR 800 for the National Register of Historic Places. Endangered Species Act Critical Habitat Relevant and Appropriate Requires action to conserve endangered or threatened species, including (16 USC 1531 et seq.), 50 CFR consultation with the Department of Interior, if a determination has been made 200, 50 CFR 402; indicating the presence of such species. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661 et seq.), 33 CFR 320-330 Coastal Zone Management Act Coastal Zones Applicable Guides the use, protection, and development of land and ocean resources within (16 USC 1451 et seq.) Guam’s coastal zone. The entire territory of Guam is designated as a “coastal zone”, including offshore islands and all submerged lands and waters out to three nautical miles. Territorial Guam Wellhead Protection Wellhead Protection Relevant and Appropriate Promotes and supports comprehensive protection of groundwater resources, Program, 22 GAR Chapter 7 Areas particularly drinking water wells, to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare by providing established standards in designated Wellhead Protection Areas.

Page 1 of 4

Table 2-17 Summary of Pertinent Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and To Be Considered Guidance for Sites 63, 64, and 77, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam

Endangered Species Act of Guam, Critical Habitat Relevant and Appropriate Promotes actions to conserve endangered or threatened species and critical 5 GCA Chapter 63, Article 2 habitats. 5 GCA § 63206(b), which prohibits the take of any endangered or threatened species designated by Guam, is a relevant and appropriate requirement with respect to the following species listed in 9 GAR § 10102 (the Guam Endangered Species List) : Plants :the Ufa-halomtano and the Tsatsa (Tree-Fern), the latter being very rare and possibly no longer found on Guam; Animals (Birds): the Micronesian Starling and the White-throated Ground-Dove. Requirements with respect to all other endangered and threatened species found on Guam are governed by the Federal Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., which is cited as an applicable requirement in this ROD. ACTION-SPECIFIC Authority/ Requirement Action Determination Synopsis of Requirement Federal RCRA, 40 CFR 261 Generation and Applicable Outlines criteria for determining if a solid waste is a hazardous waste and is Management of subject to regulation under 40 CFR 260-266. The analytical test specified in Hazardous Waste Appendix II of 40 CFR 261 is referred to as the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Subpart B Generation and Applicable Generators must prepare a Hazardous Waste Manifest for all offsite shipments Management of of hazardous waste to disposal or treatment facilities. Hazardous Waste RCRA, 40 CFR 262.40 Generation and Applicable Generators must retain copies of all hazardous waste manifests used or offsite Management of disposal. Hazardous Waste RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Subpart C Management of Applicable Specifies USEPA marking, labeling and container requirement of offsite Hazardous Waste disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA, 40 CFR 262.34 Treatment and Applicable Allows generators of hazardous waste to store and treat hazardous waste at the Storage of Hazardous generation site for up to 90 days in tanks, containers, and containment buildings Waste without having to obtain a RCRA hazardous waste permit.

Page 2 of 4

Table 2-17 Summary of Pertinent Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and To Be Considered Guidance for Sites 63, 64, and 77, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam

RCRA (42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq.); Land Disposal of Applicable Restricts land disposal of hazardous wastes that exceed specific criteria. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR), Hazardous Waste Establishes Universal Treatment Standards to which hazardous wastes must be 40 CFR 268 treated to prior to land disposal and Alternate Treatment Standards for soils containing hazardous wastes. Hazardous Materials Transport of Applicable Establishes classification, packaging, and labeling requirements for shipments Transportation Act, Hazardous Waste of hazardous materials. 40 CFR 171-180 National Ambient Air Quality Air Emissions Applicable Establishes ambient air quality standards for protection of public health. Standards, 40 CFR 50 RCRA, 40 CFR 264 Clean Closure Applicable Requires removal of all hazardous wastes and removal or decontamination of all waste residues, contaminated containment system components, contaminated subsoils, and structures and equipment contaminated with waste and leachate, and manage them as hazardous waste unless 40 CFR 261.3(d) applies. Authority/ Requirement Action Determination Synopsis of Requirement Territorial Solid Waste Management Solid and Hazardous Applicable Plans for and regulates the storage, collection, transport, separation, processing, Program, 10 GCA 51, Article 1 Waste Activities and disposal of solid waste. Prohibits certain solid and hazardous waste activities. Solid Waste Disposal Regulations, Solid and Hazardous Applicable Regulations to protect, preserve, and promote the physical health, mental health 22 GAR Chapter 20 Waste Activities and social well-being of the people of Guam, by requiring adequate planning for solid waste disposal and by requiring that the disposal of solid waste be accomplished in such a manner as to create a healthful, aesthetically desirable and useful environment. Hazardous Waste Management, Hazardous Waste Applicable Identifies hazardous waste, regulates hazardous waste storage, treatment, 22 GAR Chapter 30 Activities handling, transport and disposal, and establishes capabilities of inspection and enforcement. Air Pollution Control Act, Air Emissions Applicable Prohibits the generation of fugitive dust emissions. 10 GCA Chapter 49 TO BE CONSIDERED Authority/ Medium/Location/ Requirement Action Determination Synopsis of Requirement Federal USEPA Region 9 Preliminary Soil To Be Considered Generic risk-based concentrations that are used for evaluating and cleaning up Remediation Goals contaminated sites. Preliminary Remediation Goals should be viewed as Agency guidelines, not legally enforceable standards.

Page 3 of 4

Table 2-17 Summary of Pertinent Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and To Be Considered Guidance for Sites 63, 64, and 77, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam

USEPA publication SW-846, Test Sampling and To Be Considered SW-846 functions primarily as a guidance document setting forth acceptable, Methods for Evaluating Solid Analysis although not required, methods for the regulated and regulatory communities to Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods use in responding to RCRA-related sampling and analysis requirements. Territorial — No territorial To Be Considered guidance has been identified. NOTE: CFR = Code of Federal Regulations. GAR = Guam Administrative Rules. GCA = Guam Code Annotated. RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. USC = United States Code. USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Page 4 of 4 TABLE 2-18. COST ESTIMATE FOR SURFACE SOIL REMOVAL ALTERNATIVE, SITE 63, ANDERSEN AFB, GUAM. CAPITAL COSTS: DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT RATE TOTAL NOTES Project Planning and 1\1eetings I \Vrite Site-specific \Vork Plan ist ofassumptions: One projecl lead receiving per diem for seven days. I Project Manager Labor 24 Hour Sl70 $4,084 I Sr Engineer Labor 24 Hour $156 $3,745 I Sr Scientist Labor 80 Hour Si43 Sll,441 I Mid Scientist Libor 40 Hour S94 $3,773 I Jr Scientist Labor 60 Hour S69 S4,160 1 Sr Industrial Hygienist Labor 10 Hour Sl33 Sl,329 1 Sr CADD Operator Labor 40 Hour SB4 $3,344 I Technical Writer/Editor Labor 40 Hour $97 $3,899 Per Diem 7 Days $225 ·----$(s7s· Reproduction, shipping, travel Lump Sum $5,000 $5,000 15% Markup on ODC $987 4% Guam Tax ·----$1)34" SUBTOTAL $45,071 Site Preparation - Clear Grub and Pre-Survey List ofassumptions: ite area = 8 acres Two project team member receiving per diem for seven days. I Project Mamigcr Labor 24 Hour $170 $4,084 I Sr Engineer Labor 16 Hour S!56 S2,497 2 Jr Scientist Labor 80 Hour $69 S5,547 l Sr Industrial Hygienist Labor 40 Hour Si33 $5,316 I Sr CADD Operator Labor 8 Hour $84 $669 Per Diem 14 Days $225 ·----S3)5o" Pennitting Lump Sum Sl,391 Sl,391 Section 107 Reproduction, shipping, travel Lump Sum $3,000 $3,000 Stenm/\Vatcr Truck 3 Days $600 Sl,800 Dust control every two days Pickup Truck 5 Days SJOO $500 Vcn

Page 1 of2 TABLE 2-18. COST ESTIMATE FOR SURFACE SOIL REMOVAL ALTERi'IATIVE, SITE 63, ANDERSEN AFB, GUAM. CAPITAL COSTS: DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT RATE TOTAL NOTES Surface Soil Removal (Continued) Steam/Water Truck 4 Doy S600 $2.4-00 Vendor Quote Pickup Truck 11 Doy $100 SI,100 Vendor Quote Decontamination Pad/Supplies I Lump Sum S2,000 $2,000 \Vastc Characterization 5 Sample $150 $750 VcndorQuotc Transport/dispose 11011-haz waste at consolidation unit 470 Joy SIO 54,704 Est. 98% ofwaste Transport/dispose hazwastc off island 0.96 Joy $2,000 Sl,920 Est. 0.2% ofwaste TSP Treated non-hazwastc waste 8.6 Icy $220 Sl,901 Est. 1.811/o ofwaste Backfill Material 48 load S300 $14,400 IOyrd loads delivered Topsoil 354 Joy Sill $39,239 Imported Rcsccding/Rcvcgctating 19,096 Square foot SI $21,961 Vendor Quote 15% Markup on ODC $17,827 Contingency 20%1 ·----s3o~9Th. 4% Guam Tax $7,419 SUBTOTAL $192,878 Risidual \Vastc Management- Consolodation Unit Facility Construction Management Labor Cost l Lump Sum $7,000 _____ E:.o.29. Construction Contractor Labor Lump Sum $5,500 S5,500 Heavy Equipment Lump Sum $9.000 $9,000 15% Markup on ODC $2,175 ·-----s947· 4% Guam Tax SUBTOTAL S24,622 Confirmation Sampling, Closure Report and l\1eetings List ofassumptions: Two project team member receiving per diem for one week. Confirmation sample locations recorded by handhe!d CPS. I Project Manager Labor 32 Hour SI 70 $5,446 I Sr Engineer Labor 24 Hour $156 $3,745 l Sr Scientist Labor 40 Hour SJ43 $5,721 I Mid Scientist Labor 24 Hour $94 $2,264 l Jr Scientist Labor 32 Hour S69 $2,219 2 Teclmical Writer/Editor Labor 40 Hour 597 $3,899 I Sr CADD Operator Labor 8 Hour S84 $669 Per Diem 14 Doy s225 · ----s3:1so· Laboratory Analytical Cost (Surface} 50 Sample SIOO S5,000 Vendor Quote - Cu, Pb, Sb, Zn Reproduction, shipping Lump Sum S2,000 S2,000 15% Markup on ODC ·----~:.5E. Contingency 20% $7,127 4%Guam Tax SI,7ll SUBTOTAL $44,474 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $355,257! •RESENT VALUE ANALYSIS: )iscount factors were taken from A Guide to D

Page 2 of2 Table 2-19 Cost Estimate for Land Use Controls Alternative, Site 64, Andersen AFB, Guam

CAPITAL COSTS: List ofAssu111ptions: The Base General Plan ·will be a111ended lVithin sixty (60) days ofROD approval. The LUCMP lvill be updated during the annual update. DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL NOTES Update Land Use Controls 1 EA Sl0,000 $10,000 Legal fees, LUCMPIBGP update TOTAL CAPITAL COST I $10,000 I ANNUAL O&M COSTS: List ofAssu111ptions: tAnnual site inspection ·will be pe1fonned eve1y year/or 30 years. T1vo Mid Scientists or equivalent.for inspection; 8 hours each One Mid Scientist or equivalent/or reporting; 4 hours. Site inspection pe1fonned in co1y·unction lvith 111ultiple !RP sites. DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL NOTES Site Inspection 30 EA $1,400 $42,000 TOTAL O&M COST I $42,000 I PERIODIC COSTS: List ofAsstunptions: Periodic site revie1v 1vill be coordinated ·with the jive-year ROD Revie1v. Includes fact sheets. Cost n1odel assu1nes periodic site revien1 & public education costs shared lvith nndtiple IRP sites. DESCRIPTION YEAR OTY UNIT UNIT COST I TOTAL NOTES Five-Year Review Report 5 I EA $24,900 S24,900 1 report at end of Year 5 Five-Year Revie\v Report 10 I EA S24,900 $24,900 I report atend of Year 10 Five-Year Review Report 15 I EA S24,900 S24,900 I report at end of Year 15 Five-Year Review Report 20 I EA S24,900 S24,900 1 report at end of Year 20 Five-Year Review Report 25 I EA $24,900 $24,900 I report at end of Year 25 Ren1edial Action Report 30 I EA $24,900 $24,900 1 report at end of Year 30 TOTAL PERIODIC COST I $149,400 I PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS: Discount factors were taken fro111 A Guide to Developing and Doczanenting Cost Estilnates During the Feasibility Study (USEPA, 2000). TOTAL DISCOUNT TOTAL COST FACTOR PRESENT COST TYPE YEAR COST PER YEAR (7%) VALUE NOTES Capital Cost 0 $10,000 $10,000 1.000 $10,000 Update LUCMP Annual O&M Cost 1-30 $42,000 Sl,400 12.409 $17,373 Site inspections Periodic Cost 5 $24,900 $24,900 0.713 517,754 Five-year ROD review Periodic Cost IO $24,900 $24,900 0.508 $12,649 Five-year ROD revie\v Periodic Cost 15 $24,900 $24,900 0362 S9,014 Five-year ROD review Periodic Cost 20 S24,900 S24,900 0.258 $6,424 Five-year ROD review Periodic Cost 25 $24,900 $24,900 0.184 $4,582 Five-year ROD review Periodic Cost 30 S24,900 S24,900 0.131 $3,262 Remedial action report $201,400 $81,057 TOTAL PRESENT VALUE OF ALTERNATIVE I $82,000 IRounded NOTE: BGP ~Base General Plan O&M = Operation and Maintenance EA= each QTY ~ Quantity IRP =Installation Restoration Progran1 ROD= Record of Decision LUCMP =Land Use Control Manage1nent Plan USEPA =United States Environn1ental Protection Agency

Page I of I TABLE 2-20. COST ESTIMATE FOR SURFACE SOIL REMOVAL ALTERi'i'ATIVE, SITE 77, ANDERSEN AFB, GUAM. CAPITAL COSTS: DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT RATE TOTAL NOTES Project Planning and Meetings I Write Site-specific Work Plan List ofassu111ptions: One project lead receiving per diem for seven days. l Project Manager Labor 24 Hour S170 S4,084 I Sr Engineer Labor 24 Hour SI56 S3,745 I Sr Scientist Labor so Hour S143 Sll,441 1 Mid Scientist Labor 40 Hour S94 SJ,773 I Jr Scientist Labor 60 Hour S69 S4,160 1 Sr Industrial Hygienist Labor 10 Hour $133 Sl,329 I Sr CADD Operator Labor 40 Hour $S4 S3,344 I Technical Writer/Editor Labor 40 Hour $97 - - - - _ ?h8_92_ Per Diem 7 Days S225 Sl,575 Reproduction, shipping, travel Lump Sun1 S5,000 S5,000 15% Markup on ODC ______19_82. 4%Guam Tax Sl,734 SUBTOTAL $45,071 Site Preparation - Oear Grub and Pre-Survey List ofass11111ptions: Site area = 37 acres Two project tea111 111e111ber receiving per die111 for seven days. l Project Manager Labor 24 Hour $170 S4,084 l Sr Engineer Labor 16 Hour $156 S2,497 2 Jr Scientist Labor so Hour $69 S5,547 I Sr Industrial Hygienist Labor 40 Hour S133 S5,316 1 Sr CADD Operator Labor 8 Hour $84 ______l6_62_ Per Diem 14 Days S225 S3,150 Permitting Lump Sum Sl,391 Sl,391 Section 107 Reproduction, shipping, travel Lun1p Sutn S3,000 S3,000 Steatn/Water Truck IO Acres S326 S3,264 Dust control every two days Pickup Truck 5 Days SlOO $500 Vendor Quote Surveyors and Laborers to Clear Week S8,000 S8,000 Vendor Quote/BPJ 15% Markup on ODC - - - - _ g_8_9.Q. Contingency 10% $4,031 4%GuamTax SI,774 SUBTOTAL $46,119 Surface and Subsurface Soil MEC Screening List ofassu111ptio11s: Excavation and 111echa11ical sifiingfl11anua/ screening ofall soil to a mi11imtm1 depth of I 0 feet bgs, or until bedrock is reached. If anomalies encountered beyond I 0 feet bgs, e.r:cavatio11/scree11i11g will e.r:tend a 111ini11uun of5 feet beyond the last detected m10111aly, or to bedrock. Esti111ated soil voltune is calculated based on the average depth to bedrock ofthe 11 test trenches excavated in the Iv/EC Area during previous investigations. Estbnated duration ofIv/EC clearance is based on an average processing rate of300 fey soil per day. -- Esti111ated Soil Volume to Screen 29,000 Icy --Esti111ated Duration ofResponse 97 Days or 20 1Veeks Typical average obtained at Andersen AFB Four project tea111 me111bers receiving per die111for duration ofmunitions response. Heavy equip111e11t charges only occur on business days (Afonday - Friday). 1 Project Manager Labor 800 Hour S170 S136,128 1 Sr Engineer Labor 800 Hour Sl56 S124,824 1 Sr Scientist Labor 400 Hour S143 S57,204 1 Jr Scientist Labor 800 Hour S69 S55,464 1 Sr Industrial Hygienist Labor 200 Hour Sll3 S26,576 l Sr UXO Supervisor 1000 Hour $114 SllJ,982 10 hour work day l UXO Tech III Labor 1000 Hour S68 S6S,035 10 hour work day 2 UXO Tech II Labor 2000 Hour S47 S93,192 10 hour work day I UXO Safety Officer/QC Specialist 1000 Hour $107 $107,327 10 bour work day l Sr CADD Operator Labor 40 Hour SS4 _____ ~h3_4i_ 10 hour work day Per Dien1 38S Days $225 SS7,300 10 hour work day Stuveyors 4 Week S8,000 S32,000 Vendor Quote/BP J Reproduction, shipping, travel 1 Lu1np Stun SS,000 SS,000 Mobilization/Demobilization 4 Task $500 S2 000 Vendor Quote

Page I of3 TABLE 2-20. COST ESTIMATE FOR SURFACE SOIL REMOVAL ALTERNATIVE, SITE 77, ANDERSEN AFB, GUAM. CAPITAL COSTS: DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT RATE TOTAL NOTES Surface and Subsurface Soil MEC Screenine (Continued) Sifter Screening Plant for MEC 3 Month $8,400 S25,200 Vendor Quote Trackhoe/Dozer 97 Day $800 $77,600 Vendor Quote Front End Loader 97 Day $560 $54,320 Vendor Quote Roller Compactor 97 Day S520 $50,440 Vendor Quote RolloffBins 97 Day Sl50 Sl4,550 Vendor Quote 17 Icy Dump Trucks and Drivers 97 Day S400 S38,800 Vendor Quote Steam/Water Truck 32 Day S600 SI9,400 Vendor Quote 3 Pickup Trucks 291 Day SIOO $29,IOO Vendor Quote Decontamination Pad/Supplies I Lump Sum S2,000 S2,000 Estimated Waste Characterization 160 Sample SI35 $21,600 Vendor Quote· Explosive~ MEC/MPPEH open bum disposal 316 Lump Sun1 so so Andersen EOD to support Transport/recycle MEC/MPPEH Scrap 290 Icy S30 S8,700 1% total screened soil volum( Backfill Material 317 load S300 S95,IOO IOyrd loads delivered Topsoil 2,963 Icy Siil S328,771 Imported Reseeding/Revegetating 160,000 Square foot SI Sl84,000 Vendor Quote 15% Markup on ODC ----~§!_,_8_3l Contingency 20% S405,358 4% Guan1 Tax S97,286 SUBTOTAL S2,529,434

Surface and Subsurface Soil Removal List ofassu111ptions: Removal ofanti111ony and lead-impacted swface and s11bs111face soil that exceeds RGs. Estimated project duration based on e.:rcavation of 125 Icy soil per day and one week/or co11fin11ation smnpling results -- Estbnated Soil Volume 1,247 Icy --Estbnated Project Duration 17 Days or 3.4 fVeeks Excavation activities are assumed to employ sloping ofsidewalls as necessmy and shoring/other methods when dee111ed appropriate. Two project tea111 me111bers receiving per die111 for duration ofproject. Heal)' equipment charges only occur on business days (.Nionday - Friday). fVaste Characterization based on 1 analysis per JOO Icy ofsoil. l Project Manager Labor 32 Hour SI70 S5,446 1 Sr Engineer Labor 32 Hour Sl56 $4,993 l Sr Scientist Labor 24 Hour Sl43 S3,433 2 Jr Scientist Labor 72 Hour S69 S4,992 1 Sr Industrial Hygienist Labor 32 Hour Sl33 $4,253 1 Sr CADD Operator Labor 8 Hour S84 ______2_6_62_ Per Diem 34 Days S225 S7,650 Surveyors 2 Days SI,600 S3,200 Vendor Quote Reproduction, shipping, travel Lump Sum $8,000 S8,000 Mobilization/Demobilization 2 Task S500 SI,000 Vendor Quote Tracld1oe/Dozer Rental IO Day S800 $8,000 Vendor Quote Front End Loader IO Day S560 S5,600 Vendor Quote Roller Compactor IO Day $520 S5,200 Vendor Quote 10 Icy Dun1p Trucks and Drivers IO Day S400 S4,000 Vendor Quote Steam/Water Truck IO Day S600 S6,000 Vendor Quote Pickup Truck 17 Day SIOO SI,700 Vendor Quote Decontamination Pad/Supplies I Lump Sum S2,000 S2,000 Waste Characterization 13 Sample S50 S650 Metals - Vendor Transport/dispose non-haz waste at consolidation unit 1,222 Icy SIO $12,221 Est. 98% of waste Transport/dispose hazw·aste off island 2.5 Icy S2,000 $4,988 Est. 0.2°/o of\vaste TSP Treated non-hazwaste waste 22 Icy S220 S4,939 Est. 1.8% of waste Backfill Material Lun1p Sun1 $22,101 S22,102 BPJ; In1ported Topsoil 524 Icy SI 11 S58,!85 Imported Reseeding/Revegetating 28,316 Square foot SI $32,564 Vendor Quote 15% Markup on ODC -- - _ _§~~2_0.Q. Contingency 20% S47,997 4% Gua1n Tax SI 1,520 SUBTOTAL S299,502

Page 2 of3 TABLE 2-20. COST ESTIMATE FOR SURFACE SOIL REMOVAL AL TER.J'\'A TIVE, SITE 77, ANDERSEN AFB, GUAM. CAPITAL COSTS: DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT RATE TOTAL NOTES

RisiduaJ Waste M:in:igement- Consolodation Unit F:icility Construction Management Labor Cost I Lu1np Sum S7 ,ODO _____ g_o_O.Q. Construction Contractor Labor Lump Sum $5,500 S5,500 Heavy Equipment Lump Sum $9,000 S9,000 15% Markup on ODC $2,175 4%Guam Tax ------59-47 SUBTOTAL $24,622

Confirmation Sampling, Closure Report and Meetings list ofassumptions: Two project team me111ber receiving per die111 for one week. Co1ifirmatio11 sample locations recorded by handheld GPS. 1 Project Manager Labor 56 Hour $170 $9,529 1 Sr Engineer Labor 24 Hour Sl56 S3,745 I Sr Scientist Labor 48 Hour $143 $6,865 J Mid Scientist Labor 32 Hour S94 $3,019 l Jr Scientist Labor 32 Hour S69 S2,219 2 Technical Writer/Editor Labor 40 Hour S97 S3,899 l Sr CADD Operator Labor 8 Hour S84 ------S669 Per Dien1 14 Day $225 $3,150 Laboratory Analytical Cost (Surface) 20 Sample $50 Sl,000 Vendor Quote - Metals Laboratory Analytical Cost (Subsurface) 20 Sample $50 $1,000 Vendor Quote - Metals Reproduction, shipping Lump Sum $2,000 $2,000 15% Markup on ODC -----~1_0_71_ Contingency 20% $7,634 4% Guan1 Tax Sl,833 SUBTOTAL $47,635

TOTAL CA PITAL COST $2,992,3831

PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS: Discount factors \Vere taken fron1A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the FeasibUity Study (USEPA, 2000).

TOTAL DISCOUNT TOTAL COST FACTOR PRESENT COST TYPE YEAR COST PER YEAR (2.7%) VALUE NOTES Capital Cost 0 $2,992,383 $2,992,383 I.DO $2,992,383

TOTAL PRESENT VALUE OF ALTER.!'\' A TIVE $2,993,0ool Rounded

Notes: BPJ =Best Professional Judgment QTY = Quantity Est.= estimate TSP= triple superphosphate Icy= loose cubic yards USEPA =United States Environn1ental Protection Agency ODC =Other Direct Cost

Page 3 of3

Table 2-21 Description of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and To Be Considered for the Selected Remedy for Sites 63 and 77

Medium/ Location/ Authority Action Requirement Status Synopsis of Requirement Action to be Taken to Attain Requirement No chemical-specific ARARs for the selected remedy. Location-Specific Federal Regulatory Historic National Historic Applicable Requires action to recover and preserve artifacts if The selected remedy will comply with this requirement Requirement Artifacts Preservation Act alteration of terrain threatens significant artifacts. by conducting removal activities in a way that avoids (16 USC 469), 36 impacts to any historical objects at the sites. No CFR 65 significant artifacts have been observed at either Site 63 or Site 77. Federal Regulatory Historic National Historic Applicable Requires action to preserve historic properties / The selected remedy will comply with this requirement Requirement Landmarks Preservation Act, planning of action to minimize harm to National by conducting removal activities in a way that avoids Section 106 (16 Historic Landmarks if the property is included in or impacts to any historical objects at the sites. No USC 470 et seq.), eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. significant artifacts have been observed at either Site 63 36 CFR 800 or Site 77. Federal Regulatory Critical Endangered Applicable Requires action to conserve endangered or threatened The selected remedy will comply with this requirement Requirement Habitat Species Act, 16 species, including consultation with the Department by assessing the removal plans to ensure that no USC 1531 and 50 of Interior, if a determination has been made adverse impact to potential roosting, nesting, or CFR 200, 402; indicating the presence of such species. foraging habitat of endangered species occurs. Listed Fish and Wildlife species have been identified as receptors of concern at Coordination Act the sites. (16 USC 661), 33 CFR 320 to 330 Federal Regulatory Coastal Zones Coastal Zone Applicable Guides the use, protection, and development of land The selected remedy will comply with this requirement Requirement Management Act, and ocean resources within Guam’s coastal zone. The by conducting removal activities in a manner that 16 USC 1451 to entire territory of Guam is designated as a “coastal prevents surface erosion of soil to nearby streams and 1456 zone”, including offshore islands and all submerged marine waters. lands and waters out to three nautical miles. Territorial Wellhead Guam Wellhead Relevant and Promotes and supports comprehensive protection of The selected remedy will comply with this requirement Regulatory Protection Protection Appropriate groundwater resources, particularly drinking water by conducting removals in a manner that avoids Requirement Areas Program, 22 GAR wells, to safeguard the public health, safety, and potential impacts to groundwater quality. If soil Chapter 7 welfare by providing established standards in removal activities would be conducted in a designated designated Wellhead Protection Areas. Wellhead Protection Area, measures would be implemented to ensure the protection of groundwater and comply with regulations. Territorial Critical Endangered Relevant and Promotes actions to conserve endangered or The selected remedy will comply with this requirement Regulatory Habitat Species Act of Appropriate threatened species and critical habitats. 5 GCA § by assessing the removal plans to ensure that no Requirement Guam, 5 GCA 63206(b), which prohibits the take of any endangered adverse impact to potential roosting, nesting, or Chapter 63, or threatened species designated by Guam, is a foraging habitat of endangered species occurs. Listed

Page 1 of 5

Table 2-21 Description of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and To Be Considered for the Selected Remedy for Sites 63 and 77

Medium/ Location/ Authority Action Requirement Status Synopsis of Requirement Action to be Taken to Attain Requirement Article 2 relevant and appropriate requirement with respect to species have been identified as receptors of concern at the following species listed in 9 GAR § 10102 (the the sites. Guam Endangered Species List) : Plants :the Ufa- halomtano and the Tsatsa (Tree-Fern), the latter being very rare and possibly no longer found on Guam; Animals (Birds): the Micronesian Starling and the White-throated Ground-Dove. Requirements with respect to all other endangered and threatened species found on Guam are governed by the Federal Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., which is cited as an applicable requirement in this ROD. Action-Specific Federal Regulatory Generation RCRA regulations Relevant and These requirements identify the maximum The selected remedy will comply with this requirement Requirement and for Identification of Appropriate concentrations of contaminants for which a waste by testing all excavated soil for hazardous waste Management Hazardous Waste, would be considered a RCRA characteristic waste due characteristics (ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, or of Hazardous 40 CFR 261; to toxicity. The analytical test specified in Appendix Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure. Any Waste II of 40 CFR 61 is referred to as the Toxic material classified as hazardous waste would be Characteristic Leaching Procedure. transported for off-island disposal and would be handled, stored, and transported to landfills in accordance with RCRA. Federal Regulatory Generation RCRA, Relevant and Generators must prepare a Hazardous Waste Manifest The selected remedy will comply with this requirement Requirement and 40 CFR 262, Appropriate for all offsite shipments of hazardous waste to by preparing a onsite, a hazardous waste manifest Management Subpart B disposal or treatment facilities. would be prepared for all hazardous wastes of Hazardous transported offsite for disposal if hazardous wastes are Waste identified.

Page 2 of 5

Table 2-21 Description of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and To Be Considered for the Selected Remedy for Sites 63 and 77

Medium/ Location/ Authority Action Requirement Status Synopsis of Requirement Action to be Taken to Attain Requirement Federal Regulatory Management RCRA, Relevant and Specifies USEPA marking, labeling and container The selected remedy will comply with this requirement Requirement of Hazardous 40 CFR 262, Appropriate requirement of offsite disposal of hazardous waste. by appropriately marking, labeling, and containerizing Waste Subpart C any hazardous wastes identified onsite. Federal Regulatory Treatment and RCRA, Relevant and Allows generators of hazardous waste to store and The selected remedy will comply with this requirement Requirement Storage of 40 CFR 262.34 Appropriate treat hazardous waste at the generation site for up to by ensuring that if hazardous wastes are identified Hazardous 90 days in tanks, containers, and containment onsite, they would not be expected to be stored onsite Waste buildings without having to obtain a RCRA hazardous for more than 90 days. If onsite storage time was waste permit. extended to more than 90 days, a RCRA hazardous waste permit would be acquired. Federal Regulatory Land Disposal RCRA Land Relevant and Land Disposal Restriction treatment standards for The selected remedy will comply with this requirement Requirement of Hazardous Disposal Appropriate contaminated soils require that contaminated soils that by treating, as necessary, any soil classified as a Waste Restrictions (“Land will be land disposed be treated to reduce hazardous waste which is to be disposed offsite to meet Ban”) 40 CFR 268 concentrations of hazardous constituents by 90 percent the established Land Disposal Restriction treatment or meet hazardous constituent concentrations that are standards. ten times the universal treatment standards. Federal Regulatory Transport of Hazardous Applicable Regulates the marking, manifesting, labeling, The selected remedy will comply with this requirement Requirement Hazardous Materials packaging, placarding, and spill reporting provisions by transporting all waste in a way that is consistent with Waste Transportation Act, for hazardous materials in transit. the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and 49 CFR 100 to 199 Department of Transportation regulations. Federal Regulatory Air Emissions National Ambient Applicable Establishes ambient air quality standards for protection CERCLA 121(E) exempts onsite activities from Requirement Air Quality of public health. obtaining air permits. However, the selected remedy Standards, 40 CFR will comply with this requirement by establishing an air 50 monitoring plan and implementing dust control measures, as necessary, to mitigate fugitive dust generation during excavation activities.

Page 3 of 5

Table 2-21 Description of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and To Be Considered for the Selected Remedy for Sites 63 and 77

Medium/ Location/ Authority Action Requirement Status Synopsis of Requirement Action to be Taken to Attain Requirement Territorial Water Water Pollution Applicable Protects territorial waters from pollution; protects, The selected remedy will comply with this requirement Regulatory Control Act, 10 improves, and maintains the quality and potability of by conducting removal activities in a manner that Requirement GCA, Chapter 47 public water supplies. prevents surface erosion of soil to nearby water bodies. Territorial Solid and Solid Waste Applicable Plans for and regulates the storage, collection, The selected remedy will comply with this requirement Regulatory Hazardous Management transport, separation, processing and disposal of solid by conducting disposal of non-hazardous waste to the Requirement Waste Program, 10 GCA, waste. Prohibits certain solid and hazardous waste Andersen AFB consolidation unit in accordance with Activities Chapter 51, activities. Guam’s solid waste management regulation. Any Article 1 hazardous waste will be disposed of following the Andersen AFB Solid Waste Management Program. Territorial Solid and Solid Waste Applicable Regulations to protect, preserve, and promote the The selected remedy will comply with this requirement Regulatory Hazardous Disposal physical health, mental health and social well-being by disposing of any solid waste offsite in compliance Requirement Waste Regulations, of the people of Guam, by requiring adequate with these regulations. Activities 22 GAR planning for solid waste disposal and by requiring that Chapter 20 the disposal of solid waste be accomplished in such a manner as to create a healthful, aesthetically desirable and useful environment. Territorial Hazardous Hazardous Waste Applicable Identifies hazardous waste, regulates hazardous waste The selected remedy will comply with this requirement Regulatory Waste Management, storage, treatment, handling, transport and disposal, by complying with the Hazardous Waste Management Requirement Activities 22 GAR and establishes capabilities of inspection and regulations if hazardous wastes are identified onsite. Chapter 30 enforcement. Territorial Air Emissions Air Pollution Applicable Prohibits the generation of fugitive dust emissions. The selected remedy will comply with this requirement Regulatory Control Act, by establishing an air monitoring plan and Requirement 10 GCA implementing dust control measures, as necessary, to Chapter 49 mitigate fugitive dust generation during excavation activities.

Page 4 of 5

Table 2-21 Description of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and To Be Considered for the Selected Remedy for Sites 63 and 77

Medium/ Location/ Authority Action Requirement Status Synopsis of Requirement Action to be Taken to Attain Requirement To-Be-Considered Guidance Federal Regulatory Soil USEPA Region 9 To Be Generic risk-based concentrations that are used for The selected remedy will comply with this requirement Requirement PRGs to screen and Considered evaluating and cleaning up contaminated sites. by removing and properly disposing of soils with establish RGs contaminant concentrations above RGs. Federal Regulatory Soil Sampling USEPA publication To Be SW-846 functions primarily as a guidance document The selected remedy will comply with this requirement Requirement and Analysis SW-846, Test Considered setting forth acceptable, although not required, methods by ensuring that confirmation sampling and analyses Methods for for the regulated and regulatory communities to use in would be performed in accordance with SW-846. Evaluating Solid responding to RCRA-related sampling and analysis Waste, requirements. Physical/Chemical Methods NOTE: ARAR = Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement. CFR = Code of Federal Regulation. GAR = Guam Administrative Rule. GCA = Guam Code Annotated PRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal. RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. RG = Remedial Goal. USC = United States Code USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Page 5 of 5

Table 2-22 Description of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements and To Be Considered for the Selected Remedy for Site 64

Medium/ Location/ Action to be Taken to Attain Authority Action Requirement Status Synopsis of Requirement Requirement No chemical-specific ARARs for the selected remedy. Location-Specific Federal Historic National Historic Applicable Requires action to recover and preserve artifacts if No significant artifacts have been Regulatory Artifacts Preservation Act alteration of terrain threatens significant artifacts. observed onsite. Installation of Requirement (16 USC 469), 36 CFR signage would not impact potential 65 significant artifacts. ARAR would be met. Federal Historic National Historic Applicable Requires action to preserve historic properties / No historical landmarks are located Regulatory Landmarks Preservation Act, planning of action to minimize harm to National onsite. Installation of signage would Requirement Section 106 (16 USC Historic Landmarks if the property is included in not impact potential significant 470 et seq.), 36 CFR 800 or eligible for the National Register of Historic artifacts. ARAR would be met. Places. Federal Critical Endangered Species Act, Applicable Requires action to conserve endangered or Listed species have not been observed Regulatory Habitat 16 USC 1531 and 50 threatened species, including consultation with the onsite. Installation of signage would Requirement CFR 200, 402; Department of Interior, if a determination has been not impact nearby endangered species Fish and Wildlife made indicating the presence of such species. or their habitat. ARAR would be met. Coordination Act (16 USC 661), 33 CFR 320 to 330

Page 1 of 2

Territorial Critical Endangered Species Act of Relevant and Promotes actions to conserve endangered or Listed species have not been observed Regulatory Habitat Guam, 5 GCA Chapter 63, Appropriate threatened species and critical habitats. 5 GCA § onsite. Installation of signage would Requirement Article 2 63206(b), which prohibits the take of any not impact nearby endangered species endangered or threatened species designated by or their habitat. ARAR would be met. Guam, is a relevant and appropriate requirement with respect to the following species listed in 9 GAR § 10102 (the Guam Endangered Species List): Plants: the Ufa-halomtano and the Tsatsa (Tree-Fern), the latter being very rare and possibly no longer found on Guam; Animals (Birds): the Micronesian Starling and the White-throated Ground-Dove. Requirements with respect to all other endangered and threatened species found on Guam are governed by the Federal Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., which is cited as an applicable requirement in this ROD. No action-Specific ARARs for the selected remedy. NOTE: ARAR = Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement. PRG = Preliminary Remediation Goal. CFR = Code of Federal Regulation. RG = Remedial Goal. GAR = Guam Administrative Rule. USC = United States Code. GCA = Guam Code Annotated. USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Page 2 of 2 ~l 1 1 1 J ] ] ] FIGURES ] ] ] ] ] ] J J J J J .I Kuril Islands

UNITED STATES PACIFIC OCEAN OF AMERICA

•0 Island . f

Hawaiian Islands

0 Wake Island

Philippine

Sea Ma;shall Islands

N

0 Nauru PACIFIC OCEAN

\,~~Solomon Islands ~\ '<;:, I Guinea Vanuatu ""' Samoa b. 800 0 800

Approx imote Scale

Figure 1-1. Location Map of Guam. ] J ROTA CHANNEL J p ORTHIEST FIBLD 1

PHILIPPINE SEA 0 ~!ARBO J ANNEX

J BARRIGAOA TRANS~UTTER SITE D

PACIFIC J OCEAN

J N J J

16000' 0 16000 ' I ~~--- I GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET

J Figure 1- 2. Location Map of Northwest Field and Main Base, Andersen AFB, Guam. J l J J N

PHILIPPINE 1 SEA PACIFIC OCEAN ] 381110' 111 381110' ~~~--~--~~iiiiiiiiiii~--~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~~~I GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET J

~ LEGEND: SITE LOCAT:ONS

+ MONITORING WELL

_._ PROOuc-ro~ WELL

SHALL OW MON!TOR I ~G vJ ELL

EXPLORA TORY BORE~OL E

A~DERSE N AIR FORCE BASE BOUNDARY

NORTHWEST FIELD/MUNITIONS STORAGE AREA BOUNDARY J ASPHAL T ROADW AYS/PAV EMEN- GROUNOWPTER CONTOUR LINE ABOVE MLLW Cl" EAN LOWEST LOW WA TER> BASED ON 'SHAL LOW MONI-OR ING WELLS

GUAM l\ATIO'IAL WI LOLl Ff REFUGE J ~ SEA WPTER

J

Figu re 1- 3 . J Localion Map for Sites 63, 64, 77, on Andersen AFB, Guam. J

J _J

N

SITE 63 MUNITION STORAGE l AREA CORAL DUMP SITE w a:([z "-w'.JU> 5: "-

Ander sen AFB Northwest Field Key Mop

STA. AOC/105-21 N 4,943,612.25 E 885,782.83 ELEV. = 623.94' ~'" N 200

) STA. AOC/ 105-2 N 4,943,502.77 E 885,991.83 ID ELEV. = 624.'H' 60' 0 60' 100 I ~-____.J I GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 I LEGEN01 I /" j> -'i BEDROCK [=J APPROXIMATE SITE BOUND ARY I 0 ~ r::;:J DEPRESSION _J 0 1 3 c:J SURFACE MOUND A _)/ B c D c:J AS PHALT TAR AREA CJ ~~~~c5L~~ ~~~E~f~c~g~r~~W~N. 8 BENCHMARK '....J- EDGE OF VEGETATION _,c,- TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR Cl FOOTl Figure 2-1. Boundary of Site 63, Andersen AFB, Guam. L....J

SITE 64 I

Andersen AFB Northwest Field ~ Key Mo p

0 .. 0 o·o 00 \ c;:P ' o N 4,'l 0,3'l5.85 E 8 'll ,2~8 . 13

ELEV. " 4 ~ N

150' l0 150' kw;;---- I STA. 0+000 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET N 4, 'l30,301.3'l E 8'll,2'll.85 LEGEND: ELEV. = 441.77' APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY - P .O.L. LI NE MARKER C:J CJ ASPHALT ANO ORU M AREA =--:_--:--: _- _ < 21.3 KILOMETERS CJ SPARSE ASPHALT ANO ORUM AREA -- -d;_-e- -- r;::;::J DEPRESSION -- ·-1:..- p.Jp - - CJ SURFACE MOUND -- - EDGE OF VEGE TATIO N --8L-M,~•lvt.·_ - -- '-A. TOE CLIFF --- 8 BE NCH MA RK - - ~.o.C·- TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR Cl FOOT> Figure 2-2. Boundary of Site 64, Andersen AFB, Guam. I ~gl'J-

Pacific Ocean

'•~ao I I I I

1Bs I I r I \' I I I I I ~&s

SITE 77 OPERATIONAL SUPPORT BUILDINGS 4

500~ POL 65A N 4,931,426.68 E 894,888.58 ELEV. = 495. 32'

POL 65A N 4,931,331.50 E 894,857.91 ELEV. = 500.36'

APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY

AREAS WITH SURFACE MEC EXCLUDED FROM SITE 77. THESE AREAS TO BE INVESTIGATED UNDER MUNITIONS RESPONSE PROGRAM SITE UXO 000005A ~ AREAS WITH COMPRESSED GAS CYLINDERS N ~ SURFACE MOUNDS

ASPHALT/CONCRETE PAD

~ TRENCH

-soo- TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR (1 FOOT)

A BENCHMARK

200' 0 200' Figure 2-3. Boundary of Site 77, GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET Andersen AFB, Guam. 1

AAFBSIJOUS63S398 AAF"BS\JOUS63S397 AAF"BS\JOUS63S391 F"BSIJOUS63S39!5I c;'.) SPRAY CANISTER ~ GAS CYLINDER POSSIBLE ASBESTOS PIPE J AAF"BS\JOUS63S390 ~ I c:::: 0.00 - 0.25 \. AREA 1-B ROCK OUTCROP LEAD 650 VOL. · 167 CUBIC YARD c::I VEH ICLE BA TTERY CASE MISCELLANEOUS DEBRIS INCLUDES m LARGE AND SMALL ME TAL CONTAINERS, J AAF"BNF"LF"74S619 __,tj ... SHEET METALS, WIRES, CABLES, AUTO 0.00 - 0.50 PARTS, ENGINE PARTS, GLASS, BOTTLES, ANTIMONY 14'1 CONCRETE SLABS, FOOD CANS, SODA COPPER 10,700 >I CANS, AND HOUSEHOLD TRASH LEAD 1,461! 0 TIRES ZINC 4,710 1 ; , ~ EDGE VEGETATION

AAF"BNF"S63S310 I SAMPLE LOCATIONS IN RED EXCEED RGe 0.00 - 0.25 ..------.,,.SAMPLE ID ANTIMONY 660 I AA~~~6~20 SAMPLE DEPTH IN FEET LEAD 5,100 LEAD 1,000 ZINC 14,000 11--~--~~~~--~;:;_~~~~~-...1' lil INORGANICS, MG/KG B D SITE 63 N BOLDED VA LUES EXCEED RGs J MUNITION STORAGE AREA CORAL DUMP SITE

Figure 2 - 4. J 80' 0 80' Recommended Cleanup Areas AAF"BNF"S63S312 AAF"BNF"S63S31l AAf"BNFLF"74S619 1--~ I for Site 63, 0.17 - 0.42 o.oe - o.33 0.00 - o.so GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEE T Andersen AFB, Guam. J LEAD 490 ZINC 7,900 LEAD 877

J I

AAFBMBS64S2q5 1 3.5-3.5 CHROMIUM 1,501!1 w z o::

AAFBMBS64S2q7 Andersen AFB Northwest Field ~~ 11-U AREA 1B Key Ma p ] CHROMIUM 1,41!1! AAFBMBS84S2q8 -~ VOL.=847 CUBIC YARD CHROMIUM 1.31lll 4.ll-4.2 AAFBMB564S 'l3<0UPl LEGEN01 CHROMIUM 1,61!1! 2.e-2.e CHROMIUM 1,41!11 ~ tgg1Tig~F!~6 ~~~bli~MPLE Ill EgglTig~s~~~A~~s~~i~ SAMPLE f). ~gg~Tig~~A~~DS~J~uE~~PLE i::::::J ASPHALT AND DRUM AREA i::::::J SPARSE ASPHALT AND DRUM AREA J AREA 1C i;:::;:::::J DEPRESSION VOL.=671 CUBIC YARD APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY SURFACE MOUND

PROPOSED SUBSURFACE SOIL CLEANUP AREA """ REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT 1...-A_) EDGE OF VEGETAT ION ~ DETERIORATED SS-GALLON DRU M OR J AREA 1E SUSPECTED DRUM RE MNANTS VOL.=3,722 CUBIC YARD TOE CL! FF ID MISCELLANEOUS DEBRIS INCLUDES LARGE AND SMALL METAL CONTAINERS, SHEET METALS, WIRES, CABLES, AUTO PARTS, ENGINE PARTS, GLASS, BOTTLES, CONCRETE SLABS, FOOD CANS, SODA CANS, AND HOUSEHOLD TRASH 0 TIRES I RUSTED STEEL PIPE J SAMPLE LOCATIONS IN RED EXCEED INDUSTRIAL PRGa AND BTVa SAMPLE ID AAFBMBS64S2'l5 SAMPLE DEPTH IN FEET 3 .~-3.5 CHROMIUM 1,61!1! ] INORGANICS . MG/KG AREA 1D SOLOED VALUES EXCEED BTVs AND/DR VOL.=1,895 CUBIC YARD INDUSTRIAL PRGs

J N P.O .L. LINE MARKER J 21.3 KILOMETERS

] 150' I0 150' I GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET AAFBMBS645324 ~----- 6.6-6.5 CHROMIUM 1,41!1! Figure 2-5. Recommended Cleanup Areas for Site 64, J Andersen AFB, Guam. ] AAFBAOC5S178 1.5-1.5 LEAD 9,800 B

AAFBAOC5S154 0.33-0.50 SITE 77 ANTIMONY 350 OPERATIONAL SUPPORT LEAD 33,000 B BUILDINGS 4

AAFBMBS77S146 AREA1A 0.08-0.25 LEAD 1,200

AAFBAOC5S153 0.33-0.50 LEAD 470

AAFBMBS77S145 0.08-0.25 LEAD 1,200

AAFBMBS77S152 0.08-0.25 AREA1 ANTIMONY 630 AAFBMBS77S153(DUP) 0.08-0.25 ANTIMONY 660

AAFBMBS77S154 0.08-0.25 ANTIMONY 190

AAFBMBS77S286 2.0-2.0 ANTIMONY 440

AAFBAOC5S136 AREA3 0.17-0.50 OL.=50 CUBIC YA ANTIMONY 230 M

AAFBMBS77S151 0.08-0.25 ANTIMONY 140

AAFBAOC5S138 AAFBMBS77S149 AREA2 0.17-0.33 0.08-0.25 LEAD 420 LEAD 540 VOL.=120 CUBIC YARD

LEGEND:

2007 SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS AIRPLANE WING ~ VEHICLE BATTERY CASE ANO RESULTS N PESTICIDES SPRAYER 2004 SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS WOODEN TELEPHONE POLE

Potential Primary Secondary Secondary Tertiary Potential Specific Receptors of Concern Source Release Source Release Source Exposure Mechanisms Mechanisms Routes

Current/Future

I Occasional Site Construction Resident User/ Worker Worker Adult/Child Oust Trespasser Waste Particulates Infiltration/ Surface Materials Air Soil Ingestion x x - x at Absorption Soil ite 63, 64, or 7 Dermal Contact x x with Soils - x Vegetation Inhalation of Air x .. Particulates x x Wild Pigs Deer0

Current/Future

Occasional Site Construction Resident User/ Worker Worker Adult/Child Trespasser

Soil Ingestion - .. x x

Subsurface Dermal Contact - .. Soil with Soils x x

Inhalation of Air Particulates - - x x

"Note: It has been concluded that there are no apparent risks associated with consumption of local biota including the ingestion of wild pig and deer meat at Andersen Air Force Base in the following two reports: No Complete Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2006. Public Health Assessment, Andersen Air Exposure Routes Force Base, Vigo, Guam. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHNanderson/and_p1.html. Accessed March, 2007. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA), 1995. Exposure Pathway Analysis for Human Health and Ecology at Andersen Air Force Base.

FIGURE 2-7. HUMAN HEALTH CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL FOR SITES 63, 64, AND 77, ANDERSEN AFB, GUAM. L...J

Potential Secondary Secondary Potential Points Potential SQecific ReceQtors of Concern Source Source Release of Contact ExQosure Mechanisms Routes

Terrestrial Invertebra tes Yellow Mariana Plants (Earthworms) Bittern Crow Direct Contact wi th x x Waste Chemicals in Soil x x Surface Erosion Surface Materials Runoff Soil Soil Incidental Ingestion at Sites 63 64 or 77 of Chemicals in Soil x x

Upta ke b)' Plant or Prey Ingestion of Plants x x Biota Tissues or Prey

Subsurface No Complete Infiltration Soil Exposure Routes

No Complete Groundwater Exposure Routes

Figure 2-8. ECOLOGICAL RISK CCONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL FOR SITES 63, 64, AND 77, ANDERSEN AFB, GUAM. J

] AAFBMBS64S295 3.5-3.5 CHROMIUM 1,500

AAFBMBS64S297 Andersen AFB Northwest Field 11-11 Key Map CHROMIUM 1,400 AAFBMBS64S298 4.0-4.0 CHROMIUM 1,eo

EDGE OF VEGETATION DETERIORATED 55- GALLON DRUM OR SUSPEC TED DRUM REM NAN TS TOE CLIFF a MISCELLANEOUS DEBRIS INCLUDES LARGE AND SMALL METAL CONTAINERS, SHEET METALS, WIRES, CABLES, AUTO PARTS, ENGINE PARTS, GLASS, BOTTLES, CONCRETE SLABS, FOOD CANS, SODA CANS, AND HOUSEHOLD TRASH 0 TIRES I RUSTED STEEL PIPE SAMPLE LOCATIONS IN RED EXCEED INDUSTRIAL PRGa AND BTVa - AAFBM--B-S6_4S2__ 95- -::::c: ~~PTH IN FEET 3.5-3.5 CHROMIUM 1,500 INORGANICS, MG/KG

BOLDEO VALUES EXCEED BTVs AND/ OR INDUSTRIAL PRGs

J N P.O.L. LINE MARKER J 21.3 KILOMETERS

150' I0 150' J i------I GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET

J Figure 2-9. Land Used Control Boundary for Site 64, Andersen AFB, Guam. ~I 1 1 J J J J ] APPENDIX A ] FEDERAL FACILITY AGREEMENT ] CHANGE LETTERS ] J J J J J J J J 1 DEPARTMENT OF THE A1R FORCE j HEADQUARTERS, 36TH WING (PACAF) UNIT 14007, APO AP 96543-4007 1 06 November 2009

36 CES/CEVR Unit 14007 APO AP 96543-4007

Mr. Mark Ripperda Project Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne St., H-9-4 San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

Dear Mr. Ripperda

This letter provides notice of a change in administrative responsibility pursuant to paragraph 28 of Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) Docket Number 93-l l 7 (FFA).

As you are aware, Andersen Air Force Base is in the process of realigning installation management functions to a newly established Joint Region Marianas pursuant to the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Final and Approved Recommendations. Title to Andersen Air J Force Base real property will remain in the United States and the property will continue to be utilized by the Air Force. As of October 1, 2009, however, administrative custody and responsibility for managing real property assets will transfer from the Air Force to the Navy. The Air Force will become a supported J component of the Joint Region Marianas and the Navy will become the suppo1ting component. .I In accordance with the Apri l 2008 Department of Defense Environmental Supplemental Guidance fo r Implementing and Operating a Joint Base, the Navy, as the supporting component, "will be responsible for all existing andfuture environmental permits, requirements, plans, and agreements at the installations Lo become the Joint Base." (Ch. 1.1.2). As the supporting component, the Navy will be J required to "honor all existing, previously negotiated Federal FacWty Agreements in place at the installations to become the Joint Base at the time oftransfer. " (Ch. 2.17.5). The Navy is being supplied with an Environmental Condition of Property Report and with access to current environmental files J including the FFA . No change to the FFA will be necessary in order for the Navy to assume responsibility for implementation of the FFA and the transfer ofresponsibility will not change the rights of the parties under the FFA or impede any action under the FFA. The Environmental staff will remain j located at Andersen Air Force Base following 01 October 2009 and will be available to assist with any issues related to the FFA. However, the civilian environmental staff will become Navy employees and, likewise, funding responsibility will reside with the Navy. Please contact Mr. Russell Littlejohn, Environmental Flight Chief, at ( 671) 3 66-2556 if you have any questions or concerns or would like to discuss possible changes/addendums to the FFA to further document the substitution of the United States Navy for the United States Air Force as the entity responsible for implementation of the FFA.

Sincerely fagtl~ GREGG IKEHARA Chief, Installation Restoration Program cc: Ms. Lorilee Crisostomo, GEPA Mr. Rich Howard, Tech Law Inc. ' .

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY COMMANDER, JOINT REGION MARIANAS PSC 455, BOX 152 l FPO AP 9654-0-1000 IN REPLY REFER TO 9510 l Ser J4/1235 November 23, 2009 n Mr. Mark Ripperda US Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne St. H-9-4 San Francisco, CA 94105-390 I

Dear Mr. Ripperda,

SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF TRANSFER OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATlON PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITY This letter serves as notification that all Environmental Restoration Program responsibilities for Andersen Air Force Base (AAFB), a property listed on the National Priorities List, will be officially transferred to the United States Navy under the Commander, Joint Region Marianas (CJRM), effective October I, 2009, pursuant to chapter 2. 17 of the April 2008 Department of Defense Environmental Supplemental Guidance (EVSG) for Implementing and Operating a Joint J Base. This action is being taken to implement the 2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Act which requires the transfer of all installation support functions and administrative J custody of real property from AAFB to the U.S. Navy. In accordance with the EVSG, the Navy, as the supporting component, "will assume responsibility for environmental restoration data reporting, budgeting, record keeping, and J financial liability" (Ch. 2.17.6), "will assume responsibility for all Restoration Advisory Boards" (Ch. 2.17.8), and will be required to "honor all existing, previously negotiated Federal Facility Agreements in place at the installations to become the Joint Base (Region] at the time of ] transfer." (Ch. 2. I 7.5).

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Richard Raines, P.E., at telephone (671) 339- l 8420 or at [email protected]. J J GJ;x\lLYNCH ~ Captain, CEC, U.S. NA VY Regional Engineer J By direction of the Commander

Copy to : l Guam Environmental Protection Agency CNIC (N45) A VFAC Pacific (EV) I 36CES ] l 1 1 ] J ] ] ] APPENDIXB ] NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND ] DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY ] ] J ]

J J

J

J

J l

21 ANDERSEN AFB INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM Public Meeting March24,2010 at6:30pm Guam Marriot Resort & Spa, The View 627 Pale San Vitores Rd., Tumon, Guam 96913 0 The Andersen Air Force Base Installation Restoration Program will hold a public meeting on March 24, 2009 to discuss the Proposed Plans for Sites 63, 64, 65, 66, 72, and 77 of the Site-Wide Operable Unit, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. The Proposed Plans discuss the potential risks posed by the sites to human and ecological receptors and present the evaluations of remedial alternatives. Three remedial alternatives were considered for each site: No Action, Land Use Controls, and Soil Removal. The preferred remedy for Site 66 is No Action. The preferred remedy for Site 64 is Land Use Controls. The preferred remedy for Sites 63, 65, 72, and 77 is Soil Removal. The final remedy will be selected after public comments arc received. l The Proposed Plan and supporting documents are available for public w review at the following loe11tions: N University of Guam (UOC) Nieves M. Flores Memorial Library 0 J Government Documents Dcpamnent 245 Martyr Street 0 Robert F. Kennedy Library, UOG Sc:ition Hag.irna, Guam 96910 (Q c ~langilao, Gumn 96932 (671) 475-4751, - 4753 or- 4754 a (671) 735-2316 or -2315 l'vlon-Thws 8:00nm-6:00pm 3 J Mon-Thur 8:00am-5:00pm Sar 8:00am-5:00pm Fri 9:00am-5:00pm Contuct: Tercsirn K1mnimer '&. Conract: \Valtrid Benavente ~= 0 J Public comments will be .icrcptcd from March 15, 20lU ro April 14, 3 2010. \l\fritten comments rnust bc postmarked on or before April 14, 2010 and m.iilc

.. t J