MW All! MIPS WBIIG HEALTH RENTER PREVENTION AND PROTECTION START HERE Raw and Marine Ennis Public: Health (tamer 620 John PauE Jones Circle, Suite 1100 Portsmouth, VA 23708-2103 um mm MARINE GOBFS PUBUG HEALTH ENTER 3 AND PROTECTION START HERE This page has been left blank to aiiow for doubie?sided printing. AND PROTECTION START HERE HAW ?lm MARINE PIIBUB HEALTH BEHTER Executive Summary On 23 July 2015, in response to a hotline complaint received by the Department of Defense (DOD) inspector General the Navy and Marine Corps Public Health Center was asked by Commander Navy Region Southeast (CNRSE) to conduct a Public Health Review (PHR) of the Office of Military Commissions (OMC) buildings located on Camp Justice at Naval Station (NS) Guantanamo Bay (GTMO). The hotline complaint alleged that since 2004, military and civilian members working for OMC have been exposed to carcinogens in an area surrounding the Commissions? trailers, tents, offices and courtrooms. On August 4-8 2015, sent a team of public health experts to NS to conduct a preliminary investigation, which included an industrial hygiene and habitability survey of the OMC buildings, tents, and trailers at Camp Justice. Based on a review of available documents and the walk-through survey, it was determined in the preliminary report that the buildings, tents, and trailers where people live and work were habitable for occupancy. Although the buildings of concern were deemed habitable, environmental records for Camp Justice were limited. For example, an environmental site assessment which might have included environmental sampling air, soil, drinking water, groundwater, etc.) had not been conducted, as would have been required under existing 000 policies. Additionally, there was limited historical information regarding former operations that occurred onsite hangar, maintenance, flight line activities, etc.) and/or potential spills or releases to the environment locations of fuel tanks, use, storage, and disposal of solvents from work processes, etc). Consequently, there was insufficient evidence available to address the potential environmental exposures to carcinogens that were alleged in the complaint. identified environmental data gaps and recommended additional environmental sampling be performed at Camp .iustice to assess health risks. Once complete, this will allow completion of the epidemiological investigation. Both steps are necessary to appropriately address the DOD lG complaint. Following completion of the preliminary report, CNRSE (with Resolution Consultants) and (with Pioneer Technologies) conducted a site visit 25-29 September 2015 to GTMO to develop an environmental investigation plan. Subsequent to this site visit, CNRSE (with Resolution Consultants) conducted a Phase 1 environmental assessment 11-14 October 2015 which included the collection and analysis of indoor air, water and soil samples, and the development of several other environmental reports that are addressed in this document. Pagei i? All!) mam: cum prism: Hum cones tr PREVENTION AND START HERE The purpose of this preliminary screening risk assessment is to determine any risk management actions that may need to be taken, at this time, to protect human health. This report compares sampling data from the CNRSE Phase 1 environmental assessment, for individual chemicals of concern (COCS) in environmental soil and indoor air, to their respective health protective US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) screening levels (SL5), adjusted to reflect site-specific exposures at Camp Justice. Screening levels were developed for four different site?specific exposure durations a 9-month active-duty military worker who lives and/or works at Camp Justice). Drinking water results were compared to EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) used to regulate drinking water, as required in the U.S. by the Safe Drinking Water Act. Indoor air results were also compared to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) which are regulatory standards for employee occupational exposures in the workplace. The vast majority of COC concentrations detected at Camp Justice were less than their respective SL5. Mercury and formaldehyde in indoor air, and arsenic and benzo(a)pyrene in soil are of potential concern based on their concentrations and/or frequency of detection. Air concentrations of formaldehyde and mercury, in air, are below their respective OSHA PELs for employee occupational exposure in the workplace. However, this one on one comparison of COCs, with OSHA PELs, does not take into consideration risks related to multiple constituents and pathways of exposure. The future health risk assessment, to be conducted upon receipt of all data, will consider exposure to the multiple COCs and pathways. This preliminary screening risk assessment report identifies the following recommendations and/or risk management actions: 1. Formaldehyde in indoor Air (modular structures) - A heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) consultant should evaluate the capacity of the existing air handling equipment to provide additional ambient air flow while maintaining acceptable temperature and humidity levels under maximal expected loads. in the future, recommend replacement or purchase of new modular buildings constructed with no, or low emission formaldehyde containing materials. 2. Mercury in indoor Air (Building AV29) Screening data indicate that mercury concentrations for indoor air exceeded SLs. However, these data are not representative of, and are anticipated to be, much greater than actual occupational exposure concentrations in the breathing zone. Recommend indoor sampling for mercury using National institute of Occupational Safety and Health Method 6009 (Modified per SOP 1827}, to determine if mercury in the breathing zone is of concern. This will also inform the need for any further risk management actions. Page ii anMAW Aim MARINE 00898 HEALTH EEHTEB AND START HERE 3. Arsenic in Soil - Soil data indicate that there are locations throughout Camp Justice with arsenic concentrations that exceed SL5. However, arsenic concentrations in soil can be naturally occurring and/or can be enriched by human activities applying arsenic- based herbicides/pesticides). Recommend analyzing background samples for arsenic to determine what the naturally occurring concentrations of arsenic in soil are proximate to Camp Justice. This will also inform the need for any further risk management actions. 4. Benzolalpyrene in Soil The highest concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene were detected in soil adjacent to Building AV34, suggesting that there may have been a release petroleum products) proximate to this building. Recommend performing additional site reconnaissance, at this building, to determine if additional soil samples should be collected, which will inform the need for any further risk management actions. CNRSE and will continue to develop the work plan for conducting sampling and analysis of the air curtain incinerator emissions that will subsequently be used in the performance of the final health risk assessment. The overall aim of the work plan is to characterize potential exposures from these incinerators which are proximate to, but not on, Camp Justice. A site visit to conduct this sampling phase is scheduled for mid?April. in summary, at this time the potential cancer risk and non?cancer health effects associated with Camp Justice and any final conclusions (and resulting risk management actions) cannot be determined. The final cumulative cancer risks and/or non?cancer hazard indices for all COCs, taking into consideration the applicable exposure scenarios at Camp Justice, will be calculated upon receipt of all data, including the air emissions data from sampling the air curtain incinerators. Completion of the final epidemiological review will occur once the final health risk assessment is developed to determine if completed exposure pathways exist, and if exposure levels and temporality are consistent with specific cancer latency periods and outcomes. Page MAW Aim MARINE mun METER AND PROTECTION START HERE Contents Executive Summary .. i Section 1 - .. 1 Section 2 Actions to Date .. 2 4-8 August 2015: initial Site Visit 2 25-29 September 2015: CNRSE Site Scoping Visit .. .. 2 11-14 October CNRSE: Environmental Sampling Site Visit 2 Current Activities .. 3 Section 3 Preliminary Risk Assessment Screening Approach .. .. 4 Preliminary Conceptual Site Exposures Model .. 4 indoor Air .. 5 Soil 5 Drinking Water .. 6 Section 4 Screening and Results 7 indoor Air .. 7 ..7 Formaldehyde 7 Bromodichloromethane .. 8 Benzene .. 8 Soil .. 8 Biphenyls .. 9 Drinking Water .. 10 Asbestos .. 10 Section 5-Summary ..12 Mercury .. 12 Formaldehyde .. 13 Arsenic .. 14 Page iv HAW mm MARINE PUBUB mm CENTER PREVENTION AND START HERE Benzo(a)pyrene .. 14 implementation of Environmental and Pubiic Health Programs .. 15 Section 6 Data Gaps .. 16 Section 7 Epidemiological Evaluation .. 17 Section 8 Recommendations .. 18 References .. 19 Acronym List .. 21 Appendix A - Overview of the Phase ll Risk Screening Evaluation Approach .. 23 Comparison of Environmental Sampling Results to Risk-Based Screening 23 Comparison of Environmental Sampling Results to EPA Screening Levels .. 23 Comparison of Environmental Sampling Resuits to EPA MCLs .. 24 Comparison of Environmental Sampling Results to OSHA PE Ls .. 24 Figure Figure 1: Site Overview Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ..25 Tables Tabie 1: Detected indoor Air Results Compared to Screening Levels ..26 Table 2: Detected Soil Results Compared to Screening Leveis ..27 Table 3: Detected Drinking Water Results Compared to EPA MCLs .29 Page gs" 1 Of? HAW All!) MARINE CORPS mun HEALTH GEHTEB PREVENTION AND PROTECTION START HERE This page has been left blank to ailow for double?sided printing. Page vi . HAW AND MARINE GEHTEB 3 AND PROTECTION START HERE Election i Backgrounleurpoae NOTE: This is a preliminary health assessment and does not include all data and exposure pathways. Therefore, the risks presented in this document are preliminary only and will be updated/revised upon the collection, analysis and evaluation of additional data, including the air curtain incinerator data. in response to a hotline complaint received by the Department of Defense (DOD) inspector General the Navy and Marine Corps Public Health Center was asked by Commander Navy Region Southeast (CNRSE) to conduct a Public Health Review (PHR) of the Office of Military Commissions? (OMC) buildings located on Camp Justice at Naval Station (NS) Guantanamo Bay (GTMO). The hotline complaint alleged that since 2004, military and civilian members working for OMC have been exposed to carcinogens in an area surrounding the Commissions? trailers, tents, offices and courtrooms. This preliminary assessment is limited to the comparison of individual screening concentrations of chemicals of concern (COCs) for the various media sampled (soil, water, indoor air) from the site, with their respective United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) screening levels. A final health risk assessment will be conducted to calculate cumulative cancer risks and/or non-cancer hazard indices for all COCs and all exposure pathways upon receipt and evaluation of additional data to be collected, including the air curtain incinerator data. The purpose of this preliminary assessment is to determine any risk management actions that may need to be taken, at this time, to protect human health. Page 1 am can MARINE 80395 HEALTH (ENTER AND START HERE Section 2 Actions to [late August Lillie: initial lillviliili?llij: Slit?: ?v?isll public health experts conducted an onsite preliminary investigation to include an industrial hygiene and habitability walk?through survey of the OMC buildings, tents, and trailers at Camp Justicej. Based on a review of available documents and the walk-through, the report concluded that the buildings, tents, and trailers where people live and work are habitable for occupancy. Most of the worksites were administrative in nature and were low hazard with little potential for overexposures to current occupational health standards. Therefore, based on these industrial hygiene findings, none of the OMC personnel working in these buildings of concern are required to be enrolled in occupational medical surveillance or require occupational certification examinations. The report also noted that environmental records and historical information for on-site operations are limited. For example, an environmental site assessment and monitoring which might have included testing of the air, soil, drinking water, groundwater, etc. has not been conducted as would have been required under existing policy?i?"h?. Consequently, the report identified environmental data gaps and additional sampling to appropriately address potential environmental exposures to carcinogens, alleged in the lG complaint, which then also allows the epidemiological investigation to be completed. 2ii~2?l ii. Nlli?liilillifi Eilire- :E?cuping Visit CNRSE (with Resolution Consultants) and (with Pioneer Technologies) conducted limited indoor air quality sampling and developed a sampling/work plan for the follow-on environmental sampling phases of the investigation." These visit reports recommended (1) sampling for asbestos and review of the Camp Justice Asbestos Operations and Maintenance Plan and (2) six different actions to address heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), and moisture issues in AV29 and AV34 'ii (iciulniu' i?jlii?xilitllii Elsii'iipliuu Slit? Vlad CNRSE (with Resolution Consultants) conducted Phase 1 environmental sampling". This sampling report provides the sampling approach and results of sampling conducted at Camp Justice for air, drinking water, paint chips, ionizing radiation and soil. This visit also produced another report that presents an environmental condition of property and environmental baseline survey to assist in determining if there are completed onsite or offsite pathways of exposure for chemicals of concern that could be related to past industrial chemical usage, storage, or disposal practices at Camp Justice. While this report concluded, "Based on Page 2 NAVY AN MARINE lli?l'?l PREVENTION AND START HERE historical and environmental information reviewed for this Overseas Baseline Environmental Assessment (OBEA), the environmentai conditions identified appear acceptable under the current and reasonably anticipated future land uses at Camp Justice,? it specifically pointed out the limitations of obtaining environmental data through site reconnaissance, records reviews and interviews. Ci..irreni CNRSE and continue to develop the work plan for conducting sampling and analysis of the air curtain incinerators that will subsequently be used in the performance of the finai health risk assessment. The overall aim of the work plan is to characterize potential exposures from these incinerators which are proximate to, but not on, Camp Justice. A site visit to conduct this sampling phase is scheduled for mid-April 2016. Page 3 "by AND START HERE HAW mm MARINE 80398 P118113 HEALTH METER Section ii Preiiminary Risk Assessment Screenii?ig Approach The environmental sampling data collected was used to perform the preliminary risk screening assessment". This assessment compares sampling data for individual COCs in environmental media (soil, water, air) to their respective EPA screening level (51.), adjusted to reflect site? specific exposures. These generic SLs are generally considered by the EPA to be protective of human health. Concentrations of chemicals in soil, tap water and indoor air that exceed these levels require additional evaluation. in all cases, inputs and assumptions for the risk calculations were selected to ensure a health-protective assessment that does not underestimate the risks. This screening approach and standards used is further discussed in The average and maximum detected concentrations for each COC, in a given media (soil, water, air), was compared to its respective SL. in addition, the frequency at which the detected chemical concentrations exceeded their respective SLs frequency of exceedance) was calculated to indicate how common/widespread exceedances of the SL5 are for each type of sample (soil, water, air). The purpose of this preliminary screening risk assessment is to determine any risk management actions that may need to be taken as a result of individually screening site concentrations of COCs for the various media sampled (soil, water, air) with their respective SL5. Upon receipt and evaluation of all data, to include the air curtain incinerator data, a final health risk assessment will be conducted to calculate cumulative cancer risks and/or non~cancer hazard indices for all COCs and all exposure pathways. Fingeiirninary {tile A preliminary conceptual site exposure model (CSEM) identifies the different types of populations residents, workers, etc.) who might come into contact with contaminated media and the different exposure scenarios for them. It also identifies potential exposure pathways ingestion of contaminated water, inhalation of chemicals in air, dermal contact with contaminated soil) that may occur for each population. Within risk assessment methodology, exposure is characterized by exposure duration (years), exposure frequency (days per year), and exposure time (hours each day). There are different exposure scenarios for different types of workers ioint Task Force (JTF) vs OMC) at Camp Justice. Some individuals may be assigned to JTF GTMO or Camp Justice for a 9?month time period JTF GTMO reservists, personnei). Some are permanent (typically for 1 year or more) while some individuals are transient and only periodically work at Camp Justice over a certain period of time such as when trials are in session. The CSEM is used to plan the risk assessment and associated data collection activities and is periodically revised Page 4 HAW mm EBRPS rustle GEHIEB AND PROTECTION START HERE as data become available at a site. Additional data to complete the CSEM is currently being developed. That additional information will be used in the conduct of the final health risk assessment. Camp Justice was established between 2007 and 2008; consequently, the maximum exposure duration for OMC staff members would not be more than 9 years to date-'1'. From 2008 to the present, the number of personnel supporting the OMC has varied from 4 to 20 staff members who are considered permanent party working in AV29 or AV34. Specific exposure information for the various populations at Camp Justice will be addressed in the final health risk assessment to be conducted following the collection, analysis and evaluation of all sampling data. To simplify this preliminary screening risk assessment, four exposure scenarios were evaluated: 6* 9~month active?duty military worker (who lives and/or works at Camp Justice) A 9- month exposure duration, at a frequency of 270 days per year, was assumed because it represents the JTF and typical tour length at GTMO. a 3-year active-duty military worker (who only works at Camp Justice) A 3-year exposure duration, at a frequency of 250 days per year, was assumed because it represents the Navy?s typical (escorted) tour length at a duty station. 6 6-year active~duty military worker (who only works at Camp Justice) A 6?year exposure duration, at a frequency of 250 days per year, was assumed because it represents the Navy?s maximum escorted tour length at a duty station. 9 25?year commercial worker (who only works at Camp Justice) - A 25-year exposure duration, at a frequency of 250 days per year, for a commercial worker was assumed using EPA default exposure parameters. indoor air, soil, and drinking water risk?based SLs were developed, for these four exposure scenarios, as discussed below. ind-:30: indoor air SL5 were calculated for exposure via inhalation in Hangar AV32, Bunker AV31, Buildings AV29 and AV34, select tents, and various modular structures inside the expeditionary legal complex see methodology (default exposure parameters and toxicological hierarchy) were used for all exposure scenarios. A target cancer risk of 1E-06 and hazard index of 1 was used to develop individual COC specific SLs. lndoor Air 51.5 are presented in i . Suit Soil SLs were calculated for surficial soil exposure via incidental ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact throughout the Camp. The default exposure parameters and Page 5 HAW Alli! MARINE mm: ?mm GEHTEK PREVENTION AND START HERE toxicological hierarchy were used for all exposure scenarios. A target cancer risk of 1E-06 and hazard index of 1 was used to develop individual COC specific SL5. Soii SLs are presented in Ellie; Qtidsisa?aiei NS GTMO is divided into two distinct areas by Guantanamo Bay; the airfield on the Leeward side and the main base on the Windward side. Both areas are served by a single water treatment and distribution system receiving finished water from the Windward Desalination Water Treatment Plant (WTP). The drinking water delivered to NS GTMO from this WTP is considered fit for human consumption A Navy overseas drinking water system is approved as FFHC if it meets the required primary drinking water standards which are the health based EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) as defined in host nation Final Governing Standards (F65), and 5090.1 (U.S. Drinking Water Quality Standards for US. Navy installations 4 Feb 2013). The water supplied to Camp Justice, ELC and OMC buildings is received from the that supplies the rest of NS GTMO. Water is delivered to and distributed throughout Camp Justice using the foliowing methods (based on end use): 9 Hard plumbing connections directly from water mains at Building AV29, Building AV34, and Hangar AV32). 0 Hard plumbing connections connected to drinking water risers/hydrants. a Flexible hoses connected directly to drinking water risers/ hydrants. All drinking water risers are installed and maintained by NS GTMO Public Works Department (PWD) personnel and Base Operations and Support (805) contractors. Bladders for the tent latrine units are filled with water from the distribution system then isolated using backflow prevention. Once a bladder (typically SOD-gallon capacity) is filled, the water is used in the tent latrine units only to flush the commodes and supply the hand wash stations. Their function is to ensure the two containment boxes, which hold 360 gallons each, do not overfili and create a raw sewage overflow or spillage situation. Camp Justice is supplied with three back?ow devices that are part of 803 contractor assets and there are no test records or data to support testing, repair, or operation The water system post water risers/hydrants, at the Camp, is maintained by the United States Air Force (USAF) Base Engineer Emergency Force (BEEF). The water at Camp Justice and ECL has been characterized as not fit for human consumption due to routinely low disinfectant (chlorine) residuals at the taps. Because of this, the Camp is on bottled water for ingestion/cooking purposes. Note, this water continues to be used for showering and laundry. Drinking water SLs are presented in innit? Page 6 HAW All!) MARINE PHBUB "infill GEHTER AND PROTECTION START HERE Section 4i Screening and itesulte indoor All indoor air exceedances are presented in '1 girls: The results are summarized below: Mercury indoor air at Building AV29 was sampled for mercury because this building was historically identified to contain a dental clinic. As a result, the potential exists for mercury {which was historically used in amalgam fillings) to have been released at this location. Mercury exceeded the Si. for a 25-year commercial worker in 29 of 108 samples; it exceeded the SL for a 6-year active duty military worker in 19 of 108 samples; it exceeded the Si. for a 3-year active duty military worker in 19 of 108 samples; and it exceeded the SL for a 9-month active duty military worker in 29 of 108 samples. Mercury detection levels ranged from below detection level of the instrument to 6 ug/ms. The majority of the exceedances were located on the first floor of the building. However, all mercury concentrations were less than the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PELY of 100 ug/ma. indoor air was sampled since it has been an issue in modular homes, as it is frequently found in plywood, fiberboard, insulation, resins, glues and other building materials. Formaldehyde exceeded the Si. for a 25-year commercial worker in 28 of 28 samples; it exceeded the Sl. for a 6-year active duty military worker in 28 of 28 samples; it exceeded the SL for a 3-year active duty military worker in 19 of 28 samples; and it exceeded the St for a 9-month active duty military worker in 20 of 28 samples. All formaldehyde concentrations were less than the OSHA PEL of 925 ug/ma. The average and maximum detected concentrations of formaldehyde in indoor air was 19 ug/rn3 (15.4 ppb) and 7S ug/m3 (61 ppb), respectively. These formaldehyde concentrations exceed EPA however, they are within the range of concentrations considered "Low" to ?Mid? as defined by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention for typical concentrations observed in manufactured homes one conducted by the EPA, the National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) found 189 Arizona homes had a median formaldehyde level of 17 with a high of 332 'The PEL is a legal limit in the United States for exposure of an employee to a chemical substance or physical agent such as loud noise. A PEL is a time weighted average (TWA), although some are short term exposure limits (STEL) or ceiling limits. A TWA is the average exposure over a speci?ed period of time, usually a nominal 8 hours. This means that, for limited periods, a worker may be exposed to concentration excursions higher than the PEL, so long as the TWA is not exceeded and any applicable excursion limit is not exceeded. Page 7 HAW AND ll'lABlHE EBBPS Pll?lm HEALTH GEHTEB PREVENTEON AND START HERE A more recent study of 184 single family homes in several different cities found a mean concentration of formaldehyde in outdoor ambient air of 3 and in housing of 17 ppb?. That same study found a mean level of formaldehyde for mobile homes or trailers ranging from 15.5 to 24.7 ppb. These studies show a trend in that while all homes have some level of formaldehyde, formaldehyde levels in general seem to be decreasing since the early 1980's. Another trend is that traditional stand?alone homes tend to have lower levels than do manufactured homes. Lower ventilation rates in manufactured homes, due to construction differences, may play a role in this trend' Bromodichloromethane (BDCM) and chloroform exceeded their respective SLs for only the 25? year commercial worker (in two of 32 samples). These exceedances were from samples collected in two showers and The average and maximum concentrations of BDCM were 0.24 and 0.64 ug/m3, respectively. The average and maximum concentrations of chloroform were 0.16 and 1.5 ug/m3, respectively. There are no OSHA PELs for BDCM or chloroform. There is an OSHA 15 minute ceiling limit of 240,000 ug/m3 for chloroform. Chloroform and BDCM are two compounds that are formed when water is disinfected with chlorine. Benzene Benzene exceeded the St for only the 6~year commercial worker (in one of 32 samples). The average and maximum concentrations of benzene were 0.48 ug/m3 (0.015 ppb) and 3.6 ug/m3 (1.125 ppb), respectively. The benzene concentration was less than the OSHA PEL of 3200 ug/m3. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), benzene has been identified in outdoor air samples of both rural and urban environments and (1) was found to range from 0.8 to 6 in the ambient air of 44 sites in 39 cities during a 3 month time period in 1984, 1985 and 1986 and (2) was found to range from >1 to <5 for 13 sites tested in a 1996 study". The maximum concentration of benzene in air is consistent with urban ambient air background concentrations. Still Exceedances for COCs in soil are presented in i digit? The results are summarized below: a Arsenic, benzo(a)pyrene, and chlordecone, exceeded their SLs, as follows: Arsenic exceeded the St for a 25-year commercial worker in 21 of the 60 samples, and it exceeded the SL for a 6?year active duty military worker in one of 60 samples (See note below). Page 8 HAW mm MARINE PHBUG Home cram: AND PROTECTION START HERE 6 Benzo(a)pyrene exceeded the SL for a 25?year commercial worker in 11 of 60 samples, and it exceeded the SL for a 6?year active duty military worker in two of 60 samples. 0 Chlordecone exceeded the SL5 for a 25?year commercial worker, a 6?year active duty military worker, and a 3?year active duty military worker in one of 60 samples. a exceeded the SL for a 25-year commercial worker in two of 60 samples. a Benz(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, 2,6-Dinitrotoluene, DDE, and dieldrin exceeded the Si. for a 25-year commercial worker in one of 60 samples. a 2,6-Dinitrotoluene, DDE, and dieldrin exceeded the SL for a 25-year commercial worker in one of 60 samples. Note: Arsenic is a naturally occurring element that is often present in soil. Background soil samples were collected and their analysis is pending. These samples will assist in determining arsenic risks associated with naturally occurring arsenic versus those that may be associated with arsenic related to anthropogenic (man-made) activities. This analysis will assist risk managers in determining whether concentrations of arsenic in soil are site related and warrant risk management actions. Biphenyls (PCBs) transformers were identified in a vault inside Hangar AV32 and outside The report addresses historical drawings that show transformer vault rooms near the center of the first floor, adjoining stairwells, on the east and west sides of Hangar AV32 A 1942 plan, labeled soil and water supply lines, shows a 4vinch soil line in one (north, outside) corner of each vault that presumably contained electrical lines that extended outside. Later plans (circa 1962) show a detached transformer vault outside the west exterior wall, and one interior vault (on the west side) labeled a transformer room. Vault transformers 40-809, 40?812, and 40-813 were non-PCB containing, vault transformers 40?811 and 40-814 were PCB-containing, and outside transformers 40810 and NP214222 were PCB containingl'i. The vault/transformer room was not accessed during the site reconnaissances. This information was not available when the site visit was conducted in September 2015; therefore, PCB sampling was not included in the Phase I sampling conducted in October 2015. The lack of PCB data is a potential data gap for assessing health risks proximate to AV32. Speci?cally, PCB wipe or soil samples are not available from inside the transformer vault and soil samples are not available proximate to outside transformers 40-810 and NP214222 (which were PCB containing). Page 9 .u u! an? I HAW mm MARINE PUBHE HEALTH RENEE . AND START HERE l'?irinizing Water I, .3 . Drinking water exceedances are presented in innit} Only one constituent, Total Trihalomethanes collected from the ELC portable male latrine, exceeded its MCL in one of 18 samples (the maximum detected concentration of THHM was 81 ug/l. and the MCI. is 80 ug/LY?. This is a disinfection by-product and may be a result of the way water is managed in the distribution system. For example, the increased water retention times due to pipe and bladder storage and increased temperature due to the surface construction of the distribution system are known factors in disinfection by?product generation. This water is oniy being used for hand washing and flushing commodes. Asbestos The 000 lG complaint alleges that the old commissions? buildings potentially contain asbestos and possibly other carcinogens and the new commissions? building was built on the old runway and could be contaminated. This allegation has been repeated in the news media Miami Heraid). Asbestos surveys conducted by NS PWD Environmental in 2003 and 2004 identified asbestos containing material (ACM) in buildings AV29, AV32 and AV34 at Camp Justice. Visual inspections of all spaces were conducted by the and CNRSE teams within Camp Justice, and it was determined, in concurrence with NS GTMO PWD Environmental, that the ACM identified is nonefriable, and is generally non-hazardous if it is undisturbed ?Management in place? is a permissible response action under current Navy regulations. There was no documentation that identified whether at Camp Justice is assessed annually to ensure it remains in safe condition. Surveys conducted: January 2003 Asbestos and Lead Survey, Bldg. AV29. 0 June 2003 Asbestos and Lead Survey, Bldg. AV34. 6 September 2004 Asbestos and Lead Survey, Bldg. AV32. previously identified the following Data Gaps: 0 No updated asbestos inspections for Camp Justice. 6 No documentation of an Asbestos Operations and Maintenance Plan for all existing previously recommended: Page 10 HAW Aim MARINE HEAHH GEHTEB PREVENTION AND PROTECTEON START HERE 0 NS GTMO to update the current asbestos (and lead) survey and coordinate with the NS GTMO Asbestos Program Manager to either develop or include Camp Justice in the current ACM plan. Asbestos pians are criticai for tracking the status of existing locations of ACM, and for having a work order system in place to prevent contract or maintenance activities from disturbing ACM and subsequently exposing workers and building empioyees to airborne asbestos. has requested the status of those recommendations from OMC and NS GTMO with no resolution to date. Naval instaliations are required to have the foiiowing: a An Asbestos plan for all existing A work order system for maintenance activities in areas with ACM or presumed ACM (PACM). 6 Records of asbestos training, maintenance activities, asbestos abatement, and inspections and periodic assessments. Typically, the owner of the maintenance Unit identification Code (UIC) wiil have the responsibilities as described above. has been told by the NS GTMO Public Works Officer that OMC owns the maintenance for Camp Justice. Page 11 I . HAW All!) M??l?i WEBB HEALTH CENTER PREVENTION AND START HERE Sieciion 5i Summary This preliminary screening health risk assessment was prepared for Camp Justice based on indoor air, soil, and drinking water samples collected in October 2015 by Resolution Consultants. individual chemical average and maximum soil sample results were compared to SL5 that were developed for a 9?month active~duty military worker (the typical exposure duration); 3?year active-duty military worker; 6-year active-duty military worker; and a 25~year commercial worker exposure scenario using EPA methodologies and adjusted default exposure parameters. All drinking water results were compared to EPA MCLs. The vast majority of COC concentrations detected at Camp Justice were less than their respective SL5. Based on the concentrations and the frequency of detection of mercury and formaldehyde in indoor air, and arsenic and benzo(a)pyrene in soil, additional discussion is presented below for these four COCs. The cancer risks for formaldehyde in indoor air, arsenic in soil, and benzola)pyrene in soil are within the EPA Risk Management Criteria (Le, a cancer risk between and 1E-04 [1 in a million and 1 in ten thousand]). Mercury concentrations in indoor air exceed the EPA Risk Management Criteria for non?cancer health effects a hazard quotient of one). However, as will be discussed below, these mercury sampling results are not representative of occupational exposure. lvlercui 1; As was agreed to by the team (CNRSE and mercury indoor air samples were collected using a portable field screening tool called the Jerome 3405 Mercury Vapor Analyzer. Because of documented history as a dental clinic, floor tile seams and other potential discharge features (eg. wall pipes) were screened for the presence of residual mercury from mercury amalgam. While screening for the presence of mercury, at floor tile seams and discharge points, provides valuable screening information, it does not provide sufficient information to assess potential exposure what is in the ambient air/breathing zone representative of typical occupational exposure). The Jerome MOS instrument?s measurement range is 1 to 999 ug/ma; therefore, the lower end of the instrument range is just below the Si. of 1.3 ug/mg. Consequently, there is some uncertainty associated with non-detected results reported as zero (0). in summary, while useful, the screening data on mercury is insufficient for assessing health risk. To more accurately characterize mercury air concentrations in AV29, for health risk assessment purposes, additional mercury sampling should be conducted. Page 12 HAW Alli] MARINE ensue HEALTH EENIER AND START HERE l?i oririaitleh yde Formaldehyde indoor air samples were collected per EPA protocols using a sampling cartridge and were analyzed at a fixed-laboratory using EPA Method All 28 samples collected exceeded the formaldehyde St for both the 25?year commercial worker and the SL for the 6-year military worker. Nineteen (19) of 28 samples exceeded the St for the 3-year military worker and 20 of 28 samples exceeded the SL for the 9-month military worker. These exceedances were observed in modular buildings which historically can be expected to exhibit elevated concentrations of formaldehyde in indoor air due to the materials urea formaldehyde (UF) insulation) used during construction of the buildings. The concentrations observed in indoor air ranged from 19 to 75 ug/m3 and, as noted in are considered within the range of "Low" to "Mid" concentrations for formaldehyde in typical manufactured buildings?. Based on the results of the screening assessment and the CDC guidance, recommends that: a An HVAC consultant evaluate the capacity of the existing air handling equipment in the modular units to provide additional ambient air flow while maintaining acceptable temperature and humidity levels under maximal expected loads. 0 The ventilation rate complies with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirement of 35 percent air changes per hour (0.35 air changes per hour) for manufactured housing? . Humidity not exceed EPA limits of 60%. 9 Temperature not exceed 72 degrees Fahrenheit. 9 in the future, recommend replacement or purchase of new modular buildings constructed with no, or low emission formaldehyde containing materials: 6 Furniture, wood cabinetry, or flooring made without UF glues. Pressed?wood products that meet ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) or no added formaldehyde (NAF) requirements. 0 Products labeled "No (volatile organic compound). a insulation that does not have UF foam. In the event that existing air conditioning equipment is found to be insufficient, the HVAC consultant should identify corrective options. In addition, the rate at which formaldehyde is released is accelerated by heat and may also depend somewhat on the humidity level. Page 13 NEW AND MARINE Pll?ll? HEALTH AND START HERE Therefore, the use of a dehumidifier and air conditioning to control or reduce humidity and to maintain a moderate temperature can help reduce formaldehyde emissions (drain and clean dehumidifier collection trays frequently so that they do not become a breeding ground for microorganisms). The EPA allows no more than 0.016 formaldehyde in the air in new buildings constructed for that agency: l. An EPA study found a new home measured 0.076 when brand new and 0.045 after 30 The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has also announced limits on the formaldehyde levels in trailers purchased by that agency?i The EPA recommends the use of ?exterior?grade" pressed-wood products with phenol instead of urea resin to limit formaldehyde exposure, since pressed?wood products containing formaldehyde resins are often a significant source of formaldehyde in homes HUD limits the emissions of formaldehyde from plywood and particle board used in the construction of manufactured housing to 0.2 and 0.3 ppm, respectively?. Arsenic: Arsenic soil samples were collected per EPA protocols and were analyzed at a fixed-laboratory using EPA Method 6020A. Twenty one (21) of 60 samples exceeded the SL for a 25-year commercial worker, two of 60 samples exceeded the SL for a 6-year active duty military worker, one of 60 samples exceeded the Si. for a 3~year active duty military worker, and one of 60 samples exceeded the SL for a 9-month active duty military worker. These exceedances are spatially distributed throughout Camp Justice. Cancer risks for arsenic in soil are within the Risk Management Criteria. As noted in firgijisiir fl, arsenic is a naturally occurring element that is often present in soil. The analysis of background soil samples is pending. Sampling results will assist with assessing the level of arsenic that may be associated with anthropogenic (man-made application of arsenic~based herbicides/pesticidesl) activities compared to that which is naturally occurring and enable risk managers to determine the need for risk management actions. Benznia);lyrisilu Benzo(a)pyrene is one member of a group of chemicals called aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil, gas, wood, garbage, and other organic substances tobacco and charbroiled meat) and a product of biological systems (decaying of plant materials). Since an airfield was previously located at Camp justice, PAHs were sampled in soil per EPA protocols and were analyzed at a fixed?laboratory using EPA Method 8270B. Eleven (11) of 60 samples exceeded the St for a 25-year commercial worker, two of 60 samples the St for a 6-year active duty military worker, one of 60 samples exceeded the SL for a 3-year active duty military worker, and one of 60 samples exceeded the SL for a 9? Page 14 1 HAW MB MBIHE Pll?ll? GENES f- AND PROTECTION START HERE month active duty military worker. While these exceedances are primarily located in the vicinity of the runways/taxiways associated with the former air field, two exceedances were proximate to building AV34. Air field benzo(a)pyrene concentrations ranged from 0.36 to 0.92 mg/kg and the two samples proximate to AV34 were 1.8 and 8.6 mg/kg. The cancer risks for benzola)pyrene in soil, at all locations, are within the Risk Management Criteria. Although there is no documentation available for spill events, the exceedances observed at AV34 may be associated with minor release(s) of petroleum products minor spills) to soil. Additional site reconnaissance at AV34 should be conducted to determine the need for additional soil sampling, which will inform the need for any further risk management activities. lill ilernerilalion oi txiivironmenial {sillifl l-leailii Pint, rams Ki Similar to other occupational health and environmental programs industrial hygiene, preventive medicine, asbestos, drinking water program, etc.) at Camp Justice, there appears to be uncertainty regarding what exact occupational and environmental standards (and monitoring) apply, ?Expeditionary? or "Fixed Naval Installation?. Admittedly this is confusing as Camp Justice is Expeditionary; however, it is located on, and surrounded by, a Fixed Naval installation that already provides some host-tenant services to the Camp. Moving forward, for simplicity, continuity of services and recordkeeping, we recommend NS GTMO provide those occupational health and environmental services as they would for any other tenant command. Lastly, at this time, the potential cancer risk and non-cancer health effects associated with Camp Justice and any final conclusions (and risk management actions) cannot be determined. The final cumulative cancer risks and/or non~cancer hazard indices for all COCs, taking into consideration the applicable exposure scenarios at Camp Justice, will be calculated upon receipt of all data, including the air emissions data from sampling air curtain incinerators. Page 15 HAW MARINE canes Fume HEALTH PREVENTION AND PROTECTION START HERE Section 6 Data Sana Upon review and evaluation of data collected at Camp Justice and the recent environmental repor?fsi several data gaps were identified?". These data gaps are discussed above and are summarized below. 0 6 Background soii analysis for arsenic. Obtaining mercury air sampling in AV29 that is representative of potential occupational exposures to building occupants. Sampiing for PCBs (wipe or soil) from inside the transformer vault and PCB soil samples proximate to outside transformers 40?810 and NP214222 (which were PCB containing). Documented Asbestos 0&lVl Plan for all existing ACM. Extent of benzo(a)pyrene in soil adjacent to AV34. Page 16 HAW nun MARINE EOBPS PBBUG HEALTH PREVENTION AND PROTECTION START HERE Section Epidemiological Evaluation Epidemiological Data Center conducted an initial epidemiological review of each military member working and/or living at Camp Justice from a roster provided by the Commander, Navy Installations Command lGi. This review included analyzing all availabie Military Health System medical encounter records, performing a literature review to determine potential environmental and occupational risk factors for each cancer and identifying critical data gaps arrival/departure rosters to assess temporality, an environmental site assessment and occupational health evaluation). Completion of the final epidemiological review will occur once the final health risk assessment is developed to determine if completed exposure pathways exist and if exposure levels and temporality are consistent with specific cancer latency periods and outcomes. Page 17 HAW Bill! PUBUB HEALTH CENTER AND PROTECTION START HERE Section 8 Recommendations This preliminary screening risk assessment compared individual chemical results to their respective screening values. Recommendations are: 1. and HT United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) provide more granularity on exposure durations for their personnel who work and/or live on Camp Justice for use in the iinai report so that the report can capture the full range (maximum to minimum of exposure durations). Mercury samples, representative of employee exposure and suitable for human health risk assessment, should be performed methodologies. in AV29 using appropriate sampling in the future, recommend replacement or purchase of new modular buildings constructed with no, or low emission formaldehyde containing materials. An HVAC consultant should evaluate the capacity of the existing air handling equipment in the modular units to provide additional ambient air flow while maintaining acceptable temperature and humidity levels under maximal expected loads. Background analysis should be conducted for soil to determine concentrations of arsenic and other metals that are site~related vice those that are not. Site reconnaissance should be conducted for soil adjacent to AV34 to determine the need to further characterize the extent of benzolalpyrene in the soil. PCB wipe and/or soil samples should be collected inside the transformer vault and soil samples should be collected proximate to outside transformers 40-810 and NP 214222. Moving forward, for simplicity, implementation and continuity of services and recordkeeping, recommend NS GTMO, JTF GTMO and OMC discuss having NS GTMO provide those occupational and environmental services as they would for any other tenant command. Page 18 :04? RAW mm MARINE PUBUE GENTER AND START HERE References 1. 10. 11. 12. 13. Navy and Marine Corps Public Health Center, Public Health Review Report for Camp Justice, August 2015. JSM MCM 0028-07, Procedures for Deployment Health Surveillance, 02 November 2007. DoDl 6490.03, Deployment Health, September 2011. 0001 6200.04, Force Health Protection, April 2007. Resolution Consultants, Environmental investigation Report - Office of Military Commissions - Camp Justice Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, December 2015. Resolution Consultants, Indoor Air Quality Assessment Report Office of Military Commissions- Camp Justice Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, January 2016. Resolution Consultants, Overseas Baseline Environmental Assessment Report Office of Military Commissions Camp Justice Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, January 2016. Memorandum 5200 Ser Determination of Fit for Human Consumption and Public Notification for the Navy Overseas Drinking Water Program, August 2013. CDC Fact Sheet [No Date Provided]. "What You Should Know about Formaldehyde?. ittuggij'witnim tier-vWinifinl midKiwerebeUitw?nmldeiwde.edi. Last accessed: 12 Feb 2016. Gordon SM, Callahan PJ, Nishioka MG, Brinkman MC, O?Rourke MK, Lebowitz MD, et al. 1999. Residential environmental measurements in the national human exposure assessment survey (NHEXAS) pilot study in Arizona: Preliminary results for pesticides and VOCs. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology Weisel CP, Zhang J, Turpin BJ, Morandi MT, Colome S, Stock TH, et al. 2005. Relationships of indoor, outdoor, and personal air Part l. Collection methods and descriptive analyses. Research Report (Health Effects institute). Nov; 130 Pt 1:1? 107; 109-27. US. Department of Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Benzene, August 2007. Environmental and Safety Designs, lnc., PCB inventory of All Oil~Filled Electrical Equipment, Commander Naval Base, GTMO, Cuba, November 1997. Page 19 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. HAW Alli! MARINE PUBLIC HEALTH CENTER AND PROTECTION START HERE 5100.23, Navy Safety and Occupational Health Program Manual Chapter 17 Asbestos Control, July 2011. M60901, Environmental Readiness Program Manual Chapter 25 Toxic Substances Control Act, January 2014. Code of Federal Regulations Title 24 Housing and Urban Development 24 CFR 3280.308 and 3280.406 Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards. Environmental Protection Agency, ?Testing for indoor Air Quality, Baseline IAQ, and Materials". . Hf? i?liW-lr .gov/rtp/newv g} masmm. Last accessed: 12 Feb 2016. Koontz, M. et al. 1996. Residential indoor air formaldehyde testing program: A pilot study. Prepared for US. EPA. Evans, Ben, March 11 2008. limits lorngidol-writ: in trailers?. Boston.com. Retrieved 4 September 2008. Nationai Cancer Institute, "Formaldehyde and Cancer Risk?, a train: preventionf Last accessed: 12 Feb 2016. I Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), for Formaldehyde, grit? aqsf?l'l .2339 s?ic?lt?i?.198didri??. Last accessed: 12 Feb 2016. Page 20 HAW ARE MARINE mam: HEALTH GEHTEB AND PROTECTION START HERE lung. ?353;: Acronym List Acronym Definition ACM Asbestos Containing Material ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances 8: Disease Registry BEEF Base Engineer Emergency Force BDCM Bromodichloromethane 805 7 Base Operations and Support CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Commander, Navy Installations Command CNRSE Commander Navy Region Southeast CDC Chemicals of Concern CSEM Conceptual Site Exposure Model Department of Defense ELC Expeditionary Legal Complex EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FGS Final Governing Standards FFHC Fit for Human Consumption GTMO Guantanamo Bay Hi Hazard index HQ Hazard Quotient HUD Department of Housing 84 Urban DeveIOpment HVAC Heating, Ventilation, 8: Air Conditioning lG inspector General JTF Joint Task Force MCL Maximum Contamination Level NAF No Added Formaldehyde Page 21 '3 HAW Ml! MARINE EBBPS "Him! BEHTER AND START HERE Not Fit for Human Consumption NHEXAS National Human Exposure Assessment Survey National institute of Occupational Health and Safety Navy and Marine Corps Public Health Center NS Naval Station 0 8: Operations and Maintenance Plan OBEA Overseas Baseline Environmental Assessment OMC Office of Military Commissions OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PACM Presumed Asbestos Containing Materials PAH Aromatic Hydrocarbon PCB Polychiorinated Biphenyl Permissibie Exposure Limit PHR Public Health Review PWD Public Works Department Relationships of indoor, Outdoor, Personal Air Si. Screening Level SOUTCOM United States Southern Command STEL Short Term Exposure Limit TTHM 'i?otai Trihalomethanes TWA Time?Weighted Average UF Urea Formaldehyde Unit identification Code Ultra'Low Emitting Formaldehyde USAF United States Air Force VOC Volatile Organic Compound WTP Water Treatment Plant Page 22 HAW nun MARINE EBBPS P118118 RENTER 5* . AND PROTECTION START HERE Appendix A Overview of the Phase ll Risk. Screening Evaluation Approach Coniparison oi inivirom?nenial Sampling Results in light-Based Screening Coi?iceniraiions To determine whether or not the sampling results for indoor air, soil, and drinking water are potentially of concern to human health, the sampling results were compared to EPA risk~based SLs adjusted to reflect site?specific exposure scenarios. ln addition, drinking water results were compared to EPA MCLs which are regulatory standards. For further context, indoor air results were compared to OSHA PELs which are also regulatory standards. Comparison 0i ifnvuonmrmiai Bairipllno Results in Screening towels SLs incorporate many conservative assumptions about exposure to be protective of human health, such as being based on a 25-year residential exposure. SLs are calculated based on carcinogenic cancer) risks and noncarcinogenic non?cancer) health effects. Cancer risk is an estimate of how exposure to a chemical may increase the normal or expected rate of developing cancer in a population of people. The EPA generally evaluates cancer risk as follows: 0 Acceptable Risk - A cancer risk of 1 10?6 one person out of 1,000,000 will develop cancer) or less is considered safe acceptable). Note: The EPA generally also considers the range between one in 10,000 (1 10?4) and one in 1,000,000 (1 10?6) people as a safe acceptable) range, and actions to reduce the risk may or may not be required based on various site-specific factors. The EPA typically considers additional actions to reduce cancer risks that are close to or greater than one in 10,000 (1 10-4) people. 6 Unacceptable Risk -- EPA considers an increase of "more than? one additional case of cancer (or greater) in 10,000 (1 10?4) people to be of concern unacceptable). Non~cancer health effects are expressed by a number known as the hazard quotient (HQ). The HQ compares the amount of a chemical that people may have been exposed to over a specified time period with the amount that is considered to have no effect safe). If people are exposed to an amount greater than that considered safe for a particular chemical, then the ratio will be greater than one. Because people can be exposed to more than one chemical at a time, the H05 fOr different chemicals are added together to give an overall hazard index unless data is available to indicate that they should not be added together they do not affect the same target organ). EPA policy considers chemical concentrations resulting in an Hl above one to be of concern for developing potential non-cancer health effects. Professional Page 23 HAW Alli! WIRE MEWS mm: HEALTH SEWER AND PROTECTION START HERE judgment must be used to evaluate the potential non?cancer health effects related to the concentration of these chemicals to determine if risk management actions are required. Comparison oi E3.nviiunrnei'i'iai i-"iesulls in [\flCils MCLs are established by the EPA to set maximum permissible levels of a contaminant in public water supplies under the Safe Drinking Water Act. For private water supplies, MCLs are useful for determining potability (fit for human consumption). MCLs are protective of public health during a lifetime (70 years) for an individual who drinks two liters of water per day. Comparisun ul Ei?iviruimenial Sampling Results in OSHA The PEL is a legal limit in the United States for exposure of an employee to a chemical substance or physical agent such as loud noise. A PEL is a time?weighted average (TWA), aithough some are short term exposure limits (STEL) or ceiling limits. A TWA is the average exposure over a specified period of time, usually a nominal 8 hours. This means that, for limited periods, a worker may be exposed to concentration excursions higher than the PEL, so long as the TWA is not exceeded and any applicable excursion iimit is not exceeded. Page 24 Tabie 1: Demand Indoor Air Remus Compared to Screening Low-Is zs-Yenr commsmai Worker 6-Yur Nave-Duly Military Wortev M'oar heave Duly "Wary Water VOL) Maximum Fchuency Maximum 1 I Detected u! Etr?emw Scented 2 Pym-Jenn); a? accrued hecunmyn! an" .r cone: ?mf- r4 Les ya! "mmym 3?1,an n' g: um namgu - Carmen 'Javm 1 Hurser ?cedar-:19 (if-"WW! Guacnnzunon Number n? lineman?: 1? W1 (tween 2mm!? 'mmuu sf In? time: I Excud 5L7 Ezc?oemce: ?11:an Sundown? I . wens me h?uimmr Fanatch 00!, m- Mamme 0' a; Sun: {mfm? Lin and 31.? and 51: set. A h: 3:725:14; gum1.semi-vmm 019mm ca-myotndt .2 mu 09:. am 33mm - 13.400 No - Eklrumm?mmem 32 160 072 (?52 3! NO 1 .J S-?fv?mnmy?wmem 32 me; am No Value - MW - - s?tmdem 32 19 0.0% cu 0.4: He 7 No - 1 A-Onrano 142 (1,3 0? (2.0.34 044 Nv?v/aba - - No Value - I 32 am 0.19 1.752 ?lo - - 1.752 No . 32 4235 ?6,280 Na 3."432 2:0 9w 35:: 2a 100 75 0.02.3 NoVaIuo - - few/.emn mm? MW 3? :0 3,1 13,146 - 13.1 a a Na - a mum Inn-may:ng um um 32 0.023 N'Menmn an 0.17 07.} 3.063 No - - 3.066 Nu - 9:091! banana 32 6.3 04 I6 0.13 4.3M) No - 5.380 Vat-? .. .. - m. hfermumm 32 0352 o. 21 .990 6,3 ".613 (1039 I-?cr?ammyfom 12 0,015 0 065 6'0935 0.15 0.9.4 on? 01730 No wm - - No Valu: - - 32 16 I136 0,72 GT (in - 32 44 0.26 9.93 No Vane - - - No Va!? - 32 9? ?20 $35150 V0 135.780 .6.3 0.0353 3.065 0.70.Value - 43,800 No - - 0314 5.9 No a - cm No V295: - 2,3 435 - - 4v4 21.9?) .. 6.5 1,228 0?75 438 Ma - a 7.7 4.3% -- c- 012 ~47 Nb 1.6 3.750 H9 2? .900 $39 0,85 3.0 No 0.06100 ag?ang ?2 NNt?u? "a No .. h?o urn 6,3 Ham (all u: upowve ant-mums. "(1m "mu: waft-m1? emu. m?c?s and la USEPX do'ma valicubogkal Nurem- vsxa: I: and)" mu ?hues m; mad I ?mm In Mpx?mo. I'wzwuq sou-ma a Maw-n! 'v sun: am? (?yum-vs an (Mn Page 26 I?m 1 I Table 2: Deiected Soil Results Compamd ?0 Screening Levels An ?ue rcuoleum Compounds Hunter a! Sun In Fqumcy of Duluth? V. Avenue Concenmuem mm M: xi mum Detected Cot-centurion zip-Year Comment?! Wm ht 6-Year Acuvo?outy alliurv Wort" 501?! ?le Exam Mamba a! Hun?:ch Sandstone (V4 sewn-"lug Level (mum: Docs concentration ?uted number of Sandman quumcy 0! Entrance SCIecninq Lam lunhu') 3-Year Azure-Duty '?liuvy Doc: in: minimum mama}! Communism Exceed 51? heave 1:3! Gare-9mm: na gmmum I twrm?? Mun?!? ?Mzwy Wane: mew-cents max t? . ?Imam {um Hedi ?umive! o' 3 Exec-0mm: 2 Encarta! 31'! 13.15?) 291.1011 NO Minuet? 0.6) Nu 467 3.0 12.5 86 Na 233.600 0. 73 3: ?5.336 (H53 No Ev?? I 752.000 Ha 1.752.000 350 350 ?36 49.7110 46:33 mm ?.2130 7300 81. 7,000 760 Vain Na Vain: Laid and 1:53.930 No Va?uc No Vain a .300 163.525!) i515?!) <5 It.? {wk mar.qu L560 913.360 23.360 5,340 5?64!) 5 8:0 ?1840 11.138 12 88323883l3??V?3l333l33 5. 810 Ema-$0 3'59 400 330.4%? 03?! "n Vahm min? 0? 1534 - law 0.20 5.039 1655', 0. 26 Na Vane Mu 2?an 0.20 820543 ?2.995 ?nu?mu 0.5? L1 No 45 add no 0.12 3.52 0.4! 10.0 No (I. Ma?. 0,11 Na mm 054 1?2. Li 0?53 0,21 10,0 6.7 0.10 13H: L7 0?58 60'? L1 wmmaccm .{Jepzau 13 Q0093 0,35 L7 55? 67 0'add? "downy." LT 0.0065 aim 5.0 ELOIZ 3 . a 1 no ?2314 norm kolom 333 3%388888838888838 I: Sf? 38 3!?3?3883 r? 9 o. a -ng Page 27 Hem {mm ?9 km bum! mun-nu my ?4.11 Fun I c? Table 2: Deteclod Soil Results Compared to Screening Levels 25v?e=r (:9me 1' ant? Exam AN: vaL-iy ?cli'm'b'uw ?12?!wa 9-9tnnm miiezw Worm 5 I 1 Does nu? PM . Sc'cilnmg g?x'ay'mum Cw Emanuwcn 32:121wa I in?ame l? mu m. ??irraqv {menus 'chwmahon Concmuaumo' In! (mama) I 15:11.11. became, Dew: mm Extend 31.? madam: W) 13am the; sun-mum Untamed Exceed Sam min; Level (mung) Fresno-3c; ol 1? ., .. a Love! 6min? Don we aumum {Muted Cu nu En:an ?L1er 0! Eaten-dances quuency or Ema-ed: Ive my ?reqeunzg 1 0' ?nummrc' Extenamna Don ma Maximum {Rucmi Gummy man (in M6 5L7 Eavean Low! ?Me! 05:96 cum! upmm pauwlrn. ?rep? "mime awash!? in! mmah ?ochr- mama usumama ?nzkobg?uibam?rivan we to unam- as . Yuma! "may" M?p nun a mind (M awcr?bvmm, C?o?l??h an: ammdm, Page 28 up: an." ramclamor? my 9? mg. (I 2&3 Table 3 Detected Drinking Water Results Compared to Federal MCLs I I: I: vlcuuanecux ?aural-no- Frequency Maximum Does the Maximum Frequency of Average Detected Detected of Number of Detection Concentration Concentration Federal Concentration Exceedance Aname Samples (ugIL) (ugIL) MCL (ugIL) Exceed the Copper 18 100 18 49 1,300?) No "LGad and Compounds "Chloroacetic Acid 18 0.0 0.49 0.0 No Value?) No "Dichloroacetic Acid 18 28 0.77 2.8 No Value(2'3) N0 "Irichloroacetic Acid 18 11 0.25 0.80 No Value(2?3) No lEi-?omodichloromethane 18 100 2.6 5.6 No Valuew? No - [Biomoform 18 100 43 57 No Valueiz-4) No Ilgnloroform 18 78 0.78 2.8 No Valuer?) No Ibibromoacetic Acid 18 100 10 16 No No Ip?bromochloromethane 18 100 9.6 17 No Value?) No I?onobromoacetic Acid 18 89 1.9 4.3 No Value<2-3> No [?nial Haloacetic acids 18 100 13 18 60 No "Total Trihalomethanes 18 ?l 00 56 81 80 Yes 5.6 Notes: Shaded cells indicate that the maximum detected concentration exceeded the MCL. Maximum Contaminant Level SLG: Maximum Contaminant Level Goal 1 lead and copper are regulated by a treatment technique that require systems to control the corrosiveness of water. If more than 10% of tap water samples e>.ceed the action level, additional steps must be taken. The values for lead and copper are action levels. 21 of safety and are non-enforceable. 3 Constituent is considered under Total Haloacetic acids. ?Constituent is considered under Total T?halomethanes. Page 29 :onstituent only has a MCLG - the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. allow fora margin Preliminary Screening Risk Assessment for Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Page1oi1