Joint Appendix — Department of the Air Force, et al., Petitioners v. Prutehi Guahan, fka Prutehi Litekyan

No. 25-579

In the Supreme Court of the United States

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE ET AL., PETITIONERS

v.

PRUTEHI GUAHAN

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOINT APPENDIX

D. JOHN SAUER

Solicitor General

Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov

(202) 514-2217

Counsel of Record

for Petitioners

CAROLINE A. FLYNN

Earthjustice

120 Eye Street NW

Floor 4

Washington, D.C. 20001

cflynn@earthjustice.org

(202) 797-4316

Counsel of Record

for Respondent

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED: NOV. 14, 2025

CERTIORARI GRANTED: MAR. 9, 2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief

(Jan. 25, 2022), D. Ct. Doc. 1 ......................................... 1

Letter from Walter Leon Guerrero,

Administrator, Guam Environmental Protection

Agency, to Brigadier General Gentry W. Boswell

(Sept. 5, 2018), C.A. E.R. 24-26 ................................... 27

Excerpts of Andersen Air Force Base, Guam,

Hazardous waste management facility permit

(2018), C.A. S.E.R. 357-713 ......................................... 29

Excerpts of Andersen Air Force Base, Guam,

Hazardous waste management facility permit

application (2021), C.A. S.E.R. 2-356 .......................... 57

Letter from Walter Leon Guerrero,

Administrator, Guam Environmental Protection

Agency, to Brigadier General Jeremy T. Sloane

(Oct. 15, 2021), C.A. E.R. 18-19 ................................. 113

April 2022 emails, C.A. E.R. 20-22 ............................. 116

(I)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF GUAM

Civil No. X

PRUTEHI LITEKYAN: SAVE RITIDIAN, PLAINTIFF

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE;

FRANK KENDALL, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE;

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; AND

LLOYD AUSTIN, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, DEFENDANTS

Filed: Jan. 25, 2022

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff Prutehi Litekyan: Save Ritidian (“Prutehi

Litekyan”) complains of defendants United States Department of the Air Force; Frank Kendall, in his official

capacity as Secretary of the Air Force; United States

Department of Defense; and Lloyd Austin, in his official

capacity as Secretary of the Department of Defense

(collectively, “Defendants”) as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. By this Complaint, Prutehi Litekyan seeks to

compel Defendants to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321

et seq., prior to conducting open burning and open detonation (“OB/OD”) of hazardous waste munitions at the

Explosive Ordnance Disposal Range (“EOD Range”) on

(1)

2

Tarague Beach at Andersen Air Force Base (“AFB”),

Guam.

2. On May 17, 2021, Andersen AFB submitted to

the Guam Environmental Protection Agency (“Guam

EPA”) an application for a three-year renewal of its

Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit for

OB/OD operations at the EOD Range. The application

acknowledges that OB/OD operations may adversely affect culturally significant sites, the marine environment, groundwater quality, and endangered species,

among other things. Despite these potential impacts,

Andersen AFB failed to prepare any NEPA analysis to

(1) take the requisite “hard look” at the environmental

impacts of the proposed OB/OD operations, (2) consider

a reasonable range of environmentally preferred alternatives, including the “no action” alternative, and (3)

provide opportunities for public comment on the proposed OB/OD operations and reasonable alternatives,

in violation of NEPA.

3. The Air Force proposes to treat hazardous

waste munitions at the EOD Range by blowing up waste

munitions directly on the sand and burning waste munitions in the open air. By definition, open burning and

open detonation both release the toxic by-products of

burning and detonation—and sometimes unexploded

ordnance—directly into the surrounding environment.

3

Detonation of M117 Bomb at EOD Range, Andersen

AFB (Apr. 5, 2002), available at https://catalog.

archives.gov/id/6627544 (last visited January 23, 2022)

4. The EOD Range sits above the island’s solesource aquifer and is immediately adjacent to the Pacific

Ocean and near culturally significant fishing locations—

on which local families depend for food—and sites for

collecting traditional medicine. The beach where the

EOD range is located is nesting habitat for the endangered green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), and migratory birds frequent the EOD Range.

5. The EOD Range sits on ancestral land that the

military seized from local families after World War II.

OB/OD operations could permanently contaminate the

area with toxic chemicals and unexploded ordnance, effectively precluding the return of these lands to the

original owners.

4

6. Allowing Defendants to proceed with renewal of

the hazardous waste permit for OB/OD operations at

Andersen AFB, without an analysis of the environmental impacts and alternatives, would violate NEPA’s fundamental purpose to “ensure Federal agencies consider

the environmental impacts of their actions in the decision-making process.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(a).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over

the claims for relief in this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

§§ 701-706 (actions under the Administrative Procedure

Act (“APA”)); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (actions arising under

the laws of the United States); 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (actions

to compel an officer of the United States to perform his

duty); and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 (power to issue declaratory judgments in cases of actual controversy).

8. Venue lies properly in this judicial district by

virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) because this is a civil action in which officers or employees of the United States

or an agency thereof are acting in their official capacity

or under color of legal authority, a substantial part of

the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district, and Plaintiff resides

here.

PARTIES

Plaintiff

9. Plaintiff Prutehi Litekyan: Save Ritidian is a

non-profit corporation based in Guam. Its mission is to

protect natural and cultural resources in all sites identified for military live-fire training in Guam for the wellbeing of the people and future generations of Guam.

Prutehi Litekyan seeks to prevent environmental deg-

5

radation and destruction on sacred and native lands and

is dedicated to the return of ancestral lands to their

original owners.

10. Prutehi Litekyan engages with the community

in Guam to promote the protection of the island’s solesource aquifer, sacred sites and ancestral remains, and

access to family and ancestral lands. Prutehi Litekyan

also advocates for the protection of environmental and

cultural resources, including, but not limited to, endangered species, traditional fishing sites, and sites for cultivating and gathering traditional medicines. Prutehi

Litekyan’s mission includes protection of these resources from adverse impacts resulting from Department of Defense (“DOD”) activities and operations.

11. Prutehi Litekyan conducts research and carries

out public education efforts on these issues to help the

community become better informed to participate in local and national processes regarding DOD activities and

operations that may be harmful to Guam. Prutehi

Litekyan also educates community leaders to encourage

development of policies that prevent environmental

degradation and ancestral desecration resulting from

DOD activities and operations.

12. In response to the proposed OB/OD operations

at the EOD Range on Andersen AFB, Prutehi Litekyan

and its members have continued to advocate for the protection of Guam’s cultural and natural resources and ancestral lands. In October 2021, Prutehi Litekyan submitted a letter to the Guam EPA Administrator, urging

the agency to deny Andersen AFB’s application for renewal of the hazardous waste permit for OB/OD operations at the EOD Range. Among other things, Prutehi

Litekyan pointed to the harm that OB/OD activities

6

would cause to land and water along the northern coastline, including the island’s sole-source aquifer.

13. Prutehi Litekyan’s members have cultural, social, spiritual, health, professional, scientific, recreational, aesthetic, economic, and other interests in the

preservation of the cultural and natural resources in

and around the EOD Range.

14. Prutehi Litekyan’s members include the family

of original, indigenous owners of land that was seized by

the U.S. military following World War II, including land

near to the EOD Range. They also include current owners of land along the northern coast of Guam. Prutehi

Litekyan’s members are concerned that OB/OD operations will permanently contaminate the ancestral lands

that they are actively advocating to be returned to their

families. The proposed OB/OD operations would harm

their cultural, spiritual, recreational, aesthetic, economic,

and other interests in their ancestral land.

15. Prutehi Litekyan’s members frequently spend

time on Tarague Beach, including at the Sirena Beach

Pavilion, and intend to continue to use and enjoy the

beach in the future. They are concerned that OB/OD

activities on Tarague Beach will contaminate the sacred

land and water where they and their families go for recreational, cultural, spiritual, and aesthetic purposes.

They also are concerned that contamination of the ocean

from toxic by-products of OB/OD and unexploded ordnance will threaten the health of the members and their

families. Further, the explosions, smoke, and noise

from OB/OD operations will interfere with Prutehi

Litekyan’s members’ use and enjoyment of the area.

16. Prutehi Litekyan’s members include fishers who

regularly rely on culturally significant fishing sites in

7

the ocean adjacent to the EOD Range to harvest food

for their families and intend to continue using these

fishing sites in the future. They are concerned that

OB/OD activities will contaminate the waters where

they fish with toxic by-products of OB/OD and unexploded ordnance, thereby threatening these culturally

significant sites and their health. Further, during open

burning and open detonation, Prutehi Litekyan’s members would be prohibited from accessing traditional

fishing sites that are within the 2,400 foot-radius safety

zone proposed for OB/OD operations. The proposed

OB/OD operations would harm these members’ cultural, recreational, health, aesthetic, and other interests

in fishing near the OB/OD area.

17. Prutehi Litekyan’s members include wildlife biologists in Guam who conduct research on the island’s

endangered green sea turtles. They are concerned that

impacts from OB/OD activities, including, but not limited to, shockwaves from explosions on the beach where

the turtles nest and contamination of the marine environment, will harm the turtles and thus harm the members’ professional and scientific interest in studying the

species.

18. The aforementioned cultural, social, spiritual,

health, professional, scientific, recreational, aesthetic,

economic, and other interests of Prutehi Litekyan and

its members in Guam will be adversely affected and irreparably injured by the proposed OB/OD operations at

the EOD Range on Andersen AFB. Prutehi Litekyan

and its members will suffer these irreparable unless Defendants revisit their decision to seek renewal of the

Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit for

OB/OD operations at the EOD Range based on environmental review that complies fully with NEPA, including

8

consideration of the impacts of Defendants’ proposed

action and reasonable alternatives that could accomplish Defendants’ goals with less environmental harm.

Defendants

19. Defendant United States Department of the Air

Force is an agency of the United States Department of

Defense. The Air Force is responsible for complying

with NEPA prior to making decisions regarding treatment of hazardous waste at Andersen AFB.

20. Defendant Frank Kendall is sued in his official

capacity as Secretary of the Air Force and is the

highest-ranking official within the United States Department of the Air Force.

21. Defendant United States Department of Defense is the federal agency with ultimate responsibility

for implementing and enforcing compliance with provisions of law that have been violated as alleged in this

Complaint.

22. Defendant Lloyd Austin is sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Defense.

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Purpose of NEPA and Obligation to Prepare a NEPA

Analysis

23. Congress enacted the National Environmental

Policy Act “to ensure Federal agencies consider the environmental impacts of their actions in the decisionmaking process.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(a). “Simply by focusing the agency’s attention on the environmental consequences of a proposed project, NEPA ensures that

important effects will not be overlooked or underestimated only to be discovered after resources have been

9

committed or the die otherwise cast.” Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989).

Compliance with NEPA prior to taking a proposed action is necessary to achieve Congress’ declared purpose

to “encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment” and “to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and

welfare of man.” 42 U.S.C. § 4321.

24. The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”)

has promulgated rules implementing NEPA that apply

to all federal agencies, including the Air Force. 40

C.F.R. § 1500.3(a); see generally 40 C.F.R. subch. A. In

addition, the Air Force has promulgated its own rules

“to achieve and maintain compliance with NEPA and

the [CEQ] Regulations” for implementing NEPA. 32

C.F.R. § 989.1(b); see generally 32 C.F.R. pt. 989.

25. NEPA’s policy goals are “realized through a set

of ‘action-forcing’ procedures that require that agencies

take a ‘“hard look” at environmental consequences’ . . .

and that provide for broad dissemination of relevant environmental information.” Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350

(quoting Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 n.21

(1976)).

26. NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an

environmental impact statement (“EIS”) for all “major

federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). “Major

Federal action or action means an activity or decision

subject to Federal control and responsibility” and “may

include new and continuing activities, including projects

and programs entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by Federal agencies.”

10

40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(q)(2). The term “[h]uman environment means comprehensively the natural and physical

environment and the relationship of present and future

generations of Americans with that environment.” Id.

§ 1508.1(m). “Effects or impacts means changes to the

human environment from the proposed action or alternatives that are reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed action

or alternatives.” Id. § 1508.1(g). “Effects include ecological, . . . aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, . . .

social, or health effects. Id. § 1508.1(g)(1).

27. When an agency does not know whether the effects of its action will be “significant,” it may prepare an

environmental assessment (“EA”) to help make that determination. Id. § 1501.5(a). “[I]f the agency determines, based on the [EA], not to prepare an [EIS] because the proposed action will not have significant effects,” then the agency must prepare a “finding of no

significant impact” (“FONSI”). Id. § 1501.6(a). If the

EA indicates that the federal action “[i]s likely to have

significant effects,” the agency must prepare an EIS.

Id. § 1501.3(a)(3).

28. Agencies must identify in their NEPA regulations “categories of actions that normally do not have a

significant effect on the human environment, and therefore do not require preparation of an [EA] or [EIS].”

Id. § 1501.4(a). To invoke a categorical exclusion, the

agency must make an express determination that “a

categorical exclusion identified in its agency NEPA procedures covers [the] proposed action.” Id. § 1501.4(b).

Moreover, prior to relying on a categorical exclusion,

the agency must “evaluate the action for extraordinary

circumstances in which the normally excluded action

may have a significant effect” and thus require an EA

11

or EIS. Id.; see also 32 C.F.R. pt. 989, app. B at A2.2

(“Circumstances may arise in which usually categorically excluded actions may have a significant environmental impact and, therefore, may generate a requirement for further environmental analysis.”).

29. NEPA mandates that agencies “ ‘consider every

significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action’ ” and “take a ‘hard look’ at [those] environmental consequences before taking a major action.”

Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,

Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983) (citations omitted; emphasis

added). The Air Force’s NEPA regulations further provide that “Air Force personnel will . . . [r]eview the

specific alternatives analyzed in the [environmental impact analysis process] when evaluating the proposal

prior to decisionmaking.” 32 C.F.R. § 989.4(d) (emphasis added). Additionally, “[e]ach office, unit, single

manager, or activity at any level that initiates Air Force

actions is responsible for . . . ensuring that, until the

[environmental impact analysis process] is complete,

resources are not committed prejudicing the selection

of alternatives nor actions taken having an adverse environmental impact or limiting the choice of reasonable

alternatives.” Id. § 989.3(d)(3).

Required Scope of NEPA Analysis

30. An EA is a concise document that must “[b]riefly

discuss the purpose and need for the proposed action,

alternatives as required by section 102(2)(E) of NEPA,

and the environmental impacts of the proposed action

and alternatives, and include a list of agencies and persons consulted.” 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5(c)(2). The Air

Force’s NEPA regulations specify that alternatives

considered must include the “no action” alternative.” 32

12

C.F.R. § 989.14(d). The EA also must “[b]riefly provide

sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an [EIS] or a [FONSI].” 40 C.F.R.

§ 1501.5(c)(1). “Every EA must lead to either a FONSI,

a decision to prepare an EIS, or no action on the proposal.” 32 C.F.R. § 989.14(a).

31. An EIS must discuss “(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed

action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term

uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources

which would be involved in the proposed action should

it be implemented.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).

32. The EIS must “provide full and fair discussion

of significant environmental impacts and [must] inform

decision makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or

enhance the quality of the human environment.” 40

C.F.R. § 1502.1. In the alternatives section, the EIS

must “[d]iscuss each alternative considered in detail, including the proposed action, so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.” Id. § 1502.14(b). Alternatives analyzed must “[i]nclude the no action alternative.” Id. § 1502.14(c). Air Force NEPA regulations

specify that the Air Force must “analyze reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and the ‘no action’ alternative in all EAs and EISs, as fully as the proposed

action alternative.” 32 C.F.R. § 989.8(a).

33. “The statutory requirement that a federal agency contemplating a major action prepare . . . an envi-

13

ronmental impact statement serves NEPA’s ‘actionforcing’ purpose in two important respects.” Robertson,

490 U.S. at 349 (internal citations omitted). First, “[i]t

ensures that the agency, in reaching its decision, will

have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts.” Id. Second, “it also guarantees that the relevant

information will be made available to the larger audience that may also play a role in both the decisionmaking process and the implementation of that decision.”

Id.

Public Involvement in NEPA Process

34. Preparing an EA or EIS provides important

opportunities for public involvement in federal agency

decision-making, and NEPA commands federal agencies to “[p]rovide public notice of NEPA-related hearings, public meetings, and other opportunities for public

involvement, and the availability of environmental documents so as to inform those persons and agencies who

may be interested or affected by their proposed actions.” 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6(b).

35. “NEPA’s public comment procedures are at the

heart of the NEPA review process.” State of Cal. v. Block,

690 F.2d 753, 770-71 (9th Cir. 1982). “This reflects the

paramount Congressional desire to internalize opposing

viewpoints into the decision-making process to ensure

that an agency is cognizant of all the environmental

trade-offs that are implicit in a decision.” Id. at 771.

“To effectuate this aim, NEPA requires not merely public notice, but public participation in the evaluation of

the environmental consequences of a major federal action.” Id.

14

36. “As soon as practicable after determining that a

proposal is sufficiently developed to allow for meaningful public comment and requires an [EIS],” an agency

must publish in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent

to prepare an EIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.9(d). After publishing the notice, an agency normally must invite the

public to participate in “scoping,” which is “an early and

open process to determine the scope of issues for analysis in an [EIS], including identifying the significant issues and eliminating from further study non-significant

issues.” Id. § 1501.9(a); see also id. § 1501.9(b).

37. The agency then prepares a draft EIS “in accordance with the scope decided upon in the scoping process” and circulates the draft EIS for public review. Id.

§ 1502.9(b); see also id. § 1502.20. The agency must seek

public comments on the draft EIS, “affirmatively soliciting comments in a manner designed to inform those

persons or organizations who may be interested in or

affected by the proposed action.” Id. § 1503.1(a)(2)(v).

38. The agency must “consider substantive comments timely submitted during the public comment period” and respond to these comments in the final EIS.

Id. § 1503.4(a); see also id. § 1502.9(c). “In the final

[EIS], the agency may respond by:”

(1) Modifying alternatives including the proposed

action.

(2) Developing and evaluating alternatives not previously given serious consideration by the

agency.

(3) Supplementing, improving, or modifying its

analysis.

(4) Making factual corrections.

15

(5) Explaining why the comments do not warrant

further agency response, recognizing that agencies are not required to respond to each comment.”

Id. § 1503.4(a).

39. Agencies also must “involve the public, State,

Tribal, and local governments, relevant agencies, and

any applicants, to the extent practicable in preparing

environmental assessments.” 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5(e); see

also 32 C.F.R. § 989.14(l) (“The Air Force will involve

other federal agencies, state, Tribal, and local governments, and the public in the preparation of EAs”).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

OB/OD Operations at Andersen Air Force Base

40. In its May 17, 2021, application to renew its Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit, Andersen

AFB proposes to open detonate approximately 30,000

pounds and open burn approximately 5,000 pounds of

hazardous waste munitions each year at the EOD

Range. The range is located on Tarague Beach, just before Tagua Point, and is defined as “the open beach area

bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the north and the jungle and/or limestone to the east, south, and west.”

41. The Air Force proposes to open detonate hazardous waste in two pits at the eastern edge of Tarague

Beach. Open detonation operations consist of placing

hazardous waste munitions directly on the sand, adding

an explosive charge to detonate the waste munitions (if

required) and an igniter to initiate the detonator, and

then setting off the detonation from a personnel bunker.

42. The Air Force also proposes to open burn hazardous waste on Tarague Beach near the open detona-

16

tion pits at a location that is only about 80 feet from the

jungle and 150 to 190 feet from the Pacific Ocean. While

the Air Force’s permit renewal application does not detail with specificity the “metallic containment device”

proposed for open burning operations, the DOD defines

open burning as an “open-air combustion process by

which excess, unserviceable, or obsolete munitions are

destroyed.” Prior to going inactive nearly two decades

ago, open burning operations at Andersen AFB consisted of putting wood in a “burn kettle” (a former

aboveground fuel storage tank that was cut in half and

placed on end, so that it was open to the air), adding

waste munitions, placing a remote-controlled ignition

device, pouring ten to twenty gallons of diesel fuel into

the burn kettle, and then remotely activating the ignition device from a personnel bunker.

17

Appendix M to Andersen AFB Application for

Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit

43. The Air Force seeks to “open burn/open detonate at the OB/OD unit hazardous wastes . . . that consist of common military ordnance material (such as

black powder, white/red phosphorus, tear gas, ammunitions, propellants, and explosive materials).”

44. Because of the inherent hazards associated with

OB/OD, a 2,400 foot-radius safety zone surrounds the

EOD Range, extending into the adjacent reef and

ocean.

18

Appendix G to Anderson AFB Application for Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit

45. Andersen AFB first received a Hazardous Waste

Management Facility Permit for its OB/OD operations

at the EOD Range in 1982. Every three years since

then, the Air Force has applied to renew this permit,

19

and the Guam EPA has approved each of those permit

renewals. Although open detonation has been occurring

under each permit renewal, open burning operations

have been inactive since at least before May 2002. The

burn kettle previously used for open burning is not operational due to severe corrosion, and the Air Force

proposes to construct a new device to restart open burning operations.

OB/OD Operations Have the Potential for Significant

Impacts

46. Andersen AFB’s application to renew the Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit for OB/OD

operations at the EOD Range acknowledges the potential for impacts to the human environment. For example, the application states that “[t]he Permittee shall

construct, maintain, and operate the facility to minimize

the possibility of an unplanned fire, explosion, or any

unplanned, sudden or non-sudden release of hazardous

waste constituents to air, soil, or surface water which

could threaten human health or the environment,” but

notably does not claim that these adverse environmental impacts can be eliminated. (Emphasis added). On

the contrary, the application acknowledges that “[p]revious DOD studies of open burning units on the ground

that had been operating a number of years have shown

that contaminated soils and residues were present in

the immediate vicinity of the OB unit.”

47. The application notes that “[t]he nature of OB/OD

[hazardous waste] treatment on the EOD Range does

not provide for procedures to minimize releases to the

atmosphere” and that it is not possible to “completely

prevent the ejection of wastes,” such as ash and other

residue, during open burning.

20

48. During open burning operations, fuel could spill

directly on the beach, and the application acknowledges

the possible need for an environmental response that

would be beyond the capabilities of EOD personnel, requiring activation of the Base environmental spill team

by the Fire Department.

49. The application acknowledges the potential for

OB/OD operations to contaminate the shallow, unconfined aquifer beneath the EOD Range, which supplies

more than eighty percent of Guam’s population with

drinking water. Further, OB/OD operations could release contaminants into the adjacent Pacific Ocean and

reef, threatening the health of local families that recreate at Tarague Beach and fish near the reef. Portions

of the EOD Range also are susceptible to flooding during typhoons or from tidal waves, and unexploded ordnance and fragments of hazardous waste munitions

could be washed into the ocean.

50. OB/OD operations at the EOD Range present

potential fire hazards, including uncontrolled fires. The

application notes that “[f]ires involving explosives are

extremely dangerous and can react in an unpredictable

manner,” and “[s]ome explosives exposed to fire will

burn, detonate, or a combination of both.”

51. The application acknowledges potential hazards

from OB/OD operations that could remain at the EOD

Range long after its closure. For example, “[i]f buried

[unexploded ordnance] cannot be removed or disposed

of safely, it will remain in place” and a deed restriction

will be placed on the property. The application further

notes the potential for contamination with hazardous

chemicals. Continued OB/OD operations at the EOD

Range could cause permanent contamination of the area

21

and jeopardize the return of these ancestral lands to the

indigenous families that previously owned them.

52. The application acknowledges the potential impacts to imperiled species from OB/OD operations at

the EOD Range, such as the endangered green sea turtles that nest on “[t]he beach adjacent to the OB/OD

area.” Explosions from OB/OD operations would subject endangered turtles’ nests and the eggs they contain

to ground shocks. The blasts from OB/OD also would

threaten migratory seabirds that are frequently observed foraging and resting within the EOD Range, including the Common Sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos),

Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres), Pacific Golden

Plover (Pluvialis fulva), Wandering Tattler (Tringa

incana), and the Wedge-tailed Shearwater (Puffinus

pacificus). The application acknowledges the potential

for OB/OD activities to kill or injure migratory birds.

Alternatives to OB/OD to Treat Hazardous Waste Munitions

53. There are several alternative technologies available to treat hazardous waste munitions at Andersen

AFB that would be less harmful to the human environment than OB/OD. In 2019, the National Academies of

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (“NAS”) published a report on “Alternatives for the Demilitarization

of Conventional Munitions.” In that report, the NAS

concluded that “[v]iable alternative technologies exist

within the demilitarization enterprise . . . for almost

all munitions currently being treated within the DOD

conventional munitions demilitarization stockpile via

OB/OD.” Further, “there are no significant technical,

safety, or regulatory barriers to the full-scale deployment of alternative technologies for the demilitarization

22

of the vast majority of the conventional waste munitions, bulk energetics, and associated wastes.” Prutehi

Litekyan is informed and believes, and on the basis

therefor alleges, that the NAS determined that alternative technologies are suitable to treat the types of munitions that Defendants seek to treat with OB/OD at Andersen AFB.

54. The NAS concluded that, as compared to OB/OD,

all the alternative technologies it reviewed would have

“lower emissions and less of an environmental and public health impact.”

55. Also in 2019, the U.S. EPA published a report

on “Alternative Treatment Technologies to Open Burning and Open Detonation of Energetic Hazardous

Wastes,” which concluded that “safe alternatives exist

and are being used to divert energetic hazardous wastes

away from OB/OD.” The U.S. EPA further stated that

it “seeks to promote the development, testing, and use

of alternative technologies that are capable of safely

treating munitions and other explosive waste in a manner that reduces the potential for exposure and environmental contamination, as well as keeping cleanup and

closure obligations to a minimum.”

Defendants’ Failure to Conduct NEPA Analysis for

OB/OD Operations at Andersen AFB

56. Plaintiff Prutehi Litekyan is informed and believes, and on the basis therefor alleges, that, prior to

making a decision to seek renewal of the Hazardous

Waste Management Facility Permit for OB/OD operations at Andersen AFB and submitting their application

to the Guam EPA on May 17, 2021, Defendants (1) did

not make an express finding that any categorical exclusion covers the proposed action; and (2) did not consider

23

whether extraordinary circumstances exist that would

preclude application of a categorical exclusion.

57. Plaintiff Prutehi Litekyan is further informed

and believes, and on the basis therefor alleges, that,

prior to making a decision to seek renewal of the Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit for OB/OD

operations at Andersen AFB and submitting their application to the Guam EPA on May 17, 2021, Defendants

did not prepare an EA or EIS that (1) takes the requisite “hard look” at the environmental impacts of the

proposed OB/OD operations, (2) considers a reasonable

range of alternatives, including the “no action” alternative, and (3) provides opportunities for public comment

on the proposed operations and reasonable alternatives.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(VIOLATIONS OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT—FAILURE TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT)

58. Plaintiff Prutehi Litekyan realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation

contained in all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

59. Defendants Department of Defense and Department of the Air Force are “agencies of the Federal

Government” and, therefore, must comply with NEPA.

42 U.S.C. § 4332(2).

60. Defendants’ decision to submit an application on

May 17, 2021, seeking a three-year renewal of the Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit to conduct

OB/OD operations at Andersen AFB constitutes “major

24

Federal action” for purposes of NEPA because it is an

“activity or decision subject to Federal control and responsibility,” including “new and continuing activities,

including projects and programs entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by

Federal agencies.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(q)(2).

61. Plaintiff Prutehi Litekyan is informed and believes, and on the basis therefor alleges, that, prior to

making a decision to seek renewal of the Hazardous

Waste Management Facility Permit for OB/OD operations at Andersen AFB and submitting their application

to the Guam EPA on May 17, 2021, Defendants failed to

prepare an EA or EIS that (1) takes the requisite “hard

look” at the environmental impacts of the proposed

OB/OD operations, (2) considers a reasonable range of

alternatives, including the “no action” alternative, and

(3) provides opportunities for public comment on the

proposed operations and reasonable alternatives.

62. Defendants’ decision to submit the May 21, 2021

application for renewal of the Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit for OB/OD operations at Andersen AFB without first preparing a legally adequate

EA or EIS violates NEPA and the CEQ and Air Force

regulations implementing NEPA.

63. Defendants’ decision to submit the May 21, 2021

application for renewal of the Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit for OB/OD operations at Andersen AFB without first preparing a legally adequate

EA or EIS was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law, and/or without observance of procedure required by law within the meaning of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).

25

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Prutehi Litekyan respectfully requests that the Court:

64. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants

have violated and are violating NEPA, the CEQ and Air

Force regulations implementing NEPA, and the APA

by making a decision to seek renewal of the Hazardous

Waste Management Facility Permit for OB/OD operations at Andersen AFB without first preparing an EA

or EIS that (1) takes the requisite “hard look” at the

environmental impacts of the proposed OB/OD operations, (2) considers a reasonable range of alternatives,

including the “no action” alternative, and (3) provides

opportunities for public comment on the proposed operations and reasonable alternatives.

65. Grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to ensure that Defendants fully comply with NEPA,

its implementing regulations, and the APA and to avoid

irreparable harm to Plaintiff and Guam’s environment

until such compliance occurs, including, but not limited

to:

a.

Compelling Defendants promptly to withdraw

their pending application for a Hazardous Waste

Management Facility Permit for OB/OD operations at Andersen AFB; and

b.

Enjoining Defendants from (i) resubmitting a

permit application to the Guam EPA and/or (ii)

carrying out any OB/OD activities at Andersen

AFB for the duration of Defendants' noncompliance.

26

66. Retain continuing jurisdiction to review Defendants’ compliance with all judgments and orders entered

herein.

67. Award Plaintiffs costs of litigation, including

reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

68. Grant such other and further relief as the Court

may deem just and proper to effectuate a complete resolution of the legal disputes between Plaintiff and Defendants.

Dated this 25th day of January, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

DAVID L. HENKIN

DAVID L. HENKIN (HSBA #6876)

[Pro Hac Vice Admission Forthcoming]

THIEN T. CHAU (CSBA #330315)

[Pro Hac Vice Admission Forthcoming]

EARTHJUSTICE

Attorneys for Plaintiff Prutehi Litekyan:

Save Ritidian

/s/

RACHEL M. TAIMANAO-AYUYU

RACHEL M. TAIMANAO -AYUYU (GBA #07097)

THE

LAW

OFFICE

OF

RACHEL

TAIMANAO-AYUYU

Local Counsel for Plaintiff Prutehi Litekyan:

Save Ritidian

27

Sept. 05, 2018

Brigadier General Gentry W. Boswell

Installation Commander

Andersen AFB, Guam

Unit 14003

APO AP 96543-4003

RE:

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit for Andersen Air Force Base Hazardous

Waste Management Facility, Permit Number

GUS002

Hafa Adai General Boswell:

This letter is to officially notify you that the Guam Environmental Protection Agency has approved the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Permit

for Andersen Air Force Base Hazardous Waste Management Facility, Permit Number GUS002, Facility

Identification Number GU65999519 located in Yigo,

Guam.

A copy of the permit authorization and permit is enclosed for your information and distribution. Should

you have any questions concerning the technical aspects

of this letter and enclosure, please contact Vincent J.

Pereira or Don Quinata at 300-4751/2.

28

Sincerely,

/s/ [ILLEGIBLE]

[FOR] Walter S. Leon Guerrero

Administrator

cc: Mr. Carl Goldstein, USEPA Region 9, Guam Program Manager

29

GUAM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

PERMIT FOR A HAZARDOUS WASTE

MANAGEMENT FACILITY

Permittee:

Andersen Air Force Base

Facility Identification Number: GU6571999519

Permit Number:

GUS002

Expiration Date:

September 3, 2021

This permit is issued by the Guam Environmental Protection Agency (Guam EPA) under the authority of

Guam’s Solid Waste Management and Litter Control

Act (10 Guam Code Annotated, Chapter 51) and pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as

amended (42 USC 6901 et seq., commonly known as

RCRA), the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments

of 1984 (HSWA), and Guam’s Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (GHWMRs) promulgated thereunder Guam EPA, as well as regulations promulgated

thereunder by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (codified and to be codified in

Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations).

This Permit is issued to Andersen Air Force Base (hereafter called the Permittee), to operate a hazardous

waste treatment facility located in Yigo, Guam. The facility, also known as the Explosive Ordnance Disposal

(EOD) Range, is located within the boundaries of the

Air Force Base at the extreme reach of Tarague Beach

30

ending just before Tagua Point. The coordinates for the

Open Detonation Unit is at latitude 13°34’13”N and longitude 144°54’34”E. Andersen Air Force Base is a federal installation in Guam that is currently the home of

the Pacific Air Force 36th Wing.

The hazardous waste management unit authorized by

this Permit is the open burning/open detonation unit

(hereafter called OB/OD unit) that is used to treat hazardous wastes that are reactive (0003) and/or Toxicity

Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) toxic hazardous wastes under Guam EPA and USEPA Region

IX’s regulations. The hazardous wastes include waste

munitions and waste explosives. This Permit requires

that the Permittee conduct site monitoring for ground

water beneath the unit and a mitigation plan to protect

biological receptors during the OB/OD operations. The

Permittee has not conducted OB activities for several

years and the OB unit is in a non-operational condition.

This Permit also requires the Permittee to undertake a

schedule of improvements to upgrade the open burning

components of the OB/OD unit before resuming OB activities. The Permittee has submitted a plan that would

call for a clean closure of the OB/OD unit at the end of

its useful life. This Permit requires preparation and

submittal of a contingent post-closure care plan that

would be implemented in the event the Permittee cannot clean-close the unit at the end of its useful life.

This Permit is based on the information submitted in

the Part B Permit Application attached to the Permittee’s letter dated April 6, 2018 (hereafter referred to as

the Application), and that the facility will be operated

as specified in the Application, and any approved revisions hereto. Any inaccuracies found in the submitted

information may be grounds for the termination, revo-

31

cation and re-issuance, or modification of this Permit in

accordance with Part X.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR

270.41, 270.42 and 270.43] of the GHWMRs and for enforcement action. The Permittee must inform Guam

EPA of any deviation from or changes in the information in the application which would affect the Permittee’s ability to comply with applicable regulations or

permit conditions.

This Permit is effective as of September 4, 2018, and

shall remain in effect until September 3, 2021, unless

revoked and reissued under Part X.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.41] of the GHWMRs, terminated under Part X.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.43] of

the GHWMRs, or continued in accordance with Part

X.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.51(a)] of the

GHWMRs.

/s/ [ILLEGIBLE]

[FOR] Walter S. Leon Guerrero

Administrator

[09 04 2018]

Date

32

33

34

35

36

* * * * *

37

* * * * *

38

SECTION I—GENERAL PERMIT CONDITIONS

* * * * *

I.B. PERMIT ACTIONS

* * * * *

I.B.2. Permit Renewal

This Permit may be renewed as specified in Part X.A.

[Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.30(b)] of the

GHWMRs and Permit Condition I.E.2. Review of any

application for a Permit renewal shall consider improvements in the state of control and measurement technology, as well as changes in applicable regulations. Part

X.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.30(b), HSWA

Section 212] of the GHWMRs.

* * * * *

I.E. DUTIES AND REQUIREMENTS

* * * * *

I.E.2. Duty to Reapply

If the Permittee wishes to continue an activity allowed

by this Permit after the expiration date of this Permit,

the Permittee shall submit a complete application for a

new Permit at least 180 days prior to Permit expiration.

Part X.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.10(h),

270.30(b)] of the GHWMRs.

I.E.3. Permit Expiration

Pursuant to Part X.A., and T. [Adopts by reference 40

CFR 270.50] of the GHWMRs, this Permit shall be effective for a fixed term of three (3) years as described

under Part X.S. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.50(a)

as amended] of the GHWMRs. As long as Guam EPA

39

is the Permit issuing authority, this Permit and all conditions herein will remain in effect beyond the Permit's

expiration date, if the Permittee has submitted a timely,

complete application (see Parts X. A, D, E, and F

[adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.10, 270.13 through

270.29] of the GHWMRs and, if through no fault of the

Permittee, the Administrator has not issued a new Permit, as set forth in Part X.A., and U. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.51] of the GHWMRs.

* * * * *

SECTION III—TREATMENT OF REACTIVE WASTES

III.A. SECTION HIGHLIGHTS

Open burning and open detonation of waste ordnance

materials occurs at the Explosive Ordnance Disposal

(EOD) Range. The unit is located at the extreme eastern reach of Tarague Beach, ending just before Tagua

Point (Appendix H of the Permit). The grid coordinates

for the Open Detonation unit is 13 degrees, 35.58

minutes north, 144 degrees, 56.48 minutes east. This

area has been in constant use since its inception at least

20 years ago. Its mission is to render unserviceable ordnance and other pyrotechnic devices harmless by either

suppressed detonation or open burning. In addition,

the EOD range has been used for EOD training purposes and emergency purposes.

The EOD range is defined as the open beach area

bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the north and the jungle and/or limestone to the east, south, and west. Surrounding the active treatment units is a 2,400 foot-radius safety zone, as defined by operational requirements.

40

The active detonation units are located at the extreme

eastern edge of Tarague Beach. They consist of two (2)

pits; each located directly along the face of the cliff.

Detonation of the munitions at the cliff face directs the

destructive force of the detonation away from the occupied areas. Open detonation operations consists of several steps, including properly placing: the waste munitions, an explosive charge to detonate the waste munitions (if required), and an igniter to initiate the detonator. Detonations are initiated from the personnel bunker.

The inactive open burning pit is located approximately

80 feet from the jungle and 180 feet from the Pacific

Ocean, approximately midway east west in the EOD

Range. Open burning was conducted in a burn kettle

approximately four feet in diameter and five feet tall.

The OB pit was roughly 45 feet long by 14 feet wide by

6 feet deep.

Open burning operations consists of placing dunnage

(wood) in the burn kettle to provide access for combustion air, placing the waste munitions in the burn kettle,

placing a remote-controlled ignition device, placing approximately ten (10) gallons of virgin diesel fuel in the

burn kettle, then remotely activating the ignition device

from the personnel bunker.

Facility Pictures and a topographic map of the EOD

Range are attached in Appendix H of the Permit.

After review of the ecological risk assessment in the

Permit application, the Administrator has concluded

that the mortality of biological receptors has to be protected from OB/OD activities. Therefore, the Permittee

is required to follow the Biological Mitigation Plan, Appendix L, as described in this Permit.

41

Currently, the OB unit burn kettle is non-operational

due to severe corrosion and the unit has not been used

for several years. Before any open burning activity is

allowed under the permit, the unit must meet the design

and operational specifications described in the permit

application as adopted in this Permit.

The Permittee shall operate the OB/OD unit in accordance with the Waste Analysis Plan, Standard Operating

Procedures, Residue Management Plan, Groundwater

Monitoring Plan, and the Biological Mitigation Plan as

described in the Permit.

III.B. PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED WASTE IDENTIFICATION

III.B.1. The Permittee may open burn/open detonate at

the OB/OD unit hazardous wastes (also referenced in

this Permit as “reactive waste”) that consist of common

military ordnance material (such as black powder,

white/red phosphorus, tear gas, ammunitions, propellants, and explosive materials).

The Permittee shall abide by the restrictions for treatment through OB/OD of RCRA Hazardous waste materials as described in Appendix I, of the Permit, “Open

Burning/Open Detonation RCRA hazardous waste treatment waste materials restrictions”.

III.B.2. The Permittee is prohibited from treating hazardous waste at the OB/OD unit that is not identified in

Permit Condition III.B.1.

III.C. DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATING

REQUIREMENTS

III.C.1. Open Burning in a Containment Device

42

Open burning of the OB/OD unit shall be conducted pursuant to the information provided to meet design, construction, and operating requirements provided in the

Process Information, the OB/OD Residue Management

Plan, Flight Operating Instruction 32-3002 (FOI 323002), and the Biological Mitigation Plan (Appendix I,

J, K and L of the Permit). The information addresses

the following requirements:

III.C.1.a. The Permittee shall operate and maintain the

open burning device in accordance with the Process Information, the OB/OD Residue Management Plan, FOI

32-3002, and the Biological Mitigation Plan (Appendix

I, J, K and L of the Permit).

III.C.1.b. The Permittee shall design, construct, operate, and maintain a precipitation cover for the open

burning tray(s) in accordance with the Procedures identified in Appendix I of the Permit.

III.C.1.c. The Permittee shall design, construct, operate, and maintain the open burning unit to minimize air

emissions or exposure of people (onsite or offsite) to

toxic or hazardous emissions in accordance with the

Process Information, the OB/OD Residue Management

Plan, FOI 32-3002, and the Biological Mitigation Plan

(Appendix I, J, K and L of the Permit).

III.C.1.d. The Permittee shall provide guidance on how

ash/residues from the open burning unit will be managed in accordance with the OB/OD Residue Management Plan (Appendix J of the Permit).

III.C.1.e. The Permittee shall follow the procedures for

the protection of ecological receptors in accordance

with the Biological Mitigation Plan in Appendix L of the

Permit.

43

III.C.2. Open Detonation On/In the Ground

III.C.2.a. The Permittee shall operate and maintain the

open detonation area at the OB/OD unit in accordance

with the operating procedures, the Process Information, the OB/OD Residue Management Plan, FOI 323002, and the Biological Mitigation Plan (Appendix I, J,

K and L of the Permit).

III.C.2.b. The Permittee shall operate and maintain the

open detonation area to minimize air emissions or exposure of people (onsite or offsite) to toxic or hazardous

emissions in accordance with the hazard prevention

procedures Appendix I of the Permit.

III.C.2.c. The Permittee shall manage residues from

open detonation in accordance with Appendix J of the

Permit.

III.D. HANDLING REQUIREMENTS

The Permittee shall handle/manage reactive waste that

will be treated at the OB/OD unit in accordance with the

Process Information, OB/OD Residue Management Plan,

and FOI 32-3002 (Appendix I, J and K of the Permit).

III.E. INSPECTION SCHEDULES AND PROCEDURES

The Permittee shall inspect the OB/OD unit in accordance with the inspection schedule set out in Appendix C

of the Permit.

III.F. PREVENTION OF UNINTENDED IGNITION OR

REACTION OF WASTES

The Permittee shall follow the procedures, contained in

Appendix E of the Permit, designed to prevent unintended ignition or reaction of waste.

44

III.G. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

The Permittee shall conduct ground water monitoring

at the OB/OD unit in accordance with Permit Condition

IV. In addition, the Permittee shall follow the appropriate monitoring procedures under the Biological Mitigation Plan (Appendix L).

III.H. FACILITY MODIFICATION/EXPANSION

III.H.1. Permit Modification

Guam EPA reserves the right to modify this Permit in

accordance with Part X.A. (Adopts by reference 40 CFR

270.41) of the GHWMRs.

III.H.2. Permit Modification At The Request Of The

Permittee

Modifications or expansions of the facility shall be accomplished in accordance with Part X.A. (Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.42) of the GHWMRs.

III.I. CLOSURE AND CONTINGENT POST-CLOSURE

III.I.1. At final closure of the OB/OD unit, the Permittee shall follow the procedures in the Closure Plan, Appendix G of the Permit.

III.I.2. If, after closure, the Permittee finds that not all

contaminated soils and debris can be removed or decontaminated in accordance with the Closure Plan, then the

Permittee shall close the OB/OD unit and perform postclosure care in accordance with requirements contained

in Permit Condition V.

III.J. RECORDKEEPING

The Permittee shall develop and maintain all records

required to comply with Part VI.A. [Adopts by refer-

45

ence 40 CFR 264.73 and 40 CFR 264.602] of the

GHWMRs.

III.K. SCHEDULE FOR IMPROVEMENTS

The OB unit of the EOD range is in a non-operational

condition and has not been maintained. In the event

that the Permittee needs to conduct OB operations, the

Permittee shall submit a schedule of repair for the OB

unit to the Guam Environmental Agency for review and

approval. The scope of repair work must enable the unit

to meet the performance requirements and specifications for the OB unit described in the Permit. Pending

completion and commencement of use of the improvements, the Permittee shall conduct open burning under

interim status in accordance with Part VII.A. [Adopts

by reference 40 CFR 265.382] of the GHWMRs.

The Permittee shall commence use of the permitted

open burn component of the OB/OD unit if, within thirty

(30) days of submission of certification of construction,

the Administrator has not inspected the unit component; otherwise, the Permittee shall commence use of

the permitted unit component at an earlier time upon

Administrator inspection and approval.

* * * * *

Attachment 4

Table III-7 Ordnances Pre-Evaluated

Andersen AFB EOD RCRA Treatment Operations

* * * * *

46

Table III-7

Ordnances Pre-Evaluated

Andersen AFB EOD RCRA Treatment Operations

(Page 1 of 3)

Ordnance

#

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Name

OB

OD

Cartridge, 5.56 mm Ball

Cartridge,

5.56

mm

Ball/tracer

Cartridge, 5.56 mm Blank

Cartridge, 7.62 mm Blank

Cartridge, 7.62 Ball

Cartridge, 9 mm Para

Cartridge, 12 gauge

Cartridge, .30-06

Cartridge, .357 Magnum

Cartridge, 20 mm HEI

Cartridge, 40 mm

M58A3 40mm

Simulator, Booby Trap

Cap, Electric blasting

Cap, Non-electric blasting

Cord, detonating

FLSC 100 to 600 GPF

Fuse, time

Igniter, M60

Charge, demolition, M112

(C4)

Charge, demolition, TNT

Charge, assembly, demolition

Demolition kit, Bangalore

torpedo, M1A1

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

47

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Charge, demolition block,

M118

Charge, demolition roll

Deta Sheet

Charge, demolition, shaped

15lb

Charge, demolition, shaped

40lb

Cratering charge M180

Demolition kit, projected

charge, M1

Dynamite, military, M1

Water Gel Explosive

Single-base smokeless powder

Black powder

Fireworks, seal

Firing device, M1

Firing device, demolition,

M1A1

Firing device, demolition,

M5

Firing device, demolition,

M3

Firing device, demolition,

M1

Cartridge,

Fire

Extinguisher

Detonator,

percussion,

M2A1

Detonator,

percussion,

M1A2

Cutter, line M21

Detonator kit, M1

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

48

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

Cartridge, impulse

Cartridge set, impulse

Cartridge, initiator

Cartridge, actuator

Primer, percussion, cap

Firing device, demolition,

M142

Simulator,

ground,

M115/M116

Smoke Pot

Squib, Fire Extinguisher

Squib, M1

Signal, Smoke/illuminating

Kit, Aot Deploy

2 Bomblet

M74 Bomblet

AN/M50

Bomb, MK 82

Bomb, M117

Fuze, Type 93

Fuze, FMU 113/B

Fuze, FMU 54A/B

Fuze, MK 28

Fuze, MK18

Fuze, M905

Booster, M147/M148

Mortar, M49A2

Mortar, Type 97

Projectile, 5 inch

Projectile, high explosive

Projectile, MK28

Projectile, MK34

Projectile, MK35

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

49

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

Projectile, MK44

Projectile, MK45

Projectile, MK165, 76 mm

Projectile, White Phosphorus

Rocket, LAW

Rocket, LAW-35mm subcaliber

Mine, antipersonnel, M16

Mine, antipersonnel, M14

Mine, antipersonnel, M26

Mine, antitank, M15

Mine, antitank, M19

Mine, Claymore, M18

Flare, MK25

Flare, AN-M 26

Flare, MK124

Flare, Personal distress

Flare, ALA17/B

MK 24 Cluster

Grenade, MK1, Illuminating

Grenade, M14

Grenade, MK-2

Grenade, Smoke, M18

Grenade, Type 97

Grenade, Type 99

Grenade, fragmentation

Grenade, offensive, MK3A2

Weapons, Confiscated

Ethylene Oxide

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

50

* * * * *

Appendix B

Security Procedures and Equipment

* * * * *

1.

Procedures To Prevent Hazards

Security Procedures and Equipment (Parts X.A. and

VI.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.l4(b)(4) and 40

CFR 264.14] of the GHWMRs)

Demonstration That Unknown or Unauthorized Contact with Waste Is Not Harmful (Part VI.A. [Adopts by

reference 40 CFR 264.14(a)(1)] of the GHWMRs)

Unauthorized contact with the waste treated at the

OB/OD cannot happen, as the wastes are only on-site

during attended operations. Therefore, this section is

not applicable.

Demonstration That Disturbance of Waste or Equipment Will Not Cause Violation of 40 CFR 264 (Part

VI.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 264.14(a)(2)] of the

GHWMRs)

Unauthorized contact with the waste treated at the

OB/OD cannot happen, as the wastes are only on-site

during attended operations. Therefore, this section is

not applicable.

Description of a 24-hour Surveillance System (Part

VI.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 264.14(b)(1)] of the

GHWMRs)

There are varying degrees of security requirements and

procedures at Andersen AFB to control access to the

main base as well as to restricted areas. Each entry has

51

certain restrictions that must be observed by all personnel. Base employees are issued identification cards and

are required to show the cards to gain access to the

base. Visitors to the base, including guests of military

personnel and Government of Guam agency representatives, must be sponsored onto the base.

The main base may be entered at two locations: the

front (main) entrance and the rear entrance. The main

entrance is on Marine Corps Drive and a 24-hour-a-day

manned guardhouse, fence, and gates control access.

The rear entrance is on Santa Rosa Boulevard and consists of a guardhouse, fence, and gates that currently

provide access 12 hours per day.

Security at Andersen AFB is maintained by the 36th

Wing, 36th Security Forces Squadron. In addition to

manning the guardhouses, the police squadron provides

a 24-hour, 7-day per week roving patrol service

throughout the base.

Entry into the flight line and restricted areas, such as

the EOD Range, by unauthorized base and off-base personnel is prohibited. Escorts and log-in requirements

are imposed upon entry to restricted areas. These areas are either completely fenced in or bounded by a natural barrier such as a cliff or forest. Vehicular access to

the EOD Range is denied by two sequential gates on the

only access road.

Description of the Artificial or Natural Barrier (Part

VI.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 264.14(b)(2)(i)] of

the GHWMRs)

In addition to the security provisions of fencing, gates,

and guards several natural features contribute to the

safety and security of the EOD Range. Access to the

52

EOD Range is controlled through the use of both natural and artificial barriers. It is bounded to the north by

the Pacific Ocean, by the flight line cliff on the south and

east, and by two separately locked gates on the access

road to the west.

As discussed above, the only vehicular access route is

by the only access road, which has two sequential locked

gates. Non-vehicular access is denied from three of four

compass directions by natural barriers.

The EOD Range is bordered to the north by the Pacific

Ocean. This area of the island of Guam is encircled by

a continuous reef line approximately 200 feet off shore.

One cannot bring a boat to shore in this area. Likewise,

a swimmer would sustain serious injury attempting to

cross the reef.

The EOD Range is bordered to the south and east by a

dense jungle in arid etched karst limestone bedrock in

an area of tremendous topographic relief. The ground

surface elevation south of the range rises some 500 feet

in less than 1/2 mile. These two barriers should prevent

any person from accessing the EOD Range.

The EOD Range is bordered to the west by the same

dense jungle growth. Line of sight distances in this

dense jungle growth average less than 50 feet. Only two

clear paths are available from the west. The first is the

access road, which has security structures as previously

discussed. The second potential line of access is the

beach itself, which is approximately 100 feet wide at the

east end of Tarague Beach. Wave action and typhoon

conditions on the beach have made it extremely difficult

to maintain any barriers to physically prevent entry

from the west along the beach. Unknowing entry is pre-

53

vented through warning signs maintained at the Pati

Point Recreation Area approach.

In addition to the above discussion of the natural barriers to all four cardinal compass headings, one must also

bear in mind that the EOD Range is totally enclosed on

three of four sides by Andersen AFB. The nearest public or private property is several miles off base.

Method to Control Entry and Number of Personnel in

the Treatment Area (Part VI.A. [Adopts by reference 40

CFR 264.14(b)(2)(ii)] ofthe GHWMRs)

In addition to the warning signs and locked gates to prevent unauthorized entry, red warning flags are flown

during EOD operations. The red flags are flown at two

locations: the gate at the small arms range on Tarague

Well Road and on the beach near the personnel bunker

at the EOD treatment area.

Sign Posted at Each Entrance with Legend “DangerUnauthorized Personnel Keep Out” (Part VI.A.

[Adopts by reference 40 CFR 264.14(c)] of the

GHWMRs)

Warning signs are posted along both accessible and inaccessible boundaries of the EOD Range to provide

would-be trespassers ample notice that the site is a restricted area. All signs are written in English and

Chamorro and are legible from at least 25 feet away.

Warning signs that read “Danger, Explosive Disposal

Range Keep Out” are posted along the cliff top above

the EOD Range. The warning signs at the Pati Point

Recreation Area approach to the west consist of the following legend: “Danger, Small Arms Range, DOD Ammunition Dud Area, Off Limits To All Personnel.” Prior

to any operation of the EOD Range, the beach area is

54

inspected to eliminate the possibility of unauthorized

entry. Warning signs are also posted at both locked

gates on the access roads and on the beach at the treatment area within the EOD Range. The signs state:

“Danger, Explosive Disposal Range, Keep Out.”

To reinforce that the EOD Range is a restricted area,

40 warning signs with a legend in both English and

Chamorro will be distributed around the perimeter of

the EOD Range. These signs will be legible from a distance of 25 feet. The legend consists of “DANGER” in

white 4-inch capital letters on a red and black background. Beneath the word “Danger,” in 4-inch black

lettering, is “EXPLOSIVE DISPOSAL RANGE

KEEP OUT” on a white background. Beneath the

warning written in English is a corresponding warning

written in the local language of Chamorro.

* * * * *

APPENDIX I—PROCESS INFORMATION

A.

Process Information

* * * * *

A1. Open Burning (OB) in Containment Devices (Part

X.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.23 and 270.32] of the

GHWMRs)

Appropriateness of Treatment Methods (Part X.A.

[Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.32(b)] of the

GHWMRs)

Waste energetic materials have been historically

treated by OB, since this technology has been determined to be the most appropriate from a health and

safety standpoint. Many types of military ordnances

55

are designed so that they cannot be easily and safely

disassembled, and for these types of ordnances, the OB

technology may be the only method of treatment that

provides an adequate margin of worker safety. In addition, OB is also inexpensive, and technically simple and

relatively easy to conduct.

The effectiveness of other forms of treatment of waste

energetic material is for the most part, unknown. Effectiveness in this context refers to the following:

•

The ability to eliminate the reactive or explosive

hazard posed by the materials, or to reduce such

hazards so that the materials are no longer defined to be reactive or explosive.

•

The ability to reduce hazardous and/or toxic materials to innocuous materials, as compared to

the original material treated.

The Department of Defense has performed and continues to perform significant research and development

activities to identify and evaluate alternative treatment

technologies to OB/OD. While some alternatives have

progressed beyond the conceptual or laboratory scale,

most are still years away from being a viable alternative

to OB/OD technologies. Additionally, although some

technologies may show promise on a laboratory or pilot

scale, they are only applicable to a small subset of the

total universe of wastes, which may require treatment

at AAFB. Therefore, implementation of alternative

technologies that may be applicable at some future date

may not permit total elimination of OB/OD activities at

AAFB.

The current OB/OD treatment technologies are also

very safe for waste handlers. In the process of refining

56

OB/OD procedures throughout DOD, numerous SOPs

have been developed that specifically ensure the safety

of waste handlers. In fact, one of the key limitations to

implementing alternative technologies is that the quality of worker safety provisions is not verified.

* * * * *

A3. Open Detonation (OD) (Part X.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.23 and 270.32] of the GHWMRs)

Appropriateness of Treatment Technology (Part X.A.

[Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.32(b)] of the

GHWMRs)

The first portion of A1 provided a rationale as to why

the OB technology is the most appropriate treatment

technology for energetic reactive hazardous wastes.

This discussion is also applicable to OD activities. Given

the large net explosive weight contained in many of the

ordnance items routinely detonated at the AAFB OD

unit, the potential for use of alternative technologies is

even more limited than in OB.

* * * * *

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

SECTION I—GENERAL PERMIT CONDITIONS

I.A. EFFECT OF PERMIT

The Permittee is allowed to treat hazardous waste at

the OB/OD unit in accordance with the conditions of this

Permit. Any treatment of hazardous waste not authorized in this Permit is prohibited, except for treatment of

hazardous waste, which occurs in RCRA permit-exempt

units. Subject to Part X.A. (Adopts by reference 40

CFR 270.4) of Guam’s Hazardous Waste Management

Regulations (herein referred to as GHWMRs), compliance with this Permit generally constitutes compliance,

for purposes of enforcement, with 10 Guam Code Annotated (GCA), Chapter 51, Solid Waste Management and

Litter Control (Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act) (RCRA). Issuance of this Permit

does not convey any property rights of any sort or any

exclusive privilege; nor does it authorize any injury to

persons or property, any invasion of other private

rights, any infringement of state or local law or regulations, or preclude compliance with any other Federal,

State, and/or local laws and/or regulations governing

the treatment and handling of explosives. Compliance

with the terms of this Permit does not constitute a defense to any order issued or any action brought under

Sections 3008(a), 3008(h), 3013, or 7003 of RCRA, except as provided in 40 CFR 270.4(a); Sections 106(a),

104 or 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42

U.S.C. 9601 et seq., commonly known as CERCLA), or

any other law providing for protection of public health

or the environment. Part X.A. [Adopts by reference 40

CFR 270.4, 270.30(g)] in the GHWMRs.

64

I.B. PERMIT ACTIONS

I.B.1. Permit Modification, Revocation and Reissuance,

and Termination

This Permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or

terminated for cause, as specified in Part X.A., L, M, N,

O, P, Q, and R (Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.41,

270.42, and 270.43) of the GHWMRs. The filing of a request for a Permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or the notification of planned

changes or anticipated noncompliance on the part of the

Permittee, does not stay the applicability or enforceability of any Permit Condition. Part X.A. [Adopts by

reference 40 CFR 270.4(a) and 270.30(f)] of the

GHWMRs.

I.B.2. Permit Renewal

This Permit may be renewed as specified in Part X.A.

[Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.30(b)] of the

GHWMRs and Permit Condition I.E.2. Review of any

application for a Permit renewal shall consider improvements in the state of control and measurement technology, as well as changes in applicable regulations. Part

X.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.30(b), HSWA

Section 212] of the GHWMRs.

I.C. SEVERABILITY

The provisions of this Permit are severable, and if any

provision of this Permit, or the application of any provision of this Permit to any circumstance is held invalid,

the application of such provision to other circumstances

and the remainder of this Permit shall not be affected

thereby. Part XI.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR

124.16(a)] of the GHWMRs.

65

I.D. DEFINITIONS

For purposes of this Permit, terms used herein shall

have the same meaning as those in Parts XI.A., II.A.,

VI.A., VIII.A., IX.A., and X.A. [Adopts by reference 40

CFR Parts 124, 260, 264, 266, 268, and 270] of the

GHWMRs, unless this Permit specifically provides otherwise; where terms are not defined in the regulations

or the Permit, the meaning associated with such terms

shall be defined by a standard dictionary reference or

the generally accepted scientific or industrial meaning

of the term. “Administrator” means the Administrator

of Guam EPA, or his/her designee or authorized representative. “Foreign Source” or “Foreign Country”

means any place, location, point, or area outside the territory of Guam.

I.E. DUTIES AND REQUIREMENTS

I.E.1. Duty to Comply

The Permittee shall comply with all conditions of this

Permit, except to the extent and for the duration such

noncompliance is authorized by an emergency Permit.

Any Permit noncompliance, other than noncompliance

authorized by an emergency Permit, constitutes a violation of RCRA, and 10 GCA Chapter 51 (Solid Waste

Management and Litter Control) and is grounds for enforcement action; for Permit termination, revocation

and reissuance, or modification; or for denial of a Permit

renewal application. Part X.A. [Adopts by reference 40

CFR 270.30(a)] of the GHWMRs.

I.E.2. Duty to Reapply

If the Permittee wishes to continue an activity allowed

by this Permit after the expiration date of this Permit,

the Permittee shall submit a complete application for a

66

new Permit at least 180 days prior to Permit expiration.

Part X.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.10(h),

270.30(b)] of the GHWMRs.

I.E.3. Permit Expiration

Pursuant to Part X.A., and T. [Adopts by reference 40

CFR 270.50] of the GHWMRs, this Permit shall be effective for a fixed term of three (3) years as described

under Part X.S. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.50(a)

as amended] of the GHWMRs. As long as Guam EPA

is the Permit issuing authority, this Permit and all conditions herein will remain in effect beyond the Permit’s

expiration date, if the Permittee has submitted a timely,

complete application (see Parts X. A, D, E, and F

[adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.10, 270.13 through

270.29] of the GHWMRs and, if through no fault of the

Permittee, the Administrator has not issued a new Permit, as set forth in Part X.A., and U. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.51] of the GHWMRs.

* * * * *

SECTION II—GENERAL FACILITY CONDITIONS

II.A. DESIGN AND OPERATION OF FACILITY

The Permittee shall construct, maintain, and operate

the facility to minimize the possibility of an unplanned

fire, explosion, or any unplanned, sudden or non-sudden

release of hazardous waste constituents to air, soil, or

surface water which could threaten human health or the

environment, as required by Part VI.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 264.31] of the GHWMRs

* * * * *

67

II.E. GENERAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

The Permittee shall follow the inspection schedule set

out in Appendix C of the Permit. The Permittee shall

remedy any deterioration or malfunction discovered by

an inspection, as required by Part VI.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 264.15(c)] of the GHWMRs.

Records of inspection shall be kept, as required by Part

VI.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 264.15(d)] of the

GHWMRs.

* * * * *

II.I. CONTINGENCY PLAN

II.I.1. Implementation of Plan

The Permittee shall immediately carry out the provisions of the Contingency Plan, Appendix F of the Permit, whenever there is an unplanned fire, explosion, or

release of hazardous waste or constituents which could

threaten human health or the environment.

II.I.2. Copies of Plan

The Permittee shall maintain a copy of the Contingency

Plan at the facility and shall provide a copy to all local

police departments, fire departments, hospitals, and

State and local emergency response teams that may be

asked to provide emergency assistance, as required by

Part VI.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 264.53] of the

GHWMRs.

II.I.3. Amendments to Plan

The Permittee shall review and immediately amend, if

necessary, the Contingency Plan, as required by Part

VI.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 264.54] of the

GHWMRs.

68

II.I.4. Emergency Coordinator

A trained emergency coordinator shall be available at

all times in case of an emergency, as required by Part

VI.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 264.55] of the

GHWMRs.

The names, addresses, and phone numbers of all persons qualified to act as emergency coordinators must be

kept up to date and included in the Contingency Plan.

Part VI.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 264.52(d)] of

the GHWMRs.

* * * * *

SECTION III—TREATMENT OF REACTIVE WASTES

III.A. SECTION HIGHLIGHTS

Open burning and open detonation of waste ordnance

materials occurs at the Explosive Ordnance Disposal

(EOD) Range. The unit is located at the extreme eastern reach of Tarague Beach, ending just before Tagua

Point (Appendix H of the Permit). The grid coordinates

for the Open Detonation unit is 13 degrees, 35.58

minutes north, 144 degrees, 56.48 minutes east. This

area has been in constant use since its inception at least

20 years ago. Its mission is to render unserviceable ordnance and other pyrotechnic devices harmless by either

suppressed detonation or open burning. In addition,

the EOD range has been used for EOD training purposes and emergency purposes.

The EOD range is defined as the open beach area

bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the north and the jungle and/or limestone to the east, south, and west. Surrounding the active treatment units is a 2,400 foot-ra-

69

dius safety zone, as defined by operational requirements.

The active detonation units are located at the extreme

eastern edge of Tarague Beach. They consist of two (2)

pits; each located directly along the face of the cliff.

Detonation of the munitions at the cliff face directs the

destructive force of the detonation away from the occupied areas. Open detonation operations consists of several steps, including properly placing: the waste munitions, an explosive charge to detonate the waste munitions (if required), and an igniter to initiate the detonator. Detonations are initiated from the personnel bunker.

The inactive open burning pit is located approximately

80 feet from the jungle and 180 feet from the Pacific

Ocean, approximately midway east west in the EOD

Range. Open burning was conducted in a burn kettle

approximately four feet in diameter and five feet tall.

The OB pit was roughly 45 feet long by 14 feet wide by

6 feet deep.

Open burning operations consists of placing dunnage

(wood) in the burn kettle to provide access for combustion air, placing the waste munitions in the burn kettle,

placing a remote-controlled ignition device, placing approximately ten (10) gallons of virgin diesel fuel in the

burn kettle, then remotely activating the ignition device

from the personnel bunker.

Facility Pictures and a topographic map of the EOD

Range are attached in Appendix H of the Permit.

After review of the ecological risk assessment in the

Permit application, the Administrator has concluded

that the mortality of biological receptors has to be pro-

70

tected from OB/OD activities. Therefore, the Permittee

is required to follow the Biological Mitigation Plan, Appendix L, as described in this Permit.

Currently, the OB unit burn kettle is non-operational

due to severe corrosion and the unit has not been used

for several years. Before any open burning activity is

allowed under the permit, the unit must meet the design

and operational specifications described in the permit

application as adopted in this Permit.

The Permittee shall operate the OB/OD unit in accordance with the Waste Analysis Plan, Standard Operating

Procedures, Residue Management Plan, Groundwater

Monitoring Plan, and the Biological Mitigation Plan as

described in the Permit.

III.B. PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED WASTE IDENTIFICATION

III.B.1. The Permittee may open burn/open detonate at

the OB/OD unit hazardous wastes (also referenced in

this Permit as “reactive waste”) that consist of common

military ordnance material (such as black powder,

white/red phosphorus, tear gas, ammunitions, propellants, and explosive materials).

The Permittee shall abide by the restrictions for treatment through OB/OD of RCRA Hazardous waste materials as described in Appendix I, of the Permit, “Open

Burning/Open Detonation RCRA hazardous waste

treatment waste materials restrictions”.

III.B.2. The Permittee is prohibited from treating hazardous waste at the OB/OD unit that is not identified in

Permit Condition III.B.1.

71

III.C. DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATING

REQUIREMENTS

III.C.1. Open Burning in a Containment Device

Open burning of the OB/OD unit shall be conducted pursuant to the information provided to meet design, construction, and operating requirements provided in the

Process Information, the OB/OD Residue Management

Plan, Flight Operating Instruction 32-3002 (FOI 323002), and the Biological Mitigation Plan (Appendix I,

J, K and L of the Permit). The information addresses

the following requirements:

III.C.1.a. The Permittee shall operate and maintain the

open burning device in accordance with the Process Information, the OB/OD Residue Management Plan, FOI

32-3002, and the Biological Mitigation Plan (Appendix

I, J, K and L of the Permit).

III.C.1.b. The Permittee shall design, construct, operate, and maintain a precipitation cover for the open

burning tray(s) in accordance with the Procedures identified in Appendix I of the Permit.

III.C.1.c. The Permittee shall design, construct, operate, and maintain the open burning unit to minimize air

emissions or exposure of people (onsite or offsite) to

toxic or hazardous emissions in accordance with the

Process Information, the OB/OD Residue Management

Plan, FOI 32-3002, and the Biological Mitigation Plan

(Appendix I, J, K and L of the Permit).

III.C.1.d. The Permittee shall provide guidance on how

ash/residues from the open burning unit will be managed in accordance with the OB/OD Residue Management Plan (Appendix J of the Permit).

72

III.C.1.e. The Permittee shall follow the procedures for

the protection of ecological receptors in accordance

with the Biological Mitigation Plan in Appendix L of the

Permit.

III.C.2. Open Detonation On/In the Ground

III.C.2.a. The Permittee shall operate and maintain the

open detonation area at the OB/OD unit in accordance

with the operating procedures, the Process Information, the OB/OD Residue Management Plan, FOI 323002, and the Biological Mitigation Plan (Appendix I, J,

K and L of the Permit).

III.C.2.b. The Permittee shall operate and maintain the

open detonation area to minimize air emissions or exposure of people (onsite or offsite) to toxic or hazardous

emissions in accordance with the hazard prevention

procedures Appendix I of the Permit.

III.C.2.c. The Permittee shall manage residues from

open detonation in accordance with Appendix J of the

Permit.

III.D. HANDLING REQUIREMENTS

The Permittee shall handle/manage reactive waste that

will be treated at the OB/OD unit in accordance with the

Process Information, OB/OD Residue Management

Plan, and FOI 32-3002 (Appendix I, J and K of the Permit).

III.E. INSPECTION SCHEDULES AND PROCEDURES

The Permittee shall inspect the OB/OD unit in accordance with the inspection schedule set out in Appendix C

of the Permit.

73

III.F. PREVENTION OF UNINTENDED IGNITION OR

REACTION OF WASTES

The Permittee shall follow the procedures, contained in

Appendix E of the Permit, designed to prevent unintended ignition or reaction of waste.

III.G. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

The Permittee shall conduct ground water monitoring

at the OB/OD unit in accordance with Permit Condition

IV. In addition, the Permittee shall follow the appropriate monitoring procedures under the Biological Mitigation Plan (Appendix L).

III.H. FACILITY MODIFICATION/EXPANSION

III.H.1. Permit Modification

Guam EPA reserves the right to modify this Permit in

accordance with Part X.A. (Adopts by reference 40 CFR

270.41) of the GHWMRs.

III.H.2. Permit Modification At The Request Of The

Permittee Modifications or expansions of the facility

shall be accomplished in accordance with Part X.A.

(Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.42) of the GHWMRs.

III.I. CLOSURE AND CONTINGENT POST-CLOSURE

III.I.1. At final closure of the OB/OD unit, the Permittee shall follow the procedures in the Closure Plan, Appendix G of the Permit.

III.I.2. If, after closure, the Permittee finds that not all

contaminated soils and debris can be removed or decontaminated in accordance with the Closure Plan, then the

Permittee shall close the OB/OD unit and perform postclosure care in accordance with requirements contained

in Permit Condition V.

74

III.J. RECORDKEEPING

The Permittee shall develop and maintain all records

required to comply with Part VI.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 264.73 and 40 CFR 264.602] of the

GHWMRs.

III.K. SCHEDULE FOR IMPROVEMENTS

The OB unit of the EOD range is in a non-operational

condition and has not been maintained. In the event

that the Permittee needs to conduct OB operations, the

Permittee shall submit a schedule of repair for the OB

unit to the Guam Environmental Agency for review and

approval. The scope of repair work must enable the unit

to meet the performance requirements and specifications for the OB unit described in the Permit. Pending

completion and commencement of use of the improvements, the Permittee shall conduct open burning under

interim status in accordance with Part VII.A. [Adopts

by reference 40 CFR 265.382] of the GHWMRs.

The Permittee shall commence use of the permitted

open burn component of the OB/OD unit if, within thirty

(30) days of submission of certification of construction,

the Administrator has not inspected the unit component; otherwise, the Permittee shall commence use of

the permitted unit component at an earlier time upon

Administrator inspection and approval.

* * * * *

APPENDIX A—OB/OD WASTE ANALYSIS PLAN

* * * * *

75

Attachment 4

Table III-7 Ordnances Pre-Evaluated

Andersen AFB EOD RCRA Treatment Operations

* * * * *

Table III-7

Ordnances Pre-Evaluated

Andersen AFB EOD RCRA Treatment Operations

Ordnance

#

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Name

OB

OD

Cartridge, 5.56 mm Ball

Cartridge,

5.56

mm

Ball/tracer

Cartridge, 5.56 mm Blank

Cartridge, 7.62 mm Blank

Cartridge, 7.62 Ball

Cartridge, 9 mm Para

Cartridge, 12 gauge

Cartridge, .30-06

Cartridge, .357 Magnum

Cartridge, 20 mm HEI

Cartridge, 40 mm

M58A3 40mm

Simulator, Booby Trap

Cap, Electric blasting

Cap, Non-electric blasting

Cord, detonating

FLSC 100 to 600 GPF

Fuse, time

Igniter, M60

Charge, demolition, M112

(C4)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

76

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

Charge, demolition, TNT

Charge, assembly, demolition

Demolition kit, Bangalore

torpedo, M1A1

Charge, demolition block,

M118

Charge, demolition roll

Deta Sheet

Charge, demolition, shaped

15lb

Charge, demolition, shaped

40lb

Cratering charge M180

Demolition kit, projected

charge, M1

Dynamite, military, M1

Water Gel Explosive

Single-base smokeless powder

Black powder

Fireworks, seal

Firing device, M1

Firing device, demolition,

M1A1

Firing device, demolition,

M5

Firing device, demolition,

M3

Firing device, demolition,

M1

Cartridge,

Fire

Extinguisher

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

77

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

Detonator,

percussion,

M2A1

Detonator,

percussion,

M1A2

Cutter, line M21

Detonator kit, M1

Cartridge, impulse

Cartridge set, impulse

Cartridge, initiator

Cartridge, actuator

Primer, percussion, cap

Firing device, demolition,

M142

Simulator,

ground,

M115/M116

Smoke Pot

Squib, Fire Extinguisher

Squib, M1

Signal, Smoke/illuminating

Kit, Aot Deploy

2 Bomblet

M74 Bomblet

AN/M50

Bomb, MK 82

Bomb,M117

Fuze, Type 93

Fuze, FMU 113/B

Fuze, FMU 54A/B

Fuze, MK 28

Fuze, MK18

Fuze, M905

Booster, M147/M148

Mortar, M49A2

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

78

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

Mortar, Type 97

Projectile, 5 inch

Projectile, high explosive

Projectile, MK28

Projectile, MK34

Projectile, MK35

Projectile, MK44

Projectile, MK45

Projectile, MK165, 76 mm

Projectile, White Phosphorus

Rocket, LAW

Rocket, LAW-35mm subcaliber

Mine, antipersonnel, M16

Mine, antipersonnel, M14

Mine, antipersonnel, M26

Mine, antitank, M15

Mine, antitank, M19

Mine, Claymore, M18

Flare, MK25

Flare, AN-M 26

Flare, MK124

Flare, Personal distress

Flare, ALA17/B

MK 24 Cluster

Grenade, MK1, Illuminating

Grenade, M14

Grenade, MK-2

Grenade, Smoke, M18

Grenade, Type 97

Grenade, Type 99

Grenade, fragmentation

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

79

102

103

104

Grenade, offensive, MK3A2

Weapons, Confiscated

Ethylene Oxide

X

* * * * *

APPENDIX G—CLOSURE AND POST—CLOSURE

PLAN

X

X

X

80

* * * * *

Attachment 1

OB/OD Sampling and Analysis Plan/Quality Assurance

Project Plan for Closure

* * * * *

Section 2: Site Description

* * * * *

81

2.1 Location

* * * * *

* * * * *

82

Appendix H

OB/OD Facility Map and Photos

* * * * *

FIGURE 2-1: EOD LOCATION MAP

83

FIGURE 2-2: OB/OD AERIAL

84

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

85

Photo 1. View of Tarague Beach (looking west) EOD

Range in Foreground

86

Photo 2. OB proposed area (looking west)

87

Photo 3. West End of EOD Range (looking south)

Cement/personnel bunker to left and holding points on

center

88

Photo 4. Cement/personnel bunker (looking east)

89

Photo 5. Distance of OB area from sand (looking south)

90

Photo 6. Distance of OD unit from shore (looking north)

91

Photo 7. OD unit cliff line (looking south)

92

Photo 8. OD unit close-up (2-3 feet deep)

93

Photo 9. View of Tagua Point (nearly inaccessible) at

east end of EOD (looking east)

94

Photo 10. View from east end of EOD (looking west)

* * * * *

95

Appendix I

Process Information

* * * * *

A. Process Information

Applicability As a “Miscellaneous Unit” (Parts VI.A.

and X.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 264.600 and

270.23] of the GHWMRs)

Activities performed at the OB/OD units at AAFB consist of treatment in “miscellaneous units” as defined in

40 CFR 260.10 in the RCRA regulations. Specifically,

the units do not meet the definition of containers, tanks,

surface impoundments, piles, land treatment units,

landfills, incinerators, boilers, industrial furnaces, underground injection wells, or units eligible for research,

development, and demonstration permits. Additionally,

the preamble to the Subpart X regulations specifically

states that the miscellaneous unit regulations are applicable to OB/OD activities for propellants, explosives,

and pyrotechnics (PEP).

A1. Open Burning (OB) in Containment Devices (Part

X.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.23 and 270.32] of the

GHWMRs)

Appropriateness of Treatment Methods (Part X.A.

[Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.32(b)] of the

GHWMRs)

Waste energetic materials have been historically treated

by OB, since this technology has been determined to be

the most appropriate from a health and safety standpoint. Many types of military ordnances are designed

so that they cannot be easily and safely disassembled,

and for these types of ordnances, the OB technology

96

may be the only method of treatment that provides an

adequate margin of worker safety. In addition, OB is

also inexpensive, and technically simple and relatively

easy to conduct.

The effectiveness of other forms of treatment of waste

energetic material is for the most part, unknown. Effectiveness in this context refers to the following:

•

The ability to eliminate the reactive or explosive

hazard posed by the materials, or to reduce such

hazards so that the materials are no longer defined to be reactive or explosive.

•

The ability to reduce hazardous and/or toxic materials to innocuous materials, as compared to

the original material treated.

The Department of Defense has performed and continues to perform significant research and development

activities to identify and evaluate alternative treatment

technologies to OB/OD. While some alternatives have

progressed beyond the conceptual or laboratory scale,

most are still years away from being a viable alternative

to OB/OD technologies. Additionally, although some

technologies may show promise on a laboratory or pilot

scale, they are only applicable to a small subset of the

total universe of wastes, which may require treatment

at AAFB. Therefore, implementation of alternative

technologies that may be applicable at some future date

may not permit total elimination of OB/OD activities at

AAFB.

The current OB/OD treatment technologies are also

very safe for waste handlers. In the process of refining

OB/OD procedures throughout DOD, numerous SOPs

have been developed that specifically ensure the safety

97

of waste handlers. In fact, one of the key limitations to

implementing alternative technologies is that the quality of worker safety provisions is not verified.

Containment Device Description (Part X.A. [Adopts by

reference 40 CFR 270.23(a)] of the GHWMRs)

Physical characteristics, construction materials, and

dimensions of the unit (Part X.A. [Adopts by reference

40 CFR 270.23(a)(1)] of the GHWMRs)

All OB operations treating reactive hazardous wastes

occur in a metallic containment device. The containment device used for these activities is selected to meet

the following objectives:

•

Prevent incorporation of soil into the wastes and

materials being burned;

•

Contain fuels used in OB operations to prevent

releases to the environment;

•

Minimize the ejection of materials or wastes

from the device onto the ground;

•

Retain a large quantity of the heat generated

during the burn; and

•

Retain the minor detonations, which might occur when munitions are burned.

A large array of containment devices could meet these

objectives and therefore could be employed for OB operations. Previously, a containment device used at

AAFB was fabricated from a former aboveground fuel

storage tank, which has been cut in half and placed on

end. The device takes the form of a cylinder with a flat

bottom and no top. The approximate dimensions of this

containment device is 4 ft in diameter and 5 ft tall. This

device is made of one-quarter inch steel. A section of

98

chain-link fence is placed over the top of the containment device to minimize the ejection of materials or

wastes during the burn. This device is no longer in use .

The integrity of the existing containment device is expected to deteriorate with time, necessitating renovation or replacement of the device. Replacement devices

may not necessarily consist of former aboveground

tanks. Although specific designs or dimensions of future containment devices cannot be identified at this

time all devices will meet the containment objectives

provided above. Additionally, the dimensions of the existing devices will be typical of future devices.

Engineering drawings of the fabricated device Part

X.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.23(a)(2)] of the

GHWMRs)

As the rudimentary containment device as described in

the previous paragraph has not been designed and fabricated specifically for use at the OB area, no engineering drawings of this former tank exist. Similarly, future

containment devices used to replace the existing structure are not expected to be designed specifically for OB

application. Therefore, it is not anticipated that engineering drawings of these devices will be available or

necessary for proper identification and description of

the unit. A general site plan of the area showing the OB

unit is located in Appendix H.

Similarly, engineering plans and reports are not applicable to operation, maintenance, monitoring, and inspection activities. Engineering plans and reports for

closure are addressed in the closure plan contained in

Appendix G.

99

Lining material within device (Part X.A. [Adopts by

reference 40 CFR 270.23(a)(1) and (2)] of the

GHWMRs)

No lining materials are present in the containment device as previously described. Future containment devices are similarly not expected to include a lining material.

Lining material below device Part X.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.23(a)(1) and (2)] of the GHWMRs)

No lining materials below the containment device are

used. Placement of lining materials beneath the device

is not feasible given the potential destructive nature of

the surf during storm events, as well as high temperature.

Leak Detection Provisions (Part X.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.23(a) (2)] of the GHWMRs)

Following residue collection at the end of each burn

event, the containment device was turned upside down

to prevent accumulation of precipitation within the device. At that time, the device is inspected to ensure

there are no holes, cracks, or other weaknesses in the

structure of the device, and thus detect any leaks that

may have occurred. This same inspection procedure is

performed before the device is turned right side up

prior to subsequent OB events. These activities prevent

any wastes or materials placed within the device from

leaking and therefore prevent releases to the environment.

Precipitation Cover (Part X.A. [Adopts by reference 40

CFR 270.23(a)(1) and (2)] of the GHWMRs)

100

Following residue collection at the end of each burn

event, the containment device was turned upside down

to prevent accumulation of precipitation within the device. This negates the need for a formal precipitation

cover above the containment device.

Control of Releases of Ashes and Residues During OB

(Integrity of Containment Devices) (Part X.A. Adopts

by reference 40 CFR 270.23(a) (2)] of the GHWMRs)

Several procedures or facets of the containment device

design have been implemented to control the release of

ash and other residues during OB activities. Some of

the wastes treated in the containment device may have

a tendency to be ejected from the device during certain

circumstances. The AAFB device is covered with a section of chain link fence to minimize the quantity of

items, which are ejected from the device during the

burn.

The second action taken to minimize the ejection of partially burned wastes consists of proper placement of

materials and wastes to be burned within the containment device. All materials and wastes are placed at

least 2 feet below the top of the containment device to

minimize the possibility that wastes could be ejected

from the device.

Because these measures will minimize but not completely prevent the ejection of wastes from the containment device, the Andersen AFB OB/OD Residue Management Plan, contained in the appendices, includes

procedures to identify, collect and properly manage any

wastes, which may have been ejected.

These procedures are implemented after the OB device

is safe to approach, and never later than the day follow-

101

ing the OB event. The following is an excerpt from the

Residue Management Plan:

•

1.2.3 The vicinity of the containment device is

inspected for any items, which may have been

ejected from the device. Items still containing

energetic materials are placed back into the containment device for burning that day. Metallic

items not containing energetic materials are

placed in the OB metal fragments container.

Ash and other residues are removed from the containment device the day after the burn is initiated. This action further minimizes the potential for release of ash

after the burn is completed.

A final procedure to prevent release of residues from

the OB containment device is to regularly monitor the

integrity of the device and repair it if there is a concern

over its integrity. Following residue collection at the

end of each burn event, the containment device is turned

upside down to prevent accumulation of precipitation

within the device. At that time, the device is inspected

to ensure there no holes, cracks, or other weaknesses in

the structure of the device. This same inspection procedure is performed before the device is turned right

side up prior to subsequent OB events. These activities

prevent any wastes or materials placed within the device from leaking from the device and therefore prevent

releases of ash or other residues to the environment.

To retain ejected materials in close proximity of the

containment device, the device has been placed in a

shallow depression in the beach. In this configuration,

the vast majority of wastes ejected from the containment device are retained within the depression, facili-

102

tating location and collection of the ejected wastes following completion of the burns.

* * * * *

A3. Open Detonation (OD) (Part X.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.23 and 270.32] of the GHWMRs)

Appropriateness of Treatment Technology (Part X.A.

[Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.32(b)] of the

GHWMRs)

The first portion of A1 provided a rationale as to why

the OB technology is the most appropriate treatment

technology for energetic reactive hazardous wastes.

This discussion is also applicable to OD activities. Given

the large net explosive weight contained in many of the

ordnance items routinely detonated at the AAFB OD

unit, the potential for use of alternative technologies is

even more limited than in OB.

Description of OD Unit (Part X.A. [Adopts by reference

40 CFR 270.23(a)] of the GHWMRs)

Physical characteristics, materials of construction,

and dimensions of the unit (Part X.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.23(a)(1)] of the GHWMRs)

All OD operations occur directly on the ground (beach)

surface; therefore, there are no physical characteristics

or materials of construction to discuss. Detonation activities occur adjacent to the base of the lower cliff, and

are limited to a small portion of the cliff base less than

50 feet in length.

Engineering plan and drawings of the OD unit (Part

X.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.23(a)(2)] of the

GHWMRs)

103

Engineering plans or drawings of the OD unit are not

applicable, since there is no man-made device or structure at the unit. A general site plan of the area showing

the OD unit is contained in Appendix H.

Inspection, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan (Part

X.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR 270.23(a)(2)] of the

GHWMRs)

As there are no “engineered” facets of the OD system,

and no moving parts, inspection and monitoring can be

very effective yet quite simplified. Soon after the OD

unit can be safely approached following completion of a

detonation (generally within 1 hour of the detonation),

the OD unit is inspected for any items which may remain after detonation, as stated in the Andersen AFB

OB/OD Residue Management Plan contained in the

EOD Operating Procedures Appendix:

2.2

The OD area will be inspected for any items which

may remain after detonation. Items still containing energetic materials are either placed into the

OB containment device for burning that day, or

detonated that day. Metallic items not containing

energetic materials are placed in a container labeled “OD Metal Fragments.”

More general inspection procedures for the EOD Range

are described in Appendix C.

Ash and Residue Management (Part X.A. [Adopts by

reference 40 CFR 270.23(a)(2)] of the GHWMRs)

The Andersen AFB OB/OD Residue Management Plan,

contained in Appendix J, has been specifically prepared

to address management of ash and other residues resulting from OB/OD operations. The following OD residue management procedures, described in the Man-

104

agement Plan, are implemented as soon as the OD unit

can be approached, generally within 1 hour of completion of the detonation:

•

Metallic Fragments Containing Energetic

Materials—collected, and either burned in the

OB containment device or detonated the day

they are collected; and

•

Metallic Fragments Not Containing Energetic

Materials—collected, and accumulated recycling or disposal at a Guam EPA permitted facility.

Negligible quantities of ash are generated from OD operations. Therefore, the residue management procedures described above strictly address any metallic residues (principally metal fragments), which may remain

after the detonation.

Run-on and Run-off Management (Part X.A. [Adopts

by reference 40 CFR 270.23(a)(2)] of the GHWMRs)

The OD unit is located in the upper beach area on highly

permeable materials. As such, even in major precipitation events, run-on and run-off are negligible at this

site. Management of run-on and run-off at the OD unit

is therefore not necessary.

Copy of SOPs (Part X.A. [Adopts by reference 40 CFR

270.23(a)(2)] of the GHWMRs)

The last portion of Section A1, Copy of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), contains a summary of several SOPs, which address operations both at OD and OB

activities. It also references specific SOPs contained in

the Appendix.

105

B.

Environmental Performance Standards

Environmental performance standards for OB/OD RCRA

hazardous waste treatment activities at the Andersen

AFB EOD Range are provided in the following list of 21

items. References to those sections of this application

which provide technical justification for the development of these performance standards are provided in

parentheses.

Environmental Performance Standards

General

1.

OB/OD activities will only occur during daylight

hours.

2.

OB/OD activities will only occur when wind

speeds are less than or equal to 15 miles per

hour.

3.

OB/OD activities will not be performed if electrical storms are within 5 nautical miles of the

EOD Range.

4.

OB/OD activities will not be performed if major

storms capable of flooding the EOD Range are

forecasted to occur within 24 hours.

5.

Residue from OB or OD activities which contains energetic materials will be burned or detonated the day they are located.

6.

The beach area in the vicinity of the EOD Range

will be policed, and all metal items collected, at

least quarterly in addition to the policing conducted following each OB or OD operation.

7.

Usage of the EOD Range will be restricted, as

follows:

106

12 hours per day

50 days/year

1 Open Burn operation per day

4 Open Detonation operations per day of

any listed ordnance

Up to 23 additional Open Detonation operations per day of bombs containing tritonal

(No. 10 and/or No. 42, see list at end of Environmental Performance Standards)

Burn and detonation events may occur on the

same day.

8.

At least once per quarter, the reef will be inspected for fragments and unexploded ordnance

(UXO), with all identified items recovered from

the water. The area inspected will be from the

beach to the reef line, and 100 ft east and west

of the OD area.

Open Burning/Open Detonation RCRA hazardous

waste treatment waste materials restrictions

9.

Any ordnance or other energetic material listed

in Table III-7 of Appendix A may be burned or

detonated, subject to limitations contained in

Environmental Performance Standards number

19 and 21.

10. Any ordnance or other energetic material not

listed in Table III-7 of Appendix A may be

burned or detonated, if they do not contain metals or sulfur-bearing compounds, subject to limitations contained in Environmental Performance Standard numbers 19 and 21.

11. Waste ordnance or other energetic material not

listed in Table III-7 of Appendix A which con-

107

tains metals or sulfur-bearing compounds, may

be burned or detonated, subject to the maximum

acceptable quantities specified by the tables

listed in Tables III-1 or III-2.

Open Burning RCRA hazardous waste treatment operating restrictions

12. OB activities will occur in a suitable containment device.

13. The OB containment device will incorporate a

coarse screen over the top of the device in order

to minimize ejection of materials during OB

treatment. Also, waste ordnance will be placed

a minimum of 2 feet below the top of the device,

and the containment device will be placed in a

shallow depression in the sand.

14. The OB containment device will be inspected before and after each burn to ensure structural integrity.

15. The OB containment device will be turned upside down after each burn to prevent accumulation of precipitation.

16. Residues remaining in the OB containment device will be collected no later than the day after

the burn, but before the device is turned upside

down.

17. If precipitation accumulates in the OB containment device before residue can be removed,

then an additional burn will take place to evaporate all moisture from the residue.

108

18. Residues ejected from the OB containment device will be collected no later than the day after

the burn.

19. The maximum NEW for each OB event is 100

lbs, except for the following items (as numbered

in Table III-7 of Appendix A):

Restricted to 5 lbs (total): Nos. 10, 42, 43, 45, 50

Restricted to 10 lbs (total): Nos. 36, 37, 38, 39,

40, 51

Restricted to 50 lbs (total): No. 4

Open Detonation RCRA hazardous waste treatment operating restrictions

20. Residues remaining after detonation must be

collected no later than 1 hour after the detonation is initiated.

21. The maximum NEW for each OD event is 600

lbs, except for the following items (as numbered

in Table III-7 of Appendix A):

Total NEW

(lbs)

For OD Event

1

5

20

50

100

200

300

400

500

600

No. 95

0.26

0.54

0.64

1.4

2.1

3.5

5.0

6.7

8.3

10.0

Weight Restriction (lbs)

No. 14 or 15

1.0

2.7

3.2

7.0

10

17

25

33

42

50

109

Restricted Open Burn items:

# 4 – 7.62 blank

# 18 – fuse, time

# 42 – detonator, percussion, M2A1

# 43 – detonator, percussion, M2A2

# 45 – detonator kit, M1

# 36 – firing device, M1

# 37 – firing device, demolition, M1A1

# 38 – firing device, demolition, M5

# 39 – firing device, demolition, M3

# 40 – firing device, demolition, M1

# 50 – primer, percussion, cap

# 29 – cratering charge M180

Restricted Open Detonation items:

# 14 – caps, electric blasting

# 15 – caps, non-electric blasting

# 95 – grenade, MK1, illuminating

* * * * *

THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

FINAL

OPEN BURN/OPEN DETONATION RANGE

GROUNDWATER MONITORING PLAN

FOR

ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, GUAM

AUGUST 2015

* * * * *

110

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Site Introduction

The mission of the Open Burn/Open Detonation (OB/OD)

Range is to render unserviceable ordnance, other pyrotechnic devices, and waste munitions or explosive harmless by either open burning or open detonation. The

OB/OD Range exists within the Explosive Ordnance

Disposal (EOD) Range of Andersen Air Force Base

(AAFB). Located at the extreme eastern sector of

Tarague Beach on AAFB ending just before Tagua

Point (Figure 1-1), the OB/OD Range is defined as the

open beach area surrounded by the Pacific Ocean to the

north and limestone forest in all other directions. The

range has a 2,400 foot radius safety zone.

The active open detonation (OD) Unit is situated along

the face of the cliff, which allows the projection of any

residue from waste ammunition or explosive detonations away from occupied areas. The open burn (OB)

Unit is located approximately 80 feet from the adjacent

limestone forest and 180 feet from the ocean, was dismantled in 2007, and is currently non-operational.

111

* * * * *

2.0 AAFB and OB/OD Range Background

* * * * *

2.3 Land Use, Sensitive Receptors and Essential Habitats

The OB/OD Range is located in a locked, fenced area of

AAFB, with restricted access and precludes the building

or inhabitation of any permanent structures. Human receptors are limited to EOD personnel and wildlife that

occasionally access/use this site. As such, human exposures to the OB/OD Range are limited (AAFB, 2006b).

112

2.4 Cultural Resources

The OB/OD Range is located within an area of the Tarague Historic District, which has been evaluated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places

(Earth Tech, 2003). The Tarague Historic District is a

group of archaeological sites located within the Tarague

Embayment. The OB/OD Range is situated in the eastern portion of the Tarague Embayment as depicted in

Figure 2-2 (AAFB, 2006b).

* * * * *

113

GUAM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY •

AHENSIAN PRUTEKSIÓN LINA’LA’ GUÁHAN

LOURDES A. LEON GUERRERO • GOVERNOR OF GUAM •

JOSHUA F. TENORIO • LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF GUAM

• WALTER S. LEON GUERRERO • ADMINISTRATOR •

MICHELLE C R. LASTIMOZA • DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR

[OCT. 15, 2021]

Brigadier General Jeremy T. Sloane

Commander 36th WG/CC

Andersen Air Force Base

Unit 14003

APO AP 96543-4003

RE: Notice of Preliminary Decision—Andersen Air

Force Base, Guam Explosive Ordnance Disposal

Open Burn/Open Detonation Facility Application

Hafa Adai General Slone,

This letter serves as an Administrative Record for Notice of Preliminary Decision to neither deny nor approve the aforementioned permit application. The

Guam Environmental Protection Agency (Guam EPA)

has been working with Andersen’s Air Force Base

(AAFB) Environmental Flight during the permit application process. The permit (new and renewal) process

114

includes Guam EPA’s review for completeness, technical evaluation, drafting a permit, making the draft

permit available to the public for review and comment,

and a public hearing.

The AAFP EOD OB/OD Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit expired on September 3, 2021. On

March 17, 2021, Guam EPA received a request for extension to submit the permit renewal application until

May 28, 2021. Guam EPA granted the extension request to be due by April 30, 2021. However, the permit

renewal application was received on May 26, 2021. A

Public Review and Comment Period from July 30, 2021,

thru September 13, 2021, was published in the print

media, and a Public Hearing was held on August 30,

2021, at this Agency. During the public comment period, Guam EPA received significant comments that

warrant this Agency to address before making a final

decision on the completeness and technical aspects of

the permit renewal application.

Therefore, in accordance with Guam EPA Hazardous

Waste Management Regulations Part X.A, which

adopts by reference § 270.51(d), if a permittee has submitted a timely and complete application under applicable State law and regulations, the terms and conditions of an EPA-issued RCRA permit continues in force

beyond the expiration date of the permit but only until

the effective date of the State’s issuance or denial of a

State RCRA permit.

115

Should you have any questions or concerns with this

letter please feel free to contact the Hazardous Waste

Management Program at 671-300-4751/52.

Sincerely,

/s/

Cc:

WALTER S. LEON GUERRERO

WALTER S. LEON GUERRERO

Administrator

Ms. Sarah Diebel, Environmental Flight Chief, 36

CES/CEV, AAFB

Ms. Conchita SN Taitano, Air & Land Programs

Administrator, Guam EPA

Mr. Carl Goldstein, Guam Program Manager,

USEPA Region 9

Ms. Dani Allen-Williams, Project Officer, USEPA

Region 9

Mr. Mike Zabaneh, Environmental Engineer,

USEPA Region 9

HWMP File/CHRONO

116

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Rand, Matthew (ENRD)

David Henkin

Thien Chau; rachel@guamcounsel.com

RE: Activity in Case 1:22-cv-00001 Prutehi

Litekyan: Save Ritidian vs. United States Department of the Air Force, et al. Motion to

Dismiss

Friday, April 29, 2022 12:10:36 PM

This message originated outside of Earthjustice.

Please use caution before opening attachments or

links.

David,

After further review of your email below, I wanted to

make an additional point of clarification. Nowhere in

the motion to dismiss brief (ECF No. 19) do Defendants

represent that the Air Force is not presently operating

the Open Burn/Open Detonation Facility under the previous permit. As contemplated by RCRA, the Air Force

continues to operate the Open Burn/Open Detonation

Facility under the terms of the permit that expired on

September 3, 2021. See 40 C.F.R. § 270.51(d).

Regards,

Matt

117

Rand, Matthew (ENRD)

Monday, April 18, 2022 5:22 PM

David Henkin <dhenkin@earthjustice.org>

tchau@earthjustice.org; rachel@

guamcounsel.com

Subject: RE: Activity in Case 1:22-cv-00001 Prutehi

Litekyan: Save Ritidian vs. United States Department of the Air Force, et al. Motion to

Dismiss

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

David,

Thank you for your email. I have carefully reviewed our

brief in support of the motion to dismiss and conferred

with the client and believe there are no misrepresentations. You are welcome to raise any arguments you

have about the Application and the Facility in your opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Regards,

Matt

118

David Henkin <dhenkin@earthjustice.org>

Monday, April 11, 2022 4:57 PM

Rand, Matthew (ENRD) <Matthew.Rand@

usdoj.gov>

Cc:

tchau@earthjustice.org; rachel@

guamcounsel.com

Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Activity in Case 1:22-cv00001 Prutehi Litekyan: Save Ritidian vs.

United States Department of the Air Force,

et al. Motion to Dismiss

Importance: High

From:

Sent:

To:

Matt,

We are in receipt of your motion to dismiss (see below).

If we understand your motion correctly, the federal defendants are taking the position that, since September

3, 2021 (when the prior RCRA permit expired), no

OB/OD operations can, have, or will take place at Andersen AFB unless and until Guam EPA issues a new

RCRA permit. See, e.g., ECF 19 at 3 (Air Force’s submittal of it permit renewal application has no legal consequences because “[t]he Application does not allow Defendants to operate the OB/OD Facility; only the RCRA

permit, which has not issued and which Plaintiff has not

challenged, would authorize the allegedly harmful activity Plaintiff seeks to redress.”); id. (“All of the harms

Plaintiff alleges—such as potential damage to the beach

on which the OB/OD Facility is located, see Compl.

¶ 15—are caused not by the Application, the only action

Plaintiff challenges.”); id. at 12 (“Defendants cannot on

their own alter the status quo because without the permit, they cannot operate the Facility. See 42 U.S.C.

§ 6925(a).”); id. at 14 (“Because RCRA and the corresponding regulations explicitly bar Defendants from op-

119

erating the OB/OD Facility without a permit, . . . the

Application itself does not allow Defendants to dispose

of waste munitions.”).

Our understanding is that, in fact, Andersen AFB has

continued to operate the EOD Facility and conduct

open detonation of munitions after September 3, 2021,

when the prior RCRA permit expired. We further understand that the Air Force is justifying continued operation of the EOD Facility on the grounds that Andersen AFB’s submittal of its application for renewal of its

RCRA permit extended the terms and conditions of the

expired permit until Guam EPA either grants a new

RCRA permit or denies the Air Force’s pending application. In other words, our understanding is that Defendants are continuing to operate the Andersen AFB

EOD Facility precisely because they contend that the

submittal of the renewal application gives them the legal right to do so.

If we are mistaken, and no munitions disposal operations have taken place at Andersen AFB’s EOD Facility

since September 3, 2021, and will not resume unless and

until Guam EPA issues a new permit, please let us

know, as that would affect our response to your pending

motion to dismiss.

On the other hand, if we are not mistaken, then we respectfully submit that, as an officer of the Court, you

are obliged to amend your motion to delete all arguments premised on the notion that the submittal of the

Application has no legal consequences and that no harm

related to OB/OD can or will occur unless and until a

new permit is issued.

120

Thank you for your prompt attention to this time-sensitive matter. We are happy to find a time to discuss this

matter.

Regards,

David Henkin

Senior Attorney

Earthjustice

850 Richards St., Suite 400

Honolulu, HI 96813

T: 808-599-2436

www.earthjustice.org

The information contained in this email message may be

privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure.

If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination,

distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you

think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete

the message and any attachments.