Best Available Copy ESL-TR-83-56

Nr6Air Force Engineering and. Services Laboratory

S)Herbicide Orange Monitoring Program

Rt

SR.E. CHANNELL. and T.L. STODDARTENVIRONICS DIVISION

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING BRANCH

APRIL 1984

INTERIM REPORT

JANUARY 1980 - DECEMBER 1982

S~ENGINEERING & SERVICES LABORATORYS~AIR FORCE ENGINEERING & SERVICES CENTER

TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA 32403

84 0019

I/

.1.

NOTICEPlease dco not request copies of this report from

HO AFESC/RD (Engineering and Services Laboratory).

Additional copies may be purchased fromt

National Technical Information Service5285 Port Royal RoadSpringfied, Virginia 22161

Federal Government agencies and their contractors

registered with Defense Technical Infdrmation Center

should direct requests for copies of this report to:

Defense Technical kItrmnation CenterCameron StEtionAlexandria, Virginia 22314

REPRODUCTION QUALITY NOTICE;I

This document is the best quality available. The copy furnishedto DTIC contained pages that may have the following qualityproblems:

• Pages smaller or larger than normal.

* Pages with background color or light colored printing.

* Pages with small type or poor printing; and or

* Pages with continuous tone material or colorphotographs.

Due to various output media available these conditions may ormay not cause poor legibility in the microfiche or hardcopy outputyou receive.

r- If this block is checked, the copy furnished to DTICcontained pages with color printing, that when reproduced inBlack and White, may change detail of the original copy.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF TmiS PAGE W?.,Dots E-.-rd)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE iFFRKAD INSTRUCTUflNS

1. REPORT NUMBER 2 GOVT ACCESSION NO; 3 RE 7

1PIENT'S CA . CN MHERb

ESL TR-83-56

4. TITLE (And S..bneI.) S TYPE OF REPORT & PERW r J,: RI<

AIR FOPCE -ENGINEERING AND SERVICES LAORPATJýRY :A HL 8

HERBICIDE ORAN13E MONITORING PROGRAM6PR~~MNG REWNM~

7. AuTtiOr(s) 6 CONTRACT OR C-RAN N..MEIF

Channell, Ronald E. and Terry L. Stoddart

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND AZORESS '0 PROGRAM ELEMENT PRlOJr §T T&'.AREA & .ORI( JNIT WMSE W~S

Air Force Engineering and Services Lanoratlory PE 62601FEnvironics Division 'ON 1023

Tyndall_AFB,_FL 324,03 __________

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND AOCýPESS 12 REOORT DATE

HQ AFESC/RDVW , I 'iil 1-GA4

Tyndall AFB, FL 32403 13 NUMBER OF PAGES

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & AOORESSI~,I di.l..,P I-o C '.olndOlfiC,, IS SEC~URITY CLASS. ,ýl th- -rp-f .

UNCLAtSSIFIED

IS.. OECLASSIEiCATICN 00*NCýRAGIN.,SCN EOULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the sho",oct .ertted in Block 2,), it ddl.,..,t fro., Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Availability of This Report is Specified on Reverse of the Front Cover.

19. KCEY UOROS (Cosinthw . 101W.. olde, I/ neceeein-y mWd idontlfy by block ,.m.b*.') En~vironmental MonitorinqHerbicide Orange 2,4 Dichlorophenoxyacetic AcidAgent Orange 2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo-u--DioxinDioxin Ranch HandTCDD Pacer HO2,4,5 Trichlorophenoxyacet:.c Acid Defoliant

S0. A B ST R A C T (C onl. . e ; n r e...ee side It neco eeely 0 1. Itl.#ý tlfy by block n..M b.t)

jThis repxort reviews the Air Force Harbicide orange monitoring Programfrom 1980 th~rough 1962. l~nce the ban on the use of herbicides containing.2,4,5 Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid in 1971, the Air Force has conducted amonitoring program at three Hernicide orange-contaminated sites. Thisdcumient summarizes studies conducted from 1980 through 19'2. Dioxin con-taminants found below the soil surface appear to be degrading very slowly,if at all. 2,4,5 Trichiorophenoyacetic acid and 2,4 rnichlorophenoxyaceticacid levels have decreased approximately 70 percczt s;ince 1981. Recomniendatvi,n

DD viON"711 1473 COITION OF I NOV 65IS OBSOLETE UCASFE

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF TMIS PACE ''he.n Pat.e Fw..d

UNCLASST IM ES6CU;ITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(lWhdn Dag. "#e00fd

for expansion of the Herbicide Orange Monitoring program are reported.

UNCIASSIFUMD

SECURITY CLASS4ICATIOUI OF 'r*-- PAGE(W•on Doe En.7.4.d)

PREFACE

This report provides interim results of environmental moni-toring and evaluation studies of the former Herbicide Orange (HO)stor' ,e, loading, and testing sites at Eglin AFR FL, the NavalConstruction Battalion Center (NCBC), Gulfport MS, and JohnstonIsland (JI), Pacific Ocean. These studies were conducted by per-sonnel of the Air Force Engineering and Services Center (AFESC),Engineerina and Services Laboratory (ESL) from January 1980through December 1982 under JON-19002031, PE-62601F.

This report was prepared to present senior Air Force leaderswith the latest available cata in the continuing environmentalmonitoring and evaluation studies at these critical sites.Recommendations reflect AFESC interpretation of collected dataand current Environmental Protection Agency guidance. The AFESC/RDVW project officers were Maj Ron E. Channell and Capt Terry L.Stoddart.

This report has been reviewed by the Public Affairs Office(PA) and is releasable to the National Technical Infcrmation Ser-vice. At NTIS it will be available to the general puhlic,including foreign nationals.

This technical report has been reviewed and is approved forpublication.

TERRY L. STODDART, Capt, JMYN"ULFORD, Lt Col

USAF, BSC JSAFf 8 CProject Officer Cnviron Division

THOMAS J. WALKER, Maj, USAF, BERT E. BSCE ol, USAFChief, Environmental Director, Engi eeing andEngineering Branch Services Labora y

(The reverse of this page is blank.)

TABLE OF' CONTENTS

Section T tInF3 :ýj

- INTRODUCTION ....................... ..........

A. RACKGROUNE[ .................................

II DESCRIPTION OF AIR FORCE TIO()XIiN-C()NTAMINATEUSIT ES .......................................... 4

A. JOHNSTON ISLAND, PACIFIC OCEAN (JI)........... 4

B. NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTERGULFPORT. MS (NCBC) ........................ 4

C. EGLIN AFB, FL .. ......... .................. 7

III. ENGINEERING AND SLRVICES LABORATORY SITE-MONITORING PROTOCOL ............................ I5

A. OBJECTIVE ........................ ......... . IJHB. QUALITY ASSURANCE .......................... 1t

C. SAMPLING PROCEDURES ........................ 15

D. CHEM1ICAL ANALYSES .......................... 17

IYV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................... 18

A. JOHNSTON ISLAND ............................ 18

B. NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALIION CENTER. ....... 22

C. EGLIN AFB TEST RANGE C-52A ................... 33

D. EGLIN AF1 HARDSTAND 7 ... ................... 35

V CONCLUSIONS .................................... 40

A. JOHNSTON ISLAND ............................ 40

B. NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER .......... 40

C. EGLIN APB. ................. ................ 41

D. GENERALIZED CONCLUSIONS. .................... 41

•iii i

TABLE OF' CONTE:N'TS(CONCLUDED)

S,:ct ion ' it tle Page

VI RECOMMENLDATIONS ................................ 42

A. JOHNST()N ISLAND ......... ................... 42

H NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER .......... 42

C. EGLIN AFB TEST AREA C-52A ................... 43

D. EGLIN AFH HARDSTAND 7 ........................ 43

A PPENDIX

A STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF LAHORATORY DATA...... 45

REFER.ENCES. . ......................... .... .. .............. 48

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

1 Map of Johnston Island ............................

2 Naval Construction Battalion Center Vicinity Map.. 6

3 Areas of Study on Eglin Air Force Base, Florida... 8

4 Map of Test Area C-52A, Eglin Air Force BaseReservation, Florida .................................. 9

5 Location of the Permanent Sampling Stations oi.

the 1-Square Mile Grid ............. .............. 10

6 Eglin AFB Herbicide Storage and Loading Sites withAssociated Aquatic Drainage Areas ................... 12

7 Aerial View of Hardstand 7, Eglir AFB, Florida .... 13

8 Eglin AFB Hardstand 7 Drainage System Dioxin Data. 14

9 Johnston Island Storage Site Map .................... 20

10 Map of Former Herbicide Orange Storage Site atNCBC Showing the Average TCDD Concentration Rangefor Each Sampii!g Locatijn........................... 26

11 Map Showing Aquatic Sampling Sites 1 Through 7,Their Relationship to the Herbicide Crange StorageArea and the Aquatic System Flow Paz.tern at NCBC.. 29

12 NCBC Storage Site Map ................................ 30

13 Location of the Permanent Sampling Stations on the1-Square-Mile Grid ................................... 34

14 Locations of Known Herbicide Orange Storage Sitesand Disposal Pit on Hardstand 7...................... 38

V

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

1 PPA STANDARDS - CONCENTRATION IN PARTS PFRBILLION .......................................... 16

2 SUMMARY OF AVERAGE VALUES FOR HERBICIDE ORANGERESIDUES AT JI (0-3-INCH DEPTH) .................. 19

3 PERCENT REDUCTION OF HERBICIDE LEVELS AT JI ........ 21

4 DEPTH-OF-PENETRATION DATA FOR HERBICIDE ORANGERESIDUES FOR SELECTED SITES AT JI ................ 23

5 DEPTH-OF-PENETRATION DATA FOR DIOXIN FORSELECTED LIGHT-SPILL SITES AT JI ................. 25

SUMMARY OF AVERAGE VALUES FOR HERBICIDE ORANGERESIDUES AT NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER.. 27

7 PERCENT REDUCTION OF HERBICIDE LEVELS AT NCBC(1981-1982) ...................................... 28

8 AVERAGE DIOXIN LEVELS IN THE DRAINAGE DITCH

SYSTEM OF THE NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALIONCENTER ............. ...... *.......... ............. 31

AVERAGE DIOXIN LEVELS ON TEST AREA C-52A ATEGLIN AFB ........................................ 36

10 DEPTH-OF-PENETRATION DATA ON TCDD FOR GRID 1, TESTAREA C-52A AT EGLIN AFB .......................... 37

11 DIOXIN DATA FOR SELECTED SITES ON HARDSTAND 7 ATEGLIN AFB ........................................ 39

A-i OUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIVE DATA ONHERBICIDE ORANGE CONTAMINATION AT JOHNSTON ISLAND 46

A-2 OUALITY CONTROL SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIVE DATA ONHERBICIDE ORANGE CONTAMINATION AT THE NAVALCONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER .................... 47

vi

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

A. BACKGROUND

In April 1970, the Secretaries of Agriculture; Health, Educa-tion, and Welfare; and the Interior jointly announced the suspen-sion of certain uses of 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacotic acid (2,4,5-T). This suspension resulted from published studies indicatingthat 2,4,5-T was a teratogen. Subsequent studies revealed thatthe teratogenic effects resulted from a toxic contaminant in the2,4,5-T, identified as 2,3,7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(TCDD).a Subsequently, the Department of Defense suspended theuse of Herbicide OL-ange (HO), which contained 2,4,5-T. At thetime of the suspension, the Air Force had an inventory of 1.37million gallons of Herbicide Orange in South Vietnam and 0.85million gallons at the Naval Construction Battalion Center(NCBC), Gulfport MS. In September 1971, the Department ofDefense directed that the HO in South Vietnam be returned to theUnited States and that the entire 2.22 million gallons be dis-posed of in an environmentally safe and efficient manner. The1.37 million gallons were moved to Johnston Island (JI), PacificOcean in April 1972. The average concentration of dioxin in theHO was about 2 parts per million with the total amount of TCDD inthe ertire 110 stock estimated at 44.1 pounds.

Herbicide Orange is a reddish-brown to tan liquid, soluble indiesel fuel and organic solvents, but. insoluble in water. Onegallon of HO theoretically conitained 4.21 pounds of the activeingredient 2,4-D and 4.41 pounds of the active ingredient 2,4,5-T. Herbicide Orange was formulated to contain a 50:50 mixture(by weight) of the n-butyl esters of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. The per-centages of the formulation typically were:

n-butyl ester of 2,4-D 49.49free acid of 2,4-D 0.13n-butyl ester of 2,4,5-T 48.75free acid of 2,4,5--T 1.00inert ingredients (e.g., butyl 0.63alcohol and ester moieties)

Various disposal techniques for herbicide orange were inves-

tigated from 1971 to 1974 (Reference 1). Destructive techniquesincluded soil biodegradation, high-temperature incineration,deep-well injection, burial in underground nuclear test cavities,sludge burial, and microbial reduction. Techniques used torecover a useful product included activated charcoal filtration,return to manufacturers, fractionation, and chlorinolysis.

a The word "dioxin" in this report refers to 2,3,7,8 - TCDD.

Of these techniques, only high-temperature incineration wassufficiently developed to warrant further investigation. Theother methods were rejected because of several considerations,including long lead times for development, inadequate assuranceof success, and the lack of industrial interest.

During the summer of 1977 the United States Air Force (USAF)disposed of 2.22 million gallons of HO by high-temperature incin-eration at sea. This operation, Project PACER HO, was accom-plished under very stringent regulation by the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) ocean-dumping permits (Reference 2).

The Air Force Plan and the EPA permits for the disposal ofthe herbicide committed the Air Force to a follow-on storage sitereclamation and environmental monitoring program. The majorobjectives of this program were to:

(1) Determine the magnitude of HO contamination (TCDD) inand around the former HO test and storage sites.

(2) Determine the rate of natural degradation for thephenoxy herbicides (2,4-D and 2,4,5-T), their phenolic degrada-tion products, and TCDD in soils of the storage and test sites.

(3) Monitor for potential movement of residues from thestorage and test sites into adjacent water, sediments, and bio-logical organisms.

(4) Recommend managerial techniques for minimizing anyimpact of the herbicides and Dioxin residues on the ecology andhuman populations near the storage and test sites.

Immediately following the at-sea incineration in 1977, theUSAF Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory (USAF OEHL)initiated site-monitorina studies of chemical residues in soil,

silt, water, and biological organisms associated with the formerstorage sites where the herbicide had been stored at the NCBC andJI. The results of the NCBC and JI monitoring studies have beenpublished (References 3 and 4). A similar monitoring program hasbeen at Eglin AFB, FL since 1973 for a 92-acre site on Test AreaC-52A (References 5 and 6) and since 1975 for a 2-acre area onHardstand 7 (Reference 7).

Secretary of the Air Force/Deputy for Environment and Safety(SAF/M1O) requested and received from Air Force/Surgeon General(AF/SG) in June 1980 a proposed research protocol to return HO-contaminated sites to full and beneficial use. Based on thisresearch protocol, SAF/MIO recommended that AFESC/RD Engineeringand Services Laboratory (ESL) be designated as lead labocatoryfor monitoring and reclamation research. Air Force Deputy Chiefof Staff for Engineering/ Logistics (AF/LEE) agreed that the

2

Environics Division of ESL was eminently qualified to handle the-complex. integration of ervironmental chemistry and control tech-nology required to address the problem. It was noted, however,

that the ESL is dedicated to a research mission and not routinefield assistance tasks. This required that site monitoring h(-consolidated within the dioxini research program, rather than inroutine analyses, which is the mission of the OEHL. Reforeinitiation o. the overall research program the ESL routed theresearch requirement through Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff forResearch arid Development (AF/RD) and Air Force Systems Command!Director of Laboratories (AFSC/DL) in the form of a Statement ofOperational Need (SON). The validated USAF SON 2-81 directedthat (1) a sampling and analysis program be initiated, (2) asmall program to look at rmethods to destroy in situ dioxin hestarted, but no full-scale effort take place unless furtherdirected by SAF, and (3) progress on assessing long-term break-down and movement of dioxin be discussed yearly at the Head-quarters Air Force Engineering and Services Center, Engineeringand Services Laboratory (HO AFESC/RD) - HO AFSC/DL 6.2 technicalreview. Following the 1981 HQ AFESC/RD technical review by HQAFSC/DL, the AFESC/RD was directed by AFSC/DL to (1) proceed withthe HO program as a minimal effort involving site monitoring andassessment of the contaminated sites and (2) provided furtherdirection not to carry out actual cleanup unless directed byHeadquarters, USAF.

The Environics Division of the ESL has continued the sitemonitoring and evaluation program by collecting samples fromNCBC, JI, and Eglin AFB on a semiannual basis. This reportsummarizes the data on samples collected from September 1980through November 1982.

3

SECTION II

DESCRIPTION OF AIR FORCE DIOXIN-CONTAMINATED SITES

A. JOHNSTON ISLAND, PACIFIC OCFAN (JI)

Johnston Island, a coral atoll (Figure 1), is located 750nautical miles southwest of Honolulu in the central PacificOcean. The island is 1/2 mile wide and 2 miles long with a meanelevation of 7 feet abole sea level.

The island is controlled by Field Command of the DefenseNuclear Agency (FC/DNA). The Army and Coast Guard have tenantunits assigned to the island totalling 80 personnel. Base SLp-port is provided by a civilian contactor which maintains approxi-mately 200 employees onsite.

Ten acres of Johnston Island served for stor3ge and supportoperations for 1.27 million gallons of Herbicide Orange returnedfrom the South Vietnam. The operational areas includedde-drumming, drum crusher and decontamination facilities.

The island is maintained aJ a contingency base for high-

priority defense operations.

B. NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER, GULFPORT, MS (NCBC)

The NCBC is located in Gulfport, MS (Figure 2). The NCBC islocated approximately 2 miles from the Gulf of Mexico and occu-pies a land area of several square miles. The NCBC is approxi-mately 20 feet above sea level. The soil is sand to sandy loam,intermixed with some clay.

Approximately 12 acres at the NCBC served as a storage sitefor 0.85 million gallons cf Herbicide Orange. The "old" storagesite was stabilized with portland cement approximately 30 yearsago. The stabilized soil provided a hardened storage area forheavy supplies and equipment. Over the years, additional fillmaterial (shell, rock and soil) was added to the storage area,providing a covec of several inches over the cement-stabilizedsoil.

Approximately 2-4 acres of the 12-acre site are consideredcontaminated with herbicide orange and its associated dioxin.During 1980, retention basins were constructed on the storagesite to prevent the migration of dioxin-contaminated soils off-site. Currently the "old" Herbicide Orange storage site is arestricted area and is not used.

4

-44

4~~ / i

ILI .1*1

. l

22R $:ccC

d

CL -u-

>-

On

7 C. EGLIN AFB, FL

The Eglin AFB Reservation is Incated in Northwest Florida an,1covers approximately 750 square miles. To the south, the Ppsr-vation is adjacent to Choctawhatchee Bay and the Culf of Mexico,while the north and east are bordered roughly by the Yellow Pivt-tand Alaqua Creek.

The Reservation lies on generally level or gently rollingterrain, all under 300 feet elevation and sloping to sea level onthe west and south. It is drained by small tributaries of theYellow River and Alaqua Creek and by smaller streams that flowdirectly into Pensacola and Choctawhatchee Bays. The valleys ofthese streams are steep-sided and end abruptly. The soil of r~oqtof the Reservation consists of excessively drained, deep, acidsands of the lakeland series.

Test Area TA C-52A is located in the southeastern part of theEglin Reservation (Figure 3). It covers an area of approximately3 square miles (Figure 4) and is a grassy plain, surrounded by aforest stand that is dominated by longleaf pine, sand pine, andturkey oak. The actual site for test operations occupies an areaof 2 square miles. This site is cleared and covered mainly bybroomsedge, switchgrass and low-growing grasses and herbs.

Test Area C-52A was used to assess the dissemination anddeposition characteristics of aerially delivered liquid and par-ticulate materials from spray tanks and other similar systems.Microneteorological conditions existing below 300 feet over thetest area were continuously described by the Automatic Meteorolo-gical Data Acquisition and Processing System (AMDAPS). TheAMDAPS included wind, temperature, and dew-point sensors on a300-foot tower at grid center and wind sensors on 12-foct mastslocated at each of the four corners of the 1-square mile grid. Acomplex of defoliant grids, intersecting near the central AMDAPStower and oriented to eight major compass headings, provided 16discrete sampling grids which could be selected for the mostadvantageous wind conditions prior to and during missions. Thesegrids employed glass plates and Kromekote cards for physical col-lection of test materials in droplet form. Each of the 250 per-manent sampling stations of the TA C-52A basic grid arrayemployed a wide variety of sampling devices, including the above,but were also equipped with individual commercial power andsequencing control lines for remote operation of automaticvacuum-type samplers which collected small-particle and aerosoltest materials. These sampling stations were arranged on 400-foot centers to form the 1-square mile grid (Figure 5). Remote-controlled, battery-operated, portable samplers were also avail-able to gather data in special-purpose grid configurations any-where in a 10-square mile area.

7

N

NI .

"I4

,.$. � -

'-I

a

ii -

0

I' �L4

��'1 1.4

*<5 ,

.1 .1 '.

.1 j

L *

0

I. - Cl,

N '4.4'V 0

(I,..

*1

I 1.4

I gU a- C,I

(i4

0a-

4

BI

*C i

4>I>CL C

2C -4

I10

I. .-.

wyz

4 E-4

00.

IS,: N

1I 2 3 4 5 4 7 8 9 to ! ! 12 13 14

" 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

sO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

cO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*I UF O (7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0-Li a 400 FEE-r

140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --0T-

J O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

K 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 C0 0 0 C', 0

LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 90 0 1=IS 2000

NAPHI"C SC.AE - FEET

Figure 5. Location of the Permanent Sampling Stations on the

1-Square Mile Grid

10

Hardstand I is an asphalt and concrete air-craft parkinI arealocated west of the north-south runway on the main EgIin airdrom,(Figures 3 and 6), approximately 65 feet above sea level. Hard-stand 7 was one of three areas on Fglin -ain that had been Pre-

viously used for storing and loading military herjicides. Hard-stand 8 and the east end of Taxiway 9 (Figure 6) were relativelyfree of dioxin residues in the soil. Hardstand 7 was the most.extensively used site for herbicide storage and loading duringthe 1962 - 1970 spray test program. The soil of this are i issandy, with good drainage properties. Directly behind the hard-stand is a ravine (Figure 7) that drops off approximately 50 feetto a small pond, called Hardstand Pond. Because of the oackingcaused by vehicular traffic and the water-repellent nature ot theoil-based herbicide contamination, runoff of excess water cai'sederosion in some spots, leading to the frequent use of fill d1irt.Eventually, an asphalt-covered dike was constructed on the rim ) ofthe ravine for soil stabilization and a storm drain was installedfor erosion control. Hardstand Pond drains into a small streamwhich flows north until it enters a manmade reservoir namedBeaver Pond. The drainage system eventually flows into Tom'sBayou and Choctawhatchee Bay (Figure 8). Currently, Hardstand 7is not used for mission support activities. Hardstand Pond isposted to prevent fishing.

1i

I\ -.... _l

4 ,7 ". , (//

,4' ' "

.\ 7 ,

h I ZAN DTAND 8/ /\ / ' 'KCi "

Figure 6. Eglin AFB Herbicide Storage and Loading Siteswith Associated Aquatic Drainage Areas

12

t La

'4-4

10110

13

4J

ZgID

7 7I

I Np

14

SECTION III

ENGINEERING AND SERVICES LABORATORY SITE-MONIIORING PROTOCOL

A. OBJECTIVE

The objectives for the ESL Monitoring Program are:

1. Determine if offsite migration of dioxin is occurring.

2. Assess the levels of TCDD, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, contamina-tion at AF storage/testing facilities.

3. Determine if long-term degradation of the Phenoxy herbi-

cides and the dioxin contaminant occurs.

4. Determine if vertical migration of dioxin takes place-

B. QUALITY ASSURANCE.

To verify the sample precision and accuracy, ESL obtained aseries of "known-value" soil specimens from Dr. Robert Harless(USEPA). These samples were submitted "blind" to Brehm Labora-tories, Wright State University (WSU) and to California Analyti-cal Laboratories (CAL). The samples supplied to the two labora-tories contained interfering substances which would be encoun-tered in the analysis of "real-world" specimens. The results ofthe Quality Assurance programs are shown in Table 1. Althoughthe two laboratories contracted to provide analyses at differentdetection limits, an evaluation of the Quality Assurance datareveals that laboratory precision of duplicate specimens is with-in a factor of 2 ot better in all cases. A statistical compari-son of the results of representative soil specimen analyses gen-erated by the two contract laboratories can be found in AppendixA. A review of these data indicates that laboratory precision on"real-world" specimens parallels the performance on the EPA-supplied "kncy.n-value" specimens.

C. SAMPLING PROCEDURES

The ESL employed a soil-sampling procedure similar to thatused by OEHL. The OEHL procedure consisted of collecting a 3-inch cube, 6 inches from the site marker pins. At each sampling,soil wzs taken from a different "point of the compass," withreference to the marker pin, to insure a fresh and undisturbedsample. The inherent weakness of this sampling protocol was thatthe concentration of chemicals varied significantly within thespill perimeter. Though this protocol establishes the level andextent of contamination at a specified location, it is useless inevaluating the rate of natural degradation. The ESL samplingprotocol uses a single sampling plot, 1 foot square by 3 inchesdeep, located 6 inches from the marker pin which appears

15

-- 4V V-v v

ý4

-cC

0 0 vCI%4 -,,-4 -4"] < v % /, Sz,.

T. <

m IIN 0

z z )

4c'

z

< -IM 0 m m

Z°Z

aC Ln -

1-.

In Ln u n Az- -4 -

c 2040 w

N (n L'J N-4

""' 4 04 ad a. a. *

I' a a, a4 a. --

16

to be in the most contaminated area. This same sampling plot i;resampled on all subsequent sampling dates. The soil wasremoved, sieved to remove rocks and debris, homogenized, sampled,remixed, and returned to the plot. The main disadvantage of this

* sampling protocol was the fresh exposure of contaminated soil tosunlight, resulting in a bias caused by accelerated photodecompn-siticn of the dioxin compared to that of undisturbed soil. Fivesampling sites were selected at each location to follow the rateýof natural degradation. In cases where only the level and extentof contamination were to be determined, the OEHL protocol forsoil sample collection was used.

To determine whether or not dioxin was migrating offsite,sediment and biological samples were collected from the NCBC

: storage site drainage system. Three sediment samples were takenalong the perimeter of the seawall at JI and numerous specimrenswere collected from the drainage systems at Eglin AFB. Thesesamples were collected accorling to OEHL sampling protocols. The

% OEHL has established that the primary mode of dioxin movement is% throligh the erosion of contaminated soil into the rainwater" r drainage systems (References 2 and 3). The likely route of bio-

logical species contamination is by direct exoosure to contam-Sinated sediments. This route of contamination was previously

postulated by Young et al. (Reference 5).

Vertical movement of dioxin in the coral at JI was investi-gated by extracting coral samples from the vertical wall of atrench created by a backhoe. These samples were collected atspecified levels from the surface to a depth of 5 feet. Theholes were located at various heavily contaminated areas on thestorage site. No depth profile studies have been conducted bythe ESL at NCBC. Previous OEHL data have established that the"hardpan" is relatively impervious to water and, presumably, todioxin (References 2 and 3). Depth profiles at Eglin AFB wereconducted with a hand auger or manually dug trench.

D. CHEMICAL ANALYSES

Each soil sample consisted of approximatley 100 grams and wasplaced into new glass jars, appropriately labeled, and trans-ported to the contract laboratories for analysis. The BrehmLaboratory at Wright State University (WSU), Dayton, OH performedanalyses of soil and biological samples for TCDD to a detectionlimit of 10 picograms/gram (parts per trillion-ppT) using either

high-resolution gas chromatagraphy-high-resolution mass spectrom-etry (HRGC-HRMS) or low-resolution gas chromatagraphy-- high-resolution mass spectrometry (GC-HRMS). California Analyti-cal Laboratories, Inc. (CAL), Sacramento, CA performed analysesof soil samples for TCDD to a detection limit of 100 ppT usinghigh-resolution gas chromatagraphy-low-resolution mass spectrom-etry (HRGS-MS). CAT, also performed all 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T analy-ses. CAL or WSU performed all analyses for samples collected byESL from September 1980 to present.

17

SECTION IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. JOHNSTON ISLAND

The mean value for 2,4-D, ?,4,5-T, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD, fromsamples collected from five of the most frequently sampled sitesare listed in Table 2. These sites were originally established byOEHL to monitor the rate of natural degradation of HerbicideOrange and its dioxin contaminants. A statistical comparison ofdata collected by OEHL (prior to 1979) with current data is notpossible due to dittwrences in sampling, analytical protocols, andsample location. A statistical comparison of data analyzed by thecurrent contract laboratories is presented in Appendix A.

Concentrations of Herbicide Orange and the associated dioxincontaminant at the JI Storage Site are highly variable because oflocalized spills during storage. Herbicide Orange degradationsampling procedures, analytical techniques and environmental fac-tors have also contributed to variability of data. Average TCDDconcentrations were plotted on a survey map of the former Herbi-cide Orange Storage Site (Figure 9). The data plotted wereobtained as part of the current monitoring program or from histor-ical data obtained by OEHL before 1979. Insufficient data existto determine lines of similar concentration for the JI storagearea.

The reduction rates for the phenoxy herbicides are listed inTable 3. Rates of reduction are influenced by soil matrix, windvelocity, precipitation, temperature, ultraviolet radiation, andvolatility of the herbicide component. Herbicide levels in theJohnston Island soil have decreased approximately 70 percent in a12-month period.

18

TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF AVERA(;F VALt,-',- FOR"H"ER, ICUI .. ()RANGE REX-ItDOJ[: AF J1

S(0-3-INCH DEPTH)

1I) 1OX I NSPILL 2,4-D(ppm) 2,4, 5--T(ppm) TCi)D(ppb)SITE CONTACTOR LAB AVERAGE LAB AVERAGE LAB, AVERAGE

I I WSU/CALd ND( 9) C

CAL <0.6+0.5 <U.1+0.1 <O.1+U.1 ND(4)')

WSU <0 0t - . 0 '1( )

5 CAL 34+55 67+106 23+i6 (3)

WSU 21+18 (4)4'4

WSU/CAL 22+16 (7)

¶10 CAL 1250+443 1083+343 113+83 (4)

WSU 121+38 (5)

WSU/CAL 119+60 (9)

12 CAL 509+414 730+427 61+9 (4)

WSU 41+27 (5)

WSU/CAL 50+23 (9)

41 CAL 1373+754 1525+369 74+33 (4)

WSU 79+13 (5)

WSU/CAL 77+22 (9)

a. NA = No data available.b. ND = None detected at detection limits of 10 or 100 parts por

trillion, respectively.c. ( ) The number of samplos analyzed is in parenthesis.d. WSU/Cal rpferences split samples.

19

11

- '1

K 4 U.u o~

Lt . l

2I0 2

1" .4.J -

€,~~ ~ ,!i -'--..-

• 1111 11111111 I~l lNIIIIII I - I C. -C

I .- , 0

IIIII[!!!i I ILIIIII~D1 1111! IIttlII H"

SIIIJflflhllllhlll Ii Il l llIlllIlll - -,.I, : L:

I III-IIIIJ "I -I -,,)

20 ~

, i I I I I I I I I I I i Ii i i

u E CN U Ln

0 m CN m

1" C4 U') C) cN -C(N CN -

CNC

EJ C- Co 0

(N (N--

C14 C14 N N 140 :OD OD 0 co 00U) ý

-E-4

F-44 (1

(-i N (N (N (N ( 0 e

U coc.)014-4 U)) r-a

0 C4 Mf cr N 1S-E-~--CI '

4-1 -1

04 (.) C)

U, U, m o Cl

4 Lý 4 14 a r-0 '-4IV a 4ý 41)CL) 4-J C

(n 0 0n a I.0, CC -4 LI) u1) -

-4 -4 -4 -4 1 -4 41

41)4)4141)E MUa C r_ 41) (a

21

I

Tables , and 5 document the results of depth-of-penetrationstudies conducted in 1982. Maximum depth of penetration wasdetermined at Site TH 42 to be 36 inches at a concentration of 35parts per trillion. It is difficult to assess the verticalmigration rate of TCDD in coral because the initial spill pene-tration depth is not known. If it is assumed that the initialHerbicide Orange spill was confined to the surface and the spilloccurred in 1972, then the approximate vertical migration rate is3.62 inches per year.

Ocean sediment samples were collected from three sites adja-cent to the former storage area and averaged dioxin concentra-tions of 57 parts per trillion. The low-level positive testresults were attributed to the water erosion of coral from theformer storage area. The western shoreline is not protected by aretaining wall.

Dioxin concentrations in the first inch of soil are lower thanthose found at a 3-inch depth. This leads to speculation thateither photodegradation takes place, wind erosion moves "clean"soil over the contaminated site, or that dioxin is carried togreater depths in the soil via precipitation. Further researchmust be conducted to identify the cause of the stated variationsin the data.

B. NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER (NCBC)

Sampling points at the NCBC Storage Site are identified inFigure 10. A summary of current herbicide and dioxin concentra-tions at the former storage site is given in Table 6. As aresult of localized spills from leaking drums, dioxin concentra-tions are variable and range from 0.2 to 263 ppb. No depth-of-penetration studies have been conducted past the artificalhardpan. Data collected by OEHL before 1979 (Reference 2 and 3)suggest that penetration of Herbicide Orange and TCDD past thecurrent stablilized zone would be negligible.

Percent reduction calculations (Table 7) indicate that concen-trations of the phenoxy herbicides have decreased approximately60 percent over the stated time period. Environmental factorsinfluencing herbicide reduction have been stated previously inthis report.

The NCBC drainage system, a series of easement basins andditches, provides drainage for the former storage site and thesurrounding area (Figures 11 and 12). Previous studies (Refer-ences 2 and 3) documented dioxin contamination in the drainagesystem. The mean dioxin concentration derived from current datais presented in Table 8. An evaluation of the data indicates apattern of dilution; specimens -ollected closest to the formerstorage site show higher concentrations of dioxin than those col-lected farther downstream. It appears likely that biologicalspecimens collected from the drainage ditch habitat became con-taminated by intimate contact with dioxin - contaminated soils

22

4-n -4-

r- -I-)ýo - --4 -4

N Win r- r -- ný1-4 w v43 N r

HI

O

0

H

k-4 C)2 Lnc~:

0H T)

CJ• •I o

H "U

•141

- U)

aI IM-41

r z iE-4:

SI i

41

41)4:4J

0. 41C~ U

2-3~

z

VV

1-0

C-uo1.)

C-4

ciEifn -1

LL ,

-'-

Z cz

",nmlc

E.-4 H

U3

E-4 &

24

STAILE 5. DEPTH-OF-PENETRATION DATA FOR DIOXIN FORS LECT'[FI) LIGHT- •,P1LL sI 'r':s AT JL

SPILL DI()X I NSITE DATE CONTRACTOR DEP'rH_ (IN) TCDI)(pip)

TH-5 Oct 82 WSU 0-1 2.,

1-3 2.2

3-6 0.12

6-9 0.07

9-12 <(0. 01 tipa

12-lb 0.19

15-18 <0.01 ND

18-21 (0.01 ND)

21-24 <0.01 NI)

42 Oct 82 WSU 0-1.5 24

1.5 3 21

3-6 1.5

6-9 0.16

9-12 0.93

12-15 0.06

15-18 <0.01 ND

18-21 <0.01 ND

21-24 (0.01 NI)

27-30 <0.01 ND

33-36 <0.01 NI)

aND - Not detpcted at the indicated detection limit.

25

14

4 41

-- j

L) c

m 0,

~, ý4'~ - I-I ~ ~ .i~41

i4 I

HAQ 1wc $0001(13 0

~~L. H 4-4

___________ _u 1 0

44~ý 0__ __ _

*41

0

z44

26

TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF AVERAGE VALUES FORHERBICIDE ORANGE RESIDUES ATNAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER

SPI I'll 2,4-D(ppm) 2,4,5--T(ppm) TCDD(ppD)

SITK CONTRAC'TOR LAB AVERAGE, LAB AVERAGE LAB AVERAG>.

1 CAL 301+326 394+475 194+32 (4)a

WSU 144+22 (5)

WSU/CALb 166+36 (9)

5 CAL 465+191 1820+255 1.3-:-1.6 (2)

WSU 2,2+0.6 (3)

WSU/CAL 1.8+1.1 (5)

12 CAL <0.7+0.6 <0.4+0.5 <0.09+0.02 (3)

WSU 0.2+0.3 (5)

WSU/CAL L.2+0.2 (8)

17 CAL 2999+2363 29b8+1036 207+80 (4)

WSU 263+113 (5)

WSU/CAL 238+9P (9)

41 CAL 1703+1595 1343+657 138+42 (4)

USU 157+73 (5)

WSU/CAL 148+59 (9)

a - Th& number of sampl-s analyzed is in parentheses.-_ WSU/CAL rr-ferences split samplos.

27

*1-E- -u

dP CN Z V

CN cu

U" " 00-

00 C) m nv

4. -4

E-404~ -W 0Q r L

04 -4

CA

4J L

C4 ( N (N N (N4 4-4

CA -14 U0

ua 04 )r,. u- E- 0. -4E- ") Cl r D -)

CL m

zo i~0 -0

E4 ~ C .- 4 - cc- '

00 C)

en~~~ 0 l JUm0C 0 -

0- C- 1.4 P- 4 -a0 00 co 4.4 C

0~~~ 00 (

z >)

04 0 in -4 P0- IA z. -

0 0 'U 028

i~ ~ 0

l\N OlHý

-~r 0I C

M )

\u u

Z 4-)

OLN

7.j

K U)~29

4-J

i-4

0

0 t14

00

w0u)__a -

DV-lie

-*-- - -

o

cmI

r- r- 'T 0n 0 00 -

w: +- +++ + +

u CNE-4 C-4 0C- D 0 0 0 0

cz~

.2Z -4 U -4 U U -4 Z E -4 E -4 E-

4-4 I~ .2 z-4 .2 ý - 4 z -z z -z-C EL C w 0 C C C C C C C C coC

°04.

LL

>zU

04¢ • • " • 040 0.4 - 04• ,- 4 04

S> + + + + + + +I+ ++I + I +! + +

z u

CC

0

:i <z

0 [..4 4• I04I I II

cc

31

z'Iz

E-4 E

E-40 -

ý- 0

0

4:4J

"-4

41<C

Z- E-4

ErIxC

32C

and sediments. Although a filtration sedimentation system ha:been constructed to contain dioxin - contaminated soils onsite,it has not been possible to evaluate its effectiveness.

C. EGLIN AFB, TEST RANGE C-52A

All data reported for Eglin AFB are for samples collectedbetween 1980 and 1982. The sampling program for Eglin APR wasdesigned around three primary sampling goalF or priorities:

1. To assess the migration of dioxin from the test andloading sites.

2. To determine the level and extent of 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, anddioxin contamination on and near the test and loading sites.

3. To determine if vertical movement of dioxin wasoccurring.

Extensive sampling of the water drainage systems was con-ducted to assess the potential migration of dioxin from the testand loading sites. Sediment and biological samples were takenfrom pointz. where the TA C-52A drainage creek3 (Mullet, Trout,and Basin) exit the Eglin Reservation and from the headwatersadjacent to the test grids on TA C-52A. All samples were nega-tive for dioxin at a detection limit of 10 ppT. Soil samplescollected from the tree line surrounding TA C-52A and samplescollected 1000 feet north, south, ea3t, or west from the cornersof the 1-mile square test grid and Grid 1 were also negativefor dioxin at a detection limit of 10 ppT. These data give avery high degree of assurance that the dioxin is contained on thetest site.

Since the herbicides were sprayed somewhat uniformly over thetest grid, as compared to the nonuniformity of the spills in thestorage and loading areas, the sampling protocol for the testgrid was designed to determine the average dioxin level. Thetest grid was divided into five sampling areas based on the air-craft spray patterns employed. The 1-mile square grid wasdivided into four quadrants (Figure 13). Grid 1 was the fifthsampling area, based on the fact that it received the :iighestapplication of the herbicides. On each sampling date, all sam-pling points within Grid 1 were sampled. For the 1-mile squarearea all perimeter sampling points were eliminated, as previoustests for dioxin were negative (i.e., AI-A14, 01-014, Bi-Nl andB14-N14). Of the remaining 36 sampling points within each quad-rant, 12 were selected randomly on each sampling date. For Ouad-rants 1 and 2, the actual sampling locations were 50 feet northof each marker. For Ouadrants 3 and 4, the sampling locationswere 50 feet south of each marker. These locations were selectedto minimize the effects on sample composition from vehiculartraffic along the roads near the sampling markers. Grid I sam-ples were collected near to the marker. In all cases, a 3-by 3-by 3-inch cube of soil was removed, sieved to eliminate rocks

33

IN

QUAD 2 QUAD 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 1o of 12 13 14

A0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0 0 0

c0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

oO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 CF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0CTOWER..... e 400 F4E4

"C0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -.----

J 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0

"( O0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0

L- 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0

"# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NC 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00

QUAD 3 QUAD 40 500 10.00 1500 2000

GRAPHIC SCALE-FEET

Figure 13. Location of the Permanent Sampling Stations on the1-Square-Mile Grid

34

and debris and thoroughly mixed. A uniform volume of soil wasthen removed and placed in a new glass container. When all sam-ples from one test area were collected, they were thoroughlymixed and a "pooled" sample of soil was placed in a new glass jarand appropriately labeled. Table 9 gives the average dioxinvalues for all samples collected between 1980 and 1982. Theaverage values are very low. The highest dioxin levels, asexpected, were found on Grid 1. Reductions in surface TCDDlevels have occurred since the termination of aerial spraytesting in 1968. These reductions are probably due to photodegradation. Table 10 gives the results of a depth study con-ducted on Grid 1. The rmplinq site was the center point of Grid1. No dioxin was detected below a depth of 6 inches.

D. EGLIN AFB HARDSTAND 7

To determine it migration of dioxin from Hardstand 7 hadoccurred, sediment and biological samples were taken from th,point where Tom's Creek exits Eglin AFB. All samples have neonnegative for dioxin at a detection limit of 10 ppT. All samplescollected from Beaver Pond have been negative for dioxin at adetection limit of 10 ppT except for one sediment sample analyzedat 25 ppT. The average value for both sediment and biologicalsamples collected from Hardstand Pond was 8U + 70 ppT.

Figurp 14 shows Hardstand 7 with the locations of known her-bicide storage sites and sampling locations. Much of the areaimmediately surrounding this hardstand was contaminated withherbicide due to accidental spills during loading operations.leaking drums, and purging of the spray system betore and attermissions. A pit was dug in 1969 (according to the best availableinformation) to the southwest of the hardstand (Figure 14) as atemporary means of preventing the excess herbicides from entoringthe stream in back of the hardstand. After several months ofuse, the pit was filled with soil.

Table 11 lists the data on samples taken from the Hardstand 7area. As one moves out radially from the hardstand, dioxinlevels drop off rapidly to nondetectable at 125 feet, with adetection limit of 10 ppT. Depth profiles at Dl and KI showsignificant TCDD levels at a depth ot 9 feet. The very highdioxin levels at 9 feet for site Dl are probably due to the pitthat was located in this area, as discussed earlier. The highorlevels of TCDD in the 12- to 36-inch depths at Kl may indicatethe slow movement of dioxin through the soil.

35

TABLE 9. AVERAGE DIOXIN LEVELS ON TEST AREAC-52A AT EGLIN AFB

AVERAGE TCDD(ppb)

DATE CONTRACTOR SAMPLING AREA (DIOXIN)

81-82 WSU (JADRANT 1 <U.01 NDa

QUADRANT 2 0.01 + 0.01

QUADRANT 3 0.03 + 0.01

QUADRANT 4 0.01 + 0.01

GRID 1 0.15 + 0.10

aND - Not detected at the indicated detection limit.

36

TABLE 10. DEPTH-OF-PENETRATION DATA ON TCDD FORGRID 1, TEST AREA C-52A AT EGLIN AFB

AVERAGE TCDD(pph)DATE CONTRACTOR DEPTH (INCHES) (DIOXIN)

May 82 WSU 0-1 0.05

1-3 0.17

3-6 0.10

6-12 <0.01

37

00

0 Z 4-0 La 0r-

LA.- 'Iol

\= a/1-

- - I. C -4~~ Q/

- -0 -4

**

r3

TABLE 11. DIOXIN DATA FOR SEI,±CTED SITESON HARDSTAND 7 AT EGLIN AER

DIOXI NSAMPLING SITE DATE CONTRACTOR DEPTH (_N) TCDD(pjJ•)

3 FEET FROM SURFACE Dec 81 WSU 0-3 4bD RADIALa May 82 WSU 0 3 22.550 FEET FROM SURFACE Dec 81 WSU 0-3 0.025D RADIALa May 82 WSU 0-3 0.02125 FEET SOUTH WEST Nov 82 WSU 0-3 <0.01 NDr)D RADIALa 3-6 <10.01 N D[

6-9 <O. Ol rIND

9-1 2 <O.01 ND15-18 <0). 0l f4.)

Dia May 82 WSU 0-3 130

3-649 -12 126

21-24 46

33-3b 154 5-48 9669-72 102

105-108 136Kia May 82 WSI1 0-3 58

3-6 589-12 72

21-24 11533-36 9245-48 37

69-72 37105-108 10

a - Indicates sampling site location, see Figure 13.

bND - Not detected at the indicated dotoction limit.

39

SECTION V

CONCLUS IONS

Environmental monitoring and evaluation studies ot areas onJohnston Island, the Naval Construction Battalion Center, andEglin APB, previously used for the storage, loading and testingof Ho from 1962 through mid-1977 are reported here for 1980through 1982. The tollowing conclusions are from those studies.

A. JOHNSTON ISLAND

1. Approximate]y 10 acres of the former storage and workara are contaminated with HO and its associated dioxins.

2. Levels of 2.4-D and 2,4,5-T have decreased approximately70 percent since 1981.

3. Because of the recalcitrance of dioxin, limited amounts

of sampling data and large variaDility in that data, no accurateestimate of dioxin persistence is possible.

4. Dioxin contamination was detected to depths of 3 t eet inheavy spill areas.

5. Dioxin contamination of th'- ocean sediments was ooserve]only along the west wall where, coral erosion occurred due to thelack of a protective sea wall. Three samples tested positive fordioxin at part per trillion levels.

6. Low levels of dioxin contamination were observed outsideto-e former storage area. Thfse lightly contaminated areasoccurred where drum storage, transportation, and crushing opera-tions were conducted. Light contamination may have resulted fromwind erosion of the former storage area.

P. NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER

1. Approximately 2-4 acres of the 12-acre former storagesite are contaminated with Ho and its associated dioxins.

2. Levels of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T have decreased approximately60 percent since 1981.

3. Based on available data. no accurate estimate of dioxinpersistence is possible.

4. Dioxin levels in the surface-water drainage system (sedi-ment and biological samples) are two orders of magnitude belowthose found in the s,,il to the former storage site. Th,

40

dioxin level (J.980-1982 data) decreases significantly with dis-tance from the former storage site and was nondetectable at tho12,000 foot point, to a detection limit of 10 ppT. Low levels ofdioxin (<50 parts per trillion) have been detected 2000 feet off-site in sediment and biological specimens. Sediment and biologi-cal contamination were comparable for each sampling site.

C. EGLIN AFB

1. Dioxin contamination appears to be contained and control-led.

2. The 1-mile square grid has very low levels of dioxin con-tamination (30 ppT or less). The average value for Grid 1 is 150ppT.

3. Dioxin depth penetration on TA C-52A has not been demon-strated.

4. Dioxin contamination (well in excess of EPA action level)exists in the immediate vicinity of Hardstand 7.

5. Dioxin contamination was observed at depths of 9 feet atthe periphery of Hardstand 7. This depth of penetration has beenattributed to heavy herbicide spills.

6. Both surface and depth contamination by dioxin decreasedsignificantly with distance from Hardstand 7.

D. GENERALIZED CONCLUSIONS

1. The movement of dioxin from the storage, loading, andtest sites seems to occur primarily through soil erosion, causedby water, wind, or human activity.

41

SECTION VI

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. JOHNSTON ISLAND

1. Continue to limit access to the contaminated area andprevent motor vehicla traffic from crossing the area and poten-tially "tracking" dioxin-contaminated soil particles to otherparts of the island.

2. Construct a seawall on the west side of the former stor-age site to prevent further erosion of the coral into the ocean.

3. Continue to monitor the site for natural degradation ofdioxin.

4. Continue to investigate dioxin depth penetration at the2ormer storage site to verify that vertical movement is occurring

and at what rate.

5. The ESL should work closely with the DNA to develop

reclamation protocols for returning the storage area to full andbeneficial use.

6. Continue to map the area to better define both the hori-

zontal and vertical levels of dioxin contamination.

7. Continue research to determine acceptable and cost-effec-tive methods for returning the storage area to full and bet.efi-cial use.

8. NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTEP

1. Evaluate site security and increase it, if necessary, toprevent motor vehicle traffic from entering the area and poten-tially "tracking" dioxin-contaminated soil particles to otherparts of the installation.

2. Evaluate the effectiveness of the existing system to pre-vent water erosion of the storage site soil wherever possible.Regularly maintain drainage system erosion control devices.

3. Allow native vegetation to continue to grow and spread inthe storage area and drainage ditches to help prevent wind andwater erosion.

4. Continue to monitor the drainage ditch system on a semi-annual basis to confirm that migration of dioxin from the formerstorage site is not occurring.

42

5. Conduct additional surface water sampling and analyses onthe storage site drainage system and in the Turkey Creekreceiving wa+ ;.

6. Evaluate the sampling interval for sites used to followthe rate of natural degradation of dioxin.

7. Conduct a depth profile study to verify that soil pene-tration by dioxin is occurring.

8. Collect additional water samples from the drainage ditchsystem servicing the former storage site to verify that surfacewater contamination by dioxin is not occurring.

C. EGLIN AFB TEST AREA C-52A

1. Evaluate the effects of wind/water erosion on transportof dioxin.

2. Grid 1 usage should be restricted to essential missionactivities. Reasonable and prudent efforts should be undertakento prevent erosion-causing activities.

D. EGLIN AFB HARDSTAND 7

1. Erect a chain-link fence around Hardstand 7, HardstandPond and Beaver Ponds. "Off Limits" and "No Fishing" signsshould be posted and appropriately displayed.

2. A vegetative ground cover should be planted on the ravineslope adjacent to and northwest of Hardstand 7 to controlerosion.

3. Maintain the berm at Hardstand 7 in a good and effectivestate of repair.

4. Continue to monitor the drainage system leading troirHardstand 7 to confirm that migration of TCDD frcmi the fomnerstorage and loading site is not occuring.

5. Ccllect and analyze sediment and biological samples fromthe entrance of Tom's Creek to Tom's Bayou.

6. Collect depth profile sediment samples from HardstandPond.

7. Conduct a depth study adjacent to Hardstand 7 to deter-mine if TCDD penetration is occurring. Such a study should beconducted at a location other than Dl because of the pit dug inthis area in 1969 (Figure 13). A second depth study should be

43

conducted in the pit area to determine levels and depths of con-tamination resulting from operation of this catchment pit in1969.

8. Conduct surface water sampling and analyses to confirm

that TCDD is not being transported offsite.

General Recommendations (All Sites)

1. Expand current monitoring/research program to incorporateviews presented in the Environmental Protecticn Agency's NationalDioxin Strategy.

2. Map dioxin concentrations in soil at all sites to establishboundaries for ultimate reclamation activities.

3. Request that AF Surgeon General establish a site safety pro-cedure for all personnel working on/in dioxin - contaminatedareas.

44

APPENDIX A

STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF LABORATORY DATA*

ouality control was checked by submitting identical samplesto both contract laboratories (California Analytical Laboratories(CAL) and Wright State University (WSU)). In addition, thesesamples were resubmitted for analysis with different sample num-bers. Tables A-i and A-2 illustrate this data. These data arepresented as a function of spill-site number, date that the sam-ple was collected, contractor performing the analysis, and indi-vidual and average values for the data. When two contractors aregiven for a single sampling date, this indicates that identicalsamples were submitted to the contractors for analysis. Valuesappearing for 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, or dioxin and performed by a singlecontractor for a single sampling date, indicate that identicalsamples were submitted to the contractors under different samplenumbers. The very wide fluctuations in 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, anddioxin between analyses for identical samples by a laboratory andbetween laboratories are noted by examining the sample deviationslisted under laboratory average and date average, respectively,in Tables A-i and A-2. Again, in most cases, the individualvalues are within a factor of 2 of the mean value. This verylarge variability in the data, the very slow rate of naturaldegradation of dioxin, and the limited quantity of data availablemake it impossible to determine a meaningful half-life fornatural degradation of dioxin.

*Study was performed to evaluate the performance of laboratories

prior to contract award.

45

-4

I V,

CN ~ ~ I 3) J)' ) 0ý

tz1 00 0c co

o -o r- n - (N 0

ON (N -

1-4

-- 4 -44

* -4

C46

-4 (V) ~ -

CCO

uI64 co U T .nr 1% 0- Or-O r- In rqz r

-4r-4 -4~ -N -1CN--q N r--4 1N -4

-4-Ir- 0 0 r- rn 0 r-CN a) L "T (1 r- a)1. - 'n( : -r -n

( N 'I N -4 -4

E-44.w.-

(N r- r- co 1-4 LnS -4 N N

EI2

U I0 (N ~ CD

'In 0o

-i 0t0 --en 0 N n f O

>4 -4 CD(Ni

a) ~ (N 4 C) 04 ( 4 (

-4 t IO -"

Jn c I n -ILT I '

E-47

S/

/

REFERENCES

1. Young, A.L., Thalken, C.E., Arnold, E.L., Cupello, J.M. andCockerham, L.G., Fate of 2,3,7,8-Tetracholorodibenzo-p-Dioxin(TCDD) in the Environment: Summary and DecontaminationRecommendations, USAFA Technical Report 76-18, Department ofChemistry and Biological Sciences, USAF Academy, Colorado,1976.

2. Young, A.L., Calcagni, J.A., Thalken, C.E., Tremblay, J.W.,The Toxicology, Environmental Fate, arid Human Risk ofHerbicide Orange and its Associated Dioxin, OEHL TechnicalReport 78-92, USAF Occupational and Environmental HealthLaboratory, Brooks AFB, TX, 1978.

3. Young, A.L., Thalken, C.E.. and Cairney, W.J., HerbicideOrange Site Treatment and Environmental Monitoring: SummaryReport and Recommendations for Naval Construction BattalionCenter, Gulfport, MS, OEHL Technical Report 79-169, USAFOccupational and Environmental Health Laboratory, Brooks AFB,TX, 1979.

4. Young, A.L., Cairney, W.J. and Thalken, C.E., "Persistence,Movement and Decontamination Studies of TCDD in Storage SitesMassively Contaminated With Phenoxy Herbicides," ThirdInternational Symposuim on Chlorinated Dioxins and RelatedCompounds, 1982.

5. Young, A.L., Ed., Ecological Studies on Herbicide-EquipmentTest Area (TA C-52A), Eglin AFB Reservation, Florida, AFATLTechnical Report 74-12, Air Force Armament Laboratory, EglinAFB, FL, 1974.

6. Young, A.L., Thalken, C.E. and Ward, W.E., Studies of theEcological Impact of Repetitive Aerial Application ofHerbicides on the Ecosystem of Test Are3 CI-52A, Eglin AFB,FL, AFATL Technical Report 75-142, Air Force ArmamentLaboratory, Eglin AFB, FL, 1975.

7. Harrison, D.D., Miller, C.I. and Crews, R.C., Residual Levelsof 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) Near HerbicideStorage and Loading Areas at Eglin AFB, FL, AFATL TechnicalReport 79-20, Air Force Armament Laboratory, Eglin AFB, FL,19 79.

48