N4019222R2012_RFP_Part_B_Prelim-Draft Munitions_Response_ESS_Guam_Construction_AMD7.pdf

Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Pacific

Joint Base Marianas

Preliminary-Draft

MUNITIONS RESPONSE EXPLOSIVES

SAFETY SUBMISSION

GUAM CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT

AMENDMENT 7 – ANNEX A-XX

GUAM ARMY NATIONAL GUARD FACILITY

BARRIGADA, GUAM

Joint Base Marianas

February 2022

Prepared for NAVFAC Pacific USA Environmental Inc.

720 Brooker Creek Boulevard, Suite 204, Oldsmar, Florida 34677 Contract Number N62470-17-D-8003

CTO N6274220F0176

Explosives Safety Submission Guam Construction Support

Barrigada, Guam, Joint Base Marianas

Draft Page 1-1

1. SITE SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT 1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2

This proposed construction project at Guam Army National Guard Facility includes three areas: 3

1. The GUARNG Readiness Center (~8.3 acres) 4

2. The three Table Top ESS Areas (~3.03 acres) 5

3. The NOC building Area (~6000-sqft area). 6

This Explosives Safety Submission (ESS) Annex is prepared in accordance with Amendment 7 Guam 7 Construction Support Munitions Response Explosives Safety Submission (MRESS) to provide the required 8 explosives safety guidelines for the Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) operations at the above 9 construction areas under this project. 10

1.2 PROJECT SITE KNOWLEDGE 11

The proposed GUARNG Facility project areas is approximately 11.5 acres, located in Barrigada, Guam. 12 The project site is currently used as the Combined Support Maintenance Shop (CSMS). Up until the 13 construction of the CSMS (around 2013, see Photo 1), the project site was left undeveloped. There were 14 no reports of MEC/material potentially presenting an explosive hazard (MPPEH) removal actions or MEC 15 discoveries at the proposed project site areas. The ESS Annex project area regional location and site layout 16 is shown on Figure 1.1. 17

Photo 1: 2013 Historical Aerial Photograph 19

Draft Page 1-2

1.2.1 Acts of War 1

The GUARNG Facility project area was part of the battle to retake Guam from the Japanese in the summer 2 of 1944. This area saw battle activity from 21 July through the end of August 1944 as United States (U.S.) 3 forces cleared this area of Japanese forces. See MRESS Amendment 7; paragraph 1.6.1 for further 4 historical details. Military munitions used during the battle to retake Guam include small arms, pyrotechnic 5 flares, hand grenades, landmines, projected grenades, mortars, tanks, land-based artillery, Naval gun 6 artillery, and aircraft-delivered bombs. The use of ordnance by both the U.S. landing forces and Japanese 7 defenders during the battle in July - August 1944 is likely to have left behind MEC and/or MPPEH as a 8 natural occurrence of battlefield activities. Table 2 presents the types of munitions potentially used during 9 war activities at this project site. 10

1.2.2 Previous Construction 11

Based on the 2013 historical aerial photograph and the 2009 as-built map (AS-101) of the Combined 12 Support Maintenance Shop (CSMS), the following presents the previous construction activities at the 13 proposed GUARNG Facility areas: 14

1. The 2013 aerial photograph showed the start of the CSMS construction activities that included the 15 NOC area to the east. There were no ground disturbance activities within the proposed GUARNG 16 Readiness Center area or at the 3 Table Top areas. 17

2. The 2009 as-built map showed the architectural site plan for the CSMS. The majority of the ground 18 disturbance was near the surface (under 6 inches) for parking lots and for the areas used for 19 landscaping. The deeper ground excavations (4-5 feet [ft]) were at the foundation of the CSMS 20 structures. 21

3. In addition, based on Google Earth aerial map analysis, a hangar facility was constructed at a later 22 date (around the 2017 timeframe) that encompassed the L-shaped Table-Top Area (see Figure 1). 23

This space is intentionally left blank.25

February 2022 1

1.2.3 Previous Soil Disturbance 1

Based on the assessment of the 1967 and 1972 historical aerial photographs, the following presents the 2 previous soil disturbance activities at the proposed GUARNG Facility areas (see Figure 1): 3

1. The 1967 historical aerial photograph (Photo 2) showed there was ground disturbance/vegetation 4 clearance conducted within the ESS areas, excluding the NOC area. This vegetation clearance 5 appeared to be for line-of-sight around the old communication tower just to the north of the project 6 area. There were no buildings or facilities constructed during this time. 7

Photo 2: 1967 Historical Aerial Photograph 9

This space is intentionally left blank. 12

Draft Page 1-2

2. The 1972 historical aerial photograph (Photo 3) showed vegetation within the project site was the 1 same as the rest of the areas around the old communication tower. There were no buildings or 2 facilities constructed during this time. 3

Photo 3: 1972 Historical Aerial Photograph 5

This space is intentionally left blank.7

Draft Page 1-3

Figure 1: Areas of Previous Land Disturbance 2

Draft Page 1-4

1.2.4 MEC and/or MPPEH Discoveries 1

There were no reporting of MEC and/or MPPEH item discoveries within the boundaries of the proposed 2 GUARNG Facility project areas. Table 3 presents a list of MEC and/or MPPEH items discovered within a 3 half-mile radius of the project site. 4

1.2.5 MEC and/or MPPEH Clearance Activities 5

To date, there have not been any previously documented MEC and/or MPPEH removal actions at this 6 project site location. 7

1.2.6 Other Information Relevant to Risk Analysis 8

In January of 2022, an Advanced Geophysical Classification (AGC) survey was conducted on 4 acres of 9 the proposed GUARNG Facility. The contractor is accredited in accordance with the Department of Defense 10 Advanced Geophysical Classification Accreditation Program (DAGCAP) and utilized the Geophysical 11 Systems Verification (GSV) concept during all data collection activities. The White River Technologies’ 12 (WRT) APEX one-pass AGC sensor was used for all geophysical data acquisition. The AGC survey was 13 performed under the contractor’s DAGCAP accreditation. 14

A total of 394 lines of one-pass AGC data were collected with the APEX sensor during field activities. A 15 total of 11,579 unique anomalies were detected using a 20mV target selection threshold. All anomaly 16 locations were then inverted using the Ortho-Normalized Volume Magnetic Source (ONVMS) model to 17 create source locations and polarizabilities. 18

Sources corresponding to each region of interest were grouped by location and polarizability features to 19 consolidate inverted sources for each anomaly. An automatic ranking algorithm was applied that matched 20 polarizabilities from each source group to items in the U.S. Department of Defend (DoD)-maintained targets 21 of interest (TOI) Library. 22

Following inversion of all anomaly sources, the data analysts performed a manual review of each 23 polarizability grouping to select the optimal source and remove redundant sources from the dig list. 24 Saturated response areas, which are probable underground utility locations across the project site, were 25 also removed or masked. The targets were ranked and a final list of 1,443 TOI (potential MEC/MPPEH 26 anomalies) were selected. Photo 4 presents the image of the selected TOIs within the 4-acre surveyed 27 area. 28

This space is intentionally left blank. 29

Draft Page 1-5

Photo 4: Selected TOI within the 4-acre AGC Surveyed Area 2

This space intentionally left blank 3

Draft Page 2-1

2. COMNAVFACPAC RISK DECISION 1

2.1 LIKELIHOOD 2

Research and evaluation of available historical EOD Incident Response Reports and GRX GIS Database 3 data yielded no documented MEC recovery and response within the proposed GUARNG Facility boundary. 4 However, there were fourteen MEC items recovered within a 0.5-mile radius of the proposed GUARNG 5 Facility project areas, and the unknown factual data regarding soil disturbing activities within the proposed 6 construction site boundaries (see Table 1), the proposed GUARNG Facility is assigned a “likely 7 determination of encountering MEC and/or MPPEH” as defined in MRESS Guam Amendment 7 Section 8

1.3.2. 9

2.2 TARGET OF INTEREST 10

Based on World War II (WWII) historic battle records, the smallest munition that potentially exists at the 11 project site is the 20 millimeter (mm) high explosive Projectile, which is selected as the Target of Interest 12 for this ESS Annex. The Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board (DDESB) Fragmentation Data 13 Review Form for the 20 mm high explosive Projectile is provided at the end of this Annex. 14

2.3 PRIMARY AND CONTINGENCY MUNITION WITH THE GREATEST FRAGMENTATION 15

DISTANCE (MGFD) 16

The 5-inch/38 Caliber Mk 31 & Mk 34 projectile is selected as the primary munition and the MGFD for this 17 project based on the documented recovery of the projectile within a half-mile radius of the proposed 18 GUARNG Facility construction footprint. In accordance with the MRESS Amendment 7 for the Barrigada 19 area, the 1,000-lb AN-M65A1 is selected as the Contingency. The fragmentation distances for the selected 20 MGFDs are shown on Table 4. 21

2.4 CONTROLLING EXCLUSION ZONE (EZ) 22

EZ control will be implemented by using Entry Control Points (ECPs) to block access to the EZ during MEC 23 operations. ECPs along the roads and sidewalks will be sufficiently barricaded (e.g., road barriers; 24 security/construction fencing) to block unauthorized access to the site during MEC operations. Signs will 25 be posted at each ECP with the point of contact information for the MEC Contractor’s Senior Unexploded 26 Ordnance Supervisor (SUXOS) and Unexploded Ordnance Safety Officer (UXOSO). Building evacuations 27 and roadway closures will be implemented, as necessary, in coordination with appropriate Joint Region 28 Marianas (JRM) authorities and instructions. If a roadway or waterway located within the EZ cannot be 29 blocked, spotters will be used to alert the UXOSO and SUXOS to cease MEC operations when non-30 essential personnel enter into the EZ. Operations will not be allowed to resume until nonessential personnel 31 leave the EZ. All personnel working within the EZ will stop work in the event that an unauthorized individual 32 enters the EZ. Table 5 and Table 6 identify the controlling EZ during ground-disturbing operations for this 33 construction project. 34

In the event additional controls are required, the Open Front Barricade (OFB) may be used in accordance 35 with HNC-ED-CS-S-99-1, March 1999 (Terminology Update March 2000), to reduce the minimum safe 36 distance (MSD) on its sides, rear, and top to 300 ft. The MSD for unintentional detonations to the front will 37 be the HFD of the MGFD. For the 5-inch Mk 31 and Mk34, the HFD value is higher than the selected MGFD 38 (5-inch Mk 41) and is therefore utilized in determining the EZ. The Weight-to-Volume ratio is based on the 39 TNT equivalent weight for impulse divided by the volume of the open front barricade (96 ft³). In this case, 40 the 5-inch Mk 31 and Mk 34 TNT equivalent weight for impulse (7.903 lbs) is higher than the 5-inch Mk 41. 41 When calculated, the weight-to-volume ratio of the 5-inch Mk 31 and Mk 34 is 0.0823 lbs/ft³ and thereby 42 suitable for OFB use. 43

2.5 EXPLOSIVES SAFETY QUANTITY DISTANCE 44

The explosives safety quantity distance (ESQD) arcs for the GUARNG Facility project area are shown on 45 Figure 3. The ESQD Arcs represent the hazardous fragmentation distance (HFD) for unintentional 46

Draft Page 2-2 detonation operations and non-essential personnel safety distance, and it also represents the maximum 1 fragmentation distance (MFD) for intentional detonation operations. 2

This space intentionally left blank 4

Draft Page 3-3

3. SUPPORTING FIGURES AND TABLES 1

This space intentionally left blank 2

Draft Page 3-4

Figure 1.1: GUARNG Facility Site Layout 2

Draft Page 3-5

Table 1: Munition Response Areas 1

Area Identifier

Current Land Use

(Note: All areas are historical WWII Battlefields 1 ) Size

(Acres)

GUARNG Readiness Center Combined Support Maintenance Shop (CSMS) Area 8.3

Network Operation Center (NOC) Building CSMS Area 0.4

Table Top ESS Areas CSMS Area 3.0

Table 1 Reference: 2

(1) Historical Ordnance Assessment, P-50 Territory of Guam, NAVFACPAC, November 2010. 3

Draft Page 3-6

Figure 2: MEC Encounters Map 2

Draft Page 3-7

Table 2: Types of Munitions Potentially Used During War Activities at Project Site 1

Area Origin

Country Small

Arms Land

Mines Hand

Grenades Projected

Grenades

Anti- Tank

Rockets Mortars Land

Artillery Naval

Artillery Aircraft

Bombs Aircraft

Rockets

GUARNG

Facility Area (1)

US P X P P X X P P

Japan P P

Barrigada

US X X X X X P P

Japan X X

Notes: 2 X = Confirmed 3 P = Possible, not confirmed 4

(1) Within 0.5-mile radius of GUARNG Facility project area boundary. 5

Table 3: Previous MEC and MPPEH Encountered at/nearby Project Site (1/2-mile radius) 7

Description/Nomenclature Quantity

Projectile, 25 mm HE, Japanese 1

Grenade, Hand, Mk 2 7

Projectile, 75 mm HE, M48 Howitzer 1

Projectile, 4-inch HE (with Mk 22 Nose Fuze) 2

Projectile, 5-inch HE 2

Bomb, 500-lb Practice, MK 82 1

This space is intentionally left blank 9

Draft Page 3-8

Table 4: Primary and Contingency MGFD for Project Site 1

MGFD Type Munitions Items a HFD (ft) b MFD-H (ft) b

Primary Primary – 5-inch/38 Caliber Mk 31 & Mk 34 Projectile (Composition A-3 Filled) 372 2,149

Contingency Contingency – 1,000-lb AN-M65A1 Bomb (Composition B Filled) 810 3,828 c

Notes:

a. Based on military EOD incident response reports from 1978-2018, and JRM MEC GIS Database.

b. From DDESB Fragmentation Data Review Form, dated 6/5/2020.

c. Based on 1,000-lb, AN-M65A1 Bomb (TNT filled).

Table 5: Exclusion Zones for Project Site 2

MGFDs EZs (ft)

Description

NEW

(lb) a, b

Fragmentation Effects b Blast Overpressure Effects b

HFD MFD-H K328 K40 K24 K18

Primary – 5-inch/38 Caliber Mk 31 & Mk 34 Projectile (Composition A-3 Filled)

7.903 372 2,149 653 80 48 36

Contingency – 1,000-lb AN-M65A1 Bomb (Composition B Filled)

690.2 810 3,828 c 2,899 353 212 159

Notes: 3

a. TNT equivalent weight. 4

b. From DDESB Fragmentation Data Review Form, dated 6/5/2020. 5

c. Based on 1,000-lb, AN-M65A1 Bomb (TNT filled). 6

This space is intentionally left blank 11

Draft Page 3-1

Table 6: Controlling Exclusion Zones for Project Site 1

Operation Sited As Exposed Site Basis ESQD (ft) f

Manual Operations a Unintentional Detonation

UXO Teams K40 of the MGFD Primary = 80 c

Contingency = 353

Public and Non-Essential Personnel

HFD of the MGFD Primary = 372 c

Contingency = 810 g

Mechanized Operations b

(Low Input)

Unintentional Detonation

Essential Personnel K24 of the MGFD d, e Primary = 48 c

Contingency = 212

Public and Non-Essential Personnel

HFD of the MGFD Primary = 372 c

Contingency = 810 g

OFB Operations h Unintentional Detonation

UXO Teams K40 of the MGFD Primary = 80 c

Public and Non-Essential Personnel

HFD of the MGFD (OFB 2 Sides, Top, and Rear) Primary = 300 h

HFD of the MGFD (OFB Front/Open Side) Primary = 372 c

Notes:

a. Manual operations involve excavating anomalies with hand tools.

b. Mechanized operations involve excavating anomalies with an excavator and mechanically screening soils. Conducting mechanized operations may require a long reach excavator or remotely operated equipment.

c. Based on the 5-inch/38 Caliber Mk 31 & Mk 34 Projectile (Composition A-3 filled).

d. May be reduced to K18 distance provided essential personnel wear double hearing protection that provides greater than or equal to ≥ 9-decibel (dB) attenuation.

e. Requires shields/barricades designed to defeat hazardous fragments.

f. From DDESB Fragmentation Data Review Form, dated 6/5/2020.

g. Based on the 1,000-lb AN-M65A1 Bomb (Composition B Filled).

h. The weight-to-volume ratio is less than 0.29 lbs/ft3 therefore the minimum separation distance for unintentional detonations (MSD for unintentional detonations) to the 2 sides, top and rear of the OFB will be 300 ft. The MSD for unintentional detonations to the front will be the HFD of the MGFD.

Table 7: Controlling EZs (ESQD in ft) – All Areas, Limited Clearance Ahead of Construction (Phase 2) 3

Not applicable. 4

Draft Page 3-2

Figure 3: ESS Annex Project Area ESQD Arcs Map 2

Draft Page 3-1

Table 8: Potential Explosion Sites (PESs) Encumbering Project Site 1

There are no known PESs located within or adjacent to any of the areas covered by this ESS Annex 2 document that may encumber the activities within. 3

Draft Page 4-1

4. REFERENCES 1

1978-2018. EOD Incident Reports. 2

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Marianas. 2020. Munitions Response Explosives Safety 3 Submission, Guam Construction Support, Amendment 7. January. 4

Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board. 2020. DDESB TP 15, Approved Protective Construction, 5 Revision 4. 26 July. 6

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific. 2010. Final Historical Ordnance Assessment, Guam and 7 CNMI Area, P-50, Territory of Guam and Tinian, CNMI. November. 8

Naval Ordnance Safety and Security Activity. 2020. NOSSAINST 8020.15E. Explosives Safety Review, 9 Oversight, and Verification of Munitions Responses. 11 September. 10

Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific. 2022. Draft Advanced Geophysical Classification Report, 11 Guam Army National Guard Facility, Barrigada, Guam. February. 12

This space intentionally left blank 13

Draft Page 4-2

Draft Page 4-3

Draft Page 4-4

Draft Page 4-5