DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE LORING AIR … OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE BASE CONVERSION AGENCY,...

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCEAIR FORCE BASE CONVERSION AGENCY, OPERATING LOCATION M (AFBCA/OL-M)

LORING AIR FORCE BASE, MAINE

SDMS DocID 000203889

MEMORANDUM FOR Michael NalipinskiUS Environmental ProtectionAgencyJFK Federal BuildingMail Code HBTBoston MA 02203-2211

Naji AkladissMaine Department ofEnvironmental ProtectionState House Station 17Augusta ME 04333-0017

FROM: AFBCA/OL-MRRl,Box 1719Limestone ME 04750

SUBJECT: Final Operable Unit 3 Record of Decision

OCT 2 9 1996

1. Attached please find the Final Operable Unit (OU) 3 Record of Decision (ROD). Thissubmittal includes Air Force and EPA signatures dated 24 Sep 96 and 27 Sep 96 respectively.Distribution of this document is as follows:

a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), three (3) copies to Region I;b. Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP), three (3) copies to Augusta;c. AFBCA/DB, two (2) copies;d. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, one (1) copy;e. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE), two (2) copies;f. Loring Development Authority of Maine, one (1) copy to Limestone, one (1) copy tothe Technical Advisor.

2. If you have any questions, please call me at (207) 328-7109.

?PETER W. FORBESInstallation Restoration ProgramRemedial Project Manager

Attachment:a/s

S:\ENV\DAVE\OU3\TRANSROD.DOC

Final

Operable Unit 3 (OU3)Record Of Decision

September 1996

Tlh©

JiBfi Ow

Installation Restoration ProgramLoring Air Force Base, Maine

FINAL

Loring Air Force Base

Operable Unit 3 (OU 3)Debris Disposal Areas

Record of Decision

September 1996

Prepared for:

Air Force Base Conversion AgencyOperating Location - M

Loring Air Force Base, Maine 04750-0523(207) 328-7109

Prepared by:

Service Center: Air Force Center for Environmental ExcellenceBrooks air Force Base, Texas 78235-5000

Contractor: Law Environmental, Inc.Kennesaw, Georgia 30144

Project 11-2608-3208

•If

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-l

DECISION SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1 SITE HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.2 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

3.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF OU3 SITE CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.2 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE CONTRACTSTORAGE SHED AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

5.2.1 Site Location and Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-25.2.2 Site History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-35.2.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11

6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1.1 Summary of Risk Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

Installation Restoration Program2608-3208.28 . .

TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)

Page

6.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4

6.2.1 Summary of Risk Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5

6.3 UNCERTAINTY EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6

6.4 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6

7.0 DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.1 REMEDIAL RESPONSE AND REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . 7-1

7.2 TECHNOLOGY AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT ANDSCREENING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3

8.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.1 MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.2 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR CONTRACTSTORAGE SHED AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2

8.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-28.2.2 Alternative 2: Institutional Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-38.2.3 Alternative 3: Excavation, On-Base Disposal of Excavated Soils,

Placement of Clean Soil Cover Over Chlordane-Contaminated Areas, Institutional Controls,Wastewater Treatment (if required) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

8.2.4 Alternative 4: Excavation, Off-Base Disposal of Excavated Soils,Placement of Clean Soil Cover Over Chlordane-Contaminated Areas, Institutional Controls,Wastewater Treatment (if required) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4

8.2.5 Alternatives: Excavation, Stabilization/Solidification of ExcavatedSoils, On-Base Disposal of Excess Soils, Placement ofClean Soil Cover Over Chlordane-ContaminatedAreas, Institutional Controls, Wastewater Treatment (ifrequired) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4

Installation Restoration Program2608-3208.28 . a.


Page

9.0 SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . 9-1

9.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA USED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . 9-1

9.1.1 Threshold Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-19.1.2 Primary Balancing Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-19.1.3 Modifying Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2

9.2 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2

9.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment . . . . . . . . . 9-49.2.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate

Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-49.2.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-59.2.4 Reduction in Mobility, Toxicity, and Volume through Treatment . . . . . 9-59.2.5 Short-Term Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-69.2.6 Implementability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-69.2.7 Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-69.2.8 Comparative Analysis Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-89.2.9 State Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-89.2.10 Community Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-8

10.0 SELECTED REMEDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1

10.1 SELECTED REMEDY FOR OU3 SITES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1

10.2 REMEDIAL ACTION FOR THE CONTRACT STORAGE SHED AREASITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-2

10.3 CLEANUP LEVELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-5

10.4 FIVE-YEAR SITE REVIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-6

11.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1

11.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . 11-1

11.2 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT ANDAPPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1

Installation Restoration Program2608-3208.28 . m .

Further investigation will be undertaken at the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range. Future plans will

address remedial actions.

The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal and staterequirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative technologies to the maximum extentpracticable for this site. This remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principalelement of the remedy. Therefore, a five-year review would be required at the Contract Storage ShedArea to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection for human health and theenvironment at the site.

DECLARATION

This Record of Decision represents NFA under CERCLA for fourteen sites, recommendation of furtherinvestigation for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range, and the selection of a remedial action underCERCLA for the Contract Storage Shed Area at OU3.

The forgoing represents the selection of a remedial action by the Department of the Air Force and theUnited States Environmental Protection Agency Region I with the concurrence of the Maine Departmentof Environmental Protection.

Concur and recommend for immediate implementation:

DEPA IT^ El IT OF/TOE AIR FORCE <^~*} i i

\yi/Jjy^^,______ Date:Alan K. GlsenDirectorAFBCA

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

By: v^n-V*. /ll' /'Liif '———— Date: -! <-f !<- J~ ' j 7ft ' 'Linda M. Murphy ' *' 'DirectorOffice of Site Remediation and RestorationUSEPA-Region I

Installation Restoration Program2608-3208.28 D-4

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION I

J.F.KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON, MA 02203-2211

MEMORANDUM

DATE: September 25, 1996

SUBJ: Loring Air Force Base - Record of DecisionOU 3 - Debris Disposal Areas

/! ~fFROM: Michael Nalipinski, RPM, OSRR '>-M / 'wRobert DiBiccaro, Case Attorney, ORC" \/U;/;

TO: Linda M. Murphy, DirectorOffice of Site Remediation and Restoration

Attached for your review are the ROD Summary, CommunicationsStrategy, and Draft Air Force Press Release for the OU 3 Loring AirForce Base Superfund Site in Aroostock County, Maine. Attached foryour signature is the ROD. This ROD consists of 17 sites.

The ROD codifies the decision to designate 14 sites as "No FurtherAction", two sites require additional RI work, and the ContractStorage Shed will be remediated via an excavations and in-situcapping of chlordane contaminated soils.

If you have any questions regarding the ROD, please contact MichaelNalipinski at 223-5503 or Mary Sanderson at 537-5711.

The ROD has been signed by the Air Force and the State of Maine hasconcurred with the ROD. This ROD should be signed by September 30,1996, to meet our commitment date.

Attachments: ROD SummaryCommunications StrategyDraft Air Force Press ReleaseROD

cc: Mary Sanderson


Page

11.3 UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVETREATMENT OR RESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAXIMUMEXTENT PRACTICABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-2

11.4 PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT . . . . . . . 11-7

11.5 COST EFFECTIVENESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-7

12.0 DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-1

13.0 STATE ROLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-1

14.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-1

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Transcript of Public Hearing Meeting on July 10, 1996

APPENDIX B Responsiveness Summary

APPENDDC C Letter of Concurrence of MEDEP

Installation Restoration Program2608-3208.28 . iv -

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1-1 Loring AFB Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

1-2 OU3 Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

10-1 Estimated Areas and Depths of Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-4

Installation Restoration Program2608-3208.28 . v -

LIST OF TABLES

Table Bags

2-1 Summary of PA/SI, RI/ASI Conclusions/Recommendations for 17 Sites in OU3 . . . . . . 2-3

5-1 Chemicals Detected in Surface Soil (0-2 feet) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5-2 Chemicals Detected in Subsurface Soil (0-10 feet) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

5-3 Chemicals Detected in Sediments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

5-4 Chemicals Detected in Overburden Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8

5-5 Chemicals Detected in Bedrock Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9

5-6 Chemicals Detected in Sediments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10

6-1 Total Site Risks for Each Receptor - Soil and Sediment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3

7-1 Screening of Assembled Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4

9-1 Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3

9-2 Opinions of Cost for Selected Remedial Action Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7

10-1 Soil Remediation Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-3

11-1 Chemical-Specific ARARs and TBCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-3

11-2 Location Specific ARARs and TBCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-4

11-3 Action Specific ARARs and TBCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-5

Installation Restoration Program2608-3208.28 . vi.

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AFB

ARAR

AVGBRACCERCLA

DRMOEODERAFFAFSHI

HQLAWLoring AFBMEDEPmg/m2

NCPNFANPDES

OU3PA/SIPAH

PX

RARAORCRA

RfD

RGsRI/FSRI/ASIRME

Air Force BaseApplicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementAverageBase Realignment and ClosureComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability ActDefense Reutilization and Marketing OrganizationExplosive Ordnance DisposalEcological Risk AssessmentFederal Facilities AgreementFeasibility StudyHazard IndexHazard QuotientLaw Environmental, Inc.Loring Air Force BaseMaine Department of Environmental Protectionmilligrams per square meterNational Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Planno further actionNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemOperable Unit 3Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Post ExchangeRisk AssessmentRemedial Action ObjectiveResource Conservation and Recovery Actreference doseRemediation GoalsRemedial Investigation/Feasibility StudyRemedial Investigation/Additional Site InvestigationReasonable Maximum Exposure

2608-3208.28

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS(Continued)

ROD Record of Decision

SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic CompoundsTBC To Be ConsideredUSAF United States Air ForceUSEPA United States Environmental Protection AgencyUST Underground Storage TankVOC Volatile Organic Compound

2608-3208.28

DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Debris Disposal Areas, Operable Unit 3 (OU3)Loring Air Force BaseLimestone, Aroostook County, Maine

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This decision document presents the final remedies for OU3, which consists of the following 17 sites:

• No further action for the following 14 NFA (no further action) sites:

Ohio Road Debris Area,Oklahoma Road Debris Area,KC-135 Crash Area,Dumpster Cleaning Area Site/Building 7841,Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Area-Cylinders,Golf Course Maintenance Shed Area,Chapman Pit Debris Area,9000 Debris Area,Solvent/Paint Dock Area,Prime Beef Debris Area,Buildings 8951 and 8960 (DRMO),Old PX Gas Station UST,F-106A Crash Area,Demineralization Plant.

• Further investigation for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range.

• Remedial action for the Contract Storage Shed Area site to address the contaminatedsoils/sediments.

The selected remedial action was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental ResponseCompensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments andReauthorization Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §9601 ej seq.). and, to the extent practicable, the National Oiland Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300

Installation Restoration Program2608-3208.28 D-l

§J seq. (1990). This decision is based on the Administrative Record for this site, which was developedin accordance with Section 113 (k) of CERCLA, and which is available for public review at theinformation repositories located at Robert A. Frost Memorial Library, 238 Main Street, Limestone,Maine, and the Air Force Base Conversion Agency at Loring AFB, AFBCA/OL-M, Building 5100,Texas Road, Loring AFB, Maine. Through this remedial action, the United States Air Force (USAF)plans to address the threat to human health posed by the presence of contaminated soils and sedimentsat OU3.

The OU3 Response Action for the Debris Disposal Areas (17 sites) at Loring AFB addresses thesoils/sediments. Groundwater issues for OU3 will be addressed under OU12 and the surface water willbe addressed in OU13. Groundwater at the EOD Range will be addressed as part of the furtherinvestigation.

The State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) concurs with the selected remedyfor this site.

ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

The USAF has determined that no further action (NFA) is required for the fourteen NFA sites at OU3.Removal actions have been previously taken by the USAF at six (Ohio Road Debris Area; OklahomaRoad Debris Area; Golf Course Maintenance Shed; 9000 Debris Area; Solvent/Paint Dock Area;Demineralization Plant) of the fourteen sites. No risk to human health or the environment currently existsat these fourteen sites.

Further investigation is proposed for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range sites to determinewhether contamination identified at each site poses unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.Final CERCLA determinations for these two sites will be made in a future Record of Decision.

Actual or threatened releases of contamination from the Contract Storage Shed site, if not addressed byimplementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent andsubstantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.


DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY

The selected remedy for OU3 includes no further action for the fourteen NFA sites, and proposes furtherinvestigation for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range, and implementation of remedial action forthe Contract Storage Shed Area.

The selected remedial action for the Contract Storage Shed Area addresses the contamination found hisoils/sediments at the site by excavation, removal, disposal, and cover of the contaminatedsoils/sediments. The chlordane-contaminated areas at the site would be covered with clean soil to preventfuture exposure to the contaminated soil. The remainder of the contaminated soils identified at the sitewould be excavated and disposed in an on-base landfill. Because this remedy does not apply treatment,a long-term management program would be required.

The major components of the selected remedial action for the Contract Storage Shed Area include:

• Excavation of soils for which associated contamination exceeds the RemediationGoals (RGs), except chlordane-contaminated soils

• Confirmation sampling to ensure that soils exceeding the RGs, except chlordane-contaminated soils, have been excavated

• Disposal of the excavated soils in Landfill No. 3, located on-base

• Placement of 2 feet of clean soil cover, with erosion protection, over chlordane-contaminated areas

• Institutional controls which will include restrictions which implement this remedyand are consistent with the "Record of Decision for the Disposal of Loring AFB,Maine, April 1996" and the "BRAC Cleanup Plan, Loring AFB, Limestone, Maine,April 1994."

• Wastewater treatment, if required

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The statutory requirements of CERCLA Section 121 for remedial actions are not applicable to thefourteen NFA sites. Therefore, no five-year review will be undertaken for those sites.


Further investigation will be undertaken at the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range. Future plans willaddress remedial actions.

The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal and staterequirements mat are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative technologies to the maximum extentpracticable for this site. This remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principalelement of the remedy. Therefore, a five-year review would be required at the Contract Storage ShedArea to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection for human health and theenvironment at the she.

DECLARATION

This Record of Decision represents NFA under CERCLA for fourteen sites, recommendation of furtherinvestigation for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range, and the selection of a remedial action underCERCLA for the Contract Storage Shed Area at OU3.

The forgoing represents the selection of a remedial action by the Department of the Air Force and theUnited States Environmental Protection Agency Region I with the concurrence of the Maine Departmentof Environmental Protection.

Concur and recommend for immediate implementation:

___ Date:Disco

DirectorAFBCA

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

By: ,.\1.^L /??• >/^Uf/ Date: j'^t?% 31Linda M. Murphy /DirectorOffice of Site Remediation and RestorationUSEPA-Region I

Installation Restoration Program2608-3208.28

DECISION SUMMARY

1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION

1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION

The Debris Disposal Areas, Operable Unit 3 (OU3), Loring Air Force Base (AFB) consists of 17 sitesthat are located within Loring AFB. Loring AFB occupies approximately 9,000 acres. The base islocated in Aroostook County, Maine, approximately 3 miles west of the U.S./Canada border. The baseis bordered by the towns of Caswell, Limestone, Conner, and Caribou. The location of the base is shownin Figure 1-1.

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION

A brief description for each of the 17 sites in OU3 investigated under the Installation Restoration Program

is presented in this section. The locations of the 17 OU3 sites at Loring AFB are shown in Figure 1-2.

The Ohio Road Debris Area is a 1- to 2-acre wooded area located west of the north end of the flightline. The surface features consist of debris mounds, an irregular depression, and berms. There wereexposed empty drums near the mounds.

The Oklahoma Road Debris Area is a 10-acre area covered by brush and small trees, located in thenorthern portion of the base, north of Oklahoma Road. The area was identified as a potential dumping

area with a 1- to 2-acre filled area hi the eastern portion of the site.

The KC-135 Crash Area is located at the southern end of the main runway, near South Carolina Road.A KC-135 tanker aircraft wrecked in 1974 or 1975 at this location, spilling 12,000 pounds of fuel on theground and associated drainage ditches.

Installation Restoration Program2608-3208.28 1-1

FIGURE 1-1

Approximate scale in miles

LEGEND

City, town

- Road

- River

- U.S./Canada border

1-2

LEGEND:OHIO ROAD /

DEBRIS AREA

FIGURE 1-2

^ / ^<"^

//;'

N

"*W4

LORING AFB BOUNDARY

INVESTIGATION SITE

3000

Ei-SCALE IN FEET

6000

J, GOLF COURSE^"/MAINTENANCE SHED

RANGE . iAND '-I

-:EOD CYLINDERS

'OKLAHOMAROAIVDEB! ! AREA*'

PRIME __. .DEBRIS AREA/-106A C~ ~'

SITE

®& v^^m^^^f3^)^- /•.CHAPMAN

PIT DEBRISAREA

l BLDGS 8951/.^ AND 8960 /

OUTDOOR FIRING RANGE

KC-13$f CRASH SiTEBLDG. 72

DEMINERALIZATI 1 ' // ^OLDDUMPSTER - \jl GAS STATIONCLEANING

. 7841 C /^f

7T

2608-3208.20

The Dumpster Cleaning Area is located south of Building 7841, southeast of the intersection of SouthCarolina and South Dakota roads. The area, which is covered by asphalt pavement, was used for rinsingof dumpsters which received waste paint and solvents from the Solvent/Paint Dock Area Site (Building7220).

The Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Area-Cylinders consists of two areas in the northeast portionof the base where five large cylinders, previously used as weights for crane testing and since removed,were stored. Four of the cylinders were located at the EOD Range and the fifth was located in theweapons storage area near water tower number 1026, west of East Loring Lake.

The Golf Course Maintenance Shed Area, located on Haul Road in the northwest corner of the base,consists of a small building, two storage sheds, and a petroleum underground storage tank (UST). TheUST was installed hi 1991 and in service until 1994. The area was used for equipment maintenance,fueling and washing, and for storage of fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides.

The Chapman Pit Debris Area is an area south of the Chapman Pit Dam where construction debris wasdeposited. The earthen dam was constructed to convert an abandoned sand and gravel pit to arecreational impoundment. Spillway erosion during a 1991 flood resulted hi a sheen on the effluent fromthe eroded area, prompting an investigation of the area.

The 9000 Debris Area, located hi the northeast section of the base, consists of several mounds ofconstruction and demolition debris, probably from demolition of bunkers in the 9000 Area. Exposeddebris included concrete, wood, scrap metal, and filled material.

The Solvent/Paint Dock Area is located adjacent to the east side of Building 7220, which is a largewarehouse. The area outside the loading dock doors was repeatedly impacted by solvent cleaning andpaint stripping of interior floors, when solvent and residue were pushed out the doors into dumpsters.


The Prime Beef Debris Area is a 4- to 5-acre area located in the northeast quadrant of the base, eastof the northern flight line. The debris area consists primarily of construction and demolition debris,

including scrap metal and up to twenty SS-gallon drums.

Buildings 8951 and 8960 Defense Reutilization and Marketing Organization (DRMO), located nearthe eastern boundary of the base, were used for storage of electrical transformers, cable and wire.Transformer oil spills were suspected around the buildings, as evidenced by oil-stained concrete, palletsand rags around Building 8960.

The Old Post Exchange (PX) Gas Station UST is located near the southeast corner of the base. Thegas station was previously demolished and the site is currently covered by asphalt pavement at theintersection of Maine and South Carolina Roads. Geophysical and test pit investigations at the sitedetermined that USTs had been removed.

The F-106A Crash Area, located between the main and secondary runways, is the site of a plane crashhi December 1965, in which the F-106A burst into flames. Historical records regarding possible removalof fuel-contaminated soils are not available.

The Demineralization Plant (Building 7321) is located west of the south end of the flight line in anindustrial area. The plant demineralized water for the base potable water supply. Backwash from thedemoralization process was reportedly discharged into a low swale area, forming a pond southwest ofthe building. The backwash wastewater contained heavy metals.

The Outdoor Firing Range Area is located in the eastern portion of the base and includes the firing line,

skeet range, grenade range, and a debris area. The skeet and grenade ranges are inactive, and the firingline remained active until the base closing hi September 1994. The debris area, located in thesoutheastern portion of the Outdoor Firing Range, contained concrete slabs, paint cans, weathered drums,and earthen mounds.


The EOD Range is a 20-acre grass-covered, fenced area, near the northeast corner of the base. The sitewas previously used for disposal of ammunition by detonation and burning, and for burial of munitionsresidue, spent cartridges, and construction debris. During RI/ASI activities, the Old EOD Range wasidentified. The Old EOD Range encompasses an approximate area of 26 acres, and partially overlapsthe EOD Range. Generally, the Old EOD Range is a wooded area and, prior to its abandonment, wasused for the same activities as the EOD Range. Estimate for the total area of the range is approximately40 acres.

The Contract Storage Shed Area was used for the storage and staging of electrical transformers, wasteoil, and waste chemical drums. The storage shed was demolished and the site is now used as a parkinglot and storage area for groundskeeping equipment.

Installation Restoration Program2608-3208.28 1_6

2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

2.1 SITE HISTORY

Loring AFB was constructed in the late 1940s to support long-range bomber aircraft for the Strategic AirCommand. Military activities that took place at Loring AFB primarily included: aircraft maintenance andrefueling, munitions storage and maintenance, aircraft flight line and industrial area operations, firetraining exercises, and personnel support. As a result of these activities, various contaminants, includingsome hazardous substances present in the materials and compounds stored, used, and disposed over theyears, have entered the environment. The 17 sites described hi Section 1.0 were suspected to becontaminated as a result of such activities.

2.2 ENFORCEMENT ACnvmES

Loring AFB was added to the National Priorities List hi 1990 requiring investigation consistent with Non-Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). A FederalFacilities Agreement (FFA) between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region I, theMaine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP), and the United States Air Force (USAF),signed on January 30, 1991, as amended, governs environmental activities being conducted at LoringAFB. The USAF is responsible for addressing environmental contamination at Loring AFB, underSection 120 of CERCLA and the FFA. The facility was placed on the Base Closure List hi 1991. Thebase was closed hi September 1994.

A Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation (PA/SI) was completed for the Debris Disposal Areas, OU3hi 1993. Seventeen sites were investigated to identify then- status with respect to risk to human healthand the environment. Eleven of these 17 sites, including the Contract Storage Shed Area site, wereidentified as Remedial Investigation/Additional Site Investigation (RI/ASI) sites. Further investigationof these sites was recommended hi 1994. The other six PA/SI sites were recommended for no furtheraction upon which No Further Remedial Action Plan documents were completed in 1994. Among thesesix sites were the Golf Course Maintenance Shed Area site, the Oklahoma Road Debris Area site, andthe Ohio Road Debris Area site, for which limited removal of contaminated soils and debris hadpreviously been performed.


Based on the RI/ASI investigation results for the 11 sites, 5 sites were recommended for no furtheraction, and limited removal action followed by no further action was recommended for 3 other sites.Additional investigation of the Old EOD Range (which is contained within the EOD Range Site) wasrecommended, as this area was not included in the PA/SI or RI/ASI. Further investigation wasrecommended for the Outdoor Firing Range to verify the extent of contamination at the site. Only theContract Storage Shed Area site was recommended for a Feasibility Study (FS). This recommendationwas based on the identification of potential risk posed to human health and the environment bycontaminants detected at the site. Table 2-1 summarizes the nature of the 17 sites hi OU3.

An FS was conducted hi 1996, hi which remedial alternatives that address potential risk at the OU3 siteswere identified and evaluated. This decision document presents the final remedies for OU3, whichconsists of the following 17 sites:

• No further action for the following 14 NFA (no further action) sites:

Ohio Road Debris Area,Oklahoma Road Debris Area,KC-135 Crash Area,Dumpster Cleaning Area Site/Building 7841,Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Area-Cylinders,Golf Course Maintenance Shed Area,Chapman Pit Debris Area,9000 Debris Area,Solvent/Paint Dock Area,Prune Beef Debris Area,Buildings 8951 and 8960 (DRMO),Old PX Gas Station UST,F-106A Crash Area,Demineralization Plant.

• Further investigation for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range.

• Remedial action for the Contract Storage Shed Area site to address thecontaminated soils/sediments.


TABLE 2-1

SUMMARY OF PA/SI, RI/ASI CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 17 SITES IN OU3OU3 Record of Decision

Loring Air Force Base, Maine

SITE NAME DESCRIPTION CONCLUSIONS PA/SI, RI/ASI ACTIONS TAKEN

to

PA/SI SITES (toOhio Road Debris Area

Oklahoma Road DebrisArea

KC-135 Crash Site

Dumpgter Cleaning Area-Building 7841

EOD Area-Cylinders

Golf Course MaintenanceShed

RI/ASI SITES (11)Chapman PitDebris Area

9000 Debris Area

1- to 2-acre wooded area with mounds depression and benns;buried debris and empty drums were removed from the rite.

10-acre area covered by brush and small trees, a potentialdumping area with a 1- to 2-acre filled area.

A KC-135 tanker aircraft wrecked in 1974-1975 at the ritespilling 12,000 pounds of fuel onto the ground.

The area is covered by asphalt and was used for rinsing ofdumpsters which received waste paint and solvent from thesolvent/paint dock area.

Five large cylinders used as weights for crane testing werestored in the area. These cylinders have been removed.

The area was used for equipment maintenance, fueling andwashing, and for storage of fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides.A UST installed in 1991 was taken out of service in 1994 andleft in place for future use.

Originally mined for gravel and Band for base construction.Pond created and used for recreation prior to base closure.Construction related debris deposited in area. Spillway erosionby 1991 flood revealed sheen - prompted investigation of source.Possible demolition debris from 9000 Area bunkers. Probabledeposition since 1980 based on aerial photographs. Exposeddebris includes concrete, wood, scrap metal, and fill soil.

No risk associated with possiblecontamination from previously removeddebris was indicated.

No risk associated with possiblecontamination from debris wasindicated.

No risk associated with possiblecontamination from the fuel spill wasindicated.

No risk associated with possiblecontamination at the rite was indicated.

No risk associated with previouslyremoved cylinders was indicated.

No risk associated with possiblecontamination at the rite was indicated.

Risk assessment indicated that noremediation action is required.

Risk assessment indicated no remedialaction is required after isolated removal.

No Further Action following isolated soilremoval.


No Further Action.

No Further Action.

No Further Action.


No Further Action.

No Further Action following isolatedremoval of soils.

2608-3208.28 I o f 3

TABLE 2-1

SUMMARY OF PA/SI, RI/ASI CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 17 SITES IN OU3OU3 Record of Decision



Solvent/Paint Dock Area

to

Prime Beef Debris Area

Buildings 8951 and 8960

Old PX Gas Station UST

F-106A Crash Site

Denrineralization Plant

Outdoor Firing Range

Located at Building 7220, a warehouse for various materials.Potential contamination a result of periodic paint stripping offloors. Varnish and paint residue visible at site.

35 + year old 4- to S-acre debris area discovered through aerialphotos. Primarily construction/demolition debris and —twentySS-gallon drum remnants. Drum remnants removed.Used for storage of electrical transformers and cable. Variousdebris removed in 1992. Oil spill stains evident. USTinvestigated near Building 8960/8950.Gas station demolished 1950-1960. Currently site is paved.Geophysical and test pit investigations determined that USTs hadbeen removed from the site.Plane crashed on December 7, 1965. Site is between runways inRAPCON area. Fuel contaminated soil detected.

In use early 1980s to 1990s to demineralize base potable water.Site includes small surface-water discharge pond and UST. HC1and NaOH backwash wastes previously discharged to groundsurface. Debris removed in 1992.Site includes Firing Line, Skeet Range, Grenade Range, andDebris Area. Skeet and Grenade Ranges are inactive. Debrisarea contained concrete, paint cans, drums, and burial mounds in1994.

Kficated that noRiskassessmremediation action is required exceptremoval of the tar-like material in theditch, which is suspected to be roofingmaterial and may pose a risk to sitereceptors.Risk assessment indicated that noremedial action is required.

Risk assessment indicated that noCERCLA remediation action isrequired.Risk assessment indicated that noremedial action is required.

Risk assessment indicated mat noCERCLA remedial action is required.

Risk assessment indicated that noremedial action is required after theremoval of pond sediment.

Risk assessment indicated elevatedhuman risk at Debris Area.

No Further Action following isolatedremoval action for tar-like material.

No Further Action.

No Further Action under CERCLA.Site to be addressed by non-CERCLAprogram.No Further Action.

No Further Action under CERCLA.Site to be addressed by non-CERCLAprogram.No Further Action following the removalof Pond sediments

Further investigation recommended todetermine the extent of contaminationfollowing isolated soil removal.

2608-3208.28 2 of 3

TABLE 2-1

SUMMARY OF PA/SI, RI/ASI CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 17 SUES IN OU3OU3 Record of Decision



EOD Range

Contract Storage ShedArea

20-acre fenced rite includes Burn Kettle and Pit Areas, Northand East Disposal Areas, Munitions Burial Area, North DisposalPit, and Cylinder Storage Areas. Site use included disposal ofammunition by detonation and burning and munitions residueburial. Site used prior to mid 1970s and from early 1980s to1988. Old EOD Range identified during RI/ASI activities hasnot yet been investigated.

Former shed (building 7258) demolished. Prior use included thestorage and staging of electrical transformers, waste oil, andwaste chemical drums and electrical transformer handling. Sitecurrently used as parking and groundskeeping equipment storagewith gravel and grass coverage of site.

Further investigation is required for theOld EOD Range.

Further investigation is warranted forthe Old EOD Range.

Risk assessment indicated elevated riskto human and ecological receptors bysoils and sediments.

Feasibility study recommended forsoil/sediment.

PREPARED/DATE:CHECKED/DATE

: fa*: >£^

2608-3208.28 3 of 3

3.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Throughout LAFB's history, the community has been active and involved in base activities at a highlevel. The USAF and USEPA have kept the community and other interested parties apprised of LAFBactivities through informational meetings, fact sheets, press releases, public meetings, site tours and openhouses, as well as Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meetings. The RAB is chaired by USAF andcommunity representatives.

The LAFB Community Relations Plan (CRP) was released in August 1991 and revised in May 1995.The CRP outlined a program to address community concerns and keep citizens informed and involvedduring remedial activities. The CRP can be found in the Administrative Record.

On June 24, 1992, the USAF made the LAFB Administrative Record available for public review. TheAdministrative Record is currently available for public review at the Air Force Base Conversion AgencyOffice, 5100 Texas Road, Limestone, Maine. The FS Report and Proposed Plan (PP) for OU3, at LoringAFB, were released to the public in July 1996. These two documents were made available to the publicin the Administrative Record. The USAF published a notice of availability of these documents in theBangor Daily News, the Aroostook Republican, and the Fort Fairfield Review on June 26, 1996.

From July 8, 1996 through August 7, 1996, the USAF held a 30-day public comment period to acceptpublic input on the alternatives presented in the FS and the Proposed Plan, as well as other documentspreviously released to the public. On July 10,1996, LAFB personnel and regulatory representatives helda public meeting to discuss the Proposed Plan and to accept any oral comments. A transcript of this

meeting is included as Appendix A, and a Responsiveness Summary is included as Appendix B.


4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION

The OU3 Response Action for the Debris Disposal Areas (17 sites) at Loring AFB addresses thesoils/sediments. Groundwater issues for OU3 will be addressed under OU12 and the surface waters willbe addressed in OU13. Groundwater at the EOD Range will be addressed as part of the furtherinvestigation.

Limited removal actions have been previously performed for eight of the OU3 sites (Ohio Road DebrisArea, Oklahoma Road Debris Area, Golf Course Maintenance Shed, 9000 Debris Area, Solvent/PaintDock Area, Demineralization Plant, Outdoor Firing Range, EOD Range). The fourteen NFA sites ofthe OU3 sites, including six (Ohio Road Debris Area, Oklahoma Road Debris Area, Golf CourseMaintenance Shed, 9000 Debris Area, Solvent/Paint Dock Area, Demineralization Plant) of those forwhich limited removal actions were performed, currently do not pose risk to human health and theenvironment. No further action will be taken for the 14 NFA sites. Further investigation of the OutdoorFiring Range and EOD Range sites is proposed.

Remedial actions are recommended for the soils/sediments at the Contract Storage Shed Area site. Thecontaminated soils/sediments pose risk to both human health and the environment. The chemicals ofpotential concern (COPCs) include metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, pesticides and fuel oil. Theprimary exposure routes for risk to human and ecological receptors are incidental ingestion, inhalation,and dermal contact with soils/sediments. The purpose of the response action is to address the riskpresented by the soils/sediments so as to provide adequate protection to human health and theenvironment. Implementation of the selected alternative for the Contract Storage Shed Area would

include the following activities:

• Excavation of soils for which associated contamination exceeds the RGs, exceptchlordane-contaminated soils;

• Confirmation sampling to ensure soils exceeding the RGs, except chlordane-contaminated soils, have been excavated;

• On-base disposal of the excavated soils hi Landfill No. 3;


Placement of a 2-foot thick clean soil cover over the chlordane-contaminatedareas, with proper erosion protection;

• Implementation of institutional controls, and

• Wastewater treatment, if required.

The excavation, removal and disposal at Landfill No. 3 of the soils with contamination exceeding theRGs, and placement of the soil cover over the chlordane-contaminated soils will protect against humanexposure to the contaminated soils, and prevent migration of contaminants to the groundwater. Theapplication of institutional controls will protect against future human exposure to the chlordane-contaminated soils exceeding the RGs. The remedy will achieve the following remedial responseobjectives at the Contract Storage Shed Area Site:

• Prevent incidental ingestion and direct contact by humans with contaminated soil;

• Minimize human exposure to contaminated soil through inhalation of fugitivedusts, and

• Prevent contaminant migration to the groundwater.


5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

5.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF OU3 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Operable Unit 3 of Loring AFB includes 17 debris and disposal sites (Figure 1-1). The OU3 sites wereincluded in a PA/SI which was completed in 1993. Six sites were found to have minimal sitecontamination and were recommended for no further action, or no further action after limited soilremoval. Detailed descriptions of the site investigative activities for these six sites are provided hi thePA/SI Technical Report for OU3, Loring AFB (LAW, 1994). A brief site description, site assessmentconclusions, and a summary of recommendations for the six PA/SI no further action sites are providedin Table 2-1.

Following the PA/SI, 11 sites were recommended for RI/ASI. As appropriate, soil, sediment, surface-water, and groundwater samples were collected at each site and were analyzed for metals, volatile andsemi-volatile organic compounds (VOC and SVOC), pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls and fuels. Adetailed description of investigative activities, analytical results, potential fate and transport mechanisms,and risk assessments for each of the RI/ASI sites is provided hi the Final RI/ASI Technical Report forOU3, Loring AFB (LAW, 1996a). Three (Chapman Pit Debris Area, Prune Beef Debris Area, Old PXGas Station UST) of the eleven sites included in the RI/ASI had minimal detected contamination and wererecommended for no further action. Five sites (9000 Debris Area, Solvent/Paint Dock Area,Demineralization Plant, Outdoor Firing Range, and EOD Range) had areas of contamination which wereaddressed by limited removal actions. Two sites (Building 8951 and 8960, F-106A Crash Site) had areasof fuel contamination which were addressed by non-CERCLA programs. Upon completion of limited

removal actions, three sites (9000 Debris Area, Solvent/Paint Dock Area, Demineralization Plant) of thefive removal action sites posed no further risk to human health and the environment. Confirmatorysamples were collected following these removal actions, resulting in residual contamination levels withinthe acceptable risk range. The other two removal action sites, and the Contract Storage Shed Area sitewere recommended for other actions described below.


During the isolated removal action at the Outdoor Firing Range, background samples were foundcontaining elevated lead levels. Therefore, further investigation was recommended to verify the extentof the contamination at the site.

During investigative activities at the EOD Range Site, an additional area of concern, the Old EOD Range,was discovered. Because the Old EOD Range was not included in the area investigated during theRI/ASI, further investigation of soil and groundwater media is proposed for the EOD Range. Theinvestigation of the EOD Range is scheduled to occur in 1997.

Based on the results of the RI/ASI, an FS for the Contract Storage Shed Area site was recommended andcompleted in June 1996. The contaminants which presented risks above target risk levels in soil andsediment included polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, metals and Aroclor-1260.Contaminants detected in groundwater will be addressed under OU12.

A brief description, site assessment conclusions, and a summary of recommendations for the 11 RI/ASIsites are provided in Table 2-1. Important site characteristics for the Contract Storage Shed Area site,which were discussed hi the Final RI/ASI and FS Technical Reports, are summarized hi the followingSection.

5.2 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE CONTRACT STORAGE SHED AREA

This section provides a description of the Contract Storage Shed Area site, a brief overview of the sitehistory, and a discussion of the nature and extent of contamination as determined from the RI/ASI.

5.2.1 Site Location and Description

The Contract Storage Shed Area site is located hi the south central portion of the Loring AFB, west ofthe airfield, south of the supply buildings hi the northeast quadrant of the Weinman Road and KansasRoad intersection, and west of the railroad tracks. A demolished storage shed (Building 7258) at the site


was open on the east side facing the railroad tracks and flightline. The site is primarily covered withgrass, except for a gravel area west of the former building location.

The closest residential population is located south of East Gate of Loring AFB, approximately 2,100 feetfrom the site. Because of the industrial nature of the site, few ecological receptors have been observedhi the vicinity. A drainage culvert is located on the northeastern side of the site, next to the railroadtracks, but has only intermittent flow following rain events or winter thaw. Currently, groundwater isnot used as a drinking water or industrial process water within the confines of Loring AFB.

5.2.2 Site History

The Contract Storage Shed Area site historically served as an industrial waste handling area. The storageshed has since been removed. Prior to demolition of Building 7258, this site was used for the storageand staging of electrical transformers, waste oil and waste chemical drums. The materials stored in thisshed were similar to those currently stored hi the Chemical Storage Building 7230.

The Contract Storage Shed Area site is currently used as a parking lot and storage area forgroundskeeping equipment. The future use of the site is expected to remain industrial and has beenclassified as airport-support property by the Loring Redevelopment Authority (Loring AFB, 1993).

The suspected sources of contaminants at the Contract Storage Shed Area site are spills which occurredduring the handling of electrical transformers, waste oil, and waste chemical drums. Accidental releasesin this area were witnessed by base personnel. Drums with location identifications which included Drum

Storage, Stockroom 03B, and Building 7258, contributed to some of the spills. Pesticide mixing at the

site was verbally reported, but has not been confirmed by written documentation.These accidental releaseshave impacted surface and subsurface soils, sediments, and groundwater. The frequency of detection,the range of detected concentrations, background concentrations for media of concern, and the selectedCOPCs for chemicals detected in soils, sediments, and groundwater are presented in Tables 5-1 through5-6.

Installation Restoration Program2608-3208.28 5.3

TABLE5-1

CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SURFACE SOIL (0-2 FEET)Record of Declaim

Coartnct Stonge Shed An*. OU3Lormg AFB, Mtime

Panmeter

METALS:AluminumAnenic

* BariumBeryllium

•CadmiumChromiumCobalt

•Copper+ Le»d•Manganese

MercuryNickel

+ Silver+ Thallium

Vanadium+ Zinc

Frequencyof

Detection

37/3737/3737/375/3734/3737/3737/3735/3737/3737/371/37

37/3729/375/3737/3737/37

MeanConcentration

(mg/kg)

110005.971

0.170.930123025

8100.054

380320.05

2397

MinimumDetected

Concentration("»***•)

13003.526

0.220.04

218.920 JH8.7390

270.150X17

1151 JH

MaximumDetected

Concentration(mg/kg)

250009.6220035

274418

160110

27000.11

570.680.136

410

ConsensusBackground


2540016293311.8

0.21156.918.565.622.614000.17

730.09<0.1

4083.9|

PESTICIDES/PCBs:• 4,4'-DDD• 4,4'-DDE• 4,4'-DDT• Aroclor-1260• CUordane

Dieldrin+ Heptachlor

VOLATfLES:+ Acetone•I- Methytene Chloride•(-Toluene+ Trichloroetnene

•FUEL OIL IN SOIL

SEMI-VOLATILES:•I- 2-Methyffiaphthalene+ Acenaphthene+ Anthracene

•(anthracene

b)huorantheneBenzo(gi4)perytene

• Benzo(k)auoranthene+ Butyl benzyl phthalate• Chrywne

+ Di-n-butyiphthahUe• Dibenz(aji)anthracene

+ Dibenzofunn•I- Diethylphthalate+ Fluorantbene•I- Fluorene• Indeno(l,23-cd)pvrene

+ Naphthalene+ Pnenanthrene•Pyrene

+ bis(2-ethylbexyl)phthalate

Total PAHs

19/3734/3735/376/373/371/372/37

2/3737/3717/372/37

20/37

6/3712/3715/3723/3719/3722/3712/3713/379/37

21/3733/373/378/372/3726/3710/3613/3715/3728/3728/3732/37

0310.984.9

047 E0.61

0.042 E0X06 E

0.0060.026

0.00230.0036

712

0320.890.721.41.11.4

0.680.6502 E1.4

0390.27 E0350.28 E22

0.570.640.612332

0.18

0.0012 JQ0.0016

0X10093 J0.035 J0.061

0.0006 JH

0.0049 JQ0.0041 JQ

0.00024 J0.0004 JQ

13

0.012 JQ0.0079 JQ0.018 JQ

0X11 JQ0.0061 JQ

0X117 JQOXO JQ

0.016 JQ0X118 JQ0X03JQ0.054 JQ0.022 JQ0X113 JQ0.042 JQ0X85JQ0.034 JQ0X118 JQ

0.0058 JQ0.0061 JQ

0.01 JQ0.0099 JQ

7.6 J23

1000.4262

0.0019 J0.0006 JH

0.0310.13

0.0068OX>31

24000J

1.9 J26J19 J37 J30J37 J17 J15 J

0.15 J38J1.1 JH

0.079 JQ6.6 J

OXT76 JQ59 J12 J16 J17 J76 J97 J

0.13 J

496 L 6.241

• Chemical of Potential Concern baaed on comparison to background, frequency of detection, and human health toxicity screen.-I- Additional constituent of concern for ecological aiaeaiment

Boxing indicate! nuTiimim concentration exceed! Consensus Background ConcentrationE Average concentration greater than marimiim concentration. Maximum concentration uted in risk calculations.J Estimated concentration

JQ Ei timated concentration below quantitation limitJH Estimated concentration with high bias— Only detected once

Note: ConaenMH BackgroundTwo contensw agreements, issued in 1994 and 1995 and ugned by the itate of Maine, USEPA and Loring AFB,hit the inorganic and per/cyclic aromatic hydrocarbon background levels for soil, sediment and surface water.

PREPARED/DATE:CHECKED/DATE: Iff. iJ

2608-3208285-4

TABLE 5-2

CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SUBSURFACE SOIL (0-10 FEET)Record of Decision

Contract Storage Shed Area, OU3Loring AFB, Maine

Parameter

METALS:AluminumArsenic

'BariumBeryllium

'CadmiumCalciumChromiumCobalt

•CopperIronLeadMagnesium

'ManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSilverThalliumVanadiumZinc

PESTICIDES/PCBs:* 4,4'-DDD• 4,4'-DDE* 4,4'-DDT

Aldrin* Chlordane

DieldrinEndosullanHeptachlorHeptachlor epoxide

'Arodor-1260

VOLATILES:2-ButanoncAcetoneChloroformbans- 1,2-DkhloroetheneEthylbenzeneMethyiene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichloroethene

Frequencyof

Detection

84/8484/8484/8424/8467/8484/848(V8486/8686/8686/8686/8686/8686/863/8684/8486/8659/869/8486/8686/86

30/8450/8456/841/863/861/861/865/861/865/86

2/8618/841/861/861/86

67/841/86

38/843/86

MeanConcentration

(mgfcg)

130005355

0.190.41

12000291231

2600018

6900790

0.05538

5400.230.05

2190

0.140.4722

0.018 E031

0.022 E0.018 E0.013 E0.022 E0.44 E

0.00610.018

0.0029 E0.0029 E0.00290.024

0.00290.00240.0039

MinimumDetected

Concentration(rag/kg)

13001.114

0.160.04

226.811

25009.7

35002500.11

242700.150.072.28.2

0.00070.000980.00062

0.17

0.00053

0.035

0.000950.0049

0.0014

0.000220.004 JQ

MaximumDetected

Concentration(«g/kg)

250009.6220

0.8627

1100004418

16053000

1101300029000.19

571000

0.70.11

36410

7.6 J23

1000.0014

620.0019 JQ0.0027

0.00073 J0.00037

0.42

0.0180.17

0.0003 JQ0.0023 JQ0.0045

0.140.00390.0068 JQ0.042

ConsensusBackgroundConcentration

(«g/kg)

2540016.2933 11.8

0.2169700

56.918.565.6

4710022.6

1270014000.17

7329000.09<0.1

4083.9|

FUEL OIL IN SOIL 42/84 NC 18 24000J

2608-3208.28 5-5 Iof2

TABLE 5-2

CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SUBSURFACE SOIL (0-10 FEET)Record of Decision


Parameter Frequency Minimum Maximumof Mean Detected Detected

Detection Concentration Concentration Concentration(mg/kg) (mg/kg) («g/kg)

ConsensusBackgroundConcentration

SEMI-VOLATILES:2-Methylnaphthalene 11/84Acenaphthene 18/84Anthracene 19/84

* Benzo(a)anthracene 31/84* Benzo(a)pyrene 25/84* Benzo(b)fiuoranthene 28/84

Benzo(g4u)peryiene 16/84* Benzo(k)fluoranthene 17/84

BenzoicAcid 1/86Butyl benzyl phthaUte 15/84

* Chrysene 25/84Di-n-butyl phthalate 72/84Di-n-octyl phthalate 1/86

* Dibenz(a,h)anthraccne 4/86Dibenzofuran 13/84Diethyiphthalatc 3/86

* Fluoranthene 35/84Fluorcne 11/81

* Indeno(l,23-cd)pyrene 16/84Naphthalene 23/84N-nitrosodi-n-propyiamine 1/86Phenanthrene 39/84

* Pyrene 37/84bis(2-ethylhexyi)phthalate 62/84

Total PAHs

0.250.930.971.7131.5

0.750.741.4 E

0.2815

0330.28 E0320.4

0.25 E25

0.570.74051OJ22.619

0.19

0.012 JQ0.0079 JQ0.018 JQ0.01 JQ

0.0061 JQ0.034 JQ0.026 JQ0.12 JQ

0.018 JQ0.033 JQ

0.0054 JQ

0.022 JQ0.014 JQ

0.0076 JQ0.016 JQ0.034 JQ0.018 JQ

0.0038 JQ

0.0061 JQ0.01 JQ

0.008 JQ

2.727 J54J88J76 J96J35 J32 J130.667 J15

0.04212 J11J

0.084 JQ130 J26J36J17 J

3.6130 J120 J13 J

946 6.24|

* Chemical of Potential Concern selected on basis on comparison to background, frequency of detection, and human health toxicity screenJ Estimated Concentration

Boxing indicates maximum concentration exceeds Consensus Background ConcentrationE Average concentration greater than maximum concentration; maximum used in all risk calculations.

JH Estimated concentration with high biasJQ Estimated concentration below quantitation limits

— — Only detected onceNote: Consensus Background

Two consensus agreements, issued in 1994 and 1995 and signed by the state of Maine, USEPA and Loring AFB,list the inorganic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon background levels for soil, sediment and surface water.

PREPARED/DATE:CHECKED/DATE: ~)CC. UJ

Wft

2608-3208.285-6 2 of 2

TABLE 5-3

CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SEDIMENTSRecord of Decision


Parameter

METALS:AluminumArsenic

* Barium* Beryllium

CadmiumChromiumCobaltCopperIron

•LeadManganese

* Mercury• Nickel

Vanadium•Zinc

PESTIClDES/PCEs:• 4,4'-DDD• 4,4'-DDE• 4,4'-DDT• Aroclor-1254• Aroclor-1260* Chlordane

VOLATILE ORGANICS:2-ButanoneTetrachloroethene1,1,1 -Trichloroethane

SEMI-VOLATILES:AcenaphtheneAnthracene

* Benzo(a)anthracene* Benzo(a)pyrene* Benzo(b)fluoranthene

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene* Benzo(k)fluoranthene

bis(2-ethyihexyl)phthalate* Chrysene

Fluoranthene• Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene

4-MethylphenolPhenanthrenePyrene

* Fuel Oil in SoU

Frequencyof

Detection

2/22/22/21/21/22/22/22/22/22/22/21/22/22/22/2

1/21/22/21/21/21/2

1/22/22/2

1/22/22/22/22/22/22/21/22/22/22/21/22/22/2

212

MeanConcentration

(mg/kg)

140005.773

0.520.22 E

261126

2800033

5100.09

3419

130

0.0210.0160.014

0.150.18

0.086

0.007 E0.00280.0045

0.23 E0.098 E

0.30.310.480.190.150.190.390.540.2

0.110.310.63

53

MinimumDetected

Concentration(»g/kg)

130005

4.7— —--239.119

2600015

390--327.969

__--

0.018— —— -— —

--0.001 JQ0.002 J

— -0.054 JQ0.14 JQ0.18 JQ0.27 JQ0.1 JQ

0.079 JQ— —

0.22 JQ0.25 JQ0.12 JQ__

0.14 JQ0.44

18

MaximumDetected


160007.1120

0.780.1 JL281232

3000050

7300.16

3524

180

0.039 JH0.029 JH0.035 J

0.280.330.16

0.004 JQ0.004 JQ0.006 JQ

0.05 JQ0.071 JQ0.38 JQ0.35 JQ0.55 JQ0.24 JQ0.19 JQ0.19 JQ0.43 JQ0.710.25 J0.11 JQ0.4 JQ0.9

80

ConsensusBackground


2300016.7114

0.63<0.31

50.227.843.8

4260024

29900.13

1639.41201

* Chemical of Potential Concern (selected on basis of comparison to background and tozkity screen)Boxing indicates maximum concentration exceeds Consensus Background Concentrations

-- Only detected onceE Average greater than maximum concentration. Maximum concentration used in all risk calculations.J Estimated concentration

JQ Estimated below quantitation limitsJH Estimated with high biasJL Estimated with low bias

Note: Consensus BackgroundTwo consensus agreements, issued in 1994 and 1995 and signed by the state of Maine, USEPA and Loring AFB,list the inorganic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon background levels for soil, sediment and surface water.

PREPARED/DATE:CHECKED/DATE:

2608-3208.285-7

TABLE 5-4

CHEMICALS DETECTED IN OVERBURDEN GROUNDWATERRecord of Decision


Parameter Frequency Minimum Maximum Overburdenof Mean Detected Detected Background

Detection Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration(mg/L) (mg/L) («gfl-) (mg/L)

Maine MaximumExposure ContaminantGuidelines Level

(mg/L) (mg/L)

METALS (TotaiyAluminum 4/4

* Barium 4/4Calcium 4/4Chromium 3/4Cobalt 3/4Copper 3/4Iron 3/4Lead 3/4Magnesium 4/4

* Manganese 3/4Mercury 3/4Nickel 3/4Potassium 4/4Sodium 4/4Vanadium 3/4Zinc 4/4

PESTlCIDES/PCBs:4,4'-DDT 1/4

590.67140

0.130.052

0.13118

0.04377

0.00030.165.870

0.080.26

0.065 E

5.60.038

140.13

0.0550.13110

0.04733

30.00026

0.122.830

0.0880.031

962

3500.24

0.0830.2220

0.0626917

0.00044033

9100

0.120.43

0.00011

335

8960.67903780.569

6060.228

19714

0.0011.0722.6

0.4261.7

0.00083 NA

VOLAT1LES ORGANICS:* 1,1-Dichloroethene* trans-l,2-Dichloroethene* Chloroform* Trichloroethene•Vinyl Chloride

* Fuel Oil in Water

* Gasoline in Water

1/41/42/41/41/4

1/4

1/4

0.000830.0012

0.000490.0010.028

0.032

0.017

0.00180.0033

0.00036 JO 0.00059 JQ0.0026

0.11 J

0.052

0.037

0.0070.070.1 (a)

0.005| 0.000151 |

I 0.05|

0.05

0.0070.1

0.1/0.08 (a)0.0050.002 |

NA

NA

* Chemical of Potential Concern (selected on basis of comparison to background and regulatory criteria)AL Action Level

J Estimated ConcentrationJQ Estimated concentration below quantitation limit

MEG State of Maine Maximum Exposure GuidelineMCL USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level, November 1994

S Secondary MCL, based on taste, odor or color(a) Value is for total Irihalomethanes

Boxing indicates maximum concentration exceeds background or regulatory guidance-- Only detected onceNA Not available

E Average concentration greater than maximum detected concentration

PREPARED/DATECHECKED/DATE:

2608-3208.28 5-8

TABLE 5-5

CHEMICALS DETECTED IN BEDROCK GROUNDWATERRecord of Decision

Contract Storage Shed Area, OU3LoringAFB, Maine

Parameter

METALS (Total):AluminumBariumCalciumIronMagnesium

* ManganesePotassiumSodium

VOLATILES:•Acetone

Ethyibenzene•Xylene

SEMI-VOLATILES:* 2,4- Dimethyiphenol* 2-Methyinaphthalene* 2-Methylphcnol* Acenaphthene* Fluorene* Naphthalene* Phenol

•Fuel Oil in Water

•Gasoline in Water

Frequencyof

Detection

3/33/33/33/33/33/33/33/3

1/31/32/3

1/31/31/31/31/32/31/3

2/3

2/3

MeanConcentration

(mg/L)

0.530.282651.7301

Z8132

0.12 E0.045 E

0.46

0.00670.00870.00530.0043 E0.0037 E

0.0210.0053

237

2^4

MinimumDetected

Concentration(mg/L)

an0.047

140O236.1

0.0791.816 JH

0.0095 JQ

0.002 JQ

0.83

0.97

MaximumDetected

Concentration(mg/L)

130.614704.6532

2.9280 JH

0.097 J0.0094 J

L8

0.0120.0210.006 JQ0.001 JQ0.001 JQ0.072 J0.007 JQ

6.0

8.5

Bedrock MaineBackground ExposureConcentration Guidelines

(mg/L) (mg/L)

1.640.0963

1578332Z1

0.0944.45143

1.43IS

NANANA

1 0.21NANA

NA0.7

1 0.61

NANANANANA

| 0.025 JNA

I 0.051

1 0.051

MaximumContaminant

Level(«g/L)

| 0.05 to 0.22

NAI 0.3

NA| 0.05

NANA

NA0.710

NANANANANANANA

NA

NA

s|

s|s|

* Chemical of Potential Concern (selected on basis of comparison to background and available regulatory criteria)J Estimated Concentration

JQ Estimated below quantitation limitJH Estimated with high bias

MEG State of Maine Maximum Exposure GuidelineMCL USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level, November 1994

S Secondary MCL, based on taste, odor or colorBoxing indicates maximum concentration exceeds background or regulatory criteria

— Only detected onceNA Not available

E Average greater than maximum concentration. Maximum concentration used in all risk calculations.


2608-3208.285-9

TABLE 5-«

CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SEDIMENTSSELECTION OF ECOLOGICAL COPC* (a)

Record of DeciiiomContract Storage Sked Area. OU3

Loriag Air Force Base, hiaiBe

Parameter

Metals Cmc/kcVAluminumArsenic

• Barium• Beryllium* Cadmium

CalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIron

• LeadManganese

• MercuryPotassiumSodium

• NickelVanadium

• Zinc

Pesticides/PCBs fmt/lml:• 4,4'-DDD• 4,4'-DDE• 4,4'-DDT

+ • Aroclor-1254* Aroclor-1260• Chlordane

Volatiles (mt/brt:+ • 2-Butanone+• Tetrachloroethene+• 1,1,1-Trichloroethane

Semi-Volatiles (nut/tart:AcenaphtheneAnthraceneBenzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(g,h,i)peryleneBenzo(k)fluoranthenebis(2 -ethylhexyl)phthalateChryseneFluorantheneIndeno(l,2,3 -cd)pyrene4-MethylphenolPhenanthrenePyrene

Total Organic Carbon, percent

Notes:

Frequencyof

Detection

2/22/22/21/21/22/22/22/22/22/22/22/21/22/22/22/22/22/2

1/21/22/21/21/21/2

1/22/22/2

1/22/22/22/22/22/22/21/22/22/22/21/22/22/2

2/2

ConsensusMean Minimum

Concentration Concentration

140005.773

0.520.22 E

11000261126

2800033

5100.09980503419

130

0.0210.0160.0140.150.18

0.086

E0.0028

E

EE

0.30.310.480.190.150.190.390.540.2

0.110.310.63

2.4

130005

4.7----

5100239.119

2600015

390--9004632

7.969

----

0.018------

--0.001 JQ0.002 J

--0.054 JQ0.14 JQ0.18 JQ0.27 JQ0.1 JQ

0.079 JQ— -

0.22 JQ0.25 JQ0.12 JQ

— —0.14 JQ0.44

0.85

Maximum BackgroundConcentration Concentration

16000 230007.1 16.7120 1

0.78 0.0.1 JL <C

22000 17

L463.31100

28 50.212 27.832 43.8

30000 4260050 24

730 29900.16 0.1500 11

1340

73 84.835 1624 39.4

180 120

0.039 JH0.029 JH0.035 J0.280.330.16

0.004 JQ0.004 JQ0.006 JQ

0.05 JQ0.071 JQ0.38 JQ0.35 JQ0.55 JQ0.24 JQ0.19 JQ0.19 JQ0.43 JQ0.710.25 J0.11 JQ0.4 JQ0.9

SS

Boxing indicates that maximum concentration exceeds background concentration.(a) The selection criteria for COPCs for this site is described in the ecological risk ass(nsment section of the RI Report.E Mean may include average of duplicate results and one-half of detection limit for n on -detects.

exceeds maximum concentration.Mean used in calculations unless it

* Sediment COPCs for the comparison to aquatic RTVs.+ Surface soil (SS) COPCs (i.e., used for the evaluation of terrestrial wildlife exposure)J Estimated value

JL Estimated value biased lowJH Estimated value biased high j>~\JQ Estimated value below the method quantitation limit (/ )/>- - Only detected once

RTV Reference Toxicity ValuePREPARED/DATEvf/CxCHECKED/DATE: if^t.

C/'t/t,faf I/ &/ I/I/ 9aS*c

2608-3208.285-10

5.2.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination

SoU

Based on sample results obtained from the PA/SI, the surface soils (0- to 2-foot depth) and subsurfacesoils (greater than 2 feet) at the Contract Storage Shed Area site were subjected to additional samplingduring the RI/ASI. Organic analytes found in the surface soils included fuel oil, PAHs, pesticides,polychlorinated biphenyls, VOCs, and SVOCs (Table 5-1). The PAHs and pesticides were the mostsignificant of these compounds. PAHs detected in samples located in the central to western part of thesite and in the northern portion of the site may be due to petroleum or related product releases. PAHsdetected along the eastern side of the railroad tracks may be attributed to the creosote-treated timbers ofthe railroad tracks. Pesticides detected include 4,4'-DDT and metabolites 4,4'-DDE and 4,4'-DDD,chlordane, and heptachlor.

The same organic compounds detected hi the surface soils were also detected hi the subsurface soils, butat lower concentrations (Table 5-2). Again, PAHs and pesticides were the predominant contaminants.The deepest, significant concentration of PAHs occurred along the western edge of the site, at a depthof 6 feet. The pesticide chlordane was detected above the remedial goals (RGs), at a depth of 0 to 2 feet,hi the former Building 7258 location. Figure 10-1 (Section 10.0) shows the locations and depths of soilcontamination where RGs are exceeded at the site.

Sediments

Sediment samples collected along either side of the railroad tracks were contaminated primarily withPAHs, pesticides, fuel oil and to a lesser degree, other constituents (Table 5-3). A sediment samplecollected near the southwest corner of the site indicated primarily pesticide contamination.


Groundwater

Remediation of the groundwater at the Contract Storage Shed Area site will be addressed under OU12.Groundwater is present in both the overburden and the bedrock at the site. Tables 5-4 and 5-5 presentthe positive analytical results for overburden and bedrock, respectively. Sampling results from theoverburden aquifer indicated the presence of volatile organic compounds, fuel oil, 4,4'-DDT, and metals.The presence of chlorinated VOCs may be due to releases or migration from an off-site source. Theoccurrence of 4,4'-DDT hi the groundwater is potentially due to a surface release of pesticide at this site.Constituents detected hi the bedrock aquifer upgradient from the site included fuel oil, gasoline, VOCs,SVOCs, and metals. Fuel oil, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and PAHs were detected hi samples collected hithe bedrock aquifer downgradient from the Contract Storage Shed Area site.

Seven groundwater samples were collected from monitoring wells screened hi the overburden and bedrockintervals. COPCs hi overburden wells include barium, manganese, five VOCs, fuel oil and gasoline(Table 5-4). COPCs hi bedrock wells include manganese, acetone, xylene, seven SVOCs, fuel oil, andgasoline (Table 5-5).


TABLE 6-1

TOTAL SITE RISKS FOR EACH RECEPTOR - SOIL AND SEDIMENTRecord of Decision

Contract Storage Shed Ann, OU3Lortaf Air Force Base, Maine

ON

RECEPTOR

Current and Future Land U«c:Youth Trespasser

Groundslcccpcr

Maintenance/Utility Worker

Commercial/Industrial Worker

Construction Worker

EXPOSURE ROUTE

Incidental Ingestion of SoilDermal Contact with SoilInhalation of Particulates from SoilDermal Contact with Sediment

TOTAL

Incidental Ingestion of SoilDermal Contact with SoilInhalation of Particulates from Soil

TOTAL

Incidental Ingestion of SoilDermal Contact with SoilInhalation of Particulates from SoilDermal Contact with Sediment

TOTAL

Incidental Ingestion of SoilDermal Contact with SoilInhalation of Particulates from Soil

TOTAL

Incidental Ingestion of Soil (0-10 ft)Dermal Contact with Soil (0-10 ft.)Inhalation of Particulates from Soil

TOTAL

BASED ON MAXIMUM (RME) CONCENTRATIONSTotal Cancer Risk Total Hazard Index

9E-062E-038E-092E-05

2E-03

6E-063E-035E-07

3E-03

5E-06IE-033E-102E-05

IE-03

3E-051E423E-09

IE-02

4E-052E-039E-06

IE-03

0.13

0.020.3

3

0.022.00.6

3

0.011

0.00030.09

1

0.19

0.004

9

332292

327

BASED ON MEAN (AVG) CONCENTRATIONSTotal Cancer Risk Total Hazard Index

5E-07IE-053E-102E-OJ

3E-05

3E-072E-072E-08

5E-07

2E-079E-06IE-11IE-05

2E-05

IE-06IE-04IE-10

IE-04

9E-078E-062E-07

9E-06

0.010.10.010.1

03.

0.0030.10.2

03

0.0020.02

0.00010.05

0.07

0.010.2

0.001

0.2

0.3I

79

80

RME - Reasonable maximum exposure

PREPARED/DATE:CHECKED/DATE: JfC. tJ

2608-3208.28

guidance target. The primary contributors to cancer risks due to exposure to soils and sediment are thecarcinogenic PAHs, pesticides and Aroclor-1260. Dermal exposures contributed the most to the cancerrisk. Inhalation of fugitive dust is insignificant relative to the ingestion and dermal exposures. Risksassociated with fugitive dusts are less than 1 x 10"5 for the exposures evaluated.

Noncarcinogenic Risks

Based on hazard indexes (His) calculated for each receptor (see Table 6-1), noncarcinogenic health effectsdue to exposure to subsurface soils at the Contract Storage Shed Area site would be expected due to thepresence of manganese, cadmium, pesticides, and noncarcinogenic PAHs.

6.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

This section presents a summary of the ecological risk assessment (ERA) results obtained as part of theRI investigation of the Contract Storage Shed Area site (LAW, 1996a). Analytes detected in the surfacesoil and sediment were selected for the quantitative estimate of the likelihood for adverse effects to occurto a variety of receptors. The ERA identified eight ecological receptors to represent multiple trophic levelexposures to surface soil and sediments at the site. A summary of the analytes detected at the site forthe surface soil and sediment COPCs identified for ecological receptors are presented in Tables 5-1and 5-6, for surface soil and sediment, respectively. Exposure pathways for groundwater and subsurfacesoil were not identified for ecological receptors.

As described in the biological characterization associated with the ERA (LAW, 1996a), the landscape of

the site is predominantly grass-covered, with small tree islands located hi the northwestern corner of thesite. Wetlands are not present at the site, and the only available aquatic habitat is intermittently availablein drainage ditches. Terrestrial wildlife receptors may find suitable habitat and forage areas at the site;however, considering the industrialized nature of the area in general, ecological exposure is consideredlimited. Terrestrial wildlife may be exposed to surface soils and sediments (i.e., when sediments aredry), thus incidental exposure to these media and uptake via the food chain were evaluated. For eachhabitat type, the following receptors were assessed:


• Terrestrial habitat: vegetation, invertebrates, meadow vole, Americankestrel, red fox, American robin, maritime garter snake

• Semi-aquatic habitat: amphibians

6.2.1 Summary of Risk Characterization

The results of the ERA indicated that ecological receptors are at risk from exposure to contaminants inthe surface soils and sediments at the site. Conclusions regarding the likelihood for adverse effects werebased on hazard quotient (HQ) modeling studies which were conducted in accordance with the LoringAFB Risk Assessment Methodology. Acute and chronic HQs were summed to yield acute and chronicHis, respectively. His which exceeded a value of 1 were considered to indicate that adverse effects mayoccur for ecological receptors. HQs were then evaluated to determine the primary risk contributor(s).

Acute (lethal) and/or chronic (sublethal) His exceeded 1 for the meadow vole, American robin,invertebrates, vegetation, and amphibians. His for terrestrial wildlife receptors ranged from 1.1 (chroniceffects for the meadow vole) to 47 (acute effects for invertebrates). Primary risk contributors were 4,4'-DDD; 4,4'-DDE; 4,4'-DDT; chlordane; and metals (primarily cadmium). The American robin is themost likely receptor to be exposed to COPCs, because the site is characteristic of robin forage areas; and,the robin's diet is comprised of primarily invertebrates, such as earthworms. The robin acute and chronicHis were 3.5 and 9.3, respectively, indicating a low likelihood for adverse effects. His and HQs for thered fox, maritime garter snake, and American kestrel did not exceed a value of 1.

His for amphibians were 140 and 78 for acute and chronic effects, respectively, indicating adverse effects

are likely for these receptors. Primary risk contributors were mainly AR-1260 (with an HQ of 66) andchlordane (with an HQ of 23). Additional analytes (i.e., those with HQs ranging from 1 to 6) includedAR-1254, 4,4'-DDD; 4,4'-DDE; 4,4'-DDT; and PAHs were also risk contributors for amphibianreceptors.


6.3 UNCERTAINTY EVALUATION

As a result of assumptions in the risk assessment process, the interpretation of risk estimates is subjectto a number of uncertainties. These assumptions are generally conservative and protective of humanhealth and ecological receptors. The site-specific uncertainties identified for the human health andecological risk assessments conducted for the Contract Storage Shed Area were presented in the FinalOU3 FS (LAW, 1996b). Although some uncertainties in the RA methodology might bias the evaluationin the direction of an underestimation of risk, most assumptions will bias the evaluation in the directionof overestimation of risk.

6.4 CONCLUSION

• No further action sites

The results of the human health and the ecological risk assessments for the 14NFA sites indicate that after isolated removals performed in several sites, nounacceptable risk to human health and the environment exists from chemicalcompounds detected at these sites.

• Further investigation

Further investigation was recommended for the Outdoor Firing Range and EODRange. RA for these two sites will be performed based on the new samplingresults.

• Contract Storage Shed Area

Results of risk assessment indicated that actual or threatened releases ofcontamination from the Contract Storage Shed site, if not addressed byimplementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision, maypresent an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, orthe environment.


7.0 DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

Limited removal actions were performed at 8 of the 17 OU3 sites at Loring AFB, and no known risk tohuman health and the environment currently exists at six of these sites. With the inclusion of these sixsites, a total of 14 OU3 sites were determined as NFA sites. The Old EOD Range (part of the EODRange) was not included hi the original site investigations, and additional investigation of this site hasbeen recommended. Additional investigation was also recommended for the Outdoor Firing Range siteto determine the extent of contamination because the background samples taken during the isolated soilremoval action were found to contain elevated levels of lead.

Currently known risk to human health and the environment exists only at the Contract Storage Shed Areasite due to contamination present hi the soils/sediments. Remedial alternatives were developed andscreened for the soils/sediments to meet the remedial action objectives (RAOs).

7.1 REMEDIAL RESPONSE AND REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES

Under its legal authorities, the USAF's primary responsibility at NPL sites is to undertake remedialactions that are protective of human health and the environment. In addition, Section 121 of CERCLAestablishes several other statutory requirements and preferences, including: a requirement that theUSAF's remedial action, when complete, must comply with all federal and more stringent stateenvironmental standards, requirements, criteria or limitations, unless a waiver is granted; a requirementthat the USAF select a remedial action that is cost-effective and that utilizes permanent solutions andalternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable;

and a preference for remedies hi which treatment that permanently and significantly reduces the volume,toxicity or mobility of the hazardous substances is a principal element over remedies not involving suchtreatment. Response alternatives were developed to be consistent with these Congressional mandates.

Remedial response objectives are qualitative remedial objectives which consider the nature of thecontamination, the site resources which may be adversely impacted, and the potential for current and


future site exposures to the contaminants of concern. The objectives are first identified through theconclusions of the site-specific risk assessment.

The remedial response objectives for soil (and sediment) remediation at the Contract Storage Shed Areasite include the following:

• Prevent incidental ingestion and direct contact by humans with contaminated soil

• Minimize human exposure to contaminated soil through inhalation of fugitivedusts

• Prevent contaminant migration to the groundwater

Remedial action objectives (RAOs) are developed to serve as a framework for the identification ofremedial action alternatives. According to the federal and state guidance, RAOs should be designed toprotect human health and the environment by identifying chemicals of concern, receptor groups ofgreatest concern, exposure routes associated with the highest risk estimates, and a target risk level of theindividual contaminants based on site-specific exposure scenarios (i.e., RGs).

The RAOs for the Contract Storage Shed Area for the protection of human health include:

Reduce soil and sediment levels of systemic toxicants to equal background or atarget hazard index of 1 for individual constituents, with the cumulative targethazard index not to exceed 10 for the most exposed human receptor groups.

Reduce soil and sediment levels of potential carcinogens to equal background ora target risk of 1 x 10* for individual constituents, with a cumulative risk of nogreater than 1 x 10"5 for the total excess carcinogenic risk for the most exposedhuman receptor groups. The method detection limit is used as a goal whenbackground and risk-based goals are below analytical limits.

Reduce subsurface soil levels to levels which would be protective of groundwaterquality.

Control the migration of soil and sediment contamination to uncontaminatedareas.


In order to achieve the RAOs, remedial actions must address cleanup to cumulative risk target goals, orotherwise prevent contact with the soils and sediments of the Contract Storage Shed Area. For theprotection of human health, the overall goal is to reduce risk to target risk levels by preventing exposureto contaminants of concern in the soils and sediments. In addition, the removal of contaminant sourcesfrom the soils will reduce the potential for future migration to the groundwater.

7.2 TECHNOLOGY AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING

CERCLA and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) have setforth the process by which remedial actions are evaluated and selected. In accordance with theserequirements, a range of alternatives were developed for the Contract Storage Shed Area site.

With respect to soil/sediment response action, the FS developed a range of alternatives considering theUSEPA's preference for a treatment that reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardoussubstances. This range included an alternative that removes or destroys hazardous substances to themaximum extent feasible, eliminating or minimizing to the degree possible the need for long-termmanagement. This range also included alternatives that treat the principal threats posed by the site butvary in the degree of treatment employed and the quantities and characteristics of the treatment residualsand untreated waste that must be managed; alternative(s) that involve little or no treatment but provideprotection through engineering or institutional controls; and a no action alternative.

Of the five remedial alternatives screened hi Section 6 of the FS, alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5 were retainedand analyzed in detail using the nine CERCLA evaluation criteria. Table 7-1 presents the results of the

screening of alternatives for the Contract Storage Shed Area.


TABLE 7-1

SCREENING OF ASSEMBLED ALTERNATIVESRecord of Decision

Contract Storage Shed Area, OU3Loring Air Force Base, Maine

ALTERNATIVE EFFECTIVENESS IMPLEMENTABILITY COST SELECTED SCREENING COMMENTS

1. No Action NA NA

Institutional Controls

Excavation, On-BaseLandfill Disposal ofExcavated Soils, Placementof Clean Soil Cover OverChlordane-ContaminatedAreas, WastewaterTreatment (if required)

Excavation, Off-BaseLandfill Disposal ofExcavated Soils, Placementof Clean Soil Cover OverChlordane-ContaminatedAreas, WastewaterTreatment (if required)

Yes Site is left in the present conditions with no restrictions on current andfuture use. Risks to human health and the environment remain asdetermined in the baseline risk assessment. This alternative does notachieve remedial action objectives. It may not be acceptable tolocal/public government. This alternative has no direct costs.

No Could involve placement of warning signs, fences, extended monitoringand restrictions on present and future use. Does not reduce contaminantvolume, toxiciry, or mobility. Requires long-term groundwatermonitoring. Does not eliminate long-term liability associated withcontaminant source. Does not meet remedial action limits. Does notreduce human health and environmental risks.

Yes Long-term effectiveness in attaining RGs and RAOs. Is effective atreducing contaminant migration, toxiciry, and volume. Technologies usedare well established and readily implemented. On-base disposal eliminatesoff-base transport and disposal costs. Additional costs may be incurredfor wastewater treatment. Long-term monitoring and other institutionalcontrols for chlordane-contaminated areas are required. Long-termliability associated with the landfilled soils will remain.

Yes Long-term effectiveness in attaining RGs and RAOs. Is effective atreducing contaminant migration, toxicity and volume. Technologies usedare well established and readily implemented. Off-base transport anddisposal costs are incurred. Additional costs may be incurred forwastewater treatment. Long-term monitoring and other institutionalcontrols are required for chlordane-contaminated areas. Long-termliability associated with the landfilled soils will remain.

2608-3208.28 I o f 2

TABLE 7-1

SCREENING OF ASSEMBLED ALTERNATIVESDraft Record of Decision


ALTERNATIVE EFFECTIVENESS IMPLEMENTABILITY COST SELECTED SCREENING COMMENTS

5. Excavation, Stabilization/Solidification of ExcavatedSoils, On-Base LandfillDisposal of ExcessSolidified Soils, Placementof Clean Soil Cover OverChlordane-ConUuninatedAreas, WastewaterTreatment (if required)

Yes Effective in attaining RGs and RAOs. May be somewhat less effective inprotection of human health than Alternatives 3 and 4 as contaminationremains on-site as stabilized/solidified soils. Effectively reduces mobility.Limited reduction in toxicity by dilution from the binding matrix.Volume increase due to treatment process. Treatability testing required.On-site treatment and disposal reduces costs which would result fromtransport and off-base disposal. Because treated soils remain on-site,long-term monitoring required. Other institutional actions controlling siteaccess and land use may be required and may conflict with the future siteuses.

Key:+ Better, or more desirable relative to other alternatives0 Not more or less desirable than other alternatives- Less desirable relative to other alternatives


2608-3208.28 2 of 2

8.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

The following is a summary of the remedial alternatives recommended in the FS (LAW, 1996b) for the

17 OU3 sites.

8.1 MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE

No further action is proposed for the following 14 NFA sites:

Ohio Road Debris AreaOklahoma Road Debris AreaKC-135 Crash AreaDumpster Cleaning Area Site/Building 7841EOD Area-CylindersGolf Course Maintenance Shed AreaChapman Pit Debris Area9000 Debris AreaSolvent/Paint Dock AreaPrime Beef Debris AreaBuildings 8951 and 8960 DRMOOld PX Gas Station USTF-106A Crash AreaDemineralization Plant

Among the 14 NFA sites, removal actions were recommended and have been accomplished by the USAFfor six of the OU3 sites (Ohio Road Debris Area, Oklahoma Road Debris Area, Golf Course MaintenanceShed, 9000 Debris Area, and Solvent/Paint Dock Area, and Demineralization Plant) during RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) activities. Currently, no risk to human health or the environmentexists at the above listed 14 sites, resulting hi the no further action recommendations.

Further investigation is proposed for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range. Future plans willaddress remedial actions for these two sites, if necessary.

Remedial action was recommended for the Contract Storage Shed Area site to address the contaminatedsoils/sediments.


In summary the RI/ASI recommended:

• 14 NFA sites for no further action• EOD Range and Outdoor Firing Range for further investigation• Contract Storage Shed Area for remedial action

Remedial alternatives evaluated for the Contract Storage Shed Area include:

• Alternative 1: No Action

• Alternative 2: Institutional Controls

• Alternative 3: Excavation, On-Base Disposal of Excavated Soils, Placement ofClean Soil Cover Over Chlordane-Contaminated Areas,Institutional Controls, Wastewater Treatment (if required)

• Alternative 4: Excavation, Off-Base Disposal of Excavated Soils, Placement ofClean Soil Cover Over Chlordane-Contaminated Areas, InstitutionalControls, Wastewater Treatment (if required)

• Alternative 5: Excavation, Solidification/Stabilization of Excavated Soils,On-Base Disposal of Excess Soils, Placement of Clean SoilCover Over Chlordane-Contaminated Areas, InstitutionalControls, Wastewater Treatment (if required)

8.2 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR CONTRACT STORAGE SHED AREA

A brief description of each of the remedial action alternatives for the Contract Storage Shed Area ispresented below.

8.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action

Under the No Action alternative, no activities are implemented with regards to site remediation andcontaminant levels. Associated risks to human health with respect to the contaminated soils and sedimentsat the site would remain at current levels. Long-term liability associated with the contaminated soilswould persist at the site. Contaminant releases from surface run-off, sediment transport, and leaching


into the groundwater would continue. This alternative does not meet the RAOs and only retained toprovide a base line for comparison with other alternatives as required by the NCP.

8.2.2 Alternative 2: Institutional Controls

Generally, this alternative would be protective of human health by controlling site access using fencingand warning signs, and by restricting land-use activities. In addition, continuous monitoring of thegroundwater would allow for detection of the potential spread of contamination. However,implementation of institutional controls would not result in the remediation of the site. The soil andsediment contamination would remain unchanged with no reduction in the toxicity, volume, and mobilityof contaminants. This alternative also would not be effective in meeting the RAOs and established RGs.Long-term liability associated with the contaminated soils would persist. Considering the potentiallymoderate to high level of activity associated with the planned future use of the site (continued air-operation related activities), this alternative was not retained for further consideration as a stand-aloneremedial alternative. However, it would be used in combination with other alternatives to provideadequate protection to human health and the environment.

8.2.3 Alternative 3: Excavation. On-Base Disposal of Excavated Soils. Placement of Clean Soil CoverOver Chlordane-Contaminated Areas. Institutional Controls. Wastewater Treatment (if required)

This alternative includes the excavation, removal, and disposal of contaminated soils (excludingchlordane-contaminated soils) in the on-base Landfill No. 3. The chlordane-contaminated soils wouldbe covered by "clean" soil with a minimum thickness of 2 feet and proper erosion protection.

Alternative 3 would be effective in meeting the established RGs and RAOs for site soils and sedimentsbecause the contaminated soils would be removed and disposed at Landfill No. 3, and/or covered withclean soils. This alternative would effectively reduce the mobility of the contaminants at the ContractStorage Shed Area site. The placement of the excavated soils in Landfill No. 3, and the installation ofthe clean soil cover over the chlordane-contaminated soils would prevent exposure to the contaminants.The potential risk posed by chlordane-contaminated soil left on the site would be reduced to an acceptable

Installation Restoration Program2608-3208.28 g-3

range, based on the low frequency of detection and low mobility of chlordane in soil. This alternativewas retained for detailed analysis.

8.2.4 Alternative 4: Excavation. Off-Base Disposal of Excavated Soils. Placement of Clean Soil CoverOver Chlordane-Contaminated Areas. Institutional Controls. Wastewater Treatment (if reauired)

This alternative includes the excavation, removal and disposal of contaminated soils (excluding chlordane-contaminated soils) at an off-base disposal facility. The chlordane-contaminated soils would be coveredby "clean" soil with a minimum thickness of 2 feet and proper erosion protection.

Alternative 4 would be effective in meeting the established RGs and RAOs for site soils and sedimentsbecause the contaminated soils would be removed and disposed at an off-base landfill, and/or covered byclean soils. This alternative would effectively reduce the mobility of the contaminants at the ContractStorage Shed Area site. The placement of the excavated soils in an off-base disposal facility and theplacement of cover over the chlordane-contaminated soils would prevent the potential exposure tocontaminants. The potential risk posed by chlordane-contaminated soil left on the site would be reducedto an acceptable range, based on the low frequency of detection and low mobility of chlordane in soil.This alternative is retained for detailed analysis.

8.2.5 Alternative 5: Excavation. Stabilization/Solidification of Excavated Soils. On-Base Disposal ofExcess Soils. Placement of Clean Soil Cover Over Chlordane-Contaminated Areas. InstitutionalControls. Wastewater Treatment (if reauired)

This alternative includes the excavation and treatment of contaminated soils (excluding chlordane-

contaminated soils), and backfilling of excavation with the treated soils. The excavated soils would betreated using stabilization/solidification to immobilize the soil contaminants. Excess treated soils resultingfrom the treatment process would be disposed in on-base Landfill No. 3. The chlordane-contaminatedsoils would be covered by "clean" soil with a minimum thickness of 2 feet and proper erosion protection.

This alternative would be effective in meeting the RAOs for the Contract Storage Shed Area site by theexcavation, treatment, backfilling of the treated soils, and covering the chlordane-contaminated areas.


Human health would be adequately protected by this alternative. The mobility of the contaminants wouldbe effectively reduced by treatment using stabilization/solidification processes to encapsulate thecontaminated soil particles. Contaminant toxicity would be reduced due to the dilution effect affordedby the binding matrix, although final concentrations might not achieve the RGs. The volume of materialwould actually increase as a result of the treatment process, thereby requiring excess treated soils to beplaced in Landfill No. 3.

Because Alternative 5 does not involve the destruction or removal of contaminants from the site, long-term monitoring of the site would be required, including the implementation of a groundwater monitoringprogram. Institutional controls would be required to prohibit intrusive activities at the site that mightcompromise the integrity of the stabilized soil masses and the covered areas. Long-term liability wouldstill be associated with the site soils if the dilution effects of the binding matrix did not adequately reducecontaminant concentrations to achieve the RGs. This alternative was retained for detailed analysis.

Installation Restoration Program2608-3208.28 g_5

9.0 SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

Section 121(b)(l) of CERCLA presents several factors that, at a minimum, the USAF is required toconsider in its assessment of alternatives. Building upon these specific statutory mandates, the NCParticulates nine evaluation criteria to be used in assessing the individual remedial alternatives.

9.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA USED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS

A detailed analysis of the alternatives was performed using the nine evaluation criteria in order to selecta site remedy. Section 9.2 contains a summary of the comparison of each alternative's strengths andweaknesses with respect to the nine evaluation criteria. These criteria are summarized in Subsections9.1.1 through 9.1.3.

9.1.1 Threshold Criteria

The two threshold criteria described below must be met in order for the alternatives to be eligible forselection in accordance with the NCP.

Overall protection of human health and the environment - Addresses whethera remedy will clean up the site to within the risk range, result hi anyunacceptable impacts, and control the inherent hazards associated with the siteand describes how risks posed through each pathway are eliminated, reduced orcontrolled through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.

Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements(ARARs) - Addresses whether a remedy will meet all of the potential ARARsand to be considered (TBQ regulations or provide grounds for invoking awaiver.

9.1.2 Primary Balancing Criteria

The alternatives are evaluated and compared as to the degree to which the following threshold criteriaare achieved.


• Long-term effectiveness and performance - Refers to the ability of a remedyto maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over timeonce cleanup goals have been met.

• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment - Refers to theanticipated performance of the treatment technologies that may be employed ina remedy to address the principal threats posed by the contamination detected atthe site.

• Short-term effectiveness during construction and implementation - Refers tothe period of tune needed to achieve protection, and any adverse impacts onhuman health and the environment that may be posed during the construction andimplementation period, until cleanup goals are achieved.

• Implementability (both technical and administrative) - Describes the technicaland administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of materialsand services needed to implement the chosen actions, and the ability to obtainregulatory approval.

• Cost - Includes the capital needed for materials, equipment, and related items,and the operation and maintenance costs.

9.1.3 Modifying Criteria

The modifying criteria are used in the final evaluation of remedial alternatives after receipt of publiccomments on the RI/FS and Proposed Plan.

State acceptance - Refers to USEPA's and the state of Maine's anticipatedresponse to and acceptance of a remedy and the state's comments on ARARs orthe proposed use of waivers.

Community acceptance - Refers to the public's anticipated response to andacceptance of a remedy.

9.2 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Following are brief discussions of the evaluation shown in Table 9-1 for each of the listed criteria. Undereach alternative, the same option is proposed for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range (further

investigation) and the remaining fourteen sites (no further action). Therefore, the discussions of the


TABLE 9-1

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVESOU3 Record of Decision


Overall Protection ofHuman Health and

Alternative Environment

1 -2

3 +1

4 +1

5 +1

Compliance withARARs

-1 (does notcomply)

+ 1 (complies)

+ 1 (complies)

+ 1 (complies)

Long-TermEffectiveness and

Permanence

-2

+ 1

+ 1

0

Reduction ofMobility, Toxicity

and VolumeThrough Treatment

-2

+ 1

+ 1

4-1

Short-TermEffectiveness

+2

0

-1

-1

Implementability

+2

4-1

+ 1

0

Cost

+2

+ 1

0

0

Total*

-1

+6

+4

+2

^ * The totals column is provided summarizing the competitive evaluation assuming each of the seven criteria are weighted equally. It is understood that several factors influence therelative importance of each criterion and, therefore, the totals column should be viewed considering this aspect.

-2 Alternative has significant concerns, problems with implementability, site disturbance requirements, questions on effectiveness, or significantly greater cost relative toother alternatives.

-1 Has less desirable aspects relative to similar alternatives.

0 Is consistent with criteria, but does not provide added benefits or safety factors.

+1 Provides identifiable benefits to alternatives which are consistent with criteria.

+2 Has significant benefits relative to other alternatives.


2608-3208.28

comparative analysis are based on action options developed for the Contract Storage Shed, which governsthe rating for the alternatives which include the 17 OU3 sites.

9.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

The least effective alternative in terms of overall protection is Alternative 1 (No Action). Under thisalternative, no measures would be taken to reduce the potential for exposure to the soil and sedimentcontamination at the Contract Storage Shed Area site. Alternative 1 was given a score of -2 with respectto this criterion.

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would offer a high degree of overall protection with respect to human health.Under Alternatives 3 and 4, the contaminated soils would be removed from the Contract Storage ShedArea site and secured in appropriate disposal facilities or covered to prevent exposure to contamination.The contaminated soil would be treated and backfilled in the excavations or covered to prevent exposureto contamination under Alternative 5. Therefore, the potential for future exposure to the contaminantswould essentially be eliminated. Each of these alternatives was given a score of +1.

9.2.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

Under Alternative 1 (No Action no remediation activities would be performed at the site. Therefore,chemical-specific and location-specific ARAR/TBCs would not be met by this alternative. Action-specificARARs and TBCs would not apply to this alternative. This alternative was given a score of -1.

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 are effective in meeting chemical-specific TBCs by removal/disposal ortreatment/backfill, and installation of soil cover over the contaminant sources. The contaminated soils(excluding chlordane-contaminated soils) would be disposed in a landfill under both Alternatives 3 and4 while the contaminated soils would be treated and backfilled under Alternative 5. The chlordane-contaminated areas would be covered with clean soil. These alternatives comply with ARAR/TBCs.Each of these alternatives was given a score of +1 for this criterion.


9.2.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

Alternative 1 would provide the least long-term protection to human health and the environment, as noremediation would occur under this alternative. This alternative was given the score of -2.

Alternatives 3 and 4 would be equally effective in providing for long-term protection of human healthwith respect to the Contract Storage Shed Area site. Both of these alternatives would include thepermanent removal of contaminated soils (excluding chlordane-contaminated soils) from the site, disposalof the soils in appropriate disposal facilities, and installation of cover over chlordane-contaminated areas.These measures would provide identifiable benefits above the criteria and both alternatives, therefore,were given a score of +1 for this criterion. Alternative 5 was given a score of 0 because the treated soilwould be left in place and a long-term monitoring program would be required to detect the potential ofrelease.

9.2.4 Reduction in Mobility. Toxicity. and Volume through Treatment

Alternative 1 was given the lowest score (-2) because no remedial action would be performed to reducethe mobility, toxicity, or volume of contamination.

Alternatives 3 and 4 would reduce the mobility of contaminants in the soils by removal and disposal ofexcavated soils in the landfill facilities and covering the chlordane-contaminated areas. Both Alternatives3 and 4 were given a +1 score. However, Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 do not comply with the strategy ofpreference through treatment. Alternative 5 would reduce the mobility of contaminants in the soil by

employing S/S treatment processes and installing a clean soil cover over the chlordane-contaminatedareas. Alternative 5 was given the same score (+1) as Alternatives 3 and 4.


9.2.5 Short-Term Effectiveness

This criterion refers to protection of on-site personnel during the construction and operation of remedialtreatment systems. Alternative 1 (No Action) would be most protective by virtue of the fact that noon-site activity takes place. This alternative was given a score of +2.

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would result in the potential for worker exposure during the remedial activities.Both Alternatives 3 and 4 would involve the excavation and disposal of contaminated soils whileAlternative 5 would involve excavation and treatment. However, Alternatives 4 and 5 might presentgreater potentials for exposure to the contaminated soils during the off-site transportation (Alternative 4)and the treatment (Alternative 5). Therefore, Alternative 3 was given a score of 0 while Alternatives 4and 5 were given scores of -1.

9.2.6 Implementability

This criterion refers to the degree of effort required for implementation of a particular alternative.Alternative 1 was given the highest score (+2) with respect to this criterion, as it would be the easiestof the alternatives to implement, because no remedial action would be required.

Alternatives 3 and 4 would address the contaminated soils in the same manner. Both alternatives disposethe excavated soils in a nonhazardous landfill. Alternatives 3 and 4 were given scores of +1.Alternative 5 would involve S/S treatment processes, and would also require a treatability study.Therefore, Alternative 5 was given a score of 0.

9.2.7 Cost

A summary of the estimated cost for each alternative is presented hi Table 9-2. Alternative 1 was giventhe highest score (+2) because no costs are incurred.


TABLE 9-2

OPINIONS OF COST FOR SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVESOU3 Record of Decision


Remedial Alternative Opinion of Cost

1. No Action

3. Excavation, On-Base Landfill Disposal of Excavated Soils,Placement of Clean Soil Cover Over Chlordane-ContaminatedAreas, Institutional Controls, Wastewater Treatment (ifrequired)

0

$65,000

4. Excavation, Off-Base Landfill Disposal of Excavated Soils,Placement of Clean Soil Cover Over Chlordane-ContaminatedAreas, Institutional Controls, Wastewater Treatment (ifrequired)

$310,000

5. Excavation, Solidification/Stabilization of Excavated Soils, On-Base Disposal of Excess Soils, Placement of Clean Soil CoverOver Chlordane-Contaminated Areas, Institutional Controls,Wastewater Treatment (if required)

$540,000

2608-3208.28 9.7


Based on the cost estimates, Alternative 3 would cost less than Alternatives 4 and 5. This difference wasprimarily due to the higher transportation costs associated with off-site disposal under Alternative 4 andtreatment costs under Alternative 5. Alternative 3, therefore, was given a score of +1, whileAlternatives 4 and 5 were scored at 0.

9.2.8 Comparative Analysis Summary

As shown in Table 9-1, Alternative 1 ranked lowest among the alternatives considered. It consistentlyscored lower with respect to protectiveness and effectiveness, with the exception of short-termeffectiveness, which applies only to implementation of remedial activities. Alternative 1 ranked highestfor criteria dealing with implementability and costs. This is because no remedial actions would beperformed under Alternative 1.

Alternatives 3 and 4 are nearly equivalent with respect to those criteria based primarily on effectiveness.The significant differences between the two alternatives are the short-term effectiveness and cost.Alternative 3 was considered easier to implement than Alternatives 4 and 5 because Alternative 3 wouldnot involve off-site transportation or treatment. Alternatives 4 and 5 would be more costly thanAlternative 3, due to the off-site transportation or treatment cost. Alternative 3 was ranked highestamong all the alternatives for total score.

9.2.9 State Acceptance

As part to the FFA, MEDEP has provided comments on the FS and Proposed Plan (LAW, 1996c), and

has documented its occurrence with the remedial action as stated hi Section 13 of this ROD. A copy ofthe MEDEP's letter of concurrence is presented in Appendix C.

9.2.10 Community Acceptance

Community acceptance of the Proposed Plan has been evaluated based on comments received during thepublic comment period and at the public meeting. This acceptance is documented in the Transcript ofthe Public Meeting in Appendix A, and hi the Responsiveness Summary, Appendix B.


10.0 SELECTED REMEDY

The selected remedy for the OU3 sites is presented in this section.

10.1 SELECTED REMEDY FOR OU3 SITES

No further action is proposed for the following 14 OU3 sites:

Ohio Road Debris AreaOklahoma Road Debris AreaKC-135 Crash AreaDumpster Cleaning Area/Building 7841EOD Area-CylindersGolf Course Maintenance Shed AreaChapman Pit Debris Area9000 Debris AreaSolvent/Paint Dock AreaPrime Beef Debris AreaBuildings 8951 and 8960 DRMOOld PX Gas Station USTF-106A Crash AreaDemineralization Plant

Further investigation is proposed for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range. Future plans willaddress remedial actions for the site, if necessary.

The selected remedial action for the Contract Storage Shed Area site consists of the followingcomponents:

• Excavation of the contaminated sediments/soils, excluding chlordane-contaminated soils

• On-base disposal of the excavated sediments/soils

• Placement of 2 feet of clean soil cover and erosion protection over the chlordane-contaminated area


• Institutional controls

• Wastewater treatment (if required)

Details of this selected remedial action are presented below:

10.2 REMEDIAL ACTION FOR THE CONTRACT STORAGE SHED AREA SITE

The remedial alternative for the Contract Storage Shed Area site would involve the excavation, removaland land disposal of soils contaminated with PAHs, pesticides (except chlordane) and heavy metals atconcentrations that exceed the RGs (Table 10-1). Chlordane-contaminated soils would remain in placeand be covered by a minimum of 2 feet of clean soil, with erosion protection, to prevent future exposure.Institutional controls to identify the presence of chlordane at this site would be established. Figure 10-1shows locations, area, and the depth of the contaminated soils at the Contract Storage Shed Area.

An estimated total in-place volume of approximately 1,500 cubic yards of soil and sediment would beexcavated and disposed. Based on information obtained during the RI, including contaminant nature andextent data for the soils and sediments, and risk assessment calculations, the areas subject to potentialremediation at the site are presented in Figure 10-1. The hatched areas shown hi Figure 10-1 present thearea of contaminated soil/sediment to be excavated. The estimated surface areas and the depths ofexcavation are based on sample points showing contamination exceeding RGs. The two plain whitesquare areas shown in Figure 10-1 indicate the areas of chlordane-contamination, which will be coveredby 2 feet of clean soil.

The excavated soils would be disposed at the non-Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), on-base Landfill No. 3, which is located on the west side of the base approximately 2.3 miles from theContract Storage Shed Area site, and approximately 0.5 miles north of the Chapman Pit Debris Area Site(Figure 1-1). The soils identified for removal do not exhibit a hazardous characteristic under RCRA and,therefore, can be disposed hi Landfill No. 3 hi compliance with Land Disposal Restrictions requirements.The landfill is scheduled for future closure with a cover system including two barriers. Therefore, thepotential for groundwater contamination by soils from this site is considered minimal. Confirmation


TABLE 10-1

SOIL REMEDIATION GOALSRecord of Decision

Contract Storage Shed Area, OU3Loring Air Force Bate, Maine

Constituent

TOTAL METALS:BariumCadmiumLead*Manganese

SEMI-VOLATILES:Benzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(k)fluorantheneChryseneDibenz(a,h)anthraceneIdeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrenePyrene

PBSTICIDES/PCBs:Chlordane4,4' -DDD4,4' -DDE4,4'- DOTAroclor-1260

TPH: (n-Hexane)

Remediation Goak(1E+06/1E+05)

frnK/kxl

100/1,00016/160

880/8,8001400

0.470 (a)0.400 (a)1.100 (a)0.400 (b)

3/300.400 (b)0.400 (b)

71/710

0.07/0.70.5/40.3/30.9/3l(c)

870/8,700 (d)

Soil toGround Water

Surface Soil Pathway LevebBasis For Selection DAF:10 (e)

(mg/ltt)

Risk Construction Worker-InhalationRisk Construction Worker-InhalationRiskConstruction Worker-Ingestion+DermalBackground

BackgroundBackgroundBackgroundMethod Detection LimitRiskCommercial Worker-Ingestion+DermalMethod Detection LimitMethod Detection LimitRiskConstruction Worker-Ingestion+Dermal

RiskCommercial Worker-Ingestion+DennalAnthropogenic Background/Risk at 1E+05RiskCommercial Worker-Ingestion+DermalAnthropogenic Background/Risk at IE +05USEPA Guidance

RiskConstruction Worker-Ingestion+Dermal

326

NANA

3.6378.94403101.844

1,400

2.11.71.74.726

NA

Observed Range for Site SoilsMin Max

(mc/kKl CmK/kx')

4.70.049.7

250

0.01 JQ0.0061 JQ0.034 JQ0.12 JQ

0.033 JQ0.022 JQ0.018 JQ0.01 JQ

0.160.0007

0.000980.00062

0.035

18

22027

1102900

88 J76 J96 J32 J67 J12 J36 J

120 J

6.27.623

1000.42

24,000 J

All concentrations are in rag/kg.

Background concentrations are from Consensus Statements (HAZRAP, 1994 and LAFB, 1995).Risk- based concentrations were back- calculated using exposure parameters listed in Appendix J of the RI/ASI Report.Target Risks are IE+06/1E+05 for carcinogens with IE +05 as cumulative risk boundary per sample point.Target Hazard Indices are one/ten for noncarcinogens with ten as cumulative risk boundary per sample pof# Lead PRGs based on estimated oral Rfd of 73E-03 which was backcakulated from acceptable concentration of 400 mg/kg

in residential setting.(a) Background concentration is recommended as alternative cleanup goal for carcinogenic PAHs (Sample JSS-0584, Loring AFB,

February 1995).(b) Method Detection Limit lilted a* remediation goal became risk—based and background goab aie below detection limiti.(c) Based on Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination, EPA/540G- 90/007.(d) Taken from ABB, 1994 in order to be consistent with remediation at other OU Sites.(e) Dilution and Attenuation Factor from Soil Screening Guidance, EPA/540/R - 94/101, December 1994. These are remediation goab for

subsurface soils which are not excavated. Simple site-specific levels were calculated using the Technical Background Document forSoil Screening Guidance (1994) with a target risk of 1 for noncarcinogens and 1 x 10~' for carcinogens.

NA Not availableJQ — Estimated concentration below quantitation limitJ - Estimated concentration


2608-3208.28 10-3

FIGURE 10-1

LEGEND(J SB-Soil Boring Location

<B MW-Monitoring WellLocation (Overburden)

(g MW-Monitoring WellLocation (Bedrock)

A SS-Surface SoilSample Location

® RV-SedimentSample Location

Paved RoadsFence LineTree LineRailroads

_^_ Foundation Remains OfFormer Building

—— Outline Of Former Building

Former Building 7258

Excavation Area ID

Clean Soil Cover OverChlordane-Contaminated Area

EXCAVATIONDEPTHS FORSOILS TO BEDISPOSED OF INLANDFILL No. 3.

1.5 FEET

J FEET

5 FEET

7 FEET

80 160

APPROXIMATEYAREA

SCALE IN FEET

SB55SB45

SB14 \/SB56

-- FORMERCOiS TRACTOR

STORAGE SHEDBUILDING

2608-3208.20

sampling would be performed to ensure that soil excavation meets the RGs. The excavations would bebackfilled with clean soil and the area graded to promote proper drainage. Clean soil (1,500 cubic yards)would be required to backfill the resultant excavations.

The chlordane-contaminated soils would remain on site and would be covered with a minimum of 2 feetof clean soil (see Figure 10-1 for location). The estimated volume of clean soil required to provide aminimum of 2 feet of coverage for those areas is 200 cubic yards, making a total of 1,700 cubic yardsof clean soil required. Erosion protection measures would be applied to the cover to ensure continualeffectiveness. Long-term groundwater monitoring, which will likely be included under the basewidegroundwater program, and certain institutional controls may be required for the chlordane-contaminatedareas because the chlordane is left in place. The potential exists that future excavation of the chlordane-contaminated soil could trigger RCRA land disposal restrictions. Therefore, institutional controls wouldbe necessary to restrict the use of the site and assure the proper notification of future owners.

Although unlikely, some groundwater extraction might be required to reduce the water levels in theexcavations while work is being performed. Treatment of the extracted water could be necessary to meetthe National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge limits.

Estimated capital costs for the remedial action would be approximately $65,000. Additional costs maybe incurred from wastewater treatment, if required. This determination will be made at the design stage.

10.3 CLEANUP LEVELS

The purpose of the response action for OU3 at Loring AFB is to remove risk associated with thesoils/sediment. As previously noted, there is no risk to human health and the environment at the sitesrecommended for no further action. The Outdoor Firing Range and the Old EOD Range sites have beenrecommended for further investigation to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination and the riskposed to human health and the environment.


The USAF has established, with the concurrence of the regulatory agencies, RGs for the Contract StorageShed Area for protection of human health and the environment. Cleanup goals have been established forcontaminated soils and sediments based on background concentrations, analytical detection limits, riskcalculations, or EPA-recommended cleanup levels. Compounds for which remediation goals have been

set are listed hi Table 10-1.

The proposed remedial action at the Contract Storage Shed Area will reduce risk to human health suchthat the residual cumulative risk will result in a hazard index of less than one for noncarcinogens. Theresidual cumulative risk will result in a cancer risk of less than 10"5, based on the continuous industrialland use scenario, which is within the target risk range (10* to 10*). Therefore, the proposed remedialaction will provide adequate protection for human health and the environment.

The PAH and pesticide contaminated soils (except for chlordane contamination) would be excavated andremoved from the site to meet the RGs listed in Table 10-1. The minimum 2-foot soil cover installedover chlordane-contaminated areas is considered sufficient in providing protection to human health andthe environment based on the isolated and low frequency of occurrence of chlordane at the site, the futureland use plan of industrial/commercial activity, the low mobility of chlordane in soil, and considering thatchlordane was not detected hi the groundwater. In addition, institutional controls will be implementedto ensure the prevention of the future exposure to chlordane-contaminated soils.

10.4 FIVE-YEAR SITE REVIEWS

The USAF will review the Contract Storage Shed Area site long-term monitoring program at least once

every five years after the initiation of remedial action in accordance with applicable USEPA guidance.The review will determine whether the remedial action continues to protect human health and theenvironment by assessing site conditions and proposing further actions, if necessary.


11.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

Under CERCLA section 121, the lead agency (the USAF) must select remedies that are protective ofhuman health and the environment, comply with ARARs (unless a statutory waiver is justified), are mostcost-effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recoverytechnologies to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, CERCLA includes a preference forremedies that employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobilityof hazardous wastes as their principal element. The following sections discuss how the selected remedymeets these statutory requirements.

11.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The selected remedy protects human health and the environment through installation of a soil cover,excavation, removal, and landfill disposal of contaminated soils detected at the site.

The chlordane-contaminated areas will be covered with a minimum of 2 feet of clean soil, with erosionprotection, to prevent the future direct exposure to the contaminated soil. The cover will reduce thepotential risk posed by the contaminant (chlordane) to within an acceptable risk range. The remainingcontaminated soils at the site will be excavated, removed, and disposed in the on-base Landfill No. 3,to adequately reduce the contamination at the site.

The cancer risks from exposure will be reduced to less than 1 x 10*5. This level falls within the targetrisk range of 10"4 to 1O*. There are no short-term threats associated with the selected remedy that cannot

be readily controlled. In addition, no adverse cross-media impacts are expected from the remedy.

11.2 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

No chemical-specific ARARs have been identified for the Contract Storage Shed Area soils. Chemical-specific TBCs would be met by the removal of contaminated soils from the site. Chlordane-contaminatedareas would be covered with a minimum of 2 feet of clean soil to reduce potential risk caused by


exposure to the contaminated soil at the site. Location-specific ARARs would be met because of thelocalized nature and isolation of the contamination. Excavated soils under the selected remedy are notexpected to be hazardous materials. The action-specific ARARs would be satisfied by this remedy.Wastewater generated during remediation activities would be treated to meet NPDES dischargerequirements.

Tables 11-1 through 11-3 summarize the chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs and/or TBCsfor the selected remedy and how they will be attained.

Although the requirements, standards and regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970,29 U.S.C., et seg. are not ARARs, they will be complied with in connection with the OU3 remedialactivities where applicable (USEPA, 1990).

11.3 UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT ORRESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE

Once the USAF identified those alternatives that attain ARARs, and that are protective of human healthand the environment, the remedy which utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologiesor resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable was selected. This selection wasmade by evaluating which of the identified alternatives is most effective in terms of: 1) long-termeffectiveness and permanence, 2) reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment, 3) short-term effectiveness, 4) implementability, and 5) cost. The evaluation emphasized long-term effectivenesspermanence, and the reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment, while considering thepreference for treatment as a principal element, the bias against off-site land disposal of untreated waste,and community and state acceptance.

The selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs among the alternatives. The selected remedyprovides long-term protection of human health and the environment because contaminated soils andsediments will either be removed from the site and contained within a well-maintained on-base landfill,or covered with clean soil. The potential for migration will be greatly reduced and exposure tocontaminated soil will be prevented with the completion of this remedy.


TABLE 11-1

CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCsRecord of Decision


MEDIA REQUIREMENT STATUS DESCRIPTION ACTION TO BE TAKEN TO ATTAINARAR

Soil/SFederal Criteria USEPA Reference Dose

USEPA Cancer Slope Factors

To Be RfDs and RfCs are pathway-specific indicesConsidered which estimate an acceptable daily dose for

the human population without an appreciablerisk of deleterious effect during a lifetime.

To Be CSFs are upper-bound estimates of excessConsidered cancer risk per unit of intake over a lifetime.

CSFs are used to estimate a probability of anindividual developing cancer as result of aspecific exposure scenario.

These values are used to characterize risksfor site receptors and estimate acceptablelevels of site systemic toxicants.

These values are used to characterize excesscancer risk for site receptors and estimatelevels of individual site carcinogens which donot pose a greater than 1 x 10"* probability ofcancer.

2608-3208.28


n

TABLE 11-2

LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS AND TBCsRecord of Decision


MEDIA REQUIREMENT STATUS DESCRIPTION ACTION TO BE TAKEN TO ATTAINARAR

Soil/Sediment

State Criteria Maine Site LocationDevelopment Law andRegulations (38 MRSA Sections481-490; MDEP Regulations,Chapter 375)

Applicable This act and regulations govern developmentand include hazardous activities thatconsume, generate, or handle hazardouswastes and oil. The regulations provide thatthere shall be no unreasonable adverseeffects on specified items (including airquality, run-off/infiltration relationship andsurface water quality), no unreasonablealteration of climate or natural drainageways and provisions for erosion andsedimentation control and noise control.

Remedial action will meet theserequirements. Remediation activities will belimited to immediate vicinity and notexpected to adversely affect surroundingareas. Provisions will be implemented forerosion, sedimentation and noise control asrequired.

2608-3208.28


TABLE 11-3

ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS AND TBCSRecord of Decision


REMEDIATEDMEDIA

Soil/Sediment

Federal Criteria

REQUIREMENT

Standards for Identification and Listing ofHazardous Waste [RCRA 40 CFR 261]

STATUS

Relevant andAppropriate

DESCRIPTION

Criteria of hazardous versus solid wastes;characteristics of hazardous waste.

ACTION TO BE TAKEN TO ATTAINARAR

Soils classified based on sampling andanalysis. Applicable when identifying

Hazardous Waste Management Systems; [RCRA Relevant and40 CFR 260] Appropriate

Requirements for Miscellaneous Units [40 CFR Relevant and264.600 - 264.999] Appropriate

RCRA - Standards Applicable to Generators and Relevant andTransporters of Hazardous Waste [40 CFR Part Appropriate262, Subpart B, C, F, and 263]

RCRA Subtitle C, Subpart B - General Standards Relevant and[40 CFR 264.10-264.30 - 264.18] Appropriate

RCRA Subtitle C, Subpart C - Preparedness and Relevant andpreparation [40 CFR 264.30 - 264.37] Appropriate

RCRA Subtitle C, Subpart D - Contingency Plan Relevant andand Emergency Procedures [40 CFR 264.50 - Appropriate264.56]

USEPA procedures for making informationavailable to the public; rules for claims ofbusiness confidentiality.

Requirements for owners and operations offacilities mat treat, store, or dispose ofhazardous waste in miscellaneous units.

Regulates the requirement for storage,labeling, accumulation times, and disposal ofhazardous waste.

Requirements regarding waste analysis,security, training, inspections, and locationapplicable to a facility which stores, treats, ordisposes of hazardous wastes (e.g., a TSDfacility).

Requirements to design and operation,equipment, and communications associatedwith a TSD facility, and to arrangements withlocal response departments.

Emergency Planning procedures for a TSDfacility.

hazardous wastes according to RCRA criteria.

Does not address cleanup requirements.However, these procedures will be followedwhen dealing with hazardous waste.

Treatment alternatives not specificallyregulated under other sections of RCRA mustbe met to prevent the release of hazardousconstituents into the environment.

If hazardous waste is generated duringremediation, these requirements will be metunless they are "administrative" only (e.g.,recordkeeping).

These requirements will be met if handlinghazardous waste.



2608-3208.28 I o f 2

TABLE 11-3

ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS AND TBCSRecord of Decision


REMEDIATEDMEDIA

REQUIREMENT STATUS DESCRIPTION ACTION TO BE TAKEN TO ATTAINARAR

Soil/Sediment(Cent.)

Federal Criteria

State Criteria

Land Treatment Restrictions [RCRA 40 CFR264, 268.42 and 268.46]

Relevant andAppropriate

Land Disposal Restrictions [RCRA 40 CFR Part Relevant and268], Appropriate

Standards for Owners and Operators of Relevant andHazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and AppropriateDisposal Facilities [RCRA 40 CFR 264]

Maine Ambient Air Quality Standards (38 Relevant andMRSA, Section 584, MEDEP Regulations, AppropriateChapter 110)

Maine Hazardous Waste Management Rules Relevant and[MEDEP Regulations, Chapters 800-802, 850, Appropriate851, 853-857]

Define land treatment regulations.

Land disposal restrictions requiring RCRAhazardous wastes be treated to a specifiedconcentration level prior to disposal.

Define requirements for RCRA facilityoperations and management includingimpoundments, wastepiles, land treatment,landfills, incinerators, storage, closure andpost closure.

Establishes ambient air quality standards thatare maximum levels of a particular pollutantpermitted in the ambient air. The standard forParticulate is 150 pg/m2 24-hour averageconcentration.

Requirements for handling storage andrecordkeeping at hazardous waste facilities.

Land treatment will not be used for anyRCRA hazardous waste on site.

Soil to be disposed at on-base Landfill will notbe hazardous waste.

Operations, management and safetyrequirements in effect for all portions ofremedial process, if hazardous waste is beinghandled.

Applicable if work at the rite affects ambientair quality; air emissions treatment will beused if necessary to comply with applicablelimitations.

Remedial alternatives involving the treatment,storage, of or disposal of hazardous waste winmeet these requirements when hazardous wasteis handled.


2608-3208.28 2 of 2

The selected remedy will not reduce mobility, toxicity, or volume through treatment of source areacontaminants. However, the selected remedy will reduce mobility through removal and landfllling, andinstallation of a soil cover will prevent direct contact with the contaminated soils and sediments at the site.

The selected remedy will require health and safety training for workers who operate the excavationequipment and conduct monitoring. Adverse effects on workers are not anticipated as long as safeworking practices are followed. Adverse effects on the community would not be expected as a result ofimplementation of the selected remedy. However, minimal impact to ecological receptors is expected dueto the nature of the excavation activities.

Installation of the selected remedy involves easily implementable, reliable, and available technologies,at a cost effective, reasonable value. It provides overall protection to human health and the environment,complies with ARARs, meets the response objectives and is the least expensive.

11.4 PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT

The selected remedy will not reduce mobility, toxicity or volume through treatment of source areacontaminants as a principle element. However, the remedy will reduce mobility through removal anddisposal of contaminated soils, and installation of a clean soil cover to prevent direct contact with thecontaminated soil. In view of the relatively small volume of soil and sediments that would requiretreatment, and the high cost of such treatment, it is not practicable or cost effective to treat the material.

11.5 COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost of this alternative would include the excavation, removal, and disposal of the excavated soilsin the on-base landfill, backfilling of the resultant excavations, and covering the chlordane-contaminatedareas with "clean" soils obtained from off site. The opinion of cost for this alternative is approximately$65,000. Additional cost might be incurred from wastewater treatment, if required. The total cost of$65,000 for Alternative 3 is less than $310,000, the cost for Alternative 4 because of: 1) employing on-base landfill disposal versus employing off-base landfill disposal (Alternative 4) of the excavated soil; and


2) the elimination of cost associated with off-base transportation disposal cost under Alternative 4. Costsassociated with a treatability study and treatment under Alternative 5 would not be incurred underAlternative 3; therefore, the same overall protection to human health and the environment can be providedby Alternative 3 at a cost of $65,000, compared to the Alternative 5 cost of $540,000.

The selection of this alternative represents a reasonable value with regard to the other alternatives. Ofthe three alternatives that provide overall protection to human health and the environment and complywith ARARs, the selected remedy is the least expensive.

Installation Restoration Program2608-3208.28 H_g

12.0 DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

The USAF presented the Proposed Plan, which includes the preferred alternative for remediation of theOU3, on July 8, 1996. The Proposed Plan was presented to the public, and public comments wereconsidered prior to the determination of the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative (Excavationand On-Base Landfill of Contaminated Soils, Placement of Clean Soil Cover Over Chlordane-Contaminated Areas, Implementation of Institutional Controls, Wastewater Treatment [if Required])includes excavation, land disposal of excavated soil at the on-base Landfill No. 3, backfilling theexcavations with clean soil obtained off site, implementation of institutional controls, and a minimum of2 feet of clean soil cover with erosion protection over chlordane-contaminated areas.

During development of the ROD, no significant changes have been made to the preferred alternativedescribed in the Proposed Plan.


13.0 STATE ROLE

The MEDEP, as signatory to the FFA (as amended), has reviewed the alternatives evaluated during RI/FSactivities and has indicated its support for this selected remedy. The MEDEP has also reviewed theRemedial Investigation, Risk Assessment and FS to determine if the selected remedy is in compliancewith applicable or relevant and appropriate state environmental laws and regulations. Upon completionof public preview and the public hearing for the RI/FS and PP, the MEDEP concurs with the selectedremedy for OU3. A copy of the letter of concurrence is attached to this ROD as Appendix C.


14.0 REFERENCES

LAW, 1994. Final Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation Technical Report for Operable Unit 3.Loring AFB, Maine, March 1994.

LAW, 1996a. Final Remedial Investigation/Additional Site Investigation Technical Report for OperableUnit 3, Loring AFB, Maine, March 1996.

LAW, 1996b. Final Feasibility Study Report for Operable Unit 3, Loring AFB, Maine, June 1996.

LAW, 1996c. Final Proposal Plan for Operable Unit 3, Loring AFB, Mam, June 1996.

Loring AFB, 1993. Personal communication with Loring AFB environmental personnel by LAWpersonnel.

USEPA, 1988b. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part 1, Interim Final, PB90-272535.

USEPA, 1989a and b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 - Human HealthAssessment Manual (Part A), Interim Final, December 1989 (USEPA, 1989a), and Volume 2:Environmental Evaluation Manual, Interim Final, March 1989 (USEPA, 1989b).

Installation Restoration Program2608-3208.28 14_j

APPENDIX A

TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING MEETING ON JULY 10, 1996

rrid

STATE OF MAINE

AROOSTOOK, ss.

CARIBOU, MAINE

PUBLIC HEARING

LORING AIR FORCE BASEOPERABLE UNIT 3 PUBIC HEARING

7:05 P.M.

ORIGINAL

CARIBOU MUNICIPAL BUILDINGHIGH STREET

CARIBOU, MAINEJULY 10, 1996

Philip R. Bennett, Jr.Court Reporter13 Vaughn Street

Caribou, Maine 04736207-498-2729

I.

r

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

--10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

July 10, 1996

PETER FORBES: Good evening.

Welcome to the public hearing to receive comments on

the proposed plan for Operable Unit 3 at Loring Air

Force Base. Today's date is July 10, 1996. My

name is Peter Forbes, the Remedial Project Manager

for the Installation Restoration Program at Loring.

Seated with me are Michael Nalipinski, Remedial Projec

Manager for the US EPA and Naji Akladiss, Remedial

Project Manager for the Maine Department of

Environmental Protection. They will assist me in

receiving your comments.

This hearing is being held in accordance with

the provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental

Response Compensation, and Liability Act or CERCLA,

as amended in 1986. Also known as Superfund. The

Act requires federal facilities on the National

Priorities List to present clean up proposals to

the local community for comment and consideration

before the final clean up decisions are made.

And the purpose of this hearing is to receive

comments on the proposed plan for Operable Unit 3.

r

2Mr. Philip Bennett from Aroostook Legal

3Reporters will serve as the court reporter tonight,

4

preparing a verbatim record of the proceeding.5

The verbatim record will become a part of the6

final clean up plan. The court reporter will be7 ;

able to make a complete record only if he is able8

to hear and understand what you say. With that9

in mind, please follow these ground rules. Speak•MO

only after I recognize you and please address your11

comments to me. State your name, and the12

organization you represent, and present your13

statement. Do not begin speaking until you have14

reached the microphone. If you have preparedI O

your statement beforehand, you may read it aloud16 ,

or you may paraphrase it and place it on the

IB table-Are there individuals wishing to make ai y

comment or statement at this time?

Well, seeing none I wish to note ladies and

gentlemen that it is 7:08 p.m., July 10th, 1996

and I declare the public hearing to receiveto

24 comments on the proposed plan for Operable Unit

25 3 at Loring Air Force Base closed.

END OF HEARING

r r

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

'10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT the foregoing is a true and

correct transcript of the record of proceedings held

on the afore-designated hearing date.

Philip R.^Bennett, Jr.,Court Reporter

OPERABLE UNIT 3 PUBLIC HEARINGCARIBOU MUNICIPAL BUILDING

CARIBOU, MAINEJULY 10, 1996

APPENDIX B

OU3 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

OU3 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

The Air Force held a 30-day comment period from July 8,1996 to August 7,1996, to provide an opportunity

for the public to comment on the Proposed Plan and other documents developed for Operable Unit 3 (OU3)at Loring Air Force Base, Maine. The Proposed Plan is the document that identifies remedial action

objectives, evaluates remedial alternatives, and recommends the alternative that best meets the evaluationcriteria for OU3.

The Air Force made a recommendation of its preferred alternative in the OU3 Proposed Plan, which includes

the following:

No further action is proposed for the following 14 NFA sites:

Ohio Road Debris AreaOklahoma Road Debris AreaKC-135 Crash AreaDumpster Cleaning Area/Building 7841EOD Area-CylindersGolf Course Maintenance Shed AreaChapman Pit Debris Area9000 Debris AreaSolvent/Paint Dock AreaPrime Beef Debris AreaBuildings 8951 and 8960 (DRMO)Old PX Gas Station USTF-106A Crash AreaDemineralization Plant

Further investigation is proposed for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range. Future plans will address

remedial actions for the site, if necessary.

The selected remedial action for the Contract Storage Shed Area site consists of the following components:

• Excavation of the contaminated sediments/soils, excluding chlordane-contaminated soils

Installation Restoration Program2608-3208.28 B-l

On-base disposal of the excavated sediments/soils

Placement of 2 feet of clean soil cover and erosion protection over the chlordane-contaminated area

Institutional controls which will include restrictions which implement this remedyand are consistent with the "Record of Decision for the Disposal of Loring AFB,Maine, April 1996" and the "BRAC Cleanup Plan, Loring AFB, Limestone, Maine,April 1994."

Wastewater treatment (if required)

The Proposed Plan was issued on July 8, 1996 before the start of the comment period. All documents on

which the preferred alternative is based were placed in the Administrative Record for review. TheAdministrative Record is a collection of the documents considered by the Air Force when choosing theremedial action for OU3.

The Air Force received no verbal or written comments on the OU3 Proposed Plan at a public hearing held

on July 10, 1996, or during the 30-day public comment period.

The selected remedial alternative for the Contract Storage Shed Area, as described above, includes a 5-year

site review to be conducted to ensure that the remedial action continues to be protective of human health and

the environment. If after review of the risk assessment the remedial action is not determined to be protectiveby USEPA, a contingency action will be implemented.

Installation Restoration Program2608-3208.28 B-2

APPENDIX C

LETTER OF CONCURRENCE OF MEDEP

STATE OF MAINE

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONANGUS S. KING, JR. EDWARD O. SULLIVANGOVERNOR COMMISSIONER

F OF tf*v

August 28, 1996

Mr. Alan K OlsonAFBCA/DR1700 N. Moore Street, Suite 2300Arlington, VA 22209-2802

RE: Loring Air Force Base Superfund Site, Limestone Maine

Dear Mr. Olsen:

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection has completed its review of the Draft FinalOperable Unit 3 (OU3) Record of Decision (ROD) dated August, 1996 which was prepared forthe Air Force Base Conversion Agency by the Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program.

Based on the information in the Draft Final ROD for OU 3, MEDEP Concurs with the Air Forcerecommendations summarized below:

1. No further action is proposed for the following 14 OU 3 sites:

• Ohio Road Debris Area• Oklahoma Road Debris Area• KC-135 Crash Area• Dumpster Cleaning Area/Building 7841• EOD Area-Cylinders• Golf Course Maintenance Shed Area• Chapman Pit Debris Area• 9000 Debris Area• Solvent/Paint Dock Area• Prime Beef Debris Area• Buildings 8951 and 8960 DRMO• Old PX Station UST• F-106 Crash Area• Demineralization Plant

2. Further investigation is proposed for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range. Futureplans will address remedial actions for the site if necessary.

Serving Maine People & Protecting Their EnvironmentAUGUSTA PORTLAND BANGOR PRESOUE ISLE17 STATE HOUSE STATION 312 CANCO ROAD 106 HOGAN ROAD 1235 CENTRAL DRIVE, SKYWAY PARKAUGUSTA. MAINE 04333-0017 PORTLAND. ME 04103 BANGOR. ME 04401 PRESQUE ISLE. ME 04769(207) 287-7688 FAX: (207) 287-7826 (207) 822-6300 FAX: (207) 822-6303 (207) 941-4570 FAX: (207)941-4584 (207) 764-0477 FAX: (207) 764-1507OFFICE LOCATED AT RAY BUILDING, HOSPITAL STREET

printed on recycled paper

3. The selected remedial action for the Contract Storage Shed Area site consists of thefollowing components:

• Excavation of the contaminated sediments/soils, excluding chlordanecontaminated soils.

• On-base disposal of the excavated sediments/soils.

• Placement of 2 feet of clean soil cover and erosion protection over thechlordane contaminated area.

• Institutional controls.

• Wastewater treatment if required.

Details of the selected remedial action for the Contract Storage Shed Area site are presented insection 10-2 of the Draft Final Record of decision for OU 3.

The State's concurrence with the remedy described above should not be construed asconcurrence with any conclusion of law or finding of fact which may be set forth in the ROD forOU 3. The State reserves the right to challenge any such finding of fact or conclusion of anylaw in any other context. This concurrence is based on the State's understanding that MEDEPwill continue to participate in the Federal Facilities Agreement and review and approval ofoperation, design and monitoring plans. MEDEP's concurrence is conditional pending ourreview of permanent institutional controls.

The MEDEP looks forward to working with the Department of The Air Force and the USEnvironmental Protection Agency to resolve the environmental problems posed by these sites. Ifyou need additional information, do not hesitate to contact either Mark Hyland or myself.

Sincerely,

Edward O. Sullivan

pc: Michael Nalipinski, USEPANaji Akladiss, DEPHank Lowman, AFBCADavid Strainge, AFBCA

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE LORING AIR … OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE BASE CONVERSION AGENCY,...

Documents

Transcript of DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE LORING AIR … OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE BASE CONVERSION AGENCY,...