PB95-963102
EPA/ESD/R01-94/098
January 1995
EPA Supei fund
Explanation of Significant Difference
for the Record of Decision:
Loring Air Force Base,
Operable Unit 6, ME
-------
FINAL
RAILROAD MAINTENANCE SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 6 ..
EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
September 1994
.The
Air F orere
RelbuilJing Our
Environment
Installation Restoration Program
-------
,,".....
DECLARATION FOR THE
EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Railroad Maintenance Site, Operable Unit 6
Loring Air Force Base (LAFB)
Limestone, Maine
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
This decision document sets forth the basis for the determination
to issue tpe attached Explanation of Significant Differences
(ESD) for Operable Unit 6 at the Loring Air Force Base Superfund
Site in Limestone, Maine.
STATUTORY BASIS FOR ISSUANCE OF THE ESD
Under Section 117(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), if the lead agency
determines that the remedial action at a Site differs
significantly from the Record of Decision (ROD) for that Site,
the lead agency shall publish an explanation of the significant
differences between the remedial action being undertaken and the
remedial action set forth in the ROD and the reasons such changes
are being made. The National Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR
300.435 (c) (2», and EPA guidance (OSWER Directive 9355.3-02),
indicate that an ESD, rather than a ROD amendment, is appropriate
where the changes in issue do not fundamentally alter the overall
remedy with respect to scope, performance, or cost. Because the
adjustments to the remedial action do not fundamentally alter the
overall remedy for the Operable Unit 6 with respect to scope,
performance or cost, this ESD is being issued properly.
In accordance with the NCP (40 CFR 300.435(c) (2) (i) (A», this ESD
. wil.l become part of the Administrative Record which is available
for public review at both the LAFB Base Conversion Agency Office
and the Robert A. Frost Memorial Library, in Limestone, Maine.
In addition, a notice that briefly summarizes this ESD will be
published in the Aroostook Republican and Bangor ~aily News.
OVERVIEW OF THE ESD
OU 6 consists of six sites: Railroad Maintenance Site (RRMS) ,
East Gate Waste Storage Tanks Site (EGWST), and four Fuel Drop
Sites (North 1, North 2, South-Active, and South-Former). The
OU 6 CERCLA Record of Decision issued in April, 1994 provided
that there would be a CERCLA remedial action for the RRMS and
-------
that there would be no action under CERCLA at the other five
sites. This ESD relates to the CERCLA remedial action at RRMS.
The RRMS contains approximately 200 yds3 of soil contaminated
with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PARs) which exceed
acceptable CERCLA risk levels. The selected remedial action for
the RRMS. included the following key components:
. mobilization and site preparation; .
. excavation of contaminated surface and/or subsurface soil;
. disposal of excavated material in an off-base licensed
landfill or treatment facility;
. restoration of the site; and
. .site review, including confirmation sampling.
By this ESD, the Air Force, as lead agency, with concurrence
EPA and Maine Department of Environmental Protection is
including, as part of the RRMS remedial action, the use of
excavated material from RRMS as subgrade fill beneath the
landfill cap to be constructed at the LAPB au 2 landfills in
of off-base disposal/treatment of such material.
In July 1993, a Proposed plan was issued outlining a preferred
alternative for RRMS which included excavation of the
contaminated soil and transporting it off-base disposal or
treatment. The Proposed Plan also discussed an alternative which
included use of the excavated material from RRMS as subgrade fill
under a proposed cap to be constructed at the au 2 landfills.
This alternative would have cost approximately $50,000 less than
the preferred alternative. At that time, however, no Proposed
Plan or Record of Decision for au 2 proposing such a cap had been
issued.
from
lieu
In July 1994 a Proposed Plan for au 2 was issued which proposed a
landfill cap as the preferred alternative for au 2 with necessary
subgrade fill being obtained from other areas on Loring APB,
. including RRMS. The ROD for au 2 based on this preferred
alternative is expected to be issued concurrently with this ESD.
The use of the material from RRMS as provided in this ESD is
subj ect to this au 2 ROD being issued. .
/
The use of excavated material from RRMS as provided in this ESD
as subgrade fill for the cap to be constructed at au 2 does not
fundamentally alter the overall remedy for au 6 with respect to
scope, performance or cost, and in fact will be more cost
effective than the remedial action contained in the April 1994
RaD for au 6.
-------
:.::::~
DECLARATION
For the foregoing reasons, by
issuance of an Explanation of
Operable Unit 6 at Loring Air
the cha es stated therein.
By:
Alan K. Olsen
my signature below, I approve the
Significant Differences for
Force Base, in Limestone, Maine and
DateS,U I~ ICflj
..
Title: Director
Air Force Base Conversion Agency
, .'
.'
!
-------
DECLARATION
For the foregoing reasons, by
issuance of an Explanation of
Operable Unit 6 at Loring Air
the changes stated therein.
By: \ ~ ('v-----
~ohn P. DeVillars
my signature below, I approve the
Significant Differences for
Force Base in Limestone, Maine and
Date
~
Title: Regional Administrator
US ~nvironmental Protection Agency, New England
I
-------
EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
Operable Unit 6
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
LIMESTO~, MAINE
I.
INTRODUCTION
A. Site Name and Location
Site Name:
Operable Unit 6
Loring Air Force Base (LAFB)
Site Location:
.
Limestone, Maine
B. Lead and Support Agencies
Lead Agency:
United States Department of the Air Force
(Air Force)
Support Agencies:
United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
(MEDEP)
Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) ~120(e) [42 USC
9 9620(e)], the Air Force, EPA and MEDEP entered into a Federal
Facility Agreement (FFA) , dated January 31, 1991, amended
December 1993, regarding the cleanup of environmental
contamination of LAFB. The FFA sets forth the roles and
responsibilities of each of the parties.
C. Legai Authority
. Un~~r CERCLA 9ll7(a) [42 USC S 9617(c)], the National Contingency
Plan (NCP) [40 CFR s300.435(c)], and EPA guidance (OSWER
Directive 9355.3-02), if the lead agency determines that
differences in the remedial action significantly change, but do
not fundamentally alter the remedy selected in the Record of
Decision (ROD) with respect to scope, performanc;:e', or cost, the
lead agency shall publish an explanation of the significant
differences between the remedial action being undertaken and the
remedial action set forth in the ROD and the reasons such changes
are being made.
-------
. .
D. Summary of this Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD)
~
The 1994 ROD for Operable Unit 6 (OU 6) at LAFB requires that the
selected remedy for the Railroad Maintenance Site. (RRMS) consist
of soil removal and off-base disposal. The ROD for Operable Unit
6 also requires a No Action remedy under CERCLA for Fuel Drop
Sites North 1 and 2, and Fuel Drop Site South-Active. In
separate actions which are not part of this Record of Decision,
the Air Force is taking non-CERCLA remedial actions at the East
Gate Waste Storage Tanks Site and the Fuel Drop Site South-Former
pursuant to state requirements. The actions are being taken
pursuant to an Air Force/State Two-Party Supplement to the
Federal Facility Agreement.
In' July 19'93, a Proposed Plan was issued outlining the preferred
alternative for the RRMS consisting of excavating the
contaminated soil and transporting it to an off-base, privately
operated, special waste landfill or treatment facility licensed
by the State of Maine. The material at the RRMS includes
approximately 200 yds3 of soil contaminated with polYnuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons which exceed the acceptable CERCLA risk
levels. The Proposed Plan also discussed using the excavated
material from the RRMS as subgrade fill for the OU 2 Landfill.
This alternative was not selected in the OU 6 ROD because no ROD
was signed selecting capping of the OU 2 landfills. The OU 2 ROD
is expected to be issued concurrently with this ESD.
Since the OU 6 ROD indicates that using the excavated soils from
the RRMS as subgrade fill would save approximately $50,000 and
200 yds3 of subgrade would not have to be purchased, modifying
the disposal decision to use the excavated soils from the RRMS as
subgrade fill for the OU 2 landfill is a more cost effective
alternative and equally protective of the environment. The Air
Force has evaluated the soils from the RRMS and determined that
the material is not hazardous, as defined by RCRA and is not
subject to the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (40 CFR Part 268).
Therefore, the RRMS soils may be used as subgrade fill at OU 2.
The use of excavated material from the RRMS as subgrade fill for
the landfill cap at OU 2 does not fundamentally alter the overall
remedy for OU 6 with respect to scope, performanGe or cost. Nor
will these adjustments impact the other aspects. of the OU 2
remedy: construction of a cap; long-term monitoring; and
institutional controls and land-use restrictions.
By this ESD, the Air Force, as lead agency, with concurrence
EPA and Maine Department of Environmental Protection, is
modifying the decision to include using the material from the
RRMS at Loring Air Force Base for subgrade fill beneath the
landfill cap for OU 2.
from
-------
E. Availability of Documents
This ESD shall become part of the administrative record for CU 6.
Both the ESD and the administrative record are available to the
public at the following locations.
Air Force Base Conversion Agency
5100 Texas Road
Loring Air Force Base
Limestone, Maine 04750-0523
(207) 328-7109
Robert A. Frost Memorial Library
23'8 Main Street
Limestone, Maine 04750
Hours:
Monday, Wednesday, Friday: 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Tuesday, Thursday: 1:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
!
-------
./
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-----------T------
/
I
I
@
]'
\
Caswell
Connor
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
FUEL DROP SITE
NORTH 1
FUEL DROP
SITE NORTH 2
FUEL DROP
SITE SOUTH
Limestone
~ RAILROAD
MAINTENANCE
SITE
FORMER
.: Caribou
EAST GATE WASTE
STORAGE TANKS SITE
j- - - - TOWN LINE
LORING AIR
FORCE BASE
I
o
SCALE IN FEET
.
4000
LEGEND
, OPERABLE UNIT 2
~ OPERABLE UNIT 6
FIGURE 1
LOCATION OF SITES
I
8000
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
LIMESTONE. MAINE
93090 17D
-------
II.
SUMMARY OF SITE HISTORY, INVESTIGATION HISTORY AND SELECTED
REMEDY
.-
A. Site Name, Location, and Description
LAFB is a
currently
which are
the RRMS,
National priorities List (NPL) site. There are
21 Areas of Concern within LAFB under investigation
grouped into 15 Operable Units. This' ESD relat'es to
which is one Area of Concern within Operable Unit 6.
LAFB is located in northeastern Maine and is bordered on the
south and east by the Town of Limestone, on the north by the
towns of Caswell and Connor, and on the west by the City of
Caribou. The base is three miles west of the United
States/Canada border and covers approximately 9,000 acres. .Base
operations are expected to gradually decrease until base closure
in September 1994.
The topography of the base is gently rolling, with several brooks
cutting through the terrain. The main base elevations range from
746 feet above mean sea level (MSL) on the main runway to
approximately 570 feet above MSL in the southwest portion of the
base.
Land surrounding the base consists primarily of farmlands,
forests, and wetlands.
The RRMS, is located in the southeastern corner of the base,
approximately 800 feet from the base's eastern boundary. The
RRMS was used as a maintenance yard for railroad equipment.
B. Site History
Construction of the LAFB airfield began in 1947 and was completed
in 1953. Aviation activities have occurred at the base from 1953
until the spring of 1994. Aircraft which operated at LAFB
included KC-135 Stratotanker fueling aircraft, B-36 Peacemaker
'bombers, B-52 Stratofortress bombers, F-106 fighters and F-15
fighters.
Many of the industrial, flying, and military activities at. LAFB
required the storage and handling of hazardous materials.
Several maintenance hangars and aircraft maintenance shops, have
been used continuously since 1952.
During the 1980's 19 drums containing heavy oils and antifreeze
associated with maintenance operations were removed from the
RRMS. In 1989 stained soil near the former drum storage area was
also removed. Confirmation soil sampling under the Installation
-------
..
.'
Restoration Program (IRP) indicated that all the contaminated
soil was not removed.
Soil borings in the RRMS area identified PAR and .total petroleum
hydrocarbons in surface and subsurface soils during 1993
sampling. PARs were determined to be the only contaminant
concern at this site. PARs were detected in surface soils
borings where they were found in decreasing concentrations
depth of 8-10 feet. The maximum total carcinogenic PAR
concentration detected in soils was 8.58 mg/kg with the mean of
1.76 mg/kg. The total incremental human health carcinogenic
risks associated with exposure under all scenarios did not exceed
EPA's acceptable risk level of 1.0xE-4.
of
and
to a
.
The ecological risk assessment demonstrated that adverse effects
related to long-term exposure to the PARs in surface soils are
possible for three of the five indicator species (short tail
shrew, HI=99i American woodcock, HI=1.4i and the garter snake,
HI=1.2). The Remedial Investigation determined that the PARs
exceeded the acceptable ecological risk levels and required an
action as described in the OU 6 ROD.
c. Investigation History
The investigation history at LAFB, including OU 6,
as follows:
is summarized
.
In 1984, a Preliminary Assessment Study was completed by
CH2M Hill detailing historical hazardous material usage and
waste disposal practices at LAFB.
.
Initial Site Inspection field work to determine if
contaminants were present at the OU 6 sites was conducted in
1985 by R.F. Weston, Inc.
.
The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process
., was begun in 1988 and continued by ABB-ES until 1993.
.
LAFB was added to the NPL in February of 1990.
.
.
In 1991, the Air Force, EPA and MEDEP entered into a Federal
Facility Agreement (FFA) with the USEPA ana the MEDEP
regarding the cleanup of environmental contamination at
LAFB. The FFA was amended in December, 1993 to address base
closure related issues, such as real property transfer.
.
The Air Force and EPA signed a ROD for OU 6 April 4, 1994.
The MEDEP provided a letter of concurrence on this .ROD.
-------
D. Selected Remedy
The '1994 ROD for OU 6 requires that the source control remedy for
the RRMS site include the following components:
. mobilization and site preparation;
. excavation of contaminated surface and/or subsurface soil;
. disposal of excavated material in an off-base. licensed
landfill or treatment facility;
. restoration of the site; and
. site review, including confirmation sampling.
,.
The nature and distribution of contaminants in groundwater will
be evaluat~d as part of OU 12 investigations. The groundwater
characterizations were incomplete at the time of the OU 6 ROD
signature. Additional action will be taken if the groundwater
investigation indicates that action is required.
III. DESCRIPTION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
The selected remedy for the RRMS as outlined above in section
II.D. and set forth in the OU 6 ROD includes excavation of an
approximately 200 yd3 of soil. The ROD prov~des that the
material will be excavated and transported to an off-base,
privately operated, special waste landfill or treatment facility
licensed by the State of Maine. A transport distance of 200
miles was used in the OU 6 Focused Feasibility Study.
The difference between the remedy selected in the OU 6 ROD and
the remedy to be taken at RRMS is that the excavated material
will be transported approximately 5 miles on LAFB property to
OU 2 and placed as necessary subgrade fill under the OU 2
. landfill cap rather than to an off-base facility. Before
excavated material from the RRMS. can be used as subgrade
material at OU 2, the Air Force must issue an OU 2 ROD which
complies with CERCLA and the NCP and which permits such use. The
,OU ~ ROD is expected to 'be issued concurrently with this ESD.
Because the 1994 OU 6 ROD did not include the use of
from the RRMS as subgrade fill for the OU 2 landfill
of the preferred alternative, the Air Force, as lsad
issuing this ESD.,
material
cap as part
agency, is
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARs)
Use of material from RRMS as subgrade fill at OU 2 requires
compliance with the ARARs contained in the OU 6 ROD. In
addition, the following is noted:
-------
...
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Land Disposal
Restrictions, 40 CFR Part 268. Under this regulation, land
disposal of RCRA hazardous waste is restricted without specified
treatment. For this regulation to apply, it must. be determined
that the waste meets the definition of one of the specified
restricted wastes and that the remedial action constitutes
placement. For each hazardous waste, this regulation specifies
that the waste must be treated either by a treatment technology
or to a concentration level prior to disposal in a RCRA Subtitle
C permitted facility.
The Air Force must determine if the RRMS material is hazardous
and subject to this regulation and must demonstrate that it has
complied w~th the procedures set forth in the "Technical
Memorandum - A Land Disposal Restriction Evaluation of Soils
Proposed as Landfill Subgrade Materials, 13 July 1994" (LDR
Technical Memorandum), which has been made part of the OU 6
Administrative Record. The Air Force has analyzed the RRMS
material and has determined that it is not RCRA hazardous waste.
The Air Force has complied with the LDR Technical Memorandum.
Because the RRMS material has been determined not to be RCRA
hazardous waste, this regulation is not an ARAR. If, however, it
is later determined that any of the material from RRMS is
hazardous, this regulation would be an ARAR and such material
could not be placed under the OU 2 landfill cap unless it is
treated in accordance with the requirements of this regulation.
Federal and State per.mits. Although OU 2 will be receiving
material from the RRMS, it is not necessary for any Federal or
State permits to be obtained for OU 2 in connection with the
action taken pursuant to this ESD. OU 2 and OU 6 may be viewed
as separate "facilities" as defined in CERCLA ~101(9). Under the
NCP, it .is appropriate to aggregate non-contiguous facilities for
the purpose of a response action if the sites are related based
on the threat posed and based on geography (55 FR 8.690, March 8,
.199.0). Therefore, the CERCLA off-site policy which is listed as
a policy "To Be Considered" in the OU 6 ROD ARARs for RRMS does
not need to be considered in connection with the use of the RRMS
material at OU 2.
i
,
IV .
SUPPORT AGENCY COMMENTS
EPA and MEDEP have participated with the Air Force as lead agency
in developing the changes to the 1994 ROD for OU 6 and support
the changes described in this ESD. The changes allow the Air
Force to address contamination at LAFB in a manner which
addresses the concerns of the community, and is still protective
of human health and the environment.
-------
v.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Considering the above-described adjustments to t~e selected
remedy set forth in the 1994 ROD for OU 6, the Air Force believes
that the remedy remains protective of human health and the
environment; complies with Federal and State requirements that
are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action; and is cost-effective. In fact, the revised remedy set
forth in this ESD is more cost-effective than the remedy selected
in the OU 6 ROD. In addition, the revised remedy results in
permanent solutions (removal of all wastes) for
the RRMS.
VX~.
,
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
This ESD, as well as all other material relating to
investigations and remedy selection, is available for public
review at the locations listed in Section I above. The public
has had the opportunity to comment during the public comment
period for OU 2 and during a public meeting and hearing held on
July 26, 1994 and supports the use of materials from other LAFB
sites (such as the RRMS site) as subgrade fill at OU 2.
".
,
/'
-------
."
..
.".."
REFE~CES
.'
Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Maipe Solid Waste
Regulations, Code of Maine Rules, Chapters 400 and 401.
Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Maine Landfill
Disposal Regulations for the Management,'Testing, and
Disposal of Special Wastes, Code of Maine Rules, Chapter
405.4.
'.
0.."
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 29 CFR Part 1910.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 29 CFR S 1910.1001
or S i926.58.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 29 CFR Part 1926.
Air Force (USAF), 1994. AFBCA/OL-M letter to Andrew
Miniuks, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Subj:
Disposal Restriction Evaluation of Soils Proposed as
Landfill Subgrade Materials"; 13 July 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1988. "CERCLA
Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Interim Final";
EPA/540/G-89/006; August.
U.S.
"A Land
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1989. "Interim
Final Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents";
OSWER Directive 9355.3-02; June.
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1991. "Design and
Construction of RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers"; Office of
Research and Development, Washington, DC; EPA/625/4-91/025;
May. .
..
. .
. U. S.~ Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1992. "National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (The
NCP)"; OSWER Directive 9200.2-14; January.
,
.
-------
ARARs
CERCLA
CFR
EGWST
EPA
ESD
FDS
FFA
FFS
FR
IRP
LAFB
MEDEP
MSL
NCP
NPL
OSWER
OU
PAR
RCRA
ROD
RRMS
use
USAF
USEPA
3
yds
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (42 use 9217, et seq.)
Code of Federal Regulations
East Gate Waste Storage Tank
Environmental Protection Agency (also'USEPA)
Explanation of Significant Differences
Fuel Drop Sites
Federal Facilities Agreement
Focused Feasibility Study
Federal Register
Installation Restoration Program
Loring Air Force Base
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Mean sea level
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
(40 CFR 300.435)
National priorities List
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Operable Unit
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Record of Decision
Railroad Maintenance Site
United States Code.
United States Air Force
United States Environmental Protection
cubic yards
...i .
-------
"""
,.., ~ '19-1994 12: 50
287 7826
D.E.P. AUGUSTA
287 7826
P.01
\
,
..\\I/~'IO"",i':
. ~ .., "~;r;. ..~
:, .'~~~':~~=~7"-:~~~A
~~F~f~
=...~
.... ....
~ "- N' ~
~ ~;..;,."7~~f'it'
. .I.~~' :~~7~'::;"'~ .
/;f'E O"~'''\~
STATE OF MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
JOHN R. McKIiRNAN, JR.
OOVERNOFI
IJDIW( J. RJatAAO
AC'T1NG COMMISSIONER
August 19, 1994
Peter Forbes
AFBCA/OL-M
P.O. Box 523
Limestone, Maine 04750-0523
Re: Loring Air Force Base Superfund Site, Limestone, Maine
Dear Mr. Forbes:
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) has reviewed the
August 1994 Explanation of Significant Difference regarding the Railroad
Maintenance Site for the Loring Air Force Base Superfund Site located in
Limestone, Maine.
Based on the draft, the MEDEP concurs with the selected remedial action. The
selected remedy for this site consists of excavating the Railroad Maintenance
Site and using the excavated materials as subgrade fill for on-base landfill cap
construction. The remedial action is an interim remedy that includes source
control to reduce contamination leaching to groundwater and maintains
compatibility with the final remedial measures, while oue groundwater is
evaluated and the final remedial alternatives are studied..
. Remedy
The selected remedy for the RRMS as outlined in the OUS ROD includes
excavation of an upper estimate of 200 yard3 of soil. Material will ~e excavated
and transported to a licensed state of Maine special waste landfill or treatment
facility. A transport distance of 200 miles was used in the FFS.
The difference between the selected remedy outlined in the April 1994 OU6
ROD and the remedy being taken is that the excavated material will not be
transported off-site. Instead it will be transported by truck approximately 5 miles
on LAFB property to landfill 2 or 3 (OU2). The material will then be placed and
spread at the lan~JI as subgrade fill before landfill cap construction. No
permanent land-use restrictions will be required at the RRMS since all PAH
contaminated soil will be removed.
-..- ". .
AUGUSTA
STArr HOUSE ST AfJOOj 17
AIoCU:iT1l. MAllo! ~'7
(207) 28M1iII8 FAX: ~7) 287.7V28
~ LOCAIZO ~r. RAy BuiLDING, HO$PTTAL S'I1Im
PORTlAND
312 CNllco RollO
I'eImNII), ME 04103
(2117) 87H3OO FAX: [2IT. Fax #
-
Serving Maine Peopl
Phone II
. - 91,,/,,!J
Pl!one,
Fax f ~.......
~
,., no- ....
-------
SEP-19-1994 12:50
287 7826
D.E.P. AUGUSTA
287 7826
P.02
Use of the RRMS material as subgrade fill for OU2 was not anticipated when the
ROD for QU6 was finalized because the QU2 ROD was not completed.
However, the LOR memorandum outlines a process for consolidating soils from
various-areas on LAFB to be used as subgrade for the landfill and the soils from
the RRMS conform with the LDR memorandum's process. -
..
The states concurrence in the selected remedy, as described above,should not
be construed as the State's concurrence with any conclusfons of Jawor findings
of fact which may be set forth in the Record of Decisio~ (Explanation of
Significant Difference). The State reserves any and all rights to challenge any
such finding of fact or conclusion of law in any other context. This concun"ence
is based upon the State's understanding that the MEDEP will continue to -
participate in the Federal Facilities Agreement and in the review and approval of
operational, design, and monitoring plans.
The MEDEP looks forward to-working with the Department of the Air Force and
the USEPA to resolve the environmental problems posed by this site. If you
need additional information, do not hesitate to contact myself or members of my
staff.
Sincerely,
Ili 1/44-
Deborah N. Garrett, Acting Commissioner
Department of Environmental Protection
pc:
Mark Hyland, MEDEP
Mike Nalipinski, EPA
Hank Lowman, SCA
page 2
-------
":,
~
DECLARATION
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECJSION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Loring Air Force Base (LAFB) Operable Unit (OU) 7, Quarry Site Limestone,
Maine.
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
I
This decision document presents the selected source control and soil remedial action
for the Quarry Site, which comprises OU 7 at Loring Air Force Base, Maine. This
decision document was developed in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986
(42 U.S.c. ~9601 et g,g), and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP); 40 CFR Part 300 et ~
(1990). This decision is based on the administrative record for the site, which was
developed in accordance with Section 113(k) of CERCLA, and which is available for
public review at the information repositories located at Robert A Frost Memorial
Library, 238 Main Street, Limestone, Maine, and the Air Force Base Conversion
Agency at LAFB, AFBCAjOL-M, Building 5100, Texas Road, Loring AFB, Maine.
Through the remedial action at OU 7, the U.S. Air Force (USAF) plans to remedy
the threat to human health and the environment posed by the presence of
contaminated soils at the Quarry through the implementation of a source control
remedial action. .
The State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) concurs with
the selected remedy for the OU 7.
ASSESSMENT OF OU 7
Actual or threatened releases of h~ardous substances from the OU 7, if not
addressed by implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision,
"
Installation Restoration Program
!
'.,
j
SURNAMe:
MBeL,
-------
-':"
DECLARATION
may pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to human .health, welfare, and
the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy for the Quarry Site is excavation and use of the excavated
material as subgrade fill for on-base landfill cap construction. The major
compon~nts of the remedy include:
t .
.
.
site preparation;
excavation of upper and lower tier soil and drainage ditch sediment;
placement of excavated soil and sediment at au 2 Landfills as
subgrade material for landfill cap construction;
.
restoration of Quarry wetland;
.
environmental monitoring of the groundwater and Greenlaw Brook
wetland; and
.
five-year site reviews.
The placement of soil and sediment as subgrade material at au 2 landfills is subject
to the issuance of a Record of Decision for au 2 pursuant to CERCLA and the
NCP which permits such placement. The au 2 Record of Decision is expected to
be issued concurrently with this au 7 Record of Decision.
-'.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The remedy selected by the USAF is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with federal and state applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements for this action, and is cost-effective. This remedy uses permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Installation Restoration Program
W0099431.080
Vlll
7626-15
'..
;
-------
SE.'tT BY:
9-19-94: 12:26:
HQ .~BDA'"
617 573 9662: #. 3:' 4
\>
~"
,-
DECLARATION
The selected remedy does not, however, satisfy the statutOry preference for remedies
that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal
element The selected remedy will reduce mobility of c:ontam1TJants through the
containment features of the landfill cover system at OU 2, which will also reduce
rainwater infiltration, erosion, and direct contact with the contaminated soil and
sediment.
DECLARATION
t
The foregoing represents the selection of a remedial action under CERCLA for
OU 7 by the USAF and the USEP A-New England. with the concurrence of the
MEDEP. .
or immediate implementatio .
By:
Date
Alan K. lsen
Director
Air Fo.rce Base ConVersion Agency
By:
Date:
John P. DeVillars
Regional AdmiT1istrator
USEPA-New England
Installation Restoration Program
WOO99431.DSO
ix
------- |