PB94-963722
EPA/ROD/R01-93/096
January 1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Brunswick Naval Air Station,
Site 8, ME
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
FORA
REMEDIAL ACTION
AT
SITE 8
NAVAL AIR STATION, BRUNSWICK
BRUNSWICK, MAINE
AUGUST 1993
-------
Contents
NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
RECORD OF DECISION
TABLE OF CONTENI'S
Pa~e No.
. .
DECI.ARATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
DECISION S'UMMARY ......................................... 5
1.
n.
m
IV.
v.
VI.
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIP110N ........... 5
SITE'HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES....... 9
A lAND USE AND REsPONSE HIsTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
B. ENFoRCEMENT HISTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE AcnON ........... 14
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARAl:IWSTICS ............. 15
S'UMMARY OF SITE RISKS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20
vn. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF
AJ..,'I'ERN'A11VES . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
A
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS/RESPONSE
OBJ'ECI'IVES ................................ 27
B.
TECHNOLOGY AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
AND SCREENIN'G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
vnI. DESCRIP110N OF AL1ERNATIVES '. . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31
IX.
'u .
WOO19378.080
. '... . --.
S'UMMARY OF 1HE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
AJ..,TEEUNATTVES .................................. 35
x.
TIm SELEcrED RE~Y ....... '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40
A. a..E.ANtl'P ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . ." . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40
, B. DJ:SCRIPI10N Of 'REMEDIAL COMPONENTS. . . . . . . .. 40
i
6836-aS
_-""0....__---
.------.--.-- -- .-- -.
-------
Contents
NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
RECORD OF DECISION.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
continued
o
~
\;
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44
. A. THE SELECTED REMEDY IS PRoTECTIVE OF HUMAN
HEALm AND TIm ENVIRONMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44
THE SELECTED REMEDy A'ITAINS ARARs ........ 46
THE SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION .IS COST-
XI.
B.
C.
D.
E.
EF'FEcrI'VE .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49
THE SELECTED REMEDY UTILIZES PERMANENT
SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT OR
RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES TO THE
MAxIMuM EXTENT PRACTICABLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50
THE SELECTED REMEDy DOES NOT SATISFY THE
PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT WHICH
PERMANENTLy AND SIGNIFICANTLY REDuCES TIm
TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME OF THE
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AS A PRINCIPAL
ELEMENT .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50
. .
XII. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. . . . . .. 52
XIll. STA'IE ROl..E .................................... 53
REFERENCES
GWSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A .
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
WOOl9378.(B)
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
MEDIA-SPECIFIC DATA. SUMMARY TABLES
MEDEP l..ETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPliCABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIAlE
. REQUIREMENTS
ADMINIS1RATIVE RECORD INDEX: SITE 8
Q
"
n
-------
Fi~e
1
2
3
4
5
6
I.J
u-.. -.--. .
NAVAL AIR. STATION BRUNSWICK
RECORD OF DECISION
LIST OF FIGURES
Page No.
NAS Brunswick Site 8 Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Site Location Map Site 8 ..................... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
P AH and DDT Concentrations in Soil and Sediment. . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
Site Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42'
Conceptual Cross Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43
Proposed Truck Route. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45
WOO19378.1110
ill
-------
Table
1
2
.3
WOO19378.080
NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
RECORD OF DECISION
LIST OF TABLES
o
Pag:e No.
,-
Contam;nants of Potential Concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21
Summary of Risk Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24
Summary ~f Remedial Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30
u
iv
-------
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Naval Air Station (NAS) Brunswick
Perimeter Road Disposal Site: Site 8
. Brunswick, Maine
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
'Ibis decision document presents a selected remedial action that will remove soil,
construction debris, and rubble from the Perimeter Road Disposal Site: Site 8 at
NAS Brunswick in Brunswick, Maine. This decision document was developed in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Uability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986, and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency PIan. Through this document, the Navy
plans to remedy the potential threat to human health, welfare, or the environment
posed by coDt~minated soil at Site 8. This . decision is based on information.
contained in the ..Admini!;;trative Record for the site. Copies of this Admini!;;trative
Record are located. at the Public Works Office at NAS Brunswick, and at the Curtis
Memorial Library, 23 Pleasant Street in Brunswick, Maine.
The State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency concur with the selected remedy. .
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from Site 8, if not addressed
by implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELEcrED. REMEDY
This action addresses the principal threat posed by Site 8 by preventing
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment by implementing this
ROD. This ROD describes the removal of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon-
cont~min3-ted soil, construction debris, and rubble from Site 8 and their disposal as
subgrade material at the landfill at Sites 1 and 3. . .
(;
Installation Restoration' Program
WOO19378.080
1
6836.QS
- -.-. - -.-. ...-
.'--"'-'"
....--..-...-
.' "..... -_.
-------
The selected remedy'includes site preparation to prevent silt from entering a small
tributary bordering Site 8; excavation of soil, rubble, and debris from the site; and
transportation of the excavated material to Sites 1 and 3 for use as necessary
subgrade fill prior to the placement of a low-permeability cap over the Sites' 1 and
3 landfill. After excavating, soil samples will be collected and analyzed to confirm
that waste removal is complete. The sampling results will be submitted to the
regulatory agencies and Technical Review Committee for review. The Site 8 are~
will be graded to mimmi,.,c erosio~ and seeded to reestabliSh vegetation. The landfill
at Sites 1 and 3, where the material will be placed, is the subject of a separate ROD
(NAVY, 1992) and will be closed in accordance with all applicable federal and state
requirements, and long-term monitoring will be implemented at these sites.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy meets the mandates of CERCLA Section 121. It protects
, human health and the environment, complies with federal and state requirements
that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and
is cost-effective. This remedy does not meet the statutory preference for treatment.
Treatment was not considered to be cost-effective based on results of treatability
studies and Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure tests conducted on soils from
Site 8. These studies indicated that con~min3nts at the site have very low mobility.
Because this remedy will remove contaminated soils and nonhazardous debris from
the site, no long-term controls will be necessary.
.
Installation Restoration Program
WOO19318.080
2
-------
The foregoing represents the selection of a remt"ili~] action by the Department of the
Navy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, with concurrence of
the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
By. £r6fr
Date:
z.z. rtr 113
J
TIde:. Captain, U.s. Navy
Comm~nding Officer
Naval Air Station
Brunswick, Maine
\.J
Insta~rogram
WU0193'78J8)
3
~
- -.---. .
-------
"
The foregoing represents the selection of a remeni~1'adion by the Department of the
Navy, and the U.s. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, with concurrence of
the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
~'f
. Title: ACting Regional Administrator, USEP A
By:
Date: _~-3/-fJ
~onp~g~m
WOO193'7BJ18O
4'
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
()
The U.S. Naval Air Station (NAS) Brunswick is located in Brunswick, Maine. In
1987, NAS Brunswick was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL). There are
currently 13 areas (Sites) within NAS Brunswick under investigation. This Record
of Decision (ROD) relates to the CODtamination at Site 8.
NAS Brunswick is located south of the Androscoggin River between Brunswick and
Bath, Maine, south of Route 1 and between Routes 24 and 123 (Figure 1).
qndisturbed topography at NAS Brunswick is characterized by low, undulating hills
with deeply incised brooks; ground surface . elevations range from mean sea level
(MSL) in lowland drainage areas and the Harpswell Cove estuary, to over 110 feet
MSL west and southeast of the southern end of the runways. Topography in the
developed areas of the base has been modified by construction, with ground surface
elevations generally ranging from 50 to 75 feet above MSL .
. "
NAS Brunswick is located on 3,094 acres. The operations area (138 acres) lies east
of the tWO parallel nmways and consists of numerous office buildings, a steam plant,
fuel farm, barracks, recreational facilities, base housing, hangars, repair shops, and
other facilities to support NAS Bnmswiclc aircraft. Forested areas (approximately
48 percent), grasslands (approximately 28 percent), and paved areas (approximately
12 percent) comprise most of the base property. Paved areas are mostly tlight ramps
and runways. The remaining 12 percent of the base includes the operations area
(approximately 5 percent) and miscellaneous shnlbland, marsh, and open water. The
southern edge of the base borders the estuary of Harpswell Cove.
Property uses surrounding NAS Brunswick are primarily suburban and rural
residential, with some commercial and light industrial uses along Routes 1, 24, and
123. An elemental)' school, a college, and a hospital are located within 1 mile of the
western base boundary.
The approximately O.6-acre Perimeter Road Disposal Site is located in"the northern
portion of the base (Figure 2). Perimeter Road, which runs east to west, is adjacent
to the southern edge of the site. Site 8 was a disposal area reportedly used from
1964 to 1974 for rubble, debris, and trash from NAS Brunswick. Discussions with
NAS personnel indicate that solvents may have been disposed of at the site; however,
'"
lnatal~rogram
WOO19378.080
5
6836-OS
-------
(
.:. .
~.
-
7;
G3
OUADI'AIIIICk.I ~OC&TION
o
I .
o
.
2000
I
.000.
POOR QUALITY
ORiGJNAl
FIGURE 1
NAS BRUNSWICK
SITE 8 LOCATION
SCALE .. FEET
-------
o
- .IOADAI8 .... ""'I'IILD
AIIIIIOX. ',108 P&T
MAlHI!
L!OEND
Al AAIUlQiD
I
- - MIA8 fl*.-wID....
b
... =:f"'~
~ -. _11""''''''
~ f1*1I8PCIUL
....,
~
flOUT! 24
11
fI88CII
,
-..- 8ftIIAIIII
~ TIIIIUII
..... CI8JfIIIT
.r'
I
o
SCALI! .. 'UT
'00
I
200
/'
//)
(\
fiGURE 2
SITE LOCAnOH MAP
-------
results of the ~emedial Investigation (RI) did not show the presence of any solvent-
re1ated compounds' in any medium. North of Perimeter Road, the site is a flat, open
area with steep, wooded embankments down to two small tributaries bordering the
site on the northeast and northwest. Surface runoff from the northern 2,000 feet of
NAS Brunswick drains into these tributaries, which flow approximately 1,800 feet to
the north and discharge to the Androscoggin River. The Jordan Avenue Wellfield,'
a municipal. drinking water supply for the Town of Brunswick, is located 3,000 feet
north-northwest and upgradient of Site 8. .'
Seeps have been observed at the base of the slope of the embankment down to the
northeastern tributary (see Figure 2). . .
Groundwater associated with the site is not used for potable or any other purposes.
The base is connected to a public water. supply admini~tered by the Brunswick-
Topsham Water District. .
A more complete description of the site can be found in Section 10.0 of the Draft
Final RI Report (E.C. Jordan Co., 1990a) and Section 6.0 of the Draft Final
Supplemental RI Report (E.C. Jordan Co., 1991a). .
"
Installation Restoration Program
WOO19378.080
8
-------
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT AcrIVlTlES
A. LAND USE AND REsPONSE HISTORY
G
NAS Brunswick is an active facility supporting the U.S. Navy's antisubmarine warfare
operanons in the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. The base's primary
mission is to operate and maintain P-3 Orion aircraft. NAS Brunswick first be~me
active in the 19405 during World War IT, and underwent major expansion in the
19505. .
Site 8 is located at the northern boundary of NAS Brunswick Material reportedly
disposed of at this site was construction and demolition debris such as scrap metal,
concrete, asphalt rubble, and industrial wastes. Disposal of hazardous materials
reporte~y included more than 1,000 pounds of solvents such as trichloroethene,
methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and toluene; however, this disposal and these quantities
cannot be confirmed.
Environmental contam;n~tion at Site 8 was observed in surface and subsurface soil,
surface water, sediments, seeps, and groundwater. Polynuclear aro~atic
hydrocarbons (P AHs) and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) were identified as
the cont~m;na.nts of concern. The distribution of these contam;nants was limited to
surface and shallow soils and sediments associated with leachate and surface water.
Inorganic contamination was observed in surface water, leachate; and groundwater.
Of the solvents reportedly disposed of at Site 8, only ME!( was detected. 'Ibis
contam;nant was detected sporadically at low concentrations consistent with
concenttations detected in sampling and analytical blank results. Blank samples are
collected and analyzed with actual samples to determine the quality control and
quality assurance of the sampling and laboratory procedures. No other volatile
compounds were detected, indicating that only small amounts were disposed of at the
site; the compounds have been flushed or volatilized out with time; or disposal of
these materials did not occur at Site 8.
B. ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
The enforcement history at Site 8 is snmmarized as follows:
8-
In 1983, an Initial Assessment Study (IAS) was completed detailing
historical hazardous material usage and waste disposal practices at
NAS Brunswick Ten sites were identified and ranked according to
. potential haZard.
\) .
WOO193'78.080
Insta~rogram
9
6836.QS
-------
.
In 1984, a Pollution Abatement Confirmation Study was conducted,
which recommended further investigation of seven of the 10 hazardous
waste sites originally identified (i.e., Sites 1 through 4 and 7 through
9).
.
In 1987,. NAS Bnmswick was placed on the U.S. Environmental
. Protection Agency's (USEP As) NPL
.
The RemediallnvestigationfFeasibility Study (RIfFS) process was
initiated in 1987 for the seven sites.
.
In February 1988, the first Technical Review Committee (TRC)
meeting was held. TRC meetings have been held quarterly since that
initial meeting. .
..
Four sites were added to the RIfFS program in 1989 (i.e., Sites 11, 12,
13, and 14), as well as the two additional sites originally identified in
the IAS (i.e., Sites 5 and 6). Site 10, originally identified in the lAS,
was no longer under the jurisdiction of NAS Brunswick and is not
included in the Installation Restoration Program (IRP).
.
In 1990, the Navy entered into a.Federal Facility Agreement (FFA)
with the USEP A and the Maine Department of Environmental.
Protection (MEDEP) regarding the cleanup of environmental
contamination at NAS Brunswick. The FFA sets forth the roles and
responsibilities of each agency, contains deanHn~ for the investigation
and cleanup of hazardous waste sites, and establishes a mechanism to
resolve disputes among the agencies.
.
In August 1990, the Navy. completed Draft Final RI and Phase I FS
reports (B.C. Jordan Co., 1990a and 1990b). The Draft Final RI
Report described field saD;1pling investigations, geology, and
hydrogeology, and presented contamination and risk assessments. The
Draft Final Phase I FS identified. remedial action objectives, and
developed and screened remedial alternatives for the nine original sites
studied in the Draft Final RI. The Navy prepared Focused Feasibility
Study (FFS) Reports for Sites 1 and 3 and Site 8 in 1991 and 1992,
respectively (E.C. Jordan Co., 1991c and 1992). The Navy submitted
. a Draft Final Supplemental RI Report for the Eastern Plume and
Sites 5, 6, 8, 12, and 14, an FFS Report for Sites 5, 6, and 12, and a
Feasibility Study for Sites 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, and 13 in August and July of
w0019378.080
Installation Restoration Program
10
-------
1991, and March 1992, respectively (E.c. Jordan Co., 1991a, 1991b,
and 1992b).
.
Currently, the Navy is studying 13 sites under the IRP.
Because the Navy is . committed to providing a timely response to environmental
. contamin:ttion at NAS Brunswick, a strategy was developed to expedite the RI/FS
process. This. strategy involves identifying the sites for which enough information is
available to proceed to the ROD and design phases of the process. Separate
timetables have been established for completing the Fmal FS reports and RODs for
these sites. The Navy has identified Site 8 as a distinct area of CODtamination and
believes. the remedial process can be initiated. An FFS for Site 8 was submitted to
the regulatory agencies for review (E.C.. Jordan Co., 1992). A Proposed Plan,
detailing the Navy's preferred alternative, was issued in September 1992 and a Public
Hearing waS held in October 1992. Public comments received on the Site 8
Proposed Plan requested the consideration of excavation instead of a soil cover as
. the preferred alternative. The Navy reconsidered and issued a. revised Proposed Plan
and Technical Memorandum detailing .the excavation alternative (ABB-ES Ine.,
1993a and 1993b). These documents were issued in March of 1993 and a second
public comment period was held from March 12 through April 12, 1993.
\.J
Installation Rest'iiiiilOiiProgram
WO!J19378.1I!O
11
6S36oOS
-------
ilL COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Throughout the site's investigative and remediation history, the community has been
active and involved. Community members and other interested parties have been
informed of site activities through informational meetings, fact sheets, press releases,
public meetings, and mc meetings.
. In August 1987, the Navy established an information repository for public review of
site-related documents at the Curtis Memorial library in Brunswick. In September
1992, the Navy placed the original Proposed Plan for Site 8 in the Information
Repository and Arlmini!i:trative Record. A Public Hearing was held in October 1992.
Public comments about the Site 8 Proposed Plan requested the consideration of
excavation instead of a soil cover as the preferred alternative. The Navy
reconsidered and issued a revised Proposed Plan and Technical Memorandum
detailing the excavation alternative (ABB-ES, 1993a and 1993b). These documents
. were issued in March 1993 and a second public comment period was held from
March'12 through April 12, 1993. The Arlmini!i:trative Record for Site 8 is available
for public review at NAS Brunswick in the Public Works office or at the Curtis
Memorial Library. A notice and brief analysis of the Proposed Plan were published
in the local newspaper, The Times Record, on March 10, 1993.
"
The mc has been an important vehicle for community participation. The 'IRC ~
established in early 1988 and comprises the Navy, USEPA, MEDEP, and various
community representatives. The community members of the TRC include
representatives from Brunswick, Harpswell, and Topsham,as well as the Brunswick
Area Citizens for a Safe Environment. The TRC also has representatives from the
Brunswick-Topsham Water Disnict. The 'IRC meets quarterly, reviews the technical
aspects .of the program, and provides community input to the program.
In September 1988, the Navy released a Community Relations Plan outlining a
program to address public concerns and keep citizens informed about and involved
in remedial activities. On August 16, 1990, the Navy' held an informational meeting
at the Jordan Acres School in Brunswick to discuss the results of the RI, including
field investigations at Site 8.
On October 15, 1992, the Navy held an informational meeting and public hearing to
discuss the Proposed Plan. for Site 8. During this meeting, the Navy, its consultants,
and regulatory representatives answered questions from the public and accepted
formal comments. During a public comment period from October 1 through 30,
1992, the Navy accepted comments on the alternatives presented in the Proposed
Plan for Site 8. The corresponding responses to comments are included in
App~ndix A, Responsiveness Summary, of ~ ROD.
liiiiiliation Restoration Program
w0019378.~
12
-------
As a result of comments received on the Proposed Plan, the Navy changed its
preferred alternatiye from soil cover to excavation and issued a revised Proposed
Plan and Technical Memorandum on March 10, 1993. The public comment period
. for the revised Proposed Plan was from March 12 to April 12, 1993. The Navy
accepted comments on its revised alternative. The corresponding responses to
mmmen1S are aJso included in Appendix A, Responsiveness Snmmaty, of this ROD. .
\.)
lnatal~rogram
WOO193?8.080
13
6836-OS
-'
-------
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACI'ION
The selected remedy for Site 8 at NAS Brunswick was developed in specific response
to citizens' concerns that all contamina.ted soil, rubble, and debris be removed from
the site so that no restrictions would be placed on future site use. The proposed
alternative for Site 8 Will be the final action for this site. The remedy includes
excavation of the contaminated soil and debris at Site 8 and transport to Sites 1 and
3 to provide necessary subgrade material before a low-permeability cap is placed
over the landfill. The hillside at Site 8 will.be regraded and seeded. This remedial
action will minimi?,e human health risks associated with exposure to contaminated
soil.
"
w00193i8.080
Installation Restoration Program
14
-------
v. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACI'ERlSTlCS
The nature and extent of contamin9tion at Site 8 is summarized by medium in the.
following paragraphs. A complete disaJssion of the site characteristics can be found
in Section 10.0 the Draft Fmal RI Report on pages 1()'14 through 1()'36 (E.c. Jordan
Co., 1990a). Summary tables of site-related contaminants and their concentrations
. appear in Appendix Q-l of the Draft Final RI Report and Appendix B of this
document.
SOIL/DISPOSAL AREA
,Soil boring and test pit samples were collected in the disposal area at Site 8 . to
i4entify contaminants in surface and subsurface soils. (Figure 3). Environmental
contamination was present in only four test pits located in the northeastern area of
Site 8. Total P AH concenttations detected in test pit soil samples ranged from 2.7
to 53 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Carcinogenic P AH concentrations ranged
from less than 2.S to 30 mg/kg. PAHs were detected in surface soil only, except for
one test pit where they were found in decre9Sing concentrations to a depth of 8 feel
P AH compounds are components of coal and hydrocarbon fuels that survive the.
combustion process. The historical use of coal and fuels at NAS Brunswick may
account for the presence of P AHs in soils across the base.
Inorganics detected in surface and shallow subsurface soil were within site-specific
background ranges except for lead, detected at concenttations nmging from 9.4 to
37 mg/kg, arsenic detected at concentrations from 2.6 to 5 mg/kg, and manganese
detected at concenttations from 137 to 185 mg/kg.
Endosulfan n was detected in one surface soil sample at a concentration of
17 micrograms per kilogram (J£g/kg). DDT was detected. in three subsurface soil
samples at concenttations ranging from 20 to 330 ",g/kg. .
GRO'(JNDWATER
Site 8 has been of special interest because of the location of the Jordan Avenue
Wellfield approximately 3,000 feet northwest of the site. A primary' goal of the
subsurface investigation program of the Draft Final Supplemental RI Report was to
assess the possibility of a hydraulic connection between Site 8 and this municipal
wellfield (E.c. Jordan Co., 1991a). Based on available geologic, hydrogeologic, and
chemical data, contamin9.ted Site 8 groundwater should not affect the municipal
wellfield. This conclusion is based on groundwater contours for the site, high
hydraulic conductivities in the vicinity of ilie refuse, the underlying low conductivity
\.J
Installation Restoration Program
WII019378.080
15
6836.()S
------..-. --..
. n_._... .-- .-- . - .
-------
==t
o
I
b
....
0\
ROUTe 14
.)1;
oD
...
...
...'
LEGEND
,....... ---
,../',
...............
...
...
...
.
~
IIIISTING MONITORING WelL
LOCATION
()8RJIWmOII WEU LOCATION
TlST IOAING LOCATION
TOT "' LOCATION
LIACltAft I!D8ftNT
IAIII"LI LOCATION
.
RNCI
STMAM
TAHUNE
CUlVERT
APPAOX.ATI AREA Of
DISPOSAL
a;,m';!!I.,'"
~~
r-
o
SCALe IN ,eET
.
'00
I
100
.
///(
FIGURE 3
PAH AND DOT CONCENTRATIONS
.. SOL AND SEDIMENT
SITE 8
(\
-------
clay layer, and the steep hydraulic gradient adjacent to. the northeast tributary.
Groundwater movement directly beneath the actual disposal area is locally northward
and northeastward, discharging to the adjacent ravine. Groundwater in other
portions of the overall Site 8 area, although movement may be locally northwestward
and westWard, is not impacted by refuse leachate.
No pesticides, polych1orin~ted biphenyls (PCBs), volatile organic compounds (V0Cs), .
or semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) were detected in Site 8 monitoring
wells. Concentrations of inorganic cont~minauts in groundwater at Si~ 8 were
elevated relative to concentrations of inorganics at uncon~minMed wells at NAS
Brunswick. High. levels of sodium, chloride, and cyanide in one well appear
associated with runoff from an upgradient storage pile of road salt . that has since
been moved to a covered building in the southern portion of the base. Cadmium
concentrations exce~ded the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in two wells in
Round II sampling and in a third well in Round IV. Lead exceeded its 15
micrograms per liter (pg/L) action level in one upgradient well.
Most inorganic contaminants were detected sporadically (i.e., inconsistently between
five sampling rounds) or at low concentrations. Most Site 8 wells are screened in silt
or clay. The high concentrations of inorganics occurred in unfiltered samples from
these wells and are consistent with the clay-rich geologic media at the site rather
than being associated with the disposal material.
LEACHATE SEEPS, SURFACE WATER, AND SEDIMENT
Leachate generated from the disposal area at Site 8 seeps out along the steep bank
of the tributary running along the northeast edge of the site. Three seep locations
were identified along the bank of this tributaIy (see Figure 2). These leachate seeps
were sampled for organic and inorganic compounds. In addition, sediments were
collected adjacent to the leachate outbreak areas to characterize the impact of
leachate on surrounding soils. VOCs detected in the leachate and sediment included
acetone (leachate and sediment), methylene chloride (sediment), chloroform
(sediment), 2-butanone (sediment), and trichloroethane (sediment). Low
concentrations of the compounds measured in sediments from these seeps,
accompanied with sporadic detection and method blank detections, suggest these
compounds do not reflect actual site conditions. SVOCs were not detected in
leach~te frOm these seeps, but P AHs were reported in all three associated sediments.
PcBs and pesticides were not reported in the leachate samples, but the PCB
Aroclor-1248 and DDT were found in sediment. Inorganic compounds were detected
at all three seep locations. Concentrations of inorganics are elevated in leachate, arid
are consistently higher than background surface water and groundwater values. .
G
Installation Restoration Program
w0019378.080
17
6836-QS
----- ".---- .-... u_..
-------
Site 8 sediment samples at seep locations also have higher concentrations of
inorganic compounds. Aluminum, calcium, magnesium, and manganese all have
values consistent with background concentrations, but iron concentrations are
elevated. High iron concentrations may be due to precipitation of iron oxides from
leachate. Low concentrations of arsenic (3 to 6 mg/kg) were found in sediments in
all three seep locations, but arsenic was not detected during all sampling rounds~
Lead (3 to 77 mg/kg) and chromium (5 to 82 mg/kg) were found in all sediment
samples and were detected in all sampling rounds, but at relatively .low
concentrations. Lead and chromium concenttations are consistent with the clay-rich
sediment that characterizes Site 8. Other detected. compounds include copper,
cobalt, vanadium, and zinc. These compounds were not found. at all seep sampling
locations, nor were. they detected in all sampling rounds, and concentrations were
typically in the normal range for clay soil samples. .
Twelve surface water and sediment sampling locations were established at Site 8.
The VOCS acetone, methylene chloride, and chloroform were detected in sediments
and surface water at low concenttations. The presence of these VOCS was attributed
to laboratory contamination and is not believed to represent actual site conditions.
SVOCs, pesticides, and PCBs were not detected in Site 8 surface water; however,
PAIls and beta-BHC were found in sediment samples. Surface waters and sediment
typically had concentrations of inorganic compounds within the background ranges
for NAS Brunswick. Exceptions included sodium, cyanide, and zinc, all of which h~
elevated concentrations at several surface water locations. Sodium concentrations
in surface water locations ranged from normal levels of 10,000 to 20,000 p.g/L to
360,000 p.g!L The high sodium levels were typically associated with winter sampling,
and may result from road salting. Cyanide concentrations varied from non-detected
to 128 p.gjL, and detection was also limited to winter sampling. Zinc concentrations
in the surface waters ranged from 11 to 163 p.g!L The highest concentrations occur
off base, north of Route 24. Zinc is also detected off base at an upgradient location,
. but at significantly lower concentrations. Chloride concentrations in surface water
were also elevated, ranging from 6,500 to 510,000 p.g/L
The presence of sodium and chloride in these surface waters suggest a salt source.
A salt pile was located on the old runway (paved area) south of Site 8, and
upgradient of the drainage(s) affected by the high sodium and chloride
concentrations. Surface runoff from the formerly located salt pile area was collected
in a drain .that focuses. runoff into the drainage where the affected surface water is
located. The salt pile. is also believed to be the sourc.e of the cyaIiide reponed at
Site 8. A recent study in M$e documents the use of sodium ferricyanide as a
de-caking agent. in salt, linking it to cy3Iride contamination near salt storage piles
(Olson and Ohno, 1989).. NAS Brunswick has recently analyzed the salt from the. salt
pile for cyanide concentration. The results demonstrate 2 to 3 mg/kg of cyanide
~rogram
w0019378.080
18
-------
present in the salt, consistent with the Olson and Ohno study. The salt pile is
currently stored in. a covered building in the southern portion of the base. .
"
'"
WOO1937B.08O
Installation Restoration P.rogram
19
6836.os
---. -~_._... -.-.
.- - .- .- .. .-, '." _.- .
. -........ - --
---.--
-------
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A baseline risk assessment was conducted to estimate the potential risks to human
health and the environment from exposure to contaminants associated with Site 8.
The human health risk assessment followed a four-step process: (1) contaminant
. identification, which identified those hazardous substances that, given the specifics
of the site, were of significant concern; (2) exposure assessment, which identified
actual or potential exposure pathways, characterized the potentially exposed
populations, and established the extent of possible exposure; (3) t())dcity assessment,
which considered the types and magnitude of adverse health effects associated with
. exposure to hazardous substances; and (4) risk characterization, which integrated the
three earlier steps to snmmarize the potential and. actual risks posed by hazardous
substances at the site, including carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks. The results .
. of the baseline risk assessment are summarized in .the following paragraphs.
The contam;nants of concern (COC) identified in the Site 8 human health risk
assessment constitute a representative subset of all the contaminants identified during
the RI. The coes . were selected to represent potential site-related hazards based
on toxicity, concentration, frequency of detection, and mobility and persistence in the
environment. The coes are snmmarized in tables in Appendix Q-1 of the Draft
Final RI Report (E.c. Jordan Co., 199Oa). A snmmary of the health effects of each
COC is presented in Appendix Q, pages Q-122 through 0-151 of the Draft Final RI
Report (E.c. Jordan Co., 199Oa). In addition, a snmmary of COCS for Site 8 appears
in Table 1.
Human health risks were quantitatively evaluated based on potential exposure to
coes under both current (e.g., an older child playing) and assumed future land-use
(e.g., residential) scenarios. The following is a brief summary of the two scenarios.
A more thorough description can be found in Appendix Q of the Draft Final RI
Report (E.C. Jordan Co., 1990a).
. . .
Because access to this site is not .controlle~, exposure to soils, sedimentS, surface
water, leachate seeps, and leachate sediment via direct contact and. ingestion is
considered possible. Exposure to groundwater does not occur under present land-use'
conditions. The exposure scenario used to evaluate current use was based on an
older child (ages 7 to 12) who regularly accesses or trespasses on the site during a
six-year period. Potential risks under a future residential scenario were estimated
assuming contact for 350 days per year during a 30-year period, six years of which
constitutes childhood exposure with higher estimat~d. ingestion levels. Additional
information and references for the exposure parameters used in these scenarios are
listed in Tables 0-23 through 0-28 in Appendix Q of the Draft Final. RI Report and
Installation Restoration Program
WOOl9378.080
20
68J6.QS
-------
.-
TABLE 1
CO~AMI~ OF p~ CoNcER~
ROD: SITE 8
ftAS BRUNSWICK
~:{.(\+. _u..f.~~ ~ . .:.)::.":;::':'..: '~.'I8.:::':::\"":. . ~"~~""':. :'.):::::::."~~c.;. WA,~:' ::k,:::\:.:;:.~~'~g.:;i:::gi:::t~lI:lg~Mtt[Il~:.'I'"ti:::,I
i
I
I Arsenic
: Lead
I
I Manganese
, Benzo(a)Anthracene
, . Benio(a)Pyrene . '
! Benzo(b)Fluorant~ene
: Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
'~ Chrysene
i Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene
'J .
i ~ Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)Pyrene
I
i Acenaphthylene
i Anthracene
I Benzo(g, h,I) Perylene
: Fluoranthene .'" .
Fluorene
, Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Endosulfan "
Arsenic
Lead
Manganese'
Benzo(a)Antt1t8Cene
Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a.h)A~thracene
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)Pyrene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
. Benzo(g,h,I)Peryiene
. Fluoranthene .
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene . ' ..
4,4' -DDT
Cadmium
Lead
Lead
ZInc
Lead
Manganese
Benzo(a)Anthracene
Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Benzo(g,h,I)Peryiene
Ruoranthene
Phenanthrene
, Pyrene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Manganese
Arsenic.
Lead
Manganese
Benzo(a)Anthracene
Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Indeno(1,2,3-c.d)Pyrene
Benzo(g,h,QPeryiene
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
4,4' -DDT
Not.:
See Appendix B for the range and frequency of detection of .ach contaminant of potential concern.
. .' . .' " ,0. .
-------
in Appendix E of the FFS (E.C Jordan Co., 1990a and 1992). A most-probable case
and a realistic worst-case exposure estimates were generated assuming exposure to
the average and the maximum concentrations, respectively, of each cont~m1n~nt
detected in a particular medium. .
Excess lifetime cancer risks were estimated for each exposure pathway by multiplying
the exposure level by the chemical-specific cancer slope factor (CSF). CSFs ha~e
been developed by USEP A from. epidemiological or animal studies to reflect a
conservative "upper bound" of the risks posed by potentially carcinogenic compounds.
That is, the true risk js unlikely to be greater than the predicted risk. The resulting
risk estimates are expressed in scientific notation as a probability (e.g., 1 x 10~ for
1/1,000,(00) and indicate (using this e~mple) that an individual is not likely to have
more than a one-in-a-million chance of developing cancer over 70 years as a result
of site-related exposure to the compound at the stated concentration. Current
USEP A practice considers carcinogenic risks to be additive when assessing exposure
to a mixture of hazardous substances.
The Hazard Index (lU) was also calculated for each pathway as USEP A's measure
of the potential for noncarcinogenic health effects. The HI is the sum of Hazard
Quotients (HQs), which are calculated for each chemical by dividing the exposure
level by the reference dose (RfD) or other suitable benchmark for noncarcinogenic
health effects. RIDs have been developed by USEP A to protect sensitive individuals
during the course of a lifetime, and they reflect a daily exposure level that is likely
to be without an appreciable risk of an adverse health effect. RIDs are derived from
epidemiological or ~n1mal studies and incorporate uncertainty factors to help confirm
that adverse health effects will not occur. The HQ is often expressed as a single
value (e.g., 0.3) indicating the ratio of the stated exposure as defined to the RID
value (in this example, the exposure as characterized is approximately one-third of
an acceptable exposure level for the given compound). The HQ is only considered
additive for compounds that have the same or similar toxic endpoints. Risk estimates
developed as part of this baseline risk assessment were evaluated using the USEP A
criteria and target risk range to identify the need for remedial actions at this site.
The significance of risk estimates was evaluated by comparing risks to established
target 'levels.. USEP A has established target levels for the evaluation of carcinogenic
risks and noncarcinogenic hazards at hazardous waste sites. USEP A's guidelines
state that the total increJIlental carcinogenic risk for an individual resUlting from
multiple-pathway exposures at a Superfund site should not exceed a rqe of 10-6 to
1~. The State of Maine has established a guideline of 1 x 10-5 incremental
carcinogenic risk as a target risk level for remediation at hazardous waste sites. The
risk characterizations in this report refer to the USEP A's target risk Tange; and
carcinogenic risk esrim~tes as being "below the target range" when risks are less than
Installation RiiiiffiiiIOi1Program
WOOl9318.tMIO
22
6836-OS
-------
lcrs; "within the target range" when risks are between lcrs and 1()"4; and "above the
target range" when risks are greater than 1()"4. The USEPA's and State of Maine's
. target hazard level for noncarcinogenic effects is an In of 1.0.
Incremental cancer risks and HIs for scenarios evaluated at Site 8 are summarized
in Table 2 .
No carcinogenic risks exceeded the USEP A's target range for the trespassing child
scenario. Incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with average concenttations of
contaminants were associated with an incremental risk of 7 x lcrs for surface soil,
. 4 x l(y7 with stream sediment, 1 x 10-9 with leachate seeps, and 1 x 1~ with le~chate
sediment. Exposure to maximum contaminant concenttations resulted in an
incremental risk of 2 x 10-5 for surface soil, 2 x 1~ for stream sediment, 7 x 1
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF RISK EmuTES
ROD: SITE 8
HAS BRUNSWICK
",'>"."'''",''~',,,,'',,, .. """'1" ". ."." .. . .' I'
..1Ii;t-~;~~'i;:t;~~*~8EX"
CUmmt Use: Trespassing Older Chid Playing On Site - Dermal and Ingestion
Surface SoB 7 X 10-6 0.01- 2 x 10.5 0.02
Surface Water No carcinogens 0.08 No carcinogens 0.4
detected detected
Sediment 4 x 10.7 0.002 2 x 10-6 0.01
Leachate Seep 1 x 10-9 0.003 7 x 10-9 0.01
Leachate Sediment . 1 x 10-6 0.01 7 x 10-6 0.03
Future Use: 3Q-Year Residential - Dermal and Ingestion
ChDd (Age: 1-6 years) 9 x 10-5 2 X 10.04
Adult (Age: 7-40) 5 x 10.5 1 X 10.04
Total for residential 1 x 10.04 3 X 10.04
'N0019378T/2'
-------
The potential risks associated with exposure to groundwater were evaluated based
on a comparison of cont:.min:.nt concentrations to MCLs, Maximum Contamin:.nt
Level Goals, Maximum Exposure Guidelines (MEGs )" or health-based criteria. '
Inorganic compounds were the contamin:.nts detected most frequently in groundwater
both upgradient and downgradient of the site. Cadmium was the only cont:.min:.nt
detcc:ted in the groundwater downgradient of the site that, exceeded its drinking water
,~ndmU or health-based criteria. The concentrations of cadmium ranged from 0.007
. to 0.012 milligrams per liter (mg/L); its MCL is 0.005 mgfL. In upgradient wells,
lead exceeded the Mame MEG of 0.02 mg/L and the action level of {tOtS mg/L '
Lead concentrations ranged from 0.006 to 0.218 mgfL. Remedial action objectives
were not developed for groundwater based on the low and'sporadic concentrations
of only one analyte (i.e., cadmium) detected above its respective MCL. Cad~ium
was not detected at elevated concentrations in the soils at Site 8, indicating that its
presence in groundwater is attributed to the natural geologic conditions at the site;
Groundwater beneath the site is not currently or likely to be used in the future for
potable purposes.
Environmental risks at Site 8 are associated with exposure to contaminants in
l~cn~~ ~P.ltiment and surface water. Exposure to conrnmin:.nts by wildlife drinking .
from leacb:lte seeps and from uptake of soil cont:.min:.nts into the terrestrial food-
chain appear minim:.I, A detailed evaluation of ecological risks may be found in '
Appendix Q~3 of the Draft ,Final RI (B.C. Jordan Co., 1990a).
Exposure to DDT in leachate sediment was an initial concern because of the
propensity of this compound to bioaccumula.te and bioconcentrate in food cb:.in!l:,
However, DDT was detected at only one sampling location in two of the four
sampling rounds. The average DDT concentration of all positive detects in
sediments from Site 8 is 0.008' mg/kg. 'Ibis is consistent with the residual
concentrations of this cont:.minant across NAS Brunswick a:s DDT was widely used
as an insecticide in the 19605 and early 19705. The ecological HI associated with
exposure to 0.008 mg/kg of DDT is less than 1.0. At an In of less than 1.0,
population-level effects are not expected to occur.
Aquatic and terrestrial receptors could be exposed to iron, a)nminum, l~ cyaDide,
and zinc in surface water. These cont:.min:.nts were detected in the tributary
draining the western portion of Site 8. Analytes detected in the western tnbutary are
not associated with past disposal practices at Site 8. Elevated levels of these
contamin:.nts (compared to background concentrations) were also detected in
upstream and off-base sampling locations (Le., north of Route 24). There was no
consistent trend in cont:.min:.nt concentrations by location or over the sampling
rounds: The analytical data show inconsiStent and sporadic detection of these
. inorganic compounds, suggesting that surface water contamin~tion is not related
WOO19378.080
, ~rogram
2S
6836.m
.--.---.- .._.
.----.---..-..-- ._._._-~ --...--'.. -.--.- -
-------
. .
solely to past disposal activities at Site 8. Nonpoint source discharges such as surface
drainage of the runway and/or Route 24 appear to be affecting the water quality in
these tributaries. Inorganic contaminants were not detected in surface water from
the eastern drainage area of Site 8, which is immediately adjacent to the disposal
area and would be most susceptible to contaminant impacts from past disposal
activities. Potential risks to receptors are almost entirely attnbutable to the elevated
concentrations of lead that exceed both acute and chronic Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for this contaminant.
Quantitative estimates of risk are based on numerous assumptions, most of which are
intended to be protective of human health and the environment (i.e., conservative).
Numerical estimates of risk presented in risk assessments are subject to various
~ources of uncertainty as a result of multiple layers of conservative assumptions.
. Sources of uncertainty can be categorized into site-specific factors and toxicity
assessment factors (toxicity assessment encompasses both the hazard identification
and the dose/response assessment). Most assumptions incorporated into the
estimation procedures. employed in this assessment are inherently conservative.
Assuming that the environmental sampling data reflect the true distribution of
chemicals in the soil and groundwater, it is safe to conclude that the risk estimates
are more likely to overestimate than underestimate risk.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed
by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, might present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment. The objective of the selected remedial action is to remove the
contaminated soil at Site 8 and reduce the potential for exposure to that soil by using
it as. subgrade material at Sites 1 and 3 prior to placement of a low-permeability cap
over the landfill.
Installation Restorat'lOii1'rogram
WOOl9378.080
26
-------
VII. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
A. STA'IU1'ORY REQUIREMENTS/RESPONSE OBJECl'IVES
Under its legal authorities, the lead agency's (i.e., Navy's) primary responsibility at
NPL and ~im;1~T sites is to undertake remedial actions that are protective of human '
health and the environment. In addition, Section 121 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) establishes
several other statutory requirements and preferences, including a requirement that
the Navy's remedial action, when complete, complies with all federal and more
stringent state environmental standards, requirements, criteria or limitations, unless
a waiver is invoked; a requirement that the Navy select a remedial action that is cost-
effectiVe and that uses perinanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies
or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable; and a
preference for remedies in which treatment that permanently and significantly
reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances is a principal
element over remedies not involving such treatment. Remedial alternatives were
developed to be 'consistent with these congressional mandates.
Based on preliminary information relating to the types of contaminants,
environmental media of concern, and potential exposure' pathways, remedial action
objectives were established to aid in the development and screening of alternatives.
These remedial action objectives were established to mitigate existing and future
potential threats to public health and the environment, to Comply with state
requirements, and address community concerns, and include: ,
..'
reducing concentrations ,of or limit exposure of hnman~
to carcinogenic P AHs in surface soil
.'
complying with Maine municipal solid waste landfill closure
requirements
complying with the 'community's desire for less restrictive land use on
base property
B. TEcHNOLOGY AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING
.~
CERCLA and the National Oil and Hazardous Subs~ces Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP) set forth the pro~ by which remedial actions are evaluated and
selected. In accordance with these r~quirements, a range of alternatives was
devel~ped for the site. '
WOO19378.080
Installation Restoration Program
27 .
6836-OS
./
_-_A --.-.---
.------- .. .--- .
--.. --_.__.-- .-.._------
-------
Remedial action alternatives for NAS Brunswick were developed to meet the
following requirements: (1) the alternative adequately protects public health and the
environment; (2) the alternative can attain chemical-specific Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) and can be implemented in a manner
consistent with location- . and action-specific ARARs; (3) the alternative uses
permanent treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable; (4) the
alternatives developed are capable of achieving a remedy in a cost-effective manner,
considering short- and long-term costs; and (5) the alternatives that permanently and
sipificantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances will be
selected, to the maximum extent practicable. .
Alternatives for Site 8 were developed by combining treatment technologies to form
a range of feasible alternatives that address contamination in the media of concern.
(i.e.,. surface soil). Alternatives were developed that range from no action to
containment to removal.
The RI/FS screened technologies based on site conditions and waste-limitii:1g
characteristics. . These' technologies were combined into remedial action alternatives.
The Phase I FS (E.e. Jordan Co., 1990b) presented the remedial alternatives
developed by combining the technologies identified in the previous screening process
in the categories denoted in Section 300.430(e)(3) of the NCP. The purpose of the
initial screening was to narrow the number of potential remedial actions for further
detailed analysis while preserving a range of options. Each alternative was then
evaluated and screened according to its implementability, effectiveness, and cost
Of the six remedial action alternatives screened in the Phase I FS, the following
three alternatives were retained for the detailed evaluation (E.e. Jordan Co., 1990b):
.
No Action
Soil Cover
Excavation/Solidification
.
..
The No Action Alternative described in the Phase I FS was renamed the Minimal
Action Alternative because it included institutional conn-ols and environmental
monitoring. A true No Action Alternative was added and was used as the baseline
alternative. The Soil Cover Alternative was revised to include a cover to meet the
state's requirements for closure of a construction/demolition debris landfill. The
. Excavation/Solidification Alternative was eHmin~ted because treatment of the Site 8
soils is no longer necessary based on the revised risk estimates and the response
objectives. However, citizens auending a public hearing regarding remedial
alternatives for Site 8 requested consideration of excavation as an alternative. As a
result, Excavation and Use as Subgrade Material at Sites 1 and 3 was also evaluated
~rogram
w0019378.080
28
-------
as an alternative in a Technical Memorandum (ABB-ES, 1993b).
alternatives evaluated are listed in. Table 3.
WOO19378.080
~onp~g~m
29
The four
- - ---- .-
-. .. -----_._-.
6&36-()S
-------
TAIILE 3
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL AL1ERNATIVES
ROD: SITE 8
MAS BRUNSwICK
... .
....... .. . . .
...... . . . .. . .. .
.". ,".""..". ,',", .
. ......... . .
j{~r~~mt~\~i(:(;:::~~:f:::::::::::~;:~~:~~:~:::;:~~;~AL~11YE::::.::.;
. ...,",.
. ....
. .
: D:IMPoIIErnS' .
.. . .... .:...
.. ..:.:""':.:':.'.:':"
0"' ."
8-8:
Minimal Action.
No Remedial Action
EnvIronmental Monitoring
FIve-Year Reviews
Land-Use Restrictions .
Fencing/Sign Posting
Environmental Monitoring
FIve-Year Reviews
8-A:
No Action
8-0:
Excavation/Use as Subgrade
Material at Sites 1 and 3
Land-Use Restrictions
Cover System
MaIntenance
Environmental Monitoring
FIve-Year Reviews
Site Preparation
Excavation and Transport
Confirmation Sampling
Grading and Seeding
8-C:
SoB Cover
30
-------
VIII. DESCRlFI'ION OF ALTERNATIVES
This section summarizes each alternative evaluated. Detailed alternative descriptions
can be found in Section 3.0 of the FFS and Technical Memorandum for Site 8'(E.C.
Jordan Co., 1992 and ABB-ES, 1993b). .
ALTERNATIVE 8-A: NO AcrION
The No Action Alternative does not include any remedial actions and provides a
baseline for comparing alternatives. In the No Action Alternative, the site would
remain undisturbed. Because no remedial actions would be implemented, 'long-term
human health risks for the site would essentially be the same as those identified in
the baseline risk assessment. Environmental monitoring and five-y~ar site reviews
would be in~uded as part of this alternative. . .
. Environmental monitoring would be conducted to identify any changes in site
contamination that may occur over time. Monitoring would include sampling of
. groundwater, surface water, and surface soils. A five-year review would be conducted
to evaluate the monitoring data and establish whether any additional actions are
warranted. For cost-estimating purposes, it was assumed that environmental
monitoring would be conducted annually for 30 years.
Estimated Tune for Design and Construction: Not applicable
Estimated Tune 0/ Operation; Minimum 5 yean 0/ monitoring
Estimated Capital Cost: None .
Estimated Operations and Maintenance Costs (net present worth): $134,000
Estimated Total Cost (net present worth): $161,000.
.
Net present-worth costs are based on a 10 percent discount factor and
30 years of operation.
ALTERNATIVE 8.8: MINIMAL ACl'ION
This alternative would consist of the following components:
..
land-use restrictions
fencing/sign posting
environmental monitoring
five;'year reviews
.-
.~
.~
Under the Minima] Action Alternative, no active measures would be taken .to reduce
or contain contamination emanating from the disposal site. Institutional controls
WOO19318.080
InstalliiiOiillestoration Program
31
6836.QS
----.
-------
would consist of fencing and warning signs around the disposal site and near the
leaclu~te seeps. Restrictions to future development would be incoIpOrated to restrict
land use should the base be closed.
Environmental mo~toring would be performed to identify any changes in site
a.mt'ImmAtion that may occur over time. Proposed monitoring would include surface
.soil, groundwater, Surface water, and sediment samples. Based on the site conditions
. and contam;nAnts, environmental monitoring would be performed annually. This
environmental monitoring program could be adjusted in the future, if appropriate,
and would be subject to regulatory approval. For cost-estimating purposes, it was
assumed that environmental monitoring would be conducted annually for 30 years.
Estimated Tune For Design and Construction: 2 months
Estimated Tune For Operation: Minimum of 5 years and up' to 30 years of
monitoring .
Estimated Capital Cost: $21,000
Estimated Indirect Costs: $7,000
Estimated Operation and Maintenance Cost (net present .worth): $143,000.
Estimated Total Cost (net present worth): $197,000.
.
Net present-worth costs are based on a 10 percent discount factor and
30 years of operation
ALTERNATIVE 8-C: SOIL COVER
. '"
This alternative includes a low-permeability soil cover that would be designed and
consttucted to m;n;m;7.e infiltration of rainwater into the disposal area. The design
of the 1:over system would meet the m;n;mnm performance requirements of the
MEDEP regulations for the closure' of attenuation landfills (i.e., maximum
permeability of 5 x ur7 centimeters per second and 5 to 33 percent slopes).
Although human health risks were not identified as a significant concern, this
alternative would prevent contact with soil contam;n~nts and mitigate the potential
risk associated with exposure to the maximum concentration of carcinogenic P AHs
under a future residential exposure scenario. This alternative differs from the Soil
Cover Alternative presented in the FFS report based on comments received from
MEDEP.
This alternative consists of the following components:
e,
site pr~paration
soil cover construction
site inspections and maintenance
e..
e
Installation Rest~rogram
WOO19378.CIIO
32
6IJ36.4S
-------
.
.
institutional controls
environmental monitoring
five-year reviews
..
The cover system would be : designed to meet the minimum performance
requirements for closure of an attenuation landfill and would minimi7-e future
potential human health risks by reducing exposure to surface soils. The cover system
requested by MEDEP and described in the State of Maine solid waste regulations
includes 18 inches of recompacted clay overlain by 6 inches of soil suitable for
vegetative cover growth. Other options for constructing a low-permeability cover
. include using a flexible membrane liner (a durable plastic material) or a bentonite
geocomposite liner (a thin material composed of dry bentonite on or between a
geotextile). Either of these options would require approxim~tely 2 feet of soil above
the liner to protect it from d~mage (the top 6 inches would be suitable to support
vegetative cover growth). To promote runoff, the. cover would be sloped in all
directions no less than 5 percent, as required by MEDEP regulations. The
approximate l()().by-l()()'foot area would cover the location of the maximum detected
P AH concentration. To prevent adverse effects on the stream environment, the
cover system. would not be extended down the embankment.
Because Alternative 8-C does not remove the waste from the site, institutional
controls consisting of fencing and signs would be inVoked. In the event the base is
closed, laJid-use restrictions would be enacted to prevent future development of the
Site 8 area.
A long-term monitoring program would be developed and submitted for regulatory
agency review. This would include periodic monitoring of surface water, sediment,
and groundwater. Chemical analysis of samples for inorganic contamination would
provide information for comparison to .baseline conditions (i.e., data from the RI)
and to Ambient Water Quality Criteria (A WQC). The sampling frequency, duration,
and analytical parameters would. be established following. the remedial design.
Five-year site reviews would also be required because CODt~min~nts remain on site
at levels that do not allow for unlimited exposure or land use. The five-year site
review cOuld recommend further remedial actions at the site or that no further action
is necessary. For cost estimating purposes, it was assumed that five-year site reviews
would be conducted every five years for 30 years. The five-year reviews would be
conducted in cooperation. with MEDEP and USEP A .
Estimated Tune For Design and Construction: 7 months .
Estimated Tune of Operation: Minimum of 5 yeflTS of monitoring, 30 yeflTS of
cover maintenance .
~onp~g~m
WOO19378.080
33
6836-OS
..-.-------
. '--'"-,,.--,,",-, ._--.
... '--""------ h- .-..
-------
Estimated Capital Cost: $185,000 to $205,000
Estimated Operations and Maintenance Cost (net present worth): $199,000
Estimated Total Cost (net present worth): $462,000 to $484,000.
Net present-worth costs are based on a 10 percent discount factor and
30 years of operation
The range of costs reflects different material and installation costs for three possible
cover material options. Cost estimates do not include soil borrow source studies by
an engineer.
.
ALTERNATIVE 8-D: EXCAVATION AND USE AS SUBGRADE MATERIAL AT .
SITES 1 AND 3
'Ibis alternative consists of the following components:
e
e.
. site preparation
excavation and transport of material
. confirmation sampling. .
grading and seeding of excavated area
e.
e.
This alternative involves excavating P AH-contaminated soil, nonhazardous
consttuCtion rubble, and debris from Site 8. Removing the rubble and debris along
with the oontammatP-d soil will free the site of future land-use restrictions that would
. be required if the debris were left in place. The. excavated material would be
transported to Sites 1 and 3 for use as subgrade material beneath the low-
. permeability cap approved for the sites and documented in the ROD for Sites 1 and
3 (June 1992). . . .
A confirmation sampling program would be developed and submitted for regulatory
review. The sampling plan would identify the sampling frequency for collecting soil
and ToXicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP) test samples from the side
wall and bottom of excavation. Soil samples would be analyzed for Target
Compound List and Target Analyte List constituents. All analytical results will be
available for regulatory and TRC review. . .
Estimated Tune For Design and Construction: 2 months
Estimated Direct Cost: $252,000
Estimated Indirect Cost: $76,000 .
Estimated Operation and Maintenance Cost (net present worth): . NA
Estimated Total Cost (net present worth): $328,000.
. .
~rogram
WOO19318.080
34
6836-OS
. --..-----." .-
.-...---.--..____n.'
-------
IX. SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Section 121(b)(1) of CERaA presents several factors that, at a minimum, the Navy
is required to ronsider in its assessment of alternatives. Building upon these specific
statutory m,ndates, the NCP lists nine evaluation criteria to be used in assessing
individual remedial alternatives.
A detailed analysis was performed on the alternatives using the nine evaluation
criteria to select a site remedy. The following is a snmmary of the comparison of
each alternative's strengths and weaknesses with respect to the nine evaluation
criteria. These criteria and their definitions are as followS:
1breshold Criteria
The two threshold criteria described below must be met for the alternatives
to be eligible for selection in accordance with the NCP.
1.
Overall protection of human health and the environment
addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate.
protection and describes how risks posed by each pathway are
eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment,
engineering contr~ls, or ins~tutional conn-ols.'
Compliance with ARARs describes how the alternative complies
with chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs, or other
criteria, advisories, and guidance. .
2.
Prima" Balancinl! Criteria
The following five criteria are used to compare and evaluate the elements of
one alternative to another that meet the threshold criteria.
3.
Long-term efTectiveness and permanence evaluates. the
effectiveness of alternatives in protecting human health and the
environment after response objectives have been met, in terms
of the m~itude of residual risk and the adequacy and
reliability of controls.
4.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume throUgh treatment
evaluates the treatment technologies by the degree of expected
reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous material. .
This criterion also evaluates the irreversibility of the treatment
WOO19378.080
'---'
liiiiilIation Restoration Program
35
6836.oS
-- ..-.-."
..... ~-.- --......--. --.
-------
process and the type and quantity of residuals remaining after
. treatment.
5.
Short-term efl't:CtiYeuess addresses the period needed to achieve
protection and any adverse impacts on human health and the
environment that may be posed .during the construction and
implementation period, until the remedial action objectives are
aclrleved. .
6.
Implementabillty assesses the ability to construct and operate
the technology; the reliability of the technology; the ease of
undertaking additional remedial actions; and the ability to
monitor the effectiveness of the remedy. Admini~trative
feasibility is addressed iIi terms of the ability to obtain
approvals from other agencies. 'Ibis criterion also evaluates the
availability of required resources, such as equipment, facilities,
specialists, and capacity:
7.
Cost evaluates the capital and operation and maintenance costs
of each alternative, and provides an estimate of the total
present-worth cost of each alternative.
ModifriD2 Criteria
The modifying criteria are used in the final evaluation of remedial' alternatives
generally after public comment on the RIfFS and Proposed Plan has been
received
8.
State acceptance addresses whether, based on its review of the
RIfFS and Proposed Plan, the state conairs with, opposes, or
h~ no comment on the alternativ~ the Navy proposed for the
remedial action.
The State of Maine has commented on the Propc;>sed Plan and
has documented its concurrence with the remedial action in the
letter of concurrence presented .in Appendix C of this ROD.
9.
. Community acceptance addresses whether the public concurs
with the Navy's Proposed Plan. Community acCeptance of the
Proposed Plan was evaluated based on comments received at .
the public hearing and during the public comment periods.
w
Installation Restor~rogram
WOO19378.080
36
-------
This is documented in the Responsiveness Snmmary presented
. in Appendix A of this ROD. .
The state acceptance criterion has been addressed by incorporating comments
received from the state on the Proposed Plan. The state is a party to the FF A and
has had the opponunity to review and comment on all documents. .
Commnn;ty acceptance aiterion is addressed as part of the Responsiveness' Snm~ry
.. in Appendix A of this ROD. Based on input from the community receive~ during
the first public' comment period, the Navy changed the preferred alternative from a
soil cover to excavation and use as subgrade material at Sites 1. and 3.
Following the detailed analysis of each individual alternative, a comparative analysis,
focusing on the relative performance of each alternative against seven of the nine
criteria, was conducted. This comparative analysis for the original alternatives can
be found in Table 4-1 of the FFS (E.C. Jordan Co., 1992). A description of the
preferred alternative can be found in the Technical Memorandum (ABB-ES, 1993b).
. The section below presents the nine aiteria and a brief snmmary of each alternative
and its strengths and weaknesses according to the detailed and 'comparative analyses.
. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected alternative will remove the contaminated soil and its associated risk
from this site. Placement under an approved cap .at the Sites 1 and 3 landfill will
limit access to contam;nated soil. This alternative provides the greatest protection
to human health and the environment by removing contaminated soil and
construction mbble and debris from the site and placing it under an approved lancHi11
cap at Sites 1 and 3. The other alternatives, except for the No Action Alternative,
would provide a simHar degree of protection by preventing or teducing the possibility
of contact with the contaminated soil at the site.
. The No Action Alternative would.not achieve overall protection of human health and
the environment because no action would be taken to either reduce contaminant
concentrations or exposure to soils.
o
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
.
The selected alternative and th~ soil cover alternative would meet all ARARs. The
No Action and M;n;mal Action Alternatives would not meet ARARs because they
do not comply with Maine regulations for the closure of construction debris landfills.
Installation Restoration Program
WOO19378.080
37
6836.(IS
_. n... . .._--_.-~.. -- .
-------
l..Gag-term Effectiveness and Permanence
The selected alternative would permanently remove contaminated media from the
site, requiring neither long-term monitoring nor land-use restrictions. Although the
volume of contamin::lted soil would not be reduced, it would provide some of the
needed volume of subgrade fill for the proper closure of the landfill at Sites 1 and
3. None of the other alternatives reduces the nature or magnitude of cont::lmin::ltion
at Site 8. The soil cover alternative provides long-term effectiveness and permanence
if long-term management is provided to maintain the soil cover.
Neither the No Action Alternative nor the Minimal Action Alternative would provide
long-term effectiveness or permanence. The site would continue to pose a risk to
h1Jm::ln~ and the environment. .
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
None of the alternatives use treatment technologies to reduce the toxicity, mobility,
or volume of the conrnmin::lted soil. TCLP tests performed on site soils showed that
the P AHs have a very low mobility in the present state. The soil samples passed the
TCLPtest. .
Short-term Effectiveness
The No Action Alternative and the Minima] Action Alternative would not result in
any adverse impacts to the public and the environment.
No risks to the community or environment are expected during either the excavation
or soil cover alternatives. Any risks to workers would be controlled by providing
personal protection equipment and safe work practices as outlined in a Health and
. Safety Plan developed for the site. Dust levels would be monitored and controlled
if necessary.
Implementability .
..
All the alternatives evaluated in the FFS are implementable. No special techniques,
materials, permits, or labor would be required. All the necessary construction
. equipment and services for each alternative are readily available. The No Action
Alternative would be . the easiest to implement. The Soil Cover Alternative would
also be easily implemented; however, a suitable borrow .source would' need to be
located The Minim::l1 Action and the Soil Cover Alternatives would require land-Use
restrictions. .
WOO19378.080
. .
~omuonProgmm
38
6836.QS
-,~ ..---.-_u -
.- _.._m- -..--..--.--.,. .
--,--..- -..-
U'- -._-_U_" -
-------
The Selected Alternative would not require land-use restrictions. Ex~vation . and
transportation of material is a common practice for which equipment is readily
available.
Cost
The capital, operation and maintenance, and total costs for each alternative are
provided as part of Section vm, Desaiption of Alternatives. Although .the Selected
Alternative does not have the lowest estimated capital cost of the four alternatives,
it does have the lowest operation and maintenance cost and total cost. The lower
operation and maintenance and total costs are a result of th~re being no need for
long-term monitoring or any sort of maintenance. .
.State Ac:ceptaDce
As a party to the FF A, the State of Maine has provided comments on the RI, FS,
FFS, Technical Memorandum, and the Proposed Plan. The state has documented
its concurrence with the remedial action as stated in Section XIII of this ROD. A
copy of the state's letter of concurrence is presented in Appendix C of this ROD.
Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the Proposed Plan was evaluated based on comments
received at the public meeting and during the two public comment periods. In
September 1992, the Navy placed the original Proposed Plan for Site 8 in the
Information Repository and Admini!l:trative Record. A Public Hearing was held in
October 1992 and a public comment period extended from October 1 through 30,
1992. During the public comment period, the Navy accepted comments on the
alternatives presented in the Proposed Plan for Site 8. Many of these comments
requested the consideration of excavation instead of a soil cover as the preferred
alternative. The Navy reconsidered and issued a revised Proposed Plan and
Technical Memorandum detailing the exca~tion alternative (ABB-ES In~, 1993a
. and 1993b). These documents were issued in March of 1993 and a second public
comment period was held from March 12 throu!P.1 April 12, 1993. No comments
were received during the second public comment period. The Selected Alternative
was developed specifically to address concerns expressed by the community. This is
documented in the Responsiveness Snmmary presented in Appendix A of this ROD.
Installation Restoration Program
WOO19378.080
39
6836-QS
. -- ---..-.-.
---....--. . - -_.
.. .----'.'.-----'"
-------
X. TIlE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedial alternative chosen for Site 8 (i.e., Alternative 8-D) is a
comprehensive remedy that includes excavation of contaminated soil and consnuction
mbble and debris. It is designed to remove the buried waste and place it beneath
a permanent, low-permeability cap at Sites 1 and 3. .
A. CLEANuP LEvEls
Based upon data presented in the RI and the revised Risk Assessment presented in .
the FFS, remedial measures to address risk associated with possible exposure to soils
are warranted because the future residential scenario exceeds USEP A's acceptable
carcinogenic risk range. This was the only exposure scenario that resulted in risk
estimates slightly in excess of USEP A's target risk range. The s~enario was based
on the conservative assumption of long-term repetitive exposure to the maximum
detected P AH concenttation under a residential scenario. The future residential
scenario and current exposure to P AH-contaminated soil resulted in risk estimates
in excess of the State of Maine's guideline risk level of 1 x 10-5 (see Table 2).
B. DESCRImON OF REMEDIAL COMPONENTS
The' Selected Alternative involves excavating PAH-contaminated soil and
nonbazardous consnuction rubble and debris from Site 8. Rem~ the rubble and
debris along with the contaminated soil will free the site of future land-use
restrictions for proper closure of this disposal area, which would be required if the
debriS were left in place. The excavated material would be transported to Sites 1
and 3 to provide necessary subgrade material beneath the low-permeability cap
approved for the sites and documented in the ROD. To minimi7.e erosion, the Navy
proposes to conduct excavation activities during dry periods, to the extent practicable.
The alternative includes the following components. .
e-
site preparation
excavation and transportation of material
confirmation sampling
grading and seeding
e
e.
e.
Site Preparation
Site preparation would be minimal because the area is fiat and relatively free of trees
and brush. Equipment would Be brought to the site and stored in a designated area.
~onP~g~m
WOO19378.080
40
~
-------
To minimi7.e the impact of the excavation on the stteam at the bottom of the
embankment, siltation fencing or hay bales would be placed along the edge of the
stream to prevent silt from entering the water. Excavation work would be performed
during dry periods of summer and early fall, to the extent practicable, to minimi7.e
erosion and siltation of the stream and to allow a good vegetation catch on exposed
soils. '
Excavation and Transportation of Material
An upper estimate of 14,000 cubic yards of soil, construction rubble, and debris
would be excavated from the embankment of the site. Information obtained during
pre-design field activities indicates this volume may be as low as 5,600 cubic yards.
The conservative volume of 14,000 cubic yards is assumed in the selected alternative.
The a.ppn;OOmate area of excavation is shown on Figure 4; a conceptual cross-section
of this area is shown on Figure 5. The amount of material to be excavated was
esrim~ted from boring, test pit, and monitoring well installation logs presented in the
Draft Fmal RI and the Draft Final Supplemental RI Reports and information
obtained during' pre-design field activities (E.C. Jordan Co., 1990a and 1991).
,Material would be excavated and loaded with a backhoe with an esrim~ted reach of
appro~ma.tely 20 feet, which would enable the operator to excavate from the slope
without moving the equipment to the bottom of the embanlanent. Material-handling
activities such as screening, sorting, and crushing the construction debris and rubble
would occur after excavation and before the material is transported to Sites 1 and
3. Dust emissions from excavated material would be conttolled by wening the
material prior to excavation. Approximately 800 to 1,000 cubic yards of material
wouldbeexcavatedfur~omWonp~d~. .
Material would be transported approximately 3 miles in dump trucks to Sites 1 and
.3. Increased truck traffic is anticipated on the base. The material would be placed
and spread at Sites 1 'and 3 for use as subgrade material before landfill cap
construction. Eight to 10 12-cubic-yard dump trucks 'would be required to haul
material at the projected pace of excavation; approximately 90 cubic yards per truck,
per day. At this rate, and with. an assumed volume of material of 14,000 cubic yards,
excavation and transport would last from 15 to 20 days. The proposed truck route,
and Sites 1, 3, and 8 appear on the Site Map (Figure 6). An engineering evaluation
of the fill requirements fo~ the Sites 1 arid 3 landfill cap indicates this material is
suitable subgrade material and will provide some of the 'required fill necessary for
completion of th.e Sites 1 and 3 remediation.
WOO1937B.080
~tlon Program
41
6836-OS
. - ,,-."-'--- .
-------
.
'"-
.......
.
.
.
o
.
.
'''A
T AL flAILIfijiD
.
. .
I
.
.
b
..
.
....
.
.
.
.
::-
to.)
IIOU!! 24
.
. /'
//1
.
t\
YB!R
fillll1J =- M8A ell'
~ ...... -- 81'IIUI8 AID
IC'.tII IlAJMM.lItAIG8 AIIIA
A A' .
L-.J CIIOI8IECT1D11 OIIDWIIIM
- ... - 8nIIAIII 011 n8r1IUIY
-- RMCI!
c. -:.~~~ a&It!IIf
r---\ HlADWAU.
~ ,..1.88
I
o
SCALI! .. peeT
'00.
I
200
FIGURE 4
SITE PLAN
-------
o
A
A'
~
w
TP-803
I
MW-810
APPROXMATE 2:1 SLOPE
I
o
SCALE IN FEET
.
.25
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION 1:5
1
50
FIGURE 5
CONCEPTUAL CROSS SECTION
-------
Confirmation Sampling
After excavation of the rubble and debriS, soil samples would be collected and
ana1yz.ed to confirm that no site-related contaminants are left in place. The presence
of debris or rubble would be evaluated visually. The sampling and analysis plan
would be developed by the remedial construction contractor before work begins and
submitted for regulatory review and comment. At a minimum, three soil samples
would be cOllected and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticidesjPCBs, and inorganics.
The sample locations would be selected by a Navy representative from areas where
staining is apparent (if any). Excavation would proceed if these conta~inants are
detected above background concentrations (non-detect for organics). .If
contamination is detected, and cannot be physically removed by excavation, long-term
monitoring of groundwater may be implemented to evaluate" the impacts on
groundwater downgradient of the site. Long-term monitoring is not a component of "
the remedial action. because contamination is not expected, based on results of the
RI and pre-design field programs. However, if necessary, Site 8 could be included
in the long-term monitoring program to be developed for NAS Brunswick.
n
Grading and Seeding
After excavation and confirmation monitoring are complete, the area would be
graded to establish a maximum 3:1 (vertical to horizontal) slope down to the stream
to promote drainage and minimi7,e erosion. It is anticipated that no additional fill
material would be required to achieve the desired 3:1 final slope. The area would
be mulched and seeded to reestablish vegetation.
XI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The remedial action selected for implementation at NAS Brunswick Site 8 is
consistent with CERClA and, to the extent practicable, the NCP. The selected
remedy is protective of human health and the environment, attains ARARs, and is
cost-effective. "
A.
THE SELECl'ED REMEDY 18 PROTECTIVE OF HUMAN HEALm AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
The remedy at Site 8 will permanently reduce the risks posed to human health and
the environment by eliminating, reducing, and controlling exposures to human and
environmental receptors through engineering controls. The removal of material from
the site will eHminate direct contact and incidental ingestion exposure to residual soil
contaminants. Placement of the material under the landfill cap at Sites 1. and" 3
would limit accessibility to the excavated material and contaminated soil. Removal
w0019378.080
Installation Rest'iiiiilOirProgram
44
6836-()S
",
. -".-.- ----..
. ..._---- -.".
-------
"
Route 24
-
PROPOSED
TRUCK
ROUTE
Site Map.
Not to Scale
FIGURE 6
PROPOSED TRUCK ROUTE
SITE 8
93CM051D
4S
... "-" --. ~- .~. ..'
-------
of the material from the site will also eHminate any connibution it may have made
to the high levels of inorganics detected in the leachate seeps and surface water at
the site. The selected remedy will result in human exposure levels that are within
the 10"" to 10'" incremental cancer risk range and that are below an HI of 1.0 for
noncarcinogens. Finally, implementation of the selected remedy will not pose
nn~cceptable shon-term risks or cross-media impacts.
"
B. 'nIE SELECl'ED REMEDY A1TAINS ARARs
This remedy will attain all applicable or relevant and appropriate federal and state
, requirements that apply to Site 8. ARARs for Site 8 were identified in the RI, FFS,
and Technical Memorandum (E.C. Jordan Co., 199Oa, 1992, and ABB-ES, 1993b).
Appendix D presents tabular snmmaries of the ARARs that apply to' the' remedy'
including the regulatory citation and a brief snmmary of the regulatory requirement
and its consideration in the remedial process.
The selected remedy would meet the following federal and state ARARs:
ecific ARARs
.
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) - MCLs and non-zero Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals
.
Maine Drinking Water Rules
.
Cear Air Act - National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Maine Ambient Air Quality Standards
.
The following chemical-specific policies, criteria, and guidelines were also considered:
.
Maine Department of Human Services Rule 10-144A, CMR Chapter
233 - Maximum Exposure Guidelines (MEGs)
.'
USEPA RIDs
." ,
USEP A Human Health Assessment Group CSFs
Location-specific ARARs
~
. '
Maine Natural Resources Protection Act
~o~tionprog~m
WOO19378.080
46
-------
.8
8
8
8
Maine Standards for Classification for Groundwater
Maine Standards for Oassification of Minor Drainages
Maine Solid Waste Management Regulations
Maine Site Location Development Law and Regulations
8'
Maine Solid Waste Management Rules: Land Disposal Facilities
8'
Natural Resources Protection Act, Permit by Rule Standards
A£tion-$peci!ic ARARs
.-
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Preparedness and
Prevention
8-
RCRA - Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures
8'"
RCRA - Cosure and Post-cl.osure
8-
Maine Hazardous Waste Management Rules
8,
Occupational Safety and Health Admini~tration (OSHA) - General
Industry Standards
OSHA - Safety and Health Regulations
8~
8-
OSHA - Recordkeeping, .Reporting, and Related Regulations
Oean Air Act - National Ambient Air Quality Standards
8'
8"
Maine Landfill Disposal Regulations
Federal and State DrinkiDg Water Regulations. The chemical-specific ARARs
identified for Site 8 were applied to the RI/FS process to determine the need for
groundwater remediation. The drinking water standards, MCLs and other guidance
and criteria to be considered (TBCs) were used to evaluate potential risk to human
health from the ingestion of groundwater. In the evaluation of potential risk, the
groundwater in the 'aquifer underlying the site is classified by the state as GW-A, a
drinking water source. The quality and safety of drinking water sources is regulated
by the SDW A and Maine Drinking Water Rules. MCLs are enforceable standards
w0019378.080
~rogram
47
6836.oS
.---- .-.
n ---._- - ..'
- . -. ..-.. .-.....-. ..
--.-----.--.....- . ".-- - .~...-
-------
under the SDW A that represent the maximum level of contaminants that is
acceptable- for users of public drinking water supplies. MCLs are relevant and
appropriate because, while the groundwater. on and off site is not currently used as
a drinking water source, the groundwater underlying NAS Brunswick potentially
could be used as a drinking water source in the future. Target cleanup levels for
groundwater at Site 8 were not considered necessary based on the results of the
baseline risk assessment.
Federal and State Air Quality Regulations. The excavation of soil and construction
debris and rubble proposed in the selected remedy will not create any new sources .
of air emissions. Therefore, many federal and state regulations governing air quality
do not apply to the selected' remedy. . The only air quality standards that. are
applicable are particulate standards promulgated under the Qean Air Act and Maine
Ambient Air Quality Standards. The particulate standard would apply to remedial
construction activities associated with excavation. These standards would be attained
through monitoring and, if necessary, use of dust suppression techniques or
engineering controls.
State Location-specific Regulations. All of the location-specific ARARs that apply
to the selected remedy are based on the close proximlty of the site to the unnamed
tributary. The Maine Natural Resources Protection Act provides that removal of
soils or other activities conducted adjacent to streams must not cause unreasonable
soil erosion, cause unreasonable ha.ni1 to significant wildlife habitats, unreasonably
interfere with natural water flow, lower water quality, or unreasonably cause or
increase flooding. . Chapter 305 of the MEDEP regulations provides further standards
for erosion control and soil excavation. Implementation of the selected remedy
would not impact the drainage or natural flow of this tributary. Erosion control
. measures will be employed during construction to m;n;m;7',e soil/sediment from
entering the surface water. ..
Federal. and State H~ous Waste Regulations.. The applicability of RCRA and
Maine Hazardous Waste Regulations depends on whether the wastes are RCRA-
hazardous wastes as defined under these regulations. To date, there is no
information available (i.e., manifests) to indicate that RCRA-regulated materials
were disposed of at Site 8. However, because toxic constituents are present in the
soil at Site 8, many portions of the federal and state hazardous waste regulations are
relevant and appropriate to the selected remedy. .
RCRA Preparedness and Prevention and Contingency Plan and Emergency
Pro~edures will be attained during excavation of the material from Site 8. During .
construction, safety and communication equipment will be installed at the site, and
. local authorities will be familiarized with site operations. Contingency plans will be
Installation Restoration Program
WOOl9378.080
48
-------
developed and implemented during site work and treatment plant operation. A
pl8gram will be developed for handling, storage, and recordkeeping, in accordance
with Maine Hazardous Management Rules.
..
Because toxic constituents are present on site, OSHA regulations protecting worker
health and safety at hazardous waste sites are applicable to the implementation and
. long-term operation of the selected remedy. Site workers will have completed
training requirements and will have appropriate health and safety equipment on site.
Contractors and subcontractors working on site will follow health and safety
procedures. .
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions are not applicable or relevant and appropriate for
the Site 8 remediation because the soils and construction rubble and debris are not
considered to be hazardous waste. No listed wastes were disposed of and analytical
results were not above regulatory limits for the TCLP analysis collected at Site 8.
c. no: SELECl'ED REMEDIAL AmON 15 COST-EFFECl'IVE
The selected remedy is cost-effective; that is, the remedy affords overall effectiveness'
proportional to its. costs. In selecting this remedy, once the Navy identified
alternatives that are protective of human health and the environment and that attain
. ARARs, the Navy evaluated the overall' effectiveness of each alternative by assessing
the relevant three criteria in combination: (1) long-term effectiveness and
permanence; (2) reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment; and
(3) short-term effectiveness. The relationship of the overall effectiveness of the
sc1ec:ted remedial alternative was established as being proportional to its costs. . The
costs of this remedial. alternative are:
Estimated Capital Cost: $328,000 .
Estimated Operation and Maintenance Cost (net present worth): NA-
Estimated Total Cost (net present worth): $328,000
The least expensive alternative is clearly the No Action Alternative, which reqqires
only long-term monitoring. The Minimal Action Alternative is expected to cost
approximately $197,000. The soil cover alternative costs $484,000 and includes long-
term monitoring. The selected remedy is also relatively inexpensive at approximately
$328,000. .
All the alternatives considered, except No Action and Minimal Action,' are protective
of human health and the environment, meet ARARs and response objectives, and
have similar long~term effectiveness and permanence. While the selected remedy
. does not have the lowest estiInated capital cost of the four treatment alternatives, it
WOO19378.080
~rogram
49
-------
does have the lowest estimated operation and maintenance cost and estimated total
cost This is due to the fact that long-term monitoring will not be required.
D.
THE SELECTED REMEDY UTI' .J7.Ii'.~ PERMANENT SOumONS AND ALTERNADVE
TREATMENT OR REsOURCE REcOVERY TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAxIMuM
En'ENT PRAcrJCABLE .
The Navy identified those alternatives that attain ARARs and that are ptotective of
human health and the environment The Navy also identified which alternative uses
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. This determina~on was made. by
deciding which one .of the identified alternatives provides the best b~ce of factors
among alternatives in terms of: (1) long-term effectiveness and permanence,
(2) reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment, (3) short-term
effectiveness, (4) implementability, and (5) cost The balancing test emphasized long-
term effectiveness and permanence and the reduction of toxicity, mobility, and
volUme through treatment; and considered tbe preference for. treatment as a
principal element, the bias against off-site land disposal of untreated waste, and
commnnity and state acceptance. The selected remedy provides the best balance of
trade-offs among the alternatives because it is implementable, provides long-term
effectiveness, disposes of waste in a way that contributes to closure of another site,
and releases the site from future land-use restrictions. The selected remedy,
however, does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment Treatment of such
a volume of heterogeneous material (e.g., construction debris, rubble, and soil) is not
considered to be cost-effective or feasible.
E.
THE SELECl'ED REMEDY DOES NOT SATISFY THE PREFERENCE FOR
TREATMENT WHICH PERMANENTLY AND SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES THE
TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME OF THE HAzARDous SUBSTANCES AS A
PRINCIPAL ELEMENT
. . .
This remedy does not meet the statutory preference for treatment. Treatment was
not considered to.be cost-effective based on results of treatability studies and TCLP
tests conducted on soils from Site 8. A small volume of the excavated soil at Site 8
contains P AHs. However, TCLP tests conducted on these soils showed that the P AH
contaminants are not very mobile. The rubble and debris at the site are
. nonhazardous and not contaminated; therefore, no contaminants are considered to
be mobile or toxic. The volume of the material, estimated at 14,000 cubic yards,
could increase slightly from bulking during excavation and. handling. However, this
volume contributes to the volume of .subgrade fill needed at Sites 1 and 3 .to
complete the closure of the landfill. Physical hazards (e.g., protruding debris .and
rebar) associated with the distUrbed material and risks from exposure to P AHs via
Installation Restoration Program
w0019378.(80
50
-------
direct contact and ingestion would be e1imin~ted once the cap is constructed at Sites
1 and 3.
Installa~rogram
w0019378.080
51
........'..'-"---,,, .e.....,...
6836.QS
-------
DI. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Navy presented a Proposed PIan for remediation of Site 8 on October 15, 1992.
The preferred alternative included a low-permeability cover including vegetation to
minimi7.e ~in&IJ infiltration and to prevent contact with the contained material. The
soil cover alternative. also included site inspections and maintenance, fencing and
warning signs, and land-use restrictions. Citizen responses at the hearing to discuss
remedial actions for Site 8 expressed a clear preference for removal of the waste,
largely to avoid having land-use restrictions placed on a small piece of land.
. Considering this suggestion in light of all available data, the Navy issued a revised
Proposed Plan in February 1993 which presented Excavation and Use as Subgrade
Material at Sites 1 and 3 as. the preferred alternative. A second public comment.
period for this alternative was held from March 12 through April 12, 1993.
WOO19378.080
liiiiiIIiiiOii'estoration .program .
52
-------
XIII. STATE ROLE
As a party to the FFA, MEDEP has reviewed the various alternatives and has
indicated its support for the selected remedy. MEDEP concurs with the selected
remedy for NAS Brunswick Site 8. A copy of the letter of concurrence is presented
in Appendix C of this ROD. .
WOO19378.080
Installation Restoration Program
53
6836-OS
-------
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ARAR
CERClA
CSF
. cae
.DDT
FFA
FFS
FS
In
HQ
IAS
IRP
MCL
MEDEP
MEG
ME!{
mg/kg .
mg/L
MSL
NAS
NCP
NPL
OSHA
PAH
PCB
RCRA
RID
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Uability
Act of 1980 (the Superfund statute)
cancer slope factor
cont~minant of concern
dich1orodiphenyltrichloroethane
Federal Facility Agreement
. Focused. Feasibility Study
Feasibility Study
Hazard Index
Hazard Quotient
Initial Assessment Study
Installation Restoration Program
Maximum Contaminant Level
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Maximum Exposure Guidelines
methyl ethyl ketone
milligrams per kilogram
milligrams per liter
mean sea level
Naval Air Station
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
. Occupational Safety and Health Admini!i:tration
polynuclear. aromatic hydrocarbons
polychlorinated biphenyl
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
reference dose
WOO19378.080
-~--,_..- .
~rogram
6836-OS
.-. ...-.,
...--....
.__.__._~ .
-------
REFERENCES
ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-ES), 1993a. "Revised Proposed Plan for
Site 8, the Perimeter Road Disposal Site NAS Brunswick"; Portland,. Maine;
March. .
{)
ABB-ES, 1993b. . "Draft Final Technical Memorandum: Detailed Evaluation of
Alternative 8D: Excavation and Use as Subgrade. Material at Sites 1 and 3";
Portland, Maine; March.
E.C. Jordan Co., 1990a. "Draft Final Remedial Investigation Repon NAS
Brunswick"; Portland, Maine; August
E.C. Jordan Co., 1990b. "Draft Final Phase I Feasibility Study Development and
Screening of Alternatives NAS ~runswick"; Portland, Maine; August.
E.C. Jordan Co., 1991a. "Draft Final Supplemental Remedial Investigation Repon
NAS Brunswick"; Portland, Maine; August
E.C. Jordan Co., 1991b. "Draft Final Supplemental Feasibility Study Sites 5, 6, and
12 NAS Brunswick"; Portland, Maine.
E.C. Jordan Co., 1991c. "Focuse4 Feasibility Study Sites 1 and 3 NAS Brunswick";
Portland, Maine; October.
E.c. Jordan Co., 1992. "Focused FeasIbility Study Site 8 NAS Brunswick"; Portland,
Maine; April.
E.C. Jordan Co., 1992b. "Feasibility Study Sites 2,4,7,9,11 and 13 NAS Brunswick"; .
Portland, Maine; March. .
Northern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVY), 1992. ''Record
of Decision for a Remedial Action at Sites 1 and 3 Naval Air Station
Brunswick, Maine"; Portland, Maine; June.
Olson and Ohno, 1989. "Determination of Free Cyanide Levels in Surface and
Ground Waters Affected by Highway Salt Storage Disposal Facilities in
Maine"; Maine Department of Transportation; Department of Plant and Soil
Sciences; University of Maine, Orono, Maine. .
~o~tionprog~m
WOO19378.080
-------
.....- :<;.:: .
.'
..
APPENDIXB
..~.. ::',,, '--..~:..'
MEDIA-sPECIFIC DATA SUMMARY TABLES .
'~~;~!IC' .
.. .'
-.
-
O!"
l-
t
i
t
, p~ .'. ..
-'...-.......
. .:~~l':':;:~~*::",,'\::'::- ~.
.
'.~ - ''.: :-
. " ~~~'::':::
. .
-~S~f:~.~
. ~'-,-
'. ':"" :"".
-'
-. .,;..~,;":'n'..'~
.--:;;':,:,'-"-:"'~....:. ..
.. '. #,,-
:'.:~'~r<.::i{t~~~~ -
:.';It~.~~C.:-"~.'
, ..' ~~';..".
. .
,..",..-:,..~.
,. ..... ._...-.---:",
., '. ..:~ .
..,....;
-
.' .
"".'
'.. "."..- . ~.~
.'
- .
".
.
WOO19378.OIIO
-------
Ml!DIA-~ectFIC DATA 8UMWRfTAU
ROO: SITE.
HAS BflJNSWICK
I DETECnON I M,aXIMUM I MINIM.JM
I eoNT'AMINANT CO N CONC~T10N
SURFACE SOIL (mgIIcg)
AI-*: - 5 2.8
&..d - S7 ..~
-.- - 185 1S7
Cl4allM8n U 114 0.017 Q.017
18r11D(a)AJ.ew.:.. 314 4.3 0.33
I8r11D(8)PyNne 314 U 0.12
88nID(b)","",4II"'. - 7.8 0.14
18r11D(1c)Fk-~". - 7.8 0.14
awy... - ~.1 0..
DIb8nzD(a.h)Ar~II"'. 114 0.77 0.12.
1ndeno(1.2.3-c.d)Pywww 214 1.4 0.1.
+C8l1llphlt¥8l. 114 1.1 1.1
AnIhr8C8I. 214 0.72 0.12
B8nzD(g.hJ)P81y18n8 214 1.7 G.22
Fk....- III.... 414 ... 0.58
FIuarww 114 0.. oa
Phe. -1ttII... 314 5.4 0.15
PyIww 414 10 0.58
SUBSURFACE SOIL (mgJIIg)
AI88nic 7112 10.3 1.3
LI8d 11112 ~. 2.1
-1g8II8M 121'12 2DO 8O.S
4.4'-DDT SI12 o.G7I om
18n1D(a)AJIlhrCI.. 5112 4.3 o.as
18n1D(8)~ 5112 U 0.1.
88nzD(b)Fk-8IdhII. 1112 7.8 0.13
El8nzD(k)Fk-."'. 1112 7.8 0.13
a.y... 1112 ~.1 o.aI5
DIb8nz(Lh)A. III. - I" 1/12 0.77 0.77
1nd8no(1.2.3-c.d)PyIww flt2 1.4. 0.15
h.In8Ph1t¥8I. fit 2 1.1 G.2I
An" Ie I" flt2 0.72 o.zs
88nzD(g.hJ) P8ryI8I. SI12 1.7 G.22
Fk.a81 .... 5112 ... 0.082
FIUar-. 1/12 CUll CUll
Ph88...... 4112 5.~ o.aI5
PyIww 1112 10 0.18
m:u:AM SEDIMENT' (mgIIcg)
L88d .. 1. 2.5
-..- .. 2m 72
~ 111 G.I8 G.I8
18n1D(b)Fk-_dl_- 211 1.3 1
B8nID(Ic)FIw»...... 111 1 1
awy.... 211 1.7 0.81
B8nZD(g.hJ) P8ryt81. 111 1.3 1.3
FII.aanIrdh8I. 211 2.8 1.1
Ph8I".III"'~ 211 2 D.8
PyIww 311 2.3 0.47
SURFACE WATER (ugIL)
L88d SII 2100 1-
Zinc 4,41 181 7Q.8
-------
MEDIA-.A ECIFIC; DATA SUl8.,...,TAIILE.
AI:X): snc 8
NAB 8fIJNSWICK
I DCI~lIuN I MAXIMUM I MINKIM
CONrAMIN&Ur CO :noN CONC~T1ON
LEACHATE 8EDaENT (mpg) i,,)
AI88*= 7/U 1.1 U
L88d nl'l 1 77 5
u...~ 11f1t 57D 74.1
~ 3111 2.7 o.a
.......... 1111 t.I G.I8
"")Fk-_AhII. 1111 3 0.17
. "1IIw(Ic)A&._". SIt 1 0.78. G.I'7
Chir_. 1111 U a.a
1nd8no(t.z.S-c.d)PyNn8 11'11 1.1 1.1
"~.hJ),..... 1111 2.1 1.4
.......111_- tit 1 7.7 Q.8
""-~~..DQ, 1111 4- o.a
~ 7lt1 U 0.44
4JI'-DDT 2/t1 o.asa O.osa
Arac:Iar 1Z40 11'11 0.44 0A4
~TE SEEP (ugIIJ
AI88*= 2/t1 KI 14.1
C8dnUn SIt 1 48 7
L88d 1G1U .,. 1.1
u...- 111'11 aao 5D4'
QAOUN)WA1ER~ ..
AIuIMun 1114 18DOD 2G
AI88*= 1114 12 12
I8rium 1114 Itl itS
I8IyIIIum 11M 12.2 12.2
CIaanUn 1124 12.1 7.2 .
C8IcIum 211M lItaD 58
CIwamium 4114 aao a1
Cob8n 11M 147 ~47
Capper 1124 MI au
Iran 11114 Z2IDOQ nl
L88d 1114 218 1.2
... 1" 11ft .11114 IIIDO 11aD
u...- 211M. 4M) 17
M8n:ury 2114 1.1 OJIZ
ttiII - ., IU
, 11 'llft 1114 3SIaO IIGD
SodiuIn 2ZII4 "788aO 5410
V....... 2114 74.8 12
ZInc 1114 - .
C>,w1i8 ..,.. . t1
.J
. .,
'.,.,.
B-2
. -_.- --
---.------..--
- ----------..-. ----
.. .._- ..---- ---
-------
'." ~....'. ,,. ,..,-." - .\~::~~~~C\~~' "',,".'J.,'''''''' """""'''''''''''.f;~~.,, '".....~_:..:.m;'~~~:,~~~
""';'-"'~~"'" ~..._,.: ""1jt;.r: ~~~. ~'~'~~~t~~'~~."Z"~~~~' ""'~"'.:v.~!'/~"~~~~~f~~~~~"i;;
."'~'O' ','. "'\,:;;r:'~""~~f::;;;.;:('~"~';~}; '~.?O" '~:'~;~'-":9,j'~f2~1'~~'~~;>- ~. :, ~"~
(>
APPENDIX C
MEDEP LEI'ICK OF CONCURRENCE
"
.r;~ 4. ...
. ..
. '.~..":
.- /~. ,,".
..
.~ . .:~
7.~
.'
,'.
, "
. ."'"
, " 37~ :,'::<~~~:'
-.
.. -
'4
.'..-.:..,......
'~~~~:"';" "'.
'!'..
..
. ~":~~~".
..
- . "
,''.;;'' .':
. .,,-: .....:.;~ ".' ..
~ '"." - .
". ...'
.~.:~.~~;~..:;..-
. "~':"'.:: -.-, ...
,,': ; ,;\~:~~~.: '.'
. :"-- ~; *,.
." ;:.
"".:.'
, ,
. f.".
. ~l .
0';'..".1,',
,"
, '
,:::;if;~~'::;:l;t.:~~: .,
, .
" ':'~""':".
,~Et';
;""::' ".
-,.
.~ ~.\:'~...'" ",.r.; '".
. :_~.:.~..::..:,:,
.'."." 0'-:-;'
"
...' '.
..
. ..,""
." ~'3'. .
.~ >
~':'. "... ..1.
.~.:;.\.....
" "
. ''''C'.'''~'--:,.".
'-...'
... . .,:-~..
-,
(.,'$'""
"
~ '.;- -'.
. :. ~:.
'. ..
'..:=i.'-
...~.\::-:..:,. ~~:.:~,,:
" ~-"",
10.. ''-',~
"-,'
~:':$;;"" '
'-';;*
, .
-,
. -
t'. .
.. '
-,;i"'.~'"'
- '~
." ~>~:
. '-. "
..
,')::-.F.,~.: '
.,.. ,
:. '~.:; i~""':',""
:~~~~"( -
-.',.
. ,'..
,,:,,/',~:;~!f';.
~ ::"'-~: ~.~!::-
'.'.
'- "".-
..-',
.~;.
'-'. ".'
. ,
_ram,:,..
.'
..
WOO19318JR '
-------
~:nAI t: ut- MAINt:
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
. of. ". ., ~
1'04', OF "t.,'t'
JGMN R. 1IcIWINAH. .IA.
GOVERNOR
DIM C. MARRIOTT
COMMISSIONER
DI8RAM RIQtARO
DEJIUTY COMMISSIONER
July 27, 1993
W.A. Waters
. captain, CEC, u.s. Navy
. Commanding Officer
Department of the Navy, Northern Division
Naval Facilities Engineerinq Command
Building 77-L
Philadelphia Naval shipyard
Philadelphia, PA 10112-5094
RE: Naval Air station Brunswick Superfund Site, Brunswick,
Maine .
Dear captain Waters:
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) has
reviewed the July 1993 Record of Decision (ROD)
regarding site 8 for the Naval Air station Brunswick
superfund site located in Brunswick, Maine.
Based on this ROD the MEDEP concurs with the selected
remedial action. This action includes excavating PAH-
contaminated soil, non hazardous construction rubble, and
debris from site 8. Removing the rubble and debris along
with the contaminated soil will free the site of future
land-use restrictions that would be required if the debris
were left in place. The excavated material would be
transported to sites 1 and 3 for use a subqrade.material
beneath the low-permeability cap approved for the sites and
documented in the ROD for sites 1 and 3 (June 1992). The.
four components of the remedial action are outlined in the
following:
I.
Site Preparation
.A~ Silt fencing or hay bales will be placed along the
edge of the stream to prevent sj,lt from entering the
water. .
B. Excavation "work will be performed during dry periods
of summer and early. fall, to the extent practicable, to
minimize erosion and siltation of the stream and to
allow a good vegetation catch on exposed soils.
Q . .
II.
Excavation and Transportation of Material
AUGUSTA
STAT! HOUSE STATION 17
AuGUSTA. ......... 0Q33.0017
(207) 281-7888 FAX: (2071287-7828
OfflCr LOCA nil .. r. RAY 8U1U)1NC1. HOPIT '" STIIlrT
POAT\.AND
312 CANCO RoAD
PoIm.AHO. ME 04103
1207I87N300 FAX; 1207I879-e303
8AHGOA
101 HOGAN RoAD
IIMCIOR. ME 04A01
(207) "'04S70 FAX; C207l"'04SIC
PA£SCUE ISLE
1235 CIENTIIAL c.wt S~'rWAY PAOI,
PIIUOuI 1SIoI. "E 0. 789
(207) 7&&4'77 'AX 1207) 764,'50,
prutI#fl ... 'n'w"IN ,...,-r
C-l
.---. --... -.- . -.. - .-. .
-------
A. An upper estimate of 14,000 cubic yards of soil, .
construction rubble, and debris will be excavated.from
the embankment of the site. This volume may be as low
as 5,600 cubic yards.
B. Material would be excavated from the slope without
movinq the equipment to the bottom of. the embankment.
c. Material-handlinq activities such as screeninq,
sortinq, and crushinq the construction debris and
rubble would occur after excavation and before material
is transported to sites 1 and 3. .
D. Transported material will be placed and spread at
sites 1 and 3 for use as subqrade material before
landfill cap construction. An 'enqineerinq evaluation
. 'of the fill requirements for the.Sites 1 and 3 landfill
cap indicates this material is suitable subqrade
material and will provide some of the required f-11l
necessary for completion of the sites 1 and 3
remediation.
III. Confirmation Samplinq
A. After excavation of the rubble and debris, soil
samples would be collected and analyzed to confirm that
no site-related contaminants are left in place.
B. The samplinq and analysis plan will be developed by
the remedial construction contractor before work beqins
and submitted for requlatory review and comment.
C. At a minimum, three soil samples would be collected
and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, and
inorqanics.
D~ If contamination is detected' and cannot be .
physically removed" by exaavation, lonq-term monitorinq
of qr~undwater may be implemented to evaluate the
impacts on groundwater down~adient to the site.
Gradinq and Seedinq
IV.
A. Aft~ excavation a~d confirmation are complete, the
area W1.11 be qraded to establish a maximum 3: 1. .
(vertical to horizontal) slope down to the stream to
promote drainaqe and minimize erosion.
This con~ence is based upon the state's understandinq
that:
A.. The MEDEP will. continue to participate in ~e
Federal Facilities Aqreement'dated october 19,.1990 and
C-2
i'
-------
"
in the review and approval of operational designs and
monitorinq plans.
The MEDEP looks forward to workinq with the Department of
the Navy and the USEPA to resolve the environmental problems
posed by this site. If you need any. additional information,
do not hesitate to contact me or members of my staff.
Sincerely, ~ .
V~Crr<)~
Dean C. Marriott
commissioner
pc:
.captain Robert Rachor,
Robert McGirr, ABB-ES
Heqhan cassidy, USEPA
Hark Hyland, MEDEP
BRAS
. . .
C-3
... - - . ~.
. .-----..-
--..--..- .-
-------
Q
.. .
"
. :'~r
-------
c
T~ 0.1
CHEIIICAL-8P£CIFIC ARARa. ~, ADVI8OM8. AM» GuDANCE FOIl 1m ..
. . . I
ROD: 8m 8
HAl IllUNaWICK
... . .. ..' .
.. .. '".. '..... .
'. :M~ :::\.}::::::)::::{:4'i:,:":::RrAUjIUIiii~:
GROUNDWATERI8URFACE WATER
. .r.~'
Federal
Safe Drinking Water kt
(SDWA) . MaxImum '
Contaminant levell (MCLI)
(40 CFR Parts 141.11 .
141.16)
~Ievant and
Approprt.ate '
SDWA. Maximum,
Contaminant Level Goals
(MCLOt) (40 CFR Parts
141.50 . 141.~1)
Relevlnt and
Appropriate !
....
~.:~jl.!:;:~::M:::,.::.,}:,::.::;;.:..t~:t::::::t::;;:::::r:!:i::::i:_M'::":jljiMil:~:-':;:::i:i:
0.. ,.. -.-
.. po.'
. . . .
- ..'
MCLa have been promulgated for aeveral common'
organloancllnorganlo oontainlnanta. The.. levels
regulate the concentraUon of contaminants In publlo
drinking water lupplles, but may also be considered
relevant and appropriate for groundwater aquifers
used for drinking water. '
MCLGI are health-baS8d cr"erla to be considered for
drlnldng water sources.. a reau" of the Superfund
. Amendments and Reauthorization kt. MCLGs are
available for aeveral organlo and Inorganic
contaminants.
To",," the potenUII rlak. to buman health due to
conaumpUon of groundwater, contaminant
concentratlonl were compared to their MCLa.
The 1890 NaUonll Contingency Plan ltate. that non.
zlco MCLGa are to be U88d .. goll.. Contaminant
concentraUon. In groundwater were compared to their
MCLGs.
Federal Guidance and U.S. environmental To Be Considered RfDs are considered the levels unlikely to cau.. USEPA RfDe were used to characterize rlale. due to
Criteria To Be ProtecUon Agency (USEPA) . significant adverse health effect8 associated with a noncardnogen. In various media.
I? Considered Risk Reference Do... (RfDe) thr.shold mechanism 0' action In human exposure for
a lifetime.
:....
i USEPA Cancer Slope To Be Considered CSFs repre..nt the mo.t up-tOodate Information on USEPA CSFa were used to compute the Individual
Factorl (CSFa) CIRcer risk potency 8V8Ilable from USEPA' Integrated Incremental cancer risk resulUng from exposure to
Risk InformaUon System. cartaln compounds.
Stat~ Maine DrInking Water f\llea Relevant and Maine's Primary Drinking Water Standards are Primary drinking water standards were uaed during the
(1D-144A CMR Ch8pteri Appropriate equivalent to federal MCLt. MaIne Maximum RemedlallnvestlgaUon for purposes of comparison to
231-233) Exposure Guldenn.. have been promulgated for g~undwater analytical data and to evaluate the extent
aeveral contaminants. When state 'eve Is are more of groundwater contamlnaUon.
atrlngent than fed.ral 'evels and have been l.gallY and
cons,lstentty applied. the state levels may be used.
State Criteria and f\l188 Relating to Testing 0' To Be Considered AppendllC C Gullin.. Maximum Exposure Guldelln.. MEGa have been considered for chemical compoundl
GuIdance to be PrJvat8 Water Syst8m1 for ' (MEGs) for Ofganlc and Inorganic compounds. MEGa 'for which there are no promulgated standards. The88
Conaldered Potentially Hazardous Include health advisories, which are mllClmum concentraUon. were considered during the Remedial
Contaminants (1D-144A allowable concentraUons of specific contaminants In investigation for comparison to groundwater anilytlcal
CMR'Chapter 233, Appendix drinking water. data.
C)
-------
(continued)
TAIlE D-1
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC AHARa. CIInBUA. ADVI8OIIIE8. AND GUIDANCE FOR 8m .
RoD: 8m 8
NA8lRUN8Wa
""
.;;.
AIR
.f!!!!!!!
?
N
State
. ..
.'''~::
.. . . ... . .. .
.. ..... .. . .
.. .. .
. . ..... ....
..'~~"'f)\+:::'F:...
. .
'TAM::
To Be Considered
Applicable
Relevarit and
Appropriate
Applicable
'.:::.':"":.."::',' "':'.B_i'_:':'::::::,"',:.',:::,:,;;':':'.~':.,:'t:::.':"::__)::I:U'~:_:_:::.::::!::.
Thla document was prepared by both the MEDEP and MEDEP and DHS have ..t 1x1a' u the upper bound
MaIne Department of Human Services (DHS). It limit for an acceptable Incremental UftIme Cancer
outlines an approach Intended to expedIte the process Risk.
0' risk a88888ment development and review 'or sites In
, Maine.
PrImary ambient air quality standards define levels 0'
air quell\)' to protect public health. Secondary
ambIent air quality standards protect public welfare
'rom known or anticipated adver.. effects from
pollutants.
The Metropolitan Portland Air Quality Region Is Class
II.
this a.apter establishes ambient air quality standards
that are maximum levels of a particular pollutant
permItted In the ambient air.
The particulate standard for matter Ie.. than 10
microns Is 150 pg/m', 24-hour average concentration.
, thIs standard applies to excavation activities.
Remedial actions should not result In the degradation
of air quality claaslflcatlon.
The standard for particulate matter Is 150 JIG/m',
24-hour average concentration, which appll.. to
excavation activities.
NOTI:S:
ARAR
CFR
CMR
CSF
, DHS
MCL
MCLG
MEDEP
MEGs
MRSA
HAS
RIO
SDWA
USEPA
"wm3
w0019378T/5
. . ...
. .... .
., .
Guidance Manual for
Human Health Fisk
Assessment at Hazsrdous
Substance Sties
Clean Air N:t . National
Primary and Secondary
AmbIent Air Quality
Standards (40 CFR Part 50)
Establishment of Air Quality
Regions (38 MRSA, Section
583; MEDEP Regulations,
a.apter 11 4)
Maine Ambient Air Quality
Stand~s (38 MRSA,
SectIon 584; MEDEP
RegulatIon., a.apter 110)
- Applicable or Relell8l!t and Appropriate Requirement
- Code of Federal Regulations
- Code of Maine Rules
. Cancer Slope Factor
. Department of Human Servlcas
. Mexlmum Contaminant Level
. Mexlmum Contaminant Level Goal
. Maine Department of Envlronmentsl Protsctlon
- Mex1mum Exposure Guidelines
- Maine Revised Statues Annotated
. Nsvel Air Stat/on
. reference dose
. Sa'e Drinking Water Act
- U.S. Environmental Protectlof! Agency
-------
TAII.I D-2
LOCATION-IPECAC ARARa. CIIITEIIIA. ADVI8OIIE8. AND QUI)ANCE FOfISm 8
ROD: 8m.
NAI IIN8WICI
. . ... ... .
. .. .... ..
."~::::::.::::):::::::::::::::::::::'::::.:..:.'::. f4~EifT. :
WETlAND8IFLOODPLAINS
~
i
! .
.?
:w
OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES
1'1 . :
State
MaIne Natural
Resources Protection
ki (38 MRSA. SectIon
480-A through S)
Natural Resources
ProtectIon ki, Permn
by Rule Standards
(Maine Department of
Environmental
Protection (MEDEP)
Regulations, Chapter
3(5)
MaIne Standards for
Clat8Iflcatfon' of
Groundwater (38
MR~ SectIon 470)
Maine Standards for
Cla88lflcatfon of Minor
Drainages (38 MRSA.
SectIon ~)
Maine Water Pollution
Control Law: Solid
Waste DIsposal Areas;
location (38 MRSA,
SectIon 421)
.fAjt!J :.
Applicable
Applicable
I
Applicable
Applicable
Relevant and
Approprtate
... :..':..:"~rnff::'M':i::. .. ..:::::.::.:::::::::::::::}:.~tI'::W::D::_::_:_::::::;:::::::::::~ .
This act outline. requirements fOf certain activities
adjacent to any fr88hwater wetland greater than 10
actes or with an associated stream, brook, or pond or
adjacent to a coastal wetland. The activities must not
unreasonably Interfe" with certain natural features, .
such as natural flow or qualny of any waters, nor harm
81gnlflcant aquatic habitat, freshwater fisheries, or other
aquatic ,"e.
This rure outlln.. prescribed .tandard. for 8peclnc
. actlvltle. that may take place In or adjacent to wetlands
and water bodl...
Thl. law require. the cl888Iflcatlon 0' the state'8
groundwater to protect, conserve,' and maintain
groundwater resource8 In the Interest of the health,
safety, and general welfare of the people of the state.
These requirements lit forth the classifications of
aurface water bodl.. within the State 01 Maine. Best
u8age and associated standards lor protection of those
usages are established ~nder this regulation.
No boundary 01 any public or private solid waste
dl8posal area shall lie closer than 300 feet to any
claaslfled body of surface water; also known as the
Three.Hundred-Foot Law.
Remedial actlvltl.. regulated under thl. act mUtt meet
activity standard.. QIbstantIve requ1r8ment8 of th...
regulation. must be met by any action taken within
100 feet 01 a wetland or stream.
Proposed activities InvoMng disturbance 01 8011 ma..rt..
and discharge of treatment water, within 100 feet of the
normal high wat.r Rne, would be designed to Incorporate
all applicable standards.
Under the MaIne standard., groundwatar 18 classified as
GW-A,
Remedial action. should not f8aun In the degradation of
water qualny clauIflcatlon.
excavation and removal of Site 8 waste matertal. will
eliminate the solid waste disposal area on this site.
i
-------
(continued)
TABU D-2
LOCATION-8PECIFIC ARARI. CRITEIIIA. ADVI8OIIE8. AND QUl)ANCE FOIl 8m .
ROD: 8m 8
NAI IlRUNlWICI
..
.. ..
I .
Maine SIte location
Development Law and
Regulatlone (38 MRSA
Sections 481-490;
MEDEP Regulations,
Chapters 371-377)
Maine Solid Waste
Management Rules:
landfill Disposal
Facilities (38 MRS,,"
SectIon 1301.!!..!!!1.;
MEDEP Regulations,
Chapters 400-406)
Town Shoreland Zoning
Ordinances and State
Minimum Guldelln..
Maine CrItical Areas
Program and MaIne
Natural Heritage
Program
. State Guidance and CrIteria
l' To Be Considered
.
Maine Critical Are.. kJt.
(5 MRSA 3310 through
3318)
Applicable
Applicable
To Be
Considered
To Be
Considered
To Be
Considered
this act and regulations govern drilling for natural
resources and Includ.. huardous activities that
consume, generall, or handle huardous wastes and
oil. ActIvItIes cannot adversely affect existing U888,
acenlc character. or natural resources In the
municipality or neighboring municipality.
. The88 regulations outline landfill altlng requirements
Including minimum distances to aqulfera. bedrock. and
geologlo faults.
The88 minimum guidelines and town ordinances apply
to actlvltlet proposed within 200 fHt of a hlgh-wallr
mark of altream or other body of water.
The88 state programs Issue policies and regulatlona
govemlng special habitats or communities.
this nonregulatory legislation allowa MaIne agencl88
such as the CrItIcal Ant.. Program and the Natural
Heritage Areas Program to Identify, ,.aearch, and
'protect critical areas and endangered or threatened
plants. .
Remedial altematlves will be developed considering the..
regulations. A permit will not be required If the activity II
on-alte.
The standards outlined In this Chapter 404. construction
and demolition landfills. of th... regulations are
applicable to the remediation of SIte 8. The requirements
aet forth under this chapter will be Incorporated Into the
closure of the SIte 8 waste disposal area.
The88 g'uldellnea will be considered In the siting of
, treatment facllltl.. during the development and evaluation
of remedial altematlves. .
Where such special areas exist, the88 state programs will
become Involved In the proJect and/or permit review
procesa.
Where such special areas exist, the.. state programs will .
become Involved In the proJect and/or permit review
procell.
Not88:
MAR .
MRSA ..
MEDEP .
NAS ..
w001931ST/7
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
MaIne Revlaed Statut.. Annotated
Maine Department of environmental Protectlo~
Naval AIr Station
-------
TAIlE D.3
ACTlON-8P£CFIC AHARa, CRITERIA, AND GUI)AIICI FOIl 8IR .
ROD: SIR'
NAS IRIRIWICII
"
... RiaUiREMWr ..
. .
. . .
." ...
: :"'.-.":': ....,'.' ":,."'. ,';"':;':",-;.':0",',
.:': '.....',.'.' :.:."..: . ",...."...',".'..".,',..
. . .. .
.. .......
. ,t~tUjf::
.".."t:9_.-i.4?;,:::f:::::::::/tJ:"::':::::;'::::)":.':~~~.::,lM_'~:_:::I;::::::!
Federal
RCRA . Preparedness and Prevention
(40 CFR Parts 264.30-264.37)
RCRA . Contingency Plan and
Emergency Prooeduree
(40 CFR Parts 264.50-264.58)
RCRA ~ Closure and Post-closure (40
CFR Parts 264.110-264.120) .
, ? RCRA Land Disposal Restrlctlons(lDRs)
: VI (40 CFR P8I1 268)
I
Occupational Safety and Health Act
(OSHA) . General Industry Standards
(29 CFR P8I11910)
OSHA. Safety and Health Standards
(29 CFR Part 1928) .
Relevant and
Appropriate
Relevant and
Appropriate
Relevant and
Appropriate
Not Applicable
Applicable
Appllcabl~
this regulation outlln.. requirements for aafety
equipment and Iptn-control requirements for hazardous
waste facilities. Part of the regulation Includes a
requirement that facilities be designed, maintained,
constructed, and operated to minimize the possibility of
an unplanned release that could threaten human health
or the environment.
this regulation outlines the requirement. for emergency
procedures to be used 'ollowlng IIcploslona, flm, etc.
This regulation details general requirements for closure
and poIt-closure of hazanfoUt wnte facilities, Including
Inatallatlon 0' a groundwater monitoring program.
Land disposal 0' RCM hazardous wastes Is restricted
without epecIfIed treatment. It must be determined that
the waste, beyond a reasonable doubt, meets the
definition of one of the specified reetrlcted waste and
the remedial action muat constitute .placement" for the
land disposal restrictions to be considered applicable.
For each hazardous waste, the lDRs specify 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.
These regulations specify the &-hour time-weighted
average concentration for vaitoUt organic compounds.
Training requirements for worlee,. at hazardous wastes
operations are specified In 29 CFR Part 1910.120.
This regulation specifies the type 01 safety equipment
and procedures to be folloWed during site remediation.
Safety and communication equipment will be available
at the alte during implementation of the final remedy.
Local authorities will be familiarized with site
operations.
Emergency plans will be developed and Implemented
during the final alte remedy. Copies of the plan. will
be kept on.slte..
Those parts of the regulation concerned with long.term
monitoring and maintenance of the site will be
considered during remedial design.
Waste materials disposed at SIte 8 were established as
non-hazardoUl under RCRA definitions; therefore, are .
not subject to lORs.
Proper respiratory equipment will be wom " It Is
Impossible to maintain the work atmolphere below the
concentration. Workers performing activities would be
required to have completed specific training
requirements.
All appropriate salety equipment will be on.sIte. In
addition, safety procedures will be followed during on.
site activities.
I
I
I
I
-------
(continued)
TAlLE D-3
ACTtON-SPECFlC AHARa. CRITERIA. Aim GUI)ANCE FOIl 8m .
ROD: 8m 8
NAS BRUNSWICK
.. .
. .
: ~EQUiRfjj6#:: '.:.:
..
....
. . . .... .. .... .... ......... .. . ..... ...". ......... ..
:.~~~:,..fli:.._.:_:,..:::::::::::::::::
. These requirements apply to all alte contractors and
subcontractor., and must be followed during all alte
work.
. ..
OSHA - Recordkeeplng, Reporting, and
Related Regulations (29 CFR Part 19(4) .
Clean f>Jr Id - National Ambient f>Jr
Quality Standards
(40 CFR Part 50)
.ID!!!..
Maine landfill Disposal Regulations
(MaIne Department of environmental
. Protection (MEOEPJ Regulations,
Chapter 401)
!?
0\
Maine Hazardou. Waste Management
Rules (MEOEP Regulation., Chapte,.
8Q0.802, 850, 851, 853-857)
"8t~M.
Applicable
. Applicable
Applicable
Relevant and
Appropriate
. ...
. . .
::(:ft~~8rt~.::..
... .
Fugitive dust emissions from alte excavation activities
will be maintained below the 24-hour maximum of 150
IIO/m' and the annual arlthmetlo mean of 50 IIO/m' by
dust suppressants, If necessary.
Those portion. of Section 401 pertaining to closure are
relevant and appropriate to Site 8 and will be
addressed under the Site. 1 and 3 final remedy.
Only those regulations paralleling ReRA requirements
Identified above would pertain to the final remedy
Implemented at Site 8. State requirements more
stringent than federal requirements take precedence.
NOTES:
CFR
CMR ..
LOR ..
MEOEP
MRSA ..
NAS ..
Code of Federal Regulations
Code of MaIne Regulations'
Land Disposal RestrIctions
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Maine Revised Statutes Annotated
Naval f>JrStation
woo 19378T/9
.'
this regulation outlines the recordkeeplng and
reporting requirements for an employer under OSHA.
this regulation specifies maximum annual arithmetic
mean and maximum 24-hour concentrations for
particulate matter.
These regulaUons outline the permltUng requirements
for solid waste disposal by landfill. Chapter 401
specifies closure and post-olosure maintenance
requirements.
The rules provide a comprehensive program for
handling, storage, and recordkeeplng at hazardous
. waste facilities. They supplement the RCRA
regulations.
..
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Resource Conservation and Recovery Id
Safe DrInking Water Id
micrograms per cubic meter
OSHA
ReRA
SDWA
IIO/m'
-------
<)
-.
APPENDIX E
ADMINIS1RATIVE RECORD INDEX: SITE 8
. - - . . _. .~.....-. -' 'WU019378.080
._.. ..,
Installation Restoration Program
..
f..-- --",-_.. ...,. ....---.. "--_. .- ~.",,,,_.,,-,,, ,-- .'''-'-'.-- - '--..-"" .... -" ..-..-."--'''..----'- 6836-05:"."'''' .- -'-'-", _.
- -..,.-----. ---
-------
".
Site 8 PERIMETER ROAD DISPOSAL SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
INDEX
Prepared for:
Naval Air Station Brunswick
Brunswick, Maine
Installation Restoration Program
w0019378.080
-------
'.
SECl'ION I
INTRODUcnON
-------
SECTION 1:
Volume I:
SECTION 2:
Volume I:
W049378.0SO
".
NA VAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
PRELIMJNARY ASSESSMENTS
Initial Assessment Study 0/ Naval Air Station Brunswick, Maine, prepared by
Roy F. Weston, Inc.; June 1983 (Sites 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7, 8,9, and 10).
Correspondence:
1.
USEPA Notification of Hazardous Waste Site Forms identifying three landfills,
and ODe asbestos disposal area at Naval Air Station Bnmswick; May 22, 1981.
SITE INSPECTIONS
Fimi Sue Inspection Reporr/or the U.S. Naval Air Station, Brunswick. Maine,
prepared by NUS Corporation; August 1984 (Sites 1, 2, and 3).
Pollution Abalemmt Conjirmation Study, Step lA - Verificalion, prepared by
E.C. Jordan. Co. [ABB Environmental Services, Inc.]; June 1985 (Sites
1,2,3,4,7,8,9).
Correspondence:
1.
Memo to Don Smith. NUS CorpOration, from Colin Young, NUS Corporation,
regarding the site inspection at the U.s. Naval Air Station; September 22, 1983.
2.
Memo to Robert Kowalczyk, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Northern
Division, from William FJSher, E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB &vironm,.",~1 Services.
Inc.], regarding the schedule of on-site exploration and sampling activities
during the Pollution Abatement Coofirmation Study; October 30, 1984.
3.
Memo of conversation between Robert Kowalczyk, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, Northern Division, and William FISber, E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB
Environmental Services, Inc.], regarding the prelimiIwy dari from the
Confirmation Study at Brunswick and the status of fieldwork; December 1 ~,
1984.
4.
Memo of conversation between Robert Kowalczyk, Naval Facilities Engineering
,Command, Northern Division, and William Fisher, E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB
Environmental Services, Inc.], regarding the preliminary results of the NACIP
Study at Bnmswick and the expected completion of the sampling; January 3,
1985.
(>
s.
Memo of conversition between Robert Kowalczyk, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, Northern Division, and William FISber, E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB
Environmental Services, Inc.], regarding the results of the NACIP Study at
Brunswick and the expected submittal of the report; January 15, 1985.
March 17, 1993
-------
6.
u
7.
8.
SECTION 3:
Volume 1:
u
W049378.0SO
NA VAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX.
Letter to WIlliam FISher, E.C. JonWl Co. [ABB Enviroam::ntal Services, Inc.],
from A. Rhoads, Department of the Navy, Northern Division Environmental
Protection Section, regarding comments on the Draft Coafumation Study
Verification Step report; Apri115, 1985.
Meeting minutes of May 22, 1984(5], meeting among Department of the Navy,
Northern Division, NAS Brunswick, and E.C. Jordan Co. (ABB Environmental
Services, Inc.], regarding the NACIP Confuma.tion Study Verification Phase
report; May 24, 1985.
Letter to William FISher. E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB Environmental Services, Inc.],
from A. Rhoads. Department of the Navy, Northern DiVision Environmental
Protection Section, regarding comments on the revised Confumation Study
Verification Step Report; August 2. 1985. .
9.
Letter to Robert Jac1cson. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
from L.K. Jones. Naval Air Station. Brunswick, regarding tranSmittal of the
June 1985 (pollution Abatement Confirmation Study, Step 1A - Verification]
Report; December 3, 1985.
10.
1...ette1' to L.K. Jones, Naval Air Station. Brunswick. from Robert Jackson.
USEPA, regarding comments on the [June 1985] Pollution Abatement
Confirmation Study, Step lA - Verification Report; January 13, 1986.
11.
1...ette1' to L.K. Jones, Naval Air Station. Brunswick. from Anthony Leavitt.
Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), regarding comments on
the [June 1985] Pollution Abatcnnt Confirmation Study. Step lA - Verification
Report; January 13, 1986.
REMOVAL ACTIONS
Closure Order. Board Order in the matter of: Naval Air Station Brunswick;
Brunswick. Cumberland County. Maine; 04011-5000; Closure Plan for
HaDrdous Waste Storage Facility and Termination of Interim license No.
1-052; Maine Hazardous Waste Septage and Solid Waste Management Act;
Fmdings of Fact and Order.
Site Evaluation Work Plan and Addendum, prepared by ABB Environmental
Services, Inc.; November 1991 Issued February 1992 (Building 95)
EngiMering Evaluation and CosrAnalysis, Volume 1. prepared by ABB
Environmental Services. Inc.; November 1992 (Building 95)
Correspondence:
1.
Letter to Ted Wolfe, Maine DEP. from R.E. Teny, Naval Air Station,
Brunswick. regarding analytical sampling results in the vicinity of the old
March 17. 1993
-------
Volmne n:
W04937S.0S0
NA VAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
pesticide shop Building 95 and request to include Building 95 in the Installation
Restoration Program (IRP); May 9, 1991.
2.
MemoI1lDdum to: Board of Environmental Protection, from Joel Farley,
BHMSWC, Maine DEP, regarding Interim License No. 1-<152, May 22, 1991.
3.
Letter to Ronald Terry, Naval Air Station, Brunswick, from Ted Wolfe, Maine
DEP, regarding the concurrence of Maine DEP to include Building 95 in the
IRP as a removal action site; May 29, 1991.
4.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from Ted
Wolfe, Maine. DEP, regarding comments on the November 1991 Draft Site
Evaluation Work Plan for Building 95; December 19, 1991.
5.
I.euer to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from Sheila
Eckman, USEPA, regarding comments on the November 1991 Draft Site
Evaluation Work Plan for Building 95, December 20, 1991.
6.
Letter to Loukie Lofchie. Brunswick Area Citizens for a Safe Environment.
from Carolyn Lepage, Robert G. Gerber, Inc.. regarding comments on the
November 1991 Draft Site Evaluation [Worle] Plan, Building 95, Januaxy 2S,
1992.
7.
I.euer to James Shafer. Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from Marie
Hyland, Maine DEP, regarding comments on the August 1992 Draft
Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis; October 16, 1992.
8.
Leuer to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from Marie
Hyland. Maine DEP, regarding comments on the November 1992 Draft Fmal
Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis; December 22. 1992.
9.
Letter to James Shafer. Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Meghan Cassidy, USEPA, regarding comments on the November 1992 Draft
F1DAI Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis; December 23. 1992. .
10.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from
Meghan Cassidy, USEPA. regarding additional comments OD the November
1992 Draft Fmal Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis; December 28,
1992. .
Draft Final Engineering Evaluazion and Cost Analysis, Volume n, prepared by
ABB Environmental Services, Inc.; November 1992 (Building 95).
March 17, 1993
-------
SECTION 4:
VollDDe I:
(J
\J
W049378.0SO
NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS
RDMdiallnvesrigation/Feasibiliry Srudy Work Plan, formerly Draft Pollution
Abat~t Can1innation Study Work Plan - Step 1 p.~ by E.C. Jordan Co.
[ABB Environmental Services, Inc.]; April 1988 (Sites 1,2,3,4,7,8,9).
A.ddendum to RIfFS Work Plan, prepared by E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB
Environmental Serviccs, Inc.]; July 1988 (Sites 1,2,3,4,7,8,9).
Addirional Sampling Plan, prepared by E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB Environmental
Services, Inc.]; August 1989 (Sites 1,2,3.4,7,8,9).
Correspondence:
1.
Letter to Commander L.K. Jones, Naval Air Station Bnmswick, from Matthew
Hoagland, USEPA, regarding commentS on the September 1986 Draft Pollution
Abatement Confirmation Study Work Plan - Step IB: Characterization;
November 24, 1986. .
2.
Letter to Matthew Hoagland, USEPA, from T.G. Sheckels, Naval Air Station
Brunswick, regarding responses to USEP A comments on the September 1986
Draft Pollution Abatement Confirmation Study Work Plan - Step IB:
Characterization; March 31, 1987. .
3.
Letter to ComftUlft~er L.K. Jones, Naval Air Station Brunswick, from David
Webster, USEPA, regarding clarification as to the staaJs of incorporating
USEPA's comments into the revised report. and communication of their
concerns for Site 8; April 9, 1987.
4.
Letter to Charlotte Head, USEP A, from Sharon Christopherson, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric .Arlmiftim-ation (NOAA), regarding responses to Navy
comments on NOAA's work plan recommendations; May 8, 1987.
s.
Letter to David Epps and Robert Kowalczyk. Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, Northern Division, from Charlotte Head, USEPA, regarding the
[pollution Abatement Confirmation Study, Step] IB - Characterization Work
Plan meeting, and a discussion for the Superfund program; June 29, 1987.
6.
Meeting SWDDJS%)' of June 12, 1987, planning meeting at USEPA Region I
offices in Boston, Massachusetts, among USEPA; U.S. Navy; E.C. Jordan Co.
[ABB Environmental Services, Inc.]; Maine DEP; NOAA; Camp, Dresser &
McKee; June 30, 1987.
7.
Letter to Robert Kowalczyk, Naval Facilitics Engineering Command, Northern
Division, from Jack Hoar, Camp, Dresser & McKee, regarding meeting notes
from a June 12, 1987, planning meeting at USEP A Region I offices in Boston,
Massachusetts, among USEPA; U.S. Navy; E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB
March 17, 1993
-------
W049378.0SO
NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADl\rINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Environmental Services, Inc.]; Maine DEP; NOAA; Camp, Dresser & McKee;
July 8, 1987.
8.
Letter to Charlotte Head. USEPA, from Kenneth Fmkelstein, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, regarding the June 10. 1987, TIUStee
Notification Form; November 10, 1987.
9.
Letter to Captain E.B. Darsey, Naval Air Station Brunswick, from Merrill
Hohman, USEPA, regarding comments on the [January 1988] Pollution
Abatement Confirmation Study RI and Extended SI Studies, the Site Quality
Assurance Plan. the Site Health and Safety Plan, and the Quality Assurance
Program Plan; March IS, 1988. .
10.
Letter to Ronald Springfield, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northern
Division, from Cynthia Kuhns. Maine DEP, regarding comments on the Janwuy
1988 Remedial Investigation Work Plan. and the January 1988 Quality
Assurance Program Plan (see Section 10 of this index); April 7, 1988.
11.
Letter to Charlotte Head, USEPA, from Gordon Beckett, U.S. FISh and Wildlife
Service, regarding comments on the [April 1988] RIlFS Work Plan; May 10,
1988.
12.
Letter to Charlotte Head, USEPA. from Kenneth Fmkelstein, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. regarding the [April 1988 Remedial
Investigation! Feasibility Study] Work Plan; May 13, 1988.
13.
Letter to Captain E.B. Darsey, Naval Air Station Bnmswick, from Cynthia
KuIms, Maine DEP, regarding comments on the April 1988 Remedial
Investigation! Feasibility Study Work Plan; June 6, 1988.
14.
Letter to Captain E.B. Darsey, Naval Air Station Bnmswick, from David
Webster, USEPA, regarding comments on the April 1988 Remedial
Investigation! Feasibility Study] Work Plan; June 17, 1988. .
IS.
Memo from M. Aucoin. Naval Air Station Brunswick, regarding laboratory
aualytical methods discussed in the RIlFS Work Plan; August 12. 1988.
16.
Letter to Naval Facilities Engineering command, Northern Division, from
Anthony Sturtzer. Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity, regarding
laboratory approval for Installation Restoration Program analyses; August 22.
1988. . .
17.
Letter to Charlotte Head. USEPA, from T.G. Sheckels, Department of the
Navy, Northern Division, regarding. status and completion of the first phase of
fieldwork and sampling under the RIlFS Work Plan: October 26, 1988.
18.
Letter to Ronald Springfield, Naval Facilities Engineering CoDunand, Northern
Division, from Denise Messier, Maine DEP, regarding comments on the April
1989 Draft Additional Sampling Plan; May 22. 1989.
March 17, 1993
-------
(;
Volume II:
\)
W049378.0SO
NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADM:INISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
19.
Letter to T.G. Sheckels. Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Northern
Division. from David Webster. USEPA. regarding comments ~ the April 1989
Draft Additional Sampling Plan; June 9, 1989.
Letter to Ronald Springfield. Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Northern
Division. from Denise Messier. Maine DEP. regarding approval of the Draft
Additional Sampling Plan; June 15. 1989.
20.
21.
Letter to Ronald Springfield. Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Northern
Division. from Melville Dickenson. E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB Environmental
Services. Inc.], regarding transmittal of the Additional Sampling Plan and some
outstanding isSues that needed further discussion with the regulatory agencies;
August 9, 1989.
22.
Le~ to Ronald Springfield. Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Northern
Division. from David Webster. USEPA, regarding comments on the August
1989 Draft Additional Sampling Plan; September 26, 1989.
23.
Letter to Ronald Springfield. Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Northern
Division. from Denise Messier. Maine DEP. regarding comments on the August
1989 Additional Sampling Plan; December 28. 1989.
Post-Screening Work Plan, prepared by E. C. Jord4n Co. [ABB Environmental
Services. Inc.]; July 1990 (Sites 1.2.5.6,8.9,11.12.13, Eastem Plume;
Treatability Studies 8; 11).
Addendum - Post-Screening Work Plan, prepared by E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB
Environmental Services, Inc.]; November 1990 (Sites 1.2.5,6,8,9.11.12.13.14,
Eastern Plume; Treatability Studies 8; 11)..
Correspondence:
2. .
3.
1.
Letter to Kenneth Marriott. Department of the Navy. Northern Division. from
Ted Wolfe. Maine DEP, regarding comments on the April 1990 Draft Post-
Screening Work Plan; May 1. 1990. .
Letter to Kenneth Marriott. Department of the Navy. Northern Division. from
Michael Jasinski for David Webster. USEPA. regarding the April 1990 Draft
Remedial Investigation Report and the April 1990 Draft Post-Screening Work
Plan; May 17. 1990.
Lc~ to Kenneth Marriott. Department of the Navy. Northern Division. from
Susan Weddle. TRC community member. regarding comments on the February
1990 Draft Phase I Feasibility Study - Development and Screening of
Alternatives. and the April 1990 Draft Remedial Investigation Report and the
April 1990 Draft Post-Screening Work Plan; May 23. 1990.
March 17. 1993
-------
Volume m:
Volume IV:
Correspondence:
W049378.0SO
NA VAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
AD:M1NISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
4.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from Ted
Wolfe, Maine DEP, regarding comments on the July 1990 Post-Screeaing Work
Plan; July 27, 1990.
s.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from David
Webster, USEPA, regarding comments on the July 1990 Post-Screening Work
Plan; August 30, 1990.
Round 1 Daza Package, Phase 1 - RemedU:zllnvesrigazion, prepared by E.C.
Jordan Co. [ABB Environmental Services, Inc.]; January 1989 (Sites
1,2,3,4,7,8,9).
Correspondence:
2.
~tter to Ronald Springfield, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
David Gulick, E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB-ES] regarding the transmittal of the
Round I Data Package; January 13, 1989.
3.
Letter to T.G. Sheckels, Department on the Navy, Northern Division, from
David Webster, USEPA, regarding comments on the Round I Data Package and
recommendations on futUre data packages; March 13, 1989.
4.
~tter to Charlotte Head, USEPA, from Kenneth Finkelstein, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, regarding comments on the Rounds I and n
Data Packages; March 13, 1989.
Round 11 Daza Package, Phase 1- Remedia11nvesrigazion, prepared by E.C.
Jordan Co. [ABB Environmental Services, Inc.]; March 1989 (Sites
1,2,3,4,7,8,9).
Round 111 Daza Package, Phase 1- Rt!1MdiaI Invesngazion, prepared by E.C.
Jordan Co. [ABB Environmental Services, Inc.]; July 1989 (Sites
1.2,3,4,7,8,9).
1.
Letter to Ronald Springfield, Northern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, from David Gulick, E.C. Jordan, Co. [ABB-ES], regarding.
transmittal of and comments on the Round n Data Package; March 10, 1989.
2.
~tter to Ronald Springfield, Northern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, from David Gulick, E.C. Jordan, Co. [ABB-ES], regarding
transmittal of and comments on the Round m Data Package; July 14, 1989.
3.
Letter to Jack Jojokian, USEPA, from John Walker, Camp, Dresser & McKee
Federal Programs Corporation, regarding comments on the Round m Data
Package; August 31, 1989.
March 17, 1993
-------
<1
Volume V:
Volume VI:
V olmne VB:
"
W049378.0SO
NA VAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
4.
Letter to Ronald Springfield, Northern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, regarding comments on the Round m Data Package; October 4,
1989.
Remedio! lrrvestigation Fearibilily Study - Round N Daza Padr.age, prepared by
E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB Environmental Services, Inc.]; Janwuy 1990 (Sites
1,2,3,4,7,8,9,11,13).
Correspondence:
1.
Letter to Meghan Cruise, USEP A, from Kenneth Fmkelstein. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric ,Anminic:n-anOD, regarding comments on the Round 4 [IV] Data
Package; August 28, 1989.
2.
Letter to Kenneth Marriott, Northern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, regarding comments OD the Round IV Data Package; March 5, 1990.
Draft FiMl RemeditJIlnvemgarion Repon Volume 1, prepared by E.C. Jordan
Co. [ABB Environmental Services, Inc.]; August 1990 (Sites 1,3; 2; 4,11,13;
7; 8; 9).
Correspondence:
1.
Letter to Kenneth Marriott, Department of the NaVy, Northern Division, from
Susan Weddle, TRC community member, regarding comments on the April
1990 Draft Remedial Investigation Report; May 15, 1990.
2.
Letter to Kenneth Marriott, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Michael Jasinski for David Webster, USEPA. regarding comments on the April
1990 Draft Remedial Investigation Report and the April 1990 Draft Post-
Screening Wo~ Plan; May 17, 1990.
3.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from Ted
Wolfe, Maine DEP, regarding comments on the August 1990 Draft Fmal
Remedial Investigation Report; October 10, 1990.
4.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from Maly
Jane O'Donnell, USEPA, regarding comments on the August 1990 Draft Fmal
Remedial Investigation Report; October 17, 1990.
Draft FiMl Remedial Investigarion Repon Volume 2: Appendices A-i, prepared
by E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB Environmental Services, Inc.]; August 1990 (SiteS
1,3; 2; 4,11,13; 7; 8; 9).
March 17, 1993
-------
NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADMINISTRATIVE. RECORD INDEX
Volume VID: Draft FIMl Remedial /rrvesrigarion Repon Volume 3; Appendices K-P, prqmcd
by E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB Environmental Services, Inc.]; August 1990 (Sites
1,3; 2; 4.11.13; 7; 8; 9).
Volume IX:
Correspondence:
Volume X:
Volume XI:
W049378.0SO
Draft FintJI Remeditzl lnvestigalion Repon Volume 4: Appendb: Q - Ris/c
Auusment, prepared by E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB Environmental Services. Inc.];
August 1990 (Sites 1.3; 2; 4,11.13; 7; 8; 9).
1.
Letter to Ron3ld Springfield, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northern
Division, from Charlotte Head for David Webster, USEPA. regarding the
inclusion of the [Step] lA Verification Study data in the risk assessment for the
air station; September 15, 1988.
2.
Letter to T.G. Sbeckels, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northern
Division, from David Webster, USEPA, regarding review comments on the
Phase I Feasibility Study PreliminaIy Development of Alternatives, and the
~limiftSlry Risk Assessment; May 5, 1989.
3.
Letter to Kenneth Marriott, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Ted Wolfe for Denise Messier. Maine DEP, regarding comments on the
Febnwy 1989 PreliminaIy Risk Assessment; February 8, 1990.
4.
Letter to Kenneth Marriott, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from
. Ted Wolfe. Maine DEP. regarding comments on the April 1990 Draft Remedial
Investigation Report; May 17, 1990.
Rt:mediI:zllnwsrigalion FetlSibiIily Study Round V Daza Package, prepared by
E.C. Iordan Co. [ABB Environmental Services. Inc.]; March 1991 (Sites
5.6.8,9.11.12.14. Eastern Plume; Treatability Study for Sites 8,11).
Draft rural Suppkmenlal R1 Repon Volume I, prepared by E. C. Iordan Co.
[ABB Environmental Services, Inc.]; August 1991 (Sites 5,6,8,9,11,12, Eastez:n
Plume).
Correspondence:
1.
Letter to Megban Cassidy. USEPA, from Kenneth Fm1ce1stein, N81icmal Oceanic
aod AtmOsphericAdmini$tration. regarding co~ts on the [April 1991] Draft
Focused Feasibility Study for Sites 1 and 3; the [April 1991] Draft Supplemental
Remedial Investigation; and the [April 1991] Draft Supplemental Feasibility
Study for Sites 5, 6. and 12; May I, 1991.
March 17, 1993
-------
2.
3.
Volume XII:
Volume XID:
SECTION 5:
Volume I:
Q
W049378.0SO
NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD ffiDEX
Letter to Captain H.M. Wilson, Naval Air Station Brunswick. from Samuel
Butcher, regarding comments on the [April 1991J Draft Supplemental Remedial
Investigation Report; May 1, 1991.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from Ted
Wolfe, Maine DEP, regarding comments on the [April 1991J Draft
Supplemental Remedial Inv~tigation Report; May 23, 1991.
4.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Megban Cassidy, USEPA, regarding comments on the [April 1991] Draft
Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report; May 30, 1991.
s.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Meghan Cassidy, USEPA, regarding additional comments on the April 1991
Draft Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report; June 19, 1991.
6.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from Ted
Wolfe, Maine DEP, regarding comments on the [August 1991] Draft Final
Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report; September 4, 1991.
7.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Meghan Cassidy, USEPA, regarding comments on the [August 1991J Draft
Fmal Supplemental Remedial Investigation Repo,rt; September la, 1991.
Draft Final Supplemental Rl Repon Volume 2: Appendices A-I, prepared by
E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB Environmental Services, Inc.J; August 1991 (Sites
5.6,8,9,11,12, Eastern Plume).
Draft Final Supplemental Rl Repon Volume 3: Appendices K-Q, prepared by
E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB Environmental Services, Inc.]; August 1991 (Sites
5,6.8,9,11.12, Eastern Plume).
FEASIBn.ITY sruDIES
Draft Frnal Phase 1 FeasibiJizy SllJdy DewdJJpmm: and Screening of Alremazivu,
prepared by E.c. Jordan Co. [ABB :Environmental Services, Inc.J; August 1990
(Sites 1,3; 2; 4,11,13; 7; 8; 9).
Draft Final Supplemental Feasibility Study, prepared by E.C.Jordan Co. [ABB
Environmental Services, Inc.J; July 1991 (Sites 5,6,12).
Correspondence:
1.
Letter to T.G. Sheckels, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from
David Webster, USEPA, regarding comments on the Febnwy 1989 Phase I
March 17, 1993
E-11
-------
W049378.080
NA VAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
AD:MINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Feasibility Study: Pn:limiDary Development of Alternatives, and February 1989
Preliminary Risk As.sessment reports; May S, 1989.
2.
Letter to Alan PrySUDka. Maine DEP, from T.G. Sheckels, Department of the
Navy, Northern Division, regarding Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) for Remedial Investigation! Feasibility Study (RIIFS);
March 6, 1990.
3.
Letter to Kenneth Marriott, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Ted Wolfe, Maine DEP, regarding comments on the Febnwy 1990 Draft Phase
I Feasibility Study Development and Screening of Alternatives; April 17, 1990.
4.
Letter to Kenneth Marriott. Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
David Webster, USEPA, regarding comments on the Febnwy 1990 Draft Phase
I Feasibility Study Development and Screening of Alternatives; April 23, 1990.
s.
Letter to Kenneth Marriott, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Susan Weddle, TRC community member, regarding comments on the February
1990 Draft Phase I Feasibility Study Development and Screening of
Alternatives, and the April 1990 Draft Post-Screening Work Plan; May 23,
1990.
6.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from Ted
Wolfe, Maine DEP, regarding comments on Draft Fmal Phase I Feasibility
Study Development and Screening of Alternatives; September 28, 1990.
7.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Meghan Cassidy, USEPA, regarding comments on the August 1990 Draft Fmal
Phase I Feasibility Study Development and Screening of Alternatives; October
16, 1990.
8.
Letter to Captain H.M. WUson, Naval Air Station Bnmswick, from Samuel
Butcher, regarding comments on the [April 1991] Draft Supplemental
Feasibility Study for Sites S, 6, and 12; May I, 1991.
9.
Letter to Meghan Cassidy, USEP A, from K=neth Fmkelstcin. NaDoaaI Oceanic
md Atmospheric Administration, regarding comments on the [April 1991] Draft
Focused Feasibility Study for Sites 1 and 3; the [April 1991] Draft Supplcmcotal
Remedial Investigation; and the [April 1991] Draft Supplemental Feasibility
Study for Sites 5, 6, and 12; May I, 1991. .
10.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Meghan Cassidy, USEPA, regarding comments on the April 1991 Draft
Supplemental Feasibility Study for Sites S, 6, and 12; June 3, 1991.
"
11.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from Ted
Wolfe, Maine DEP, regarding comments on the April 1991 Draft Supplemental
Feasibility Study for Sites 5,6, and 12; June 7, 1991.
March 17, 1993
-------
Volume n:
W049378.080
NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
12.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from Ted
Wolfe, Maine DEP, regarding comments on the July 1991 Draft Fmal
Supplemental Feasibility Study for Sites 5, 6, and 12; August 23, 1991.
13.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Meghan Cassidy, USEPA, regarding comments on the July 1991 Draft Fmal
Supplemental Feasibility Study for Sites 5, 6, and 12, August 23, 1991.
Focused Feasibilily Study, prepared by E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB Environmental
Services, Inc.]; October 1991 (Sites 1 & 3)
NumeriazI Modeling Repon. prepared by ABB Environmental Services, Inc.;
January 1993 (Sites 1 & 3; Eastern Plume).
Correspondence:
1.
Letter to Captain H.M. Wilson, Naval Air Station Brunswick. from Samuel
Butcher, regarding comments on the [April 1991] Draft Focused Feasibility
Study Report; May 1, 1991.
2.
Letter to Megban Cassidy, USEP A, from K=meth Fmkelstein. National Oceanic
aad Atmospheric Administration. regarding COzmn=1ts on the [Apri11991] Draft
Focused Feasibility Study for Sites 1 and 3; the [April 1991] Dr.Ift Supplemental
Remedial Investigation; and the Draft Supplemental Feasibility Study for Sites
5, 6, and 12; May 1, 1991. .
3.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Meghan Cassidy, USEPA, regarding comments on the [April 1991] Draft
Focused Feasibility Study Report; May 9, 1991.
4.
Lcuer to Megban Cassidy, USEPA, from K=med1 FuOO-1ct~. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. regarding additional comments on the [April
1991] Draft Focused Feasibility Study for Sites 1 and 3; May 10. 1991.
s.
Letter to James Shafer. Department of the Navy. Northern Division. from
Meghan Cassidy, USEPA. regarding additional comments on the [Apri11991]
Draft Focused Feasibility Study Report; May 13. 1991.
6.
Letter to James Shafer. Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from Ted
Wolfe. Maine DEP, regarding state requirements for off-gas treatment for the
[Apri11991] Draft Focused Feasibility Study Report; May 21. 1991.
7.
Letter to James Shafer. Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from
Meghan Cassidy, USEPA, regarding comments on. the July 1991 Draft Fmal
Focused Feasibility Study Report; August 14, 1991.
March 17, 1993
£-13
-------
Volume m:
W049378.0SO
NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
8.
Letter to Merrill S. Hohman. USEPA. from CapL Thomas Dames. Department
of the Navy. Northern Division, regarding dispute resolution pertaining to the
Draft Fmai Focused FeasibilitY Study; August 14, 1991.
9.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from Ted
Wolfe, Maine DEP, regarding comments on the August 1991 Draft Fmal
Focused Feasibility Study Report; August 15. 1991. .
10.
Letter to Ralph Lombardo, Department of the Navy, Northem, Division, from
Ted Wolfe, MEDEP, regarding dispute resolution, August 28, 1991.
11.
Memorandum of agreement to resolve a dispute initiated under the Federal
Facility Agreement for the Focused Feasibility Study for Sites 1 and 3;
September 1991.
12.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy. Northern Division. from
Megban Cassidy, USEP A, regarding comments on the Focused Feasibility StUdy
for Sites 1 and 3. September 16, 1991. '
13.
Leuer to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northem Division, from
Meghao Cassidy, USEPA, regarding comments on the October 1991 [Draft]
Numerical Modeling Work Plan; November 22. 1991.
14.
Leuer to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from Marie
Hyland, Maine DEP. regarding comments on the tOctober 1991] Draft
Numerical Modeling Work Plan; December 5, 1991.
',,~-,//
15.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Lome Lofchie, Brunswick Area Citizens for a Safe Environment, regarding
comments on the [October 1991 Draft] Numerical Modeling Worle Plan; January
13, 1992.
16.
Leuer to James Shafer, Depa&1:m..at of the Navy, Northern Division. from Mark
Hyland, Maine DEP, regarding comments on the Draft Numerical Modeling,
Report; December 4, 1992.
FeDSibiJily Study Volume 1, prepared by E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB Environmental
Services, Inc.]; Man:h 1992 (Sites 2; 4,11,13; 5,6; 7; 9; 12; 14; Eastern
Plume).
Correspondence:
1.
Letter to Meghao Cassidy, USEP A, from John Lindsay, National Oceanic and,
Atmospheric Administration, regarding comments on the [July 1991] Draft
Feasibility Study Report; August 16, 1991.
o
March 17, 1993
E-14
-------
()
Volume IV:
Volume V:
c'
W049378.080
"
NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADl\fiNISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
2.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from Ted
Wolfe, Maine DEP, regarding comments on the July 1991 Draft Feasibilicy
Study Report; September 20, 1991. '
3.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Meghan Cassidy, USEPA, regarding comments on the July 1991 Draft
Feasibility Study Report; September 23, 1991.
4.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Megban Cassidy, USEPA. regarding comments on the November 1991 Draft
Fmal Feasibility Study; December 26, 1991.
s.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from Ted
Wolfe, Maine DEP, regarding comments on the November 1991 Draft Fmal
Feasibility Study Report; January 2, 1992.
6.
Comments from BACSE on the Feasibility Study Report, February 18, 1992.
Feasibility study Volume 2: Appendices A - 0, prepared by E.C. Jordan Co,
[ABB Environmental Services, Inc.]; March 1992 (Sites 2; 4,11.13; 5,6; 7; 9:
12; 14; Eastern Plume).
FOCllSed Feasibility Study, prepared by E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB Environmental
Services, Inc.]; April 1992 (Site 8)
Correspondence:
1.
Memo to Mark Hyland, MEDEP, from Dick Behr, Division of Technical
Services, regarding the Focused Feasibility Study (Site 8).
2.
Letter to Captain H.M. WUson, Naval Air Station Brunswick, from Samuel
Butcher, regarding comments on the [May 1991] Draft Focused Feasibility
Study report; May 28, 1991.
3.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Megban Cassidy, USEPA, regarding comments on the May 1991 Draft Focused
Feasibility Study report; June 17, 1991. .
4.
Leuer to Megban Cassidy, USEPA, from K=meth Fm)Qo.IC1t=. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, regarding comments on the [May 1991] Draft
Focused Feasibility Study for Site 8; June 5, 1991.
s.
. Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from Ted
Wolfe. Maine DEP, regarding comments on the May 1991 Draft Focused
Feasibility Study Site 8 report; June 27, 1991.
March 17, 1993
-------
SECTION 6:
V olmne I:
W049378.0SO
0.
NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
6.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Meghan Cassidy, USEPA, regarding comments on the August 1991 Draft Fmal
Focused Feasibility Study Site 8 report; August 11, 1991.
7.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from Ted
Wolfe, Maine DEP, regarding comments on the August 1991 Draft Fmal
Feasibility Study Site 8 report; September 9, 1991.
8.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Meghan Cassidy, USEP A, regarding the re-ca1cu1ation of risk estimates for Site
8; Febnwy 19, 1992.
PROPOSED PLANS and PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS
Proposed Plan, prepared by E.C. Jofdan Co. [ABB Environmental Services,
Inc.]; December 1991 (Sites 1 and 3).
Proposed Plan, prepared by E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB Environmental Services,
Inc.]; December 1991 (Eastern Plume).
TTtlIIScripr of the Public Hearing for Sizes 1 and 3 and the Eastern Plume,
I'"'"t"""ed by Downing &. Peters Reporting Associates; December 12, 1991 (Sites
1 md 3; Eastern Plume).
"'-., J/
Correspondence:
1.
Letter to James. Shafer. Department of the Navy Northern Division. from
Megban Cassidy, USEPA. regarding comments on the July 1991 Imft Proposed
Plan - Eastern Plume; August 2. 1991.
2.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from Ted
Wolfe, Maine DEP, regarding comments on the July 1991 Draft Proposed Plan -
Eastern Plume; AUgust 15, 1991.
3.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from Ted
Wolfe, Maine DEP, regarding comments on the August 1991 Draft Proposed
Plan - Sites 1 and 3; September 23, 1991.
4.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from
Meghan Cassidy, USEPA, regarding comments on the August 1991 Draft
Proposed Plan - Sites 1 and 3; September 26, 1991.
"
5.
Letter to James Shafer. Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Meghan Cassidy, USEPA, regarding comments on the October 1991 Draft
Proposed Plan - Eastern Plume; October 31, 1991.
"
March 17, 1993
-------
(j
.~
Volmne U:
W049378.080
6.
NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADl\fiNISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from Ted
Wolfe, Maine DEP, regarding comments on the October 1991 Draft Proposed
Plan - Eastern Plume; November 6, 1991.
7.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from Ted
Wolfe, Maine DEP, regarding comments on the October 1991 Draft Proposed
Plan - Sites 1 and 3; November 6, 1991.
8.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Megban Cassidy, USEPA, regarding comments on the October 1991 Draft
Proposed Plan - Sites 1 and 3; November 12, 1991.
9.
Letter to James Shafer; Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from .
Edmund Benedikt, regarding comments on the Brunswick Naval Air Station
clean-up proposals [Proposed Plans for Eastern Plume and Sites I and 3, dated
December 1991] submitted for public review; January 3, 1992.
10.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from Ralph
F. Keyes, Merrymeeting Audubon Society, regarding comments on the Proposed
R~i:al Action Plan [Proposed Plans for the Eastern Plume and Sites 1 and 3,
dated December 1991]; January 8, 1992. .
11.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Lowe Lofchie, Brunswick Area Citizens for a Safe Environment, regarding
comments on the December 1991 Proposed Plans, S~tes 1 and 3 and Eastern
Plume; January 13, 1992.
12.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from Susan
C. Weddle, Brunswick community representative, regarding public comments
on the December 1991 Proposed Plan Eastern Plume, the December 1991
Proposed Plan Sites 1 and 3; January 13, 1992.
13.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Edmund E. Bcoedikt. Friends of Merrymeeting .Bay, reganiing comments on the
December 1991 Proposed Plans for Sites 1 and 3 and the Eastern Plume;
January 3, 1992. .
FWJ1 Proposed Plan prepared by ABB Environmental Services, Inc.; September
1992 (Site 8).
Transcript of the Public Meeting [Hearing] for Proposed Plan, Site 8: Perimeter
Road Disposal Site, prepared by Mason & Loclcbart; October 15, 1992 (Site 8).
. .
Revised Proposed Plan for Site 8 prepared by ABB Environmental Services,
Inc.; March 1993. . '
Proposed Plan prepared by ABB Environmental Services, Inc.; March 1993
(Sites 5 and 6).
March 17, 1993
-------
W049378.080
NA V AL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADl\1INISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Technical Memorantblm prepared by ABB Environmental Setvices. Inc.; Matcl1
1993 (Sites 5,6,1 and 3).
Correspondence:
1.
Memo to Mark Hyland, MEDEP, from Marianne Hubert. Tcchnical Services,
regarding the Proposed Plan for Site 8, June 18. 1992.
2.
Leuer to James Shafer. Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Meghan Cassidy, USEPA. regarding comments on the May 1992 Draft
Proposed Plan: June 29, 1992.
3.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from Mark
Hyland, MEDEP, regarding the Proposed Plan for Site 8. June 30. 1992.
4.
Leuer to Loulcie Lofchie. BACSE. from Carolyn LePage. Robert G. Gerber.
Inc., regarding comments on the Proposed Plan for Site 8, August 27, 1992.
5.
Letter to James Shafer. Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Meghan Cassidy, USEPA, regarding comments on the August 1992 Proposed
Plan; August 31, 1992.
6.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from Mark
Hyland. Maine DEP, regarding comments on the August 1992 Proposed Plan:
September 10, 1992.
7.
Leuer to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from
Meghan Cassidy, USEPA, regarding comments on the February 1993 Revised
Draft Proposed Plan; August 31. 1992.
Leuer to Loukie Lofchie. BACSE. from Carolyn LePage. Robert G. Gerber.
Inc.. regarding comments on the Proposed Plan for Site 8, October 28. 1992.
8.
9.
Letter to James Shafer. ~t of the Navy, Northern Division. from Mark
Hyland. MEDEP. regarding the Draft Proposed Plan for Sites 5 and 6.
November 6, 1992. .
10.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Meghan Cassidy. USEPA, regarding the Draft Proposed Plan for Sites 5 and 6.
November 10, 1992.
11.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from
Meghan Cassidy. USEP A. regarding the Draft Fmal Proposed Plan for Sites 5
and 6, December 18, 1992.
()
12.
Letter to James Shafer. Department of the Navy. Northern Division. from Mark
Hyland, MEDEP. regarding the Proposed Plan for Sites 5 and 6, December 22-
1992.
March 17, 1993
-------
NA VAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
13.
1.-
14.
\J
SECTION 7:
V olmne I:
W049378.080
Lette:r to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from Mark
Hyland, MEDEP, regarding the Proposed Plan for Sites 5 and 6, January 25,
1993.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Meghan Cassidy, USEPA, regarding the Technical Memorandum. January 29,
1993.
RECORDS OF DECISION
Record of Decision for a Remedial Acrion prepared by ABB Environmental
Services, Inc.; June 1992 (Sites 1 and 3)
Record of Decision for an Interim Remedial Aaion prepared by ABB
Environmental Services, Inc.; June 1992 (Eastern Plume)
CorTeSpondenc:e:
1.
Letter to Meghan Cassidy, USEP A, from Gordon Beckett, Fish and Wlldlife
Service. regarding the Draft Records of Decision for Sites 1 and 3 and the
Eastern Plume, March 25, 1992.
2.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from Ted
Wolfe, Maine DEP, regarding comments on the March 1992 Draft Record of
Decision for Sites 1 and 3 and March 1992 Draft Interim Record of Decision for
the: Eastern Plume; April 2, 1992.
Letter to James Shafer. Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from Mary
Jane O'Donnell, USEPA, -regarding comments on the [March 1992] Draft
Interim Record of Decision for the: Eastern Plume; April 2, 1992.
3.
'4.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from Mary
Jane O'Donnell, USEPA, regarding USEPA's and U.S. F15h and Wlldlife
Services' comments on the [March 1992] Draft Record of Decision for the:
Sites 1 and 3; April 6, 1992.
s.
Letter to Thomas Dames, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Dean Marriott, Maine DEP, regarding Maine DEP's concurrence with the
interim remedial action presented in the June 1992 Draft In~ Record of
Decision for the Eastern Plume; June 4, 1992.
6.
Letter to Thomas Dames, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Dean Marriott, Maine DEP, regarding Maine DEP's concurrence with the
interim remedial action presented in the June 1992 Draft Record of Decision for
Sites 1 and 3; June 4, 1992.
March 17, 1993
-------
SECTION 8:
SECTION 9:
V olmne I:
W049378.0SO
NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
POST-RECORD OF DECISION
, .
[Reserved]
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Community Relations Plan - for NASB NPL Sites Plq'ar=d jointly by Public
Affairs Office, Navy Northern Division, and E.C Jordan Co. [ABB
Environmental Services, Inc.]; September 1988 .
Correspondence:
1.
Public notice for the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study schedule for
Bnmswic:k Naval. Air Station Superfund Site published in the Portland Press
Herald; February 24, 1988.
2.
Memo to Commanding Officer, Naval Air Station Brunswick, from T.F.
Rooney, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, regarding community
relations interviews, and comments on the Draft Community Relations Plan; July
14, 1988.
3.
Press release regarding the USEPA and U.S. Navy announcing the signing of
the Federal Facility Agreement for the Brunswick Naval Air Station; October
. 6, 1989.
" -_/
4.
Letter to Commander Geoffrey Cullison, Naval Air Station Brunswick, from
Ted Wolfe. Maine DEP. regarding analytical results from water samples
coUected from a Coombs Road residence; December 27, 1989.
s.
Letter to Ken Marriott. Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Northern
Division. from Joshua Katz. Bnmswiclc Area Citizens for a Safe Environment,
regarding Freedom of Information Act request; March 6, 1990.
6.
Press release regarding aD extension of application notification deadline for
Technical Assistance Grant Application to be filed; March 26, 1990.
Letter to [Joshua] Katz, from T.J. Purul, Naval Air Station Bnmswick.
regarding the availability of information requested under the Freedom of
Information Act; April 6, 1990. .
7.
8.
Letter to K.ezmed1 Marriott. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, from Joshua
Katz. Bnmswick Area Citizens for a Safe Environment, regarding the Freedom .
of Informaaon Act request; a March 22. 1990 public information meeting; and
the preliminary response to an April 8. 1990 site visit: April 12. 1990.
March 17, 1993
-------
9.
10.
-------
Volume U:
2.
3.
W049378.080
NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes (Novmrber 1987,ro December 10,
1992).
~,
1.
Meeting minutes of December 3, 1987, Technical Review Committee (TRC)
meeting to get acquainted, to discuss results of completed and plaDDed
investigations, and to establish future review procedures; undated.
Meeting minutes of January 11, 1988, TRC meeting to discuss the project
schedule; January 26, 1988.
Memo to 'IRC members from Geoffrey Cullison, Naval Air statton, Brunswick,
regarding corrections to the January 11, 1988, meeting minur.es; February 3,
1988. '
4.
Meeting minutes of May 17, 1988, TRC meeting to discuss the dr2ft charter for
the 'IRC 81 Brunswick and a review of the revised April 1988 RI/FS worle plan;
undated.
s.
Meeting minutes of July 8, 1988, TRC meeting to attend a site tour and to
confirm proposed locations; of field investigations, undated.
6.
Meeting minutes of November 22. 1988, TRC meeting to review analytical data
from the first round of sampling, and to establish parameters for the second
round of sampling; undated.
7.
Meeting minutes of February 22, 1988, TRC meeting to review validated
aualytical data from the first round of sampling, and to present preliminary
information for the forthcoming risk analysis and alternative development
deliverables; undated.
8.
Memo of'IRC meeting minutes of March 28, 1989, to discuss the strUCture of
the third round of sampling; April 10, 1989.
9.
Lcucr to Bruce Darsey, Department of the Navy, Naval Air statton. Bnmswic:k.
requesting copies of the March 1:7, 1989, TRC meeting minutes; April 18, 1989.
10.
Letter to Senator William Cohen from E.B. Darsey, Department of the Navy,
Naval Air Station, Bnmswick, regarding a copy of the requested TRC meeting
minutes, and the contact for the IRP program 81 the base; April 28. 1989.
11.,
Meeting minutes of June 20, 1989, TRC meeting to discuss the Additional
Sampling Plan, the RIlFS' program, and the schedule for its implementation;
July 11, 1989.
"
12.
Meeting minutes of August 10, 1989, TRC meeting to discuss the third round
of sampling; undated.
March 17. 1993
E-22
. - ..._- .."
..... . . -
-------
u
"
W049378.0SO
... --
.. -~. ..-..-.
20.
21.
22.
. NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
13.
Meeting minutes of February 13, 1990, TRC meeting to discuss the fourth
round of sampling; January 22, 1990.
14.
Letter to TRC members from James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern
Division, regarding the May 22, 1990, mc meeting minutes in which the Dmft
IDitial Scr=aing report, Draft Remedial Investigation report. and Draft Post-
Screcuing Plan were discussed; July 12, 1990.
15.
Memo to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from
Geoffrey Cullison, Naval Air Station, Brunswick, transmitting the omitted
handout from the previous letter; July 19, 1990.
16.
Letter to mc members. from James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern
Division, regarding minutes froDi the September 13, 1990. TRC meeting;
October 31, 1990.
17.
Letter to mc members from James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern
Division, regarding minutes from the January 10, 1991, TRC meeting; January
28, 1991.
18.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from
Melville Dic:keuson, ABB Environmental Services. Inc:., regarding minutes from
the Octo~ 3, 1991, TRC meeting; January 28, 1991.
19.
Meeting minutes of Febnwy 20, 1992, TRC meeting to discuss the schedule
and status of the mP sites; 1IQd"te
-------
SECI'ION 10:
W049378.0SO
V olmne I: .
.. . ~-.. -.. ,~- .
NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
PROGRAM GUIDANCE
Qualiry As.szuance Program Plan, prepared by E.C. Jordan Co. [ABB
Environmental Services, Inc.]; February 1988 (all sites)
FedertJl Facility Agreement among the U.S. Deparrmem of the Navy, USEPA,
and Maine DEP; October 10, 1990.
Correspondence:
1.
Letter to Robert Kowalczyk, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from
Cynthia Bertocc:i. MaineDEP. regarding the state's interest in the Installation.
Restoration Program for Bnmswick Naval Air Station; February 24, 1986.
2.
Letter to L.K. Jones, Naval Air Station Brunswick. from Anthony Leavitt.
Maine DEP. regarding the stare's interest in the ~lljlrion Restoration Program
for Bnmswick Naval Air Station; February 25. 1986.
3.
Leuer to Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Northern Division. from L.K.
Jones, Naval Air Station Bnmswick, regarding the Navy's assessment and
control of installation pollutants (NACIP) program and guidance involving
federal and state regulatory agency oversight; March II, 1986.
4.
Leuer to Commanding Officer. Naval Air Station Bnmswic:k. from Commanding
Officer, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Northern Division. regarding
federal and state environmental agencies oversight aUthority of the NACIP
program; April 7, 1986. .
5.
Letter to David Webster, USEPA, from KJ. Vasilik. Naval Air Station
Bnmswick. regarding the definition of the RIlFS program at the NAS
Brunswick; Janu.uy 20, 1987.
6.
Letter to David Epps and Robert Kowalczyk, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, Northern Division, from Charlotte Head, USEPA, regarding the
current status and goals of the investigationS; June 29, 1987.
7.
Letter to Charlotte Head, USEP A, from R.L Gillespie, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, Northern Division, regarding the Navy's timetable to
complete Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study at the Naval Air Station
Brunswick, and outlining the Navy's understanding of the responsibilities of the
various agencies involved in the RIlFS program; October 22, 1987.
8.
Letter to Charlotte Head, USEPA, from Kenneth Fmkelstcin, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. regarding the June 10, 1987, Trustee
Notification Form for Naval Air Station Brunswick; November 10, 1987.
()
9.
Letter to Charlotte Head, USEPA, from T.G. Sheckels, Department of the
Navy, Northern Division, regarding the listing of Naval Air Station Brunswick
March 17. 1993
E-24
- .- ._- --- -'-"
-------
l>
D
. .-. . -. .
v
".
W049378.080
. "'~--"-' -.-..
11.
NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
on the NPL. the establishment of the Administrative Record, and the Technical
Review Committee for the base; November 16, 1987.
10.
Letter to R.L. Gillespie, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northern
Division, from David Webster, USEPA, regarding the schedule to be published
by February 1988, a mechanism for delineating the roles and responsibilities of
the agencies, and the USEPA's concerns over the progress to date; November
20, 1987. -
Memo to Charlotte Head, USEPA, from Joan Coyle, USEPA Water Monitoring
Section, regarding sampling results from the Jordan Avenue Well Field in
Bnmswick, Maine; December 10, 1987.
12.
Letter to G.D. Cullison, Naval Air Station Bnmswick, and T.G. Sheckels,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northern Division, from David
Webster, USEPA, regarding the definition of the commencement of the RIlFS
UDder the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Co"1pf'!"~rion, and Liability
Act; December 17, 1987.
13.
Letter to Merrill Hohman, USEP A, from E.B. Darsey, Naval Air Station
Bnmswick, regarding comments received at the Febnwy 10, 1988, mc
meeting on the status of the RIlFS program; February 17, 1988.
14.
Lcuer to Ronald Springfield, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northern
Division, from David Webster for Charlotte Head, USEPA, regarding the extI::Z1t
of quality assurance and quality control of validation for samples at Naval Air
Station Brunswick; April2S, 1988.
15.
Letter to Ronald Springfield, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northern
Division, from David Webster for Charlotte Head, USEPA, regarding the
evaluation of sites that were not incorporated into the [Hazard Ranking System]
package, especially Sites 5 and 6; April2S, 1988.
Letter to Megban Cruise. USEPA, from Alan Prysunka, Maine DEP, regarding
comments on the Federal Facility Agreement; November 8, 1989.
16.
17.
.
Letter to Meghan Cruise, USEPA, from Susan Weddle, mc community
member, regarding CODmJl:l1ts on the Federal Facility Ag.~t; November 16,
1989.
18.
Letter to Meghan Cruise, USEPA, from Ieanne Johnson, Town of Brunswick
-Conservation Commission, regarding a request for an extension for review and
comment of [the documents included in the Information Repository for] the
Brunswick Naval Air Station; November 17, 1989.
19.
Letter to Alan P1ysuDka, Maine DEP, from Merrill Hohman, USEPA, regarding
the state's comments on the [Federal Facility] Agreement; December 18, 1989.
March 17, 1993
E-25
. ... -. --. _. . .u_n_.'.- - -".. ". .
-------
W049378.080
~ -~.__._...-
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADl\fINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Letter to William Adams. B.C. Jordan Co. [ABB Environmental ServiCes, Inc.],
from R.L. Gillespie, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. regarding a
schedule extension for the Draft Initial Screening Report [Feasibility Study];
FebnJary I, 1990.
Letter to T.G. Sheckels, Department of the Navy, Northern Division, from
Menil1 Hohman, USEPA, regarding an amendment to the Federal Facility
Agreement; February 9, 1990.
Letter to Alan Prysun1ca, Maine DEP, from T.G. Sheckels, Department of the
Navy, Northern Division, regarding Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) for Remedial Investigation! Feasibility Study at Naval
Air Station Bnmswick; March 6, 1990.
Letter to Ken Marriott, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Northern
Division, from Meghan Cassidy, USEP A. regarding a request concurrence
between the agencies for an extension to the Remedial Investigation schedule;
March 12, 1990.
Letter to Thomas Sheckels, Naval. Facilities Engineering Command. Northern
Division, from Alan Prysun1ca, Maine DEP, regarding ARARs [Applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements] for Naval ~ Station Brunswick; April
9, 1990.
Letter to Meghan Cassidy, USEP A, from K.R. Marriott, Department of the
Navy, Northern Division, regarding an extension under the FF A for preparing
the response to comments on the Draft Feasibility Study and Draft Remedial
Investigation reports; May 18, 1990. .
Letter to James Shafer, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Northern
Division, from Megban Cassidy, USEP A. regarding a notice to proceed with the
Feasibility Study activities at Naval Air Station Brunswick; June 21, 1990.
27.
Letter to Meghan Cassidy, USEPA, 'from James Shafer, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, Northern Division. regarding an extension under the
FF A for preparing the response to comments on the Draft Feasibility Study and
Draft Remedial Investigation reports; June 25, 1990.
28.
Letter to James Shafer, Department of the Navy, Northern Division. from Ted
Wolfe, Maine DEP, regarding invertebrate tissue analysis for mcrc:uzy alODg the
Maine coast for establishing background mereUI)' levels; February 24, 1992.
29.
Letter to Cmdr. Ron Teny, Naval Air Station Brunswick, from Meghan
Cassidy, USEPA. regarding sampling of Mere Brook, April 23, 1992.
30.
Letter to James Shafer, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Northern
DivisioD, from Mary Sanderson, USEP A, regarding the proposed accelerated
schedules for the naval air station; January 11, 1993.
March 17, 1993
-------
~
J
~
--~-""..
PROGRAM (cont'd)
NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
By Refereuce ONLY with location noted:
W049378.0SO
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988. 8Guidance for Conducting
R~iallnvestigatiODS anci Feasibility Studies under CERaA"; Office of Solid
Waste aDd Emergency Response; OSWER Directive 933S.3.Ql; Interim Fma1;
October 1988. .
u.s. Environmental ProtectiOD Agency, 1988. 8Engineering Evaluation! Cost
ADalysis
E-27
._-- -.".".-.
March 17. 1993
. -- u ...- ---.....,
_.. ...---..".
- ...". ----- u....
.- -- -----
-.. "..".
. n - -..-...-. ----.---.. ~.
. - ---- -..--. ......
-------
NA VAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
SECTION n
GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
EPA guidance documents may be reviewed at EPA Region I, Boston, Massachusetts.
General and Site-Soecific EPA Guidance Documents
1.
8National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,. Code of Federal
Re2Ulations (1'itle 40, Part 300), 1985.
2.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual (OSWER
9285.4-1), October 1986.
3.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Comorehensive Environmental RCSDOnse Comoensation
and Uabilitv Act of 1980, as Amended October 17, 1986.
4.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Guidance
for Conductinl! Remedial Investil!ations and Feasibilitv Studies Under CERCLA (ComDrehensive
Environmental Resoonse. ComDensation. and Uabilitv Act) (Interim Fmal) (EP Al54O/G-89/004,
OSWER Directive 9355.3-1), October 1988. .
5.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and RemccUal Response. Guidance
on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water at Suoerfund Sites (EPAl54O/G-88/003),
December 1988.
6.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Interim
Fmal Guidance on Preoar1nI! Suoerfund Decision Documents (OSWER Directive 9355.3-(2), July
1989.
7.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
Ground Water Issue - Performance Evaluation of Pumo-and-Treat Remediations
(EPAl54O/4-89/00S), October 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Risk
Assessment Guidance for Suoerfund - Volume I: Human Health Evaluation ManuallPart A -
Interim Fmal) (EPAlS4O/1-89/002), December 1989.
8.
9.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory. Technolo2V'
Evaluation Reoort: SITE Promun Demonstration of the Ultrox International Ultraviolet
Radiation/Oxidation Technolo2V (EPAlS4O/S-89/012), January 1990.
10.
8National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 8 Federal Re2ister (Vol. 55,
No. 46), March 8, 1990.
11.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Communications and Public Affairs. Glossarv
of Environmental Terms and Acronvms Ust. (EPA 19K-l002), December 1989.
W049378.080
March 17, 1993
-------
D .
/.
'"
",
NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
12.
U.S. &virtmlllf!ftmJ Protection Agf:llcy. -StJpJ.mliniTIg the RIlFS for CERCLA Municipal T smd6H
Sites.; OSWER Directive 93SS.3-11FS; September 1990.
13.
U.S. Enviroum(!ftml ProtectioD Agf:llcy. Office of Water. -Drinking Water Regulations and
Health Advisories-; November 1991.
14.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development, -Design and
ConstructioD ofRCRAlCERCLA Fmal Covers.. EPA/62S/4-91/02S. May 1991.
March 17, 1993
W049378.0SO
------- |