PB94-963717
EPA/ROD/R01-94/091
December 1994
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Loring Air Force Base (OU 2)
and Landfills 2 and 3, Limestone, ME
-------
. ,
",~';_':- ....~.::~,.;;~.::~: . ,
FINAL
LANDFILLS 2 AND 3
SOIL/SOURCE CONTROL
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU 2)
RECORD OF DECISION
September 1994
The
Air Force
Rebuilding Our
.Environment
Installation Restoration Program
-------
FINAL
Loring Air Force Base
LANDFILLS 2 AND 3 SOIL/SOURCE CONTROL
OPERABLE UNIT 2 RECORD OF DECISION
September 1994
Prepared for:
Air Force Base Conversion Agency
Loring Air Force Base, Maine
(207) 328-7109
Prepared by:
Service Center: Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Contractor: ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
Portland, Maine
\,
-------
Section
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title
Page No.
SITE NAME:, LOCATION AND DESCRIYTION ......"......... 1-1
WOO79446.080
1.1
1.2
lANDFILL 2 DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-3
lANDFILL 3 DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-3
SITE HISTORY AND INVESTIGATION HISTORY............ 2-1
2.1
2.2
lAND USE AND REsPONSE HISTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-1
INVEsTIGATION HISTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-2
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-1
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE
ACTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-1
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-1
5.1
lANDFILL 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-1
5.1.1 Surface Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-1
5.1.2 Subsurface Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-4
5.1.3 Sediment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-4
5.1.4 Surface Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-4
5.1.5 Soil Organic Vapor Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-6
5.1.6 Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-6
lANDFILL 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-7
5.2.1 Surface Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-7
5.2.2 Subsurface Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. "5-10
5.2.3 Sediment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-13
5.2.4 Surface Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-13
5.2.5 Soil Organic Vapor Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . '.' . . . . .. 5-15
5.2.6 Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5-15
MIGRATION PATHWAYS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . .. 5-19
5.2
5.3
-------
8.0
9.0
Section
6.0
7.0
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Title
Page No.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS.............................. 6-1
6.1
HUMAN HEALTH RISK AsSESSMENT.... ... . .. . .. .. ..... 6-1
6.1.1 I..andfill2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." . . . . . . . . . .. 6-16
6.1.2 I..andfill 3 ......... ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6-22
ECOLOGICAL RISK AsSESSMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6-26
6.2.1 I..andfill 2 ................................. 6-26
6.2.2' I..andfill 3 ................................. 6-28
UNCERTAINTY EVALUATION. .. . '.. .. . ... '... .. .. .. .. 6-29
CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6-30
6.2
6.3
6.4
DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF AL1ERNATIVES . . . . .. 7-1
7.1
7.2
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS/RESPONSE OBJECfIVES ...... 7-1
TECHNOLOGY AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND
SCREENING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7-2
DESCRIPTION OF AL1ERNATIVES ....................... 8-1
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
AL1ERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9-1
EVALUATION CRITERIA USED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS. . .. 9-1
9.1.1 Threshold Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9-1
9.1.2 Balancing Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9-1
9.1.3 Modifying Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS... ... . .. ... ..... 9-2
9.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9-3
9.2.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9-3
9.2.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence. . . . . . . . .. 9-3
9.2.4 Reduction of Mobility, Toxicity, or Volume through
Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9-4
WOO79446.080
7626-00
9.1
9.2
-------
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
( continued)
Section
Title
Page No.
9.2.5
9.2.6
9.2.7
9.2.8
9.2.9
Short-term Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9-4
Implementability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9-4
Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 9-5
State Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9-5
Community Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9-5
10.0 THE SELECfED REMEDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10-1
10.1 0-EANuP L.EVELS ... . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10-1
10.2 DESCRIPTION OF TIlE REMEDIAL COMPONENTS. . . . . . . . .. 10-1
11.0 STATUTORY DE1ERMINATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . .. 11-1
11.1 THE SELECTED REMEDY IS PROTECTIVE OF HUMAN HEALTH
AND TIlE ENVIRONMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11-1
11.2 THE SELECI'ED REMEDY ATIAINS ARARs . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11-1
11.3 THE SELECI'ED REMEDIAL ACTION IS COST-EFFECTIVE. . . . 11-10
11.4 THE SELECI'ED REMEDY Urn T7.FS PERMANENT SOLUTIONS
AND ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT OR REsOURCE RECOVERY
TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAxIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE. . 11-11
11.5 THE SELECTED 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-13
12.0 DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. . . . . . .. 12-1
13.0 STATE ROLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13-1
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
'..
REFERENCES
WOO79446.080
7626-09
-------
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
( continued)
Section
Title
Page No.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PUBLIC MEETING
(JULY 26,1994) AND COMMENT LE'ITERS ON
OU 2 PROPOSED PLAN
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
WOO79446.080
7626-09
-------
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Title
Page No.
1-1 Location of Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-2
1-2 Landfill 2 Source Area Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-4
1-3 Landfill 3 Source Area Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-5
5-1 Analytes Detected in Surface Soil, 1988-1992 - Landfill 2 .......... 5-2
5-2 Analytes Detected in Surface Soil, March 1993 - Landfill 2 . . . . . . . .. 5-3
5-3 Analytes Detected in Surface Water/Sediment - Landfill 2 . . . . . . . .. 5-5
5-4 Analytes Detected in Groundwater, March 1993 - Landfill 2 . . . . . . .. 5-8
. 5-5 Analytes Detected in Surface Soil, 1988-1992 - Landfill 3 .......... 5-9
5-6 Analytes Detected in Surface Soil, March 1993 - Landfill 3 . . . . . . .. 5-11
5-7 Analytes Detected in Subsurface Soil, March 1993 - Landfill 3 ..... 5-12
5-8 Analytes Detected in.Surface Water/Sediment - Landfill 3 . . . . . . .. 5-14
5-9 Analytes Detected in Groundwater, 1988-1992 - Landfill 3 ........ 5-16
5.10 Analytes Detected in Groundwater, February 1993 - Landfill 3 . . . .. 5-17
5-11 Analytes Detected in Groundwater, March 1993 - Landfill 3 . . . . . .. 5-18
10-1 Typical Landfill Cover System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10-4
WOO79446.080
7626-09
-------
Table
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
. 6-8
11-1
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
LIST OF TABLES
Title
Page No.
Chemicals of Potential Concern - Landfill 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6-2
Chemicals of Potential Concern - Landfill 3 .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6-8
Risk Summaries - Landfill 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6-17
Risk Summaries for 1993 Data - Landfill 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 6-18
Risk Summaries - Landfill 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6-19
Risk Summaries for 1993 Data - Landfill 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6-20
Risk Summaries Across Pathways - Landfill 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6-23
Risk Summaries Across Media and Pathways - Landfill 3 ......... 6-25
Location-Specific ARARs Criteria, Advisories, and Guidance -
I:.andfill Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11-2
11-2 Action-Specific ARARs Criteria, Advisories, and Guidance -
Landfill, Air, Wetlands and Waste Material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11-4
WOO79446.080 .
7626-09
-------
DECLARATION
,/
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Loring Air Force Base (LAFB) Operable Unit (OU) 2, Landfill 2 (LF-2) and
Landfill 3 (LF-3) Limestone, Maine.
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE.
This decision document presents the selected source control and soil remedial action
for LF-2 and LF-3, which comprise OU 2 at Loring Air Force Base, Maine. This
decision document was developed in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986,
(42 V.S.C. ~9601 et ~ and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP); 40 CFR Part 300 et seq
(1990). This decision is based on the administrative record for the site, which was
developed in accordance with Section 113(k) of CERCLA, and which is available for
public review at the information repositories located at Robert A Frost Memorial
Library, 238 Main Street, Limestone, Maine, the Office of Public Affairs at LAFB,
AFBCA/OL-M, Building 5100, Texas Road, Loring AFB, Maine. Through the
interim remedial action at OU 2, the U.S. Air Force (USAF) plans to remedy the
threat to human health and the environment posed by the presence of LF-2 and LF-3
through the implementation of a source control and soil remedial action.
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) concurs with the
selected remedy for the OU 2.
ASSESSMENT OF OU 2
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the OU 2, if not
addressed by implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision,
may pose an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health, welfare, and
the environment.
"
v
WOO79446.080
7626-00
-------
DECLARATION
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECl'ED REMEDY
The selected remedy for OU 2 is containment using a cover system. The major
components of the remedy include:
.
Site preparation, consolidation of LAFB soils for subgrade and grading
to minimize erosion and manage runoff; .
.
Multi-layer cover system installation which will comply with RCRA
. Subtitle C and Maine hazardous waste requirements including landfill
gas assessment and controls, and assessment of adjacent wetlands;
.
Gates and warning signs installation;
.
Deed restrictions on land in the vicinity of the landfills;
.
Post closure monitoring and maintenance; and
.
Five year site reviews.
The remedy for this operable unit at the site addresses source control. A
management of migration operable unit, OU 4, will subsequently be developed for
this operable unit. The selected remedy addresses remediation of the source of
contamination at OU 2 by eliminating or reducing the risks posed by the presence
of LF-2 and LF-3. This action is intended to be the permanent source control
remedy for OU 2 and will be combined with a management of migration remedial
action at a later date. A Record of Decision will be issued for the management of
migration operable unit prior to the completion of construction of the OU 2 Source
Control Remedial Action.
Excavated material from other areas on Loring AFB will be used at au 2 for fill
material to meet the subgrade design specifications for the OU 2 cap. Before
material from other sites can be used as subgrade material at OU 2, the Air Force
must comply with CERCLA and the NCP for any areas which are CERCLA sites,
and must demonstrate that it has complied with the procedures set forth in the
'Technical Memorandum - A Land Disposal Restriction Evaluation of Soils Proposed
as Landfill Subgrade Materials, July 1994" (LDR Technical Memorandum, July
. 1994). At present, it is anticipated that these other areas will include OU 7, the
Quarry site, which is the subjeCt of separate CERCLA ROD which is expected to be
"
WOO79446.080
viii
-------
DECLARATION
issued concurrently with this OU 2 ROD, the OU 6, Railroad Maintenance Site,
which was subject of a CERCLA ROD issued in April 1994, and for which an
Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) relating to use of the material at OU 2
is expected to be issued concurrently with this OU 2 ROD and the Coal Ash Pile
which is a component of OU 2A
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
, The remedy selected by the Air Force is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with federal and state applicable or relevant and appropriate
re,quirements for this action, and is cost-effective. This remedy uses permanent
solutions to the maximum extent practicable. The selected remedy does not,
however, satisfy the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element because such treatment
of two entire landfills is impractical. The selected remedy will reduce mobility of
contaminantS through its containment features. Because this remedy will result in
hazardous substances remaining on site above health based levels, the USAF will
conduct a review within five years after commencement of the remedial action to
ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health
and the environment.
WOO79446.080
7626-09
-------
DECLARATION
DECLARATION
The foregoing represents the selection of a remedial action under CERCLA for
OU 2 at LAFB by the USAF and the USEPA-New England, with the concurrence
of the ME
r ITnmediate imPlementa::~~/i; 19rt
Concur
By:
Alan K Olsen
Director
Air Force Base Conversion Agency
~~~~
By:
Date:
~
John P. De Villars
Regional Administrator
USEPA-New England
WOO79446.080 .
7626-09
-------
SECTION 1
DECISION SUMMARY
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Loring Air Force Base (LAFB) is a National Priorities List (NPL) site. There are
currently 21 areas of concern within LAFB that are under investigation. The areas
of concern at LAFB have been organized into several operable units (OUs) for
remediation purposes. This Record of Decision (ROD) relates to the Source Control
Remedial Action for OU 2, which is compriSed of Landfill 2 (LF-2) and Landfill 3
(LF-3) soils/source. A more complete description of LF-2 and LF-3 can be found
in Subsections 2.2 and 23 of the Remedial Investigation (RI)/Focused Feasibility
Study (FFS) Report (ABB Environmental Services, Inc. [ABB-ES], 1994a).
LAFB, in northeastern Maine, is bordered on the south and east by the Town of
Limestone, on the north by the Towns of Caswell and Connor, and on the west by
the City of Caribou (Figure 1-1). The populatio~ of. 'Caswell, Connor, and
Limestone are 408, 468 and 2,093, respectively. The base population will be zero
beginning October 1994. The base is approximately 3 miles west r'L' the United
States/Canadian border and covers approximately 9,000 acres. Base operations are
expected to gradually decrease until base closure in September 1994. The nearest
residence is approximately one-half mile from LF-2. The land adjacent to OU 2 is
mostly undevelope~.
Because of its primary mission, LAFB personnel have been engaged in various
operations, a number of which require the use, handling, storage, or disposal of
hazardous materials and substances. In the past, these materials entered the.
environment through accidental spills, leaks in supply piping, landfilling operations,
burning of liquid wastes during fire training exercises, and the cumulative effects of
operations conducted at the base's flightline and industrial areas. As part of the
Department of Defense's Installation Restoration Program (IRP), LAFB has initiated
activities to identify, evaluate, and remediate former disposal or spill sites containing
hazardous substances.
Since initiation of the IRP, the base has been placed on the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (USEPA) NPL of sites and will be remediated according to the
Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) entered into by the U.S. Air Force (USAF), the
USEP A, and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP).
WOO19446.080
7626-09
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
. I
------------L
. ,------
. I
I
I
@
Caswell
Connor
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
Limestone
Caribou
----- TOWN LINE
LORING AIR
FORCE BASE
FIGURE 1-1
LOCATION OF SITES
I
o
SCALE IN FEET
4000
I
8000
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
LIMESTONE, MAINE
93090 170
-------
SECl10N 1
1.1
LANDFILL 2 DESCRIPTION
LF-2, located approximately one mile from the West Gate on Nebraska Road, .
received waste from base activities from 1956 to 1974 (Figure 1-2). LF-2 covers
approximately 9 acres, and was covered in 1974 with a foot of clean soil. Settlement
resulting from decomposition of organic material in the landfill has formed two
separate intermittently wet areas on the surface of the landfill. It is possible that
groundwater contacts the landfilled wastes during part of the year . Wet areas have
been identified in LF-2 originating from landfill settlement.
1.2
LANDFILL 3 DESCRIPTION
LF-3 is located approximately one-half mile from the West Gate on Sawyer Road,
and received waste from base activities from 1974 to 1991 (Figure 1-3). Another IRP
site, the Coal Ash Pile, is located northeast of LF-3; they are separated by a dirt
access road. Before its use as a landfill, the site was mined extensively for gravel,
and quarrying operations continue today in the northwestern portion of the site.
IF-3 covers approximately 17 acres, and was covered with native soil similar to LF-2.
During parts of the year, groundwater contacts the landfilled wastes. Several small
wet areas (i.e., less than one acre in size) have been identified on the periphery of
LF-3. An approximately five acre wetland is located west of LF-3. This wetland is
at a higher elevation than LF-3.
WOO79446.080
7626-09
-------
~
LEGEND
~
----
I
o
9311010D 1C
OFF-BASE PROPERTY
!{(:\ .:./...
I( '.'..'
\\
, \
. ) '- l
. ;:~-..... '~"
1./ ),r """'':::::, ----
'/ ~::::..-.. /....- --~---'"'::::::-.
/,1 / --"':::::-...:---- ", -..:::::::---
-.J // --"""' "" -
I '/ J/
LANDFILL 3
(APPROXIM' TEL \,,200 FEET)
LANDFILL 2.
:jjj~, BOUNDARY
.::::::.: "\
...:r '\"
.'::::::" ~::11
... /:::.. II .
i:""",~ ~'
"~-_ir
LANDFILL BOUNDARY
WET AREA
DIRT ROAD
BASE BOUNDARY
SCALE IN FEET
.
300
I
600
1-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ I
WEST
GATE
FIGURE 1-2
LANDFILL 2
SOURCE AREA FEATURES
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
-------
~
~ \1
~~ \ II
,~ II
'~''- LANDFILL 2 II
", ~~" (APPROXIMATELY 1,200 FEET) 11
\ I ------- Ii
' I -----~ I'
I I ''"' 1/
";,, \ " ~ ,~/
(/
\\ i \ ~
\\ I I c:J
41"$.[fu LANDFILL BOUNDARY. \.~\ \ I In
". II ~
"~.... I I ...
....~ ',0
~', I, J..;.,
"""......... r \ .
.,..~-':::~------- ). C
.,.,., ...-.------=--------- \ .0:
/",,' ----", r-'----..... ~
.--:;:,,:y/ "It' O/,' !
,//'
//
,/
II
//
1/
I
COAL ASH PILE
..
J
...
....
....
. ':.:,:::::..::;:;:,:;'
. :.:;.;.:.::.
....
o1IIk.
~.
WET AREA
=====
DIRT ROAD
FIGURE 1-3
LANDFILL 3
SOURCE AREA FEATURES
I
o
SCALE IN FEET
.
300
I
600
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
LIMESTONE, MAINE
9311010D(a)6
-------
SECI'ION 2
L,
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND INVESTIGATION HISTORY
TIlls section summarizes the uses, response history, and investigation history at LF-2
and LF-3.
2.1
LAND USE AND REsPONSE HISTORY
Landfill 2. The area occupied by LF-2 was quarried for gravel during base
construction. From 1956 (when the gravel supply was exhausted) until 1974, the site
waS used as a waste disposal area receiving waste from base activities. Wastes
disposed of included domestic waste, construction debris, flightline wastes such as
fuels, oil, solvents, hydraulic fluids, and paints, and sewage sludge. There are no
records of waste segregation within LF-2; operators interviewed said that waste was
evenly distributed. Oil-filled switches, containinE an estimated quantity of more than
3,000 gallons of oil and possibly containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) also
were reportedly disposed of at this site. From 1956 to 1968, wastes were typically
burned and buried. Disposal of significant quantities of hazardous substances at this
site reportedly terminated by 1968 (CH2M Hill, 1984). In 1974, tbe landfill was
closed and was covered with a foot of clean soil. .
Landfill 3. Like LF-2, the area occupied by LF-3 was mined extensively for gravel
during construction of the base runway and flightline area, and quarrying operations
continue today in the northwestern portion of the site. LF-3 received waste from
1974 to 1991. Hazardous wastes are not known to have been placed at LF-3.
However, small quantities of wastes governed by Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 U.S.C ~901) (i.e, waste oil/fuels, solvents, paints,
thinners, hydraulic fluids) may have been buried in the landfill prior to enactment
of RCRA. A former coal ash disposal area is located northeast of the central
portion of LF-3. A former drum disposal area is located between the coal ash
disposal area. and LF-3. The soils in these former disposal areas will be addressed
under au 2A, and the groundwater will be addressed as part of au 4. LF-3 was
closed in 1991 and cov~red with a 6-inch layer of native soil.
A more complete description of the LF-2 and LF-3 can be found in the RI/FFS
Report (ABB-ES, 1994a) in Subsections 2.2 and 2.3, at pages 2-2 througb 2-5.
WOO79446.080
7626-09
-------
SECTION 2
,'.\
2.2
INVESTIGATION HISTORY
The investigation history of au 2 is summarized as follows:
.
In 1984, a Preliminary Assessment was completed detailing historical
hazardous material usage and waste disposal practices at LAFB
(CHzM Hill, 1984).
.
Initial Site Investigation field work to determine if contaminants were
present at the au 2 sites was conducted in 1985 (Weston, 1988).
.
An RI process by commenced in 1988 and continued into 1993.
.
lAFB was added to the NPL in February of 1990.
.
The USAF entered into a FFA (FFA, 1991) in 1991 with the USEPA
and MEDEP regarding the cleanup of environmental contamination at
lAFB. The FFA was revised in December 1993 to address base
closure related issue, such as real property transfer and a revised
schedule. .
.
An FFS (ABB-ES, 1994a) was completed in 1994 for LF-2 and LF-3
to determine alternatives for remediation of contamination based on
information presented in the RI report, and a Proposed Plan (ABB-ES,
1994b) was submitted for public review.
:J
WOO79446.080
7626-00
-------
SECI'lON 3
.~
3.0 COMMUNI1Y PARTICIPATION
Throughout LAFB's history, the community has been active and involved in base
activities. The USAF and USEP A have kept the community and other interested
parties apprised of LAFB activities through informational meetings, fact sheets, press
releases, public meetings, site tours and open houses, and Technical Review
Committee (mC) meetings. Membership of the mc is comprised of USAF,
MEDEP, and, local officials and community representatives. A mc meeting was
held on September 30, 1993 to discuss the Proposed Plan for OU 2.
. During August 1991, the LAFB Community Relations Plan (CRP) was released. The
CRP outlined a program to address community concerns and keep citizens informed
about and involved during remedial activities. The CRP can be found in the
administrative record. '
On June 24, 1992, the USAF initially made the lAFB administtative record available
for public review at. the Robert A Frost Memorial Library, 238 Main Street,
Limestone, Maine and at the Office of Public Affairs, AFBCA/OL-M, Building 5100,
Texas Road, Loring AFB, Maine. The aclmini"trative record was updated on July 14,
1994 to include OU 2 information. The USAF published a notice and brief analysis
of the Proposed Plan in the Bangor Daily News and the Aroostook Republican on
July 13, 1994 and made the plan available to the public at the Robert A Frost Public
Library.
From July 15, 1994 through August 15, 1994, the USAF held a 30-day public
comment period to accept public input on the alternatives presented in the RI/FFS
, and the Proposed Plan, and on any other documents previously released to the
public. On July 26, 1994, LAFB personnel and regulatory representatives held a
public meeting to discuss the Proposed Plan and to accept any oral comments. A
transcript of this meeting is included in Appendix A, and the comments received
during the comment period, and the USAF's response to comments are included in
the Responsiveness Summary in Appendix B. Based on public comments, the public
is in agreement regarding the preferred Remedial Alternative for OU 2 as presented
in the Proposed Plan. . ,
WOO79446.080 .
7626-{)9
-------
SECTION 4
".
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION
The selected remedy was developed by combining components of different source
control alternatives to obtain a comprehensive approach for source remediation. The
selected remedy for OU 2 is containment using a composite cover system. The major
components of the remedy include:
.
Site preparation, consolidation of LAFB soils for subgrade and grading
to minimize erosion and manage runoff;
.
Multi-layer cover system installation which will comply with RCRA
Subtitle C and Maine hazardous waste requirements including landfill
gas assessment and controls, and assessment of adjacent wetlands;
.
Gates and warning signs installation;
.
Deed restrictions on land in the vicinity of the landfills;
.
Post closure monitoring and maintenance; and
.
Five year site reviews.
Construction of the landfill cap for source control described in this ROD will allow.
time to evaluate the impact of LF-2 and LF-3 on groundwater quality and leachate
production, landfill gas generation and adjacent wetlands, while minimizing further
impact on the environment. The nature and distribution of contaminants in
groundwater will be evaluated as part of the OU 4 landfill groundwater
investigations. The groundwater characterizations are incomplete at the time of this
ROD. The OU 4 ROD, however, will be issued prior to the completion of the
construction of the OU 2 source control operable unit. Additional modifications to
the cap design to allow for installation of a groundwater treatment system will be
taken in this operable unit if the groundwater investigations indicate that action is
required.
This remedial action will minimize environmental risks associated with LF-2 and
LF-3 soil/source by eliminating direct contact with soil and the landfill contents,
windbome migration of dust, and incidental ingestion of soils, sediment, and surface
water by animals and humans. It will also provide for passive venting of landfill
WOO79446.080
7626-09
-------
SECTION 4
gases. In addition, after construction of the landfill caps, gases will be tested and
evaluated to ensure that air emissions and ambient air quality on- and off-site do not
pose unacceptable health risks and are protective of human health and the
environment The cover system minimizes, but will not eliminate, infiltration leading
to leachate production and continued contamination of groundwater.
WOO79446.080.
4-2
-------
SECl10N 5
,-,
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Subsections 5.4 and 6.1 of the RIjFFS Report (ABB-ES, 1994a) contain an overview
of the RI field activities at OU 2, including discussions on the nature and distribution
of contaminants. The significant findings of the RI are summarized below.
5.1 LANDFILL 2
The following subsections describe the nature of contaminants detected at LF-2 in
various media.
5.1.1 Surface Soil
Surface soil samples were collected from zero to 2 feet below the landfill surface.
Figure 5-1 shows the surface soil sample locations and analytes detected at LF-2 from
1988 to 1992. In 1991, carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected in JSS-0860, including acenaphthene
(0.5 milligrams per kilogram [mgjkg]), anthracene (0.6 mg/kg), benzo(a)pyrene
(1 mg/kg), benzo(b)fluoranthene (1 mg/kg), benzo(g,h,i)perylene (0.7 mgjkg),
benzo(k)fluoranthene (1 mgjkg), chrysene (2 mgjkg), fluoranthene (3 mgjkg),
indeno(I,2,3-c,d)pyrene (0.9 mgjkg), phenanthrene (2 mg/kg), and pyrene (2 mgjkg).
Mercury (0.16 mg/kg) was the only inorganic analyte detected at a concentration
greater than background levels, and was detected in JSS-0863. No volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) were detected in surface soil samples collected in 1991. The
pesticide 4,4'-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethene. (4,4'-DDT) was detected in two
samples, but at concentrations below background ranges. .
,
J
In 1993, fuel-related VOCs and carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic P AHs were
detected, and included chlorobenzene (0.05 mgjkg), toluene (0.02 mgjkg), xylenes
(0.04 mgjkg), acenaphthene (4 mgjkg), anthracene (6 mgjkg), benzo(a)anthracene
(9 mgjkg), benzo(a)pyrene (5 mgjkg), carbazole (3 mgjkg), chrysene (8 mgjkg),
fluoranthene (16 mgjkg), fluorene (4 mg/kg), indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyreile (3 mgjkg),
naphthalene (3 mgjkg), phenanthrene (16 mgjkg), and pyrene (13 mgjkg). Figure
5-2 shows the surface soil sample locations and analytes detected in 1993. Very low
concentrations of pesticides were detected in most 1993 samples. The significance
of these detections and the basis for reporting them are discussed in the 1993 data
quality I:eport (Appendix G of the RIjFFS report). The fuel-related VOCs and
WOO79446.080
7626-09
-------
Q
JS5-08&O
voc
svoc
Ac8naphI/>ene 0.5
AnIh- 0.6
Benzo(a)Pyr- 1
Benzo(b)FIu0ranth8n8 1
Benzo(8.h,~PetyIene 0.1
Benzo(klFIu0ranth8n8 1
CaIbazaI8 OAJ
Ch~ 2
Dioanz(a./I)AnIIw- 0.2.1
Dioanzcluran 0.2.1
~ 3
FJoww. OAJ
1ndana(1,2,3oc,d)Pyr88 0.8
Ph8nanIh..... 2
PyI8II8 2
PESTICIOEIPC8 ND
INOAGANICS NO .
~.J
LEGEND
6
SURFACE SOIL SAMPlE LOCATION
.-II..
J
WET AREA
ESTIMATED
ND
NOT DETECTED. FOR PESTICIDES AND INORGANIC
PARAMETERS. NOT DETECTED ABOVE BACKGROUND
NOTE
ALL RESUL T5 ARE REPORTED IN mglkg.
FIGURE 5-1
ANAL YTES DETECTED
IN SURFACE SOIL, 1988-1992
LANDRLL 2
I
o
SCALE IN FEET
.
300
I
600
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
UMESTONE. MAINE
9407042O(a) 1
o F
-------
~
VOLATILES
,.,..",.
CIIb...o..~....
Shyb80.....
TaI-
Tala! X,.,.
SEMIV0L4TILES
1 ,4-OichIooabeo.....
~18p/1Ih8I8n8
Ac8nIphIhene
AnIhr88I8
B8nza(~
B8nza(~
1Ienzo(b~
1I8nzo(g.h.t1l8fYl8ne
biaC2.£~
1lulyb80..~
C8Ib8zaI8
Ch.,....
DII8nz(Lh)"""--
Dll8nzolut...
R_--
Fha-..
1nd8no(1.2.k~
N8p/IIh8I8ne
~
Py-.
PESTICIDES I PCBs
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endoaufan I
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
HepI8chIar Epoxide
M8IhoxychIar
INORGANICS
M8IQII)'
Sodium
LEGEND
.
-:<";':.h',
0.2'
1883
J~
V0L4TILES
Acetone
TaI-
SEMIVOLATILES
PESTICIDES I PCB,
Heptchlor Epoxide
INORGANICS
Sodium
0.06J
0.002J
NO
~0
0.OOO7J
O.05J
0.05
0.008 J
0.02
D.04
O.8J
1J
4
6
D
5
11 NJ
1 J
G.7J
G.8J
3
6
1 J
2J
18
4
3
3
18
13
VOLATILES
,.,..",.
SEMIVOLATILES
PESTICIDES I PCBs
prmaoChIonI8n8
NmGANICS
L88I
Sodium
ZiIIc
V0L4T1LES
SEMIVOLATU.ES
Fka--
Ph8nanth-
Py-.
PESTICIDES I PC8a
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endoaul...1
EndrirI
Endrin AId8h~
pnma-c:hlorcl-.
Heptchlor Epoxide
M8IhoxychIar
INORGANICS
Sodium
0.02J
NO
G.001J
....8
156J
253
...
WETlAND
TEST BORING LOCATION
J
ESTIMATED
NJ
PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF COMPOUND IDENTITY;
REPORTED CONCENTRATION IS AN ESTIMATED VALUE.
R
REJECTED SAMPLE: QC CRITERIA NOT MET
ND
NOT DETECTED. FOR PESTICIDES AND INORGANIC
PARAMETERS. NOT DETECTED ABOVE BACKGROUND
0-2'
1883
NO
NO
NO
LANDFILL 2 BOUNDARY
~6'q,
1883 ~
NO
0-2'
O.08J
0.117 J
O.08J
R
R
O.OOOU
R
R
R
R
R
FIGURE 5-2
NOTE
ALL'RESULTS ARE REPORTED IN mgikg.
ANAL YTES DETECTED IN
SURFACE SOIL, MARCH 1993
LAND ALL 2
I
o
SCALE IN FEET
.
300
9407042D(a) 1
I
600
JK
5-3
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
-------
SECTION 5
P AHs were primarily detected in JTB-0882, and the sample logs indicate a zone of
mixed soil and waste. Therefore, the detected contaminants and concentrations may
be more representative of waste material than the soil cover. Mercury (0.18 mg/kg),
lead (48.8 mg/kg), and zinc (253 mg/kg) were each detected once at concentrations
greater than background ranges. Sodium (1281 mg/kg to 214J mg/kg) was detected
in all samples at estimated concentrations greater than background ranges.
5.12 Subsurface Soil
One subsurface soil sample was collected from LF-2 and analyzed by an off-site
laboratory. Carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic compounds were detected at
estimated concentrations. Sodium (167J mg/kg) was detected at an estimated
concentration greater than background.
5.1.3 Sediment
VOCs were detected in one of five sediment samples, JSD-0801, collected from LF-2.
This sample was collected, in conjunction with surface water sample JSW-0801, from
a seep on the southwestern side of the northern wet area. Figure 5-3 shows the
sediment sample locations and analytes detected at LF-2 in 1988 and 1990.
Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) were detected in the sediment samples
collected from LF-2. Only acenaphthene (32 mg/kg), di-n-butylphthalate (621
mg/kg), dibenzofuran (16 mg/kg) fluoranthene (180J mg/kg), fluorene (30 mg/kg),
and pyrene (28OJ mg/kg) were detected at concentrations that were not estimated.
The highest total SVOC concentrations were detected in JSD-0801.
!'lo pesticides or PCBs were detected in the sediment samples collected from LF-2.
Inorganic analytes were detected in all five sediment samples collected from this site.
One sediment sample, JSD-0801, was analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons
(TPH), returning a concentration of 8,300 parts per million. Total organic carbon
(TO C) concentrations detected in the sediment samples collected during the 1990
field investigation rang~d from 2,600 to 6,200 mg/kg. .
5.1.4 Surface Water
In 1988, vinyl chloride (48 micrograms per liter [JLg/L]), 1,2-dichloroethene
(13 JLg/~), toluene (321 JLg/L), ethylbenzene (81 JLg/L), and SVOCs at estimated
WOO79446.080
5-4
-------
Q
JSW.0&41
VOC
SVOC
Diethyip/lthaJate
PESTICIOEIPCB
INORGANICS
'ron
HARDNESS (mgIL)
VOC
Vinyl Chloride
1.2-Dichloroet"-
Toluene
Ethybenz-
SVOC
1,4 Dichlorobenzene
4-Methylphenol
Acen8phthene
Anthr-
Benzo(a)Anlh........
BenzO(a)PY"-
BenzO(b)FIuor8nIhene
8enzO(k)Flucranthene
Benzoic Acid
Chryune
FI_anthene
FI--
Phenanthrene
. Phenol
Pyrene
INORGANICS
'!:PH
LEGEND
A
18110
NO
JS~1
VOC
SVOC
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
PESTICIOEIPCB
INORGANICS
TOC
18110
NO
18110
NO
0.06J
0.05
0.06
NO
18110
2J
NO
voc
SVOC
PESTlCIDEIPCB
INORGANICS
Iron
HARDNESS (mgIL)
ND
ND
NO
657
200
JSW.0B42
VOC
SVOC
Diethy,"hthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
PESTICIDElPCB
INORGANICS
Aluminum
BarMn
Iron
Manganese
Zinc
18110
5J
2J
2J
ND
48
13
32J
8J
IJ
93J
IJ
2J
5J
4J
3J
3J
8J
6J
IOJ
IJ
7J
7J
8J
NO
1.29J
ND
1010
30
1640
1440
53
18110
NO
3.1J
NO
6700
VOC
Acetone
Elhybenz-
Toluene
SVOC
2-Methylnaphthalene
4-Methylphenol
Ac8naphthene
Benzo(a)~-
BenzO(b)Flucranthene
Benzo(lI.h.~Pety'-
Benzo(1enzcluran
Fluoranthene
Fluor-
Indeno(l.2.3-c.d)PY"ene
Naph1haIene
Phenanthrene
Pyrena
INORGANICS
TPH
8300
MIL
SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION
WET AREA
J
ESTIMATED
ND
NOT DETECTED. FOR PESTICIDES AND INORGANIC PARAMETERS. NOT DETECTED
ABOVE BACKGROUND
NA
R
NOT ANAL VZED
FIGURE 5-3
REJECTED SAMPLE: ac CRITERIA NOT MET
SEE TABLES 5-27 AND 5-28 OF RIIFFS FOR VALUES
ALL RESULTS ARE REPORTED IN j.l.gIL FOR
SURFACE WATER, mglkg FOR SEDIMENT.
SCALE IN FEET
.
300
NOTE
I
o
9407042D(a) 1
ANAL YTES DETECTED IN
SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT
LANDRLL 2
I
600
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
LIMESTONE, MAINE
8 G E
-------
SECTION 5
concentrations were detected in JSW-0801 collected from a seep on the southwestern
side of the northern wet area. The seep was not flowing during the 1990 sampling
event and was therefore not resampled. Figure 5-3 shows the surface water sampling
locations and analytes detected at LF-2. VOCs were not detected in the four surface
water samples collected during the 1990 investigation, two of which were collected
from the northern wet area. SVOCs, primarily carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic
P AHs, were detected at estimated concentrations in three of the four surface water
samples collected during 1990.
The 1988 surface water sample was not analyzed for pesticides and PCBs. No
pesticides or PCBs were detected in the four surface water samples collected during
1990.
Hardness values ranged from 120 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 200 mg/L for three
of the surface water samples collected in 1990.
5.1.5 Soil Organic Vapor SUn"ey
A soil organic vapor (SOY) survey was conducted during the 1993 field investigation
to establish the amount of methane and volatile gas generated from LF-2.
Twenty-eight samples were evaluated from locations in and around the landfill.
Methane and low concentrations of tetrachloroethene and fuel-related compounds
were detected over the entire landfill area. Methane concentrations of up to 3.5
percent were detected which, in comparison to typica1landfill gas composition of 47.4
percent (O'Leary and Walsh, 1991), is consistent with waste having been burned prior
to burial. No vinyl chloride was detected. Detections of methane and other target
compounds at SOY points outside the landfill indicate that landfill gases may migrate
laterally. Because the SOY survey was conducted in the winter when the top several
~eet of the landfill were frozen, the frozen soil may have acted as a temporary cap
that may have caused landfill gases to migrate laterally.
5.1.6 Groundwater
Groundwater results ar~ discussed briefly because they provide possible indications
of the impact that the soil/source may have on groundwater quality. However, the
nature and distribution of contaminants in groundwater will be evaluated as part of
OU4.
-~
WOO79446.080
5-6
-------
SECTION 5
v
Groundwater samples were collected for off-site laboratory analysis from LF-2
perimeter wells in 1988, 1989, and 1993, and from wells within LF-2 in 1993. Off-site
laboratory analysis detected fuel-related VOCs in one sample from the perimeter
wells. Phthalates were detected in several perimeter well samples at estimated
concentrations. The VOC 1,2,4-trichJprobenzene was detected in sample JMW-0842
at an estimated concentration. Very low concentrations (less than or equal to 0.001
p.g/L) of pesticides were detected in all samples collected from perimeter wells in
1993 (1988 and 1989 perimeter well samples were not analyzed for pesticides). In
most perimeter well samples, inorganic analytes were detected at concentrations
greater than background concentrations.
. VOCs were detected in two groundwater samples collected from wells within the
landfill. Figure 54 shows the groundwater sampling locations and detected analytes
within the landfill. The SVOC, 1,2-dichlorobenzene (3 p.g/L), and the fuel-related
VOCs benzene (2 p.g/L) cblorobenzene (17 p.g/L), ethylbenzene (4 p.g/L), and
xylenes (11 p.g/L), were detected in the sample from JMW-0882. Styrene (1 p.g/L)
and estimated concentrations of tetrachloroethene, benzene, and xylenes were
detected in JMW-0884. Pesticides were detected in the landfill well samples.
Twenty-one inorganic analytes were detected in landfill wells at concentrations
greater than established background concentrations, including barium (446 to 989
p.g/L), cadmium (43.5 p.g/L), chromium (132 to 226 p.g/L), cobalt (58.8 to 87.2
p.g/L), copper, (104 to 343 p.g/L), magnesium (43,000 to 65,900 p.g/L), nickel (137
to 265 p.g/L), vanadium (67.7 to 126 p.g/L), and zinc (267 to 2,370 p.g/L).
5.2 LANDFILL 3
- The following subsections describe the nature of contaminants detected at LF-3 in
various media.
5.2.1 Surface Soil
Figure 5-5 shows the surface soil sampling locations and analytes detected at LF-3
in 1991. Xylene, the Qnly VOC detected in 1991, was detected in three of eight
surface soil samples collected from LF-3: JSS-0960 (0.01 mg/kg), JSS-0961
(0.02 mg/kg), and JSS-0962 (0.005J mg/kg). SVOCs, including benzo(a)anthracene
(up to 0.5 mg/kg), benzo(a)pyrene (up to 0.4 mg/kg), chrysene (up to 0.4 mg/kg),
fluoranthene (up to 0.5 mg/kg), and pyrene (0.4 mg/kg), were detected in samples
collected at JS5-0964 and J55-0965 in 1991. Most 5VOCS were detected at estimated
WOO79446.080
7626-00
-------
G)
JMW-G881
1883
JMW_(JT~)
VOLATILES (ugIL)
Benz-
Sty-
Tet"""'Ioroet'*-
Total XyleMs
SEMIVOLATILES (ugIL)
PESTICIDES I PCBs (ugIL)
INORGANICS (ugIL)
OIL AND GREASE (mgIL)
LANDFILL LEACHATE PARAMETERS
1883
VOLA TILES (uglL)
SEMIVOLATILES (ugIL)
PESTICIDES I PCBs (uglL)
4.4'-DOD
Dieldrin
Endosulan SuHate
Endrin
Methoxychlor
della-BHe
garrma-Chiordane
INORGANICS (ugIL)
Aluminum 57600 J
Antimony 37.8 J
Aroenic 22.7 J
B8tium 446
Beryllium 3.2 J
Calcium 281000
Chromium 132
CcbaIt . 58.8
~ 104
Iron 97100 J
Lead 50.2 J
MagMSium 43000
M~ 5540J
N~I 1~
Potassium 7770
Sodium 8SIIIO .
Vanadium 67.7
~~ 287
OIL AND GREASE (mgIL) ND
. LANDFILL LEACHATE PARAMETERS
Alkalinity (mgIL) 387
Chloride (mgIL) 13-1
H8td- (mg/l) 448
Ntrale (mgIL) 0.11
SuH.. (mg/l) 38.4
Total S~ Solids (mgIL) qs
Total Organic C8ban (mgIL) 1.82
Color (PTCO Una) 60
T ulbidity (NT\)) 130
Biological Oxygen D8nwId (mgIL) .
Chemic8I Oxygen Dem8nd (mgIL) .
T ota/ Kje/dahl Nitrogen (mgIL) 2.3
LEGEND
-+ MONITORING WELL LOCATION
. TEST BORING LOCATION
.. WETLAND
J ESTIMATED
NA NOT ANALyzeD
ND NOT DETECTED
NOTE
ALL RESULTS ARE REPORTED AS NOTED.
I
o
SCALE IN FEET
.
300
I
600
9407042D(a) 1
J
MP
5-8
JMW-G882 (JTB.0881)
VOLA TILES (ugiL)
Benz-
Chlorobenz-
Ethybenz-
Total Xylenes
SEMIVOLATILES (ugiL)
1.2-Dichlorobenzene
1 A-Dichlorobenzene
2-Methylnaphthalene
4.Methylphenol
Acenaphlhene
bis(2.EthylhexyQph1halale
Diet~e
Flu-
Naphthalene
Phenanlhrene
PESTICIDES I PCBs (ugIL)
4.4'.DDD
Dieldrin
Endosulan I
Endrin
Methoxychlor
~-BHC
~-Chlordane
garrma-BHC (Lindane)
ganma-Chlordane
INORGANICS (ugIL)
Aluminum 849CO J
Antimony 87.2 J
Aroenic 29.2 J
B8tium ~9
Betyltium 4.4 J
Cadmium 43.5
Calcium 499COO
Chromium 226
CcbaIt 87.2
~ 343
Cyanide 62.8
Iron 221000 J
Lead 549 J
Magnesium 65900
Manganese 6660 J
Mercury 3.5
~I ~5
PoIasium 14100
Sodium 21200
V8I\8dium 1 ~
~nc 2370
OIL AND GREASE (mgiL) 3.9
LANDFILL LEACHATE PARAMETERS
Alkalinity (mgIL) 494
Chloride (mgiL) 16.5
H8td- (mgIL) 441
Ntrate (mgIL) 0.08
SuM.e (mgIL) 1 1
Tota/ S_nded SoIds (mgiL) 564
Total Ofganic CaIbon (mgiL) 9.06
Color (PTCO Un~s) 200
Turbidity (NTU) 530
Biological Oxygen Demand (mgiL) -
Chemical Oxygen Demand (mgiL) 100J
T ctal Kjeldahl N~rogen (mgIL) 12
'"3
2
17
4
11
3
,
2J
1 J
0.8 J
130 J
6
0.5 J
3J
0.8 J
0.008 J
0.002 J
0.0003 J
0.001 J
O.03J
0.0008 J
O.OO4J
0.003 J
0.004 J
FIGURE 5-4
ANAL YTES DETECTED IN
GROUNDWATER, MARCH 1993
LANDFILL 2
LORING AIR FORC~ BASE
-------
JSS.0866
voc
SVOC
llenzo(a)Anlh-
llenzo(a)p,.-
llenzo(b)FI_h8ne
llenzo(g.h.OI'8ry18n8
llenzo(k)Auor...u-
Ch~
Fluor...u-
PhenanIIt-
Pv-
PESTlCIDElPCB
INORGAHICS
roc
1111t
ND
.......
VOC
SVOC
1Ienzo(a)~
1Ienzo(a)Pvr-
1Ienzo4b)1'IucnnII8w
llenzo(k)~
auy...
F~
"'*-"'-
Pv-
PESTlCIDE/PCB
INORGAHICS
roc
o
voc
SVOC
PESTlCIDEIPCB
Endaaulanl
INORGANICS
roc
1111t
ND
ND
O.D03llJ
ND
5700
voc
X)'I8ne
SVOC
PESTICIDEIPCB
INORGANICS
"TOe
LEGEND
6
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION-
NO
WET AREA
NOT DETECTED. FOR PESTICIDES AND INORGANIC
PARAMETERS. NOT DETECTED ABOVE BACKGROU!'ID
FIGURE 5-5
..
NOTES:
1. ALL RESUl. TS ARE PRESENTED IN mglkg.
2. ALL SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM INTERVAL 0-2 FT.
ANAL YTES DETECTED
IN SURFACE SOIL, 1988-1992
LANDFILL 3
I
o
9407042D(b)
SCALE IN FEET
.
300
I
600
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
UMESTONE. MAINE
4
c
-------
SECTION 5
concentrations. The pesticide Endosulfan I was detected in one 1991 surface soil
sample (JSS-0963). Mercury (0.16 mg/kg) was the only inorganic detected in 1991
at a concentration greater than background concentrations. TOC was measured in
1991 samples, and ranged from 1,550 mg/kg to 9,550 mgjkg.
Figure 5-6 shows the surface soil sampling locations and analytes detected at LF-3
in 1993. Up to seven VOCs were detected in three of the five surface soil samples
collected in 1993. However, only sample JTB-0980 had VOCs detected at
concentrations that were not estimated. These were 2-butanone (0.04 mg/kg),
acetone (0.2 mg/kg), ethylbenzene (0.02 mg/kg) methylene chloride (0.06 mg/kg),
tetrachloroethene (0.02 mg/kg), toluene (0.2 mg/kg), and xylenes ( 0.05 mg/kg).
SVOCs were detected in all 1993 surface soil samples, and included P AHs, phenols,
and phthalates. However, only bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (53 mg/kg) in JTB-0980
was detected at a concentration that was not estimated. 4,4' -DDT and other
pesticides were detected at. concentrations below background concentrations and are
not considered site contaminants. Other pesticides were detected at estimated
concentrations. Inorganic analyses detected cadmium (1.9 mgjkg), copper (126
mg/kg), lead (43.4J mgjkg), mercury (0.14 to 0.23 mg/kg), sodium (1411 to 260J
mg/kg), and zinc (1,240 mg/kg) at concentrations greater than background
concentrations.
5.2.2 Subsurface Soil
Figure 5-7 shows the subsurface soil sampling locations and analytes detected at LF-3
in 1993. Two subsurface soil samples were collected in 1993 from test pits excavated
inside the landfill. Only one VOC, 2-butanone, was detected and only at an
estimated concentration below the SQL Nineteen SVOCs, including 2-methyl-
- naphthalene (3 mg/kg), acenaphthene (10 mg/kg), anthracene (15 mg/kg),
benzo(a)anthracene (28 mg/kg), benzo(a)pyrene (18 mgjkg), benzo(g,h,i)perylene
(11 mg/kg), carbazole (7 mg/kg), chrysene (21 mg/kg), dibenz(a,h)anthracene
(2 mg/kg), dibenzofuran (6 mg/kg), fluoranthene (55 mgjkg), fluorene (9 mgjkg),
indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene (10 mgjkg), naphthalene (3 mg/kg), phenanthrene
(58 mg/kg), and pyrene (60 mg/kg), were detected in the sample from JTB-0983 at
the north end of LF-3. PAHs were also detected in the sample from nB-0981, but
only at estimated concentrations below the SQLs. The inorganic analyte sodium was
detected at estimated concentrations greater than the background concentration.
,i
WOO79446.080
5-10
-------
JT8-0083
0-2'
JTB--..
0-2'
1-
VOLATILES
SEMIVOLATILES
Fluoran"'-
Phenanthrene
Pyrena
PESTICIDES I PCBs
INOAGANICS
Sodium
VOLATILES
1.1.1- Trichloroethane
2.BuI.1none
Acetone
ToI..ne
Total Xylanas
SEMIVOLATILES
4-Mathytphano/
AcanaphIhana
FI.....-
PhananthnIna
Phenol
PESTICIDES I PCBs
~-8HC
INORGANICS
Cadnium
M8ICUry
Sodium
O.06J
0.05J
O.04J
ND
. ~1
VOLATILES
M8Ihytene Chloride O.04J
SEMIVOLATILES
Banzo(8)Anth_.. O.OBJ
Banzo(8)Pyrana 0.1 J
Banzo(b)FIuoranthana 0.1 NJ
~ O.08J
Fluorana- O.2J.
~ 0.1 J
Pyrena 0.1 J
PESTICIDES I PCBs ND
INDRGANICS
Mercury 0.14
Sodium 180J
VOLATILES
2-8"'--
~
Ethya-z-
Mathylana Chloride
T IllracI\IoIoaII.... Ie
To/uene
Total Xyianas
SEMIVOLATILES
bis(2-E1hythaxy~phth""" 53
Butybanzylphlhalale 2J
Q;.n-'YlphlhaJata 0.9J
PESTICIDES I PCB.
~Iotdana
Dieldrin
INORGANICS
~
L-
M8lCUry
Sodium
Zinc
LEGEND
.
TEST BORING LOCATION
~
WET AREA
J
ESTIMATED
ND
NOT DETECTED. FOR PESTICIDES AND
INORGANIC PARAMETERS, NOT DETECTED
ABOVE BACKGROUND.
NJ
PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF COMPOUND
IDENTITY; REPORTED CONCENTRATION IS AN
ESTIMATED VALUE
. NOTES:
I
o
9407042D(b)
ALL RESULTS ARE PRESENTED IN mglkg
SCALE IN FEET
.
300
I
600
HK
5-11
1-
0.004 J
0.1 J
0.1 J
0.005 J
0.002 J
0.1 J
O.08J
0.4J
0.2 J
0.1 J
J~
0-2'
1813
0.00003J
VOLATILES
SEMIVOLATILES
Banzo(b)Auoranthane
FI_~
Phenanthrene
Py-
PESTICIDES I PCB.
~.chlotdaM
g.........chlordana
Haplachlor Epoxide
INORGANICS
Sodium
0.0003 J
0.0004J
O.OOO2J
ND
0.06 NJ
O.06J
0.04 J
0.05J
o
0.04
0.2
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.2.
0.05
0.003
0.002
ANAL YTES DETECTED IN
SURFACE SOIL, MARCH 1993
LANDRLL 3
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
-------
~
1T
1883
VOlATILES
SEMIVOLATILES (~)
2-Methyt~hthaJen. 3
4-N~rophenoI 0.2 J
Ac8n8phIhen8 10
Anlhr- 15
Benzo(a)Anlh- 28
Benzo(a)Pyr- 18
Benzo(b)FIuoranthene 36 NJ
8enzo(g.h.~perytene 11
bia(2-ElhythexyQl'hlhaJaIe 0.3 J
C8rb8zoI8 7
Qvy-. 21
DIIenz(a.h)Anthr- 2
Dllenzdur8n 6
FI_"'" 55
F'-- 8
1nd8no(1.2.3-c.d)~ 10
NIiphth8Iene 3
"'-nthr8n8 58
"Y- eo
PESTICIDES I PCB. NA
INORGANICS
Sodium
NO
165J
o
15' 1883
VOLATILES
~ 0.007 J
SEMIVOLATIlES
AnIh- O.o.J
Benzo(a)~ 0.06 J
Benzo(~ 0.Q4 J
Benzotb)Fluor8nI- 0.07 NJ
avr- O.05J
FIucnnII-. 0.1 J 0
N8phIhaIene O.o.J
I'II8nanI"- 0.1 J
"Y- 0.1 J
PESTICIDES I PCBs NA
JIll.. INORGANICS
Sodium Z&3J
LEGEND
.
~
-fir
TEST BORING LOCATION
OVERBURDEN MONITORING WEU LOCATION
TEST PIT LOCATION
..
WET AREA
NO
NOT DETECTED
fo(J
PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF COMPOUND IDENTITY;
REPORTED CONCENTRATION IS AN ESTIMATED VALUE
FIGURE 5-7
J
ESTIMATED
NOTES:
AU RESULTS ARE PRESENTED IN mgIIcg
SCALE IN FEET
.
300
ANAL YTES DETECTED IN
SUBSURFACE SOIL, MARCH 1993
LANDFILL 3 .
NA
NOT ANAL VZED
I
o
9407042D(b)
I
600
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
LIMESTONE. MAINE
GL
-------
SECTION 5
y
5.2.3 Sediment
Figure 5-8 shows the sediment sampling locations and analytes detected at LF-3. No
VOCs were detected in the three sediment samples collected from LF-3. SVQC
analyses detected P AHs, mostly at estimated concentrations, in. the sample from
JSD-0942. Estimated concentrations of benzoic acid and benzyl alcohol were
detected in the other two samples. Aroclor-1260 was detected in one sediment
sample, JSD-0941, at a concentration of 1.2 mg/kg. No other PCBs or pesticides
were detected. Inorganic analytes, including arsenic (4.81 to 63J mg/kg), chromium
(35.3 to 86.8 mg/kg), and lead (25 to 455J mg/kg), were detected in all three
sediment samples collected from this site. TOC was measured in two of the three
sediment samples collected from LF-3, with values ranging from 2,600 mg/kg to
11,000 mg/kg. .
Sediment sample location JSD-0942 is adjacent to the Coal Ash Pile. It is possible
that contaminants detected in the samples collected from this location have migrated
from the Coal Ash Pile.
5.2.4 Surface Water
Figure 5-8 shows the surface water sampling locations and analytes detected at LF-3.
1,2-Dichloroethene (17 p.g/L) and estimated concentrations of 2-butanone, toluene,
and trichloroethene were detected in one surface water sample (JSW-0901) collected
from the northeastern side of LF-3. Acetone and methylene chloride were detected
at estimated concentrations in JSW-0942, collected approxiinately 200 feet east of
JSW-0901. Acetone and methylene chloride have been identified as potential
laboratory contaminants; the detection of these compounds in only one sample
indicates they are most likely introduced contaminants, and are not shown on Figure
5-8. SVOC analyses detected only estimated concentrations of phenols, phthalates,
and benzoic acid in one sample (JSW-090l). No pesticides or PCBs were detected
in the surface water samples collected from this site. Eighteen inorganic anaIytes
including arsenic (56.6J p.g/L), chromium (8.7 p.g/L), and lead (5.2 to 54.3 p.g/L)
were detected in surface water samples. Two of the three surface water samples
collected in 1990 were analyzed for hardness, with results ranging from 340 to
590 mg/L. .
WOO79446.0SO
5-13
-------
JSD.4N2 1t80 \ \t,
VOC NO
SVOC
Acenaphthene 0.1J JM*I
Anth,_ne 0.4J
Benzo (a) Anthracene 0.7J
Benzo (a) Pyrena 0.6J
Benzo (b) Fluoran'hen.. 0.9NJ JMW.Q903
Benzo (g.h.~ Perylene 0.2J
Chrysene 0.6J
DCenz(a.h)Amh,aoene 0.08J JS~1 1t80
Fluoranlhene 1J
Fluor- O.IJ VOC NO
Indeno (1.2.3-c.d) Pyrene 0.4J SVOC
Phenanthrene 1J Benzoic Acid O.2J
Py.- IJ Benzyt Aloohol O.IJ
PESTlCIDEJPCS ND Phenanthrene 0.07J
INORGANICS PESTICIDE/PCB
Aluminum 28500J ArocIor 1260 1.2
"'-'oic 6.3J INORGANICS
Barium SIII.7J Aluminum 10500
B8ry1ium 1.1J Anenic .4.8J
Calcium 4380J Barium 55.~
Chromium 54.9 Calcium 7950
Cobd 20.2J Chromium 86.8
Copper 39.4 Cobaft 9.3J
Cyanide 1.4J Copper 78.6
lion 49600 Iron 33900
Lead 37.7J Lead 45SJ
MagnMium 13100 Magnesium 5S6O
Mang_.. 868J Manganese 430
Nickel 68.4 Nickel 35.9
Pdaaium 2620J Pocasium 946J
Vanadium 44 Vanadium 21.2J
Zinc 107J Zinc 17400
Total Organic CaIbon 2600
0
JSW.otIOI
VOC
1.2.DichlorD81hene
2-8utanone
Toluene
Trichloroethena
SVOC
Benzoic Acid
D;.n«:ty""'halate
Diethy~e
4-Methylphenol
Phenol
TPH
1888
17
79J
42J
SJ
ANAL YTES DETECTED IN
SURFACE WATER ISEDIMENT
LANDFILL 3
aIk.
LEGEND
-
VOC
svoc
PESTICIOEIPCB
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
HaJd- as c.co3
VOC
SVOC
Benzoic Acid
Benzo Aloohol
PESTICIOEIPCB
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobaft
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nie...1
Potasium
Vanadium
Zinc
TOC
...
SURFACE WATER I SEDI~NT SAMPLE LOCATION
WET AREA
aIk.
~
BEDROCK MONITORING WELL LOCATION
ND
NOT DETECTED
NJ
FIGURE 5-8
PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF COMPOUND IDENTITY'
REPORTED CONCENTRATION IS AN ESTIMATED VALUE
ESTIMATED
J
NOTE
ALL RESULTS ARE PRESENTED IN mglkg FOR SEDIMENT
AND j1gIL FOR SURFACE WATER
SCALE IN FEET
.
300
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
LIMESTONE. MAINE
I
o
I
600
9407042D(b) 1
5
90
5-14
Ino
ND
0.4J
0.1J
ND
16700
5.2J
34.4J
7340
35.3
11.4J
22.2
29800
25
9200
414
38.1
97~
28.4J
75.9
-------
SECTION 5
5.2.5 Soil Organic Vapor Survey
Forty-five SOY samples were collected from 50 staked locations in and around LF-3
and were analyzed for methane and target VOCs. Methane, low concentrations of
chlorinated solvents, and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes were detected
over the entire landfill area. Methane concentrations of up to 8.5 percent were
detected which, in comparison to typica1landfill gas composition of 47.4 percent
(O'Leary and Walsh, 1991), is consistent with waste having been burned prior to
burial. Vinyl chloride was detected in one sample, approximately half-way between
wells JMW-0940 and JMW-0941. Detections of methane and other target
compounds at SOY points outside the landfill indicate that landfill gases may migrate
laterally. Because the SOY smvey was conducted in the winter when the top several
feet of the landfill were frozen, the frozen soil may have acted as a temporary cap
that may have caused landfill gases to migrate laterally.
5.2.6 Groundwater
Groundwater results are discussed briefly because they provide possible indicators
of the impact that the soil/source may have a groundwater quality. However, the
nature and distribution of contaminants in groundwater will be evaluated in OU 4.
Groundwater samples were collected for off-site laboratory analysis from LF-3
perimeter wells in 1988, 1989, 1991 and 1993, and from wells within LF-3 in 1993.
Figures 5-9 and 5-10 show the perimeter groundwater sampling locations and analytes
detected at LF-3 in 1988 through 1991 and in 1993, respectively. Figure 5-11 shows
the groundwater sampling locations and analytes detected within LF-3 in 1993.
VOCs were detected in samples from six perimeter wells. VOCs included
1,1,1-trichloroethane (1 to 9 p,g/L), benzene (0.6J to 2J p,g/L), toluene (5 p,g/L), and
vinyl acetate (260 p,g/L). SVOC analyses detected phthalates and phenol in some
perimeter w:ells at estimated concentrations. Low concentrations of pesticides were
detected in five groundwater samples collected in 1993. Inorganic analytes were
detected in every groundwater sample analyzed and collected from perimeter wells.
The detection of greater numbers of inorganic analytes in 1993 samples at
concentrations greater than background may have been because, unlike previous
samples, the 1993 samples were unfiltered.
\,
Groundwater samples were collected from wells within the landfill in 1993. VOC
analyses detected chlorinated solvents and fuel-related compounds. The most
WOO79446.080
76~
-------
RFW~
VOC
S\IOC
Phenol
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Chromium
PoI888ium
V8IIIIdium
RFW-1O
Ovoc
Methylene Chloride 12J
SVOC NO
INORGANICS
l.88d
V8IIIIdium
JUW_,
UI88~' 11188... 1~'
(C) :JO.3T (B) 41.50" (A) 54-15'
II
ND'NO
NO
R
ND
1818
VOC
Acetone
2-BuI8nOn8
Vinyl Ac8taIe
SVOC
a(2-Ethylhexy~phthalale ND'NO
INORGANICS
MelallY
NOII30
RiI400
ND.'260
NO
VOC
S\IOC
;:of a(2-Ethylhexy~phthaIate 3J
Jiiim I~~ 3J
V8IIIIdium
ND
1881
JUW.otoa
VOC
SVOC
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Chromium
Potaesium
Vanadium
t7J1ND
18/ND
NOI161OJ
17J1ND
VOC
S\IOC
INORGANICS
Aluminum 503
C8Icium 15000D
Mav-inn 22800
l.8ndIiIl8IIdI8I8 P- t
NO
..
JUW~ ,-. ,.. ,..... ,.....
(£JIO-'IU' (0)7"" (C),CJD.UCI' (8),25-,35'
VOC
2-8- Ri380 R Ri380 Ri280 R
S\IOC
a(2.£thyIhexyt)-phIheIaIe 2JlND 3J ND'ND ND'ND ND
INORGANICS
B8rium 66.8J1ND ND ND'ND ND'ND NO
~ ND'ND ND ND'ND NQ.IND NO
I.88d ND'ND NO ND'ND 24.7/ND ND
M..-ium 156CXWDCOO 17200 1760G'20300 1671D111100 II1DOO
Sodium 118OG'11400 lseoo 18400'17100 15800'14100 1IlIIOO
Zinc NQ.IND ND ND/NO NDIND ND
,..... t~.,.....
(C)5N7' (B)"72' (A)75-12'
VOC
1.1.I-TCA ND'ND NOIII.O NO ND
2-8- RIND Ri44 R R
s.nz- NDIND NQ.I2J NO ND
ToI- ND'ND NOI5.0 ND NO
S\IOC
a(2.£thyIhexyI)phthal8le NOIND ND'ND 2J 5J
INORGANICS
Aluminum ND'ND NIY.!8.2J ND ND
Berinn ND'ND 54J158.8J NO ND
C8dmium NOINO NOI8,4 ND NO
C81cium NOII45000 1240001175000 ND ND
CabII ND'ND NOO.2J NO NO
Coppw NO/S.9J ND'NO NO NO
Mav-ium 15000'18500 1811OCY2OOOO NO NO
M~ 3780/311110 271013220 NO NO
NieMI ND'NO 25J1NO NO NO
V8II8dium 8JlNO ND'NO &/ ND
LEGEND
-$-
~
OVERBURDEN MONITORING WELL LOCATION
BEDRcx:K MONITORING WELL LOCATION
MIL
ND
WET AREA
NOT DE1ECTED. FOR PESTICIDES AND
INORGANIC PARAMETERS. NOT DETECTED
ABOVE BACKGROUND
SIND
N0I5
4JlND
\
. .
R
REJECTED SAMPlE; ac CRITERIA NOT MET
voc
ChIoroIonn
Toluene
SVOC
INORGANICS
C81cium
M~m
Manganeee
M.....ry
Nick8I
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
{ .
J
ESTIMATED
ND'NQ
2170Q'28100
NOINO
NA/NO
ND'NO
ND'NO
ND'NO
47.tI77.8
FIGURE 5-9
3
NOTES:
,. All RESu.. TS ARE PRESENTED IN 1J01l.
2. t -SEE TABlES FOR VAlUES
SCALE IN"FEET
.
300
" ANAL YTES DETECTED IN'
GROUNDWATER. 1988-1992
LANDFILL 3
I
o
I
600
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
LIMESTONE, MAINE
9407042D(b) 12
A
-------
va.ATILES
1.1..Qich~
a.nz-
SEMIVou. TILES
Oi8!hylphth8l8le
PESTICIDES I Pea.
Endrin KeIane 0.002 .I
gamna-SHC (~) 0.0005J
~ 0.01.1
INORGANICS
Alurrinum
AI-*:
II8rUn
Calcium
loon
..........
~
"--ium
Sodium
0.8.1
0.8.1
.I~
181:1
181:1
JMWoOII07 i
.75' NORTH i
3.1
VOLATILES (u;IL)
SEMIVOLA TILES (ugIl)
o;.~ 0.1.1
OieIhyfphth81818 0.8 .I
PESTICIDES I PCBa (19LI ND
INORGANICS (ugII.)
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
1-
"'..-ium
ND
.IUW.-s1
.
7..5 .I JMW.Q1162
12.1.1
1...1
127000
..10
1.000
2720
8120
10200
VOlATILES
SEMIVOlATLES
PESTICIDES I PCB8
prrnI8oC""'"
NmGANICS
Aluminum
a-.um
!Ian
"'-'
Zinc
o
va.ATILES NO
JIM.oM1 SEMIVOlATLES NO
PESTICIDES I PCBa
VOlATLES HIpt8I:hIot ~id8 0JICI05
1.1.1.TriClhlolllolll- 1 INOAGANICS
SEMIVOlATLES NO AIunWun 5780
PESTICIDES IPCBa AI-*: 111.7.1
.,.'.ooe 0JID03 II8rium 257
U'.CCT CI.OCI2 .I Calcium 125C11X1
H8pt8chIor ~id8 o.aaDII a-rium 10.5
INOAGANICS Cappw 28.2
Aluminum 183 loon 21100
C8Icium 81700 L88d 4.2
Cappw 11.1.1 "'..-am 31200
!Ian 20m ~ 5280
"'..-am 20100 Sodium 10.00
Zinc 10.3.1 Zinc 42
LEGEND
-$-
.
OVERBURDEN MONrrORING WEll LOCATION
BEDROCK MONrrORlNG WEll LOCATION
...
WET AREA
J
ESTIMATED
NOT DETECTED. FOR PESTICIDES AND
INORGANIC PARAMETERS. NOT DETECTED
ASCNE BACKGROUND
NO
NA
NOT ANALVZED
DUPLICATE SAMPLE
NOTE
ALl RESULTS ARE PRESENTED IN IIQIL.
ANAL YTES DETECTED IN
GROUNDWATER, FEB. 1993
LANDFILL 3
(dup)
I
o
SCALE IN FEET
,
300
I
600
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
UMESTONE. MAINE.
9407042D(b)12
F
M
-------
6) -- '"'
__I 'HI
VOlAIUI
.......... A
--- A
QIo/- ..
,- ,.
SDoIYOLAfM.EI
-- '
'- ..
-- ..
.- I.'"
PESTtCtDES/f'C8.
_IIHC 0,«101"°
....... .......
£....."... I.""
--..... 0.0001.r
£hIIo8UIMW". 0.0005'"
_..~ I.""'"
_...""",,"") .....
-.......- 00001.1.
- I.""
lHOIIoNICI
-- UIOOQJ
-- "'.'.1
- ...
..... ....
...... ..
..- 6.1'
.,...... .......
.....- ..,
~ ...
"- ..,
... 360000I
l." ....
--- 11-
- 522W
-. ...
..... ...
.- 203DO
...... ,.....
v- 70'
.... "'
OIL AHO GREASE
LANCfILl~TE
_1..rOREASE
iNC)FU LEACHATE
-~ ...
C8*ItIdlIfl9'l) 3U
-.-, ...
............,., .....
'''~Sc*h~1 21*
'oIIIQle8NcC8ltta'l(tr9\.' 1110
COIDf ."ca UnI8t 160
TwWIJ IN'U) '10
...... o.ra- 08mMd 1"9\' 12000
CMfr*.8I Oqv8ft 0ImInd (rr9'l) 3ZOQO,I
TWIIIQIIdIH~"9'l) JIO
IU
I1lOO
210'
I''''
4200
0."'.1
A
R
A
A
A
000'"
o.OOU
A
a.Gall
O.b..
A
I.'"
.-
--.--
--,ITO-
.....
A
A
...
ttOJ
2700
...
.u
...
....
.10
80'
m
A
A
.0"
.-.
I.""
A
A
A
A
0.03.1
o.ClCItJ
U'"
0.'.1
......
N,
6.1,
...
......
...,
...2
4t.3
,12
'"""'"
,...
.....
...
n.
,...
"10
...
n.
~
.
~
~
TEST BORING lOCATION
OVER8URDEN MONITORING welllOCA TION
BEOROCK MONITORING welL LOCATION
...
weTAREA
EStIMATED
R
REJECTED SAMIU
NA
NOT ANAL VZED
DUPlICATE SAMPLE
NOTE
I. All RESIA. TS ARE REPORtED IN JIItt. EXCEPT N>
NOTED UNDER lMDFI-ll£ACHATE PARAMETERS.
FIGURE 5-11
ANAL YTES DETECTED
IN GROUNDWATER, MARCH 1993
LANDFILL 3
LORING
UM
tRCE BASE
IAAINE
-------
SECTION 5
'-
frequently detected VOC was toluene, ranging from 76 to 2,700 p.gjL. SVOC
analyses detected phenol (270 to 4,200 p.gjl), diethylphthalate (33 to 270 p.gjL), and
estimated concentrations of noncarcinogenic P AHs. Pesticides were detected at
estimated concentrations. Twenty-one inorganic analytes were detected at
concentrations greater than background concentrations, including barium (304 to
1,550 p.gjL), beryllium (6.3 to 9.6 p.gjL), chromium (50.7 to 477 p.gjL), cobalt (67.2
to 358 p.gjL), copper (41.3 to 575 p.gjL), cyanide (11.2 to 27.4 p.gjL), mercury 0.33
to 1.4 p.gjL), nickel (722 to 818 p.gjL), vanadium (70.6 p.gjL), and zinc (633 to 1,700
p.gjL). Leachate parameters, analyzed for samples collected from wells within the
landfill boundaries, were near the low end. of the. range reported for leachate
(USEP A, 1991b).
5.3 MiGRATION PATHWAYS
Significant settlement has occurred at LF-2 since it was closed in 1974, resulting in
two separate ponded water areas within the areal extent of the landfill. The wet
areas receive surface water drainage from the soil cover and are potential recipients
of leachate from seeps along the sloped sides. Surface water does not flow away
from the site. LF-3 is more recent, and was constructed to slope primarily to the
north, where surface waters settle in an area just beyond the areal extent of the
waste. Surface water does not flow away from the site.
Potential migration pathways identified in the site conceptual models are percolation
(e.g., contaminants from the landfill material migrating into the bedrock aquifer via
surface water percolation), leachate seepage to surface water on top of the landfill
~ material, volatilization, and migration by wind and fugitive dust of soil particles with
adhering contaminants. Based on the topography of the landfills and the
permeability of the landfill material and surrounding soils, minimal overland
transport of contaminants to surface water bodies away from the landfills is
anticipated. Information obtained from surface water, sediment, and groundwater
samples indicates that VOCs and organics in the landfills (and SVOCs in 1£-3) have
migrated in these media to surface water on or adjacent to the landfills.
"
v
Contaminant migration in the bedrock aquifer is controlled by fractures and other
structural features (e.g., faults) that may be present below the landfill material.
Rainfall and melting snow will continue to infiltrate and percolate through the
landfill materials and provide the mechanism for leaching soluble contaminants.
WOO79446,08O
7626-09
-------
SECTION 5
Contaminants detected in surface water and sediment could continue to migrate to
other areas of the landfill surfaces during snowmelt and high rainfall events.
A complete discussion of site characteristics can be found in the RI/FFS Report
(ABB-ES, 1994a).
"
WOO79446.080
5-20
-------
(,
SECI10N 6
'-'
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A baseline risk assessment (RA) was performed to estimate the probability and
magnitude of potential adverse human health and environmental effects from
exposure to contaminants associated with LF-2 and LF-3 (ABB-ES, 1994a). The
public health risk assessment followed a four-step process:
1)
contaminant identification, which identified those hazardous substances
which, 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
determined the extent of possible exposure;
3)
toxicity 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
summarize the potential and actual risks posed by hazardous
substances at the site, including carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks.
The results of the public health risk assessment for LF-2 and LF-3 are discussed.
below, followed by the conclusions of the environmental risk assessment.
6.1
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
~
The chemicals of potential concern (CPCS) identified for LF-2 and LF-3, listed in
Tables 6-1 and 6-2 respectively, were selected for evaluation in the risk assessment.
These CPCs, including 16 for LF-2 surface soil, 17 for LF-2 surface water, 21 for
LF-2 sediment, 3 for LF-2 groundwater, 12 for LF-3 surface soil, 6 for LF-3 surface
water, 21 for LF-3 se~ent, and 6 for LF-3 groundwater, constitute a representative
subset of all contaminants identified at the landfills during the RI. The CPCs were
selected to represent potential site-related hazards based on toxicity, concentration,
frequency of detection, and mobility and persistence in the environment A summary
of the health effects of each of the contaminants of concern can be found in
Subsection 7.2.3 of the RI/FFS Report (ABB-ES, 1994a).
WOO79446.080
7626-09
-------
TABLE 6-1
CHEMICALS OF POT~NTIAL CONCERN
LANDFILL 2
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
0'\
N
MINIMUM . MAXIMUM
RANGB OF FRBQUENCY OF DE1BC1ED DEmC'IED ARITIIMaTI~ MCL8 MEGb
CIIEMICAL SQLS DE1ECTION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION AVERAGE. (uglL) (uglL) CPC? NOl1~S
Surface Soil (mg/kg)
Acenaphlhene 0.410 - 0.430 V4 0.49 0.52 0.284 Yes
Anthracene 0.410 - 0.439 V4 0.61 0.62 0.311 Yes
lIenzo( a )Anthracene 0.410 - 0.430 V4 1.8 1.8 0.410 Yes
l1enzo( a )Pyrene 0.410 - 0.430 V4 1.1 1.4 0.470 Yes
lIenzo(b )Huoranthene 0.410 - 0.430 V4 1.2 1.2 0.458 Yes
lie nzo(g,h ,i )peryle ne 0.410 - 0.430 V4 0.74 0.89 0.361 Yes
l1enzo(k )Fluoranlhene 0.410 - 0.430 V4 1.2 1.6 0.508 Yes
C.arbazole 0.410 - 0.430 V4 0.4 0.44 0.263 No I
Chrysene 0.410 - 0.430 V4 1.5 1.7 0.558 Yes
Dibenz( a.h )Anthracene 0.410 - 0.430 V4 0.2 0.38 0.230 Yes
Dibenzofuran 0.410 - 0.430 V4 0.19 0.2 0.206 Yes
Fluoranthene 0.410 - 0.430 V4 2.9 3.1 0.908 Yes
Fluorene 0.410 - 0.430 V4 0.38 0.4 0.255 Yes
Indeno( 1,2,J-c,d)Pyrene 0.410 - 0.430 V4 0.91 1.1 0.409 Yes
Phenanthrene 0.410 - 0.430 V4 2.5 2.8 0.820 Yes
l'yrene 0.410 - 0.430 V4 2.3 2.5 0.758 Yes
4'4-DDT 0.0039 - 0.0039 V4 0.014 0.021 11.6 No 4
Lead 414 10.8 32.5 18.7 No 2
Mercury 0.110 - 0.130 V4 0.16 0.16 0.08 Yes
Aluminum 414 12000 18300 14000 No 4
Arsenic 414 6 11.3 7.9 No 4
Barium 414 39.5 48.8 42 No 4
Chromium 414 23.3 33 27 No 4
Cobah 414 8.8 12.2 10.1 No 4
Copper 10.1 - 10.1 Y4 24.4 33.9 23.5 No 4
Iron 4'4 22600 30700 25600 No 4
'- 1-_-~~._----~- 1----- --~~--_._- --- --- ---
G:\1AIlIIOU2IR,
.6-1
Page i.
.1-9-1
-------
T ABLI!. ,,-1
CHEMICALS OF POmNTlAL CONCERN
LANDFILL 2
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
0\
I
V)
MINIMUM MAxiMUM
RANGE OF FREQUENCY 011 DE1EC1ED DE"lEC1ED AR111 IMll11C MCLia MEGb
ClffiMICAL SQLS DE"lEC110N CONCENTRA110N CONCENTRATION AVERAGE (ug/L) (ug/L) CPC'! NO'mS
Magnesium 4'4 5170 6360 5802 No 4
Manganese 4'4 357 798 558 No 4
Nickcl 4'4 27.5 39.2 31.3 No 4
Vanadium 4'4 16.5 24.6 20.1 No 4
Zinc 4'4 42.5 67.4 52.5 No 4
Surfacc Walcr (ug/I.)
J .2-Dichloroelhcne (Iolal) 5-5 1/5 13 13 5 No 1
Elhylbcnlcnc 5-5 1/5 8 8 4 No 1
Toluenc 5-5 1/5 32 32 8 No 1
Vinyl Chloride 10 - 10 1/5 48 48 14 Yes
1.4 - Dichlorobcnzcne 10-10 1/5 1 1 4 No 1
4- Melhylphenol 10-10 1/5 93 93 23 No 1
Acenaphlhene 10-10 1/5 1 1 4 Yes
Anlhracene 10-10 1/5 2 2 4 Yes
Benzo(a)Anlhraccne 10-10 1/5 5 5 5 Yes
Bcnzo( a )Pyrene 10-10 1/5 4 4 5 Yes
Uenzo(b )Auoralllhenc 10 - 10 1/5 3 3 5 Yes
Benzo(k)Fluoranlhene 10 - 10 1/5 3 3 5 Yes
Benzoic Acid 50 - 50 1/5 8 8 22 No 1
bis(2- Elhylhexyl)phlhalale 10-10 1/5 2 2 4 No 1
Chrysene 10 - 10 1/5 6 6 5 Yes
Di - n - bUlylphlhalale 10 - 10 1/5 3 3 5 No 1
Dielhylphlhalale 10-10 1/5 2 5 4 No 1
Fluoranlhene 10 - 10 1/5 2 10 5 Yes
Fluorene 10-10 1/5 1 1 4 Yes
I'henanlhrene 10-10 1/5 7 7 5 Yes
Phenol 10 - 10 1/5 7 7 5 No 1
--------- --------------... ---
G:IlAI1IIOU2\RODlTAB 6-1
P.~ 20f6
-------
TABLE 6-1
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
LANDFILL 2
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
0\
~
MINIMUM MAXIMUM '..
RANGE OF FREQUENCY OF DBlEClED DElEc1ED ARITIIMBTIC MCLa MEGb
CHEMICAL SOLS OBmCTJON CO NCBNTRA110N CONCENTRATION AVERAcm (uglL) (ug/L) CPC? NOlES
Pyrene 10-10 215 2 8 5 Yes
Aluminum 167 - 278 U4 1010 1010 329.4 Yes 5
Arse n ic 3-3 314 3.2 5.5 3.5 Yes
Barium 4'4 14.4 30.6 20.3 Yes
CalciulII 4'4 43100 63700 ~1000.0 No 3
Copper 4-4 314 4.5 10.6 5.5 Yes 5
Iron 4'4 657 1640 993.0 No 3
Lead 3-3 U2 5.2 ~.2 3.4 No 2
MagnesiulII 4'4 2030 3080 2412.5 No 3
Manganese 4'4 66.4 1440 452.9 Yes
POlassiulII 4'4 1260 2170 1667.5 No 3
SodiulII 1920 - 1920 314 1410 2490 1682.5 No 3
Zine 4'4 1~.6 ~3.\ 29.6 No 1
Sediment (mg/kg)
Acetone 0.005 - 0.007 U5 1 1 0.212 No I
Ethylbenzene 0.005 - 0.007 1/5 0.014 0.014 0.005 No I
Toluene 0.016 - 0.042 1/5 0.068 0.068 0.016 No 1
2 - Melhylnaphlhalene 0.330 - 0.460 1/5 8.8 8.8 1.926 Yes
4 - Methylphenol 0.330 - 0.460 1/5 3.2 3.2 0.806 No I
Aeenaphthene 0.330 - 0.430 315 0.0~1 32 6.517 Yes
Anthracene 0.430 - 6.600 315 0.056 0.12 0.769 Yes
Benzo( a )Anthracene 0.430 - 6.600 315 0.11 0.33 0.831 Yes
Benzo( a )Pyrene 0.430 - 0.430 4'5 0.067 130 26.141 Yes
Benzo(b )Auoranlheue 0.430 - 0.430 . 4'5 0.18 98 19.827 Yes
Benzo(g.h.i)pcrylene 0.330 - 0.460 115 80 80 16.166 Yes
Benzo(k )Fluoranlhene 0.430 - 0.430 112 130 130 65.t~ Yes
Benzoic Acid 2.\ 00 - 2.200 114 0.04 0.04 0.810 No I
--
G:IIAFB\OU2\RO..
.6-1
Pa"" 30.
-------
C'
TABLl~ .1
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
LANDFILL 2
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
0'1
I
VI
MINIMUM MAXiMUM
RANGE OF FREQUENCY OF DE1EC1ED DEmC1ED ARI11IME11C MCt. MEGb
CHEMICAL SQI.S DE1ECTlON CONCENTRA110N CONCENTRA 110N AvERAGE (uglL) (uglL) CPC? Noms
ncnryl Alcohol 0.330 - 6.600 1/5 0.071 0.071 0.794 No I
his(2- Ethylhcxyl)phlhalalc 0.330 - 6.600 1/5 0.086 0.12 0.803 No I
Chryscnc 0.430 - 0.43q 415 0.089 130 26.149 Ycs
Di -n- butylphlhalatc 0.330 - 0.460 2/5 0.15 62 12.737 No I
Dibcnzofur:Jn 0.330 - 0.460 1/5 16 16 3.366 No I
Fluoranlhcnc 5/5 0.061 180 36.284 Ycs
Fluorcnc 0.330 - 0.440 2/5 0.059 30 6.132 Ycs
Indcno( I .2.3 -c.d )I'yrcnc 0.330 - 0.460 1/5 77 77 15.566 Ycs
Naphthalcnc 0.330 - 0.460 1/5 16 16 3.366 Ycs
. i j'hcnanthrcnc 5/5 0.047 180 36.216 Ycs
l'yrcnc 5/5 0.055 280 56.201 Ycs
Aluminum 414 8270 19500 15117.5 Ycs 5
Arscnic 414 3.9 26.5 10.4 Ycs
Barium 414 25.4 75.2 49.7 Ycs
Beryllium 0.320 - 0.710 2/4 0.51 0.64 0.4 No I
C.alcium 414 1410 2810 2180.0 No 3
Chromium 414 18.3 36.3 29.6 Ycs
C.obalt 414 6 14.3 10.6 No 1
Coppcr 414 19.9 31.2 24.8 Ycs 5
Cyanidc 0.660 - 0.710 2/4 0.7 8.3 2.4 No I
Iron 414 13900 35700 27750.0 No 3
Lead 414 11.6 24.9 17.9 No 5
Magncsium '114 3420 9340 6943.8 No 3
Manganese 414 277 2260 871.8 Ycs
Mercury 0.110 - 0.115 1/4 0.1 0.1 0.07 No I
Nickcl 414 19.1 43.9 34.5 No 1
~~um 414 528, 1400 1013.3 No 3
G:'JAFB,OU2\lWOITAB 6-1
Page ~ 0(6
-------
TABLE 6-1
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
LANDFILL 2
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
0\
,
0\
MINIMUM MAXiMUM
..
RANGE OF FREQUENCY OF DEIDC'iED DEIDC'iED ARITIIMcTIC MCL8 MEGb
ClffiMICAL SQLS . D.ElECl10N CONCENTRA 110N CONCBNTRA TION AVBRAGB (ug/L) (ug/L) CPC? NOmS
Sodium 123 - 148 2/4 163 234 129.8 No 3
lhallium 0530 - 2.900 V4 0.53 053 0.8 No I
Vanadium 414 12 29 225 No I
'
Zinc 414 50.3 174 81.9 No I
Groundwater (ug/I.)
1.1.1- Trichloroethane 5 - 25 1/18 6 6 4 200 200 No I
Chlorororm 5 - 25 2/18 4 5 4 100 -- No I
Tolucne 5 - 25 VI8 13 13 5 1000 1400 No I
his( 2 - Elhylhe}..yl)phlhalale 10 - 47 3/18 J 15 8 4 25 No I
Di -n- butylphlhalale 10-10 3/18 1 J 5 -- -- No I
Arse n ic 3-3 V6 53.7 54.5 10.3 50 -- Yes
Barium 616 47.6 232 99.6 2000 1500 Yes
C1lcium 616 17300 146000 89250.0 -- -- No 3
Chromium 3 - 3 V6 7.5 75 25 100 100 No I
Coball 4-4 V6 10.1 11.3 3.5 -- -- No I
Iron 44500 - 370 3/6 543 6540 1319.3 3OO(S) -- No 3
Lead I-I 5/6 1.5 9.2 4.1 15 (1) 20 No 2
Magnesium 616 7680 38800 21738.3 -- -- No 3
Mangancse 14.400 - 19.800 3/6 58.1 1960 519.9 50 200 Yes
Nickel 10-10 V6 2004 28.9 8.3 100 150 No I
POlassiurn 623 - 623 1/6 729 3470 845.8 -- -- No 3
Sodium 616 4310 102000 23000.0 -- -- No 3
Zinc 616 8.3 93.2 34.9 5000 (S) -- No I
SQL - Sample Quanlilalion Limil
CPC - Chemical or POlenlial Concern
MEG - Maximum Exposure Guideline
(S) - Secondary Drinking Waler Standard
G:UAHIIOU2\RC
>-1
fa". ,.
-------
(1
(.
('
c.
TABLE" -1
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
LANDFILL 2
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
MlilnMUM MAXIMUM
RANGI.! OF FREQUENCY OF DI.!1EC1ED DI.!WC1ED ARI11IMETIC MCL" Ml.!G b
CHEMICAL SQLS DB1EC1l0N CONCI.!NTRATION CONCENTRATION AVERAGE (~g/L)' (ug/L) CrC? NOlES
MCL -' Maximum Conlaminant Level
mglkg - Milligrams Per Kilogram
- - - No Drinking Watcr Standard Available,
(1) - Based on Irealmenllechnique. Value given is an action level.
J1g/L - Micograms Per Liler
SOURCES:
a - U.S. Envirolllncniall'roicclion Agcncy (USEI'A). 1992. Fact Sheet: Drinking Water Regulations and lIealth Advisories. Orlice of Water, Washington DC, December. 1992
h - Siaic of Mainc Departmcnt of Iluman Services. 1992. Revised Maximum Exposure Guidelines. September 1992.
:J'I
I
--.J
NOll~S:
I = Toxicilyscrecning value (i.e. ralioofcompollnd risk to total risk) was bclO\vO.OI (Sce Tablcs 11 - J8)
2 = Concentrations of Icad hclow MEDEl' critcria for soil of 125mglkg and bclow, MEG of 20 uglL. and MCL of 15 uglL for groundwater
J = Esscntial humannutricnl. present at lowconcentralion. and toxic only at high concentrations
4 = Below background level
5 = No dose responsc information availablc
G:I1ARlIOIJ2\RODITAD 6-1
Pa".60r6
-------
TABLE 6-2
CHEMICALS OF POmNTIAL CONCERN
LANDFILL 3
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
::7\
I
:xl
MINIMUM M~IMtJM
RANGE OF FREQUENCY OF CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATiON MCL' MEGb
'. (ug.L)
CHEMICAL SQLS DB1ECTION DE1EClED DEmCmD AVERAGE (ug.L) CPC7 NOruS
Surface Soil (mg/lcg)
Tolal Xylcncs 0.011 - 0.011 3/8 0.00.'1 0.017 0.008 No 1
Benzo( a )Anlhracenc 0.360 - 0.370 2/8 0.18 0.48 0.220 Yes
Benzo( a )I'yrcne 0.360 - 0.370 2/8 0.17 '0.39 0.208 Yes
Benw(h )nuoranlhenc 0.360 - 0.370 2/8 0.16 0.37 0.204 Yes
Benzo(g.h.i )perylene 0.360 - 0.370 1/8 0.25 0.2.'1 0.191 Yes
Denzo(k )Fluoranthene 0.360 - 0.370 2/8 0.14 0.36 0.200 Yes
Chrysenc 0.360 - 0.370 2/8 0.2 0.43 0.217 Yes
Fluoranlhene 0.360 - 0.370 2/8 0.45 0.76 0.289 Yes
1 ndeno( 1.2.3 -c,d)f'yrene 0.360 - 0.370 1/8 0.29 0.29 0.196 Yes
Phenalllhrcne 0.360 - 0.370 2/8 0.34 0.42 0.233 Yes
Pyrene 0.360 - 0.370 2/8 0.39 0.6 0.262 Yes
Endosulran I 0.004 - 0.004 1/8 0.0039 0.0039 0.P02 No 1
C.oball &'8 11.3 1.'1.7 13.0 Yes
Mercury 0.100 - 0.120 1/8 0.16 0.16 0.06 Yes
4,4'-00E 7.2-7.7 1/8 0.008.'1 0.008.'1 0.004 No 4
4.4'-00T 7.2-7.6 4/8 0.0081 0.02 0.009 No 4
Aluminum &'8 13500 21600 17000 No 4
Arsenic &'8 .'1.2 9.2 7.1 No 4
Barium &'8 40 78 .'13.6 No 4
Beryllium 0.36 - 0.42 1/8 0.44 0.44 0.2 No 4
C.aJcium 2.'190 - 11600 1/8 19900 19900 5010 No 4
Chromium &'8 26.1 41.9 33.8 No 4
C.opper &'8 21.8 28.2 24.9 No 4
Iron &'8 21100 34800 > 18 No 4
~ad .-.- &'8 14 24.2 30400 . No 4
'------ ------.------
G:IJAI'1J\O\J2 ROt-. ... 6-2
Page I o.
-------
c-
"
'"
H~DLE 6- 2
CHEMICALS OF PQTENTIAL CONCERN
LANDFILL 3
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
"
::>
MINIMUM MAXI MUM
RANGE OF FREQUENCY OF CONCENTRATION CONCI!NTRA 'nON MCL8 MEGb
CHEMICAL SQLS DI!lECll0N DBlEC'lED DElEcmD AVI!RAGB (ug.L) (ug.L) CPC? NOlES
Magncsium &'8 6790 8660 7840 No 4
Mangancsc &'8 500 1200 663 No 4
Nickel &'8 34.4 45.9 40.7 No 4
POlassium 667 - 667 7/8 914 2920 1430 No 4
Vanadium &'8 18.2 33 24.6 No 4
Zinc &'8 54.8 74.1 62.7 No 4
Surracc Watcr (ug/L)
1.2- Dichloroclhcne (Iolal) 5.000 - 5.000 1/4 17 17 6 No I
2 - BUlanone 10.000 - 10.000 1/4 79 79 24 No I
Toluenc 5.000 - 5.000 1/4 42 42 12 No I
Trichloroclhcne 5.000 - 5.000 1/4 5 5 3 No I
4 - Melhylphenol 10.000 - 10.000 1/4 4 4 S No I
Benzoic Acid 50.000 - 50.000 1/4 32 32 .27 No I
Di - n -oclylphlhalale 10.000 - 10.000 1/4 2 2 4 No I
Diclhylphlhalalc 10.000 - 10.000 1/4 6 6 5 No 1
Phenol 10.000 - 10.000 1/4 5 5 5 No 1
Aluminum 313 455 44W 1581.3 Yes 5
Arsenic 3.000- 3.000 1/3 26.8 56.6 14.9 Ycs
Barium 313 6.6 194 94.2 Yes
Beryllium 1.000- 1.000 1/3 2.6 3.6 1.4 Yes
C.alciulII 313 moo 154000 110000.0 No 3
Chromium 5.000 - 5.000 1/3 6.3 8.7 4.2 No 1
Cobalt 5.000 - 5.000 1/3 19.1 20.3 8.2 No I
C.opper 4.000 - 4.000 2/3 5.6 60.1 20.1 Ycs 5
Cyanidc 10.000 - 10.000 W II 11 6.0 No 1
IrOIl 3/3 361 7770 2670.3 No 3
'---. -- --- --.. ----
G:IIAF1!IOU2\RODITt\B 6-2
P.,.. 2or6
-------
TABLE 6-2
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
LANDFILL 3
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
::7\
,
......
~
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
RANGE OF FREQUENCY OF CONCENTRATION CONCENTRA'i10N MCL8 MEGb
CHEMICAL SQLS DBlllCTION DBmcrnD DBmcrni> A VERAGB . (ug.L) (ug.L) CPC? Noms
--- --'-
Lead 3.000 - 3.000 213 5.2 54.3 14.8 Yes 5
Magnesium 3/3 2010 16300 8306.7 No 3
Mangancse , 313 92.9 3830 1610.0 Yes
Nickel 14.000 - 14.000 V3 17.2 22.1 11.2 No I
Potassium 1080.000 - 1080.000 213 4390 6470 3655.0 No 3
Sodium 313 1480 9930 5773.3 No 3
Vanadium 5.000 - 5.000 V3 22.6 29.5 10.4 No I
Zinc 10.200 - 10.200 213 1120 2600 1225.0 No I
Sediment (mg/kg)
2 - Melhylnaphthalene 0.500 - 0.720 V3 0.25 0.25 0.300 Yes
Acenaphthene 0.500 - 0.720 V3 0.099 0.25 0.261 Yes
Anlhracene 0.500 - 0.720 V3 0.37 0.96 0.425 Yes
Benzo( a )Anlhracene 0.500 - 0.720 V3 0.72 2.1 0.673 Yes
Benzo( a )Pyrene 0.500 - 0.720 V3 0.58 1.6 0.567 Yes
Benzo(b )Auoranlhene 0.500 - 0.720 V3 0.92 2.8 0.823 Yes
Benzo(g.h,i)perylene 0.500 - 0.720 1/3 0.23 0.6 0.341 Yes
Benzoic Acid 3.200 - 3.200 213 0.17 0.38 2.000 No I
Benzyl Alcohol 0.660 - 0.660 213 0.11 0.14 0.271 No 1
Chrysene 0.500 - 0.720 V3 0.6 1.8 0.611 Yes
Dibenz(a.h )Anlhracen 0.500 - 0.720 V3 0.084 1.8 0.203 Yes
Fluoranthene 0.500 - 0.720 V3 1 3.8 1.070 Yes
Fluorene 0.500 - 0.720 . V3 0.1 0.27 0.268 Yes
J ndeno( 1.2.3 -c.d)Pyrene 0.500 - 0.720 V3 0.37 0.95 0.423 Yes
Phenanthrene 0.720 - 0.720 213 0.067 2.6 0.742 Yes
Pyrene 0.500 - 0.720 V3 1.2 3.6 1.003 Yes
Aroclor-1260 0.320 - 0.350 1/3 1.2 1.2 0.555 No 1
Aluminum 3/3 10500 28.500 16616.7 Yes 5
- - ----~---n_- - ..
O:1lA AlIOlJ2\RO.
J-2
Page 30
-9-1
-------
('
'"
.L\BLE 6-2
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
LANDFILL 3
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
0'1
I
-
-
MINIMUM MAXiMUM.
RANGE OF FREQUENCY OF CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION MCt- MEGb
CIIEMICAL SQLS DB1ECTION DE1EC1ED DEmCTBD AVERAGE . (ug.L) .. (ilg.L) CPC7 Noms
Arsenic 313 4.8 18.8 7.5 Yes
Barium 313 34.4 99.7 62.7 Yes
lIeryllium 0.310 - 0.540 113 1.1 2.2 0.7 Yes
C1dmium 1.300 - 5.500 113 1 1 1.4 No 1
Calcium 313 4380 7950 6626.7 No 3
Chromium 313 35.3 86.8 56.0 No 1
Cohall 313 9.3 20.2 13.1 No 1
('opper 313 22.2 78.6 48.5 Yes 5
Cyanide 0.760 - 1.1 00 1/3 1.4 1.4 0.6 No 1
Iron 313 29800 49600 34866.7 No 3
Lead 313 20.6 ' 455 169.7 Yes 5
Magnesium 313 5560 13100 8410.0 No 3
Manganese 313 414 868 521.7 Yes
Nickel 313 35.9 68.4 44.7 No 1
Potassium 313 946 2620 H2$.3 No 3
Vanadium 313 21.2 44 30.0 No 1
Zinc 313 75.9 17400 5860.1 No 1
Groundwater (ug/L)
1,1.1- Trichloroethane 5.000 - 50.000 1/28 9 9 5 200 200 No 1
Acetone 10.000 - 120.000 1128 130 130 13 -- -- No 1
Benzene 5.000 - 50.000 '1128 2 2 5 5 5 Yes
Chloroform 5.000 - 50.000 1/28 5 5 5 100 -- No 1
Methylene Chloride 5.000 - 110.000 1128 12 12 7 5 48 Yes
Toluene 5.000 - 50.000 2/28 5 5 5 1000 1400 No I
Vinyl Acetate 10.000 - 100.000 1/28 260 260 18 -- -- No 1
Di - n - bUlylphthalale 10.000 - 11.000 1/28 4 4 5 -- 220 No I
d_- - --..
G:\JAFII\OU2\RODITAD 6-2
Pal'" 40(6
-------
TABLE 6-2
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
LANDFILL 3
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
0"1
,
.....
N
MiNIMUM MAXiMUM
CONCENTRATION .. MEGb
RANGB OF FREQUENCY OF CONCENTRATION MCL8
CHEMICAL SQLS DI!TECTION DE1ECmD DB1EC1ED AVERAGB (ug.L) lug.L) CPC? Noms
Di- n-oclylphlhalatc 10.000 - 11.000 V28 3 3 5, -- -- No I
Phenol 10.000 - 11.000 U28 2 2 5 -- -- No I
bis(2- Elhylhexyl)phthalale 10.000 - 11,000 6'28 2 5 5 4 25 Yes
Barinm HVIO 17.1 123 54.9 2000 1500 Yes
Cadmium 5.000 - 5.000 UIO 6.4 6.4 2.9 5 5 No I
C
-------
C'
.:
('
at\BLE 6-2
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
LANDFILL 3
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
RANGE OF FREQUENCY OF CO NCE NTRA 110N CONCBNTRATION M~LIi MEGb
CIIEMICAL SQLS DEIDCTION DEIDC1ED DB1ECTED AYBRAGB (~.L) (ug.L) crc? NOmS
SOURCES:
. - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. Fact Sheet: Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories. Office or Water. Washington. DC. December. 1992.
b - State or Maine Dcpartmcnt or lIulllan Se",ices. 1992. Revised Maximum Exposure Guidelines. September. 1992. '
NOll:S:
I - Toxicily screening value (i.e.. ratio or compound risk to tOlal risk) was below 0.01. (See Tables J I - J8)
2 - Concentration or lead below MEDEP criteria ror soil or 125 mg/kg and below. MEG or 20 uglL. and MCL or 15 uglL ror groundwater
3 - Esscntial hnmannutricnl. present al low concenlration. and toxic only at high concentrations
4 - nelow background level
5 - No dosc response inrormation available
"
I
....
...>
'.J
G:\JAI'DIOU2\ROIJ\TAB 6-2
P.~ 6016
-------
SECTION 6
Potential human health effects associated with exposure to the CPCS were estimated
quantitatively and qualitatively through the development of several hypothetical
exposure pathways. These pathways were developed to reflect the potential for
exposure to hazardous substances based on the present uses, potential future uses,
and location of the sites. LF-2 and LF-3 are currently inactive, and the OU is not
being used for any purpose. Thus, the only current land use scenario evaluated in
the RA was for the older child/trespasser. The only future land use considered
during the development of the RA was residential site use. The future residential
scenario was used at direction of USEP A to represent an upper bound on the risk
a nearby resident is likely to encounter. The following is a brief summary of the
exposure pathways. evaluated. A more thorough description can be found in the
RI/FFS Report (ABB-ES, 1994a).
d
Under the current trespassing scenario, it was assumed that older children would be
exposed to landfill constituents through four exposure pathways while trespassing on
the site: 1) dermal contact with, incidental ingestion of, and inhalation of VOCs from
surface water; 2) dermal contact with and incidental ingestion of sediment; 3) dermal
contact with and ingestion of surface soil; and 4) inhalation of fugitive dusts while
dirt biking.
Under the future residential scenario, it was assumed that residents would be
exposed to landfill constituents through five exposure pathways: 1) ingestion of,
dermal contact with, and inhalation of VOCs from groundwater used for domestic
purposes; 2) dermal contact with, incidental ingestion of, and inhalation of
particulates from surface soil; 3) dermal contact with, incidental ingestion of, and
inhalation of VOCs from surface water; 4) dermal contact with and incidental
ingestion of sediment; and 5) inhalation of fugitive dusts.
In the current land use scenario, dermal contact with, incidental ingestion of, and
inhalation of VOCs from surface water was assumed to occur at a frequency of 48
days per year for 7 years, with an ingestion or contact rate of 0.05 liters per hoUr for
2 hours per day. Exposure was also assumed to occur through dermal contact with
and incidental ingestion of sediment at a frequency of 48 days per year for 12 years,
with a sediment ingestion rate of 100 mg per day and a sediment contact rate of 500
mg per day. Exposure was assumed to occur through dermal contact with and
incidental ingestion of surface soil while exploring for 78 days per year for 11 years.
A soil ingestion rate of 100 mg of soil per day and a soil contact rate of 500 mg of
soil per day were assumed. Inhalation of fugitive dusts while dirt biking was assumed
to occur 3 hours per day for 52 days per year for 5 years.
,1
WOO79446.080
6-14
-------
~.
SECTION 6
Under the future resident scenario, exposure was assumed to occur from ingestion
of, dermal contact with, or inhalation of groundwater used for domestic purposes.
It was assumed that for 350 days per year for 30 years, 2 liters per day was ingested
or that dermal co~tact (showering) lasted for 12 minutes per day. Exposure through
incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with surface soil was assumed to occur 130
days per year for 6 years for the child resident and for an additional 24 years for the
adult resident, with a contact rate of 500 mg per day, and with an ingestion rate of
200 mg per day for the child and 100 mg per day for the adult resident. Dermal
contact with, incidental ingestion of, and inhalation of VOCS from surface water was
assumed to occur at a frequency of 48 days ~r year for 7 years, with an ingestion or
contact rate of 0.05 liters per hour for 2 hours per day. Exposure was also assumed
to occur thorough dermal contact with and incidental ingestion of sediment at a
frequency of 48 days per year for 12 years, with a sediment ingestion rate of 100 mg
per day and a sediment contact rate of 500 mg per day. Inhalation of fugitive dusts
while dirt biking was assumed to occur 3. hours per day for 52 days per year for 5
years.
For each pathway and land use evaluated, an average and a reasonable maximum
exposure (RME) estimate was generated for each CPC corresponding to exposure
to the average and the maximum concentration detected in a particular medium.
Excess lifetime cancer risks were determined for each exposure pathway by
multiplying the exposure level by the chemical specific cancer slope factor (CSF).
Cancer potency factors have been developed by USEP A from epidemiological or
animal studies to reflect a conservative "upper bound" of the risk posed by potentially
carcinogenic compounds. That is, the true risk is unlikely to be greater than the risk
predicted. The resulting risk estimates are expressed in scientific notation as a
probability (e.g., lx1
-------
. .
SECTION 6
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 animal studies and incorporate uncertainty factors to help ensure
that adverse health effects will not occur. The hazard quotient is often expressed as
a single value (e.g., 0.3) indicating the ratio of the stated exposure as defined to the
reference dose value (in this example, the exposure as characterized is approximately
one third of an acceptable exposure level for the given compound). The hazard
quotient should only be considered additive for compounds that have the same or
. similar toxic endpoint (e.g., the hazard quotient for a compound known to produce
liver damage should not be added to a second compound whose toxic endpoint is
ki~ney damage) and the sum is referred to as the ID.
Tables 6-3 and 6-4 depict the risk summaries for LF-2 for data collected before 1993,
and for data collected in 1993, respectively. Tables 6-5 and 6-6 depict the risk
summaries for LF-3 for data collected before 1993, and for data collected in 1993,
respectively. Tables 6-3 and 6-5 present the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk
summaries for the CPCs in surface soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment
evaluated to reflect present and potential future risks corresponding to the average
and the RME scenarios for each landfill. Tables 6-4 and 6-6 present both the
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk summaries for the CPCs in perimeter
groundwater and groundwater collected within the landfills (leachate) in 1993 to
reflect present and potential future risks corresponding to the RME scenarios for
each landfill.
""
6.1.1 Landfill 2
Carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks to human health at LF-2 are discussed below.
Carcinogenic Risks. Future use of groundwater was evaluated separately using both
pre-1993 analytical data and data collected in 1993. The highest carcinogenic risks
of any scenario at LF-2 were associated with the future adult residential scenario for
groundwater using pre-1993 data. The carcinogenic risks (average concentration:
2 x 104; RME concentration: 1 x 10-3) associated with the future adult residential use
of groundwater exceed ~he USEP A incremental carcinogenic risk range and exceed
the MEDEP cancer risk guidance value of 1 x 10-5. Arsenic is the only contaminaTIt
in the groundwater scenario that causes the cancer risk to be above the 1 x 1e>4 level.
In the evaluation of perimeter groundwater data collected in 1993, the carcinogenic
risk (RME concentrations: 3 x 104) associated with the residential use of perimeter
groundwater for domestic purposes exceeded state and federal risk criteria, and was
.J
WOO79446.080
6-16
-------
...:
(.,
v
"
TABLE 6-3
RISK SUMMARIES
LANDFILL 2
OU2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
AVERAGE MAXIMUM
TOTAL HAZARD TOTAL CANCER TOTAL HAZARD TOTAL CANCER
INDEX RISK INDEX RISK
CURRENT USE:
Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil: Older Child Trespassing 0.0003 2E-06 0.0006 6E-Q6
Dermal Contact with Surface Soil: Older Child Trespassing 0.00004 5E-07 0.00009 1E-Q6
TOTAl: TRESPASSING OLDER CHILD 0.0003 2E-06 0.0007 7E-06
. FUTURE USE:
Incide~ Ingestion of Surface Soil: Residential Adult 0.0002 1 E-05 0.0005 4E-05
Dermal Contact with Surface Soil: Residential Adult 0.00003 2E-Q6 0.00008 6E-Q6
Inhalation Exposure to Particulates: Residential Adult 0.000005 8E-08 0.00001 3E-071
TOTAL: RESIDENTIAL ADULT 0.0003 1E-05 0.0006 5E-05
Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil: Residential Child 0.002 NA 0.005 NA
Dermal Contact with Surface Soil: Residential Child 0.0002 NA 0.0004 NA
Inhalation Exposure to Particulates: Residential Child 0.00003 NA ~ NA
TOTAL: RESIDENTIAL CHILD 0.002 NA 0.006 NA
Ingestion of Groundwater: Adult Resident 4 2E-04 16 1 E-03
Dermal Contact with Groundwater: Residential Adult 0.006 3E-07 0.02 2E-Q6
TOTAl: RESIDENTIAL ADULT 4 2E-04 16 1 E-03
I
I
CURRENT/FUTURE USE:
Incidental Ingestion of Sediment Child Wading 0.02 5E-05 0.06 2E-04
Dermal Contact with Sediment Child Wading 0.002 1E-05 0.007 4E-05
TOTAl: WADING CHILD 0.02 6E-05 0.07 2E-04
Incidenta/lngestion of Surface Water: Child Wading 0.04 8E-06 0.1 1E-05
Dermal Contact with Surface Water: Child Wading 0.09 5E-04 QJ. 6E-04
TOTAL: WADING CHILD 0.1 5E-04 0.2 6E-04
Inhalation Exposure to Particulates: Older Child Dirt Biking 0.00002 2E-08 0.00003 5E-08
NA - Not applicable.
G:\LAFB\OU2\ROD\RI2T6- 3. WK 1
26-Jul-9.
-------
-........
TABLE 6-4
RISK SUMMARIES FOR 1993 DATA
LANDFill 2
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
MAXIMUM
TOTAL HAZARD TOTAL CANCER
INDEX RISK
Ingestion 01 Groundwater: Residential Adult 12 3E-04
Dermal Contact with Groundwater: Residential Adult 0.02 ~
TOTAL: RESIDENTIAL ADULT 12 3E-04
Ingestion of Leachate: Residential Adult 50 8E-04
Dermal Contact with Leachate: Residential Adult 0.08 2E-06
TOTAL: RESIDENTIAL ADULT 50 8E-04
Inhalation Exposure to Particulates: Older Child Dirt Biking 0.0000002 ~D
ND = No carcinogenic compounds detected
,;J
G:\LAFB\OU2\ROD\RI2T6 - 4. WK1
26-Jul-94
.,
,
-------
\/
v
"
TABLE 6-5
RISK SUMMARIES
LANDFILL 3
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
AVERAGE MAXIMUM
TOTAL HAZARD TOTAL CANCER TOTAL HAZARD TOTAL CANCER
INDEX RISK INDEX RISK
CURRENT USE:
Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil: Older Child Trespassing 0.00003 BE-07 0.00006 1 E-Q6
Dermal Contact with Surface Soil: Older Child Trespassing 0.000007 2E-07 0.00001 4E-07
TOTAL: TRESPASSING OLDER CHILD 0.00004 1 E-Q6 0.00007 2E-Q6
FUTURE USE:
Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil: Residential Adult 0.000; 5E-Q6 0.0003 1 E-05
Dermal Contact with Surface Soil: Residential Adult 0.00001 9E-07 0.000003 2E-06
Inhalation Exposure to Particulates: Residential Adult 0.000004 3E-OS 0.00001 7E-OB
TOTAL: RESIDENTIAL ADULT 0.0001 6E-Q6 0.0003 1 E-05
Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil: Residential Child 0.001 NA 0.003 NA
Dermal Contact with Surface Soil: Residential Child 0.00006 NA 0.0001 NA
Inhalation Exposure to Particulates: Residential Child 0.00003 NA 0.00006 NA
TOTAL: RESIDENTIAL CHILD 0.001 NA 0.003 NA
Ingestion 01 Groundwater: Adult Resident' I 0.3 2E-Q6 19 3E-06
Dermal Contact with Groundwater: Residential Adult I 0.0009 . BE-OS 0.04 8E-08
TOTAL: RESIDENTIAL ADULT I 0.3 2E-Q6 19 3E-06
CURRENT/FUTURE USE:
Incidental Ingestion of Sediment Child Wading 0.01 1E-Q6 0.03 5E-06
Dermal Contact with Sediment Child Wading 0.0005 2E-07 0.002 BE-07
TOTAL: WADING CHILD 0.01 1E-Q6 0.03 6E-Q6
Incidentailngestion of Surface Water: Child Wading 0.2 1E-Q6 0.4 4E-06
Dermal Contact with Surface Water: Child Wading 0.02 1E-07 0.03 4E-07
TOTAL: WADING CHILD 0.2 1E-Q6 0.4 4E-06
Inhalation Exposure to Particulates: Older Child Dirt Biking 0.0008 9E-09 0.001 2E-OB
, !
NA - Not applicable.
, Ingestion intake for volatile compounds was multiplied by 2.3 to account for ingestion. inhalation. and dermal contact.
G:\LAFB\OU2\ROD\RI2T6- 5. WK1
26-Jul-94
-------
TABLE 6-6
RISK SUMMARIES FOR 1993 DATA
LANDFILL 3
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
MAXIMUM
TOTAL HAZARD TOTAL CANCER
INDEX RISK
Ingestion of Groundwater: Residential Adult 16 3E-04
Dermal Contact with Groundwater: Residential Adult 0.02 5E-07
TOTAL: RESIDENTIAL ADULT 16 3E-04
Ingestion of Leachate: Residential Adult 297 2E-03
Dermal Contact with Leachate: Residential Adult 0.5 ~
TOTAL: RESIDENTIAL ADULT 298 2E-03
Inhalation Exposure to Particulates: Older Child Dirt Biking 0.000003 1E-20
. J
G:\LAFB\OU2\ROD\RI2T6- 6. WK 1
26-Jul-94
-------
SECTION 6
o
due primarily to the presence of arsenic. Arsenic was detected in three out of five
samples. The maximum concentration detected was below the federal Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) (50 p.g/L) and the Maine Department of Human Services
Maximum Exposure Guidelines (MEG) (50 p.g/L). This carcinogenic risk did not
exceed the estimates using pre-1993 data. In the scenario involving residential use
of leachate for domestic purposes, the carcinogenic risk (RME concentration: 8x1cr)
was primarily due to the presence of arsenic and beryllium, and does not exceed the
previous estimate (RME = 1 x 10-3).
The highest surface soil carcinogenic risks were associated with the future adult
residential scenario (average concentration: 1 x lO-s; RME concentration: 5 x lO-S).
These risks are within the USEPA incremental carcinogenic risk range of 1 x 1cr to
1 x 1
-------
SECTION 6
Using the 1993 perimeter groundwater data, the RME m for perimeter groundwater
was 12, due primarily to the presence of arsenic and manganese. Arsenic was
detected in three out of five samples. The maximum concentration detected was
below the MCL and MEG (50 p.g/L) and the HI did not exceed estimates using
pre-1993 data.
The RME HI for leachate was 50, due primarily to the presence of manganese
(HQ = 37), antimony (HQ = 6), arsenic (HQ = 3), cadmium (HQ = 2), and
chromium (HQ = 1), and exceeded federal and state risk criteria. Lead was also
detected in the leachate (549 p.g/L) at concenU"ations that greatly exceed federal and
state drinking water standards. The groundwater is not currently used for drinking
water and will be evaluated as part of OU 4.
Risks were also summed across both media and pathways, and are shown on
Table 6-7. For current use (i.e., the child trespassing, wading, dirt biking on or near
the landfill), the cancer risk to a child calculated using the RME concentration was
8 x 10-' (average concentration: 6 x 10-'). The majority of the risk was associated
with the wading scenario. The risk estimated for future residential adult (exposure
to soil and groundwater) was 2 x 10-4 using average concentration and 1 x 10-3 using
the RME concentration. Both current and future cancer risk estimates exceed the
MEDEP cancer risk guidance value. Most of the risk was due to ingestion/domestic
use of groundwater.
6.1.2 Landfill 3
Carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks to human health at LF-3 are discussed below.
Carcinogenic Risks The highest carcinogenic risks of any scenario at LF-3 were
"associated with the future adult residential scenario for surface soil using pre-1993
data. These carcinogenic risks (average concentration: 6 x 1
However, future use of groundwater was also evaluated using analytical data
collected in 1993. The carcinogenic risk associated with residential use of the
WOO79446.080
6-22
-------
,/
TABLE 6-7
RISK SUMMARIES ACROSS PATHWAYS
LANDFILL 2
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
AVERAGE MAXIMUM
TOTAL HAZARD TOTAL CANCER TOTAL HAZARD TOTAL CANCER
INDEX RISK INDEX RISK
.CURRENrUSE:
Total for Trespassing Older Child - Surface Soil 0.0003 2E-06 0.0007 7E-06
Total for Child Wading - Sediment 0.03 6E-OS 0.07 2E-04
Total for Child Wading - Surface Water 0.1 SE-04 0.2 6E-04
Total for Older Child Dirt Biking - Surface Soil 0.00002 2E-08 0.00003 SE-08
COMBINED TOTAL 0.1 6E-04 0.3 8E-04
FUTURE.USE:
Total for Residential Child - Surface Soil 0.002 NA 0.006 NA
Total for Child Wading - Sediment 0.03 6E-OS 0.07 2E-04
Total for Child Wading - Surface Water 0.1 SE-04 0.2 6E-04
Total for Older Child Dirt Biking - Surface Soil 0.00002 2E-OS 0.00003 SE-OS
COMBINED TOTAL 0.1 6E-04 0.3 8E-04
Total for Residential Adult - Surface Soil 0.0003 1 E-OS 0.0006 SE-OS
Total for Residential Adult Groundwater Exposure ~ 2E-04 16 1E-03
COMBINED TOTAL 4 2E-04 16 1E-03
v
NA = Not Applicable
NOTE:
Summary table as requested by Maine Department of Environmental Protection
G:\LAFB\OU2\ROD\RI2T6.-'7. WK1
6-23
-------
SECTION 6
>-
perimeter groundwater for domestic purposes (RME concentration: 3 x 10-4) was
primarily due to the presence of arsenic and exceeded state and federal risk criteria.
Arsenic was detected in three out of seven samples. The maximum concentration
was detected below the MCL and the MEG (50 p.gjL). The carcinogenic risk
exceeds the previous estimate using pre-1993 data (RME concentration: 3 x 10-6).
The previous carcinogenic risk estimates were due to the presence of methylene
chloride, benzene, and bis-2( ethylhexyl)phthalate.
In the scenario involving the residential use of leachate for domestic purposes, the
carcinogenic risk (RME concentration: 2 x 10'3), primarily due to the presence of
arsenic and beryllium, exceeded state and federal criteria and exceeded the previous
estimates using pre-1993 data (RME concentration: 3 x 1
-------
o.
TABLE 6-8
RISK SUMMARIES ACROSS MEDIA AND PATHWAYS
LANDFILL 3
au 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
AVERAGE MAXIMUM
TOTAL HAZARD TOTAL CANCER TOTAL HAZARD TOTAL CANCER
INDEX RISK INDEX RISK
CURRENT USE:
Total for Trespassing Older Child - Surface Soil 0.00004 1E-06 0.00007 2E-06
Total for Child Wading - Sedimen1 0.01 1E-06 0.03 6E-06
Total for Child Wading - Surface Water 0.2 2E-06 0.4 5E-06
Total for Older Child Dir1Biking - Surface Soil 0.0008 9E-09 0.001 2E-08
COMBINED TOTAL 0.2 4E-06 0.4 1 E-Q5
'FUTURE USE:
Total for Residential Child - Surface Soil 0.001 NA 0.003 NA
Total for Child Wading - Sediment 0.01 1E-06 0.03 6E-06
Total for Child Wading - Surface Water 0.2 1 E-06 0.4 4E-06
Total for Older Child Dirt Biking - Surface Soil 0.0008 9E-07 0.001 2E-06
COMBINED TOTAL 0.2 3E-06 0.4 1E-05
Total for Residential Adult - Surface Soil 0.0001 6E-06 0.0003 1E-05
Total for Residential Adult Groundwater Exposure 0.3 2E-06 19 3E-06
COMBINED TOTAL 0.3 8E-06 19 1E-05
ND = Not Applicable
NOTE:
Summary table as requested by Maine Department of Environmental Protection
G:\LAFB\OU2\ROD\RI2T6 - 8. WK1
26-Jul-94
-------
SECTION 6
6.2
ECOLOGICAL RISK AsSESSMENT
The ecological RA chose five terrestrial wildlife indicator species to represent the
exposures for terrestrial organisms through ingestion of food and soil. The five
indicator species are:
.
.
Short-tailed Shrew (Blarina brevicauda), small mammal, omnivore
American Woodcock (Scolopax minor), small bird, omnivore
Garter Snake (Thamnophis s. sirtalis), reptile, carnivore
Fisher (Manes pennanti), predatory mammal, carnivore
Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypterus), predatory bird, carnivore
.
.
.
Consideration of these species in estimating ecological risk from CPCs that can
bioaccumulate may be conservative, because the species are predominantly
carnivorous, and therefore highly prone to exposure to CPCs via the food chain.
Organisms with small home ranges, such as the shrew and garter snake, and those
that ingest a high proportion of earthworms and other terrestrial invertebrates, are
particularly susceptible to food chain exposures to such CPCs.
These organisms were chosen for the following reasons: 1) these species are all
potential ecological receptors at LF-2 and LF-3; 2) the feeding strategies (e.g.,
omnivore, carnivore) are commonly present in a typical environmental community;
and 3) these species were recommended for a conservative evaluation of ecological
risk by USEPA and USFWS (USEPA, 1991a). The woodcock was also selected
because it is commonly hunted in Maine and is of possible economic significance,
and the fisher represents a species of concern because, although once common in
New England, it has disappeared from some regions due to over-trapping.
It is assumed that each species chosen for food web evaluation is representative of
other species at a similar trophic level occurring at LF-2 and LF-3. Modeling of
exposures to rare and endangered species was not performed because no rare,
threatened, or endangered species have been identified at LAFB.
6.2.1 Landfill 2
Ecological risks as they relate to terrestrial and aquatic receptors at LF-2 are
discussed below.
c>
WOO79446.080
6-26
-------
SECTION 6
.-J
o
Risks to Terrestrial Receptors. HI values from pre-1993 data indicate probable
adverse effects related to short-term exposures to CPCs in LF-2 surface soils for the
shrew and the woodcock. HIs exceed 10 for the shrew (In = 16) and the woodcock
(In = 20), and are primarily attributable to benzo(a)pyrene (HQ = 10 for the shrew
and 6 for the woodcock) and lead. Predicted HIs were below 1 for the snake, fisher,
and hawk, and no adverse effects related to short-term exposure were indicated for
these receptors based on data collected before 1993. However, higher concentrations
of benzo(a)pyrene and lead were detected in 1993. These higher concentrations
. increase the Ins for all indicator species. Based on the new data, effects from
short-term exposures are also possible for the .garter snake, fisher, and broad-winged
hawk.
HI values indicate probable adverse effects related to long-term exposures at LF-2
for small mammals, and possible effects to small birds and herptiles (In = 82 for the
shrew, In = 9 for the woodcock, and HI = 3 for the snake). Lead is the greatest
contributor to risks related to chronic exposures at LF-2 (HQ = ~7 for the shrew and
HQ = 4 for the woodcock). Benzo{a)pyrene also contributes to risk for the snake
(HQ = 2). No adverse effects related to long-term exposures are indicated for the
fisher or the hawk.
Risk to Aquatic Receptors. Risks to aquatic receptors from exposure to site-related
contaminants in surface water and sediment at LF-2 may be probable. The overall
HIs for surface water receptors at LF-2 indicate possible effects associated with
short-term exposures (acute In = 35) and probable effects associated with long-term
exposures (chronic HI = 14). Acute exposure risks are attributable mainly to
aluminum. Chronic exposure risks are attributable mainly to diethylphthalate and
aluminum.
Chronic exposures to phthalate esters in aqueous media have been shown to cause
effects such as reproductive impairment, . increase in aborted young and growth
impairment. to various species including fathead m4mows, bluegills, trout embryos,
cladocerans, and algae (USEP A, 1980a).
Exposures to aluminum. in aqueous media have been shown to cause harmful effects
such as mortality and deformity of goldfish embryos, reduced growth and weight in
trout, and reduced growth of diatoms and green algae (USEP A, 1988).
The overall Ins for aquatic receptors to sediment at LF-2 indicate probable effects
associated with short-term and long-term exp ;sures (acute HI = 110, chronic
WOO79446.0BO
6-27
-------
SECTION 6
HI = 35). Acute and chronic exposure risks are attributable mainly to cyanide
(acute HQ = 83, chronic HQ = 24). Adverse effects related to short-term exposures
to P AHs, nickel, zinc, cyanide, iron, and manganese in sediment may be possible, and
risks may also be possible from long-term exposures to benzo(k)fluoranthene, nickel,
iron, and manganese.
6.2.2 Landfill 3
Ecological risks as they relate to terrestrial and aquatic receptors at LF-3 are
discussed below.
Risks to Terrestrial Receptors. HIs calculated from pre-1993 data for exposure of
ecological receptors to site-related contaminants in surface soils at LF-3 indicate that
risks may be possible. In values for pre-1993 data for short-term exposures to CPCs
in LF-3 surface soils exceed 1 for the short-tailed shrew and American woodcock.
Ins for the shrew (m = 4) and the woodcock (m = 3) are attributable to
benzo(a)pyrene (HQ = 3 for the shrew and HQ = 2 for the woodcock) and, to a
minor extent, cobalt. . However, detections of zinc, copper, and lead in 1993 at
concentrations greater than background increased the estimated m for all the
indicator species. Based on the new data, probable adverse effects from short-term
exposures to surface soil are indicated for the shrew and the woodcock. Evaluation
of the new data also indicates possible impacts to the snake, fisher, and hawk; no
adverse effects were indicated based in the pre-1993 data.
HI values indicate probable adverse effects related to long-term exposures at LF-3
for small mammals (HI = 21 for the shrew). Adverse effects are possible for the
snake (In = 1) and woodcock (m = 5). Benzo(a)pyrene is the greatest contributor
'to risks related to chronic exposures at LF-3 (HQ = 15 for the shrew and HQ = 3
for the woodcock). Cobalt also contributes to risk. No adverse effects related to
long-term exposures are predicted for the fisher or the hawk. Probable adverse
effects from long-term exposure to contaminants via the food chain are indicated for
the woodcock; possible adverse effects were indicated based on pre-1993 data.
Risk to Aquatic Receptors. Risks to aquatic receptors from exposure to site-related
contaminants in surface 'water and sediment at LF-3 may be probable. The overall
ms for surface water receptors at LF-3 indicate probable effects may be associated
with short-term and long-term exposures (acute HI = 15, chronic HI = 30). Acute
exposure risks are attributable mainly to zinc and aluminum. Chronic exposure risks
1.7
WOO79446.080
6-28
-------
SECfION 6
()
were attributable mainly to iron, zinc, and aluminum. Adverse effects related to
long-term exposures to diethylphthalate, iron, zinc, and cyanide may be possible.
Exposures to zinc in aqueous media have been shown to cause deleterious effects
such as mortality in algae, bluegill, salmon, and trout as well as chronic effects such
as growth inhibition in algae, abnormal shell development in oysters, increased
mortality in sea urchins, and equilibrium loss in starfish (USEP A, 1980b).
The overall sediment Ills for aquatic receptors at LF-3 indicate probable effects
associated with short-term and long-term exposur~s (acute III = 180, chronic
III = 66). Acute and chronic exposure risks are attributable mainly to zinc (acute
. HQ = 150, chronic HQ = 49) and lead (acute HQ = 13, chronic HQ = 4.9).
Adverse effects related to short-term exposures to nickel, chromium, copper, iron,
and manganese in sediment at LF-3 may be possible, and risks may also be possible
from long-term exposure to nickel, iron, manganese, lead, and cyanide.
Exposures to zinc in sediments have been shown to cause mortality in c1adocerans,
low species richness among benthos, as well as behavioral effects on amphipods and
shrimp, and reduced growth in nematodes (Long and Morgan, 1990).
6.3
UNCERTAINlY EvALUATION
Quantitative estimates of risk are based on numerous assumptions, most of which are
intended to be protective of human health (i.e., conservative). The interpretation of
risk estimates is subject to a number of uncertainties as a result of the multiple layers
of conservative assumptions inherent in RAs. As such, risk estimates are not truly
, probabilistic estimates of risk, but are conditional estimates, given a series of
conservative assumptions about exposure and toxicity. While it is true that there are
some uncertainties inherent in the RA methodology that might lead to an
underestimation of true risks, most assumptions will bias the evaluation in the
direction of overestimation of risk.
The possibility of underestimation of true risks may be caused by the exclusion from
quantitative evaluation of pathways (e.g., ingestion of homegrown produce from
backyard garden plots) or through the exclusion of compounds from the RA through
the toxicity screening procedure. However, the possibility of a backyard garden plot
is remote on a landfill and the toxicity screening procedure evaluated compounds
WOO79446.080
7626-09
-------
SECTION 6
that covered more than 99 percent of the risk; therefore it is unlikely that the risks
will be underestimated by a substantial amount.
Because benzo(a)pyrene and naphthalene are the most toxic representatives of
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic P AHs, respectively, use of their toxicity values will
likely result in overestimation of risks. Other sources of uncertainty that could cause
overestimation of risks include the use of purposive (biased) sampling (targeting ''hot
spots" or visible contamination); the estimation of exposure concentrations by the use
of maximum detections (while assuming no degradation or dilution); the use of the
95 percent (or upper-bound 90 percent) exposure parameter values such as contact
rate and exposure frequency and duration; the use of conservatively derived toxicity
values such as RIDs (incorporating multiple safety factors) and CSFs, which are
based on experimental animal data used in a multistage model. The USEP A Risk
Assessment Guidance (USEP A, 1989a,b) states that the carcinogenic risk estimate
will generally be an upper-bound estimate, and the USEP A is reasonably confident
that the "true risk" will not exceed the risk estimate derived through the use of this
model and is likely to be less than predicted. Therefore, the true risk is likely not
much more than the estimated risk, but could very well.be considerably lower, even
approaching zero.
6.4 CONCLUSION
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed
by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent
and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment. The
objective of the sele~ed remedial action is to provide containment and isolation of
the landfill contents' and control of leachate generation as a result of infiltration.
Through this action, exposures to the landfill area will be limited and continued
migration of contaminants leached from the waste materials located within the
unsaturated zone into the groundwater will be minimi7.ed.
WOO79446.080
6-30
7626-09
-------
SECTION 7
7.0 DEVEWPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with USEP A guidance concerning presumptive remedies for municipal
landfills, two alternatives were developed and screened in the FFS. This section
descnbes the response objectives and the development and screening of alternatives.
7.1 STATUTORY REQUlREMENTSjREsPONSE OBJECI'IVES
The Air Force is responsible for addressing environmental contamination at LAFB
pursuant to Section 120 of the CERClA and the FFA entered into by the Air Force,
the USEPA, and the MEDEP. The Air. Force's primary responsibility at this NPL
site is to undertake remedial actions that are protective of human health and the
environment. In addition, Section 121 of Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERClA) establishes several other statutory
requirements and preferences, including: a requirement that the' remedial action,
when complete, must comply with all federal and more. stringent state environmental
standards, requirements, criteria or limitations, unless a waiver is granted; a
requirement that the selected remedial action be cost-effective and utilizes
. permanent 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 volume, toxicity or
mobility of the h~dous substances is a principal element over remedies not.
involving such treatment Response alternatives were developed to be consistent with
these Congressional mandates.
Based on preliminary information relating to types of contaminants, environmental
media of concern, and potential exposure pathways, remedial action objectives were
developed to aid in the development and screening of alternatives. These remedial
action objectives were developed to mitigate existing and future potential. threats to
public health and the environment. These response objectives were:
Soils/Landfill Contents
Prevent dermal contact with and ingestion
of, contaminated landfill contents and soils
Air/Dust
Prevent the migration and inhalation of
fugitive dust and soil particles with
adhering contaminants
WOO79446.080
7-1
-------
SECTION 7
Landfill Gas
Prevent inhalation and explosion of
landfill gases
Surface Water and Sediment
Prevent ingestion, adsorption, and
bioconcentration of contaminants in
surface water
Leachate
Minimize formation and migration of
leachate to groundwater and surface
waters.
7.2
TECHNOLOGY AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING
CERCLA and the National Contingency Plan (NCP) set forth the process by which
remedial actions are evaluated and selected. In accordance with these requirements,
a limited range of source control remedial alternatives were developed for the site.
Other alternatives which address management of contaminant migration through
groundwater will be evaluated in a separate operable unit, OU 4, upon completion
of additional site investigations. The OU 4 ROD will be completed prior to
completion of the OU 2 source control remedy.
Based on USEPA guidance, containment (Le., landfill cover) is considered to be the
appropriate response action or the "presumptive remedy" for the source areas of
municipal landfill sites (USEP A, 1993b ). Presumptive remedies are preferred
technologies for sites with common or similar characteristics with other previous
remedial actions. For this operable unit, USEP A Presumptive Remedy Guidance
(USEP A, 1993a,b) supports the use of an FFS to develop the remedial action
proposed by the Air Force.
With respect to source control, the RI/FFS developed a source control remedial
alternative for LF-2 and LF-3 that provides protection through engineering or
institutional controls to reduce the threat posed by the presence of the landfill. A
no action alternative ~as also developed. .
Because a focused feasibility study approach was used, no initial screening of
alternatives was conducted. Subsection 9.4 of the RI/FFS presents the remedial
alternatives that were developed by combining the technologies identified in the
technology screening process. The two remedial alternatives evaluated were:
',)
WOO79446.080
7-2
-------
SECI10N 7
u
Alternative 1:
No Action
Alternative 2:
Containment Using a Cover System
WOO79446.080
7-3
-------
SECTION 8
"
8.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
This section provides a narrative summary of each alternative evaluated. The source
control alternatives analyzed for OU 2 include No Action (Alternative 1) and
Containment Using a Cover System (Alternative 2). Detailed assessments of each
alternative can be found in Section 9.5 of the Rl/FFS Report (ABB-ES, 1994).
ALTERNATIVE 1: No AmON
Evaluation of the No Action alternative is required by the NCP, and provides a
baseline against which other alternatives can be compared. This alternative does not
involve remedial actions to treat source soils, and no effort would be made to restrict
potential exposure to source area contaminants at LF-2 and LF-3. A physical review
of the landfills would be conducted every five years. The cost of the site reviews
associated with the No Action alternative have not been included. This alternative
would not meet the remedial objectives.
ALTERNATIVE 2: CONTAINMENT USING A COVER SYSTEM
This alternative would consist of the following components:
.
Site preparation, consolidation of IAFB soils for subgrade and grading
to minimize erosion and manage runoff;
.
Multi-layer cover system installation which will comply with RCRA
Subtitle C and Maine hazardous waste requirements including landfill
gas assessment and controls, and assessment of adjacent wetlands;
.
Gates and warning signs installation;
.
Deed restrictions on land in the vicinity of the landfills;
.
Post clos,ure monitoring and maintenance; and
.
Five year site reviews.
Alternative 2 consists of installing a low-permeability. composite cover system over
the limits of the waste at LF-2 (approximately 9 acres) and LF-3 (approximately 17
WOO79446.080
7626-00
-------
SECI'lON 8
'-'
acres). The purposes of the cover system are to minimize surface water infiltration
through the landfilled wastes, promote drainage, minimize surface erosion,
accommodate landfill settlement, isolate landfill wastes from direct contact, and
control landfill gas. To achieve these goals, the proposed cover system would consist
of the following components from bottom to top:
.
.
gas-venting layer
composite hydraulic barrier layer
drainage layer
filter layer
vegetative layer
.
.
.
Estimated Time for Design and Construction: 2.5 years
Estimated Time of Operation: 30 years
Estimated Capital Cost: $22.7 million
Estimated Operation and Maintenance Costs (net present worth): $754,000
Estimated Total Cost (net present worth): $23.4 million'
A detailed description of the cover system components can be found in Subsection
9.5.2 of the RI/FFS Report (ABB-ES, 1994a).
WOO79446.080
8-2
-------
SECl10N 9
D
9.0 SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Section 121(b)(1) of CERCLA presents several factors that, at a minimum, the
USAF is required to consider in its assessment of alternatives. Building upon these
specific statutory mandates, the NCP articulates nine evaluation criteria to be used
in assessing the individual remedial alternatives. A detailed analysis of the remedial
alternatives was performed using the nine evaluation criteria to select a site remedy.
9.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA USED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS
The nine criteria articulated in the NCP are grouped as Threshold, Balancing, and
Modifying criteria according to their application in the remedial alternative selection
process; these are summarized in the following subsections.
9.1.1 Threshold Criteria
The two threshold criteria described below must be met for the alternatives to be
eligible for selection in accordance with the NCP.
.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment addresses
whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and describes
how risks posed through each pathway are eliminated, reduced or
controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional
controls.
.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) addresses whether or not a remedy will meet
all of \the ARARs or other federal and state environmental laws
and/or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
9.1.2 Balancing Criteria
The following five criteria are used to evaluate and compare the elements of one
alternative to another that meet the threshold criteria.
.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence addresses the criteria that
are used to assess alternatives for the long-term effectiveness and
u
WOO79446.080
9-1
-------
SECTION 9
',.}
permanence they afford, along with the degree of certainty that they
will prove successful.
.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
addresses the degree to which alternatives employ recycling or
treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume, including how
treatment is used to address the principal threats posed by the site.
.
Short-term Effectiveness addresses the period of time 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 cleanup goals are achieved.
-.
Implementability addresses the technical and admi.p.istrative feasibility
of a remedy, including the availability of materials and services needed
to implement a particular option.
.
Cost includes estimated capital costs (indirect and direct) and annual
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, as well as present-worth
costs.
9.1.3 Modifying Criteria
The modifying criteria are used in the final evaluation of remedial alternatives,
generally after USAF has received public comment on the RI/FFS and Proposed
Plan.
.
.
State Acceptance addresses the state's position and key concerns
related to the preferred alternative and other alternatives, and the
state's comments on ARARs or the proposed use of waivers.
Community Acceptance addresses the public's general response to the
alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and RI/FFS report.
9.2 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
, ?
Following the detailed analysis of each individual alternative, a comparative analysis,
focusing on the relative performance of each alternative against the nine criteria, was
WOO79446.080
9-2
-------
SECTION 9
u
conducted. The following subsections present the nine criteria and a brief narrative
summary of the alternatives and the strengths and weaknesses according to the
comparative analysis. A detailed tabular assessment of each alternative according
to the nine criteria can be found in Tables 9-8 and 9-9 of the RI/FFS (ABB-ES,
1994a).
9.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The preferred alternative, Containment Using a Cover System (Alternative 2), would
be protective of human health and the environment because capping the landfill
eHminates direct contact with soil and the landfill contents, windborne migration of
dust, and incidental ingestion of soil, sediment, and surface water by humans and
animals for a long time. The cover would be designed to control landfill gas, if
generated. The cover system alternative minimizes, but would not eliminate,
infiltration leading to leachate production and continued contamination of
groundwater.
The No Action alternative would not be protective of human health or the
environment because no protective action would be taken.
9.2.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Alternative 2 would be designed to comply with state and federal ARARs. The No
Action alternative would not meet tl;te applicable ARARs. ARARs are discussed in
more detail in Section 11.
9.2.3 wng-term Effectiveness and Permanence
...;
The Containment Using a Cover System alternative would provide more long-term
effectiveness and permanence because the multi-layer cap design provides the
greatest degree of protection against infiltration of precipitation and subsequent
leachate generation. Specifically, the selected alternative would comply with
location-specific ARARs, including wetlands requirements. If the landfill caps
adversely affect adjacept wetlands, these areas will be delineated as part of au 13
and addressed under the remedial action for au 13 in accordance with Section 404
of the Clean Water Act and other state and federal requirements. With regard to
action-specific ARARs, federal and state landfill closure requirements and ARARs
applicable to the venting of landfill gases will be met by the selected alternative. The
deed restrictions and the post-closure monitoring and maintenance program would
,~
WOO79446.080
9-3
-------
SECTION 9
maintain cover system integrity over the long-term, and groundwater monitoring
would provide data to evaluate the effectiveness of the cover system for minimizing
groundwater contamination.
The No Action alternative does not include remedial actions, and therefore provides
no mechanism to reduce unacceptable risks from soil, sediment, and surface water
contamination.
9.2.4 Reduction of Mobility, Toxicity, or Volume through Treatment
Neither of the two alternatives would reduce mobility, toxicity, or volume through
treatment of source area contaminants. USEP A guidance on RIfFS activities for
large landfills recognizes that it is almost always impractical to reduce mobility,
toxicity, or volume of source area contaminants for these types of sites (USEP A,
1991b). The reduction of mobility, toxicity, or volume through treatment of
contaminants in groundwater will be addressed in the OU 4 ROD. The
implementation of a source control remedy should be consistent with the appropriate
long-term remedy for the landfills. .
9.2.5 Short-term Effectiveness
The preferred alternative involves a relatively long implementation period (25 years),
but non-construction' personnel would not have access to the site from the
commencement of. construction activities. Construction provisions would be
implemented for this alternative to minimi7.e potential adverse impacts on worker
safety. Short-term (Le., increased noise and vehicular traffic) impacts are
unavoidable during construction. Long-term impacts from cover construction will not
result. The No Action alternative does not include remedial actions and therefore,
results in no increase in short-term risk. It does not, however, achieve remedial
response objectives.
9.2.6 Implementability
Installation of the coyer system for the preferred alternative also includes
containment, an easily implementable, reliable, and available technology.
Appropriate measures will be identified during the OU 4 ROD (Le., monitoring well
installation) to maintain the integrity of the installed cover system. The OU 4 ROD
will be completed before the construction of this source control remedial action is
complete. The No Action alternative does not include remedial actions.
..
WOO79446.080
9-4
-------
"
SECTION 9
<>
9.2.7 Cost
The cost criterion includes the capital (i.e., up-front) cost of implementing an
alternative, as well as the cost of operating and maintaining the alternative over the
long term. The estimated total cost on a present-worth basis considers both initial
capital costs and long-term O&M costs. The capital, O&M, and total costs for each
alternative are discussed in the RI/FFS Report (ABB-ES, 1994a). The cost of the
Containment Using a Cover System alternative does not include the potential costs
of cover system redesign and modification based on the results of the ongoing OU
4 groundwater investigations.
9.2.8 State Acceptance
As party to the FF A, MEDEP has commented on the RI/FFS and Proposed Plan
and concurs with the remedial action as stated in Section 13 of this ROD.
Documentation of this concurrence is presented in Appendix C of this ROD.
9.2.9 Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the Proposed Plan was evaluated based on comments
received at public meetings and during the public comment period. This is
documented in the Transcript of the Public Meeting in Appendix A, and in the
Responsiveness Summary in Appendix B of this ROD. Based on public comments,
the public is in agreement regarding the preferred Remedial Alternative for OU 2 .
as presented in the Proposed Plan.
WOO79446.080
7626-09
-------
SECTION 10
<.)
10.0 THE SELECTED REMEDY
For au 2, the selected remedy is Alternative 2, consisting of a low-permeability
cover system which meets RCRA Subtitle C and Maine hazardous waste landfill cap
requirements, and surface and institutional controls. The remedial action is a final
source control remedy that permanently addresses the reduction of contamination
leaching to groundwater, limits migration of liquids through the landfill, and
maintains compatibility with the final remedial measures, while au 2 groundwater,
landfill gases and adjacent wetlands are evaluated and, if necessary, additional
alternatives are studied.
10.1 CLEANUP LEVELS
A 1 x 1~ excess cancer risk level for carcinogenic effects or a concentration
corresponding to an III of 1 for compounds with noncarcinogenic effects is typically
used to set cleanup levels. No contaminant-specific cleanup levels have been
developed for this source control remedial alternative since the alternative addresses
the landfill area as a source of contamination and the landfill wastes were not
sampled. Although soils/waste will not be removed or treated under the selected
alternative, containment technologies are generally considered appropriate for
landfills where treatment is impracticable because of the volume and heterogeneity
of the waste. Therefore, no target cleanup levels have been set for soils at the sites.
Oeanup levels and. remedial alternatives applicable to groundwater/leachate will be
developed as appropriate, within the m3n~ement of migration operable unit for the
site (Le., au 4).
10.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDIAL COMPONENTS
The following paragraphs describe the remedial alternative the USAF developed for
au 2: Containment Using a Cover System. Implementation of the selected
alternative would include the following activities:
.
Site preparation, consolidation of lAFB soils for subgrade and grading
to minimize erosion and manage runoff;
u
WOO79446.080
7626-09
-------
SECTION 10
.
Multi-layer cover system installation which will comply with RCRA
Subtitle C and Maine hazardous waste requirements including landfill
gas assessment and controls, and assessment of adjacent wetlands;
.
Gates and warning signs installation;
.
Deed restrictions on land in the vicinity of the landfills;
.
Post closure monitoring and maintenance; and
.
Five year site reviews.
Site Preparation and Grading. Prior to installation of the proposed cover system,
small trees and brush would be cleared from within the area to be covered.
Subgrade soil consisting of common borrow available form local borrow pits and
from other LAFB locations (e.g., excavated soil/sediment from OU 7) would then
be placed to raise the existing grade of each landfill to allow for post-construction
settlement and to provide for positive drainage. Silt fencing and hay bales would be
used for erosion control purposes and would be maintained for the duration of the
construction project. An interim drainage basin would also be constructed to control
on-site drainage during construction.
At present, it is anticipated that these other areas will include:
.
OU 7, the Quany site, which is the subject of separate CERClA ROD
which is expected to be issued concurrently with this OU 2 ROD.
.
OU 6, Railroad Maintenance Site, which was subject of a CERCLA
ROD issued in April 1994, and for which an ESD relating to use of the
material at OU 2 is expected to be issued concurrently with this au 2
ROD. . ,
.
OU 2A, Coal Ash Pile, which is subject of a removal action planned
for the Fall of 1994.
Before such material can be used as subgrade material at OU 2, the Air Force must
comply with CERCLA and the NCP for any areas which are CERCLA sites. In
addition, the Air Force must evaluate the material from these areas to determine if
the material is hazardous and subject to the RCRA 'Land Disposal Restrictions
u
.)
WOO79446.080
7~
-------
SECI'lON 10
.J
o
(LDR), 40 CFR Part 268, and must demonstrate that it has complied with the
procedures set forth in the LDR Technical Memorandum, July 1994. IT the material
is non-hazardous, it may be used for subgrade fill at au 2. IT it is determined to be
hazardous, it may not be used for subgrade fill at au 2 unless it is treated in
accordance with the LDR requirements prior to use as subgradefill.
Multi Layer Cover System and Landfill Gas Management. The proposed cover
system would be constructed after initial settlement occurs caused by the weight of
the subgrade soil. Cap construction would begin one construction season after
placement of the subgrade to allow sufficient Ume for settlement to occur. The caps
will be designed to meet or exceed RCRA guidance as presented in Technical
Guidance Document: Final Covers on Hazardous Waste Landfills and Surface
Impoundments (USEPA, 1989) and Design and Construction of RCRA/CERCLA
Final Covers (USEPA, 1991), Maine hazardous waste regulations, and in accordance
with accepted engineering design practices. Site-specific factors will be evaluated in
determining an effective cap design.
The proposed composite cover system would consist of the following components
(Figure 10-1), from bottom to top: .
.
gas-venting layer
composite hydraulic barrier layer
drainage layer
filter layer
vegetative layer
.
.
.
.
-------
'..
It
" "
~,~""
, '\, , , '\, , '\, '\, '\, , , '\,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , '\, '\, , , , , , , , , '\, '\, '\, '\, , , '\, , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
'\, '\, '\, , , '\, , '\, '\, '\, , , , , , , , '\, , '\, '\, , '\, , , '\, , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , '\, , '\, , '\, , '\, , '\, '\, , '\, '\, , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, '\, '\, '\, '\, ,
,
SLOPE
---Y ~
DRAINAGE LAYER ~
COMPOSITE HVDRAUUC ~
BARRIER LAYER
l~~~~~i]~1i~j~W~£~~itl~~~II~
COVER SYSTEM LAVERS
FILTER LAYER
GAS VENTING LAYER ~
EXISTING GROUND
SURFACE
SUBGRADE FILL
MATERIAL
COMMON BORROW LAYER ~
8m
::
FIGURE 10-1
"
TYPICAL LANDFILL
COVER SYSTEM
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
LIMESTONE. MAINE
9407042D(d)
-------
SECI'lON 10
treatment to accomplish these objectives. Gas samples will be collected from the
vents and analyzed, and the results used to establish a baseline. Follow-up sampling
and analysis will be compared to the baseline so that evaluations and
recommendations concerning active gas collection systems can be made.
A composite hydraulic barrier consisting of a geosynthetic clay liner overlain by a
geomembrane layer (i.e., very low density polyethylene) would be placed above the
gas-venting layer. The composite hydraulic barrier would minimize the infiltration
. of water to the landfilled waste. A 24-inch drainage layer of sand would be placed
above the hydraulic barrier layer to facilitate water drainage from the top of the
cover system. The drainage layer would contain collection pipes to divert water to
a detention basin located downgradient of the landfills. A 12-inch filter layer of
common borrow material would be placed above the drainage layer to prevent
topsoil from entering the drainage layer. The filter layer will also retain moisture for
the upper layers. A 12-inch layer of soil capable of supporting vegetation would be
placed above the filter layer.
Gates and Warning Signs Installation. A 20-£00t wide chain-link gate would be
installed at the main entrance road into each landfill. Warning signs would be
posted on the gates to alert people to the location of the landfill and cover system.
The gates and warning signs would restrict vehicular ac~ss and discourage
trespassers.
Deed Restrictions on Land in the Vicinity of the Landfills. Restrictions limiting
subsurface development (excavation or drilling), use of the property, and excessive
vehicular traffic (including off-road vehicles and din bikes) would be incorporated
into the property deed.
Post-Oosure Monitoring and Maintenance. A monitoring and maintenance program
is proposed. The purposes of the program are to inspect the cover system and
environmental monitoring systems and to maintain their integrity. The monitoring
program is. proposed to be conducted for a 3D-year period following closure in
accordance with RCRA Subtitle C standards. The program would include the
following activities:
"
.
inspection of the cover system including all environmental monitoring
systems (i.e., groundwater monitoring and gas control), eight times
during the first year, and semiannually during the following 29 years
c)
WOO79446.080
10-5
-------
SECTION 10
.8
8
maintenance of the cover system, including making repairs to the cap
as necessary to correct the effects of settling, subsidence, erosion, or
other events.
8
maintenance of gates and access roads.
8
annual mowing of the grass cover (after ground-nesting migratory bird
breeding season is over)
8
quarterly monitoring (Le., sampling and analysis) of groundwater
monitoring wells for groundwater quaIity, and gas-venting risers for
explosive gases, and visual inspection of the landfills
quarterly inspection reports to regulatory agencies would include
monitoring results and recommendations, and would document
maintenance activities
Long-term groundwater monitoring and stormwater discharge monitoring will be
conducted following capping of the landfills. The design of the monitoring systems
will be defined following completion of additional au 4 groundwater studies and the
drainage design of the caps. The environmental monitoring program will be
submitted for regulatory review and will identify sampling locations and sampling
frequencies. At a minimum, the groundwater and stormwater environmental
monitoring program will be conducted for a minimum of thirty years.
Five-Year Site Reviews. To the extent required by law, the USAF will review au 2
monitoring program data at least once every five years after the initiation of remedial
, action because hazardous substances will remain on-site at levels that do not allow
for unrestricted use. This review will be conducted in accordance with applicable
USEP A guidance and will assure that the remedial action continues to protect
human health and the environment, assessing site conditions and proposing further
actions, if necessary.
Additional site investigations which support the evaluation and determination of
additional remedial act:ion(s) at au 2 will be conducted. These additional studies
will be designed to determine the following:
o
8
IT additional measures, beyond capping the landfill, must be taken to
reduce the amount of groundwater in contact with the contaminated
WOO79446.080
7626-09
-------
....
SECTION 10
u
materials of the landfill (these studies will evaluate the potential for
leachate generation due to contact between the landfill materials and
groundwater).
8
The nature and extent of groundwater contamination and whether
additional measures, beyond capping the landfill, are necessary to meet
federal or state groundwater standards and to reduce to acceptable
levels any unacceptable risks to human health and the environment
from groundwater contamination.
8
If vented landfill gases require treatment to protect human health and
the environment and to meet state and federal ARARs.
I
.8
If wetlands could be potentially impacted by the remedial action, and
if so, an assessment of the approach and location for restoring
wetlands affected by au 2 remedial actions.
Studies concerning groundwater will be conducted in asso~ation with the au 4
ROD. Studies concerning landfill gases will be conducted after completion of the
landfill caps and gas vents. As part of IRP activities at LAFB, wetland areas located
on the base which are or potentially could be impacted by remediation are being
evaluated as part of au 13. This evaluation will include an assessment of the
approach and location for restoring/replacing wetlands impacted by remedial
activities. To the extent appropriate, the Air Force will consider forms of mitigation
which include restoration, replacement, enhancement, and creation of wetlands.
Therefore, the final approach to wetland restoration for the entire base will be
evaluated part of au 13.
. c
,)
WOO'79446.080
10-7
-------
SECI10N 11
,)
11.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The remedial action for source control selected for the remedial action selected for
implementation at OU 2 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. However, the selected remedy does not satisfy
the statutory preference for treatment which permanently and significantly reduces
the mobility, toxicity or volume of hazardous substances as a principal element, nor
does the selected remedy utilize alternate. treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies.
11.1
THE SELECTED REMEDY IS PROTECI'IVE OF HUMAN HEALTII AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
The remedy at au 2 will permanently reduce the risks posed to human health and
the environment by eliminating, reducing or controlling exposures to human and
environmental receptors through engineering controls and institutional controls. The
placement of a composite cap will eliminate direct contact and incidental ingestion
exposure to surface soil or waste contaminants, and the institutional controls will
prevent exposure to contamin::tted soils and groundwater under future site use. The
cap will effectively reduce infiltration of precipitation through unsaturated waste and
the resultant generation of leachate. The selected remedy will comply with ARARs .
and to-be-considered (TBC) criteria. Finally, the implementation of. the selected
remedy will not pose unacceptable short-term risks or cross-media impacts.
11.2 THE SELECTED REMEDY A1TAlNS ARARs
The selected remedy will attain all federal and state ARARs that apply to OU 2.
ARARs for the Site, as well as policies, criteria, and guidance (TBCs) which will be
considered during the implementation of the remedy were identified and discussed
in the RI/FFS report. Tables 11-1 and 11-2 to this ROD present a tabular summary
of the ARARs for the" selected remedy, including the regulatory citation, a brief
summary of the requirement, and how it will be attained. This remedy will attain the
federal and state ARARs that apply to OU 2 and this remedial action. A discussion
of why these requirements are applicable or relevant and appropriate is in the
RI/FFS Report. Environmental laws from which ARARs for the selected remedial
W0079446.080
11-1
-------
TABLE 11-1 .
LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs CRITERIA, ADVISORIES, AND GUIDANCE
. LANDFILL SOILS
ou 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
. MEDIA
REQUIREMENT .
'. . .
. .
. .. ... '. .
..~tffi~:ro B~TAt
-------
continued
()
TABLE 11-1
LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs CRITERIA, ADVISORIES, AND GUIDANCE
LANDFILL SOilS
au 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
A~mON to BE TAKEN TO ATTAIN REQUIREMENTS
MEDIA REQUIREMENT STATUS
State Natural Resources Protection Relevant and
Act I '~'mlt by Rure Standards Appropriate
(MEDEP Regulations,
Chapter 305)
Maine Site location Relevant and
Regulations. No Adverse Appropriate
Environmental Effect
Standard of the Site location
law (38 MRSA Section 481 ~
!!g.; MEDEP Regulations
.... Chapter 375)
....
,
~
WASTE MATERIAL
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act Applicable
(16 USC 703 . 712).
REQUIREMEto- SYNOPsiS ..
This rule outlines prescribed standards for specific
activities that may take place In or adjacent to wetlands
and water bodies. Work which Involves the disturbance
of soli material adjacent to a wetland or water body must
be performed In compliance with this rule.
These regulations prohibit any development from
affecting existing uses, scenic character or existing
natural resources In or near a community. Of particular
concerns are adverse Impacts upon air quality, drainage
ways, and Infiltration relationships, erosion and
sedimentation controls, and surface water. The
regulations also prohibit excessive noise from
developments.
Prohibits hunting, possessing, killing or capturing of the
listed migratory birds, birds In danger o. extinction, and
those birds' eggs or nests.
Proposed activities involving disturbance o' soli and
discharge of treatment water, within 100 feet of the
normal high water line will be designed to Incorporate
the applicable standards.
The standards outlined In the regulations will be
considered In the remedial design.
long-term Impac1s will not result. Operation and
maintenance activities (e.g., mowing) will be delayed
until after the ground nesting migratory bird breeding
season Is over each year. The soil cover will be planted
with native grasses.
Notes:
ARAR
CFR
CWA
MEDEP =
MRSA
USC
USEPA
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Code of Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Maine Revised Statues Annotated
United States Code
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
TABLE 11-2
ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs, CRITERIA, ADVISORIES, AND GUIDANCE
LANDFILL, AIR, WETlANDS AND WASTE MATERIAL
au 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
MEDIA
.... ...
.. ACTiONJ9 i.~ TAI(~tO ATTAIN REQuU'EMENTS
REQtJi~",~.
STATUS
ReQy":te...EHT $'ffloPSIS
AIR
State
.....
.....
~
Federal
Guidance and
Criteria To Be
Considered
WASTE MATERIAL
Federal
Maine Air Pollution Control
Laws. Establishment of Air
Quality Regions (38 MRSA,
Section 583; MEDEP
Regulations, Chapter 114)
Maine Ambient Air Quality
Standards (38 MRSA,
Section 584; MEDEP
Regulations, Chapter 110)
Maine Air Pollution Control
Laws. Maine emission
Ucense Regulations
(38 MRSA Sections 585, 590;
MEDEP Regulations, Chapter
115)
Clean Air Act (40 CFR 60)
New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) (Proposed
Subpart WWN, 56 FR 24468 .
24528)
RCRA . Identification and
Usting of Hazardous Wastes
(40 CFR 261)
Applicable
Relevant and
Appropriate
Relevant and
Appropriate
To Be Considered
Relevant and
Appropriate
loring AFB Is In the Aroostook Air
Quality Region.
This Chapter establishes ambient air
quality standards that are maximum
levels of a particular pollutant
permitted in the ambient afro The
standards for particulate matter Is
150 /l9/ml. 24-hour average
concentration.
Requires new sources of air emissions
to demonstrate that ita emissions do
not violate ambient air quaflty
standards. New sources must meet
preccnstructlon monitoring and post.
construction monitoring requirements.
Requires Best Demonstrated
Technology (BDT) for new sources, and
sets emissions limitations. Proposed
Subpart WWW seta a performance
standard for non-methane organic
compounds (NMOC) emissions of
150 megagrams per year or 167 tons
per year for existing municipal solid
waste landfills.
Defines those wastes that are subject
to regulations as hazardous wastes
under 40 CFR Parts 124, 264. 265. 124,
270. and 271.
Remedial actions will be designed In accordance with
this standard. Air emissions from landfill waste will not
result In the degradation of the area air quality
classification.
This standard will be applied to excavation activities
performed at the site as part 01 the remedial action. The
remedial action will be performed in compliance with this
standard.
Remedial action will be evaluated in accordance with
monitoring requirements.
These standards should be considered In the design 01 a
landfill gas management system to monitor post-closure
of landfill gases.
Analytical results were evaluated against the criteria and
definitions of hazardous waste. The criteria and
definition of hazardous waste will be referred to and
utilized in development 01 remedial alternatives and
during remedial actions.
w0079446.T11/1
-------
continued
G
TABLE 11.2
ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs, CRITERIA, ADVISORIES, AND GUIDANCE
LANDFIll., AIR, WETlANDS AND WASTE MATERIAL
OU 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
MEDIA
-
-
I
VI
REQUIREMENT
RCRA Subtitle C
Requirements (40 CFR 264)
RCRA Subtitle C, Subpart B -
General Facility Standards
(40 CFR 264.10 - 264.18)
STATtlS
Relevant and
Appropriate
Relevant and
Appropriate
RCRA Subtitle C, Subpart C - Relevant and
Preparedness and Preparation Appropriate
(40 CFR 264.30 - 264.37)
RCRA Subtitle C, Subpart D -
Contingency Plan and
Emergency Procedures
(40 CFR 264.50 - 264.56)
RCRA Subtitle C, Subpart F -
Releases from Subtitle C
Solid Waste Management
Units (40 CFR 264.90 -
264.109) .
RCRA Subtitle C, Subpart G -
Closure and Post-Closure {40
CFR 264.110 - 264.120)
Relevant and
Appropriate
Relevant and
Appropriate
Relevant and
Appropriate
~~~I"EIA~kf:$~SUi.'
Outlines specifications and standards
for design, operation, closure and
monitoring of performance for
hazardous waste storage, treatment
and disposal facilities.
General requirements regarding waste
analysis, security, training, Inspections,
and location applicable to a facility
which stores, treats or disposes of
hazardous wastes (a TSDF facility).
Requirements applicable to the design
and operation, equipment, and
communications associated with a
TSDF facility, and to arrangements with
local response departments.
Emergency planning procedures
applicable to a TSDF facility.
This regulation details groundwater
monitoring requirements for hazardous
waste treatment facilities. The
regulation outlines general
groundwater monitoring standards, as
well as standards for detection
monitoring, compliance monitoring and
corrective action monitoring.
This regulation details gensral
requirements for closure and post-
closure of hazardous waste facilities,
Including Installation of a groundwater
monitoring program.
. '."
. ~~,~t9..~~ T~)() ATTAiN.REQUiREMENTS
Substantive RCRA requirements will be met and adhered
to on-site.
This regulation may be applicable to remedial actions
which address a waste which Is a listed or characteristic
waste under RCRA and constitute current treatment,
storage, or dlsposel as defined by RCRA.
This regulations may be applicable to remedial actions
. which address a waste which Is listed or characteristic
waste under RCRA and constitute current treatment
storage, or disposal as defined RCRA.
This regulation may be applicable to remedial actions
which address a waste which Is a listed or characteristic
waste under RCRA and constitute current treatment,
storage, or disposal as defined by RCRA.
long-term groundwater monitoring Is Included as a
component of remedial alternatives In a separate
operable unit. Because the remedy at au 2 Is an Interim
action, groundwater monitoring requirements will not be
complied with In the operable unit. At the conclusion of
the entire remedial action for the Site, howevsr, the
action will comply with remedial requirements.
Cap design, monitoring and maintenance will meet
regulatory requirements.
-------
continued
TABLE 11-2
ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs, CRITERIA, ADVISORIES, AND GUIDANCE
LANDFILL, AIR, WETlANDS AND WASTE MATERIAL .
au 2 RECORD OF DECISION
loRING AIR FORCE BASE
MEDIA
>-'
>-'
I
0\
State
REQUIREMENT ..
RCRA Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDRs) (40 CFR
Part 268) ,
ST~rotJ ..
Applicable
RCRA Proposed Amendments To Be Considered
for Landfill Closure
(52 FR 8712)
Maine Hazardous Was1e
Management Rules -
Identification and Ustlng of
Hazardous Wastes (MEDEP
Regulations, Chapters 800,
801)
Maine Solid Waste
Management Rules - landfill
Disposal Regulations (MEDEP
Regulations, Chapters 400
and 401)
Relevant and
Appropriate
Relevant and
Appropriate
~f!qyl"~~tft'Vrf9P~IS .
Land disposal of RCRA hazardous
waste Is restricted without specified
treatment. For the LDRs to be
applicable, It must be determined that
the waste meets the definition of one
of the specified restricted wastes and
remedial action constitutes placement.
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.
Provides an option for the application
of alternate closure and post-closure
requirements based on a consideration
of site-specific conditions Including
exposure pathways of concern.
These rules set forth Maine's
definitions and criteria for establishing
whether waste materials are hazardous
and subject to associated hazardous
waste regulations.
Chapter 401 specifies closure and
post-closure maintenance requirements
for solid waste landfills. The landfill
expansion requirements within these
chapters are not ARARs relating to the
use of excavated materials from other
operable units as subgrade fill.
... . .... ...
.. ~c,:fI~!9ISJt~T9A'rrAIN REQUiREMENTS
Waste materials from separate operable units will be
evaluated to determine whether the waste Is hazardous.
" so, the materials will not be placed under the au 2
cover systems, or will be treated In accordance with LDAs
prior to disposal at au 2. .
Cap and post-closure monitoring will be designed taking
Into account exposure pathways of concern.
These regulations supplement RCRA requirements.
Those state criteria and definitions more stringent than
RCRA take precedence over federal requirements.
The design of the solid waste cover system will be
constructed to meet the minimum standards and
specifications of Section 401.7(c).
WOO79446.T11/3
"
-------
continued
(0
TABLE 11-2
ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs, CRITERIA, ADVISORIES, AND GUIDANCE
LANDFIu., AIR, WETlANDS AND WASTE MATERIAL .
au 2 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
MEDIA
. REQUIR~M~.
STATUIiS.
... . . .
)~t:rl~ TO ..~ I~ 19 ~Tf~IN REQUII~EMENTs
. ."..
hR~9YIR.~E.t#$~$I~ .
Maine Hazardous Waste
Management Rules (MEDEP
Regulations'; Chapters 802,
850. 856. and 857)
Relevant and
Appropriate
Maine Hazardous Waste
Management Rules (MEDEP
Regulations, Chapter 854)
Relevant and
Appropriate
~
~
~
STATE
Guidance and' Maine Criteria and Clean-up
Criteria To Be Levels for Petroleum-
Considered Contaminated Soli
To Be Considered
The rules provide a comprehensive
program for handling, storage, and
recordkeeplng at hazardous waste
facilities. They supplement the RCM
regulations. Regulations psrallellng
RCM requirements Identified above
would pertain to the final remedy
Implemented at au 2.
This regulation details groundwater
monitoring requirements for hazardous
waste facilities. The regulation outlines
general groundwater monitoring
standards, as well as standards for
detection monitoring, compliance
monitoring, and corrective action
monitoring.
This guidance sets forth solis cleanup
levels for petroleum contaminated solis
based on total petroleum hydrocarbon
(TPH) content.
State requirements more stringent than federal
requirements will take precedence. At the completion of
the remedial action for this operable unit, these remedial
standards will be met.
Long-term groundwater monitoring Is Included as a
component of remedial alternatives In a separate
operable unit. Because the remedy at au 2 Is an Interim
action, groundwater monitoring requirements will not be
complied with In this operable unit. At the conclusion of
the entire remedial action for each landfill. however, the
action will comply with remedial requirements.
The current TPH standards for development 01 clean-up
levels Is 20 to 50 parts per million for contaminated solis.
Notes:
BDT
CMR
CPR
CWA
FR
LDR
MEDEP
MRSA
Best Demonstrated Technology
Code of Maine Regulations
Code of Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
Federal Register
Land Disposal Restrictions
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Maine Revised Statues Annotated
w0079446. T11 /4
NMoe
NSPS
RCRA
TPH
TSDF
use
USEPA
non-methane organic compounds
New Source Performance Standards
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
total petroleum hydrocarbon
Treatment, Storage or Disposal Facility
United States Code
-------
SECTION 11
action are derived, and the specific ARARs are presented in Table 11-1. A brief
summary of the ARARs and TBCs follows.
Chemical-Specific ARARs. These ARARs are numerical values or procedures that,
when applied to a specific site, establish numerical limits for individual chemicals or
groups of chemicals. Chemical-specific ARARs are generally health- or risk-based
standards limiting the concentration of a chemical found in or discharged to the
environment. Because there are no chemical-specific ARARs pertinent to the source
control of LF:-2 and LF-3, only location- and action-specific ARARs are listed.
Chemical-specific ARARs for water will be included ,in the OU 4 RIfFS.
, Location-Specific ARARs. These ARARs represent restrictions placed on the
concentration of hazardous substances or the conduct of activities because of the
location. or characteristics of a site. Location-specific ARARs set restrictions relative
to special locations such as, wetlands, floodplains, sensitive ecosystems, as well as
historic or archeological sites, and provide a basis for assessing existing site
conditions. Location-specific ARARs for OU 2 are identified in Table 11-1.
Action-Specific ARARs. These ARARs, unlike location- and chemical-specific
ARARs, are usually technology- or activity-based limitations that direct how remedial
actions are conducted. The applicability of this set of requirements is directly related
to the particular remedial activities selected for the site. Action-specific ARARs for
OU 2 are presented in Table 11-2. It is noted that although the requirements,
standards, and regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 are not
ARARs, they will be complied with during the remedial activities at OU 2 (USEP A,
1990).
'The following is a summary of the key ARARs and material to be considered, and
how they pertain to the selected remedy:
Excavated material from other areas on lAFB will be used at OU 2 for fill material
to meet the subgrade design specifications for the OU 2 cap. At present, it is
anticipated that these other areas will include:
.
OU 7, the' Quarry site, which is the subject of separate CERCLA ROD
expected to be issued concurrently with this OU 2 ROD.
v
.
The Railroad Maintenance Site, OU 6, which was subject of a
CERCLA ROD issued in April 1994, and for which an ESD relating
WOOi9446.080 .
11-8
-------
SEcrION 11
Q
to use of the material at OU 2 is expected to be issued concurrently
with this OU 2 ROD.
.
The Coal Ash Pile, au 2A, which is the subject of a CERClA
removal action planned for the Fall of 1994.
Before such material can be used as subgrade material at OU 2, the Air Force must
comply with CERClA and the NCP for any areas which are CERCLA sites. In
addition, the Air Force must evaluate the material from these areas to determine if
, the material is hazardous and subject to the, RCRA LDR, 40 CFR Part 268, and
must demonstrate that it has complied with the procedures set forth in the LDR
Technical Memorandum (USAF, 1994). H the material is non-hazardous, it may be
used for subgrade fill at OU 2. H it is determined to be hazardous, it may not be
used for subgrade fill at OU 2 unless it is treated in accordance with the LDR
requirements prior to use as subgrade fill. .
Although OU 2 will be receiving waste material from OU 6, OU 7, and other
CERClA sites at LAFB, it is not necessary for federal or state permits to be
obtained for this remedial action. These sites may be viewed as separate facilities
as defined in CERClA i 101(9). Under the NCP, it is appropriate to aggregate
noncontiguous facilities for the purpose of a response action if the sites are related
based on the threat posed and based on geography (USEP A, 1990).
The Maine Solid Waste Management Regulations (MSWMR), Chapters 400 and 401
set forth requirements for alterations, including vertical and horizontal expansions,
to and closure of solid waste disposal sites. The use of fill material from other
operable units, including OU 7, to complete the remedial action at OU 2 does not
~ constitute a horizontal or vertical expansion of a solid waste disposal site (USEP A,
1994).
Therefore, the requirements of MSWMR Chapters 400 and 401 which relate to the
expansions of solid waste disposal sites (e.g., the bottom liner requirements of
MSWMR i401.4(C) are not applicable to this action.
Although these requirements are not applicable, they may be relevant because they
relate to the disposal of solid waste, including inert material and other solid waste
materials from other operable units, including OU 7. However, even if these
requirements are relevant, to be ARARs which must be complied with, they must
WOO79446.0s0'
7626-00
-------
SECTION 11
also be determined to be appropriate. For the reasons discussed below, these
regulations are not appropriate.
Two factors to be looked at in determining if a requirement is appropriate is (1) the
purpose of the requirement, and (2) whether another requirement is available that
more fully matches the circumstances of the site (USEP A, 1988b). The purpose of
both the RCRA Subtitle C requirements, which are ARARs for the au 2 remedial
actio~ and the requirements of MSWMR Chapters 400 and 401 which relate to
expansions of solid waste disposal sites, is to prevent hazardous wastes from other
operable units from infiltrating into the groundwater.
Because RCRA Subtitle C requirements will be equal of greater protectiveness than
the MSWMR Chapters 400 and 401 requirements concerning the expansion of solid
waste disposal sites, the MSWMR expansion regulations are not appropriate.
11.3 THE SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION IS COST-EFFECTIVE
In the USAF's judgment, the selected remedy is cost effective, (Le., the remedy
affords overall effectiveness proportional to its costs). In selecting this remedy, once
the USAF identified alternatives that were protective of human health and the
environment and that attain ARARs, the USAF evaluated the overall effectiveness
of each alternative by assessing the relevant three criteria - long term effectiveness
and permanence; r~duction in toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment; and .
short term effectiveness - in combination. The relationship of. the overall
effectiveness of this remedial alternative was determined to be proportional to its
costs. The costs of this remedial action are:
Estimated Capital Cost: $22.7 million
Estimated Operation and Maintenance Costs (net present worth): $754,000
Estimated Total Cost (net present worth): $23.4 million- .
- The net present worth is based on a 10% discount rate and 30 years of operation;
the estimated total cost includes a contingency factor.
The selection of this alternative represents a reasonable value in regard to the degree
of protectiveness offered by the alternative in comparison with the other alternative
evaluated. While the selected alternative is the most expensive alternative, it will be
the most effective alternative in limiting future leachate generation as a result of
WOO79446.080
11-10
-------
SEcrION 11
a
infiltration of precipitation and in eliminating the direct contact exposure pathway.
While the need for remediation of groundwater contamination will be evaluated on
the basis of additional site investigations within OU 4, it is anticipated that if a
remedial action is required under that operable unit, the overall effort and expense
associated with the action will be reduced if infiltration is effectively removed as a
source of leachate generation. Therefore, the capital costs associated with this
alternative may be partially offset later by a decrease in the overall costs associated
with the OU 4 remedial action.
11.4
'DIE SELECIED REMEDY UTWZES PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE
TREATMENT OR REsOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOWGIES TO THE MAxiMuM
EXTENT PRAcrICABLE
Once the USAF identified those alternatives that attain or, as appropriate, allow a
waiver of ARARs, and that protect human health and the environment, the USEP A
identified which alternative utilizes permanent solutions and alternative tteatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the. maximum extent practicable.
This determination was made by deciding which one of the identified alternatives
provides the best balance of trade-offs 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 or volume through treatment; and considered the preference for.
treatment as a principal element, the bias against off-site land disposal of untreated
waste, and community and state acceptance.
The selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs among the alternatives.
The selected remedy provides long-term protection of human health and the
environment. Deed restrictions and the post closure monitoring and maintenance
program would maintain cover system integrity over the long-term, and groundwater
monitoring would evaluate the effectiveness of the cover system for minimizing
groundwater contamination.
The selected remedy Will not reduce mobility, toxicity, or volume through treatment
of source area contaminants. However, USEP A guidance on RI/FS activities for
landfills consisting of greater than 100,000 cubic yards of \yaste recognizes that it is
almost always impractical to reduce mobility, toxicity, or volume of source area
contaminants for these sites (USEPA, 1991b), and generally that containment is the
WOO79446.080
7626-09
-------
SECTION 11
most practical alternative for these landfills. The reduction of mobility, toxicity, or
volume through treatment of contaminants in groundwater will be addressed in the
OU 4 groundwater ROD. H necessary, the reduction of mobility, toxicity or volume
through treatment of landfill gases will be addressed after construction of the LF-2
and LF-3 landfill caps. The implementation of a source control remedy should be
consistent with the appropriate long-term remedy for the landfills.
The selected remedy involves a relatively long implementation period (2.5 years), but
non-construction personnel would not have access to the site from the
commencement of construction activities.. Construction provisions would be
implemented for this alternative to rninirni7.e potential adverse impacts on worker
safety. Short-term impacts (Le., increased noise and vehicular traffic) are
unavoidable during construction. Long-term impacts from cover construction will not
occur.
The selected remedy also involves containment, an easily implementable, reliable,
and available technology. Appropriate measures will be taken during the OU 4
investigation (Le., monitoring well installation) to maintain the integrity of the
installed cover system.
The selected remedy is cost effective in that it provides a reasonable value relative
to the degree of protectiveness it offers. While it is the most expensive alternative
considered, it is the most effective alternative in limiting future leachate generation
as a result of infiltration of precipitation.
The MEDEP has reviewed the selected remedy and concurs with its selection as the
most appropriate remedy for OU 2.
Community acceptance of the selected remedy is evidenced by comments received
during the public hearings and public comment period. This comments are
addressed in the responsiveness summary attached as Appendix B.
..)
WOO79446.080
11-12
-------
SECI'lON 11
o
11.5
THE SELECTED REMEDY DOES NOT SATISFY THE PREFERENCE FOR
TREATMENT WHICH PERMANENTLY AND SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES THE .
TOXICITY, MOBILI1Y OR VOLUME OF THE HAzARDous SUBSTANCES AS A
PRINCIPAL ELEMENT
The selected remedy will not reduce mobility, toxicity, or volume through treatment
of source area contaminants as its principal element. USEP A guidance on RIfFS
activities for large landfills recognizes that it is almost always impractical to reduce
mobility, toxicity, or volume of source area contaminants for these sites (USEP A,
1991b), and generally that containment is the most practical alternative for these
landfills. The reduction of mobility, toxicity, or volume through treatment of
contaminants in groundwater will be addressed in the OU 4 groundwater ROD. If
necessary,' the reduction of mobility, toxicity or volume through treatment of landfill
gases will be addressed after construction of the LF-2 and LF-3 landfill caps. The
implementation of a source control remedy should be consistent with the appropriate
long-term remedy for the landfills.
OJ
WOO79446.080
7626-09
-------
SECI'lON 12
"
. 12.0 DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The USAF presented a proposed plan (preferred alternative) for remediation of the
Site on July 15, 1994. The Proposed Plan was presented to the public, and public
comments were considered prior to the selection of the preferred alternative. The
source control portion of the preferred alternative, Containment Using a Cover
System, included: site preparation and grading; subgrade fill material placement;
composite cover system installation; gates and warning signs installation; deed
restrictions; post-closure monitoring and maintenance; and five-year site reviews.
The following are differences between the Proposed Plan and the ROD:
.
The OU 2 Proposed Plan referred to this ROD as an interim ROD;
however, it is a Final ROD for source control.
.
Only passive gas venting was discussed in the Proposed Plan. As noted
previously, testing and evaluation are required as part of this ROD to
determine if treatment is necessary.
.
The possible need for adjacent wetlands remediation was not discussed
in the Proposed Plan. Wetlands will be addressed, as necessary, in
accordance with the OU 13 Remedial Action.
WOO79446.080
7626-09
-------
SECTION 13
u
13.0 STATE ROLE
The MEDEP has reviewed the various alternatives and has indicated its support for
the selected remedy. The MEDEP has also reviewed the RI, RA, and FFS to
determine if the selected remedy is in compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate state environmental laws and regulations. The MEDEP concurs with the
selected remedy for au 2. Documentation of this concurrence is attached as
Appendix C.
WOO79446.080
7626-09
-------
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
,) ABB-ES
ARAR
CERCLA
CFR
CPC
CSF
FFA
FFS
III
HQ
IRP
LAFB
LF-2
LF-3
MCL
MEDEP
MEG
mgjkg
mgjL
MRSA
~ MSWMR
NCP
NPL
O&M
OU
PAR
PCB
RA
ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
Code of Federal Regulations
contaminant of potential concern
cancer slope factor
Federal Facilities Agreement.
Focused Feasibility Study
hazard index
hazard quotient
Installation Restoration Program
Loring Air Force Base
Landfill 2
Landfill 3
Maximum Contaminant Level
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Maximum Exposure Guideline
milligrams per kilogram
milligrams per liter
Maine Revised Statutes Annotated
Maine Solid Waste Management Regulations
National Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
operation and maintenance
op.erable unit
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
polychlorinated biphenyl
risk assessment
WOO79446.080
-------
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
RID
RI
RME
ROD
reference dose
remedial investigation
reasonable maximum exposure
Record of Decision
SARA
SOY
SQL
SVOC
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
soil organic vapor.
Sample Quantitation Limit
semivolatile organic compound
TBC
TOC
TPH
TRC
criteria to be considered
total organic carbon
total petroleum hydrocarbons
Technical Review Committee
USAF
USEPA
p.g/L
VOC
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
micrograms per liter .
volatile organic compound
'>
WOO79446.0SO
-------
REFERENCES
"
ABB Environmental SeIVices, Inc. (ABB-ES), 1994a. "OU 2 Remedial Investigation/
Focused Feasibility Study"; Final; Installation Restoration Program; prepared
for HAZWRAP; Portland, Maine; August 1993, revised July 1994.
ABB Environmental SeIVices, Inc. (ABB-ES), 1994b. ''Landfills 2 and 3 Soil/Source
Control Operable Unit (OU 2) Proposed Plan"; Final; Installation Restoration
Program; prepared for HAZWRAP, Portland, Maine, July 1994.
~M Hill, 1984. "IRP Records Search"; Loring Air Force Base; Umestone, Maine;
January 1984.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCIA) as amended by Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) of 1986; 42 U.S.c. ~9601 et seq.
Federal Facility Agreement (FF A) Under CERCLA Section 120, The Matter of
Loring Air Force Base by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I,
State of Maine, and the U.S. Department of the.Air Force, January 30, 1991.
Long, E.R., and LG. Morgan, 1990. "Potential Biological Effects of Sediment -
Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program";
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; NOS OMA 52; March
1990 .
Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP), 1989. "Solid Waste
Management Regulations; Chapters 400-406, 408 & 409"; Bureau of Solid
Waste Management; Augusta, Maine; May 23, 1989.
O'Leary, Philip, and Patrick Walsh, 1991. "Landfill Gas: Movement, Control, and
, Uses"; Waste Age. Vol. 22. No 6.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976; 42 U.S.C. ~6901.
c,
R.F. Weston, Inc., 198.8 "IRP Phase IT Confirmation/Quantification"; Loring Air
Force Base, Limestone, Maine; January 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1980a. "Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Phthalate Esters"; Washington, DC; USEPA No. 440/5-80-067
WOO79446.080
-------
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1980b. "Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Zinc"; Washington, DC; USEP A No. 440/5-80-079
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1988a. "Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Aluminum - 1988"; Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Criteria and Standards Division; EPA 440/5-88-088; Washington, DC; August
1988. .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1988b. "CERCLA Compliance
with Other Laws"; Interim Final; USEPA/540/G-89/006; August 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1989a. "Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund"; VoL 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual; Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response; USEPA 540/1-89/001; Washington, DC;
December 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1989b. "Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund"; VoL 2, Environmental Evaluation Manual; USEP A
540/1-89/002; Washington, DC; December 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1989. "40 CFR Part 300, National
Priorities list of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Final Rule"; Federal
Register, Vol. 54, No. 223; p. 48187; November 21, 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1990. "National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (National Contingency
Plan)"; Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 300; Federal Register,
Volume 55, Number 46, pp. 8666 et seq.; March 8, 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1991a. Loring RI Report/Risk
Assessment Approach Meeting between representatives of EP A Region I,
Maine Department of Environmental Protection, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Loring AFB, HAZWRAP, ABB Environmental Services;
December 6, 19~1. .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1991b. "Conducting Remedial
Investigations/Feasibility Studies for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites";
February 1991b.
<.)
WOO79446.080
-------
REFERENCES
o
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A), 1993a. "Presumptive Remedies:
Policy and Procedures"; Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; .
OSWER Directive 9355.0-47FS; September 1993.
u.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1993b. "Presumptive Remedy for
CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites"; Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response; OSWER Directive 9355.0-49FS; September 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A), 1994. Letter from Robert Urn,
USEPA, to Nancy Beardsley, MEI;>EP, regarding the Explanation of
Significant Differences to the Record of Decision for Sites 1 and 3, Naval Air
Station Brunswick, Maine; dated May 3, 1994.
c,)
J
WOO79446.080
-------
APPENDIX A
"
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PUBLIC MEETING (JULy 26, 1994) AND
COMMENT LETfERS ON OU 2 PROPOSED PLAN
WOO79446.080
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
. 18
Q
<
CI
z 19 .
w
...
20
'"
... 21
..
,
...
en 22
23
"
24
25
File: \
P.F.
- "-',
STATE OF MAINE
CARIBOU, MAINE
AROOSTOOK, 55.
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING & HEARING
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP OF OPERABLE UNITS (OU) 2 & 7
CARIBOU
CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING
410 SWEDEN STREET
CARIBOU, MAINE
JULY 26, 1994
6:10 P.M.
ARTS
Philip R. Bennett, Jr.
Court Reporter
13 vaughn Street
Caribou, Maine 04736
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
0
<
C>
z 19
w
a..
20
1'1
-, 21
,:.
~
...
en 22
23
24
25
2
TAB L E
o F
CON TEN T S
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
PETER FORBES 3
LEO ROBICHAUD 23
DAVID STRAINGE 23
MAYNARD ST. PETER 24
PUBLIC HEARING
DANA COLEMAN
29
LEO ROBICHAUD
32
PETER FORBES
36
EXHIBITS
, .
-------
3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
"
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
~
C)
z 19
w
...
20
.,
.:. 21
<
b.
III 22
<.c
23
24
25
July 26, 1994
6:10 P.M.
PETER FORBES:
I think
we're all set to begin, so if you could find a place
down near the front here where you can see what's
going on and we'll start the program.
Some of the text
that's going to be presented might be hard to read
unless you're up close enough to see it, so that's--I'l
just warn you.
Or you could be happy just hearing
things as they're presented.
Certainly glad that you all could come.
The
purpose of tonight's meeting, we've got two documents
right now that we're presenting tonight that are in the
middle of their thirty day public review and comment
period.
You have until the end of -- of course, we'll
get into the details of how to comment on the reports
a little bit later but you're free to comment at any
time during the public comment period.
. .
What we're going to be doing/tonight is a little
bit of a presentation to give you an outline of what
is contained in the documents that are being reviewed.
As you see in the first slide that's there--it's time
for introductions.
My name is Peter Forbes.
-------
4
project manager for the Installation Restoration
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Q
<
~
z 19
~
~
20
~
N 21
<
~
~ 22
23
24
25.
Program at Loring Air Force Base.
Just briefly, the IRP, we call it, is tasked with
investigating the sites of contamination around the bas
and with putting together the projects and actually
restoring the base back to a useful purpose.
Right
now we have the purpose of restoring the property so
that it can be transferred for public use as quickly as
possible, due to the fact that we're in that closure
status.
I'll just let you know how everybody fits together
in this whole thing, the Air Force is the one that's
. in charge of the base and is in charge of the proper~.
and they're the ones that have hired me and other peopl
like me to work at the base and to monitor the program.
We have a small staff there.
We're assisted by people
that we've hired to help us because of their technical
expertise.
HAZWRAP is an acronym for the Hazardous
Waste Remedial Actions Program, which is operated under
the auspices of the Department of Energy.
And in turn
,
they have hired a local firm, 19cal for us, they're
only three hundred miles away, ABB in Portland, to
~
conduct the investigations.
The Maine Department of
Environmental Protection assists us as well.
They're
(.
-------
5
of the State, what the regulations are and what the
'"
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
c
«
" 19
z
w
Q.
20
...
N 21
<
.;.
I/) 22
23
24
25
special concerns are of the State.
They report directl
to the governor and they're represented tonight by
their project manager, Naji Akladiss.
And the US EPA
is a federal agency which is charged with environmental
restoration at different sites around the country.
And
the way they've been assisting us is helping us to gain
from their expertise and their experience in the clean
up program, the Superfund Program, and they're quite
an asset, really, to the whole program as well; bringin
in the experience that they have and assisting us in
technical reviews, the documents, and guidance as far
as what their regulations are to comply with the
federal mandates and requirements.
Tonight what we're going to do, I've got three
or four points here I want to go over in the agenda.
First, I'm just going to give you a scorecard of where
we are in the overall investigation and clean up
program.
Then we'll present the proposed clean up
plans for Operable Units Two and Seven and then we
.
have some other sites which are,not technically in
the IRP but are impacted by the clean up that we're
doing this summer and are also a part of our plan
here.
So these are sites that are contaminated with
-------
6
L~
So let's go to the next slide.
To understand the
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
o
<
0
z 19
w
~
20
~
N 21
c
~
~ 22
23
24
25
scorecard, a lot of you know the vocabulary but I
wasn't really certain who the audience was going to
be tonight.
We've got ROD's, Sites, and Operable
Units.
Sites are the smallest unit that we manage,
a discrete site, of which we have 53 sites.
Operable
Units is a management tool that we use to group sites
and sources of contamination together that makes
sense to be together because of the types of
contaminants or where they're located on the base.
These will be presented, in turn, to the public.
There
are fifteen Operable Units now. Each Operable Unit.
will lead to some sort of decision document, a Recor~
of Decision, to be preceded by a proposed plan and--
similar to what we've got tonight.
Just to let you know, what we've got tonight are
two proposed plans.
Each of these lead to a ROD for
two Operable Units and in these two Operable Units
we'll be covering three sites.
Previously we have
completed one Record of Decision and that one Operable
Unit covered six of the sites.
.
,S6 we're making some
progress here.
These are fairly significant and may be
among the most expensive of our sites.
So, Operable Unit Two is our Landfills Operable
Unit, with landfills two and three there.
-------
7
Unit Seven has the quarry site.
And we'll just go
D
2
right into the presentation here.
3
Just to get you--of course you can figure out
4
what's going on, I'm speaking from an outline here
5
that you can follow along.
The slides that we're
6
showing are actual photographs of the sites, some of
7
them which were taken recently and some which were
8
taken in the wintertime.
9
Landfill Two is located just outside of the West
10
Gate on Nebraska Road.
If you've traveled on that
11
road, it's the road that leads directly into the West
12
Gate.
It previously, before it was used as a landfill
13
was a site of a gravel mining operation.
Gravel was
14
used for the construction of the base.
It's
15
approximately nine acres and the bottom of the waste
16
may come in contact with groundwater at certain times
17
of the year.
18
Go to the next slide.
This is one of our older
o
<
~
z
~
~
19
landfills.
At any point in time we only operated a
20
single landfill for our domestic waste.
From '56
"
N
<
~
~
21
to '74, this did receive all of the domestic waste
22
from the base as well as some construction debris from
23
different projects that would have occurred during
24
that time.
And up until 1968, it would have also
25
received the operations related waste.
-------
8
wastes would be like the fuels and the oils and
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 I
16 I
17
18
a
'"
"
z 19
w
Q.
20
'"
- 21
N
<
...
II) 22
23
24
25
solvents.
Some of them, if they were flammable, may
have been used in fire training exercises or they may
have been taken to the landfill where they may have bee
burned or buried there.
There's not a lot of records
as to how the waste was handled there prior to 1968,
except to know that it was accepted practice there as
well as some of the other 'similar landfills or dumps
around the area to burn what was burnable in order to
consolidate your waste there.
It was in '68 that we
began a program where the hazardous materials from
the shops were managed in such a way that they were
not disposed of here at Landfill Two.
50 we investigated Landfill Two.
Just to lead
right into what the results were, we did find that ther
are health risks associated with exposure to the
surface soils and the sediments and the surface water
that seeps out at different times of the year from the
landfill.
Our investigations have determined that the
groundwater beneath the waste itself, actually within
,
the confines of the landfill, has/been affected and tha
we have determined that there are contaminants down-
~
gradient of the landfill that are above the federal
guidelines for safe drinking water.
We have investigated the nearest neighbors to the
-------
9
landfill and tested their drinking water and they are
D 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
o
<
0 19
z
w
~
20
~
N 21
c
~
~ 22
23
24
25
located less than a mile from the landfill on Nebraska
Road.
However, they are not directly down-gradient fro
the landfill, so it's not really anticipated that they
would have had an impact, but we have tested their well
water nevertheless as a precaution.
As far as the
groundwater investigation goes, this particular
Operable Unit is focused only on eliminating the path-
ways of exposure to the source of contaminants there at
the landfill.
The groundwater investigations have not
been completed yet, but they will be completed in the
OU4 Remedial Investigation Report, which is due in
December.
So we're not really too far away with that
investigation.
Again moving to Landfill Three, when we closed
Landfill Two, we began using Landfill Three which is
located just a bit south and east of Landfill Two.
It'
on Sawyer Road just outside the West Gate, about a half
a mile or so from the West Gate.
That was operated fro
'74 to '91 and it also is in the same area that had bee
previously mined for gravel.
It~~ a bit larger,
seventeen acres in size, though not as deep.
The groun
water there has been found to come in contact with the
bottom portions of the waste during different times of
the year as well.
-------
I
I
III I
hazardous materials at the landfills there in '68, the
2
3
4 I
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
0
«
'"
Z 19
w
Q.
20
'"
N 21
«
.;,
III 22
23
24
25
bulk of the materials that are wastes that have been
disposed of at Landfill Three are just the domestic
wastes from around the base, and each of the shops will
have a dumpster outside for emptying their garbage cans
into; banana peels and all that, but it's not
unreasonable to expect that there may be empty
containers and whatnot or partially filled containers
that may have been disposed of through that means,
especially given the types of materials that we're--or
substances that we're detecting in our investigations.
The result of the investigations are that we do --
the risk assessment does indicate that long-term
exposure to the surface soils will result in a health
risk.
I didn't write that down here, but also there ar
ecological risks that are associated with the surface
soils as well.
We do know from measuring the ground-
water that it has been impacted by the waste.
We also
know that" there have been detections down-gradient of
the landfills of contaminants above the safe drinking
.
water levels, established both by" the State and the
Federal Guidelines.
Here we have neighbors that are a little bit close
in a different direction, just south of the landfill.
-------
11
. . 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
o
<
0
z 19
w
~
20
~
N 21
~
~
~ 22
~
23
24
25
indications are that they're not directly down-gradient
and we have tested their wells as well and found them
not to be impacted by our landfills.
And similarly the investigations of the ground-
water are not yet complete, and they will be completely
presented in this Remedial Investigation Report that's
due in draft form in December.
So those of you that
are members of the Restoration Advisory Board will get
some kind of a preview of that around the wintertime.
As a result of our investigations, we did determin
that a clean up action was indicated.
These being
landfills, there are really not a lot of different
options that are open to us.
The alternatives that we
considered were to take no action--this particular -
alternative is required by law for us to consider and
to investigate.
The other option that we considered wa
to cap the landfills with a cover system that would
comply with the State of Maine and the Federal
Guidelines.
Why I have italicized there the "Presumptive
.
Remedy", there's a fairly recent approach that has been
ind1cated by the Environmental Protection Agency as
being an approach for streamlining or speeding up the
decision-making process for Superfund Sites; by
-------
1- I
Landfill Records of Decision across the country, they
2
3
4
5
~
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 I
16
17
18
c
c
~
z 19
w
~
20
~ 21
N
~
~
~ 22
23
24
25
found that the most frequent and most appropriate
remedy is to cover the landfills with a cover system
or cap them.
So there's some advantages to following
these presumptive remedy guidelines and this is what
we've chosen to do in order to streamline the docu-
mentation and the time it requires to come to a
decision at the site.
It is our recommendation that the remedy be the
landfill cover system, that is the remedy that is
recommended in the proposed plan that is under review
right now.
The reasons for that are that a cover
system will prevent people from coming in direct
contact with the waste, which was the primary exposure
route for the risk at the site.
It prevents any of
these contaminants being washed into the surface
water or ditch system and finding its way across in
any .of our surface waters in the area.
And it also
prevents the infiltration of surface water from rainfal
or snow melt, which would and has had an impact on the
.
groundwater quality beneath the landfills.
The essence of the cover system or what this
.;
remedy involves is -- I've just listed here what the
major steps are in the construction project; is to
-------
13
to slope it and create a mound shape, put the gas
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
o
<
0
z 19
w
~
20
~
N 21
<
~
~ 22
23
24
~
25
collection system and cover over the waste, put the
gates and warning signs on there.
People need to be
warned that there is a gas vent sticking up or somethin
that they shouldn't be digging for worms into.
A
deed restriction, that is limit the development of
the property.
The future owners of the property should
know that they shouldn't dig into the cover system or
do any kind of activity which would limit its
effectiveness.
And to monitor and maintain the cover
system and five years from now conduct a site review
of the site.
Some of these steps are mandatory an~
are required in order to close out the site.
What I've got next is a diagram of what some of
the different layers are in the cover system.
There's
a diagram which is in the proposed plan, if you've had
a chance to review it.
If you haven't had a chance to
review it, I do have extra copies here and you can pick
one up or take it home or whatever you want to do with
it.
Basically just to give you an idea of what the
.
landfill cover system will look l1ke, it will be
sloped so that surface water will run off.
It's not a
very steep slope, but just enough to control surface
water.
There will be grass, or native grasses, growing
-------
lot I"
the runoff of the surface water and the collection of
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
o
'"'
0
z 19
w
CI.
20
'"
- 21
N
«
I&.
1/1 22
23
24
25.
the landfill gasses and the prevention of water going
through the cap into the waste.
80 whatever is inside
there, whatever moisture is inside the waste when
it gets covered, essentially will be the--as wet as
it gets, I guess.
Let's look at the next slide, just to let you know
when things are going to happen.
Provided that this
is the decision that is arrived at, the final decision
for the site, the design for the cover system will begi
here in the summer.
The site will be prepared, or
the mound shape will be prepared, and the subgrade
" constructed with this fill and placement--or fill
material.
We'll have to clear the trees off the slte
and prepare the site for construction and bring in thes
materials.
It's intended that we'll bring in all of th
materials that we need except for minus the cover
materials, just the sheer weight of this amount of
materials is going to cause some settlement to occur an
it's our plan to have that occur over the wintertime.
80 then the cover system itself will actually be
installed next summer.
The estimated project cost is 23.4 million dollars
That's the cost that's published in the proposed plan.
':
It is an estimate.
-------
15
cost of the project.
tJ
2
What I'd like to do is move right into the next
3
proposed plan.
That really concludes that presentation
4
for that particular proposed plan and after I finish
5
the presentation, I'll entertain any questions you
6
might have.
Just moving into the Quarry Site, which
7
is Operable Unit Seven, the quarry is, as the
name
8
implies, a seven acre limestone quarry.
It's located
9
just outside the nose dock area, which is the main
aircraft parking and refueling and operations area on
10
11
the base.
It is not on any of the main roads that are
12
on the base, though, and if you haven't been given a
13
tour, you are likely not to have actually been able to
14
see the site because it would have been off limits to
15
you.
It's comprised of two different tiers.
The
16
history of the site, it had been mined at several
17
different times throughout its history. The upper tier
18
is a crescent shaped area which is pretty flat and
o
'"
"
z
w
0.
19
rocky and doesn't have very much growing in it.
About
20
two and a half acres in size.
And then the lower
C')
N
'"
~
VI
21
tier, which is a circular area.
What you're looking
22
at here in this is the lower tier, which is flooded,
23
is about two acres in size.
The upper tier--you
24
probably have your laser torch, Mike?
You know
25
where the-~there's the upper tier over there.
-------
I .
of you may have seen the site but if you haven't,
16 I
that.~
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
a
~
~
z 19
w
~
20
~
N 21
<
~
~ 22
23
24
25
pretty much what it looks like today.
The operation of the site is that it has been used
as a quarry for construction materials on the base from
the time the base construction began in '47 to the last
major construction project in 1985.
The reason it is
an IRP Site is that in the mid eighties there were
some one hundred--this is a rough number, I don't have
the final tally of drums were observed to be there and
they have been removed.
Subsequently, our
investigations have shown that they are the likely --
they were the likely source of the types of contaminant
that we're seeing there.
And what we've concentrate~.
on are the soi1s that are in the upper tier and the
lower tiers.
The actual rocks themselves look pretty
much like they've been unaffected.
The result of
the investigation is that we do expect there to be
health effects from exposure to the soils as a result
of conducting a risk assessment at the site.
Both
the upper tier and the lower tier soils have
.
What I mean by u~evenly distributed,
means that we have detections at different spots.
contaminants.
~
Within the soils there, there may be spots that have
very low levels of contaminants and some that exceed
-------
17
they're fairly widely distributed through the soils
o 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
"
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
c
<
~
z 19
w
~
20
ft
N 21
<
~
0 22
23
24
c
25
but in an uneven manner.
What those contaminants are
are semi-volatile organic compounds; the types of
compounds that are found in oils and lubricants and
so forth.
Pesticides, PCB's, and inorganics.
There's some metals which have been detected there as
well at levels that would pose a risk to the
environment.
The primary thing that we're worried about here is
that it appears that contaminants are concentrated in
that upper tier area and because of rainwater and snow
melt, they're being washed down into the lower tier
and in that lower tier, which as you can see there's
nice little wetland growing in there, but it has an
outlet there which goes into the Greenlaw Brook
Wetland, which is a much larger wetland and considerabl
more valuable.
And we've also discovered that
groundwater beneath the site here has been contaminated
with -- well, we've detected fuel, solvents and
pesticides there.
.
50 again we've seen the need'to take an action
.
here and so we assembled a study to evaluate the variou
clean up alternatives that were available to us.
Just
to go down through the list, the No Action Alternative,
-------
18
it isn't completely no action but it does involve
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 I
I
15
16
17
18
0
<
(:;)
z 19
w
Q.
20
~ 21
N
~
I&.
III 22
23
24
25
some monitoring of the site, periodic monitoring,
environmental monitoring as well as chemical monitoring
over the next thirty years or so.
That estimated
cost is nearly a million dollars for that program,
most of which are future expenses when we expect the
cost of the dollar to be, you know, --well, inflation
goes into this.
That's why the cost seems so high.
A cover system was also analyzed here.
That would
have involved excavation of the soils that are in the
lower tier.
Putting them up into the upper tier and
putting a cover over them to prevent the erosion from
the rainwater and the snow melt.
Estimated cost
there is 2.34 million dollars.
The asphalt batching
is another option, more of a treatment type option,
where you would be picking up the soils, mixing them
with asphalt and then you'd actually have a product
that you could market; use for construction or market
to the local community.
The estimated cost there was
over seven million dollars.
The other option that we con~idered was to use
-
these quarry soils as a fill material in the landfill
cover construction system.
Here what would be involved
is a little bit of timing, making sure that removal of
-------
19
construction is occurring but removing the soils from
2
o
3
4
5
6
7
. , 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
o
<
0
z 19
w
~
20
ft
N 21
<
~
~ 22
23
24
25
this particular site, placing them in the landfills
that we have at the base and covering them with that
landfill cover that was to be covering the landfill
waste.
I just have to say that this is an alternative
which is being considered but it is contingent on the
final decision to cover the landfills at Operable
Unit Two.
And the cost is nearly two million dollars
estimated cost.
So our recommendation is, actually, to use these
quarry soils as the fill material and the landfill
cover system.
The reason for that, you are going
to be able to reduce the risks at the site, will be
able to prevent direct contact with the waste.
The
waste and the contaminants will no longer be subject
to erosion into the wetland.
The migration of the
contaminants into the groundwater system will also
be eliminated by eliminating the source.
It is a
remedy which complies with all the Federal and State
regulations.
We need to make note, though, that the
wetland that is in the quarry wil~ have to be
removed or destroyed in order to implement this
remedy, as it would with all of the other remedies.
The schedule is right around the corner, that
-------
2\.
summer.
First we'll take out the larger pieces of
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
o
<
t:]
z 19
w
Il.
20
I')
- 21
.:.
~
IL
on 22
23
24
25
concrete and rubble and then we would remove the actual
soils and sediments.
We can use all of these materials
that we're removing as fill in the landfill cover
system.
It's a little bit tricky for the designers,
maybe, to handle the big pieces but it can be done.
Restoration of the wetlands will occur at--at this
point in time there isn't a schedule for that but we
do have a plan for remediating of wetlands or restoring
them as part of the overall base wetlands program.
There would be monitoring of the system throughout
the next five years to determine if the remedy has had
the desired effect.
This leads to the last slide.
I mentioned that
there were some other sites that are impacted by
these actions.
To see how they all fit together, --
provided we are able to -- that the recommended
decision becomes final to cover the landfills, and
that we choose this particular remedy for our aU7,
we see that in order to comply with the necessary
regulations we need to ~ake sure ehat -- for you that
are up on your environmental regulations, we need to
"
make sure that we don't violate the land disposal
restrictions of RCRA.
Does anyone need to know what
RCRA is?
Okay.
-------
21
~
cannot remove soil from--that has hazardous
6 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Q
<
~
z .19
w
~
20
~
N 21
<
~
~ 22
23
24
25
characteristics as defined there by RCRA.
You can't
remove anything like that from a site and then put it
back in the ground without some sort of treatment first
What we have decided to do is compare the soils that
are at the site to the RCRA hazardous characteristics.
For those soils that are not considered hazardous, we
will treat them some other--we will--those will be
eligible then for just excavation and used as sub-
grade material at the landfills.
These may be material
that may be required to be cleaned up under the IRP
program, the CERCLA--which follows the CERCLA
~rocess or any of the--some of the State clean up
programs like the underground storage tank programs.
When we have removed tanks that are out of service and
we find that there are soils that are contaminated
according to the state of Maine, and it is determined
that these soils do not exhibit hazardous
characteristics, then these soils will be used in our
landfill construction.
As a matter of fact, they would
be treated in a similar fashion by the State of Maine
if we didn't have this particular landfill available
to us at this point in time.
So where it has an impact
with some of the sites that were in the OU6 Record of
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
o
4:
I:) 19
z
uJ
0..
20
~ 21
..:.
~.
...
-------
23
treatment.
Simply an excavation from the site.
2
3
'"
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
, 19
2Q
21
22
23
24
25
LEO ROBICHAUD:
Peter, on
the previous slide at the bottom you said you're
taking some contaminated soil from underground
storage tanks and pipelines.
Could you tell us which
pipelines you're talking about?
PETER FORBES:
Actually,
now that I've looked at my list, Dave, are any of
these from pipeline projects?
DAVID STRAINGE: The only--
the pipelines are just some of the pipes associated wit
the hydrant(sic) system.
There was ?ome pipes come
up when we yanked some tanks a couple of summers ago..
PETER FORBES:
Or when
we had--.
DAVID STRAINGE:
(Un-
...
intelliq2ble)--just a little bit of distribution out
to 'the -- .
PETER FORBES:
That
consolidated stockpile there, a lot of those soils
were from a construction project,fn which a lot of
the pipes were removeq there too.
So, anyway,
there's a list of a number of the sites that are
being proposed for this action as well.
These are
-------
24 I
one of the reasons that they are found not to pose
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
'.' ~.: 19
20.
21
22
23
24
25
a risk as far as the LDR is concerned or for
CERCLA.
Actually, this concludes the presentation
that I had prepared for tonight.
I know that there may
be people that have questions and certainly I'll either
answer the question or refer you to a more appropriate
expert.
One thing I will let you know, too, though is
that if you have come with prepared formal comments,
you should give them at the time we're prepared to
receive the comments.
Which I don't know if we can
accelerate that or not.
Yes, Mr. St. Peter.
MAYNARD ST. PETER:
(Away
from any micrpphone)
I have a couple of questions,
Peter.
The pile of rubble out on the .end of
Penns~vania Avenue, will that be added to this OU?
PETER FORBES:
Is it a
pile of rubble approximately --
MAYNARD ST. PETER:
Yeah.
PETER FORBES:--twenty or
thirty feet tall with a tarp over it?
MAYNARD/ST. PETER:
Yeah.
PETER FORBES:
Yes.
Did
I neglect to mention that one?
MAYNARD ST. PETER:
Well, .
-------
25
either of those two--.
(y
2
PETER FORBES:
Okay.
Well,
3
it's not--.
4
MAYNARD ST. PETER: (Un-
5
intelligible)--would be included in this --.
6
PETER FORBES:
In the sub-
7
grade fill, you're right.
We do plan to have that
8
used there in the sub-grade fill.
9
MAYNARD ST. PETER:
(Un-
10
intelligible).
11
PETER FORBES:
These are
12
petroleum compounds as well, similar to our underground
13
storage tank.
This was a result of that construction
14
project when we changed the refueling system out in
15
the nose dock area in the eighties.
Mid eighties.
And
16
they were tested for volatile organic compounds and
17
if they exceeded a certain level, then they would
18
have -- they were stockpiled in this area.
They have
o
"
'"
z
UJ
Q.
19
been tested since they were piled up there and it's
20
found that a lot of--as you might expect, a lot of
<')
N
"
a:.
III
21
the organics have decreased in concentration.
What
22
we'~e seeing is still some of the heavier fraction of
23
the fuels that is still remaining there.
24
MAYNARD ST. PETER:
Can you
~/
25
-------
I.
2b I
PETER FORBES: We're
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
o
<
C)
z 19
u.I
a..
20
~ 21
,.:.
«
~
en 22
23
24
25
estimating around forty thousand cubic yards.
Can
everyone hear your questions?
I think so.
MAYNARD ST. PETER:
On OU2,
the gas venting system, how many pipes are we going
to have sticking out of the ground?
PETER FORBES:
How many?
That's a good question.
I don't know if 1--.
DENIS ST. PETER:
The
number will be propposed in the remedial design.
PETER FORBES:
The design
will specify that.
I know that we have a minimum
distance or maximum distance, rather, that there
will be.
Actually, we have someone here that's
reviewed the design, don't we?
Do you remember how
many there are, Harrison?
HARRISON BISPHAM:
No, 1--.
PETER FORBES:
No?
HARRISON BISPHAM:
It's
changed a lot since I reviewed the design.
,
DENIS sT. PETER:
They're
under design right now, Maynard.
And it's ten to
twenty.
MAYNARD ST. PETER: All I'm
-------
27
and will they be protected from somebody running into
v
2
it on a snowmobile, let's say.
If somebody does
3
hit that?
Will it come up to that (unintelligible).
4
(UNKNOWN PERSON):
I don't
5
think so.
I think that they'll be obvious features
6
of the terrain.
And it would be like hitting a tree.
7
MAYNARD ST. PETER:
Well,
8
you know, snowmobiles have been known to do that.
9
(UNKNOWN PERSON):
Yes,
10
I know.
11
DENIS ST. PETER:
I
12
think that's a detail that will be worked out
13
apparently in the--when we finalize the design.
14
And in the feasibility study, the design does not
15
actually get down to that level.
16
DAVID STRAINGE: Maynard,
17
we hear exactly what you're saying and we will talk
18
to the design engineers about that issue.
Q
«
"
z
w
Q.
19
MAYNARD ST. PETER:
I had
20
one more question on the material that you'll be
I't
..
«
.;.
(j)
21
.
hauling in there this summer to put on OU2 is going
22
.
to weigh quite a bit and we had discussed that, --
(,
23
PETER FORBES:
That's
24
right.
25
-------
I .
2v
2
water coming up through to meet it and you were
going to eievate it high enough so that it wouldn't.
3
PETER FORBES:
Right.
4
MAYNARD ST. PETER:
Will
5
there be enough settling of that material so that it
6
might reach that?
(Unintelligible)
7
PETER FORBES:
That's a
8
good observation, I think~
There is certainly going
9
to be some settling that will occur and some of the
1U
settling will be because of the wastes that are there
11
now will have a lot more weight on top of them and
12
will get compressed.
I don't think -- well, of course,
13
we have people that are modeling that sort of thing
14
but it's been our instruction to the designers that
15
we need to have any of this soil that comes in in areas
16
that are not going to settle so much that they would
17
come in contact with the water.
The investigation of
18
water system as well shows that, yes, there is water
o
.
~
z
w
~
19
coming into the very bottom of the waste also but I
20
don't think it's coming anywhere near the--even to
~
N
c
~
~
21
,
the lowest parts of the landfill right now.
So, no,
22
I don't think--I understand your concern but I think
23
that we're taking the necessary steps to prevent
24
that from occurring.
If you want more detail or
25
-------
29
with the State of Maine and has had a chance to look
>
2
at our design and has looked at designs, a lot of
3
different landfill cover systems, as well.
Has
4
offered to discuss anything with you.
5
Well, if there aren't any other questions, we
6
can take a break and we'll prepare the area for
7
the public hearing portion and you're welcome to
8
mingle and then reassemble at 7:15 sharp.
9
DAVID STRAINGE: Let's take
10
at least five minutes here.
After consulting with
"
my legal staff, we can open the hearing early.
We'll
12
have to maintain it open after the 7:15 period but I
13
know some of you have brought statements and we don't
14
need to keep you here until 7:15 just to--so why don't
15
we all stand up, stretch for five minutes and then
16
perhaps as early as 7:00 o'clock we'll open the formal
17
hearing portion, take any statements, if some of
18
you want to get home.
o
<
~
z
w
~
19
RECESS
20
PUBLIC HEARING
~
N
<
~
~
21
7:10 P.M.
22
DANA COLEMAN:
Good evening.
,,-
23
My name is Dana Coleman and I will be the presiding
24
officer for tonight's meeting.
This hearing is being
25
-------
I .
30 )
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
o
<
~
z 19
w
~
20
~
N 21
<
~
~ 22
23
24
25
Liability Act as amended in 1986.
The Act requires
federal agencies on the EPA's National Priority List
to present clean up proposals to the local community fo
comment and consideration before any final clean up
decisions are made.
The purpose of tonight's hearing is to receive you
comments, suggestions and criticisms on either or both
plans.
Those of you who have not had an opportunity to
review the plans may do so at the Robert Frost Memorial
Library in Limestone or obtain a copy from Mr. Peter
Forbes before you leave ton~ght.
We also have a fact
sheet that provides a brief overview of the plan that
we handed out earlier tonight.
The meeting held earlier and this hearing are
intended to provide a continuing public forum for two-
way communications about the clean up of these Operable
Units in particular and the base's clean up program in
general.
If you are not prepared to make a statement
tonight, you may submit written comments from now until
,
August 13th to the address that is listed on the back
of the fact sheet that was handed out earlier.
We have Mr. Phil Bennett from Aroostook Legal
Reporters serving as the court reporter here tonight
-------
31
The verbatim record will become a part of the final
2
clean up plan.
The court reporter will be able to make
~
3
a complete record only if he can hear and understand
4
what you say.
With that in mind, please help enforce
5
the following ground rules.
First,' please speak only
6
after I recognize you and please address your remarks t
7
me.
If you have a written statement, you may place
8
it in the box next to the podium.
You may read it out
9
loud or you may do both.
Please speak clearly and
10
slowly into the microphone; starting with your name,
"
address, and the capacity in which you appear for.
12
For example; a public official or a designated
13
representative of a group or a concerned citizen.
This
14
will help our court reporter prepare a professional
15
transcript.
16
Before we move on to the hearing portion, one thin
17
I can't stress enough, you may have information about
18
these two operable units that is unknown to us and is
o
~
~
z
w
~
, 19
of great interest to our planners.
You have experience
20
that comes from living in this area, so the second part
~
N
~
~
~
21
of today's communication, the part that flows from
22
you 'to us, is important.
Don't hesitate to be a part
( ,
23
of these proceedings.
With that, is there anyone
24
who would like to make a p~esentation tonight?
Robichaud, would you like to please come up to the.
Mr.
~
-------
I
I
32 I
podium?
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
o
<
~
z 19
w
~
20
M
N 21
<
~
~ 22
23
24
25
LEO ROBICHAUD:
Thank
you, Dana.
My name is Leo Robichaud.
I'm the Chqirman
of the Environmental Committee of the Leaders
Encouraging Aroostook Development, who is a TAG
recipient for the Superfund Site at Loring Air Force
Base.
This committee also is a consultant to the
Loring Development Authority.
The Loring Development
Authority will review these comments at their next
meeting and approve them and submit them also.
I
already have given you a copy of my comments in the
box but I will read them for you now.
We will start
with the OU2 proposed plan.
Most of this information I'm reading was developed
by our TAG grant consultant, Mr. Craig Gendron.
I've
paraphrased it and put it under Leaders Encouraging
Aroostook Development letterhead.
.OU2 is comprised of Landfills Two and Three.
Two
soils/source control remedial alternatives were
evaluated for OU2.
The two remedies were no action and
containment via a cover system.
Only the capping alternative was shown to address
the remedial action objectives and is therefore
proposed for installation at OU2.
The five main
-------
33
Site preparation and grading, placement of subgrade
J
2
fill material, installation of cover system,
3
installation of gates and warning signs, deed
4
restrictions, post-closure monitoring and maintenance
,
5
site reviews.
6
From a soil perspective, the capping alternative
7
does seem to be consistent with the risks posed by the
8
landfill soils as identified in the RI/FFS.
While the
9
Air Force has chosen to approach soil and groundwater
10
remediation separately, the Air Force should consider
11
the following groundwater issues when completing OU4
12
13 I
field investigations and prior to " finalizing the design
of the landfill cap.
14
Saturated refuse.
From a groundwater
15
remediation perspective, saturated refuse is a key
16
technical issue.
Therefore, the characterization of
17
this condition and its implications to remedial system
18
design should be fully addressed in the OU4 RI.
Should
o
<
~
z
w
~
19
saturated refuse be encountered or anticipated, the
20
Air Force may wish to consider installing wells capable
of groundwater recovery through the refuse or perhaps
~
N
<
~
~
21
22
modifying existing wells for this purpose as part of th
23
design of the landfill cap.
Once capped, installation
24
of groundwater recovery wells through the refuse, if
required, may involve difficult engineering techniques.
\,
-------
34
Groundwater recharge basins.
As the recharge of
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
o
<
0
z 19
w
~
20
~
- 21
N
<
~
~ 22
23
24
25 .
collected precipitation from the capped areas through
recharge basins will certainly impact groundwater
hydraulics, their location may become an important
design consideration for groundwater remediation.
Therefore, proposed recharge basin areas should be
sufficiently characterized prior to completing the
design of the landfill cap such that they are not
located in areas which may deleteriously affect ground-
water remediation..
Compliance boundary.
As part of the design for
OU2, the Air Force should identify the compliance
.boundary for groundwater beneath each landfill.
Should the groundwater compliance boundary coincide
with the limits of the landfill cap as described in the
final RI/FFS, the installation of an active groundwater
remediation system within the compliance boundary may
be difficult.
The Air Force may wish to seek approval
for a groundwater compliance boundary some
reasonable distance from the limits of the cap to
.
,
accommodate an active groundwater remediation system
in the event that one is required.
~
That's all I have on OU2.
I have a short one on
OU7.
-------
35
includes removal of contaminated soil from the lower an
2
upper tier; use of that soil for capping materials at
3
OU2, wetland restoration, groundwater use restrictions
4
and long term environmental monitoring.
The soil
5
removed from the upper and lower tier and drainage
ditch would be used for subgrade material for the cap 0
6
7
the OU2 Landfills.
8
In general, we concur with this approach with the
9
cautions outlined below.
10
In addition to being productive environments for
11
plant and animal species, wetlands provide a natural
12
bio-remediation system for attenuation and remediation
13
of many contaminants.
Wherever possible, these systems
14
should be minimally disturbed.
15
During soil removal in all areas, attention to
16
erosion and runoff must be strictly watched to avoid
17
excessive siltation of the remaining wetland area.
18
The delineation soil sampling task will be very
Q
<
"
z
W
Q.
19
important as only those soils that must be removed
20
should be removed.
Due to the sensitivity of wetland
'"
.:.
<
.;.
1/1
21
,
environments to alteration, excavation should be
22
limited to create as little disturbance as possible.
23
The soil removal/wetland restoration tasks must be
24
dovetailed 50 that only minimal hiatus remains between
1)
25
excavation-and wetland creation.
-------
3b
considerations suggest an early spring or late fall
2
timing for these events.
3
That's all I have tonight, and thank you very
4
much.
5
DANA COLEMAN:
Thank you,
6
Mr. Robichaud.
Are there any other commentors for
7
tonight?
There's one thing that I forgot to mention
8
and that is that everything tonight will be formally
9
responded to and will be part of the final plan,
10
as I said earlier, but it will be a formal response.
11
Mr. Forbes?
12
PETER FORBES:
Yes.
Ms.
13
Coleman, I'm Peter Forbes, working with the Air Fore
14
Base Conversion Agency and I have a statement that I
15
want to enter into the public record, after which I wil
16
place a written copy of "the statement into this box
17
that's down in front here.
18
The use of excavated soils and sediments from OU?
o
<
u
z
~
~
19
as fill material for the landfill cover system (QU2)
20
is subject to: (one) the Air Force's issuance of a
~
N
<
~
~
21
.
Record of Decision for OU2 which meets the requirements
22
of CERCLA and the NCP; and demonstration
23
by the US Air Force that the excavated soils from OU?
24
comply with the procedures specified within the LDR
25
Technical Memorandum dated 13 July, 1994.
-------
37
the LDR Technical Memorandum is available for review
.)
2
in the Administrative Record file for OU7.
3
DANA COLEMAN: Thank you,
4
Mr. Forbes.
If there are no more commentors, we will
5
keep the hearing open until 7:35 and take a brief
6
recess.
Correction, the hearing will stay open until
7
7:45.
8
RECESS
9
DANA COLEMAN:
It is
10
now 7:45 and the hearing is officially closed.
11
12
END OF HEARING
13
14
15
16
17
18
o
""
"
z
W
Go
19
20
C')
N
c(
k-
III
21
22
23
24
'J
-------
38
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
o
<
C)
z 19
w
0..
20
'"
,.:, 21
ct
~
II) 22
23
24
25
C E R T I F I CAT ION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT the foregoing is a true and
correct transcript of the record of proceedings held
on the afore-designated hearing date.
V~ft j2. ~ttL~
Phil~p R Bennett, Jr.,'
Court Reporter
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
OU2 & OU7 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING AND HEARING
CARIBOU CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS
CARIBOU, MAINE
-------
OU2IOU7 Proposed Plans
Public Meetings
26 July 1994
,)
Introduction
. Installation Restoration Program (IRP)
. Role of Air Force, Maine DEP, EPA, HAZWRAP, ABB, Public
. Agenda
. Scorecard
. au 2 Proposed Plan presentation
.' au 7 Proposed Plan presentation
. Sites with fuel contamination
Scorecard
. RODs, Sites and OUs
. Record of Decision (ROD) for 6 of 53 sites and 1 of 15 OUs
. Proposed Plans will lead to RODs for 3 sites in two OUs
. au 2 - Landfill '2 and Landfill 3
OU 7 - Quarry
Landfill 2 Description
. Located on Nebraska Road outside the West Gate
. Previously mined for gravel
. Approximately 9 acres in size
Groundwater may come into contact with bo~tom portions of the waste
Landfill 2 Operations
. Operated from 1956 to 1974
. Domestic waste:
COilstfl,ctioll ~ebris
Operatiuns rdated waste (c.g., fuels, oils, solve'nts, lubricants, ?aint)
Wastes were burned and buried prior until 1968
Dispusal of hazardous materials terminated in 1968
-: r
z '
Landfill 2 Investigation
Health risks expected from exposure to surface soi'ls, seeps and s~tliments
Groundwater beneatp the waste is affected
Contaminants detected above safe drinking water levels in down-gradient monitoring
wells (north and west)
. Nearest drinking water well is within one mile and is not down-gradient
-------
Landfill 3 Description
. Operated from 1974 to 1991
. Located on Sawyer Road outside the West Gate
Previously mined for gravel
. Approximately 17 acres in size
Groundwater seasonally contacts bottom portions of the waste
Landfill 3 Operations
. Domestic waste
. Small quantities of maintenance shop wastes
Landfill 3 Investigation
. Health risks expected from long term exposure to surface soils
. Groundwater beneath the waste is affected
. Contaminants above safe drinking water levels have been detected down-gradient
. Nearest drinking water wells are within one-half mile and are not down-gradient
. Groundwater investigations will be evaluated in the OU 4 report due December 1994
Cleanup Alternatives Considered
No Action
. Legally required to be considered
. Landfill cover system (cap)
. Presumptive remedy of the EP A
. Consistent with current Maine landfill closure guidelines
Air Force recommends Landfill Cover System alternative
. Direct contact with the waste is prevented
. Migration of contaminants to surface water is prevented
. Infiltration of surface water (from rain and snow melt) is prevented; which minimizes.
impacts on groundwater quality
Landfill Cover System Design
. Prepare the site for construction
Place fill material to create a mound shape
Install the cover and gas venting system
Install gates and warning signs
Limit development of the property (deed restriction)
Monitor and maintain the property
Conduct a site review in five years
j
"
Figure - Cross Section of Cover System
-------
o
Landfill Cover System Construction Schedule
. Design in summer 1994
. Site preparation in summer 1994
. Fill material placement in summer/fall 1994
Settlement of fill material in winter 1994/1995
. Installation of cover system in summer 1995
. Estimated total project cost: $23.4 million
Quarry Description
. Seven acre limestone quarry
. Located north-west of the main aircraft operations area
. Cresent shaped upper tier
. ApprDximately 2.5 acres in size
. Flat. dry. rocky. sparse vegetation
Seasonally flooded prior to 1985
Circular lower tier
. Approximately 2 acres in size
. Approximately 30 below the upper tier
. Seasonally flooded wetland area
Quarry Operation
. . Mined intermittently from 1947 to 1985
. Approximately 100 drums were observed and removed in mid 1980's from upper tier
Quarry Investigation
Human health and ecological risks are expected from exposure to soils
. Contaminants are unevenly distributed throughout soils in upper and lower tiers at
concentrations exceeding risk based limits
Soil contaminants are: semi-volatile organic compounds. pesticides. PCBs. inorganics
. Contaminants are being eroded from the upper tier to the lower tier and into the
Greenlaw Brook wetland by rain and melting snow
. Groundwater beneath the Quarry is contaminated with fuel, solvents and pesticides
"
Cleanup Alternatives Considered
. Minimal No-Action
Includes environmental monitoring and site reviews for thirtY...years
. Estimated total pI:oject cost: $928,000 .
Cover System
Estimated total project cost: $2.34 million
Asphalt Batching
Estimated total project cost: $7.59 million
. Use of Quarry Soils as Fill for Landfill Cover System.
. . Estimated total project cost: $1.85 million
. Contingent on decision to cover landfills (aU 2 ROD)
-------
Air Force Recommends Use of Quarry Soils as Fill for Landfill Cover System
Direct contact with waste is prevented after removal
. Migration of contaminants to surface water and wetlands is eliminated
Migration of contaminants to groundwater is eliminated
. Complies with state and federal regulations (subject to au 2 ROD)
Destruction of Quarry wetland is necessary to prevent impacts to the larger Greenlaw
Brook wetland
Quarry Cleanup Schedule
Prepare the site in summerl994
. Remove large pieces of concrete and rubble in summer 1994
. Remove upper and lower tier soils and drainage ditch sediments in sununer 1994
. Use contrete, rubble, soils and sediments as fill in landfill cover system construction
. Wetlands restoration within five years
. Environmental monitoring for five years
Other Sources of Fill Material for Landfill Cover System
. Use of soil as fill material must not violate the Land Disposal Restrictions of RCRA
. LDR states that soils with hazardous characteristics as defined by RCRA may not
be placed in the ground without treatment
Soils that remain on-site may pose an enviromental or health risk without
exhibiting hazardous characteristics
. LDR technical memorandum is available for review in the Admin Record
Soils from au 6 ROD previously agreed with the state of Maine
Soil from the Railroad Maintenance Site (OU 6)
Requires an Explanation of Significant Differences to the OU 6 ROD
. Soil and Coal Ash from the area adjacent to Landfill 3
. Petroleum contaminated soil from UST and pipeline removals
Chart of Fill Material Descriptions and Quantities
.,
-------
'. -:. ...
File: .
P.F.
TO:
AFBCA/OL-M
PO BOX 523
LIMESTONE ME
04750-0523 '
. -;.--.'} .i." / .1
LEO J ROBICHAUD <---::::>s- /:-; .('7- <-c:: /~4'"
CHAIRMAN ENVIRONMENTAL e0MMITTEE OF L.E.A.D.
T.A.G. Recipient
,)
FROM:
DATE:
July 26, 1994
RE:
REVIEW OF FINAL O.U. 2 PROPOSED PLAN
OU 2 (Landfill Soils/Source Control) is comprised of Landfills 2
and 3, or LF-2 and LF-3, respectively. Two soils/source control
~emedial'alternatives were evaluated for OU 2. The two remedies
were:
*
No action; and
*
Containment via a cover system (i.e., capping).
Only the capping alternative was shown to address the remedial
action objectives and is therefore proposed for installation at
oU 2. The five main components of the capping alternative are
shown below.
* Site Preparation and Grading
* Placement of Subgrade Fill Material
* Installation of Cover System
* Installation of Gates and Warning Signs
* Deed Restrictions
* Post-Closure Monitoring and Maintenance
* Site Reviews'
From a soil perspective, the capping alternative does seem to be
consistent with the risks posed by the landfill soils as
iden~ified in the RI/FFS. While the Air Force has chosen to
approach soil and groundwater remediation separately, the Air
Force should consider the following groundwater issues when
completing OU 4 field investigations and prior to finalizing the
design of the landfill cap: .
* Saturated Refuse
From a groundwater remediation perspective, saturated refuse is a
key technical issue. Therefore, the characterization of this
condition and its implications to remedial system design should
be fully addressed in the OU 4 RI. Should saturated refuse be
encountered or anticipated, the Air Force may wish to cons~der
installing wells capable of groundwater recovery (for water table
depression) through the refuse or perhaps modifying existing
wells for this purpose as part of the design of the landfill cap.
Once capped, installation of groundwater recovery wells through
the refuse, if required, may involve difficult engineering
-------
* Groundwater Recharge Basins
~
As the recharge of collected precipitation from the capped areas
through recharge basins will certainly impact groundwater
hydraulics, their location may become an important design
consideration for groundwater remediation. Therefore, proposed
recharge basin areas should be sufficiently characterized prior
to completing the design of the landfill cap such that they are
not located in areas which may deleteriously affect groundwater
remediation.
* Compliance Boundary
As part of the design for au 2, the Air Force should identify the
compliance boundary for groundwater beneath each landfill (LF-2
a~d LF-3)'. Should the groundwater compliance boundary coincide
with the limits of the landfill cap as described in the Final
RI/FFS (i.e., the limits of waste), the installation of an active
groundwater remediation system (if required) within the
compliance boundary may be difficult. The Air Force may wish to
seek approval for a groundwater compliance boundary some
reasonable distance from the limits of the cap to accommodate an
active groundwater remediation system (i.e., groundwater recovery
and treatment) in the event that one is required.
-------
.:;
c
"
File:
P.F.
'". ~.'
TO:
AFBCA/OL-M
PO BOX 523
LIMESTONE ME 04750-0523
7
:> ~.. I'
LEO J ROBICHAUD /~ //' f c..: ~'~-<--r"
CHAIRMAN ENVIRONME~AL-~COMMITTEE OF L.E.A.D.
T.A.G. Recipient
FROM:
DATE:
July 26, 1994
RE:
REVIEW OF FINAL O.U. 7 PROPOSED PLAN
In summary, the proposed plan for the Quarry site includes
removal of contaminated soil from the lower and upper tier, use
of that soil for capping materials at OU-2, wetland restoration,
groundwater use restrictions and long term environmental
monitoring. The soil removed from the upper and lower tier and
drainage ditch would be used for subgrade material for the cap on
the OU-2 Landfills.
In general, we concur with this approach with the cautions
outlined below.
..
In addition to being productive environments for plant and
animal species, wetlands provide a natural bio-remediation
system for attenuation and remediation of many contaminants.
Wherever possible, these systems should be minimally
disturbed.
..
During soil removal in all areas, attention to erosion and
runoff must be strict~y watched to avoid excessive siltation
of the remaining wetland area.
..
The delineation soil sampling task will be very important as
only those soil that must be removed should be removed. Due
to the sensitivity of wetland environments to alteration,
excavation should be limited to ~reate as ..iittle disturbance
as possible..
..
The soil removal/wetland restoration tasks must be
dovetailed so that only minimal hiatus remains between
excavation and wetland creation. Seasonal considerations
suggest an early spring or late fall timing for these
-------
File: \ --: ~:- -!
P.F.
Statement for the Record by the US Air Force
.)
1 . The use of excavated soils and sediments from au 7 as fill material for the
Landfill cover system (aU 2) is subject to:
a. the Air Force's issuance of a Record of Decision for au 2 which meets
the requirements of CERCLA and the NCP; and
b. demonstration by the Air Force that the excavated soils from au 7
comply with the procedures specified within the LOR technical
memorandum dated 13 July 1994.
.2. The LOR technical memorandum is available for review in the Administrative
Record file for au 7.
L
-------
APPENDIX B
S)
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
WOO79446.080
-------
FINAL
Loring Air Force Base
')
OU 2 AND OU 7 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 1994
Prepared for:
Air Force Base Conversion Agency
Loring Air Force Base, Maine
(207) 328-7109
Prepared by:
Service Center: Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
v
Contractor: ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
Portland, MaiJ;le I .
-------
"\./",
OU 2 AND"OU 7 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
(\
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Title
Page No.
PREFACE.... ... ............................... """""" P-1
1.0
OVERVIEW OF REMEDIAL AL1ERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN
"THE PROPOSED PLANS INCLUDING THE SELECTED
REMEDIES. . . .. . "" . .. . .. ... ... .. . . .. .. . . . . ... ...... 1-1
1.1
1.2
OU 2 ........................................... 1-1
OU 7 ........................................... 1-2
2.0
BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND
CONCERNS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-1
3.0
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING 1HE PUBUC
COMMENT PERIOD AND USAF RESPONSES. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-1
3.1
3.2
COMMENTS AND REsPONSES APPUCABLE TO OU 2 ........ 3-1
COMMENTS AND REsPONSES APPUCABLE TO OU 7 ........ 3-2
'"
'v
WOO89457.0SO
-------
v'
PREFACE
1',
The U.S. Air Force (USAF)- held a 3D-day comment period from July 15 to
August 15, 1994, to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the
Proposed Plans and other documents developed for Operable Unit No.2 (OU 2)
source control and OU 7 source control at Loring Air Force Base, Maine. These
Proposed Plans are the documents that identify remedial action objectives, evaluate
remedial alternatives, and recommend the alternatives that best meet the evaluation
criteria for these OUs. The USAF made preliminary recommendations of its
preferred alternatives for remedial actions at both OUs in Section 6.0 of the
respective Proposed Plans, which were both issued on July 14, 1994. All documents
on which the, preferred alternatives were based were placed in the administrative
record for review. The administrative record is a collection of the documents
considered by the USAF while choosing the remedial'actions for the OU 2 and OU 7
source areas. It is available to the public at the following locations:
- Robert A Frost Memorial Library
238 Main Street
Limestone, ME 04750
Air Force Base Conversion Agency
5100 Texas Road
Loring AFB, ME 04751
(207) 328-7109
The purpose of this Responsiveness Summary is to document USAF responses to the
questions and comments raised during the public comment period regarding the
proposed OU 2 and OU 7 source controls. The USAF considered all comments in
this document before selecting a final remedial alternative to address soil
contamination from OU 2 and soil and sediment contamination from OU 7.
,
u
Although OU 2 and OU 7 are separate sites at Loring Air Force Base and each will
have a separate CERCLA Record of Decision (ROD) which selects a remedial
action for each OU, the public comment periods and public meetings for these two
OUs were held concurrently because the preferred remedial actions for the two
concurrently because the preferred remedial actions for the two OUs were related.
A copy of this responsiveness summary will be included as Appendix B in the RODs
for both OU 2 and OU 7. .
\)
Installation Restoration Program
W0089457.080
P-1
-------
PREFACE
This Responsiveness Summary is organized into the following sections:
1.0
Overview of Remedial Alternatives Considered in Proposed Plans, including
the Selected Remedies. 1bis section briefly outlines the remedial alternatives
evaluated in the Proposed Plans, including the USAF's selected remedies for
au 2 and au 7.
2.0
Background on Community Involvement and Concerns. 1bis section provides
a brief history of community interest in au 2 and au 7 and concerns
regarding these areas.
3.0
Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period and
USAF Responses. This section summarizes and provides the USAF's
responses to all written and oral comments received from the public during
the public comment period.
Installation Restoration Program
WOO89457.080
P-2
-------
SECTION 1
'"
1.0 OVERVIEW OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN mE
PROPOSED PLANS INCLUDING THE SELECTED REMEDIES
The following subsections outline the selected final source control remedial
alternatives evaluated in the Proposed Plans for au 2 and au 7, respectively. The
Final Remedy for au 2 and au 7 are set forth in their respective Records of
Decision.
1.1 OU 2
Using information gathered during field investigations, the USAF identified remedial
response objectives for the source control actions at LF-2 and LF-3:
Soils /Landfill Contents
Prevent dermal contact with and ingestion
o~ contaminated landfill contents and soils
Air/Dust
Prevent the migration and inhalation of
fugitive dust and soil particles with
adhering contaminants
Landfill Gas .
Prevent inhalation and explosion of
landfill gases
Surface Water and Sediment
Prevent ingestion, adsorption, and
bioconcentration of contaminants in
surface water
Leachate
Minimize formation and migration of
leachate to groundwater and surface
waters.
Target clean-up levels for soil are set at levels that the USAF and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) considered to be protective of human
health and the environment. Mer identifying the remedial action objectives, the
USAF developed and evaluated potential remedial alternatives. The Proposed Plan
describes the remedial alternatives considered to address the contaminants of
v
Installation Restoration Program
WOO89457.080
7626-09
-------
SECTION 1
concern and the media in which they pose a threat. The Proposed Plan also
describes the criteria the USAF used to narrow the range of alternatives to one
alternative. These criteria are the same nine criteria USEP A uses to evaluate
clean-up alternatives.
The remedial action selected by the USAF to address remedial objectives at LF-2
and LF-3, Containment Using a Cover System, includes:
.
. site preparation and grading;
installation of a composite cov~r system;
installation of fences, gates and warniIig signs;
deed restrictions for the land in the vicinity" of the landfills;
post-closure monitoring and maintenance; and
five-year site reviews
.
.
.
.
".
The selected final source control remedy consists of installing a low-permeability
composite cover system over the limits of the waste at LF-2 (approximately 9 acres)
and LF-3 (approximately 17 acres). The purposes of the . cover system are to
minimize surface water infiltration through the landfilled wastes, promote drainage,
minimize surface erosion, accommodate landfill settlement, isolate landfill wastes
from direct contact, and control landfill gas. To achieve these goals, the proposed
cover system would consist of the following components from bottom to top:
.
gas-venting layer
composite hydraulic barrier layer
drainage layer
filter layer
vegetative layer
.
.
.
.
The remedial alternatives identified for implementation for the LF-2 and LF-3 source
area are described in the Remedial Investigation/Focused Feasibility Study (RI/FFS)
and the Proposed Plan for au 2.
1.2 OU 7
Using information gathered during field investigations, the USAF identified remedial
response objectives for the final source control actions at au 7:
WOO894S7.0s0"
Installation Restoration Program
7626-09
-------
v
SECTION 1
~,
.
to prevent ingestion of and dermal contact with soil by human and
ecological receptors.
.
to minimize migration of soil contaminants to groundwater.
.
to minimize migration of soil contaminants to adjacent surface waters
and sediment.
The final source control remedial action selected by the USAF to address remedial
objectives at the Quarry Site, Excavation and :Use as Subgrade Material for On-base
Landfill Cap Construction, includes: .
.
site preparation;
excavation of lower and upper tier soil and drainage ditch sediment;
use as subgrade material for on-base landfill cap construction;
wetlands restoration of the lower tier;
environmental monitoring, and;
five-year site reviews.
.
.
.
.
.
The remedial alternatives identified for implementation for the Quarry Site source
area are described in the Feasibility Study (FS) and the Proposed Plan for au 7.
u
Installation Restoration Program
WOO89457.080
1-3
-------
v
SECTION 2
\..--
2.0 BACKGROUND ON COMMUNI1Y INVOLVEMENT AND. CONCERNS
Throughout LAFB's history, the community has been active and involved to a high
level in base actiVities. The Air Force and USEPA have kept the community and
other interested parties apprised of the LAFB activities through informational
meetings, fact sheets, press releases, public meetings, site tours and open houses,
Technical Review Committee (TRC) and Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
meetings. The RAB replaced the TRC in February 1994, and is chaired by USAF
and community representatives.
A Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) between USEPA Region I, the Maine
Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP), and the USAF signed on
January 30, 1991, governs environmental activities being conducted at LAFB. The
FF A provides the framework for addressing environmental effects associated with the
past and present activities so that appropriate investigations and remedial actions are
implemented to protect human health, welfare, and the environment. Since the
signing of this agreement, lAFB has been placed on Congress' Base Oosure List and
is scheduled to be closed in September 1994. The FF A was amended in December
1993 to address base closure-related issues such as transfer of real property.
During August 1991, the lAFB Community Relations Plan (CRP) was released. The
CRP outlined a program to address community concerns and keep citizens infonned
about and involved during remedial activities. In February and March 1993, LAFB
held three public informational meetings in the towns of Limestone, Caribou, and
Fon Fairfield, respectively. The purpose of these meetings was to introduce the IRP
program to the public and respond to their questions.
On June 24, 1992, USAF made the administrative record available for public review
at the Robert A Frost Memorial Library, Limestone, Maine. A Technical Review
Committee (mC) meeting was held on September 30, 1993, to review and coriunent
on the proposed remedy for OU 2. USAF published a notice and brief analysis of
the Proposed Plans for OU 2 and OU 7 on July 13, 1994, and made the plans
available to the public. at the Robert A Frost Public Library. The administrative
record was updated on July 14, 1994 to include au 2 and OU 7 information.
u
FrQm July 15 through August 15, 1994, the USAF held a 30-day public comment
period to accept public input on the alternatives pres~nted in the RI/FFS and the
Installation Restoration Program
WOO894S7.080
2-1
-------
SECTION 2
Proposed Plan for au 2, and the FS and Proposed Plan for au 7, and on any other
documents previously released to the public. an July 26, 1993, LAFB held an .
informational meeting to discuss the results of the au 2 and au 7 RIs and the
cleanup alternatives presented in the au 2 FFS and the au 7 FS, and to present the
Air Force's Proposed Plans for au 2 and au 7. Also during this meeting, the Air
Force answered questions from the public. Immediately following the public
meeting, a public hearing was held to accept any oral comments. Based on public
coinments, the public is in agreement regarding the preferred remedial alternatives
for au 2 and au 7 as presented in the Proposed Plans.
Installation Restoration Program
WOO89457.080
7626-09
-------
SECTION 3
~
3.0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD AND USAF RESPONSES
This Responsiveness Summary addresses comments received by the USAF and
USEPA during ihe public comment period from July 15 to August 15, 1994 relative
to the Proposed Plans for both OU 2 and OU 7 at LAFB. Comments include those
received verbally during the public hearing and letters from Leaders Encouraging
, Aroostook Development (LEAD) and Caswell, Eichler & Hill. The comments and
corresponding responses are included herein.,
3.1 COMMENTS AND REsPONSES APPLICABLE TO OU 2
1.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Air Force characterize the
condition of the refuse in the OU 2 landfills to determine whether it is
saturated or not, or to what extent it is saturated.
USAF Response: Test pitting and drilling were performed in the OU 2
landfills to determine the depth of waste and groundwater levels within the
waste limits. The measurements indicate that in most locations, the waste is
above the groundwater table. Other measurements made in February and
March 1993 in the deeper parts of the landfill found groundwater up to 6 feet
into the waste. After the caps are installed, the groundwater levels under the
landfills should decrease. Piezometers are planned and groundwater levels
will be monitored both within and outside the landfills after the caps are
installed. Groundwater remediation will be addressed in a separate operable
unit, OU 4.
2.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Air Force select the location
for the groundwater recharge basins at OU 2 and sufficiently characterize the
selected areas prior to completing the design of the landfill cap such that they
are not located in areas that may deleteriously affect groundwater
remediation.
o
USAF Response: Groundwater recharge basins are no longer part of the
proposed plan. Storm water runoff will flow through earthen channels away
from the landfill caps and will flow through a'detention basin to a drainage
u
Installation Restoration Program
WOO89457.080
3-1
-------
SECl10N 3
ditch along Nebraska Road. The storm water will eventually discharge to
Wolverton Brook about a half mile northwest of the landfills.
3.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Air Force identify the
compliance boundary for groundwater beneath each landfill. and perhaps seek
approval for a compliance boundary some reasonable distance from the limits
of the landfill cap. In the event that a groundwater remediation system is
required, a compliance boundary coinciding with the limits of the landfills may
make it difficult to install a groundwater remediation system.
USAF Response: Groundwater compliance boundaries for Landfills 2 and 3
will be addressed by the OU 4 Groundwater Study in a more appropriate
manner than the au 2 source control plan. The limits of the proposed cover
system for Landfills 2 and 3 will not be impacted by the choice of a location
for a groundwater compliance boundary, nor will the proposed cover system
for Landfills 2 and 3 restrict the installation of a groundwater remediation
system should one be required in the future.
3.2 COMMENTS AND REsPONSES APPLICABLE TO OU 7
4.
Comment: One commenter requested of the Air Force that the wetlands
associated with au 7 be minimally disturbed as they provide productive
environments for plant and animal species.
USAF Response: The Air Force will take care in locating a mobilization and
staging area that will avoid impacting nearby wetlands. However, remedial
excavations for the Quarry Site will remove the emergent marsh within the
lower tier and drainage ditch areas. The lost wetlands will be replaced or
restored in accordance with a basewide restoration program that is being
evaluated as part of OU 13.
5.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Air Force pay close attention
to erosion and runoff to avoid excessive siltation in the remaining wetland
. .
area.
USAF Response: Erosion and sediment control measures, such as silt
fencing, will be installed prior to initiating excavation activities. The Air
Installation Restoration Program
WOO89457.080
7626-09
-------
SECTION 3
"
Force will perform oversight for monitoring the maintenance of erosion and
sediment control measures.
6.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Air Force conduct a careful
soil delineation sampling assessment, so that only those soils that must be
removed are removed, thus minimizing wetland disturbance.
USAF Response: To minimize wetland disturbance, the Air Force will
require soil and sediment confirmation sampling as part of the excavation
process. Samples will be analyzed t9 confirm that no soil which exceeds
target cleanup levels is left behind. .
7.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Air Force coordinate soil
. ,removal and wetland restoration tasks as much as possible so that only a
minimal hiatus remains between excavation and wetland creation.
USAF Response: The Air Force acknowledges the desire to expedite wetland
restoration following excavation. The basewide restoration program that is
being evaluated as part of OU 13 includes consideratIon of minimizing the
time to restore wetlands.
u
u
Installation Restoration Program
WOO89457.08e
3-3
-------
-
APPENDIX C
/
LE1TER OF CONCURRENCE
..;
LJ
WOO79446.080
-------
,<\\~\RONME",
<:>\ ~
~ 1"..0
~ -- ~
~~ .r.~
...' tI/I-
~ ~
STATE OF MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONME.NTAL PROTECTION
'"
.$'/: ",'-
"IE OF ",1-"
JOHN R. McKERNAN. JR.
GOVERNOR
DEBRAH J. RICHARD
ACTiNG COMMISSIO'lER
September 6, 1994
Peter Forbes
AFBCNOL-M
P.O. Box 523
Limestone, Maine
04750-0523
RE:
Loring Air Force Base Superfund Site, Limestone, Maine
Dear Mr. Forbes:
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) has reviewed the August 1994
Draft Record of Decision (ROD) regarding Landfills 2 & 3 for the Loring Air Force Base
Superfund Site located in Limestone, Maine.
Based on that draft the MEDEP concurs with the selected remedial action. The selected remedy
for au 2 as described in Section 10 of the ROD consists of a low-permeability cover system
which meets RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste landfill cap requirements, and surface and
institutional controls. The remedial action is an interim remedy that addresses source control to
reduce contamination leaching to groundwater, limit migration of liquids through the landfill,
and maintain compatibility with the final remedial measures, while OU 2 groundwater is
evaluated and final remedial alternatives are studied. The selected remedy includes the
following:
Cleanup Levels
o
A 1 x 10-6 excess cancer risk level for carcinogenic effects or a concentration corresponding to
an HI of 1 for compounds with noncarcinogenic effects is typically used to set cleanup levels.
No contaminant-specific cleanup levels have been developed for this source control remedial
alternative since the alternative addresses the landfill area as a source of contamination and the
landfill wastes were not sampled. Although soils/waste will not be removed or treated under the
selected alternative, containment technologies are generally considered appropriate for landfills
where treatment is impracticable because of the volume and heterogeneity of the waste.
Therefore, no target cleanup levels have been set for soils at the sites. Cleanup levels and
remedial alternatives applicable to groundwater/leachate will be developed as appropriate, within
the management of migration operable unit for the site (i.e., OU 4).
L
SerT.'ing Maine People t...;' Protecting Their Environment
IIUGUSTA
ST ATE HOUSE STATION 17
IIUGUSTA, MAINE 0433J'()()17
(207) 287.7688 FAX' (207) 287.7826
OFFICE LOCATEO Ar, RAY BUILDING HOSPITA. 57~EEr
~OFlTLAND
J 12 CANCO Fh-.A~
P').T,.,.O ME J4 ~ ~J
2CiJ S;'9.5JOC FAX ;21,)7. Si?6J03
BANGOR
1 06 HOGAN ROAD
BANGOR ME 04401
~207194'.4570 FAX' (207) 94'.4584
PRESQUE ISLE
1235 Ce"'TRA~ DRIVE SfC.'TNA'" PARK
PRESQUE ISLE ME ~4 769
,207) 764-Q477 FIIX ',207'1764"507
-------
Description of the Remedial Components
The following paragraphs describe the remedial alternative the USAF developed for au 2:
Containment using Cover a System. Implementation of the Selected alternative would include
the following activities:
.
Site preparation and grading;
.
Composite cover system installation;
.
G.ates and warning signs installation;
.
Deed restrictions on land in the vicinity of the landfills;
.
Post-closure monitoring and maintenance; and
.
Five-year site reviews.
Site Preparation and Grading
Prior to installation of the proposed cover system, small trees and brush would be cleared from
within the area to be covered. Subgrade soil consisting of common borrow available form local
borrow pits and from other LAFB locations (e.g., excavated soil/sediment from au 7) would
then be placed to raise the existing grade of each landfill to allow for post-construction
settlement and to provide for positive drainage. Silt fencing would be used for erosion control
purposes after placement of the subgrade material.
Composite Cover System Installation
The proposed cover system would be constructed after initial settlement occurs caused by the
weight of the subgrade soil. Cap construction would begin one construction season after
placement of the subgrade to allow sufficient time for settlement to occur.
The proposed composite cover system would consist of the following components (Figure 10-1),
from bottom to top:
.
gas-venting layer .
composite hydraulic barrier layer
drainage layer
filter layer
vegetative layer
".
.
.
.
-------
~,
A 12-inch gas-venting layer would be placed above the subgrade soil to allow for the collection
and transfer of landfill gases to a passive gas-venting system. Passive gas-venting through the
cover would occur using vertical gas-venting risers to vent gases to the atmosphere. Gas samples
will be collected from the vents and analyzed, and the results used to establish a baseline.
Follow-up sampling and analysis will be compared to the baseline so that evaluation and
recommendations concerning active gas collection systems can be made.
A composite hydraulic barrier consisting of a geosynthetic clay liner overlain by a geomembrane
layer (i.e., very low density polyethylene) would be placed above the gas-venting layer. The
composite hydraulic barrier would minimize the infiltration of water to the landfilled waste. A
24-inch drainage layer of sand would be placed above the hydraulic barrier layer to facilitate
water drainage from the top of the cover system. The drainage layer would contain collection
pipes to divert water to a detention basin located downgradient of the landfills. A 12-inch filter
layer of common borrow material would be placed above the drainage layer to prevent topsoil
from entering the drainage layer. The filter layer will also retain moisture for the upper layers.
A 12-inch layer of soil capable of supporting vegetation would be placed above the filter layer.
Gates and Warning Signs Installation
A 20-foot wide chain-link gate would be installed at the main entrance road into each landfill.
Warning signs would be posted on the gates to alert people to the location of the landfill and
cover system. The gates and warning signs would restrict vehicular access and discourage
trespassers.
Deed Restrictions on Land in the Vicinity of the Landfills
Restrictions limiting subsurface development (excavation or drilling), use of the property, and
excessive vehicular traffic (including off-road vehicles and dirt bikes) would be incorporated into
the property deed.
Post-Closure Monitoring and Maintenance
A monitoring and maintenance program is proposed. The purposes of the program are to inspect
the cover system and environmental monitoring systems and to maintain their integrity. The
monitoring program is proposed to be conducted for a 30-year period following closure in
accordance with RCRA Subtitle C standards. The program would include the following
activities:
'c>
.
inspection of the cover system, including all environmental monitoring systems, eight times
during the first year, and semiannually during the following 29 years;
, I
C
.
maintenance of the cover system, groundwater monitoring wells, gates, and access road;
-------
.
annual mowing of the grass cover (afte'r ground-nesting migratory bird breeding season is
over)
.
quarterly monitoring (i.e., sampling and analysis) of groundwater monitoring wells for
groundwater quality, and gas-venting risers for explosive gases, and visual inspection of the
landfills; and
.
quarterly inspection reports to regulatory agencies would include monitoring results and
recommendations, and would document maintenance activities.
Five- Year Site Review
The USAF will review OU 2 monitoring program data at least once every five years after the
initiation of remedial action because hazardous substances will remain on-site at levels that do
not allow for unrestricted use. This review will assure that the remedial action continues to
protect human health and the environment, assessing site condition and proposing further
actions, if necessary. .
The states concurrence in the selected remedy, as described above, should not be construed as the
State's cdncu.rrence with any conclusions of law or findings of fact which may be set forth in the
Record of Decision (Explanation of Significant Difference). The State.reserves any and all rights
to challenge any such finding of fact or conclusion of law in any other context. This concurrence
is based upon the State's understanding that the MEDEP will continue to participate in the
Federal Facilities Agreement and in the review and approval of operational, design, and
monitoring plans.
The MEDEP looks forward to working with the Department of the Air Force and the USEP A to
resolve the environmental problems posed by this site. If you need additional information, do
not hesitate to contact myself or members of my staff.
Sincerely,
JJiJJ/~
Deborah N. Garrett, Acting Commissioner
Department of Environment~ Protection
pc:
Mark Hyland, MEDEP
Mike Nalipinski, EPA
Hank Lowman, BCA
ONASUPERldjp
------- |