EPA Superfimd
Record of Decision:
Otis Air National Guard
(AOC CS-1 [USCG]), MA
9/29/1995
PB95-963714
EPA/ROD/R01-95/114
March 1996
-------
INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM
RECORD OF DECISION
U.S. COAST GUARD TRANSMITTER STATION
(AOC CS-1 [USCG])
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
CAPE COD, MASSACHUSETTS
FINAL
SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
AOC CS-1 (USCG) RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section ; Title ; Page No.
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION D-l
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 1-1
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACIWITEES 2-1
2.1 LAND USE AND RESPONSE HISTORY 2-2
2.2 ENFORCEMENT HISTORY 2-2
3.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3-1
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 4-1
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5-1
5.1 SOURCE CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT 5-1
5.2 GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT 5-2
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 6-1
6.1 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ., 6-1
6.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 6-14
6.3 RISK UNCERTAINTIES AND CONCLUSIONS 6-20
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 7-1
8.0 DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 8-1
9.0 COMMONWEALTH ROLE 9-1
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
REFERENCES
W0069431.080 8886-06
-------
AOC CS-1 (USCG) RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Section Title - Page No.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDDCB - COMMONWEALTH CONCURRENCE LETTER
APPENDDCC - TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPENDDCD - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
W006W3UHO 8886-06
• •
11
-------
AOC CS-1 (USCG) RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title . Page No.
1-1 Location of AOC CS-1 (USCG) 1-2
2-1 AOC CS-1 (USCG) Site Features 2-3
W0069431.080 8886-06
ill
-------
AOC CS-1 (USCG) RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page No.
6-1 Human Health and Ecological Contaminants of Concern: Surface
Soil (0 to 2 feet) 6-2
6-2 Human Health Contaminants of Concern: Subsurface Soil (0 to
10 feet) 6-4
6-3 Groundwater Contaminants of Concern 6-6
6-4 Summary of Potential Exposure Pathways: Human Health 6-8
6-5 Exposure Parameters Digestion, Dermal Contact, and Inhalation for
Soil 6-9
6-6 Exposure Parameters Dermal Contact and Inhalation of
Groundwater for Occupational Workers 6-10
6-7 Total Site Risks Under Current Land Use 6-12
6-8 Total Site Risks Under Future Land Use 6-13
6-9 Summary of Risks to Terrestrial Vertebrates: Surface Soils (0 to 2
feet) 6-15
6-10 Hazard Indices for Terrestrial Receptors for Mean (Average-Case)
Exposure Concentrations 6-17
6-11 Hazard Indices for Terrestrial Receptors for Maximum (Worst-
Case) Exposure Concentrations 6-18
6-12 Estimation of Phytotoxicity Risk: Surface Soils (0 to 2 feet) 6-19
W0069431.080 8886-06
iv
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
The Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, lies
within the boundaries of the towns of Falmouth, Mashpee, Sandwich, and Bourne.
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Transmitter Station, designated Area of
Contamination (AOC) CS-1 (USCG) is located adjacent to the eastern boundary of
the MMR.
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This document presents the selected No Action decision for the MMR AOC CS-1
(USCG), chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. To the extent practicable, the
National Contingency Plan (NCP) was considered. The'decision to select this
remedial action is based on the administrative record file for this AOC. which was
developed in accordance with Section 113(k) of CERCLA and is available for public
review at the information repositories located at: (1) the Falmouth Public Library,
Falmouth, Massachusetts; (2) the Air National Guard (ANG) Installation Restoration
Program Office at Otis ANG Base, Massachusetts; and (3) the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) Regional Office at 90 Canal Street, Boston,
Massachusetts. The attached index (Appendix A) identifies the items in the
Administrative Record upon which the selection of a remedial action is based. The
National Guard Bureau (NGB) selected the alternative, which was approved by
USEPA. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts concurs with the selected remedial
action (see Appendix B).
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The NGB, acting as executive agent of the USCG, and USEPA, with concurrence of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, have determined that No Action is necessary
to address the contamination at AOC CS-1 (USCG). However, groundwater
monitoring will be performed at well WW-7 for a period of five years to provide
information over time on the levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) detected
in this well, and on the sporadic detection of inorganics in groundwater at this AOC,
These compounds were detected below state and federal Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs) at this site. Because the chemicals at this AOC are at concentrations
below those considered to present human health or ecological threats, no five-year
site reviews will be conducted.
W0069431.080 8886-06
D-l
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION
The NGB, USCG, and USEPA, with concurrence of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, have determined that no remedial action is necessary at AOC CS-1
(USCG). As this is a decision for No Action, the statutory requirements of
CERCLA Section 121 for remedial actions are not applicable and no five-year review
will be undertaken.
Department of Defense, NGB
By: V J*^U^L6AX^tt%^^ Date:
Donald W. Sheppei
Major General, U.S. Air Force
Director, Air National Guard
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
By: 'LVLjU ^U>?,& Date:
'Onda Murphy '
Division Director
Waste Management Division
W0069431.080 8886-06
D-2
-------
SECTION 1
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
The MMR is a National Priorities List (NPL) site. There are currently 77 areas
within the MMR that are under investigation. Some of these areas have been
grouped into operable units for remediation purposes. This Record of Decision
(ROD) describes the No Action decision for AOC CS-1 (USCG).
The MMR, which lies within the boundaries of the towns of Bourne, Falmouth,
Mashpee, and Sandwich, Massachusetts, occupies approximately 22,000 acres
(Figure 1-1) and consists of several cooperating command units: Massachusetts
ANG, Massachusetts Army National Guard (ARNG), U.S. Air Force (USAF),
Veterans Administration (VA), U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
USCG, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The USAF managed the base
until 1973, when base management was transferred to the ANG. The site is
described in more detail in the AOC CS-1 (USCG) Remedial Investigation (RI)
report (ABB Environmental Services, Inc., 1995a).
Property usage in each of the towns surrounding the MMR is primarily residential
and light industrial. The AOC lies within the upgradient capture zone for two Town
of Sandwich supply wells: Boiling Springs Well Nos. 2 and 3 (Whitman and Howard,
Inc., 1989). These wells are approximately three miles downgradient of AOC CS-1
(USCG).
W0069431.080 8886-06
1-1
-------
MUTARY
RESERVATION
ARNGFMiraRMg*
AOC CS-
IAWPENCS
POND
SPECOCLB
POND
TTHANOLE
POND
SMflVir
POND
tMSUPCC \ A l V f\ LOVELLS
POND
I LEGEND
TOWMBOUNbMY
^ BASE BOUNDARY
RUNWAY
ABB Environmental
S6fvicos. Inc.
LOCATION OF
AOCCS-1(USCG)
NOT TO SCALE
NSTA11ATION RESTORATION PROGRAM
MASSACHUSETTS MUTARY RESERVATION
RGURE1-1
WMOW10O(B)
1-2
-------
SECTION 2
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
In accordance with Section 117(a) of CERCLA, the NGB is publishing this ROD to
address public comment on the selected No Action alternative, considered for AOC
CS-1 (USCG) as the final remedy. The NGB, in consultation with USEPA,
considered public comments as part of the final decision-making process for selecting
the remedy for AOC CS-1 (USCG). This ROD summarizes results and conclusions
of the RI and the Proposed Plan.
In response to environmental contamination that has occurred as a result of the use,
handling, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials at military installations across
the United States, the Department of Defense (DoD) initiated investigation and
clean-up activities under the Installation Restoration Program (IRP). The IRP
parallels the Superfund program and is conducted in the following seven stages:
• identification of potential hazardous waste sites
• confirmation of the presence of hazardous materials at the site
. • determination of the type and extent of contamination
• evaluation of alternatives for clean up of the site in the focused
feasibility study (FFS)
• proposal of a clean-up remedy in the Proposed Plan
• selection of a remedy
• implementation of the remedy for clean up of the site
Both private sector and federal facility sites are eligible for placement on the USEPA
NPL, which is used to prioritize investigations and responses at hazardous waste sites.
The MMR was added to the NPL on November 21,1989 (USEPA, 1989). Private
sector sites placed on the NPL are eligible to receive funding from the nation's
environmental trust fund (i.e., Superfund), and are often called Superfund sites.
Federal military facilities such as the MMR receive funding from the DoD Defense
Environmental Restoration Account.
W0069431.080 8886-06
2-1
-------
SECTION 2
2.1 LAND USE AND RESPONSE HISTORY
AOC CS-1 (USCG) occupies approximately 224 acres of land adjacent to the eastern
boundary of the MMR, northeast of the ARNG exercise areas and firing ranges
(Figure 2-1). The Transmitter Station includes the main building, which houses the
generator and offices; a 4,000-gallon aboveground fuel tank; and storage sheds.
Available documentation shows that activities conducted at the Transmitter Station
that may have introduced hazardous substances to the AOC occurred from 1969 to
1975. Reportedly, these activities included the disposal of waste solvent (i.e.,
30 gallons per year of trichloroethylene [TCE]) on the ground and the reported
burial of used electrical components, including capacitors and transformers, in a
trench south of the Transmitter Building. Transformer oil, transformers, and
capacitors may have contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Drummed solvents
were stored on-site; however, the storage area has since been removed of drums and
covered by an addition to the Transmitter Building.
The original water supply well, located inside the Transmitter Building, was
abandoned due to contamination of an undocumented nature. Some rime before
April 1986, a replacement well was installed approximately 80 feet north of the
building. This replacement well is no longer used as a source of drinking water,
reportedly because of an objectionable taste; however, it does supply water for all
other uses at the building Testing of the water indicated that low levels (below state
and federal drinking water standards) of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) and inorganics
were present. However, due to the detection of contaminants in a water supply well
within a regional groundwater recharge area, the AOC received a Hazard
Assessment Rating Methodology score sufficient to qualify it for further investigation
(E.C. Jordan Co., 1986).
22 ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
The NGB has followed USEPA guidelines for most of the ERP investigations
conducted at the MMR since 1986, and for all investigations completed since 1989.
Placement on the NPL has not necessitated substantive changes in the overall
technical approach to remediation studies. However, upon fonnalization of the NPL
status, the NGB entered into an Interagency Agreement with USEPA and USCG on
July 17, 1991, to define responsibilities, documentation requirements, and future
regulatory interaction regarding remedial activities at the MMR under CERCLA
W0069431.080 888646
2-2
-------
•
TRANSFORMER
^ VAULT
I. pyff ,HVACUNrr(TYP)
1
v/%
v///
V4v,
s
&~
n
r" ' — s-1
J)
SITE LOCATION
CONCRETE PAD
-TRANSMITTER
8fL~~ -~\ BUILDING
>^j N
®J ^^v\v
®! \\
W//A
GENERATOR^ X/^
"""*• :&^
LOCATION OF FORMER — £" 'So'
TRANSFORMER PEN "- _ IVV
CURRENT WASTEx^
STORAGE AREA
FORMER STORAGE
BUILDING
&$&!
--
////,
\\
h
~ UNDERGROUND U-
XSEWAGEUNE |
^S
i
0.
1
ui i
§
* 1
I 1
1 )
/'
SEPTIC
/ .;' "SEPtk;' | '
"j ' j LEACH FIELD; ]
1
1
1
CONCRETE PAD x ^gp
STORAG" ""
SHED
r^etlE '
/
(4,000-GALLON)WrTH CONCRETE
CONTAINMENT PAD
LEGEND
CURRENT WATER SUPPLY WELL
EXISTING BUILDING
FORMER BUILDING
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
O 80 160
Jl
*-
ABB Environmental
Sen/ices, Inc.
ASEAinOWNBOVEH
tHSTALLADOH RESTORAIKM PROGRAM
MASSACHUSETTS MUTARY RESERVATION
AOC CS-1 (USCG)
SITE FEATURES
RECORD
OF
DECJSON
FIGURE 2-1
2-3
-------
SECTION 2
authority. The ANG, acting as the lead agency for the NGB is responsible for
carrying out NGB's responsibilities under the agreement
W006M31.no . 188646
-.' - .. ...... 2-4 ,;:...
-------
SECTION 3
3.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Throughout the MMR's history, community concern and involvement has been high.
The NGB and USEPA have kept the community and other interested parties
apprised of site activities through informational meetings, fact sheets, news releases,
public hearings, and Technical Environmental Affairs Committee (TEAC) meetings.
The TEAC was organized in 1986 by the NGB to provide a forum for public input
on the MMR remedial response activities. Membership on the TEAC comprises
USEPA, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP), and
representatives from local, regional, and state groups. Beginning with the October 7,
1992 TEAC meeting, members of the public could attend these bimonthly meetings.
During May 1991, an MMR community relations plan was released that outlined a
program to address community concerns and keep citizens informed and involved in
the remediation process at the MMR. In July 1994, an updated draft community
relations plan was issued to incorporate additional concerns and feedback provided
•by the community, and to document changes in NGB policy, such as the public
attendance at TEAC meetings.
In October 1993, the NGB created three Process Action Teams (PATs) to address
specific issues at the MMR: Plume Containment, Long-Range Water Supplies, and
Innovative Technologies. The PATs have representation from the community, local
business, regulatory agencies, and the NGB. A Senior Management Board was also
created to review the work of the PATs. A selectperson from each of the four towns
surrounding the MMR are among the Board members, along with the regulatory
agencies and the Adjutant General's office of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The PATs and the Board advise the NGB on IRP activities.
On April 10, 1995, the NGB made the administrative record available for public
review at NGB's IRP Office, Otis ANG Base, Massachusetts; USEPA's offices in
Boston, Massachusetts; and the Falmouth Public Library, Falmouth, Massachusetts.
The NGB published a notice and brief analysis of the Proposed Plan in the "Cape
Cod Times" and "Sandwich Broadsider" on April 6, 1995. The NGB made the RI
report and Proposed Plan available to the public at Falmouth Public Library and the
administrative records locations.
From April 11 to May 10, 1995, -the NGB held a 30-day public comment period to
accept public comments on the No Action alternative presented in the Proposed
W0069431.080 888646
3-1
-------
SECTION 3
Plan. On May 3, 1995, the NGB held a public meeting and public hearing in the
Multipurpose Room of the Forestdale Elementary School in Sandwich,
Massachusetts, to discuss the Proposed Plan and to accept any oral comments. Two
residents from the town of Sandwich attended and provided one verbal comment.
A transcript of this hearing is included as Appendix C The NGB's responses to the
comments received at the hearing and during the public comment period are
included in the Responsiveness Summary, Appendix D.
W006M31.no 88864)6
3-2
-------
SECTION 4
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
NGB and USEPA have determined that no further CERCLA action is required at
AOC CS-1 (USCG). However, groundwater monitoring will be performed at well
WW-7. Groundwater samples will be collected semiannually (spring and fall) for a
period of five years to obtain information over time on the low levels of VOCs and
inorganics detected at this AOC. Because levels of chemicals detected in the soil
and groundwater at this AOC do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or
the environment, no five-year site reviews will be undertaken.
USEPA has the authority to revisit the No Action decision even if the MMR is
removed from the NPL This could occur if future conditions indicate that an
unacceptable risk to human health or the environment would result from exposure
to contaminants at AOC CS-1 (USCG).
W0069431.080 8886-06
4-1
-------
SECTION 5
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Site investigations were conducted to characterize the nature and distribution of
contaminants at AOC CS-1 (USCG) between 1986 and 1993. Subsection 6.3 of the
Task 2-3A Site Inspection (SI) report (E.C. Jordan Co., 1989), and Sections 5.0 and
6.0 of the AOC CS-1 (USCG) RI report (ABB Environmental Services, Inc., 1995a)
provide an overview of the AOC CS-1 (USCG) environmental contamination
assessment. The significant findings of these contamination assessments are
summarized in the following subsections.
5.1 SOURCE CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT
Several source areas were investigated at AOC CS-1 (USCG), including: the
Transmitter Building former hazardous waste drum storage area, the buried fuel line
and former dumping area near the Transmitter Building, the 4,000-gallon
aboveground fuel tank, the septic leach field, the former storage building, an alleged
dump site east of the Transmitter Building, and a magnetic anomaly west of the
Transmitter Building. Surface and subsurface soil samples were collected from each
of these locations.
Compounds detected sporadically in surface and subsurface soil samples included
terrachloroethylene (PCE), xylenes. fuel-related polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), Aroclor-1260, ketones, toluene, chromium, lead, and mercury. Most of the
compound concentrations are estimated values because they were detected at or
below the laboratory detection limit.
Record Search findings (EC. Jordan Co., 1986) indicated that small volumes of waste
solvents were disposed of at scattered locations around the Transmitter Building.
Surface and shallow subsurface soils in the grassed areas surrounding the Transmitter
Building contain compounds typically associated with lawn maintenance activities,
such as pesticides and certain inorganics, but the data collected during the SI and RI
failed to identify compounds at concentrations indicative of disposal of hazardous
substances. Only one detection of a PCB, Aroclor-1260 (30 micrograms per kilogram
[/ig/kg]), was noted; widespread contamination or high concentrations of PCBs were
not detected.
W0069431.080 8886-06
5-1
-------
SECTION 5
Surface soils in the area of the septic leach field contained PCE at concentrations up
to 39 jig/kg. Because these detections were in soils above the depth of the leach
field piping, their presence is interpreted as resulting from surface disposal of
solvents in small quantities. Deeper soils in the vadose zone to the water table
(about 120 feet below ground surface [bgs]) contained only one detection of PCE,
at a concentration considered insignificant (0.06 /*g/kg). The subsurface soils were
virtually devoid of contaminants. Groundwater beneath the leach field contained no
VOC or semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) contaminants and only one
inorganic analyte, potassium, at concentrations that were above background
concentrations.
A ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey suggested the presence of buried metallic
objects approximately 100 feet southwest of the Transmitter Building. Test pits were
dug and electrical cabinets were found and removed. No hazardous materials or
PCB-containing equipment were found.
A geophysical survey of an alleged dump site north of the Transmitter Building
access road failed to detect any indication of buried metallic materials. Since no soil
staining or photoionization meter readings above background were observed, soil
samples were not collected.
Fuel-related contaminants detected in subsurface (34 feet bgs) soil samples taken
from a monitoring well (MW-4) are attributed to a leaky pipeline from the storage
tank to the building. This fuel line has since been replaced. The MULTIMED
model was used to evaluate the potential impacts of these contaminants on
groundwater (USEPA, 1991; ABB Environmental Services, Inc., 1995a). On the basis
of modeling, the contamination observed is projected to have no measurable impact
on underlying groundwater, due to naturally occurring biodegradation in the vadose
zone.
52 GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT
Shallow groundwater sampled in 1990 from seven wells at AOC CS-1 (USCG)
contained only trace levels of TCE and chloroform, both at concentrations less than
their respective federal drinking water standards of 5 micrograms per liter (/xg/L)
and 100/ig/L. Trace-level detections of 1,1,1-TCA and chloroform in 1988
groundwater samples from three monitoring wells and the on-site water supply well
have not been associated with any single source investigated. However, these
W0069431.080 88864)6
5-2
-------
SECTION 5
contaminants would not necessarily remain in sofl in detectable concentrations when
disposal ceased prior to 1976. Migration of groundwater toward the on-site water
supply well, due to pumping of this well, would only occur during extended periods
of use. Occasional lawn watering or vehicle washing may have caused contaminants
to reach the on-site water supply well due to progressive movement in the hydraulic
capture zone. Trace levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons detected in monitoring
wells MW-1 and MW-4 represent residual downgradient contamination from an
underground, leaky fuel distribution line at some unknown time in the past, or from
spills at the fuel storage tank near monitoring well MW-2.
Trace levels of TCA, TCE, and chloroform were found sporadically in groundwater
samples collected near the Transmitter Building. The detected concentrations do not
exceed federal or state MCLs. Supplemental analyses of deeper groundwater (down
to approximately 20 feet below the water table), which were performed in 1993,
detected concentrations of solvents even lower than those observed in on-site water
table wells.
W0069431.080 888646
5-3
-------
SECTION 6
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A risk assessment was conducted to estimate the probability and magnitude of
potential adverse human health and environmental effects from exposure to
contaminants associated with AOC CS-1 (USCG). The risk assessment was
conducted using a phased approach, as described in the MMR IRP Risk Assessment
Handbook (Automated Sciences Group, Inc., 1993).
6.1 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
The human health risk assessment followed a four-step process:
1. Contaminant identification, which identified those hazardous substances that,
given the specifics of the AOC, were of significant concern.
2. Exposure assessment, which identified current and future 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.
4. Risk characterization, which integrated the three earlier steps to summarize
the potential and actual carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks posed by
hazardous substances at the AOC.
Forty-four contaminants of concern (COCs) in soil and 15 COCs in groundwater,
listed in Tables 6-1 through 6-3, were selected for evaluation in the risk assessment.
These contaminants constitute a representative subset of the compounds detected at
this AOC during the SI and RI. Chemicals detected in at least one sample in each
medium have been addressed. The COCs were selected to represent potential site-
related hazards based on toxicity, concentration, frequency of detection, and mobility
and persistence in the environment. The health effects of each COC are summarized
in the AOC CS-1 (USCG) RI Report (ABB Environmental Services, Inc., 1995a).
Potential human health effects associated with exposure to the COCs were estimated
quantitatively through the development of hypothetical exposure pathways. These
W0069431.080 888646
6-1
-------
TABLE 8-1
HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
Surface Soil (O-2 feet)
AOC C8-1 (USCQ) RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
8*10~2 fowl
* -ix
SEMWOLATILE8:
•* PtMrarthmw
** M-n-butylpMMfeto
At
S
•• •
**
**
*• »-'
*•
**
PESTICIDES/PCBi:
"b*ta-BHC
** owmra-
**
OMdrin
4.4--DOE
"Endrin
Endrin MMiyd*
4.4--DOT
••EncMnlMofM
••
••
•• r-1260
FREQUENCY
OF .
i/u
1M3
1/13
3/13
1/13
1/13
t/13
2/13
2/13
1/13
1/13
1/10
1/10
2/10
2/11
2/11
W11
7/11
2/11
2/11
4/11
2/10
a/tt
1/11
2/11
4/10
a/to
2/10
MINIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
• fnuiijlMlt •'':••:-:•.<,
0.1
0.084
0.12
0.053
0.12
0.086
0.037
0.9
0.041
0.080
0.071
0.00011
O.OOOIS
0.0002
0.0001
0.00019
0.00021
0.00022
0.00011
0.00084
0.00010
0.00022
0.00021
0.0010
0.00015
0.000001
0.000097
0.019
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CQNC^NTRATjQN
• •?
O.I
0.004
0.12
0.19
0.12
O.O88
0.001
0.08
0.083
0.080
0.071
0.00018
0.00019
0.00022
0.00011
0.0013
0.022
0.0033
0.0007
0.00009
0.0089
0.0018
0.0030
0.0010
O.OOOM
000091
0.00010
0.03
0.737
0.739
0.737
0.711
0.737
0.730
0.720
0.780
0.732
0.730
0.739
0.00108
0.00101
0.00184
0410170
0.00100
0.00973
0.00324
0.00399
0.00399
000304
0.00378
0.00329
001408
000797
0.01108
0.010
0.03990
EXPOSURE
POINT
MEAN,
0.100
0.084
0.120
0.190
0.120
0.088
0.081
0.080
0.083
0.080
0.071
0.00016
0.00019
0.00022
0.00011
0.00130
0.00973
0.00324
0.00070
0.00180
O.00329
0.00100
0.00080
0.00091
0.00010
0.03000
MAXIMUM
BACKGROUND
CONCENTRATION {•)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
(continued)
TABLE 6-1
HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
Surface Soil (0-2 feet)
AOC CS-1 (USCG) RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
Surface Soil 0-2 feet
' > ; '
INORGANICS:
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium •
Copper
lead
Manganese) •
** Mercury
Selenium
Vanadium
Zlno
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION {fel
11/11
11/11
10/11
3/11
e/ii
11/11
11/11
1/11
3/11
11/11
2/11
MINIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATlbM
:- •'•'- (mq/k0)
4100
1.1
10
5.9
7.2
0.3
42
0.1
1
0.0
20
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
(ma/kfl)
13100
4.1
58.6
7.4
23.1
31
1150
0.1
1.4
20
31
•- '' •• : :••-!•'- ••:-. -
::IMEANlv
lima/kg)
0805
2.7
33.0
6.5
10.2
15.0
400.3
0.2
0.7
19.5
20.5
EXPOSURE
POINT
MEAN
(mg/ka)
0005
2.7
33.6
6.5
10.2
15.0
408.3
0.1
0.7
19.5
20.5
MAXIMUM
BACKGROUND
CONCENTRATION {a}
(mti/kirt
0930
3.6
10.4
6.8
3.2
12.05
106
0.06
0.33
13.2
19
Note*:
(a) Basewlde surface toll background concentration*.
(b) The sample set Include* data obtained during the SI (E.G. Jordan Co., 1089).
the n (E.C. Jordan Co., 1991), and a supplemental Investigation (ABB-ES, 1995a).
NA - No background data available
mg/kg — milligram* per kilogram
COC - Contaminant of Concern
• Arithmetic mean with duplicates averaged and non-detecte at 1/2 of the sample quanttatfon
limits (SQL).
*• For these substances, mean concentrations exceed maximum detected
concentration* as a result of elevated SQL*; tor these substances, maximum detected
concentration* rather than the mean concentration wlB be used In the quantitative assessment
-------
TABLE 6-2
HUMAN HEALTH CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
Subsurface Soil (O-1O feet)
AOC C8-1 (USCQ) RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
Surface St>»|0-10fe«t
VOLATILE8:
*•,
3EMIVOLAT1LE8:
** M-n-bmylpMwteto
•• r
PESTICIDES/PCBs:
" AkMn
** HaptacMorCpoxfcto
"EndMuttnl
DWdrin
** 4.4--DOE
••Endrtn
•• EndoMtwiN
** 4,4'—ODD
EmMnAktahyd*
•• EndfwutinSufet*
4,4'-ODT
*• hWhoxychtor
** ownnw-ChlordMi*
** Arodor-1260
FREQUENCY
OF,
4/1t
I/It
1/11
a/it
2/1t
2/1t
a/it
i/it
wit
1/14
1/14
W14
2/19
2/19
6/19
7/19
3/19
2/19
1/14
4/19
3/14
a/15
1/15
2/19
4/14
9/14
2/14
MINIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
0.002
0.013
0.1
0.037
0.12
0.093
0.12
0.060
0.037
0.9
0.041
0.060
0.10
0.071
0.00016
0.00019
O.OOO2
O.OOOt
0.00010
0.00021
0.00022
0.00011
0.00064
0.00011
0.00010
0.00022
0.00013
0.0010
0.00019
0.000061
0.000057
0.019
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
0.002
0.030
0.1
0.004
0.44
0.49
0.12
0.066
029
0.06
0.063
0.10
0.10
O.071
0.00016
0.00019
O.OOO22
0.00011
0.0013
O.O22
0.0033
0.0007
0.00069
0.00011
0.0065
0.0010
0.0030
0.0016
0.00060
0.00051
0.00010
0.03
0.004
0.006
0.906
0.903
0.017
O.906
0.900
0.900
0.907
0.630
0.909
0.900
0.609
O.5O7
0.00223
0.00220
O.O0215
O.OO2O2
0.00217
0.00576
0.00301
O.O0401
0.00414
0.00440
0.00443
0.00439
0.00376
0.01003
0.00002
0.01941
0.01930
0.03627
EXPOSURE
POINT ,
0.002
0.006
0.100
0.064
0.440
0.490
0.120
0.066
0290
0.630
0.063
0.160
0.100
0.071
0.00016
0.00019
0.00022
O.OOOt 1
0.00130
0.00576
0.00330
0.00070
0.00065
0.00011
0.00443
0.00100
0.00376
0.00160
0.00060
0.00051
0.00016
0.03001
MAXIMUM
BACKGROUND
CONCENTRATION {•)
* •""" ^:^:"'-A-:-->
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
(continued)
TABLE 6-2
HUMAN HEALTH CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
Subsurface Soil (0-10 feet)
AOC CS-1 (USCG) RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
Surface Soli 0-10 feet
f ••*,'•> '
CHEMICALS
INORGANICS:
Aluminum
AraanJo
Barium
Chromium
Cob.lt
Coppar
Laad
Manganaaa
** Marcury
Salanlum
Vanadium
Zlno
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION fbf
19/13
14/15
13/19
4/19
4/19
10/19
14/19
19/19
1/19
8/19
14/19
5/19
MINIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
Ong/feo)
919
0.89
2.9
2.2
1.1
3.8
0.69
11.6
0.1
1
1.7
6-4
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
/CONCENTRATION
v'vK^-fmii&fl)'"' - .
13100
4.1
588
7.4
2.7
. 23.1
31
1190
0.1
1.4
20
31
MEAN*
__Cmg/kbL:_
69122
2.3
25.9
52
2.3
8.4
122
312.9
0.3
0.0
15.5
24J
EXPOSURE
POINT
:•-,;/,: MEAN,. -:v
•'•:X: (CDfl/h9) :- : :
69122
2.3
25.9
52
2.3
8.4
122
312.9
0.1
O.6
15.5
24,6
.•.MAXIMUM
: BACKGROUND
CONCENTRATION (a}
•••' ••••- '•' (mg/kg) •'•
I960
2.3
14.7
3.9
2.6
4.3
3.7
587
0.06
0.62
1.1
3385
Note*:
(a) BaMwId* curiac* M> background conc*ntratton§.
(b) Th« Mrnipto Mt Includw data obtained during ttw 81 (E.G. Jordan Co., 1989).
ttw n (E.G. Jordan Co.. 1991), and a tupplwiMntal InvMtigalon (ABB-ES. 1995a).
NA - No badcground data avallabto
mg/kg - mitllfltmmi par kflogram
COG - Contaminant of Conoam
• Artthmrtc maan with duplicate* avmagad and non-datocto at 1/2 wrnpU quantttatlon Hmlt» (SQL).
•• For VMM •ubttanca*, maan concentration* axca*d maximum datactad ooncantratlona a* a raault
of atovmtod SQLt; (or thai* tubatanoM, maximum datactad ooncantratlonm ralhar than tha
maan oonowitratfon will b« ut«d In tha quantrtatW* aisaumant.
-------
TABLE 6-S
QROUNDWATER CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
AOC C8-1 (U8CO) RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
A- ,.r ' *,E^'.\
VOLATM.E8 (mg/L):
CNorotorra
1 1,1 — TftcMOMMttMnC
TtteNoierth«r»
8EMIVOLATILES (mg/L):
2~MMtMlprNnol
DMhy^nlMrt*
DI-n-bul(lpMtMM»
Bb(2-«th|tMXvftpr«MM*
BwnofcAdd
INOROANIC8 frig/L):
Aluminum
An«nto
BwtfhM
Copper
tMd
Vmdkm
Zkw
FREQUENCY
DETECTION1
1/14
6/14
3/14
•V?
1/7
*7
4/7
4/7
1/7
2/7
3/7
2/7
3/7
:: MINIMUM
> DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
aoo2
0.0006
aooi
0.001
0.001
aooi
aoos
aooi
2.7
14
1.6
56
3.2
S
29.4
MAXIMUM
. DETECTED .,
CONCENTRATiON
aoo2
0.002
0003
0.001
aooi
0001
aoo4
aooi
2410
3.4
2
20
S
13
36
MEAN*
0.001
aooi
aooi
aooe
0.006
0.000
0.008
ao2i
433.1
3.4
1.3
11.0
9.9
&7
1*2
EXPOSURE
POINT
MEAN '
am
0001
aooi
0001
0.001
aooi
aoo4
aooi
433.1
14
1.3
11.0
i.3
a?
1*2
MAXIMUM
, SACKQftOUND
CONCENTRATIpN*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
102
1.0
1
13.7
3.1
4
23
FEDERAL
McLa
ai1
02
aoos
—
_
aoos
—
90-2008
MR
4
1300 T
I9T
_
90008
STATE
• |iCL« ''•
at*
0.2
aoos
•
..
aoos
-
90-200*
90
4
1300
IS
_
8000
• FnquMiey - ttft*. Mhw* « - •» numbwef dtUcHom omMr IhM th» detection «ml^«ndn-
• T«nMN^ MM e*wot
a I mg/L tor « MtatanwNHnM. todudkig cMoratoim.)
NA - No background
• Aithmrtc iravi «•) duplato* wmacd md non-cM«tt rt 1/2 ttw SQL
-•NomfeM
n-UnctarnvtowbyUBEPA
T - B«wl an torimrl McMqM; W*M gkrwi to «i acton toMl
MCL - MMmumContamhMnlUml
SQL - BMiyli OuwMMton Uml
-------
SECTION 6
pathways were developed to reflect the present uses, potential future uses, and
location of AOC CS-1 (USCG). The area surrounding this AOC and off-base is
residential and light industrial. On-base property is used by the ARNG for training
exercises. The exposure pathways and scenarios evaluated in the human health risk
assessment are presented in Table 6-4. For each pathway, an average (i.e., mean)
and a reasonable maximum exposure (RME) risk was calculated corresponding to
exposure to the average and maximum concentration detected in that particular
medium. The specific exposure parameters for each receptor and exposure scenario
are presented in Tables 6-5 and 6-6. A detailed discussion can- be found in
Subsection 8.2 of the AOC CS-1 (USCG) RI Report (ABB Environmental Services,
Inc., 1995a).
Excess lifetime cancer risks were determined for each exposure pathway by
multiplying the exposure level by the chemical-specific cancer slope factor. Cancer
slope factors have been developed by USEPA 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 predicted risk.
The resulting risk estimates are expressed in scientific notation as a probability (e.g.,
.IxlO"6 for 1/1,000,000) and indicate (using this example) that an individual has a one-
in-a-million chance of developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure over 70
years to the particular compound at the stated concentration. Current USEPA
practice considers carcinogenic risks to be additive when assessing exposure to a
mixture of hazardous substances.
The hazard quotient (HQ) was also calculated for each pathway as USEPA's
measure of the potential for noncarcinogenic health effects. The HQ is calculated
by dividing the exposure level by the reference dose (RfD) or other suitable
benchmark for noncarcinogenic health effects. RfDs have been developed by
USEPA to protect sensitive individuals over the course of a lifetime, and reflect a
daily exposure level that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of an adverse
health effect. RfDs are derived from epidemiological or animal studies and
incorporate uncertainty factors to help ensure that adverse health effects will not
occur. The HQ is often expressed as a single value (e.g., 03) indicating the ratio of
the stated exposure to the RfD value (in this example, the exposure is approximately
one-third of an exposure level for the given compound for which adverse health
effects are not likely to occur). HQs are summed, resulting in a hazard index (HI)
for each pathway, if the HI is greater than 1, the predicted intake could potentially
cause adverse health effects. This determination is necessarily imprecise because the
derivation of dose-response values (i.e., RfDs) involves the use of multiple safety and
W0069431.080 8886-06
6-7
-------
TABLE 6-4
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
HUMAN HEALTH
AOC CS-1 (USCG) RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
POTENTIALLY
-EXPOSED
• POPULATION
CURRENT LAND USE
Occupational
worker
Child
trespasser
FUTURE LAND USE
Resident
Utility
worker
Occupational
worker
Child
trespasser
EXPOSURE ROUTE
AND
MEDIUM
Dermal contact and inhalation of
water vapor from groundwater
Dermal contact and ingestion of
soil; inhalation of fugitive dust
Dermal contact and ingestion of
soil; inhalation of fugitive dust
Ingestion, dermal contact and
inhalation of vapors from
groundwater
Dermal contact and ingestion of
soil; inhalation of fugitive dust
Dermal contact and inhalation of
water vapor from groundwater
Dermal contact and ingestion of
soil; inhalation of fugitive dust
REASON FOR SELECTION
Individuals are currently exposed through
showering
Area is accessible to trespassers
Future residents may contact soils if
houses are built near/on site
Future residents may contact groundwater
if houses are built near/on site
Future excavation in the area is possible
Continued future use of groundwater for
showering is possible
Area will be accessible to trespassers in
the future
6-8
-------
TABLE 6-5
EXPOSURE PARAMETERS
INGESTION. DERMAL CONTACT. AND INHALATION
IFOR SOIL
AOC CS-1 (USCG) RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
• ••: ' -• (y\-
-------
TABLE 6-6
EXPOSURE PARAMETERS
DERMAL CONTACT AND INHALATION OF QROUNDWATER
FOR OCCUPATIONAL WORKERS
AOC CS-1 (U8CQ) RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
' •. " " ^V^ ••* ,s '• - >v
PARAMETER " , s \ *<
^ '¥•- ^A X * s ' ' *
SWn Surtaca ATM ExpoMd (SA)
Volatization Factor (K)
Expotur* Frequency (EF)
Exposura Duration (ED)
Body Weight (BW)
Averaging Tuna (AT)
Cancer
Noncancar
Inhalation Rata (IRJ
l«hfc»«lM*b*«« DA*A /ID \
inhaUanlon nmn "n^^J
r-c^VAUJE8^ -
19,400
0.50
Z1l
25
70
70
25
15
0.00
UNITS
cm*
Vtrf
daysfyaar
yaan
kg
yaan
yaara
mVday
I/day
Notaa:
Sourca: MMR Risk Ataatamant Handbook (Automatad Sciancaa Group, 1993)
1 . Equal to 1 2 rrinutaa par day, 250 days par yaar.
cubic roatara
aquara cantimatara
kg *kHogram§
l«litara
m*
cm2
6-10
-------
SECTION 6
uncertainty factors. In addition, the HQs for individual compounds should be
summed only if their target organs or mechanisms of action are identical. Therefore,
the potential for adverse effects from a mixture having an HI in excess of 1 must be
assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Tables 6-7 and 6-8 summarize the total carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks for
current and future hypothetical exposure, respectively, to contaminated soil and
groundwater at AOC CS-1 (USCG). More detailed risk assessment tables are in
Subsection 8.3 of the AOC CS-1 (USCG) RI Report (ABB Environmental Services,
Inc., 1995a).
Carcinogenic risks are compared to the USEPA target carcinogenic risk range of one
in ten thousand to one in a million (IxlO"4 to IxlO"*). Noncarcinogenic risks are
compared to the USEPA target noncarcinogenic HI of 1 (USEPA 1990). Based on
the assumed receptors and current 'land use exposure scenarios to soil and
groundwater, the maximum carcinogenic risk value is approximately 4x10"*; the
maximum noncarcinogenic HI is about 0.01. Comparing these values to USEPA
target values indicates that both are at the low end or below federal and state target
risk ranges for utility worker and child trespasser scenarios.
Risk assessments for a future residential scenario predict noncarcinogenic risks
considerably less than the target risk concentration 1.0. His are approximately 0.4,
and are attributed to exposure to both soil and groundwater.
Carcinogenic risks calculated for the future residential scenario are predicted to
slightly exceed the federal target risk range of-1x10^ to 1x10^ (2x10^). The
carcinogenic risk is primarily attributed to exposure to groundwater rather than soils,
and approximately 95 percent of the groundwater risk is due to two inorganic
constituents, arsenic and beryllium.
At AOC CS-1 (USCG), there are low detections of contaminants at sporadic
locations in the soil and groundwater. Overall, estimated groundwater risks were
1.81x10-*, just above the upper end of USEPA's target risk range of Ixlfr* to IxlO"6.
If an individual were exposed to two liters -of groundwater containing the maximum
detected concentration of contaminants daily for a period of 30 years, the increased
likelihood of developing cancer would be 1.81 in ten thousand (l.SxlO"4), just slightly
higher than USEPA's target risk range. However, USEPA guidance provides that
the upper boundary of the target risk range is not a discrete line at IxlQ4 and that
risk estimates slightly greater than 1x10"* may be considered acceptable, if justified
W0069431.080 8886-06
6-11
-------
TABLE*-7
TOTAL SITE RISKS UNDER CURRENT LAND USE
AOC C8-I (U8CG) RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
O>7>^ -
Cun«nt Land U«a;
ChM Traapauar
Occupational Woritw
-
» ' ts. ~ • ' ~ --"• &\
- ~U EXPOSURE HOOTE *K *J»
Inddantal ktQaatton of 8cM
Darmal Contact wtth Sod
InhaMlon al PwHcuteto* fcom Sod
^fcs^iuii cttw T^^i.^,:
Dwnurf Contact with QroundwatM
InlMMIon al Vapor* horn Oroundwalw
•' Total Occupation*! Woik»f :
f" « -* ' '
-> MEAN CONCENTRATIONS .,,,^
hJHAZARO INDEX -
0.006
0.00004
0.00003
^^4v|fe^.o.otie
0.001
0.0003
, ".'••:/> :••-. 0.001
'^ TOTAL^y,'^
CANCEBRI3KU
2.41E-07
4.30E-OB
1.13E-09
. 'ixjfefei. 2.«*iy07
1.29E-07
2. f IE-CM
2.24E-OC
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS •
^'^4PW» :
$$•:& ::;-v>i:i?^;'::j: O.Ot
0.002
0.0005
0.002
' , , TOTAl;;^..
/ CANCER RISK
3.24E-07
4.0SE-08
I.35E-09
A .-• . ;" 3.74E-07 •
2.35E-07
4.22E-08
4.49E-06
N>
NOIM:
I. U3EPA Targat Hazard Indax - 1.0
2. USEPATaroalCancw RI«k - 1.0E-4 to 1.0E-6
-------
TABLE 6 -B
TOTAL SITE RISKS UNDER FUTURE LAND USE
AOC CS-1 (USCG) RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
RECEPTOR
Future Land Use;
Resident (soil exposure)
Resident (groundwater exposure)
Resident (total exposure)
Utility Worker
Child Trespasser
EXPOSURE ROUTE -
Incidental Ingeetlon ol Soil
Dermal Contact with Soil
Inhalation of Partlculates from Soil
•^••^^tifbUI Resident (soil):
Ingeetlon of Groundwater
Dermal Contact with Groundwater
Inhalation of Vapors from Groundwater
••^;H;fi total Resident (grbundwiirter):
Total Resident Soil
Total Resident Groundwater
, Total Resident:
Incidental Ingestlon of Soil
Dermal Contact with Soil
Inhalation of Partlculates from Soil
Total Utility Worker:
Incidental Ingeetlon of Soil
Dermal Contact with Soil
Inhalation of Partlculates from Soil
•; <%:•'•:•:•;.•;•:,?. Total Child Trespass* if: ,-iS
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
TOTAL,
HAZARD INDEX
0.03
0.0002
o.ooot
0.09
0.4
0.002
0.0004
; , ' , 0.4
0.03
0.4
, - ; * - , 'b.4
0.06
0.0003
0.00005
0.06
0.006
0.00004
0.00003
>?-§£^?:-^!?:?- 0.008
TOTAL .
CANCER RISK
4.79E-06
7.64E-07
1.96E-08
:; 5.57E-Oe
1.37E-04
2.14E-07
3.S4E-06
-r';><' j.4»Efb4
S.S7E-06
1.4tE-04
1.47E-04
7.92E-08
1.60E-08
4.82E-11
8.62E-08
2.24E-07
4.39E-08
1.13E-09
j.C;V: 2.88E-07
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS
TOTAL
HAZARD INDEX
0.05
0.0004
0.0003
0.05
0.4
0.003
0.0007
-> " "'>', , '0.4
0.05
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.0008
0.0002
0.1
0.01
o.ooot
0.00007
'"•;i:^^/:j-r--< o.oi
, TpTAyfc ,
CANCER RISK
8.44E-06
8.44E-07
2.38E-08
•';.;:V :. :-,.vT.SIE-OB;
I.73E-04
3.89E-07
7.09E-08
', " ' iiifeH>4>
7.31E-06
1.81E-04
f.88E-04
1.08E-07
1.87E-08
6.76E-I1
I.22E-07
3.24E-07
4. BSE -08
1.35E-09
';:r- " '." S.74E-07
Notes:
1. USEPA Target Hazard Index • 1.0
2. USEPA Target Cancer Risk - 1.0E-4 to 1.0E-6
-------
SECTION 6
by site-specific conditions. At AOC CS-1 (USCG), the risk estimate was
predominantly due to the presence of arsenic and beryllium in groundwater.
However, arsenic was detected in only two of seven samples, and beryllium in one
of seven samples. These compounds were present at concentrations significantly less
than their drinking water standards, and were detected at concentrations very close
to background levels.
62 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
An ecological risk assessment was performed at this AOC for terrestrial animals and
plant life (phytotoxicity). The COCs for the ecological assessment are presented in
Table 6-1. The following terrestrial model species were selected: meadow vole
(Microtus pennsylvamcus), northern short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), northern
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinaolis), and red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Risks for ecological
receptors were evaluated for exposures to contaminated surface soil, ingestion of
contaminated food items, inhalation of contaminants from surface soil, dermal
contact with surface soil, and root uptake (plants only). Exposure pathways were not
identified for groundwater or subsurface soil because terrestrial organisms are not
expected to come in contact with soil deeper than two feet below grade, and few prey
items exist in subsurface media.
Concentrations of chemicals in surface soil were compared to chemical-specific,
receptor-specific ecological toxicity benchmark values to derive HQs. The HQs for
each pathway were summed to yield a total HI for each receptor based on exposure
to mean (average case) and maximum concentrations (worst case). Table 6-9
identifies the contribution of each CPC to the HQ computed for each terrestrial
receptor. The results of the ecological risk assessment are presented -hi Tables 6-10
through 6-12. The ecological risk assessment is discussed in detail in Subsection 8.4
of the AOC CS-1 (USCG) RI (ABB Environmental Services, Inc., 1995a).
Risks to plants were estimated at about twice the level assumed to cause adverse
effects. These risks were primarily due to exposure to manganese, vanadium, and
zinc. Ecological risks calculated for the red fox were well below target risk levels.
Risks for the cardinal, the short-tailed shrew, and the meadow vole however, were
nearly two to eight orders of magnitude greater than the target risk values. These
risks were due almost entirely to lead (vole and shrew) and zinc (cardinal).
W0069431.080 888646
6-14
-------
TABL£ 6-8
SUMMARY OF RISKS TO TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES
SURFACE SOILS (0-2 toot)
AOC CS-1 (USGC) RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
CHEMICALS' '•
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS ; :
Chloroform
Tetrachloroathytana
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS
Banzo(a)anttrac«na
Banzo(a)pyrana
Benzo(b)fluoranth«n«
b!s(2-ethylhaxyl)phthalate
Butylbanzylphthalata
ChryMna
DI-n-butylphthBlat*
Dl-n-octylphthatata
Fluarantttan*
Phananthrana
Pyrana
PEBTICIDES/PCBa . • :
4.4'-DDE
4.4'-DDT
Aktln
alpha-Chlordona
Aroclor - 1260
bata-BHC
Dlaldrln
EndoauKan 1
Endoaulfan II
Endoaullan auKata
Endiln
Endrln katooa
gamma -BHC (Undana)
gamma -Chlordana
Heptnchlor Epoxlda
MethoxycHor
INDICATOR SPECIES HAZARD INDICES''"
RED FOX
MAXIMUM
0.000000002
0.000001
MEAN
0.000000002
0.0000003
MEADOW VOLE
:< MAXIMUM : ::
0.00002
0.00003
MEAN
0.00002
0.000007
SHORT -TAILED SHREW
: -MAXIMUM r
0.00002
0.0002
••- MEANr:-:v::
0.00002
0.00004
CARDINAL
MAXIMUM
0.00001
0.00002
: MEAN
0.00001
O.OOOOO4
••••.'• . • ._•..'.:.. :::•:..'•• .: . - :. ••••„., .5.5... .;..:•. . ...; •••• . ,.j :;.<:*•.:•: ••: • . . • :• ,-.•••'•• •: ..•::.:. ...:•'• >.v:'>. ' : ':.:..; ' . ' • :
0.0000003
0.000001
0.0000002
0.000002
0.000000005
0.0000002
0.00000004
0.000000007
0.00000007
0.000001
0.00000009
0.0000003
0.000001
0.0000002
0.000002
0.000000005
0.0000002
0.00000004
0.000000007
0.00000007
0.000001
0.00000009
0.0000002
0.00000005
0.0000005
0.00000007
0.000010
0.00
0.00004
0.00
0.00
0.00000003
0.00000004
0.00
0.00
0.00000002
0.000000002
0.00000006
0.0000002
0.00000004
0.0000005
0.00000007
0.000010
0.00
0.00001
0.00
0.00
0.00000003
O.OOOOOOO4
0.00
0.00
0.00000002
0.000000002
0.00000006
OOOO05
0.00009
0.00005
0.0005
0.000001
0.00004
0.000010
0.000002
0.00001
0.0004
0.00002
\ • • • • • <<<•. :
0.000003
0.0000003
0.00003
0.00001
'0.00009
0.00
0.006
0.00
0.00
0.00002
0.00003
0.00
0.00
0.000004
0.0000001
0.00001
0.00005
0.00009
0.00005
0.0005
0.000001
0.00004
0.000010
0.000002
0.00001
0.0004
0.00002
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.0001
0.009
0.002
0.0005
0.001
0.01
0.003
0.01
0.01
o.oi
0.07
0.0001
0.009
0.002
0.0005
0.001
0.01
0.003
0.0006
0.0005
0.0006
0.003
0.000005
0.0004
0.00007
0.00002
O.OOO07
0.0008
0.0001
0.0006
0.0005
0.0006
0.003
0.000005
0.0004
0.00007
0.00002
0.00007
0.0006
0.0001
0.000003
0.0000002
0.00003
0.00001
0.00009
0.00
0.002
0.00
0.00
0.00002
0.00003
0.00
0.00
0.000004
0.0000001
0.00001
0.0003
0.00006
0.008
0.002
0.02
0.00
0.5
0.00
0.00
0.0001
0.007
0.00
0.00
0.0008
0.00002
0.001
0.0003
0.00005
0.006
0.002
0.02
0.00
0.1
0.00
0.00
0.0001
0.007
0.00
0.00
0.0006
0.00002
0.001
0.00001
0.00006
0.000003
0.00002
0.00010
0.00
0.003
0.00
0.00
0.00007
O.OOO2
0.00
0.00
0.000009
0.0000009
0.0000006
0.00001
O.OOOO5
0.000003
0.00002
0.00010
0.00
0.0007
0.00
0.00
0.00007
0.0002
0.00
0.00
O.OOOOO9
0.0000009
0.0000006
P.KUHtCCMPTMU.
-------
/rnrJjf.. *
|GVJfWI1UVQ|
TABLES-*
SUMMARY OF RISKS TO TERRE8TRML VERTEBRATES
SURFACE SOILS (0-2 tort)
AOC CS-t (USGC) RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
CHEMICALS'7 •'•--,? *
WORQANICS'^'"-^^ .*.<-' '
Aluminum
ArMnte
Barium
Chromium
Copper
LMd
>lVing«n^"
Mwcury
Bttonlum
VarwdhJm
Zinc
MDICATOR SPECIES HAZARD INDICES"
RED FOX
MAXIMUM
' '" ,\ \ •• 't*'''
0.0004
0.00005
0.000006
0.0004
0.00005
0.000004
0.0006
0.00001
0.0001
0.002
0.00004
O.OW
MEAN ••
i > , ;• £,*
0.0003
0.00003
0.000004
0.0003
0.00002
0.000002
0.0003
0.00001
0.00007
0.002
0.00004
MEADOW VOLE
,- MAXIMUM •-••
!.-* S. _. ^f»<» ,-. ^
0.3
0.004
0.010
0.1
0.3
200.00
3.16
0.05
0.06
0.6
0.3
n an*.
MEAN
0.2
0.002
0.006
0.09
0.1
102.00
1.12
0.05
0.03
0.4
0.3
104.5
SHORT -TAILED SHREW
MAXIMUM -
-' MEAN -,-:.
1.03
1.90
0.006
10.6
0.06
70500
1.33
0.006
0.1
2.07
6.04
0.7
127
0.004
9.23
0.04
36000
0.6
0.006
0.06
1.39
5.75
36062
CARDINAL
MAXIMUM
" •', •
0.01
0.03
0.003
0.5
0.1
0.1
1.11
0.02
0.01
0.04
6.11
8 O1
MEAN
0.010
0.02
0.002
0.4
0.06
0.05
0.4
0.02
0.005
0.03
6.81
{ 8.80
o\
|b| Huwd Mw • Sum of HO«.
Body DoM/Bwwhnwfc DOM. HQ>1 -po^W«««hcta.HQ>10- probabto«tfactt.
-------
TABLE 6-10
HAZARD INDICES FOR TERRESTRIAL RECEPTORS
FOR MEAN (AVERAGE-CASE) EXPOSURE CONCENTRATIONS
AOC CS-1 (USCG) RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
> '- EXPOSURE PATHWAY •
Soil Ingestion
Food Chain Ingestion
Dermal Absorption
Inhalation
Receptor Sumrnarv Hazard Index
INDICATOR SPECIES HAZARD INDICES1
MEADOW VOLE
42.4
62.1
0.0002
0.000006
10450
.SHORT-TAILED
* SHREW
162.00
35900.00
0.0002
0.00001
3606Z00
CARDINAL
NE
6.80
0.00002
0.000003
6.80
RED FOX
0.003
O.OOCKX
0.0000001
0.00000001
0.003
Notes:
NE = Not Evaluated
'USEPA Target Hazard Index = 1.0
6-17
-------
TABLE 6-11
HAZARD INDICES FOR Tl
raiAL RECEPTORS
FOR MAXIMUM (WORST-CASE) EXPOSURE CONCENTRATIONS
AOC CS-1 (USCG) RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
"^'"."'"^ ..,;.'<* - ''^V ,,^'4
vM4Siv'~' * >;?^w V'**'^
" >' •" EXPOSURE PATHWAY' "" x
SON InQMtion
Food Chain IngMtion
Dtnnal Absorption
Intwtation
naopter Sumnfu^rv Hf^fd Index
?V v> " INDICATOR SPECIES HAZARD INDICES1
.>,-v5,- ^ , ..
MEADOW VOtF
82.8
122.00
0.0005
0.00001
204.60
.SHORT-TAILED
? SHREW
315.00
70200.00
0.0005
0.00002
70515.00
CARDINAL
NE
8.01
0.00002
0.000005
8.01
RED FOX
0.004
0.00007
0.0000002
0.00000002
0.004
Note
NE* Not Evaluated
HJSEPA Target Hazard Index - 1.0
6-18
-------
TABLE 6- 12
ESTIMATION OF PHYTOTOXICITY RISK
SURFACE SOILS (0-2
AOC CS-1 (USCG) RECORD OF DECISION
MASSACHUSETTS MIUTARY RESERVATION
Surface Soil 0-2 foe*
VOLATILES:
Chloroform
Tetrachloroelhene
SEMIVOLATILES:
Phenanthrene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrtn«
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
PESTICIDES/PCBs:
Aldrin
DieWrin
4,4'-DDE
Endrin
4.4--DDT
gamma — Chlordane
INORGANICS:
Arsenic
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper,
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
fma/ka)
0.002
0.039
0.1
0.064
0.12
0.15
0.088
0.061
0.66
0.089
0.071
0.00022
0.022
0.0033
0.0007
0.0039
0.00019
4.1
7.4
2.7
23.1
31
1150
0.1
1.4
29
31
EXPOSURE
POINT
MEAN |a]
fnra/ko)
0.002
0.010
0.100
0.064
0.120
0.150
0.088
0.061
0.660
0.089
0.071
0.00022
0.00573
0.00324
0.00070
0.00325
0.00019
2.7
6.5
2.2
10.2
15.9
408.3
0.1
0.7
19.5
29.5
PHYTOTOXICnY
BENCHMARK
VALUE Ibf
fma/kai
4.200
15.700
128
14819
128*
128 •
128*
128 •
14
128 •
128 •
0.2
66
3200000
21904
50
19854
20
75
25
60
100
1500
0.3
5
50
70
MAXIMUM
HAZARD
QUOTIENT fc]
0.0005
0.002
0.0008
0.000004
0.0009
0.001
0.0007
0.0005
0.05
0.0007
0.0006
0.001
0.0003
0.000000001
0.00000003
0.00006
0.000000010
0.2
0.10
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.4
MEAN
HAZARD
QUOTIENT fcl
0.0005
0.0006
0.0008
0.000004
0.0009
0.001
0.0007
0.0005
0.05
0.0007
0.0006
0.001
0.00009
0.000000001
0.00000003
0.00007
0.000000010
0.1
0.09
0.09
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.4
^ARD INDEX rdl«; •••••-•^..••v.^^-i-isV:-.. .;•-•• 3.57 ^v.r-^r • x2.25 • •'
Notes;
[a] Lesser of maximum detected concentration and mean concentration.
[b] Phytotoxicrty Critical Soil Concentration (From RAH [Automated Sciences Group. 1993] Appendix O. Tables O-3 and
0-4).
[c] Hazard Quotient - concentration/benchmark. HQ>1 « poss&le effects, HQ>10 - probable effects.
{d] Hazard Index - sum of HQs.
je] The sample set includes data obtained during the SI (EC. Jordan Co., 1989). and previous Rl« (EC. Jordan Co.. 1991 and
ABB Environmental Services, Inc.. 1995a).
• Critical Soil Concentration of phenanthrene used as surrogate.
mg/Vg - milligrams per kilogram
6-19
-------
SECTION 6
Lead was observed at a maximum concentration of 31 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg). The background concentration of lead in outwash sands at the MMR is
12 mg/kg, and is 10 to 70 mg/kg in sandy soils across the United States. The
ecological risks calculated for background lead concentrations are up to four orders
of magnitude above the target risk level Zinc was detected in only two surface soil
samples, at a maximum concentration of 31 mg/kg. The background concentration
for zinc is 16 mg/kg at the MMR and 5 to 164 mg/kg across the United States. A
comparison of the benchmark values with other available toxicity data demonstrated
that the selected benchmark values are conservative and may have overestimated
risks to ecological receptors by as much as five orders of magnitude (Subsection 8.4
of the AOC CS-1 (USCG) RI Report, ABB Environmental Services, Inc., 1995a).
Ecological risks at the AOC CS-1 (USCG) are comparable to those that would be
calculated using typical concentrations found in sandy soils'across the United States.
6J RISK UNCERTAINTIES AND CONCLUSIONS
Risk estimates are subject to a wide variety of uncertainties. Risk assessments do not
calculate absolute risks, but rather provide conservative analyses to evaluate the
potential for adverse impacts. In most risk assessments, uncertainties tend to err on
the side of conservatism. Therefore, the calculated risks usually provide an upper
bound of risks which may be encountered at the AOC. Actual risks will probably be
much lower than these calculated risks. There are uncertainties involved in adding
risks from individual chemicals to estimate total risks. Many individual chemicals act
through different mechanisms on different target organs; therefore, the risks are not
necessarily additive.
In selecting benchmark values, the lowest toxicity value reported in available
literature was selected. Often these conservative values result in an overestimation
of ecological risk.
USEPA has a CERCLA mandate to manage risk resulting from actual or potential
exposure to hazardous substances. USEPA's target cancer risk range resulting from
exposure to a hazardous substance is 1x10"* to 1x10**. Non-carcinogenic risks with
His below 1 are also considered acceptable. USEPA's decision as to whether action
is warranted when the cancer risk range is not exceeded is based upon site-specific
conditions.
WD069431.080 888646
6-20
-------
SECTION 6
Analytical data collected during the SI and RI have adequately characterized surface
soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater quality at the AOC CS-1 (USCG). These data
suggest that widespread disposal of hazardous substances has not occurred on-site.
Human health risks were evaluated for exposure to surface soil, subsurface soil, and
groundwater. Carcinogenic risks associated with the future resident (1.8x10"*) slightly
exceeded the USEPA target range. This was primarily due to the ingestion of
arsenic and beryllium in groundwater. However, arsenic and beryllium were detected
in only one and two of seven samples, respectively. Each was detected at
concentrations well below applicable regulatory standards for drinking water.
Arsenic and beryllium are also found in background groundwater at the MMR.
Given the sporadic detection of these two contaminants in site groundwater and the
relatively low concentrations at which they were detected, the risks at AOC CS-1
(USCG) associated with exposure to arsenic and beryllium are not significantly
higher than risks expected from exposure to background levels.
Calculated ecological risks show elevated risk levels for the short-tailed shrew (HI
of 70,500), meadow vole (HI of 205), and cardinal (HI of 8). These risks were due
almost entirely to zinc (cardinal) or lead (vole and shrew). The maximum detected
concentration of both lead and zinc was 31 mg/kg. The background concentration.
for lead is 12 mg/kg in outwash sand at the MMR, and is 10 to 70 mg/kg in sandy
soils across the United States. The background concentration for zinc is 16 mg/kg
at the MMR and 5 to 164 mg/kg in sandy soils across the United States. Ecological
risks based on exposure to background soil conditions yielded risks nearly as high as
for AOC CS-1 (USCG) soils. Given the number of extremely conservative measures
used in the analyses (i.e., conservative benchmark values, the ecological risk
assessment likely overestimates risk by several orders of magnitude and does not
suggest that risks at AOC CS-1 (USCG) are significantly higher than those expected
at background conditions. Therefore, excessive risks are not considered to result
from site-related activities.
On the basis of this information, it is believed that human health and ecological risks
due solely from site-related contaminants are not considered to be significantly higher
than those associated with background risk. Therefore, the AOC CS-1 (USCG) was
recommended for a No Action decision and formal removal from the MMR IRP.
W0069431.080 888646
6-21
-------
SECTION 7
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Based on the results of the SI and RI, no remedial alternative is considered necessary
for AOC CS-1 (USCG). There are no construction activities associated with the No
Action decision. However, monitoring will be performed at well WW-7. Five years
of monitoring will be performed to provide'information over time on the low levels
of compounds detected in groundwater at this AOC If the chemical concentrations
detected during the monitoring program exceed their MCLs, especially arsenic and
beryllium, the NGB would conduct a more thorough data review with assistance from
USEPA. This data review would include components of a five-year review, such as
data reports and a site visit.
Because the chemicals detected at this AOC are at concentrations below those
considered to present unacceptable human health or ecological risks, no five-year site
reviews will be conducted.
The estimated present worth of the five-year monitoring program would be
approximately $44321, assuming samples are collected semianmially (spring and fall)
from well WW-7 and analyzed for VOCs and inorganics using low level analysis
under the Contract Laboratory Program protocol. Annual monitoring costs are
expected to be approximately $10,236.
USEPA has the authority to revisit the No Action decision even if the MMR is
removed from the NPL. This could occur if future conditions indicate that an
unacceptable risk to human health or the environment would result from exposure
to contaminants at AOC CS-1 (USCG).
W0069431.080 8886-06
7-1
-------
SECTION 8
8.0 DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The NGB prepared a Proposed Plan for AOC CS-1 (USCG) (ABB Environmental
Services, Inc., 1995b). The Proposed Plan described the NGB's decision to pursue
no further action at AOC CS-1 (USCG). There have been no significant changes
made to the No Action decision stated in the Proposed Plan.
W0069431.080 888646
8-1
-------
SECTION 9
9.0 COMMONWEALTH ROLE
MADEP, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, reviewed the RI Report
and Proposed Plan and indicated its support for the selected remedy. MADEP
concurs with the selected remedy for AOC CS-1 (USCG). A copy of the declaration
of concurrence is in Appendix B.
W0069431.080 8886-06
9-1
-------
REFERENCES
ABB Environmental Services, Inc., 1995a. "Remedial Investigation Report, U.S.
Coast Guard Transmitter Station (AOC CS-1 [USCG])"; Installation
Restoration Program; Massachusetts Military Reservation; prepared for
HAZWRAP; Portland, Maine; Final; April 1991, revised March 1995.
ABB Environmental Services, Inc., 1995b. "Proposed Plan, U.S. Coast Guard
Transmitter Station (AOC CS-1 [USCG])"; Installation Restoration Program;
Massachusetts Military Reservation; prepared for HAZWRAP; Portland.
Maine; Final; April 1995.
Automated Sciences Group, Inc., 1993. "Risk Assessment Handbook, Comprehensive
Plan, Appendix C;" Installation Restoration Program; prepared for
HAZWRAP Support Contractor Office; January 1993.
E.C. Jordan Co., 1986. "U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Phase I:
Records Search. Air National Guard, Camp Edwards (ARNG), U.S. Air
Force, and Veterans Administration Facilities at Massachusetts Military
Reservation, Task 6"; prepared for Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Oak
Ridge, Tennessee; December 11, 1986.
E.C. Jordan Co., 1989. 'Task 2-3A Site Inspection, Field Investigation Work
Conducted Fall 1987"; Installation Restoration Program; Massachusetts
Military Reservation; prepared for HAZWRAP; Portland, Maine; March
1989.
E.C. Jordan Co., 1991, "Remedial Investigation Report, U.S. Coast Guard
Transmitter Station, CS-1 Study Area"; Installation Restoration Program:
prepared for HAZWRAP; Portland, Maine; April 1991.
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 Substance Pollution Contingency Plan"; 40 CFR Part 300;
Washington, DC; March 8, 1990.
W0069431.080 888646
-------
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1991. "Multimedia Exposure
Assessment Model (MULTIMED) for Evaluating the Land Disposal of
Wastes, Version 1.01"; USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory; Athens,
GA; June 1991.
Whitman and Howard, Inc, 1989. "Computer Model and Groundwater Management
Study for Sandwich Water District, Sandwich, Massachusetts"; Wellesley,
Massachusetts; July 1989.
WD069431.080 888646
-------
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ANG Air National Guard
AOC Area of Contamination
ARNG Army National Guard
bgs below ground surface
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act
COC contaminant of concern
CS-1 .Chemical Spill No. 1
DoD Department of Defense (U.S.)
FFS focused feasibility study
GPR ground-penetrating radar
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
ERP Installation Restoration Program
MADEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
mg/L milligrams per liter
MMR Massachusetts Military Reservation
MW monitoring well ~ '
NCP National Contingency Plan
NGB National Guard Bureau
NPL National Priorities List
PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
PAT Process Action Team
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PCE tetrachloroethylene
W0069431.080
8886-06
-------
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
RfD Reference Dose
RI remedial investigation
RME reasonable maximum exposure
ROD Record of Decision
SI site inspection
SVOC semivolatile organic compound
TCA trichloroethane
TCE trichloroethylene
TEAC Technical Environmental Affairs Committee
/ig/kg micrograms per kilogram
/xg/L micrograms per liter
USAF U.S. Air Force
USCG U.S. Coast Guard
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
VA Veterans Administration
VOC volatile organic compound
W006M31.0BO
888646
-------
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
FOR SITE CS-1
(USCG) TRANSMITTER STATION
SECTION 1. The Administrative Record for this action identifies
all pertinent documents that were considered by the National Guard
Bureau, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection before
deciding on a preferred alternative for Site CS-1 (USCG)
Transmitter Station which is outlined in the Record of Decision.
SECTION 2. Minutes of Long-Range Water Supply Process Action Team
* March 4, 1994 * March 23, 1994
SECTION 3. Minutes and Handout of Technical Environmental Affairs
Committee Meetings
* January 16, 1991' * March 25, 1992
* March 13, 1991 * July 15, 1992
* May 22, 1991 * March 22, 1995
* January 16, 1991
SECTION 4. Technical Reports by Site
* U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Phase I:
•Records Search, Air National Guard, Camp Edwards, U.S. Air
Force and Veteran's Administration at Massachusetts Military
Reservation, Massachusetts; Task 6 Text, December 11, 1986
* U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Phase I:
Records Search, Air National Guard, Camp Edwards, U.S. Air
Force and Veteran's Administration Facilities at
Massachusetts Military Reservation, Massachusetts; Task 6-
Appendices, December 11, 1986.
* Phase II/IVA, Task 2-3, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study Work Plan, June 1987. Incorporates comments from EPA,
DEQE and TEAC members with responses.
* Final Site Inspection Report, Field Investigation Work
Conducted Fall 1987, Task 2-3A; Volume I - Text, March 1989
The report includes DEQE's comments (November 22, 1988) and
NGB's responses to DEQE's comments in the appendices.
* Final Site Inspection Report, Field Investigation Work
Conducted Fall 1987, Task 2-3A; Volume II - Appendices,
March 1989.
-------
* Final Remedial Investigation Field Sampling and Analysis
Plan, Remaining Priority 1 Sites, Task 2-53, March 1990.
* Draft Remedial Investigation Report, U.S. Coast Guard
Transmitter Station, CS-1 Study Area, April 1991; Appendix
J Added July 1992. Appendix J contains EPA's comments and
NGB's responses to comments.
* Draft Task 2-5D Remedial Investigation Field Sampling and
Analysis Plan, Task 2-5D, AOCs CS-1 (USCG), SD-2/FS-6/FS-8
and SD-3/FTA-2/CY-4, September 1992.
* Final Task 2-5D Remedial Investigation Field Sampling and
Analysis Plan, AOCs CS-1 (USCG) , SD-3/FS-6/FS-8 and SD-
3/FTA-3/CY-4, March 1993.
* Draft Remedial Investigation Report, U.S. Coast Guard
Transmitter Station (AOC CS-1 [USCG]), July 1993.
* Draft Proposed Plan, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station
(AOC CS-1 [USCG]), July 1994.
* Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report, U.S. Coast Guard
Transmitter Station (AOC CS-1 [USCG]), October 1994.
* Final Remedial Investigation Report, U.S. Coast Guard
Transmitter Station (AOC CS-1 [USCG]), April 1191, Revised
to Include Supplemental RI Data, March 1995
* Draft Record of Decision, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter
Station (AOC CS-1 [USCG]), March 1995.
* Final Proposed Plan, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station
(AOC CS-1 [USCG]), April 1995
SECTION 5. Correspondence
* Letter from Gerald A. Monte, The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering to Secretary of the Air Force dated December 21,
1988, stating that CS-1 (USCG) is a non-priority disposal
site.
* Letter from EPA to NGB dated March 8, 1990, containing
information on the conduct of RIs and FSs at USCG sites
including CS-1.
* Letter Report from Douglas C. Allen and Larry L. Dearborn,
Asea, Brown and Boveri (ABB) Environmental Services, Inc. to
Del Long, HAZWRAP dated October 16, 1991 concerning
documentation of the test pitting accomplished at Study Area
CS-1 (USCG).
-------
* EPA's comments dated December 13, 1991 on "Draft Remedial
. Investigation Report, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station,
CS-1 Study Area" dated April 1991.
* DEP's comments dated January 6, 1992 on "Draft Remedial
Investigation Report, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station
(CS-1 Study Area) and Letter Report dated October 16, 1991
on "Results of Test Pitting Following a GPR Survey, Study
Area CS-2".
* NGB's responses to EPA's comments dated February 19, 1992 on
"Draft Remedial Investigation Report, CS-1 (USCG) Remedial
Investigation".
* ABB's letter dated March 5, 1992 forwarding responses to
DEP's comments on "Draft Remedial Investigation Report, U.S.
Coast Guard Transmitter Station, CS-1 Study Area" dated
April 1991. .
* NGB's responses dated March 20, 1992 to DEP's comments
"Draft Redial Investigation Report, U.S. Coast Guard
Transmitter Station, CS-1 Study Area at USCG Sites" dated
. April 1991.
* EPA's comments dated April 13, 1992 on "Draft Remedial
Investigation Report, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station,
CS-1 Study Area" dated April 1991.
* DEP's comments dated October 15, 1992 on "Task 2-5D Remedial
Investigation Field Sampling and Analysis Plan, AOCs CS-1
(USCG), SD-2/FS-6/FS-8 and SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4" dated September
1992.
* EPA's comments dated November 4, 1992 on "Draft Task 2-5D
Remedial Investigation Field Sampling and Analysis Plan,
AOCs CS-1 (USCG), SD-2/FS-S/FS-8 and SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4" dated
September 1992.
* NGB's responses dated January 27, 1993 to EPA/DEP's comments
dated October 15, 1992 and EPA's dated November 4, 1992 on
the "Draft Task 2-5D Sampling and Analysis plan, AOCs CS-1
(USCG), SD-3/FS-6/FS-8 and SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4" dated September
1992.
* EPA's comments dated February 22, 1993 on NGB's responses to
EPA's comments on "Draft Task 2-5D Remedial.Investigation
Field Sampling and Analysis Plan, AOCs CS-1 (USCG) , SD-2/FS-
6/FS-8 and SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4" dated September 1992.
* NGB's letter dated October 15, 1993 stating that the NGB
does not have any comments on the "Draft Remedial
-------
Investigation Report, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station
(AOC CS-1 [USCG])" dated July 1993.
* EPA's comments dated October 15, 1993 on the "Draft Remedial
Investigation Report, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station
(AOC CS-1 [USCG]" dated July 1993.
* DEP's comments dated October 21, 1993 on the "Draft Remedial
Investigation Report, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station
(AOC CS-1 [USCG])" dated July 1993.
* EPA's responses dated January 10, 1994 to NGB's responses to
EPA's comments on the "Draft Remedial Investigation Report,
U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station AOC CS-1 (USCG)" dated
July 1993.
* NGB's letter dated June 29, 1994 to EPA with recommendation
for no remedial action at AOC CS-1 (USCG).
* NGB's comments dated September 2, 1994 on the "Draft
Proposed Plan, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station (AOC CS-
1 [USCG])" dated July 1994.
* EPA's comments dated September 8, 1994 on the "Draft
Proposed Plan, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station (AOC CS-
1 [USCG])" dated July 1994.
* USCG's. letter dated September 13, 1994 to NGB stating that
the USCG does not have any comments on the "Draft Proposed
Plan, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station (AOC CS-1
[USCG])" dated July 1994.
* NGB's responses dated November 1, 1994 to EPA's comments on
the "Draft Proposed Plan, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter
Station (AOC CS-1 [USCG])" dated July 1994.
* Responses dated November 1, 1994 to NGB's comments on the
"Draft Proposed Plan, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station
(AOC CS-1 [USCG]" dated July 1994.
* USCG's letter dated November 9, 1994 to NGB stating that the
USCG does not have any comments on the "Draft Final Remedial
Investigation Report, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station
(AOC CS-1 [USCG])" dated October 1994.
* EPA's comments dated November 14, 1994 on the "Draft Final
Remedial Investigation Report, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter
Station (AOC CS-1 [USCG])" dated October 1994.
* HAZWRAP's letter dated November 16, 1994 forwarding
responses to EPA/DEP/HAZWRAP's comments on the "Draft
-------
Remedial Investigation Report, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter
Station (AOC CS-1 [USCG])" dated July 1993.
* EPA's comments dated December 1, 1994 to NGB's responses to
EPA's comments on the "Draft Proposed Plan U.S. Coast Guard
Transmitter Station (AOC CS-1 [USCG]), Main Base Landfill
(LF-1)" dated July 1994.
* NGB's comments dated March 7, 1995 on the "Preliminary Final
Proposed Plan, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station (AOC CS-
1 [USCG])" dated February 1995.
* USCG's letter dated March 13, 1995 stating that the USCG
does not have any comments on the "Internal Draft Record of
Decision, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station (AOC CS-1
[USCG])" dated March 1995.
* NGB's comments dated March 15, 1995 on the "Internal Drafc
Record of Decision, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station
(AOC CS-1 [USCG])" dated March 1995.
* Memorandum for the Record dated March 16, 1995 indicating
that the USCG has no comments on the "Preliminary Final
Proposed Plan, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station (AOC CS-
1 [USCG])" dated February 1995.
* USCG's letter dated April 17, 1995 indicating that the USCG
has no comments on the "Internal Draft Record of Decision
. for U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station (AOC CS-1 [USCG])"
dated March 1995
* NGB's comments dated April 20, 1995 on the "Internal Draft
Record of Decision, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station
(AOC CS-1 [USCG])" dated March 1995.
* NGB's letter to USCG dated August 11, -1995 forwarding an
Internal Draft Responsiveness Summary for the Record of
Decision, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station (AOC CS-1
[USCG]) for their review/comments.
* USCG's letter to NGB dated August 15, 1995 regarding their
review/comment on the Internal Draft Responsiveness Summary
for the Record of Decision, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter
Station (AOC CS-1 [USCG]).
c NGB's letter to HAZWRAP forwarding revision/comments from
the NGB and the USCG on the Internal Draft Responsiveness
Summary for AOC CS-1 [USCG] ) .
-------
SECTION 6. Community Relations
QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORTS
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Progress
Progress
Progress
Progress
Progress
Progress
Pro'gress
Progress
Progress
Progress
Progress
Progress
Progress
Progress
Progress
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
7,
8,
9,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
October 1991
January 1992
April 1992
July 1992
October 1992
April 1993
July 1993
October 1993
January 1994
April 1994
July 1994
October 1994
January 1995
April 1995
16, July 1995
3.
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES/PAID ADVERTISEMENTS
* "Informal Public Comment Period to.be Held," Cape Cod Times,
April 7, 1993
* "Public Notice - Planned Public participation Activities For
Proposed Plan, U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station (AOC
USCG CS-D," Cape Cod Times/Sandwich Broadsider, Apr. 6,
1995
* "Public Notice - Base Cleanup Meeting Schedule Announced",
Apr. 12, 1995
NEWS RELEASE
* News Release Nr. 95-12, Public Meeting Schedule Announced
-------
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of
Environmental Protection
Southeast Regional Office
William F. Weld
Governor
Trudy Coxe
Otcmaiy. EOEA
David B. Struho
Commlaatanor
Mr. John DeVillars
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02103
and
September 29, 1995
RE: BOURNE—BWSC—4-0037
Massachusetts Military
Reservation, U.S. Coast
Guard Transmitter Station
(AOC CS-l [USCG])
Record of Decision
Concurrence
Major General Donald W. Shepperd
Director, United states Air National Guard
2500 Army Pentagon
Washington, D.C., 20310
Dear Mr. DeVillars and General Shepperd:
The Department of Environmental Protection (the "Department")
has reviewed the No Action decision recommended by the National
Guard Bureau and the U.S. EPA for the United States Coast Guard
Transmitter Station (AOC CS-l [USCG]) at the Massachusetts Military
Reservation ("MMR") National Priorities List ("NPL") Site.
The Department has evaluated the proposed alternative for
consistency with Massachusetts General Laws ("M.G.L.") Chapter 21E
and the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (the "MCP"), 310 CMR 40.0000
and other State laws and regulations. The proposed alternative is
No Action; however, groundwatar monitoring will be performed at
well WW-7 for a period of five years to provide information over-
time on the levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) detected in
this well, and on the sporadic detection of inorganics in
groundwater at this Area of Contamination. These compounds were
detected at concentrations below state and federal Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and MCP Method 1, • S-l/GW-l Soil and
Groundwater Categories. Although the proposed alternative does not
address the feasibility of achieving background, the Department
concurs with the no action decision for this AOC. In addition, the
Department has determined that a level of no significant risk has
been demonstrated in accordance with the MCP.
The proposed alternative appears to meet all identified
20 Riverside Drlva • Ukevllfe, Matticrm«etts 02347 • FAX (508) 947-6557 • Telephone (508) 946-2700
-------
-2-
Massachusetts Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements(ARARs).
The Department will evaluate the groundwater monitoring data
at well WW-7 for compliance with ARARs during the implementation of
the proposed alternative.
The Department looks forward to working with you and
facilitating an expeditious cleanup of the MMR NPL site, If you
have any questions please contact Leonard J. Pinaud at (508) 946-
2871.
.
, Regional Director
Departmentvpf Environmental Protection
cc: DEP - SERO
ATTN: Andrea Papadopoulos
Leonard Pinaud
Lynne Doty
Don Nagle
Kevin Kiernan
DEP - Boston
ATTN: Ed Kunce
Madeline Snow
Andrew Cohen
SMB Distribution
TEAC Distribution
Team One Distribution
Team Two Distribution
Long Range Water Supply PAT Distribution
Boards of Selectmen
Boards of Health
-------
L
D
u.
IT
o
O
o
c
HI
CO
o
i
in
8
§
a.
1
O
1
ui
X
t-
PROPOSED PLAN
FOR
U.S. COAST GUARD TRANSMITTER STATION
AREA OF CONTAMINATION CS-1
at
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
CAPE COD, MASSACHUSETTS
May 3, 1995
Forestdale Elementary School
Forest dale, Massachusetts
7:32 p.m.
Michael Minior, Project Manager for IRP
Paul Marchessault, Project Manager for EPA
PALLATRONI COURT REPORTING
NSVRA Certified Reporter
• Three Terry Drive
South Dartmouth, Massachusetts 02748-2323
(508) 993-0510
1-800-498-0510
-------
PLEASE
A!
12
KB
TOTE;
THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATION OF THIS TRANSCRIPT DOES NOT
'LY TO ANY REPRODUCTION OF THE SAME BY ANY MEANS UNLESS
'ER THE DIRECT CONTROL AND/OR DIRECTION OF THE CERTIFYING
'ORTER.
1
' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MR. KARSON: It is now time to
open the official record for oral testimony on the Proposed
Plan for U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station Area of
Contamination CS-1, U.S. Coast Guard for the Massachusetts
Military Reservation.
Does anyone here wish to provide
oral testimony on the proposed plan at this time?
[audience member gestures]
MR. WALKER: Yes, Susan, you need
to speak into the microphone, please.
MR. TILL: And state your
name,please.
MS. WALKER: Sue Walker, from
Responsible Environment Protection for Sandwich. Our reps
would just like to support the five year's monitoring of
this CS-1 site. Thank you.
MR. KARSON: Is there any other
comment here tonight? [No response] okay, the record is
now closed for oral testimony. Please note that you still
can provide written comments through May 10th and the
-------
1 address is in the handout. You're going to get one, and we
2 have copies at the back table. I thank you both for coining
3 out tonight and everyone else. Thank you.
4 WHEREBY THE HEARING CONCLUDED AT 7:37 P.M.
5
-------
C E..R TIFICATE
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
PLYMOUTH, SS.
I, Christine Champ Andrews, a Certified Verbatim
Reporter and Notary Public, in and for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Installation Restoration Program hearing on the Proposed Plan
for the U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station (AOC CS-1 [USCG])
was taken before me on May 3, 1995. The said hearing was
taken audiographically by myself and transcribed by myself.
To the best of my knowledge, the within transcript is a
complete, true and accurate record of said hearing.
I am not connected by blood or marriage with any of the
said parties, nor interested directly or indirectly in the
matter in controversy.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and
Notary Seal this 5th day of May, 1995.
Christine cfeamp <&idijew's
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
April 6, 2001
PLEASE NOTE:
THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATION OF THIS TRANSCRIPT-DOES NOT
APPLY TO ANY REPRODUCTION OF THE SAME BY ANY MEANS UNLESS
UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL AND/OR DIRECTION OF THE CERTIFYING
REPORTER.
CHRISTINE CHAMP ANDREWS - (508) 866-7069
-------
APPENDIX D
CS-1 (USCG) RESPONSIVENESS SUMiMARY
The Air National Guard (ANG), acting as the lead agency for the National Guard
Bureau and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), held a 30-day comment period from
April 11, 1995, to May 10, 1995, to provide an opportunity for the public to comment
on the Proposed Plan and other documents developed for Area of Contamination
(AOC) Chemical Spill Number 1 (CS-1) (USCG). AOC CS-1 (USCG) is located at
Otis Air National Guard Base Superfund site at the Massachusetts Military
Reservation (MMR) on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The Proposed Plan is the
document that recommends an alternative to address an AOC.
The ANG made a recommendation of its preferred alternative for no further action
in Section 5.0 of the AOC CS-1 (USCG) Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan was
issued on March 29, 1995, before the start of the comment period. All documents
on which the preferred alternative is based were placed in the Administrative Record
for review. Tlie Administrative Record is a collection of the documents considered
by the ANG when choosing the remedial action for AOC CS-1 (USCG) soil and
groundwater.
The ANG received no written or oral comments on the AOC CS-1 (USCG)
Proposed Plan during the public comment period. The ANG received one statement
at the informal hearing held on May 3, 1995, supporting the ANG's decision to
perform groundwater monitoring at this AOC.
The ANG will be selecting the no action alternative for this AOC, which includes
five years of groundwater monitoring but no construction activities. The monitoring
will provide information over time on the levels of compounds previously detected
at AOC CS-1 (USCG). Because these previously detected compounds are at
concentrations below those considered to present human health or ecological threats,
no five-year site reviews will be conducted. The ANG will document the selected
remedy'in a Record of Decision for AOC CS-1 (USCG).
W0069431.080 888646
D-l
------- |