PB96-963704
EPA/ROD/R01-96/121
November 1996
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Loring Air Force Base
(O.U. 9 & 11), Limestone, ME
9/27/1996
-------
Final
Operable Units (OUs) 9 and 11
Record of Decision
August 1996
The
Air Force
Rebuilding Our
Environment
Installation Restoration Program
Loring Air Force Base, Maine
-------
FINAL
Loring Air Force Base
Operable Units (OUs) 9 and 11
Record of Decision
August 1996
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 37831-7606
Contractor: ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
Portland, Maine 04101
Job No. 8743-30, -50
-------
OPERABLE UNITS 9 AND 11
RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
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 ACnVITIES 2-1
2.1 LAND USE AND SITE HISTORY 2-1
2.1.1 Operable Unit 9 2-1
2.12 Operable Unit 11 2-6
2.2 RESPONSE AND ENFORCEMENT AcnvrnEs 2-10
3.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3-1
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTIONS 4-1
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5-1
5.1 OPERABLE UNIT 9 5-1
5.1.1 Snowbarn 5-1
5.1.2 Power Plant Drainage Pipe 5-2
5.13 Former Vehicle Motor Pool 5-4
5.2 OPERABLE UNIT 11 5-5
5.2.1 Fuels Tank Farm 5-5
5.2.2 Coal Storage Pile/Fly Ash Disposal 5-7
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 6-1
6.1 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT 6-1
6.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 6-3
6.3 SUMMARY OF RISKS AT OPERABLE UNIT 9 , 6-4
6.3.1 Snowbarn 6-4
6.3.2 Power Plant Drainage Pipe 6-7
6.3.3 Former Vehicle Motor Pool 6-9
W0049618.080
i 8743-30
-------
OPERABLE UNITS 9 AND 11
RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Section Title Page No.
6.4 SUMMARY OF RISKS AT OPERABLE UNIT 11 6-11
6.4.1 Fuels Tank Farm 6-11
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 7-1
8.0 DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 8-1
9.0 STATE ROLE 9-1
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC MEETING
APPENDIX B - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX C - LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
WOM9618.060
il 8743-30
-------
OPERABLE UNITS 9 AND 11
RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page No.
1-1 Location of Operable Units 9 and 11 1-3
2-1 Location of OU 9 Sites 2-3
2-2 Location of OU 11 Sites 2-7
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page No.
2-1 Site Status for Operable Units 9 and 11 2-12
6-1 OU 9 Quantitative Human Health Risk Summary 6-5
6-2 OU 9 Ecological Risk Summary for Surface Soils 6-6
6-3 OU 11 Quantitative Human Health Risk Summary 6-12
W0049618.080
lii 8743-30
-------
DECLARATION
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
The former Loring Air Force Base (LAFB) is located in Aroostook County, Maine.
This decision document addresses the source areas (i.e., surface and subsurface soils)
of the sites in Operable Units (OUs) 9 and 11. Groundwater and surface water
associated with the OUs will be addressed under OU 12 and OU 13, respectively.
These OUs include the following sites:
OU 9 Auto Hobby Shop (AHS)
Snowbarn (SB)
Power Plant Drainage Pipe (PPDP)
Former Vehicle Motor Pool (FVMP)
OU 11 Fuels Tank Farm (FTP)
Vehicle Maintenance Building (VMB)
Refueling Maintenance Shop Area (RMSA)
Coal Storage Pile/Fly Ash Disposal (CSP/FAD)
Base Laundry
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the No Further Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Action decision for source
areas in the following sites located in OUs 9 and 11 at LAFB:
• OU 9 SB; PPDP; FVMP
• OU 11 FTP; CSP/FAD
This decision document was developed in accordance with CERCLA of 1980, as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986,
and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) (USEPA, 1990). It is based on the Administrative Record,
which was developed in accordance with Section 113(k) of CERCLA and is available
ABB Environmental Services, inc.
W0049618.080 8743-30
D-l
-------
DECLARATION
for public review at the Air Force Base Closure Agency Office, 5100 Texas Road,
Limestone, Maine.
In 1994, a Bottom Up Program Review was conducted as part of the President's five-
point fast track clean-up initiative. Recommendations included performing early
actions at sites where risks were well defined. In accordance with CERCLA,
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) reports were developed for the
source control removal actions. The purpose of the source control removal actions
is to address soil contamination identified at areas within the OUs during Remedial
Investigation (RI) activities.
This decision document presents No Further CERCLA Action for sites in OUs 9 and
11 where the contaminants have been removed to acceptable risk levels or are at
levels that do not pose a risk, contamination is petroleum-related and is being
addressed in accordance with the State of Maine Regulations, or the materials stored
or disposed at the sites (i.e., coal, fly ash) are not regulated under CERCLA. The
State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) concurs with the
No Further CERCLA Action remedy for soils at the above sites located in OUs 9
and 11.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The United States Air Force (USAF) and United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), with concurrence of the MEDEP, have determined that No
Further CERCLA Action is necessary for soils at the SB, PPDP, and FVMP in OU 9
and the FTP and CSP/FAD in OU 11. One site located in OU 9, the AHS will
remain in the CERCLA process until confirmation samples are collected to verify
that soils have been treated to acceptable risk levels. Three sites located in OU 11,
the RMSA, VMB, and Base Laundry, will continue under the CERCLA process
because remediation of soil contaminated with chlorinated solvents and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) has not been completed at the sites. These four
sites (i.e., AHS, RMSA, VMB, and Base Laundry) will be addressed in a future
ROD. The groundwater and surface water associated with all of the OUs 9 and 11
sites will be addressed in OUs 12 and OU 13, respectively.
ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
W0049618.080 8743-30
D-2
-------
DECLARATION
DECLARATION
The USAF and USEPA, with concurrence of the MEDEP, have determined that No
Further CERCLA Action is necessary for soils at the SB, PPDP, and FVMP in OU 9
and the FTP and CSP/FAD in OU 11. As this is a decision for No Further
CERCLA Action, the statutory requirements of CERCLA Section 121 for remedial
actions are not applicable, and no five-year reviews will be undertaken.
Department of the Air Force
By: LAC/c^ |_ If^lfa. Date:
Alan K Olsen
Director
Air Force Base Conversion Agency
United States Environmental Protection Agency
By: ^ pi j^^/T Date:s4/ 2/3
Linda M. Murphy / ^ "~^ '
Director
Office of Site Remediation and Restoration
Region I
ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
W0049618.080 8743-30
D-3
-------
SECTION 1
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
Loring Air Force Base (LAFB) is a National Priorities List (NPL) site. There are
currently several areas of concern (AOCs) within LAFB that are under investigation.
The AOCs have been organized into Operable Units (OUs) for investigation and
remediation purposes.
This ROD addresses the source areas (i.e., surface and subsurface soils) of the sites
in OUs 9 and 11 (Figure 1-1). These OUs include the following sites:
OU 9 Auto Hobby Shop (AHS)
Snowbarn (SB)
Power Plant Drainage Pipe (PPDP)
Former Vehicle Motor Pool (FVMP)
OU 11 Fuels Tank Farm (FTP)
Vehicle Maintenance Building (VMB)
Refueling Maintenance Shop Area (RMSA)
Coal Storage Pile/Fly Ash Disposal (CSP/FAD)
Base Laundry
This Record of Decision (ROD) relates to the No Further Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Action
decision for source area soils at the SB, PPDP, and FVMP in OU 9 and the FTP and
CSP/FAD in OU 11. Groundwater and surface water associated with the OUs will
be addressed under OU 12 and OU 13, respectively.
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. The base is approximately three miles west of the United
States/Canadian border and covers approximately 9,000 acres. Base operations
gradually decreased until base closure in September 1994.
Because of its primary mission, LAFB personnel were engaged in various operations,
a number of which required 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
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 1-1 8743-30
-------
-ft
MUCNETIC TRUE
NORTH NORTH
- IOHMC AfB OmO NORTH
B IJ I*1 OT «tSI OF
1MIE NORTH
NORTH S
APFWWIMATtLT 2V
•EST OF TRUE NORTH
WC T44' WEST OF
UMNO m «no NORTH
OU11
SITES
RGURE1-1
LOCATION OF
OU9 AND OU11
LOFHNQ AIR FORCE BASE
LIMESTONE. MAINE
-------
SECTION 1
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 (DoD's) Installation Restoration Program (IRP), the Air Force initiated
activities to identify, evaluate, and remediate former disposal or spill sites containing
hazardous substances.
Since initiation of the IRP, the base was placed on the United States Environmental
Protection Agency's (USEPA's) NPL of sites and was to be remediated according to
the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA), an agreement under Section 120 of CERCLA
signed by the United States Air Force (USAF), the USEPA, and the Maine
Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) on January 30, 1991 as
amended.
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 1-3 8743-30
-------
SECTION 2
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
This ROD addresses the source areas (i.e., surface and subsurface soils) of the sites
in OUs 9 and 11. These OUs include the following sites:
OU9 AHS
SB
PPDP
FVMP
OU 11 FTP
VMB
RMSA
CSP/FAD
Base Laundry
The AHS in OU 9 will remain in the CERCLA process until confirmation samples
are collected to verify that the soils have been treated to acceptable risk levels.The
RMSA, VMB, and Base Laundry in OU 11 will continue under the CERCLA process
because remediation of soil at these sites includes non-petroleum-related
contaminants (e.g., chlorinated compounds and polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]).
These four sites will be addressed in a future ROD.
In accordance with Section 117(a) of CERCLA, the Air Force is publishing this ROD
to address public comment on the selected No Further CERCLA Action alternative
considered to be the final source control remedy for the SB, PPDP, and FVMP in
OU 9 and the FTF and CSP/FAD in OU 11. This section summarizes the uses, site
history, response history, and enforcement activities at all the sites in the two OUs.
2.1 LAND USE AND SITE HISTORY
2.1.1 Operable Unit 9
OU 9 is located in the south central portion of LAFB and consists of four sites,
including the AHS, the SB, the PPDP, and the FVMP (Figure 2-1). No Further
CERCLA Action is being taken for soils at the SB, PPDP, and FVMP.
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 2-1 8743-30
-------
SECTION 2
Auto Hobby Shop. The AHS is a garage that was used by base personnel for
personal vehicle maintenance activities. It is located in the central portion of the
base at the intersection of Weinman (formerly Rhode Island) and Pennsylvania
Roads. Past activities at the garage included routine car maintenance, oil changes,
parts cleaning, car painting, and car cleaning. Floor drains within the building are
connected to the sanitary sewer system. A 5,000-gallon underground storage tank
(UST) that collected waste oils/product was located at the AHS. This UST and its
associated piping were removed in September 1992. A 5,000-gallon heating oil UST
was also located at the AHS. During removal of this tank in May 1992, the fitting
connecting the fill pipe to the tank was found to be cracked. The tank was replaced
with a new 2,000-gallon UST (ABB Environmental Services [ABB-ES], 1995).
The OU 9 remedial investigation (RI) identified petroleum-contaminated soils near
the former waste oil and heating oil tanks, and in the soil beneath the sewer lines.
Chlorinated solvents were also detected in soils at the site; however, maximum
concentrations were less than cleanup standards. A corrective action plan (CAP) was
prepared under state regulations, proposing bioventing to treat contaminated soils
(ABB-ES, 1996b). The bioventing system will be installed in 19%. The AHS will
continue under the CERCLA process until confirmation samples verify that soils
have been treated to acceptable risk levels.
Snowbarn. The SB was used to house and maintain snow removal equipment used
on the base. The building is located at the southwestern edge of the runway near the
DC Hangar and adjacent to the Former Tanker Alert Area. Prior to 1992, a paved
area south of the SB building was used as an area to wash snow removal equipment
The wash area formerly drained to a ditch located immediately to the southwest.
During the SI and the RI, stressed vegetation and stained soils were observed in the
grassy area near the ditch. In 1992, the storm drain system at the site was improved
and snow-removal equipment began to be cleaned inside the building. Sampling
indicated the primary sources of contamination were washwater and surface water
runoff from the maintenance and parking lot areas. (ABB-ES, 1995).
The RI identified fuel contamination in soils south and southwest of the paved
parking area. A CAP was prepared proposing the excavation and disposal in Landfill
3 (LF-3) of petroleum-contaminated soil at the SB (ABB-ES, 1996b). During the soil
removal in 1995, PCBs were detected at one isolated location. PCB-contaminated
soil identified at concentrations greater than 50 mg/kg was disposed at an off-base
licensed facility (Bechtel Environmental, Inc. [Bechtel], 1996). All remaining soil was
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 2-2 8743-30
-------
NOTE:
- CORING AFB GRID NORm
IS IT 16' Of KEST OF
TSUE NORTH
WEST OF TRUE NORTH
TM' WEST OF
LDR1NG AfB GRID NORTH
POWER
PLANT
DRAINAGE
PIPE
SNOW
BARN
/HOBBY ' '
FORMER ^
VEHICLE /
MOTOR
POOL
/ i > /
RGURE 2-1
LOCATION OF
OU9 SITES
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
LIMESTONE, MAINE
SCALE: 1 =400'
-------
SECTION 2
disposed in LF-3. Because petroleum and PCB contamination was removed to
acceptable risk levels, No Further CERCLA Action is necessary for soils at the SB.
Power Plant Drainage Pipe. The PPDP is located north and east of the AHS and
south of Hawaii Road. It is an 18-inch diameter drainage pipe that was connected
to an underdrain that drained water from a benned area around the former location
of five 25,000-gallon diesel fuel USTs east of the Power Plant (PP). The pipe was
also connected to the floor drain system within the PP. The PPDP passes just north
of the FVMP, underneath Pennsylvania Road, and discharges into a surface
impoundment known as the Pipeline Drainage Area (PDA), that functions as a crude
oil/water separator (URS Consultants, Inc. [URS], 1995). Water from the
impoundment flows ultimately to the Flightline Drainage Ditch (FLDD). In 1993,
a test pit investigation was undertaken to evaluate potential leaks in the PPDP. The
pipe did not appear to be leaking and the bedding soils did not appear to have been
affected by releases from the pipe (ABB-ES, 1995).
The OU 9 RI identified soils contaminated with PCBs and petroleum in areas
surrounding the pipe and in the PDA. An engineering evaluation/cost analysis
(EE/CA) proposed excavation and disposal in LF-3 of shallow soils. Because the
deeper soils are contaminated with petroleum only, bioventing was proposed (URS,
1995). The removal action, conducted in 1995, included excavation of petroleum-
contaminated and PCB-contaminated soils with disposal in LF-3 and installation of
a bioventing system.
Additionally, the drainage pipe was cleaned using a bydrovac system. The pipe
cleaning encompassed all sections of the drainline, including the drainlines leading
from the Power Plant and the storm drain located in the fenced transformer area
adjacent to the west end of the Power Plant. After the cleaning, the sections of the
line that were removed from the excavations were replaced (Bechtel, 1996).
The effluent of the PPDP was sampled during a storm event in May 1996 to
determine if the pipe was adequately cleaned. The samples were analyzed for site-
specific contaminants of concern (TPH, PCBs, and PAHs). Low concentrations of
TPH were detected and PCB and PAH results were no-detect Because PCB
contamination was removed and the remaining contamination is petroleum-related
and will be addressed using State of Maine Regulations, No Further CERCLA
Action is necessary for soils at the PPDP.
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.0BO 2-4 8743-30
-------
SECTION 2
Former Vehicle Motor Pool. The FVMP site is located east of Pennsylvania Road
just south of the intersection with Hawaii Road. The facility was used for
maintenance of snow removal and construction equipment from 1947 to 1963, at
which time operations were moved to the VMB. Use of the facility was discontinued
in 1963 and the structure was demolished in 1972. Maintenance activities included
oil changes, welding, tire changes, and other routine vehicle maintenance. Known
waste streams at the facility included waste oils, hydraulic fluid, antifreeze, and
Speedi-dry ( a granular absorbent material used to clean small fluid spills). Waste
fluids were stored in 55-gallon drums and disposed of through the Defense
Reutilization Marketing Office (DRMO). In addition, the building was equipped
with an oil trap structure and floor drains that reportedly emptied into the PPDP
storm sewer (ABB-ES, 1995).
The RI identified a small area of petroleum-contaminated soil north of the FVMP.
Because of the nearness of the FVMP to the PPDP, the bioventing system proposed
for the PPDP has been expanded to treat the soils at the FVMP. The bioventing
system was installed in 1995 (ABB-ES, 1996c). Because contamination is petroleum-
related and will be addressed using State of Maine Regulations, No Further
CERCLA Action is necessary for soils at the FVMP.
2.12 Operable Unit 11
OU 11 consists of five sites; the FTP, the RMSA, the VMB, the CSP/FAD, and the
Base Laundry (Figure 2-2). No Further CERCLA Action is being taken for soils at
the FTF and the CSP/FAD.
Fuels Tank Farm. The FTF is approximately five acres in size and is located south
of the Flightline Area (FLA). The FTF was constructed in the early 1950s for the
bulk storage of fuels, including JP-4 jet fuel, No. 2 heating oil, MOGAS, aviation
gasoline (AVGAS), and fuel oil. The FTF originally consisted of three large
aboveground storage tanks (ASTs); however, increased fuel needs prompted the
construction of additional ASTs in the late 1950s. Each tank is surrounded by a
separate berm enclosing an area capable of holding the contents of that tank. Fuel
from each tank was piped through aboveground piping to the Pumphouse, then
distributed through underground piping to the rest of the base. Unqualified fuel
spills have occurred at the FTF over the past 40 years. As part of tank maintenance,
lead-based paint was occasionally stripped from the tanks; therefore, lead was
detected in the surface soil around the tanks (ABB-ES, 1996a).
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 2-5 8743-30
-------
SECTION 2
The OU 11 RI identified soils contaminated with petroleum and lead. An EE/CA
was prepared proposing excavation and disposal in LF-3 for the lead-contaminated
soil. Bioventing/bioslurping was proposed to treat the petroleum-contaminated soils
and to remove fuel product from the groundwater surface (URS, 1995). Lead-
contaminated soil was excavated in 1995 and disposed in LF-3. The
bioventing/bioslurping system will be installed in 1996. The lead-contaminated soil
was removed to acceptable risk levels as shown by confirmation sampling during
excavation (Bechtel, 1996).
Because the remaining contamination is petroleum-related and will be addressed
using State of Maine Regulations, No Further CERCLA Action is necessary for soils
at the FTP.
Vehicle Maintenance Building. The VMB is located on the eastern side of
Pennsylvania Road, southeast of the intersection of Pennsylvania and South Carolina
Roads. The site is approximately 15 acres in size and consists of two buildings that
were used for vehicle parking and maintenance of USAF vehicles. Wastes generated
•at the facility included waste oil, antifreeze, solvents, Speedi-Dry, and battery
electrolyte.
From 1954 until the early 1970s, waste fluids were combined, placed in drums, and
stored at the facility. The drums were periodically sent to the DRMO for disposal.
After that time, until 1984, waste fluids were stored in a 500-gallon tank at the site,
then transferred to the DRMO. The 500-gallon tank was removed in 1984. From
1984 until 1989, waste oil was stored in a UST that had previously been used for the
storage of diesel fuel. Two other USTs, which had been used for automobile fuel,
were removed in 1990, and the waste oil UST was removed in 1992. From 1989 until
1992, all waste fluids were drummed and disposed of through the DRMO. In 1992,
a waste oil burner was installed in the VMB, and waste fluids were incinerated for
the remainder of operations at this facility in accordance with State of Maine Waste
Oil Management Rules (ABB-ES, 1996a).
The RI identified petroleum- and PCB-contaminated soils at the VMB. Additionally,
chlorinated solvents were found in a localized area at the site. An EE/CA was
prepared proposing excavation and disposal in LF-3 of drainage sediments and
shallow soil and bioventing of deeper soil (URS, 1995). An additional EE/CA has
proposed excavation and ex-situ soil vapor extraction (SVE) for soils contaminated
with chlorinated solvents (URS, 1996). Because chlorinated solvents were identified
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 2-6 8743-30
-------
- MAGNETIC NORTH IS
7EIY 21*
WEST Of TRUE NORTH
T44' WEST Or
LOSING AFB CRIO NORTH
COAL STORAGE
PILE/FLY ASH
DISPOSAL
< BASE J;hn .
3 LAUNDRY. ,// Hi ', I
VEHICLE
MAINTENANCE
BUILDING
j REFUELING
MAINTENANCE r .
SHOP AREA
FIGURE 2-2
LOCATION OF
OU11 SITES
0 300 600
•^-
SCALE: 1" = 600'
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
LIMESTONE, MAINE
-------
SECTION 2
at the VMB and remediation has not been completed, the site will continue under
the CERCLA process.
Refueling Maintenance Shop Area. The RMSA consists of one building and a
parking area located on the southwest portion of the base, on the east side of
Pennsylvania Avenue. The building has several garage bays for maintenance
operations and was used as a maintenance facility for large fuel bowser trucks.
Various types of maintenance services were completed on the trucks within the
building. Floor drains within each bay collected fluids from maintenance procedures
and rinse water from washing procedures. The drains exited into an oil interceptor,
then to a dry well. The dry well was replaced with an oil/water separator in the late
1980s. In 1992, the effluent from the oil/water separator was piped to the sanitary
sewer and the oil was piped to a UST located north of the separator (ABB-ES,
1996a).
The RI identified PCBs, petroleum, and tetrachloroethene (PCE) as contaminants
at the site. An EE/CA was prepared recommending excavation and disposal in LF-3
of contaminated soils (URS, 1995). Excavation of the soils occurred in 1995, and
with the exception of one isolated area of petroleum-contaminated soil, which will
be excavated in 1996, soils have been removed to acceptable risk levels (Bechtel,
1996). Because chlorinated compounds may be present in the remaining soil at the
RMSA, the site will continue under the CERCLA process until confirmation
sampling has been performed.
Coal Storage Pile/Fly Ash Disposal. The CSP/FAD is one site with two areas, one
which was utilized for the storage of coal, and another for the disposal of the residual
fly ash from the base heating plant's coal-fired boiler. The CSP/FAD sites are south
of the FLA and west of the FTP, south of South Carolina Road. Coal was stored on
the ground from 1953 until 1985, at which time two concrete pads with an integrated
storm water runoff collection system were constructed. The coal was not covered,
and storm water running off the pile was collected by the drainage system which
empties into a settling pond west of the concrete pads. The pond discharges to the
wastewater system (ABB-ES, 1996a). The FAD area is southwest of the coal piles
and was used from 1953 until the mid-1980s. A cover was constructed over the FAD
in 1994 and additional closure activities are being conducted under the State of
Maine Solid Waste Regulations.
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 2-8 8743-30
-------
SECTION 2
No Further CERCLA Action is required for soils at either site. Coal storage and fly
ash are not regulated under CERCLA. Additionally, the FAD has a cover system
to provide protection to human health and the environment (ABB-ES, 1996c).
Base Laundry. The Base Laundry is located northeast of the intersection of South
Carolina Road and Pennsylvania Road. The site is approximately five acres in size
and consists of one building. Prior to 1970, the building was used as a bakery. It
became operational as a laundry in 1971. As part of laundry operations, dry cleaning
was performed in the building. Steam from the dry cleaning machine passed through
a vacuum tank and was discharged outside through a pipe located at the northeast
corner of the building. From 1971 to 1988, PCE was delivered to the laundry in
drums. The used PCE was drummed and disposed through the DRMO. From 1988
to 1993, PCE was delivered to the loading dock by a tank truck and pumped into an
AST located inside the north end of the building. A second AST was used to contain
the used PCE.
The RI identified chlorinated solvents, primarily PCE, in soils near the Base
Laundry. An EE/CA was prepared proposing in-situ SVE for the localized area of
soil contamination at the northeast corner of the building (URS, 1996). The system
is scheduled for installation in 1996 (ABB-ES, 1996c). Because chlorinated solvents
were identified at the Base Laundry and remediation has not been completed, the
site will continue under the CERCLA process.
22 RESPONSE AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The response and enforcement activities at the OU 9 and 11 sites are summarized
as follows:
• In 1984, a Preliminary Assessment (PA) was completed detailing
historical hazardous material usage and waste disposal practices at
LAFB (CH2M Hill, 1984);
• The RI process commenced in 1988 and continued into 1995; ABB-ES,
1995; ABB-ES, 1996a);
• LAFB was added to the NPL in February 1990;
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 2-9 8743-30
-------
SECTION 2
• The USAF entered into a FFA in 1991 with the USEPA and MEDEP
regarding the cleanup of environmental contamination at LAFB (FFA,
1991). The FFA was revised in December 1993 to address base
closure related issues, such as real estate property transfer and a
revised schedule. The FFA was modified in January 1995 to allow the
Remedial Project Managers to make minor modifications to the FFA,
such as schedule adjustments or removal of petroleum-contaminated
sites from the agreement;
• An EE/CA was completed for OUs 5, 8, 9,10, and 11 to determine
removal actions for the various sites based on information presented
in the RI reports (URS, 1995);
• An EE/CA was completed for OU 11 to determine removal actions
for the VMB and Base Laundry (URS, 1996);
• A Proposed Plan (ABB-ES, 1996c) for OUs 9 and 11 was submitted
for public review; and
• A public comment period was conducted from June 5, to July 5, 19%,
with a public meeting and hearing on June 11,1996 to address public
concern on the No Further CERCLA Action decision presented in the
Proposed Plan.
Other key milestones at LAFB which relate to OU 9 and OU 11 are as follows:
• Removal actions in 1995 at the SB, PPDP, FTF, VMB, and RMSA
consisted of excavation and disposal of shallow soils. In addition,
bioventing systems were installed at the PPDP/FVMP and VMB.
• Removal actions will continue in 1996 with additional soil removal at
the RMSA, installation of a bioventing system at the AHS, and
installation of the bioventing/bioslurping system at the FTF.
Excavation and installation of an ex-situ SVE system will be initiated
at the VMB and an in-situ SVE system will be installed at the Base
Laundry. Confirmation sampling, including sampling for VOCs, will
be conducted at the AHS and RMSA.
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 2-10 8743-30
-------
SECTION 2
Table 2?1 summarizes the status of cleanup at each site within the two OUs and
identifies the sites where No Further CERCLA Action is necessary for source
control. Because chlorinated solvents were identified and Further CERCLA Action
is necessary at the AHS in OU 9 and the RMSA, VMB, and Base Laundry in OU 11,
these four sites will not be considered further in this ROD. The sites will be
addressed in a future ROD.
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 2-11 8741-30
-------
TABLE 2-1
SITE STATUS FOR OUs 9 AND 11
RECORD OF DECISION
LORINQ Am FORCE BASE
OPERABLE
UNIT
OU9
OU 11
Sift
Auto Hobby
Shop (AHS)
Snowbam (SB)
Power Plant
Drainage Pipe
(PPDP)
PPDP/Former
Vehicle Motor
Pool(FVMP)
Fuels Tank
Farm (FTP)
Vehicle
Maintenance
DiJi^llv^M AAJDl
BUMing (VMB;
Refueling
Maintenance
Shop Area
(RMSA)
Coal Storage
PleiCSP)
TYPE OF
CONTAMINATION
Chlorinated solvents
and fuel
contamination
PCB and fuel
contamination
PCB and fuel
contamination
Fuel contamination
Lead contamination
Fuel contamination
Chlorinated solvent,
PCB, and fuel
contamination
Chlorinated solvents,
PCB, and fuel
contamination
NA
CLEAN UP STATUS
Bloventlng system to be Installed in
1996. VOC confirmation sampling to be
completed.
Excavation/disposal completed In 1995.
Sod with PCBs > 50 mg/kg was
disposed In an off-base licensed facility.
Alt other sol was disposed in LF-3.
Excavation/disposal In LF-3 completed
in 1995.
Bloventlng system installed in 1995.
Bloventlng system installed In 1995 In
conjunction with PPDP system.
Excavation/disposal in LF-3 completed
In 1995.
Bloventhg/Bloslurplng system to be
Installed in 1996.
Excavation/disposal In LF-3 completed
In 1995. Bloventlng system Installed in
1995. Excavation/ex-sltu SVE system to
be completed Ni 1996.
Excavation/disposal In LF-3 Initiated hi
1995; wM be completed In 1996. VOC
confirmation sampling to oe compieteo.
Coal storage not regulated under
CERCLA
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Work will continue under CERCLA.
Petroleum and PCB removal completed
to acceptable risk levels based on
confirmation sampling results; therefore,
no further action required for sofls.
PCB removal completed to acceptable
risk levels based on confirmation
sampling results; therefore, no further
action required for soHs.
Petroleum contamination; cleanup under
state requirements.
Petroleum contamination; cleanup under
state requirements.
Lead removal completed to acceptable
risk levels based on confirmation
sampling results; therefore, no further
action required for soils.
Petroleum contamination; cleanup under
state requirements.
Work wM continue under CERCLA.
Work wffl continue under CERCLA.
No further CERCLA action required for
sols.
-------
continued
TABLE 2-1
SITE STATUS FOR OUs 9 AND 11
RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
OPERABLE
UNIT
SITE
Fly Ash
Disposal (FAD)
Base Laundry
TYPE OF
CONTAMINATION
NA
Chlorinated solvent
contamination
CLEAN UP STATUS
Cover system constructed In 1994.
Additional closure activities being
conducted.
SVE system to be completed In 1996.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
No further CERCLA action required for
soils.
Work will continue under CERCLA.
Notw:
NA = Not applicable
Shading Indicates No Further CERCLA Action Is necessary.
W0049618.T80/5
-------
SECTION 3
3.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Throughout LAFB's history, the community has been active and involved to a high
level in base activities. The USAF, USEPA, and MEDEP 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
Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meetings. Membership of the RAB is composed
of Air Force, USEPA, MEDEP and local officials, and community representatives.
The LAFB Community Relation Plan (CRP) was released in August 1991 and
revised in May 1995. The CRP outlined a program to address community concerns
and keep citizens informed and involved during remedial activities. The CRP can
be found in the Administrative Record.
On June 24, 1992, the Air Force made the Administrative Record available for public
review. The Administrative Record is currently available for public review at the Air
Force Base Conversion Agency Office, 5100 Texas Road, Limestone, Maine.
The Air Force published a notice and brief analysis of the Proposed Plan with No
Further CERCLA Action in the Bangor Daily News on May 28, 1996, and in the
Aroostook Republican, the Fort Fairfield Review, and the Star Herald on May 29,
1996.
The Air Force held a 30-day public comment period from June 5 to July 5, 1996, to
accept public input on the information presented in the RI/Baseline Risk
Assessment, the Proposed Plan, and other documents previously released to the
public. On June 11, 1996, LAFB personnel and regulatory representatives held a
public meeting and hearing to discuss the Proposed Plan and to accept any oral
comments. A transcript of this meeting is included in Appendix A, and a
responsiveness summary is included as Appendix B. The Air Force received no
verbal or written comments on the OUs 9 and 11 Proposed Plan at the public
hearing or during the 30 day public comment period.
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 3-1 8743-30
-------
SECTION 4
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTIONS
The USAF and USEPA have determined that No Further CERCLA Action is
required for soils at SB, PPDP, and FVMP in OU 9 and the FTP and CSP/FAD in
OU 11.
Removal actions completed in 1995 at these sites included excavation and disposal
of contaminated soils at the SB, PPDP, and FTP, and installation of the bioventing
system at the PPDP/FVMP.
Removal actions will continue in 1996 with the bioventing/bioslurping system at the
FTP to address petroleum-contaminated soil and fuel product.
A cover system was constructed over the FAD in 1994 and additional closure
activities are currently being conducted at the FAD under the State of Maine Solid
Waste Regulations.
Because the CERCLA contaminants have been removed to acceptable risk levels or
are at levels that do not pose a risk, remaining contamination will be addressed using
State of Maine Regulations, or the materials stored or disposed at the sites (i.e., coal
fly ash) are not regulated under CERCLA, No Further CERCLA Action is required
for soils at the SB, PPDP, and FVMP in OU 9 and the FTP and CSP/FAD in
OU11.
USEPA has the authority to revisit the No Further CERCLA Action decision even
if LAFB 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 any of the sites or there is a change in land use. The
Air Force is prepared to initiate proper institutional controls, when appropriate, to
restrict the future land uses of the sites and assure the proper notification of future
owners.
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.0SO 4-1 8743-30
-------
SECTION 5
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Site investigations were conducted from 1985 through 1995 to characterize the nature
and distribution of contaminants at OUs 9 and 11. Detailed descriptions of the data
are presented in the Final RI Reports for each Operable Unit (ABB-ES, 1995 and
ABB-ES, 1996a, respectively). The significant findings of these contamination
assessments are summarized in the following subsections.
5.1 OPERABLE UNIT 9
Three sites in OU 9 are being considered for No Further CERCLA Action including
the SB, PPDP, and FVMP. A complete discussion of site characteristics can be
found in the OU 9 Final RI Report (ABB-ES, 1995).
5.1.1 Snowbarn
Areas of concern at the SB are the heavy equipment parking/storage lot and the
areas that received runoff from the vehicle washing area. Contamination identified
at the SB during RI activities has been addressed by excavation and disposal of
shallow soil contamination as proposed in the SB CAP (ABB-ES, 1996b).
Surface Soils. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected at six locations at
low and estimated low concentrations and consisted of carbon tetrachloride (0.014
milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]) and toluene (0.003J mg/kg). The VOCs were
generally located in the drainage swale southwest of the building and in an area
south of the paved wash area. Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) (consisting
of several polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs]) were detected at all but two
locations. The highest concentrations of SVOCs were identified in the drainage ditch
southwest of the paved wash area, indicating point source surface releases at the
north end of the drainage ditch. Total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) was detected
in the grassy area south of the paved wash area at concentrations up to 2,000 mg/kg.
Inorganics and pesticides were detected at very low concentrations, most below
background, and therefore are not believed to be the result of site-related activities.
Subsurface Soils. One subsurface soil analytical sampling location at the SB showed
low concentrations of VOCs. VOCs in subsurface soils were generally found in
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 5-1 8743-30
-------
SECTION 5
localized areas at the SB and were most likely due to non-point source releases from
the paved area. SVOCs were also detected at low and estimated low concentrations,
and consisted mostly of PAHs, indicating a fuel- or oil-related source. Moderate
concentrations of SVOCs, decreasing with increasing depth, were identified in the
drainage ditch. Concentrations of TPH as high as 1,500 rag/kg were identified at the
site. Inorganics and pesticides were detected at very low concentrations, most below
background, and therefore are not believed to be the result of site-related activities.
During soil removal in 1995, PCBs were detected at the SB. Concentrations
identified during surface sampling exceeded the preliminary remediation goal (PRO)
of 0.19 mg/kg. In addition, several of the samples contained concentrations that
exceeded the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulatory level of 50 mg/kg.
Groundwater and Surface Water. Overburden groundwater is not present beneath
the SB site. Low and estimated low concentrations of VOCs and inorganics were
detected in bedrock groundwater during sampling. Site related SVOCs and TPH
were not detected. This information suggests there has been no impact to
groundwater from soil contamination at the site (ABB-ES, 1995).
There is no surface water associated with the SB.
The impacts of source area soils on groundwater and surface water were considered
during establishment of PRGs. The PRGs selected are protective of groundwater,
and human health and the environment. Groundwater associated with the SB will
be addressed in OU 12.
5.12 Power Plant Drainage Pipe
Areas of concern identified at the PPDP include the PDA and the media associated
with the pipeline and former UST berm. Contamination identified at the PPDP
during RI activities has been addressed by excavation of shallow soil contamination
and bioventing deeper petroleum-contaminated soil as proposed in the PPDP
EE/CA (URS, 1995).
Surface Soils. Toluene, identified along the course of the PPDP during test boring
and test pitting, was the only VOC detected in surface soils at the PPDP. The
maximum concentration was 0.028 mg/kg. The surface soils at the PDA showed
contamination by SVOCs, primarily PAHs. The concentrations of PAHs likely
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 5-2 8743-30
-------
SECTION 5
represented releases from waste oil/fuel from the PPDP. Lower PAH concentrations
may have represented releases from non-point sources from the paved area, general
vehicle activity, and airport activity in the power plant area, TPH concentrations as
high as 43,000 mg/kg were identified near the PDA. Inorganics and pesticides were
detected at very low concentrations, most below background, and therefore are not
believed to be the result of site-related activities. Aroclor-1260 was detected at
2.9J mg/kg in the PDA, and above background in two other samples. Aroclor-1260
may have resulted from the reported circuit breaker explosion at the power plant.
Subsurface Soils. Off-site analysis detected low concentrations of ethylbenzene,
methylene chloride, toluene, and xylenes in isolated samples. Based on the location
of these detections, the petroleum-related VOCs may have reflected contamination
resulting from practices at the FVMP, rather than being PPDP-associated
contamination. SVOCs, PAHs, di-n-butylphthalate, and bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
were detected sporadically and low estimated concentrations. This contamination
may also have been indicative of waste materials from the FVMP. TPH was
detected in eight of the subsurface soil samples at a maximum concentration of
4,200 mg/kg. Pesticides were detected above background in nine samples. The
highest concentration was dieldrin at an estimated concentration of 0.1 U mg/kg.
Aroclor-1260 was detected at three sampling locations north of the FVMP, along the
course of the PPDP. Inorganic concentrations were generally within background
ranges.
Groundwater and Surface Water. Overburden groundwater downgradient of the
PPDP did not contain SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, or inorganics during the most recent
round of sampling. VOCs not detected in PPDP soils were identified in
downgradient overburden groundwater. Bedrock groundwater analytical data
indicated good correlation with other analytical data from the site for VOCs, SVOCs,
and inorganics. SVOCs detected in bedrock groundwater are likely related to
releases from the PPDP. Concentrations of inorganics above background were
identified in both upgradient and downgradient wells and are therefore not
considered site related. Aroclor-1221 was detected in one upgradient location and
may be related to the use of PCB-containing oil or transformers at the power plant.
Groundwater appears to have been affected by releases from the PPDP.
Surface water samples were taken from the PDA and from a utility area near the
power plant. Samples collected at the PDA contained VOCs and PAHs. Low levels
of VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticides were estimated in two surface water samples
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 5-3 874J-30
-------
SECTION 5
collected near the PP utility area. Surface water in the outfall of the PPDP and in
catch basins near the PP appears to have been affected by site activities (ABB-ES,
1995).
The impacts of source area soils on groundwater and surface water were considered
during establishment of PRGs. The PRGs selected are protective of groundwater,
and human health and the environment Groundwater and surface water associated
with the PPDP will be addressed in OU 12 and OU 13, respectively.
5.13 Former Vehicle Motor Pool
Contamination identified at the FVMP during RI activities has been addressed by
bioventing the petroleum-contaminated soil as proposed in the FVMP EE/CA (URS,
1995).
Surface Soils. No VOCs were detected in surface soil samples at the FVMP.
Several PAHs were detected in eight of the nine samples collected. In most cases,
the concentrations were less than 1 mg/kg. The concentrations of PAHs may have
represented releases from airport activities, non-point sources from the paved areas,
and general vehicle activity at the FVMP. Samples taken from the area near the
sheds and from the floor drains contained fluoranthene concentrations as high as
46 mg/kg. Total PAH concentrations in this area were greater than 200 mg/kg.
These concentrations may have represented a localized area of contamination as a
result of isolated spills at the FVMP. The pesticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
(DDT) was detected at low concentrations at the FVMP, but was most likely the
result of general basewide pesticide applications. Concentrations of TPH as high as
4,600 mg/kg indicated possible localized areas of weathered fuel. Inorganic
concentrations in surface soils were generally within background ranges.
Subsurface Soils. Low concentrations of the VOCs 2-butanone, toluene, xylenes, and
trichloroethene (TCE) were detected in isolated samples at depths greater than 10
feet below ground surface (bgs). The SVOCs di-n-octylphthalate, fluoranthene, and
pyrene were detected in only one sample at estimated concentrations. The highest
concentration of pesticides detected above background was methoxychlor estimated
at 0.0024J mg/kg. TPH was generally not detected in the subsurface soil samples
and inorganics were generally within background ranges.
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 5-4 8743-30
-------
SECTION 5
Groundwater and Surface Water. Groundwater is present in both the overburden
and the bedrock beneath the FVMP. Results of sampling conducted in 1993 indicate
the presence of VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and inorganics; although inorganic
concentrations may have represented suspended rather than dissolved concentrations
of contaminants. Both VOC and SVOC TIC hydrocarbons were detected in
groundwater. The compounds identified could be representative of fuels such as JP-
4, or light fuel oils such as diesel. This information suggests soil contamination has
had an effect on groundwater at the FVMP (ABB-ES, 1995).
There is no surface water associated with the FVMP.
The impacts of source area soils on groundwater and surface water were considered
during establishment of PRGs. The PRGs selected are protective of groundwater,
and human health and the environment. Groundwater associated with the FVMP
will be addressed in OU 12.
52 OPERABLE UNIT 11
Two sites in OU 11 are being considered for No Further CERCLA Action, the FTP
and the CSP/FAD. A complete discussion of site characteristics can be found in the
OU 11 Final RI Report (ABB-ES, 1996a).
52.1 Fuels Tank Farm
Five areas of concern were identified at the FTP including the Pumphouse Area, the
areas within the tank berms, the areas adjacent to the tank berms, the area adjacent
to the off-spec fuel tanks, and an area north of Tank 7830. Contamination identified
at the FTF during RI activities is being addressed by excavation and disposal for
lead-contaminated soils and bioventing/bioslurping of petroleum-contaminated soil
and fuel product as proposed in the FTF EE/CA (URS, 1995).
Surface Soils. Field gas chromatography (GC) screening identified fuel hydrocarbons
(FHCs), at concentrations up to 18,000 mg/kg, and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylenes (BTEX) in the Pumphouse Area, outside the berm at Tank 7830, and
at other locations throughout the FTF. Low concentrations of PCE (0.0018 mg/kg
to 0.0032 mg/kg) were detected in two of three samples at areas within the tank
berms. Petroleum-related SVOCs were identified within bermed areas and in
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 5-5 8743-30
-------
SECTION 5
drainage ways adjacent to the berms. Low concentrations of PGBs at the FTP were
confined mainly to surface soils in the outfall from berms surrounding Tanks 7825
and 7826 during 1995 sampling. Concentrations of TPH up to 1,400 mg/kg were
detected at several locations at the site. Estimated concentrations of lead ranging
from 453J mg/kg to 3,880J mg/kg within the bermed areas and from 22.9J mg/kg
to 383J mg/kg in drainage ways adjacent to the bermed areas were detected in
surface soils. The lead is thought to have originated from fuel tank painting and
maintenance activities.
Subsurface Soils. The 1988 soil gas survey identified FHCs in the bermed areas at
the FTP. On-site field screening showed concentrations of FHCs to 190 mg/kg. Off-
site analysis in 1995 confirmed the presence of low concentrations of petroleum-
related VOCs and SVOCs within the bermed areas at the FTP. TPH was identified
in subsurface soils near the pumphouse during off-site analysis. Contamination may
be associated with pipelines leading from the tanks to the pumphouse. No PCBs
were detected in subsurface soil samples and all levels of inorganics were below
background.
Groundwater and Surface Water. Groundwater is present in both the overburden
and bedrock beneath the FTP. Petroleum-related VOCs and SVOCs were detected
in overburden and bedrock groundwater during several sampling events. In addition,
free product has been measured on the groundwater table at the FTP. Lead was
detected above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in several wells at the FTP.
but may have been a result of suspended solids and therefore not representative of
groundwater impacts from surface soil. This information suggests that groundwater
has been affected by fuel-related activities at the site.
VOCs, SVOCs, or inorganics were not detected above quantification limits or
background concentrations in samples collected from downstream surface water at
the FTP. Contamination at the site is not believed to have affected surface water
(ABB-ES, 1996a).
The impacts of source area soils on groundwater and surface water were considered
during establishment of PRGs. The PRGs selected are protective of groundwater,
and human health and the environment Groundwater and surface water associated
with the FTP will be addressed in OU 12 and OU 13, respectively.
installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 5-6 8743-30
-------
SECTION 5
522 Coal Storage Pile/Fly Ash Disposal
A cover system was installed over the FAD in 1994 and additional closure activities
are currently being conducted under the State of Maine Solid Waste Regulations.
Surface Soils. Prior to construction of the cover system, VOCs and SVOCs were
detected in three soil samples collected from the FAD area but only at low estimated
concentrations. The only VOC detected was toluene at a maximum estimated
concentration of 0.002 mg/kg. SVOCs detected included primarily PAHs, but all
concentrations were below background values. TPH ranged from 33 mg/kg to
200 mg/kg.
Subsurface Soils. No subsurface soil samples were collected as part of the RI.
Groundwater and Surface Water. Groundwater is present in both the overburden
and bedrock beneath the CSP/FAD. Only bedrock groundwater monitoring wells
have been installed at the site. VOCs, SVOCs, or pesticides were only sporadically
detected in samples collected from bedrock wells at the site. Inorganics were
detected above background concentrations but below MCLs in the same samples.
This information indicates that bedrock groundwater has not been affected by
activities conducted at the site.
A surface water sample from the outfall drainage ditch did not identify VOCs or
SVOCs. A surface water sample collected from an active seep emanating from the
FAD prior to completion of the erosion cap did not contain any SVOCs or
pesticides. Inorganics in both samples were detected at low concentrations slightly
above background. Sampling information suggests that surface water at the
CSP/FAD has not been affected by site activities (ABB-ES, 1996a).
The impacts of source area soils on groundwater and surface water were considered
during establishment of PRGs. The PRGs selected are protective of groundwater,
and human health and the environment. Groundwater and surface water associated
with the CSP/FAD will be addressed in OU 12 and OU 13, respectively.
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 5-7 874J-30
-------
SECTION 6
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A baseline risk assessment (RA) was conducted for all sites but the CSP/FAD to
estimate the probability and magnitude of potential adverse human health and
environmental effects from exposure to contaminants associated with surface and
subsurface soils at the sites. Each baseline RA was conducted using a phased
approach, as described in the LAFB Risk Assessment Methodology (RAM)
(HAZWRAP, 1994).
Residual risk calculations were performed at the SB and PPDP to identify remaining
risks following excavation of contaminated soils and subsequent confirmation
sampling that showed levels of PCBs above PRGs. Residual risk calculations were
completed using the same methodology as for the baseline RAs and results are
summarized in the following subsections, as appropriate.
6.1 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
The human health RAs followed a four step process:
• contaminant identification, which identified those hazardous substances
that, given the specifics of the site, were of significant concern;
• exposure assessment, which identified actual or potential exposure
pathways, characterized the potentially exposed populations, and
determined the extent of possible exposure;
• toxicity assessment, which considered the types and magnitude of
adverse health effects associated with exposure to hazardous
substances; and
• 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 contaminants of concern (COCs) identified in the first step of the RA process
constitute a representative subset of the compounds detected at each site during RI
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 6-1 8743-30
-------
SECTION 6
activities. Hie COCs were selected to represent potential site-related hazards based
on toxicity, concentration, frequency of detection, and mobility and persistence in the
environment.
Potential human health effects associated with exposure to the COCs at each site
were estimated quantitatively through the development of hypothetical exposure
pathways. These pathways were developed to reflect the present uses, potential
future uses, and location of each site. 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.
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.,
1x10* 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 acceptable exposure level for the given compound). 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 uncertainty factors. In addition,
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 6-2 8743-30
-------
SECTION 6
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.
Carcinogenic risks are compared to the USEPA target carcinogenic risk range of one
in ten thousand to one in a million (IxlO4 to IxlO^and the MEDEP cancer risk
guidance value of IxlO"5. Noncartinogenic risks are compared to the USEPA target
noncarcinogenic hazard index (HI) of 1 (USEPA, 1990).
USEPA has a CERCLA mandate to manage risk resulting from actual or potential
exposure to hazardous substances. Carcinogenic risk within the USEPA's target
cancer risk range is considered acceptable. Noncarcinogenic 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.
62 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
An ecological RA was performed at each site for terrestrial animals and plant life
(phytotoxicity). An ecological RA was not conducted for the FTP or the CSP/FAD.
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 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 soils.
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).
The results of the human health RAs are discussed below, followed by a discussion
of the ecological RA for each site.
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 6-3 8743-30
-------
SECTION 6
63 SUMMARY OF RISKS AT OPERABLE UNIT 9
RAs were conducted for the SB, PPDP, and FVMP. Table 6-1 summarizes the
results of the OU 9 human health RAs and Table 6-2 summarizes the results of the
OU 9 ecological RAs. Detailed discussions on the human health and ecological RAs
are presented in the OU 9 Final RI Report (ABB-ES, 1995).
63.1 Snowbarn
The risk characterization evaluated potential risks to a child trespasser,
groundskeeper, commercial/industrial worker, and construction worker associated
with exposures to surface and subsurface soils. PAHs, Aroclor-1260, and several
inorganics were identified as the predominant COCs at the SB.
Human Health Risk Assessment. Carcinogenic risks associated with exposure to
surface and subsurface soil were within the USEPA carcinogenic risk range (1x10"*
to IxlO"6). The only exposure scenarios evaluated for surface soil and subsurface soil
which exceed the MEDEP cancer risk guidance value (1x10^) were the commercial/
industrial worker, groundskeeper, and construction worker for the RME. The cancer
risk was attributable to carcinogenic PAHs through the incidental ingestion route of
exposure. Non-cancer risks were within acceptable guidance levels. Subsurface soil
noncarcinogenic risk to the construction worker (RME) was equal to an HI of 1 and
attributed to the inhalation of barium (see Table 6-1). Although inorganics are
primary risk drivers, the concentrations detected at die SB are generally below
background, and therefore not believed to be site-related.
TPH was detected at a maximum concentration of 2,000 mg/kg in surface and
subsurface soil. Because TPH concentrations were not quantitatively evaluated, they
contribute to the uncertainty of the risk assessment (i.e., risks are potentially
underestimated).
Ecological Risk Assessment. The ecological RA included an evaluation of potential
risks to terrestrial plants, invertebrates, and wildlife from exposure to surface soils.
The maximum His exceeded one for both plants and invertebrates. However, the
average were below one. Zinc was the primary risk driver. Adverse effects to plants
or the soil invertebrate community, associated with exposure to zinc, are possible but
the probability of impact is low. Although inorganics are primary risk drivers, the
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 6-4 8743-30
-------
TABLE 6-1
OU 9 QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK SUMMARY
OUs 9 AND 1 1 RECORD OF DECISION
LOR ING AIR FORCE BASE
SITE NAME
\
SB
PPDP
FVMP
Surface Soil (02 feet)
Trespasser
Groundskeeper
Commercial/Industrial Worker
Subsurface Soil (0-10 feet)
Construction Worker
Surface Soil (0-2 feet)
Trespasser
Groundskeeper
Commercial/Industrial Worker
Subsurface Soil (0-2 feet)
Construction Worker
Surface Soil (0-2 feet)
Trespasser
Groundskeeper
Commercial/Industrial Worker
Subsurface Soil (0-2 feet)
Construction Worker
TOTAL CANCER RISK
AVERAGE
1E-06
1E-06
6E-06
2E-06
1E-06
3E-07
1E-06
6E-07
1E-06
2E-06
8E-06
2E05
RME1
5E-06
6E-05
2E-05
2E-05
3E-06
1E-06
4E-06
3E-06
1E-05
1E-05
5E-05
5E-05 .
NON-CARCINOGENIC RISK
AVERAGE
0.0002
0.01
0.01
0.3
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.08
0.004
0.03
0.01
11
RME
0.009
0.02
0.02
1
0.01
0.005
0.002
0.3
0.01
0.1
0.02
46
Notes:
'RME = Reasonable Maximum f*r"r\i-»
W004%IR.TR()/3
-------
TABLE 6-2
OU 9 ECOLOGICAL RISK SUMMARY FOR SURFACE SOILS
OUs 9 AND 11 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
SITE NAME
SB
SITE NAME
PPDP
SITE NAME
FVMP
ECOLOGICAL RECEPTOR
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE .
Meadow Vole
American Robin
Red Fox
American Kestrel
INVERTEBRATES
VASCULAR PLANTS
ECOLOGICAL RECEPTOR
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE
Short-tailed Shrew
American Woodcock
Garter Snake
Barred Owl
Meadow Vole
American Robin
Red Fox [2]
American Kestrel
INVERTEBRATES
VASCULAR PLANTS
ECOLOGICAL RECEPTOR
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE
Meadow Vole
American Robin
Red Fox
American Kestrel
INVERTEBRATES
VASCULAR PLANTS
HAZARD INDEX
LETHAL EFFECTS
0.24
0.21
0.37
0.37
SUB-LETHAL EFFECTS
0.34
1.5
0.013
0.026
EFFECTS EVALUATED
Earthworm LC50 [1]
Phytotoxicity
HAZARD INDEX
LETHAL EFFECTS
4.8
6.7
0.55
0.42
0.25
1.6
0.63
1.5
Sui-LETHAL EFFECTS
3.4
0.098
0.29
0.00072
0.29
0.63
0.0057
0.011
EFFECTS EVALUATED
Earthworm LC50 [1]
Phytotoxicity
HAZARD INDEX
LETHAL EFFECTS
0.46
2.8
0.74
1.8
SUB-LETHAL EFFECTS
0.65
2.5
0.0054
0.017
EFFECTS EVALUATED
Earthworm LC50 [1]
Phytotoxicity
Notes:
[1] LC50 = Lethal Concentration 50%
[2] The most conservative values are presented for the red fox.
W0049618.T80/1
6-6
-------
SECTION 6
concentrations detected at the SB are generally below background, and therefore not
believed to be site-related.
Except for the American robin, lethal or sub-lethal His estimated for terrestrial
wildlife receptors did not exceed one. Sub-lethal His for the American robin slightly
exceeded one; however, estimated exposure doses for individual COCs were not in
excess of protective reference toxicity values (RTVs). These findings suggest that it
is unlikely that terrestrial receptors are at significant risk to adverse effects in the
terrestrial habitat associated with the SB (see Table 6-2).
Conclusion. Removal actions were completed at the SB in 1995 and included
excavation and disposal of petroleum- and PCB-contaminated soils. The PCB-
contaminated soil (>50 mg/kg) was disposed in a licensed off-base facility. The
remaining petroleum-contaminated soil was disposed in LF-3. Confirmation samples
were taken during the removal action. Ten of the samples showed exceedances of
PRGs. Reexcavation and resampling occurred at eight of the locations and
contamination levels were identified below PRGs after reexcavation. Residual RAs
were performed on the two remaining areas and revealed the residual risk was below
acceptable levels (Bechtel, 1996). Because the PCB and petroleum contamination
at the SB has been removed to below acceptable risk levels, No Further CERCLA
Action is required for soils at the site.
6.32 Power Plant Drainage Pipe
The risk characterization evaluated potential risks to a child trespasser,
groundskeeper, commercial/industrial worker, and construction worker associated
with exposures to surface and subsurface soils. COCs identified for surface and
subsurface soil at the PPDP consist primarily of PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and
inorganics.
Human Health Risk Assessment. Carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks were
assessed to be within or below the USEPA carcinogenic risk range (IxlO"4 to IxlO"6)
and below the MEDEP cancer risk guidance value (IxlO'5). Cumulative risks
associated with the trespasser exposure to surface soil and subsurface soil in the
pipeline drainage area were within the USEPA carcinogenic risk range and were less
than the MEDEP cancer risk guidance value. Cumulative HT scores were well below
1 (see Table 6-1).
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 6-7 8743-30
-------
SECTION 6
TPH was detected at a maximum concentration of 43,000 rag/kg in surface soil at the
drainage area and in the waste trench at a maximum concentration of 23,000 mg/kg.
TPH concentrations were not evaluated quantitatively, thus, potentially
underestimating risk.
Lead was detected above the MEDEP criteria (125 mg/kg) in the PP area surface
(129 mg/kg) and subsurface soil (158 mg/kg). Lead was also detected above the
MEDEP criteria (125 mg/kg) in the PDA surface soil (780 mg/kg). However, the
calculated blood lead levels for young children using the Integrated Exposure Uptake
Biokinetic (IEUBK) model are well below the criteria value (10 micrograms per
deciliter [/tg/dL]).
Ecological Risk Assessment. The ecological RA included an evaluation of potential
risks to terrestrial plants, invertebrates, and wildlife from exposure to surface soils.
Maximum concentrations of chromium, copper, and lead detected in PDA surface
soils and the maximum concentration of zinc detected in PP area surface soils,
exceeded available plant RTVs. Average concentrations of chromium, copper, and
zinc exceed the established benchmark values for earthworms at the PDA, and the
average concentration of zinc exceeded the earthworm RTV at the PP area, although
concentrations of inorganics are generally below background values. Maximum
surface soil concentrations were only 2 to 6 times greater than the established RTVs.
These findings suggest the likelihood that earthworm (and other soil invertebrate)
populations would be adversely affected is low.
At the PDA, lethal and sub-lethal His exceeded one for the short-tailed shrew.
Lethal His exceeded one for the American woodcock. Risk findings for the other
representative wildlife receptors were less than 1. The magnitude of these risk
estimates suggests that wildlife populations are unlikely to be adversely impacted as
a result of exposure to PDA surface soils. It is important to note that manganese,
a predominant risk contributor, was detected at a maximum concentration in PDA
surface soils only slightly higher than maximum background concentration for LAFB.
At the PP area, only the estimated lethal His for the American robin and American
kestrel exceeded one. Zinc was the predominant risk contributor with barium (robin
only), mercury (kestrel only) and selenium also contributing to the projected risks.
No sub-lethal His exceeded one. The magnitude of the His estimated for robin and
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 6-8 8743-30
-------
SECTION 6
kestrel suggest that avifauna are unlikely to be at significant risk due to exposures
at the PP area (see Table 6-2).
A number of uncertainties were identified that may result in potential risks being
underestimated at the PPDP. These uncertainties include potential exposures
associated with the certain COCs which could not be evaluated due a lack of
lexicological data (e.g., TPH), and potential'adverse effects associated with the
combined exposures by wide-ranging organisms that may also utilize other
contaminated areas located in the vicinity of the PPDP.
Conclusion. Removal actions were completed at the PPDP in 1995 and included
excavation and disposal of petroleum- and PCB-contaminated shallow soils.
Confirmation samples were taken during excavation of the shallow soils. Five of the
samples showed exceedances of PRGs. Additional excavation and resampling
occurred at four of the locations and contamination levels were identified below
PRGs after reexcavation. A residual RA was performed on the remaining area and
revealed the residual risk was below acceptable levels (Bechtel, 1996). A bioventing
system was also installed in 1995 to address petroleum contamination in subsurface
soils. Because the PCB contamination at the PPDP was removed to below
acceptable risk levels and the remaining contamination is petroleum-related, No
Further CERCLA Action is required for soils at the site.
6.3.3 Former Vehicle Motor Pool
The risk characterization evaluated potential risks to a child trespasser,
groundskeeper, commercial/industrial worker, and construction worker associated
with exposures to surface and subsurface soils. The COCs identified at the FVMP
include PAHs, PCBs, and inorganics.
Human Health Risk Assessment. Carcinogenic risks associated with exposure to
surface soil were within the USEPA carcinogenic risk range (IxlO"4 to 1x10"*). The
commercial/industrial worker maximum exposure exceeds the MEDEP cancer risk
guidance value (IxlO*5). These risks are due primarily to incidental ingestion
exposures to arsenic and carcinogenic PAHs in surface soil. Noncarcinogenic risks
were within acceptable levels. Subsurface soil average and maximum cancer risks to
the construction worker were assessed to be above the MEDEP cancer risk guidance
value but within the USEPA risk range. The calculated carcinogenic risks are due
primarily to incidental ingestion of carcinogenic PAHs, arsenic, and PCBs, and
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 6-9 8743-30
-------
SECTION 6
inhalation of arsenic and cadmium particulates. Noncarcinogenic risks for the
construction worker were also greater than an HI score of one, due primarily to
manganese through the inhalation exposure route. As discussed in the OU 9 Final
RI Report (ABB-ES, 1995), health risks associated with the inhalation of manganese
at the FVMP are probably not site-related and are overestimated (see Table 6-1).
Other inorganics at the site were generally identified below background and are not
believed to be site-related contaminants.
Lead (345 mg/kg) was detected at concentrations above the MEDEP criterion
(125 mg/kg) in surface and subsurface soil, although the calculated blood lead levels
for young children using the IEUBK model are well below the criterion value
(10 Mg/dL).
TPH was detected at a maximum concentration of 4,600 mg/kg in surface and
subsurface soil. Because TPH concentrations were not quantitatively evaluated, they
contribute to the uncertainty in the RA, potentially underestimating risk.
•Ecological Risk Assessment. The ecological RA included an evaluation of potential
risks to terrestrial plants, invertebrates, and wildlife from exposure to surface soils.
The maximum detected concentrations of lead, manganese, and zinc exceeded the
plant RTVs. However, average concentrations of these inorganics were below
screening lexicological benchmark values, and maximum soil concentrations only
slightly exceeded the RTVs. The established invertebrate RTVs for manganese and
zinc were also exceeded by the maximum detected concentrations of these COCs at
the FVMP site. Maximum concentrations of lead, and zinc were collected at a single
location and adverse effects to plants or the soil invertebrate community that occur
at the rest of the terrestrial habitat associated with the site are not anticipated.
The lethal His for the American robin and American kestrel exceeded one, and the
sub-lethal HI for the robin exceeded one. Manganese was the primary risk
contributor to the robin under both lethal and sub-lethal effects scenarios. Although
no individual lethal HQ for the kestrel exceeded one, lethal HQs for several PAH
compounds, manganese, and zinc were all within an order of magnitude of one. The
magnitude of the His estimated for robin and kestrel suggest that avifauna are
unlikely to be at significant risk to adverse effects at the FVMP. It is important to
note that manganese, a predominant risk contributor, was detected at a maximum
concentration in FVMP surface soils at only approximately twice the maximum
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 6-10 7743-30
-------
SECTION 6
background concentration for LAFB (see Table 6-2). Other inorganics at the site
were generally identified below background and are not believed to be site-related
contaminants.
Conclusion. A bioventing system was installed at the FVMP in conjunction with the
system at the PPDP in 1995 to address the petroleum-contaminated soil. Because
the contamination at the FVMP is petroleum-related, No Further CERCLA Action
is required for soils at the site.
6.4 SUMMARY OF RISKS AT OPERABLE UNIT 11
A human health RA was conducted for the FTP. An ecological RA was not
performed because the site is small, fenced, and gravel covered, and does not provide
a suitable ecological habitat. The RA was qualitative and used only the results of
the PCB contamination identified at the site. Because lead was identified in surface
soil at the FTF in excess of the USEPA Interim Soil Lead Guidance value
(400 mg/kg), excavation of the soils was completed using the guidance value as the
PRG. The remaining contamination at the FTF is petroleum-related and therefore
regulated under MEDEP. State regulations do not require an RA to be performed
on petroleum-related contamination.
An RA was not performed at the CSP/FAD because the RI did not identify levels
of contamination at the site significant enough to pose a risk to public health or the
environment. Additionally, coal storage and fly ash are not regulated under
CERCLA Table 6-3 summarizes the results of the FTF human health RA Detailed
discussion on the human health RA is presented in the OU 11 Final RI Report
(ABB-ES, 1996a).
6.4.1 Fuels Tank Farm
A human health RA was conducted at the FTF to determine if PCBs detected in
surface soils posed a potential risk to human receptors. The data used for the RA
was collected in 1995 for Level B immunoassay PCB field screening analysis;
therefore, the data is considered Level B data. The human health RA was conducted
using the most conservative scenarios described in the RAM (HAZWRAP, 1994).
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 6-11 8743-30
-------
TABLE 6-3
OU 11 QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK SUMMARY
OUs 9 AND 11 RECORD OF DECISION
LDRINQ AIR FORCE BASE
SITE NAME
FTF»
Surface Sod (0-2 feet)
Commercial/Industrial Worker
Subsurface Sol (0-10 feet)
~ Construction Worker
TOTAL CANCER RISK
AVERAGE
-
-
RME'
1E-05
2E-06
NflAuTiAAitiiirtftitMtfi Rlftir
AVERAGE
-
-
RME
Mil
0.6
9s
i—»
N)
'RME
i
Raasonabla Maximum Exposure
Evaluated for PCBs only
Not Evaluated
WXM9618.TBO/2
-------
SECTION 6
Human Health Risk Assessment. Exposure to PCBs could occur through incidental
ingestion of contaminated soil, dermal contact with contaminated soil, and inhalation
of contaminated particulates. The total cancer risk for the most conservative
scenario (commercial/industrial worker) is IxlO"5. The total HQ for the most
conservative noncarcinogenic scenario (construction worker) is 0.7. The maximum
estimated risks do not exceed the USEPA and MEDEP regulatory criteria; therefore,
no significant risk to human receptors is predicted (see Table 6-3).
Ecological Risk Assessment. An ecological risk assessment was not performed
because the site is small, fenced, and gravel covered, and does not provide a suitable
ecological habitat.
Conclusion. Removal actions were completed at the FTP in 1995 and included
excavation and disposal in LF-3 of lead-contaminated soils. Confirmation samples
were taken during the removal action. Four of the samples showed exceedances of
PRGs. Additional excavation and resampling showed no contaminant levels above
PRGs (Bechtel, 1996). A bioventing/bioslurping system will be installed at the FTP
in 1996 to address the remaining petroleum-contaminated soil and fuel product.
Because the lead- contaminated soil at the FTF was removed to below acceptable
risk levels and the remaining contamination is petroleum-related, No Further
CERCLA Action is required for soils at the site.
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 6-13 8743-30
-------
SECTION 7
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Based on the results of the RIs, removal actions, and residual RAs, No Further
CERCLA Action is necessary for source control at the SB, PPDP, and FVMP in
OU 9 and the FTP and CSP/FAD in OU 11.
Although there are no remedial actions associated with this No Further CERCLA
Action decision, removal actions currently being conducted at the sites to address
petroleum-contaminated soil and fuel product will be completed. The cost associated
with these actions is approximately $1,800,000. Because only petroleum
contamination remains at the sites, no five-year site reviews will be conducted
following completion of the removal actions. There are no additional costs
associated with the No Further CERCLA Action decision.
Although No Further CERCLA Action is necessary for source control at many of the
OU 9 and 11 sites referenced above, further CERCLA actions may be required to
address other media (i.e., groundwater and surface water). The groundwater and
surface water associated with all of the OU 9 and 11 sites will be addressed in OU
12 and OU 13, respectively.
USEPA has the authority to revisit the No Further CERCLA Action decision even
if LAFB 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 the sites or there is a change in land use. The Air Force
is prepared to initiate proper institutional controls, when appropriate, to restrict the
future land uses of the sites and assure the proper notification of future owners.
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 7-1 8743-30
-------
SECTION 8
8.0 DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Air Force prepared a Proposed Plan outlining the proposed alternative of No
Further CERCLA Action at OUs 9 and 11 (i.e., SB, PPDP, FVMP, FTP, and
CSP/FAD) (ABB-ES, 1996c). The Proposed Plan described the Air Force's decision
to pursue No Further CERCLA Action for source control at these sites.
No significant changes have been made to the preferred alternative described in the
Proposed Plan.
Installation Restoration Program
WOW9618.080 8-1 8743-30
-------
SECTION 9
9.0 STATE ROLE
The MEDEP, as a party to the FFA, has reviewed the proposed alternative. The
MEDEP has also reviewed the RIs, RAs, EE/CA, and CAPs to determine if the
selected remedy is in compliance with pertinent state environmental laws and
regulations.
The MEDEP concurs with the No Further CERCLA Action for source control at the
SB, PPDP, and FVMP in OU 9 and the FTP and CSP/FAD in OU 11. A copy of
the Letter of Concurrence is presented in Appendix C of this ROD.
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 9-1 8743-30
-------
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ABB-ES
AHS
AOC
AST
AVGAS
bgs
BTEX
CAP
CERCLA
COC
CRP
CSP
DDT
DoD
DRMO
EE/CA
FAD
FFA
FHC
FLA
FLDD
FTP
FVMP
GC
HAZWRAP
ffl
HQ
IEUBK
IR
ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
Auto Hobby Shop
area of concern
aboveground storage tank
aviation gasoline
below ground surface
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
Corrective Action Plan
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act
contaminant of concern
community relation plan
Coal Storage Pile
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
Department of Defense
Defense Reutilization Marketing Office
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
Fly Ash Disposal
Federal Facilities Agreement
fuel hydrocarbons
Flightline Area
Flightline Drainage Ditch
Fuels Tank Farm
Former Vehicle Motor Pool
gas chromatography
Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program
Hazard Index
hazard quotient
Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic
infrared
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080
8743-30
-------
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
IRP
LAFB
LC50
LF-3
MOGAS
MEDEP
mg/kg
NCP
NPL
OU
PA
PAH
PCB
PCE
PDA
PP
PPDP
PRO
RA
RAB
RAM
RfD
RI
RME
RMSA
ROD
RTV
SARA
SB
SVE
SVOC
Installation Restoration Program
Loring Air Force Base
Lethal Concentration 50%
Landfills
motor gasoline
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
milligrams per kilogram
National Contingency Plan
National Priority List
Operable Unit
preliminary assessment
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
polychlorinated biphenyl
tetrachloroethene
pipeline drainage area
power plant
Power Plant Drainage Pipe
preliminary remediation goal
risk assessment
Restoration Advisory Board
risk assessment methodology
reference dose
remedial investigation
reasonable maximum exposure
Refueling Maintenance Shop Area
Record of Decision
Reference Toxicity Value
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Snowbarn
soil vapor extraction
semivolatile organic compound
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.060
8743-30
-------
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
TCE trichloroethene
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
f*g/dL micrograms per deciliter
URS URS Consultants, Inc.
USAF U.S. Air Force
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
UST underground storage tank
VMB Vehicle Maintenance Building
VOC volatile organic compound
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 8743-30
-------
REFERENCES
ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-ES), 1995. Remedial Investigation Report
South Flightline Operable Unit 9 (OU 9); Final: Installation Restoration
Program; Loring Air Force Base; prepared for HAZWRAP; Portland,
Maine; January, 1995.
ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-ES), 1996a. Remedial Investigation
Report Operable Unit 11 (OU 11); Final; Installation Restoration Program;
Loring Air Force Base;-prepared for HAZWRAP; Portland, Maine;
January, 1996.
ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-ES), 19965. Operable Units 5 and 9
Corrective Action Plan; Final; Installation Restoration Program; Loring Air
Force Base; prepared for HAZWRAP; Portland, Maine; April, 1996.
ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-ES), 1996c. Operable Units 9 and 11
Proposed Plan; Final; Installation Restoration Program; Loring Air Force
Base; prepared for HAZWRAP; Portland, Maine; June, 1996.
Bechtel Environmental, Inc. (Bechtel), 1996. Removal Actions at Operable Units 5,
8, 9, 10, and 11 Removal Actions Report; Final; prepared for the
Department of the Air Force; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; February, 1996.
CH2M Hill, 1984. IRP Records Search; Loring Air Force Base; Limestone, Maine;
January 1984.
Federal Facility Agreement (FFA), 1991. 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, 1991.
Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program (HAZWRAP), 1994. Loring Air
Force Base Risk Assessment Methodology, Final; Environmental Restoration
and Waste Management Programs; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; August, 1994.
URS Consultants, Inc. (URS), 1995. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for
Operable Units 5, 8, 9, 10, and 11; Final; Environmental Restoration
Program; prepared for Department of the Air Force; Denver, Colorado;
March 1995.
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 8743-30
-------
REFERENCES
URS Consultants, Inc. (URS), 1996. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for
Operable Unit 11; Final; Environmental Restoration Program; prepared for
Department of the Air Force; Denver, Colorado; March 1996.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1990. National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan; 40 CFR Part 300; Washington,
DC; March, 1990.
Installation Restoration program
W0049618.080 8743-30
-------
APPENDIX A
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC MEETING
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 8743-30
-------
STATE OF MAINE AROOSTOOK, ss
OPERABLE UNITS 4, 9 & 11
PUBLIC HEARING
JUNE 11, 1996
CARIBOU CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
CARIBOU, MAINE
7:26 P.M.
BENNETT LEGAL TRANSCRIPT SERVICES
P. 0. Box 947
Caribou, ME 04736-0947
(207)498-2729
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PETER FORBES
2
3
4 EXHIBITS
5 NONE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
1
2
3 June 11, 1996
4
5 PETER FORBES: Good
6 evening. Welcome to the public hearing to receive
7 comments on the proposed plans for Operable Units
8 4 and 9 and 11 at Loring Air Force Base. Today's
9 date is June llth, 1996. My name is Peter
10 Forbes, the Remedial Project Manager for the
Installation Restoration Program at Loring.
12 Seated with me are Michael Nalipinski, Remedial
13 Project Manager for the U.S. Environmental
14 Protection Agency, and Naji Akladiss, Remedial
15 Project Manager for the Maine Department of
16 Environmental Protection, and they will assist me
i? in receiving your comments.
ie This hearing is being held in accordance with
19 the provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental
20 Response Compensation and Liability Act or CERCLA
21 as amended in 1986, also known as Superfund. The
22 ; act requires federal facilities on the National
23 Priorities List to present clean up proposals to
24 the local community for comment and consideration
25 before the final clean up decisions are made. The
-------
4
i purpose of this hearing is to receive comments on
2 the Proposed Plans for Operable Units 4 and 9 and
3 11.
4 Mr. Philip Bennett from Aroostook Legal
5 Reporters will serve as the court reporter
6 tonight, preparing a verbatim record of the
7 proceedings. The verbatim record will become a
8 part of the final clean up plan. The court
reporter will be able to make a complete record
10 only if he is able to hear and understand what you
n say. With that in mind, please follow these
12 ground rules. Speak only after I recognize you
13 and please address your remarks to me. State your
14 name and the organization you represent and
15 present your statement. Do not begin speaking
16 until you have reached the microphone and speak
17 slowly and clearly into the microphone. If you
is have prepared your statement beforehand, you may
19 read it aloud or you may paraphrase it and place
20 it on the table.
21 Are there individuals wishing to make a
22 comment or statement at this time?
23 Ladies and gentlemen, it is 7:30 p.m., June
24 11, 1996 and I declare the public hearing to
25 receive comments on the Proposed Plans for
-------
5
Operable Units 4 and 9 and 11 at Loring Air Force
2 Base closed. Thank you all for coming.
3
4
g *********************************
6
7
8 CERTIFICATION
9
10
n I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT the foregoing is a true and
12 correct transcript of my stenographic notes taken
13 at the Operable Units 4 & 9, 11 Public Hearing
held on June 11, 1996.
15
16
17
18
19 Philip R. Bennett, Jr.,
20 Court Reporter
21
22
23
24
25 STATE OF MAINE AROOSTOOK, SS.
-------
APPENDIX B
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 8743-30
-------
APPENDIX B
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The Air Force held a 30-day comment period from June 5, 1996 to July 5, 1996,
to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the Proposed Plan and
other documents developed for Operable Units (OUs) 9 and 11 at Loring Air
Force Base, Maine. The Proposed Plan is the document that identifies the No
Further CERCLA Action decision for source area soils at three sites in OU 9 and
two sites in OU 11.
The Air Force made a recommendation of No Further CERCLA Action for
source area soils at the Snowbarn (SB), Power Plant Drainage Pipe (PPDP), and
Former Vehicle Motor Pool (FVMP) in OU 9, and the Fuels Tank Farm (FTP)
and Coal Storage Pile/Fly Ash Disposal (CSP/FAD) in OU 11. This
recommendation was presented in the OU 9 and 11 Proposed Plan. The
Proposed Plan was issued on May 29, 1996, before the start of the comment
period. All documents on which the decision was based were placed in the
Administrative Record for review. The Administrative Record is a collection of
the documents considered by the Air Force when selecting No Further CERCLA
Action for source area soils at the sites in OUs 9 and 11.
The Air Force received no verbal or written comments on the OUs 9 and 11
Proposed Plan at a public hearing held on June 11, 1996, or during the 30 day
public comment period.
The Air Force will select the No Further CERCLA Action decision for source
area soils at the SB, PPDP, and FVMP in OU 9 and the FTF and CSP/FAD in
OU11.
The Auto Hobby Shop (AHS), Refueling Maintenance Shop Area (RMSA),
Vehicle Maintenance Building (VMB), and Base Laundry source areas will be
addressed in a future ROD. The groundwater and surface water associated with
all of the OUs 9 and 11 sites will be addressed in OUs 12 and 13, respectively.
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 8743-30
-------
APPENDIX C
LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
Installation Restoration Program
W0049618.080 8743-30
-------
STATE OF MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ANGUS S. KING. JR. EDWARD 0. SULLIVAN
GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER
August 14, 1996
Mr. Alan K. Olsen
AFBCA/DR
1700 N. Moore Street, Suite 2300
Arlington, VA. 22209-2802
RE: Loring Air Force Base Superfund Site, Limestone, Maine
Dear Mr. Olsen:
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) has completed its review of the
Draft Final Operable Units (OUs) 9 and 11 Record of Decision (ROD) dated July 1996 and
prepared for the Air Force Base Conversion Agency by the Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions
Program.
Based on the information in the Draft Final ROD, MEDEP concurs with the Air Force
recommendations summarized below:
Based on the results of the Remedial Investigation Reports, Removal Actions, and
Residual Risk Assessments, no further action is necessary under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) for source control
at the following OU 9 sites: Snow Barn, Power Plant Drainage Pipe, and Former Vehicle
Motor Pool, and the following OU11 sites: Fuel Tank Farm and Coal Storage Pile/Fly
Ash Disposal.
Removal action will be conducted at these sites to address fuel contaminated soil and free
fuel product. These actions will be conducted in accordance with Maine law and
regulations.
Further action under CERCLA and State law may be required to address other media.
Groundwater and surface water associated with all of the sites in OU9 and OU 11 will be
addressed in the RODs for OU 12 and OU 13.
Future land use at the sites will be restricted to commercial industrial activities and future
exposures will be limited to workers and trespassers.
The State's concurrence with the remedy described above should not be construed as
concurrence with any conclusion of law or finding of fact which may be set forth in the ROD for
OU 9 and OU 11. The State reserves any and all right to challenge any such finding of fact or
Serving Maine People & Protecting Their Environment
AUGUSTA PORTLAND BANGOR PRESQUE ISLE
17 STATE MOUSE STATION 312 CANCO ROAD 106 HOGAN ROAD 1235 CENTRAL DRIVE. SKYWAY PABK
AUGUSTA MAINE 04333-0017 PORTLAND, ME 04103 BANQOR, ME 04401 PRESOUE ISLE. ME 04769
(207) 287-7688 FAX: (207) 287-7826 (207) 822-6300 FAX: (207) 822-6303 (207) 941-4570 FAX: (207) 941-4584 (207) 764-0477 FAX: (207) 764-1507
OFflC£ LOCATED AT: RAY BUILDING. HOSPITAL STREET
prinlti cm recycltd payer
-------
conclusion of law in any other context. This concurrence is based on the State's understanding
that MEDEP will continue to participate in the Federal Facilities Agreement and the review and
approval of operation, design and monitoring plans. MEDEP's concurrence is conditional
pending our review and approval of permanent institutional controls.
The MEDEP looks forward to working with the Department of the Air Force and the US
Environmental Protection Agency to resolve the environmental problems posed by these sites. If
you need additional information, do not hesitate to contact either Mark Hyland or myself.
Sincere
7
Edward O. Sullivan
pc: Mark Hyland, MEDEP
Naji Akladiss, DEP
Michael Nalipinski, EPA
Hank Lowman, AFBCA
David Hopkins, AFBCA
------- |