PB96-963705
EPA/ROD/R01-96/122
April 1997
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Loring Air Force Base, Operable Unit 3,
(Debris Disposal Areas), Limestone, ME
9/27/1996
-------
Final
Operable Unit 3 (OU3)
Record Of Decision
September 1996
Installation Restoration Program
Loring Air Force Base, Maine
-------
FINAL
Loring Air Force Base
Operable Unit 3 (OU 3)
Debris Disposal Areas
Record of Decision
September 1996
Prepared for:
Air Force Base Conversion Agency
Operating Location - M
Loring Air Force Base, Maine 04750-0523
(207) 328-7109
Prepared by:
Service Center Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
Brooks air Force Base, Texas 78235-5000
Contractor: Law Environmental, Inc.
Kennesaw, Georgia 30144
Project 11-2608-3208
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION D-l
DECISION SUMMARY 1-1
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION . 1-1
1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION 1-1
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION . . 1-1
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2-1
2.1 SITE HISTORY 2-1
2.2 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2-1
3.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3-1
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 4-1
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5-1
5.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF OU3 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5-1
5.2 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE CONTRACT
STORAGE SHED AREA 5-2
5.2.1 Site Location and Description 5-2
5.2.2 SiteHistory 5-3
5.2.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination 5-11
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 6-1
6.1 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT 6-1
6.1.1 Summary of Risk Characterization 6-2
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 . j.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Paps
6.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 6-4
6.2.1 Summary of Risk Characterization 6-5
6.3 UNCERTAINTY EVALUATION 6-6
6.4 CONCLUSION 6-6
7.0 DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES 7-1
7.1 REMEDIAL RESPONSE AND REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 7-1
7.2 TECHNOLOGY AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND
SCREENING . 7-3
8.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES S-l
8.1 MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 8-1
8.2 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR CONTRACT
STORAGE SHED AREA 8-2
8.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action 8-2
8.2.2 Alternative 2: Institutional Controls 8-3
8.2.3 Alternative 3: Excavation, On-Base Disposal of Excavated Soils,
Placement of dean Soil Cover Over Chlordane-
Contaminated Areas, Institutional Controls,
Wastewater Treatment Of required) 8-3
8.2.4 Alternative 4: Excavation, Off-Base Disposal of Excavated Soils,
Placement of dean Soil Cover Over Chlordane-
Contaminated Areas, Institutional Controls,
Wastewater Treatment 0f required) 8-4
8.2.5 Alternative 5: Excavation, Stabilization/Solidification of Excavated
Soils, On-Base Disposal of Excess Soils, Placement of
dean Soil Cover Over Chlordane-Contaminated
Areas, Institutional Controls, Wastewater Treatment (if
required) 8-4
2608-3208.28
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Ease
9.0 SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 9-1
9.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA USED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS . 9-1
9.1.1 Threshold Criteria 9-1
9.1.2 Primary Balancing Criteria 9-1
9.1.3 Modifying Criteria 9-2
9.2 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 9-2
9.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 9-4
9.2.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements 9-4
9.2.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 9-5
9.2.4 Reduction in Mobility, Toxicity, and Volume through Treatment 9-5
9.2.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 9-6
9.2.6 Implementability 9-6
9.2.7 Cost 9-6
9.2.8 Comparative Analysis Summary 9-8
9.2.9 State Acceptance 9-8
9.2.10 Community Acceptance 9-8
10.0 SELECTED REMEDY . 10-1
10.1 SELECTED REMEDY FOR OU3 SITES 10-1
10.2 REMEDIAL ACTION FOR THE CONTRACT STORAGE SHED AREA
SITE 10-2
10.3 CLEANUP LEVELS 10-5
10.4 FIVE-YEAR SITE REVIEWS 10-6
11.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 11-1
11.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT 11-1
11.2 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS 11-1
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 . iii.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Paye
11.3 UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE
TREATMENT OR RESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT PRACTICABLE 11-2
11.4 PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT 11-7
11.5 COST EFFECTIVENESS 11-7
12.0 DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 12-1
13.0 STATE ROLE 13-1
14.0 REFERENCES 14-1
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Transcript of Public Hearing Meeting on July 10, 1996
APPENDIX B Responsiveness Summary
APPENDIX C Letter of Concurrence of MEDEP
InrtaJUtioo BfrtoraHon Program
2608-3208.28 _jy.
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Eigg
1-1 Loring AFB Location Map . 1-2
1-2 OU3 Site Plan 1-3
10-1 Estimated Areas and Depths of Contamination 10-4
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 . v -
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Eage.
2-1 Summary of PA/SI, RI/ASI Conclusions/Recommendations for 17 Sites in OU3 2-3
5-1 Chemicals Detected in Surface Soil (0-2 feet) 5-4
5-2 Chemicals Detected in Subsurface Soil (0-10 feet) 5-5
5.3 c^mmifjrig Detected in Sediments 5-7
5-4 Chemicals Detected in Overburden Groundwater 5-8
5-5 Chemicals Detected in Bedrock Groundwater 5-9
5^ Chemicals Detected in Sediments 5-10
6-1 Total She Risks for Each Receptor - Soil and Sediment 6-3
7-1 Screening of Assembled Alternatives 7-4
9-1 Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives 9-3
9-2 Opinions of Cost for Selected Remedial Action Alternatives 9-7
10-1 Soil Remediation Goals 10-3
11-1 Chemical-Specific ARARs and TBCs 11-3
11-2 Location Specific ARARs and TBCs 11-4
11-3 Action Specific ARARs and TBCs 11-5
i Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 .vi-
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AFB
ARAR
AVG
BRAC
CERCLA
DRMO
EOD
ERA
FFA
FS
HI
HQ
LAW
Loring AFB
MEDEP
mg/m2
NCP
NFA
NPDES
OU3
PA/SI
PAH
PX
RA
RAO
RCRA
RfD
RGs
RI/FS
RI/ASI
RME
Air Force Base
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
Average
Base Realignment and Closure
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Organization
Explosive Ordnance Disposal
Ecological Risk Assessment
Federal Facilities Agreement
Feasibility Study
Hazard Index
Hazard Quotient
Law Environmental, Die.
Loring Air Force Base
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
milligrams per square meter
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
no further action
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Operable Unit 3 •
Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Post Exchange
Risk Assessment
Remedial Action Objective
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
reference dose
Remediation Goals
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Remedial Investigation/Additional Site Investigation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
2608-3208.28
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ROD Record of Decision
SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
TBC To Be Considered
USAF United States Air Force
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UST Underground Storage Tank
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
2608-3208.28
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Debris Disposal Areas, Operable Unit 3 (OU3)
Loring Air Force Base
Limestone, Aroostook County, Maine
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the final remedies for OU3, which consists of the following 17 sites:
• No further action for the following 14 NFA (no further action) sites:
Ohio Road Debris Area,
Oklahoma Road Debris Area,
KC-13S Crash Area,
Dumpster Cleaning Area Site/Building 7841,
Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Area-Cylinders,
Golf Course Maintenance Shed Area,
Chapman Pit Debris Area,
9000 Debris Area,
Solvent/Paint Dock Area,
Prime Beef Debris Area,
Buildings 8951 and 8960 (DRMO),
Old PX Gas Station UST,
F-106A Crash Area,
Demineralization Plant.
• Further investigation for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range.
• Remedial action for the Contract Storage Shed Area site to address the contaminated
soils/sediments.
The selected remedial action was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §9601 ej ggflj, and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 D-l
-------
£ seg. (1990). This decision is based on the Administrative Record for this site, which was developed
hi accordance with Section 113 (k) of CERCLA, and which is available for public review at die
information repositories located at Robert A. Frost Memorial Library, 238 Mam Street, Limestone,
Maine, and the Air Force Base Conversion Agency at Loring AFB, AFBCA/OL-M, Building 5100,
Texas Road, Loring AFB, Maine. Through this remedial action, the United States Ah* Force (USAF)
plans to address the threat to human health posed by the presence of contaminated soils and sediments
atOU3.
The OU3 Response Action for the Debris Disposal Areas (17 sites) at Loring AFB addresses the
soils/sediments. Groundwater issues for OU3 wfll be addressed under OU12 and the surface water wfll
be addressed in OU13. Groundwater at the BOD Range will be addressed as part of the further
investigation.
The State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) concurs wim the selected remedy
for this she.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
The USAF has determined mat no former action (NFA) is required for the fourteen NFA sues at OU3.
Removal actions have been previously taken by the USAF at six (Ohio Road Debris Area; Oklahoma
Road Debris Area; Golf Course Maintenance Shed; 9000 Debris Area; Solvent/Paint Dock Area;
Demmeralization Plant) of the fourteen sites. No risk to human healm or me environnient currently exists
at these fourteen sites.
Further investigation is proposed for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range sites to determine
whether contamination identified at each she poses unacceptable risk to hmnan healm or the environment.
Final CERCLA determinations for these two sites will be made in a future Record of Decision.
Actual or threatened releases of contamination from the Contract Storage Shed she, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision, may present an faimfrmnt and
substantial endangerment to public healm, welfare, or the environment.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 D-2
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy for OU3 includes no further action for die fourteen NFA sites, and proposes further
investigation for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range, and implementation of remedial action for
the Contract Storage Shed Area.
The selected remedial action for the Contract Storage Shed Area addresses the contamination found in
soils/sediments at the site by excavation, removal, disposal, and cover of the contaminated
soils/sediments. The chlordane-contaminated areas at the site would be covered with clean soil to prevent
future exposure to the contaminated soil. The remainder of the contaminated soils identified at the site
would be excavated and disposed in an on-base landfill. Because this remedy does not apply treatment,
a long-term management program would be required.
The major components of the selected remedial action for the Contract Storage Shed Area include:
• Excavation of soils for which associated contamination exceeds the Remediation
Goals (RGs), except chlordane-contaminated soils
• Confirmation sampling to ensure that soils exceeding the RGs, except chlordane-
contaminated soils, have been excavated
• Disposal of the excavated soils in Landfill No. 3, located on-base
• Placement of 2 feet of clean soil cover, with erosion protection, over chlordane-
contaminated areas
• Institutional controls which will include restrictions which implement mis remedy
and are consistent with the "Record of Decision for the Disposal of Loring AFB,
Maine, April 1996" and the "BRAC Cleanup Plan, Loring AFB, Limestone, Maine,
April 1994."
• Wastewater treatment, if required
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The statutory requirements of CERCLA Section 121 for remedial actions are not applicable to the
fourteen NFA sites. Therefore, no five-year review will be undertaken for those sites.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 D-3
-------
Further investigation will be undertaken at the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range. Future plans will
address remedial actions.
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal and state
requirements mat are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-
effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative technologies to the maximum extent
practicable for mis site. This remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element of the remedy. Therefore, a five-year review would be required at the Contract Storage Shed
Area to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection for human health and the
environment at the site.
DECLARATION
This Record of Decision represents NFA under CERCLA for fourteen sites, recommendation of further
investigation for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range, and the selection of a remedial action under
CERCLA for the Contract Storage Shed Area at OU3.
The forgoing represents the selection of a remedial action by the Department of the Air Force and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency Region I with the concurrence of the Maine Department
of Environmental Protection.
Concur and recommend for immediate implementation:
DEPARTMENT 0FTHE AIR FORCE
By: l^/M^ I yyAJ*^ Date:
AlanK.
Director
AFBCA
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
^V /
By: '^ \MsL I'll' //l4*y/y Date: ^VI 2 1
LuidaM. Murphy *l / 7
Director
Office of Site Remediation and Restoration
USEPA-Regkml
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 D-4
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION
The Debris Disposal Areas, Operable Unit 3 (OU3), Loring Air Force Base (AFB) consists of 17 sites
that are located within Loring AFB. Loring AFB occupies approximately 9,000 acres. The base is
located in Aroostook County, Maine, approximately 3 miles west of the U.S./Canada border. The base
is bordered by the towns of Caswell, Limestone, Conner, and Caribou. The location of the base is shown
in Figure 1-1.
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION
A brief description for each of the 17 sites in OU3 investigated under the Installation Restoration Program
is presented hi this section. The locations of the 17 OU3 sites at Loring AFB are shown hi Figure 1-2.
The Ohio Road Debris Area is a 1- to 2-acre wooded area located west of the north end of the flight
line. The surface features consist of debris mounds, an irregular depression, and berms. There were
exposed empty drums near the mounds.
The Oklahoma Road Debris Area is a 10-acre area covered by brush and small trees, located hi the
northern portion of the base, north of Oklahoma Road. The area was identified as a potential dumping
area with a 1- to 2-acre filled area hi the eastern portion of the site.
The KC-135 Crash Area is located at the southern end of the main runway, near South Carolina Road.
A KC-13S tanker aircraft wrecked in 1974 or 1975 at this location, spilling 12,000 pounds of fuel on the
ground and associated drainage ditches.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 1-1
-------
City, town
Road
- River
U.S./Canada border
Approximate scale in miles
-------
LEGEND:
- LOR1NGAFB BOUNDARY
INVESTIGATION SITE
OUTDOOR FIRING RANGE
OHIO ROAD
DEBRIS AREA
AND
iOO CYLINDERS
MAINTENANCE SHED
BLDG. 9000
DEBRIS AREA
r/i— SHE
BLDGS 8951
AND 8960
CHAPMAN
PIT DEBRIS
AREA
CONTRACT
STORAGE
BLDG.
DUMPSTER
CLEANING
/XBLDG. 7841
2608-3208.20
-------
The Dompster Cleaning Area is located south of Building 7841, southeast of the intersection of South
Carolina and South Dakota roads. The area, which is covered by asphalt pavement, was used for rinsing
of dumpsters which received waste paint and solvents from die Solvent/Paint Dock Area Site (Building
7220).
Hie Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Area-Cylinders consists of two areas in the northeast portion
of the base where five large cylinders, previously used as weights for crane testing and since removed,
were stored. Four of the cylinders were located at the EOD Range and the fifth was located in the
weapons storage area near water tower number 1026, west of East Loring Lake.
The Golf Course Maintenance Shed Area, located on Haul Road in the northwest corner of the base,
consists of a small building, two storage sheds, and a petroleum underground storage tank (UST). The
UST was installed in 1991 and in service until 1994. The area was used for equipment maintenance,
fueling and washing, and for storage of fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides.
The Chapman Pit Debris Area is an area south of the Chapman Pit Dam where construction debris was
deposited. The earthen dam was constructed to convert an abandoned sand and gravel pit to a
recreational impoundment. Spillway erosion during a 1991 flood resulted in a sheen on the effluent from
die eroded area, prompting an investigation of die area.
The 9000 Debris Area, located in die northeast section of die base, consists of several mounds of
construction and demolition debris, probably from demolition of bunkers in die 9000 Area. Exposed
debris included concrete, wood, scrap metal, and filled material.
The Solvent/Paint Dock Area is located adjacent to the east side of Building 7220, which is a large
warehouse. The area outside die loading dock doors was repeatedly imp««*«H by solvent cleaning and
paint stripping of interior floors, when solvent and residue were pushed out die doors into dumpsters.
Installation Restoration
2608-3208.28 1-4
-------
The Prime Beef Debris Area is a 4- to S-acre area located in die northeast quadrant of the base, east
of the northern flight line. Hie debris area consists primarily of construction and demolition debris,
including scrap metal and up to twenty 55-gallon drums.
Buildings 8951 and 8960 Defense Reutilization and Marketing Organization (DRMO), located near
the eastern boundary of die base, were used for storage of electrical transformers, cable and wire.
Transformer oil spills were suspected around the buildings, as evidenced by oil-stained concrete, pallets
and rags around Building 8960.
The Old Post Exchange (PX) Gas Station VST is located near the southeast corner of the base. The
gas station was previously demolished and me site is currently covered by asphalt pavement at the
intersection of Maine and South Carolina Roads. Geophysical and test pit investigations at the site
determined mat USTs had been removed.
The F-10dA Crash Area, located between the mam and secondary runways, is the site of a plane crash
in December 1965, in which the F-106A burst into flames. Historical records regarding possible removal
of fuel-contaminated soils are not available.
The Demineralization Plant (Building 7321) is located west of the south end of the flight line in an
industrial area. The plant demineralized water for the base potable water supply. Backwash from the
demineralization process was reportedly discharged into a low swale area, forming a pond southwest of
the building. The backwash wastewater contained heavy metals.
The Outdoor Firing Range Area is located in the eastern portion of the base and includes the firing line,
skeet range, grenade range, and a debris area. The skeet and grenade ranges are inactive, and the firing
line remained active until the base closing hi September 1994. The debris area, located in the
southeastern portion of the Outdoor Firing Range, contained concrete slabs, paint cans, weathered drums,
and earthen mounds.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 1-5
-------
TheEOD Range is a 20-acre crass-covered, fenced area, near die northeast cornerof the base. The site
was previously used for disposal of ammunition by detonation and burning, and for burial of munitions
residue, spent cartridges, and construction debris. During RI/ASI activities, the Old BOD Range was
identified. The Old EOD Range encompasses an approximate area of 26 acres, and partially overlaps
die EOD Range. Generally, die Old EOD Range is a wooded area and, prior to its abandonment, was
used for the same activities as the EOD Range. Estimate for the total area of the range is approximately
40 acres.
The Contract Storage Shed Area was used for the storage and staging of electrical transformers, waste
oil, and waste chemical drums. The storage shed was demolished and die site is now used as a parking
lot and storage area for groundskeeping equipment.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28
-------
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
2.1 SITE HISTORY
Loring AFB was constructed in the laic 1940s to support long-range bomber aircraft for the Strategic Air
Command. Military activities that took place at Loring AFB primarily included: aircraft maintenance and
refueling, munitions storage and maintenance, aircraft flight line and industrial area operations, fire training
exercises, and personnel support. As a result of these activities, various contaminants, including some
hazardous substances present in the materials and compounds stored, used, and disposed over the years,
have entered the environment The 17 sites described in Section 1.0 were suspected to be contaminated as a
result of such activities.
2.2 ENFORCEMENT ACnViTJlaS
Loring AFB was added to the National Priorities List in 1990 requiring investigation consistent with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). A Federal
Facilities Agreement (FFA) between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region L the
Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP), and the United States Air Force (USAF), signed
on January 30, 1991, as amended, governs environmental activities being conducted at Lortog AFB. The
USAF is responsible for addressing environmental contamination at Loring AFB, under Section 120 of
CERCLA and the FFA. The facility was placed on the Base Closure List in 1991. The base was closed in
September 1994.
A Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation (PA/SI) was completed for the Debris Disposal Areas, OU3 in
1993. Seventeen sites were investigated to identify their status with respect to risk to human health and the
environment Eleven of these 17 sites, including the Contract Storage Shed Area site, were identified as
Remedial Investigation/Additional Site Investigation (RI/ASI) sites. Further investigation of these sites was
recommended in 1994. The other six PA/SI sites were recommended for no further action upon which No
Further Remedial Action Plan documents were completed in 1994. Among these six sites were the Golf
Course Maintenance Shed Area site, the Oklahoma Road Debris Area site, and the Ohio Road Debris Area
site, for which limited removal of contaminated soils and debris had previously been performed.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28
-------
Based on die RI/ASI investigation results for die 11 sites, 5 sites were recommended for no further
action, and limited removal action followed by no further action was recommended for 3 other sites.
Additional investigation of the Old EOD Range (which is contained within the EOD Range Site) was
recommended, as mis area was not included hi the PA/SI or RI/ASI. Further investigation was
recommended for the Outdoor Firing Range to verity the extent of contamination at the she. Only the
Contract Storage Shed Area site was recommended for a Feasibility Study (PS). This recommendation
was based on the identification of potential risk posed to human health and the environment by
contaminants detected at the she. Table 2-1 siimmari/as the nature of the 17 sites hi OU3.
An FS was conducted in 1996, in which remedial alternatives mat address potential risk at the OU3 sites
were identified and evaluated. This decision document presents the final remedies for OU3, which
consists of the following 17 sites:
• No further action for the following 14 NFA (no further action) sites:
Ohio Road Debris Area,
Oklahoma Road Debris Area,
KC-135 Crash Area,
Dumpster Cleaning Area Site/Building 7841,
Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Area-Cylinders,
Golf Course Maintenance Shed Area,
Chapman Pit Debris Area,
9000 Debris Area,
Solvent/Paint Dock Area,
Prime Beef Debris Area,
Buildings 8951 and 8960 (DRMO),
Old PX Gas Station UST,
F-106A Crash Area,
Demineralization Plant.
Further investigation for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range.
Remedial action for the Contract Storage Shed Area she to address the
contaminated soils/sediments
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF PA/SI, RI/ASI CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 17 SUES IN OU3
OU3 Record of Decision
Lorlng Air Force Base, Maine
SITE NAME
DESCRIPTION
CONCLUSIONS
PA/SI, RI/ASI ACTIONS TAKEN
K>
PA/SI SITES (Q
Otto Road Debris Ana
Oklahoma Road Debris
Ana
KC-135 Crash Site
Dumpflter Cleaning Area-
Building 7841
BOD Ana-Cylinders
Golf Course Maintenance
Shed
RI/ASI SITES fll>
Chapman Pit
Debris Ana
9000 Debris Area
1- to 2-ecn wooded ana with mounds depression and berms;
buried debris and. empty drums wen removed from the site.
10-acn ana covered by brush and small trees, a potential
dumping ana with a 1- to 2-*cn fitted ana.
A KC-135 tanki
eked in 1974-1975 at me site
spilling 12,000 pounds of fuel onto die ground.
The ana is covered by asphalt and was used for luring of
dumpsters which received waste paint and solvent from Ifae
solvent/paint dock ana.
Five large cylinders used as weights for crane testing wen
stored in the ana. These cylinders have been removed.
The ana was used for equipment maintenance, feeling and
washing, and for storage of fertilizer, ptslicklns, and herbicides.
A UST installed in 1991 was taken out of service in 1994 and
left in place for future use.
Originally mined for gravel and sand for base construction.
Pond created and used for recreation prior to base doaun.
Construction related debris deposited in ana. SpiOway erosion
by 1991 flood revealed sheen - prompted investigation of source.
Possible demolition debris from 9000 Ana bunkers. Probable
deposition since 1980 baaed on aerial photographs. Exposed
debris includes concrete, wood, scrap metal, and fin soil.
No risk associated with possible
contamination from previously removed
debris was indicated.
No risk associated with possible
contamittation from debris was
indicated.
No risk associated with possible
contamination from me fuel spin was
No risk associated with possible
contamination at the site was indicated.
No risk associated with previously
removed cylinders was indicated.
No oak associated with possible
contamination at the site was indicated.
Risk assessment indicated that no
remediation action is required.
Risk assessment indicated no remedial
action is required after isolated removal.
No Further Action following isolated soil
removal.
No Further Action following isolated soil
removal.
No Further Action.
No Further Action.
No Further Action.
No Further Action following isolated soil
removal.
No Further Action.
No Further Action following isolated
removal of soils.
2608-3208.28
1 of 3
-------
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF PA/SI, RI/ASI CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 17 SITES IN OU3
OU3 Record of DecUon
Lorinf Air Force Baic, Maine
SITE NAME DESCRIPTION CONCLUSIONS PA/SI, RI/ASI ACTIONS TAKEN
Solvent/Paint Dock Ana Located at BnOdtag 7220, a wnwfcann far varione nulrriili. Riak HI nam untied call it mat no No Further Action following faolatod
i iamfdred except removal action for laHik* i
No Pmlber Action.
ojtoa* wnMn la aaapocteo to bo roofing
I and may now a riak to ate
Bb«^M*OTlB« d»rik^i^i«^U^£j^M^^^^«JlASl^M rf^l^^M • •• ft ^<^MA«^««
miMttiqr oooHnoaowflBmimw OBmi MMI •>np0oqr
1 *ad 8960 U*ed fcr Monf* of
awl cable. Varioua Riak iiinimintinii.ilL J»at no No Putter Action under CBRCLA.
UST CBRCLA i inm lialina action la Site to be addnaaed by non-CBRCLA
Old PXOaa Station UST Oaa elation demolialHd 195M960. Oamaftjr ate ia paved. Rtek nirimiathiiii.'ilnl«iat no No Rather Action.
Otophyteoal and teat pit krertjganona itetninini il that USTa tod
been fenwved front ate ate.
P-I06A CtaaH Ste Plane embed on December 7, 1965. Site ie between nmwaya in Riak amaainiMl iniinated niat no No Further Action under CBRCLA.
RAPCONarea. Pool oontannaoted aofl detected. CBRCLA remedial action ia required. Ste to be addnaaed by no»CERCLA
program.
» nae aariy 199O» to 1*90« to dinannraMiii baae poteblu water. Riakaaaeaannntindkatodiiat no No PMher Action Mowing die removal
i nanl •arfacm ^atei1 diarfcarge pond and UST. Hd iramiial action ia mnnred
aodNaOHbaclcwanwaMeapn^onafydwcnargedtognwnd
DeWanawvedmltn.
aT^MnW^M^ HaWMnaV BnMnnaA Jaa^kfe xawJa^MBnl aQaW^lnnV \ _^BB%_ fla^ia^nt nta^BlnlBK- t^na^MftaatlW xata^ann1a% BflMfl •%•••? •^•M^^knMBM^B^nr namMflaJVABaMfl ^^^nfn^anMfl
DebriaAna. SftMtandOrmadaRangeaamtaactive. Debrii bHnanrMcatDebriaArea.
1994.
following iaobtod aoi reotoval.
2608-3208.28 2 of 3
-------
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF PA/SI, RI/ASI CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 17 SITES IN OU3
OU3 Record of Decision
Loring Air Force Base, Maine
SITE NAME DESCRIPTION CONCLUSIONS PA/SI, RI/ASI ACTIONS TAKEN
BOD Range 20-acre fenced nte inrf1"**^ Burn Kettle and Pit Area*, North Further investigation if required for the Further investigation b warranted for
and Eaat Disposal Areaa, Munitions Bnrial Area, North Disposal Old BOD Range. the Old EOD Range.
Pit, aad Cylinder Storage Areas. Site use included disposal of
srDmumtKMi by detonation and burntng and muftuKfrds residue
burial. Site used prior to mid 1970s and from early 1980s to
1988. OU EOD Range identified during RI/ASI activities has
not yet been investigated.
Contract Storage Shed Former shed (building 7258) demolished. Prior use included (he Risk assessment indicated elevated risk Feasibility study recommended for
Area storage and staging of electrical transformers, waste oil. and to human and ecological receptors by soil/sediment.
waste chemical drums and electrical transtbtmer handling. Site soils and sediments.
currently used as parking and gronndskecping equipment storage
with gravel and grass coverage of site.
PREPARED/DATE:
CHECKED/DATE:
2608-3208.28 3 of 3
-------
3.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Throughout LAFB's history, the community has been active and involved in base activities at a high
level. The USAF and USEPA 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, as well as Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meetings. The RAB is chaired by USAF and
community representatives.
The LAFB Community Relations 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 USAF made the LAFB 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 FS Report and Proposed Plan (PP) for OU3, at Loring
AFB, were released to the public in July 1996. These two documents were made available to the public
in the Administrative Record. The USAF published a notice of availability of these documents in the
Bangor Daily News, the Aroostook Republican, and the Fort Fairfield Review on June 26, 1996.
From July 8, 1996 through August 7, 1996, the USAF held a 30-day public comment period to accept
public input on the alternatives presented hi the FS and the Proposed Plan, as well as other documents
previously released to the public. On July 10,1996, LAFB personnel and regulatory representatives held
a public meeting to discuss the Proposed Plan and to accept any oral comments. A transcript of this
meeting is included as Appendix A, and a Responsiveness Summary is included as Appendix B.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 _
-------
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
Hie OU3 Response Action for the Debris Disposal Areas (17 sites) at Loring AFB addresses the
soils/sediments. Groundwater issues for OU3 will be addressed under OU12 and the surface waters will
be addressed in OU13. Groundwater at the EOD Range will be addressed as part of the further
investigation.
Limited removal actions have been previously performed for eight of the OU3 sites (Ohio Road Debris
Area, Oklahoma Road Debris Area, Golf Course Maintenance Shed, 9000 Debris Area, Solvent/Paint
Dock Area, Demineralization Plant, Outdoor Firing Range, EOD Range). The fourteen NFA sites of
the OU3 sites, including six (Ohio Road Debris Area, Oklahoma Road Debris Area, Golf Course
Maintenance Shed, 9000 Debris Area, Solvent/Paint Dock Area, Demineralization Plant) of those for
which limited removal actions were performed, currently do not pose risk to human health and the
environment. No further action will be taken for the 14 NFA sites. Further investigation of the Outdoor
Firing Range and EOD Range sites is proposed.
Remedial actions are recommended for the soils/sediments at the Contract Storage Shed Area site. The
contaminated soils/sediments pose risk to both human health and the environment. The chemicals of
potential concern (COPCs) include metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, pesticides and fuel oil. The
primary exposure routes for risk to human and ecological receptors are incidental ingestion, inhalation,
and dermal contact with soils/sediments. The purpose of the response action is to address the risk
presented by the soils/sediments so as to provide adequate protection to human health and the
environment. Implementation of the selected alternative for the Contract Storage Shed Area would
include the following activities:
• Excavation of soils for which associated contamination exceeds the RGs, except
chlordane-contaminated soils;
• Confirmation sampling to ensure soils exceeding the RGs, except chlordane-
contaminated soils, have been excavated;
• On-base disposal of the excavated soils in Landfill No. 3;
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 4-1
-------
• Placement of a 2-foot thick dean soil cover over the chlordane-contaminated
areas, with proper erosion protection;
• Implementation of institutional controls, and
• Wastewater treatment, if required.
The excavation, removal and disposal at Landfill No. 3 of the soils with contamination exceeding the
RGs, and placement of the soil cover over die chlordane-contaminated soils will protect against human
exposure to the contaminated soils, and prevent migration of contaminants to the groundwater. The
application of institutional controls will protect against future human exposure to the chlordane-
contaminated soils exceeding the RGs. The remedy will achieve the following remedial response
objectives at the Contract Storage Shed Area She:
• Prevent incidental ingestion and direct contact by humans with contaminated soil;
• Minimize human exposure to contaminated soil through inhalation of fugitive
dusts, and
• Prevent contaminant migration to the groundwater.
2608-3208.28 4_2
i Program
-------
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
5.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF OU3 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Operable Unit 3 of Loring AFB includes 17 debris and disposal sites (Figure 1-1). The OU3 sites were
included in a PA/SI which was completed in 1993. Six sites were found to have minimal site
contamination and were recommended for no further action, or no further action after limited soil
removal. Detailed descriptions of the site investigative activities for these six sites are provided in the
PA/SI Technical Report for OU3, Loring AFB (LAW, 1994). A brief site description, site assessment
conclusions, and a summary of recommendations for the six PA/SI no further action sites are provided
in Table 2-1.
Following the PA/SI, 11 sites were recommended for RI/ASI. As appropriate, soil, sediment, surface-
water, and groundwater samples were collected at each site and were analyzed for metals, volatile and
semi-volatile organic compounds (VOC and SVOQ, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls and fuels. A
detailed description of investigative activities, analytical results, potential fate and transport mechanisms,
and risk assessments for each of the RI/ASI sites is provided in the Final RI/ASI Technical Report for
OU3, Loring AFB (LAW, 1996a). Three (Chapman Pit Debris Area, Prune Beef Debris Area, Old PX
Gas Station UST) of the eleven sites included in the RI/ASI had minimal detected contamination and were
recommended for no further action. Five sites (9000 Debris Area, Solvent/Paint Dock Area,
Demineralization Plant, Outdoor Firing Range, and EOD Range) had areas of contamination which were
addressed by limited removal actions. Two sites (Building 8951 and 8960, F-106A Crash Site) had areas
of fuel contamination which were addressed by non-CERCLA programs. Upon completion of limited
removal actions, three sites (9000 Debris Area, Solvent/Paint Dock Area, Demineralization Plant) of the
five removal action sites posed no further risk to human health and the environment. Confirmatory
samples were collected following these removal actions, resulting in residual contamination levels within
the acceptable risk range. The other two removal action sites, and the Contract Storage Shed Area site
were recommended for other actions described below.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 5-1
-------
During the isolated removal action at die Outdoor Firing Range, background samples were found
containing elevated lead levels. Therefore, farther investigation was recommended to verify the extent
or tfic contmiinflf K^ ftt the site*
During investigative activities at the EOD Range Site, an additional area of concern, the Old EOD Range,
was discovered. Because the Old EOD Range was not included in the area investigated during the
RI/ASI, further investigation of soil and groundwater media is proposed for the EOD Range. The
investigation of the EOD Range is scheduled to occur in 1997.
Based on the results of the RI/ASI, an FS for the Contract Storage Shed Area she was recommended and
completed hi June 1996. The contaminants which presented risks above target risk levels hi soil and
sediment included polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, metals and Aroclor-1260.
Contaminants detected in groundwater wfll be addressed under OU12.
A brief description, she assessment conclusions, and a summary of recommendations for the 11 RI/ASI
sites are provided in Table 2-1. Important site characteristics for the Contract Storage Shed Area she,
which were discussed in the Final RI/ASI and FS Technical Reports, are summarized hi the following
Section.
5.2 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE CONTRACT STORAGE SHED AREA
This section provides a description of the Contract Storage Shed Area site, a brief overview of the site
history, and a discussion of me nature and extent of contamination as determined from the RI/ASI.
5.2. 1 SltC Location 8lri Description
The Contract Storage Shed Area she is located hi the south central portion of the Loring AFB, west of
the airfield, south of the supply buildings hi the northeast quadrant of the Weinman Road and Kansas
Road intersection, and west of the railroad tracks. A demolished storage shed (Building 7258) at the site
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 5-2
-------
was open on die east side facing the railroad tracks and flightline. The site is primarily covered with
grass, except for a gravel area west of the former building location.
The closest residential population is located south of East Gate of Loring AFB, approximately 2,100 feet
from the site. Because of die industrial nature of the site, few ecological receptors have been observed
in the vicinity. A drainage culvert is located on the northeastern side of the site, next to the railroad
tracks, but has only intermittent flow following rain events or winter thaw. Currently, groundwater is
not used as a drinking water or industrial process water within the confines of Loring AFB.
5.2.2 Site History
The Contract Storage Shed Area site historically served as an industrial waste handling area. The storage
shed has since been removed. Prior to demolition of Building 7258, this site was used for the storage
and staging of electrical transformers, waste oil and waste chemical drums. The materials stored in mis
shed were similar to those currently stored in die Chemical Storage Building 7230.
The Contract Storage Shed Area site is currently used as a parking lot and storage area for
groundskeeping equipment. The future use of me site is expected to remain industrial and has been
classified as airport-support property by me Loring Redevelopment Aurnority (Loring AFB, 1993).
The suspected sources of contaminants at die Contract Storage Shed Area site are spills which occurred
during die handling of electrical transformers, waste oil, and waste chemical drums. Accidental releases
in mis area were witnessed by base personnel. Drums with location identifications which included Drum
Storage, Stockroom 03B, and Building 7258, contributed to some of die spills. Pesticide mixing at die
site was verbally reported, but has not been confirmed by written documentation.These accidental releases
have impacted surface and subsurface soils, sediments, and groundwater. The frequency of detection,
die range of detected concentrations, background concentrations for media of concern, and die selected
COPCs for chemicals detected in soils, sediments, and groundwater are presented in Tables 5-1 through
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 5.3
-------
TAJKJB5-1
CHEMICALS DBIBCIBDINSOBFACB MO. (»-2 PBBT)
<«•*•)
(•**«)
<-«*»)
(•**«)
S7O7
37/57
S7O7
SO7
34O7
37O7
37/57
35/17
37O7
37/57
W7
37/57
a/57
307
J7/57
3707
11000
S3
n
047
o»
30
u
30
25
•10
Oj054
31
042
OjOS
23
1300
3J
26
O22
IUM
21
L9
20 JH
«.7
MO
27
005
047
11
51 JH
25000
94
220
035
27
44
IS
1<0
110
2700
041
57
OJS
04
M
410
25400
•Afodoc-1240
• FUEL OE. IN SOIL
M/57
34A7
35/57
M7
3/17
1/57
207
2/57
37/57
17/57
207
2007
-------
TABLE 5-2
CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SUBSURFACE SOU. (0-10 FEET)
Record of DecMoB
Coatnct Stance Shed Area, OU3
Lorug APB, Mate
Parameter
METALS:
Aluminun
Aneaie
•Barium
Beryllium
•Cadmium
Calcium
Cobalt
•Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnenum
•Muganeie
Mercury
Nickel
Pouoium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
PUSfUQDES/PCBf:
•4,4'-DDD
•4,4'-DDE
M^-DDT
AUrin
•Chlonkne
Dieldrin
PjiAmilftn
Heptachlor
•Arodor-1260
VOIATJLBS:
2-Butanooe
Acetone
Chloroform
ttmof- U-Dicbloroelheoe
Ethylbeazeae
Methyleoe Chloride
Tetnchloroetaene
Toluene
THcfaloroetfaeae
FUEL OIL IN SOIL
Frequency
of
Detection
84/84
84/84
84/84
24/M
67/84
84/84
80/84
86/86
8*86
86/86
86/86
86/86
86/86
306
84/84
86/86
59/86
9/84
86/86
86/86
30/84
50/84
56/84
1/86
3/86
1/86
1/86
5/86
1/86
5/86
2/86
18/84
1/86
1/86
1/86
67/84
1/86
38/84
3/86
42/84
Mean
Concentration
(mg/kg)
13000
5.5
55
O19
041
12000
29
12
31
26000
18
6900
790
O055
38
540
O23
005
21
90
O14
O47
12
0018 B
031
0022 B
O018E
O013B
O022E
O44B
O0061
0018
O0029B
00029 B
Q.OQ29
0024
OOQ29
00024
O0039
NC
Euf&linUfD
Detected
CoDcentntkM
(«8*g)
1300
LI
14
016
O04
22
64
11
2500
9.7
3500
250
Oil
24
270
015
00?
12
12
00007
O00098
O00062
017
O00053
0035
O00095
O0049
O0014
(LOOQ22
O004JQ
18
Detected
Concentration
(«g/tg)
25000
9.6
220
086
27
110000
44
18
160
53000
110
13000
2900
019
57
1000
07
Oil
36
410 j
7.6 J
23
100
O0014
62
00019 JQ
00027
000073 J
0.00037
O42
0018
017
00003 JQ
00023 JQ
O0045
014
(XOQ39
00068 JQ
0042
24000 J
Coue&jus
Background
Concentration
(mgfcg)
25400
162
9331
1.8
O21
69700
56.9
18.5
65.6
47100
216
12700
1400
O17
73
2900
009
<01
40
53.91
2608-320838
5-5
Iof2
-------
CHEMICALS
TABLE 5-2
TIED mSOBSUKPACB SOIL (0-10 FBBT)
ftmowier
Frequeacy
of
Concentration
("**•)
(•1*1)
Bukfrouod
Coooeantioo
Bemo(>)ullmceoe
<»)pyreoe
BeuofeAdd
Butyl beaylpM»lite
Di-a-tatylptetaliie
11/M
1VM
1M4
31/M
29S4
2WM
1M4
17/84
MM
13*4
2S«4
72/M
13*4
3W6
35*4
u/n
14*4
23fB4
]/K
3WM
37/94
(US
an
097
L7
L3
L5
075
tt74
1.4 B
028
L5
033
028E
032
04
025 B
iS
057
O74
051
032
U
19
019
0012X2
00079 JQ
0018 K)
001 JQ
00061 JQ
0034 JQ
0026 JQ
012 JQ
0018 JQ
0033 JQ
.00054 JQ
0082 JQ
0014 JQ
OOOMJQ
0016 JQ
0034 JQ
0018 JQ
00038 JQ
00061 JQ
001 JQ
0008 JQ
IbttlPAHi
it
27J
54J
88 J
76J
96J
35J
32J
L3
04
67J
L5
0042
12 J
11J
0084 JQ
130 J
26J
36J
17 J
34
130J
120J
L3J
946
634)
' Cheaial of FoteMklCoMen (elected (MbMbaa
bectfiTMnd, ftequMcjrardetteiiaa.aad btnu h«hh latdtytcnta
hettgromd leveli tor mil, ndJmmt Md luAce waier.
ntBRARBfyDAI
CHBCXEfyDAlK
atoflC } Wtt
IK ygfay ififQ^
2608-3208J8
2 of 2
-------
TABLE 5-3
CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SEDIMENTS
Record of Decision
Contract Storage Shed Area, OU3
LOTUS AFB.MaiM
Parameter
METALS:
Aluminum
Aneoic
•Barium
•BenUium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
•Lead
Manganese
* Mercury
•Nickel
Virnffjmn
•Zinc
PESTtdDES/PCBi:
•4.4--DDD
• 4,4'-DDB
•4,4'-DDT
•Aroclor-1254
•Aroclor-1260
* ChlonlfUc
VOLATILE ORGANICS:
2-Butanooe
Tetrachtoroethene
1,1,1 -Trichtoroethane
SEMI-VOLATILES:
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
* Benzofakflthrarene
* Benzo(ajpyrene
• Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(t>IM)perylene
* Benio(k)flucranthene
bis(2-ethyin«xyl)phtbaUte
•Chrytene
Fluoranlhene
• Indeno(1.23-cd)pyrene
4-Methylphenol
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
•Fuel Oil in Soil
Frequency
of
Detection
VI
2/2
2/2
1/2
in
in.
2/2
2/2
in
2/2
2/Z
1/2
2/2
2/2
VI
1/2
1/2
2/2-
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
2/2
2/Z
1/2
in
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
Mean
Concentration
(mg/kg)
14000
5.7
73
0.52
022 B
26
11
26
28000
33
510
0.09
34
19
130
0.021
0.016
0.014
0.15
0.18
aos6
0.007 E
0.0028
0.0045
O23B
a098E
03
031
a48
0.19
0.15
ai9
039
O54
02
an
031
O63
53
Minimum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
13000
5
4.7
—
— -
23
9.1
19
26000
15
390
— —
32
7.9
69
--
— —
O018
— —
-—
-—
--
0.001 JQ
0.002 1
— -
0.054 JQ
0.14 JQ
0.18 JQ
027 JQ
0.1 JQ
0.079 JQ
— -
0.22 JQ
0^5 JQ
0.12 JQ
— —
0.14 JQ
0.44
18
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
16000
7.1
120
078
01 JL
28
12
32
30000
50
730
0.16
35
24
180
0.039 JH
0.029 JH
0035 J
0.28
033
O16
0.004 JQ
0.004 JQ
0006 JQ
O05JQ
0.071 JQ
038 JQ
035 JQ
055 JQ
O24JQ
O19JQ
O19JQ
0.43 JQ
0.71
0.25 J
0.11 JQ
0.4 JQ
O9
80
Cooieniui
Background
Concentration
(n»g/kg)
23000
16.7
114
0.63
<031
50.2
27.8
43.8
42600
241
2990
0.13
16
39.4
1201
• Chemical of Potential Concern (selected on bun of companion to background and toxkity screen)
prtyfyiy indicate! maximum concentration ^ry»**y QotiM'mit Background Coocentraiiooji
— Onry detected once
E Average greater than maximum concentration. Maximum concentration used in all risk calculations.
J Estimated concentration
JQ Estimated below quantitation Emits
JH Estimated with high bias
JL Estimated with low bias
Note: Consensus Background
Two consensus agreements, issued in 1994 and 1995 and signed by the state of Maine, USEPA and Loring AFB,
fist the inorganic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon background levels for soil, sediment and surface water.
PREPARED/DATE:
CHECKED/DATE:
2606-3208.28
5-7
-------
TABLE 5-4
CHEMICALS DBIBCTBP IN OVERBURDEN OROUNDWATBR
RmrriofDecaikM
Co>traot Skanfi Shed AIM. OTO
LorfafAFB. Maine
Parameter
Mean
Detected
Owuburaco
Delected Background
Concentration '~<*iirfiH*j'>^'
Eipaiure
Ouidettaet
(aft)
Level
Aluminum
•Barkm
Caleiiim
Chromium
Cotak
Iran
NkW
4/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
4/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
4/4
4/4
3/4
4/4
59
067
140
0.13
0052
013
118
004
37
7
O0003
016
54
70
008
026
5.6
0038
14
O13
O055
013
110
O047
33
3
OOOQ26
012
2J
30
0088
0031
96
335
L
TJT]
2
350 896
O24 0679
O083 O378
02 O569
220 606
0062 O228
69 197
17
£J
O33
9
100 C
O12
O43
O001
L07
2U
3J8J
0426
L7
M'-DDT
1/4
0065 E
000011
Q.OOOS3
NA
•U-DicUoroetnene
• tnav— U-DkUoraethene
•CUorafcni
••ntakloraethene
•Vinyl Chloride
•Fuel Oil in Water
•Oatofine in Water
1/4
1/4
2/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
O0012
O00049
O001
0028
0032
0017
O00036JQ
00018
000059 JQ
0*0026
O11J
O052
O037
0007
007
01 (a)
O005
I oJdoSiil |
1 O05|
005
O007
01
01/008 (a)
0.002 |
NA
NA
• Ckenrieal of Potential Concern (i
AL Action Level
JQ
MBO State of Mate
MCLUSEFAMarii
SSeoondaryMG
of cOMpariMn lobeckgroond and regulatory criteria)
r!994
roreolar
(a) Value b for total
— Only detected
bftokiroM.Mlorrefuimtoryfuid4i.ee
B Avwage boaeeatrttiaB p«.uer thaa
PRBPARED/DATB:
CHBCKBD/DATB: \f~CjJ
2M6-320SJ8
5-8
-------
TABIB5-5
VOLATTLES:
•Acetone
EuryCbcflxcoc
•Xyteae
CHEMICALS DETECTED IN BEDROCK OKOUNDWATBR
Record of Deciiio*
Contract Stooge Shed Am. OO3
LoringAFB, Maine.
Parameter
METALS fTotaTI:
Barium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Poourium
Frequency
of
Detection
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
Mean
Concentration
(nig/L)
O53
O28
265
L7
30
1
18
132
Minimum
Detected
Concentration
(n«/L)
Oil
0047
140
023
6.1
0079
LS
16 JH
Detected
Concentration
(mg/L)
L3
061
470
44
53
2
19
280 JH
Bedrock Maine
Background Exposure
Concentration Guidelnet
(mg/L) (mg/L)
1.64
00963
157
833
22.1
O094
4.45
14 J
1.43
L5
NA
NA
NA
1 021
NA
NA
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
(mat.)
1005 to 0.2 S|
2
NA
!___. 03 Si
NA
1 0.05 SI
NA
NA
1/3
1/3
2/3
0.12 B
0045E
046
O0095JQ
0097;
0.0094 J
LS
NA
0.7
061
NA
a?
10
•14-Dimelhylpheaol
•2-Metbytoapbtbalene
•2-Methylpheool
•Fluorene
•Naphmalene
•Phenol
•Fuel Oil in Water
•Guoline in Water
1/3
1/3
1/3
\f$
1/3
2/3
1/3
2/3
2/3
00067
00067
OOQ53
00043 E
O0037B
O021
O0053
2.27
154
0002 ;Q
083
O97
0012
O021
O006JQ
0001JQ
O001JQ
O072J
0007 JQ
6.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
00251
NA
O051
0051
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
• Chemical of Potential Concern (iekeicdonh««i> of companion to background and aviikble regulatory criteria)
J Eftimated CoaoefltnUion
JQ Exinmted below quaatitation Emit
JH Eoimatedwith high Mai
MEG Stale of Maine Maximum ExponreOuidelae
MCL USEPA Marimum rnm»min«iit Level, Nowmber 1994
S Secoodary MCL, baied on tane, odor or color
Bocring indicmtcf rmTJmiim concr.ntnlion qcecd* background or regulalory criteria
-- Only detected once
NA Not available
E Avgf^ge greater than M«^j|niiit|
-------
TABLE 5-<
CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SBOIMBMTS
SELECTION OF ECOLOGICAL COPCk (•)
M AMYOUS
•9*
Ztac
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
in
VI
2/2
VI
VI
VI
VI
Vt
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/7
2/2
14000
5.7
73
0.52
OJ2B
11000
»
11
M
JJ
510
04»
HO
50
34
1*
130
13000
5
4.7
5100
23
*.l
If
2(000
15
3tO
44
32
1.t
M
1(000
7.1
120
0.71
0.1 JL
22000
21
12
32
50
730
04(
1500
73
35
24
1M
• 4^-DDD
• 4.4--DDB
• M'-DDT
•«•• Arackr-1254
• AMd«r-12«
1/2
2/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
0.021
0.01(
0.014
0.15
O.U
0411
0.03* JH
ojntJH
OJ35J
AM
OJJ
04(
1/2
VI
2/2
1/2
20
2/2
VI
in
2/2
2/2
1/2
Vt
2/2
20
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
E
OM2I
E
E
E
OJ
OJ1
0.4»
04f
045
O.lf
OJt
OJ4
OJ
041
OJ1
OM
0.001 JQ
OM2J
OJI54JQ
0.14 JQ
O.KJQ
OJ7X}
OJK3
OJJJQ
0.25 JQ
0.12 JQ
0.14 JQ
OJ5
OJNMJQ
0404 JQ
OJNMJQ
045 JQ
0.071 JQ
OJtJQ
OJ5JQ
OJ5JQ
OJ4JQ
0.1»JQ
04* JQ
043 JQ
o.n
OJ5J
041 JQ
M JQ
O.t
S3
to COPC* for *fc *• h tfMrikW
— Oiljr
RTV Rilin«e« Toridqr Vita.
2(OI-320Ut
5-10
-------
5.2.3 Nature and Extent of Co
Soil
Based on sample results obtained from the PA/SI, the surface soils (0- to 2-foot depth) and subsurface
soils (greater than 2 feet) at the Contract Storage Shed Area site were subjected to additional sampling
during the RI/ASI. Organic analytes found in the surface soils included fuel oil, PAHs, pesticides,
polychlorinated biphenyls, VOCs, and SVOCs (Table 5-1). The PAHs and pesticides were the most
significant of these compounds. PAHs detected in samples located in the central to western part of the
site and in the northern portion of the site may be due to petroleum or related product releases. PAHs
detected along the eastern side of the railroad tracks may be attributed to the creosote-treated timbers of
the railroad tracks. Pesticides detected include 4,4'-DDT and metabolites 4,4'-DDE and 4,4'-DDD,
chlordane, and heptachlor.
The same organic compounds detected hi the surface soils were also detected in die subsurface soils, but
at lower concentrations (Table 5-2). Again, PAHs and pesticides were the predominant contaminants.
The deepest, significant concentration of PAHs occurred along the western edge of the site, at a depth
of 6 feet. The pesticide chlordane was detected above me remedial goals (RGs), at a depth of 0 to 2 feet,
in the former Building 7258 location. Figure 10-1 (Section 10.0) shows the locations and depths of soil
contamination where RGs are exceeded at the site.
Sediments
Sediment samples collected along either side of the railroad tracks were contaminated primarily with
PAHs, pesticides, fuel oil and to a lesser degree, other constituents (Table 5-3). A sediment sample
collected near the southwest corner of the site indicated primarily pesticide contamination.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 5-11
-------
Groundwater
Remediation of tbe groundwater at the Contract Storage Shed Area she will be addressed under OU12.
Groundwater is present hi both the overburden and the bedrock at the site. Tables 5-4 and 5-5 present
the positive analytical results for overburden and bedrock, respectively. Sampling results from the
overburden aquifer indicated the presence of volatile organic compounds, fuel oil, 4,4'-DDT, and metals.
The presence of chlorinated VOCs may be due to releases or migration from an off-she source. The
occurrence of 4,4'-DDT hi the groundwater is potentially due to a surface release of pesticide at this site.
Constituents detected hi the bedrock aquifer upgradient from the site included fuel oil, gasoline, VOCs,
SVOCs, and metals. Fuel oil, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and PAHs were detected hi samples collected in
the bedrock aquifer downgradient from the Contract Storage Shed Area she.
Seven groundwater samples were collected from monitoring wells screened hi the overburden and bedrock
intervals. COPCs in overburden wells include barium, manganese, five VOCs, fuel ofl and gasoline
(Table 5-4). COPCs in bedrock wells include manganese, acetone, xylene, seven SVOCs, fuel oil, and
gasoline (Table 5-5).
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 5.12
-------
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A baseline risk assessment (RA) was performed as part of the OU3 RI report (LAW, 1996a) and revised
as part of the OU3 FS report (LAW, 1996b). The RA estimated the probability and magnitude of
potential adverse human health and environmental effects from exposure to contaminants associated with
the OU3 sites. The human health RA followed a four-step process.
1. Contaminant identification, which identified those hazardous substances which
were of significant concern;
2. Exposure assessment, which, identified actual or potential exposure pathways,
characterized the potentially exposed populations, and determined the extent of
possible exposure;
3. Toxicity assessment, which considered the types and magnitude of adverse health
effects associated with exposure to hazardous substances; and
4. Risk characterization, which integrated the three steps above to summarize the
potential and actual risks posed by hazardous substances at the site, including
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks.
The results of the human health and the ecological risk assessments for the 14 NFA sites indicate that no
risk to human health and the environment exists from chemical compounds detected at these sites,
therefore, no further action is being taken at these sites.
Further investigation was recommended for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range. The RAs for
these two sites will be performed based on the new sampling results. Remedial actions for these two sites
will be addressed in a future ROD.
The results of the human health and the ecological risk assessments for the Contract Storage Shed Area
site are discussed below, followed by the uncertainty evaluation for both RAs.
6.1 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Eighteen COPCs for surface soils (0 to 2 feet), eighteen for subsurface soils (0 to 10 feet), and nineteen
for sediment were selected for evaluation in the RA. These COPCs are listed in Tables 5-1 through 5-3.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 .
-------
Hie COPCs were selected to represent potential site-related hazards based on toricity, concentration,
frequency of detection, and mobility and persistence in die environment. A summary of the health effects
of each of the COPCs can be found in the Final RI/ASI Report (LAW, 1996a) and me FS Report (LAW,
1996b).
Potential human health effects associated with exposure to the COPCs were estimated quantitatively or
qualitatively through me development of several hypothetical exposure pathways. These pathways were
developed to reflect the potential for exposure to hazardous substances based on me present uses, potential
future uses, and location of the she. For each pathway evaluated, an average (AVQ) and reasonable
exposure (RME) estimate was generated corresponding to exposure to the AVG and RME
concentrations detected hi that particular medium. Exposure to groundwater is not addressed in this
Record of Decision (ROD). A detailed description of the exposure pathways evaluated can be found in
Appendix J of the RI/ASI Report (LAW, 1996a).
Table 6-1 presents the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk summaries for the COPCs hi soil and
sediment evaluated for present and potential occupational future risks corresponding to the RME and
AVG scenarios. Details regarding calculation of these risks are presented hi the RI/ASI Report (LAW,
1996a).
6.1.1 Summary of Risk ehafacteri**fion
Carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks to human health in soil or soil and sediment are discussed below.
Carcinogenic Risks
Table 6-1 presents cancer risk estimates for the soil and sediment exposure scenarios. Based on mean
AVG containment concentrations, the total cancer risk associated with soil and sediment exposures does
not exceed the USEPA target risk range (1 x 1C4 to 1 x 10*) for any exposure scenarios. Based on RME
concentrations, soil-related risks for the trespasser and the occupational scenarios exceed the USEPA
target risk range. Cancer risks associated with each RME soil exposure scenario exceed the MEDEP risk
guidance value of 1 x 10*. Cancer risks associated with each average soil exposure for
maintenance/utility workers, commercial industrial workers and trespassers exceed the MEDEP risk
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 6-2
-------
TABLE «-l
TOTAL SITE RISKS FOR EACH RECEPTOR - SOIL AND SEDIMENT
L^A^B^M*.
RECEPTOR
MftiolttMOM/Utility Woffccf
Commercial/Induatrial Worker
Contraction Worker
EXPOSURE ROUTE
DmlCcrtMt wife Soil
TOTAL
UMlatioo ofPartkulatai ftom Soil
TOTAL
Inodortal Inpatioa of Soil
Dermal Coot** wife Soil
Inhalation of Paniculate. Ban Soil
Dermal Cortac* with Scdimart
TOTAL
Incidedal bfealioB of Soil
Dermal Contact wife Soil
Uiabtioa of Paniculate* Bun Soil
TOTAL
locideflUl location of Soil (0-10 ft.)
Dermal Contact with Soil (0-10 ft.)
Uubtion of Particulatc* flan Soil
TOTAL
BASED ON MAXIMUM (RME) CONCENTRATIONS
Total CaaoarRa* Total Hazard bdez
9E-0«
JE-03
tE-09
2E45
1E-03
6E-06
3E43
JB«7
3K-43
5EXW
IE-03
3E-IO
2E45
1K43
3E-05
IE42
3E-09
1B-42
2&03
9E-06
2E-«
O.I
3
0.02
03
3
0.02
2.0
0.6
3
0.01
1
0.0003
0.09
1
0.1
9
0.004
9
3
32
292
327
BASED ON MEAN (AVO) CONCENTRATIONS
Total Cancer Riak Total Hazard Index
5E-07
IE-OS
3E-10
2E-03
3E-05
2&07
2E-08
5E-07
2&07
9E-06
1E-I1
IE-03
2E-05
IE4M
IE-CM
IE-10
1E-04
8E-06
2E-07
,V*
PREPARED/DATE: J^/
0.01
0.1
0.01
0.1
02
0.003
O.I
0.2
03
0.002
0.02
0.0001
0.03
0.07
0.01
0.2
0.001
O2
0.3
79
M
^
CHECKED/DATE: ^"C tJ
-------
guidance target. The primary contributors to cancer risks due to exposure to soils and sediment are the
carcinogenic PAHs, pesticides and Aroclor-1260. Dermal exposures contributed me most to the cancer
risk. Inhalation of fugitive dust is insignificant relative to the ingestion and dermal exposures. Risks
associated with fugitive dusts are less than 1 x 10"* for the exposures evaluated.
Noncarcinogenic Risks
Based on hazard indexes (His) calculated for each receptor (see Table 6-1), noncarcinogenic health effects
due to exposure to subsurface soils at the Contract Storage Shed Area site would be expected due to the
presence of numpneaAl cjd"innn, pesticides, and noncarcinogenic PAHs.
6.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
This section presents a summary of the ecological risk assessment (ERA) results obtained as part of the
RI investigation of the Contract Storage Shed Area site (LAW, 1996a). Analytes detected in the surface
soil and sediment were selected for me quantitative estimate of the likelihood for adverse effects to occur
to a variety of receptors. The ERA identified eight ecological receptors to represent multiple trophic level
exposures to surface sofl and sediments at the site. A summary of the analytes detected at the site for
the surface soil and sediment COPCs identified for ecological receptors are presented in Tables 5-1
and 5-6, for surface soil and sediment, respectively. Exposure pathways for groundwater and subsurface
soil were not identified for ecological receptors.
As described in the biological characterization associated with the ERA (LAW, 1996a), the landscape of
the site is predominantly grass-covered, with small tree islands located in the northwestern corner of the
site. Wetlands are not present at the site, and the only available aquatic habitat is intermittently available
in drainage ditches. Terrestrial wildlife receptors may find suitable habitat and forage areas at the site;
however, considering the industrialized nature of the area in general, ecological exposure is considered
limited. Terrestrial wildlife may be exposed to surface soils and sediments (i.e., when sediments are
dry), thus incidental exposure to these media and uptake via the food chain were evaluated. For each
habitat type, the following receptors were assessed:
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 6-4
-------
• Terrestrial habitat: vegetation, invertebrates, meadow vole, American
kestrel, red fox, American robin, maritime garter snake
• Semi-aquatic habitat: amphibians
6.2. 1 SflpiTpary of Risk Characterization
The results of the ERA indicated mat ecological receptors are at risk from exposure to contaminants in
the surface soils and sediments at the site. Conclusions regarding the likelihood for adverse effects were
based on hazard quotient (HQ) modeling studies which were conducted hi accordance with the Loring
AFB Risk Assessment Methodology. Acute and chronic HQs were summed to yield acute and chronic
His, respectively. His which exceeded a value of 1 were considered to indicate mat adverse effects may
occur for ecological receptors. HQs were then evaluated to determine the primary risk contributors).
Acute (lethal) and/or chronic (sublethal) His exceeded 1 for the meadow vole, American robin,
invertebrates, vegetation, and amphibians. His for terrestrial wildlife receptors ranged from 1.1 (chronic
effects for the meadow vole) to 47 (acute effects for invertebrates). Primary risk contributors were 4,4'-
DDD; 4,4'-DDE; 4,4'-DDT; chlordane; and metals (primarily cadmium). The American robin is the
most likely receptor to be exposed to COPCs, because the site is characteristic of robin forage areas; and,
the robin's diet is comprised of primarily invertebrates, such as earthworms. The robin acute and chronic
His were 3.5 and 9.3, respectively, indicating a low likelihood for adverse effects. His and HQs for the
red fox, maritime gaiter snake, and American kestrel did not exceed a value of 1.
His for amphibians were 140 and 78 for acute and chronic effects, respectively, indicating adverse effects
are likely for these receptors. Primary risk contributors were mainly AR-1260 (with an HQ of 66) and
chlordane (with an HQ of 23). Additional analytes (i.e., those with HQs ranging from 1 to 6) included
AR-1254, 4,4'-DDD; 4,4'-DDE; 4,4'-DDT; and PAHs were also risk contributors for amphibian
receptors.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 6-5
-------
6.3 WNCMTAn>rry EVALUATION
Ax a result of assumptions in the risk assessment process, the interpretation of risk estimates is subject
to a number of uncertainties. These assumptions are generally conservative and protective of human
health and ecological receptors. The site-specific uncertainties identified for the human health and
ecological risk assessments conducted for the Contract Storage Shed Area were presented in the Final
OU3 FS (LAW, 19965). Although some uncertainties in the RA methodology might bias the evaluation
hi the direction of an underestimation of risk, most assumptions will bias the evaluation hi the direction
of overestimation of risk.
6.4 CONCLUSION
• No further action sites
The results of the human health and the ecological risk assessments for the 14
NFA sites indicate that after isolated removals performed in several sites, no
unacceptable risk to human health and the environment exists from chemical
compounds detected at these sites.
• Further investigation
Further investigation was recommended for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD
Range. RA for these two sites will be performed based on the new sampling
results.
• Contract Storage Shed Area
Results of risk assessment indicated mat actual or threatened releases of
contamination from the Contract Storage Shed site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected hi this Record of Decision, may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or
the environment.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 6-6
-------
7.0 DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
Limited removal actions were performed at 8 of the 17 OU3 sites at Loring AFB, and no known risk to
human health and the environment currently exists at six of these sites. With the inclusion of these six
sites, a total of 14 OU3 sites were determined as NFA sites. The Old EOD Range (part of the EOD
Range) was not included hi the original site investigations, and additional investigation of this site has
been recommended. Additional investigation was also recommended for the Outdoor Firing Range site
to determine the extent of contamination because the background samples taken during the isolated soil
removal action were found to contain elevated levels of lead.
Currently known risk to human health and the environment exists only at the Contract Storage Shed Area
site due to contamination present hi the soils/sediments. Remedial alternatives were developed and
screened for the soils/sediments to meet the remedial action objectives (RAOs).
7.1 REMEDIAL RESPONSE AND REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Under its legal authorities, the USAF's primary responsibility at NPL sites is to undertake remedial
actions that are protective of human health and the environment. In addition, Section 121 of CERCLA
establishes several other statutory requirements and preferences, including: a requirement that the
USAF's remedial action, when complete, must comply with all federal and more stringent state
environmental standards, requirements, criteria or limitations, unless a waiver is granted; a requirement
mat the USAF select a remedial action that is cost-effective and mat utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to me maximum extent practicable;
and a preference for remedies in which treatment, that permanently and significantly reduces the volume,
toxicity or mobility of the hazardous substances is a principal element over remedies not involving such
treatment. Response alternatives were developed to be consistent with these Congressional mandates.
Remedial response objectives are qualitative remedial objectives which consider die nature of the
contamination, the site resources which may be adversely impacted, and the potential for current and
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 7-1
-------
future site exposures to die contaminants of concern. The objectives are first identified through the
conclusions of die she-specific risk assessment.
The remedial response objectives for soil (and sediment) remediation at die Contract Storage Shed Area
site include die following:
• Prevent incidental ingestion and direct contact by humans with contaminated soil
• Minimize human exposure to contaminated soil through inhalation of fugitive
dusts
• Prevent contaminant migration to die groundwater
Remedial action objectives (RAOs"> are developed to serve as a framework for me identification of
remedial action alternatives. According to die federal and state guidance, RAOs should be designed to
protect human healm and die environment by identifying chemicals of concern, receptor groups of
greatest concern, exposure routes associated wim die highest risk estimates, and a target risk level of die
individual contaminants based on site-specific exposure scenarios 0.e., ROs).
The RAOs for me Contract Storage Shed Area for die protection of human healm include:
Reduce sofl and sediment levels of systemic toxicants to equal background or a
target hazard index of 1 for individual constituents, wim the cumulative target
hazard index not to exceed 10 for die most exposed human receptor groups.
Reduce soil and sediment levels of potential carcinogens to equal background or
a target risk of 1 x 104 for individual constituents, with a cumulative risk of no
greater man 1 x HX* for die total excess carcinogenic risk for die most exposed
human receptor groups. The method detection limit is used as a goal when
background and risk-based goals are below analytical limits.
Reduce subsurface soil levels to levels which would be protective of groundwater
quality.
Control die migration of soil and sediment contamination to uncontaminated
areas.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 7-2
-------
In order to achieve die RAOs, remedial actions must address cleanup to cumulative risk target goals, or
otherwise prevent contact with the soils and sediments of the Contract Storage Shed Area. For the
protection of human health, the overall goal is to reduce risk to target risk levels by preventing exposure
to contaminants of concern in the soils and sediments. In addition, the removal of contaminant sources
from the soils will reduce the potential for future migration to the groundwater.
7.2 TECHNOLOGY AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING
CERCLA and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) have set
forth the process by which remedial actions are evaluated and selected. In accordance with these
requirements, a range of alternatives were developed for the Contract Storage Shed Area site.
With respect to soil/sediment response action, the FS developed a range of alternatives considering the
USEPA's preference for a treatment that reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous
substances. This range included an alternative mat removes or destroys hazardous substances to the
TnflTjnuim extent feasible, eliminating or minimizing to the degree possible the need for long-term
management. This range also included alternatives mat treat the principal threats posed by the site but
vary in the degree of treatment employed and the quantities and characteristics of the treatment residuals
and untreated waste that must be managed; altemative(s) that involve little or no treatment but provide
protection through engineering or institutional controls; and a no action alternative.
Of the five remedial alternatives screened in Section 6 of the FS, alternatives 1, 3,4, and 5 were retained
and analyzed in detail using the nine CERCLA evaluation criteria. Table 7-1 presents the results of the
screening of alternatives for the Contract Storage Shed Area.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 7.3
-------
TABLE 7-1
SCREENING OF ASSEMBLED ALTERNATIVES
Record of DecUon
Lorfaf Air Ibra
ALTERNATIVE
EFFECTIVENESS IMPLBMBNTABILITY COST SELECTED
SCRBBNlNa COMMENTS
1. No Action
NA
NA
No
3. Bxcmrtfioa, On-BMe
L*odfiB Dupowd of
Execrated Sab, Pboenent
of OMB Sol Carer Over
Ye.
TieMnem Of required)
4. BxMVrikNi. Otf-Baw
UndfmDfapoMlof
BxewrMadSoib, Fboeneat
of CkM SoB Cover Over
Yes
AMM.WI
frf required)
ttto b bft b) *• fCMMt OOMftMM WJA W»
* R Bfly ttoc DO •oocpubto 10
Thto •beratfiM hM BO dbeot
ROeaadRAO*. beffective*
2608-3208.28
Iof2
-------
TABLE 7-1
SCREENING OF ASSEMBLED ALTERNATIVES
Draft Record of Decision
Contract Storage Shed Area, OU3
Loring Air Force Base, Maine
ALTERNATIVE EFFECTIVENESS IMPLBMENTABUJTY COST SELECTED SCREENING COMMENTS
Excavation, Stabilization/ 0 0 - YM Effective in attaining RG» and RAOa. May be aomewhat leaf effective in
Solidification of Excavated protection of bmmn health (ban Alternative* 3 and 4 aa oontamioalion
Soil., On-Base LandfiU ieman» <»^ aa atabffired/aoBdified aofla. Effective^ reduce* mobility.
DupoMlofExcea* Limited reduction ia toxkfey fcy dOntkm from (be bindint natnx.
Solidified Sofla, PUcenmrt Volume iaonaae due to treatmem prooeM. TreatabiliQr tMdag feqaired.
of Clean Soil Cover Over On-«t» ttealaiBut and dupoaal reduce* oo«t» which would tenh from
Chlordaae-Contaannated transport and off-b«ae diipoaal. Became treated wOi remain oo-ato,
Area*, WaHewater loui-term mooitorinf required. Other imtitutiuiial actiooi oootrofliat ate
Treatment QJ required) aoceai and land me may be required and may conflict with the Ibture ate
+ Better, or more deairable relative to other alternalivea
0 Not more or less deairable man other ahemative*
- L«M deairable relative to other alternative*
PREPARED/DATE:
CHECKED/DATE:
W8.28 2of2
-------
8.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The following is a summary of the remedial alternatives recommended in the FS (LAW, 1996b) for the
17 OU3 sites.
8.1 MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE
No further action is proposed for the following 14 NFA sites:
Ohio Road Debris Area
Oklahoma Road Debris Area
KC-135 Crash Area
Dumpster Cleaning Area Site/Building 7841
EOD Area-Cylinders
Golf Course Maintenance Shed Area
Chapman Pit Debris Area
9000 Debris Area
Solvent/Paint Dock Area
Prime Beef Debris Area
Buildings 8951 and 8960 DRMO
Old PX Gas Station UST
F-106A Crash Area
Demineralization Plant
Among the 14 NFA sites, removal actions were recommended and have been accomplished by the USAF
for six of the OU3 sites (Ohio Road Debris Area, Oklahoma Road Debris Area, Golf Course Maintenance
Shed, 9000 Debris Area, and Solvent/Paint Dock Area, and Demineralization Plant) during Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) activities. Currently, no risk to human health or the environment
exists at the above listed 14 sites, resulting in the no further action recommendations.
Further investigation is proposed for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range. Future plans will
address remedial actions for these two sites, if necessary.
Remedial action was recommended for the Contract Storage Shed Area site to address the contaminated
soils/sediments.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 8-1
-------
In summary the RI/ASI recommended:
• 14 NFA sites for no further action
• EOD Range and Outdoor Firing Range for further investigation
• Contract Storage Shed Area for remedial action
Remedial alternatives evaluated for the Contract Storage Shed Area include:
• Alternative 1: No Action
• Alternative 2: Institutional Controls
• Alternative 3: Excavation, On-Base Disposal of Excavated Soils, Placement of
dean Soil Cover Over Chlordane-Contaminated Areas,
Institutional Controls, Wastewater Treatment 0f required)
• Alternative 4: Excavation, Off-Base Disposal of Excavated Soils, Placement of
dean Sofl Cover Over Chlordane-Contaminated Areas, Institutional
Controls, Wastewater Treatment 0f required)
• Alternatives: Excavation, Solidification/Stabilization of Excavated Soils,
On-Base Disposal of Excess Soils, Placement of dean Sofl
Cover Over Chlordane-Contaminated Areas, Institutional
Controls, Wastewater Treatment Of required)
8.2 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR CONTRACT STORAGE SHED AREA
A brief description of each of me remedial action alternatives for the Contract Storage Shed Area is
presented below.
8.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action
Under the No Action alternative, no activities are implemented with regards to site remediation and
contaminant levels. Associated risks to human health with reap*** tn th» mntamin«t«d «•»«; ^ •«HiTnfTn,
at me site would remain at current levels. Long-term liability associated with the contaminated soils
would persist at the she. Contaminant releases from surface run-off, sediment transport, and leaching
Installation Restoration Progn
2608-3208.28 g_2
-------
into the groundwater would continue. This alternative does not meet the RAOs and only retained to
provide a base line for comparison with other alternatives as required by the NCP.
8.2.2 Alternative 1' Institutional Controls
Generally, this alternative would be protective of human health by controlling site access using fencing
and warning signs, and by restricting land-use activities. In addition, continuous monitoring of the
groundwater would allow for detection of the potential spread of contamination. However,
implementation of institutional controls would not result in the remediation of the site. The soil and
sediment contamination would remain unchanged with no reduction in the toricity, volume, and mobility
of contaminants. This alternative also would not be effective in meeting the RAOs and established RGs.
Long-term liability associated with the contaminated soils would persist. Considering the potentially
moderate to high level of activity associated with the planned future use of the site (continued air-
operation related activities), this alternative was not retained for further consideration as a stand-alone
remedial alternative. However, it would be used in combination with other alternatives to provide
adequate protection to human health and die environment.
8.2.3 Alternative 3: Excavation. On-Base Disposal of Excavated Soils. Placement of Clean Soil Cover
Over Qilordane-fYmtaminated Areas. Institutional Controls Wastewater Treatment (rf remiiredl
This alternative includes the excavation, removal, and disposal of contaminated soils (excluding
chlordane-contaminated soils) in the on-base Landfill No. 3. The chlordane-contaminated soils would
be covered by "clean" soil with a minimum thickness of 2 feet and proper erosion protection.
Alternative 3 would be effective in meeting the established RGs and RAOs for site soils and sediments
because the contaminated soils would be removed and disposed at Landfill No. 3, and/or covered with
clean soils. This alternative would effectively reduce the mobility of the contaminants at the Contract
Storage Shed Area site. The placement of the excavated soils in Landfill No. 3, and the installation of
the clean soil cover over the chlordane-contaminated soils would prevent exposure to the contaminants.
The potential risk posed by chlordane-contaminated soil left on the site would be reduced to an acceptable
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 8-3
-------
range, based on die low frequency of detection and low mobility of chlordane in soil. This alternative
was retained for detailed analysis.
8.2.4 Alternative 4; Excavation Off-Base Disposal of Excavated Sflils- Placement of Qean Soil Cover
Areas. ^nstitBtioml CPnftols. Wastewater Trftatiflent (]f required)
This alternative includes the excavation, removal and disposal of contaminated soils (excluding chlordane-
contaminated soils) at an off-base disposal facility. The chlordane-contaminated soils would be covered
by "clean" soil with a minimum thickness of 2 feet and proper erosion protection.
Alternative 4 would be effective in meeting the established RGs and RAOs for site soils and sediments
because the contaminated soils would be removed and disposed at an off-base landfill, and/or covered by
clean soils. This alternative would effectively reduce the mobility of the contaminants at the Contract
Storage Shed Area site. The placement of the excavated soils in an off-base disposal facility and the
placement of cover over the chlordane-contaminated soils would prevent the potential exposure to
contaminants. The potential risk posed by chlordane-contaminated soil left on the site would be reduced
to an acceptable range, based on the low frequency of detection and low mobility of chlordane hi soil.
This alternative is retained for detailed analysis.
8.2.5 Alternative S: Excavation, Stafriljriitinn/Sn|idifu^on of ExcffYflffid {foils. On-Base Disposal of
Excess Soils. Placement of Q**" Soil Cover Oyftf CJllo. rd.8Bfr'CQn*a™M*?fl AfMSi Institutional
Controls. WMtewater Treatment flf required
This alternative includes the excavation and treatment of contaminated soils (excluding chlordane-
contaminated soils), and backfilling of excavation with me treated soils. The excavated soils would be
treated using stabilization/solidification to immobilize the soil contaminants. Excess treated soils resulting
from the treatment process would be disposed in on-base Landfill No. 3. The chlordane-contaminated
soils would be covered by "den" soil with a minimum thickness of 2 feet and proper erosion protection.
This alternative would be effective hi meeting the RAOs for the Contract Storage Shed Area site by the
excavation, treatment, backfilling of the treated soils, and covering the chlordane-contaminated areas.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28
-------
Human health would be adequately protected by this alternative. The mobility of the contaminants would
be effectively reduced by treatment using stabilization/solidification processes to encapsulate the
contaminated soil particles. Contaminant toxicity would be reduced due to the dilution effect afforded
by the binding matrix, although final concentrations might not achieve the RGs. The volume of material
would actually increase as a result of the treatment process, thereby requiring excess treated soils to be
placed hi Landfill No. 3.
Because Alternative 5 does not involve the destruction or removal of contaminants from the site, long-
term monitoring of the site would be required, including the implementation of a groundwater monitoring
program. Institutional controls would be required to prohibit intrusive activities at the site that might
compromise the integrity of the stabilized soil masses and the covered areas. Long-term liability would
still be associated with the site soils if the dilution effects of the binding matrix did not adequately reduce
contaminant concentrations to achieve the RGs. This alternative was retained for detailed analysis.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 g_5
-------
9.0 SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Section 121(bXl) of CERCLA presents several factors that, at a minimum, the USAF is required to
consider in its assessment of alternatives. Building upon these specific statutory mandates, the NCP
articulates nine evaluation criteria to be used in assessing die individual remedial alternatives.
FOR DETAILED
A detailed analysis of the alternatives was performed using the nine evaluation criteria in order to select
a site remedy. Section 9.2 contains a summary of the comparison of each alternative's strengths and
weaknesses with respect to the nine evaluation criteria. These criteria are summarized in Subsections
9.1.1 through 9.1.3.
9.1.1 Threshold Criteria
The two threshold criteria described below must be met in order for the alternatives to be eligible for
selection hi accordance with the NCP.
Overall protection of human health and the environment - Addresses whether
a remedy will clean up the site to within die risk range, result in any
unacceptable impacts, and control the inherent hazards associated with die site
and describes how risks posed through each pathway are eliminated, reduced or
controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) - Addresses whether a remedy will meet all of the potential ARARs
and to be considered (TBQ regulations or provide grounds for invoking a
waiver.
9.1.2 Primary pplflncfag Criteria
The alternatives are evaluated and compared as to the degree to which the following threshold criteria
are achieved.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 9-1
-------
Lone-term effectiveness and performance - Refers to die ability of a remedy
to maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time
once cleanup goals have been met.
Reduction of tadtity, mobility, and volume through treatment - Refers to the
anticipated performance of me treatment technologies mat may be employed in
a remedy to address the principal threats posed by the contamination detected at
the she.
Short-term effectiveness during construction and implementation - Refers to
the period of time needed to achieve protection, and any adverse impacts on
human health and the environment that may be posed during the construction and
implementation period, until cleanup goals are achieved.
Upd •ifa
and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of materials
and services needed to implement the chosen actions, and the ability to obtain
regulatory approval.
Cost - Includes the capital needed for materials, equipment, and related items,
and the operation and TflH'"tfl*wncfl costs.
9.1.3 Modifying Criteria
The modifying criteria are used hi the final evaluation of remedial alternatives after receipt of public
comments on the RI/FS and Proposed Plan.
• State acceptance - Refers to USEPA's and the state of Maine's anticipated
response to and acceptance of a remedy and the state's comments on ARARs or
the proposed use of waivers.
• Communhy acceptance - Refers to the public's anticipated response to and
acceptance of a remedy.
9.2 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Following are brief discussions of the evaluation shown in Table 9-1 for each of the listed criteria. Under
each alternative, the same option is proposed for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range (further
investigation) and the remaining fourteen sites (no further action). Therefore, the discussions of the
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 9-2
-------
TABLE 9-1
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
OU3 Record of Decision
Loring Air Force Base, Maine
Overall Protection of
Human Health and
Alternative Environment
1 -2
3 +1
4 +1
5 +1
Compliance with
ARARs
-1 (does not
comply)
+ 1 (complies)
+ 1 (complies)
+ 1 (complies)
Reduction of
Long-Term Mobility, Toxiciry
Effectiveness and and Volume Short-Term
Permanence Through Treatment Effectiveness
-2 -2 +2
+ 1 +1 0
+ 1 +1 -1
0 +1 -1
Implemeo (ability
+2
+ 1
+ 1
0
Cost
+2
+ 1
0
0
Total*
-1
+6
+4
+2
* The totals column is provided ninunarizing the competitive evahwtioa
each cf 5hs ssves criteria are weighted equally, it is understood that several factors influence the
relative importance of each criterion and. therefore, the totals column should be viewed considering this aspect.
-2 Alternative has significant concerns, problems with impUmentability, site disturbance requirements, questions on effectiveness, or significantly greater cost relative to
other alternatives.
-1 Has less desirable aspects relative to similar alternatives.
0 Is consistent with criteria, but does not provide added benefits or safety factors.
+ 1 Provides identifiable benefits to alternatives which are consistent with criteria.
+2 Has significant benefits relative to other alternatives.
PREPARED/DATE:
CHECKED/DATE:
2608-3208.28
-------
comparative analysis are based on action options developed for the Contract Storage Shed, which governs
die rating for die alternatives which include the 17 OU3 sites.
9.2.1 Overall Protection of HyrflU Hfflltf? flTT^ fllft Envi
Hie least effective alternative hi terms of overall protection is Alternative 1 (No Action). Under mis
alternative, no measures would be taken to reduce the potential for exposure to the soil and sediment
contamination at me Contract Storage Shed Area she. Alternative 1 was given a score of -2 with respect
to this criterion.
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would offer a high degree of overall protection with respect to human health.
Under Alternatives 3 and 4, the contaminated soils would be removed from the Contract Storage Shed
Area site and secured in appropriate disposal facilities or covered to prevent exposure to contamination.
The contaminated soil would be treated and backfilled in the excavations or covered to prevent exposure
to contamination under Alternative 5. Therefore, the potential for future exposure to the contaminants
would essentially be eliminated. Each of these alternatives was given a score of + 1 .
9.2.2 CPfllpliMCff VJtifr Applicable or RfflfYf>nt 81KJ Appropriate Requirements
Under Alternative 1 (No Action no remediation activities would be performed at the she. Therefore,
chemical-specific and location-specific ARAR/TBCs would not be met by mis alternative. Action-specific
ARARs and TBCs would not apply to this alternative. This alternative was given a score of -1.
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 are effective hi meeting chemical-specific TBCs by removal/disposal or
treatment/backfill, and installation of soil cover over the contaminant sources. The contaminated soils
(excluding chlordane-contaminated soils) would be disposed hi a landfill under both Alternatives 3 and
4 while the contaminated soils would be treated and backfilled under Alternative 5. The chlordane-
contaminated areas would be covered with clean soil. These alternatives comply with ARAR/TBCs.
Each of these alternatives was given a score of + 1 for mis criterion.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 9.4
-------
9.2.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 1 would provide the least long-term protection to human health and the environment, as no
remediation would occur under this alternative. This alternative was given the score of -2.
Alternatives 3 and 4 would be equally effective in providing for long-term protection of human health
with respect to the Contract Storage Shed Area site. Both of these alternatives would include the
permanent removal of contaminated soils (excluding chlordane-contaminated soils) from the site, disposal
of the soils in appropriate disposal facilities, and installation of cover over chlordane-contaminated areas.
These measures would provide identifiable benefits above the criteria and both alternatives, therefore,
were given a score of +1 for this criterion. Alternative 5 was given a score of 0 because the treated soil
would be left in place and a long-term monitoring program would be required to detect the potential of
release.
9.2.4 Reduction in Mobility. Toxicitv. and Volume through Treatment
Alternative 1 was given the lowest score (-2) because no remedial action would be performed to reduce
the mobility, toxicity, or volume of contamination.
Alternatives 3 and 4 would reduce the mobility of contaminants hi the soils by removal and disposal of
excavated soils in the landfill facilities and covering the chlordane-contaminated areas. Both Alternatives
3 and 4 were given a +1 score. However, Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 do not comply with the strategy of
preference through treatment. Alternative 5 would reduce the mobility of contaminants hi the soil by
employing S/S treatment processes and installing a clean soil cover over the chlordane-contaminated
areas. Alternative 5 was given the same score (+1) as Alternatives 3 and 4.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 9.5
-------
9.2.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
This criterion refers to protection of on-site personnel daring the construction and operation of remedial
treatment systems. Alternative 1 (No Action) would be most protective by virtue of the fact mat no
on-site activity takes place. This alternative was given a score of +2.
Alternatives 3,4, and 5 would result in the potential for worker exposure during the remedial activities.
Bom Alternatives 3 and 4 would involve the excavation and disposal of contaminated soils while
Alternative 5 would involve excavation and treatment. However, Alternatives 4 and 5 might present
greater potentials for exposure to the contaminated soils during the off-she transportation (Alternative 4)
and the treatment (Alternative 5). Therefore, Alternative 3 was given a score of 0 while Alternatives 4
and 5 were given scores of -1.
9.2.6 ImplcmcnttfriHtY
This criterion refers to the degree of effort required for implementation of a particular alternative.
Alternative 1 was given the highest score (+2) with respect to mis criterion, as it would be the easiest
of the alternatives to implement, because no remedial action would be required.
Alternatives 3 and 4 would address the contaminated soils hi the same manner. Bom alternatives dispose
die excavated soils in a nonhazardous landfill. Alternatives 3 and 4 were given scores of +1.
Alternative 5 would involve S/S treatment processes, and would also require a treatability study.
Therefore, Alternative 5 was given a score of 0.
9.2.7 Cost
A summary of the estimated cost for each alternative is presented in Table 9-2. Alternative 1 was given
the highest score (+2) because no costs are incurred.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 9-6
-------
TABLE 9-2
OPINIONS OF COST FOR SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
OU3 Record of Decision
Loring Air Force Base, Maine
Remedial Alternative Opinion of Cost
1. No Action
3. Excavation, On-Base Landfill Disposal of Excavated Soils,
0
$65,000
Placement of Clean Soil Cover Over Chlordane-Contaminated
Areas, Institutional Controls, Wastewater Treatment Of
required)
4. Excavation, Off-Base Landfill Disposal of Excavated Soils, $310,000
Placement of Clean Soil Cover Over Chlordane-Contaminated
Areas, Institutional Controls, Wastewater Treatment (if
required)
5. Excavation, Solidification/Stabilization of Excavated Soils, On- $540,000
Base Disposal of Excess Soils, Placement of Clean Soil Cover
Over Chlordane-Contaminated Areas, Institutional Controls,
Wastewater Treatment (if required)
PREPARED/DATE:
CHECKED/DATE:
2608-3208.28 9.7
-------
Based on the cost estimates, Alternative 3 would cost less than Alternatives 4 and 5. This difference was
primarily due to the higher transportation costs associated with off-site disposal under Alternative 4 and
treatment costs under Alternative 5. Alternative 3, therefore, was given a score of +1, while
Alternatives 4 and S were scored at 0.
9.2.8 Comparative Analysis
As shown in Table 9-1, Alternative 1 ranked lowest among the alternatives considered. It consistently
scored lower with respect to protectiveness and effectiveness, with the exception of short-term
effectiveness, which applies only to implementation of remedial activities. Alternative 1 ranked highest
for criteria dealing with implementability and costs. This is because no remedial actions would be
performed under Alternative 1.
Alternatives 3 and 4 are nearly equivalent with respect to those criteria based primarily on effectiveness.
The significant differences between the two alternatives are the short-term effectiveness and cost.
Alternative 3 was considered easier to implement than Alternatives 4 and S because Alternative 3 would
not involve off-site transportation or treatment. Alternatives 4 and 5 would be more costly than
Alternative 3, due to the off-she transportation or treatment cost. Alternative 3 was ranked highest
among all the alternatives for total score.
9.2.9 State
As part to the FFA, MEDEP has provided comments on the FS and Proposed Plan (LAW, 1996c), and
has documented its occurrence with the remedial action as stated in Section 13 of this ROD. A copy of
die MEDEP's letter of concurrence is presented in Appendix C.
9.2.10 fhmnmnit Accetance
Community acceptance of the Proposed Plan has been evaluated based on comments received during the
public comment period and at the public meeting. This acceptance is documented hi the Transcript of
the Public Meeting in Appendix A, and in the Responsiveness Summary, Appendix B.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 9-g
-------
10.0 SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy for die OU3 sites is presented in this section.
10.1 SELECTED REMEDY FOR OU3 SITES
No further action is proposed for the following 14 OU3 sites:
Ohio Road Debris Area
Oklahoma Road Debris Area
KC-135 Crash Area
Dumpster Cleaning Area/Building 7841
EOD Area-Cylinders
Golf Course Maintenance Shed Area
Chapman Pit Debris Area
9000 Debris Area
Solvent/Paint Dock Area
prime Beef Debris Area
Buildings 8951 and 8960 DRMO
Old PX Gas Station UST
F-106A Crash Area
Demineralization Plant
Further investigation is proposed for die Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range. Future plans will
address remedial actions for die site, if necessary.
The selected remedial action for die Contract Storage Shed Area site consists of die following
components:
• Excavation of die contaminated sediments/soils, excluding chlordane-
contaminated soils
• On-base disposal of die excavated sediments/soils
• Placement of 2 feet of clean soil cover and erosion protection over die chlordane-
contaminated area
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 10-1
-------
• Institutional controls
• Wastewater treatment (if required)
Details of this selected remedial action are presented below:
10.2 REMEDIAL ACTION FOR THE CONTRACT STORAGE SHED AREA SITE
The remedial alternative for the Contract Storage Shed Area site would involve the excavation, removal
and land disposal of soils contaminated with PAHs, pesticides (except chlordane) and heavy metals at
concentrations that exceed the ROs (Table 10-1). CWordane-contaminated soils would remain hi place
and be covered by a minimum of 2 feet of clean soil, with erosion protection, to prevent future exposure.
Institutional controls to identify the presence of chlordane at this she would be established. Figure 10-1
shows locations, area, and the depth of the contaminated soils at the Contract Storage Shed Area.
An estimated total in-place volume of approximately 1,500 cubic yards of soil and sediment would be
excavated and disposed. Based on information obtained during the RI, including contaminant nature and
extent data for the soils and sediments, and risk assessment calculations, the areas subject to potential
remediation at the site are presented in Figure 10-1. The hatched areas shown hi Figure 10-1 present the
area of contaminated soil/sediment to be excavated. The estimated surface areas *"^ the depths of
excavation are based on sample points showing contamination exceeding ROs. The two plain white
square areas shown hi Figure 10-1 indicate the areas of chlordane-contamination, which will be covered
by 2 feet of clean sofl.
The excavated soils would be disposed at the non-Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), on-
base Landfill No. 3, which is located on the west side of the base approximately 2.3 miles from the
Contract Storage Shed Area site, and approximately 0.5 miles north of the O»*pntfn Pit Debris Area Site
(Figure 1-1). The soils identified for removal do not exhibit a hazardous characteristic under RCRA and,
therefore, can be disposed hi Landfill No. 3 hi compliance with Land Disposal Restrictions requirements.
The landfill is scheduled for future closure with a cover system including two barriers. Therefore, die
potential for groundwater contamination by soils from this site is considered minimal Confirmation
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 10-2
-------
TABLE 10-1
SOIL REMEDIATION GOALS
Record of Decision
Contract Storage Shed Area, OU3
Loring Air Force Ba*e, Maine
Constituent
Remediation Goals
(1E+06/1E+05)
(tag/kg)
Surface Soil
Batis For Selection
Soil to
Oround Water
Pathway Levels
DAFslO (e)
(mx/kiri
Obierved Rime for Site Soils
Min Max
runt/kit) fm«yiurt
TOTAL METALS:
Barium
Cadmium
Lead*
Manganese
SEMI-VOLATILESi
Bena>(a)anthracf.ne
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benn>(b)fluorsnthene
Benzo(k)flnoranthene
Chrysene
Dibeni(aA)anthracene
Ideno(lA3-cd)p)Tene
Pyrene
PESTICIDES/PCBs:
Chlordane
4.4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aroclor-12«0
TPH: fn-Hexanel
100/1,000 Rut Construction Worker-Inhalation
16160 Riifc Construction Worker-Inhalation
880/8,800 Risk£on*trnctionWorker-Ingeition+Denial
1400 Background
0.470 (a) Background
0.400 (a) Background
L100 (a) Background
OMO (b) Method Detection Limit
3/30 RUcCoininerctalWorker-Ingeatioa-f' Dermal
0.400 (b) Method Detection Limit
0.400 (b) Method Detection Limit
71/710 RisfcConstntction Worker- Ingestion+Dermal
0.07A>.7 RisfaCommercial Worker-Injestion-f Dermal
OJ/4 Anthropogenic Background/Risk at 1E+05
OJ/3 RisfcCommercial Worker-Ingestion+Dermal
0.9/3 Anthropogenic Background/Risk at 1B+05
l(c) USEPAOuidanee
870/8.700 (d) Rbk&>n*tntctionWorker-Ingeition+Dermal
32
6
KA
NA
3.6
37
8.9
440
310
1.8
44
1.400
2.1
L7
L7
4.7
26
NA
4.7
0.04
9.7
250
0.01 JQ
0.0061 JQ
0.034 JQ
0.12 JQ
0.033 JQ
0.022 JQ
0.018 JQ
0.01 JQ
0.16
0.0007
0.00098
0.00062
0.035
18
220
27
110
2900
88 J
76 J
96 J
32 J
67 J
12 J
36 J
120 J
7.6
23
100
0.42
24,000 J
All concentrations are in mg/kg.
Background concentrations are fri
i State
i (HAZRAP, 1994 and LAFB, 1995).
Risk- based concentrations were back- calculated using exposure parameters Kited in Appendix J of the RI/ASI Report
Target Risks are 1B+06/1E+ 05 for carcinogens with IE+05 as cumulative risk boundary per sample point
Target Hazard Indices are one/ton for •oncaranogens with ten as cumulative risk boundary per sample pof
# Lead PRO* based .on estimated oral Rid of 7JE-03 which was backcnlculated from acceptable concentration of 400 mg/kg
in residential setting.
(a) Background concentration is recommended as alternative cleanup goal for carcinogenic PAHs (Sample JSS-0584, Loring AFB,
February 1995).
(b) Method Detection Limit fisted as remediation goal because risk-based and background goals are below detection limits.
(c) Based on Outdance on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites with PCS Contamination, EPA/540O- 90007.
(d) Taken from ABB. 1994 in order to be consistent with remediation at other OU Sites.
(e) Dilution and Attenuation Factor from Soil Screening Guidance. EPA/S40/R- 94/101. December 1994. These are remediation goals for
subsurface soib which are not excavated. Simple site—specific levels were calculated using the Technical Background Document for
Soil Screening Outdance (1994) with a target risk of 1 for noocarcinogens and 1 x 10*' for carcinogens.
NA Not available
JQ - Estimated concentration below guantitatfan limit
J - Estimated concentration
PREPARED/DATE:
CHECKED/DATE:
2608-3208O8
10-3
-------
FIGURE 10-1
LEGEND
3 SB-Soil Boring Location
9 UW-Uonitoring Well
Location (Overburden)
$ MW-Monitoring Well
Location (Bedrock)
A SS-Surface Soil
Sample Location
$ RV-Sediment
Sample Location
Paved Roads
Fence Line
Tree Line
Railroads
, Foundation Remains Of
Former Building
Outline Of Former Building
Former Building 7258
Excavation Area ID
Clean Sot Covet Over
\ Chtordane-Contaminotect Area
EXCAVATION
DfPTHSFOR
SOILS TO B£
CHSPOSfDOf/N
LANDFILL NO. 3
APPROXIMATE
>YAREA
FORMER
tONTRACTOR
SHED
BUILDING
2600-320620
-------
sampling would be performed to ensure that soil excavation meets the RGs. The excavations would be
backfilled with clean soil and the area graded to promote proper drainage, dean soil (1,500 cubic yards)
would be required to backfill the resultant excavations.
The chlordane-contaminated soils would remain on site and would be covered with a minimum of 2 feet
of clean soil (see Figure 10-1 for location). The estimated volume of clean soil required to provide a
minimum of 2 feet of coverage for those areas is 200 cubic yards, making a total of 1,700 cubic yards
of clean soil required. Erosion protection measures would be applied to the cover to ensure continual
effectiveness. Long-term groundwater monitoring, which will likely be included under the basewide
groundwater program, and certain institutional controls may be required for the chlordane-contaminated
areas because the chlordane is left in place. The potential exists that future excavation of the chlordane-
contaminated soil could trigger RCRA land disposal restrictions. Therefore, institutional controls would
be necessary to restrict the use of the site and assure the proper notification of future owners.
Although unlikely, some groundwater extraction might be required to reduce the water levels in the
excavations while work is being performed. Treatment of the extracted water could be necessary to meet
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge limits.
Estimated capital costs for the remedial action would be approximately $65,000. Additional costs may
be incurred from wastewater treatment, if required. This determination will be made at the design stage.
10.3 CLEANUP LEVELS
The purpose of the response action for OU3 at Loring AFB is to remove risk associated with the
soils/sediment. As previously noted, there is no risk to human health and the environment at the sites
recommended for no further action. The Outdoor Firing Range and the Old EOD Range sites have been
recommended for further investigation to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination and the risk
posed to human health and the environment.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 10-5
-------
Hie USAF has established, with die concurrence of die regulatory agencies, RGs for the Contract Storage
Shed Area for protection of human health and the environment. Cleanup goals have been established for
contaminated soils and sediments based on background concentrations, analytical detection limits, risk
calculations, or EPA-recommended cleanup levels. Compounds for which remediation goals have been
set are listed hi Table 10-1.
The proposed remedial action at the Contract Storage Shed Area will reduce risk to human health such
that the residual cumulative risk will result in a hazard index of less man one for noncarcinogens. The
residual cumulative risk will result in a cancer risk of less man 10*. based on the continuous industrial
land use scenario, which is within the target risk range (104 to 10*). Therefore, the proposed remedial
action will provide adequate protection for human health and the environment.
The PAH and pesticide contaminated soils (except for chlordane contamination) would be excavated and
removed from the she to meet the RGs listed in Table 10-1. The minmnnp 2-foot soil cover installed
over cUordane-contaminated areas is considered sufficient in providing protection to human health and
the environment based on the isolated and low frequency of occurrence of chlordane at the site, the future
land use plan of industrial/commercial activity, the low mobility of chlordane hi soil, and considering mat
chlordane was not detected in the groundwater. In addition, institutional controls wfll be implemented
to ensure the prevention of the future exposure to cUordane-contaminated soils.
10.4 FIVE-YEAR SITE REVIEWS
The USAF will review the Contract Storage Shed Area site long-term monitoring program at least once
every five years after the initiation of remedial action hi accordance with applicable USEPA guidance.
The review will determine whether the remedial action continues to protect human health and the
environment by •««*«ffag she conditions and proposing further actions, if necessary.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 10-6
-------
11.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under CERCLA section 121, the lead agency (the USAF) must select remedies that are protective of
human health and the environment, comply with ARARs (unless a statutory waiver is justified), are most
cost-effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, CERCLA includes a preference for
remedies that employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility
of hazardous wastes as their principal element. The following sections discuss how the selected remedy
meets these statutory requirements.
11.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment through installation of a soil cover,
excavation, removal, and landfill disposal of contaminated soils detected at the site.
The chlordane-contaminated areas will be covered with a minimum of 2 feet of clean soil, with erosion
protection, to prevent the future direct exposure to the contaminated soil. The cover will reduce the
potential risk posed by the contaminant (chlordane) to within an acceptable risk range. The remaining
contaminated soils at the site will be excavated, removed, and disposed hi the on-base Landfill No. 3,
to adequately reduce the contamination at the site.
The cancer risks from exposure will be reduced to less man 1 x 10*. This level falls within the target
risk range of 10"* to 10*. There are no short-term threats associated with the selected remedy that cannot
be readily controlled. In addition, no adverse cross-media impacts are expected from the remedy.
11.2 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
No chemical-specific ARARs have been identified for the Contract Storage Shed Area soils. Chemical-
specific TBCs would be met by the removal of contaminated soils from the site. Chlordane-contaminated
areas would be covered with a minimum of 2 feet of clean soil to reduce potential risk caused by
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 H-l
-------
exposure to the contaminated soil at die she. Location-specific ARARs would be met because of the
localized nature and isolation of the contamination. Excavated soils under the selected remedy are not
expected to be hazardous materials The action-specific ARARs would be satisfied by mis remedy.
Wastewater generated during remediation activities would be treated to meet NPDES discharge
requirements.
Tables 11-1 through 11-3 summarize the chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs and/or TBCs
for the selected remedy and how they will be attained.
Although the requirements, standards and regulations of the Occupational Safety and Realm Act of 1970,
29 U.S.C., etsep. are not ARARs, they will be complied with in connection with the OU3 remedial
activities where applicable (USEPA, 1990).
11.3 UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT OR
RESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE
Once the USAF identified those alternatives that attain ARARs, and mat are protective of human health
and the environment, the remedy which utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies
or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable was selected. This selection was
made by evaluating which of the identified alternatives is most effective in terms of: 1) long-term
effectiveness and permanence, 2) reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment, 3) short-
term effectiveness, 4) implementability, and 5) cost. The evaluation emphasized long-term effectiveness
permanence, and the reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment, while considering the
preference for treatment as a principal element, the bias against off-site land disposal of untreated waste,
and community and state acceptance.
The selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs among the alternatives. The selected remedy
provides long-term protection of human health and the environment because contaminated soils and
sediments will either be removed from the site and contained within a well-maintained on-base landfill,
or covered with clean soil. The potential for migration will be greatly reduced and exposure to
contaminated soil will be prevented with the completion of this remedy.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 11-2
-------
TABLE 11-1
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
Record of Decision
Contract Storage Shed Area, OU3
Loring Air Force Base, Maine
MEDIA
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
DESCRIPTION
ACTION TO BE TAKEN TO ATTAIN
ARAR
Federal Criteria
USEPA Reference Dow
USEPA Cancer Slope Factors
To Be
Considered
To Be
Considered
RfDt and RfCa are pathway-specific indices
which estimate an acceptable daily dose for
die human population without an appreciable
risk of deleterious effect during a lifetime.
CSFi an upper-bound i
ate* of excess
cancer riak per unit of intake over a lifetime.
CSFi are used to mt^mmtn • probability of an
individual developing cancer aa result of a
specific exposure scenario.
These values are used to characterize risks
for site receptors and estimate acceptable
levels of site systemic toxicants.
These values are used to characterize excess
cancer risk for site receptors and estimate
levels of individual site carcinogens which do
not pose a greater man 1 x 10* probability of
PREPARED/DATE:
CHECKED/DATS:
2608-3208.28
-------
TABLE 11-2
LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS AND TBCs
Record of Deddon
Contract Storafe Shed AIM, OU3
Loring Air Farce BSM, Maine
MEDIA REQUIREMENT STATUS DESCRIPTION ACTION TO BE TAKEN TO ATTAIN
ARAR
State Criteria Maine Sto Location AppBcaHe TUt act and HfrtrioM govern development Remedial action wffl meet (toe
»^^— -_i-^-_^_^^^ V ^^m •• il ^^tjl ^KMiWdeW B»^«M«L^^M •d^la^a^l^M flk^A ^^^^^^_^^^^_A. p ____ -•* -jl ,, — • •al».lil • • ^^311 *-—
LWBIO|MULr||l t^w MM ••! ••'•UUB iMfMUOBg •UUfiuBV iBBm . m|HniDBDII* KCJoPOMIlOO •CaVUMV will DO
RepdatiaM (38 MRSA Sectkm ooanan. raerato, or hawfie httudow United to immediato vidahy and oot
48M9O; MDEP Regulatioai, waateaaadoU. Tfc* ref«latk)aa piovide dut expected to adveraely affect Mnoondiag
Clupter 375) Ihece anul be BO vmeeacMHible advaiVB aieea. nwiaiooi will bo r^PiPF^rnfu^r fof
effactaontpedfiediteaM(inelndb(air erocioii, aedunentatkm and noiae control at
nqdrad.
•Itonooo of cliflMto of
W«QFS flBo pravniom fof
PRBPARBOAMTB:
CHBCKEtVDATV:
2608-3208.28
-------
TABLE 11-3
ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS AND TBCS
Record of Decision
Contract Storage Shed Area, OU3
Loring Air Force Base, Maine
REMEDIATED
MEDIA
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
DESCRIPTION
ACTION TO BE TAKEN TO ATTAIN
ARAR
Soil/Sediincot
Federal Cntccui Stmd*utu for Idonoficfltton And I ritf'fn of Rctowot too
Hazardous Waste (RCRA 40 CFR 261] Appropriate
Hazardous Waste Management Systems; (RCRA Relevant and
40 CPR 260] Appropriate
Requirements for Miscellaneous Units [40 CPR Relevant and
264.600 - 264.999] Appropriate
RCRA - Standards Applicable to Generator! and Relevant and
Transporter* of Hazardous Watte [40 CPR Part Appropriate
262, Subpart B, C, P. and 263]
RCRA Subtitle C, Subpart B - General Standard! Relevant and
[40 CFR 264.10-264.30 - 264.18] Appropriate
RCRA Subtitle C, Subpart C - Pieparedneaa and Relevant and
preparation [40 CFR 264 JO - 26431} Appropriate
RCRA Subtitle C, Subpart D - Contingency Plan Relevant and
and Emergency Procedure* [40 CFR 264 JO- Appropriate
264.56]
Criteria of hi
otidwaatea;
USEPA prooedum for mftkfaf iirfb.Ttiu.ikm
AvnUbte to the public; nde* for cUiiM of
Rfltjuirctueuti for owocn cad opcntton of
ftffiHtift out tTMty fltoni or tfiflpOM of
nflZttvloiu wuto in HiiiTpfllfm^iHyf units.
Ubelittf.
hazardous wuto.
Rc
-------
TABLE 11-3
ACTION-SPECIFIC AJURS AND TBCS
Record of DccUoa
Contract Stamp Shed ATM, OU3
Lori* Ak Pom BMC, Maine
REMEDIATED
MEDIA
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
DESCRIPTION
ACTION TO BETAKEN TO ATTAIN
ARAR
(Coot)
Federal Criteria
State Criteria
Uod TiMtaeot RMttMoM (RCRA 40 CFR
364, 268.42 and 268.46]
Land DupoMl Reatrictioaa |RCRA 40 CPR Pwt
268).
Standard* for Owocn and Opantora of
Hazardooa Watte TnataMOt, Stance and
Dkpool FactlMei [RCRA 40 CPR 264]
Make AnMcot Air Quality Staadanta (38
MRSA, Section 584, MBDEP Refulatioaa,
Chapter 110)
win BoC ba vaed Ibr aiijr
Ralavartaad
Land dopoaal nMtricdoat
MkM bo kmtod to • apeeified
for RCRA bctfrf
Soil to be dbpoaed at ofrbaaa Landfill wffl not
^
mpsWBflMBlV B ••wCt BBC HI pOftKMV OE
Appficabkifworkatttiaatei
ak qaa%; ak aoriariow taa
Maine HasantoM Wart* Maaat«oM«tRriea
[MBDEP RafuUboaa, Chaptara 800-8O2, 8SO,
851.85M57]
2608-3208.28
ntBPARBIWDATB:
CHBCKEO/DATB:
2 Of 2
-------
The selected remedy will not reduce mobility, toxicity, or volume through treatment of source area
contaminants. However, the selected remedy will reduce mobility through removal and landfilling, and
installation of a soil cover will prevent direct contact with the contaminated soils and sediments at the site.
The selected remedy will require health and safety training for workers who operate the excavation
equipment and conduct monitoring. Adverse effects on workers are not anticipated as long as safe
working practices are followed. Adverse effects on the community would not be expected as a result of
implementation of the selected remedy. However, minimal impact to ecological receptors is expected due
to the nature of the excavation activities.
Installation of the selected remedy involves easily implementable, reliable, and available technologies,
at a cost effective, reasonable value. It provides overall protection to human health and the environment,
complies with ARARs, meets the response objectives and is the least expensive.
11.4 PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT
The selected remedy will not reduce mobility, toxicity or volume through treatment of source area
contaminants as a principle element. However, the remedy will reduce mobility through removal and
disposal of contaminated soils, and installation of a clean soil cover to prevent direct contact with the
contaminated soil. In view of the relatively small volume of soil and sediments that would require
treatment, and the high cost of such treatment, it. is not practicable or cost effective to treat the material.
11.5 COST EFFECTIVENESS
The cost of this alternative would include the excavation, removal, and disposal of the excavated soils
in the on-base landfill, backfilling of the resultant excavations, and covering the chlordane-contaminated
areas with "clean" soils obtained from off site. The opinion of cost for this alternative is approximately
$65,000. Additional cost might be incurred from wastewater treatment, if required. The total cost of
$65,000 for Alternative 3 is less than $310,000, the cost for Alternative 4 because of: 1) employing on-
base landfill disposal versus employing off-base landfill disposal (Alternative 4) of the excavated soil; and
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 11-7
-------
2) die elimination of cost associated with off-base transportation disposal cost under Alternative 4. Costs
associated with a treatability study and treatment under Alternative 5 would not be incurred »Mgr
Alternative 3; therefore, die same overall protection to human health and die environment can be provided
by Alternative 3 at a cost of $65,000, compared to die Alternative 5 cost of $540,000.
The selection of this alternative represents a reasonable value widi regard to die other alternatives. Of
die three alternatives that provide overall protection to human health and die environment and comply
widi ARARs, die selected remedy is die least expensive.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 U_g
-------
12.0 DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The USAF presented the Proposed Plan, which includes the preferred alternative for remediation of the
OU3, on July 8, 1996. The Proposed Plan was presented to die public, and public comments were
considered prior to the determination of the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative (Excavation
and On-Base Landfill of Contaminated Soils, Placement of dean Soil Cover Over Chlordane-
Contaminated Areas, Implementation of Institutional Controls, Wastewater Treatment [if Required])
includes excavation, land disposal of excavated soil at the on-base Landfill No. 3, backfilling the
excavations with clean soil obtained off site, implementation of institutional controls, and a minimum of
2 feet of clean soil cover with erosion protection over chlordane-contaminated areas.
During development of the ROD, no significant changes have been made to the preferred alternative
described hi the Proposed Plan.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 12-1
-------
13.0 STATE ROLE
The MEDEP, as signatory to the FFA (as amended), has reviewed the alternatives evaluated during RI/FS
activities and has indicated its support for this selected remedy. The MEDEP has also reviewed the
Remedial Investigation, Risk Assessment and FS to determine if the selected remedy is in compliance
with applicable or relevant and appropriate state environmental laws and regulations. Upon completion
of public preview and the public hearing for the RI/FS and PP, the MEDEP concurs with the selected
remedy for OU3. A copy of the letter of concurrence is attached to this ROD as Appendix C.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 13-1
-------
14.0 REFERENCES
LAW, 1994. Final Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation Technical Report for Operable Unit 3.
Loring AFB, Maine, March 1994.
LAW, 1996a. Final Remedial Investigation/Additional Site Investigation Technical Report for Operable
Unit 3, Loring AFB, Maine, March 1996.
LAW, 1996b. Final Feasibility Study Report for Operable Unit 3, Loring AFB, Maine, June 1996.
LAW, 1996c. Final Proposal Plan for Operable Unit 3, Loring AFB, Main, June 1996.
Loring AFB, 1993. Personal communication with Loring AFB environmental personnel by LAW
personnel.
USEPA, 1988b. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part 1, Interim Final, PB90-272535.
USEPA, 1989a and b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1 - Human Health
Assessment Manual (Part A), Interim Final, December 1989 (USEPA, 1989a), and Volume 2:
Environmental Evaluation Manual, Interim Final, March 1989 (USEPA, 1989b).
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 14_i
-------
APPENDIX A
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING MEETING ON JULY 10,19%
-------
STATE OF MAINE CARIBOU, MAINE
AROOSTOOK, ss.
PUBLIC HEARING
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
OPERABLE UNIT 3 PUBIC HEARING
7:05 P.M.
CARIBOU MUNICIPAL BUILDING
HIGH STREET
CARIBOU, MAINE
JULY 10, 1996
Philip R. Bennett, Jr.
Court Reporter
13 Vaughn Street
Caribou, Maine 04736
207-498-2729
-------
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
2
July 10, 1996
3
4
PETER FORBES: Good evening.
Welcome to the public hearing to receive comments on
6
the proposed plan for Operable Unit 3 at Loring Air
Force Base. Today's date is July 10, 1996. My
8
name is Peter Forbes, the Remedial Project Manager
for the Installation Restoration Program at Loring.
-10
Seated with me are Michael Nalipinski, Remedial Projec
Manager for the US EPA and Naji Akladiss, Remedial
Project Manager for the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection. They will assist me in
14 , *
receiving your comments
15
This hearing is being held in accordance with
16
the provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation, and Liability Act or CERCLA,
as amended in 1986. Also known as Superfund. The
Act requires federal facilities on the National
Priorities List to present clean up proposals to
the local community for comment and consideration
before the final clean up decisions are made.
And the purpose of this hearing is to receive
25
comments on the proposed plan for Operable Unit 3.
-------
1
2
II
Mr. Philip Bennett from Aroostook Legal
ii
Reporters will serve as the court reporter tonight,
preparing a verbatim record of the proceeding.
5 ;;
The verbatim record will become a part of the
6 "
||
; final clean up plan. The court reporter will be
7 j
able to make a complete record only if he is able
6
. to hear and understand what you say. With that
9
in mind, please follow these ground rules. Speak
only after I recognize you and please address your
11
comments to me. State your name, and the
12
ii
organization you represent, and present your
13 ||
If; statement. Do not begin speaking until you have
14 | -
reached the microphone. If you have prepared
' your statement beforehand, you may read it aloud
16 |
or you may paraphrase it and place it on the
,8 table'
ig Are there individuals wishing to make a
comment or statement at this time?
20
Well, seeing none I wish to note ladies and
gentlemen that it is 7:08 p.m., July 10th, 1996
23 and I declare the public hearing to receive
24 comments on the proposed plan for Operable Unit
25 3 at Loring Air Force Base closed.
END OF HEARING
-------
1
2
CERTIFICATION
3
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT the foregoing is a true and
4
II
correct transcript of the record of proceedings held
5 „
on the afore-designated hearing date.
6
7
II I -—' f ^ i .
I \ i
8 || Philip R.-'BeiSiett, Jr.",
Court Reporter
9
'10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
OPERABLE UNIT 3 PUBLIC HEARING
23 || CARIBOU MUNICIPAL BUILDING
CARIBOU, MAINE
JULY 10, 1996
II
25
-------
APPENDIX B
OU3 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
OU3 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The Air Force held a 30-day comment period from July 8,1996 to August 7,1996, to provide an opportunity
for the public to comment on the Proposed Plan and other documents developed for Operable Unit 3 (OU3)
at Loring Air Force Base, Maine. The Proposed Plan is the document that identifies remedial action
objectives, evaluates remedial alternatives, and recommends the alternative that best meets the evaluation
criteria for OU3.
The Air Force made a recommendation of its preferred alternative in the OU3 Proposed Plan, which includes
the following:
No further action is proposed for the following 14 NFA sites:
• Ohio Road Debris Area
• Oklahoma Road Debris Area
KG-135 Crash Area
• Dumpster Cleaning Area/Building 7841
• EOD Area-Cylinders
• Golf Course Maintenance Shed Area
• Chapman Pit Debris Area
9000 Debris Area
• Solvent/Paint Dock Area
• Prime Beef Debris Area
Buildings 8951 and 8960 (DRMO)
Old PX Gas Station UST
F-106A Crash Area
• Demineralization Plant
Further investigation is proposed for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range. Future plans will address
remedial actions for the site, if necessary.
The selected remedial action for the Contract Storage Shed Area site consists of the following components:
• Excavation of the contaminated sediments/soils, excluding chlordane-contaminated soils
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 . B-l
-------
On-base disposal of the excavated sediments/soils
Placement of 2 feet of clean soil cover and erosion protection over the chlordane-
contaminated area
Institutional controls which will include restrictions which implement this remedy
and are consistent with the "Record of Decision for the Disposal of Loring AFB,
Maine, April 1996" and the "BRAC Cleanup Plan, Loring AFB, Limestone, Maine,
April 1994."
Wastewater treatment (if required)
The Proposed Plan was issued on July 8,1996 before the start of the comment period. All documents on
which the preferred alternative is based were placed in the Administrative Record for review. The
Administrative Record is a collection of the documents considered by the Air Force when choosing the
remedial action for OU3.
The Air Force received no verbal or written comments on the OU3 Proposed Plan at a public hearing held
on July 10,1996, or during the 30-day public comment period.
The selected remedial alternative for the Contract Storage Shed Area, as described above, includes a 5-year
site review to be conducted to ensure that the remedial action continues to be protective of human health and
the environment If after review of the risk assessment the remedial action is not determined to be protective
by USEPA, a contingency action will be implemented.
Installation Restoration Program
2608-3208.28 B-2
-------
APPENDIX C
LETTER OF CONCURRENCE OF MEDEP
-------
STATE OF MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
August 28, 1996
Mr. Alan K Olson
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 has completed its review of the Draft Final
Operable Unit 3 (OU3) Record of Decision (ROD) dated August, 1996 which was prepared for
the Air Force Base Conversion Agency by the Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program.
Based on the information in the Draft Final ROD for OU 3, MEDEP Concurs with the Air Force
recommendations summarized below:
1. No further action is proposed for the following 14 OU 3 sites:
• Ohio Road Debris Area
• Oklahoma Road Debris Area
• KC-135 Crash Area
• Dumpster Cleaning Area/Building 7841
• EOD Area-Cylinders
• Golf Course Maintenance Shed Area
• Chapman Pit Debris Area
• 9000 Debris Area
• Solvent/Paint Dock Area
• Prime Beef Debris Area
• Buildings 8951 and 8960 DRMO
• Old PX Station UST
• F-106 Crash Area
• Demineralization Plant
2. Further investigation is proposed for the Outdoor Firing Range and EOD Range. Future
plans will address remedial actions for the site if necessary.
Serving Maine People & Protecting Their Environment
AUGUST* PORTLAND BANOOR PR6SOUE ISLE
) 7 STATE MOUSE STATION 312CANCOROAD 106HOOANHOAO 1235 CENTRAL DRIVE. SKYWAY PARK
AUGUST*. MAKE 04333-0017 PORTLANO. ME 04103 BANOOR. ME 04401 PRESOUE ISLE. M6 04769
(207) 287-7(88 FAX: (207) 287-7826 (207) S22-S3OO FAX: (207) 822-6303 (207) 941-4570 FAX: (207)941-4584 (207) 764-0477 FAX. (207) 764-1507
Omcf LOC47E0A7 RAY BUHDINQ. HOSPITAL STREET
printed on rtcycttd piper
-------
3. The selected remedial action for the Contract Storage Shed Area site consists of the
following components:
• Excavation of the contaminated sediments/soils, excluding chlordane
contaminated soils.
• On-base disposal of the excavated sediments/soils.
• Placement of 2 feet of clean soil cover and erosion protection over the
chlordane contaminated area.
• Institutional controls.
• Wastewater treatment if required.
Details of the selected remedial action for the Contract Storage Shed Area site are presented in
section 10-2 of the Draft Final Record of decision for OU 3.
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 3. The State reserves the right to challenge any such finding of fact or conclusion of any
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 review and approval of
operation, design and monitoring plans. MEDEP's concurrence is conditional pending our
review 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.
Sincerely,
Edward O. Sullivan
pc: Michael Nalipinski, USEPA
Naji Akladiss, DEP
Hank Lowman, AFBCA
David Strainge, AFBCA
------- |