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

-------