PB97-963802
                                 EPA/541/R-97/010
                                 November 1997
EPA  Superfund
       Record of Decision:
       Plattsburgh Air Force Base,
       (Former Landfill LF-021),
       Plattsburgh, NY
       3/25/1997

-------
                        FORMER LANDFILL LF-021
                        RECORD OF DECISION

                     PLATTSBURGH AIR FORCE BASE
                        PLATTSBURGH, NEW YORK
                                FINAL
                             MARCH 1997
                     PLATTSBURGH AIR FORCE BASE
                  INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM
                            PREPARED BY:
                           URS GREINER, INC.
l:\3S791\wp\LF021 .ROD\cpXim)

-------
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                            Page No.
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION	


1.0    SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION  	

2.0    LAND USE AND RESPONSE HISTORY	

3.0    COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION	

4.0    SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION  	

5.0    SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION	
       5.1    Contaminant Pathways	
       5.2    Character of the Fill and Soil  	
       5.3    Groundwater Contamination	

6.0    SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS  	
       6.1    Human Health Risk Assessment	
       6.2    Ecological Risk Assessment 	

7.0    DESCRIPTIONS OF ALTERNATIVES  	
       7.1    Approach	
       7.2    Presumptive Remedy	
       7.3    Development of a Remedial Alternative	

8.0    ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES	

9.0    THE SELECTED REMEDY	

10.0    STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS  	
       10.1   The Selected Remedy is Protective of Human Health and the Environment
       10.2   The Selected Remedy Attains ARARs	
       10.3   Other Criteria, Advisories, or Guidance to be Considered for This
             Remedial Action  	
       10.4   Cost-Effectiveness	
       10.5   Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies
             (or Resource Recovery Technologies) to the Maximum Extent Practicable
       10.6   The Selected Remedy Does Not Satisfy the Preference for Treatment
             Which Permanently and Significantly Reduces the Toxicity, Mobility,
             or Volume of the Hazardous Substances as a Principal Element 	

11.0    DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES  	

12.0    STATE ROLE	 . .	
 1

 3

 5

 7

 7
 7
 8
 9

10
10
12

14
14
14
15

17

21

23
23
24

25
26

26


26

28

28
OM1-97: 14:09
         .ROD\qKmmXcpXJm)

-------
                                     LIST OF TABLES

 Table No.                                                                        Page N.P-

 1      Chemicals of Potential Concern	         11

 2   "  Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices	         13

 3      Evaluation Criteria  	         19

 4      Cost Summary for the Selected Remedy .	         27


                                    LIST OF FIGURES
 Figure No.

 1      Vicinity Location Map	          1

 2      Location of LF-021  	          3

 3      Site Features .	          4

 4      Remedial Investigation Sample Locations	          6

 5      Site Conceptual Model	          8

 6      Presumptive Remedy Decision Framework	         18


                                 LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
 Photograph No.                                                                    Page No.
                                                         V
 1      An Eastward View Along the Paved Access Road That Crosses the Southern
       Portion of LF-021	          2

 2      An Eastward View of the Landfill Surface Near Sample Location SS-21-13 .	          2

 REFERENCES	         29

 GLOSSARY	         30

 APPENDIX A     Chemicals Detected in Environmental Media at LF-021

 APPENDIX B     Declaration of Concurrence

 APPENDIX C     Public Meeting Transcripts

 APPENDIX D     Responsiveness Summary
J:\3529Uwp\LF021.ROD\cpXJm)
02-11-07:14:09

-------
                    DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Pittsburgh Air Force Base (AFB)
Former Landfill LF-021
Pittsburgh, New York

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

       This Record of Decision (ROD) presents a selected remedial action for soil and groundwater at site
LF-021 on Pittsburgh AFB in Pittsburgh, New York.  It has been developed in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizan'on Act of 1986 (SARA), and to the extent practicable, the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).  This decision is based on the
Administrative Record for this site, a copy of which is located at the Information Repository at the Feinburg
Library on the campus of the State University of New York at Pittsburgh.

       The remedy has been selected by the US Air Force (USAF) in conjunction with the US Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) and with the concurrence of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) pursuant to the Federal Facilities Agreement among the parties under Section 117(a)
of CERCLA, dated July 10, 1991.

ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

       Hazardous substances present in fill and soil at LF-021, and  contamination of the underlying
groundwater, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present a
potential endangerment to human health.

DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY

       This action addresses the principal threat posed by LF-021 by preventing endangerment to human
health and the environment through containment of the landfill to minimize exposure to contaminants in the
J:V35291\«p\LF021.RODVcp(min)(cp)Oin)
OWD-»7:13:»

-------
soil and waste. The proposed source control remedy includes a re-establishment and upgrade of the native soifl
cap over die landfill; institutional controls to restrict site development, maintenance to protect the integrity or
the cap, restrictions preventing the use of groundwater as a potable  supply source on, and  immediately
downgradient of the site; periodic groundwater monitoring for 30 years; site reviews to be conducted every
five years; and development of a post-closure plan specifying inspection,  maintenance, and monitoring
programs to be conducted over 30 years.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

       The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with federal and
state Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements to the source control remedial action, and is
cost-effective.  The remedy is based on the presumptive remedy approach developed by the USEPA for
military landfill sites. Using the presumptive remedy for this site, treatment of wastes and contamination is
considered impracticable and consequently, the remedy does not satisfy statutory preference for treatment as
a principal element of remediation.

       Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on site, the USAF, USEPA,
and NYSDEC will conduct site reviews every five years to ensure that the source control remedy continues
to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Signature (USEPA, RtfgionaKAdjrtmistrator)      }/                 Date
                      /y*>   ^oC$^
Signature THOMAS W.L. McCALL, JR.                           Date
          Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
          (Environment, Safety and Occupational Health)

-------
1.0     SITE    NAME,
        DESCRIPTION
LOCATION,    AND
        Pittsburgh AFB, located in Clinton County in
northeastern New York State, is bordered on the north
by the City of Pittsburgh, the south by the  Salmon
River, to the west by Interstate 87, and on the east by
Lake Champlain. The Saranac River lies adjacent to the
northern base boundary for short stretches near LF-021
and near the Old Base. The base is approximately 26
miles  south of the Canadian border and 167 miles north
of Albany (Figure 1). •

       Pittsburgh AFB was closed on September 30, \
1995  and its reuse is  being  administered by  the Air
                                                   ITC) DeLo.rn.MwM
Force Base Conversion Agency in conjunction with the
                                                 FIGURE 1: VICINITY LOCATION MAP
Pittsburgh  Airbase   Redevelopment   Corporation
(PARC). According to the land use plan presented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), dated
November 1995, for the disposal and reuse of the base, the likely reuse of LF-021 and its surrounding area will
be public recreational.  As currently envisioned, the area will be available for day hiking use. As part of the
USAFs Installation Restoration Program (IRP), Pittsburgh AFB initiated activities to identify, evaluate, and
restore identified hazardous waste  sites. The  IRP at Plattsburgh AFB is being implemented according to
Federal Facilities Agreement (Docket No.: H-CERCLA-FFA-10201) signed between the USAF, USEPA, and
NYSDEC on July 10, 1991. Plattsburgh AFB was placed on the National Priorities List on July 10, 1989.
       Landfill LF-021 is located outside the formerly secured area of the base, just inside the northwest base
boundary (Figure 2). The landfill is situated approximately 500 feet south of the Saranac River, and north of
the Delaware & Hudson rail line and NY Route 22 (Figure 3). Paved and unimproved pathways are found
around the landfill's perimeter.
12-11-96 1
         2 1 .ROD\cp(mmKcpXJn>)

-------
PHOTO 1 - An eastward view along the paved access road that crosses the southern portion
of LF-021. Note that the landfill has a well established cover of trees and grasses.
PHOTO 2 -  An eastward view of the landfill surface near sample location SS-21-13.

                          SITE PHOTOS - LF-021
                                       -2-

-------
        Currently, the landfill is covered by a soil layer and vegetated with young hardwood trees and brush.
The area is unsecured and, as evidenced by relatively fresh debris strewn along the landfill's perimeter, has
been used as an unauthorized dumping site by the public. Tires and other debris occasionally may be seen
protruding from the landfill's surface (Photos 1  and 2).
        The geology in the vicinity of LF-021 consists of
a mantle of heterogeneous unconsolidated glacio-fluvial
deposits   overlying   carbonate    bedrock.    The
unconsolidated overburden deposits  consist  of two
generalized geologic units: (1) brown silty sand, and (2)
gray silty sand with some clay, gravel, and cobbles. The
landfill material appears to have been  placed on top of
the  unconsolidated   deposits.  Based  upon  site
reconnaissance conducted from July  1993  through
January 1994,  it  appears that  all  precipitation  either
eventually  infiltrates  into  the landfill due  to the
permeable nature of the fill, or evapotranspirates.

2.0     LAND USE AND RESPONSE HISTORY     I
                                                                                                 11
                                                                                                 A
  Ltkf
Chtmpliln
                                                            SCALE IN FEET
        From  August  1956 to June 1959,   LF-021 FIGURE 2: LOCATION OF LF-021
reportedly was used for the disposal of domestic wastes and  sludge from  Plattsburgh AFB's industrial
wastewater treatment plant. This plant treated wastewater which included aircraft washrack residues, separating
oil, grease, fuel residues, and cleaning compounds. Floe and skimmed residues reportedly were burned in
trenches on the landfill before being disposed of and covered with sod.

        Several investigations were conducted at LF-021 as part of the IRP. In  1985, a Phase I records search,
or preliminary assessment, for Plattsburgh AFB determined that the site was not considered to be contaminated
because the domestic waste did not appear to pose a significant threat.   In addition, no evidence was found
to substantiate the dumping of waste oils, solvents, or fuels. In  1987, site investigations  (Sis)  were conducted
at 19 sites identified during the records search.   Although the records search provided no basis for suspicion
of contamination at LF-021, it was included among the SI sites because it was reported to have received sludge
material considered to be potentially hazardous. The SI at LF-021 included a magnetometer
J:YI529l\wp\LF02I.ROD\cp
-------
                               LEGEND
                   	C— APPROX. PROPERTY LINE   I
                   	E— EASEMENT

                             UTILITY POLE

                             APPROX.  BASE BOUNDARY
                             GROUNDWATER USE
                             RESTRICTION AREA

                             APPROX. EXTENT  OF      •
                             SURFICIAL DEBRIS  MOUNDS  |
                             NYSDEC REGULATED
                             WETLAND
                             FEDERALLY REGULATED    I
                             WETLAND
                  	      	 WATER

                         -—- EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY
 STATE ELECTRI
                              SCALE IN FEET
PLATTSBURGH AFB LF-021
      SITE FEATURES
FIGURE  3

-------
excavation and sampling of test pits, as well as the installation and sampling of three groundwater monitoring
wells.  The study confirmed the presence of contaminants in the soil and groundwater (E.G. Jordan Co. 1989).
Based upon the results of the SI, Pittsburgh AFB initiated a remedial investigation (RI) to further define the
nature  and distribution of the contaminants.  The RI was conducted during the summer of 1993 and winter
of 1994 (URS Consultants, Inc. 1994) and its  specific objectives were to:  determine  the nature and extent of
waste materials deposited on the site; determine the nature and extent of chemical contamination of soil and
groundwater attributable to the landfill; identify and describe the migration pathways of contaminants to
potential receptors; and evaluate the risks posed by site contaminants to human health and the environment.

        Additional chemical and hydrogeologic data were obtained during the RI. Field activities included
a terrain conductivity geophysical survey and excavation along ten test trench lines to determine the areal and
vertical extent of fill. In addition, field work  included the collection and chemical analysis of 14 subsurface
soil samples, 6 waste samples, and 18 surface soil samples. Groundwater was sampled and analyzed from each
of five  new monitoring wells and from three monitoring wells installed as part of the SI. Sampling locations
are depicted on Figure 4.

3.0     COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

        Pittsburgh AFB has kept the community and other interested parties informed of the activities at LF-
021 through informational and public meetings, holding a 30-day public comment period from December 16,
1996 to January 16,1997 to solicit public input. During this period, the public was invited to review the LF-
021 Remedial Investigation  and  the Proposed Plan, and to comment on the remedial alternative being
considered. These documents, which comprise the Administrative Record for the LF-021 site, were available
for public review at the Information Repository located at the Feinberg Library on the  campus of the State
University of New York at Pittsburgh.

        Pittsburgh AFB also hosted a public meeting on January 16, 1997 at the Old Court House, Second
Floor Meeting Room,  133 Margaret Street to discuss the  data gathered at the site, the preferred alternative,
and the decision-making process.  Immediately after an informational presentation, Pittsburgh AFB held a
formal  public hearing to accept comments about the remedial alternative being considered for the LF-021 site.
Public comments were recorded and transcribed, and a copy of the transcript was added to the Administrative
Record and Information Repository and are a part of this Record of Decision (Appendix C).  A response to
the comments, included in the Responsiveness Summary, is part of this Record of Decision (Appendix D).
J:VtS:9!\wp\LITOI .RODteplmmXcpKjm)
D2-«i-97:(l9:l5

-------
AC-9833
                                                                                             J:\3529UI\CAD\LF02I UI50 5/3/96-1 RAL
                                                                                           -15     SS-2I-I4

                                                                                           •21-006    TREE LINE

                                                                WATER


                                                                SURFACE  SOIL  SAMPLE

                                                                MONITORING WELL
                                                                (INSTALLED BY URS 1993)

                                                                SOIL BORING (URS  19931

                                                                MONITORING WELL  (INSTALLED
                                                                BY E.C. JORDAN 1987)

                                                                SECOND PHASE
                                                                SURFACE  SOIL  SAMPLE
      PLATTSBURGH A.F.B.  - LF-021  R.I.
REMEDIAL  INVESTIGATION SAMPLE LOCATIONS
                                                                                                               FIGURE  4

-------
The Proposed Plan for LF-021 identified implementation of a native soil cap and institutional controls as the
preferred alternative. The USEPA reviewed all written and verbal comments submitted during the public
comment period.  Upon review of these comments, it was determined that no significant changes  to the
remedy, as it was originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary.

4.0    SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION

       This ROD addresses all of the principal threats posed by LF-021 to human health and the environment.
The primary threat is risk associated with potential human and environmental contact with contaminated soil
and fill. Low level contamination also occurs in groundwater at the site, but it does not pose a significant risk
to human health. No impact to surface water or air quality is associated with the landfill.

       The USAF has utilized  USEPA's Containment Presumptive Remedy for Military Landfills to help
determine an appropriate remedy for LF-021. Because of the large amount and heterogenous nature of the
material within the landfill, treatment of the fill is not considered practical.  Containment, therefore, is
considered the appropriate response action, or presumptive remedy, for LF-021. The remedy recommended
in this ROD addresses the principal threats  by capping  (containment), monitoring  of groundwater, and
institutional controls to protect the integrity of the cap and prohibit the use of groundwater as a potable supply
source on and immediately downgradient from the site.

5.0    SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION

5.1    Contaminant Pathways

       Potential pathways by which contaminants might  leave LF-021 were evaluated during the RI. Air
pathways appear to be insignificant because fugitive dust generation is limited by the landfill's vegetation, and
few volatile organic compounds  (VOCs) are present in the soil or waste. VOCs that are present were detected
at relatively low concentrations.  Water balance calculations determined that surface runoff traveling from the
landfill is negligible.  Moreover, no leachate seeps were observed during the period of study anywhere near
the landfill.   The only  potentially significant contaminant migration pathway  is vertical  leaching  of
contaminants by percolating precipitation with eventual transport through groundwater. The site conceptual
model is shown in Figure 5. Soil,  waste, and groundwater samples generally were analyzed for target
compound list (TCL) VOCs, TCL semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), TCL pesticides/polychlorinated
J:\35:9l\wp\LR«l .ROD\cp
-------
       Flow
                            BEDROCK
    NOT TO SCALE

                FIGURE 5: SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL

biphenyls (PCBs), and 8 RCRA metals.  Selected groundwater samples also were analyzed for Part 360
parameters.  Chemicals detected in the various environmental media at LF-021 are listed and mapped in
Appendix A.

5.2    Character of the Fill and Soil

       The fill layer is characterized as a heterogeneous mixture of construction and demolition (C&D)
debris, metallic objects, and municipal refuse. No intact drums were uncovered in the trenching programs
conducted as part of the RI or SI. In general, the waste material appeared to have been burned at the time of
filling. No physical evidence of landfill gas generation was observed during the investigation and no gasses
were detected with real time monitoring equipment.

       In soil sampled at the surface of the landfill (Table A-2), 12 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
I pesticide (aldrin: 0.36 ppm), 1 PCB (Aroclor-1260: 18 ppm), and 3 metals (barium: 1,030 ppm; chromium:
56.4 ppm; and mercury: up to 0.82 ppm) were detected at concentrations above NYSDEC soil guidelines.
Individual PAH concentrations ranged to 970 ppm at one location (SS-021-12).

       Four VOCs (methylene chloride, acetone, toluene, and xylene) were detected within the landfill waste
(Tables A-6 and A-7), all infrequently and at  relatively low concentrations (less than 0.013 ppm). If VOCs
J:\3S29l\wp\LF02I.ROO\cpdnmKcpKjtn)
02-11-97:19:14

-------
were present in the waste at the time of filling, then the bulk of these compounds have apparently either
volatilized or leached from the landfill materials since landfilling ceased.

        In contrast, the less mobile chemicals are more widespread within the landfill waste. Pesticides, likely
present as a result of insect control during landfilling operations, were detected at total concentrations of up
to 38.7 ppm, but were more typically detected in the low ppb range. Primary pesticides detected were 4,4'-
DDT and its metabolites (4,4'-DDE and 4,4'-DDD). PCBs were detected at three locations at concentrations
of up to 18 ppm.  Metals detected at concentrations above background included arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver.

       Chemicals in soil sampled at the base of fill (Table A-8) were considerably less concentrated than the
overlying fill materials. This soil  generally contained chemicals at concentrations near or below NYSDEC soil
guidelines. Only benzo(a)pyrene (0.067 ppm),  benzo(g,h,i)perylene (0.052 ppm), 4,4'-DDT (3 ppm), and
mercury (0.00025 ppm) were detected at above the guidelines.

       Similarly, surface soil samples (Table A-3) taken in low lying areas and in wetland areas between the
landfill and the Saranac River, and subsurface soil samples taken outside the landfill's perimeter (Table A-5)
did not contain appreciable contamination.  This observation is consistent with  physical observations that
indicate no existing overland pathway (runoff)  from the landfill to the river. Four metals  were found  at
concentrations above NYSDEC soil guidelines including cadmium (12.2 ppm), chromium (56.3  ppm), lead
(545 ppm), and mercury (4.5 ppm). All of these exceedances occurred in a sample located adjacent to the field
access road at the landfill's perimeter (SS-021-18).  No chemicals were detected above state guidelines  in
subsurface soil samples downslope from the landfill.

5.3    Groundwater Contamination

       Chemicals detected in groundwater samples from LF-021 are listed in Table A-9 of Appendix A.
Organic  contaminants  detected  in groundwater included acetone, carbon disulfide,  chloroform,  1,2-
dichlorethane, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and 4,4'-DDT. Of these, only 4,4'-
DDT (0.16 ppb) was detected at a concentration in contravention of groundwater ARARs (chemical-specific
regulatory standards). The  NYSDEC Groundwater Quality  Standards (6 NYCRR Pan 703.5 and 703.6) for
4,4'-DDT is non-detection.  4,4'-DDT also was detected at the background monitoring well location. USEPA's
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for groundwater were not exceeded. Based upon groundwater transport
J:\35291\wp\LF021. ROD\cp
-------
 calculations performed during the RI, the detected compounds will have a negligible impact upon the nearby
 (downgradient) Saranac River.

 6.0    SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

        During the RI, a baseline risk assessment was conducted to estimate the current and future risks at the
 site if no remedial action was taken.  Possible human health and ecological risks were evaluated.  Chemicals
 selected for use in evaluation of risks are indicated on Table 1. Compounds were chosen based on frequency
 of detection, chemical-specific toxicity information, and exceedance of background  levels (for inorganics
 only).

 6.1    Human Health Risk Assessment

        Five steps  are  followed in assessing  site-related human health risks:  Hazard Identification  •
 determines the contaminants of concern at the site based  on toxicity,  frequency of occurrence,  and
 concentration.  Exposure Assessment  - estimates the magnitude of actual and/or potential human exposures,
 the frequency and duration of these exposures, and the pathways (e.g., dermal contact with soil) by which
 humans potentially are exposed. Toxicity Assessment - determines adverse health effects associated with
 chemical exposures, and the relationship between magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse effects
 (response). Risk Characterization - summarizes and combines outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments
 to provide a quantitative assessment of site-related risks.  Uncertainty Analysis - qualifies the quantitative
 results of the risk assessment based upon the uncertainty associated with the assumptions made in the analysis.
 Generally, assumptions made in the assessment process are conservative and yield a reasonable overestimau'on,
 rather than an underestimation of risk.
i
i
\
i        Two human exposure scenarios were evaluated as part of the risk assessment at LF-021.

 1)      Current Scenario - Utility maintenance workers and trespassers  may come  into contact  with
!       contaminated soil. Potential routes of exposure include incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with
i       surface soil.

 >2)      Future Scenario - This scenario assumes that the site would be developed as a campground with available
J:\3529l\wpU-F02l ROD
02-11-97.15:14
                                                10

-------
                             TABLE 1
       FORMER LANDFILL (LF-021) - REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
                CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
                         SUMMARY TABLE
CHEMICAL
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Carbon Disurfide
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Xytone (total)
Acenaphthylene .
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazote
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-Ethy(hexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Bervzo(b)nuoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a ,h)anthracene
Benzo(g .h , i)perylene
Aldrin
Oieldrin
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Methoxychlor
Endrin ketone
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Aroclor-1260
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
TOXICITY
C


c
C








c



c
c
c

c
c
c
c
c

c
c
c
c
c


c
c
c
c

c
c
c



GROUNDWATER

X
X
X
X












X
X












X






X
X

X

X

SURFACE SOIL
X
X



X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
 Notes:
X - Indicates chemical of potential concern
C - Chemical is classified as a carcinogen
                               11
                                                           J\3S»1\OPflOM.F-OM \PROPON\TABV WB1/lm
                                                                            12/11/B8 11:51

-------
  drinking water and shower facilities. This assumption is conservative given that, although the area may be used
  for day hiking, drinking water and shower facilities would not be provided. Routes of exposure for this scenario
  include contact with surface soil, inhalation of fugitive dust particles, ingestion of potable groundwater, and
  inhalation of vapors from groundwater during showering.

          The results of the human health risk assessment, as summarized in Table 2, indicate that LF-021  poses
  no unacceptable risk to human health given current conditions, but poses a potential risk given assumed future
  conditions. Federal guidelines for exposures to potentially hazardous chemicals are expressed as carcinogenic
.  risk and noncarcinogenic hazard indices. These guidelines consider carcinogenic risk to be acceptable if it is
  calculated to be in the range of KT1 to 10"6 or less, and specify a maximum health hazard index (which reflects
  noncarcinogenic effects for a human receptor) less than or equal to 1.0. A hazard index greater than 1.0 indicates
  a potential of noncarcinogenic health effects.

          For current land use, the total cancer risk for utility workers and teenage trespassers are both 1 x 10"*.
  These risks are the upper end of the acceptable risk range of 1  x 10"1 to 1  x  10"6 established by current federal
 ; guidelines. For hypothetical future land use, the total cancer risk for an adult camper is 3 x 10"1 and the total
  cancer risk for a child camper is 5 x 10"*.  Both cancer risks can be considered to fall within the acceptable range.

         For current land use, the total chronic (noncarcinogenic) hazard indices for utility workers and teenage
 i
 i trespassers are 0.01 and 0.04, respectively. For hypothetical future land use, the hazard index is 0.1 for an adult
  and 0.5 for a child receptor. These hazard  indices are less than  1 and, therefore, are acceptable under federal
 Iguidelines.
 i
 I
 !
 6.2     Ecological Rislf Assessment
 i
 i
 i
  i
  :       A four step process is utilized  for assessing site-related ecological risks for a reasonable maximum
 exposure scenario: Problem Formulation - a qualitative evaluation of contaminant release, migration, and fate;
  identification of contaminants of concern, receptors, exposure pathways,  and known  ecological effects of the
 contaminants; and selection of endpoints for further study.  Exposure Assessment - a quantitative evaluation of
 contaminant release, migration, and fate;  characterization of exposure pathways and receptors; and measurement
 or estimation of exposure point concentrations. Ecological Effects Assessment • literature reviews, field studies,
  and toxicity tests Unking contaminant concentrations to effects on ecological  receptors. Risk Characterization -
  measurement or estimation of current  adverse effects.
 J:W529l\wp\LF02l .RODVrpfmmXcpKjm)
 (12-11-97:15:14
                                                   12

-------
                                                     TABLE 2

                                 FORMER LANDFILL (LF-021) - REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
                   CANCER RISKS AND HAZARD INDICES FOR MULTIPLE HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL PATHWAYS
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
EXPOSURE PATHWAY
Dermal Contact wdh Surface Soil
Ingestion o( Surface Sol
Inhalation of FugMve Oust
Ingcsbon of Gfountfwvtcr
Intwlatton of Chwnteals In Vaporv WNte Showsrinfl
TOTAL EXPOSURE CANCER RISK
TOTAL EXPOSURE HAZARD MOEX
CURRENT USE
CANCER RISK
UTILITY
WORKER
4E-07
1E-04
.^_
_
_
1E-04
—
TEENAGE
TRESPASSER
6E-07
9E-05
—
__
__
»E-08
—
HAZARD INDEX
CHRONIC
UTILITY
WORKER
0.004
0.006
—
—
_
_
0.01
SUBCHRONIC
TEENAGE
TRESPASSER
002
002
—
_
—
—
0.04
FUTURE USE
CANCER RISK
CAMPER
ADULT
IE-OS
3E-04
SE-08
2E-06
5E-06
3E-04
—
CHILD
6E-07
5E-04
5E-08
9E-07
5E-06
SE-04
—
HAZARD INDEX
CHRONIC
SUBCHRONIC
CAMPER
ADULT
001
001
00004
004
0.07
—
0.1
CHILD
0.02
0.09
0002
0.1
0.3
^
0.8
— - Pathway not evaluated In the HRA
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
EXPOSURE PATHWAY
RECEPTOR
CHRONIC SUMMARY HAZARD INDEX
INGESTION OF SURFACE SOIL AND PREY (FOOD CHAIN)
MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE
12.0
RACCOON
0.029
MUSKRAT
0.22
COMMON CROW
0.81
                                                                                                    0?!\PHOPIAUUAB2WBI/lp
                                                                                                           02JOVB7 IS 3?

-------
         A screening level ecological risk assessment was performed to assess the potential impact on terrestrial
 organisms from exposure to contaminated surface soil.  Risk posed to four representative species (meadow
 jumping mouse, raccoon, muskrat, and common crow) was  examined.  The results of the assessment are
 expressed as hazard indices.  A hazard index of 1 or greater indicates possible health effects. A summary of
 hazard indices for chronic ecological effects is given on Table 2.

         Calculated hazard indices revealed:  no chronic effects  (from exposure to surface soil) on  species
 represented by the raccoon, muskrat, and common crow; but, possible chronic effects (from exposure to surface
 soil) on species represented by the meadow jumping mouse. Because of the limited area of contaminated surface
i soil (approximately 6 acres), effects on populations of small mammals, as represented by the mouse, are expected
 be minimal and likely to impact only animals with a home range confined to the fill limits.  Population level
 effects to such mammals, therefore, are expected to be negligible.

 7.0     DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

 7.1     Approach

         Based on information acquired as a result of past experience with the Superfund program, the USEPA
 has developed the presumptive remedy approach to accelerate the remediation process. Presumptive remedies
 are preferred technologies for common categories of sites (e.g., landfills) that are based on historical  patterns of
 remedy selection, and on scientific and engineering evaluations of technology performance. The presumptive
 remedy approach is a too! for acceleration of the remedial process. In keeping with this approach, a focused
 feasibility study was performed and its results are contained within the Remedial Investigation Report for LF-021
 (URS Consultants, Inc. 1994).

 7.2     Presumptive Remedy

         Because  treatment is often impractical, containment is generally considered the appropriate response
 action, or presumptive remedy, for landfill sites.  According to USEPA guidance, potential components of a
 presumptive  remedy for landfill sites include landfill  capping, source area controls to contain contaminated
 groundwater, leachate collection and treatment,  landfill gas collection and treatment, and institutional controls
 to supplement engineering controls. Response actions selected for individual sites are required to include only
 those components that are necessary, based upon site-specific conditions.
 J:\3S29l\wp\LP02I.ROD\cpdnmXcpKjm)
 02.1)6-97:09:15
                                                14

-------
        For LF-021, a landfill cap is a necessary component of the remedial action to address potential human
and environmental risks associated with exposure to surface soil/fill. A soil layer had been established over the
surface of LF-021 at the cease of operations; however, it has since deteriorated through localized erosion.
Groundwater control and leachate collection are unnecessary components because there appears to have been
little, if any, leachate generation and groundwater contamination due to the landfill is minimal.  Contaminants
in groundwater at the site were detected infrequently, were detected at relatively low concentrations, are relatively
immobile in groundwater, and do not pose a significant threat to human health or the environment. In addition,
analytical modeling has demonstrated that transport of chemicals resulting from leachate generation would have
an insignificant  impact on the nearby  Saranac River. Landfill  gas collection/treatment is not a necessary
component since air monitoring results indicated that there are no appreciable landfill gas emissions. Institutional
controls are a necessary component for remediation at LF-021 to protect and maintain the landfill cap and prevent
public exposure to low-level groundwater contamination. Long-term monitoring of groundwater is a necessary
component to ensure  that the  landfill's impact to groundwater remains at or below its current level and that the
Saranac River will not  be impacted  by groundwater contamination from the landfill.  In addition, periodic
inspections and five-year regulatory site reviews are necessary to monitor the adequacy of remedial measures.

        In  summary, appropriate components of the presumptive remedy for LF-021 include a landfill cap,
institutional controls, long-term monitoring of groundwater, five-year site reviews, and development of a post-
closure plan specifying inspection, and maintenance and monitoring programs to be conducted over 30 years.

7.3     Development of a Remedial Alternative

        Use of a presumptive remedy eliminates the need for the initial identification and screening of alternatives
during the feasibility study  (FS); however,  potential  alternatives for each component or combinations of
components must be evaluated  (USEPA 1993).  Potential options for the  remedial components considered
appropriate for LF-021 are discussed below.

        Landfill Cap

        Three potential options for the landfill cap include: 1) a double barrier (RCRA-based) cap; 2) a single
barrier (NYSDEC Part 360-based) cap; and 3) a native soil cap. These three options were evaluated with respect
to effectiveness,  (i.e., the ability to meet remedial objectives and protect human health and the environment),
implementability (both administrative and technical), and cost. All three landfill caps are expected to be effective.
J:\3529IWp\LF02l RODtplmmXcpXJm)
(12-116.97:09:15
                                                15

-------
 Any of these caps, if properly designed and maintained, would prevent direct contact by either humans or
 ecological receptors with onsite soil/fill, and reduce risks to acceptable levels for both these receptors.  The
 technical implementability (i.e., constructability) of the three caps is related to the cap components which are
 summarized below.

        •      Double barrier cap includes a gas collection layer, clay layer, flexible membrane liner, sand
                drainage layer, filter fabric, soil layer for frost protection, topsoil, and vegetative cover.

        •      Single barrier cap includes a gas collection layer, a low permeability layer (or flexible membrane
                liner), a soil layer for frost protection, topsoil, and vegetative cover.

        •      Native soil cap includes a soil layer, topsoil, and vegetative cover.

        Based on the components required, the double barrier cap and single barrier cap would be more difficult
to construct, whereas the native soil cap would be comparatively easier to construct. Either of the barrier caps
would be particularly difficult to construct on LF-021 because a large portion of the surface is heavily forested.
Complete clearing and grubbing of the site prior to cap construction is undesirable since the significant vegetation
on the surface protects the surface against erosion. Construction of either clay or flexible membrane barrier layers
around the trees would be extremely difficult, and it is likely that the barrier layers would "leak." Such leakage
would largely eliminate the advantage of the barrier cap over the native soil cover, and also would likely lead to
cap deterioration from localized erosion.

        Cap costs depend largely on the number of components and total cap thickness.  A native soil cap is the
least costly landfill cap. An estimate for the construction of a 12-inch native soil cap is approximately $70,000
per acre or $450,000 for the site. The construction cost for a single barrier cap is estimated to be $ 1,500,000 and
the construction cost of the double barrier cap is estimated to be $2,500,000. Operations and maintenance (O&M)
costs for the double barrier cap are expected to be the highest. O&M costs for a single barrier cap are expected
to be lower than the double barrier, but significantly higher than for a native soil cap.

        Institutional Controls

        Institutional controls for LF-021 must be coordinated with the land use plan for Base closure which was
developed and will be implemented by the Plattsburgh Airbase Redevelopment Corporation (PARC 1995).  The
J:\3529 l\wp\LP021 .ROD\cp(mmXcpXjfn>
02-(I6-97:09:I5
                                                  16

-------
proposed institutional controls are consistent with the use (public/recreational) currently identified in the Reuse
Plan. Institutional controls for LF-021 include restrictions on site development that protect the integrity of the cap
and prevent human contact with contaminated soil. Currently, PARC has no plans for the development of the
site.  Institutional controls also include deed and lease restrictions on the use of water that would prohibit the use
of groundwater as a potable supply source on, and  immediately downgradient of the site.

        Summary

        The appropriate response action for LF-021  includes a re-establishment and upgrade of the existing native
soil cap and institutional controls to restrict development of the site and use of groundwater as a potable supply
source. Implementation of these remedial measures also would include continued groundwater monitoring and
five-year site reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of remedial measures. In addition, a post-closure plan will be
developed to specify inspection, and maintenance and monitoring programs for LF-021 for a period of 30 years.
These remedial measures and the rationale for their selection are supported by USEPA guidance.   The decision
framework for evaluating the applicability of the presumptive remedy is provided in Figure 6.

8.0     ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

       Nine criteria are utilized for the evaluation of an alternative as specified in the NCP and discussed in
detail in the RI/FS guidance (USEPA 1990a).  These nine criteria are listed and described in  Table 3. The
evaluation of the recommended remedial alternative at LF-021 with respect to these nine criteria is presented
below.

       Overall Protection  of Human Health and the Environment - The alternative would reduce human and
environmental risk to acceptable levels by preventing direct contact with contaminated  soil/fill by human or
ecological receptors.  Proper inspection and repair of the landfill cap, implementation of deed and  lease
restrictions, and five-year site reviews would ensure continued protection from  soil  and  groundwater
contamination.

       Compliance with ARARs - NYSDEC soil TBCs will not be met since treatment is not included in the
alternative; however, these TBCs are a guidance rather than promulgated standards and the NYSDEC concurred
with the recommended alternative because it adequately protects human health and the environment.  In general,
exceedances of groundwater ARARs at LF-021 are minimal. It is expected that over time, groundwater ARARs

J:\3S29 l\wp\LR)21 .ROD\cp(nunXcpXjm)
                                               17

-------
                                 Highlight 4:  Decision Framework
                                           Collect Available Information
                                            • Waste Types
                                            • Operating History
                                            • Monitoring Data
                                            • State Permit/Closure
                                            • Land Reuse Plan
                                            • Size/Volume
                                            • Number ol Facility Landfills
                                            Consider Effects of Land
                                            Reuse Plans on Remedy
                                                  Selection
         Note: Municipal-type waste
         can include lesser quantities
          of industrial or hazardous
          waste in proportion to total
          volume of waste, but not
          including military-specific
                wastes
         Note: Site-specific factors
           such as hydrogeoiogy,
          volume, cost, and safety
           affect the practicality of
           excavation of landfill
               contents
                          Do Landfill
                        Contents Meet
                        Municipal-Type
                           Waste
                          Definition?
 Military-Specific Wastes
Are Present; Consult With
    Military Experts
                             Is
                         Excavation
                         of Contents
                          Practical?
                                                                            is
                                                                        Containment
                                                                         the Most
                                                                        Appropriate
                                                                         Remedy?
                                              considered, source
                                               may be selected)
                                                             Note: Site
                                                           investigation or
                                                         attempted treatment
                                                             may not be
                                                          appropriate: these
                                                         activities may cause
                                                           greater risk man
                                                           leaving waste in
                                                               place.
                                   USE CONTAINMENT PRESUMPTIVE REMEDY
                                   (No Action and Presumptive Remedy are the only
                                   alternatives considered. The Presumptive Remedy
                                         allows for treatment ol hot spots)
URS
CONSULTANTS. INC.
            CERCLA MILITARY LANDFILL
PRESUMPTIVE REMEDY DECISION FRAMEWORK
                      FIGURE 6

-------
                                          TABLES

                                  EVALUATION CRITERIA
Criteria
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Description
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment - Protectiveness is the primary
requirement of remedial action at hazardous waste sites. Evaluation of this criterion involves
an assessment of how an alternative achieves protection over time and how site risks are
reduced.
ComDliance with ARARs - Compliance with ARARs includes compliance with chemical-
specific, action-specific, and location-specific requirements.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence - This criterion requires an assessment of: (a) the
magnitude of residual risk after remediation; (b) the adequacy of controls to meet required
performance specifications, both initially and into the future; and (c) the reliability of controls
from an operational standpoint.
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume (TMV) - This criterion addresses the statutory
preference, expressed in the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), for
remedies that employ treatment as a principal element. It includes an assessment of the
magnitude, significance, and irreversibility of treatment, as well as an evaluation of the type
and quantity of residuals remaining after treatment.
Short-term Effectiveness - This criterion includes the short-term impacts of an alternative
(i.e., during implementation) upon the surrounding community, onsite workers, and the
environment. It also addresses the time required for the alternative to satisfy remedial action
objectives.
Implementability - Implementability includes manv of the practical aspects associated with
implementation of the remedial alternative, such as the ability to construct and operate
remedial technologies, the reliability of the technologies, ease of undertaking additional
remedial actions if necessary, ability to monitor the alternative's effectiveness, availability of
required materials and services, permit requirements, and need to coordinate with other
agencies.
Cost - This quantitative evaluation criterion includes the capital and operation/maintenance
costs associated with each alternative, as well as its total present worth.
State Acceptance - This criterion evaluates the technical and administrative issues and
concerns the State may have regarding an alternative.
Community Acceptance - This criterion evaluates the issues and concerns the public may
have regarding an alternative.
J:\35291\wp\LTO2I.ROD\cplininHcpXjm)
li:.fl6-9'7:09:IJ
                                             19

-------
 will be met through the natural attenuation of contaminants and the continued presence of a properly maintained
 cap. Human health  will be  adequately protected by  preventing use of groundwater  on and immediately
 downgradient of the site. Results of an analysis of surface soil samples collected between  the landfill and the
 Saranac River indicated that contaminants are not migrating via overland flow toward the  Saranac River and,
 therefore, will not negatively impact surface  water or sediment quality. Construction of the cap with proper
 drainage control and continued monitoring will protect surface water and sediment quality.  The recommended
 remedial alternative will comply with all action- and location-specific ARARs.

        Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence - Risks associated with direct exposure to surface soil/fill will
 be  eliminated by the alternative.  The remaining low-level risk from groundwater will be eliminated by
 implementation of use restrictions and ultimately by the natural attenuation of the groundwater contaminants. The
 monitoring program and five-year site reviews will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of remedial measures and,
consequently, to protect human health and the environment. In addition, the post-closure plan will establish the
ongoing requirements for continued integrity of the cover including requirements for periodic maintenance,
inspection, and monitoring.

        Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, and Volume (TMV^ - A treatment technology is not included in the
alternative. There is no reduction of TMV.

        Short-Term Effectiveness - Construction of the alternative will require some earthwork  for site grading.
During the construction period, short-term impacts to workers and the environment are possible via direct contact
with soil or the inhalation of fugitive dust.  However, these impacts can be mitigated easily by instituting
conventional health and safety measures. It is estimated that construction/implementation  of remedial measures
will require less than one year.  The remedial action objective which is to prevent direct contact with onsite soil/fill
by human or ecological receptors, will be met upon completion of construction.

        Implementability - The technologies proposed for the alternative are conventional technologies that are
expected to be implemented with little, if any, difficulty.  Cap construction and grading in heavily-wooded areas
is expected to present  the greatest difficulty. Materials required for construction (i.e., topsoil and common
borrow) are anticipated to be available.
J:\35291\wp\LF021.RODVcpdnmXcpXjm)
02-06-97:09:*4
                                                 20

-------
        Regular inspection of the cap will ensure that the cap remains effective in meeting the remedial objective.
The monitoring program will help to evaluate the adequacy of controls and to protect downgradient environmental
receptors and any future human receptors.

        Cost - The capital cost includes the cost of cap construction and implementation of deed and lease
restrictions. The capital cost estimate for this alternative is $452,000, or approximately 579,000 per acre. Bids
have been received for the capital construction costs and range from approximately $75,000 to $113,000 per acre.
Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs include quarterly monitoring, and cap inspection and repair. The
estimated annual O&M cost is $62,000 for the first five years (during quarterly monitoring) and $30,000 for the
next twenty-five years. The present worth cost of the annual O&M cost, based on a 30-year period at an interest
rate of 6 percent, is $543,000.

        State Acceptance - The NYSDEC has provided input during the preparation of the RI and concurred with
the remedial alternative.

       Community Acceptance - Community acceptance of the recommended alternative was evaluated after
the public comment period and is documented in this ROD.

       In accordance with the NCP, the recommended  alternative is protective  of human health and the
environment, will comply with ARARs, and is cost effective. The recommended alternative is not a permanent
solution since it does not include treatment.  However,  it follows the NCP and USEPA guidance which
recommends the implementation of containment remedies for landfills.

9.0    THE SELECTED REMEDY

       Plattsburgh AFB has selected "Native Soil  Cap and Institutional Controls" as the selected remedy for
LF-021.  The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment and is cost effective. The
alternative includes the following elements:

       Native Soil Cap - A 12-inch native soil cap consisting of a 9-inch soil layer,  a 3-inch topsoil layer, and
a vegetative cover will be established at LF-021 as a supplement to the existing soil  cap. Soil for capping will
be chemically analyzed before it is utilized at LF-021. Large trees (i.e., those over 6 inches in diameter) may be
left in place during soil cover establishment.  Only trees that will not interfere with the attainment of the remedial
goal or trees that will enhance the maintenance of positive surface  water runoff and erosion control will be
)'\.15291\wp\LR)21 .RODVTXmmXcpXjm)
(1MI6-97:(»:IS
                                                21

-------
 considered for incorporation into the cap. Soil layers will be compacted to reduce permeability and the site cap
 will be constructed to control surface water runoff and control erosion. The soil cover will be inspected on an
 annual basis with repairs/replacement of the cap as required;

        Institutional Controls - Restrictions will be imposed to limit development of any structure on the landfill
 site which would adversely effect human health and safety.  The deed will include appropriate restrictions to
 prevent any adverse action leading to the deterioration of the landfill cap to include prohibition from installing
 any wells for drinking water or any other purpose which could result in the use of the underlying groundwater
 and  the prohibition against any excavation of the landfill  cap without prior approval of New York State
 Department of Environmental Conservation. Area groundwater use will be restricted in the area shown on Figure
 3 and includes the area encompassing the landfill, northward to the Saranac River.

       Monitoring - Groundwater from five existing monitoring wells (MW-21-002 and MW-21 -004 through
 MW-21-007) and one new well (located between MW-21-005 and MW-21-008) will be sampled and  analyzed
 for TCL VOCs, SVOCs, TCL pesticides/PCBs, and target analyte list (TAL) metals. Samples will be  analyzed
quarterly the  first five years after the cap is constructed in order to establish baseline conditions, and  annually
thereafter. After each sampling event, the parameter list will be examined to determine if the analytical program
should be modified. Monitoring results will be reviewed by the USAF, USEPA, and NYSDEC.

       Five-Year Site Review - Every five years, data generated by the monitoring program will be reviewed
to evaluate the effectiveness of remedial measures.

       Post-Closure Plan - A post-closure plan will be developed to establish the on-going requirements for
continued integrity of the cover. The plan will specify the requirements for maintenance,  inspection, and
monitoring, for the 30-year post-closure period.

       The remedy will eliminate the risks associated with direct exposure to surface soil/fill and groundwater.
Monitoring and five-year site reviews will be used to measure its long-term effectiveness in protecting human
health and the environment.  However, the remedy will not reduce the toxicity, mobility,  and volume of
contaminated  site media. Construction of the remedy will require some earthwork for site grading. During the
one-year construction period, short-term impacts to workers are possible through inhalation of fugitive dust.
However, these impacts easily can be avoided by implementing conventional safety precautions. The remedy is
expected to be implemented with little, if any, difficulty. Construction of the cap and grading in heavily-wooded
J:U529l\wpU.F021 ,RODVrp(mmKcpXJm)
1)2-11-97:14:19
                                                22

-------
areas will present the greatest difficulty. Materials required for construction (such as topsoil and common borrow)
are expected to be available.  Regular inspection of the cap will ensure that the cap remains effective in meeting
the remedial objective. The monitoring program will help to evaluate the adequacy of controls and to protect
downgradient environmental receptors and any future human receptors. The cost includes the cap construction,
implementation of deed restriction, and O&M cost (Table 4).

        The selected remedy complies with state regulations governing closure and post-closure of solid waste
landfills, and the NYSDEC has had the opportunity to review and comment on all documents procured for LF-
021. State and public comments received on the LF-021 Remedial Investigation Report and the Proposed Plan
to date have been incorporated into this ROD.

10.0    STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

        The remedial action selected for implementation at LF-021 is consistent with CERCLA and, to the extent
practicable, the NCP. The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, attains ARARs,
and is cost effective. The selected remedy uses permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this site.  However, it (as well as the other
alternatives evaluated) does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment which permanently and significantly
reduces the mobility, toxicity, or volume of hazardous substances as a principal element.

10.1     The Selected Remedy is Protective of Human Health and the Environment

        The remedy at  LF-021  will permanently reduce the potential future risk posed to human health and the
environment through engineering controls (i.e., construction of a native soil cap), as well as institutional controls
(i.e., restrictions imposed to limit the future development of the site and prohibit the use of groundwater as a
potable supply source). The construction of the cap, as well as its inspection every five years and any required
repair, will effectively eliminate the risks posed by direct contact with soil/fill material by human or ecological
receptors.

        Currently, LF-021 poses no unacceptable risk to human health.  Carcinogenic risk is 1 x 10"4 and the
noncarcinogenic hazard index is less than 1. Though the calculated hazard index for ecological receptors revealed
possible chronic effects for one indicator species (i.e., the meadow jumping mouse), effects on the population of
these mammalian species are expected to be negligible.
J:\35291\wp\LTO2I.ROD\ciXrainXcpKJm)
OMI-V7:U:19 •
                                                23

-------
        The site cap will be constructed so that soil layers are compacted to reduce permeability, and to control
 surface water runoff and erosion.  These features will reduce offsite migration of contaminants transported by
 precipitation and  subsequently  groundwater.   Moreover, institutional controls will prohibit onsite and
 downgradient use of groundwater as a water supply; and cap inspection and repair will ensure the integrity of the
 cap is maintained.  Finally, implementation of the selected remedy will not pose unacceptable short-term risks
 that cannot be mitigated easily by instituting conventional health and safety measures.

 10.2    The Selected Remedy Attains ARARs

        The remedy will comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate chemical-, action-, and location-
 specific requirements (ARARs). The chemical-specific ARARs will be achieved over time through the process
 of natural degradation and attenuation.  Federal and state ARARs are presented below.

Chemical-specific

 •       RCRA Hazardous Waste Toxicity Characteristic Limit, 40 CFR 261 - Establishes standards for soil.

 •       6 NYCRR 700-705 Water Quality Regulations - Establishes standards for groundwater.

 •       USEPA Safe Drinking Water Act, National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (40
                CFR Parts 141 and 143) - Establishes standards for potable sources.

        Overall, contaminant levels in groundwater are considered to be minimal; therefore, human health can
be protected by prohibiting its use on site, and immediately downgradient of the site. Only one chemical, 4,4'-
DDT, was detected at a concentration above NYSDEC water quality standards. Environmental investigations
did not reveal evidence of contaminant migration towards  the Saranac River, so neither surface water nor
sediment are  expected to be impacted  negatively.  Construction of a cap with proper drainage controls and
continued monitoring will protect surface water and sediment quality.

Action-specific

•       NYSDEC Solid Waste Management Facility Rules 6 NYCRR Part 360 Effective January 14, 1995 •
        Establishes  criteria for solid waste landfills and specifies closure and post-closure procedures
J:\3529l\wp\LF02I.ROD\cpdnmXcpKJm)
02-11-97:14:19
                                                24

-------
•       NYSDEC Division of Air Resources Regulation (6NYCRR Parts 200-202, 257) - Establishes regulations
                applicable to paniculate matter (e.g., fugitive dusts) entrained in air during clearing, grading, and
                cover system construction activities.

•       Clean Air Act (40  CFR Part 50) • Establishes regulations applicable to paniculate matter (e.g., fugitive
                dusts) entrained in air during clearing, grading, and cover system construction activities.

•       Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regulations (29 CFR Parts 1904, 1910, and 1916) •
                Establishes regulations applicable to all work conducted on site.

Location-specific

•       National Environmental  Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (40 CFR 1501) - The Department of the Air Force
                revised their protocols to update its process for compliance with NEPA. The revision provides
                policy and guidance for consideration of environmental matters in the Air Force decision-making
                process.
•       Section  404 of the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 230 - Protects waters  of the United States, including
                aquatic and wetland habitats.

•       New York State Use and Protection of Waters (6 NYCRR 608) - Protects streams including Class A, B, and
                C(T) from  disturbances or adverse impacts through a permitting process.

•       Afew York State Water Quality Classifications (6 NYCRR 701-703) - Classifies and protects groundwater,
                streams, and other water bodies.

103    Other Criteria. Advisories, or Guidance to be Considered for This Remedial Action

        NYSDEC  soil TBCs (TAGM #4046) will not  be met since treatment is  not included in the alternative.
However, the NYSDEC concurred with the recommended alternative since TBCs are guidance rather than promulgated
standards and the remedy adequately protects human health and the environment. In addition, groundwater analytical
results were compared with  water quality standards and NYSDEC ambient water quality guidance values (TOGS
1.1.1).  Chrysene and benzo(a)anthracene were detected  at concentrations above NYSDEC guidance values in the
second round groundwater samples.
J:\3529]\wp\LP02I.RODVT
-------
 10.4    Cost-Effectiveness

         The selected remedy is cost-effective in that it provides an effective remedy at a significantly lower cost than
 the other capping alternatives evaluated In selecting this remedy, the overall effectiveness of each capping alternative
 was  evaluated  by assessing  three  relevant  criteria:  ability  to protect human health and the  environment,
 implementability, and cost. Including the cap construction and implementation of deed restriction, the capital cost is
 estimated to be $450,000, or approximately $79,000 per acre.  Bids have been received for the capital construction
 costs and range from approximately $75,000 to $113,000 per acre. The estimated annual O&M cost,  including
 groundwater monitoring, and cap  inspection  and  repair,  is $62,000 for the first  five years (during  quarterly
 monitoring), and $30,000 for the next 25 years (during annual monitoring).  The present worth cost of the annual
 O&M cost, based on a 30-year period at an interest rate of 6 percent, is $543,000 (Table 4).

 10.5    UtfllTifltion of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies (or Resource Recovery
        Technologies) to the Maximum Extent Practicable

        The selected remedy uses permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the extent practicable
for this site.

 10.6    The Selected Remedy  Docs Not  Satisfy the Preference for Treatment Which Permanently and
        Significantly Reduces  the  Toxicityf  Mobility, or  Volume  of  UK  HflZSrdous Substances as a
        Principal Element

        Because treatment of the principal threats at the site was found to be impracticable, this remedy does not
satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy.  Treatment technologies were
considered during the  identification, development, and initial screening of alternatives, but were considered to be
infeasible for the LF-021 landfill site. The size of the landfill and the fact that there are no definable onsite hot spots
that represent the major sources of contamination preclude a remedy in which contaminants could be excavated and
treated effectively.
J:V3529l\wp\LH)2I.ROD\c|XminXcpXjn»
02-11-97:09:10
                                                  26

-------
                                                TABLE 4
                           COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR THE SELECTED REMEDY

CAPITAL C.XJSTS:
1. VEGETATIVE COVER
2. TOP SOU. INCLUDING SPREADING
3. SOIL IJORROW LAYER INCLUDING COMPACTION
4 REGRADINGOFSOII.
5 MONITORING WELL
6. MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION
7. CONSTRUCTION, ADMINISTRATION. AND
DESIGN ENGINEERING
8. CONTINGENCY
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST:
1. LANDFILL CAP
INSPECTION OF CAP
MAINTENANCE (CUT GRASS)
REPAIR (REPLACEMENT OF TOPSOIL
AND RESEEDING)
Total Yearly Cost For Cap Inspection , Monitoring And Repair
2. GROUNDWATER MONITORING
SAMPLING - QUARTERLY
6 GROUNDWATER + 4 QA/QC SAMPLES
2 WORKERS x 1.5 DAYS x 8 MRS/DAY
ANALYTICAL TESTING OF SAMPLES
10 SAMPLES/4 TIMES A YEAR
AUDITING OF SAMPLING RESULTS AND
PREPARATION OF A REPORT - TOTAL OF
30 HRS/ROUND x 4 EVENTS/YEAR
UNIT
ACRE
ACRE
CY
CY
EA
5%
15%
I0°'o
IIR
NO./YR
NO.

MR
-NO.
UK
QUANTITY
5.7
5.7
5.060
5.060
1
80
7
2

96
40
120
UNIT COST
$ 2.300.00
18,000.00
21.50
22.50
1.200.00
J 50.00
430.00
6,000.00

$ 50.00
$ 705.00
$ 80.00
Total Cost of Groundwater Monitoring Per Year on a Quarterly Hasis for the First 5 years
Total Cost of Groundwater Monitoring on an Annual Hasis for Year 6 to Year 30
Present worth of groundwater monitoring for 30 yean (a) 6% intern!
Present worth of cap maintenance for 30 yean <3> 6% Interest
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH OF ALTERNATIVE
TOTAL COST
$ 13,000.00
103.00000
109.000.00
114,000.00
1.200.00
17,000.00
54,000.00
41.000.00
$452,000.00
$ 4,000.00
3,01000
12,000.00
$19,010.00
$ 4.800.00
$28.200.00
$ 9,600.00
$ 42,600.00
$10,650.00
$281.181 00
$261.669.00
$994,850.00
JS29l/Tahle4/u
970211 -I-«M

-------
 11.0   DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

        Pittsburgh AFB presented a Proposed Plan for the preferred alternative for remediation of LF-021 in
 December 1996 that included institutional and engineering controls. The preferred alternative includes:

        •       Clearing the site
        •       Establishing a continuous soil cover
        •       Managing surface water runoff to minimize erosion of the cover and minimize maintenance
                requirements
        •'      Establishing vegetation to minimize erosion of the final cover and enhance evapotranspiration
        •       Placing institution controls in property deed and lease agreements to prevent adverse actions leading
                to deterioration of the cap and to prohibit local groundwater use
        •       Developing a post-closure plan development to monitor, maintain, and inspect the site
        •       Monitor groundwater
        •       Conducting five-year reviews

        The chosen remedial action does not differ from the  preferred alternative presented in the Proposed Plan.

12.0    STATE ROLE

        The NYSDEC, on behalf of the State of New York, has reviewed the various alternatives and has indicated
its support for the selected remedy. It also has reviewed the RI and Proposed Plan to determine if the selected remedy
complies with applicable or relevant and  appropriate New  York State environmental laws and regulations. The
NYSDEC concurs with the selected remedy for the LF-021. A copy of the declaration of concurrence is attached as
Appendix B.
J:\3529l\wpVLF02I.ROD\qXmmXcpXjm)
02-27.97:15:13
                                                 28

-------
 REFERENCES

 E. C. Jordan Co.  1989. Installation Restoration Program, Final Site Inspection Report.  Plattsburgh Air
        Force Base, Plattsburgh, New York.

 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 1994. Bureau of Hazardous Waste
        Remediation. Determination of Soil Cleanup Objectives and Cleanup Levels, TACM #4046.

 	.  1993.  Ambient Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values, TOGS 1.1.1. Albany: Division
        of Water.

 PARC.  1995. Comprehensive Reuse Plan for Plattsburgh Air Force Base. 15 September (subject to revision).

 Radian  Corporation.  1985. Installation Restoration Program, Phase I • Records Search,  Plattsburgh Air
        Force Base, Plattsburgh, New York.

 URS Consultants,  Inc.  1994.  Former Landfill (LF-02J), Remedial Investigation Report,  Plansburgh Air
        Force Base, Installation Restoration Program, Plansburgh, New York.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations
        and Feasibility^ Studies Under CERCLA, October. Cincinnati, OH: USEPA.

	. 1989a. Risk. Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Voll: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part
       A), Interim Final, (EPA/540/1-89/002). Cincinnati, OH: USEPA.

	. 1989b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol. II: Environmental Evaluation Manual
        (EPA/540/1-89/001). Cincinnati, OH: USEPA.

	.  1989c.  Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents: The Proposed Plan, The Record
       of Decision, Explanation of Significant Differences, The Record of Decision Amendment, Interim Final,
       July. Cincinnati, OH: USEPA.

	. 1990a. Streamlining the Rl/FSfor CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites.  Cincinnati, OH: USEPA.

	. 1990b. "National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan;" 40 CFR Part 300;
        Washington, D.C. March 8, 1990.

    •    1991a. Summary Report on Issues in Ecological Risk Assessment, EPA/625/3-91-018, Risk
       Assessment Forum. Cincinnati, OH: USEPA.

	. 1991b. Ecological Assessment of Superfund Sites: An Overview, ECO Update, Vol. l.No.
        2, Publication 934.0-051. Cincinnati, OH: USEPA.

      .. 1991 c. Conducting Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies for CERCLA Municipal Landfills,
        EPA/540/P-91/001.  Cincinnati, OH: USEPA.

      .. 1993. Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites. Cincinnati, OH:  USEPA.

      _.  1996. Application of the CERCLA Municipal Landfill Presumptive Remedy to Military Landfills
        (Interim Guidance).  EPA/540/F-96/007, April. Washington, D.C.
J:\35291\wp\LF021 .RODVrpmmKcpXjm)
02-06-97:09:15
                                              29

-------
 GLOSSARY

 Administrative Record: A file established and maintained in compliance with Section 113(K) of CERCLA,
 consisting of information  upon which the lead agency bases its final decisions on the selection of remedial
 method(s) for a Superfund site. The Administrative Record is available to the public.

 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs): ARARs include any state or federal statute or
 regulation that pertains to protection of pubb'c health and the environmental in addressing certain site conditions
 or using a particular remedial technology at a Superfund site. A state law to preserve wetland areas is an example
 of an ARAR.  USEPA must consider whether a remedial alternative meets ARARs as part of the process for
 selecting a remedial alternative for a Superfund site.

Aquifer:  A water-bearing formation or group of formations.

 Carcinogenic:  Exposure to a particular level of a potential carcinogen may produce cancer.

 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA):  A federal law passed
in 1980 and modified in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). The act requires
federal agencies to investigate and remediate abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.

Ecological Receptors: Fauna or flora in a given area that could be affected by contaminants in surface soils,
surface water, and/or sediment.

Groundwater: Water found beneath the earth's surface that fills pores within materials such as sand, soil, gravel,
and cracks in bedrock, and often serves as a source of drinking water.

HOPE:  High Density Polyethene, plastic material often used to cover municipal and hazardous waste landfills.

Inorganic Compounds: A class of naturally occurring compounds that includes metals, cyanide, nitrates, sulfates,
chlorides, carbonate, bicarbonate, and other oxide complexes.

Installation Restoration Program (IRP):  The U.S. Air Force subcomponent of the Defense Environment
Restoration Program (DERP) that specifically deals with investigating and remediating sites associated with
suspected releases of toxic and hazardous materials  from past activities.  The DERP was established to clean up
hazardous waste disposal and spill sites at Department of Defense facilities nation-wide.

Landfill Cap: A cover system for the landfill.

Leacnate: Solution produced by percolating liquid in contact with contaminated matter.

NCP: National Oil and Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan.  A federal law governing hazardous substances
(40 CFR Part 300,  1990).

National Priorities List: USEPA's list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites
identified for possible long-term remedial action under the Superfund program.

Noncarcinogenic: Exposure to a particular level of a potential noncarcinogen may produce adverse health effects.

Organic Compounds:  Any chemical compounds built on the carbon atom, (i.e., methane, propane, etc.)

PAHs: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, often associated with combustion process and distillation tars.
J:\.1529l\wp\LP021.RODtp(mmKcpXjm)
(12-116.97:09:15
                                                30

-------
PCBs: Polychlorinated Biphenyls, formerly used as a lubricant and transformer coolant.

ppb: Parts per billion.

ppm: Parts per million.

RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

Record of Decision (ROD): A public document that explains the remedial alternative to be used at a National
Priorities List (NPL) site. The ROD is based on information and technical analysis generated during the Remedial
Investigation, and on consideration of the public comments and community concerns received on the Proposed
Plan.  The ROD includes a Responsiveness Summary of public comments.

Remedial Action:  A long-term action that stops or substantially  reduces a release  or threat of a release of
hazardous substances that is serious but not an immediate threat to human health or the environment.

Remedial Alternatives: Options evaluated to address the source and/or migration of contaminants to meet health-
based or ecology-based remediation goals.

Remedial Investigation (Rl):  The Remedial Investigation determines the nature, extent, and composition of
contamination at a hazardous waste site, and directs the types of remedial  options that are developed in the
Feasibility Study.

SACM: Superfund.Accelerated Cleanup Model.

SARA:  The Superfund  Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 amended the  1980 CERCLA. The
amendments that re-authorized the  federal Superfund which had expired in 1985 and established the preference
for remedies that permanently reduce toxicity, volume, or mobility of hazardous constituents.

Sediments:  Soil material found in water.

Semivolatile Organic Compounds: (SVOCs) Organic constituents which are generally insoluble in water and
are not readily transported in groundwater.

Source: Area at a hazardous waste site from which contamination originates.

Superfund: The trust fund, created by CERCLA out of special taxes, used to investigate and clean up abandoned
or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Out of this fund USEPA either. (1) pays for site remediation when parties
responsible for the contamination cannot be located or are unwilling or unable to perform the work or (2) takes
legal action  to force parties responsible for site contamination to clean up the site  or pay back the  federal
government for  the cost of the remediation. Federal facilities are not eligible for Superfund monies.

TBC: Non-promulgated standards "To Be Considered" for consideration as ARARs.

Volatile Organic Compounds: (VOCs) Organic constituents which tend to volatilize or to change from a liquid
to a gas form when exposed to the atmosphere.  Many VOC's are readily transported in groundwater.
J:\3529l»pU.F02I.ROD\cp6-97:09 15
                                                31

-------
                    APPENDIX A

               CHEMICALS DETECTED
             IN ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
                     AT LF-021
J:\3529l\wp\LfTOI .
02-06-97:09:15

-------
                                  CHEMICALS DETECTED

                                IN ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
                                         ATLF-021
Table/Figure Number
              Title
Table  A-l

Table  A-2


Table  A-3


Figure  A-1

Table  A-4

Table  A-5


Table  A-6

Figure  A-2

Table  A-7

Figure  A-3

Table  A-8


Figure  A-4

Table  A-9

Figure  A-5

Figure  A-6
Chemicals Detected in Background Surface Soil Samples

Chemicals Detected in Surface Soil Samples Collected Within the Landfilled
Area

Chemicals Detected in Surface Soil Samples Collected Downslope from the
Landfill

Chemicals Detected in Surface Soil Samples

Chemicals Detected in Background Subsurface Soil Samples (Borings)

Chemicals Detected in Subsurface Soil Samples (Borings Along Downslope
Perimeter)

Chemicals Detected in Subsurface Soil Samples (From Boring SB-021-01)

Chemicals Detected in Subsurface Soil Samples from Borings

Chemicals Detected in Waste Samples Obtained During Test Trenching

Chemicals Detected in Waste Samples Obtained During Test Trenching

Chemicals Detected in Subsurface  Soil Samples Obtained During Test
Trenching

Chemicals Detected in Soil Samples Obtained During Test Trenching

Chemicals Detected in Groundwater Samples

Chemicals Detected in Groundwater (Round 1)

Chemicals Detected in Groundwater (Round 2)
            : IO:54/cp(jmXiaKcpXcp2HdrXcp)

-------
                                            TABLE A-1

                   FORMER LANDFILL (LF-021) - REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
             CHEMICALS DETECTED IN BACKGROUND SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
                                (SS-021-01, SS-021-09, SS-021-10)

ANALYTE
Diethylphlhalale (yg/kg)
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Lead

•TBC
7100
7.5
300
50
*•
FREQUENCY OF
DETECTION
1/3
3/3
3/3 '
3/3
33
DETECTED MINIMUM
CONCENTRATION
710
1.2
16.8
4.8
13.7
DETECTED MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
710
2
64.4
7
45.5
AVERAGE OF
DETECTIONS
710
1.6
364
6.1
24.4
Results reported in ppm (mg/kg) unless otherwise noted.
•TBC - Criteria that are not legally binding (To Be Considered) from NYSDEC Technical Administrative
Guidance Memorandum *4046 - "Determination of Soil Cleanup Objectives and Cleanup Levels." November 16.1992.
** - Background levels for lead vary widely. Average background levels in metropolitan or suburban areas near highways are much
higher and typically range from 200-500 ppm. The USEPA's Interim Lead Hazard Guidance (July 14.1994) established a
residential screening level of 400 ppm.
                                                                                           J \35291\QPRO\LF.021\PROPLAN\TADA.1 WBI/yl
                                                                                                                17/nQIOfl 1/177

-------
                                                                                                                     P»g« 1 or i
                                                        TABLE A-2

                                FORMER LANDFILL (LF-021) - REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
                                  CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
                                      COLLECTED WITHIN THE LANDFILLED AREA
ANALYTE
Acetone
Diethytphthalate
Phenanthrene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)ftuoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(1 ,2.3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphlhene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Anthracene
Cartaazole
Bis(2-ethy1hexy1)phthaiate
Aldrin
DiekJrin
rndrin Ketone
alpha-Chlordane
4.4--DDE
4.4'-DOO
4.4--DDT
Methoxychlor
gamma-Chlordane
Aroctor-1260
Arsenic (mg/kg)
Barium (mg/kg)
Cadmium (mg/kg)
Chromium (mg/kg)
Lead (mg/kg)
Mercury (mg/kg)
Selenium (mg/kg)
Silver
•TBC
200
7100
50000
8100
50000
50000
50000
224
400
1100
1100
61
3200
14
50000
41000
50000
6200
50000
50000
-
50000
41
44
-
540
•2100
2900
2100
10000
540
1000
7.5
300
10
50
••
0.1
2
-
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
1/10
2/10
4/10
1/10
1/10
5/10
4/10
4/10
4/10
6/10
3/10
4/10
4/10
3/10
4/10
1/10
1/10
1/10
1/10
1/10
1/10
1/10
1/10
1/10
1/10
1/10
8/10
5/10
7/10
1/10
2/10
1/10
9/10
10/10
2/10
10/10
10/10
7/10
1/10
1/10
FREQUENCY
OF TBC
EXCEEDANCES
0/10
0/10
1/10
0/10
0/10
1/10
1/10
1/10
1/10
1/10
1/10
4/10
1/10
3/10
1/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
1/10
0/10
-
0/10
1/10
0/10
•
0/10 •
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
0/10
1/10
0/10
1/10
0/10
1/10
0/10 •
7/10
0/10
0/10
MINIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
13
28
21
46
380
42
160
91
99
41
54
110
95
160
93
850
21000
5100
150000.
50000
18000
750
360
24
730
20
4.8
4.1
3.4
550
34
18000
0.92
17.6
2.9
2.4
23
0.12
0.32
2.5
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
13
4500
170000
46
380
910000
860000
590000
570000
970000
340000
680000
500000
140000
490000
850
21000
5100
150000
50000
18000
750
360
24
730
20
450
220
1000
550
40
18000
4.5
1030
6.6
56.4
386
0.82
0.32
2.5
Results reported in ppb (ug/kg) unless otherwise noted.
•TBC • Criteria that are not legally binding (To Be Considered) from NYSDEC Technical Administrative Guidance Memorandum f 4046. November 16,1992.
Samples Include SS-021-02, SS-021-03, SS-021-04. SS-021-05, SS-021-06. SS-021-07, SS-021-08, SS-021-11. SS-021-12. and SS-021-13
" - Background levels (or lead vary widely. Average background levels in metropolitan or suburban areas near highways are much
higher and typically range from 200-500 ppm. The USEPA's Interim Lead Hazard Guidance (July 14,1994) established a residential screening level of 400 ppm.
                                                                                           JUS29«aPROM.F-fl21\PROPlANlTABA_2W81/ri|««)
                                                                                                                  12/09/96 1422

-------
                                                                                                                 P»J« i d •
                                                     TABLE A-3

                            FORMER LANDFILL (LF-021) - REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
                               CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
                                 COLLECTED DOWNSLOPE FROM THE LANDFILL
ANALYTE
Methytene Chloride
Acetone
Xylene ( Total )
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthaiate
Arsenic (mg/kg)
Barium (mg/kg)
Cadmium (mg/kg)
Chromium (mg/kg)
Lead (mg/kg)
Mercury (mg'kg)
Silver (mg/kg)
•TBC
100
200
1200
50000
7.5
300
10
50
••
01

FRl'_'UENCY
OF
DETECTION
1/5
3/5
1/5
1/5
5/5
5/5
1/5
5/5
5/5
3/5
1/5
FREQUENCY
OF TBC
EXCEEDANCES
0/5
0/5
075
075
0/5
0/5
1/5
1/5
1/5
3/5
0/5
MINIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
4
4
7
70
0.6
14.7
12.2
2.2
15
0.13
2.7
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
4
13
7
70
2.7
285
12.2
56.3
542
4.5
2.7
Results reported in ppb (Mg/kg) unless otherwise noted
'TBC • Criteria that are not legally binding (To Be Considered) from NYSDEC Technical Administrative Guidance Memorandum # 4046. November 16. 1992
Samples Include SS-021-14. SS-021-15. SS-021-16, SS-021-17. and SS-021-18
" • Background levels for lead vary widely. Average background levels in metropolitan or suburban areas near highways are much
higher and typically range from 200-500 ppm. The USEPA's Interim Lead Hazard Guidance (July 14,1994) established a
residential screening level of 400 ppm.
                                                                                      .H3S29HOPROM.P-02HPROPI.ANVrABA 3 W8l
-------
AC-9826
                                                                                                                                \3529I\CAD\LF02I\ 1=200 5/3/96-1 RAL
                                                                                                                                                NOTES:
             lifiEJffi
              SURFACE SOL SAMPLE
              SECOND PHASE
              SURFACE SOL SAMPLE
              APPROXMATE EXTENT
              OF SURFKIAI OCMit
              HOUNDS
              APPROXMATE LHT
              of FIL
            - WA1CR
             I TREE LCNt  '
                                                                                                                                                'X 'HUlt ntMNTt til. »0»
                                                                                                                                                III OROAMC COMPOtfg*. rfiTI-
                                                                                                                                                CWS. »C»« MO WIAI.1 ISII
                                                                                                                                                ROIY 41 OCUCTCO M r»4 iUM'ACX
                                                                                                                                                fOft. fAM>VIS.  UMVOLAft.! 0«.
                                                                                                                                                OUK COMPOUND MltCTKWl M«Vt
                                                                                                                                                KEN QliOUPfO MID:
                                                                                                                                                OCrHTPHTMAlATCS. fOTAL MO*-CA»C
                                                                                                                                                PAH* tsce HOIC n. *«o IOTAI.
                                                                                                                                                cue '»H, IMC »o't u.
                                                                                                                                                ALL OtTCCTIONS U>1 HIPOHTID
                                                                                                                                                • ^/>, UNLIt* OIKK«« MKATCD
                                                                                                                                                TOTAL MOM.CAAC PAfH . TX
                                                                                                                                                TOIAl or TIC COMXMRAIIOIfS V
                                                                                                                                                fKIC MON-CAIICIIO01MC POiVCVClft
                                                                                                                                                AKOMATIC MTOKOCAIWOli COMPOWOli
                                                                                                                                                ACtHAPHTHtW. ACtMPMTHVLC*.
                                                                                                                                                rLUOKfNC. r*«MAIITM«CMI. AHIMIACCMI.
                                                                                                                                                flouOAiiTHtNC. rinf. owiuoru*!*
                                                                                                                                                AND KN2010^.0PCMVI.CNt.
                                                                                                                                                TOTAL CARC PAW . IK TOIAl.
                                                                                                                                                or iw coM»T«ATM>m or IMU
                                                                                                                                                CAMCMOOXMC OH POTIMTIALLV
                                                                                                                                                CAUCMMSCIIC 'OLTCTCIK AHOMATK
                                                                                                                                                HVOAOCAMON COtTOUMDS: CAH9A-
                                                                                                                                                »Z|A.MAIITMIAC(I«.
                                                                                                                                              4. ONiT UCTALt OtTCCIIOm WHOM
                                                                                                                                                COHOtNTRATIOia OCCtMO 1«0
                                                                                                                                                TMCt IK UAMMkl OC1CCTCD •
                                                                                                                                                TW •ACKOROUK) >AMn.ft
                                                                                                                                                SI-02IO*. AK> « ox 101 AUt
                                                                                                                                                MPORTIO
                                                                                                                                                HO OROAIK COHPOUNm «l«
                                                                                                                                                M TICU SAW>»1 AND M
                                                                                                                                                ••TALtl OtTCCTKMt OIK A(0»f TWO
                                                                                                                                                T»«S T»« MAKRRJH O1TCCTCO COR-
                                                                                                                                                CCRntATNM M tie tACKOItOtM! IAAVUI
                                                                                                                                                Rt.OH-OI. tS-021.0*. ARD li OH «
                                                                                                       200             0
                                                                                                              200
                                                                                                                                     SCALE  IN FEET
      URS
  CONSULTANTS. INC.
1
            PLATTSBURGH   A.F.B.   -  LF-021  R.I.
CHEMICALS  DETECTED  IN  SURFACE  SOIL  SAMPLES
1
FIGURE  A-l

-------
                                                                                                      P*ge 1 o» i
                                            TABLE A-4

                    FORMER LANDFILL (LF-021) - REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
       CHEMICALS DETECTED IN BACKGROUND SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES (Borings)
                           (SS-021-09-3, SS-021-10-3, MW-PH-021-07-11)
ANALYTE
detta-BHC
4.4-DDE
4.4'-DDT
Arsenic (mg/kg)
Barium (mg/kg)
Chromium (mg'kg)
Lead (mg/kg)
Selenium (mg/kg)
•TBC
300
2100
2100
7.5
300
50
• •
2
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
1/3
1/3
1/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
1/3
MINIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
0.47
4.3
5.7
0.66
19.2
5.9
2.5
0.21
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
0.47
4.3
5.7
2.5
52.7
9.2
58.3
0.21
AVERAGE
OF
DETECTIONS
0.47
4.3
5.7
1.7
33.4
7.6
22.1
0.21
Results reported in ppb (pg/kg) unless otherwise noted.
'TBC - Criteria that are not legally binding (To Be Considered) from NYSDEC Technical Administrative
Guidance Memorandum 04046 - "Determination of Soil Cleanup Objectives and Cleanup Levels," November 16,1992.
" • Background levels for lead vary widely. Average background levels in metropolitan or suburban areas near highways are much
higher and typically range from 200-500 ppm. The USEPA's Interim Lead Hazard Guidance (July 14,1994) established a
residential screening level of 400 ppm
                                                                            . J.V35291VQPROU.F-021\PROPI>NVTABA-4.WB1fya
                                                                                                 •  120M614:23

-------
                                                                                                      Page 1 or 1
                                              TABLE A-S

                     FORMER LANDFILL (LF-021) - REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
 CHEMICALS DETECTED IN SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES (Borings Along Downslope Perimeter)
ANALYTE
Toluene
4.4--DDE
4.4'-DDT
Arsenic (mg/kg)
Barium (mg/kg)
Chromium (mg/kg)
Lead (mg/kg)
Silver (mg/kg)
' 'TBC
1500
2100
2100
7.5
300
50
*•
-
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
1/3
1/3
1/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
1/3
MINIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
4
0.75
1.7
1.0
21.5
4.5
3.5
0.55
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
4
0.75
1.7
3.6
39.0
11.2
8.6
0.55
AVERAGE
OF
DETECTIONS
4
0.75
1.7
2.1
30.9
7.9
5.4
0.55
Results reported in ppb (ug/kg) unless otherwise noted.
*TBC - Criteria that are not legally binding (To Be Considered) from NYSDEC Technical Administrative
Guidance Memorandum #4046 - "Determination of Soil Cleanup Objectives and Cleanup Levels," November 16.1992.
" - Background levels for lead vary widely. Average background levels in metropolitan or suburban areas near highways are much
higher and typically range from 200-500 ppm. The USEPA's Interim Lead Hazard Guidance (July 14,1994) established a
residential screening level of 400 ppm.
                                                                             J \35291\OPRO\l_F-021VPROPtANVTABA.S WB1/y»
                                                                                                   12XWBB 14:24

-------
                                                                                                      P*ge 1 of 1
                                             TABLE A-6

                    FORMER LANDFILL (LF-021) - REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
                    CHEMICALS DETECTED  IN SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
                                      FROM BORING SB-021-01
ANALYTE
Methylene Chloride
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrenc
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(K)f1uoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic (mg/kg)
Barium (mg/kg)
Chromium (mg/kg)
Lead (mg/kg)
Selenium (mg/kg)
•TBC
100
50000
50000
50000
50000
220
400
1100
1100
61
7.5
300
50
••
2
FREQUENCY
OF *
DETECTION
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
MINIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
2
320
330
1400
910
330
340
130
140
99
2.1
42.2
6.2
4.8
0.24
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
2
320
330
1400
910
330
340
130
140
99
2.5
90.3
21.8
7
0.24
AVERAGE
OF
DETECTIONS
2
320
330
1400
910
330
340
130
140
99
2.3
66.3
14
5.9
0.24
Results reported in ppb (Mg/kg) unless otherwise noted.
•TBC - Criteria that are not legally binding (To Be Considered) from NYSDEC Technical Administrative
Guidance Memorandum #4046 • "Determination of Soil Cleanup Objectives and Cleanup Levels," November 16,1992.
** - Background levels for lead vary widely. Average background levels in metropolitan or suburban areas near highways are much
higher and typically range from 200-500 ppm. The USEPA's Interim Lead Hazard Guidance (July 14,1994) established a
residential screening level of 400 ppm.
                                                                             J.US291 \QPRCKLF-021 \PROPLAN\TABA-6 WB1/ya
                                                                                                "   12/OOTe 14:24

-------
AC-9827
                                                                                                                \3529I\CAD\LF02I\ 1 = 200 5/3/96-1 RAL
       N
                                                                                                ' 0
0
           LEfiEMD
           HAND
           SAHPtC LOCATIOM
           APPROXMATC CXTENT
           or smt
           MOUNDS
           APPROXIMATE
           or fit •
                                                                                                                               NOTES
                                                                                                                              Cttl. *C*« MO MIAL* rVI
                                                                                                                              Mott 4i of if c TO * TM tut«««ir«a
                                                                                                                              10*.
                                                                                                                              •»• otouno «TO. IOTAI MOM CMC
                                                                                                                              r*Ht (HI ttOTI A UB tOTU C*IK
                                                                                                                              PAM« ntc «ott B ALL cttfcron
                                                                                                                              AM »l*O*fiO « ««A« IM.CI*
                                                                                                                              TOTU or nc cOKtan«nort or
                                                                                                                              i»«u NC
                                                                                                                              CTOX
                                                                                                                              HHf OM.MJVT* » if*

                                                                                                                              TO 1*4. CU»(, P4IT| . tK TOTAL
                                                                                                                              9 T»« COMCCMTAATtOMt OF TKM
                                                                                                                              CAACMOOCMC O« POrtMTIALLV
                                                                                                                                  iiroi»rioijiMrTxi«. MM-
                                                                                                                              MM t**4ANTMt»CCM .

                                                                                                                             . OW.V HCfALf OCTECTIOM
                                                                                                                              COHCCHntAT«M tXCIIKO TWO.
                                                                                                                              mCf TM MAMWUM OfTfCTTO ••
                                                                                                                              TK tAC-OMOUPO lAMTLCf fit 0»-O»l
                                                                                                                              U'OAJO.S. AND M-M4.OH-Or.ai Aid
                                                                                                                             » MO WOAIK COtAKMMIt «« BtftCTn
                                                                                                                             M T»«U «A»«ni* AA|> 1*0 J»QMA«C
                                                                                                                             *KIAL«t HncTKMt WC« MOVf TVft
                                                                                                                             TH1 T»« VAMMI MTCCTtO COW-
                                                                                                                             CtNlflATIOM • Titf t*CK«MOW
            MOMTORMO «CLL
            IMSTALLCO tY u
            »0«. 00RMO
            WATER
                       IMS)
                                                                                                           200
O
                                                                                                                          SCALE  IN FEET
                                                                                                                  200
     URS
 CONSULTANTS.  INC.
            1
                    PLATTSBURGH  A.F.B.  -    LF-O2I  R.I.
CHEMICALS  DETECTED  IN  SUBSURFACE  SOIL   SAMPLES  FROM  BORINGS

FIGURE  A-2

-------
                                                                                           Pag* 10(1
                                      TABLE A-7

                 FORMER LANDFILL (LF-021) - REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
     CHEMICALS DETECTED IN WASTE SAMPLES OBTAINED DURING TEST TRENCHING
ANALYTE
Toluene
Dimethylphthalate
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carfaazole
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
4,4'-DDE
4,4-DDD
4,4'-DDT
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Aroclor-1248
Aroclor-1254
Arsenic (mg/kg)
Barium (mg/kg)
Cadmium (mg/kg)
Chromium (mg/kg)
Lead (mg/kg)
Mercury (mg/kg)
Selenium (mg/kg)
Silver (mg/kg)
•RANGE
OF
BACKGROUND
CONCENTRATION
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND .
ND
ND-0.47
ND
ND-5.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.66-2.5
19.2-52.7
ND
5.9-9.2
2.5-58.3
ND
ND
ND
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
1/6
1/6
1/6
2/6
2/6
1/6
1/6
2/6
2/6
2/6
2/6
2/6
1/6
2/6
2/6
2/6
2/6
5/6
5/6
5/6
1/6
1/6
1/6
2/6
6/6
6/6
4/6
6/6
6/6
2/6
1/6
2/6
MINIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
5
930
56
540
72
110
580
700
840
390
420
990
380
510
370
110
370
5.5
21
8.2
15
18
530
280
0.51
11.7
0.06
2.0
15.5
0.20
0.37
6.6
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
5
930
56
900
92
110
580
1700
1700
710
820
1200
380
680
560
120
440
3500
4200
31000
15
18
530
280
15.4
403
20.7
121
2120
0.26
0.37
13.6
AVERAGE
OF
DETECTIONS
5
930
56
720
82
110
580
1200
1270
550
620
1095
380
595
465
115
405
783
879
6386
15
18
530
280
5.5
105
8.08
29.4
421
0.26
0.37
10.1
Results reported in
•Values from Table A-3.
ND - Not Detected
                     unless otherwise noted.
                                                                      J:\3S291VOPRO\LF-021VPROPlAN\TABA-7 VW1/y»f»k)
                                                                                          12/05/96 lt:1C

-------
AC.9828
                                                                                                                  \3529l\CAD\LFO2l\ 1=200 5/3/96-1 RAL
        _    POlEi row OVCRHEAO
        •    POWER IMCS
            APPftOXMATt tirCNT
            or suRricim. deems
            MOUNDS
            AppRottiATt IMT
            or r«.L
            rcsr TWENCM IM
            BLACK AREAS NPKATE
            PIT EXCAVATIONS!
           • WATCH
            TlltC LMt
                                                                                                                        NOTES
                                                                                                                        I.  THIS FIGURE PRESENTS ALL
                                                                                                                          VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS.
                                                                                                                          PESTICIDES. PCBI AND METALS
                                                                                                                          DCTCCTEO IN  THE WASTE
                                                                                                                          SAMPLES. SEMI VOLATILE OROAMC
                                                                                                                          COMPOUND DETECTIONS HAVE  BEEN
                                                                                                                          BEEN GROUPED INTO  INDIVIDUAL
                                                                                                                          PHTHALATES. TOTAL  NON-CARC.
                                                                                                                          PAM't (SEE NOTE 21:  TOTAL CARC.
                                                                                                                          PAH't ISEE NOTE 31;
                                                                                                                          ALL DETECTIONS ARE  REPORTED IN
                                                                                                                          ug/kg UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
                                                                                                                        2. TOTAL NON-CARC. PAH't . THE
                                                                                                                          TOTAL OF THE CONCENTRATIONS Of
                                                                                                                          THESE NON CARCINOGENIC POLY-
                                                                                                                          CYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBON
                                                                                                                          COMPOUNDS:  ACENAPHTHENE. FLUO
                                                                                                                          RENE. PHENANTHRENE. ANTHRACENE.
                                                                                                                          FLOURANTHENE. PYRENE. AND
                                                                                                                          BENZOIG.H.OPERYLENE.


                                                                                                                        3. TOTAL CARC. PAH'i , THE TOTAL
                                                                                                                          OF THE CONCENTRATIONS OF THESE
                                                                                                                          CARCINOGENIC OR POTENTIALLY
                                                                                                                          CARCINOGENIC POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC
                                                                                                                          HYDROCARBON COMPOUNDS: CARBA.
                                                                                                                          ZOLE. BENZOIAIANTHRACENE. CHRY-
                                                                                                                          SENE. BENZOIBIFLOURANTHENE. BEN
                                                                                                                          ZOIKIFLOURANTHENE. BENZOIAIPY.
                                                                                                                          RENE.  INDENOII.2.3-CDIPYRENC  AND
                                                                                                                          DI8ENZIA.HIANTHRACENE.
                                                                                              200
              200
                                                                                                                            SCALE  IN FEET
     URS
  CONSULTANTS, INC.

                                PLATTSBURGH  A.F.B.  -    LF-021  R.I.
CHEMICALS  DETECTED  IN  WASTE  SAMPLES  OBTAINED  DURING  TEST  TRENCHING
I
FIGURE   A-3

-------
                                                                                                                                 Page 1o(1
                                                    TABLE A-8

                            FORMER LANDFILL (LF-021) - REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
        CHEMICALS DETECTED  IN SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES OBTAINED DURING TEST TRENCHING
ANALYTE
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(g.h,i)perylene
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
4.4'-DDT
alpha-Chlordane
Arsenic (mg/kg)
Barium (mg/kg)
Cadmium (mg/kg)
Chromium (mg/kg)
Lead (mg/kg)
Mercury (mg/kg)
Silver (mg/kg)
•RANGE
OF
BACKGROUND
CONCENTRATION
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND-0.47
ND
ND-5.7
ND
0.66-2.5
19.2-52.7
ND
5.9-9.2
3.5-8.6
ND
ND
"TBC
50000
50000
50000
220
400
1100
1100
61
3200
41
2100
2900
2100
540
7.5
300
10
50
• •*
0.1
-
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
2/5
2/5
2/5
2/5
2/5
2/5
2/5
2/5
2/5
2/5
4/5
3/5
4/5
1/5
5/5
5/5
2/5
5/5
5/5
1/5
1/5
MINIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
37
70
78
40
39
53
22
38
31
21
17
8.7
39
4
1.8
31.3
1.1
8.1
5.7
0.25
1.7
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
100
130
140
72
76
130
59
67
63
82
570
440
3000
4
3.9
73.7
1.2
13.2
191
025
1.7
AVERAGE
OF
DETECTIONS
685
100
109
56
57.5
92
41
52.5
47
51.5
163
157
817
4
2.7
48.2
1.2
10.8
53.9
0.25
1.7
Results reported in ppb (ugftg) unless otherwise noted.
"Values from Table A-4.
"TBC - Criteria that are not legally binding (To Be Considered) from NYSDEC Technical Administrative
Guidance Memorandum #4046 - "Determination of Soil Cleanup Objectives and Cleanup Levels," November 16,1992.
*** - Background levels for lead vary widely. Average background levels in metropolitan or suburban areas near highways are much
higher and typically range from 200-500 ppm. The USEPA's Interim Lead Hazard Guidance (July 14.1994) established a
residential screening level of 400 ppm.
NO - Not Detected
                                                                                                       J US291\OPROMF-021\PROPLAN\TABA-8 WB!/y8(sM

-------
AC-9830
                                                                                                                  \3529l\CAO\LF02l U2OO 5/3/96-1 RAL
      N

           PCH.CS r
           POWtR LMC*
           APPROXM'TC CKTtNT
           or sunricuu. OCBSIS
           UOUNOS
           APPROXIMATE LMT
           or fii
           FtSt TBtNCM IMC
           I>L*CK *Rt*> MOCATC
           PIT CXCAV1TIOHSI
                                                                                                                       NOTES
                                                                                                                      I.  THIS FIGURE PRESENTS  ALL VOLA-
                                                                                                                        TILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS. PESTI.
                                                                                                                        CIOES.  PCB t AND METALS
                                                                                                                        DETECTED IN THE SUBSURFACE
                                                                                                                        SOIL SAMPLES   SEMWOLATHE OR-
                                                                                                                        GANIC  COMPOUND DETECTIONS HAVE
                                                                                                                        BEEN GROUPED INTO:
                                                                                                                        DI-N PHTHALATE. TOTAL NON-CAHC.
                                                                                                                        PAH'«  ISEE NOTE 21; AND  TOTAL CARC
                                                                                                                        PAHl  (SEE NOTE 31; AND
                                                                                                                        ALL DETECTIONS ARE REPORTED
                                                                                                                        IN ug/hg UNLESS OTHERWISE
                                                                                                                        INDICATED

                                                                                                                      2. TOTAL NON-CARC PAH» = THE
                                                                                                                        TOTAL OF THE CONCENTRATIONS Of
                                                                                                                        THESE NON CARCINOGENIC POLY.
                                                                                                                        CYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBON
                                                                                                                        COMPOUNDS: ACENAPHTHENE. FLUO-
                                                                                                                        RENE.  PHENANTHRENE.  ANTHRACENE.
                                                                                                                        FLOURANTHENE. PYRENE. AND
                                                                                                                        BENZOIO.M.IIPERYLENE.

                                                                                                                      3. TOTAL CARC. PAH'» .  THE TOTAL
                                                                                                                        OF THE CONCENTRATIONS OF  THESE
                                                                                                                        CARCINOGENIC OR POTENTIALLY
                                                                                                                        CARCINOGENIC POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC
                                                                                                                        HYDROCARBON COMPOUNDS: CARBA.
                                                                                                                        ZOLE.  BENZOIAIANTHRACENC. CKRY.
                                                                                                                        SENE.  BENZOIBIFLOURANTHENE. BEN.
                                                                                                                        ZOIKITLOURANTMENE. BENZOIAIPY-
                                                                                                                        RENE.  INOENOII.2.3-CDIPYRENE AND
                                                                                                                        DfiENZIA.HIANTHRACENC.
                                                                                                200
                                                                                                                        200
                                                                                                                           SCALE  IN  FEET
     URS
 CONSULTANTSt INC.
1
                              PLATTSBURGH  A.F.B.  -    LF-021  R.I.
CHEMICALS  DETECTED  IN  SOIL  SAMPLES  OBTAINED  DURING  TEST  TRENCHING
I
FIGURE   A-4

-------
                                                                                                                                          P»9«1ol2
                                                             TABLE A-9

                                     FORMER LANDFILL (LF-021) - REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
                                       CHEMICALS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
COMPOUND
Acetone
Carbon Dteulfide
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzo-(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Bis(2-Ethylhexy1)phthalate
4.4--DDT
Arsenic
Barium (TOT)
Cadmium (TOT)
Chromium (TOT)
Lead (TOT)
Selenium (TOT)
Arsenic (DISS)
Barium (OISS)
Cadmium (DISS)
Lead (DISS)
Selenium (DISS)
•ARAR
	
— •
7
5
—
—
50
NO
25
1000
10
50
15
10
25
1000
10
15
10
ROUND - 1
FREQUENCY OF
DETECTION
1/8
1/e
1/8
0/8
0/8
0/8
0/8
3/8
8/8
8/8
3/8
4/8
7/8
0/8
3/8
8/8
3/8
2/8
1/8
DETECTED MINIMUM
CONCENTRATION
8
17
3
-
-
-
-
0.074
1.3
47.6
2.5
5.1
1.6
-
14
35.4
3.3
1.2
1.1
DETECTED MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
'8
17
3
-
-
-

0.12
5.4
265
3.7
15.4
20.7
-
3.1
165
4.3
20.9
1.1
AVERAGE OF
DETECTIONS
8
17
3
-
-
-
-
0.107
3.1
144
32
11.4
6.8
-
2
89.2
3.9
11.1
1.1
ROUND - 2
FREQUENCY OF
DETECTION
0/8
1/8
0/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
7/8
8/8
-
4/8
8/8
3/8
4/8
8/8
-
1/8
1/8
DETECTED MINIMUM
CONCENTRATION
.
15
-
3.2
1
2
5
0.16
1.1
29.3
-
4.5
1.3
1.3
1
34
-
2.3
1.2
DETECTED MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
_
15
-
3.2
1
2
5
0.16
6
657
-
25.8
59.2
29
1.7
206
-
2.3
1.2
AVERAGE OF
DETECTIONS
_
15
-
32
1
2
5
0.16
3.3
1786
-
13
11.4
1.9
1.4
111.3
-
2.3
1.2
- Indicates Analyte was analyzed for but not detected.
Results reported In ppb (ug/kg) unless otherwise noted.
•  Chemical Specific Standards (ARARs) are from 6 NYCRR 703.5 and 703.6.
  The standard for Lead is from the USEPA Drinking Water Standards (40 CFR 141).
                                                                                                                  J \3529HQPROU.F-02UPROPIAN\TABA.« WB1*i(»M

-------
AC 9831
                                                                                                    \3529I\CAD\LF02I  1 = 200 5/3/96-1 RAL
     N
          LEGEND
          PW.E1 rOR OVCRKM)
          POWtO LMCf
          aPPROKlUTI CXTtNT
          or suRfau ocants
          HOUNDS
          *PPROX1UTC LMT
          or rii
          MOMTomra mil.
          BNStALlCD IT E.C.
          XMOAH n«n
          MOMTORMO Wtt.1.
          IMSTALLCD •» UB» (IMS)

          - WATCR
          TRIE L«t
                                                                        NOTES


                                                                      I. THIS FIGURE PRESENTS ALL VOLA-
                                                                       TILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS. SEMI
                                                                       VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS.
                                                                       PESTICIDES. PCBS AND METALS
                                                                       DETECTED IN THE GROUNOWATER
                                                                       SAMPLES ALL  DETECTIONS
                                                                       ARE REPORTED W ug/l UNLESS
                                                                       OTHERWISE INDICATED
                                                               200
          200
                                                                                                          SCALE  IN  FEET
     URS
 CONSULTANTS. INC.

           PLATTSBURGH  A.F.B.  -    LF-021  R.I.
CHEMICALS  DETECTED  IN  GROUNDWATER  (ROUND  I)
FIGURE  A-5

-------
                                                                                                                     Page 2 ot 2
                                    TABLE A-9 (continued)

                   FORMER LANDFILL (LF-021) - REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
                          PART 360 PARAMETER ANALYSIS RESULTS
COMPOUND
Alkalinity Total
Ammonia-Nitrogen
Chloride
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Nitrate-Nitrogen
OR.P.(EH)
pH(s.u.)
Total Dissolved Solids
Sulfate
Hardness
Turbidity (ntu)
Calcium
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
•ARAR
-
2
250 ppm
-
10 ppm
-
6.5/8.5
500
250 ppm
-
-
-
300
15
-
300
-
20 ppm
FREQUENCY
OF
DETECTION
4/4
1/4
4/4
3/4
2/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
MINIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
250
035
10
15
0062
270
64
290
23
290
700
64,300
6,240
4.9
26.1
187
2,710
3.68
MAXIMUM
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
530
035
230
41
0.74
360
7.4
1.200
250
1.200
1.900
343.000
224,000
19.9
114.0
2,730
139,000
96.6
AVERAGE
OF
DETECTIONS
407.5
0.35
1097
24.3
0.4
318
7.1
770
140
782.5
1.087.5
205,075
72.235
10.8
75.975
1.566.8
9.745
5302
Results reported in ppb (ug/kg) unless otherwise noted.
•  Chemical Specific Standards (ARARs) are from 6 NYCRR 703.5 and 703 6.
  Standards for pH and Total Dissolved Solids are from NYSDEC Water Quality Regulation 6NYCRR 703.
  The standard for Lead is from the USEPA Drinking Water Standards (40 CFR 141).
                                                                                              J \35291\QPROVLF.071\PROPLAN\TfBA.8A WB«y»

-------
AC-9832
                                                                                                  \3529I\CAD\LF02I U20O 5/3/96-1 RAL
      N
                        MOMTORMO WELL
                        INSTALLED Br EC
                        JORDAN nan

                        MOMTORMG WELL
                        IMSTALLEO BT 1*5 19931


                       • WATER
                        IREC LINE
                                                                                            NOTE

                                                                                          I. THIS FIGUBE PRESENTS ALL VOLA.
                                                                                           TILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS. SEMI
                                                                                           VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS.
                                                                                           PESTICIDES. PC8S AND METALS
                                                                                           DETECTED IN THE GROUNOWATER
                                                                                           SAMPLES.  ALL DETECTIONS
                                                                                           ARE .REPORTED IN ug/kg  UNLESS
                                                                                           OTHERWISE INDICATED.
                                                                                                 200
                                                                                                          200
                                                                                                        SCALE IN FEET
    URS
 CONSULTANTS. INC.
1
           PLATTSBUR6H  A.F.B.  -   LF-021  R.I.
CHEMICALS  DETECTED IN  GROUNDWATER  (ROUND  2)
1
FIGURE  A-6

-------
                        APPENDIX B

             DECLARATION OF CONCURRENCE
J.\J529IWp\LRJ2I.ROD\cp
-------
New York State Department Of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-7010
                                               MAR 24 1997
                                                                                     John P. Cahill
                                                                                  Acting Commissioner
Mr. Thomas W. L. McCall, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
SAF/ MI
1660 Air Force, Pentagon
Washington, DC 20331-1660

Dear Mr.McCall:
                                 Re:  Record of Decision-Landfill 021
                                     Pittsburgh Air Force Base ID No. 510003

           In response to the Record of Decision (ROD) for Landfill 021 (LF 021) submitted and signed by
    yourself, I wish to concur with the remedial action plan as put forth in the ROD. This remedy includes:

           - A 12-inch thick cover over the landfill consisting of a 9-inch borrow layer, a 3-inch topsoil
             layer and a vegetative cover.

           - Deed restrictions to prevent any adverse action leading to the deterioration of the landfill cap,
             to prohibit the installation of any wells for drinking water or any other purpose which could
             result in the use of the underlying groundwater and to prohibit the excavation of the landfill
             cap without prior approval of the New York State Department of Conservation. Restrictions
             will also be imposed to limit development of any structure on the landfill site which would
             adversely effect human health and safety.

           - Establishment of a groundwater monitoring system.

           - Conducting five-year site reviews.

           If you have any questions please contact Mr. Lister at (518) 457-3976.

                                              Sincerely,
                                              Michael J. OToole, Jr.
                                              Director
                                              Division of Environmental Remediation
    c:     J. Fox, USEPA-Region II
           A. Lowas
           M. Sorel, PAFB

-------
                        APPENDIX C

              PUBLIC MEETING TRANSCRIPT
J:\35291 \wpVLFU2l .RODtydnmXcpxjmj
02-
-------
 1            PUBLIC HEARING FOR REMEDIAL ACTIONS AT FORMER




 2             LANDFILL LF-021 AND FORMER LANDFILL LF-024



 3                          JANUARY 16, 1997




 4           OLD COURTHOUSE, 133 MARGARET STREET, 2ND FLOOR



 5                       PLATTSBURGH, NEW YORK.



 6      This proceeding was stenographically reported by Susan



 7      Bretschneider, Certified Shorthand Reporter, and



 8      commenced at 7:00 p.m.  at the above-mentioned location.




 9



10                MR. SOREL:  Okay,  I guess we'll go ahead and




11      get started.  This is the public meeting for Landfill 21



12      and Landfill 24.  I'd like to begin the public meeting




13      for the remedial actions at  the Former Landfill LF-21




14      and LF-24.   For those who don't know me, I'm Mike Sorel,




15      the BRAC Environmental  Coordinator working for the Air




16      Force Base Conversion Agency at Plattsburgh.  I will be




17      presiding over the meeting,  the main purpose of which is



18      to allow the public the opportunity to comment on the




19      Air Force's action for  this  site.



20                Assisting me  tonight in this presentation are




21      the following people:   Steve Gagnier,  the project



22      manager for these actions, and Brady Baker,  the project




23      engineer,  both with the Air  Force Base Conversion




24      Agency,  and Bruce Przybyl, the project manager with URS




25      Greiner.   These individuals  are here to provide answers






                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS -  (802)  863-6067

-------
 1      to technical questions you might have about the




 2      alternatives available to the Air Force for cleaning up




 3      the site.



 4                Tonight's agenda will consist of a description




 5      of the remedial action and an explanation of how it will




 6      improve the environment.  After that, we will move to



 7      the most important part of this meeting, the part where



 8      you provide your comments on the remedial action.




 9                First, however, I would l,ike to take care of




10      several administrative details.



11                As you can see, everything being said here




12      tonight is being taken down word for word by a



13      professional court reporter.  The transcript will become




14      part of the administrative record for the sites.



15                We would like everyone to complete the sign-in




16      sheet at the door.  We will use the sheet to review our



17      mailing list for the site.



18                At the conclusion of the presentation, we will



19      open the floor up to comments and questions.  I would




20      ask that you hold your questions until the presentation



21      for both sides is complete.   If you have a prepared




22      statement,  you may read it out loud or turn it in




23      without reading it.  In any case,  your comments will




24      become part of the record.  Also,  we have cards at the




25      front desk for your use for any written comments.  If






                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS -  (802)  863-6067

-------
 1      you turn in any written comments, please write your name




 2      and address on them.



 3                If you later decide to make comment or add




 4      something that you said here, you may send additional



 5      comments to us at this address.  The public comment



 6      period ends today on Landfill 21 and on February 6th for



 7      Landfill 24.  I will show this address slide again at




 8      the end of the meeting.



 9                The final point is that our primary purpose




10      tonight is to listen to you.  We want to hear your




11      comments on any issues you are concerned about at these




12      sites,  and we will try to answer any questions you may




13      have.   We want you to be satisfied with the action we




14      take will properly address and fully address the




15      problems at this site.



16                Now, I would like to turn the meeting over to




17      Bruce  Przybyl.



18                MR. PRZYBYL:  Good evening.  We'd like to talk




19      to you today about the Air Force's recommended




20      alternatives for remedial action at two landfills at the




21      Plattsburgh Air Force Base.  The first I'd like to talk



22      about  is Landfill 21.  Landfill 21 is located in the




23      northwest corner of the base outside the perimeter fence




24      and north of Route 22.  The area is designated as open




25      space  for land use planning.






                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS - (802)  863-6067

-------
 1                I would first like to go through the process



 2      by which the decisions were made in reaching the




 3      conclusions in coming to the recommended alternative.




 4                The process started by preparation of a




 5      preliminary assessment or records search which looked at



 6      the history of the site and the disposal practice of the



 7      site.  At that time, a recommendation was made, further



 8      investigation was necessary, a site, investigation was




 '9      undertaken.



10                The site investigation showed it is a




11      relatively small site, and the conclusions of that were




12      to recommend a larger scale investigation, a remedial




13      investigation.



14                The remedial investigation assessed health



15      (sic) to human health --to humans and the environment



16      in addition to collection of many samples.  From that a




17      preferred alternative was determined and documented in a



18      proposed plan which is available at the Feinberg Library




19      and has been for a period of time.



20                Throughout this period,  the New York State




21      Department of Environmental Conservation and United



22      States Environmental Protection Agency have provided




23      review and comment to each document along the way and




24      have concurred in principle with the remedial




25      alternative.






                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS - (802) 863-6067

-------
 1                We are at this stage, the public meeting and



 2      comment, and we're here to answer your questions and



 3      incorporate your comments into the record of decision



 4      which is the legal instrument for the remediation.



 5                The Landfill 21 is about six acres in size.



 6      It was active from 1956-to 1959.  It accepted domestic



 7      waste and sludge from the industrial wastewater



 8      treatment plant at the base.  The other area is adjacent



 9      to some wetland areas and is located 500 feet from the



10      Saranac River. '



11                The character of the site is generally --



12      currently generally vegetative with mature trees and



13      grasses covering the site,  but there is locations where



14      debris is protruding from the landfill surface.  One



15      such location is depicted in the lower of the two



16      photographs.



17           .     The remedial investigation included the



18      excavation of many test trenches to determine the extent



19      of the fill and to sample the subsurface materials and



20      fill, boring, well installation and groundwater .



21      sampling.



22                A variety of chemicals were detected in



23      subsurface soil or fill materials.   Polycyclic aromatic



24      hydrocarbons were detected.   These  were the products of



25      incomplete combustion of fossil fuels,  metals.






                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS - (802)  863-6067

-------
  1       Pesticides such as DDT and PCBs were also detected.



  2       These were not detected in any particular pattern.  The




  3       pattern of contamination is somewhat heterogenous in the




  4       landfill.



  5                In groundwater, only three compounds were




  6       detected that exceeded the'New York State standards, and



  7       those were two polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and



  8       DDT.  It was worthy to note that there was an absence of




  9       volatiles, which are quickly moving compounds, in




10       groundwater.  There were none of those compounds.




11                We also examined contaminant migration




12       pathways at the site.  Since few volatiles were found,




13     • we consider the volatilization pathway for contaminant




14      migration is insignificant.



15                In addition,  since the site is vegetated,



16      there's a limited potential for dust generation and,




17      therefore, we considered contaminant transport via dust



18      pathway as insignificant.



19                Also,  we consider run-off pathways to be




20      negligible because of the high permeability of the




21      landfill.   Most of the precipitation will infiltrate




22      into the landfill and,  also,  topographic constraints --




23      and actually the overhead here we have is somewhat




24      misleading,  this slope somewhat kind of rises again



25      before it  drops again into the Saranac River.  All of






                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS - (802)  863-6067

-------
 1      the precipitation will infiltrate into the ground before



 2      it gets to the river.



 3                One pathway that is potentially significant is



 4      the percolation of rainwater through the landfill



 5      picking up contaminants along the way and then transport



 6      through the groundwater.



 7                Again,  the contaminants detected in



 8      groundwater were of the type that do not move very



 9      quickly or very far in groundwater.



10                We conducted a human health risk assessment to



11      determine the potential risk to human health posed by



12      the site,  and that was broken down into two scenarios,



13      including a current use scenario in  which we assessed



14      potential impacts to utility workers -- there was a



15      right-of-way, utility right-of-way adjacent to the site



16       -- and also to trespassers.



17                The calculations indicated no significant



18      carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic risk to these potential



19      receptors.



20                The second scenario was a  future use scenario



21      in which we assessed the  risk to a campground populated



22      by campers who were utilizing the groundwater for



23      showering and potable water,  camping right on the



24      landfill.   We considered  this to be  a conservative



25      hypothetical scenario.  It's not something that's






                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS - (802)  863-6067

-------
  1       envisioned; however, this is a conservative benchmark  in



  2       which we can assess the potential of contaminant risk.




  3                The future use scenario yielded no




  4       noncarcinogenic risk to campers; however, there was a




  5       significant risk represented by this five times 10 to



  6       the minus four due to exposure to soils on the



  7       landfill.  This is a carcinogenic risk.



  8                It's significant to note that there was no




  9       risk calculated -- or no significant risk calculated for




10       groundwater ingestion pathways despite the fact that




11       three New York State standards were exceeded.  They were




12       exceeded but not to a great extent, enough to yield




13       risks in our calculations.



14                It also should be noted we performed an



15      ecological risk assessment and determined a potential  --




16      potentially a slight potential risk to mammals that come



1,7       into contact with the soil and fill of the landfill.



18      Based on the risk assessment, we came up with a



19      remediation or remedial goal to the site.




20                The goal is to prevent direct contact with




21      on-site soil,  fill materials by human or ecological




22      receptors basically as a response to the carcinogenic




23      risk calculated in the risk assessment and the minor




24      ecological risk that was indicated in the ecological




25      risk assessment.






                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS - (802) 863-6067

-------
  1                Using  the U.S. EPA  Superfund Accelerated



  2       Cleanup Model, we  then developed the basic  components of



  3       our remedial alternative.  And  these include a  landfill



  4       cap and institutional controls.  There were three types



  5       of landfill caps looked at, and they were examined for



  6       their ability to achieve the  goal that we set for



  7       this -- this remediation, and all three of these



  8       landfill caps accomplish the  goal adequately.



  9                Therefore, we looked  at cost and picked the



10       most cost effective cap, which  is a native soil cover as



11       our selected remedial component.



12                Also, a basic component remedy is



13       institutional controls in which we propose site



14       development restrictions to protect the integrity of the



15       cap once it's established and also to restrict water



16       use,  although that's not one of -- it's not reflected in



17       our goal,  there are three exceedances of New York State



18       Groundwater Quality Criteria and then,  therefore,  we



19       thought it would be prudent to restrict the use of the



20       groundwater.



21                Therefore,  our remedial alternative includes



22       the following elements:   A native soil  cover to prevent



23      direct contact of human and ecological  receptors with



24       contaminated soil, and fill materials and development



25      restrictions which include restrictions to prevent any





                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS - (802)  863-6067

-------
   . 	;	  10



  1       adverse action  leading to the deterioration of the




  2       landfill cover  and prohibition against any excavation of




  3       the  landfill cover without prior appropriate approvals,




  4       and  this will be implemented to protect the integrity of




  5       the  cap over the long term.



  6                We are also going to prohibit the installation



  7       of any wells for drinking or any other purposes which



  8       could result in the use of the underlying groundwater.



  9       And  this is in response to the exceedances of New York




10       State Groundwater Quality Criteria in groundwater.




11                We are also -- two other elements of the




12       remedy that are necessary, one is groundwater




13       monitoring.  We'll supplement our existing groundwater




14       monitoring network and sample it.routinely in order to



15       ensure that the slow-moving compounds that we have



16      detected will not migrate off site.  We don't expect



17       them to, but the routine groundwater monitoring will



18      ensure that that will not happen in the future.




19                And,  finally,  there's a five year site review




20      process in which the Air Force,  the United States




21      Environmental Protection Agency and the New York State



22      Department of Environmental Conservation will review all




23      the data collected throughout the five years and ensure




24      that the remediation is being effective in protecting




25      human health and the environment.






                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS - (802)  863-6067

-------
 1                The second landfill I am going to talk about




 2      today is the construction spoils landfill or Landfill




 3      LF-24.  This landfill is located to the -- in the



 4      southeast corner of the base about 200 feet north of the



 5      Salmon River as indicated on this figure right here.



 6      This area has been designated as open space for light



 7      industrial use for land use planning purposes, either




 8      or.



 9                Once again, I'm showing an overhead showing




10      the process by which we reached our remedial



11      alternative, and it's similar to that for LF-21 in which




12      we are soliciting public comments at this time, and




13      we've received New York State Department of



14      Environmental Conservation input and United States



15      Environmental Protection Agency input along the way and,




16      again, comments received today will be incorporated into




17      the record of decision.



18                Landfill 24 is less than one acre in size and




19      accepted construction and demolition debris,  concrete



20      rebar, things of that nature, metals,  from the period of



21      1980 to 1986.  The landfill is covered generally with




22      brush and trees.  There are very few sparse areas.   One




23      of them is indicated in the lower of the two photographs




24      here but generally well covered with brush and trees.




25      To the south near the toe of the slope,  the landfill






                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS - (802)  863-6067

-------
   .	12



  1      steepens considerably, and construction and demolition




  2      debris  is protruding  from the landfill cover as




  3      indicated by the lower of the two photographs.



  4                The upper photograph is the top of the slope,



  5      southern slope, and the lower photograph depicts the toe




  6      of the  slope, the southern slope.  The Air Force



  7      considers this to be a general physical hazard to




  8      trespassers and people walking in this area.



  9                The landfill was investigated and site




10      investigation in which test trenching was conducted to




11      determine the extent of the fill and determine its




12      character.   We also did boring and monitoring wells and




13      looked at groundwater samples.




14                The nature of the fill material is essentially




15      free of organic contaminants; however, metals were




16      elevated above background in the fill materials.



17                Again,  groundwater was examined,  and it was



18      also found to be essentially free of organic materials,




19      organic contaminants;  however, several metals were




20      detected in exceedance of New York State Groundwater




21      Quality Criteria.




22                I also should note that there were several




23      drums found during test trenches at the site; however,




24      none of these drums were found to be intact, many of




25      them had no lids,  were empty or just crushed prior to






                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS - (802)  863-6067

-------
 1      being in the landfill.



 2                We also looked at the potential contaminant



 3      migration pathways.  And very similar to LF-21, there



 4      were no volatiles found and, therefore, the



 5      volatilization pathway was considered insignificant.



 6                Since the landfill is heavily vegetated, there



 7      is limited potential for dust migration and



 8      contamination transport through that mechanism.  Also,



 9      once again, this doesn't quite depict the slope



10      correctly.  It's much flatter there, and the run-off



11      pathways are also considered to be insignificant.  All



12      of the rainfall will percolate into the landfill surface



13      or be captured by topographic constraints and not reach



14      the Salmon River directly.



15                However, again,  we -- we have a potentially



16      significant groundwater migration pathway, again, where



17      rainwater percolates through the fill,  picks up metal



18      contaminants and transports them through the



19      groundwater.  And it should be noted again that the



20      metal contaminants are also very slow-moving compounds.



21                Again, we conducted a human health risk



22      assessment to determine potential risk to the receptors,



23      and two scenarios were examined including current use



24      scenario, which is basically no one is being exposed at



25      the site except for trespassers, and the assessment






                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS - (802) 863-6067

-------
   .	:	;	;	_	14



  1       indicated no potential  for carcinogenic risk,



  2       unacceptable carcinogenic risk or unacceptable



  3       noncarcinogenic risk.



  4                A future use  scenario was also examined.  It



  5       was a bi-phased scenario in which the site would



  6       hypothetically be developed, and there would be a



  7       construction phase in which excavation would occur  and



  8       building would be constructed, and then a second phase



  9       in which the buildings  were already constructed and the



10       area were landscaped and the industrial workers were



11       using the facility routinely.



12                There were no unacceptable cancer risks



13       indicated by the analysis.  However, there were



14       unacceptable noncarcinogenic risks indicated for



15       inhalation of fugitive dust to construction workers.



16      During construction there's considerable dust excavated,



17      and there's a potential for exposure and adverse effects



18       to these construction workers through inhalation of the



19       fugitive dust with manganese adhered to it.   Also, if



20      groundwater were to be used at the site,  there is a



21      potential  for adverse effects again from the compound



22      manganese,  and there is also potential for future



23      problems from barium, vanadium and antimony.



24                One thing to note is that currently there is



25      no risk to receptors via carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic






                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS -  (802)  863-6067

-------
  .  	;	;	 15



  1       risk; however, there is a physical hazard posed  by



  2       protruding debris along the steep southern slope and a



  3       couple other places in the landfill.



  4                Based on the HRA, we determined some



  5       remediation goals.  The first is to prevent construction



  6       workers from inhaling contaminated fugitive dust



  7       resulting from earth moving activities, and that's  in



  8       response to the risk calculated for the inhalation  of



  9       fugitive dust.



10                Second would be to prevent human ingestion of



11       contaminated groundwater immediately down gradient  of



12       the site,  and that's in response to the risk calculated



13       for the ingestion of groundwater.



14                And, third,  we would like to eliminate



15      potential physical hazards to on-site workers and



16      maintenance personnel.



17                Again,  using U.S. EPA guidance,  we determined



18      the basic components of a remedy for the site.  The



19      landfill cap is necessary to -- to accomplish the third



20      goal,  and that is to eliminate potential physical



21      hazards on site.   There is no -- there is no potential



22      chemical hazards due to direct contact with the fill.



23      So the cap is only to eliminate the physical hazards.



24                Therefore,  all  three caps -- since the area



25      will be regraded and debris covered and the potentially





                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS -  (802)  863-6067

-------
    	16



  1       unstable  slopes  eliminated,  all  three caps will be




  2       equally effective  and  cost  is, therefore, looked at as




  3       the  deciding  factor  between the  caps, and we selected



  4       the  least expensive  of the  three options, and that  is a




  5       native soil cover.



  6                Second we  -- the  -- the second basic component



  7       is institutional controls which  includes site



  8       development restrictions, and that is to protect the




  9       integrity of  the cap, water use  restrictions to address




10       our  second remediation goal  which is to prevent human




11       ingestion of  contaminated groundwater and, third, a




12       cautionary notice  concerning inhalation risks during




13       earth moving  activities, and that is to address our




14       first remediation  goals, to  prevent construction workers



15       from inhaling fugitive dust.



16                To  recap,  our recommended alternative consists



17      of the native soil cap, to  limit -- eliminate potential



18 .     physical hazards from debris and also develop




19      restrictions  including restrictions to prevent any




20      adverse action leading to the deterioration of the cap,




21      prohibition against  excavation of the landfill without



22      prior appropriate  approval and prohibition from




23      installing any wells that could result in the use of the



24      underlying groundwater.




25                Also,  we are going to issue a notice






                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS - (802)  863-6067

-------
  . ^__	17



 1      concerning potential site risk which is a notice




 2      provided concerning potential short-term health risks




 3      from inhaling dust during construction activities.




 4      Also, groundwater monitoring is a part of that.  Also,



 5      metals in groundwater will move very slowly and will not




 6 ,     get very far.  We want to install a groundwater



 7      monitoring network to track that through time and make



 8      sure that the groundwater contaminants are not getting



 9      far off site and, also, in LF-21, it will be reviewed




10      every five years by the U.S. EPA and the New York State



11      Department of Environmental Conservation and the Air




12      Force to determine whether it has continued to be




13     • effective, and that concludes my discussion.




14                MR. SOREL:  At this time,  I'd like to open up



15      the meeting for questions.  Since everything that is




16      being said here tonight is being taken down, please




17      state your name for the record before you make a




18      statement.



19                Do we have any questions?   Mr.  Booth?



20                MR. BOOTH:  Robert Booth.   In each of your



21      sites,  we reach a conclusion about where you are headed



22      next with a list of prohibitions, for instance, to




23      prevent activities that would destroy the cap,  prevent




24      the drilling of wells that would tap groundwater,




25      prevent excavation without a permit.  Who or what sees






                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS - (802)  863-6067

-------
                	18


 1      that these limitations are carried out, who gives the


 2      permit  to excavate, how long is this oversight as to


 3      permits and prohibitions to continue, who's got the
                                                      i

 4      responsibility?


 5                MR. SOREL:  Good question.  It's actually one


 6      that's come up in our discussions with the regulator


.7      that they have the very same concerns that you do.


 8                There will'be a transfer by deed, and when we


 9      start talking about transfer by deed, what we are going


10      to do,  in fact, if you look in the proposed plan,


11      there's a paragraph in there that deals with that, and


12      let me read what we put in there.  It says:  The deed


13      will include appropriate restrictions to prevent any


14      adverse .action leading to the deterioration of the


15      landfill cap to include prohibition from installing any


16      wells for drinking water or any other 'purpose which


17      could result in use of the underlying groundwater and


18      the prohibition against any excavation of the landfill


19      cap without prior approval of the New York State DEC.


20                So, essentially,  we are saying at that point


21      there will indeed be restrictions and,  of course, the


22      Air Force at that point would no longer be the owner of


23      the property, so some of that will rely on the -- the


24      local agencies having jurisdiction in that area".


25                For instance, if we are in the town of



                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS - (802)  863-6067

-------
    	19



 1      Plattsburgh, then  I would assume  if there were



 2      construction, there would be  issues of the building



 3      permit and at that time, those prohibitions would be



 4      noted.  So through that process,  we believe that that's



 5      how these prohibitions would  be controlled.



 6                MR. BOOTH:  That makes  sense that there would



 7      be public records that follow the land that way and will



 8      the restrictions mention that DEC is a reference point?



 9                MR. SOREL:  Correct.  In fact, we have already



10      coordinated that with them.   They have agreed to be that



11      reference point.



12                MR. BOOTH:  And that also if interested, why,



13      the township or the city or the county also could step



14      in, but at least there's a list of restrictions and



15      restrictive covenants really?



16                MR. SOREL:  Right,  right.



17                MR. BOOTH:  And who to refer to to start



18    .  complying or finding out the answers?



19                MR. SOREL:  And there would also be a notice



20      of any hazardous .materials present that would follow



21      this as well, so anybody that would be issuing that



22      building permit or whatever.



23                MR. BOOTH:  In 25 years, that will all be



24      forgotten, and I was just wondering.



25                MR. SOREL:  We will, file a deed.





                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS -  (802)  863-6067

-------
                                                            20




  1                 MR.  BOOTH:   And  you  have  got  it  if  there  are




  2       recorded  documents.




  3                 MR.  SOREL:   Sure.




  4                 MR.  BOOTH:   Thank you.




  5                 MR.  SOREL:   Any  other questions?




  6                 Okay, since  everybody seems to have made  their




  7       comments,  we would like to conclude this meeting.




  8                 I would like to  add  that  the  proposed plans




  9       and other  documents relating to these sites are




10       available  for  review at the information repository




11    '   located in Special Collections at the Feinberg Library,




12       SUNY-Plattsburgh.




13                Thank you very much  for coming.




14                 (This hearing was concluded at 7:37 p.m.




15




16




17




18




19




20




21




22




23




24




25






                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS -  (802)  863-6067

-------
  . ^_	;v	21



 1                        CERTIFICATE




 2



 3      STATE OF VERMONT         )



 4      COUNTY OF CALEDONIA      )



 5           I, Susan BretSchneider, a Notary Public within and



 6      for the State of Vermont, do hereby certify that I



 7      stenographically reported the proceedings of the public



 8      hearing in re: Remedial Actions at Former Landfill LF-21



 9      and Former Landfill LF-24 on January 16, 1997 beginning




10      at 7:00 p.m.,  at the Old Courthouse, 133 Margaret



11      Street, 2nd Floor,  Plattsburgh, New York.



12           I further certify that the foregoing proceeding was




13      taken by me stenographically and thereafter reduced to




14      typewriting, and the foregoing 20 pages are a full, true




15      and correct transcription of the proceedings.




16           I further certify that I am not related to any of



17      the parties thereto and that I am in no way interested



18      in the outcome of said proceedings.



19           Dated at  Barre,  Vermont, this 23rd day of January,



20      1997.  My commission expires February 10,  1999.




21




22




23



24                          SUSAN BRETSCHNEIDER, Notary Public




25






                CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS - (802)  863-6067

-------
1
2

3

4

' 5

6

7
g
U
q
J
10

11

12

13
14
15
16
17

18

19

20
21

22

23

24
?c
^ «?


TO:
DATE:
RE:
FROM:


Please
wish to


Marcia G.
ERRATA SHEET

Wolosz
February 14, 1997
1-16-96 Public Hearing
Capitol Court Reporters, P.O. Box 329,
Burlington

, Vermont 05402

read through the enclosed transcript. If you
make any
referring to page
corrections, please do so below
and line number followed by the
correction.

Page

2

3

3

4

5
5
5
6
6

8

17

18


18

18
19



Line No .

21

3

13

11

8
23
25
1
1

12

9

6


7

10
2-3



Change

"sides" should be "sites"

insert "a" before "comment"

"with" should be "that"

"small site" should be "low contamin-
ation site"
"other area" should be "site"
place a colon after materials:
"fuels. Metals,"
"Pesticides" should be "pesticides"
place a comma after DDT,

before the word "enough" put "not"

before the words "in LF-021" put
"as with"
change "regulator" to "regulators."
(period at end of word)

"They" starts a new sentence

change "do," to "do — "
replace "issues of the building
permit" with "a building permit
issued"
CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS  -  (802)  863-6067

-------
1
2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ERRATA

TO: Marcia G. Wolosz
SHEET


DATE: February 14, 1997
RE: 1-16-96 Public Hearing
FROM: Capitol Court Reporters, P.O. Box 329,
Burlington, Vermont 05402

tf
Please read through the enclosed transcript. If you
wish to make any corrections, please do so below
referring to page and line number followed by the
correction.
Page Line No.
Change
3 5 & 6 Sentence beginning "the public comment.."
should read, "The public comment period
ends on January 23rd for LF 21, as
stated in the public notice advertised
in the Plattsburgh Press-Republican on
Monday,













December 23, 1996."













CAPITOL COURT REPORTERS - (802) 863-6067

-------
                          ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
                    Plattsburgh Air Force Base
                    Landfill LF-021
                    Plattsburgh, New York
                    2
                    30.34  (9/22/88) Basewide score, not landfill
                    NY4571924774
Name

Location/State
EPA Region
HRS Score(date)
Site ID #

ROD	
Date Signed:        3/25/97
Remedy/ies:         Native Soil Cover, Institutional Controls
Operating Unit Number: OU-10  (IRP Site LF-021)
Capital cost:       $ 450,000 in 1997 dollars)
Construction Completion: April 1998
                    $ 62,000    (in 1997 dollars)
                    $ 62,000
                    $ 62,000
                    $ 62,000
                    $ 994,850   (6% discount rate, 30 years 0 & M,
O & M in 1998:
         1999:
         2000:
         2001:
Present worth:
                    Q & M drops to $ 30,000/yr in 6th year)
LEAD
Remedial  - Federal Facility Lead
Primary contact  - Bob Morse  (212) 637-4331
Secondary contact - Bob Wing  (212) 637-4332
Main PRP(s)   - U.S. Air Force
PRP Contact - Mike Sorel  (518) 563-2871

WASTE	
Type - Pesticides, PCBs, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Metals
Medium - Soil
Origin  - Landfill  (Municipal Solid Waste, Sludge from Industrial
          Wastewater Treatment  Plant)
Est. quantity   - 5.7 acres

-------