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
------- |