EPA/ROD/R01-95/105
1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
EPA ID: ME9570024522
OU01
LIMESTONE, ME
09/20/1995
-------
0
File; 17G
P.F.
AFB
MAINE
AR File 3MIO
-------
2410 1
FINAL
OPERABLE UNIT 1 (OU 1)
RECORD OF DECISION
August 1995
Installation Restoration Program
Loring Air Force Base, Maine
-------
2410 2
FINAL
Loring Air Force Base
OPERABLETTJNIT 1 (OU 1)
RECORD OF DECISION
August 1995
Prepared ior:
Air Force Base Conversion Agency
Limestone, Maine
(207^328-7109
Prepared by:
Service Center: Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Contractor: ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
Portland, Maine
Project No, 7656-16
-------
r»
410 3
OU 1 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page No.
10 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AMTDESCRIPTTON 1-1
2.0 SITE AND INVESHGATION^HISTORY 2-1
2.1 LAND USE AND RESPONSE HISTORY 2-1
2.2 INVESTIGATION AND RESPONSE HISTORY 2-1
3.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3-1
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 4-1
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5-1
5.1 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY ISSUES 5-3
5.2 SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS DETECTED 5-5
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 6-1
6.1 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT , 6-1
6.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT , , 6-14
6.3 UNCERTAINTY EVALUATION 6-21
6.4 RISK ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS 6-22
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 7-1
8.0 DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 8-1
9.0 STATE ROLE .....;..-; 9-1
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
REFERENCES
W0049530.080 ' 7656-16
-------
410 4
OU 1 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Section •' "Title Page No.
APPENDICES
A - TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC MEETING
B - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY.
C - LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE!
W0049530.080 ~"~^ 7656-16
ii
-------
2410
OU I RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page No.
1-1 Location of OU 1 _. 1-2
1-2 Locations of Areas A through G 1-3
W0049S3QQ80 ;_ 7656-16
iii
-------
410 6
OU 1 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
LIST OF TABLES
Table .Title Page No.
6-1 Non-Radiological Analytes ofPot^hlial Concern for Human Health
Risk Assessment ,,.,..... 7 ITT 6-2
6-2 Summary of Radiological Isotopes for Human Health Risk
Assessment ,.,,,,. 6-10
6-3 Chemicals of Potential Concefn'lof the Area A Surface Soil
Ecological Risk Assessment ^...^.^ ,,..,,,,.... 6-15
6-4 Chemicals of Potential ConcemTor the Areas B-F Surface Soil
Ecological Risk Assessment .77TT."." 6-16
6-5 Chemicals of Potential Concern"fdr"the Area G Surface Soil
Ecological Risk Assessment ..'.'. , 6-17
6-6 Chemicals of Potential Concern"for~the Area A (Drainage Ditch)
Surface Water Ecological Risk" Assessment , 6-18
6-7 Chemicals of Potential ConceriTfof the Area A (Drainage Ditch)
Sediment Ecological Risk Asselspnent . 6-19
6-8 Evaluation of Radionuclides^AKve^Background at OU 1 , 6-26
6-9 Evaluation of Inorganics Detected Above Background at OU 1 .... 6-27
W0049S3Q.080 " "" 7 7656-16
iv
-------
2410 7
DECLARATION
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION " ™" •"
Loring Air Force Base (LAFB) OperablelJiit 1 (OU 1), the Low Level Radioactive
Waste Disposal Sites (LLRWDS), Limestone, Maine.
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE'
This decision document presents the selected No-Action decision for the LLRWDS,
OU 1, at LAFB in Limestone, Maine^QU 1 consists of Areas A-G as identified in
Figure 1-2. This decision document was developed in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by th^Wperfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), (USEPA, 1990). It is based on the
Administrative Record for the site, wEch was developed in accordance with Section
113(k) of CERCLA and is available for public review at the Air Force Base Closure
Agency Office, 5100 Texas Road, LimeipiETMaine. The Administrative Record for
the LLRWDS, OU 1, includes the memosTletters, reports, and associated information
developed during the CERCLA response at OU 1 that provide the basis for selecting
No Action.
The State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection concurs with the No-
Action under CERCLA remedy for OUT
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED*WMEDY
The U.S. Air Force and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), with
concurrence of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, have determined
that no action under CERCLA is necestary to address the contamination of OU 1
soils, surface water, sediments, and groundwater. Previous response actions relating
to radionuclides at OU 1 (Areas A through F) have eliminated the need to conduct
a remedial action. OU 1 inorganic grotlnawater contamination will be addressed in
a separate Record of Decision, and the~petfoleum contamination at Area G will be
addressed separately under the MaineUnlerground Storage Tank Regulations.
W004953G.OSQ 7656.16
D-l
-------
2410 3
DECLARATION
Because this No Action Record of Decision does not result in hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants being left at the site above levels that allow for
unrestricted exposure, pursuant to CERCLA § 122(c), no five-year review will be
undertaken.
DECLARATION
The U.S. Air Force and USEPA, with concurrence of the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection, have determined that no remedial action under CERCLA
is necessary at OU 1.
By; [Jill* [\(A/jL~^ Date:
"^'liepartmenT of the Air Force
Alan K, Olsen
Director
Air Force Base Conversion Agency
Date:
nited States Enviror
Protection Agency
Linda M. Murphy
Director
Waste Management Division
Region I
W0049530080 765M6
-------
O
410
SECTION 1
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
Loring Air Force Base (LAFB), in northeastern Maine, is bordered on the south and
east by the Town of Limestone, on the north by the towns of Caswell and Connor,
and on the east by the City of Caribou (Figure 1-1). The base is approximately three
miles west of the United States/Canadian border and covers approximately 9,000
acres. The base was closed September 1994.
LAFB is a National Priorities List (NPL) site. There are currently a number of areas
of concern within LAFB that are underlnvestigation. For purposes of investigation
and remedial response, the areas of concern at LAFB have been organized into
several operable units (OUs). This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses the former
source areas, surface water, sediment, and groundwater at OU 1, the Low Level
Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites (LLRWDS). The LLRWDS Areas A through G,
identified in Figure 1-2 are discussed further in Subsection 5.1.
Because of its primary mission, LAFB personnel were engaged in various operations,
a number of which required the use, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous
materials and substances. In the past, these materials entered the environment
through accidental spills, leaks in piping, landfilling operations, burning of liquid
wastes during fire-training exercises, and the cumulative effects of operations
conducted at the base's flightline and Industrial areas. As part of the Department
of Defense's (DOD) Installation ReslpralTon Program (IRP), the Air Force has
initiated activities to identify, evaluate, and remediate former disposal or spill sites
containing hazardous substances.
Since initiation of the IRP, the Base"has T>een placed on the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (USEPA's) NPL of sites and will be remediated according to the
Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) entered into by U.S. Air Force (USAF), the
USEPA, and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP).
W0049530.080 7656-16
1-1
-------
2410 10
Connor
LORING AIR
FORCE BASE
Caswell
WEAPONS STORAGE
ARIA (LOCATION OF
OU1 SITE AREAS)
Lorlng
Air Force Base
LEGEND
AREA OF CONCERN
- TOWN LINE
SCALEINFEET
0 4000
8000
FIGURE 1-1
LOCATION OF OU 1
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
LIMESTONE, MAINE
W9504Q41D
1-2
-------
2-ilO 11
-------
2410 12
SECTION 2
2.0 SITE AND INVESTIGATION HISTORY
This section summarizes the uses, response history, and investigation activities at
OU 1. ~
2.1 LAND USE AND RESPONSE HISTORY
The seven LLRWDS in OU 1 are associated with buildings and operations in the
Weapon Storage Area (WSA) (Figure M). The WSA was used for the storage and
routine maintenance of strategic and conventional weapons from 1952 through 1993.
During the 1950s, weapons inspection and maintenance required disassembly and
direct handling of radioactive matefialsT^By the mid-1950s, weapon designs had
changed, radioactive material was no longer exposed in the new designs, and the
earlier type of weapons were progressively phased out of stockpile by 1962. Strategic
weapons were removed from the WSA in May 1989. Conventional weapons were
progressively removed in 1993 in Itnticipation of base closure, with the last
conventional weapons removed in December 1993.
Five underground storage tanks (USTs) were installed at the WSA LLRWDS to
receive and contain potentially radioactive liquids in the event of a release in one of
the facilities. USAF records indicated there was never a release of radioactive
materials to any of the five USTs. ThOJSTs were excavated and disposed off-site
during a removal action in 1994. THe~USTs~were observed to be intact at the time
of their removal (Ogden, 1995). ~
Low-level dry radioactive wastes (e.g., swipes, butcher paper, tape, gloves, protective
clothing, respirator cartridges) from maintenance operations were typically placed in
cardboard boxes. From 1954 through 1962, the boxes were reportedly disposed of
on-site in two waste disposal trenchesr During the 1994 removal action, the two
waste trenches were delineated, exhumed, and the contents were disposed off-site.
2.2 INVESTIGATION AND RESPONSE HISTORY
The USAF has followed USEPA guidelines for most of the IRP investigations
conducted at LAFB since 1983, and for all investigations completed since 1988, when
W0049530080 " "™" 7656-16
2-1
-------
A
1 r> * n
1 U JU)
SECTION 2
the IRP investigation process was revised to more closely follow the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) used by the USEPA (USEPA, 1990).
The investigation history of OU 1 is summarized as follows:
• In 1983, a Preliminary Assessment (PA) was performed by detailing
historical hazardous material usage and waste disposal practices
(CH2M Hill, 1984),
* A Site Inspection (SI) was conducted between 1985 and 1988 to
confirm the presence of contaminants at OU 1 (Roy F. Weston, Inc.,
1988).
» Between 1988 and 1994, Remedial Investigation (RI) activities were
conducted and a Public Health and Ecological Baseline Risk
Assessment (RA) was completed (ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
[ABB-ES], 1995a).
* LAFB was added to the NPL in February 1990.
• The USAF entered into an FFA in 1991 with the USEPA and
MEDEP regarding the cleanup of environmental contamination at
LAFB (FFA, 1991).
« In 1994, a removal action was conducted that included excavation of
the five radiological USTs and two waste disposal trenches. The USTs
and contents of the trenches were disposed off-site (Ogden, 1995).
« The FFA was modified in December 1993 to address base closure-
related issues, such as real property transfer and a revised schedule.
The FFA was further modified in January 1995 to allow Remedial
Project Managers to make minor modification to the FFA, such as
schedule adjustments or removal of petroleum-contaminated sites from
the agreement.
* Contamination detected at Area G is attributed to fuel oil that leaked
from a former UST and pipeline, and as such, future remedial actions
should be conducted in accordance with State of Maine UST
regulations.
W0049S30.080 7656-16
-------
2410 14
SECTION 3
3.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Throughout LAFB's history, the community has been involved in base activities. The
USAF, USEPA, and MEDEP have kept the community and other interested parties
apprised of LAFB IRP activities through informational meetings, fact sheets, press
releases, public meetings, site tours, andjypen houses.
In addition to these activities, during the course of IRP activities at LAFB, there
have been regular meetings of the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) (formerly the
Technical Review Committee). The RAB, chaired by the USAF and a representative
of the community, is composed of representatives of USEPA, MEDEP, the
community, and local officials. The purpose of the RAB meetings has been to
ensure clear communication _with thelpublic, timely transfer of information, and
opportunity for public comment.
The framework for the USAF's approach to community involvement is the LAFB
Community Relations Plan (CRP), which was released in August 1991 and
subsequently revised in May 1995. „ The, CRP outlines the USAF's program for
addressing community concerns and keeping citizens informed and involved during
remedial activities.
Documentation of the reports, memoranda, and correspondence that are the basis
for IRP remedial response deeisions"ar¥ kept in an Administrative Record. The
Administrative Record is open and available for public review at the Air Force Base
Conversion Agency Office, 5100 Texas JRoad, Limestone, Maine.
The following is a summary of the activities the USAF has undertaken to keep the
public informed and involved regarding the remedial response at OU 1.
• On June 2, 1994, a RAB meeting was held to discuss the results of the
OU 1 investigations and the approach for conducting the UST and
radioactive waste disposal trench removal action.
» An IRP Fact Sheet, explaining activities planned for OU 1, was issued
in July 1994. ^-.^=_-_
W0049530 080 _ 7656-16
3-1
-------
2410
15
SECTION 3
Hie USAF published a notice and brief discussion of the proposed
removal action in the Aroostook Republican on July 6, 1994 and the
Bangor Daily News on July 7, 1994.
From July 11 through August 10, 1994, the USAF held a 30-day public
comment period to accept public input on the Action Memorandum
outlining the proposed removal action, and on any other OU 1
documents in the Administrative Record. On July 28, 1994, USAF
personnel and regulatory representatives held a public meeting to
discuss the Action Memorandum and to accept oral comments.
During the removal action, the USAF invited the local press to cover
the trench removal activities. Information regarding both the trench
and UST tank removals was made available to representatives of local
media.
The USAF published a notice and brief analysis of the Proposed Plan
in the Bangor Daily News, Aroostook Republican, Fort Fairfield
Review, and Presque Isle Maine Star-Herald on July 12, 1995,
recommending No Action under CERCLA as the preferred alternative
for OU 1.
From July 17 through August 16, 1995, the USAF held a 30-day public
comment period to accept public input on the information presented
in the RI/Baseline Risk Assessment and Proposed Plan, and on any
other OU 1 documents in the Administrative Record. On August 2,
1995, USAF personnel and regulatory representatives held a public
meeting and hearing to discuss the Proposed Plan and to accept oral
comments. A transcript of this hearing is included in Appendix A.
Comments received during the comment periods and the USAF's
response to these comments are included in the Responsiveness
Summary in Appendix B.
WOM9530 080
7656-16
3-2
-------
2410 16
SECTION 4
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The USAF and USEPA have determined that no further Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) action is
required at OU 1 because (1) previous^ response actions conducted at the operable
unit have eliminated the need to conduct farther remedial action and (2) the
petroleum contamination at Area G will be effectively addressed under State of
Maine regulations.
USEPA has the authority to revisit the No Action under CERCLA decision even if
LAFB is removed from the NPL. This could occur if future conditions indicate that
an unacceptable risk to human healthjMLtfie environment would result from exposure
to contaminants at OU 1,
W0049530.080 7656-16
4-1
-------
2410 17
SECTION 5
5.0 SUMMARY OFSITE CHARACTERISTICS
The investigation process began at LAFB in 1983 as part of the DOD IRP. The
process was revised during 1988 to follow the NCR Investigations performed to date
include a 1983 PA performed to investigate past activities at LAFB (CH2M Hill,
1984), An SI was initiated in June 1985 Jto confirm the presence of contaminants at
OU 1 (Roy F, Weston, Inc., 1988). In addition, RI activities were conducted from
1988 through 1994 (ABB-ES, 1995b).
There are seven OU 1 sites, Areas A through G, that were grouped together due to
their proximity in the former WSA (Fipre 2-1), With one exception, the sites were
used for low-level radioactive waste disposal. The one exception is Area G, which
was inaccurately identified as a low-level radioactive waste disposal site in the Base
Master Plan during the 1970s and 1980s. Research and the results of the RI have
shown that Area G was not used for low-level radioactive waste disposal. The Base
Master Plan was corrected in the 1990s._ Ajnore complete description of the site can
be found in Section 4 of the Operable Unit (OU 1) Remedial Investigation Report,
Volume I (ABB-ES, 1995a).
The site areas comprising OU 1 that potentially received low-level radioactive waste
are:
Area A: 5,000-gallon liquid waste disposal UST attached to Building 365 floor
drains. Building 365 was the strategic weapon component inspection
laboratory that maintained radioactive components. Potential contamination
included radioactive materials (uranium oxide) and solvents generated during
weapon maintenance activities.
Area B: 1,000-gallon liquid waste disposal UST attached to a floor drain in
Building 329. Building 329 WaTtised to store tritium containers. Tritium
generated during routine venting of tritium gas during weapon maintenance
activities at Building 329 was the primary focus of the investigation at Area B.
Area C: 1,000-gallon liquid waste disposal UST and a dry radioactive waste
disposal trench, Trench C. The UST was attached to former Building 309
used to store tritium containers.___The waste disposal trench was used in the
1950s and possible early 1960s to dispose of small quantities of low-level
radioactive waste, primarily uranium oxides. Potential contamination to be
W0049530.080 7656-16
5-1
-------
M10
SECTION 5
investigated at Area C included tritium generated during routine venting of
tritium gas during weapon maintenance activities, and radioactive materials
and solvents generated at Area A disposed in Trench C.
Area D: 1,500-gallon liquid waste disposal UST. This UST was attached to
floor drains in Buildings 255 and 284, both used for storage of tritium
containers. Tritium was identified as a potential contamination source at
Area D,
Area E: Dry radioactive waste disposal Trench E, similar to the trench at
Area C in its history and use. The focus of the Area E investigation was
radioactive materials and solvents from wastes generated at Area A and
disposed of in Trench E.
Area F; 1,000-gallon liquid waste disposal UST. This UST was attached to
a floor drain in a weapon assembly and maintenance structure, Building 232.
Potential contaminants at Area F included radioactive materials from weapon
assembly and maintenance activities at Building 232.
The five radiological USTs were removed from Areas A, B, C, D, and F in 1994. In
addition, the contents of both waste trenches (Areas C and E) were removed and
disposed off-site in 1994.
Area G is not a radioactive waste disposal site. Building 216, located at Area G, was
a weapon assembly building. There were two 10,000-gaUon underground fuel storage
tanks located at the west end of Building 216. In 1991, both tanks were replaced.
During replacement of the tanks, contaminated subsurface soil, attributed to leakage
from the tanks or piping, was observed. A former underground fuel pipeline, that
supplied the 10,000-gallon tanks, traverses Area G. The pipeline is now abandoned.
Investigations at Area G have detected solvents and fuel oil in soil and groundwater.
Other investigations and remedial actions have occurred at the WSA in addition to
the PA and RI programs. The five radiological USTs were removed in 1994 as part
of a removal action (Ogden, 1995). All five of the tanks were reported to be intact
(i.e., not leaking). Based on analysis of UST content samples and confirmatory soil
samples collected following UST removal, the Radioisotope Committee and MEDEP
acknowledged, through verbal agreement, clean closure of the radiological USTs.
Wipe samples from the building floor drains and the cut end of the piping at each
UST were also analyzed and reported to be free of radioactive contamination.
W0049530 080 7656-16
5-2
-------
2410 19
SECTION 5
During the 1994 removal actions, the dry radioactive wastes disposed in the trenches
at Areas C and E were also removed.. The contents of both trenches were
delineated, analyzed, exhumed, and disposed off-site. Analysis of confirmatory soil
samples collected after trench excavation .indicated that the radioactive material was
successfully removed from both trenchgs,.
In addition to characterizing the sites, radiological building decommissioning surveys
were conducted at 56 weapon storage and maintenance structures located within the
WSA. No radioactivity above background levels was reported in the surveyed
structures.
The University of Maine, on behalf. of the MEDEP, conducted supporting
radiological investigations to evaluate the possible presence of unidentified or
undocumented radioactive waste disposaTsites within the WSA. University of Maine
personnel performed radiological surveys and laboratory analysis of groundwater, soil,
surface water, and sediment samples from OU 1 and vicinity. Their OU 1 data were
compared to off-site background samples and data from across the State of Maine.
The comparisons indicated that levels, jit radioactivity across the entire WSA were
at background levels, and the study did_npt identify any undocumented radioactive
waste disposal areas. The University of Maine data were not utilized in establishing
specific background values for the agreed-upon radionuclides of concern investigated
in the RL However, the University of Maine was involved in the review process for
the establishment of these background concentrations developed during the RL
The following subsections presen.t__contamination assessments for various
environmental media at OU 1. A mpre^detailed discussion of the contamination
assessment is presented in Section 4_of_theJRI Report (ABB-ES, 1995a).
5.1 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY ISSUES _
In order to better evaluate the nature and distribution of detected analytes, there are
three issues which require preliminary discussion. These include:
* effects of turbidity on groundwater sample inorganic results
* the occurrence of Radium (Ra)-226
» radioactive isotope analytical results
W0049530.080 ^.-_ 7656-16
5-3"
-------
2410 20
SECTION 5
Each of these topics is discussed in the following paragraphs.
Turbidity. Inorganics analytes were detected at varying levels above natural LAFB
background concentrations in bedrock monitoring wells at OU 1. Inorganics were
also detected in the two overburden wells. Background concentrations of inorganics
in overburden and bedrock groundwater are currently being reassessed as part of the
OU 12 basewide groundwater RI. Concentrations of inorganics in groundwater at
OU 1 will be compared to the OU 12 background concentrations upon approval and
acceptance of those levels. Problems identified during this re-evaluation of OU 1
groundwater inorganic data will be addressed in the OU 12 ROD. As indicated by
current and past OU 12 background bedrock and overburden groundwater dissolved
and total inorganic analyses, the amount of turbidity in a sample can affect the
inorganic concentrations reported by the laboratory. Inorganic concentrations
typically decrease in the filtered (dissolved) samples, as compared to the non-filtered
(total) samples. Turbidity is often generated during sample collection in both
bedrock and overburden monitoring wells.
Soil samples from OU 1, the former radiological UST liquids, and waste samples
from the LLRWDS trenches did not contain inorganic concentrations indicative of
source areas. Inorganic concentrations in OU 1 groundwater are attributable to
natural occurrence, background variation, and/or impacts of turbidity.
Occurrence of Ra-226. Ra-226, one of the most abundant naturally occurring
radioactive isotopes, was detected in 80 out of 108 soil samples throughout OU 1.
The site-related Ra-226 data have been compared to two sets of off-site background
sample concentrations that were developed in 1993 and 1994, respectively. If the site
soil samples, collected in 1993 and before, are compared with the 1993 background
concentrations, no exceedances of background are observed. If the 1993 and before
site soil samples are compared with the 1994 background concentrations, many
exceedances of background area observed. However, the exceedances of 1994
background values are a result of analytical method changes between the two years.
The reporting limit, or minimum detectable activity, was lower for the 1994
background sample analyses due to increased analytical sensitivity. The background
data reported in 1994 therefore had lower and more reliable values than the 1993
background data, with the result that samples collected in 1993 and before exceeded
the lower 1994 background values. Based on this fact, and the widespread
occurrence of Ra-226, Ra-226 detected at OU 1 is believed to be naturally occurring.
W0049530 080 7656-16
5-4
-------
2410 21
SECTION 5
Radioactive Isotope Analytical Results^ During the RI, several analytical issues
regarding the quantification and identification of radioactive isotopes were identified.
Issues associated with the analysis for Uranium (U)-235, Americium (Am)-241, and
Neptunium (Np)-237 are discussed in the following paragraphs. For a detailed
explanation of the specific technical issues associated with the radioactive isotopic
analytical program, refer to the OUTRT(ABB-ES, 1995a).
Gamma spectroscopy U-235 results are considered questionable due to analytical
interference caused by Ra-226. U-235" analyzed by alpha spectroscopy was not
subject to this interference and provided more accurate data.
Am-241 was detected once in a siirface^soiljample at Area A, Am-241 is primarily
an alpha-emitting isotope accompameTbjTow energy gamma rays, however, the low
gamma energy is subject to analytical interferences. The laboratory noted that the
peak used to identify and quantify Am-241 in this sample had a bad peak shape
which indicated an interference. Therefore, the Am-241 result is considered suspect.
Np-237 is also primarily an alpha-emitting isotope accompanied by low energy
gamma rays. During the analysis for Np-237 by gamma spectroscopy, interferences
were noted by the laboratory, thereby "calling into question the identification and
quantitation of this isotope. Therefore, the identification and quantification of
Np-237 detected by gamma spectroscopy in sediments associated with Area A,
Butterfield Brook, and East Loring take"lre questionable.
5.2 SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS DETECTED
Results of the RI sampling and anaTysis"are* briefly summarized in the following
paragraphs. Results are presented for the radiological USTs and waste disposal
trenches first, followed by additionaljejults_ for each site area.
Radiological USTs. Essentially no contaminants were detected in liquid, sediment,
or scrape samples collected from the five USTs at Areas A, B, C, D, and F. Analysis
of confirmatory soil samples collected from the bottom of the UST excavations also
did not detect contamination indicative of a source.
Waste Disposal Trenches. Radiological contamination (enriched uranium) was
detected in samples collected from the"waste disposal trenches at Areas C and E.
Subsequently, removal actions were performed in both trenches in 1994,
W0049S30.080 7656-16
5-5
-------
2410
SECTION 5
Confirmatory samples collected from the limits of the trench excavations following
the removal action indicate that radioactive waste was successfully removed from
both Trench C and E.
Arsenic was detected above background in only one of 18, closely gridded,
confirmatory soil samples at Trench E. Arsenic is not a documented contaminant
associated with OU 1. Detection of arsenic in Area E may be attributable to
rodenticides used to control burrowing animals at the trench location.
Area A. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), lead, and zinc were detected above background in Area A surface soil. The
PAHs, PCBs, and metals in surface soil are attributable to non-point source erosion
and runoff from nearby parking areas, roads, and former operational areas. The
detection of pesticides is consistent with the compounds and concentrations detected
at other OUs at LAFB. The presence of these compounds is a result of routine
basewide use of pesticides.
Radiological analytes detected above background levels in Area A soils and
sediments were Am-241, Np-237, Ra-226, U-235, Thorium (Th)-231, and Th-234.
Am-241, Np-237, and U-235 detections are suspect due to analytical difficulties in
identification and quantitation as discussed in Subsection 5.1. The detections of
Th-231 and Th-234 are considered to be naturally occurring. Ra-226 is an abundant
naturally occurring radionuclide and was detected in nearly all OU 1 soil samples.
Concentrations of aluminum, chromium, manganese, and nickel exceeded USEPA
Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and MEDEP
Maximum Exposure Guidelines (MEGs). These inorganics are naturally occurring
and have not been identified as site-related. The detection of these inorganics above
background in OU 1 groundwater is assumed to be a result of sample turbidity.
Tritium was detected in one groundwater sample at a level approximately 100 times
lower than the drinking water standard.
Area B. In general, detected volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides, and inorganics were below background
levels or at low estimated concentrations. No PCBs were detected at Area B.
U-235, Th-231, and Ra-226 were detected above background levels in soil at Area
B. As discussed previously, the identification and quantitation of U-235 is suspect
due to analytical interferences. Th-231 is believed to be naturally occurring at
W0049530080 7656-16
5-6
-------
2410 23
SECTION 5
Area B. The Ra-226 detection at Area B is typical of Ra-226 concentrations
throughout OU 1.
Inorganics (iron, chromium, lead," manganese, and nickel) were detected in
groundwater above MCLs and MEGs at Area B. These detections are likely
associated with turbidity.
Area C. Three inorganic analytes ^calcium, mercury, and sodium) were detected
above background in Area C soil. These analytes were detected at estimated
concentrations except for calcium, whiehls considered to be an essential nutrient.
U-235, Th-234, and Ra-226 were detected in soil at concentrations above background
concentrations. These radionuclides are naturally occurring and their detection
above background levels is attributable "to natural differences in background and
analytical variability. The detectfonsl.af U-235 are suspect due to analytical
difficulties in identification and quantification.
Trace or estimated levels of VOCs aheTpesticides" were detected in groundwater
samples collected in 1993, but werlTp5tteported in 1994 samples. Inorganics
(aluminum, lead, and manganese) were detected in groundwater; however, as in the
case of other groundwater samples, me"c6ncentrations likely reflect natural variation
and the effect of sample turbidity. TfF2"32Tand U-234 were detected at background
in groundwater at Area C, Both of these radionuclides are naturally occurring.
Tritium was detected in one groundwater simple at a level approximately 100 times
lower than the drinking water standard.
Area D. Other than the detection of three pesticide compounds at or just above
background levels, no organic or inorplic contamination was detected in soils at
Area D. Ra-226 was the only radlohuclide detected in soil at Area D at a
concentration above background levels.
Aluminum, lead, and manganese were^ detected in Area D groundwater at
concentrations greater than MCLs and MEGs. However, the groundwater samples
were turbid. Th-230, U-234, and U-238~were detected above background levels in
1993, but not in 1994. These are naturally occurring radionuclides.
Area E, PAHs were detected below LAFB background levels in surface soil in the
drainage swale at Area E. The occurrence of these compounds is attributable to
non-point source runoff from the former operations at Area E. No other organic
contaminants were detected in soil at Area E. Lead, silver, and sodium were
W004953Q.080 7656-16
5-7
-------
2110 24
SECTION 5
detected above background concentrations in surface soil samples. In subsurface soil,
cadmium (in five samples), zinc (in three samples), and arsenic, cobalt, and lead were
detected above background values. The arsenic and lead detections were each
localized in a trench confirmatory sample. Their detection is not indicative of
widespread residual contamination.
U-235, Ra-226, Ra-228, Th-228, and Th-231 were detected above background levels
in Area E soils. These isotopes are naturally occurring and were present at
concentrations that slightly exceeded LAFB background concentrations.
Aluminum, chromium, lead, and manganese were detected in groundwater samples
at Area E at concentrations exceeding MCLs and MEGs. As with the other sites
throughout the OU, the concentrations of inorganics are assumed to reflect the effect
of turbidity in the samples. Th-230, U-234, and U-238 were detected in groundwater
in 1993 at estimated concentrations above background levels. In the 1994
groundwater sampling round, Th-228, Th-230, and Th-232 (estimated concentration)
were detected above background levels. These analytes are naturally occurring, and
their detection above background levels is attributable to analytical variability and
differences in natural background concentrations. Tritium was detected in one
groundwater sample at a level approximately 100 times lower than the drinking water
standard.
Area F. No organic compounds were detected in soils at Area F other than one
detection of a compound believed to be a laboratory contaminant. Pesticide
compounds were detected at concentrations below, or slightly exceeding, background
concentrations. The occurrence of these compounds is attributable to the routine
application of pesticides at LAFB. Arsenic, lead, and zinc were detected at
estimated concentrations and were slightly above background levels. Protactinium
(Pa)-234, Th-234, and U-235 were detected in soils at Area F. Th-234, Pa-234, and
U-235 are naturally occurring radionuclides. The U-235 result is suspect due to
analytical interferences.
No organic compounds were detected in groundwater at concentrations above MCLs
or MEGs at Area F. Two pesticide compounds were detected in the 1993 round of
sampling, but were not reported in 1994. Aluminum is the only inorganic analyte
detected above MCLs and MEGs in groundwater at Area F. In 1994, aluminum was
detected below the MEG in the same well. No radionuclides were detected above
background concentrations in groundwater at Area F.
W0049530 080 7656-16
5-8
-------
2410 25
SECTION 5
Area G. No VOCs were detected in surface soil. PAHs were detected in several
surface soil samples. Total PAH concentrations exceeded background levels at one
location at the head of a drainage swale that receives runoff from a paved parking
area, from Building 216 floor drains, and is located adjacent to and downslope from
the fuel pipeline and two fuel oil USTs. In general, inorganics, primarily barium,
lead, sodium, and zinc, were detected sightly above background concentrations in
several samples at Area G. Most of these samples showed detections of one or two
inorganic analytes. One sample, located at the head of the drainage ditch that
receives runoff from much of the site, contained 11 inorganic analytes above
background concentrations.
TCE and total xylenes were detected once at estimated concentrations in subsurface
soil. The concentration of TCE is nofiridicative of a potential source area. Total
xylenes in subsurface soil had been_de.tected in an area where fuel-related
contaminants had been detected by "field screening. No PCBs were found in
subsurface soils at Area G. One inorganic compound (sodium) was detected above
background levels.
Pa-234, Th-231, and U-235 were detected in soils at Area G. Th-234, U-235, and
Pa-234 are naturally occurring radionuclides. The U-235 result is questionable due
to interferences in quantitation and identification. Ra-226 is an abundant, naturally
occurring radionuclide and was detected in nearly all OU 1 samples.
In 1993, trichloroethene (TCE) was detected above its MCL and MEG in one
downgradient groundwater sample. However, in 1994, TCE concentrations in
groundwater were below regulatory limits. Several PAHs, indicative of fuel
contaminants, were detected at estimated concentrations in a downgradient
monitoring well location. Pesticides were detected at low, estimated concentrations
in the samples in 1993, and only in deep bedrock groundwater in 1994. The
occurrence of these compounds is attributable to the widespread application of
pesticides at LAFB.
U-234, U-235, Ra-226, Th-230, and Th-232 were detected in groundwater above
background concentrations. These isotopes are naturally occurring and were
detected sporadically during the groundwater sampling rounds. Their detection
above background levels is likely the result of natural background differences and
analytical variability. Tritium was detected in one groundwater sample at a level
approximately 100 times lower than the__drinking water standard.
W0049530.Q80 7656-16
5-9
-------
2410 26
SECTION 6
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Human health and ecological risk assessments were conducted to estimate the
probability and magnitude of potential adverse human health and environmental
effects from exposure to contaminants at OU 1. The risk assessments followed a
four-step process:
1) contaminant identification, which identified those hazardous substances that
were of significant concern; "~
2) exposure assessment, which identified actual or potential exposure pathways,
characterized potentially exposed populations and receptors, and determined
the magnitude of possible exposure;
3) toxicity assessment, which considered the types and severity of adverse health
effects associated with exposure to hazardous substances; and
4) risk characterization, which integrated the three earlier steps to estimate the
potential risks posed by hazardous substances at the site, including
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks.
The methodologies of the baseline hunjan.health and ecological risk assessment for
the site areas are discussed below, followed by a summary of the conclusions.
6.1 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT^ ,
For the purpose of the human health Jbaseline risk assessment, the areas within OU 1
were segregated as Area A and AreasJ3.through G. Area A is situated west of East
Loring Lake (see Figure 1-1) and is isolated from the remaining OU 1 areas, which
are located to the east of the lake. _The focus of the risk assessment was on both
non-radiological (i.e., chemical) and^radiological contaminants in soil, sediment,
surface water, and groundwater. During the initial evaluation of data, contaminants
of potential concern (CPCs) were identified. The rationale for exclusion of selected
compounds is included in Tables 6-1 andJ.-2. The CPCs were selected to represent
potential hazards based on toxicity, concentration, frequency of detection, mobility,
and persistence in the environment A_sumrnary of the health effects associated with
each CPC can be found in the RI Report (ABB-ES, 1995a).
W0049530.080 7656-16
6-1
-------
TABLE 6-1
NON-BAOIOLOQICAL ANALYTES OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOB HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
OPEHABLE UNIT 1 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
2410 27
Range of
SOU
Frequency
of
Detection
Minimum
Detected
Concentration
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
Mean
of all BaeK-
Samptes* around** MCL MES CPC?
Notes
Area A Surface Sol
l*fo-ar*e(bfl»l(mnJ
*g]
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS """ ""'
J.LA
00850
0)5
NOB
Anthracene
Benzo(a}Anthrac«ne
Benzo(s}Pyrene
BenzofbJO Fi uora nthe ne
CartiaZQte
Chrysane
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
tnefenoO ,2,3-c,d)Pyrene
Phenarithrene
Pyrene
03800 -
03800 -
03600 -
03600 -
03600 -
03600 -
03600 -
03600 -
03MO -
03800 -
03800 -
0*100
03900
04100
04100
04100
03600
03600
04100
04100
03600
03800
11
2/
1/
1/
_...1/
Z!
21
11
— - 1/
2/
SI
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0065
0047
0039
022
0056
0043
011
005
0049
009
0075
00650
01600
0099
022
0056
015
042
005
0049
038
088
015
0129
01613
033
0147
01243
02387
0145
0)447
021
01783
NOB
NDB
NOB
NOB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
Yes
Yes
Y»s
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Class1
Toxfoty Screening^
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
PESTICIDIS^FCBs
4,4 -DOE
4,4'-D0T
Aroclor-1260
Oiefdrin
EndosuKsn Suifate
Endrln
Endrin' Aldehyde
Endrln Ketone
Hethoxycntor
gamma-Ghlordane
00036 -
00360 -
00038 -
00036 -
0 0036 -
00038 -
00038 -
00180 -
00018 -
00036
00380
00041
00036
00041
00038
00041
00180
00021
3 /
2 /
11
...11
21
11
It
1,1
21
1!
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
00001
00003
0061
00008
00025
00002
00046
00005
00016
00009
00019
00035
0061
00008
00031
00002
00046
OOOOS
00028
00009
00009
00019
00327
00016
00025
00013
00028
OOOH
00045
0001
018
084
024
00002
00062
00003
00008
00030
NDB
NDB
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Toxicity Screening2
Toxicity Screening2
foxieity Screening2
Toxicity Screening*
Toxicity Screening2
Toxjeity Screening2
Toxicity Screening2
Toxicity Screening*
Toxicity Screening2
INORGANIC ANALYTES
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Catelum
Chfomtum
Cobalt
Copper
iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nlcke;
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Ztnc
Areas B-G- Surface Sou' (0-2 feel bqs
OS300 -
} (rag/kg)
10000
31
3!
11
a/
3f
at
31
3!
3!
3JL
31
31
3 /
3/
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
9800
42
191
O23
1560
202
69
125
18800
106
45SO
327
22
537
419
138
442
18100
62
386
023
2830
331
116
221
30200
234
7490
504
441
986
854
21
899
13933
537
304
0398
2127
279
987
1627
86167
182
6460
4297
35 37
831 8
5727
16 S?
65
25400
162
833
18
69700
569
185
656
47100
226
12700
1400
73
ZiOO
110
40
839
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NO
No
No
Yes
Background3
Background3
Background3
Background3
Background3, Essential Nutrient*
Background
Background3
Background3
Background3
State*
Background^ Esse
Background3
Background3
nlial Nutrient*
Background3, EssentW Nutrient1
Background3, Essential Nuinent*
Background3
SEM1VOLATIL1 ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Benzo(a) Ant hraoe ne
BenzoCa^Pyrene
Bensofb.kJFJuoranthene
Sutylbenzylphlhalate
Chrysene
Di-n-&uty£n*nalate
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyren«
B*5(2-ChtoroisoFjropyf) ether
bwa-EthylhexvOBhthalate
03800 -
03600 -
03600 -
03500 -
03600 -
03500 -
03600 -
03500-
03600-
03500 -
03500 -
04700
04700
04700
04700
04700
04700
04700
04700
04700
04700
04700
1 /
1 /
21
-,,„*,./,.
11
31
11
a/
11
21
10
a
a
10
10
to
10
10
10
10
10
011
0038
0059
0047
004
0043
0037
0048
0048
0076
0042
011
0038
0145
014
012
0043
0077
0048
0085
0076
0044
01925
01831
03459
01782
01785
01848
01579
01917
01809
018S6
01701
NDB
NOB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Toxicrty Screening2
Class1
Toxicrty Screening2
Class1
Class1
Class1
Toxierty Screening2
Toxicity Screening2
PGSTiCiDiS/PGBs
4,4'- ODD
4,4' -DDE
4,4'- DDT
Aldnn
Aroclor-1280
Oteldrln
SndosuBan I
Endostilfan II
Erjdosuffgn SMltate
£ndrtn
Endnrt Aldehyde
Heptachler
Heptachtor ipoxide
Methoxychlor
afcha-CMordane
delta-BHC
qamma-CNordsw
0 0036 -
0 0037 -
0 0036 -
00019 -
0 0360 -
0 0038 -
00019 -
0 0036 -
00036 -
00035 -
0003S -
00018 -
00018 -
00180 -
00019 -
00019 -
0001S -
00042
00042
00042
00025
00480
00048
00025
00048
00048
00048
00048
00025
00025
00250
00025
00025
00025
4/
7 /
71
1 /
4 /
5 /
. 2!
11
31
. 21
11
31
2!
21
21
a/
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
00002
00003
00015
00004
0009
00001
00001
00004
00005
00004
00005
00001
00002
00004
00006
00002
00015
0011
0014
0042
00004
01
OOOOS
00006
00004
00023
00007
00013
00001
00013
00005
0013
00002
001
00025
00033
00077
00010
00336
00013
00009
00019
00019
00017
00018
00009
00009
00084
00022
00009
00022
047
016
094
NDB
024
00002
NDB
NDB
00062
00003
00008
00002
00001
NDB
NDB
00002
NDB
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Y«
Class1
Class1
Toxierty Screening2
Toxicrty Screening2
Toxicrty Screening2
Toxicrty Screening2
Toxierty Screening2
Toxlctly Screening1
Toxicity Screening
Toxicity Screening2
Toxieity Screening2
Toxicity Screening*
Toxictty Value5
G \LAFB\OU1\RODYTAB6-1 WK1
6-2
11-AU8-95
-------
2410 28
TABLE 8-t
NON-RADIOLOGICAL ANALVTES OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNIT 1 RECORD OF DECISION
LOflING AIR FORCE BASE ..
Frequency Minimum Maximum Mean
Range ot ol Detected ~ ' Detected of all Back-
SQL: Detection Concentration Concentration Sanwles* Ground" MCL
MEG CPC? Notes
INOHGANIC ANALYTES
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium 024 - 12
CaEelym
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lea* 149 - 17
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury 011 - 014
Nickel
Potassium
Silver 085 - 16
Sodium 376 - 57
Vanadium
Zinc
10 f
10/
10/
4/
10 /
10 /
10 /
10/
10/
»/
10;
10/
2f
10 /
10 /
1/
• /
to?
to/
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
13900
37
236
03
659
Z44
52
39
18600
66
3460
24ft
012
122
495
12
572
182
348
20800
101
73
054
23500
339
161
383
32300
334
8950
SSI
28
465
1110
12
124
304
141
16655
8645
4S525
0471
519225
3141
11 85
20546 '
28455
20145
72815
82705
0317
37476
826 15
OE41S
8035
2314
81 11
25400
168
933
18
69700
569
185
ess
47100
228
12700
1400 -
017
73
a»oo
009
110
40
839
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NO
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Background'
Background*
Background3
Background3
Background5, Essential Nutnenl"
Background*
Background9
Background3
Background9
Stale5
Background5, essential Nutrient*
Background^
Background*
Background-1, Ess<
EssehMI Nutrient4
Background-*
jntlal Nutrient*
Areas B-S. Surface Soil Sample JSS-2BSO* (0-1 foetbgi) (ms/kg)
SEMrVOUCTLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
2-Methylnaphthalena
Anthracene
Fluoranthena
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1/1 36
1/1 ,25
1/1 31
1/1 10
1/1 12
1/1 82
36
25
31
10
12
82
38
25
31
10
12
82
NOB
NDB
NDB -
NOB
NOB
NOB
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Class'
Class1
Class'
Class1
Class1
PESTlciDES/PCBs (ma/kg)
4,4'— DDT
AWrtn
Endosulfan 1
Endosulfanll
EmSosunan Sutlate
Indrin
Endnn Ketone
HeotachlorEcoxIde
alpha-ChlorElanft
t>eta-BHC
deRa-BHC
gamma-BHC (LiRdane)
gamma-Chlordane
1/1 0021
1 / 1 00036
1 / 1 00013
1 / 1 012
1 / 1 0024
1 / 1 00027
1 / 1 00052
1 / 1 0011
1 / 1 00024
1 / 1 0024
1 / 1 0011
1 / 1 0024
1 / 1 00044
orai
00038
00013
012
0024
00027
00052
0011
00024
0024
0011
0024
00044
0021
00036
00013
012
0024
00027
00052
0011
00024
0024
0011
0024
00044
084 -
NOB
NOB
NDB
00082
00003
0003
00001
NDB
00002
00002
NOB
ND8
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yas
Yes
Yas
Yes
Yes
Yes
Toxioty Screening2
Toxfcity Screening2
Toxtefty Screening*
Toxtelty Screening1
Toxiclty Screening"*
Class^ Toxfcity Value0
INORGANIC ANALYTSS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Co ban
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
1 / 1 22000
1/1 48
1/1 157
1/1 11 8
1 / 1 10700
1/1 81 4
1/1 " ""193
1/1 790
1 / 1 34400
1/1 493
1 / 1 13500
1 / 1 984
1/1 22
1 / 1 6§5
1 / 1 2170
1/1 139
1/1 683
1 / 1 1Z40
22000
48
157
118
10700
814
193
790
34400
493
13500
984
22
895
2170
139
683
- 1240
22000
48
157
118
10700
814
193
79O
34400
493
13500
984
22
695
2170
138
683
1240
25400
182
933
031
69700
869
185
556
47100
226
12700
1400
017
73
2SOO
110
40
83S
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
- Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
- Yes
Yes
Background3
Background*
Background3, Esaent&f Nutrient*
Background3
Background3
State*
Essenflal Nutrtent*
Background^
Background3
Background5, Essential Nutrient*
Essential Nutrtenf
a \LAFROU1\ROO\TAB 6-1 WK1
6-3
11-Aug-95
-------
2410
23
TABLE 8-1
NON-RADIOLOGICAL ANALYTE8 OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNIT 1 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FOHCE BASE
Frequency Minimum Maximum Mean
Range ol ol Detected Detected of all Back-
MEG CPC?
Notes
Arass B—G Subnurface SrelE*{0^10feetbgsHfi)g/*i™n-J>utylphthalate
F luoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
b&f2~£thylhaxyQpHthalate
038 -
038 -
036 -
035 -
o'le" "-
035 -
OSS-
OSS -
036 -
035 -
035 -
047
047
047
047
047
047
047
047
047
047
047
1 /
1 1
2/
3/
2/
•J I
3!
31
2 l
21
20
20
21
21
21
21
21
21
13
21
011
0038
0058
0047
004
0043
0037
0048
0049
0078
0042
011
0038
014S
014
012
0043
0077
0048
008S
0078
0044
019
0186
0363
0178
01S4
0187
0174
019
0175
0184
018
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NOB
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Toxicdy Screening , Frequency
Toxlcity Sereeninq'*, Frequency
ToxicEty Screening*
Toxicity Screening*
Toxtcity Screening*
Frequency7
toxteKy Screening*
Toxicity Screening, Frequency7
Toxicity Screening*
Frequency7
Toxlcity Screening*
PESTICID6S;PCBs
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-ODS
4.4'-DDT
Aldrm
Afoclor— 12SO
Dieldnn
indosulfan )
EndosuManll
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrm
Endrin Aldehyde
Heptachtor
Heptachlor Ep oxide
Metboxychfor
alpba-Crilofdarie
delta- BHC
gamma-Chlordane
00036 -
00036 -
0 0036 -
0001* -
0036 -
00038 -
00018 -
00038 -
00038 -
0003S -
00035 -
00018 -
00018 -
0018 -
00018 -
00018 -
00018 -
0019
0019
0019
00098
019
0019
00098
0019
0019
0019
0010
00098
o trass
009S
00098
00098
00098
41
71
1 /
41
91
2i
1 /
3 /
21
1 /
3/
2 /
2/
31
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
00002
00003
00015
00004
0009
00001
00001
00004
00005
00004
00005
00001
00002
00004
00006
00002
00015
0011
0014
0042
00004
01
00006
00006
00004
00023
00007
00013
00001
00013
00059
0013
00002
001
00025
00029
OOOS
00012
00294
00019
00011
00022
00022
00021
00022
00011
00011
00104
00017
00011
00017
047
016
094
ND8
024
00002
NDi
NDB
00062
00003
00008
00002
00001
NOS
NOB
00002
NOB
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
He
No
No
No
No
No
No
Toxlcfty Screening*
Toxlcrtv Screening"*
Toxlcity Screening2
Frequency
Toxlchy Screening*
Toxlcity Screening*
Toxidty Screening*. Frequency'
Toxlcity Screening*
Toxicttv Screening2
Toxicity Screening2
Toxicity Screening, Frequency7
Toxtcity Screening2
Toxlcity Screening2
Toxlclty Screening*
Toxlcity Value6
Toxicity Screening*
INORGANIC ANALYTES
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cateium
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Polassium
Uranium (total U-234, U-235, U-233}
Zinc
78 -
50 -
024 -
1 1 -
2000 -
20 -
136 -
011 -
2000 -
376 ~
20
50
2
2
2000
20
17
02
2000
2000
44 /
11
42 /
"SI
at
14 /
44 /
41 /
44 /
44 /
.21.
44 /
22?
li
10/
*t
44 1
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
3
44
3900
30
36
03
2
esa
52
18800
66
3460
248
012
122
485
572
1 94
348
23000
30
80
085
3
23500
120
47000
270
11000
1070
26
70
3000
128
245
80
18408
89
552
0852
1
3486
13
337SS
202
79S5
651
0148
42
1190
729
214
943
25400
NDB
933
1 8
021
S9700
185
47100
226
12700
1400
017
73
2900
rio -
3897
839 -
No
No
- No"
No
No
No
I No"
- No"
— Yes
No
No
No
No
No
- No"
No
- No"
BacKorouna
Frequency7
Backqrourtif9
Backqround3
Toxlcfty Screening*
Background*, Essential Nutrient*"
Toxicity Screening*
Background5
State-
Background*, Essential Nutrient*
Background3
Frequency*
Background3
Essential Nutrient*
Essenfcal Nutrient*
Toxlcrty Screening2
Background3
G \LAFB\OU1\ROD\TAB 6-1 WK1
6-4
11-Aug-95
-------
410 30
TABLE B-1
NON-RADIOLOGICAL ANALYTES OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
OPEBABIE UNIT 1 RECORD OF DECISION
LORINQ AIR FORCE BASE
Range of
SOU
Frequency
of
Detection
Minimum
Detected ~
_ Maximum
Detected
ri_ Concentration
Mean
of nil
Samples*
Back-
Ground" MCL
MEG CPC7 Notes
Area A 1994 Breunawater* (mam
aCMIVOlATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNOS
Phenol
1/1
No Toxldty Screening1
INORGANIC
Atyminum
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
t 1 1 IS
/ 1 00219
/ 1 110
/ 1 0311
/ 1 "00254
/ 1 431
/ 1 O0022
/ 1 774
/ 1 . .0.174
j 1 0173
/ 1 0883
/ 1 785
/ 1 0139
1 16
00219
110
0311
00254
431
00022
774
0174
0173
0083
765
0139
119
00218
110
0311
00254
431
00022
7T4
01T4
0173
0083
785
0139
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
005 #
2
—
01
1ST
03*
O015T
-
005*
01
—
-
S*
143
1 S
—
01
™
-
002
-
02
01S
—
~
-
No
No
No
Ye*
No
Yes
No
NO
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Toxldty Value*
ToxWy Screening
Essential Nutrient*
ToxteHv Screening*
Siate%
Essential Nutrient*
Essential Nutrient*
Essential Nutrient*
Toxldty Screening*
Area A 1999aTOumtw«tar*(reitg.^
VOLA MLB ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Total XyHnej_
.I../ 1.
0001
0001
0001
NA
10
06 No Toxkaty screening2
Endosulfan Sutf&te
ErvdrinAldnhyde
Heptaehlof
INOHtsANIC ANALY EkJs
Aluminum
ArsenK
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
I
t
f
I 1
1
f
1 1
/
I
!
t
i
i
/
f
t
00000009
0000001S
0000012
so
0008
128
"00733
00351
453
00135
"";"," V9S—
0683"
OOBB7
f 17
"" 9"54
0101
00000009
00000018
0000012
30
000»
128
00733
00351
453
00135
195
0683
00687
617
954
0101
00000009
00000018
0000012
30
0009
128
00733
00351
453
00135
195
0883
00687
817
954
0101
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
_
_
00004
005*
005
_
01
1 3T
03*
0015T
-
oos#
01
_
_
5*
_
_
OOOOOB
143
-
.
01
~
_
002
-
02
015
_
_
-
No
NO
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Y«(t
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Toxicfty Screening2
Toxtaty Screening*
Toxkaty Screening2
Toxteity Value6
Essential Nutrient*
Toxtcfty Screening
State5
Essential Nutrient*
EssenMI Nutrient4
EssarAal Nutrient4
Toxfclty Screening*
Areas B-f= 1994 Bedrock Groundwatsr' (m
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Toxfclty Value4
Toxielty Screening2
EssenttI Nutrient*
Toxidty Screening1
State?
Essential Nutrient*
Toxfclty Screening*
Toxldty Scraenlna*
Essential Nutnenr
Esserrtal Nutrient*
Toxldty Screening*
Toxidty Screening*
B \LAFBW3U1\ROD\TAB 6-1 WK1
6-5
11-AUO.-95
-------
TABLE 6-1
NON-RADIOLOGICAL ANALYTES OP POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR HUMAN HIALTH BISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNIT 1 RECORD OF DECISION
LORINQ AIR FORCE BASE
2410 31
Rang* 01
Frequency
of
Minimum Mnirnum Mem
Detected Detected o»«ll B*ck-
inneentratkm Concentration S»mak>«* Ground" M | MCL
MEQ CPC7
0001 - 0001
00005
14 No Toxtdty Screening'
Tfichloroelherie
0001 - 0001
SEMIVOLATILE OROANiC COMPOUNDS
NOB
0083 No ToxlellY Valu»°~
PESTICIDE SIPCSs
00000007
00000087
Ho Toxldty Screening*!
OOOOOt - 000001
00000007
00000006
00000011
0000004
000002 No Toxldty ScfMrtnfl' '
000002 — 000002
3/12
0000015 ' 00000052
0 000005S 00000043,
NOB 00004 OOOOOB No Toiiicfer Seceenlny
Hepl«chlorEpo»ido
000001 - 000001
41
00000011
00000044 0 0000342, _
004 01 No TprtdtY Screenln?"
000001 - 000001
00000003
0000001 0 0000047
2 No Toxldty Value" '
000001 - 000001
00000005
00000008 0!
LLJS
00054
oias
00042 HOB 005~
Barium
00162- 0135
80 3
IO127
2S7 1094639 163897
No Essensal Nutnerrt*
00057
QOtST 002 Ves Smei'
Merroiy
00002 - 00002
00185
178
00458
318
T PIS No Toxldty8creenlna!_
Potass lorn
176 -
176
10; 12
1066?9
INOR6AN1CANALYT6S
'005» 143 No Texldty Value*!;
1 / 1
000036
108
Caldum
Hf,
01
01 Yes
Copper,,
547
NA 030
287
361
887
No Eaaenlial Nirtfien
No Toxgilv So
6 \LAF8iOUWOD\mB 6-1 WK1
6-6
11-Ay§-95
-------
2410 32
TABLE 6-1
NON-RADIOLOGICAL ANALYTES OP POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNIT \ RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
Frequency Minimum Maximum
Range of of Detected Detected
SQLs Detection Concentration" Concentration
Mean
of all Back-
SamDles* ©round**
MCL
MEG
CPC?
Notes
-,-,., -r -r^-Tr-J
Areas B— F, i 99s Overburden Grournlwtter* &roa7L)
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Tetrachlo roet hene
Toluene
Total Xylenes
1 /
1 1
1 /
1
1
1
0003
0001
0003
0003
0001
0003
0003
0001
0003
NA
NA
NA
0005
1
10
0003
1 4
06
NO
No
No
Toxlcfty Screening*
Toxletty Screening*
Toxicity Screening*
SEMWOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
4-Nitfopherwl
1 f
1
0002
0002
0002
NA
-
0083
No
Toxtaty Value"
PESTICIDES/PCEs
gamma— BHC ILIridane}
1 /
1
00000015
00000015
00000015
NA
00002
00002
No
Toxlcity Screening2
INORGANIC ANALYTES
Aiuminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
M&gneslum
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
AreaQ 1884 era imdwater* img/LJ
1 /
1 /
1 /
1 /
1 /
1 /
1 /
1 1
!_£_
1 ;
i /
/
/
/
J_
-L
/
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
- --124
0011
0468
J_192
' ' '019
00922
0118
178
00881
582
343 '
000026
"* 0244
124
518
0108 "
0346
124
0011
04S8
192
019
COSS*-5
0118
178
00681
582
343
000026
0244
124
518
0108
0346
124
0011
0488
1S2
0 19
O0922
0118
176
00681
582
343
000026
0244
124
518
0103
0348
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
, NA.
NA
NA
NA
NA
005#
oos
2
-
01
—
13T
03*
001ST
—
005*
0002
01
~
-
—
5#
143
-
1 5
-
01
—
-
—
002
—
02
0002
015
-
-
-
-
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Toxldty Value*
Toxlcdy Screening-*
Essential Nutrient*
Toxlcity Screening2
Toxk*¥ Screening2
State*
Essential NuMent"
Toxicity Screening1*
Exceeds MCL and MEG'
Essential Nutrient*
Essential Nutrtent*
Toxlcity Screening2
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1,2- Dtchioroethen* (total)
2-Hexanone
Acetone
Benzene
Bromoforra
Chlorometrsane
Ethybenzene
Total Xylenes
Trichforoethene
0002 -
0002 -
0002 -
0002 -
0002 -
0002 -
0002 -
0002 -
0002 -
0002
0002
0004
0002
0002
0002
0002
0002
0002
a/
i j
i /
i /
1 /
i /
2J_
I/
2/
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
00007
"0011
0007
00002
00002
00002
"05002
00009
0002
0001
0011
0007
00002
00002
00002
00004
00009
0004
00009
000225
00027S
00008
00008
00008
000065
000092S
0002
NDB
NOB
ND8
NOB
NOB
NOB
NDB
NOB
NOB
™
—
—
0005
01
—
07
10
0005
-
—
-
0005
—
0003
07
06
0005
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Toxicity Screening2
Toxfcfty Value"
Toxicrty Screening*
Toxicrty Screening2
Toxtefrv Screening2
Toxicity Screening8
Toxteny Screening1
Toxleity Screening*
Toxlcity Screening2
SEMIVOLATILE OHGANIC COMPOUNDS
2-Mett>ylrwphtt»tene
Aeenaphthene
Anthracene
DiDerizoturan
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
001 -
001 -
001 -
001 -
001 -
001 -
001 -
001 -
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
1 /
___LL
i /
1 /
1 /
1 /
1 /
i /
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0002
0004
00009
0002
0005
0003
0008
0001
0002
0004
0001
0002
0005
0004
0007
ooot
000425
0004S75
OOOS9S7S
0004625
0005
0004625
0005375
0004
NOB
NOB
NOB
NOB
NDB
NOB
NOB
NDB
—
—
-
—
~
—
—
—
-
_
-
-
-
-
—
-
NO
No
No
N9
No
No
NO
No
Toxlertv Screening2
foxidtv Screening2
Toxicrty screening2
Toxlcity Screening*
Toxleriy Screertng'
Toxicrty Screening4
Toxldty Screening*
Toxlertv Screening3
PESTICIDES/PCBs
AWrtn
indosulfan Sulfate
Endfin Aldehyde
Hejstaehlor
alpha-BHC
0 000005 -
000001 -
000001 -
0000005 -
0000005 -
0000005
000001
000001
0000005
0000005
1 /
1 /
1 1
1 /
1 /
4
4
4
4
4
0000008
0"00(»15
b 00001 e"
0000011
0000007
0000006
0000018
0000018
0 00001 S
0000007
0 000002836
000000825
0000006625
0 00000512S
0000003063
NDB
NOB
NDB
NDB
NDB
-
-
—
00004
—
-
-
-
000008
-
Yes
No
No
No
No
Toxicity Sereenfrig2
Toxtety Screening2
Toxlcity Screenlnq3
Toxldty Scfsenlna2
INORSANICS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Bamim
Calcium
Chromium
Cooper
iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
00015 -
00074 -
00088 -
00007 -
00015
00074
00085
00007
4 /
21
4 /
4/
1 I
1 /
4 /
31
4 /
4 /
4 !
4 (
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0323
00052
00104
53
00156
00134
0228
000098
476
00099
0418
33E
318
00058
0112
148
00156
00134
987
00038
126
028
23
825
209075
0003025
00592375
100176
OOOB878
0005437S
384S75
000202
71975
00948
6379
2818625
0145
NDB
00638
183897
NDB
NDB
0313
NDB
2291
00248
0314
IB 213
005*
005
2
—
01
1ST
03*
0015T
-
005*
-
-
143
-
1 5
-
01
-
-.
002
-
02
-
-
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Toxioty Value*
Essential Nutrient*
Toscidty ScreenSrKi2
State5
Essential Nutrwnf
Essential Nutrient*
Essential Nutrient*
G\LAf=B\aU1\ROD\TAB6-
6»7
11-Aug-M
-------
TABLE 8-1
NON-RADIOLOGICAL ANALYTES OP POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR HUMAN HtALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNIT 1 RECORD OF DECISION
LORIN0 AIR FORCE BASE
2410 33
Frequency
Range of of
SQLs Detection
Minimum Maximum
Detoctod Detected
Concentration Concentration
Mean
o) all Back -
Samoles* Ground**
MCL
MEG
CPC' Note*
Ares 3 IBS 3 Qroundwster* Cmg/D
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
2-Hexanone
Chlorofoan
Ethy fcenzene
Toluene
Total Xytenes
TrlchloroBthane
ds~1,£-Dlehloroethen9
0001 -
0001 -
0001 -
0001 -
0001 -
0001 -
0001
0001
0001
0001
0001
0001
1 /
I/
"27"
1 /
2/
__!£.
2/
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
0032
0001
00008
00008
0002
0001
0001
0032
0001
0001
00008
0003
0008
0002
0032
0000825
00008S75
0000575
0001825
00025
0001
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
-
01
07
1
10
OOOS
00?
-
-
07
1 4
06
0006
007
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yen
Toxldly Value6
Toxicity Screening2
Toxlefty Screening2
Toxlcrty Screening2
Toxicity Screening
Exceeds MCL and MEG'
Class1
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
2-M«thylnaphtha[ene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
bl${2-Ethylhexyl)phthaiate
001 -
001 -
001 -
001 -
001 -
O024 -
001
001
001
001
001
0046
2/
1 /
1 /
1 /
1 /
1 ;
4
4
4
4
4
4
0002
0005
0007
0005
0012
015
0008
OOOS
0007
0005
0013
018
0005
000512S
00055
0005
0 008875
005
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
-
~
-
—
-
OOOS
-
—
-
—
-
0025
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
ToxJCitv Screening*
" oxicity Scree nina2
Toxicity Screening2
Toxkity Screening2
Toxicity Screening2
PESTICIDES^PCBs
Aldnn
Dletdrin
Endosutfan II
EnoVirtAMehyde
Heptachlor
alpha-BKC
a^ha-Chlordane
delta-BKC
gamma-SHC {Undane)
cjamnwi-Chlordane
000001 -
000002 -
000002 -
000002-
000001 -
000001 -
000001 -
000001 -
000001 -
000001 -
000001
000002
000002
oooooa
000001
000001
000001
000001
000001
oooooi
2/
2!
i /
1 /
1 /
1 /
1 ;
21
21
1 1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
00000019
0000001
00000013
00000025
00000024
00000015
00000025
00000021
00000007
00000061
00000023
00000018
0000001 a
00000025
00000024
00000015
00000025
0 0000081
00000029
o oooooei
0 000003937
0 000006825
0000008912
0000008088
000000435
000000*125
0000004687
0000004662
0000003937
0000085137
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NOB
-
-
-
™
00004
-
O002
-
00002
0002
-
000002
-
-
000008
—
000027
-
00002
000027
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Toxicity Screening2
Toxiraiy Screening2
Toxicity Screening1
oxidty Screening2
Toxicity Screening2
oxidtv Screening2
Toxicity Screening
oxtoty value*
Toxicity Screening1
Toxicity Screening3
INOHQANiC ANALYTES
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Galdum
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
MISCELLANEOUS PARAMETERS
Low Detection Limit Vinyl Chloride
00052 -
0145 -
00136 -
00112 -
0002 -
00142 -
00001 -
00052
0145
001 36
00112
0002
00142
00001
41
1 1
4 l
41
1 1
21
3 /
_JU_
4/
__LL
4/
1 /
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1 15
00064
00289
385
00112
00165
0012$
0489
00025
1 14
00139
00173
221
485
00001
327
00098
016
170
00212
00165
00173
183
00202
145
0455
00185
155
582
00001
1365125
0 003975
00778125
917
0015125
00087
00094375
1052475
0008175
9735
02761
00008
572625
2228
00000825
01450
NDB
00839
1838970
NDB
NDB
NDB
03130
NDB
228100
00249
NDB
03140
152130
NOB
005*
005
2
-
01
-
13T
03#
0015T
-
005*
01
—
-
0002
1 48
-
15
—
01
-
—
—
002
-
02
015
—
-
000015
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Ves
Ves
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Toxicity Value*
Essentet Nutrient*
Toxiaty Screening*
Toxlefty Screening'*
State*
Essential Nutrient*
Toxicny Screening2
Essential Nulnerir
Essential Nutrient4
Class1
Areas 1992 Groundwataf* (m^/Li , ,
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1 ,2-OfcMoroMhene (total)
Acetone
Ethytoenzene
Total Xylenes
Trichloroethene
1 /
. ! ./_
1 /
1 /
1 /
1
1
1
1
1
0005
0018
0001
0003
0002
0005
0018
0001
0003
0002
0005
0016
0001
0003
0002
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
NDB
-
-
07
10
0005
-
-
07
06
0005
Yes
Yes
Y«s
Ves
Yes
iNOBGANIC ANALYTES
Uranium [total U-234, U-23S, U-238)
1 /
1
1 1S7
1 187
1187
NDB
20
-
Ves
Q \LAFB\OU1\ROO\TABS-1 WK1
6-8
11-Aug-95
-------
TABLE 8-1
NON-RADIOLOGICAL ANALWES OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNIT 1 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
34
Range of
SQLs
Frequency Mfrtoium'"""" Maximum Mean
of Detected Detected of sill Back-
Detection Concentration Concentration Samples* Gfound**
MEG CPC7
Area A: Surface Waler j
PESTICiDES/PCBa
QOOD0011
INORGANIC ANALYTES
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
1/1 526
1 / 1 00123
1 / 1 04«6
1/1 285 ...
1 / 1 00453
1/1 - -43
526
00123
0486
285
00453
43
S26
00123
0486
285
00453
43
67200
2?
961
S2SO
62 S
6520
NO
Yes
No
No
NO
No
Background*,
Background3
Background9,
Background9
Background3,
Essential Nutrient*
Essential Nutrtenf
Essential Nutrient"
Area A* Sediment (ma/ka)
SEMWOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
2-Methytoheixjl
Aeenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzol a) Arrth raoene
Benzo{a)Pyrene
Berao(b,kJFIuorentherie
6enzo[g,h,i)perylena
Camazole
Chrysene
Dibenzofuran
Fluofanthene
Fluorene
lndenon,2,3— e,d)Pyrens
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
PESTICIDES/FCBS
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aldrm
Aroclor-1254
Aroetor-1280
Diektnn
EndosuNan Sulfate
Endrirs
ErKJrin Aldehyde
Heptachlor Epoxlde
Methoxychlor
alpha -Chtofdane
delta-BHC
qamma-Chlordane
O4
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
00052
00021
0045
0052
00045
0004
0004
00052
0002
0021
00027
00021
O0027
046
OS!
051
046
OS1
OS1
051
04
081
04
051
051
04
00052
00033
0064
0052
00052
0004
00084
00052
00027
0027
00033
- 0 0083
00033
2/3
1/ 3
1 / 3
21 3
M a
a/ a
1 / 3
1/3
3/ 3
1/3
3/ 3
1/3
1/3
3/ 3
3/ 3
2/ 3
31 3
1/ 3
1 / 3
2! 3
2/3
3/ 3
21 3
£/ 3
1/3 ~
I/ 3
1/3
1/3
1/3
0097
016
021
0072
038
0047
013
02
0048
0072
0091
011
021
0063
0069
00007
00005
00051
022
014 "
00003
ooole"
00004
00038
~ OD'004 ' ' '
0002
00016
00004
00011
013
016
021
047
036
0«7
013
02
048
0072
13
011
021
084
072
0012
00018
00051
022
074
00058
00046
00025
0014
00004
0002
0015
00004
0004
0147
0210
0227
0252
0277
0331
0200
0223
0225
0181
0549
0193
0227
0401
0315
00033
00013
0002
00598
02387
00033
00033
00018
00065
00009
00088
00038
00012
00010
- —
— —
~ _
_ —
- -
™ —
_ -.
— _
~ _
— -
_ —
™ -
— ~
— -
- -
0077
02 -
00003 - -
OSS
014
00007
0 0051
00008
00058
00008
00013
00006
NDB
00018
No
V9S
Yes
Y«s
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
NO
No
No
No
No
No
No
Toxicity Scresning*
Class'
Class1
"Class1
Toxicity Screening'
Class1
Toxicity Screening*
Class'
Class1
Class*
Class1
Toxicity Screening2
Toxfclty Screening'
Toxicity Screening2
Toxicity Screening*
Toxfclty Screening*
Toxhaty Screening8
Toxieity Screening2
Toxicity Screening*
Toxlefty Screening2
Toxicity Screening*
ToxJcity Value6
Toxicity Screening*
INORGANIC ANALYTES
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Coball
Copper
Iron
Lead
M&qneskum
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Uranium (total U-234, U-235, U-23B)
Vanadium
Zinc
12
012
892
16
018
892
31 3
3/3
3/3
I/ 3
3/ 3
3/3
3/ 3
31 3
8/ 3
3/3
3i a
3/3
2/ 3
3/3
at 3
SI 3
I/ 3
3/ 3
3/ 3
14700
76
-"" 461"
046
1830
308
11 «
432
85800
_: — 245
7280
- - -228
027
401
OSS
" 867
00078
197
789
18800
— W4"
150
046
7080
484
223
1200
58500
256
10000
5070
067
636
1140
138
005
" 546
655
16950
91667
982
06233
4878 3383
385833
162167
3719
388833333
844657
8580
2555
02383
49 55
8583333
1027333
NC
334
2863187
23000
167
114
0«3
17100
502 - -
278 -
438
42800
24 -
16800
2880
013 -
16 -
1140
848
NDB
394 -
120
NOTES
Class' - Although th» toxlcity screening ratto was less than 0 01 , this compound belongs to a class of compounds where «t least one compound wtthln this class has s
Toxicity Screening' - Chemicals with low ratios (i a , less than 0 01) are not considered chemicals ol potential concern (CPCs)
No
No
No
No
No
No
NO
Yes
Yes
Yas
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Background*
Background-*
Toxicity Screening*
Background*
Background', Essential Nutrtenf
Background*
Background*
State'
Background*, Essential Nutrient*
Toxiefty Screening2
Toxfclty Screening-*
Background3, Essential Nutrient"
Essential Nutrient"
Toxtctty Screening2
Toxicity Screening1
rtek ratto greater than 0 01
.
Essential Nutrient* - Analyte *s an essential human nutrient (magnesium, calcium, potassium, Godium) and Is not considered a CPC
State* - Tha Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDSP, 1 »80) guidance statesTetH"conceWrrtons less than 15 pgfl. in groundwater and 125 rag/Kg in soil are not evaluated quantlta*»V
Toxicity Value" - Compound cannot b« evaluated qyantttively because toxlcity values ate not available
Frequency' - Frequency of detection B less than 5 percent
Exceeds MCL/MEG* — Maximum concentration te greater than MCL and/or MEG _ _^
T - Action Level ~
* - it the mean exceeds the maximum concentration, only the ni&xlrttum concentration will be used in a quantitative evaluation
*» - Background forpesticides/PCBs provided tor Information only Concentrations of pastEldes/PCBs were not screened against tMckgrountt concentrations
# - Secondary Standard ~ " ~~™~"
SQL - Sample Quantdatkm Limit
MCI - Maximum Contaminant Level, DrlnMng Water Regulations and Health Advisories, U S Environmental protection Agency Ofliee of Water, May 1995
MEG - MaximumExposureauidellne,MalneDepaitmento1MumanServk»s,September1992
mg — milligram
kg - kilogram
L - liter
pg - mieragram fJA - Background aroundwater concentrations are not available lor overburden wells
E>gs - below ground surface NDB - Background not determined
NO - mtan not calculated
- - = No MCI or MEG available ~. ^_ ~
6-9
11-Aug-95
-------
2410 35
TABLE 6-2
SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL ISOTOPES FOR HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNIT 1 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
Minimum Maximum
Frequency Detected Detected
Radiological Range of of Concert- Concert— Back"
Analvte SQLs Detection iration tration Ground MCL MEG CPC? '
Notes
SURFACE SOIL (6-2 feet): AREA A c
QAMMA SPECTROSCOPY -1 -Hour Counts (pCi/g)
Amerioium-241 0138 -0155 1 / 3
Radium -226 700 -700 2/3
SURFACE SOIL (fli-2feet): ARMAS B~G 6
GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY - 1 -Hour Counts (pCi/g)
R«dium-226 07 -1 41 31 9
0577
1 44
1 86
0577
1 89
267
0081
094
094
- Yes
Yes
Yes
SUBSURFACE SOIL (0-10 feet): AREA A •
GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY - 1 -Hour Counts fpCi/g)
Amencium-241 0138 -0155 1 / 3
Radium -226 700 -700 2/3
0577
1 44
0577
1 89
0081
094
Yes
- Yes
SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES (0-10 feet); AREAS B-G c
GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY - 1 -Hour Counts (pCi/a)
Radium -226 0066-141 49/61
Radium -228 0172-0.192 42/46
0246
0,668
2.67
1 11
094
095
Yes
Yes
ALPHA SPECTROSCOPY (pCi/g)
Plutenmm-239/240 0013-007 4/46
Protactinium -234 46 / 46
Thorium-227 0015-021 25/46
Thorium -228 46 / 46
Thorium -230 0676-0941 31/46
Thorium -231 002-01 30/46
Thorium -232 46 / 46
Thonum-234 46 / 46
Uranium -234 46 / 46
Uranium -235 002-0,1 30/46
Uranium -238 46 / 46
COMPOSITE SAMPLES (0-14 feet): AREAS B-G s
Radium-226 0901-108 8/14
002
O.S2
0018
0838
061
001
0804
052
047
0.01
052
0938
0034
083
009
1 34
1 703
008
1 227
083
1 38
008
083
1 94
029
1.3
1 6
1.2
1 4
005
1 1
1.3
1 4
005
1.3
094
No
No
No
- Yes
Yes
Yes
- Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Background
Background2
Background2
Background2
Background2
Background^
GROUND WATER: AREA A, 1994 "
GROSS BETA ftjCW.) 1 / 1
TRITIUM (pCi/L) 1 / 1
18
538
18
538
459 50
NDB 20000
NA No
NA Yes
Below MCL3
Below MCL3
GROUNDWATER: AREA A, 1993 *
GROSS ALPHA (pCi/L) 1 / 1
GROSS BETA (pCi/L) 1 / 1
ALPHA SP1CTROSCOPY tpCi/L)
Thorium -230 1/1
Uranium-234 1 / 1
Uramum-238 1/1
24
34
21
2
1 86
24
34
21
2
1 86
1655 15
459 50
0 625 NA
1 096
0743
NA Y«s
NA No
NA Yes
NA Yes
NA Yes
Exceeds MCL4
Below MCL4
G \LAFB\OU1 \ROD\TAB 2 WK1
6-1
-------
2410 36
TABiEe-2
SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL ISOTOPES FOR HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNIT 1 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
Radiological
Analyte
Range of
SQLs
Frequency
of
Detection
Minimum
Detected
"Cenein— '
ballon
Maximum
Detected
Concen-
tration
Sack-
Ground
MCL
MEG
CPC?1
Notes
GRQUNDWATER: ABEAS B-G. 18&4
QROSS ALPHA (pCi/l)
1 -
38
7 / 16
61
20,91
15
NA Yes Exceeds MCL4
~NA YesExceeds MCL4
GROSS BETA (pCi/L)
3 -
12/ 16
S3
50
TRITIUM (pCi/L)
400 -
400
3/16
400"
497
NDB 20000
NA
Yes Balow MCL3
EPA METHOD 9320 (PC|/L)
Radium—226
05 -
0,5
3/ 4
0.69
1 37
1 767
S NA No Background2, Betow MCL3
ALPHA SPECTRQ5COPY (pCi/L)
Protactinium -234
Thorium -228
Thorium-230
Thorium-232
Thorium ~234
005 -
0.14 -
005 -
0,4
0.14
005
4/
1 /
3/
3/
4/
4
4
4
4
4
007
1 28
-- 0.42
r-oTBT
• DU7"~~
033
1 69
1,78
1 37
033
0376
0241
1,159
0.05
0376
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Background2
Background2
Uranium—234
012
0,6
0,541
NA Yes
Uranium-238
4/ 4
007
038
0376
NA Yes
GROUNDWATER: AREAS B-G. 1893
GROSS_ALPHA (pCi/L)
16 / 16
1 2
50
20.91
Is NA Yes Exceeds MCL4
GROSS BETA (pCi/L)
3 -
12
9/16
~9"3
52
6
50 NA Yes Exceeds MCL4
EPA METHOD 9320 (pCi/L)
Radium-226
04 -
1 1
1 / 7
1.6
1,6
1 767
5 NA No BMkground2,BeJowMCL3
ALPHA SPECTROSCQPY (pCi/L)
Thorium-230
71 7
0.9
6.3
1,159
NA NA Yes
Uranium-234
06 -
06
77 7
07
865
054
NA Yes
Uranium-238
065 -
065
6 / 7
062
673
0376
NA Yes
GR OUND WATER: AREAS B-G, 1S92 9
GROSS BETA
2 -
1 / 5
"1419
1419
50 NA No Below MCL3
ALPHA-SCAN
Radium-226
0.5 -
05
._?./..
"132
2,01
1.767
NA Yes
Uranium-234
1 -
4/ 5
"3,8
1078
054
NA Yes
Uranium—235
1 -
4/ 5
1 15
4.56
0.05
NA Yes
Uranium—238
1 -
1/ 5
3.04
304
0376
NA Yes
SURFACE WATER: AREA A and OU 13"
GROSS ALPHA (pCi/y
1 -
26
1 / 5
2,8
NC
15 NA No Below MCLS
SROSS BETA (pCi/L)
3 -
3 / 5
61
18
51
50
~NA No Below MCL3
SEDIMENT; AREA A'
GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY -1 -Hour Counts (pQ/g)
Neptunium—237
0.45 -
0.5
1 / 3
0.509
0509
NC
- Yes
Radium-226
07 -
1 28
1 / 3
243
243
3,1 e
- Yes
Thorium-234
078 -
1,48
1 / 3
209
209
NC
Yes
Uranium-235
0 289 - 0 316
1 / 3
011
NC
- Y«s
G \LAFB\OU1 SRQDYTAB 2 WK1
— 6-11
11-Aug-9
-------
2410 37
TABLE 6-2
SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL ISOTOPES FOR HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNIT 1 RECORD OF DECISION
LORTNG AIR FORCE BASE
Radiological
Range of
SOLE
Frequency
of
Dotection
Minimum Maximum
Detected Detected
Coneen- Conoen— Back—
tration tratlon around MCL MEG CPC? ' Notes
SEDIMENT; OU 13'
GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY -24-Hour Counts (pCi/g)
Radium -226
Thorium— 234
Uraniym— 235
037 -
00791 -
0485
00966
4/
1 /
Zl
4
4
4
0972
092
0112
1 51
092
0207
145
NC
NC
Yes
Yes
Yes
ALPHA SPECTROSGOPY fpCi/a)
Neptunium — 237
Uranium— 234
Uranium -238
0.007 -
0304 -
0335 -
0015
0531
0567
1 /
3 /
2/
4
4
4
0.072
0568
0704
0072
0733
0753
ND
NC
NC
Yes
Yes
Yes
SEDIMENT: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT «
ALPHA SPECTROSCOPY toCi/crt
Neptunium— 237
1 /
1
0033
0033
ND
Yes
-
NOTES
1 - For radiological analytes selected as OPCs each detection above background will be qunnBatl/eiy evaluated,
*hh (h» exception ol sross alpha and gross beta results In groundwater lor which toxfelty values are not available
2 - Detected eoncent&tion dQ9s not exceed associated background concentration
3 - Concentration of Isotope or gross radiation does not exceed tha associated MCL
4 - Coneantration of isotopo or gross radiation exceeds the associated MCL
5 - Highest 24-hour gamma spactroscopy resulttor Radium-Ms n sedimsnl gs - below ground surface
MJ - not detected
NA - no MCL/MEO available
— MCL/MEG not relevant for this medium
MD8 - not detected fr background
G \LAFB\OU1\ROO\TAB 2 WK1
6-12
1i-ftug-9
-------
2410 38
SECTION 6
Potential human health risks associated with exposure to the CPCs were estimated
quantitatively or qualitatively through the development of hypothetical exposure
pathways. These pathways were developed to reflect the potential for exposure to
hazardous substances based on present and potential future land uses. Current use
exposure scenarios included older child trespasser and groundskeeper. Future use
exposure scenarios included resident," construction worker, older child trespasser,
groundskeeper, commercial/industrial worker, and forestry worker.
For each pathway evaluated, an average and a reasonable maximum exposure (RME)
estimate was generated, corresponding to exposure to the average and the maximum
contaminant concentrations detected in_ that particular medium.
Excess lifetime cancer risks were determined for each exposure pathway by
multiplying the exposure level with the chemical-specific cancer factor. Cancer
potency factors have been developed by USEPA from epidemiological and animal
studies to reflect a conservative upper liound of the risk posed by potentially
carcinogenic compounds. That is, the true risk is unlikely to be greater than the
estimated risk. The resulting risk estimates are expressed in scientific notation as a
probability (e.g., IxlO"6 or one in a million) and indicate (using this example) that an
average individual is not likely to have greater that a one in a million chance of
developing cancer over a lifetime of site-related exposure to the compound at the
stated concentration. Current USEPA_ practice considers carcinogenic risks to be
additive when assessing exposure to a mixture of hazardous substances.
The hazard quotient (HQ) was also calculated for each pathway as a measure of the
potential for noncarcinogenic health effects. An HQ is calculated by dividing the
exposure level by the reference dose (RfD) or other suitable benchmark for
non-carcinogenic health effects for an individual compound. RFDs have been
developed by USEPA to protect sensitive individuals over the course of a lifetime
and they reflect a daily exposure level that is likely to be without an appreciable risk
of an adverse health effect. RfDs are derived from epidemioiogical or animal studies
and incorporate uncertainty factors to hejp ensure that adverse health effects will not
occur. The HQ is often expressed as a, single value (e.g., 0.3) indicating the ratio of
the stated exposure to the reference, dose value (in this example, the exposure as
characterized is approximately one third _of an acceptable exposure level for the given
compound). The HQ is only considered "additive for compounds that have the same
or similar toxic effect (e.g., the HQ for a compound known to produce liver damage
should not be added to a second compound whose toxic effect is kidney damage).
The sura is referred to as the hazard index (HI).
W004953Q.Q80 765646
6-13
-------
9/5 !
410 33
SECTION 6
The results of the human health risk assessment are summarized in Subsection 6.4,
6.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
Following a methodology similar to the human health risk assessment, the ecological
risk assessment evaluates potential ecological effects resulting from plant and wildlife
exposures to contaminants at OU 1. Ecological CPCs were selected for both non-
radiological and radiological analytes detected in surface soil, sediment, and surface
water. The rationale for exclusion of selected compounds are included in Tables 6-3
through 6-7.
Representative ecological receptor species were selected for the habitat associated
with OU 1. For Area A, five representative wildlife species were selected to
quantitatively evaluate the magnitude of potential ecological exposures that may
occur. The receptors include:
• short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda); small mammal, omnivore
* American woodcock (Scolopax minor)', small bird, omnivore
• maritime garter snake (Thamnophh sirtalis pallidula); reptile, omnivore
* red fox (Vulpes wipes); predatory mammal, carnivore
« barred owl (Strbc varia); predatory bird, carnivore
In addition, potential impacts to terrestrial plants and earthworms, representative of
potential exposure to other soil invertebrates, were also selected for risk evaluation.
Based on a habitat evaluation for Areas B through G, the following five
representative species were selected for the ecological exposure evaluation:
* meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus)\ small mammal, herbivore
» American robin (Turdus migratorius)', small bird, omnivore
• maritime garter snake; reptile, omnivore
• red fox; predatory mammal, carnivore
* American kestrel (Falco sparverius); predatory bird, carnivore
Five representative species were also selected to evaluate the risks associated with
potential exposure of wildlife to radiological contaminants in sediment, including:
WOW9530080 7656-16
6-14
-------
410
TABLE 6-3
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR WEARERS SUHFACrsOIL [a] ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNITI RECORD OF DECISION
LORINS AIR FORCE BASE
ANALYTe
SEMWOLATILES
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Bertzo (a) Anthracene
BercKj{a)Pyrerte
Berno(b,k}Fluofantiene
Garbazote
Chrysene
Fluorarrthefle
Ftuorene
Sndenojl&S-c.d^Yrene
PnenanShrene
Pyrene
Aroetor-1J>60
gamma- CMordane '
4,4'-ODE
4,4'-DOT
Dieidrin
Endosutfan Sulfate
Endnn
Endnn Aldehyde
Endnn Ketone
Mefrioxyehtor
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Arsenw
Banum
Beryllium
Catemm
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
CONCENTRATION _. , >„ I««|SPPMCY MAXIMUM
AVERAGE MAXIMUM '"'**" QF " " - BkCKQROOND
ftngfcaJM («9*fl> "*"x>**lBfECT«3iN CONCiKmATlON'fmstfkflHcl
01SO *
0.150 *
0,1"29^
OYJ61 *'
0,3:29 *"
0,147 *
0,124
0,837
0,1**
"o,f45 *
' Q.2JO
0.178
6'om
' 3(5,00?0 *
, 0.0009
0,0019 '
0,QQ<6 *
0,0025
0.0013*
0,0028
0.0014* '
0.0045 *
13,933
537
304
040*
2,127
27 S
997
183
26,167
16,2
S.460
430
354
831
573
186
' 65.0
0,OS5
8,065
6,{Ss
o'sps
13,218 ^
0.066
0,150
0,420
Q,QSO
0,048
o.aso
0,280
"ae^'o
>/00&9
0 0019"
O^OSS
0,0008
0,003i
O.OOJ32
0.0046
0,0055
00028
16,100
6,20
366
023
2,830
33.1
11,6
221
30,200_
23,'4
7,490
504
441
986
854
21 0
8®"
' "" 'f/3
•«*«•»** ^-f^- '"-- •*,**! "-
"iV"XS§^^§S$^:^§£sk'C>)S( '-
-------
TABLE 6-4
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR THE AREAS B-f SURFACE SOIL [a] ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNIT 1 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
2410 41
ANALYTE „
SEMIVOLATILES
Benzo(b,k)Fluoranthene
bts(2-Bhylhexyt)phthaiate
Chrysene
Fluorantrwne
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
PESTICIDES/PCBs
Aroclor-1260
delta ~BHC
4,4'~DOD
4,4'-ODE
4.4--ODT
Dieldnn
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endnfi
Endrm Aldehyde
Meptachtor Epexide
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zmc
CONCENTRATION
AVERAGE MAXIMUM
(maftg) M (tnqjlcg)
0.841 *
Q.145*
0172*
0,178*
0,1 88 »
0,174*
0,0191 *
G.000S *
Q.0012 *"
0,0024
0,0544
0.0016 *
0,0019*
0,0019*
0,00t7 *
0,0009 *
16,020
721
444
052
4,394
31 4
126
203
29,430
21.7
7,880
735
0,57
407
823
0,767
100
220
ess
0,082
0,044
0,054
0077
0,048
OOS7
0.0090
00002
D-
-------
TABLE 6-5 <• 86*
0,924 *
0,&12 *
O.S37"
0,023 * *
0,631
t,SS
2,16
t,49
0,0013
00480
0,0048
0,0026
0,0048
00032
0,OOJS
00038
0,0042
0,0127
0,0010 *
0,0009
0,0214
0,0055
o,oote
00018*
OOS2S
0,0008 *
0,0086
0,0(362*
18,075
587
61,8
054*
2,46
6,775
39>
11,9
149
28,633
97,7
7,953
597
042
401
1,053
740
31,6
271
"Hr--™** -
36,0 1 j S
25,0W " __ ' 1/6
v f <>\fj fs.^^^S'S^^'^s e^fe^ s ^'~ j ?"%r
0,110 "1/8
0.03S , 1/6
0,145 " " 1 / $
0076^ l^T'i.lD-.Ct
0,140' ^f^SCI*
0,120 ^»^**Y/5| v'
' 'oj4 -"^^^'-'-fj-f" '- - -
3,10 "^ "^X*/'^
10,0 "•„ "; i'/s
12,0 '' " t'/e
8.200 ^'-"'"^ffl^
0,0036 "'""I;"', a' fa
01000 '" ^'3 /;s
0,0240 " ""l / 6
v 0,0110 v ,,vsv!^»^rJ'-ifV ' ^
\tf,02405 ""'"""_ ""^"^J's"
0,01 3j5 f "?",^jCL& , .' „]:
o.oioij""^"' . s*yj!g"
0.46110 * ^ ,' Y"f§
0,0140* '""Z"^'! fS
0,0420'^ _ ^^^ff^'^'"
o,Qo64 " ', ' & IW
OOOJ3v WW,<^|^S,
0,1»0V '•£•<&%£&.£<• - '
0,0240 l^^y^T^' "
0,0(S7 ^ 2 / $
aoojs ^"^tTJf"" ' "
0,00^2 ~%"*'y/tf
0,5001 ""•'"*• "11$
00,110 "^ff^sfs "
00005 ' "™2""r5
22,000 ' 6!/ 6
8 60 ^ ^' 6 / 6
157 6 /S"
°30,,, , 1 ^,6,
1|,8 ' r ,tf.^3jfjl' '""'"* *
2^500 '^""^^*L6,
' ^ sii^v '^^^^s!?r v -
18,3" "'r^V^vV "
?90 l./XlJv-C®
34,400 *"" '"sTe
493 - - -- j ^- 4Ye
13,500 6 / 6
999 6/6
S.SO 2 / 6
695 " " '6/6
2,170 , , J / 6
139 " t3^z37lf"^
„ 68 3 / 7,7Z^T'"§'To
1,240 -'^---y-^-
MAXIMUM
iACKSROUNO
CONCENTRATION (mn/ko) M
'" C"' "* " ,SA
''NA
NA
NA
'NA
NA
" ' NA
"NA
NA
s , NA
NA
NA
s NA
NA
NA fd]
NA
NAM
NA
NA
NA
NA fd]
VNA [d]
I ' NA [d]
NA [d]
NA
NA
NA |d]
NA [d]
NA {d]
NA fd]
NA [d]
NA |d)
NA
25,400
16.2
$8.3
tso
"021
69,700
5^9
18,6
$5,$
47,100
2260
12,700
1,400
0,17
730
2,900
110
40,0
83,9
CPC f NOTES
Yes
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes s ,,
Yes
Ye*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No [ej
No [e]
Yes
No [e)
Yes
No (e,f)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No [e,f]
Yes "
No [f]
No [ej
Yes
No [e]
No [e,f]
No [fj
Yes
[ajBased on samples JSS-2680, JSS-2681, JSS-2682, JTB-2660, JTB-2680r3TB-2681, and JTB-2883
[bJAverage concentration is the arithmetic mean of all sample results with 1/2 ttfe SQL'iised for non-detects Some averages may exceed maximum
concentrations clue to elevated SQLs
|c]8ase-wide surface soil background concentrations
[d]Analyte has been detected in background samples, however, these concentrations are not being used to screen for CPCs
Consideration of background levels of pesticides will be discussed in the risk "uncertainty section
[eJMaxirnum concentration of analyte is below maximum surface soil background concentraton
[fJAnalyte is an essential nutnent, and is considered to be hazardous via tngestforfiffTfielerrestriat food web only at very high concentrations
•Average concentration exceeds maximum due to elevated SQLs
NA= not available
Shaded analytes are CPCs
11-Aug-85
6-17
Q \LAF8\OU1\ROD\TAB 5 WK1
-------
2410 43
TABLE 6-6
CHEMICALS OF CONCERN FOR THE AREA A (DRAINAGE DITCH) SURFACE WATER [a] ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNFT 1 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
ANALYTE
PESTICiDES/PCBs
Heptachlor
INORGANICS
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
DETECTEO FREQUENCY MAXIMUM SGREENMS
CONCENTRATION OF BACKGROUND BENCHMARK
(USA) OEISCTKJN CONCENTRATION (uaW M (U8/L)
00011 1 / 1
52,600 i / 1
12,3 1 / 1
486 1/1
2,860 1 / 1
453 1/1
4,300 1 / 1
NA(d) 0 0038
67,200 NA
27 020S
set ie
8,280 NA
626 112
8,520 85,049
CPC?
No
No
Yss
No
No
No
No
NOTES
(d)
!e.t)
fe)
Wl
[d.ej
14*1
NOTES
[a] Based on samples JSW-2080
[b] Bass-wide surface water baokflround concentrations
!e) Analyte has bo»n detected in background samples, however, these concentrations were not used to screen lor CPCs
Consideration of background levels of pesticides is discussed in the flsfc uncertainty section
[si Maximum concenttaton of analyte below seresnhg benchmark
le] Maximum concentration of analyte below maximum surface water background concentration
[f] Analyte is an essential nutrient and is not known to adversely Impact aquatic organisms except at very high concentrations
NA = Not available
Shaded snalytes are CFCs
11-Aug~95
6-18
G \LAFB\OU1\ROD\TAB 6-6 WK1
-------
410 44
TABLE 6-7
CHEMICALS OF CONCERN FOR THE ARBTA (DRAINAGE DITCH) SEDIMENT {•] ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNIT 1 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
CONCENTIWHO'N ' " » jfJllslllli!', < .. * >«^¥*^|0f*1 ^'
WiALYTE
SEMIVOLAT1LES
a-NMhylphenol
Acenaphihene
Anthracene
Benzo{o)Anthiacone
Senzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b,k)Fluoranthene
Benzo(g,M)perytene
Carbazola
Cftryseiw
Dlbenzoluran
Fftlownttwne
ftuoran
Ind8no(1 ,2,3-o,d)PyrenB
Plwnantirsne
Pyrww
PESTICtDES/PCBs
Atdrin
'ArocIot-1254
Aroelor-1260
delta-BHC
alpha-Chtordane
Bamma-Ch lordarw
'4,4'~ODE
4,4' -DDT
DieWrin
Endosulfan Sulfote
Endrin
En drtn Aldehyde
Heptaohlor Epoxide
Methoxychlor
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Total Organic Carbon
fma/kB)B»]
044? *
q.210*
0527*
0552
0,277
0308
0200*
0223*
0226
0161 *
0,649
0,193 *
0,227 *
0.4D1
0,316
0*020
OOS98
0,2387
0.0012 *
00036
00019
0,0033
0,0013
0*333
00033
00018
0,0065
00009*
00088*
18,950
917
962
082*
4,678
388
162
372
38,863
845
8,580
2,5SS
024
49,«
858
103
0,OS7*
334
286
3,400
(ma/kg) DETECTJON CONCENTF
0,130 l £7*3
0166 /' ''^t'f^ ' ,.
0,8W ^-tx^g's''—,
0,470 '' -^fiV^ . '
0360 lT3~
0870 * *"3"/^f
0130 ' r/"s
«200 " 'l /"a"
fl,4W , jv^gfg**" ' "
0 072 * ~T7~3
^ ' -\™SSw*vSSMgw™,v ^ ^ j^ ^
0,116 ' '" ',v",!:^^^rr< , ' v
0210 "^'ff..^
0940 " ilS3^Vs*'
0 720 " 3 f 9
DOOSI •' ^s^r^;^.
OS200 , .--^.-J^^^P^/^
6'?400 ' AX^gb®" *-
00004 " rrf
oaiMa " •J'Iffy*'- •-" -
00040 fj'3
oaiao ' * ' '-^"f5"!™"-'-
OOOIB 3~7 "a
D Q059 ^ It T'S **
0 0046 ' 0/3
00025 27 3
0,0140 " ""y/'S'l"", "
00004 .~Z3XIZ~~ '
0,0020 " ""f7'9~
-—<-
18,800 ""37^3
104 ,13 C3"
150 ' """'. 3t/"s"
048 1 / 3
7,060 " 3~A" *
48 4 ""3/3
223 " "tyff"*
1,200 ""^Ijf ^', s '
56jSOO _ ^ 3,'f 3
ass v"rfS^'
10,000 3/3
5,070 _ 8/;a'
0«7 2,-|J?%,,
S3 6 ¥ / 3*
1,140 """s'f'Q '"
136 3/3
oosi ' 1 }"V y '
w^ '< * *'w**Qg^&&>**'
6SS ^ff!>3'*"S'
' : •
3,400 'rvmfs
ATtON (mg^a) [o]
NA
NA
, NA" \'s
NA ""' "
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
m*
m y\
NA [f]
MA Jfl
NA
twrcfl
NA [f]
NA fl]
NA (f)
ws p]
NA V
NA (f)
NA [})
NA m
NA [(]
23,000
167
T14
063
17,100
502
278
44
42,600
240
16,800
2,690
o,|a
180
1,140
648
KA
39.4
120
NA
SCREENING
Oflflftfl}"
0,0«3
0018
00853
0261
0,43
4S
078
MA
0^84
058
06
0018
088
0,24
0,665
O002
0,09
0,005
0003
0,007
0007
OOOS
0007
-otai.
0,002
0003
0,003
0005
0005
NA
6
20
OS
NA
26
50
16
20,000
"31
NA
460
02
16
NA
NA
NA
«A
ISO
NA
CPC?
Yes
Yes
Y«s
Yss
No
No
No
Yea
Yes
No
Yes
YBS
No
YBS
Y*s
YBS
Yss
Yes"
No
Yes
No
Yss
No
Yes
Y«
No
Yss
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes,
Y«s
Yes
No
Y»s
Yes
Ye*
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
NA
NOTES
Wl
[dj
m
M
f
i4
-
,
[dj
(eg
M
[dj
WJ
w
m
PI
W)
[d.gj
m
M
(hi
[d,g]
td.g)
[g]
11-Aug-95
6-19
G.\LAFB\OU1\ROD\TAB 6-7 WK1
-------
MiO 45
TABLE 6-7
CHEMICALS OF CONCERN FOR THE AREA A (DRAINAGE DITCH) SEDIMENT [a] ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNIT 1 RECORD OF DECISION
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
NOTES
(a] Based on samples JDT-208D, JDT-2QBt and JSD-2060
{beverage concentration is the arithmetic mean of all sample results with 1/2 the SQL used for non—detects Some averages may exceed maximum
concentrations due to elevated SQLs
|o] Base-wide sediment background concentrations
fdj Maximum concentration of analvts below screening benchmark
[e] Analyta has been detected in background samples, however, these concentrations were not used to screen for CPCs
Consideration of background levels of pesticides Is discussed In the risk uncertainty section
if] Maximum concentration of analyte below maximum sediment background concentration
(g] Analyte Is an essential nutrient, and is not Known to adversely Impact aquatic organisms except at very high concentrations
£h] Analyte is a OPO for aquatic exposures only
*Average concentration exceeds maximum due to elevated SQLs
NA = Not available
Shaded analytes aro CFCs
11-Aug-95 5-20 G \LAFB\0U1\R0D\TAB6-7WK1
-------
2410 46
SECTION 6
* muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus); small mammal, herbivore
* belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon); medium-sized bird, piscivore
* maritime garter snake; reptile, omnivore
* great blue heron (Ardea herodias)', large bird, omnivore
* mink (Mustela vwo«); predatory mammal, omnivore
With the CPCs and receptors selected, the evaluation of exposure pathways, toxicity
of CPCs, and resulting risks followed an approach similar to that of the human health
risk assessment.
Results of the ecological risk assessment are summarized in Subsection 6.4.
6.3 UNCERTAINTY EVALUATION
Quantitative estimates of risk are based on numerous assumptions, which are
intended to be protective of human health and the environment (i.e., conservative).
The interpretation of risk estimates is subject to a number of uncertainties as a result
of the multiple layers of conservative assumptions inherent in risk assessments. As
such, risk estimates are not truly probabilistic estimates of risk, but are conditional
estimates, given a series of conservative assumptions about exposure and toxicity.
While it is true that there are some Uncertainties inherent in the risk assessment
methodology that might lead to an underestimation of true risks, most assumptions
bias the evaluation in the direction of overestimation of risk. This results in more
conservative clean-up criteria, more protective of human health and the environment
The possibility of underestimation of true risks may be caused by the exclusion of
exposure pathways from quantitative evaluation (i.e., ingestion of homegrown
produce from backyard garden plots) or through the exclusion of compounds from
the risk assessment through the CPC selection procedure. However, the CPC
selection procedure evaluated compounds that constituted more than 99 percent of
the risk; therefore it is unlikely that the risks will be underestimated by a substantial
amount.
Other sources of uncertainty that could cause overestimation of risks include the use
of purposive sampling (biased targeting dPfibt spots" or visible contamination); the
estimation of exposure concentrations by the use of maximum detections (while
assuming no degradation or dilution); the use of the 95 percent (or upper-bound 90
percent) exposure parameter values such as contact rate and exposure frequency and
W0049530.080 7656-16
6-21
-------
2iiO 47
SECTION 6
duration; the use of conservatively derived toxieity values such as RfDs (incorporating
multiple safety factors); and cancer slope factors, which are based on experimental
animal data used in a multi-stage model.
6.4 RISK ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS
Summaries of both human health and ecological risk assessments are presented in
the following paragraphs. The discussion begins with the radiological USTs and
waste disposal trenches and ends with conclusions for Area A and Areas B through
G.
Radiological USTs. Based on the UST data, analysis of confirmatory soil samples,
and downgradient groundwater quality, the USTs were not sources of radiological or
non-radiological contamination.
Waste Disposal Trenches. No human health radiological risks above regulatory
target risk levels were associated with the Trench G and E confirmatory soil samples
following the removal action.
Arsenic was detected above background concentrations in only one out of 18
confirmatory soil samples at Trench E. Based on this result, subsurface soil non-
radiological human health carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks were
predominantly attributable to arsenic in combined Areas B through G. However,
arsenic is not a documented contaminant associated with OU 1 strategic weapons
maintenance, nor was there widespread detection of this analyte. The single
detection of arsenic may be the result of rodenticide application at the former
Trench E location.
Area A Soils, Surface Water, and Sediments. No human health non-radiological risks
have been identified at Area A in soils, surface water, or sediments above the
regulatory target risk levels. No ecological radiological risks have been identified in
Area A soils and sediments.
Total maximum cancer risks associated with exposure to radionuclides detected in
soil above established background concentrations range from SxlO"4 to 9xlQ"6,
Maximum radiological risks identified for sediment (IxlO"5) are less than the
established background risks for that medium (2xlQ-5), These risks represent a
minimal incremental cancer risk above the LAFB background risks of 2xl04 to SxlO"6
W0049530.080 7656-16
6-22
-------
2410 48
SECTION 6
and are less than published total natural radiological background risks for the United
States of IxlO'2 to 3xlO'3 (Shleien, 1992).
A portion of the radiological human health risks is attributable to Am-241 associated
with a single surface soil sample adjacent to the former Area A radiological UST.
As discussed in Section 5.0, this data is suspect due to analytical uncertainties in
identifying and quantifying these radionuclides. To be conservative, this radionuclide
was included in the risk assessments. It constitutes only a minimal risk as compared
to total natural background levels for the United States (IxlO"2 to 3xlO"3).
Elevated human health risks from Ra-226 (maximum cancer risk of 2xl04) were also
associated with surface soils and one ditch sediment. Ra-226 is above established
1994 background levels at these locations. Ra-226 is ubiquitous at OU 1 and is
considered to be part of natural background; At LAFB background levels, naturally
occurring Ra-226 alone contributes a maximum cancer risk of 2X10"4. Significant
reduction of risk attributable to radioactive isotopes is not possible due to the high
levels of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes.
Analytical data for the surface water collected from the Area A drainage ditch were
evaluated, and only copper was detected at concentrations in excess of the aquatic
benchmarks. A review of the toxicologlcal^data for copper suggests that organisms
that would likely use this ephemeral Tiabitat (such as amphibians) would not be
impacted at the concentration reportedrThe data and rationale for this conclusion
are presented in the OU 1 RI Report (ABB-ES, 1995a). No impacts to plants
growing in Area A surface soil or to other terrestrial receptors were identified in the
ecological risk assessment.
Area A Groundwater. No human health radiological risks above regulatory target
risk levels have been identified associated with potential residential groundwater
exposures at Area A.
Background concentrations of inorganics in overburden and bedrock groundwater are
currently being revised as part of the OU 12 basewide groundwater RI.
Concentrations of inorganics in groundwater detected at OU 1 will be compared to
the OU 12 background concentrations upon approval and acceptance of those levels.
Groundwater inorganic data for OU 1 will be addressed in the OU 12 ROD.
Areas B through G Soils. Total maximum cancer risks associated with exposure to
detected radionuciides in soil at levelslibove established background concentrations
W0049530 080 7656-16
6-23
-------
2410 49
SECTION 6
range from SxKX4 to 2xlO"5. These risks represent a minimal incremental cancer risk
above the LAFB soil background risks of 2X10"4 to 6xlO"6, and are well below
published total natural radiological background risks of IxlO"2 to 3xlO"3 (SMeien,
1992).
The maximum radiological human health risk of 5x10"* is based on Ra-226 detected
in surface, subsurface, and composite soil samples. As discussed in Subsection 5.1,
Ra-226 is naturaly occurring at OU 1. At LAFB off-site background levels, a cancer
risk of 2xlO'4 is associated with naturally occurring Ra-226. The radiological human
health risks at Areas B through G are considered acceptable because they are a
result of naturally occurring Ra-226.
No non-radiological human health carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic risks above
regulatory target risk levels were identified in surface soils at Areas B through G,
except for a single surface soil sample at Area G (JSS-2680). The surface soil sample
analysis indicated a non-carcinogenic risk due to inhalation of barium for both the
forestry worker and construction worker scenarios. JSS-2680 was the only surface soil
sample location out of 17 collected at OU 1 in which barium was detected above
background levels.
No ecological radiological risks were indicated at Areas B through G. Ecological
non-radiological risks at Areas B through F were indicated due to an elevated
mercury result in one Area C surface soil sample. The mercury concentration
suggested risk to the red fox, and exceeded the screening benchmark for terrestrial
plants. Mercury was detected only once out of six surface soil samples at Areas B
through F. Zinc exceeded screening benchmarks to terrestrial invertebrates and to
plants due to one surface soil result at Area G.
Ecological non-radiological risk at Area G was calculated for zinc and mercury in
surface soil for lethal effects to the robin and red fox, respectively. Concentrations
of 2-raethylnaphthalene, chromium, copper, and zinc also exceeded the screening
toxicological benchmarks for terrestrial invertebrates. Concentrations of cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, mercury, vanadium, and zinc exceeded the screening
benchmarks for terrestrial plants. Maximum concentrations of all risk-contributing
ecological CPCs were detected at sample location JSS-2680, which is located at the
head of the drainage ditch at Area G. Potential ecological impacts are likely to be
spatially limited, and it is unlikely that mobile wildlife would be impacted.
W0049530 080 7656-16
6-24
-------
2410 50
SECTION 6
Area B through G Groundwater. A total maximum radiological risk of 1x10"5 was
identified for potential residential exposure to overburden groundwater. The risk
does not exceed USEPA's target risk range or MEDEP's cancer risk guidance value.
The site-specific risk level represents a minimal incremental cancer risk above the
LAFB groundwater background risk level of 9xlO"7 and is below published total
natural radiological background risks of IxlO"2 to 3xlO"3 (Shleien, 1992).
Total maximum radiological risks of 4xlO~5 to 4X10"6 were identified for potential
residential exposure to bedrock groundwater. Groundwater samples from one well
out of the four at Area G indicated radiological risk due to Ra-226, The site-specific
Ra-226 concentration is only slightly aTxwTtEe LAFB background concentration and
represents a minimal incremental cancer risk as compared to published total natural
backgrounds risks.
Non-radiological Area G bedrock groundwater data were separated from Areas B
through F during risk assessment because fuel oil USTs at Area G have influenced
groundwater quality. Area G non-carcinogenic risks range from His of 0.06 to 7.
Those above the target HI of 1 were attributable to arsenic, iron, and manganese.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (BEHP) aid arsenic were identified as the carcinogenic
risk drivers from Area G groundwater with a maximum risk of SxlO"4 and 2x10^.
BEHP is a common laboratory contaminant, and not likely to be site-related.
Evaluation of Radionuclides and Inorganics Detected at OU 1. Two summary tables
have been developed to present conclusions with respect to radionuclides and
inorganics, Tables 6-8 and 6-9, respectively. These tables summarize the
radionuclides and inorganics detected abovelmckground, the site areas where they
were detected, and present discussion and conclusions. The purpose of these tables
is to put into perspective the detections above background within OU 1.
W0049530080 __ _ 7656-16
6-25
-------
2410
51
o
S
o
o
cc
o
<
CQ
LLI
09 1
in «
J S
oa Q
o fc
u.
O
Z
g
§
X
Q
-------
2410
!•§
i • §
it
a; §
I
'Kill! If
<
o
"-.
u
Q
q
co
^-
3
<
S
^_p
&
a
3
I
Q
5
I
6-27
-------
2410 53
SECTION 7
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Sampling conducted after the removal actions were completed at the LLRWDS
confirmed that no significant radiological or non-radiological contamination above
background concentrations remained at the former UST or disposal trench locations.
Analysis of groundwater sampled from monitoring wells installed downgradient of the
USTs and disposal trenches did not consistently detect contamination above MCLs
or MEGs, other than that attributable" to background variation or sample turbidity.
In accordance with USEPA guidance, additional monitoring and five-year reviews are
not necessary for sites where no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remain at levels that would necessitate restricted use or access (USEPA, 1991),
Because the USTs and waste disposal trenches were removed during the removal
action and results of the RI indicate no Substantial contamination remains on-site,
additional monitoring and five-year reviews will not be conducted.
Based on these results, and the baseline risk assessment, no further remedial action
under CERCLA is considered necessary for OU 1 at LAFB. Areas A through F of
OU 1 will be removed from the IRP. Area G will also be removed from the IRP
and be redesignated as a non-CERCLA site that will be managed in accordance with
the Maine UST regulations.
Remediation of the contaminated soil and groundwater associated with the former
fuel oil UST and abandoned pipeline is best addressed as a non-CERCLA action
conducted under Maine UST regulations. The authority of CERCLA is limited to
the hazardous substances defined in Section 101(14) of the law. Under both Sections
101 and 104 of CERCLA, petroleum products are excluded from regulation under
CERCLA. Remediation of the contaminated soil and groundwater associated with
the former fuel oil UST and abandoned pipeline will be addressed as a non-
CERCLA action conducted under the Maine UST regulations.
Section 12 of the Maine UST regulations (06-096 CMR 691) outlines requirements
for leak investigation, response, and corrective action. Many of the requirements for
response and investigation have been met during the course of replacing the Building
216 USTs and conducting the RI. Further response at Area G, in accordance with
Section 12 requirements, potentially includes soil remediation, groundwater
treatment, and monitoring.
W0049530.080 7656-16
7-1
-------
2410 54
SECTION 7
If during the course of the UST remedial response, CERCLA-regulated wastes are
identified at concentrations that pose risk to human health or the environment,
Area G of OU 1 will be managed under the IRP and CERCLA.
W0049530.080 7656-16
7-2
-------
2410 55
SECTION 8
8.0 DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The USAF prepared a Proposed Plan for OU 1 (ABB-ES, 1995b). The Proposed
Plan describes the USAF's recommendation to pursue no further action under
CERCLA at OU 1. There have been no significant changes made to the No Action
under CERCLA decision stated in the Proposed Plan.
W0049530 080 7656-16
"" 8-1
-------
2410 56
SECTION 9
9,0 STATE ROLE
MEDEP, on behalf of the State of Majne, reviewed the RI Report and Proposed
Plan and indicated its support for the selected remedy. MEDEP concurs with the
selected remedy for OU 1. A copy of the declaration of concurrence is included in
Appendix C
W0049530080 7656-16
9-1
-------
57
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ABB-ES ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
Am Americium ~~~ ~
BEHP bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate "
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Restoration, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CPC contaminants of potential concern
CRP Community Relations Plan
DOD Department of Defense
FFA Federal Facilities Agreement
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient ~"
IRP Installation Restoration Program
LAFB Loring Air Force Base
LLRWDS Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites
MCL Maximum Contaminant Levels
MEDEP Maine Department of Environmental Protection
MEG Maximum Exposure Guidelines
NCP National Contingency Plan
Np Neptunium
NPL National Priorities List
OU operable unit
Ogden Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Inc.
Pa Protactinium
PA Preliminary Assessment
PAH polyaromatic hydrocarbons
PCB polychlorinated biphenyls
Ra Radium ~~ ~
W0049530080
7656-16
-------
2410 58
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
RAB Restoration Advisory Board
RfD reference dose
RI Remedial Investigation
RME reasonable maximum exposure
ROD Record of Decision
SI Site Inspection
SVOC semivolatile organic compounds
Th Thorium
TCE trichloroethene
U Uranium
USAF U.S. Air Force
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
UST underground storage tank
VOC volatile organic compounds
WSA weapons storage area
W0049530 080
7656-16
-------
2410 59
REFERENCES
ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-ES), 1995a. "Operable Unit (OU 1)
Remedial Investigation Report"; Installation Restoration Program; prepared
for HAZWRAP; Portland, Maine; April 1995.
ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-ES), 1995b. "Operable Unit (OU 1)
Proposed Plan"; Installation Restoration Program; prepared for HAZWRAP;
Portland, Maine; July 1995.
CH2M Hill, 1984. "Records Search ^Report"; Installation Restoration Program;
prepared for HAZWRAP; Limestone, Maine, January 1984.
Federal Facility Agreement (FFA)5 1991. Under CERCLA Section 120, the Matter
of Loring Air Force Base by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region
I, State of Maine, and the U.S.. Department of the Air Force, January 3, 1991.
Law Environmental, Inc., 1994 "Debris Disposal Areas Operable Unit (OU 3) Field
Data Validation Study Report'TIiistaHation Restoration Program; prepared
for AFBCA; October, 1994.
Odgen Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. (Ogden), 1995. "Radioactive
Waste Site Operable Unit 1 RI Removal Action Report for Underground
Storage Tanks and Low Level Radioactive Waste Trenches at Loring Air
Force Base"; prepared for AFBCA/OLM; Somerset, NJ; February 1995.
Roy F. Weston, Inc., 1988. "Installation Restoration Program Phase II Confiraiation/
Quantification"; Loring Air Force Base; Limestone Maine; prepared for
HAZWRAP; January 1988. '~
Shleien, B. (ed.), 1992. "The Health Physics and Radiological Health Handbook";
Scinta, Inc.; Silver Springs, Maryland.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1990. "National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (National Contingency
Plan)"; Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 300; Federal Register,
Volume 55, Number 46, pp. 8666"etseq,; March 8, 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1991. "Structure and Components
of Five-Year Reviews"; OSWER Directive 9355.7-02; Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, Washington, DC; May 23, 1991.
W0049530.080 7656-16
-------
2410 60
APPENDIX A
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PUBLIC MEETING (AUGUST 2,1995)
W0049530.080 7656-16
-------
2410 61
STATE OF MAINE AROOSTOOK, ss
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
CARY MEDICAL CENTER
VAN BUREN ROAD
CARIBOU, MAINE
8s03 P.M.
Philip R. Bennett, Jr.,
Court Reporter
13 Vaughn Street
Caribou, Maine 04736
(207)498-2729
-------
2410 62
TABLEOFCONTENTS
3' PAGE
4 PETER FORBES
5
6 EXHIBITS
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
2410 63
LORING AIR FORCE BASE, OPERABLE UNIT # 1
2
3. August 2, 1995
4
5 PETER FORBES:. Good
6 evening. Welcome to.Jthe public hearing to receive comments
7 on the proposed plan for Operable Unit 1 at Loring Air Force
8 Base, the Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites
9 Today's date is^August 2nd, 1995. My name is Peter
10 Forbes, the Remedial Project Manager for the Installation
Restoration Program at Loring. And seated with me are
12 Michael Nalipinski of the U.S. Environmental Protection
13 Agency and Naji Akladiss of the Maine Department of
14 Environmental Protection^ .They will assist me in receiving
15 your comments tonight
16 This hearing is being held in accordance with the
17 provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
18 Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),as amended in 1986
19 also known as Superfund. The act requires federal facilities
20 on the National Priorities List to present clean up proposal
21 to the local community for comment and consideration before
22 the final clean up decisions are made. The purpose of this
23 hearing is to receive comments on the Proposed Plan for
24 Operable Unite 1
25 Mr. Phil Bennett from Aroostook Legal Reporters will
-------
2410
LORING &TE FORCE BASE, OPERABLE UNIT » 1
1
2
3 serve as the court reporter tonight, preparing a verbatim
4 record of the proceedings. The verbatim record will become
5 part of the final clean up plan. The court reporter will be
e able to make a complete record only if he is able to hear and
7 understand what you say. With that in mind, please follow a
8 few ground rules. Speak only after I recognize you and
9 please address your remarks to me. State your name and the
to organization you represent and present your statement
11 Please do not state your address or any other personal
12 information which you do not want to become a matter of the
13 public record. Do not begin speaking until you have reached
the podium. Speak slowly and clearly into the microphone
15 If you have prepared a statement beforehand, you may read it
16 aloud or you may describe it and place it on this table.
17 NOW are there any individuals who would like to make a
18 comment or question or statement at this time?
19 Okay. Well, ladies and gentlemen, it's 8:05 p.m.,
20 August 2nd, 1995. I declare the public hearing to receive
21 comments on the Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 1 at Loring
22 Air Force Base closed. Thank you for coming.
23
24 - END OF HEARING
25
-------
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
2410 65
CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT the foregoing is a true
and correct transcript of the record of proceedings held
on the aforementioned date.
Courjz Reporter
STATE OF MAINE
AROOSTOOK, S£
-------
2410 66
APPENDIX B
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
W0049530.080 7656-16
-------
2-110 67
FINAL
Loring Air Force Base
OU 1 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
AUGUST 1995
Prepared for:
Air Force Base Conversion Agency
Limestone, Maine
(207) 328-7109
Prepared by:
Service Center: Hazardous__Waste Remedial Actions Program
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Contractor: ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
Portland, Maine
Project No. 7656-16
-------
O -'
'
410 68
OU 1 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
LORING AIR FORCE BASE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title ; Page No.
PREFACE P'1
1.0 OVERVIEW OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 1-1
2.0 BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND
CONCERNS VT .T. 2-1
3.0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS JRECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD AND USAF RESPONSES 3-1
W0049530APP.B I 7656-16
-------
2410 69
PREFACE
The U.S. Air Force (USAF) held a 30-day comment period from July 17 to
August 16, 1995, to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the
Proposed Plan and other documents developed for Operable Unit No. 1 (OU 1) at
Lormg Air Force Base, Maine. The Proposed Plan is the document that identifies
remedial action objectives, evaluates remedial alternatives, and recommends the
alternative that best meets the evaluation Criteria for OU 1. The USAF made
preKminary recommendations of its preferred alternative for remedial action at OU 1
in Section 6.0 of the Proposed Plan,^which was issued on July 17, 1995. All
documents on which the preferred alternative was based were placed in the
administrative record for review. The administrative record is a collection of the
documents considered by the USAF while choosing the remedial action for OU 1.
It is available to the public at the following location:
Air Force Base Conversion Agency
5100 Texas Road
Limestone, ME 04751
(207) 328-7109
The purpose of this Responsiveness Summary is to document USAF responses to the
questions and comments raised during the public comment period regarding the
proposed OU 1 preferred alternative. The USAF considered all comments in this
document before finalizing the preferred remedy for OU 1.
This Responsiveness Summary is organized into the following sections:
1.0 Overview of the Preferred Altern_ative. This section briefly outlines the
preferred alternative presented in the Proposed Plan for OU 1.
2.0 Background on Community Involvement and Concerns. This section provides
a brief history of community interest in OU 1 and concerns regarding these
areas.
3.0 Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period and
USAF Responses. This section__sumrnarizes and provides the USAF's
responses to all written and oraicomments received from the public during
the public comment period.
W0049530APP.B 7656-16
P-l
-------
2410 70
SECTION 1
1,0 OVERVIEW OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The following paragraphs outline the preferred alternative presented in the Proposed
Plan OU 1.
Based on the results of the RI, no further remedial action under CERCLA is
considered necessary for OU 1 at LAFJB.
Areas A through ..F; In 1994, removal actions were conducted for the five
radiological USTs and the contents of the former waste disposal trenches.
Completion of these removal actions has eliminated the need for any further
remedial action at Areas A through F.
Area G: The contamination detected at Area G is primarily attributed to a former
leaking UST and possibly the fuel oil pipeline. The tanks were replaced and the pipe
was abandoned. Because the release involved only petroleum product, the USAF
will address the petroleum contamination as a non-CERCLA action under the Maine
UST regulations.
Section 12 of the Maine UST regulations (06-096 CMR 691) outlines requirements
for leak investigation, response, and corrective action. Many of the requirements for
response and investigation have been met during the course of replacing the Building
216 USTs and conducting the RI. Further response at Area G, in accordance with
Section 12 requirements, potentially includes soil remediation, groundwater
treatment, and monitoring.
If during the course of the UST remedial response, CERCLA-regulated wastes are
identified at concentrations that pose risk to human health or the environment,
Area G of OU 1 will be managed under the IRP and CERCLA.
W0049530APP B 7656-16
1-1
-------
2410 71
SECTION 2
2.0 BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS
Throughout LAFB's history, the community has been involved in base activities. The
USAF, USEPA, and MEDEP have kept the community and other interested parties
apprised of LAFB IRP activities through informational meetings, fact sheets, press
releases, public meetings, site tours, and open houses.
In addition to these activities, during the course of IRP activities at LAFB, there
have been regular meetings of the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) (formerly the
Technical Review Committee). The RAB, chaired by the USAF and a representative
of the community, is composed of representatives of the USEPA, MEDEP, the
community, and local officials. The purpose of the RAB meetings has been to
ensure clear communication with the public, timely transfer of information, and
opportunity for public comment.
A Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) between USEPA Region I, MEDEP, and
USAF, signed January 30, 1991, governs environmental activities being conducted at
LAFB. The FFA provides the framework for addressing environmental effects
associated with past and present activities so that appropriate investigations and
remedial actions are implemented to protect human health, welfare, and the
environment. Since the signing of this agreement, LAFB was placed on Congress'
Base Closure List and closed in September 1994. The FFA was amended in
December 1993 to address base closure-related issues such as transfer of real
property. The FFA was further modified in January 1995 to allow Remedial Project
Managers to make minor modifications to the FFA, such as schedule adjustments or
removal of petroleum-contaminated sites from the agreement.
The framework for the USAF's approach to community involvement is the LAFB
Community Relations Plan (CRP), which was released in August 1991 and
subsequently revised in May 1995. ,The CRP outlines the USAF's program for
addressing community concerns and keeping citizen informed and involved during
remedial activities. To ensure the public was informed about the IRP program, the
USAF held three public information meetings in the towns of Limestone, Caribou,
and Fort Fairfield in February and Match, 1993. The purpose of the meetings was
to introduce the IRP program and respond to any questions from the public.
Documentation of the reports, memoranda, and correspondence that are the basis
for IRP remedial response decisions are kept in an Administrative Record. The
W0049530APP.B 7656-16
2-1
-------
2410
SECTION 2
Administrative Record is open and available for public review at the Air Force Base
Conversion Agency Office, 5100 Texas Road, Limestone, Maine.
The following is a summary of the activities the USAF has undertaken to keep the
public informed and involved regarding the remedial response at OU 1.
• On June 2, 1994, a RAB meeting was held to discuss the results of the OU
1 investigations and the approach for conducting the UST and radioactive
waste disposal trench removal action.
» An IRP Fact Sheet, explaining activities planned for OU 1, was issued in July
1994.
• The USAF published a notice and brief discussion of the proposed removal
action in the Aroostook Republican on July 6, 1994 and the Bangor Daily
News on July 7, 1994,
» From July 11 through August 10, 1994, the USAF held a 30-day public
comment period to accept public input on the Action Memorandum outlining
the proposed removal action, and on any other OU 1 documents in the
Administrative Record. On July 28, 1994, USAF personnel and regulatory
representatives held a public meeting to discuss the Action Memorandum and
to accept oral comments.
» During the removal action, the USAF invited the local press to cover the
trench removal activities. Information regarding both the trench and UST
tank removals was made available to representatives of local media,
» The USAF published a notice and brief analysis of the Proposed Plan in the
Bangor Daily News, Aroostook Republican, Fort Fairfield Review, and
Presque Isle Maine Star-Herald on July 12, 1995, recommending No Action
under CERCLA as the preferred alternative for OU 1.
« On July 17, 1995, the Proposed Plan for OU 1 was made available for public
review at the Air Force Base Conversion Agency Office, 5100 Texas Road,
Limestone, Maine.
• From July 17 through August 16, 1995, the USAF held a 30-day public
comment period to accept public input on the recommendations in the
W0049530APP.B 7656-16
2-2
-------
2410 73
SECTION 2
RI/Baseline Risk Assessment and. the No Action preferred alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan, and on any other documents included in the
Administrative Record. On August 2, 1995, USAF personnel and regulatory
representatives held a public meeting and hearing to discuss the OU 1 RI and
Proposed Plan, During the public meeting, the USAF answered questions
informally from the public. Immediately following the public meeting, a
public hearing was held to accept oral comments. Based on the public
comments, the public is in agreement regarding the preferred alternative for
OU 1 as presented in the Proposed Plan.
W0049530APP.B 7656-16
2-3
-------
2410 74
SECTION 3
3.0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD AND USAF RESPONSES
This Responsiveness Summary addresses comments received by the USAF and
USEPA during the public comment period from July 17 to August 16, 1995 relative
to the Proposed Plan for OU 1. The only comments received were those received
in writing from a RAB member. The jcomments and corresponding responses are
included herein.
1. Comment: The commenter asked. what was the purpose of the five (5)
radiological USTs attached to weapon maintenance facilities.
Response: The purpose of the five radiological USTs was to receive and
contain potentially radioactive liquids in the event of a release in one of the
buildings. Further information can _be obtained from the OU 1 Remedial
Investigation Report which is part of the Administrative Record.
2. Comment: The commenter asked what radioactive isotopes were to be
transported to these radiological USTs,
Response: The radiological USTs at Areas A and F supported Buildings 365
and 232, respectively. Strategic weapons components were reportedly
installed and inspected within these buildings, with the UST backups in the
event of a release of radioactive materials. A radioactive release from these
buildings could have potentially been composed of enriched uranium,
plutonium, americium, or tritium. There were no documented releases to
these tanks, which is supported by the analysis of the tank liquids, sediments,
and scrape samples. Further information can be obtained from the OU 1
Remedial Investigation Report which is part of the Administrative Record.
The remaining three radiological USTs at Areas B, C, and D supported the
"short igloos" where the tritium containers were stored. The "short igloos"
contained floor drains which were connected to the USTs to receive
washdown liquids in the event of a tritium release. There were no
documented releases to these radiological USTs, which is supported by the
analysis of the tank liquids.
WOQ49530APP B 765646
3-1
-------
2410
SECTION 3
3. Comment: Hie eommenter asked if there are no documents showing release
of any radioactive isotopes into these radiological USTs, why were these tanks
tested.
Response: The tanks were sampled because they did contain liquid and
documentation on the origin of the liquid could not be located. To confirm
that the tanks did not contain chemical or radioactive contaminants, liquid,
sediments, interior scrape samples, and soil samples from beneath the tanks
were collected and analyzed for the target radioisotopes for all five USTs
prior to their removal in 1994. Further information can be obtained from the
OU 1 Remedial Investigation Report which is part of the Administrative
Record.
4. Comment: The eommenter asked if any radioactive isotopes had been found
in the UST, would it have been necessary to have disposed of these at the
Repository in Utah.
Response: Depending on the levels and radioisotopes found, it might have
been necessary to have disposed of these USTs in Utah. However, based on
the lack of contamination in the tanks, they were simply disposed of as scrap
metal.
5. Comment: The eommenter asked why tritium is found all over the Loring
WSA if tritium is a very light gas and, when released either by accident or
purposeful venting, should have risen into the Stratosphere and Ionosphere.
Response: Tritium is found in background due to atmospheric weapons
testing in the 1960s, more recently from nuclear power plant releases, and
naturally occurring interactions with cosmic rays and gases in the upper
atmosphere. The tritium detections in the University of Maine and ABB-ES
analyses indicated levels of tritium at the Weapons Storage Area (WSA)
which are consistent with background levels. Further information can be
obtained from the OU 1 Remedial Investigation Report which is part of the
Administrative Record.
6. Comment: The eommenter asked why are the areas of tritium concentration
at the WSA not related to the weapon maintenance facilities.
W0049530APP B 7656-16
3-2
-------
410 76
SECTION 3
Response: As discussed, the tritium detected at the WSA is at background
. levels with normal local variationTThere are no significant areas of "tritium
concentration" at the WSA.
7- Comment: The commenter asked why tritium radiation background was not
established at Loring, since a -great deal of effort was made to establish
background radiation of certain isotopes around the Loring WSA.
Response: Tritium backpouri3"was~ not established due to the low levels
detected and because of tritium's relatively low health risks. Tritium
detections from within the WSA were what would be expected in background.
Detections of tritium in groundwater and surface water were all less than
USEPA's drinking water standard for tritium.
8. Comment: The commenter asked whether the southern area was mentioned
in the plan, with reference to tritium, around the Nuclear Power Plant, at
Wiscasset.
Response: No reference to the "southern area" was made in the Proposed
Plan. However, in the University of Maine report, there is a discussion of
samples collected from Southern Maine. In 1972, tritium analyses were
performed around the "then being constructed" nuclear power plant at
Wiscasset (which is in Southern Maine). The data were collected prior to the
power plant receiving any nuclear "fuel to establish a baseline against which
future monitoring data could be" compared.
9- Comment: The commenter asked why tritium would be defined as a
contaminant at Area D, and, when found at other areas, not be acknowledged
as a contaminant.
Response: Tritium is acknowledged as a potential contaminant at Areas B,
C and Area D, based on known_site history.
10. Comment: The commenter ;asked why there is such a reluctance to
acknowledge tritium as a radioactive substance throughout this whole plan.
Response: It was certainly not the intent of the Air Force to appear reluctant
to address tritium. Tritium has been carefully addressed throughout the RI
process by the USAF, the Ufflversit>M>f Maine, the MEDEP, and USEPA.
W0049530APP.B ~ 7656-16
3-3
-------
2410 77
SECTION 3
Tritium was identified as one of the WSA's target radioactive isotopes and
therefore was included in analyses of OU 1 environmental samples. There
is no detailed discussion of tritium, in particular, because (1) the purpose of
the Proposed Plan is to present the Air Force's preferred alternative and a
general overview of the IRP activities conducted to date, and (2) the results
of the radiological investigation did not identify tritium at other than naturally
occurring levels.
H. Comment: The commenter asked whether the following is a correct
paraphrase of the last paragraph on Pages 4-5 and 4-6:
(1) Background radiation at Loring and its Weapon Storage Area (WSA)
may pose a natural health risk.
(2) Background radiation at Loring and its WSA is lower than other areas
throughout the United States.
(3) That even though the WSA at Loring is contaminated with weapons-
grade radioactive isotopes, tritium, the human health risk here due to
radiation is still lower than risk typically associated with naturally
occurring radiation throughout the United States.
Response: There are several inaccuracies in this interpretation of the
referenced paragraph. To clarify, risk calculations were performed using (1)
concentrations of naturally occurring radiation throughout the United States,
(2) background concentrations of radioactive isotopes established for Loring,
and (3) concentrations of radioactive isotopes detected at the WSA The risks
associated with background radiation at Loring and at the WSA were lower
than risks associated with published naturally occurring levels of radiation
throughout the U.S. Further information can be obtained from the OU 1
Remedial Investigation Report which is part of the Administrative Record.
These comparisons were made to illustrate that while the human health risks
calculated for the radioactive isotopes at the WSA are higher than the
USEPA target risk range (IxlO"4 to IxlO"6), naturally occurring radiation also
has a risk higher than the USEPA target risk level. Following the trench
removal action, the risks associated with radioactivity at the WSA are
consistent with naturally occurring radiation.
W0049530APP B 7656-16
3-4
-------
2410 78
SECTION 3
The statement that "Loring is contaminated with weapons-grade radioactive
isotope, tritium", is somewhat misleading. Tritium is tritium, whether it is
included in a weapon or a result of natural reactions in the atmosphere, and
the levels of tritium detected are^onsjstent with background levels in Maine.
W0049530APP.B 7656-16
" 3-5
-------
2410 79
APPENDIX C
LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
(TO BE INCLUDED IN ROD FOR SIGNATURE)
W0049530APP.B 7656-16
-------
STATE OF MAINE
2410 80
DEPARTMENT OF ; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
EDWARD O. SULLIVAN
COMM.SS.ONER
August 16, 1995
Mr. Peter Forbes
Air Force Base Conversion Agency
Operation Location "M"
RR#1 Box 1719
Limestone, Maine 04750
RE: Loring Air Force Base Superfund Site, Maine
Dear Mr. Forbes:
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) has reviewed the May
1995 Draft Record of Decision (ROD) regarding Operable Unit 1 (OU1) for the Loring Air Force
Base Superfund Site located in Limestone, Maine.
Based on that draft, the MEDEP concurs with the Air Force's determination that no action
under CERCLA is necessary to address the contamination at OU1 . The MEDEP also concurs
with the following recommendations: „ . ./ __
1. That Areas A through F of OU1 be removed from the U.S. Air Force's CERCLA
response under Installation Restoration Program.
2. That Area G he redesignated a Non-CERCLA site to he managed in accordance with the
State of Maine regulations for underground storage tanks.
Clean Up Levels
The remedial alternative selected for the site must achieve goals for reducing
contamination at OU1. Clean-up goals for Area G have been set for contaminated soil, sediment,
and groundwater based either on background concentration, analytical detection limits, or on risk
calculation.
Compounds and elements for which remedial goals have been set are listed in Table 10-1
through 10-6 of this ROD. „ . ___
Description of No Action Alternative
The following paragraph describes the no action remedial alternative developed for
Operable Unit 1 at Loring:
Serving Maine People & Protecting Their Environment
OfFKe LOCMITO *r RAV BullDMa, HOSPITAL StHiCT
BANGOR
PR6SQUE ISLE
m retycttiS paftr
-------
2410 81
Sampling conducted after the response actions were completed at the LLRWDS, Areas A
through F of OU1, confirmed that essentially no radiological or non-radiological contamination,
above background concentrations, remained at the former UST or disposal trench locations.
Analysis of groundwater sampled from monitoring wells installed downgradient of the USTs and
disposal trenches did not consistently detect radiological or non-radiological contamination
above MCLs or MEGs, other than that attributable to background variation or sample turbidity.
Based on these results, no farther remedial action under CERCLA is considered
necessary for OU1 at LAFB and no further remedial action under State law is considered
necessary for Areas A through F of OU1. Sampling has shown fuel-related contamination of
soils and groundwater at Area G. It is, therefore, recommended that Areas A through F of OU1
be removed from the IRP for closure of federal facilities. It is further recommended that Area G
also be removed from the IRP and be redesignated as a non-CERCLA site that will be
remediated in accordance with the Maine UST Regulations. Because no significant residual
contamination, attributable to the LLRWDS, remains on site, additional monitoring and five-year
reviews are not recommended.
The State's concurrence in the selected remedy, as described above, should not be
construed as the State's concurrence with any conclusions of law or findings of fact which may
be set forth in the Record of Decision (for OU1). The State reserves any and all rights to
challenge any such finding of fact or conclusion of law in any other context.
This concurrence is based upon the State's understanding that the MEDEP will continue
to participate in the Federal Facilities Agreement and in the review and approval of operational,
design and monitoring plans.
The MEDEP looks forward to working with the Department of the Air Force and the
USEPA to resolve the environmental problems posed by this site. If you need additional
information, do not hesitate to contact myself or members of my staff.
Sincerely
Edward O. Sullivan, Commissioner
Department of Environmental Protection
pc: Mark Hyland, MEDEP
Mike Nalipinski, EPA
Hank Lowman, BCA
COMSUPER/dlb
-------
2410 82
FINAL PAGE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
FINAL PAGE
------- |