Superfund Record of Decision Plattsburgh Air Force Base Ss-005 Ou 12 Plattsburgh NY


                                   EPA/ROD/R02-98/007
                                   1998
EPA Superfund
     Record of Decision:
     PLATTSBURGH AIR FORCE BASE
     EPA ID: NY4571924774
     OU12
     PLATTSBURGH, NY
     04/02/1998

-------
EPA 541-R98-007





SITE SS-005 NON-DESTRUCTIVE INSPECTION FACILITY
SOIL OPERABLE UNIT

RECORD OF DECISION

PLATTSBURGH AIR FORCE BASE
PLATTSBURGH, NEW YORK

FINAL
MARCH 1998

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM

Prepared By:


URS GREINER, INC.

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                           Page No.

DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION 	  iii

1.0     SITE NAME,  LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 	   1

2 . 0     LAND USE AND RESPONSE HISTORY 	   2

3.0     COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 	   5

4 . 0     SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 	   5

5.0     SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION 	   5
        5.1   Surface Soil Contamination 	   6
        5.2   Subsurface Soil Contamination 	   6
        5.3   Groundwater Contamination 	   6

6.0     SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 	   6
        6.1  Human Health Risk Assessment 	   15
        6.2  Ecological Risk Assessment 	   19

7.0     DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY 	   20
        7.1   Basis 	   20
        7 . 2   The Selected Remedy 	   20
        STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 	   20
        8.1   The Selected Remedy is Protective of Human Health and the
              Environment 	   22
        8.2   The Selected Remedy Attains ARARs 	   22
        8.3   Other Criteria, Advisories, or Guidance to be Considered for
              This Remedial Action 	   22
        8.4   Cost-Effectiveness 	   22
        8.5   Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative
              Treatment Technologies (or Resource Recovery Technologies)  to
              the Maximum Extent Practicable 	   22
        8.6   The Selected Remedy Does Not Satisfy the Preference for Treatment
              Which Permanently and Significantly Reduces the Toxicity, Mobility,
              or Volume of the Hazardous Substances as a Principal Element 	   23
9.0     DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 	   23

10.0    STATE ROLE 	   23

REFERENCES  	   24

GLOSSARY 	   25

LIST OF TABLES

Table No.                                                                                  Page No.

1     Summary of Organic Compounds Detected in SS-005 Surface and Subsurface Soils 	   7
2     Summary of Inorganic Compounds Detected in SS-005 Surface and Subsurface Soils 	   9
3     Character of Groundwater Contamination 	   13
4     Chemicals of Potential Concern for SS-005 and SS-006, Surface and Subsurface Soil ...   16
5     Summary of Hazard Indices and Cancer Risks - Sites SS-005 and SS-006 	   18

-------
                                           LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No.                                                                                   Page No.

1     Vicinity Location Map 	   1
2     Location of SS-005 	   1
3     SS-005 Site Features 	   3
4     Environmental Sampling and Monitoring Well Locations 	   4
5A    Detected Surface Soil Analytical Results 	   10
5B    Detected Surface Soil Analytical Results 	   11
6     Detected Near-Surface Soil Analytical Results 	   12
7     Detected Groundwater Analytical Results 	   14
8     Boundary for Restrictions of Site Development and Potable Groundwater Use 	   21
                                           LIST OF APPENDICES
A     Transcript of Public Meeting for SS-005
B     Responsiveness Summary
C     NYSDEC Concurrence Letter

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

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Plattsburgh Air Force Base (AFB)
Site SS-005 Non-Destructive Inspection Facility
Plattsburgh, New York

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This Record of Decision  (ROD)  presents a selected remedial action for soil at site SS-005 on Plattsburgh Air
Force Base  (AFB) in Plattsburgh, New York. It has been developed in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980  (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA),  and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan  (NCP).  This decision is based on the Administrative Record
for this site, a copy of which is located at the Information Repository at the Feinburg Library on the campus
of the State University of New York at Plattsburgh.

The remedy has been selected by the United States Air Force  (USAF) in conjunction with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)  and with the concurrence of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) pursuant to the Federal Facilities Agreement among the parties under
Section 117(a) of CERCLA, dated September 12, 1991.

ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

Contaminants in the soil at SS-005 present as a result of surface spills, potential tank leaks, and runoff
from the waste accumulation area currently pose no significant threats to human or ecological health under
current and planned future non-residential land use scenarios. Principle future threats at Site SS-005
include a potential for groundwater contaminant concentrations to increase beneath the site as a result of
the upgradient FT-002 groundwater contaminant plume and an unevaluated potential risk from surface soil that
could be present for land uses other than the current and planned future non-residential use. These principle
threats are addressed by the preferred alternative presented in this ROD.

DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY

This action addresses the principal threats posed at SS-005 by preventing endangerment to human health and
the environment, through institutional controls that limit the use of the site to non-residential land use
and that prohibit the installation of any wells for drinking water or any other purposes that may result in
the use of the underlying groundwater. Institutional controls will be implemented through lease and deed
restrictions. An evaluation of the institutional controls will be undertaken during reviews of the remedy, to
be undertaken between the USAF, USEPA, and NYSDEC every five years following ROD execution.

The results of the soil and groundwater sampling indicate that the soils at SS-005 are not a source of
groundwater contamination. Therefore, groundwater monitoring is not included in the USAF's recommended
alternative. Rather, groundwater remedial actions,  including monitoring, will be specified in the preferred
alternative for the Fire Training Area (FT-002)/Industrial Area Groundwater Operable Unit  (FTA/IA GOU).

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The selected remedy for the SS-005 Soil Operable Unit is protective of human health and the environment,
complies with federal and state Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Reguirements, and is cost-effective.
Treatment of the soil is considered impractical as risks to human health and the environment are within
acceptable levels under the current and planned future land use scenarios. Conseguently, the remedy does not
satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principle element of remediation.

Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on site, the USAF, USEPA, and NYSDEC will
conduct site reviews every five years to ensure that the institutional conml remedy continues to provide

-------
adequate protection of human health and the environment.

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The selected remedy for the SS-005 Soil Operable Unit is protective of human health and the environment,
complies with federal and state Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements, and is cost-effective.
Treatment of the soil is considered impractical as risks to human health and the environment are within
acceptable levels under the current and planned future land use scenarios. Consequently, the remedy does not
satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principle element of remediation.

Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaininq on site, the USAF, USEPA, and NYSDEC will
conduct site reviews every five years to ensure that the institutional control remedy continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment.

Siqnature (USEPA, Reqional Administrator) Date

Siqnature RODNEY A. COLEMAN Date
Office of the Assistant Secretary
(Manpower, Reserve Affairs, Installations
& Envi ronment)

1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION

Plattsburqh AFB, located in Clinton County in northeastern New York State, is bordered on the north by the
City of Plattsburqh and the Saranac River, on the west by Interstate 87, on the south by the Salmon river,
and on the east by Lake Champlain. It lies approximately 26 miles south of the Canadian border and 167 miles
north of Albany, New York (Fiqure 1). Plattsburqh AFB was closed on September 30, 1995 as part of the (third
round of) base closures mandated under the Defense Base Closure and Realiqnment Act (DBCRA commonly referred
to as BRAG) of 1990, and its reuse is beinq administered by the Plattsburqh Airbase Redevelopment Corporation
(PARC). Accordinq to land use plans presented in the Environmental Impact Statement (Tetra Tech 1995) for
disposal and reuse of the base, the likely reuse at SS-005 and its surroundinq area will be aviation support
(industrial).

As part of the USAFs IRP and the BRAG proqram, Plattsburqh AFB has initiated activities to identify,
evaluate, and restore identified hazardous waste sites. The IRP at Plattsburqh AFB is beinq implemented
accordinq to a Federal Facilities Aqreement Docket No. II-CERCLA-FFA-10201, siqned between the USAF, USEPA
and NYSDEC on September 12, 1991. Plattsburqh AFB was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) on
November 21, 1989.

-------
discharged to the Golf Course Drainage system and eventually flows into Lake Champlain. Because of the
relatively low concentration of contaminants in surface soils at site SS-005, contamination is not expected
to migrate away from the site via this surface drainage pathway. A former oil/water separator and a holding
tank near Nose Dock 4 were located southwest of the NDI building. The former oil/water separator and holding
tank were removed as part of the basewide tank and oil/water separator removal program. NYSDEC Region V Spill
Response Unit oversaw the removal and sampling associated with the oil/water separator. NYSDEC approval of
the oil/water separator and holding tank closure is still pending as of the date of this ROD. Potential
sources of contamination include surface spills, run-off from the waste accumulation area, and potential
leaks from the former oil/water separator and holding tank. Site features are shown in Figure 3.

The site geology consists of a marine/lacustrine sand, ranging from 25 to 39 feet thick, overlying a
relatively impermeable silt and clay unit. The groundwater table is shallow in the vicinity of SS-005, and
lies approximately 4 feet below ground surface. Groundwater flows from the west toward the east and into Lake
Champlain.

2.0 LAND USE AND RESPONSE HISTORY

A site inspection (SI) of the NDI Facility conducted in 1987 consisted of a records search, a soil organic
vapor (SOV) survey, and soil sampling (E.G. Jordan Co. 1989). The records search revealed that no data was
available regarding the site operations or type of waste stored at the site. The SOV samples, taken adjacent
to Arizona Avenue, contained organic vapors that were approximately one order of magnitude higher than those
taken next to Nose Dock 4. Surface soil samples contained traces of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
as well as high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) and volatile organics. Subsurface soil
samples contained trace levels of solvents. Groundwater was not evaluated during the SI.

Between October 1992 and February 1993, a remedial investigation (RI) was performed at SS-005 to characterize
the magnitude and extent of groundwater and soil contamination at the site. The RI included the sampling of
surface soil [0-6 inches below ground surface (bgs)] at 20 locations, near-surface soil (0.5 to 2 feet bgs)
at seven locations, and subsurface soils (>2 feet bgs) at three boring locations. In addition, three
monitoring wells were installed and groundwater was sampled during sampling events in January and April 1993.
Sampling locations (Figure 4) were concentrated near a drainage swale running past the former location of the
waste accumulation area and in proximity to the oil/water separator at Nose Dock 4. The analytical results
from the sampled media were used to assess the current and potential future human and ecological health risks
due to onsite contaminants.

3.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Plattsburgh AFB has kept the community and other interested parties informed of the activities at SS-005
through informational and public meetings, and holding a 30-day public comment period from February 17 to
March 18, 1998 to solicit public input. During this period, the public was invited to review the Proposed
Plan, the Attachment I Sites Remedial Investigation Report (SS-005 is one of the Attachment I Sites addressed
by the Federal Facilities Agreement), and to comment on the preferred alternative being considered. These
documents, which comprise the Administrative Record for the SS-005 site, are available at the Information
Repository located at the Feinberg Library.

Plattsburgh AFB hosted a public meeting on February 26, 1998 at the Old Court House, Second Floor Meeting
Room, 133 Margaret Street to discuss data gathered at the site, the selected remedy, and the decision making
process. Public comments were recorded and transcribed, and a copy of the transcript was added to the
Administrative Record and Information Repository, and are a part of this Record of Decision (Appendix A). The
Air Force's response to all written comments received from the public dming the public comment period and to
all verbal comments made by the public at the public comment meeting is contained in the responsiveness
summary, located in Appendix B of this ROD.

The Air Force, USEPA, and the NYSDEC have reviewed the Public Meeting Transcript and Responsiveness Summary
-------
presented in this ROD. It has been determined that no significant changes to the remedy, as it was originally
presented in the Proposed Plan, were necessary.

4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION

Chemical contaminants are present at relatively low levels in the soil at SS-005. Based on the industrial use
human health and ecological risk assessment (HRA) results, these chemicals do not pose a significant threat
to human health or the environment.

Principle future threats at Site SS-005 include a potential for groundwater contaminant concentrations to
increase beneath the site as a result of the upgradient FT-002 groundwater contaminant plume and an
unevaluated potential risk from surface soil that could be present for land uses other than the current and
planned future non-residential use. These principle threats are addressed by the preferred alternative
presented in this ROD.

5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION

Soil contamination found at Site SS-005 can be evaluated by comparing the results to other criteria,
advisories, and guidance values known as To-Be-Considered (TBC) values. The levels of contamination from
organic compounds in soil (both surface and subsurface soil) were evaluated by comparing the detected
concentrations to guidance values specified in the Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum (TAGM)
#4046 entitled, "Determination of Soil Cleanup Objectives and Cleanup Levels" (NYSDEC 1994). As recommended
by TAGM #4046, levels of contamination from inorganic compounds in soil were evaluated by comparing the
detected concentrations to site background levels (URS 1995).

For groundwater, contaminant levels were compared to groundwater applicable or relevant and appropriate
reguirements (ARARs), which are derived from the NYSDEC water guality standards and guidance values specified
in NYSDEC Technical and Operational Guidance Series (TOGS) 1.1.1 (October 1993), New York State Department of
Health Drinking Water Standards (Subpart 5-1 of the New York State Sanitary Code), New York State water
standards (Title 6 of New York State Rules and Regulations, Part 703), and USEPA drinking water standards (40
CFR 141). The concentration of metals in groundwater at the site were compared to basewide groundwater metal
concentrations.

5.1 Surface Soil Contamination

Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 5A and 5B present a summary of the levels of contamination found in the SS-005
surface soil and a comparison to the guidance thresholds described in Section 5.0. No volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), pesticides, or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were present above the guideline values.
Six semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs)[benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene], all of which are PAHs, and seven metals
(arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and zinc) were detected above their respective guidance
values.

In general, the most freguently detected SVOCs with the highest concentrations were found at the southeastern
end of the drainage swale.

5.2 Subsurface Soil Contamination

Subsurface soil (including near-surface soil) samples were collected between 0.5 feet and 7 feet bgs. In
general, VOCs and SVOCs were detected infreguently in the subsurface soil samples. Tables 1 and 2 and Figure
6 present a summary of the levels of contamination found in the SS-005 subsurface soil and a comparison to
the respective soil guidance values (see Section 5.0). No pesticides or PCBs were present above guidance
thresholds. However, two VOCs [methylene chloride and xylene (total)], three SVOCs [phenol, benzo(a)pyrene,
and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene], and five metals (barium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and zinc) exceeded their
respective guidance values. All of the VOC and SVOC results that exceeded their guidance thresholds were
obtained from samples at the southeastern end of the drainage swale.
-------
5.3 Groundwater Contamination

A summary of the groundwater analytical results compared to their respective guideline values is given in
Table 3 and Figure 7. Three metals (Aluminum, Iron, and Manganese) were detected in groundwater in
concentrations above the ARARs, but these metals were not detected in either the groundwater or the soil at
SS-005 above site background levels. Several organic compounds (VOCs and SVOCs) were detected in site
groundwater, although none of the results exceeded ARARs. An evaluation of the analytical results for site
soil seems to indicate that the organic contamination did not originate from SS-005. Rather, groundwater
beneath Site SS-005 is within the contamination plume emanating from site FT-002, and the organic groundwater
contamination detected here is attributable to that plume. Therefore, it appears that the soils at SS-005 are
not a source of groundwater contamination.

6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

During the RI, a baseline industrial use HRA was conducted to estimate the current and future risks at the
site if no remedial action was taken. Possible human health and ecological risks were evaluated. Due to their
close proximity and potentially overlapping areas of contamination, sites SS-005 and SS-006 (the Aerospace
Ground Eguipment Soil Operable Unit) were evaluated as one area. Chemicals of potential concern (CPCs) for
the two sites (Table 4) were chosen based on freguency of detection, chemical-specific toxicity information,
and exceedance of background levels (for inorganics only).

6.1 Human Health Risk Assessment

Five steps are followed in assessing site-related human health risks: Hazard Identification - determines the
chemicals of concern at the site based on toxicity, freguency of occurrence, and concentration. Exposure
Assessment - estimates the magnitude of actual and/or potential human exposures, and the pathways (e.g.,
dermal contact with soil) by which humans potentially are exposed. Toxicity Assessment - determines adverse
health effects associated with chemical exposures and the relationship between magnitude of exposure (dose)
and severity of adverse effects (response). Risk Characterization - summarizes and combines outputs of the
exposure and toxicity assessments to provide a guantitative assessment of site-related risks. Uncertainty
Analysis - gualifies the guantitative results of the risk assessment based upon the uncertainty associated
with the assumptions made in the analysis. Generally, assumptions made in the assessment process are
conservative and yield a reasonable overestimation, rather than an underestimation of risk.

The human HRA follows federal guidelines to estimate the potential carcinogenic (i.e., cancer-causing) and
adverse noncarcinogenic health effects due to potential exposure to site contaminants of concern from assumed
exposure scenarios and pathways. These guidelines consider an excess upper bound lifetime cancer risk to an
individual to be acceptable if it is calculated to be less than one-in-one million (10 -6), and risks in the
range of one-in-ten thousand (10 -4) to one-in-one million are evaluated on a case by case basis. The
guidance also specifies that the maximum health hazard index (which reflects the adverse noncarcinogenic
effects for a human receptor) less than or egual to 1.0. The Hazard Index (HI) is a representation of risk
based on a guotient or ratio of chronic daily intake to a reference (safe) dose. An HI greater than 1.0
indicates a potential of adverse noncarcinogenic health effects.

Two human exposure scenarios were evaluated as part of the human HRA for site SS-005 and SS-006 and are
summarized in Table 5.

A) Current Scenario - This scenario assumes that civilian personnel conducting landscape work may come in
-------
contact with contaminated soils. Potential routes of exposure for this scenario include incidental ingestion
of and dermal contact with surface soil. Because there is no current use of the groundwater at SS-005, there
is little likelihood of human contact with the contaminants in this medium under this scenario.

B) Future Scenario - This scenario accounts for future industrial activities at the SS-005 site:

Future utility, maintenance or construction activities may result in disrupted soil (e.g., excavation) which
potentially could expose utility/construction workers to site contaminants in surface and subsurface soil.
This exposure would be similar to that estimated for civilian landscape workers in the current exposure
scenario (above) with the additional potential to inhale fugitive dust.

Future Industrial Workers at the site could potentially be exposed to surface and subsurface soil after
future development of the site through ingestion and dermal contact with soil. Dermal contact with and
ingestion of groundwater were also evaluated for this scenario.

Given that the site is slated for industrial use (PARC 1995) and the deed/lease will prohibit residential use
as specified in this ROD for the site, its development for residential use is unlikely.
-------
TABLE 4

CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR SS-005 AND SS-006
SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOILS
ANALYTE
TYPE
SURFACE SOILS
FREQUENCY CHEMICAL
OF OF
DETECTION CONCERN
SUBSURFACE SOILS
FREQUENCY CHEMICAL
OF OF
DETECTION CONCERN
Methylene Chloride VOC
Trichloroethene VOC
Toluene VOC
Tetrachloroethene VOC
Xylene (total) VOC
Acenapthene SVOC
Acenaphthylene SVOC
Anthracene SVOC
Benzole Acid SVOC
Benz o(a)anthracene SVOC
Benz o(b)fluoranthene SVOC
Benz o(k)fluoranthene SVOC
Benzo(a)pyrene SVOC
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene SVOC
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate SVOC
Butylbenzylphthalate SVOC
Carbazole SVOC
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether SVOC
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol SVOC
Chrysene SVOC
Dibenzofuran SVOC
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene SVOC
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine SVOC
2,4-Dimethylphenol SVOC
Dimethylphthalate SVOC
2,4-Dinitrotoluene SVOC
Di-n-butylphthalate SVOC
2,6-Dinitrotoluene SVOC
Di-n-octylphthalate SVOC
Fluoranthene SVOC
Fluorene SVOC
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene SVOC
2-Methylnaphthalene SVOC
4-Methylphenol SVOC
Naphthalene SVOC
Pentachlorophenol SVOC
Phenanthrene SVOC
Phenol SVOC
Pyrene SVOC

--Indicates analyte not detected
VOC = Volatile Organic Compound
SVOC = Semivolatile Organic Compound
0/30
1/30
0/30
1/30
1/30
4/30
10/30
12/30
12/30
17/30
22/30
22/30
23/30
22/30
22/30
1/30
12/30
0/30
0/30
20/30
2/30
10/30
0/30
0/30
0/30
0/30
0/30
1/30
0/30
24/30
6/30
22/30
3/30
1/30
3/30
0/30
18/30
0/30
24/30

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
2/24
0/24
2/24
0/24
1/24
1/24
3/24
2/22
11/24
5/24
6/24
6/24
4/24
5/24
1/24
0/24
2/24
1/24
1/24
13/24
0/24
4/24
4/24
11/24
3/24
2/24
7/24
0/24
7/24
8/24
0/24
5/24
0/24
0/24
0/24
7/24
2/24
1/24
5/24
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
-------
TABLE 4 (cont'd)

CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR SS-005 AND SS-006
SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOILS
ANALYTE
TYPE
SURFACE SOILS
FREQUENCY CHEMICAL
OF OF
DETECTION CONCERN
SUBSURFACE SOILS
FREQUENCY CHEMICAL
OF OF
DETECTION CONCERN
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
4,4'-ODD
4,4-DDT
Endosulfan II
Methoxychlor
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
PCB
PCB
PEST
PEST
PEST
PEST
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
METAL
0/6
3/6
2/6
2/6
0/6
0/6
30/30
25/30
29/30
30/30
26/30
29/30
30/30
30/30
30/30
30/30
30/30
30/30
30/30
30/30
30/30
30/30
25/30
25/30
30/30
25/30
30/30
30/30

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
1/6
0/6
0/6
2/6
1/6
1/6
24/24
18/24
23/24
24/24
18/24
21/24
24/24
24/24
24/24
24/24
24/24
24/24
24/24
24/24
24/24
24/24
18/24
18/24
24/24
22/24
24/24
24/24
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
-- Indicates analyte not detected
PEST = Pesticide
PCB = Polychlorinated Biphenyl
-------
TABLE 5

SUMMARY OF HAZARD INDICES AND CANCER RISKS
PLATTSBURGH AIR FORCE BASE
SITES SS-005 & SS-006

EXPOSURE POPULATION AND PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX CANCER RISK

CURRENT SCENARIO

CIVILIAN LANDSCAPE WORKER
Ingestion of Surface Soil 6E-02 IE-OS
Dermal Contact with Surface Soil 1E-02 2E-07
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK: 7E-02 IE-OS

FUTURE SCENARIO

SITE WORKER
Ingestion of Subsurface Soil 9E-04 1E-07
Dermal Contact with Subsurface Soil 2E-03 1E-08
Ingestion of Groundwater 2E-01 3E-05
Dermal Contact with Groundwater 3E-04 2E-08
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK 2E-01 3E-05

CONSTRUCTION/UTILITY MAINTENANCE WORKER
Ingestion of Soil 6E-02 4E-07
Dermal Contact with Soil 8E-02 6E-10
Inhalation of Respirable Particulates from Soil 6E-03 3E-07
TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK 7E-02 7E-07
-------
For current land use, the total cancer risk for the civilian landscape worker was estimated as 1 x 10 -5
which is within the acceptable risk range established by current USEPA guidelines. For the proposed future
industrial land use, the total estimated cancer risks for the site worker and
construction/utility/maintenance worker were 3 x 10 -5 and 7 x 10 -7, respectively. These results are within
the acceptable USEPA specified range.

For the current land use, the total HI for the civilian landscape worker was estimated to be 0.07. For the
proposed future industrial land use, the total His for the site worker and construction/utility/maintenance
worker were 0.2 and 0.07, respectively for SS-005. These results are below the acceptable USEPA upper limit
of 1.

6.2 Ecological Risk Assessment

A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related ecological risks for a reasonable maximum exposure
scenario: Problem Formulation - a gualitative evaluation of contaminant release, migration, and fate;
identification of CPCs, ecological receptors, exposure pathways, and known ecological effects of the
contaminants; and selection of endpoints for further study. Exposure Assessment - a quantitative evaluation
of contaminant release, migration, and fate; characterization of exposure pathways and receptors; and
measurement of the estimation of exposure point concentration. Ecological Effects Assessment - literature
reviews, field studies, and toxicity tests, linking contaminant concentrations to effects on ecological
receptors. Risk Characterization - a measurement of estimation of current adverse effects.

Sites SS-005, SS-006, and SS-017 (the Building 2774 Site) were combined for the ecological assessment due to
their proximity to each other and their limited areal extent. A screening level ecological risk assessment
was performed to assess the potential impact of exposure to contaminated surface soil on terrestrial
organisms. The species evaluated for the site were the white-footed mouse, short-tailed shrew, and American
robin. In addition, the terrestrial vegetation at the SS-005 site was evaluated. The results of the
ecological assessment are expressed as a Hazard Quotient (HQ). An HQ of greater than or egual to 1.0
indicates potential for adverse health effects to ecological receptors.

Due to the large extent of paving, buildings, and structures at SS-005, a very limited habitat exists on site
(less than 1/10 acre). The balance of the site is an open area of mowed grass which is unsuitable for mice,
shrews, and robins to nest.

Ecological risk calculations for an assumed scenario of resident receptors indicated that contaminants in the
surface soil at the three sites present a possible risk to wildlife. This scenario estimated potential
adverse health risks based on the receptors nesting and feeding exclusively at SS-005, which is probably not
realistic. HQs for arsenic, lead, and barium were calculated to be between 1 and 17. HQs for other chemicals
were calculated to be less than 1.0. The scenario used for this ecological risk assessment was very
conservative, including the assumption that nesting of the birds was possible without proper terrestrial
vegetation at SS-005 and that feeding would occur only within SS-005, when range areas for the birds are far
in excess of the available feeding areas. The ecological risk assessment concludes that, based on the limited
habitat available at SS-005 and the low probability that wildlife would utilize site SS-005 exclusively,
wildlife exposure to the CPCs poses very little risk.

7.0 THE DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY

The USAF has selected institutional controls as the remedy for the SS-005 soil operable unit. The
institutional controls will consist of deed/lease restrictions prohibiting residential development on the
site and restrictions of groundwater use. There will also be five-year reviews of the selected remedy in
accordance with Section 121(c) of CERCLA.

7.1 Basis

The results of the RI indicate that there are no significant human health risks associated with the soil at
SS-005, given its current use and expected use as an industrial/aviation support facility. However,
groundwater contaminants (aluminum, iron, and manganese) were detected at levels above regulatory standards
-------
at SS-005 and the site lies downgradient from the FT-002 site, a known significant source of groundwater
contamination. Although TCE concentrations in site SS-005 groundwater are below regulatory standards, it
appears that the leading edge of the FT-002 groundwater contaminant plume may have begun to migrate beneath
site SS-005. Continued migration of the FT-002 plume could result in an increase in the concentrations of TCE
and other FT-002 contaminants in groundwater underneath the site over time. Migration of contaminants from
FT-002 will be monitored as part of the Fire Training Area/Industrial Area Groundwater Operable Unit (FTA/IA
GOU) .

Ecological risks are possible to terrestrial wildlife from chemicals detected in surface soil. However, due
to the current land use of the area and because the area of exposed soil is limited (less than 1/10 acre),
wildlife exposure to contaminants in the soil is expected to be limited.

7.2 The Selected Remedy

Because no evaluation of human health risk posed by site soils was conducted for a residential development
scenario and because contaminants, although not attributable to the site, were detected in groundwater
beneath the site at concentrations exceeding regulatory standards, the following actions are included in the
remedy:

! Restrictions will be imposed to limit development of the site to non-residential use.

! Prohibition of the installation of any wells for drinking water or any other purposes which
could result in the use of the underlying groundwater.

An evaluation of the above institutional controls, which will be implemented through lease and deed
restrictions, will be undertaken as part of the five-year review of the remedy. The area that will be subject
to institutional controls is shown on Figure 8.

Groundwater remedial actions, including monitoring, will be specified in the preferred alternative for the
FTA/IA GOU. The area covered by the FTA/IA GOU includes site SS-005.

8.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The remedial action selected for implementation at SS-005 is consistent with CERCLA and, to the extent
practicable, the NCP. The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, attains ARARs,
and is cost effective. The selected remedy uses permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to
the maximum extent practicable for this site. However, it does not satisfy the statutory preference for
treatment which permanently and significantly reduces the mobility, toxicity, or volume of
hazardous substances as a principal element.

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

The remedy at SS-005 will permanently reduce the potential future risk posed to human health and the
environment through institutional controls (i.e., restrictions imposed to limit the future development of the
site and prohibit the use of groundwater). These controls, as well as five-year reviews of the selected
remedy, will effectively eliminate the potential risks posed by site soils.

8.2 The Selected Remedy Attains ARARs

The remedy will comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate chemical-, action-, and
location-specific requirements (ARARs). Federal and state ARARs are presented below.

Chemical-specific

Not applicable.
-------
Action-specific

Not applicable

Location-specific

! National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (40 CFR 1501) - The Department of the Air Force
revised their protocols to update its process for compliance with NEPA. The revision provides policy
and guidance for consideration of environmental matters in the Air Force decision-making process.

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

NYSDEC soil TBCs (TAGM #4046) will not be met since treatment of the site soils is not included in the
alternative. However, TBCs are guidance rather than promulgated standards and the remedy adequately protects
human health and the environment.

8.4 Cost-Effectiveness

The selected remedy is cost-effective.

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

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

8.6 The Selected Remedy Does Not Satisfy the Preference for Treatment Which Permanently and Significantly
Reduces the Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the Hazardous Substances as a Principal Element

Treatment of the soils is considered impractical as risks to human health and the environment are within
acceptable levels under the current and planned future land use scenarios. Conseguently, the remedy does not
satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principle element of remediation.

9.0 DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

Plattsburgh AFB presented a Proposed Plan for the preferred alternative for SS-005 in February 1998 that
consisted of institutional controls. The selected remedy includes:

! Deed/lease restrictions limiting development of the site to non-residential use
! Deed/lease prohibition of the installation of wells for use of the underlying groundwater

The selected remedy does not differ from the preferred alternative presented in the Proposed Plan.

10. STATE ROLE

The NYSDEC, on behalf of the State of New York, has reviewed the various alternatives and has indicated its
support for the selected remedy. It also has reviewed the RI and Proposed Plan to determine if the selected
remedy complies with applicable or relevant and appropriate New York State environmental laws and
regulations. The NYSDEC concurs with the selected remedy for the SS-005. A copy of the declaration of
concurrence is attached as Appendix C.

REFERENCES

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

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 1996. Revised Draft Final, Remedial Investigation Report, Attachment I Sites (Sites
-------
SS-005, SS-006, SS-017, and SS-018), Plattsburgh Air Force Base, New York.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 1993. Ambient Water Quality Standards and
Guidance Values, TOGS 1.1.1. Albany: Division of Water.

. 1994. Determination of Soil Cleanup Objectives and Cleanup Levels, TAGM #4046. Albany: Bureau of
Hazardous Waste Remediation.

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

Tetra Tech. 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Disposal and Reuse of Plattsburgh Air Force Base, New
York. Prepared for the Plattsburgh Airbase Redevelopment Corporation.

URS Consultants, Inc. (URS). 1995. Background Surface Soil and Groundwater Survey for Plattsburgh Air Force
Base (Draft).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989a. Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents: the
Proposed Plan, the Record of Decision, Explanation of Significant Differences, the Record of Decision
Amendment, Interim Final, July. Cincinnati, OH: USEPA.

. 1989b. Risk Assessment Guidance of Superfund, Vol I. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A),
Interim Final (EPA/540/1-89/002). Cincinnati, OH: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.

. 1989c. Risk Assessment Guidancefor Superfund. Vol II. Environmental Evaluation Manual,
(EPA/540/1-89/001). Cincinnati, OH: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.

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

. 1991b. Ecological Assessment of Superfund Sites: an Overview, ECO Update, Vol. 1, No. 2, Publication
934.0-051. Cincinnati, OH: USEPA.

GLOSSARY

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

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

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

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

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

Groundwater: Water found beneath the earth's surface that fills pores within materials such as sand, soil,
gravel, and cracks in bedrock, and often serves as a source of drinking water.
-------
Inorganic Compounds: A class of naturally occurring compounds that includes metals, cyanide, nitrates,
sulfates, chlorides, carbonate, bicarbonate, and other oxide complexes.

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

Monitoring: Ongoing collection of information about the environment that helps gauge the effectiveness of a
cleanup action. Information gathering may include groundwater well sampling, surface water sampling, soil
sampling, air sampling, and physical inspections.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP): The NCP provides the organization
structure and procedures for preparing for and responding to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, and contaminants. The NCP is reguired under CERCLA and the Clean Water Act, and the
USEPA has been delegated the responsibility for preparing and implementing the NCP. The NCP is applicable to
response actions taken pursuant to the authorities under CERCLA and the Clean Water Act.

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

Natural Attenuation: Processes by which contaminant levels are reduced in nature. Contaminants in soil or
groundwater are reduced by aerobic (oxygen-using) bacteria, other biological activity, volatilization, and
dilution/dispersion.

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

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

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): A chemical compound consisting of carbon and hydrogen and
containing two or more fused benzene rings. They are a group of highly reactive organic compounds found in
motor oil and common components of creosotes. Many are carcinogenic.

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs): The mixture of hydrocarbons and small amounts of other substances that make up
petroleum. Hydrocarbons are chemical compounds consisting of carbon and hydrogen, and are found in gasoline,
naphtha, and other products produced by refining processes.

Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB): A compound that formerly was used as a lubricant and transformer coolant.

Proposed Plan: A public document that solicits public input on a recommended remedial alternative to be used
at a National Priorities List (NPL) site. The Proposed Plan is based on information and technical analysis
generated during the RI/FS. The recommended remedial action could be modified or changed based on public
comments and community concerns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum (TAGM): TAGM #4046 issued by NYSDEC Bureau of Hazardous
Waste Remediation establishes chemical-specific soil cleanup objectives in the vadose zone. The document is
entitled Determination of Soil Cleanup Objectives and Cleanup Levels (NYSDEC 1994) .

Terrestrial Wildlife: Animals living on land (e.g., reptiles, small mammals, small birds, predatory mammals,
predatory birds).

To Be Considered (TBCs): Federal and state policies, advisories, and other non-promulgated health and
environment criteria, including numerical guidance values, that are not legally binding. TBCs are used for
the protection of public health and the environment if no specific ARARs for a chemical or other site
conditions exist, or if ARARs are not deemed sufficiently protective.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): Organic compounds that have a high propensity to volatilize or to change
from a liguid to a gas form.
-------
APPENDIX A

TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC MEETINGS FOR SS-005

COMPLETED

STATE OF NEW YORK

AIR FORCE BASE CONVERSION AGENCY

PUBLIC MEETING BRIEFING
FOR
THE PROPOSED PLANS FOR SITES
SS-005, NON-DESTRUCTIVE INSPECTION FACILITY,
AND
SS-006, AEROSPACE GROUND EQUIPMENT FACILITY

taken on Thursday, February 26, 1998
at 7:00 p.m. at the Old Courthouse
Corner of Margaret and Court Streets
Plattsburgh, New York

APPEARANCES:

MICHAEL SOREL, BRAG Environmental Coordinator

BRUCE PRZYBYL, Project Manager, URS Greiner, Inc.

COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
117 Bank Street, Burlington, VT 05401
(802) 862-4593
-------
1 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1998; 7:00 P.M.

3 MR. SOREL: Okay. Why don't we go

4 ahead and get started? This is a public meeting for

5 the proposed plans for Sites SS-005, the

6 Non-destructive Inspection Facility, and SS-006,

7 Aerospace Ground Eguipment Facility. I'd like to

8 begin the public meeting for these two proposed

9 sites.

10 For those that don't know me, I am Mike Sorel,

11 the BRAG Environmental Coordinator working for the

12 Air Force Base Conversion Agency at Plattsburgh. I

13 will be presiding over this meeting, the main

14 purpose of which is to allow the public opportunity

15 to comment on the Air Force's actions for these

16 sites.

17 Assisting me with tonight's presentation is

18 Bruce Przybyl, the project manager at Plattsburgh

19 for URS Greiner, Incorporated. We are here to

20 provide answers to technical guestions you may have

21 about the remedial alternatives being considered by

22 the Air Force.

23 Also with us this evening is Bob Morse with the

24 USEPA and Jim Quinn with New York State DEC.

25 Tonight's agenda will consist of a summary of

COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
-------
1 data gathered at the sites and a description of the

2 preferred remedial actions. After that, we will

3 move to the most important part of this meeting --

4 the part where you provide your comments on the

5 remedial actions.

6 First, however, I need to take care of several

7 administrative details. As you can see, everything

8 being said is being taken down word-for-word by a

9 professional court reporter. The transcript will

10 become part of the administrative records for these

11 sites.

12 We would like everybody to complete the sign-in

13 sheet at the door. We will use the sheet to review

14 our mailing list for the sites.

15 At the conclusion of the presentation we will

16 open the floor to comments and questions. If you

17 have a prepared statement you may read it out loud

18 or turn it in without reading it. In any case, your

19 comments will become part of the record.

20 We have cards at the front desk for your use for

21 written comments. If you turn in any written

22 comments, please write your name and address on

23 them.

24 If you later decide to make a comment or add to

25 something you said here, you may send additional

COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
-------
1 comments to us at this address. We will accept

2 comments until March 18, 1998. I will show this

3 address slide again at the end of the meeting.

4 The final point is our primary purpose tonight

5 is to listen to you. We want to hear your comments

6 on any issues you are concerned about, and we will

7 try to answer any guestions you may have. We want

8 you to be satisfied that the action we take will

9 properly and fully address the problems at the site.

10 Now I'd like to turn the meeting over to Bruce

11 Przybyl.

12 MR. PRZYBYL: Thank you, Mike. Good

13 evening. I'd like to talk to you today about the

14 Air Force's recommended alternatives for remedial

15 action for two Installation Restoration Program

16 Sites at the Plattsburgh Air Force Base. The

17 actions at these sites are specific to soil operable

18 units. The sites are SS-005, the Non-Destructive

19 Inspection Facility and SS-006, the Aerospace Ground

20 Eguipment Facility.

21 The recommended alternative for both of these

22 sites is institutional action. The sites are

23 located very close to one another along Arizona

24 Avenue in an area that is designated for industrial

25 use or aviation support. The sites are located

COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
-------
1 here: This is Connecticut Avenue, Connecticut Road,

2 Arizona is along in here. This is the flight line,

3 this is the runway, this is Lake Champlain.

4 Because they are so close and have a similar

5 scope of environmental impact these two sites have

6 followed a similar regulatory path.

7 Action began at both of these sites in 1987 when

8 the site inspection was conducted at each site.

9 Each investigation consisted of a records search, a

10 soil organic vapor survey, and a few surface soil

11 samples. Because some low level organic

12 contaminants were detected at the sites, remedial

13 investigations were initiated in 1992. At SS-005,

14 remedial investigation activities consisted of 48

15 surface and subsurface soil samples and the

16 installation and sampling of three groundwater

17 monitoring wells. At SS-006, 17 soil samples and one

18 sediment sample were taken and three wells were

19 installed and sampled.

20 Because of their close proximity, the data from

21 these two sites was combined for analysis under one

22 common human health risk assessment. Data from

23 sites 005, 006 and 017 were combined into a common

24 ecological risk assessment.

25 It's important to note that the Air Force has

COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
-------
1 worked with New York State and the United States

2 Environmental Protection Agency in the each step in

3 the process. These agencies provided input to the

4 site investigations, remedial investigations and

5 risk assessments.

6 The state and EPA have also concurred in

7 principle regarding the remedy for Sites 005 and 006

8 as outlined in the proposed plan which is available

9 to the public at the Feinburg Library. The Air

10 Force will use this public meeting and the

11 thirty-day public comment period to solicit comments

12 from the community.

13 Is this clear? This figure depicts Site SS-005.

14 The Non-destructive Inspection Facility was used for

15 the x-ray inspection of aircraft parts. The

16 investigation at this site focused on two areas of

17 concern, including a drainage swale located adjacent

18 to the former waste accumulation area, that is in

19 here. The accumulation area handled cleaning

20 solvents and photographic development chemicals from

21 the NDI. And the second area was a former oil

22 water/separator which is located right here. Three

23 wells were installed at the site; one is located

24 here, another here, another one, the third one is

25 there at that location.

COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
-------
1 Some polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, chemicals

2 created from the incomplete burning of fossil fuels,

3 metals and two volatiles were detected above New

4 York State soil guidance which were methylene

5 chloride and xylene. The highest concentrations

6 were noted at the southeastern end of the drainage

7 swale. That is located right here. All chemicals

8 detected in groundwater were below groundwater

9 standards except aluminum, iron and magnesium.

10 These metals were not highly concentrated in the

11 soil at SS-005, so it appears that the site is not a

12 source of groundwater contamination. Some trace

13 level organics such as trichloroethene were detected

14 in groundwater but not in soil, indicating

15 contamination may be entering the site from

16 upgradient areas, and I'll touch on that again

17 later.

18 This figure depicts Site SS-006. This area, the

19 Aerospace Ground Eguipment Facility was used for

20 maintenance and repair of flightline power carts,

21 and that is this building right here. Precision

22 tools utilized in the maintenance of aircraft were

23 used in the adjacent building, Building 2801 right

24 there.

25 The main area of concern at this site is a

COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
-------
1 drainage swale located between the two buildings

2 right in this area here. This swale accumulated

3 runoff from a waste accumulation point located

4 adjacent to the swale right here and also from paved

5 areas where fuel and chemicals were handled and

6 stored. These include the waste accumulation

7 storage shed which would be right here which was

8 decontaminated in 1997, fueling pumps over here

9 which were removed under the State Spill Response

10 Program, a satellite accumulation point located

11 adjacent to 2801 right there, and oil/water

12 separator holding tanks which were ultimately

13 removed under the state's program and those are

14 located here.

15 Two small JP-4 spills are documented to have

16 occurred on the pavement south of 2815 right here.

17 In the soil samples taken no chemicals were

18 detected above New York State guidance except for

19 zinc in one sample.

20 Chemicals were detected in groundwater, most

21 notably trichloroethene, but they were not found in

22 soil at the site. This indicates that groundwater

23 contamination may be entering the site from

24 upgradient as with SS-005.

25 This map depicts the groundwater flow pattern in

COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
-------
1 the central portion of the base. Recently the Air

2 Force has completed a modeling effort describing the

3 current contamination moving from the FT-002 site

4 and predicting its future impact on downgradient

5 areas.

6 The study revealed that contaminants, most

7 notably TCE, are moving from FT-002 towards Sites

8 SS-005 and SS-006. Here is the FT-002 site and here

9 is a slope path from the northern portion of the

10 FT-002 site headed directly toward Site SS-005 and

11 I'd say Site SS-006 is right on the northern edge of

12 the plume that receives a little more sporadic

13 influence from the FT-002 site. These sites are

14 being affected currently and the model predicts that

15 the concentrations of the contaminants are expected

16 to increase slightly in the future.

17 Risk to human health from site contaminants in

18 soil was assessed given three scenarios. The

19 current use scenario assumed exposure to site soils

20 by a landscape worker. Future use was broken into

21 two phases: A construction phase under which workers

22 are exposed to excavating soil, and an industrial

23 use phase under which industrial workers are exposed

24 to site soils and are drinking groundwater from the

25 site.

COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
-------
1 In all scenarios the non-cancer hazard indices

2 and cancer risks were calculated to be within

3 acceptable limits. The hazard indices being noted

4 here are all less than one which is the upper

5 acceptable limit. The cancer risks noted here are

6 all less than ten to the minus four which again is

7 the upper acceptable limit.

8 In addition, the ecological risk assessment

9 indicated that no terrestrial organisms are

10 threatened by site contaminates.

11 And now I will talk about the specifics of the

12 selected remedy. The proposed remedial action at

13 both sites consists of the same identical elements

14 and these are:

15 Restrictions will be imposed on the development

16 of the site of the facilities that support

17 industrial non-residential use. Because of the risk

18 assessment evaluated scenario is consistent with a

19 planned industrial use of the sites, the Air Force

20 will restrict development of sites to industrial

21 use.

22 Second, restrictions will be imposed to prohibit

23 the installation of any wells for drinking water or

24 any other purposes which could result in the use of

25 the underlying groundwater. Although the

COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
-------
1 contamination groundwater in Sites 005 and 006 is

2 not currently a problem, contaminates from Site

3 FT-002 may increase in concentration beneath Sites

4 005 and 006, and therefore I believe the Air Force

5 is prudent to institute groundwater restrictions.

6 Last, an evaluation of the institutional

7 restrictions which will be implemented through lease

8 and deed agreements will be undertaken as part of

9 the five-year review of the remedy to insure that

10 human health and the environment is continuing to be

11 protected. And that is the end of the discussion.

12 MR. SOREL: Okay. At this point I'd

13 like to open up the meeting for comments or

14 guestions. Since everything being said here tonight

15 is being taken down, please state your name for the

16 record before you make your statement. Any

17 guestions from anybody?

18 Okay. Since we have no guestions if you should

19 later decide to make additional comments on the

20 proposed action alternatives please mail them to

21 this address by March 18th, 1998. Also I would like

22 to add that the proposed plans are available for

23 review at the information repository located in the

24 Special Collections at the Feinburg Library at SUNY

25 Plattsburgh.

COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
-------
1 That concludes this meeting. Thank you for

2 coming.

4 (The hearing concluded at 7:20 p.m.)

COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
-------
1

2 CERTIFICATE

4 I, Carol A. Boone, Notary Public and Court

5 Reporter, hereby certify that the foregoing pages,

6 numbered 2 through 12 inclusive, are a true and

7 accurate transcription to the best of my ability of

8 the public hearing in the matter of Plattsburgh Air

9 Force Base Conversion, taken before me on the 26th

10 day of February, 1998, at Old Court House, Corner of

11 Margaret Street and Court Street, Plattsburgh, New

12 York, in this matter now pending.

14 I further certify that I am not related to

15 counsel, counsel's law firm, nor any party to the

16 case in this matter, nor do I have any interest in

17 the outcome of the case.

21 Carol A. Boone, Court Reporter

COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATES
-------
APPENDIX B

RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE BASE CONVERSION AGENCY

March 18, 1998

MEMO FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Responsiveness Summary: Public Comment Period for Proposed Plans at
IRP Site SS-005, Non-Destructive Inspection Facility, and IRP Site SS-006,
IRP Site SS-006, Aerospace Ground Equipment Facility

A. OVERVIEW

IRP Site SS-005: The Non-Destructive Inspection Facility (NDI) is located in the eastern portion of the base,
within the industrial area. The facility was used for the non-destructive x-ray inspection of aircraft parts.

A waste accumulation area formerly was located at SS-005. Materials used and stored at this facility included
PD-680 cleaning solvent, engine oil, 1,1,1-tricholorethane, developer, dye penetrant fluid, remover, and
photographic fixer solution. The fixer solution was treated by a silver recovery unit before disposal.

A Site Inspection (SI) was conducted at SS-005 in 1987. A Remedial Investigation (RI) was performed from
October 1992 to February 1993. Findings showed that chemical contaminants are present at relatively low
levels in soil at SS-005. These chemicals do not pose a significant threat to human or ecological health
under current and planned future non-residential land use scenarios.

The USAF has selected institutional controls as the preferred alternative for the SS-005 soil operable unit.
The institutional controls will consist of deed restrictions prohibiting residential development on the site
and restrictions of groundwater use. There will be a five-year review of the selected remedy in accordance
with Section 121(c) of CERCLA.

IRP Site SS-006: The Aerospace Ground Equipment Facility (AGE) is located in Building 2815 in the
east-central portion of Plattsburgh AFB, approximately 600 feet east of the flightline. Building 2801, the
Weapons Systems Management and Maintenance Facility, is included in this site.

Constructed in 1980, the AGE building (Bldg. 2815) was utilized for the maintenance and repair of ground
power carts that provided electrical and pneumatic power to parked aircraft. Building 2801 was constructed in
1956 and housed the Precision Measurement Equipment Laboratory (PMEL), where aircraft maintenance tools were
calibrated. Other flightline-related offices were also housed in Building 2801.

SS-006 is also the location of one of the hazardous waste accumulation points on the base that accepted
hazardous waste from satellite accumulation points at the AGE and at Building 2801 from 1989 until the base
closed in 1995. There were no reported spills in this area. In addition, two 5,000-gallon underground storage
tanks (USTs), reportedly used to store diesel fuel, formerly were located west of the AGE, and a former
oil/water separator was located near the southern wall of the AGE. A former 550-gallon underground holding
tank was associated with this separator. Former filling pumps were also located at the AGE.

A Site Inspection (SI) was conducted at SS-006 in 1987. A Remedial Investigation (RI) was performed from
October 1992 to February 1995. Findings showed that chemical contaminants are present at relatively low
levels in soil at SS-006. These chemicals do not pose a significant threat to human or ecological health
under current and planned future non-residential land use scenarios.
-------
The USAF has selected institutional controls as the preferred alternative for the SS-006 soil operable unit.
The institutional controls will consist of deed restrictions prohibiting residential development on the site
and restrictions of groundwater use. There will be a five-year review of the selected remedy in accordance
with Section 121(c) of CERCLA.

B. PUBLIC MEETING & PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

A Public Meeting was held on the proposed plans for SS-005 and SS-006 on February 26, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. It
was held at the Old Court House in the City of Plattsburgh, County of Clinton, NY. A prepared statement was
read by Mr. Michael D. Sorel, PE, the BRAG Environmental Coordinator for the Air Force Base Conversion Agency
(AFBCA). Mr. Bruce Przybyl of URS Greiner, Inc., detailed the proposed plans for the audience. The floor was
then opened to the public for guestions and comments. Concluding the meeting was a statement by Mr. Sorel
that additional comments could be sent to the Air Force. As advertised in the Plattsburgh Press-Republican,
the public comment period ran from February 17, 1998, to March 18, 1998. The Public Meeting was recorded by a
court reporter, Ms. Carol Boone of Court Reporters Associates, Burlington, VT.

C. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND AGENCY RESPONSES

A memorandum dated March 12, 1998, was received from Mr. John Huru, the AFBCA-DA Plattsburgh Site Manager.
Mr. Huru felt "that the word 'industrial' should be deleted from the action regarding development of the
site. Restrictions should be imposed to prohibit residential use of the site only. Any other use restriction
is unjustified and would unduly impact the local redevelopment agency."

The USAF will change the wording from, "industrial, non-residential use" to "non-residential use."

From the time of the Public Meeting until the deadline of March 18, 1998, no further guestions or comments
were received by the Air Force regarding the proposed plans for SS-005 and SS-006.

Attachment:
Memorandum from AFBCA-DA/Plattsuburgh
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE BASE CONVERSION AGENCY

March 12, 1998

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCA/DA PLATTSBURGH
ATTN: MR. MICHAEL D. SOREL, PE
BRAG Environmental Coordinator
426 US Oval Suite 2200
Plattsburgh NY 12903

FROM: AFBCA/DA Plattsburgh
426 US Oval Suite 2260
Plattsburgh NY 12903

SUBJECT: Proposed Plans, SS-005 and SS-006

I have reviewed the Proposed Plans for Sites SS-005 and SS-006 and have a comment regarding the preferred
alternative. I feel that the word "industrial" should be deleted from the action regarding development of the
site. Restrictions should be imposed to prohibit residential use of the site only. Any other use restriction
is unjustified and would unduly impact the local redevelopment agency.

-------
APPENDIX C

NYSDEC CONCURRENCE LETTER

Mr. Richard Caspe
Director
Emergency & Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866

Dear Mr. Caspe:

Re: Records of Decision
SS-005 and SS-006
Plattsburgh Air Force Base - ID No. 510003

In response to the Records of Decision (RODs) for SS-005 (Non-Destructive Inspection Facility) and SS-006
(Aerospace Ground Eguipment Facility) submitted and signed by Assistant Secretary Rodney A. Coleman of the
United States Air Force, I wish to concur with the remedial action plans as put forth in the RODs. The remedy
at each of these sites will be institutional controls including:

! Lease/deed restrictions imposed to limit development of the site to non-residential use;

! Prohibition on the installation of any wells for the use of site groundwater.

I understand that the adeguacy of this remedy to protect human health and the environment will be reviewed
during the five-year site reviews.

Sincerely,

-------
ROD FACT SHEET

SITE
Name : Plattsburgh Air Force Base
Non-Destructive Inspection Facility (Soil OU)
Location/State : Plattsburgh, New York
EPA Region : 2
HRS Score(date) : 30.34 (9/22/88) Basewide score, not this site
Site ID # : NY4571924774

ROD
Date Signed: 4/02/98
Remedy/ies: Institutional Controls
Operating Unit Number: OU-12(IRP Site SS-005)
Capital cost: $ 0
Construction Completion: NA
0 & M in 1998: $ 1,000 (in 1998 dollars)
1999: $ 2,000
2000: $ 2,000
2001: $ 2,000
Present worth: $ NA

LEAD
Remedial - Federal Facility Lead
Primary contact - Bob Morse (212) 637-4331
Secondary contact - Bob Wing (212) 637-4332
Main PRP(s) - U.S. Air Force
PRP Contact - Mike Sorel (518) 563-2871

WASTE
Type - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Metals
Medium - Soil
Origin - Surface spills, waste accumulation area runoff,
possible leaks from oil/water separator
Est. guantity - one acre
-------