RECORD OF DECISION (ROD) FOR SITE 12, EXPLOSIVE ORNANCE

Record of Decision

for Site 12

Explosive Ordnance Disposal Area

Former Naval Air Station Brunswick Brunswick, Maine

Department of the Navy BRAC Program Management Office East

Contract Number N62472-03-D-0057 Contract Task Order 69

September 2015

Former NAS Brunswick Site 12 ROD

i September 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NO.

ACRONYMS .....................................................................................................................................iii

1.0 DECLARATION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Site Name and Location .............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose .................................................................................. 1 1.3 Assessment of Site ..................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Description of Selected Remedy .................................................................................. 1 1.5 Statutory Determinations ............................................................................................. 2 1.6 ROD Data Certification Checklist ................................................................................. 2 1.7 Authorizing Signatures ................................................................................................ 3

2.0 DECISION SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Site Name, Location, and Brief Description ................................................................... 4 2.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities ........................................................................ 4 2.3 Community Participation ............................................................................................. 7 2.4 Scope and Role of Operable Unit ................................................................................. 7 2.5 Site Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 8 2.5.1 Physical Characteristics .............................................................................................. 8 2.5.2 Nature and Extent and Fate and Transport of Contamination ....................................... 10 2.6 Current and Potential Future Site and Resource Uses ................................................. 10 2.7 Summary of Potential Chemical Risks and Explosive Hazards ..................................... 12 2.7.1 Summary of Human Health Risk from MC .................................................................. 12 2.7.2 Summary of Ecological Risk from MC ........................................................................ 16 2.7.3 MEC Hazard Assessment ......................................................................................... 18 2.7.4 Basis for Action ........................................................................................................ 21 2.8 Remedial Action Objective......................................................................................... 21 2.9 Description of Alternatives ......................................................................................... 21 2.10 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives ......................................................................... 23 2.11 Principal Threat Waste .............................................................................................. 26 2.12 Selected Remedy ..................................................................................................... 26 2.12.1 Rationale for Selected Remedy ................................................................................. 26 2.12.2 Description of Selected Remedy ................................................................................ 27 2.12.3 Expected Outcomes of Selected Remedy................................................................... 29 2.13 Statutory Determination............................................................................................. 29 2.14 Documentation of Significant Changes ....................................................................... 30 2.15 State Role ................................................................................................................ 30

3.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY........................................................................................... 30 3.1 Stakeholder Comments and Lead Agency Responses ................................................ 30 3.2 Technical and Legal Issues ....................................................................................... 30

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................R-1


ii September 2015

TABLES NUMBER 1-1 ROD Data Certification Checklist ........................................................................................ 2 2-1 Previous Investigations and Site Documentation .................................................................. 5 2-2 Receptors and Exposure Routes Evaluated in the HHRA ...................................................13 2-3 Summary of RME Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices ..........................................................15 2-4 General Response Actions ................................................................................................21 2-5 Summary of Remedial Alternatives Evaluated.....................................................................22 2-6 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives ..............................................................24 2-7 How Selected Remedy Mitigates Hazards and Achieves RAOs ...........................................29

FIGURES NUMBER 1-1 Site 12 Location Map ......................................................................................................... 1 2-1 Site 12 Layout ................................................................................................................... 5 2-2 Site 12 Conceptual Site Model ............................................................................................ 9 2-3 Site 12 Munitions Clearance Summary ...............................................................................11 2-4 Site 12 Selected Remedy - LUCs.......................................................................................28

APPENDICES A MEDEP CONCURRENCE LETTER B PROPOSED PLAN AND PUBLIC NOTICE C HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY TABLES D ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY TABLES E ARARs F COSTS G TRANSCRIPT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR SITE 12 AND

RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS


iii September 2015

ACRONYMS ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement

bgs below ground surface

BNAS Brunswick Naval Air Station

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

COC chemical of concern

COPC chemical of potential concern

CSF cancer slope factor

CSM conceptual site model

CTE central tendency exposure

DU Decision Unit

EEQ Ecological Effects Quotient

EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPC exposure point concentration

ESS Explosives Safety Submission

EU exposure unit

FFA Federal Facility Agreement

FS Feasibility Study

GHG greenhouse gas

HA Hazard Assessment

HHRA human health risk assessment

HI Hazard Index

HQ Hazard Quotient

ILCR incremental lifetime cancer risk

IR Installation Restoration

JATO jet-assisted take off

LUC land use control

MC munitions constituents

MDAS material documented as safe

MEC munitions and explosives of concern

MEDEP Maine Department of Environmental Protection

MGFD Maximum Greatest Fragmentation Distance

mm millimeter


iv September 2015

MMRP Military Munitions Response Program

MPPEH material potentially presenting an explosive hazard

MRRA Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority

NAS Naval Air Station

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

NPL National Priorities List

NPW net present worth

O&M operations and maintenance

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PA Preliminary Assessment

PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon

PMO Program Management Office

RAB Restoration Advisory Board

RAO Remedial Action Objective

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RD Remedial Design

RfD reference dose

RI Remedial Investigation

RME reasonable maximum exposure

ROD Record of Decision

RSL Regional Screening Level

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SI Site Inspection

SLERA screening-level ecological risk assessment

SVOC semivolatile organic compound

TCRA time-critical removal action

TRC Technical Review Committee

TRV toxicity reference value

µg/L microgram per liter

UCL upper confidence limit

USC United States Code

UXO unexploded ordnance

VOC volatile organic compound


1 September 2015

FIGURE 1-1. SITE 12 LOCATION MAP

1.0 DECLARATION 1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION Site 12, Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Area, at former Naval Air Station (NAS) Brunswick, Maine, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ID number ME8170022018.

1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedial action for Site 12 at former NAS Brunswick (see Figure 1-1). The decision was made in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 United States Code (USC) § 9601 et seq., as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 300 et seq., as amended. The regulatory program performed under the context of these combined laws and regulations is commonly referred to as “Superfund.” This decision is based on information contained in the Administrative Record for the site, which is available for review at the Information Repository maintained at the Curtis Memorial Library in Brunswick, Maine. The Navy and EPA have agreed on the Selected Remedy for Site 12, and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) concurs with the decision (see Appendix A for MEDEP concurrence letter).

1.3 ASSESSMENT OF SITE The response action selected in this ROD is necessary to protect human health or welfare from actual or threatened explosive hazards at Site 12. An action is required because, as a result of previous ordnance disposal activities conducted at the site, munitions items that could potentially detonate may remain in the subsurface at the site. Although, based on remedial actions conducted to date, there is a low potential for explosive hazardous conditions to exist at Site 12, because of the nature of explosive hazards, any potential explosive hazard may constitute an imminent and substantial endangerment under current and planned future land use scenarios.

1.4 DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY The Selected Remedy for Site 12 includes implementation of land use controls (LUCs) to ensure that future use of the property is limited to non-intrusive, passive, outdoor, recreational uses (e.g., hiking, jogging, bird watching, and hunting), to ensure that intrusive activities do not occur at the site, and to inform the public about site hazards via a public education program and posting of caution/unexploded ordnance (UXO) hazard warning signs at the site.

Site 12 – Explosive Ordnance Disposal

Area


2 September 2015

The Selected Remedy will protect human receptors from potential explosive hazards by preventing potential contact with munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) and material potentially presenting an explosive hazard (MPPEH), while still allowing access to the site, through implementation of LUCs. No further remedial action for CERCLA chemical contaminants in any site medium is necessary at Site 12 based on the results of previous investigations at the site. Based on the conclusions of the human health risk assessment (HHRA) and screening-level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) performed as part of the Munitions Constituents (MC) Remedial Investigation (RI), chemical concentrations in site media do not pose unacceptable site-related risk to human health or the environment.

1.5 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS The Selected Remedy is protective of human health, complies with federal and state requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, is cost-effective, and utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The Selected Remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for remedies that use treatment as a principal element to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants. Because of the low potential hazard levels currently associated with the site, treatment of potential UXO is not warranted. Munitions items have not been specifically identified as remaining at the site, but they are presumed to be present based on previous site activities. Because this remedy will result in possible MEC/MPPEH remaining on site, residual explosive hazards may remain at the site, preventing unlimited use and unrestricted exposure; therefore, a statutory review will be conducted within 5 years of initiation of the remedial action and every 5 years thereafter to ensure that the remedy is, or will be, protective of human health. No further actions are necessary at Site 12 for MC under CERCLA to ensure protection of human health or the environment. Under CERCLA, if no unacceptable risks to human health or the environment are identified for MC, then no further actions, investigations, or monitoring for MC is required. 1.6 ROD DATA CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST The locations in Section 2.0, Decision Summary, of the information required to be included in the ROD are summarized in Table 1-1. Additional information can be found in the Administrative Record file for former NAS Brunswick.

TABLE 1-1 ROD DATA CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST DATA LOCATION IN ROD

Chemicals of concern (COCs) and their respective concentrations NA

Baseline risk represented by the COCs Section 2.7

Cleanup levels established for COCs and the basis for these levels NA

How source materials constituting principal threats are addressed Section 2.11

Current and reasonably anticipated future land use assumptions and potential future beneficial uses of groundwater used in the risk assessment Section 2.6

Potential land and groundwater uses that will be available at the site as a result of the Selected Remedy Section 2.12.3

Estimated capital, operations and maintenance (O&M), and total net present worth (NPW) costs; discount rate; and number of years over which the remedy costs are projected

Appendix F

Key factors that led to the selection of the remedy Section 2.12.1

NA – Not applicable. No COCs w ere identif ied, and no further action is required for MC. Only potential explosive hazards, w hich do not have associated COCs or cleanup levels, are addressed by the Selected Remedy.


1.7 AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES

This ROD documents the Selected Remedy addressing munitions-related hazards at Site 12 at the former NAS Brunswick and also documents that no further action is required for MC at the site to ensure protection of human health and the em.1ronment from chemical risks.

0?.;:r~~ BRAC Environmental Coordinator BRAC PMO East

~~ Acting Director Office of Site Remediation and Restoration EPA Region 1- New England

3

41~~/;s-Date /

01/?!l/1!5 Date

September2015


4 September 2015

2.0 DECISION SUMMARY 2.1 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION The former NAS Brunswick, EPA ID number ME8170022018, occupied a maximum of approximately 3,094 acres in Brunswick, Cumberland County, Maine, and supported the Navy’s antisubmarine warfare operations in the Atlantic Ocean with several squadrons of P-3 maritime patrol aircraft. NAS Brunswick was officially designated as a Superfund site in 1987 when EPA added it to the National Priorities List (NPL). NAS Brunswick was selected in 2005 by the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission for closure and was deactivated on May 31, 2011. The base population and facility operations decreased significantly in January 2010 with the end of the base’s flying mission. The former operational area of the base covers approximately 138 acres east of the two parallel runways extending north to south in the northern portion of the facility. The former operational area included numerous office buildings, barracks, recreational facilities, hangars, repair shops, and other facilities that formerly supported NAS Brunswick aircraft. Some tenant activities are ongoing at the base, mainly associated with base closure, building demolition associated with base closure is ongoing, and redevelopment activities are underway. Forested areas, grasslands, shrubland, marsh, and open water comprise approximately 83 percent of the former base, with the remaining 17 percent consisting of paved portions (primary flight ramps and runways) of the operations area. The southern edge of the base borders coves and estuaries of the Gulf of Maine. Site 12, EOD Area, was reportedly used from 1981 through 2004 for the disposal of small quantities of ordnance, pyrotechnics, privately manufactured explosive devices, and war souvenirs, although aerial photography indicates that the site may have been in use for explosives disposal prior to 1981. EOD operations at NAS Brunswick, including Site 12, were officially terminated on June 1, 2004. The site was also used for landfilling of non-munitions construction debris and reportedly may have included a former sand and gravel borrow pit. Site 12 is approximately 23 acres, and a large portion of the site was covered with tall grasses until vegetation removal associated with field activities was conducted. A pond complex consisting of two small ponds separated by a marshy area is located on the eastern edge of the site (Figure 2-1) and is surrounded by mature trees. Wetlands are present near the pond and in the north-central portion of the site. A 5- to 6-foot-tall, semi-circular, earthen berm approximately 24 feet wide and 255 feet long, within which historical detonations were conducted, was investigated and removed in 2014. Additionally, several suspected berms were identified based on review of historical aerial photographs, and the area encompassing these berms was investigated and addressed via a removal action in 2014. The former NAS Brunswick is an inactive facility, and environmental investigations and remediation at the base are funded under the BRAC program. The Navy is the lead agency for CERCLA activities at the facility, and EPA and MEDEP are regulatory oversight agencies.

2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES The primary hazards at Site 12 are presumed remaining military munitions items at the site, which include MEC and MPPEH, constituting a safety hazard. These military munitions items are assumed to remain at the site as a result of past EOD activities, although the locations of these presumed munitions items are unknown. The munitions removal efforts to date at Site 12 have cleared the entire site ground surface, the subsurface up to 2 feet below ground surface (bgs) in the berm area (central portion of the site, which was also partially cleared below 2 feet bgs), and the pond and surrounding area. However, munitions items similar to the MEC/MPPEH items identified and removed from the site during past clearance activities are presumed to remain in the subsurface in areas of the site that have not been completely cleared. No further remedial action for CERCLA chemical contaminants in any site medium is necessary at Site 12 because no unacceptable site-related chemical risks to human health or the environment have been identified. Table 2-1 provides brief summaries of previous investigations at Site 12.


5 September 2015

FIGURE 2-1. SITE 12 LAYOUT

TABLE 2-1. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND SITE DOCUMENTATION INVESTIGATION DATE ACTIVITIES

Draft Final Supplemental Feasibility Study (FS), Draft Final Supplemental RI, Final FS

1991, 1991, 1992

Surface and subsurface munitions surveys were conducted, munitions clearance activities were conducted, three test pits were excavated, and soil samples were collected. No explosives or explosive by-products were detected in soil samples, and low concentrations of inorganics were detected (EC Jordan, 1991a, 1991b, and 1992).

Preliminary Assessment (PA) Addendum

2007 Concluded that MEC were present at the site inside the former berm mound and that MEC were also potentially present in surface soil outside of the berm as a result of possible kickout or the possible existence of other detonation areas located on site (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 2007).

Site Inspection (SI)

2009 Confirmed that MEC were present on the ground surface of the site. Also, investigations conducted in the berm area indicated subsurface anomalies, suspected to be munitions (Tetra Tech, 2009).

Action Memorandum for Time-Critical Removal Action (TCRA) and TRCA Report

2012 MEC removal action activities were conducted to mitigate potential exposure to surface munitions explosive hazards so construction vehicles and foot traffic would be protected during construction on adjacent property. MEC/MPPEH, material documented as safe (MDAS), and non-munitions-related items were found. The removal action resulted in clearance of all accessible areas of the ground surface at Site 12, excluding the pond area (addressed separately), and investigation of the subsurface of the berm area via trenching, which confirmed the presence of subsurface munitions-related items (Tetra Tech, 2010 and 2012a).

Pond


6 September 2015

TABLE 2-1. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND SITE DOCUMENTATION INVESTIGATION DATE ACTIVITIES

Bedrock Fracture Trace Analysis

2012 Analysis included delineation of photo-lineaments and measurement of the orientation (strike and dip) of 99 planar features using a Brunton compass corrected for local magnetic declination (17 degrees west) to support the location of proposed monitoring wells and surface geophysical surveys (Tetra Tech, 2012b).

Technical Memorandum, Groundwater Report

2013 The objective of the investigation was to determine if past disposal of construction debris and EOD operations at the site had impacted underlying groundwater and to determine if further investigation was warranted; however, these conclusions were deferred to the MC RI and were not presented in this report. Monitoring wells were confirmed as being adequately placed to intercept any potential groundwater contamination. Based on the results of this groundwater investigation, monitoring wells were installed (Tetra Tech, 2013).

Hydrographic, Side-Scan Sonar, Time-Domain Electromagnetic Induction, and Probing Survey of Site 12 Pond

2013 The pond was found to be relatively shallow, with depths less than 4 feet. The bottom of the pond was found to be relatively flat, with shallow vegetated areas along the western edges. The side-scan sonar survey revealed scattered isolated objects throughout the survey area, most of which appeared to be fallen trees and branches. Soft sediment thickness in the pond was found to be fairly consistent (USA Environmental, 2013).

Technical Report, Site 12 Pond Sediment Report

2014 Results from sediment samples collected at 10 locations within the ponds supported the conclusion of the MC RI that there is an absence of MC or other chemical impacts within pond sediment (USA Environmental, 2014).

Technical Memorandum, Evaluation of 2014 Analytical Results

2014 Evaluated data from soil samples collected during the berm removal action to determine if chemical concentrations in berm soil were consistent with MC RI soil results and if the soils could be reused as clean fill on site (Tetra Tech, 2014b). (It was later determined that no off-site backfill soil was required.)

MC RI 2015 Conducted to collect data necessary to identify areas of the site as “contaminated” or “non-contaminated” with MC or other non-munitions-related contaminants and to determine whether site-related human health or ecological risks were acceptable. No unacceptable site-related risks to either human health or ecological receptors were identified for soil, sediment, or groundwater. Surface water was not investigated because contaminants, if present in the pond, would be expected to adsorb to fine-grained sediments, and because there were no unacceptable risks associated with sediment, surface water was determined not to be a medium of concern (Tetra Tech, 2015a).

Action Memorandum and MEC RI

2014 and 2015

During investigation of the kickout area of the site, a statistically determined number of anomalies were intrusively investigated and largely found to be non-munitions-related debris, with some MDAS and only two MEC/MPPEH items. A complete subsurface clearance was not completed. In addition, removal activities were conducted in and around the pond to mitigate potential hazards to human health. The pond was also drained, and all MEC/MPPEH, MDAS, and non-munitions debris items were removed from the pond bottom and from the pond subsurface (Tetra Tech, 2014a; USA Environmental, 2015).

Action Memorandum and Berm Area Remedial Action

2014 and 2015

MEC removal action activities were conducted at the berm mound and berm area to mitigate potential hazards to human health. During the removal action, the berm mound was razed to grade, and the entire berm area was excavated to a depth of approximately 2 feet bgs and then select underlying anomalies were excavated; the excavated soil was cleared of MEC/MPPEH, MDAS, and non-munitions items; the excavation was backfilled; and the area was returned to natural grade. MEC/MPPEH, MDAS, and non-munitions-related items found were removed from the site (Tetra Tech, 2014a; Bering Sea Eccotech/Parsons, 2015).

FS 2015 Completed to develop, evaluate, and compare remedial alternatives to address potential explosives risks at Site 12 (Tetra Tech, 2015b).


7 September 2015

There have been no cited violations under federal or state environmental law or any past or pending enforcement actions pertaining to the cleanup of Site 12.

2.3 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION The Navy performs public participation activities in accordance with CERCLA and the NCP throughout the site cleanup process at the former NAS Brunswick. The Navy has a comprehensive community relations program for NAS Brunswick, and community relations activities are conducted in accordance with the NAS Brunswick Community Relations Plan (ECC, 2008). These activities include regular technical and Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meetings with local officials and community members and the establishment of an Information Repository at the local library for dissemination of information to the community. A Technical Review Committee (TRC) for NAS Brunswick was established in 1988 to provide coordinated direction to Installation Restoration (IR) Program activities at NAS Brunswick. In 1995, in accordance with CERCLA, the TRC reformed as the RAB, with members including the Navy, EPA, MEDEP, and various community representatives. The RAB, which reviews and discusses NAS Brunswick environmental issues with local community officials and concerned citizens, has met frequently since its inception and currently meets quarterly. Site 12 investigation activities, results, and associated remedial decisions have been discussed at RAB meetings. The NAS Brunswick Information Repository is located at the Curtis Memorial Library, 23 Pleasant Street, Brunswick, Maine. Documents and other relevant information relied on in the remedy selection process are available for public review at the Information Repository, which includes a copy of the Administrative Record. For access to the Administrative Record or additional information about the IR Program at the former NAS Brunswick, contact: Paul Burgio, BRAC Program Management Office East, Building 679, Naval Business Center, 4911 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19112-1303, 215-897-4903. In accordance with Sections 113 and 117 of CERCLA, the Navy provided a public comment period from July 10 to August 7, 2015, for the preferred remedial action described in the Proposed Plan for Site 12. A public meeting to present the Proposed Plan was held on July 15, 2015, at the Best Western Plus Brunswick Bath, Brunswick, Maine. Public notice of the meeting and availability of documents were published in the Brunswick Times-Record on July 8, 2015. The Proposed Plan and public notice are included in Appendix B.

2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT The Department of the Navy is the lead agency, and EPA is the lead regulatory agency for CERCLA activities at the former NAS Brunswick. MEDEP also provides state regulatory oversight for environmental site activities. The United States Department of Defense is the sole source of cleanup funding for the property under the Navy BRAC program. Site 12 is part of a comprehensive environmental investigation and cleanup program currently being performed at the former NAS Brunswick under CERCLA authority pursuant to the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) dated October 19, 1990. Because of the prior use of Site 12 as a disposal area for ordnance items, the Department of Defense’s Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP), which began in 2001, additionally governs cleanup activities at this site. The MMRP, which addresses potential explosives safety, health, and environmental issues resulting from past munitions use at current and former military training lands, follows the requirements and processes of CERCLA and the NCP. Both IR Program and MMRP cleanup activities are being performed at the former facility under CERCLA, except at those sites subject to the MEDEP underground oil storage tank program. CERCLA response obligations and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action obligations at the former NAS Brunswick are being integrated through implementation of the FFA, Section XIX, such that activities covered by the FFA will achieve compliance with CERCLA, applicable sections of RCRA, and all applicable or relevant and appropriate federal and state laws and regulations, to the extent required by Section 121 of CERCLA, 42, USC Section 9621. Therefore, CERCLA remedial actions selected, implemented, and completed under the


8 September 2015

FFA will be protective of human health and the environment such that further action under RCRA, as amended, will not be required. Nineteen IR sites have been identified at former NAS Brunswick, and each of these sites is undergoing or has undergone the CERCLA cleanup process independently of each other. No Further Action RODs have been signed for 11 of 19 IR CERCLA sites at former NAS Brunswick, and remedial actions have been implemented at six IR sites in accordance with their respective RODs. Investigations are ongoing at the Quarry Area. The ROD for Site 12 is not expected to have an impact on the cleanup of the other sites at the former NAS Brunswick. The signing of this ROD by the Navy, EPA, and MEDEP indicates the completion of the CERCLA process for Site 12. No additional actions or investigations at Site 12 are required under CERCLA, although Site 12 will be included in future five-year reviews for former NAS Brunswick.

2.5 SITE CHARACTERISTICS Figure 2-2 presents the Site 12 conceptual site model (CSM), which identifies investigated contaminant sources, contaminant release mechanisms, transport routes, and receptors under current and future land use scenarios. Contaminant sources include those associated with MEC/MPPEH that are potentially located in the subsurface at Site 12; chemical risks for all site media were found to be acceptable. The source of potential MEC/MPPEH is the munitions that were treated during EOD activities and possibly other training activities that took place at Site 12. During site investigations and removal efforts, MEC/MPPEH items posing a safety risk as well as MDAS items identified in surface soil or subsurface soil included an inert bomb, multiple fuzes and components, cartridge cases with live primers, practice grenades, smoke grenades with and without fuzes, an empty mortar, bulk propellant filler, projectiles with and without fuzes, a gator mine (labeled inert), rocket motors, aircraft rocket warheads, an electric blasting cap, a practice mortar, torpedoes, jet-assisted take off (JATO) bottles, demilitarized small arms, and various munitions-related fragments and scrap. These are the types of items presumably remaining at Site 12 in subsurface areas that have not been cleared. Figure 2-2 shows the general arrangement of Site 12 and also the boundaries of the Decision Units (DUs) that were established in planning the MC RI to aid in delineating chemical contamination and MEC/MPPEH/MDAS. DU1 consists of the former 5- to 6-foot high berm (removed in 2014). DU2, the berm area, includes the area inside and outside of the former berm and also encompassing suspected former berms identified based on historical aerial photographs. DU3, the intermediate area, is located approximately 200 feet away from the former berm/berm area and is where kickouts and training activities are expected to have occurred. Kickouts result when munitions items are not consumed during explosive disposal operations but instead are thrown from the detonation area by the force of the explosion. DU4 extends from the DU3 boundary to the fence to the west, north, and south and to the pond to the east, DU4a is the heavily vegetated area surrounding the pond, DU5 is the pond itself, and DU6 is site-wide groundwater. Human health and ecological receptors are discussed in Section 2.7. Detailed information about the site is presented in the documents listed in Table 2-1.

2.5.1 Physical Characteristics

The southern half of Site 12 is relatively flat, and the northern half of the site is marked by undulating hills and is approximately 10 feet higher in elevation than the southern half. Vegetation at the site previously consisted of primarily tall grasses within the fenced area (prior to investigation and removal activities), and small wetland areas and maple and pine trees are located near the pond and in the surrounding area. Surficial materials at Site 12 include approximately 3 to 6 inches of topsoil and 6 inches to 2.5 feet of reworked surface soil with fill. The underlying clay with varying amounts of silt (interpreted as the Presumpscot Clay) ranges from approximately 3 to 9 feet thick. Bedrock crops out east of the overall berm area (DU2) along Perimeter Road between DU2 and DU5. The schist bedrock, identified as the Cape Elizabeth Formation, at Site 12 occurs below the Presumpscot Clay at depths ranging from approximately 4 to 10 feet bgs. Shallow bedrock to approximately 20 feet bgs was broken or had

Former NAS Brunswick Draft Site 12 ROD

9

FIGURE 2-2. SITE 12 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION; SOIL

INVERTEBRATES; SEDI~ENT INVERTEBRATES, HERBIVOROUS BIRDS

AND ~~~ALS; PISCIVOROUS BIRDS AND ~A~MALS, AND INVERTIBOROUS

BIRDS AND MAM~ALS.

ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS WERE EVALUATED FOR DIRECT CONTACT WITH

SURF ACE SOIL AND SEDIMENT AND ALSO INGESTION OF CONT~INATED

SURFACE SOIL, SEDI~ENT, AND FOOD I~S.

LEGEND

• TREE

FENCE

FUTURE ADOLESCENT AND ADULT TRESPASSERS AND

FUTURE CHILD AND ADULT RECREATIONAL USERS INCIDENTAL INGESTION OF AND DER~AL CONTACT 'NITH

SURFACE SOIL AND INHALATION OF AIR/DUST FROt.4 SURFACE SOIL AND INCIDENTAL ING£STION OF AND DERMAL CONTACT

WITH SEDI~ENT

- DU1 - FORMER BERM MOUND (APPROXIMATE) - DU2 - BERM AREA -- DU3 - INTERMEDIATE AREA -- DU4 - OUTER AREA - - DU4A - OUTER AREA

HISTORICAL SUSPECT BERM LOCA DONS (APPROXIMA IE) - ROAD

...(~ POTENTIAL SUBSURFACE MUNITIONS

EOD ACTIVITIES

_____.. GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION

STEEP ROCKY SLOPE NOTES:

~ ~ _2-- }Y/ - ____ ,

r'--' WIND EROSION CURRENT/FUTURE

CONSTRUCTION WQRKERS INCIDENTAL INGESTION OF AND DERMAL CONTACT 'NITH SURF ACE AND SUBSURFACE SOIL AND INHALA liON OF

AIR/DUST FROt.4 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOIL, INCIDENTAL INGESTION OF AND DERMAL CONTACT 'NITH

GROUNDWATER AND INHALA liON OF VAPORS FROM GROUNDWATER, AND INCIDENTAL INGESTION OF AND

DERMAL CONTACT 'NITH SEDIMENT

CURRENT/FUTURE OCCUPATIONAL WORKERS

INCIDENTAL INGESTION OF AND DER~AL CONTACT 'NITH SURFACE SOIL AND INHALATION OF AIR/DUST FROM SURFACE SOIL AND INHALATION OF VAPORS

FROM GROUNDWATER AS A RESULT OF VAPOR INTRUSION

HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE CHILD AND ADULT RESIDENTS

INCIDENTAL INGESTION OF AND DERMAL CONTACT WITH SURFACE SOIL AND INHALATION OF AIR/DUST FRO~ SURFACE SOIL, INGESTION OF AND DERMAL

CONTACT 'NITH GROUNDWATER AND INHALATION OF VAPORS FRO~ GROUNDWATER DURING

SHOWERING/BATHING AND AS A RESULT OF VAPOR INTRUSION, AND INCIDENTAL INGESTION OF AND

DERt.IAL CONTACT WITH SEDIMENT

• DU5 - POND

• WETLAND

1. ALTHOUGH EXPOSURE TO SUBSURFACE SOIL IS UNUKEL Y FOR OCCUPA DONAL WORKERS, TRESPASSERS, RECREA DONAL USERS, AND ON-SITE RESIDENTS, EVALUATION OF EXPOSURE TO SUBSURFACE SOIL FOR THESE RECEPTORS WAS INCLUDED IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT AS PART OF THE CUMULATIVE RISK EVALUATION TO AID IN FUTURE RISK MANAGEMENT DECISIONS.

~ DU6-SITE-WIDE GROUNDWATER NOT SHO~ ON FIGURE. 2. EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH HUMAN EXPOSURE TO POTENTIAL MUNITIONS ITEMS REMAINING AT THE SITE WERE EVALUATED VIA A QUALITATIVE MEC HAZARD ASSESSMENT.


10 September 2015

significant water loss during coring, and similar head elevations in site monitoring wells support the interpretation of the interconnectedness of fractures in shallow bedrock. Hand auger borings advanced in the wetlands in the western portion of the site encountered refusal at 2.2 to 3 feet bgs. Approximately 1 foot of organic material was present at the surface, underlain by 0.2 to 1 foot of silty sand/sandy silt, and the Presumpscot Clay was encountered below the silty sand unit, suggesting that this unit is laterally continuous across the bedrock surface between the topographic ridges at the eastern and western edges of Site 12. The sediments of the pond include 0 to 3 inches of fine-grained, silt, organic sediment underlain by up to 5 inches of silt with varying amounts of sand. The depth to bedrock below the pond was not determined during the pond characterization. Water is retained within the current boundary of the pond, which does not have a continuous surface inflow or outflow. Historical maps and aerial photographs appear to show a different pond boundary and indicate that portions of the pond may have been filled with stumps and soil. During intermittent periods of high water levels, the pond likely discharges to the south through the wetland area via a culvert under the road at the southeastern edge of the pond. This would likely be a result of higher inflow to the pond (via precipitation and/or runoff) rather than discharge through the lower permeable layers to groundwater. Groundwater flow appears to be seasonally influenced in the Site 12 area, with flow during the drier summer period to the northwest across the Site 12, from the pond toward the wetlands, and flow during the wetter winter period to the northwest and east from the center of the site (within DU2). Based on hydraulic head elevations above the bedrock-overburden interface, groundwater at Site 12 is generally confined in the bedrock within the overall berm area. During boring advancement at Site 12 reworked soil/fill material (0 to 3 feet bgs) was observed as being moist to wet, and the top 2.5 feet of the clay was dry, suggesting low permeability and potentially low hydraulic connectivity between the reworked soil/fill overburden and bedrock. The bedrock exposures along both the eastern and western shores of the pond and the shallow water depth suggest that the pond is likely hydraulically connected to bedrock, but fine-grained sediment in the pond may limit vertical movement of water through the base of the pond to groundwater. The hydraulic connection between the pond and groundwater was observed during the pond MEC clearance conducted in 2014 (USA Environmental, 2015), during which the pond was drained and comparable decreases in water levels were observed in the nearby monitoring wells.

2.5.2 Nature and Extent and Fate and Transport of Contamination

The presumed source materials at Site 12 are munitions items assumed to remain at the site as a result of past EOD activities. The potential threat to human health and the environment from MC was evaluated in the MC RI, and no unacceptable risks to human health or the environment were identified. There is the potential for MEC/MPPEH to be present at the site in the subsurface in areas that have not been cleared. The munitions removal efforts to date at Site 12 have cleared the entire site ground surface, the subsurface up to 2 feet bgs in the berm area (with partial clearance below 2 feet bgs), and the pond and surrounding area (see Figure 2-3). Although subsurface munitions items were primarily of concern only for the berm area, it is possible that munitions items may remain in the subsurface below 2 feet bgs in the berm area, although exposure would be unlikely because an orange geotextile liner was placed at 2 feet bgs to demarcate the depth of excavation. Additionally, although unlikely, MEC/MEPPEH items may remain in the kickout area of the site that was not completely cleared. MEC/MPPEH and other munitions-related items presumed to be present at this site are not expected to migrate significantly from the subsurface to the ground surface (as result of erosion, frost heave, and other natural changes to the ground surface at the site). Migration is very unlikely and not a significant concern because the top 2 feet of the MEC area of primary concern (the berm area) have been remediated, and the liner placed at the bottom of the excavated area is expected to significantly inhibit upward migration of any munitions-related items that may remain at depths deeper than 2 feet in this area.

2.6 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE SITE AND RESOURCE USES The Navy’s maritime aircraft patrol mission at the former NAS Brunswick ceased on January 31, 2010,


11 September 2015

FIGURE 2-3. SITE 12 MUNITIONS CLEARANCE SUMMARY

and the base was decommissioned on May 31, 2011. Property uses surrounding the former base are primarily suburban and rural residential, with some commercial and light industrial uses along Routes 1, 24, and 123. An elementary school and college are located within a 1-mile radius of the western base boundary. Site 12 is currently inactive, with no existing buildings or structures. The planned future use of Site 12 is anticipated to become part of the Brunswick Naval Air Station (BNAS) Natural Area District (Matrix Design Group, 2007), with future use for passive outdoor recreational uses with no construction of structures or other disturbances of soil at the site (e.g., no digging, advancement of tent stakes, etc). Only those recreational uses that would not significantly alter the environment are expected.

All Site (all colored areas) – Ground surface clearance Berm Area (shown in red) – Clearance of one aboveground existing berm and berm area of 2 acres to 2 feet bgs, and orange liner placement Area Surrounding Berm Area (shown in green) – Digital geophysics over 16 acres and statistically based investigation of suspect anomalies Pond (shown in dark blue) – Draining of pond of 2.4 acres and clearance Area Surrounding Pond (shown in brown) – Analog/Dig Clearance of 4 acres Fence Surrounding Investigation Area – Orange dashed line


12 September 2015

The majority of potable water used at the base is from the Brunswick/Topsham Water District municipal water supply. The closest off-base private drinking water wells are approximately 2,000 feet northeast of the site along Coombs Road, and a municipal well field is located near the northern base boundary along Jordan Avenue. Based on previous and potential future use of groundwater beneath the base, its EPA groundwater classification would be Class II, currently and/or potentially a source for drinking water. The State of Maine classifies all groundwater in the state as Class GW-A (groundwater of such quality that it can be used for public water supplies) unless specific action is taken by the legislature for reclassification to Class GW-B (suitable for all other uses other than public water supplies). No such reclassification action has been taken for former NAS Brunswick.

2.7 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CHEMICAL RISKS AND EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS The baseline risk assessment, including the HHRA and SLERA, estimates the potential human and ecological risks posed by the site if no additional actions were taken to address potential MC contamination. It provides the basis for taking action, if necessary, and identifies the contaminants and exposure pathways that would need to be addressed by any MC remedial action. The HHRA and SLERA were conducted as part of the MC RI (Tetra Tech, 2015a), and no unacceptable site-related risks to human health or the environment were identified. A qualitative MEC Hazard Assessment (HA), was completed in accordance with EPA methodology (2010) as part of the FS (Tetra Tech, 2015b) to assess explosive hazards to human receptors at Site 12.

2.7.1 Summary of Human Health Risk from MC

The quantitative HHRA was conducted using chemical concentrations detected in soil, sediment, and groundwater samples collected during the Site 12 MC RI. Surface water at Site 12 was not investigated because contaminants, if present in the pond, would be expected to adsorb to fine-grained sediments, and because there were no unacceptable risks associated with sediment, surface water was determined not to be a medium of concern. Supplemental RI resampling activities were conducted in 2013 and 2014 for soil and groundwater, respectively. Based on the resampling results, revisions to the quantitative HHRA were not necessary. All original and supplemental RI site data were used to make site decisions, as described below. Key steps in the risk assessment process included identification of chemicals of potential concern (COPCs), exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. For soil, sediment, and groundwater, potential risks to receptors were calculated for exposure units (EUs) defined for the site. An EU is the area over which receptor activity is expected to occur. The two most important considerations in defining an EU are the anticipated receptor activity and the spatial distribution of contaminant concentrations. EUs were determined following data collection by considering potential receptor activities and comparing chemical concentration distributions of COPCs in the site’s already established DUs to each other to determine whether DUs with similar chemical distributions could be combined into EUs. Based on the results of statistical evaluation for soil, it was determined that potential risks would be calculated for four soil EUs. EU1 consisted of DU1, the former berm mound, EU2 consisted of the area inside the former berm (a portion of DU2), EU3 consisted of the portion of DU2 where the 1993 suspect berm was located, and EU4 consisted of the remainder of DU2, DU3, and DU4. Two additional EUs were established, EU5 representing sediment and EU6 representing groundwater beneath the site. Identification of COPCs Tables C-1 through C-4 in Appendix C present exposure point concentrations (EPCs) for the COPCs identified in Site 12 soil and groundwater based on RI sample data. EPCs are the concentrations used in the risk assessment to estimate exposure and risk from each COPC. No analytes were identified as COPCs in sediment; therefore there are no EPCs and hence no calculated risks discussed below for sediment. For EU4 and subsurface soil in all EUs, thallium was the only COPC identified. However, due to uncertainties described below, thallium was not included in the quantitative risk assessment and therefore there are no calculated risks discussed below for EU4 or subsurface soil in any EU. For each


13 September 2015

COPC, information in Tables C-1 through C-4 includes arithmetic mean and maximum detected concentrations, EPC, and how the EPC was derived. EPCs for Site 12 COPCs are 95-percent upper confidence limits (UCLs) on the mean calculated using EPA’s Pro-UCL, Version 4.1.01, software. Additionally, Tables C-5 through C-8 present an evaluation of the original RI data compared to supplemental RI data for soil and groundwater. The results of this evaluation were used qualitatively in the HHRA, with both original RI and supplemental RI data used to make site decisions. Exposure Assessment During the exposure assessment, current and potential future exposure pathways through which humans might come into contact with the COPCs identified in the previous step were evaluated. Potential exposure routes for soil at the site include incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of air/dust; potential exposure routes for sediment include incidental ingestion and dermal contact; and potential exposure routes for groundwater include incidental ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation (during showering/bathing if groundwater was used as a drinking water source and as a result of vapor intrusion into occupied structures). These exposure routes were evaluated for all applicable site media (surface soil, subsurface soil, groundwater, and sediment), but in some cases, no risks were calculated because no COPCs were identified or because it was determined that a COPC would not be included in the quantitative risk assessment, as described below. The HHRA considered receptor exposure under non-residential land use by construction and occupational workers, trespassers, and recreational users and hypothetical future residential land use. The current and future exposure pathways evaluated in the HHRA for Site 12 are summarized in Table 2-2.

TABLE 2-2. RECEPTORS AND EXPOSURE ROUTES EVALUATED IN THE HHRA RECEPTOR EXPOSURE ROUTE

Construction Workers (current and future land use)

Soil incidental ingestion (surface and subsurface) Soil dermal contact (surface and subsurface) Inhalation of air/dust from soil (surface and subsurface) Groundwater incidental ingestion Groundwater dermal contact Groundwater inhalation Sediment incidental ingestion Sediment dermal contact

Occupational Workers (current and future land use)

Soil incidental ingestion (surface1) Soil dermal contact (surface1) Inhalation of air/dust from soil (surface1) Groundwater (vapor intrusion)

Adolescent and Adult Trespassers (current land use)

Soil incidental ingestion (surface1) Soil dermal contact (surface1) Inhalation of air/dust from soil (surface1) Sediment incidental ingestion Sediment dermal contact

Child and Adult Recreational Users (future land use)

Soil incidental ingestion (surface1) Soil dermal contact (surface1) Inhalation of air/dust from soil (surface1) Sediment incidental ingestion Sediment dermal contact

Child and Adult Residents (future land use)

Soil incidental ingestion (surface1) Soil dermal contact (surface1) Inhalation of air/dust from soil (surface1) Sediment incidental ingestion


14 September 2015

TABLE 2-2. RECEPTORS AND EXPOSURE ROUTES EVALUATED IN THE HHRA RECEPTOR EXPOSURE ROUTE

Sediment dermal contact Groundwater ingestion Groundwater dermal contact Groundwater inhalation (showering/bathing) Groundwater (vapor intrusion)

1 Although exposure to subsurface soil is unlikely for occupational workers, trespassers, recreational users, and on-site residents, evaluation of this exposure pathway for these receptors was included in the risk assessment as part of the cumulative risk evaluation to aid in future risk management decisions.

Toxicity Assessment The toxicity assessment involves identifying the types of adverse health effects caused by exposure to site COPCs and determining the relationship between the magnitude of exposure and the severity of adverse effects (i.e., dose-response relationship) for each COPC. Based on the quantitative dose-response relationships determined, toxicity values for both cancer (cancer slope factor [CSF]) and non-cancer (reference dose [RfD]) effects were derived and used to estimate the potential for adverse effects. Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk information relevant to the Site 12 COPCs for oral/dermal and inhalation exposure are presented in Tables C-9 through C-12. Risk Characterization During the risk characterization, the outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments are combined to characterize the baseline risk (cancer risks and non-cancer hazards) at a site if no further action is taken to address MC contamination. Potential cancer risks and non-cancer hazards were calculated based on reasonable maximum exposure (RME) and central tendency exposure (CTE) assumptions. The RME scenario assumes the maximum level of human exposure that could reasonably be expected to occur, and the CTE scenario assumes a median or average level of human exposure. For carcinogens, risks are generally expressed as the incremental probability of an individual developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to the carcinogen, expressed as an incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR). EPA’s generally acceptable risk range for site-related exposures is 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6

(1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1 million). MEDEP’s ICLR target is 1 x 10-5 (1 in 100,000). For non-carcinogens, the risk to human health is expressed as a Hazard Index (HI). An HI greater than 1 suggests that adverse health effects are possible. Table C-13 provides RME cancer risk estimates for each receptor and route of exposure and also provides RME non-cancer Hazard Quotients (HQs) for each receptor and route of exposure and total HIs for all routes of exposure, and Table C-14 presents the CTE cancer risk estimates and non-cancer HQs. Table 2-3 provides a summary of the calculated RME cancer risks and non-cancer hazards for Site 12 based on MC RI data. Upon completion of the HHRA, no chemicals in surface soil were retained as COCs because site-specific risks did not exceed EPA or Maine target risk levels for surface soil. As stated above, there are no calculated risks for EU4, subsurface soil in any EU, or sediment because no COPCs were retained for these media. For hypothetical future residents exposed to groundwater as drinking water, unacceptable non-carcinogenic hazards were calculated, with cobalt and manganese identified as the main contributors to the elevated HI; however, cobalt and manganese were not retained as final COCs, as discussed below. Cobalt was not retained as a groundwater COC because the maximum detection of cobalt, 12.2 micrograms per liter (µg/L), only marginally exceeds the facility background concentration of 12.1 µg/L and because of uncertainty associated with the cobalt RfD. Manganese was also not retained as a groundwater COC because, although the maximum concentration of manganese in groundwater exceeds the facility background value, the background value for manganese also exceeds the EPA tap water Regional Screening Level (RSL) (2014), indicating that some portion of the manganese in site groundwater may be attributable to regional sources, not site-specific sources. In addition, manganese is not an expected contaminant at a munitions site such as Site


15 September 2015

12, and manganese concentrations in site soil samples did not exceed migration-to-groundwater screening criteria. ILCRs for construction workers and hypothetical child residents exposed to COPCs in groundwater did not exceed EPA’s target cancer risk range or Maine’s target cancer risk level. Although ILCRs for hypothetical adult and lifelong residents exposed to COPCs in groundwater exceed Maine’s target cancer risk level, primarily due to chloroform via the inhalation pathway, EPA’s target cancer risk range was not exceeded. The maximum detected concentration of chloroform (3.8 µg/L) exceeds the vapor intrusion screening criterion (0.71 µg/L, based on an ILCR of 1 x 10-6) by less than one order of magnitude. Because chloroform was the only groundwater COPC selected for vapor intrusion, it is assumed that cancer risks estimated for vapor intrusion would be less than 1 x 10-5; therefore, groundwater data do not indicate that a groundwater source is present for vapor intrusion. Further, chloroform was retained as a COPC in groundwater based on only 2012 RI data but, because chloroform, a common laboratory and field contaminant, was not detected in 2014 groundwater samples, it would not be retained as a COPC based on 2014 RI resampling data (Tetra Tech, 2015a).

TABLE 2-3. SUMMARY OF RME CANCER RISKS AND HAZARD INDICES

RECEPTOR AND EXPOSURE UNIT/MEDIUM CANCER RISK HAZARD INDEX

Construction Workers

EU 1 Surface Soil 9x10-10 0.04



Groundwater (EU6) 9x10-10 0.04

Occupational Workers

EU1 Surface Soil 5x10-9 0.008



Adolescent Trespassers




Adult Trespassers




Lifelong Trespassers

EU1 Surface Soil 2x10-9 NA



Child Recreational Users




Adult Recreational Users




Lifelong Recreational Users




Child Residents EU1 Surface Soil 2x10-8 0.1



16 September 2015

TABLE 2-3. SUMMARY OF RME CANCER RISKS AND HAZARD INDICES

RECEPTOR AND EXPOSURE UNIT/MEDIUM CANCER RISK HAZARD INDEX


Groundwater (EU6) 4x10-6 10(1)

Adult Residents




Groundwater (EU6) 2x10-5 4(2)

Lifelong Residents




Groundwater (EU6) 2x10-5 (3) NA

NA Non-carcinogenic hazards are not evaluated for lifelong exposure scenarios. 1 Manganese and cobalt, the main contributors to the HI, were not selected as COCs, as

discussed above. 2 Manganese, the main contributor to the HI, was not selected as a COC, as discussed above. 3 Chloroform, the main risk driver, was not selected a COC, as discussed above.

Based on the results of the HHRA, no unacceptable site-related cancer risks or non-cancer hazards were identified that would require a CERCLA remedial action for MC at Site 12. Significant sources of uncertainty in the HHRA for Site 12 involved the exclusion of thallium as a soil COPC and the decisions not to retain cobalt or manganese as groundwater COCs. The reasons for the exclusion of thallium as a soil COPC and the exclusion of cobalt and manganese as groundwater COCs are summarized above and are discussed in further detail in the MC RI Report (Tetra Tech, 2015a).

2.7.2 Summary of Ecological Risk from MC

A SLERA consisting of Steps 1, 2 and 3a of the Navy’s ecological risk assessment process was completed for Site 12, in accordance with Navy policy and EPA guidance, using chemical concentrations detected in Site 12 MC RI soil and sediment samples. Surface water at Site 12 was not investigated as discussed above, and there is no MEC evaluation for ecological receptors because MEC HAs (see Section 2.7.3) do not directly assess environmental or ecological concerns that might be associated with direct contact with MEC. In Step 1 of the SLERA, problem formulation, the environmental setting, chemical fate and transport, ecotoxicity and potential receptors, and complete exposure pathways were considered to develop an ecological CSM and assessment and measurement endpoints. The assessment endpoints identified in Step 1 and evaluated in the SLERA included protection of the following groups of receptors from adverse effects of contaminants on their growth, survival, and reproduction: Terrestrial vegetation Soil invertebrates Sediment invertebrates Herbivorous birds and mammals Invertivorous birds and mammals Piscivorous birds and mammals Many receptors in the soil environment at Site 12 are typically grouped into general categories such as soil invertebrates and vegetation. This is a reflection of the nature of the threshold values, effects values, or criteria typically used to characterize risk for such organisms. However, for vertebrate receptors,


17 September 2015

selection of a representative species is required so that risks to these upper-level species incurred by intake through eating and drinking can be estimated. Ingestion is the primary route of exposure for most mammals and birds. The selection of species used to represent the identified receptor groups was based on considerations of their preferred habitat, body size, sensitivity to contaminants, home range, abundance, commercial or sport utilization, legal status, and functional role (e.g., predators). The availability of exposure parameters such as body mass, feeding rate, and drinking rate was also a factor in selecting surrogate species. The following surrogate species were used in the food-chain modeling conducted as part of the Site 2 SLERA: Herbivorous mammal - Meadow vole Herbivorous bird - Bobwhite quail Invertivorous mammal - Short-tailed shrew Invertivorous bird - American robin Piscivorous mammal - Mink Piscivorous bird - Belted kingfisher Potentially complete exposure pathways were identified based on concentrations of chemicals in surface soil and sediment, and ecological receptors were evaluated for direct contact with surface soil and sediment and ingestion of contaminated surface soil, sediment, and food items. Because terrestrial receptors are not substantially exposed to subsurface soils, exposure of these receptors to subsurface soil was not evaluated in the SLERA. Potential risks to receptors were calculated for DU1/DU2, DU3, DU4, and DU5. Tables summarizing data used in the SLERA and associated results are presented in Appendix D. An Ecological Effects Quotient (EEQ) approach was used in Step 2 to characterize the risk to ecological receptors. This approach characterizes potential adverse effects by dividing the EPCs by toxicity reference values (TRVs) calculated to be protective of ecological receptors. When EEQs exceed 1.0, it is an indication that ecological receptors are potentially at risk, although additional evaluation or data may be necessary to confirm with greater certainty whether ecological receptors are actually at risk, especially because most ecological screening benchmarks are developed using conservative exposure assumptions and/or studies. Chemicals with EEQs in excess of 1 were identified and selected as ecological COPCs, as shown in Table D-1 and summarized as follows: DU1/DU2 Herbivorous mammal: Four metals were selected as COPCs. Herbivorous bird: One explosive and six metals were selected as COPCs. Invertivorous mammal: Six metals were selected as COPCs. Invertivorous bird: One explosive and seven metals were selected as COPCs. Avian TRVs were not available for two explosives and three metals. DU3 Herbivorous mammal: Three metals were selected as COPCs. Herbivorous bird: Five metals were selected as COPCs. Invertivorous mammal: Four metals were selected as COPCs. Invertivorous bird: Five metals were selected as COPCs. Avian TRVs were not available for three metals. DU4 Herbivorous mammal: Four metals were selected as COPCs. Herbivorous bird: Five metals were selected as COPCs. Invertivorous mammal: Five metals were selected as COPCs. Invertivorous bird: One semivolatile organic compound (SVOC) and six metals were selected as

COPCs. Avian TRVs were not available for three volatile organic compounds (VOCs), one polynuclear

aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH), and three metals. Avian and mammalian TRVs were not available for one VOC.


18 September 2015

DU5 Piscivorous mammal: One SVOC and 13 metals were selected as COPCs. Piscivorous bird: One SVOC and 13 metals were selected as COPCs. Avian TRVs were not available for three VOCs and three metals. Avian and mammalian TRVs were not available for one VOC. COPC selection tables and terrestrial food-chain modeling results for each DU evaluated and each receptor are provided in Tables D-2 through D-5 and D-6 through D-9, respectively, of Appendix D. Because COPCs were identified in this step, the SLERA proceeded to Step 3a. Step 3a consists of refining the conservative exposure assumptions/concentrations used to evaluate potential risks to ecological receptors and re-evaluating the analytical data using benchmarks that are more appropriate for the assessment endpoints. The objectives of the Step 3a refinement were to better determine which chemicals contribute to potentially unacceptable levels of ecological risk, to identify ecological COCs, and to eliminate from further consideration those chemicals that were initially selected as COPCs because of the use of very conservative exposure scenarios (or the lack of screening criteria) but that are not likely causing a significant risk. In Step 3a, the conservative exposure assumptions employed for Step 2 were refined, and risk estimates were recalculated using the same CSM and assessment and measurement endpoints. Refinement factors for this re-evaluation included, as applicable, the magnitude of criteria exceedances, frequencies of detection and spatial distributions, contaminant bioavailabilities, comparisons to additional benchmarks, results of food-chain modeling (exposure doses calculated for terrestrial wildlife were recalculated using other exposure assumptions and chemical concentrations), and comparisons to site-specific background concentrations. The Step 3a terrestrial food-chain modeling results are provided in Tables D-10 through D-13 of Appendix D. Based on the SLERA using original RI data, no chemicals were retained as COCs for DU5, but chromium was retained as a COC for risks to plants and soil invertebrates at DU1/DU2, DU3, and DU4. However, there was significant uncertainty in the chromium results, the quantitative SLERA results were re-evaluated based on the supplemental RI data to determine whether adverse ecological impacts were potentially occurring. Ecological re-evaluation tables are provided as Tables D-14 through D-16 of Appendix D. Based on the re-evaluation of the SLERA, no chemicals were retained as ecological COCs at DU1/DU2, DU3, and DU4.

2.7.3 MEC Hazard Assessment

The MEC HA is a qualitative evaluation performed to assess current and future explosive hazards to human receptors posed by a site and reflects that fact that hazards associated with exposure to munitions items are fundamentally different than risks associated with chronic exposure to chemical contamination. Risks from chemical exposure are assessed in terms of the toxicity of the chemical, concentrations to which a receptor is expose, and duration of exposure. MEC explosive hazards, which can result in immediate injury or death upon exposure, are evaluated as being either present or not present at a site. If the potential for an encounter with MEC exists, the potential that the encounter may result in death or injury also exists, and a score is generated that qualitatively expresses that risk. MEC HAs address human health and safety concerns associated with potential exposure to MEC at a site but do not directly address environmental or ecological concerns that might be associated with MEC. MEC HAs are conducted in accordance with USEPA’s Munitions and Explosives of Concern Hazard Assessment Methodology (2010). The MEC HA score also accounts for the residual uncertainty associated with surface and subsurface munitions clearance activities because current methods for detecting, discriminating, and removing MEC items cannot ensure that all MEC are removed during a clearance. Detection of MEC is a function of the size, depth, and orientation of each object, and in general, small MEC items are more difficult to detect at depth than larger MEC items. Hence, a site that has a history of munitions use and/or disposal will always have a MEC HA baseline score (i.e., the score is never zero), even if the site has had a complete surface and subsurface clearance.


19 September 2015

The MEC HA is structured around the following components of potential explosive hazard incidents: Severity, which is the potential consequence of the effect (e.g., death, injury) on a human receptor

should a MEC item detonate.

Accessibility, which is the likelihood that a human receptor will be able to come in contact with a MEC item.

Sensitivity, which is the likelihood that a human receptor will be able to interact with a MEC item such that it will detonate.

Each of these components is assessed in the MEC HA, and a score is generated based on the combined levels of each of the components. MEC HA scores are interpreted as relative measures as opposed to quantitative measures of explosive hazard. The sum of the input factor scores falls within one of four defined ranges called hazard levels. The four hazard levels reflect attributes that describe groups of sites and site conditions. Hazard Level 1 represents sites with the greatest potential explosive hazard. At these sites, there may be an imminent threat to human health from MEC, such as from UXO that may be present on the ground surface. Hazard Level 2 represents sites with moderate or great accessibility by the public that have surface MEC, or where intrusive activities are expected to occur that would facilitate receptors encountering MEC in the subsurface. Hazard Level 3 represents sites that would be considered safe for the current land use without further munitions responses, although not necessarily suitable for reasonably anticipated future uses. Hazard Level 4 represents sites with low potential for explosive hazard conditions that are suitable for current and determined or reasonably anticipated future uses. Hazard level 4 sites typically have had MEC cleanup activities performed, or MEC is only located in the subsurface below the depth of expected receptor intrusive activities. The exposure pathway for potential human receptors to munitions items at Site 12 is direct contact with MEC/MPPEH items potentially located in the subsurface. It is important to note that exposure to MEC/MPPEH does not mean that an incident or injury will occur; a receptor would have to disturb the MEC/MPPEH item (e.g., apply heat, friction, or shock to the item) to result in an actual explosive hazard. Based on operations that took place Site 12, the site was divided into two areas, the berm area in the central portion of the site, including the area of the former berm mound, removed in 2014, and encompassing the area of the suspected historical berms identified based on aerial photographs, and the kickout area consisting of the remainder of site. A MEC HA was completed for each area. The berm area at Site 12 is where ordnance disposal activities took place. Surface clearance activities were performed in this area in 2010, 2011, and 2014, and a removal action was conducted in 2014 during which all munitions and non-munitions items were removed from the former berm mound, the berm mound was razed, and all of the cleared soil was used as backfill. Within the overall berm area, all munitions and non-munitions items were removed to 2 feet bgs, native soil, or bedrock (whichever was shallower), and remaining select anomalies were investigated to up to approximately 5 feet bgs. Munitions items may remain in the deeper subsurface of the berm area footprint because all anomalies were not investigated during the 2014 removal action. Therefore, munitions items are not expected to be found on the ground surface or in the subsurface up to the depth investigated in these areas. The kickout area was the safety buffer area associated with kickouts from disposal operations. Surface clearances were performed in this area in 2010, 2011, and 2013; therefore, surface items are not expected to be found in this area of the site. A subsurface investigation and removal were conducted in the kickout area in 2013. A statistically determined number of anomalies were intrusively investigated and largely found to be non-munitions-related debris, with some MDAS and only two MEC/MPPEH items; however, a complete subsurface clearance was not conducted in this area. Therefore, MDAS and non-munitions items are expected to be located in the subsurface of this area, and MEC/MPPEH may be sporadically present in the subsurface. All anomalies were investigated and munitions were cleared in the heavily vegetated area around the pond in 2013, and a complete subsurface removal action was conducted at the pond in 2014. Therefore, munitions items are not expected to be located in this area; however, there is potential that a stray munitions item may remain. The MEC HA scoring drivers based on current conditions at Site 12 include the following:


20 September 2015

The location and relative quantity of MEC/MDAS found on the ground surface and in the subsurface

during previous site investigations in relation to the location of planned human receptors.

In the berm area, the former mound has been completely cleared and razed, a surface clearance was conducted over the entire berm area, and for the subsurface, complete clearance of the top 2 feet and partial clearance below 2 feet were conducted.

In the kickout area, surface clearance is complete, and a relatively low potential amount of MEC

remains in the subsurface based on the results of previous investigations and removal actions. All anomalies were investigated and munitions were cleared in the heavily vegetated area around the pond, and the pond has been completely cleared.

At Site 12, the item with the Maximum Greatest Fragmentation Distance (MGFD) was determined to be the 40-millimeter (mm) Mk 2 projectile, as documented in the Explosives Safety Submission (ESS) prepared as part of the TCRA (Tetra Tech, 2012a) and did not change based on the results of subsequent investigations.

Currently, the site is not in use and a fence is in place, which greatly limits public accessibility, and the Navy has not yet transferred the property. Regardless, considering that no restrictions are in place and the fence is unguarded, potential receptors under the current land use could include trespassers who could breach the site fence and contact the ground surface. It was assumed that no intrusive activities would occur during potential trespassing. Contact time for this receptor was estimated to be low (approximately 100 hours annually) based on current site conditions.

Previous removal actions have been extensive but have not addressed 100 percent of the site subsurface.

The possibility exists, although considered unlikely, for MEC to migrate to the surface via disturbances by human receptors or erosional forces as a result of heavy rain or frost heave. Migration of MEC was of most concern in the berm area, where munitions items undergoing detonation could have been buried prior to disposal. However, this is not a significant current concern because the top 2 feet of the berm area have been remediated, and an orange liner was placed at 2 feet bgs to demarcate the depth of excavation.

The MEC HAs for both the berm area and kickout area under current conditions resulted in Hazard Levels of 4, indicating that these areas have a low potential for explosive hazard conditions. This low MEC HA score for the berm area, which prior to the remedial actions conducted had the greatest density of munitions, reflects the extensive removal efforts conducted to date of the ground surface and the subsurface. The low MEC HA score for the kickout area is based on the complete clearance of the ground surface and low probability that MEC/MPPEH are present in the subsurface based on the operations that took place in this area, as confirmed by the intrusive investigation. MEC HAs were also completed for the planned future use of the site as a Natural Area (i.e., for passive/non-intrusive recreational activities). The factors described above are also applicable under the future land use scenario, with the exception of future site receptor contact time because the site will be accessible under future land use (i.e., either the fence gates or portions or all of the fence may be removed to allow access to the site). Future potential receptors are expected to include recreational users assumed to have approximately 1,000 hours of contact time annually. The MEC HAs for Site 12 for both remedial alternatives evaluated in the FS, for both the berm area and kickout area, also resulted in Hazard Levels of 4, indicating that both the berm area and kickout area have low potentials for explosive hazard conditions under the planned future passive recreational use. Although there is a possibility that a MEC item remains at the site, the extensive removal efforts to date have completely addressed the entire ground surface, the former berm mound, the subsurface up to 2 feet bgs in the berm area (the area of greatest concern), and the pond and surrounding area; therefore, any remaining munitions items are


21 September 2015

expected to be small in number and located in the subsurface where the risk of exposure is nominal for the intended future use of the site as a Natural Area.

2.7.4 Basis for Action

As a result of past activities at Site 12, MEC/MPPEH presumed to be present in the subsurface may result in an explosive hazard to human receptors. Although based on the results of the MEC HAs for future land use, there is a low potential for explosive hazard conditions to exist at Site 12, based on the nature of explosive hazards, even a low potential for these conditions may constitute an imminent and substantial endangerment to on-site personnel and local populations. Because the potential for explosive hazards exists at the site under current and planned future land uses, a response action is necessary to protect human health and the environment from actual or threatened explosive hazards that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare. Based on the results of the human health and ecological risk assessments, it was determined that no further action is required for MC at Site 12.

2.8 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVE Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) are medium-specific goals that define the objective of conducting remedial actions to protect human health and the environment. RAOs provide a general description of what the cleanup will accomplish and typically serve as the design basis for the remedial alternatives described in Section 2.9. The RAO for Site 12 is to prevent the direct contact explosive hazard associated with potential exposure to MEC/MPPEH items that may be present at the site, while still allowing site access. This RAO is based on the planned future non-intrusive passive recreational use of the site as a Natural Area.

2.9 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES To address potential explosive safety hazards associated with contact with MEC/MPPEH at Site 12, a preliminary technology screening evaluation was conducted in the FS. The general response actions are presented in Table 2-4.

TABLE 2-4. GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS GENERAL RESPONSE

ACTION TECHNOLOGY PROCESS OPTIONS

No Action None Not applicable

LUCs Engineering Controls Physical barriers/security guards

Institutional Controls Restrictions on intrusive activity and land use type Public education program

Containment

Soil Cover Soil cover (permeable barrier) to prevent contact with underlying MEC/MPPEH

Capping (clay, synthetic membrane, asphalt, or multimedia cap)

Low-permeability barrier to minimize exposure to and migration of MEC/MPPEH

Detection

Visual Observation Visually locate and identify MEC/MPPEH items on the ground surface

Hand-Held/Man-Portable Ferrous/All-Metals Detectors

Ferrous and all-metals detectors carried during surveying

Towed/Cart-Mounted Ferrous/All-Metals Detectors

Ferrous and all-metals detectors mounted and pushed across site


22 September 2015

TABLE 2-4. GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS GENERAL RESPONSE

ACTION TECHNOLOGY PROCESS OPTIONS

Ground Surface Removal

Manual Removal Remove MEC/MPPEH items identified on the ground surface

Subsurface Removal

Manual Excavation and Manual Removal

Use of manual tools and procedures to investigate and remove individual anomalies

Mechanical Excavation and Manual Removal

Use of armored common construction/excavation equipment for high-volume earth moving

Remotely Operated Removal Equipment

Use of remotely operated equipment for clearance and removal activities

Treatment Blow-In-Place Detonation of explosive material without moving the item from the location where it was found

Treatment (continued)

Consolidate and Detonate Collection, configuration, and subsequent destruction by explosive detonation of MEC/MPPEH

Contained Detonation Chambers

Involves detonation in chamber, vessel, or facility designated and constructed for the purpose of containing blast and fragments from MEC/MPPEH detonation

Flash Furnaces Thermal treatment of MEC items in constructed thermal treatment unit

Disassembly or Render Safe Procedures

Procedures enable the neutralization and/or disarming of munitions to occur; additional disposal procedures are generally required along with this process option; must be conducted by military EOD

MEC Residual Processing MEC/MPPEH treatment activities can leave behind residue

Disposal

Off-Site Disposal MDAS and Non-Munitions Debris

After MEC/MPPEH are treated, MDAS will remain at the site, which may need to be further processed through demilitarization to allow for disposal

Off-Site Disposal Hazardous Waste

Disposal of hazardous waste encountered during excavation

The technologies and process options retained after detailed screening were assembled into three alternatives. Consistent with the NCP, the no action alternative was evaluated as a baseline for comparison with other alternatives during the comparative analysis. Table 2-5 describes the major components and provides estimated costs for each remedial alternative identified for Site 12.

TABLE 2-5. SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS DETAILS COST

1 – No Action No further action to address MEC/MPPEH

None No action No cost

2 – LUCs Preventing exposure to

LUCs Limiting site use to non-intrusive passive outdoor recreational uses

Capital: $38,000 30-Year NPW of


23 September 2015

TABLE 2-5. SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS DETAILS COST

MEC/MPPEH Prohibiting intrusive activity

O&M Cost: $204,000 30-Year NPW: $242,000 Discount Rate: 1.9% Time Frame: 1 month from approval of the LUC Remedial Design (RD)

Posting of caution/UXO hazard warning signs

Public education program to inform the public of potential explosive hazards at the site

Annual LUC inspections of the ground surface of the site to confirm that erosion and/or disturbance is not occurring that would expose human receptors to possible subsurface MEC/MPPEH

3 – Complete Removal Complete removal of all anomalies via mechanical excavation

Identification and removal of all subsurface anomalies in all areas of the site

Visual and detector-aided geophysical surveys of the ground surface at DU2, DU3, DU4, and DU4a would be conducted, and if any MEC/MPPEH items were identified, they would be manually removed, evaluated, and prepared as necessary for off-site disposal. To remove any remaining subsurface munitions-related items, all of Site 12 (the area within existing fence except for Vernal Pool #118 located along the eastern boundary of the site), including wetlands, would be excavated to native soil, bedrock, or groundwater via mechanical excavation, resulting in removal of approximately 129,000 cubic yards of soil. All excavated soil not screened during previous remedial actions would be screened, visually and using a magnetometer or all-metals detector, and all anomalies would be removed. During screening, UXO Technicians would then perform a detector-aided surface survey of the soil, and all MEC/MPPEH items would be removed. Site restoration activities, including backfilling, grading, revegetation of the excavation areas, and wetlands restoration, would be conducted after all excavations are complete. After remedial activities are complete, the current site fence would be completely removed to allow access to the site for its anticipated use.

Capital: $13,363,000 30-Year NPW of O&M Cost: $0 30-Year NPW: $13,363,000 Discount Rate: 1.9% Time Frame: 10 months

2.10 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Table 2-6 and subsequent text in this section summarize the comparison of the remedial alternatives with respect to the nine CERCLA evaluation criteria outlined in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.430(e)(9)(iii) and categorized as threshold, primary balancing, and modifying criteria. Further information on the detailed comparison of remedial alternatives is presented in the Site 12 FS.


24 September 2015

TABLE 2-6 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

CERCLA CRITERION 1 – NO ACTION 2 – LUCS 3 – COMPLETE REMOVAL

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment (1)

Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)

NA

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment

Short-Term Effectiveness

Implementability NA Total Cost (Present Net Worth)

$0 $242,000 $13,363,000

State Acceptance

Community Acceptance

- High. - Medium. - Low.

1 Based on the extensive munitions clearance actions taken to date, the surface of the site is currently safe for non-intrusive use, even without any additional actions.

Threshold Criteria Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. The no action alternative would not ensure protection of human health and the environment in the long term, although there are no current explosive hazards associated with exposure to the site surface because the ground surface was completely cleared during previous removal actions. Because under the no action alternative there would be no LUCs to restrict future land use to non-intrusive passive outdoor recreational uses or to prohibit intrusive activities at the site, the risk to human health from direct exposure to potential MEC/MPPEH explosive hazards presumed to be present at Site 12 would remain. In addition, without ongoing LUC inspections, future site users could be exposed to MEC/MPPEH items potentially previously located it the subsurface but that migrated to the ground surface as a results of erosion, frost action, or human action. Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide essentially equal protection of human health. For Alternative 2, although no munitions items would be removed from the site, LUCs would limit intrusive activity and certain land uses at Site 12 and would warn potential receptors of the potential MEC/MPPEH dangers suspected to be present at Site 12. The MEC HA score for Alternative 2 indicates that both the berm area (DU1/DU2) and outer area (DU3/DU4/DU4a/DU5) have a low potential for explosive hazard conditions, which places this alternative in Hazard Level 4. The MEC HA score for the berm area (DU1/DU2) is slightly greater than the outer area (DU3/DU4) because of the different types of munitions found in each area and because the berm area is designated an open burn/open detonation area, but the outer area is designated as a kickout area. Conversely, there is a potential for MEC to migrate to the ground surface in the outer area because MEC/MPPEH items could be at shallow depths, but migration is not a significant concern for the berm area because the top 2 feet have been cleared. Removal efforts to


25 September 2015

date have completely addressed the entire ground surface, subsurface up to 2 feet bgs in the berm area, and pond and surrounding area; therefore, any remaining munitions items are expected to be few in number and located in the subsurface where risks of exposure are nominal. Alternative 3 would be more protective of human health than Alternative 2 because all surface and subsurface anomalies items would be removed from Site 12 to the depths of disturbance where native soil, bedrock, or groundwater is encountered. However, generally, the MEC HA Hazard Level (4) is low for Alternative 2 and the same for Alternative 3. Compliance with ARARs. ARARs include any federal or state standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations determined to be legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the site or remedial action. No further action is required for environmental media to address MC at the site because there are no unacceptable human health and ecological risks associated with the MC concentrations detected during previous investigations. Alternatives 2 and 3 would comply with the identified ARARs to the same general degree. Alternative 1 would not comply with ARARs because no action would be taken to address the presumed munitions-related hazards. Because Alternative 1, the no action alternative, does not meet the threshold criteria, it could not be chosen as the Selected Remedy and will therefore not be considered further in the comparative analysis discussion. Primary Balancing Criteria Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. Alternative 3 would provide the most long-term effectiveness and permanence through permanent removal of all surface and subsurface munitions-related items from the site. Under Alternative 3, all surface and subsurface munitions-related items would be removed at Site 12 to the depths of disturbance (i.e., to native soil, bedrock, or groundwater). Alternative 2 would provide slightly less long-term effectiveness and permanence through implementation of LUCs and performance of annual LUC inspections at the site. These inspections would be conducted to ensure that there are no LUC violations and to address the unlikely migration of MEC/MPPEH items at the site from the subsurface to the surface where they could be encountered by future site users. Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment. Under Alternative 3, the volume of munitions items located at Site 12 would be permanently reduced because any anomalies determined to be munitions related would be treated on site. Alternative 2 would not achieve any further reduction of the volume of munitions items at Site 12. Short-Term Effectiveness. Alternative 2 would have lowest short-term impacts. Under Alternative 2, risks to human receptors would be reduced as soon as the LUC implementation actions were completed, which would be approximately 1 month from approval of the LUC RD. Alternative 3 would also reduce human receptor risks in the short term because risks to site receptors would be reduced as soon as the first removal action was completed. The completion of all remedial activities proposed Alternative 3 is estimated to take approximately 10 months, over two field seasons. Implementation of Alternative 3 may result in exposing site workers to explosive hazards during remedial activities, particularly if detonations of MEC/MPPEH are required. However, the risk of exposure would be effectively controlled by compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and other explosive safety procedures. Dust suppression and control measures would be implemented during excavation under Alternative 3 to minimize the emission of soil particulates during on-site remedial activities. Erosion control measures implemented under Alternative 3 would minimize the migration of soil to other areas of the site during excavations. Short-term risks for Alternative 3 would be properly mitigated by application of engineering controls and adherence to OSHA requirements. Alternative 3 would also have short-term impacts on the community as a result of the transport of munitions and non-munitions items for off-site disposal and metal recycling. Wetland areas would be impacted during excavation under Alternative 3, but excavations would be planned and performed to minimize impacts on wetlands, and wetlands would be restored. Because no soil or munitions removals are proposed under


26 September 2015

Alternative 2, there would be no short-term risk to site workers or impacts to the environment or nearby community. Overall, the sustainability impact of Alternative 2 is low based on an analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy demand. The sustainability impact of Alternative 3 is higher than Alternative 2. Implementability. Alternative 2 would easier to implement than Alternative 3 because only implementation of LUCs (installation of signage, intrusive activity restrictions, land use restrictions, and administration of a public education program) would be required. The administrative aspects of the LUCs would be easily implemented at Site 12 because the property is currently under the control of the Navy, and continuation of LUCs after transfer of the property out of Navy control is part of a standard process completed at many former military facilities in conjunction with EPA and state agencies. Alternative 3 would be more difficult to implement. Under Alternative 3, vegetation removal, surface inspection, and manual removal of surface items could be relatively easily implemented, although no munitions items are expected on the ground surface. Mechanical excavation of subsurface anomalies would be more difficult to implement than surface removal, especially if groundwater is encountered during excavation, as is expected in wetland areas of the site. Also, because magnetic rocks have been found during previous intrusive investigations at Site 12, it may be difficult to remove all anomalies to native soil, bedrock, or groundwater due to interferences with detection instruments. Cost. The estimated present-worth cost to implement Alternative 3, $13,363,000, is significantly greater than the estimated present-worth cost to implement Alternative 2 of $242,000. Modifying Criteria State Acceptance. State involvement has been solicited throughout the CERCLA process. MEDEP, as the designated state support agency in Maine, concurs with the Selected Remedy, implementation of LUCs. Community Acceptance. No questions/comments were received during the public meeting on July 15, 2015, and no objections to the proposed alternative were voiced. The transcript from the public meeting and the response to the only comment received during the public comment period are provided in Appendix G.

2.11 PRINCIPAL THREAT WASTE The NCP at 40 CFR 300.430(a)(1)(iii)(A) establishes an expectation that treatment will be used to address the principal threats posed by a site wherever practicable. Principal threat wastes are those source materials considered to be highly toxic or highly mobile that generally cannot be reliably contained or that would present a significant risk to human health or the environment should exposure occur. A source material is a material that includes or contains hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that act as a reservoir for migration of contamination to groundwater, surface water, or air, or acts as a source for direct exposure. At Site 12, no further action is required based on the low concentrations of MC in all media; therefore, principal threat wastes are not present at the site. The concept of principal threat wastes do not apply to munitions-related hazards.

2.12 SELECTED REMEDY 2.12.1 Rationale for Selected Remedy The Selected Remedy for Site 12 is LUCs, which was selected because it provides the best balance of tradeoffs with respect to the nine evaluation criteria and will allow future use of the property as the BNAS Natural Area District. The Selected Remedy provides the Navy’s preferred balance between long-term effectiveness for current and planned future land use of the site, implementability, and cost. The Selected Remedy does not involve removal of any additional munitions items from the site; however, extensive


27 September 2015

removal efforts have been conducted to date. LUCs will limit intrusive activity at Site 12, restrict land use, and warn potential receptors of the potential MEC/MPPEH dangers presumed to be present at the site. The Navy chose implementation of LUCs over complete removal because LUCs would prevent potential exposure to MEC/MPPEH, make the area usable for its anticipated future use, and be more cost effective. As discussed above, the hazard level after implementation of complete removal would be the same, Hazard Level 4, as after implementation of LUCs, but the cost of complete removal would be significantly greater (approximately 55 times greater for the same general level of protection). Non-intrusive passive outdoor recreational uses that will not significantly alter the environment are anticipated future uses of the site. The remedy will meet the RAO by implementing LUCs to limit land use to non-intrusive passive recreational activities and to prohibit intrusive activity within Site 12, to place caution/UXO hazard warning signs along the current site fence or on nearby trees, to implement a public education program, and to conduct annual LUC inspections.

2.12.2 Description of Selected Remedy

The Selected Remedy includes implementation of LUCs within the Site 12 LUC boundary (see Figure 2-4) to limit use of the property and to prevent intrusive activities that could result in exposure to munitions items potentially remaining in the subsurface at the site. Consistent with the RAO developed for the site, the specific performance objectives for the LUCs to be implemented at Site 12 are as follows: To prohibit use of the site for anything other than non-intrusive passive recreational activities. Only

those recreational uses that would not significantly alter the environment will be permitted (e.g., hiking, jogging, bird watching, and hunting). Residential, industrial/commercial, intrusive recreational, and agricultural uses of the site will be prohibited.

To prohibit any kind of intrusive activities, below the ground surface, within the LUC boundary

without prior written approval from the Navy, EPA, and MEDEP.

To maintain the integrity of any future monitoring or remediation system(s).

The following generally describes those LUCs that will be implemented at Site 12 to achieve the aforementioned LUC performance objectives: Incorporation of these restrictions into any real estate property documents (i.e., deeds or leases)

associated with future sale or lease of the site. Posting and maintenance of caution/UXO hazard warning signs along the existing fence or on

nearby trees (it is expected that the existing fence, with fence gates removed to allow access, will remain in place).

Annual LUC inspections to ensure that there are no violations of the above-listed prohibitions and to

ensure that no previously buried MEC/MPPEH items are present on the ground surface within the LUC boundary.

If a violation of the restrictions occurs, a description of the violation and the corrective actions to be

taken to restore protectiveness will be reported to EPA and MEDEP.

Implementation of a public educational program to warn the visiting public of the potential presence of ordnance, the importance of not disturbing (yet reporting) suspect items observed within the LUC boundary, and the importance of not conducting intrusive activities at the site.

Additionally, as a housekeeping measure, the three existing monitoring wells will be abandoned.


28 September 2015

FIGURE 2-4. SITE 12 SELECTED REMEDY - LUCS


29 September 2015

LUCs will be implemented and maintained by the Navy as long as there remains a presumed explosive hazard in the subsurface at Site 12. The Navy is responsible for implementing, maintaining, reporting on, and enforcing the LUCs described in this ROD. Although the Navy may later transfer these procedural responsibilities to another party by contract, property transfer agreement, or through other means, the Navy shall retain ultimate responsibility for the remedy integrity. The LUC implementation actions including monitoring and enforcement requirements will be provided in a LUC RD that will be prepared by the Navy. Within 90 days of ROD signature, the Navy shall prepare and submit to EPA and MEDEP for review and comment the LUC RD for Site 12 that shall contain implementation and maintenance actions, including periodic inspections. The Navy will maintain, monitor, and enforce the LUCs according to the LUC RD. LUCs will be developed in accordance with the Principles and Procedures for Specifying, Monitoring, and Enforcement of Land Use Controls and Other Post-ROD Actions, per letter dated October 2, 2003, from Raymond F. DuBois, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment), to Hon. Marianne Lamont Horinko, Acting Administrator, EPA. Implementation of this remedy will require annual LUC inspections and a five-year review with report preparation.

2.12.3 Expected Outcomes of Selected Remedy

The planned future land use for Site 12 will be supported by the Selected Remedy, and there are no other planned land uses in the foreseeable future. Groundwater at the site is not used and is not expected to be used in the future, and the Selected Remedy will have no impact on current or future groundwater uses available at the site. There are no socio-economic, community revitalization, or economic impacts or benefits associated with implementation of the Selected Remedy. It is estimated that the RAO for Site 12 will be achieved within approximately 1 month after approval of the LUC RD. Table 2-7 describes how the Selected Remedy mitigates risk and achieves the RAO for Site 12.

Because reuse of the site is expected to be as a Natural Area and there are no other planned land uses in the foreseeable future, it is not expected that modification or removal of the LUCs will be required. However, if proposed land use changes in the future and uses other than non-intrusive passive outdoor recreational activities are expected, additional or other remedial approaches would be required. Any modifications to LUCs will be conducted in accordance with provisions in the Site 12 LUC RD, CERCLA, and the NCP.

2.13 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS In accordance with the NCP, the Selected Remedy meets the following statutory determinations: Protection of Human Health and the Environment – The Selected Remedy is needed to prevent

exposure to explosive safety hazards associated with exposure to MEC/MPPEH potentially remaining at Site 12. LUCs will be implemented to prevent direct contact with potential MEC/MPPEH items remaining within the LUC boundary.

Compliance with ARARs – The Selected Remedy will attain the ARARs identified for the remedy, as

presented in Appendix E.

Cost-Effectiveness – The Selected Remedy is the most cost-effective alternative that allows for

TABLE 2-7. HOW SELECTED REMEDY MITIGATES HAZARDS AND ACHIEVES RAO RISK RAO COMMENTS

Direct exposure to MEC/MPPEH in subsurface soil

To prevent the direct contact threat associated with MEC/MPPEH that may be present at the site, while still allowing site access

LUCs will prevent exposure to MEC/MPPEH items potentially present in subsurface soil at the site by prohibiting use of the site for anything other than non-intrusive passive recreational activities and by prohibiting intrusive activities within the LUC boundary.


30 September 2015

future non-intrusive, passive, outdoor, recreational uses of the property while being protective of site users and represents the most reasonable value for the money. The costs are proportional to overall effectiveness by achieving a significant amount of short-term and long-term effectiveness and permanence within a reasonable time frame. Detailed costs for the Selected Remedy are presented in Appendix F.

Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies or ResourceRecovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable – The Selected Remedy representsthe maximum extent to which permanent solutions can be used in a practical manner at Site 12.Alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies are not applicable for this site.

Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element – Treatment is not a principal element of theSelected Remedy at Site 12 because there are no principal threat wastes at the site. In addition, noremaining subsurface munitions-related items have been identified that could be treated; however, afew MEC/MPPEH items are presumed to be present based on past use of the site for munitionsdisposal. The Selected Remedy provides the best balance of tradeoffs with respect to long-termeffectiveness and permanence at a reasonable cost.

Five-Year Review Requirement – Because this remedy will result in possible MEC/MPPEHremaining on site, explosive hazards will presumably remain at the site, preventing unlimited use andunrestricted exposure; therefore, a statutory review will be conducted within 5 years of initiation of theremedial action and every 5 years thereafter to ensure that the remedy is, or will be, protective ofhuman health and the environment.

2.14 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES CERCLA Section 117(b) requires an explanation of significant changes from the Selected Remedy presented in the Proposed Plan that was published for public comment. No formal questions or comments from the public were received during the meeting held on July 15, 2015, and only one comment was received during the public comment period. The Navy response to this comments is provided in Appendix G, which also includes the transcript from the public meeting. No significant changes to the remedy, as originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary or appropriate.

2.15 STATE ROLE MEDEP has reviewed the relevant site information and concurs with the Selected Remedy, implementation of LUCs for Site 12. MEDEP’s concurrence on the decision documented in this ROD is presented in Appendix A.

3.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 3.1 STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS AND LEAD AGENCY RESPONSES Participants in the public meeting held on July 15, 2015, included RAB members and representatives of the Navy, EPA, and MEDEP. The Navy response to the only comment received during the public comment period is provided in Appendix G along with the transcript of the public meeting. No changes to the remedy, as originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary or appropriate based on the comment received during the public comment period.

3.2 TECHNICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES No technical or legal issues associated with the Site12 ROD were identified.


R-1 September 2015

REFERENCES Bering Sea Eccotech/Parsons, 2015. Site 12 EOD Area Remedial Action, Former Naval Air Station Brunswick, Brunswick, Maine. E.C. Jordan Company, 1991a. Draft Final Supplemental Feasibility Study, Sites 5, 6, and 12. Naval Air Station Brunswick, Brunswick, Maine. July. E.C. Jordan Company, 1991b. Draft Final Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report. Naval Air Station Brunswick, Brunswick, Maine. August. E.C. Jordan Company, 1992. Final Feasibility Study (Sites 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14). Naval Air Station Brunswick, Brunswick, Maine. March. ECC, 2008. Community Relations Plan, Naval Air Station Brunswick, Miane. April. EPA, 2010. Munitions and Explosives of Concern Hazard Assessment Methodology, EPA 505B08001, February. EPA, 2014. Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites. http://epa-prgs.USEPA.gov/chemicals/index.shtml. May. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 2007. Preliminary Assessment Addendum, Naval Air Station Brunswick, Maine. July. Matrix Design Group, 2007. Brunswick Naval Air Station Reuse Master Plan, Brunswick Maine. Prepared for the Brunswick Local Redevelopment Authority. December. Tetra Tech, 2009. Site Inspection Report for Munitions And Explosives Of Concern Areas, Site 12 EOD Area, Former Munitions Bunker West Area, Quarry, Naval Air Station Brunswick, Brunswick, Maine February. Tetra Tech, 2010. Action Memorandum for Time-Critical Removal Action at Site 12 EOD Area. Naval Air Station Brunswick, Maine. July. Tetra Tech, 2012a. MEC Time-Critical Removal Action Report for Site 12 EOD Area. Former Naval Air Station Brunswick, Maine. April Tetra Tech, 2012b, Bedrock Fracture Trace Analysis Report, Quarry Area and Site 12 EOD Area. Former Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine. August. Tetra Tech, 2013. Technical Memorandum, Groundwater Report, Site 12 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Area, Former Naval Air Station Brunswick. January. Tetra Tech 2014a. Action Memorandum for Site 12 EOD Area Pond and Berm Area, Former Naval Air Station Brunswick. August. Tetra Tech, 2014b. Technical Memorandum. Evaluation of 2014 Analytical Results From Soil Samples Collected From the Excavated DU1 Berm and Off-Site Soil Source, Site 12 EOD Area, Former NAS Brunswick, Maine. November. Tetra Tech 2015a. Remedial Investigation Report for Site 12 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Area, Former Naval Air Station Brunswick. Revision 2. April. Tetra Tech, 2015b. Feasibility Study Report for Site 12 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Area, Former Naval Air Station Brunswick. July.


R-2 September 2015

USA Environmental, 2013. Hydrographic, Side Scan Sonar, Time Domain Electromagnetic Induction, and Probing Survey, Former Naval Air Station Brunswick, Site 12 EOD Area, Brunswick, Maine. August. USA Environmental, 2014. Technical Report, Site 12 Pond Sediment Report, Former Naval Air Station Brunswick, Maine. February. USA Environmental, 2015. Remedial Investigation Report, Site 12 EOD Area, Munitions and Explosives of Concern Remedial Investigation, Former Naval Air Station Brunswick, Brunswick, Maine. June.


September 2015

Appendix A MEDEP Concurrence Letter

S T A T E O F M A I N E DEP A R T M EN T OF EN VI R ON M EN T A L PR OT EC T I ON

PAUL R. LEPAGE AVERY T. DAY

GOVERNOR ACTING COMMISSIONER September 25, 2015 Mr. Paul Burgio BRAC PMO NE Building 679-Naval Business Center 4911 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19112-1303 Re: Record of Decision for Site 12, Former Naval Air Station Brunswick, Brunswick, ME Dear Mr. Burgio, The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) has reviewed the draft Record of Decision for Site 12, Explosive Ordnance Disposal Area, Former Naval Air Station Brunswick, Brunswick, ME dated July 2015. The Record of Decision (ROD) summarizes the results from the investigations and actions conducted at the site between 1991 and 2014 to among other things, find and dispose of unexploded ordinances, and documents Navy’s rationale for selecting Land Use Controls (LUCs) at the remedy for Site 12. The MEDEP concurs with the selected decision of Land Use Controls that restrict excavation and includes annual inspections of LUCs. The State’s concurrence of the selected decision, as described above, should not be construed as the State’s concurrence with any conclusion of law or finding of fact, which may be set forth in the ROD or supporting documents for the site listed above. 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 on the State’s understanding that the Navy will continue to solicit MEDEP's review and concurrence with the Land Use Controls Remedial Design for Site 12. MEDEP looks forward to working with the Department of the Navy and Environmental Protection Agency to resolve the environmental issues remaining at the former Naval Air Station Brunswick. If you have any questions or comments, please contact lver McLeod at [email protected] or 207-287-8010. Sincerely,

David Wright, Director Division of Remediation, BRWM pc: Iver McLeod, MEDEP Todd Bober, US Navy Mike Daly, USEPA

AUGUSTA BANGOR PORTLAND PRESQUE ISLE 17 STATE HOUSE STATION 106 HOGAN ROAD, SUITE 6 312 CANCO ROAD 1235 CENTRAL DRIVE, SKYWAY PARK AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0017 BANGOR, MAINE 04401 PORTLAND, MAINE 04103 PRESQUE ISLE, MAINE 04769 (207) 287-7688 FAX: (207) 287-7826 (207) 941-4570 FAX: (207) 941-4584 (207) 822-6300 FAX: (207) 822-6303 (207) 764-0477 FAX: (207) 760-3143

website: www.maine.gov/dep


September 2015

Appendix B Proposed Plan and Public Notice

BOLDED TERMS THROUGHOUT THIS PROPOSED PLAN ARE EXPLAINED IN THE GLOSSARY OF TERMS ON PAGES 14 THROUGH 16.

1

THE CLEANUP PROPOSAL This Proposed Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to present the Navy’s proposed cleanup approach for munitions-related impacts at Site 12 Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Area at the former Naval Air Station (NAS) Brunswick.

This plan describes the remedy proposed by the Navy to address munitions-related explosive hazards potentially remaining at the site from previous munitions disposal activities. After careful study and based on the significant amount of munitions clearance activities already completed at the site, the Navy proposes to develop and implement land use controls (LUCs) to address any potential hazards posed by munitions items potentially remaining in the subsurface at the site. To prevent future potential contact with any such munitions items, LUCs would be implemented to limit site uses to passive recreational activities and to prohibit intrusive subsurface activities.

This plan provides information on the remedial alternatives evaluated, the public comment period, the public information session and public hearing, and how the final remedy for Site 12 will be selected.

This plan also provides information on the results of soil, groundwater, and sediment investigations used to determine that no further action is required for chemical contamination at the site.

Mark Your Calendar! PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

JULY 10, 2015, TO AUGUST 7, 2015

The Navy will accept written comments on the Proposed Plan for Site 12 during this comment period. Comments can also be sent by mail, e-mail, or fax (see page 17 for details). You can also offer oral or written comments at the formal public hearing.

INFORMATIONAL OPEN HOUSE AND PUBLIC MEETING

JULY 15, 2015 The Navy invites you to attend an informational open house from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm to learn about the proposed Site 12 cleanup plan and how it compares with other cleanup options for the site. The informational session will include posters describing the Proposed Plan and an informal question-and-answer session. A formal public hearing will follow during which the Navy will receive comments on the Proposed Plan from the public. It is at this formal hearing that an official transcript of the comments will be recorded. The above activities will be held at the Best Western Plus Brunswick Bath, 71 Gurnet Road, Brunswick, Maine.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT THE INFORMATION REPOSITORY AT THE LOCATION

PROVIDED ON PAGE 14 OF THIS PROPOSED PLAN.

LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK

United States Navy July 2015

Proposed Plan Site 12 – Explosive Ordnance Disposal Area

Former Naval Air Station Brunswick, Maine

Federal and state environmental laws govern cleanup of hazardous substances at federal facilities. A federal law called the CERCLA, better known as Superfund, provides procedures for investigation and cleanup of environmental problems. Site 12 was identified as a CERCLA site in the late 1980s. Under this law, the Navy has investigated and performed substantial cleanup of the site to ensure that it is protective of human health and safety and the environment.

2

Because of the prior use of Site 12 as an in-base detonation area for rendering ordnance items safe from an explosives standpoint, the Department of Defense’s Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) additionally governs cleanup activities at this site. The MMRP, which addresses the potential explosives safety, health, and environmental issues resulting from past munitions use at current and former military facilities, follows the requirements and processes of CERCLA and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The Navy is issuing this Proposed Plan as part of its public participation responsibilities under Section 300.430(f)(2) of the NCP, in accordance with CERCLA and MMRP requirements.

INTRODUCTION This Proposed Plan provides information to the public on the preferred approach for addressing the potential that military munitions items remain at Site 12 at the former NAS Brunswick and provides the rationale for this preference. In addition, this plan includes summaries of other munitions cleanup alternatives evaluated for Site 12. Based on the results of environmental investigations at the site, no further action is required to address chemical contamination at Site 12 because there are no unacceptable risks associated with residual chemical contamination related to past munitions activities at the site. This document is issued by the Navy, as the lead agency for all investigation and cleanup programs ongoing at the former NAS Brunswick, with concurrence from United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP). The Navy, with the concurrence of EPA and MEDEP, will select a final remedy for Site 12 after reviewing and considering all information submitted during the 30-day public comment period. The Navy, with the concurrence of EPA and MEDEP, may modify the preferred alternative or select another response action based on new information or public comments. Therefore, the public is encouraged to review and comment on all of the alternatives presented in this Proposed Plan.

This Proposed Plan summarizes information that can be found in greater detail in the Site 12 Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) Reports and other documents included in the former NAS Brunswick Information Repository, which is located in the Curtis Memorial Library at 23 Pleasant Street, Brunswick, Maine. The Navy, EPA, and MEDEP encourage the public to review these documents to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the site and associated environmental activities.

The purpose of this Proposed Plan is to:

Provide the public with basic background information about the former NAS Brunswick, including Site 12, which is known as the EOD Area. This information includes a description of the site that was developed by reviewing past documents about the site, investigating soil, groundwater, and sediment at the site, investigating

military munitions at the site, and evaluating potential human and ecological impacts.

Summarize previous cleanup activities related to munitions and explosives items that have been removed by the Navy to mitigate safety risks for future site users.

Describe the information used as the basis for the Navy’s determination that no further action is required to address the levels of munitions-related chemical contamination, termed munitions constituents (MC), in soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment at the site.

Describe the munitions remedial options considered for the site.

Identify the Navy’s preferred alternative for remedial action at Site 12 and explain the reasons for that preference.

Provide the public information on how they can be involved in the remedy selection process.

Solicit and encourage public review of the Proposed Plan.

After the public has had the opportunity to review and comment on this Proposed Plan, the Navy will summarize and respond to all comments received during the comment period and formal public hearing in a document called the Responsiveness Summary. The Navy, in consultation with EPA and MEDEP, will carefully consider all comments received and could even select a remedial action different from that proposed. Ultimately, the selected remedy for Site 12 will be documented in a Record of Decision (ROD) for the site. The Responsiveness Summary will be issued with the ROD.

SITE BACKGROUND Prior to base closure, the former NAS Brunswick consisted of approximately 3,094 acres in Brunswick, Cumberland County, Maine. The base supported the Navy’s antisubmarine warfare operations in the Atlantic Ocean with several squadrons of P-3 maritime patrol aircraft. NAS Brunswick was officially designated as a Superfund site in 1987 when EPA added it to the National Priorities List (NPL). NAS Brunswick was selected in 2005 by the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission for closure and was deactivated on May 31, 2011. The base population and facility operations decreased significantly in January 2010 with the end of the base’s flying mission. The former operational area of the base covers approximately 138 acres east of the two parallel runways extending north to south in the northern portion of the facility. The former operational area included numerous office buildings, barracks, recreational facilities, hangars, repair shops, and other facilities that formerly supported NAS Brunswick aircraft. Building demolition associated with base closure is ongoing, and redevelopment activities are underway.

3

FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION AND LAYOUT

Forested areas, grasslands, shrubland, marsh, and open water comprise approximately 83 percent of the former base, with the remaining 17 percent consisting of paved areas (primary flight ramps and runways) of the operations area. The southern edge of the base borders coves and estuaries of the Gulf of Maine.

Where is Site 12 within the base?

Site 12 is located in the southeastern portion of the installation in a remote, open, upland area on Buttermilk Mountain. A gated fence was installed in 2012 to restrict access to the investigation area (see Figure 1).

For what was Site 12 used?

Site 12 EOD Area was reportedly used from 1981 through 2004 for the open-air detonation of small quantities of ordnance, pyrotechnics, privately manufactured explosive devices, and war souvenirs, although aerial photography indicates that the site may have been in use prior to 1981.

The site was also reportedly used for a brief unknown period as an ordnance training area. EOD operations at NAS

Brunswick, including Site 12, were officially terminated on June 1, 2004. The site was also used for landfilling of non-munitions debris from base construction activities. What is the current and future land use at the site?

Currently, Site 12 is inactive, and access is restricted by a gated fence installed in 2012. The proposed future use of the site is as a natural area. Passive outdoor recreational uses such as hiking, jogging, bird watching, and hunting that do not disturb subsurface soil at the site are anticipated future types of uses of the site.

SITE CHARACTERISTICS Site 12 is approximately 23 acres in size, and a large portion of the site was covered with tall grasses until vegetation removal associated with field work events was conducted. A pond complex consisting of two small ponds separated by a marshy area is located on the eastern edge of the site (Figure 1) and is surrounded by mature trees. Wetlands exist near the pond and in the north-central portion of the site. A 5- to 6-foot-tall, semi-circular, earthen berm

4

History of Chemical and Munitions-Related Investigations and Cleanup at Site 12

Draft Final Supplemental FS, Draft Final Supplemental RI, Final FS, 1991 - 1992: Included surface and subsurface munitions surveys, munitions clearance activities, test pitting and soil sampling. No explosives or explosive by-products were detected in soil samples, and low concentrations of inorganics were detected.

Preliminary Assessment Addendum, 2007: Concluded that MEC were present inside the berm mound and that MEC were also potentially present in surface soil outside of the berm mound as a result of possible kick-out (ejection of undetonated devices during disposal) or the existence of other suspected detonation areas on site.

Site Inspection, 2009: Confirmed that MEC were present at the ground surface of the site. Also, investigations conducted in the berm area indicated subsurface anomalies, suspected to be munitions items.

Time-Critical Removal Action, 2012: Included MEC removal action activities to mitigate potential exposure to surface munitions explosive hazards. MEC/MPPEH, MDAS, and non-munitions-related items were found. The removal action resulted in the clearance of all accessible areas of the ground surface at Site 12, excluding the pond area, and investigation of the subsurface in the berm area via trenching, which confirmed the presence of subsurface munitions-related items.

Pond Removal Action, 2014: Included draining the pond and removal of all MEC/MPPEH, MDAS, and non-munitions debris items from the pond.

Munitions Constituents (MC) RI, 2012-2015: No unacceptable risks to either human health or ecological receptors were identified for soil, sediment, surface water, or groundwater; therefore, it was determined that no further action is required to address chemical contamination at the site.

MEC RI and Surface Clearance, 2014: Included an investigation in the kick-out area during which a statistically determined number of anomalies were intrusively investigated and largely found to be non-munitions-related debris, with some MDAS and only two MEC/MPPEH items. A surface clearance was conducted, but a complete subsurface clearance was not.

Berm Area Remedial Action, 2014: Included removal of the berm mound to grade, excavation of the entire suspected historical berm area to a depth of approximately 2 feet bgs, and excavation of select underlying anomalies. All excavated soil was cleared of MEC/MPPEH, MDAS, and non-munitions items, the excavation was backfilled, and the area was returned to natural grade. MEC/MPPEH, MDAS, and non-munitions related items found were removed from the site.

mound (an artificial ridge or embankment), approximately 24 feet wide and 255 feet long, within which historical detonations were conducted, was present at the site until it was removed in 2014. Additionally, several suspected berms were identified based on historical aerial photographs (Figure 1), and the area encompassing these berms was investigated and cleared of surface and subsurface (up to 2 feet below ground surface [bgs]) munitions-related items in 2014.

How much and what types of contaminants are present?

The primary contaminants at Site 12 are associated with releases from military munitions items. Moreover, any remaining military munitions items, which potentially include munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) and material potentially presenting an explosive hazard (MPPEH), at the site pose a safety hazard. The munitions removal efforts to date at Site 12 have cleared the entire site ground surface, the subsurface up to 2 feet bgs in the berm area (with partial clearance below 2 feet bgs), and the pond and surrounding area. Photographs of Site 12 removal actions are presented on Page 5, and Figure 2 summarizes clearance activities completed at Site 12. Subsurface munitions items were primarily of concern only for the berm area, and it is possible that munitions items may remain in the subsurface below 2 feet bgs (below the depth of clearance) in the berm area, although exposure would be unlikely because an orange liner was placed at 2 feet bgs to demarcate the depth of excavation. Additionally, although unlikely, munitions items may remain in kick-out area of the site not completely cleared. During site investigations and removal efforts, MEC/MPPEH items posing a safety risk as well as suspect items assessed and determined to be material documented as safe (MDAS) identified in surface soil or subsurface soil included an inert bomb, multiple fuzes and components, cartridge cases with live primers, practice grenades, smoke grenades with and without fuzes, an empty mortar, bulk propellant filler, projectiles with and without fuzes, a gator mine (labeled inert), rocket motors, aircraft rocket warheads, an electric blasting cap, a practice mortar, torpedoes, jet-assisted take off (JATO) bottles, demilitarized small arms, and various munitions-related fragments and scrap. All MEC, MPPEH, and MDAS items identified during site investigations were properly addressed and then disposed of off site.

Soil, sediment, and groundwater samples were collected at Site 12 to evaluate whether releases of MC had impacted the site, and no chemicals were detected at concentrations associated with unacceptable site-related risks to either human health or ecological receptors; therefore, no further investigation or action was recommended for the site to address MC.

SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE SITE 12 RESPONSE

ACTION Site 12 is one of several sites identified at the former NAS

5

Site 12 Removal Action Photographs

Long-Reach Excavator Clearing Debris from Drained Pond

Excavation of Berm Soil During 2014 Berm Removal

Mechanical Sifting to Screen Debris Potential Munitions Items From Excavated Berm Soils

Orange Liner Installed to Demarcate Limits of Berm Area Excavation

Site 12 After 2014 Berm Removal

Pond Area During Initial Restoration Activities

6

FIGURE 2 MUNITIONS CLEARANCE SUMMARY

Brunswick for assessment and cleanup under Superfund/CERCLA. Each of these sites is undergoing the Superfund/CERCLA cleanup process independently of each other. No further action RODs have been signed for 11 of 18 Superfund/CERCLA sites at the former NAS Brunswick, and remedial actions have been implemented at six sites in accordance with their RODs. This Proposed Plan and the ROD document what is expected to be the final remedy for all site media and all areas of Site 12.

The Proposed Plan for Site 12 is not expected to have an impact on the cleanup for the other sites at the former NAS Brunswick. As other sites progress through the cleanup process, Proposed Plans will be issued for those sites.

SUMMARY OF SITE 12 RISK ASSESSMENT

AND HAZARD ASSESSMENT RESULTS As part of site investigation activities, the Navy completed human health and ecological risk assessments to evaluate potential current and future effects of the chemicals detected at Site 12 on human health and the environment. An MEC Hazard Assessment (HA) was also completed to evaluate current and future (after a remedy is in place) explosive hazards at the site. The risk assessments were conducted using chemical (MC) data collected during 2012, 2013, and 2014 field events, as presented in the MC RI Report. The MEC HA was completed as part of the FS using munitions field data collected in 2010 and 2011 as part of the MEC TCRA, in 2013

and 2014 as part of the MEC RI, and in 2014 as part of the pond and berm area remedial actions. The results of the risk assessments and MEC HA are described below.

Human Health Risks from MC

The human health risk assessment estimates the baseline risk, which is the likelihood of health problems occurring if cleanup actions were not taken at the site. To estimate the baseline risk for humans, a four-step process was used.

Step 1 – Identify Chemicals of Potential Concern

Chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) are chemicals found at the site at concentrations greater than current federal and state risk-based screening levels. These chemicals are evaluated further in Steps 2 through 4 of the risk assessment.

Step 2 – Conduct an Exposure Assessment

In this step, ways that humans could come into contact with soil, sediment, and groundwater at Site 12 were evaluated. Both current and reasonably foreseeable future exposure scenarios were identified. Surface water was not identified as a potential human health concern at the site based on the results of sediment sampling.

Human receptors evaluated at Site 12 included construction workers; occupational workers; adolescent, adult, and lifelong trespassers; child, adult, and lifelong recreational users; and child, adult, and lifelong residents. The ways in which these receptors were assumed to come into contact

All Site (all colored areas) – Ground surface clearance

Berm Area (shown in red) –Clearance of one aboveground existing berm and berm area of 2 acres to 2 feet bgs, and orange liner placement

Area Surrounding Berm Area (shown in green) – Digital geophysics over 16 acres and statistically based investigation of suspect anomalies

Pond (shown in dark blue) – Draining of pond of 2.4 acres and clearance

Area Surrounding Pond (shown in brown) – Analog/Dig Clearance of 4 acres

Fence Surrounding Investigation Area – shown as orange dashed line

7

Expressing Estimated Human Health Risks

Human Health Risk Assessment: When evaluating the risk to humans, the risk estimates for carcinogens (chemicals that may cause cancer) and non-carcinogens (chemicals that may cause adverse effects other than cancer) are expressed differently.

Carcinogens: For cancer-causing chemicals, risk estimates are expressed in terms of probability. For example, exposure to a particular carcinogenic chemical may present a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing cancer over an estimated lifetime of 70 years. This can also be expressed as 1x10-4. The EPA risk range for carcinogens is 1x10-6 (a 1 in 1 million chance) to 1x10-4 (a 1 in 10,000 chance). In general, calculated risks higher than this range would require consideration of the development and implementation of cleanup alternatives. MEDEP’s target risk level is 1x10-5 (a 1 in 100,000 chance of developing cancer).

Non-Carcinogens: For non-cancer-causing chemicals, exposures are first estimated and then compared to a reference dose (RfD). The reference dose is developed by EPA scientists to estimate the amount of a chemical a person (including the most sensitive person) could be exposed to over a lifetime without developing adverse (non-cancer) health effects. This measure is known as a hazard index. A hazard index greater than 1 suggests that adverse effects are possible.

with the COPCs included ingestion, skin contact, and inhalation.

Step 3 – Complete a Toxicity Assessment

At this step, possible harmful effects from exposure to the individual COPCs are evaluated. Generally, these chemicals are separated into two groups, carcinogens, chemicals that may cause cancer, and non-carcinogens, chemicals that may cause adverse effects other than cancer. See the Expressing Estimated Human Health Risks text box to the right for further details.

Step 4 – Characterize the Risk

The results of Steps 2 and 3 were combined to estimate the overall potential risk from exposure to the Site 12 COPCs. The results of the risk assessment for humans potentially exposed to soil, sediment, and groundwater at Site 12 indicated the following:

Estimated risks from cancer-causing COPCs were within EPA’s target risk range of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1 million (1x10-

4 to 1x10-6) and less than MEDEP’s target risk level of 1 in 100,000 (1 x 10-5) for all potential receptors evaluated.

Estimated non-cancer hazards were less than or equal to 1.0 (the EPA and MEDEP target hazard index) for all

potential receptors evaluated.

Ecological Risks from MC

The primary objective of the ecological risk assessment is to evaluate whether ecological receptors are at potentially unacceptable risk when exposed to chemicals at Site 12. The ecological risk assessment is completed in three steps, as discussed below.

Step1 – Problem Formulation

The goal of the ecological risk assessment at Site 12 was to evaluate the potential for adverse ecological impacts from site-related MC contamination (i.e., whether ecological receptors are able to exist and grow in similar ways to the surrounding area).

Actual or potential exposures of ecological receptors are determined by identifying the most likely pathways of contaminant release and transport. A complete exposure pathway has three components: (1) a source of chemicals that can be released to the environment, (2) a route of contaminant transport through the environment, and (3) an exposure or contact point for an ecological receptor. The complete exposure pathways and routes of entry to plants and animals at Site 12 consist of the following:

Direct contact with surface soil by terrestrial (land-dwelling) ecological receptors such as plants, soil invertebrates (e.g., earthworms), mammals, and birds.

Ingestion of surface soil and sediment by mammals and birds.

Benthic (bottom dwelling) aquatic invertebrates (e.g., crayfish) and other aquatic organisms exposed to chemicals in sediment.

Step 2 – Risk Analysis

In this step, possible harmful effects from being exposed to the individual chemicals are evaluated. This step includes estimating or measuring the amount of each chemical in soil, aquatic environments such as sediment, or plant or animal tissue and then evaluating ecological receptor exposure to these chemical concentrations.

Step 3 – Risk Characterization

In this step, the results of the risk analysis are analyzed to determine the likelihood of harmful effects to ecological receptors at Site 12. Based on initial screening of the chemical data, several chemicals were initially selected as COPCs in surface soil and sediment because they were detected at concentrations that exceeded conservative screening levels, had ecological effects quotients (EEQs) greater than 1.0 as determined using a food-chain model, or did not have screening levels. These chemicals were then further evaluated to refine the list of COPCs, to identify contaminants of concern (COCs) if any, and to better characterize risks to ecological receptors. During this step, no

8

Expressing Hazards From Munitions

The MEC Hazard Assessment (HA) is a qualitative evaluation performed to assess explosive hazards to human receptors posed by a site and reflects that fact that hazards associated with exposure to munitions items are fundamentally different than risks associated with chronic exposure to chemical contamination. Risks from chemical exposure are assessed in terms of the toxicity of the chemical, concentrations to which a receptor is expose, and duration of exposure. MEC explosive hazards, which can result in immediate injury or death upon exposure, are evaluated as being either present or not present at a site. If the potential for an encounter with MEC exists, the potential that the encounter may result in death or injury also exists. Consequently, if MEC items are known or suspected to be present at a site, a munitions response may be required. MEC HAs address human health and safety concerns associated with potential exposure to MEC at a site. They do not directly address environmental or ecological concerns that might be associated with direct contact with MEC. The MEC HA is structured around the following three components of potential explosive hazard incidents: Severity, which is the potential consequences of the

effect (e.g., death, injury) on a human receptor should a MEC item detonate.

Accessibility, which is the likelihood that a human receptor will be able to come in contact with a MEC item.

Sensitivity, which is the likelihood that a human receptor will be able to interact with a MEC item such that it will detonate.

Each of these components is assessed in the MEC HA and is used to generate a score. MEC HA scores should be interpreted as relative measures rather than quantitative measures of explosive hazard. The sum of the input factor scores falls within one of four defined ranges called Hazard Levels. The four Hazard Levels reflect attributes that describe groups of sites and site conditions. Hazard Level 1 represents sites with the greatest potential explosive hazard, and Hazard Level 4 represents sites with the minimum level of hazards that are generally compatible with current or reasonably anticipated future land uses. Level 4 sites typically have had an MEC cleanup performed or MEC is only located in the subsurface, below the depth of receptor intrusive activities. Hazard Levels 2 and 3 represent intermediate levels of explosive hazards between Levels 1 and 4.

contaminants were retained as ecological COCs at Site 12; therefore, the overall level of ecological risk associated with the detected contaminants was considered to be minimal, and as a result, it was determined that no action is required at Site 12 to protect ecological receptors.

MEC Hazard Assessment

A qualitative HA was performed to assess current explosive hazards to human receptors at Site 12. Based on operations that took place Site 12, the site was divided into two areas for the MEC HA, the berm area in the central area of the site (area of berm mound, removed in 2014, and encompassing suspected historical berms identified based on aerial photographs) and the outer kick-out area where the ejection of undetonated devices was of concern.

Several factors were considered for the MEC HA. Surface clearances of Site 12 were performed in 2010, 2011, and 2014; the heavily vegetated area surrounding the pond was cleared in 2013, followed by clearance of the pond itself in 2014; the berm mound was completely cleared in 2014, and the entire berm area was cleared to approximately 2 feet bgs in 2014. Therefore, munitions items are not expected to be found in these areas at Site 12. A subsurface investigation and removal action were conducted in the outer kick-out area in 2013, but a complete subsurface clearance of this area was not conducted. Therefore, MEC/MPPEH may be present in the subsurface in areas of the site that did not undergo complete subsurface clearances.

The MEC HA output is a score that falls within one of four defined ranges, called Hazard Levels, that are used to evaluate current site conditions relative to expected changes at the site that would result from remedial actions. To assess the effects of proposed remedial actions, MEC HA scores are determined for current conditions and for conditions at a site after a proposed remedial action is conducted. The MEC HA scores for both the berm mound/berm area and kick-out area under current land use resulted in a Hazard Level of 4, indicating that these areas have a low potential for explosive hazard conditions. This low MEC HA score for the berm mound/berm area reflects the extensive removal efforts conducted to date of the ground surface across the entire site and in the subsurface in portions of the site. The low MEC HA score for the kick-out area is based on the complete clearance of the ground surface and low probability that MEC/MPPEH are present in the subsurface, as supported by data collected during the intrusive investigation in this area.

Risk Summary - Why is action needed at the site?

As a result of previous activities at the site, an explosive safety hazard exists at Site 12. Although there is currently a low potential for explosive hazardous conditions to exist at Site 12, any potential explosive hazard may constitute an imminent and substantial endangerment to on-site personnel and future site users. Therefore, it is the current judgment of the Navy, with concurrence from EPA and MEDEP, that the preferred

alternative, or one of the other active measures identified in this Proposed Plan, is necessary to address potential explosive safety risks that may impact public health and

9

welfare.

Based on the results of the human health and ecological risk assessments, it was determined that no further action is required for chemical contamination at Site 12.

REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVE Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) are the goals that a cleanup plan should achieve. They are established to protect human health and the environment and comply with all pertinent federal and state regulations. The RAO developed to address potential munitions hazards at Site 12 based on its reasonably anticipated future land use is to prevent the direct contact threat associated with MEC/MPPEH that may be present at the site, while still allowing site access.

SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES Remedial alternatives, or cleanup options, were identified in the Site 12 FS to meet the RAO identified above. Three cleanup alternatives were considered for Site 12 that included plans to restrict access to or remove munitions from the site. The goal of each alternative is to protect human receptors from potential explosive hazards by preventing contact with MEC/MPPEH, while still allowing site access.

Figure 3 shows the general arrangement of Site 12 and also the boundaries of the Decision Units (DUs) that were established in planning the Site 12 MC RI to aid in delineating chemical contamination and MEC/MPPEH/MDAS. These DUs were also used in the FS to describe remedial alternatives at Site 12. DU1 consists of the former 5- to 6-foot high berm mound (removed in 2014). Because historical EOD activities took place in this area, MEC was likely to be present in both the surface and subsurface of DU1. DU2, the overall berm area, includes the area inside and outside of the DU1 berm mound and also encompassing suspected former berms identified based on historical aerial photographs. MEC was also anticipated to be present in the subsurface soil in DU2. DU3, the intermediate area located approximately 200 feet away from the former berm mound/berm area, is where kick-outs and training activities are expected to have occurred and was expected to have limited amounts of MEC/MPPEH items. This area was expected to contain the least amount of MEC/MPPEH items of all the DUs.

The alternatives evaluated for Site 12 included the following:

Alternative 1: No Action

Alternative 2: LUCs

Alternative 3: Complete Removal

Alternative 1: No Action

Evaluation of the “no action” alternative, where no additional cleanup actions would be conducted at the site, was evaluated for Site 12 because it is required under CERCLA. It serves as a baseline for comparison with other alternatives. Site 12 would

be left as it is today under the no action alternative.

Alternative 2: LUCs

Alternative 2 would include LUCs to prevent risks related to potential MEC hazards. The following LUCs would be implemented to prevent exposure to potential subsurface munitions items by Site 12 while still allowing site access:

Limiting site use to non-intrusive passive outdoor recreational uses. Only those uses that would not significantly alter the environment and would provide opportunities to experience the environment would be considered, including pedestrian trails. Residential, industrial/commercial, intrusive recreational, and agricultural uses of the site would be prohibited.

Prohibiting intrusive activity (soil disturbance) at the site without prior written approval from the Navy, EPA, and MEDEP.

Posting of caution/unexploded ordnance (UXO) Hazard Warning signs along the fence or on nearby trees to inform site users of site hazards

A Public Educational Program to inform the public of the potential explosive hazards associated with the site.

Annual LUC inspections of the ground surface of the site to confirm that site erosion and/or disturbance is not occurring that would expose human receptors to possible subsurface MEC/MPPEH items. Evidence of trespassers or LUC violations (such as the presence of quad tracks or installation of wells) would be documented.

To allow access to the site for future passive recreational uses as part of the planned natural area, the gates in the existing fence would be removed.

Five-year reviews would be required under this alternative to evaluate the continued adequacy of the remedy.

Alternative 3: Complete Removal

Visual and detector-aided geophysical surveys of the ground surface at DU2, DU3, DU4 and DU4a would be conducted using a magnetometer (which can detect magnetic metallic objects) or an all-metals instrument (which can detect magnetic and non-magnetic objects). Munitions-related items are not expected to be found during surface surveying because the ground surface across Site 12 was previously cleared; however, if any munitions-related items (MEC and MPPEH) are identified during surface surveying, the items would be manually removed, evaluated, and prepared as necessary for off-site disposal. To remove any remaining subsurface munitions-related items, all of Site 12 (the area within the proposed LUC boundary except for Vernal Pool #118 located along the eastern boundary of the site), including wetlands, would be excavated to native soil, bedrock, or groundwater via mechanical excavation.

10

FIGURE 3 SITE 12 DECISION UNIT BOUNDARIES

Unll.Jit Con1rol Bour<~:;.r~

Hi:.h.xh;OJI $ uo;.pc:r.:l 6 t un L::r:o:tian~l . .:lf.p"D'll iT o:tt':}

CJ ~~~~~;~~~::) EMu 1n M~n~

C UJ . Rarn~.r..>Tn<~

CU~ • I nlenned~~;tle JolifeQ

CU4 • O..Jier ,"qts.J

'•'kH;m!l ~pp:-.xrrm1 r:- (F~:.II :::011;

CSS3 Sl.~(1.~ Rr.dl)' s nr.n

11

Approximately 18 acres of the site would be excavated to 4 feet bgs, 4 acres would be excavated to bedrock estimated to be at 2 feet bgs, and 1 acre would be excavated to bedrock estimated to be at 1 foot bgs, resulting in the removal of approximately 129,000 cubic yards of soil. All excavated soil that was not screened during previous remedial actions would be screened, visually and using either a magnetometer or an all-metals detector, and all anomalies, ferrous and non-ferrous metallic objects, would be removed. During the screening process, UXO Technicians would then perform a detector-aided surface survey of the soil, and all MEC/MPPEH items would be removed. Site restoration activities, including revegetation of the excavation areas and wetlands restoration, would be conducted after all excavations are complete. The excavation areas would be backfilled and graded to the original grade. After remedial activities are complete, the current site fence would be completely removed to allow access to the site for its anticipated use.

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES EPA has established nine criteria for use in comparing the advantages/disadvantages of the cleanup alternatives. These criteria fall into three groups: threshold criteria, primary balancing criteria, and modifying criteria. These nine criteria are explained in the text box, What are the Nine Evaluation Criteria? on page 12. A detailed analysis of the alternatives can be found in the FS. The evaluated alternatives are compared based on seven of the nine criteria for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 in Table 1. The two modifying criteria, State Agency and Community Acceptance, are evaluated following the public comment period.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Based on information available at this time, the Navy recommends Alternative 2 to address the explosive safety hazards at Site 12. Based on MC RI results, no further action is required concerning chemical (MC) contamination at Site 12. The Navy believes that the preferred alternative meets the threshold criteria and provide the best balance of tradeoffs among the other alternatives with respect to the modifying criteria (Table 1). The Navy proposes that the preferred alternative be the final remedy for Site 12.

The Navy expects the preferred alternative to satisfy the following statutory requirements of CERCLA Section 121(b): (1) be protective of human health and the environment; (2) comply with ARARs; (3) be cost-effective; and (4) utilize permanent solutions to the maximum extent practicable. The Navy may decide to change its preferred alternative in response to public comment or new information. After the end of the public comment period on this Proposed Plan, the Navy, with the concurrence of EPA and MEDEP, will document its selected remedy in a ROD.

The Navy proposes the application of LUCs including land use restrictions (limiting future uses to non-intrusive passive outdoor recreation activities), intrusive activity restrictions, posting of caution/UXO hazard signs, implementation of a

public education program, and annual LUC inspections to meet the RAO. Five-year reviews would also be required as part of implementation of this remedy to ensure continued protectiveness.

Alternative 2 is preferred over Alternative 3 because it would provide the Navy’s preferred balance between long-term effectiveness for current and planned future land use of the site, implementability, and cost. Alternative 2 would not involve the removal of any additional munitions items from the site; however, extensive removal efforts have been conducted to date. The proposed LUCs would limit intrusive activity at Site 12, restrict land use, and warn potential receptors of the potential MEC/MPPEH dangers suspected to be present at the site. The MEC HA score for Alternative 2 indicates that both the berm area (central area of the site) and kick-out area (outer area of the site) have a low potential for explosive hazard conditions.

Although there is a possibility that MEC items remain at the site that would pose an explosive hazard, the extensive removal efforts to date have completely addressed the entire ground surface, the berm mound, the subsurface up to 2 feet bgs in the entire berm area, and the pond and surrounding area; therefore, any remaining munitions items are expected to be small in number and located in the subsurface where the risk of exposure is nominal for the intended future land use of the site as a natural area. LUC inspections would be conducted annually under Alternative 2 within the LUC boundary, also addressing residual explosive risks that may remain at the site in the unlikely event that the site is disturbed and/or erosion occurs, unearthing an MEC item. Risks to human receptors would be reduced as soon as LUCs were implemented under Alternative 2 because intrusive activity would be prohibited. Alternative 2 would be relatively easy to implement because implementation of LUCs could readily be accomplished.

Overall, the Navy prefers Alternative 2, implementation of LUCs, over Alternative 3 because LUCs would prevent potential exposure to MEC/MPPEH, make the area usable for its anticipated future land use, and are cost effective. As discussed above, the Hazard Level after implementation of Alternative 3 would be the same, Hazard Level 4, as after implementation of Alternative 2, but the cost of Alternative 3 is significantly greater.

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Munitions items may possibly remain on site after remedial activities are completed under the preferred alternative. Residual risk from explosive hazards will remain at the site, preventing unlimited use and unrestricted exposure; therefore, a statutory review will be conducted within 5 years of initiation of the remedial action and every 5 years thereafter to ensure that the remedy is, or will be, protective of human health and the environment.

12

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION The public is encouraged to participate in the decision-making process for the cleanup of Site 12 by reviewing and commenting on this Proposed Plan during the public comment period, which is July 10 to August 7, 2015.

What Do You Think? You do not have to be a technical expert to comment. If you have a comment, the Navy would like to hear it before beginning the cleanup.

What is a Formal Comment? Federal regulations make a distinction between “formal” comments received during the 30-day comment period and “informal” comments received outside this comment period. Although the Navy uses comments throughout the cleanup process to help make cleanup decisions, it is required to respond to formal comments.

Your formal comments will become part of the official record for Site 12. This is a crucial element in the decision-making process for the site.

The Navy will consider all significant comments received during the comment period prior to making the final cleanup decision for the site. Written comments will be included in the Responsiveness Summary contained in the ROD.

Formal comments can be made in writing or made orally. To make a formal comment on the Proposed Plan, you may:

Offer oral comments during the public hearing on July 15, 2015.

Provide written comments at the informational open house, public hearing, or by fax or mail. Comments must be postmarked no later than August 7, 2015.

A tear-off mailer is provided as part of this document for your convenience.

What are the Nine Evaluation Criteria?

The following is a summary of the nine criteria used to evaluate the remedial alternatives. The first two criteria are considered threshold criteria, and any alternative selected must meet them. The next five criteria are balancing criteria. The last two (the modifying criteria), state (MEDEP) and community acceptance, will be addressed after the public comment period on this Proposed Plan.

1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment determines whether an alternative eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to public health and the environment through institutional controls, engineering controls, or treatment.

2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) evaluates whether an alternative meets federal and state environmental statutes, regulations, and other requirements that pertain to the site, or whether a waiver is justified.

3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence considers the ability of an alternative to maintain protection of human health and the environment.

4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of Contaminants through Treatment evaluates an alternative’s use of treatment to reduce the harmful effects of principal contaminants, their ability to move in the environment, and the amount of contamination present.

5. Short-Term Effectiveness considers the length of time needed to implement an alternative and the risks the alternative poses to workers, residents, and the environment during implementation.

6. Implementability considers the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing an alternative, including factors such as the relative availability of goods and services.

7. Cost includes estimated capital and annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, as well as present worth cost. Present worth cost is the total cost of an alternative over time in terms of today’s dollar value. The alternative should provide the necessary protection for a reasonable cost. Cost estimates are expected to be accurate within a range of +50 to -30 percent.

8. State/Support Agency Acceptance considers whether the state agrees with EPA’s and Navy’s analyses and recommendations, as described in the FS and Proposed Plan.

9. Community Acceptance considers whether the local community agrees with the Navy and EPA’s analyses and preferred alternative. Comments received on the Proposed Plan are an important indicator of community acceptance.

13

TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF SITE 12 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE 1

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2

LUCS ALTERNATIVE 3

COMPLETE REMOVAL Estimated Time Frame (months)

Designing and Constructing the Alternative NA NA 6

Achieving the Cleanup Objectives NA 1 4

Criteria Analysis

Threshold Criteria Protects Human Health and the Environment

Will it protect you and the animal life on and near the site?

(1)

Meets federal and state regulations Does the alternative meet federal and state

environmental statutes, regulations, and requirements?

NA

Primary Balancing Criteria

Provides long-term effectiveness and is permanent Will the effects of the cleanup last?

Reduces mobility, toxicity, and volume of contaminants through treatment

Are the harmful effects of the contaminants, their ability to spread, and the amount of contaminated material present reduced?

Provides short-term protection How soon will the site risks be reduced? Are there hazards to workers, residents, or the

environment that could occur during cleanup?

Can it be implemented Is the alternative technically feasible?

Are the goods and services necessary to implement the alternative readily available?

NA

Cost ($) Upfront costs to design and construct the

alternative (capital costs) Operating and maintaining any system

associated with the alternative (O&M costs) Periodic costs associated with the alternative Total cost in today’s dollars (Net Present

Worth [NPW] cost)

$0

$38,000 capital

30-year NPW: $242,000

$13,363,000 capital

30-year NPW: $13,363,000

Modifying Criteria State Agency Acceptance

Does MEDEP agree with the Navy’s recommendation?

To be determined after the public comment period

Community Acceptance What objections, suggestions, or modifications

does the public offer during the comment period?

To be determined after the public comment period

Relative comparison of the Nine Balancing Criteria and each alternative:

– Good, – Average, – Poor, NA – Not applicable

1 Based on the extensive munitions clearance actions taken to date, the surface of the site is currently safe for non-intrusive use, even without any additional actions.

14

NEXT STEPS The Navy will accept public comments during a 30-day formal comment period. The Navy considers and uses these comments to improve its cleanup approach. During the formal comment period, the Navy will accept written comments via mail, e-mail, and fax. Additionally, verbal comments may be made during the formal public hearing on July 15, 2015, during which a stenographer will record all offered comments. The Navy will not respond to your comments during the formal public hearing. The Navy will hold a brief informational meeting prior to the start of the formal public hearing on July 15, 2015. The Navy will review the transcript of all the comments received during the hearing and all written comments received during the comment period before making a final cleanup decision. The Navy will then prepare a written response to all the formal written and oral comments received. Your formal comment will become part of the official public record. The transcript of comments and the Navy’s written responses will be issued in a document called a Responsiveness Summary when the Navy releases the ROD. The Responsiveness Summary and ROD will be made available to the public on-line and at the Curtis Memorial Library (see address in the column to the right on this page). The Navy will announce the final decision on the cleanup plan through the local media and at Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meetings.

You may send comments by U.S. mail, fax or e-mail. A tear-off mailer is provided for your convenience.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? The Navy, as the lead agency, is accepting formal public comments on this Proposed Plan from July 10 to August 7, 2015. You don’t have to be a technical expert to comment. If you have a comment, the Navy wants to hear it before the final decision about Site 12 is made.

Send Written Comments

Provide the Navy with your written comments about the Proposed Plan for Site 12. Please email ([email protected]), fax (215)-897-4902, or mail comments, postmarked no later than August 7, 2015, to:

Mr. Paul Burgio PMO East

Building 679, Naval Business Center 4911 South Broad Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19112-1303

For More Detailed Information, You May Go to the Public Information Repository

The Proposed Plan was prepared to help the public understand and comment on the preferred cleanup alternative for this site and provides a summary of a number of reports and studies. The technical and public information documents used by the Navy to prepare the Proposed Plan are available at the following Information Repository:

Curtis Memorial Library 23 Pleasant Street

Brunswick, Maine 04011-2261

Relevant documents can also be accessed via Department of the Navy BRAC Program Management Office website, www.bracpmo.navy.mil/.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS This glossary defines the bolded terms used in this Proposed Plan. The definitions in this glossary apply specifically to this

Proposed Plan and may have other meanings when used in different circumstances.

Anomaly: An anomaly is any item that is seen as a subsurface irregularity after geophysical investigation. This irregularity deviates from the expected subsurface ferrous and non-ferrous material at a site (pipes, power lines, etc.).

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs): The federal, state, and local environmental rules, regulations, and criteria that must be met by the selected cleanup action under CERCLA.

Action-specific ARARs regulate how a cleanup remedy is implemented. Regulations define where and how

contaminants are managed. Location-specific ARARs address legal issues for special

locations such as wetlands and tribal lands.

Carcinogens: Chemicals that cause cancer.

Chemical of concern (COC): A substance detected at a level and/or in a location where it could have an adverse effect on human health and the environment. No chemicals of concern were identified at Site 12 because no adverse effects were identified.

15

Chemical of potential concern (COPC): Chemicals found at concentrations greater than federal and state risk-based screening levels.

Clearance: See munitions clearance.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA): A federal law also known as “Superfund.” This law was passed in 1980 and modified in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. This law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment.

Decision Unit (DU): A DU is defined as the smallest area about which a risk-based decision can be made.

Ecological Effects Quotient (EEO): An ecological risk-related value calculated using an approach that characterizes potential effects by comparing exposure concentrations (concentrations in site samples) to effects data (screening criteria determined based on evaluation of negative impacts).

Explosive hazard: A condition where danger exists because explosives are present that may result (e.g., detonate) in a mishap with potential unacceptable effects (e.g., death, injury, damage) to people, property, or the environment.

Feasibility Study (FS): A report that presents the description and analysis or evaluation of potential cleanup alternatives for a site.

Food-chain model: Computer simulation model used to determine exposure levels and effects of chemicals on various organisms that make up the food chain.

Geophysical/geophysics: Use of quantitative methods, including physical measurements and mathematical models, to analyze the physical properties of geological materials.

Groundwater: Water found beneath the earth’s surface that fills pores between such materials as sand, soil, gravel, or rock.

Hazard Assessment (HA): Qualitative method for assessing human health and safety concerns associated with explosive hazards at a site using information on the types of munitions items found, removed, and/or potentially remaining at a site. An HA evaluates the factors such as how likely it is that site users will come into contact with a munitions item, how likely it is that someone who

encounters a munitions item will interact with it in a way that may make it detonate, and the severity of the potential detonation of a munitions item that may be encountered at the site. An MEC HA score is generated for current and/or future land uses at a site, and scores fall into one of four ranges called Hazard Levels, with Hazard Level 1 having the greatest potential explosive hazard and Hazard level 4 having the least.

Land use controls (LUCs): Engineering and institutional controls formulated and enforced to regulate current and future land use options. Engineering controls are cleanup methods such as barriers or signage that are designed to prevent or minimize exposure to hazards. Institutional controls are administrative and legal controls that help minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination or explosive hazards and/or protect the integrity of the remedy. Institutional controls reduce exposure by limiting land or resource use and guide human behavior at a site. For instance, zoning restrictions can prevent certain site land uses, like residential uses, that are not consistent with the level of cleanup. Once in place, LUCs are perpetual unless formally released and must be maintained by current and future owner(s) to ensure the continued protection of public health and the environment.

Magnetometer: A geophysical surveying instrument that can detect magnetic metals.

Munitions clearance: Surface or subsurface removal of identified UXO items that may present safety risks from a defined area to reduce explosive hazards.

Munitions constituents (MC): Any material originating from unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, or other military munitions, including explosive and non-explosive materials, emissions, degradation, or breakdown elements of munitions. At Site 12, MC was chemical contamination, as opposed to explosive hazards, resulting from use of the site for military munitions disposal.

Material documented as safe (MDAS): MPPEH that has been assessed and documented as not presenting an explosive hazard and for which the chain of custody has been established and maintained. This material is no longer considered to be MPPEH.

Material potentially presenting an explosive hazard (MPPEH): Material owned or controlled by the Department of Defense (DoD) that, prior to determination of its explosives safety status, potentially contains explosives or munitions (e.g., munitions containers and packaging material; munitions debris remaining after munitions use, demilitarization, or disposal; and range-related debris) or potentially contains a high enough

16

concentration of explosives that the material presents an explosive hazard.

Military Munitions: The term military munitions includes all ammunition products and components produced for or used by the armed forces for national defense and security, including ammunition products or components under the control of the DoD, Coast Guard, Department of Energy, and National Guard.

Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP): A DoD program consisting of actions necessary to ensure protection of human health, welfare, and the environment from the hazards associated with MEC and MC at locations impacted by historical military activities.

Munitions and explosives of concern (MEC): Unexploded ordnance (UXO), discarded military munitions, or MC present in high enough concentrations to pose an explosive hazard.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP): More commonly called the National Contingency Plan, it is the federal government's blueprint for responding to both oil spills and hazardous substance releases. Following the passage of Superfund (CERCLA) legislation in 1980, the National Contingency Plan was broadened to cover releases at hazardous waste sites requiring emergency removal actions. A key provision involves authorizing the lead agency to initiate appropriate removal action in the event of a hazardous substance release.

Net Present Worth: A costing technique that expresses the total initial capital cost and long-term operations and maintenance costs in terms of present-day dollars.

Non-carcinogens: Chemicals that may cause adverse effects other than cancer.

No further action: A recommendation made for a site when no unacceptable risk to human health and the environment is found.

Ordnance: Military supplies including weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and maintenance tools and equipment.

Receptor: An individual, either a human, plant, or animal, that may be exposed to munitions items or chemicals present at the site.

Record of Decision (ROD): An official document that describes the selected action for a specific site. The ROD

documents the remedy selection process and is issued by the Navy following the public comment period.

Remedial Investigation (RI): An in-depth study designed to gather data needed to determine the nature and extent of contamination at a Superfund site.

Responsiveness Summary: A section of the Record of Decision that includes a listing of the written and oral formal comments received during the public comment period and public meeting on the Proposed Plan and Navy’s responses to the comments.

Risk assessment: Evaluation and estimation of the current and future potential for adverse human health and/or ecological effects from exposure to contaminants. A human health risk assessment is an evaluation of current and future potential for adverse human health effects from exposure to site contaminants. An ecological risk assessment is a study that evaluates the potential risk to ecological receptors (various types of plants and animals) from contaminants at a site. Explosive hazards at Site 12 were evaluated via a Hazard Assessment (HA).

Superfund: Another name for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (see above).

Unexploded ordnance (UXO): Military munitions that have been primed, fused, armed, or otherwise prepared for action; that have been fired, dropped, launched, projected, or placed in such a manner as to constitute a hazard to operations, installations, personnel, or material; and that remain unexploded either by malfunction, design, or any other cause.

Vernal pool: Seasonally flooded depressional wetland area, generally isolated from stream systems, that often provides unique ecological habitats.

17

Use This Space to Write Your Comments Or to Be Added to the Mailing List

Please use this form for your written comments and mail to the address below.

Your comments must be postmarked no later than August 7, 2015.

Mr. Paul Burgio BRAC PMO East

Building 679, Naval Business Center 4911 South Broad Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19112-1303 Fax: (215) 897-4903

E-mail: [email protected]

(Attach additional sheets as needed)

Comments submitted by:

18

Mailing List Additions, Deletions, or Changes

I would like to:

Join the site mailing list. Name:

Note a change of address. Address: Unsubscribe from the mailing list. Obtain additional information about:

Please check the appropriate box and fill in the correct address information above.

Former Naval Air Station Brunswick Site 12 EOD Area

Public Comment Sheet (Continued)

19

MR. PAUL BURGIO BRAC PMO EAST BUILDING 679, NAVAL BUSINESS CENTER PHILADELPHIA, PA 19112-1303

Fold on line, staple, stamp, and mail

BY NICK SAMBIDES JR.Bangor Daily News

LINCOLN

Dr. Todd O’Brien likes the idea of patientseverywhere getting consistent quality care,and he loves solving problems. From thosetwo qualities arise the Lincoln podiatrist’slatest invention.

The ninth medical device created by the50-year-old Orono resident in the last 10years, the ETF128 is a point-of-care diagnos-tic tool designed to measure nerve sensitivi-ty and degradation. It can help diagnose lev-els of sensitivity threatened by a variety ofconditions, including diabetes and manymaladies involving trapped or pinchednerves, he said.

O’Brien’s hand-held electronic tuning forkis being manufactured at Saunders Electron-ics of South Portland. Saunders has madeabout 60 devices so far for testing and distri-bution to doctors’ offices and medical cen-ters. It was patented in April 2014.

If all goes well, Saunders will be making5,000 to 10,000 ETFs a year, said PaulMeserve, the company’s general manager.Meserve, who employs 65 workers, said thedevice will increase his company’s viabilityby broadening its market.

“This is one of our first (projects) wherewe actually go from concept and design toshipping to the end customers,” Meservesaid in an interview late last week. “It is agreat thing for us getting into that industry.We used to be just circuit board and cable(manufacturers). Now it’s building thewhole thing from beginning to end.”

Podiatrists testing diabetics and othersorts of patients use old-fashioned tuningforks, or pins and needles, to test nerve sen-sitivity in the feet or other extremitiesaffected by diabetic neuropathy. That’s a con-dition caused by high blood sugar injuringnerve fibers. It can lead to circulation lossand, eventually, amputation, according tothe Mayo Clinic website. About half of the

86,000 amputations that occur annually inthe U.S. occur with diabetics.

O’Brien said his invention joins severalother electronic devices on the market thatimprove upon the traditional tool used inscreening tests by precisely measuring thetime it takes nerves to react to stimuli. Italso has application to pinched nervescaused by slipped discs in the spinal cordand other trauma.

“We are testing for how the nerves andnerve receptors are functioning,” O’Briensaid. “If they (patients) can feel somethingall the way back to their spinal cord and totheir brain, that’s the whole circuit. If thereis some deficit along all the way to that,that’s what we try to measure.

“We do these screening tests all the timewhere you sometimes question the value ofthe data you bring back. With this productwe are really elevating the objectivity ofwhat you bring back,” O’Brien said. “They(doctors) are getting a really better feeling ofconfidence in determining where thatpatient’s status is.”

O’Brien, who is on staff at Health AccessNetwork of Lincoln, said he enjoys the cre-ativity of invention.

Five of the nine surgical and medicalinstruments O’Brien invented remain on themarket. The inventions include a device thathelps doctors avoid getting accidentallystuck with needles during surgery, a boneclamp, an osteotomy guide that helps sur-geons make hyper-accurate cuts into bone,and a multicomponent kit that surgeons useto cut the plantar fascia of the foot, he said.

He estimates that he has sold about 200units in total.

“The motivation really is improvingpatient care. That’s the main thing. The sec-ond thing is I really enjoy problem solving,of figuring things out and making thingsbetter,” he said.

FOR MORE, see the Bangor Daily News atwww.bangordailynews.com

THE TIMES RECORD WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2015 B7BUSINESS

MESSAGE FROM THE BOARD OFDIRECTORS: We’re encouraging all whoread this column to come out and donateblood on this Thursday, July 9 from 11a.m. until 5 p.m. Short and sweet here arethe important facts:

— Blood is especially needed this timeof year.

— For the fourth year in a row, BillDodge Auto Group is providing its show-room at 262 Bath Road in Brunswick toaccommodate blood donors for the Amer-ican Red Cross.

— Volunteers can be owners and man-agers of area businesses, their employeesor the public.

— Make an appointment by calling 1-800-red-cross or go online at redcross-blood.org and enter sponsor code “BillDodge Hyundai” for an appointment.Walk-ins are welcome.

— Once you’ve made your donation,you’ll enjoy refreshments from the Amer-ican Red Cross, Papa John’s Pizza andGelato Fiasco.

— All those who donate will be enteredinto a drawing for a pair of tickets to seeTaylor Swift at Gillette Stadium on July24.

— Every donor will receive a $25 giftcard for service at any Bill Dodge servicelocation through Oct. 31, 2015.

— Thanks to Bar Harbor Bank & Trustand their employees for leading this

blood drive effort with Bill Dodge AutoGroup.

UPCOMING EVENTS:— Do you want to meet with a dozen

other business people and have concen-trated, face-to-face networking? Thenrequest an invitation to the Chamber’s 12@ 12 lunch series. It’s sponsored by WildOats Café and Bakery. The next event isAug. 4.

— The July 15 Small Business SuccessSeminar is where you’ll learn to buildrecognition of your business with Pinter-est and Instagram. The session is led byBoomerTECH Adventures. There is nofee to attend. Bring your lunch (or not)and your smartphone or tablet. The semi-nar is at the Topsham Public Library, 25Foreside Road, from noon to 1 p.m.

— For the best in regional networkingplan to attend the July 22 Chamber AfterHours, hosted by The Daniel. Located at10 Water St. in downtown Brunswick, theevent features refreshments, door prizesand lots of mixing and mingling in a highenergy group of business people. Theevent is open house-style from 5-7 p.m.

OUR MEMBERS: Check out the cham-ber’s website www.midcoastmaine.com tofind what you are looking for.

SMMC proudly serves 670 businessesand organizations in the following com-munities: Arrowsic, Bath, Bowdoin, Bow-doinham, Brunswick, Dresden, Edge-comb, Georgetown, Harpswell, Phipps-burg, Richmond, Topsham, West Bath,Westport Island, Wiscasset and Wool-wich. Find them all on our website atwwwmidcoastmaine.com.

don’t realize it though andwill throw them away, “and Ilook at people and go ‘Don’tdo that. Come and see us,we’re more than happy totalk to you about it,’” hesaid.

Even on “Antiques Road-show,” 80 to 90 percent ofpeople aren’t looking to selltheir items but want moreinformation. Telling themwhat their piece is, what itwas used for and what it isworth, is the fun part.

His experience comesfrom “45 years of totalimmersion. This has beenmy life since I was 10 yearsold,” Soules said. His uncleswere antique dealers andhe’s just always likedantiques.

“I’m a hopeless romanticand so when I look at some-thing that’s 200 years old, Ivisualize when that wasbrand-new to someone andthey were using it ... andthat’s what I do,” he said. “Ilike the history of it somuch, I too (get) involvedsometimes in pieces.”

Though it’s been a fewyears, he’s appeared on“Antiques Roadshow” onPBS and he’s traveled allover the world doing auc-tions and appraisals. In fact,he’ll be doing appraisals onSaturday, July 11 during theMoxie Festival until 3 p.m.There will be tables set upand people can come in and,for no charge, have their

antiques, collectibles, toys,antique firearms, paintings,artwork prints — virtuallyanything — appraised. Ifthey have a question abouttheir item, “we’d be morethan happy to answer it andhelp them.”

If you peruse the artgallery, you’d even findpaintings by famous painterNorman Rockwell. Thepieces are very atypical ofthe illustration art Rockwellis known for and “atypicalwork typically doesn’t sellfor as much,” as those workshe’s more known for. Still,the two paintings are wortha substantial amount ofmoney and are good invest-ments. A large Rockwellpiece recently sold for $30million. Many of the paint-ings in the gallery are onconsignment and he onlyworks on a small commis-sion, Soules said.

Daniel Buck Auctions hasa major event coming up inthe fall with artwork andantique items — includingone of the best Civil Waritems ever on the market —that have come from thisarea of the state.

“There’s a lot of historyhere,” Soules said. “You’vegot Revolutionary War histo-ry, War of 1812 history, CivilWar history — a hugeamount of Civil War histo-ry.”

He does walk-throughs athomes all the time to giveclients appraisals beforethey move forward. Herecently found an 1880s tinlithographed advertising

piece for a medicine in aclient’s home that shouldbring between $2,000 and$6,000.

“You just don’t know,” hesaid.

The auctions are a greatplace for young people andanyone looking to findantique furniture — oftenfor less money than you canbuy a new set of furniturefor — and that will be worthmore money down the road.

He and his wife, Jayne,live in Lisbon Falls andwhile they were initiallylooking for a location nearerthe coast, this spot is almostideally located on one of themost highly traveled roadsin the state between theLewiston-Auburn andBrunswick-Topsham areas,not far from Interstate 295.

Soules will be purchasingthe building, so this ventureis a major investment madepossible by Lisbon CreditUnion and others.

“I’m thrilled to be here inLisbon Falls and I’m thrilledat being able to help people,”Soules said.

The gallery is open Mon-day through Saturday, 9 a.m.to 5 p.m., and Soules is avail-able by appointment. If youhave questions or want tolearn more about auctions;estate, insurance or dona-tion appraisals, call them at407-1444.

[email protected]

SOULESContinued from back page

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITYAND

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODProposed Plan

Installation Restoration Site 12Former Naval Air Station Brunswick, Maine

The Department of the Navy announces the availability for public comment of theProposed Plan for Site 12, Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Area, at the formerNaval Air Station Brunswick, Maine. This plan was prepared as required by theComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (also knownas Superfund). The results of site investigations have shown that releases of chemicalsfrom munitions items disposed of at the site do not present unacceptable risks to humanhealth or the environment, and no further action is required to address chemical contam-ination. Although extensive munitions removal actions have occurred that have elimi-nated explosive hazards on the ground surface across the entire site and in the subsurfacein many areas of the site, the potential exists that munitions items may be present inthe subsurface soils at the site. The Navy considered the effectiveness, implementabili-ty, and cost of several alternatives when evaluating response actions. Based on the resultsof this evaluation, implementing Land Use Controls (LUCs) is the Navy’s preferredmethod for addressing potential munitions hazards at Site 12.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODThe Proposed Plan is available for public review, and the Navy will accept commentsfrom July 10 to August 7, 2015. Public comments submitted in writing must be post-marked or e-mailed no later than August 7, 2015. If you have any questions or wish tocomment, please contact:

Mr. Paul BurgioBRAC PMO East

Building 679, Naval Business Center4911 South Broad Street

Philadelphia, PA [email protected]

Phone: 215-897-4903; fax: 215-897-4902

PUBLIC MEETINGOn July 15, 2015, the Navy will hold a public meeting at the Best Western inBrunswick, Maine, consisting of an informational session from 5:00 to 7:00 pm and apublic meeting at 7:00 pm where the Navy will accept oral and written comments fromthe public.

FOR MORE INFORMATIONCommunity input is integral to the remedy selection process. The Proposed Plan for Site12 is available on the Department of the Navy BRAC Program Management Office web-site, www.bracpmo.navy.mil, and also at the Information Repository listed below dur-ing normal hours of operation:

Curtis Memorial Library23 Pleasant StreetBrunswick, Maine 04011207-725-5242

Not sure why BUSINESS IS SLOW?

Advertise today and let your business be in sight and in the minds of our readers, your potential customers.

is not just a saying in business.

timesrecord.com

207.729.3311 [email protected]

Please recycle this newspaper.

TROY R. BENNETT / BANGOR DAILY NEWS

MANUFACTURING SUPERVISOR Alan Comeau of Saunders Electronics in South Portlanddemonstrates the component manufacturing process he helped create for a device invented byLincoln podiatrist Todd O’Brien that helps diagnose diabetic peripheral neuropathy, a key precur-sor leading to foot ulcers, infections and amputations.

Podiatrist invents tool thatmeasures nerve sensitivity


September 2015

Appendix C Human Health Risk Assessment Summary Tables

TABLE C-1.RME

EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION SUMMARY REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

SITE 12 EOD, NAS BRUNSWICK, BRUNSWICK, MAINE

Scenario Timeframe: Current

Medium: Surface SoilExposure Medium: Surface Soil

Maximum

Exposure Point Chemical of Units Arithmetic 95% UCL Concentration Exposure Point Concentration

Potential Concern Mean (Distribution) (Qualifier) Value Units Statistic Rationale

EU 1 Nitroglycerin mg/kg 0.86 (1) 1.2 J 0.86 mg/kg Average Concentration (1)

(1) The samples are ISM. The average concentration was used as the EPC as outlined in the SAP.

Exposure point concentrations for the RME scenarios are also the exposure point concentrations for the CTE scenarios.

TABLE C-2.RME





Maximum



EU 2 Nitroglycerin mg/kg 1.5 (1) 1.7 J 1.5 mg/kg Average Concentration (1)

(1) The samples are ISM. The average concentration was used as the EPC as outlined in the SAP.


TABLE C-3.RME





Maximum



EU 3 Nitroglycerin mg/kg (1) (1) 0.8 J 0.8 mg/kg Maximum Detected Concentration (1)

(1) There was only one positive detection; therefore, the arithmetic mean and 95% UCL were not calculated.


TABLE C-4.RME



Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future

Medium: GroundwaterExposure Medium: Groundwater

Maximum



Site 12 Chloroform ug/L NA(1) NA(1) 3.8 3.8 ug/L Maximum Detected Concentration (1)(2)

Cobalt ug/L NA(1) NA(1) 12.2 12.2 ug/L Maximum Detected Concentration (1)(2)

Iron ug/L NA(1) NA(1) 9510 9510 ug/L Maximum Detected Concentration (1)(2)Manganese ug/L NA(1) NA(1) 2050 2050 ug/L Maximum Detected Concentration (1)(2)

1 - There are less than five samples. ProUCL will not calculate any statistics with less than five samples. The maximum concentration was used as the EPC.

2 - The maximum detected concentration is used as the exposure point concentration for groundwater.


TABLE C-5

CHROMIUM/HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM HHRA EVALUATION OF 2012 RI AND 2013 RI RESAMPLING RESULTS, INCREMENTAL SOIL SAMPLES

SITE 12 EOD AREA

FORMER NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK

BRUNSWICK, MAINE

Sample

Ground

Chromium

(mg/kg)

Chromuim

RSD or

RPD(2)

Hexavalent

Chromium

(mg/kg)

Sample GroundChromium

(mg/kg)

Chromium

RSD or RPD(2)

12D1-IS01 (SS) No 14.4 0.28 J Yes 81.4

12D1-IS01-REP1 (SS) No 14.2 0.12 J Yes 66.5

12D1-IS01-REP2 (SS) No 17.1 0.16 J Yes 119

12D2Aa-IS01 No 25 0.20 J Yes 42.4

12D2Aa-IS01-REP1 No 25.5 0.16 J No 22.6

12D2C-IS01 No 12.9 0.20 J Yes 489

12D2C-IS01-REP1 No 13.4 0.24 J No 16.1

12D2C-IS01-REP2 No 13.8 0.25 J No 80

12D2C-IS01-REP3 No 15.1 0.24 J No 16.8

12D2E-IS01-0003 No 16.2 0.17 J Yes 47.6

12D2E-IS01-REP1 No 14.4 0.18 J Yes 445

12D2E-IS01-REP2 No 15.6 0.21 J Yes 23.3

12D2E-IS01-REP3 No 15.5 0.22 J Yes 23.1

12D3A-IS01 No 19.7 ND (0.25 UJ) Yes 503

12D3A-IS01-REP1 No 17.9 0.17 J Yes 542

1 Samples collected during the 2012 RI selected for resampling and reanalysis during 2013 RI resampling.

2 RSD was calculated when three or more sample results were available for a given location, and RPD was calculated when only two sample results were available.

CSM = Conceptual site model ISM= Incremental sampling methodology

DU = Decision unit NA = Not applicable

EU = Exposure unit RPD = Relative percent difference

ID = Identification RSD = Relative standard deviation

RSL - Regional screening level SS = Surface soil (compard to subsurface soil sample at DU1 berm)

COPC - Chemical of potential concern

J - Estimated concentration

61

154

HHRA Chromium Evaluation

• All samples contacted chromium puck mill and one chromium concentration >

background value• DU2E covers a large surface area compared to other DU2 sub-DUs and is

within the footprint of the source area based on the CSM

Chromium Resample/Reanalysis Rationale

• Samples were from berm source area where maximum contaminant

concentrations were expected• All chromium concentrations > background value and potentially affected by

chromium puck mill

• The one sample that contacted chromium puck mill had an elevated chromium

concentration• Only 2012 RI sample (12D2C-IS01-REP2) where chromium concentration >

backgrund value where sample did not contact the chromium puck mill

All chromium (total) results from the 2013 RI resampling were less than the backgroundvalue (32.4 mg/kg) and the trivalent chromium RSL (12,000 mg/kg, noncarcinogen at one-tenth the RSL), and all hexavalent chromium results were less than the hexavalentchromium RSL (0.29 mg/kg, carcinogen RSL). Therefore, the results suggest that theelevated chromium results during the 2012 RI were not site related but instead wereassociated with the laboratory mistakenly using ground samples, processed via a high-chromium-content puck mill supposed to be used for explosives analyses only, instead ofusing unground samples for metals analyses as stipulated in the Sampling and AnalysisPlan. Only one elevated chromium concentration exceeded the facility background value(80 versus 32.4 mg/kg) during the 2012 RI that did NOT contact the high-chromium-content puck mill; the two other 2012 RI unground sample replicates at this location didnot exceed the background value. During the 2013 RI resampling of this DU, neither thesample or its three replicates exceeded the background value at this location. Moreover,assuming the 2012 RI speciation is consistent with the 2013 RI resampling (i.e., trivalentchromium versus hexavalent chromium), the 2012 RI chromium exceedance of thebackground value is not an issue because that chromium (total) concentration is severalorders of magnitude less than the trivalent chromium RSL.

• All samples contacted chromium puck mill and highest Site 12 chromium

concentration

• Source area - floor of berm for DU1

• Explosives detected and nitroglycerin selected as a COPC

• To confirm absence of chromium as a COPC in source area where maximum

concentrations of contaminants are expected

7

2012 RI Results

30

151

10.6

D3A

6.8

2013 RI Resampling Results

4.9

0.5

2.4

U - Detected at concentration less than method detection limit

Sample ID(1)

D1

D2C

D2E

D2A-a

Decision

Unit

Exposure

Unit

EU 1

EU 2

EU 4

TABLE C-6

EXPLOSIVES HHRA EVALUATION OF 2012 RI AND 2013 RI RESAMPLING RESULTS, INCREMENTAL SOIL SAMPLES

SITE 12 EOD AREA

FORMER NAS BRUNSWICK MAINE

BRUNSWICK, MAINE

Explosives

Detected (2)

Direct Contact

COPCs

Nitroglycerin Results

(µg/kg)COCs

Explosives

Detected (2)

Direct Contact

COPCs

Nitroglycerin Results

(µg/kg)COCs

12D1-IS01 (SS) Yes 2700 J Yes 1200 J

12D1-IS01-REP1 (SS) No ND Yes 1000 J

12D1-IS01-REP2 (SS) No ND No ND

12D2AA-IS01 Yes 1800 J Yes 1200 J

12D2AA-IS01-REP1 Yes 3500 J YEs 1700 J

12D2C-IS01 No No

12D2C-IS01-REP1 No No



12D2E-IS01 No No

12D2E-IS01-REP1 Yes No

12D2E-IS01-REP2 No No

12D2E-IS01-REP3 No No

12D3A-IS01 No No

12D3A-IS01-REP1 No No

1 Samples collected during 2012 RI selected for resampling and re-analysis during the 2013 RI resampling.

2 See Table 7-2 for details on explosives COC selection.

COPC = Chemical of potential concern

CSM = Conceptual site model

DU = Decision unit

EU = Exposure unit

ID = Identification

HI = Hazard index

HQ = Hazard quotient

SS = Surface soil (compared to subsurface soil sample at DU1 berm)

µg/kg = Micrograms per kilogram

HHRA Explosives Evaluation

Consistent with CSM, berm-related samples associated with this DU were expected to have elevated explosives concentrations. The nitroglycerin residential soil direct contact RSL is 6.1 mg/kg based on an HQ of 1. Using the maximum concentration of 2.7 J mg/kg from the 2013 RI resampling for this DU, the HQ for nitroglycerin would be 0.4 (i.e., 2.7/6.1), which is less than the non-cancer risk threshold HI = 1.* Therefore the maximum concentration of nitroglycerin detected is not great enough to result in an unacceptable risk.

Confirmed no explosives of concern for DU.

• DU2E covers a large surface area compared to other DU2 sub-

DUs and is within the footprint of the source area based on the CSM• Confirm no explosives are present

The only explosives detection for this DU was during 2013 RI resampling where PETN was detected in one of four DU2 samples, at a concentration less than RSL and so not of concern.

Consistent with CSM, berm-related samples associated with this DU were

expected to have elevated explosives concentrations. The nitroglycerin residential soil direct contact RSL is 6.1 mg/kg based on a HQ of 1. Using the maximum concentration of 3.5 J mg/kg from the 2013 RI resampling for this DU, the HQ for nitroglycerin would be 0.6 (i.e. 3.5/6.1) which is less than the noncancer risk threshold HI = 1.* Therefore the maximum concentration of nitrogylcerin detected is not great enough to result in an unacceptable risk.

Explosives Resample/Re-analyze Rationale

• Sample were from berm source area where maximum

contaminant concentrations were expected• Explosives detected and nitroglycerin selected as a COPC

Exposure Unit

EU 1

EU 2

EU 4

D3A

Decision Unit

D1

D2C

D2E

D2A-a

• Confirm no explosives are present Confirmed no explosives of concern for DU.

• Source area - floor of berm for DU1

• Explosives detected and nitroglycerin selected as a COPC

• Highest nitroglycerin concentration for Site 12 detected in sample

12D2AA-IS01-REP1• Regulatory concern that explosives results may be biased low;

therefore, resample and reanalyze at location with the maximum nitroglycerin concentration at Site 12

* An HI is the summation of individual HQs that affect the same target organ or system. The primary nitroglycerin non-cancer target organ/system is blood, and no other COPC evaluated in the risk assessment affects the same primary target organ/system; therefore, the HQ equals the HI in this case.

None

• Confirm no explosives are present

Sample ID(1)

ND

ND

2012 RI Results

NA

NA

NA

Nitroglycerin

Nitroglycerin None

None


None

None

NA

Nitroglycerin

NA

ND None

None

NoneND

ND

None

NoneND

Nitroglycerin

NA

TABLE C-7

HHRA EVALUATION OF 2012 RI AND 2014 RI RESAMPLING RESULTS, GROUNDWATER

SITE 12 EOD AREA


BRUNSWICK, MAINE

INORGANICS (µg/L)ALUMINUM 7,000 NC 16,000 1,930 3/3 116 J MW-12-01 2/3 285 J MW-12-02ARSENIC 10 10 0.045 NA 0/3 ND NA 1/3 2.5 J MW-12-02BARIUM 1,000 2,000 2,900 43.3 3/3 99.8 MW-12-01 3/3 98.5 MW-12-01CADMIUM 1 5 6.9 NA 2/3 0.09 J MW-12-01 0/3 ND NA NACALCIUM NC NC NC 21,800 3/3 45,900 MW-12-02 3/3 27,000 MW-12-02

COBALT 10 NC 4.7 12.1 3/3 12.2 MW-12-02 3/3 9.1 MW-12-02

Nominal exceedance of facility background value associated with 2012 data. Less than

background during most recent 2014 sampling.

COPPER 500 1,300 620 13.9 3/3 2.8 J MW-12-03 0/3 ND NA Not an issue, less than all screening criteria.

IRON 5,000 NC 11,000 5,090 3/3 9,510 MW-12-02 3/3 12,100 MW-12-01

Concentration of iron in 2014 samples is slightly greater than in 2012 samples. Hazard indices on a target-organ basis would still be

within acceptable levels.

MAGNESIUM NC NC NC 13,600 3/3 12,800 MW-12-01 3/3 14,900 MW-12-01 Not an issue, less than all screening criteria.

MANGANESE 500 NC 320 547 3/3 2,050 MW-12-02 3/3 1,880 MW-12-02

Concentration of manganese in 2014 samples is comparable to those detected in 2012

samples. Manganese was retained as a COC in the 2012 risk assessment and would still be

retaiined as a COC.

MERCURY 2 2 0.63 NA 0/3 ND NA 3/3 0.02 J MW-12-01NICKEL 20 NC 300 4.1 3/3 4 MW-12-03 1/3 3.2 MW-12-03POTASSIUM NC NC NC 3,340 3/3 10,400 MW-12-01 3/3 9,900 MW-12-01SODIUM 20,000 NC NC 31,600 3/3 27,100 MW-12-01 3/3 23,500 MW-12-01VANADIUM 200 NC 63 NA 2/3 1.7 J MW-12-02 0/3 ND NAZINC 2,000 NC 4,700 18.5 3/3 5 J MW-12-03 1/3 6.4 J MW-12-03POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (µg/L)FLUORANTHENE 300 NC 630 NA 1/3 0.079 J MW-12-02 0/3 ND NA Not an issue, less than all screening criteria.

VOLATILES (µg/L)

CHLOROFORM 70 80 0.19 NA 2/3 3.8 MW-12-03 0/3 ND NANot detected during 2014 sampling. The 2012 results suspected to be a laboratory

artifact.

EPH (µg/L)

C11-C22 AROMATICS 200 NC 5.2/0.0092(2) NA 0/3 ND NA 3/3 270 J MW-12-02

Not an issue. The concentrations of C11-C22 Aromatics exceeded the MEG is one sample

but not in the duplicate to this sample. Concentrations also exceed RSLs, but no

VOCs, SVOCs/PAHs were detected in any of the samples.

NA - Not enough detected samples to calculate a meaningful UPL.NC - No criterion.ND - Detected at a concentration less than the method detection limit.J - Estimated concentration.µg/L - Micrograms per liter.EPH - Extractable petroleum hydrocarbons.COC - Chemical of concern.

1 Background Study Report for Naval Air Station Brunswick (Tetra Tech, 2012a) [Bedrock Fall].

Bolded value indicates exceedance of background.

Maximum

Concentration

Location of

Maximum

Maximum

Concentration

Location of

Maximum

ANALYTE

2 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Medium [C9-C16]/High [C17-C32]. Medium based on naphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene, High based on benzo(a)pyrene; none of these specific analytes were detected in site groundwater.

Highlighted cell indicates an exceedance of facility background and criteria (less stringent of MEG, MCL or RSL). Background data set as appropriate for bedrock well.

JANUARY 2014 RI RESAMPLING

RESULTS

Frequency

of Detection

Frequency

of Detection

CRITERIA

MEG MCL RSL Background(1)

AUGUST 2012 RI RESULTSHHRA RE-EVALUATION OVERALL

Conclusions of the 2012 risk assessment would not change based on the results of the

2014 sampling.

HHRA RE-EVALUATION BY ANALYTE

Not an issue, although the detected concentrations exceed the RSL, they are less

than the MEG and MCL.

Not an issue, less than all screening criteria.

TABLE C-8

SUMMARY OF DU7 MAXIMUM SEDIMENT SAMPLE RESULTS

COMPARISON TO HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING CRITERIA

SITE 12 EOD AREA


BRUNSWICK, MAINE

ParameterBackground

Value (mg/kg) (1)

USEPA RSL

(mg/kg) (2, 3)

USEPA RSL

(mg/kg) (2, 4)

Frequency of

Detection

Sample ID of Maximum

Detection

Inorganics (MG/KG)

ALUMINUM 23500 7700 7700 6/6 28000 12D7-SD001-0612

ANTIMONY ND 3.1 3.1 6/6 0.081 J 12D7-SD002-0006

ARSENIC 24.1 0.61 0.67 6/6 7.79 12D7-SD003-0612

BARIUM 288 1500 1500 6/6 137 12D7-SD001-0612

BERYLLIUM 2.2 16 16 6/6 1.23 12D7-SD001-0612

CADMIUM 3.6 7 7 6/6 0.168 12D7-SD002-0006

CALCIUM 8170 NC NC 6/6 2860 12D7-SD002-0006

CHROMIUM 76 0.29 (5) 0.3 (5)6/6 42.4 12D7-SD001-0612

COBALT 21.8 2.3 2.3 6/6 14.3 12D7-SD003-0612

COPPER 65.4 310 310 6/6 24.4 12D7-SD001-0612

IRON 30200 5500 5500 6/6 30100 12D7-SD003-0612

LEAD 222 400 400 6/6 19.3 J 12D7-SD002-0006

MAGNESIUM 8440 NC NC 6/6 5910 12D7-SD002-0006

MANGANESE 705 180 180 6/6 381 J 12D7-SD003-0612

MERCURY 0.24 1 0.94 6/6 0.048 12D7-SD002-0006

NICKEL 55.1 150 150 6/6 35.8 12D7-SD001-0612

POTASSIUM 4150 NC NC 6/6 3360 12D7-SD002-0006

SELENIUM 3.3 39 39 6/6 0.59 12D7-SD001-0612

SILVER 0.54 39 39 6/6 0.105 12D7-SD001-0612

SODIUM 787 NC NC 6/6 167 12D7-SD001-0612

THALLIUM 2.3 0.078 0.078 6/6 0.336 12D7-SD001-0612

VANADIUM 78.1 39 (6) 39 (6)6/6 51.6 12D7-SD003-0612

ZINC 404 2300 2300 6/6 72.2 12D7-SD002-0006

Miscellaneous Parameters

pH (S.U.) NC NC NC 6/6 6.8 12D7-SD001-0612

TOTAL SOLIDS (%) NC NC NC 6/6 79 12D7-SD003-0612

Sediment samples were analyzed for explosives (including nitroglycerine), metals, pH, and total solids. Explosives and nitroglycerin were not detected.

J - Estimated concentration.

mg/kg - Milligrams per kilogram.

NC - No criteria.

RSL - Regional screening level.

S.U. - Standard units.

2 c - carcinogen; n - noncarcinogen at one-tenth of RSL.

3 USEPA RSL (USEPA, November 2013)

4 USEPA RSL (USEPA, May 2014)

5 The value for hexavalent chromium is presented.

6 The value presented is for vanadium and compounds.

Shading indicates exceedance of background and RSL.

Maximum

Detection

1 Background Study Report For Naval Air Station Brunswick (Tetra Tech, 2012a), Coffins Ice Pond, Spring UPL values. The Coffin’s Pond background data

are used on a conditional basis.

TABLE C-9

CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- ORAL/DERMAL

SITE 12 EOD AREA

NAS BRUNSWICK,

BRUNSWICK, MAINE

Chemical Oral Cancer Slope Factor Oral Absorption Absorbed Cancer Slope Factor Weight of Evidence/ Oral CSF

of Potential Efficiency for Dermal(2) Cancer Guideline

Concern Value Units for Dermal(1)Value Units Description Source(s) Date(s)

(MM/DD/YYYY)

Volatile Organic Compounds

Chloroform 3.1E-02 (mg/kg/day)-1 1 3.1E-02 (mg/kg/day)-1 B2 / Probable human carcinogen Cal EPA 9/2009

Explosives

Nitroglycerin 1.7E-02 (mg/kg/day)-1 1 1.7E-02 (mg/kg/day)-1 NA PPRTV 8/22/2006

Inorganics

Cobalt NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Iron NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Manganese NA NA NA NA NAD (Not classifiable as to human

carcinogenicity)IRIS 2/5/2013

Notes:

1 - USEPA, 2004: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim. EPA/540/R/99/005.

2 - Adjusted cancer slope factor for dermal = Oral cancer slope factor / Oral Absorption Efficiency for Dermal.

Definitions:

Cal EPA = California Environmental Protection Agency

CSF = Cancer Slope Factor

IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System.

NA = Not Available.

PPRTV = Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value

TABLE C-10

CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- INHALATIONSITE 12 EOD AREANAS BRUNSWICK

BRUNSWICK, MAINE

Chemical Unit Risk Inhalation Cancer Weight of Evidence/ Unit Risk : Inhalation CSF

of Potential Slope Factor(1)Cancer Guideline

Concern Value Units Value Units Description Source(s) Date(s)

(MM/DD/YYYY)

Volatiles

Choloform 2.3E-05 (ug/m3)-18.1E-02 (mg/kg/day)-1 B2 / Probable human carcinogen IRIS 2/15/2013

Explosives

Nitroglycerin NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Inorganics

Cobalt 9.0E-03 (ug/m3)-13.2E+01 (mg/kg/day)-1

NA PPRTV 8/25/2008

Iron NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

ManganeseNA NA NA NA

D / Not classifiable as to human

carcinogenicityIRIS

2/5/2013

Notes:

1 - Inhalation CSF = Unit Risk * 70 kg / 20m3/day.

Definitions:

CSF = Cancer Slope Factor.

IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System.

NA = Not Available.

PPRTV = Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value.

TABLE C-11

NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- ORAL/DERMAL

SITE 12 EOD AREA

NAS BRUNSWICK

Chemical Chronic/ Oral RfD Oral Absorption Absorbed RfD for Dermal(2)Primary Combined RfD: Target Organ(s)

of Potential Subchronic Efficiency Target Uncertainty/Modifying

Concern Value Units for Dermal(1)Value Units Organ(s) Factors Source(s) Date(s)

(MM/DD/YYYY)


Subchronic 1.00E-01 mg/kg/day 1 1.0E-01 mg/kg/day Liver 100/1 ATSDR 9/1997

Chronic 1.00E-02 mg/kg/day 1 1.0E-02 mg/kg/day Liver 100/1 IRIS 2/5/2013

Explosives

Nitroglycerin Chronic 1.0E-04 mg/kg/day 1 1.0E-04 mg/kg/day Blood 300/1 PPRTV 8/22/2006

Inorganics

Subchronic 3.0E-03 mg/kg/day 1 3.0E-03 mg/kg/day Thyroid NA PPRTV 8/25/2008

Chronic 3.0E-04 mg/kg/day 1 3.0E-04 mg/kg/day Thyroid NA PPRTV 8/25/2008

Subchronic 7.0E-01 mg/kg/day 1 7.0E-01 mg/kg/day GS 1.5 PPRTV 9/11/2006

Chronic 7.0E-01 mg/kg/day 1 7.0E-01 mg/kg/day GS 1.5 PPRTV 9/11/2006

Manganese(3)Chronic 2.4E-02 mg/kg/day 0.04 9.6E-04 mg/kg/day CNS 1 IRIS 2/5/2013

Notes: Definitions:

1 - U.S. EPA, 2004: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for ATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Dermal Risk Assessment) Interim. EPA/540/R/99/005. CNS = Central nervous system

2 - Adjusted dermal RfD = Oral RfD x Oral Absorption Efficiency for Dermal. GS = Gastrointestinal system

3 - Adjusted IRIS value in accordance with recommendations on IRIS. IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System

NA = Not available


RfD = Reference dose

Cobalt

BRUNSWICK, MAINE

Iron

Chloroform

TABLE C-12

NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- INHALATIONSITE 12 EOD AREANAS BRUNSWICK

BRUNSWICK, MAINE

Chemical Chronic/ Inhalation RfC Extrapolated RfD(1)Primary Combined RfC: Target Organ(s)

of Potential Subchronic Target Uncertainty/Modifying

Concern Value Units Value Units Organ(s) Factors Source(s) Date(s)

(MM/DD/YYYY)


Subchronic 2.4E-01 mg/m37.0E-02 (mg/kg/day) Liver 100/1 ATSDR 9/1997

Chronic 9.8E-02 mg/m32.8E-02 (mg/kg/day) Liver 100/1 ATSDR 9/1997

Explosives

Nitroglycerin NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Inorganics

Subchronic 2.0E-05 mg/m35.7E-06 (mg/kg/day) Respiratory NA PPRTV 8/25/2008

Chronic 6.0E-06 mg/m31.7E-06 (mg/kg/day) Respiratory NA PPRTV 8/25/2008

Iron NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Manganese Chronic 5.0E-05 mg/m31.4E-05 (mg/kg/day) CNS 1000/1 IRIS 2/5/2013

Notes: Definitions:

1 - Extrapolated RfD = RfC*20m3/day / 70 kg. ATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

CNS = Central Nervous System

IRIS = Integrated Risk Information System

NA = Not Applicable


RfC = Reference concentration

RfD = Reference dose

Cobalt

Choloform

PAGE 1 OF 6

Receptor Media Exposure Cancer Chemicals with Chemicals with Chemicals with Hazard Chemicals

Route Risk Cancer Risks Cancer Risks Cancer Risks Index Contributing to an

> 10-4 > 10-5 and 10-4 > 10-6 and 10-5Target Organ HI > 1

Construction Workers Incidental Ingestion 7E-10 -- -- -- 0.03 --

Dermal Contact 2E-10 -- -- -- 0.008 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 9E-10 -- -- -- 0.04 --

Incidental Ingestion 1E-09 -- -- -- 0.05 --

Dermal Contact 4E-10 -- -- -- 0.01 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 2E-09 -- -- -- 0.06 --


Dermal Contact 2E-10 -- -- -- 0.008 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 8E-10 -- -- -- 0.03 --

Groundwater Incidental Ingestion 1E-10 -- -- -- 0.006 --

Dermal Contact 2E-10 -- -- -- 0.03 --

Inhalation 6E-10 -- -- -- 0.000007 --

Total 9E-10 -- -- -- 0.04 --

Occupational Workers Incidental Ingestion 3E-09 -- -- -- 0.005 --

Dermal Contact 2E-09 -- -- -- 0.003 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 5E-09 -- -- -- 0.008 --


Dermal Contact 4E-09 -- -- -- 0.006 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 9E-09 -- -- -- 0.01 --


Dermal Contact 2E-09 -- -- -- 0.003 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 5E-09 -- -- -- 0.008 --

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

TABLE C-13


SITE 12 EOD AREA

BRUNSWICK, MAINE

SUMMARY OF SITE-SPECIFIC CANCER RISKS AND HAZARD INDICES - REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURES

EU 1 Surface Soil

EU 1 Surface Soil

EU 3 Surface Soil

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 3 Surface Soil

PAGE 2 OF 6





TABLE C-13


SITE 12 EOD AREA

BRUNSWICK, MAINE


Adolescent Trespassers Incidental Ingestion 5E-10 -- -- -- 0.002 --

Dermal Contact 5E-10 -- -- -- 0.002 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 1E-09 -- -- -- 0.004 --


Dermal Contact 9E-10 -- -- -- 0.004 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 2E-09 -- -- -- 0.007 --


Dermal Contact 5E-10 -- -- -- 0.002 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 9E-10 -- -- -- 0.004 --


Dermal Contact 2E-10 -- -- -- 0.0006 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 7E-10 -- -- -- 0.002 --


Dermal Contact 4E-10 -- -- -- 0.001 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 1E-09 -- -- -- 0.004 --


Dermal Contact 2E-10 -- -- -- 0.001 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 7E-10 -- -- -- 0.002 --

EU 1 Surface Soil

EU 1 Surface Soil

Adult Trespassers

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 3 Surface Soil

EU 3 Surface Soil

PAGE 3 OF 6





TABLE C-13


SITE 12 EOD AREA

BRUNSWICK, MAINE


Lifelong Trespassers Incidental Ingestion 1E-09 -- -- -- NA --

(Adolescent and Adult) Dermal Contact 7E-10 -- -- -- NA --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- NA --

Total 2E-09 -- -- -- NA --

Incidental Ingestion 2E-09 -- -- -- NA --

Dermal Contact 1E-09 -- -- -- NA --


Total 3E-09 -- -- -- NA --




Total 2E-09 -- -- -- NA --


Dermal Contact 1E-09 -- -- -- 0.008 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 5E-09 -- -- -- 0.04 --


Dermal Contact 2E-09 -- -- -- 0.01 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 9E-09 -- -- -- 0.06 --


Dermal Contact 1E-09 -- -- -- 0.007 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 5E-09 -- -- -- 0.03 --

EU 1 Surface Soil

EU 1 Surface Soil

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 3 Surface Soil

EU 3 Surface Soil


PAGE 4 OF 6





TABLE C-13


SITE 12 EOD AREA

BRUNSWICK, MAINE


Adult Recreational Users Incidental Ingestion 2E-09 -- -- -- 0.003 --

Dermal Contact 7E-10 -- -- -- 0.001 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 2E-09 -- -- -- 0.004 --


Dermal Contact 1E-09 -- -- -- 0.002 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 4E-09 -- -- -- 0.007 --


Dermal Contact 7E-10 -- -- -- 0.001 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 2E-09 -- -- -- 0.004 --

Lifelong Recreational Users Incidental Ingestion 6E-09 -- -- -- NA --

(Child and Adult) Dermal Contact 2E-09 -- -- -- NA --


Total 8E-09 -- -- -- NA --




Total 1E-08 -- -- -- NA --




Total 7E-09 -- -- -- NA --

EU 3 Surface Soil

EU 1 Surface Soil

EU 1 Surface Soil

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 3 Surface Soil

PAGE 5 OF 6





TABLE C-13


SITE 12 EOD AREA

BRUNSWICK, MAINE


Child Residents Incidental Ingestion 2E-08 -- -- -- 0.1 --

Dermal Contact 4E-09 -- -- -- 0.03 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 2E-08 -- -- -- 0.1 --


Dermal Contact 8E-09 -- -- -- 0.05 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 4E-08 -- -- -- 0.2 --


Dermal Contact 4E-09 -- -- -- 0.03 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 2E-08 -- -- -- 0.1 --

Groundwater Incidental Ingestion 6E-07 -- -- -- 9 Manganese, Cobalt

Dermal Contact 6E-08 -- -- -- 0.9 --

Inhalation 4E-06 -- -- Chloroform 0.02 --

Total 4E-06 -- -- Chloroform 10 Manganese, Cobalt

Adult Residents Incidental Ingestion 7E-09 -- -- -- 0.01 --

Dermal Contact 3E-09 -- -- -- 0.005 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 1E-08 -- -- -- 0.02 --


Dermal Contact 5E-09 -- -- -- 0.008 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 2E-08 -- -- -- 0.03 --


Dermal Contact 3E-09 -- -- -- 0.004 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 9E-09 -- -- -- 0.02 --

Groundwater Incidental Ingestion 1E-06 -- -- -- 4 Manganese

Dermal Contact 1E-07 -- -- -- 0.3 --


Total 2E-05 -- Chloroform -- 4 Manganese

EU 1 Surface Soil

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 1 Surface Soil

EU 3 Surface Soil

EU 3 Surface Soil

PAGE 6 OF 6





TABLE C-13


SITE 12 EOD AREA

BRUNSWICK, MAINE


Lifelong Residents Incidental Ingestion 2E-08 -- -- -- NA --



Total 3E-08 -- -- -- NA --




Total 5E-08 -- -- -- NA --




Total 3E-08 -- -- -- NA --

Groundwater Incidental Ingestion 2E-06 -- -- Chloroform NA --


Inhalation 2E-05 -- Chloroform -- NA --

Total 2E-05 -- Chloroform -- NA --

EU 3 Surface Soil

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 1 Surface Soil

PAGE 1 OF 6




Construction Workers Incidental Ingestion 2E-10 -- -- -- 0.008 --

Dermal Contact 4E-11 -- -- -- 0.002 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 2E-10 -- -- -- 0.01 --


Dermal Contact 7E-11 -- -- -- 0.003 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 4E-10 -- -- -- 0.02 --


Dermal Contact 4E-11 -- -- -- 0.002 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 2E-10 -- -- -- 0.009 --

Groundwater Incidental Ingestion 2E-11 -- -- -- 0.002 --

Dermal Contact 7E-11 -- -- -- 0.008 --

Inhalation 1E-10 -- -- -- 0.000002 --

Total 2E-10 -- -- -- 0.01 --

Occupational Workers Incidental Ingestion 3E-10 -- -- -- 0.001 --

Dermal Contact 4E-11 -- -- -- 0.0002 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 3E-10 -- -- -- 0.001 --


Dermal Contact 6E-11 -- -- -- 0.0003 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 5E-10 -- -- -- 0.002 --


Dermal Contact 3E-11 -- -- -- 0.0002 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 3E-10 -- -- -- 0.001 --

TABLE C-14


SITE 12 EOD AREA

BRUNSWICK, MAINE

SUMMARY OF SITE-SPECIFIC CANCER RISKS AND HAZARD INDICES - CENTRAL TENDENCY EXPOSURES

EU 1 Surface Soil

EU 1 Surface Soil

EU 3 Surface Soil

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 2 Surface Soil


EU 3 Surface Soil

PAGE 2 OF 6




TABLE C-14


SITE 12 EOD AREA

BRUNSWICK, MAINE



Adolescent Trespassers Incidental Ingestion 7E-11 -- -- -- 0.0006 --

Dermal Contact 3E-11 -- -- -- 0.0002 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 1E-10 -- -- -- 0.0008 --


Dermal Contact 5E-11 -- -- -- 0.0004 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 2E-10 -- -- -- 0.001 --


Dermal Contact 3E-11 -- -- -- 0.0002 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 9E-11 -- -- -- 0.0008 --


Dermal Contact 8E-12 -- -- -- 0.00005 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 8E-11 -- -- -- 0.0005 --


Dermal Contact 1E-11 -- -- -- 0.00008 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 1E-10 -- -- -- 0.0008 --


Dermal Contact 8E-12 -- -- -- 0.00004 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 7E-11 -- -- -- 0.0004 --

EU 1 Surface Soil

EU 1 Surface Soil

Adult Trespassers

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 3 Surface Soil

EU 3 Surface Soil

PAGE 3 OF 6




TABLE C-14


SITE 12 EOD AREA

BRUNSWICK, MAINE



Lifelong Trespassers Incidental Ingestion 1E-10 -- -- -- NA --

(Adolescent and Adult) Dermal Contact 4E-11 -- -- -- NA --


Total 2E-10 -- -- -- NA --




Total 3E-10 -- -- -- NA --




Total 2E-10 -- -- -- NA --


Dermal Contact 8E-11 -- -- -- 0.002 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 8E-10 -- -- -- 0.02 --


Dermal Contact 1E-10 -- -- -- 0.003 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 1E-09 -- -- -- 0.03 --


Dermal Contact 7E-11 -- -- -- 0.001 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 7E-10 -- -- -- 0.01 --

EU 1 Surface Soil

EU 1 Surface Soil

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 3 Surface Soil

EU 3 Surface Soil


PAGE 4 OF 6




TABLE C-14


SITE 12 EOD AREA

BRUNSWICK, MAINE



Adult Recreational Users Incidental Ingestion 3E-10 -- -- -- 0.002 --

Dermal Contact 3E-11 -- -- -- 0.0002 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 3E-10 -- -- -- 0.002 --


Dermal Contact 5E-11 -- -- -- 0.0003 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 5E-10 -- -- -- 0.003 --


Dermal Contact 3E-11 -- -- -- 0.0002 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 3E-10 -- -- -- 0.002 --

Lifelong Recreational Users Incidental Ingestion 9E-10 -- -- -- NA --



Total 1E-09 -- -- -- NA --




Total 2E-09 -- -- -- NA --




Total 1E-09 -- -- -- NA --

EU 3 Surface Soil

EU 1 Surface Soil

EU 1 Surface Soil

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 3 Surface Soil

PAGE 5 OF 6




TABLE C-14


SITE 12 EOD AREA

BRUNSWICK, MAINE



Child Residents Incidental Ingestion 2E-09 -- -- -- 0.04 --

Dermal Contact 2E-10 -- -- -- 0.004 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 2E-09 -- -- -- 0.04 --


Dermal Contact 3E-10 -- -- -- 0.007 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 3E-09 -- -- -- 0.07 --


Dermal Contact 2E-10 -- -- -- 0.004 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 2E-09 -- -- -- 0.04 --

Groundwater Incidental Ingestion 2E-07 -- -- -- 7 Manganese, Cobalt

Dermal Contact 1E-08 -- -- -- 0.3 --

Inhalation 1E-06 -- -- -- 0.02 --

Total 1E-06 -- -- -- 7 Manganese, Cobalt

Adult Residents Incidental Ingestion 7E-10 -- -- -- 0.004 --

Dermal Contact 8E-11 -- -- -- 0.0004 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 7E-10 -- -- -- 0.004 --


Dermal Contact 1E-10 -- -- -- 0.0008 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 1E-09 -- -- -- 0.008 --


Dermal Contact 7E-11 -- -- -- 0.0004 --

Inhalation -- -- -- -- -- --

Total 7E-10 -- -- -- 0.004 --

Groundwater Incidental Ingestion 2E-07 -- -- -- 3 Manganese

Dermal Contact 2E-08 -- -- -- 0.1 --


Total 4E-06 -- -- Chloroform 3 Manganese

EU 1 Surface Soil

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 1 Surface Soil

EU 3 Surface Soil

EU 3 Surface Soil

PAGE 6 OF 6




TABLE C-14


SITE 12 EOD AREA

BRUNSWICK, MAINE



Lifelong Residents Incidental Ingestion 2E-09 -- -- -- NA --



Total 3E-09 -- -- -- NA --




Total 5E-09 -- -- -- NA --




Total 3E-09 -- -- -- NA --

Groundwater Incidental Ingestion 4E-07 -- -- -- NA --


Inhalation 5E-06 -- -- Chloroform NA --

Total 6E-06 -- -- Chloroform NA --

EU 3 Surface Soil

EU 2 Surface Soil

EU 1 Surface Soil


September 2015

Appendix D Ecological Risk Assessment Summary Tables

TABLE D-1

SUMMARY OF TIER 1 SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENTSITE 12 EOD AREA

FORMER NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICKBRUNSWICK, MAINE

Plants Soil Invertebrates Bird Mammal Plants Soil

Invertebrates Bird Mammal Plants Soil Invertebrates Bird Mammal Sediment

Invertebrates Bird Mammal

Volatiles1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene X2-Butanone X X2-Hexanone X X XAcetone X X XBromomethane X XCarbon Disulfide XMethyl Acetate X X XSemivolatilesBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate X X X X X XPolycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons1,4-Dioxane X XAcenaphthene XAcenaphthylene XBenzo(a)anthracene XBenzo(a)pyrene XBenzo(g,h,i)perylene XBenzo(k)fluoranthene XChrysene X XDibenzo(a,h)anthracene X XFluorene XIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene X XPhenanthrene X XPyrene X XExplosives2,4-Dinitrotoluene XNitroglycerin X XMetalsAluminum X X X X X X X X X X X X X XAntimony XArsenic X XBarium X XBeryllium XCadmium X XChromium X X X X X X X X X X X X X XCopper X X X X X XIron X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLead X X X XManganese X X X XMercury X X X X X X XNickel X XSelenium X X XThallium X X X X XVanadium X X X XZinc X X

Notes:X - Chemical selected as a COPC.

ChemicalDU5DU1/DU2 DU3 DU4

TABLE D-2

SURFACE SOIL ECOLOGICAL COPC SELECTION - DU1 and DU2

SITE 12 EOD AREA

NAS BRUNSWICK, BRUNSWICK, MAINE

Plants Invertebrates Birds Mammals Plants Invertebrates Birds MammalsCOPC

(yes/no)?Rationale

Evaluated

(yes/no)?Rationale

EXPLOSIVES (UG/KG)2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 5/27 58 J 800 J 12D2Ab-IS01-REP1 73.0 291 NA 6000 20000 NA 2500 0.13 0.040 NA 0.32 NO BSL YES NSLHMX 1/27 130 J 130 J 12D2Aa-IS01-REP1 27.4 130 NA 9341000 600000 NA 27000 0.000014 0.00022 NA 0.0048 NO BSL YES NSLNITROGLYCERIN 7/27 360 J 1700 J 12D2Aa-IS01-REP1 388 964 NA NA NA NA 71000 NA NA NA 0.024 YES NSL YES NSLMETALS (MG/KG)ALUMINUM 27/27 8290 14800 12D2Ab-IS01-REP1 10786 10786 No NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA YES NSL YES NSLANTIMONY 27/27 0.05 J 0.15 J 12D2E-IS01-REP1 0.087 0.087 Yes 5 78 NA 0.27 0.030 0.0019 NA 0.56 NO BSL YES NSLARSENIC 27/27 3 8.3 12D2Ab-IS01-REP1 5.37 5.37 No 18 17 43 46 0.46 0.49 0.19 0.18 NO BSL NO BSLBARIUM 27/27 28 69.6 12D1-IS01-REP1 47.0 47.0 Yes 500 330 820 2000 0.14 0.21 0.085 0.035 NO BSL NO BSLBERYLLIUM 27/27 0.34 0.71 12D2B-IS01-REP1 0.505 0.505 No 10 40 NA 21 0.071 0.018 NA 0.034 NO BSL YES NSL

CADMIUM 27/27 0.09 0.2712D1-IS01-0003, 12D1-IS01-REP2

0.160 0.160Yes

32 140 0.77 0.36 0.0084 0.0019 0.35 0.75 NO BSL NO BSL

CALCIUM 27/27 1250 2680 12D2B-IS01-REP1 2060 2060 Yes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NO NUT NO NUTCHROMIUM 27/27 16.1 489 12D2C-IS01-0003 95.8 95.8 Yes 78 78 26 34 6.3 6.3 19 14 YES ASL YES ASLCOBALT 27/27 4.2 10 12D2Ab-IS01-REP1 6.64 6.64 No 13 1000 120 230 0.77 0.010 0.083 0.043 NO BSL NO BSLCOPPER 27/27 9.4 J 257 12D2B-IS01-REP2 30.1 30.1 Yes 70 80 28 49 3.7 3.2 9.2 5.2 YES ASL YES ASLIRON 27/27 10200 21200 12D2Ab-IS01-REP1 15178 15178 No NA 200 NA NA NA 106 NA NA YES ASL, NSL YES NSLLEAD 27/27 11 J 41.6 12D2C-IS01-REP2 19.5 19.5 Yes 120 1700 11 56 0.35 0.024 3.8 0.74 NO BSL YES ASLMAGNESIUM 27/27 2170 5340 12D2B-IS01-REP1 3479 3479 No NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NO NUT NO NUTMANGANESE 27/27 166 J 469 12D2Ab-IS01-REP1 288 288 No 220 450 4300 4000 2.1 1.04 0.11 0.12 YES ASL NO BSLMERCURY 26/27 0.01 J 0.07 J 12D2Aa-IS01-REP1 0.020 0.020 Yes 12 12 0.013 1.7 0.0058 0.0058 5.4 0.041 NO BSL YES ASLNICKEL 27/27 11 26 12D2B-IS01-REP3 17.4 17.4 No 38 280 210 130 0.68 0.093 0.12 0.20 NO BSL NO BSLPOTASSIUM 27/27 1060 J 3450 12D2Ab-IS01-REP1 2024 2024 No NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NO NUT NO NUTSELENIUM 20/27 0.2 J 0.45 12D2F-IS01-REP3 0.281 0.306 No 0.52 4.1 1.2 0.63 0.87 0.11 0.38 0.71 NO BSL NO BSLSILVER 27/27 0.02 J 0.56 12D2Aa-IS01-REP1 0.081 0.081 No 560 50 4.2 14 0.0010 0.011 0.13 0.040 NO BSL NO BSLSODIUM 27/27 89.6 266 12D2D-IS01-REP1 161 161 Yes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NO NUT NO NUTTHALLIUM 27/27 0.1 0.22 12D2B-IS01-REP1 0.144 0.144 NA 1.4 1.4 0.9 0.032 0.16 0.16 0.24 6.9 NO BSL YES ASLVANADIUM 27/27 19.8 37.2 12D2B-IS01-REP1 27.4 27.4 No 130 130 7.8 280 0.29 0.29 4.8 0.13 NO BSL YES ASLZINC 27/27 31 78.6 12D2B-IS01-REP2 50.3 50.3 Yes 160 120 46 79 0.49 0.66 1.7 0.99 NO BSL YES ASL

Notes: Abbreviations: Rationale Codes for COPC Selection:

Shaded chemical name indicates that the chemical was selected as a COPC or retained for food chain modeling. Shaded cells indicate that the EEQ exceeds 1. COPC - Chemical of Potential Concern ASL = Above Screening LevelEEQ - Ecological Effects Quotient BSL = Below Screening Level

Footnotes: J - Estimated concentration NSL = No Screening Level1 - Average of all analytical results including one-half of the detection limit for non-detects. NA - Not available or Not applicable NUT = Essential Nutrient2 - Average of detected concentrations only.

4 - The sources of the screening levels are presented in Table G-2.5 - EEQ is calculated by dividing the maximum chemical concentration by its screening level. Value is unitless.6 - Chemicals with EEQs for birds or mammals greater than 1.0 or chemicals without bird or mammal screening values are retained for food chain modeling.

3 - Based on a comparison of 95% UCLs calculated for site ISM data to 95% UCLs calculated for Mixed Soil from Background Study Report for Naval Air Station Brunswick (March, 2012). Comparison is presented in Attachment G-6.

Exceed

Background

Concentration?(3)

Screening Levels(4) EEQs(5)

Deletion or Selection

of COPCs for

Invertebrates/Plants

Further Evaluated in

Terrestrial Food Chain

Modeling(6)Average

Positive

Result(2)

Overall

Average(1)Chemical

Frequency

of

Detection

Minimum

Concentration

Maximum

Concentration

Sample of

Maximum

Concentration

TABLE D-3

SURFACE SOIL ECOLOGICAL COPC SELECTION - DU3

SITE 12 EOD AREA



(yes/no)?Rationale

Evaluated

(yes/no)?Rationale

METALS (MG/KG)ALUMINUM 4/4 9870 13000 12D3A-IS01-0003 11768 11768 Yes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA YES NSL YES NSLANTIMONY 3/4 0.06 J 0.1 J 12D3A-IS01-0003 0.069 0.083 Yes 5 78 NA 0.27 0.020 0.0013 NA 0.37 NO BSL YES NSLARSENIC 4/4 4.2 6.2 12D3A-IS01-0003 5.50 5.50 Yes 18 17 43 46 0.34 0.36 0.14 0.13 NO BSL NO BSLBARIUM 4/4 38.4 56.3 12D3A-IS01-0003 47.9 47.9 Yes 500 330 820 2000 0.11 0.17 0.069 0.028 NO BSL NO BSLBERYLLIUM 4/4 0.49 0.65 12D3A-IS01-0003 0.593 0.593 No 10 40 NA 21 0.065 0.016 NA 0.031 NO BSL YES NSL

CADMIUM 4/4 0.08 0.112D3A-IS01-0003, 12D3a-IS01-REP1

0.093 0.093Yes

32 140 0.77 0.36 0.0031 0.00071 0.13 0.28 NO BSL NO BSL

CALCIUM 4/4 1680 2620 12D3A-IS01-0003 2273 2273 Yes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NO NUT NO NUTCHROMIUM 4/4 36.7 542 12D3a-IS01-REP1 296 296 Yes 78 78 26 34 6.9 6.9 21 16 YES ASL YES ASLCOBALT 4/4 5.6 8.5 12D3A-IS01-0003 7.40 7.40 No 13 1000 120 230 0.65 0.0085 0.071 0.037 NO BSL NO BSLCOPPER 4/4 10.9 J 16.9 J 12D3A-IS01-0003 14.7 14.7 Yes 70 80 28 49 0.24 0.21 0.60 0.34 NO BSL NO BSLIRON 4/4 13100 19500 12D3A-IS01-0003 16875 16875 No NA 200 NA NA NA 98 NA NA YES ASL, NSL YES NSLLEAD 4/4 13 J 15.2 J 12D3B-IS01-0003 13.9 13.9 Yes 120 1700 11 56 0.13 0.0089 1.4 0.27 NO BSL YES ASLMAGNESIUM 4/4 2920 3920 12D3b-IS01-REP1 3623 3623 No NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NO NUT NO NUTMANGANESE 4/4 222 J 436 J 12D3A-IS01-0003 336 336 Yes 220 450 4300 4000 2.0 0.97 0.10 0.11 YES ASL NO BSL

MERCURY 4/4 0.02 J 0.02 J

12D3A-IS01-0003, 12D3a-IS01-REP1, 12D3B-IS01-0003, 12D3b-IS01-REP1

0.02 0.02 No 12 12 0.013 1.7 0.0017 0.0017 1.5 0.012 NO BSL YES ASL

NICKEL 4/4 14.2 23.6 12D3A-IS01-0003 19.6 19.6 Yes 38 280 210 130 0.62 0.084 0.11 0.18 NO BSL NO BSLPOTASSIUM 4/4 1660 J 2590 J 12D3A-IS01-0003 2215 2215 No NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NO NUT NO NUTSELENIUM 4/4 0.36 0.42 12D3A-IS01-0003 0.393 0.393 No 0.52 4.1 1.2 0.63 0.81 0.10 0.35 0.67 NO BSL NO BSL

SILVER 4/4 0.03 J 0.03 J

12D3A-IS01-0003, 12D3a-IS01-REP1, 12D3B-IS01-0003, 12D3b-IS01-REP1

0.03 0.03 No 560 50 4.2 14 0.000054 0.00060 0.0071 0.0021 NO BSL NO BSL

SODIUM 4/4 144 303 12D3A-IS01-0003 224 224 Yes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NO NUT NO NUT

THALLIUM 4/4 0.13 0.1712D3A-IS01-0003, 12D3a-IS01-REP1

0.158 0.158 NA 1.4 1.4 0.9 0.032 0.12 0.12 0.19 5.3 NO BSL YES ASL

VANADIUM 4/4 24.8 35.4 12D3A-IS01-0003 30.7 30.7 No 130 130 7.8 280 0.27 0.27 4.5 0.13 NO BSL YES ASLZINC 4/4 34.2 49.7 12D3a-IS01-REP1 44.5 44.5 Yes 160 120 46 79 0.31 0.41 1.1 0.63 NO BSL YES ASL



Footnotes: J - Estimated concentration NSL = No Screening Level1 - Average of all analytical results including one-half of the detection limit for non-detects. NA - Not available or Not applicable NUT = Essential Nutrient2 - Average of detected concentrations only.

4 - The sources of the screening levels are presented in Table G-2.5 - EEQ is calculated by dividing the maximum chemical concentration by its screening level. Value is unitless.6 - Chemicals with EEQs for birds or mammals greater than 1.0 or chemicals without bird or mammal screening values are retained for food chain modeling.



of COPCs for


3 - Based on a comparison of 95% UCLs calculated for site ISM data to 95% UCLs calculated for Mixed Soil from Background Study Report for Naval Air Station Brunswick (March, 2012). Comparison is presented in Attachment G-6.



Modeling(6)Chemical

Frequency

of

Detection

Minimum

Concentration

Maximum

Concentration

Sample of Maximum

Concentration

Overall

Average(1)

Average

Positive

Result(2)

Exceed

Background

Concentration?(3)

TABLE D-4

SURFACE SOIL ECOLOGICAL COPC SELECTION - DU4

SITE 12 EOD AREA



(yes/no)?Rationale

Evaluated

(yes/no)?Rationale

VOLATILES (UG/KG)1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 1/4 6.5 J 6.5 J 12D-DU5-SB05-0012 2.95 6.50 NA 20000 NA 270 NA 0.00033 NA 0.024 YES NSL YES NSL2-BUTANONE 1/4 18 J 18 J 12D-DU5-SB03-0012 13.3 18.0 NA NA NA 360000 NA NA NA 0.000050 YES NSL YES NSL2-HEXANONE 2/4 140 J 220 J 12D-DU5-SB03-0012 94.3 180 NA NA 360 5400 NA NA 0.61 0.041 YES NSL NO BSLACETONE 4/4 180 J 830 J 12D-DU5-SB05-0012 498 498 NA NA 7500 1200 NA NA 0.11 0.69 YES NSL NO BSLBROMOMETHANE 1/4 1.8 J 1.8 J 12D-DU5-SB05-0012 3.08 1.80 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA YES NSL YES NSLMETHYL ACETATE 4/4 19 J 170 J 12D-DU5-SB02-0012 72.3 72.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA YES NSL YES NSLTOLUENE 2/4 2.2 J 2.6 J 12D-DU5-SB05-0012 2.05 2.40 75000 75000 1400000 1400000 0.000035 0.000035 0.0000019 0.0000019 NO BSL NO BSLSEMIVOLATILES (UG/KG)BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 4/4 210 J 540 12D-DU5-SB03-0012 313 313 NA NA 20 590 NA NA 27.0 0.92 YES NSL YES NSLPOLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (UG/KG)1,4-DIOXANE 1/4 1.9 J 1.9 J 12D-DU5-SB06-0012 23.5 1.90 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA YES NSL YES NSLACENAPHTHENE 2/4 6 J 11 J 12D-DU5-SB02-0012 7.75 8.50 20000 29000 NA 100000 0.00055 0.00038 NA 0.00011 NO BSL YES NSLACENAPHTHYLENE 1/4 2.5 J 2.5 J 12D-DU5-SB03-0012 5.63 2.50 20000 29000 NA 100000 0.00013 0.000086 NA 0.000025 NO BSL YES NSLANTHRACENE 2/4 12 J 23 J 12D-DU5-SB02-0012 12.3 17.5 2500 29000 NA 100000 0.0092 0.00079 NA 0.00023 NO BSL YES NSLBENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 4/4 10 J 73 12D-DU5-SB02-0012 36.8 36.8 18000 18000 800 1100 0.0041 0.0041 0.091 0.066 NO BSL NO BSLBENZO(A)PYRENE 4/4 12 J 67 12D-DU5-SB02-0012 36.8 36.8 20000 18000 NA 1100 0.0034 0.0037 NA 0.061 NO BSL YES NSLBENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 3/4 39 120 12D-DU5-SB02-0012 60.9 77.3 18000 18000 NA 1100 0.0067 0.0067 NA 0.11 NO BSL YES NSLBENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 4/4 10 J 28 12D-DU5-SB02-0012 19.8 19.8 NA 18000 NA 1100 NA 0.0016 NA 0.025 YES NSL YES NSLBENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 4/4 7.9 J 39 J 12D-DU5-SB02-0012 22.5 22.5 NA 18000 NA 1100 NA 0.0022 NA 0.035 YES NSL YES NSLCHRYSENE 4/4 13 J 87 J 12D-DU5-SB02-0012 42.8 42.8 NA 18000 NA 1100 NA 0.0048 NA 0.079 YES NSL YES NSLDIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE 4/4 4.6 J 8.2 J 12D-DU5-SB03-0012 6.65 6.65 NA 18000 NA 1100 NA 0.00046 NA 0.0075 YES NSL YES NSLFLUORANTHENE 4/4 26 160 12D-DU5-SB02-0012 78.8 78.8 50000 29000 NA 100000 0.0032 0.0055 NA 0.0016 NO BSL YES NSLFLUORENE 2/4 5.1 J 7.2 J 12D-DU5-SB02-0012 6.58 6.15 NA 29000 NA 100000 NA 0.00025 NA 0.000072 YES NSL YES NSLINDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE 4/4 16 J 47 J 12D-DU5-SB02-0012 31.8 31.8 NA 18000 NA 1100 NA 0.0026 NA 0.043 YES NSL YES NSLPHENANTHRENE 4/4 13 J 80 12D-DU5-SB02-0012 40.5 40.5 NA 29000 NA 100000 NA 0.0028 NA 0.00080 YES NSL YES NSLPYRENE 4/4 24 J 150 12D-DU5-SB02-0012 76.0 76.0 NA 18000 34000 1100 NA 0.0083 0.0044 0.14 YES NSL NO BSLEPH MADEP (MG/KG)C11-C22 AROMATICS 1/4 27 27 12D-DU5-SB03-0012 14.5 27.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NO (6) NO (6)C11-C22 AROMATICS-UNADJ 1/4 27 27 12D-DU5-SB03-0012 14.5 27.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NO (6) NO (6)METALS (MG/KG)ALUMINUM 7/7 2020 28800 12D-DU5-SB06-0012 13589 13589 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA YES NSL YES NSLANTIMONY 6/7 0.01 J 0.1 J 12D4-IS01-REP2 0.052 0.057 5 78 NA 0.27 0.020 0.0013 NA 0.37 NO BSL YES NSLARSENIC 7/7 0.73 7 12D-DU5-SB06-0012 4.02 4.02 18 17 43 46 0.39 0.41 0.16 0.15 NO BSL NO BSLBARIUM 7/7 8 164 J 12D-DU5-SB03-0012 62.3 62.3 500 330 820 2000 0.33 0.50 0.20 0.082 NO BSL NO BSLBERYLLIUM 7/7 0.1 0.92 12D-DU5-SB06-0012 0.564 0.564 10 40 NA 21 0.092 0.023 NA 0.044 NO BSL YES NSL

CADMIUM 7/7 0.02 0.1112D4-IS01-REP2, 12D-

DU5-SB06-00120.079 0.079 32 140 0.77 0.36 0.0034 0.00079 0.14 0.31 NO BSL NO BSL

CALCIUM 7/7 340 2020 12D4-IS01-REP2 1034 1034 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NO NUT NO NUTCHROMIUM 7/7 19.1 J 446 12D4-IS01-REP2 89.8 89.8 78 78 26 34 5.7 5.7 17.2 13.1 YES ASL YES ASLCOBALT 7/7 1 9.8 12D-DU5-SB06-0012 6.09 6.09 13 1000 120 230 0.75 0.0098 0.082 0.043 NO BSL NO BSLCOPPER 7/7 2 J 23.2 12D-DU5-SB06-0012 12.2 12.2 70 80 28 49 0.33 0.29 0.83 0.47 NO BSL NO BSLIRON 7/7 2650 32200 12D-DU5-SB06-0012 16250 16250 NA 200 NA NA NA 161 NA NA YES ASL, NSL YES NSLLEAD 7/7 2.6 J 28.5 J 12D-DU5-SB06-0012 13.8 13.8 120 1700 11 56 0.24 0.017 2.6 0.51 NO BSL YES ASLMAGNESIUM 7/7 537 4710 12D-DU5-SB05-0012 2991 2991 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NO NUT NO NUTMANGANESE 7/7 43.3 J 398 J 12D-DU5-SB06-0012 230 230 220 450 4300 4000 1.8 0.88 0.093 0.10 YES ASL NO BSLMERCURY 7/7 0.02 J 0.11 12D-DU5-SB06-0012 0.046 0.046 12 12 0.013 1.7 0.0092 0.0092 8.5 0.06 NO BSL YES ASLNICKEL 7/7 2.7 25.4 12D-DU5-SB06-0012 15.2 15.2 38 280 210 130 0.67 0.091 0.12 0.20 NO BSL NO BSLPOTASSIUM 7/7 300 J 2170 J 12D-DU5-SB06-0012 1470 1470 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NO NUT NO NUTSELENIUM 7/7 0.07 1.2 12D-DU5-SB06-0012 0.520 0.520 0.52 4.1 1.2 0.63 2.3 0.29 1.0 1.9 YES ASL YES ASLSILVER 7/7 0.006 J 0.07 J 12D-DU5-SB06-0012 0.044 0.044 560 50 4.2 14 0.00013 0.0014 0.017 0.0050 NO BSL NO BSLSODIUM 7/7 30 253 12D4-IS01-REP2 107 107 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NO NUT NO NUTTHALLIUM 7/7 0.02 0.27 12D-DU5-SB06-0012 0.149 0.149 1.4 1.4 0.9 0.032 0.19 0.19 0.30 8.4 NO BSL YES ASLVANADIUM 7/7 5.4 56 12D-DU5-SB06-0012 30.3 30.3 130 130 7.8 280 0.43 0.43 7.2 0.20 NO BSL YES ASLZINC 7/7 7.2 75.6 12D-DU5-SB06-0012 39.5 39.5 160 120 46 79 0.47 0.63 1.6 0.96 NO BSL YES ASL



Footnotes: J - Estimated concentration NSL = No Screening Level1 - Average of all analytical results including one-half of the detection limit for non-detects. NA - Not available or Not applicable NUT = Essential Nutrient2 - Average of detected concentrations only.3 - The sources of the screening levels are presented in Table G-2.4 - EEQ is calculated by dividing the maximum chemical concentration by its screening level. Value is unitless.5 - Chemicals with EEQs for birds or mammals greater than 1.0 or chemicals without bird or mammal screening values are retained for food chain modeling.6 - Risks from parameter considered by evaluating PAHs.


of COPCs for




Modeling(5)Chemical

Frequency

of

Detection

Minimum

Concentration

Maximum

Concentration

Sample of Maximum

Concentration

Overall

Average(1)

Average

Positive

Result(2)


TABLE D-5

SEDIMENT ECOLOGICAL COPC SELECTION - DU5

SITE 12 EOD AREA


Value Source COPC (yes/no)? Rationale

VOLATILES (UG/KG)2-BUTANONE 2/7 10 J 22 J 12D-DU5-SB01-0012 11.8 16.0 NA 270 SCV 0.081 NO BSL

2-HEXANONE 2/7 25 J 25 J12D-DU5-SB01-0012, 12D-

DU5-SB04-001216.5 25.0

NA22 SCV 1.1 YES ASL

ACETONE 1/7 120 J 120 J 12D-DU5-SB04-0012 77.9 120 NA 8.7 SCV 14 YES ASLCARBON DISULFIDE 2/7 2 J 2.8 J 12D-DU5-SD04-0006 2.59 2.40 NA 0.85 SCV 3.3 YES ASLMETHYL ACETATE 5/7 4.5 J 1200 J 12D-DU5-SB01-0012 180 251 NA NA NA NA YES NSLTOLUENE 1/7 6.8 J 6.8 J 12D-DU5-SB01-0012 3.05 6.80 NA 670 EPA SQB 0.010 NO BSLSEMIVOLATILES (UG/KG)BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 1/7 200 J 200 J 12D-DU5-SD05-0006 214 200 NA 750 NOAA 0.27 NO BSLPOLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (UG/KG)ACENAPHTHENE 1/7 31 J 31 J 12D-DU5-SD05-0006 11.8 31.0 113 16 EPA SQB 1.9 YES ASLACENAPHTHYLENE 1/7 12 J 12 J 12D-DU5-SD05-0006 9.11 12.0 442 5.87 NOAA 2.0 YES ASLANTHRACENE 4/7 1.8 J 40 J 12D-DU5-SD05-0006 11.1 12.1 358 57.2 TEC 0.70 NO BSLBENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 5/7 4.3 J 280 J 12D-DU5-SD05-0006 48.1 64.2 3660 108 TEC 2.6 YES ASLBENZO(A)PYRENE 5/7 5.2 J 280 J 12D-DU5-SD05-0006 49.8 66.6 5400 150 TEC 1.9 YES ASLBENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 3/7 8.9 J 410 J 12D-DU5-SD05-0006 73.4 158 7480 1800 NOAA 0.23 NO BSLBENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 6/7 2.9 J 150 J 12D-DU5-SD05-0006 29.2 33.2 4480 170 LEL 0.88 NO BSLBENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 3/7 4.4 J 150 J 12D-DU5-SD05-0006 30.1 57.8 5400 240 LEL 0.63 NO BSLCHRYSENE 5/7 3.8 J 260 J 12D-DU5-SD05-0006 46.3 62.5 6770 166 TEC 1.6 YES ASLDIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE 6/7 4.1 J 66 J 12D-DU5-SD05-0006 19.4 21.6 1190 33 TEC 2.0 YES ASLFLUORANTHENE 6/7 6.4 J 420 J 12D-DU5-SD05-0006 75.3 86.9 10060 423 TEC 0.99 NO BSLFLUORENE 1/7 22 J 22 J 12D-DU5-SD05-0006 10.5 22.0 263 77.4 TEC 0.28 NO BSLINDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE 7/7 4 J 330 J 12D-DU5-SD05-0006 59.9 59.9 4360 200 LEL 1.7 YES ASLPHENANTHRENE 6/7 4.5 J 210 J 12D-DU5-SD05-0006 39.5 45.1 4650 204 TEC 1.03 YES ASLPYRENE 6/7 5 J 410 J 12D-DU5-SD05-0006 73.6 85.0 12030 195 TEC 2.1 YES ASLMETALS (MG/KG)ALUMINUM 7/7 7980 19800 12D-DU5-SD03-0006 14170 14170 23500 25500 NOAA 0.78 NO BSLANTIMONY 5/7 0.04 J 0.11 J 12D-DU5-SD02-0006-D 0.054 0.064 0.94 3 NOAA 0.037 NO BSLARSENIC 7/7 1.4 5.4 12D-DU5-SD05-0006 3.42 3.42 24.1 9.79 TEC 0.55 NO BSLBARIUM 7/7 34.2 J 123 12D-DU5-SD03-0006 60.9 60.9 288 48 NOAA 2.6 YES ASLBERYLLIUM 7/7 0.39 1.1 12D-DU5-SD03-0006 0.736 0.736 2.2 NA NA NA YES NSLCADMIUM 6/7 0.07 J 0.29 12D-DU5-SD02-0006-D 0.115 0.133 3.6 0.99 TEC 0.29 NO BSLCALCIUM 7/7 512 J 1980 12D-DU5-SD02-0006-D 1182 1182 8170 NA NA NA NO NUTCHROMIUM 7/7 10.4 30.8 12D-DU5-SD04-0006 21.7 21.7 76 43.4 TEC 0.71 NO BSLCOBALT 7/7 2.4 7.6 12D-DU5-SB04-0012 4.89 4.89 21.8 50 LEL 0.15 NO BSLCOPPER 7/7 6.9 23.3 12D-DU5-SD05-0006 12.3 12.3 65.4 31.6 TEC 0.74 NO BSLIRON 7/7 6290 21400 12D-DU5-SD04-0006 13559 13559 30200 20000 LEL 1.1 YES ASLLEAD 7/7 9 J 30.2 J 12D-DU5-SD05-0006 15.5 15.5 222 35.8 TEC 0.84 NO BSLMAGNESIUM 7/7 1160 4830 12D-DU5-SD04-0006 2797 2797 8440 NA NA NA NO NUTMANGANESE 7/7 77.3 J 192 J 12D-DU5-SD04-0006 141 141 705 460 LEL 0.42 NO BSL

MERCURY 7/7 0.007 J 0.06 J12D-DU5-SB01-0012, 12D-

DU5-SD02-0006-D0.040 0.040

0.240.18 TEC 0.33 NO BSL

NICKEL 7/7 7.4 22 12D-DU5-SB04-0012 14.4 14.4 55.1 22.7 TEC 0.97 NO BSLPOTASSIUM 7/7 632 1840 12D-DU5-SD03-0006 1191 1191 4150 NA NA NA NO NUTSELENIUM 6/7 0.16 J 0.66 J 12D-DU5-SD03-0006 0.424 0.454 3.3 1 NOAA 0.66 NO BSLSILVER 7/7 0.02 J 0.21 12D-DU5-SD03-0006 0.081 0.081 0.54 0.5 LEL 0.42 NO BSLSODIUM 7/7 59.6 J 2040 J 12D-DU5-SD02-0006 235 235 787 NA NA NA NO NUTTHALLIUM 7/7 0.12 J 0.32 12D-DU5-SD03-0006 0.173 0.173 2.3 NA NA NA YES NSLVANADIUM 7/7 13.6 39.4 12D-DU5-SD04-0006 26.3 26.3 78.1 57 NOAA 0.69 NO BSLZINC 7/7 20.2 116 12D-DU5-SD05-0006 52.1 52.1 404 121 TEC 0.96 NO BSL

Abbreviations: Rationale Codes for COPC Selection:

COPC - Chemical of Potential Concern ASL = Above Screening LevelEEQ - Ecological Effects Quotient BSL = Below Screening LevelJ - Estimated concentration NSL = No Screening Level

Footnotes: EPA -Environmental Protection Agency NUT = Essential Nutrient1 - Average of detected concentrations only. LEL - Lowest Effects Level2 - Average of all analytical results including one-half of the detection limit for non-detects. NA - Not available or Not applicable

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationSCV - Secondary Chronic ValuesSQB - Sediment Quality BenchmarksTEC - Threshold Effects Concentration

5 - Ecological Effects Quotients (EEQs) were calculated by dividing the maximum detected concentration by the ecological screening level. Values are unitless. 6 - All detected chemicals are retained for food chain modeling.

Deletion or Selection of COPCs

for Sediment Invertebrates(6)

ChemicalAverage of

All Results(2)

Facility

Background(3)

Frequency

of Detection

Minimum

Detection

Maximum

Detection

Sample of Maximum

Detection

Average of

Detections(1)

3 - Fall Coffins Ice Pond 95% UPL from Background Study Report for Naval Air Station Brunswick (March, 2012). Background concentrations are shaded if the maximum detected concentration exceeds background.

Ecological effects quotients are shaded if the maximum detected concentration exceeds a screening level or a screening level is not available. Other cells are shaded if the chemical is retained as a COPC for sediment invertebrates. All detected chemicals, except volatiles and essential nutrients, are retained for food chain modeling.

4 - Sources selected in the following order of preference: TEC (MacDonald, et al 2000), LEL (Persaud, et al 1993), EPA SQB (USEPA, 1996), NOAA (Buchman, 2008) (freshwater value selected before marine value), and SCV (Jones, et al 1997).

Ecological Screening Level(4)

EEQ(5)

TABLE D-6

TERRESTRIAL FOOD CHAIN MODEL - TIER 1 SCENARIO

INVERTIVOROUS AND HERBIVOROUS RECEPTORS

SITE 12 EOD AREA - DU1 and DU2

NAS BRUNSWICK

BRUNSWICK, MAINE

NOAEL-based LOAEL-based NOAEL-based LOAEL-based NOAEL-based LOAEL-based NOAEL-based LOAEL-basedEXPLOSIVES2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 2.4E+01 1.9E-01 3.7E-01 1.8E-01 1.4E+01 1.1E-01 1.2E-01 5.6E-02

HMX NV NV 4.5E-01 8.9E-02 NV NV 6.5E-04 1.3E-04

NITROGLYCERIN NV NV 2.8E-01 2.6E-02 NV NV 2.3E-02 2.1E-03

METALSALUMINUM 2.0E+00 2.0E-01 3.0E+01 3.0E+00 2.5E+01 2.5E+00 8.4E+02 8.4E+01

ANTIMONY NV NV 2.1E-02 4.6E-04 NV NV 2.8E-01 6.0E-03

BERYLLIUM NV NV 9.9E-02 7.8E-02 NV NV 1.1E-02 8.4E-03

CHROMIUM 3.5E+00 6.0E-01 1.6E+00 6.8E-02 1.4E+01 2.4E+00 7.3E+00 3.0E-01

COPPER 1.4E+00 1.6E-01 5.0E-01 3.4E-02 7.0E+00 8.1E-01 2.7E+00 1.8E-01

IRON 3.3E+00 3.3E-01 2.0E+00 2.0E-01 4.0E+01 4.0E+00 4.7E+01 4.7E+00

LEAD 5.1E-01 1.9E-02 8.2E-02 2.1E-03 2.3E+00 8.4E-02 4.0E-01 1.0E-02

MERCURY 5.9E+00 5.9E-01 1.2E+00 2.4E-01 1.1E+01 1.1E+00 1.5E+00 3.0E-01

THALLIUM NV NV 1.2E-01 1.2E-02 NV NV 3.3E+00 3.3E-01

VANADIUM 1.6E+00 3.4E-01 3.6E-02 1.6E-02 3.6E+00 7.3E-01 6.9E-02 3.0E-02

ZINC 1.0E-01 4.0E-02 8.3E-02 2.1E-02 9.1E-01 3.5E-01 5.1E-01 1.3E-01

Cells are shaded if the value is greater than 1.0

NOAEL - No Observed Adverse Effects LevelLOAEL - Lowest Observed Adverse Effects LevelEEQ - Ecological Effects QuotientNV - No value determined

Chemical

Herbivorous Receptors EEQs Invertivorous Receptors EEQsBobwhite Quail Meadow Vole American Robin Short-Tailed Shrew

TABLE D-7



SITE 12 EOD AREA - DU3

NAS BRUNSWICK

BRUNSWICK, MAINE

NOAEL-based LOAEL-based NOAEL-based LOAEL-based NOAEL-based LOAEL-based NOAEL-based LOAEL-basedMETALSALUMINUM 1.8E+00 1.8E-01 2.7E+01 2.7E+00 2.2E+01 2.2E+00 7.4E+02 7.4E+01




IRON 3.1E+00 3.1E-01 1.8E+00 1.8E-01 3.7E+01 3.7E+00 4.3E+01 4.3E+00

LEAD 2.2E-01 7.9E-03 4.0E-02 1.0E-03 9.6E-01 3.5E-02 1.7E-01 4.4E-03

MERCURY 1.7E+00 1.7E-01 3.5E-01 6.9E-02 7.4E+00 7.4E-01 9.7E-01 1.9E-01


VANADIUM 1.6E+00 3.2E-01 3.5E-02 1.5E-02 3.4E+00 7.0E-01 6.5E-02 2.9E-02

ZINC 7.8E-02 3.0E-02 6.4E-02 1.6E-02 7.7E-01 3.0E-01 4.4E-01 1.1E-01



Chemical


TABLE D-8




NAS BRUNSWICK

BRUNSWICK, MAINE

NOAEL-based LOAEL-based NOAEL-based LOAEL-based NOAEL-based LOAEL-based NOAEL-based LOAEL-basedVOLATILES1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE NV NV 1.6E-05 1.6E-06 NV NV 1.4E-05 1.4E-06

1,4-DIOXANE NV NV 7.0E-07 7.1E-08 NV NV 6.3E-07 6.5E-08

2-BUTANONE NV NV 3.6E-08 1.4E-08 NV NV 3.3E-08 1.3E-08

BROMOMETHANE NV NV 4.5E-05 4.5E-06 NV NV 4.1E-05 4.1E-06

METHYL ACETATE NV NV NV NV NV NV NV NV

SEMIVOLATILESBIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 7.2E-03 7.2E-04 1.1E-04 1.1E-05 1.2E+01 1.2E+00 4.8E-01 4.8E-02

POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONSACENAPHTHENE 9.7E-03 9.7E-04 3.1E-04 5.7E-05 1.5E-03 1.5E-04 2.7E-05 4.9E-06

ACENAPHTHYLENE 1.7E-04 1.7E-05 4.8E-06 8.9E-07 4.7E-03 4.7E-04 9.3E-05 1.7E-05

ANTHRACENE 1.2E-03 1.2E-04 3.4E-05 6.4E-06 4.8E-03 4.8E-04 9.2E-05 1.7E-05

BENZO(A)PYRENE 9.7E-04 9.7E-05 2.0E-03 3.2E-05 8.1E-03 8.1E-04 1.6E-02 2.5E-04

BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 2.8E-03 2.8E-04 7.4E-03 1.2E-04 2.7E-02 2.7E-03 5.5E-02 8.8E-04

BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 5.1E-04 5.1E-05 1.2E-03 1.9E-05 7.0E-03 7.0E-04 1.4E-02 2.3E-04

BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 6.6E-04 6.6E-05 1.5E-03 2.4E-05 8.7E-03 8.7E-04 1.8E-02 2.8E-04

CHRYSENE 1.5E-03 1.5E-04 3.3E-03 5.3E-05 1.7E-02 1.7E-03 3.5E-02 5.6E-04

DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE 1.2E-04 1.2E-05 2.4E-04 3.8E-06 1.6E-03 1.6E-04 3.3E-03 5.3E-05

FLUORANTHENE 5.4E-03 5.4E-04 1.4E-04 2.6E-05 4.1E-02 4.1E-03 8.0E-04 1.5E-04

FLUORENE 1.4E-02 1.4E-03 4.4E-04 8.1E-05 5.7E-03 5.7E-04 1.1E-04 2.1E-05

INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE 6.2E-04 6.2E-05 1.2E-03 1.9E-05 1.1E-02 1.1E-03 2.4E-02 3.8E-04

PHENANTHRENE 9.9E-03 9.9E-04 3.0E-04 5.6E-05 1.2E-02 1.2E-03 2.3E-04 4.2E-05

METALSALUMINUM 4.0E+00 4.0E-01 5.9E+01 5.9E+00 4.9E+01 4.9E+00 1.6E+03 1.6E+02




IRON 5.1E+00 5.1E-01 3.0E+00 3.0E-01 6.1E+01 6.1E+00 7.1E+01 7.1E+00

LEAD 3.7E-01 1.3E-02 6.2E-02 1.6E-03 1.7E+00 6.0E-02 2.9E-01 7.4E-03

MERCURY 9.3E+00 9.3E-01 1.9E+00 3.8E-01 1.3E+01 1.3E+00 1.7E+00 3.4E-01

SELENIUM 2.9E-01 1.0E-01 5.1E-01 1.1E-01 7.0E-01 2.5E-01 8.2E-01 1.8E-01


VANADIUM 2.5E+00 5.1E-01 5.5E-02 2.4E-02 5.4E+00 1.1E+00 1.0E-01 4.6E-02

ZINC 1.0E-01 3.9E-02 8.1E-02 2.1E-02 9.0E-01 3.5E-01 5.0E-01 1.3E-01



Chemical


TABLE D-9


PISCIVOROUS RECEPTORS


NAS BRUNSWICK

BRUNSWICK, MAINE

NOAEL-based LOAEL-based NOAEL-based LOAEL-basedVOLATILES2-BUTANONE NV NV 1.3E-07 5.0E-082-HEXANONE 1.2E-04 1.2E-05 3.1E-05 8.2E-06ACETONE 2.9E-08 2.9E-09 1.2E-04 2.5E-05CARBON DISULFIDE NV NV 2.3E-06 1.1E-06METHYL ACETATE NV NV NV NVTOLUENE NV NV 2.7E-06 2.7E-07SEMIVOLATILESBIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 5.8E+01 5.8E+00 2.7E+00 2.7E-01POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONSACENAPHTHENE 9.5E-03 9.5E-04 2.2E-04 4.1E-05ACENAPHTHYLENE 3.7E-03 3.7E-04 8.6E-05 1.6E-05ANTHRACENE 1.2E-02 1.2E-03 2.9E-04 5.3E-05BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 8.6E-02 8.6E-03 2.1E-01 3.4E-03BENZO(A)PYRENE 8.6E-02 8.6E-03 2.1E-01 3.4E-03BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 1.3E-01 1.3E-02 3.1E-01 5.0E-03BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE 4.6E-02 4.6E-03 1.1E-01 1.8E-03BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE 4.6E-02 4.6E-03 1.1E-01 1.8E-03CHRYSENE 7.9E-02 7.9E-03 2.0E-01 3.2E-03DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE 2.0E-02 2.0E-03 5.1E-02 8.1E-04FLUORANTHENE 1.3E-01 1.3E-02 3.0E-03 5.6E-04FLUORENE 6.7E-03 6.7E-04 1.6E-04 2.9E-05INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE 1.0E-01 1.0E-02 2.5E-01 4.0E-03PHENANTHRENE 6.4E-02 6.4E-03 1.5E-03 2.8E-04PYRENE 1.3E-01 1.3E-02 3.1E-01 5.0E-03METALSALUMINUM 3.8E+02 3.8E+01 1.6E+04 1.6E+03ANTIMONY NV NV 3.0E+00 6.4E-02ARSENIC 3.5E+00 1.7E+00 5.7E+00 1.3E+00BARIUM 1.2E+00 5.8E-01 3.7E-01 2.3E-01BERYLLIUM NV NV 1.7E-01 1.3E-01CADMIUM 3.3E+00 7.6E-01 4.8E+00 5.3E-01CHROMIUM 1.1E+01 1.9E+00 9.7E+00 4.0E-01COBALT 2.6E-01 1.1E-01 2.1E-01 8.2E-02COPPER 6.3E+01 7.3E+00 3.5E+01 2.4E+00IRON 4.5E+02 4.5E+01 6.8E+02 6.8E+01LEAD 2.4E+01 8.6E-01 6.3E+00 1.6E-01MANGANESE 1.4E-01 6.7E-02 4.0E-01 1.4E-01MERCURY 5.6E+01 5.6E+00 8.6E+00 1.7E+00NICKEL 1.6E+01 5.8E+00 4.8E+01 5.5E+00SELENIUM 4.7E+00 1.7E+00 7.3E+00 1.6E+00SILVER 4.4E-01 1.5E-02 1.1E-01 5.8E-03THALLIUM NV NV 6.9E+01 6.9E+00VANADIUM 1.1E+01 2.2E+00 7.3E-01 3.2E-01ZINC 2.8E+01 1.1E+01 1.8E+01 4.7E+00Cells are shaded if the value is greater than 1.0

NOAEL - No Observed Adverse Effects LevelLOAEL - Lowest Observed Adverse Effects LevelEEQ - Ecological Effects QuotientNV - Value not available

Chemical

Receptor EEQsBelted Kingfisher Mink

TABLE D-10

TERRESTRIAL FOOD CHAIN MODEL - TIER 2, STEP 3A SCENARIO


SITE 12 EOD AREA - DU1 and DU2

NAS BRUNSWICK

BRUNSWICK, MAINE

NOAEL-based LOAEL-based NOAEL-based LOAEL-based NOAEL-based LOAEL-based NOAEL-based LOAEL-basedEXPLOSIVES2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 1.6E+00 1.2E-02 1.5E-02 7.0E-03 1.0E+00 8.0E-03 8.7E-03 4.2E-03

METALSCHROMIUM 2.9E-01 4.9E-02 1.0E-01 4.3E-03 2.0E+00 3.4E-01 1.1E+00 4.6E-02

COPPER 1.8E-01 2.1E-02 6.8E-02 4.6E-03 6.4E-01 7.4E-02 2.5E-01 1.7E-02

LEAD 1.2E-01 4.5E-03 1.7E-02 4.3E-04 9.1E-01 3.3E-02 1.7E-01 4.3E-03

MERCURY 1.7E-01 1.7E-02 2.0E-02 4.0E-03 6.7E+00 6.7E-01 8.0E-01 1.6E-01




Chemical


TABLE D-11




NAS BRUNSWICK

BRUNSWICK, MAINE

NOAEL-based LOAEL-based NOAEL-based LOAEL-based NOAEL-based LOAEL-based NOAEL-based LOAEL-basedMETALSALUMINUM 5.4E-01 5.4E-02 4.8E+00 4.8E-01 1.7E+01 1.7E+00 5.5E+02 5.5E+01

CHROMIUM 8.8E-01 1.5E-01 3.2E-01 1.3E-02 6.1E+00 1.0E+00 3.5E+00 1.4E-01




Chemical


TABLE D-12




NAS BRUNSWICK

BRUNSWICK, MAINE

NOAEL-based LOAEL-based NOAEL-based LOAEL-based NOAEL-based LOAEL-based NOAEL-based LOAEL-basedSEMIVOLATILESBIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 1.4E-03 1.4E-04 1.1E-05 1.1E-06 6.4E+00 6.4E-01 2.3E-01 2.3E-02

METALSALUMINUM 6.3E-01 6.3E-02 5.5E+00 5.5E-01 2.0E+01 2.0E+00 6.3E+02 6.3E+01

CHROMIUM 2.7E-01 4.6E-02 9.6E-02 4.0E-03 1.8E+00 3.1E-01 1.0E+00 4.3E-02

IRON 9.0E-01 9.0E-02 3.5E-01 3.5E-02 2.6E+01 2.6E+00 2.9E+01 2.9E+00

LEAD 9.5E-02 3.5E-03 1.4E-02 3.4E-04 6.9E-01 2.5E-02 1.3E-01 3.2E-03

MERCURY 4.0E-01 4.0E-02 4.6E-02 9.2E-03 8.9E+00 8.9E-01 1.1E+00 2.1E-01


VANADIUM 4.5E-01 9.2E-02 6.0E-03 2.6E-03 1.4E+00 2.8E-01 3.3E-02 1.5E-02



Chemical


TABLE D-13


PISCIVOROUS RECEPTORS

SITE 12 EOD AREA

NAS BRUNSWICK

BRUNSWICK, MAINE

NOAEL-based LOAEL-based NOAEL-based LOAEL-basedSEMIVOLATILESBIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 5.0E+01 5.0E+00 9.9E-01 9.9E-02


NV- Value Not Available/Not Able to be CalculatedNOAEL - No Observed Adverse Effects LevelLOAEL - Lowest Observed Adverse Effects LevelEEQ - Ecological Effects Quotient

Chemical

Receptor EEQsBelted Kingfisher Mink

TABLE D-14

CHROMIUM/HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM ERA EVALUATION OF 2012 RI AND 2013 RI RESAMPLING RESULTS, INCREMENTAL SOIL SAMPLESSITE 12 EOD AREA


Sample Ground

Chromium (mg/kg)

Chromium RSD or RPD(2)

Hexavalent Chromium

(mg/kg)Sample Ground Chromium

(mg/kg)Chromium RSD

or RPD(2)

12D1-IS01 (SS) No 14.4 0.28 J Yes 81.4

12D1-IS01-REP1 (SS) No 14.2 0.12 J Yes 66.5

12D1-IS01-REP2 (SS) No 17.1 0.16 J Yes 119

12D2C-IS01 No 12.9 0.20 J Yes 489

12D2C-IS01-REP1 No 13.4 0.24 J No 16.1

12D2C-IS01-REP2 No 13.8 0.25 J No 80

12D2C-IS01-REP3 No 15.1 0.24 J No 16.8

12D2E-IS01-0003 No 16.2 0.17 J Yes 47.6

12D2E-IS01-REP1 No 14.4 0.18 J Yes 445

12D2E-IS01-REP2No 15.6 0.21 J Yes 23.3

12D2E-IS01-REP3 No 15.5 0.22 J Yes 23.1

12D2Aa-IS01

No 25 0.20 J Yes 42.4

12D2Aa-IS01-REP1

No 25.5 0.16 J No 22.6

12D3A-IS01No 19.7 ND (0.25 UJ) Yes 503

12D3A-IS01-REP1No 17.9 0.17 J Yes 542

1. Samples from RI selected for resampling and reanalysis during RI re-sampling.

2. RSD was calculated when 3 or more sample results were available for a give location and RPD was calculated when only 2 sample results were available.

BKG = Background ISM= Incremental Sampling MethodologyBSL - All results below screening level[Cr] = Chromium concentration NA = Not ApplicableCSM = Conceptual Site Model RPD = Relative Percent DifferenceDU = Decision Unit RSD = Relative Standard DeviationID = Identification SS = surface soil (versus subsurface soil sample at DU1 berm)

61

154

ERA Chromium Evaluation

• All samples contacted chromium puck mill and one chromium concentration > background value• DU2E covers a large surface area compared to other DU2 sub-DUs and is within the footprint of the source area based on the CSM

Chromium Resample/Reanalysis Rationale

• Samples were from berm source area where maximum contaminant concentrations were expected• All chromium concentrations > background value and potentially affected by chromium puck mill

• The sample that contacted chromium puck mill had an elevated chromium concentration• Only 2012 RI sample (12D2C-IS01-REP2) where chromium concentration > background value where sample did not contact the chromium puck mill

All chromium (total) results from the 2013 RI resampling were less than the background value (32.4 mg/kg) and the minimum chromium screening level (26 mg/kg for risks to birds) and all hexavalent chromium results were less than the minimum hexavalent chromium screening level (0.4 mg/kg for risks to plants and soil invertebrates). Therefore, the results suggest that the elevated chromium results during the 2012 RI were not site related but instead were associated with the laboratory mistakenly conducting the metals analysis using ground samples, processed with a puck mill containing chromium when they should have anayzed the unground samples as stipulated in the Sampling and Analysis Plan. Only one elevated chromium concentration (80 mg/kg) in an unground 2012 RI sample was greater than the background value (32.4 mg/kg). However, the chromium concentrations in the other two unground sample replicates at this location (in 2012) did not exceed the background value. None of the samples collected during the 2013 RI resampling from this same location had chromium concentrations that exceeded the background value. Also, assuming the 2012 chromium speciation is consistent with the 2013 chromium speciation (i.e., trivalent chromium vs hexavalent chromium), the hexalvalent chromium is not a concern for ecological receptors at the site. For all these reasons, chromium is not retained as a COC in surface soil for ecological receptors.

• All samples contacted chromium puck mill and highest Site 12 chromium concentration

• Source area - floor of berm for DU1• Explosives detected and nitroglycerin selected as a COPC.• To confirm absence of chromium as a COPC in source area where highest concentrations of contaminants are expected.

7

2012 RI Results

30

151

10.6

D3A

6.8


4.9

0.5

2.4

Sample ID(1)

D1

D2C

D2E

D2A-a

Decision Unit

TABLE D-15

SUMMARY OF 2012 RI AND 2013 RI RESAMPLING EXPLOSIVES MAXIMUM POSITIVE RESULTS COMPARISON ERA CRITERIA, INCREMENTAL SOIL

SITE 12 EOD AREA FORMER NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICK

BRUNSWICK, MAINE

Analyte

Screening Levels (ug/kg)(1) 2013 RI Resampling Results 2012 RI Results

Plants Invertebrates Birds Mammals Frequency of

Detection

Maximum Concentration

(ug/kg)

Decision Unit/Sample with Maximum Concentration

Frequency of Detection

Maximum Concentration

(ug/kg)

Decision Unit/Sample with Maximum Concentration

HMX 9,341,000 600,000 NA 27,000 0/15 ND NA 1/36 130 J D2/ 12D2Aa-IS01-REP1

Tetryl (2) NA NA NA 990(3) 1/15 150 J D1/ 12D1-IS01 0/36 ND NA

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 6,000 20,000 NA 2,500 3/15 160 D2Aa/ 12D2Aa-IS01-REP1 5/36 800 J D2Ab/ 12D2Ab-IS01-REP1

Nitroglycerin NA NA NA 71,000 3/15 3500 J D2Aa/ 12D2Aa-IS01-REP1 7/36 1700 J D2Aa/ 12D2Aa-IS01-REP1

PETN NA NA NA 100,000(3) 1/15 510 J D2E/ 12D2E-IS01-REP1 0/36 ND NA

Samples are selected as COPCs if the detected concentration exceeds a screening level or a screening level is not available. 1 Screening level sources and order of preference provided in Appendix G, Table G-2 unless otherwise noted. 2 The pre-grind LCS associated with the detection yielded a 0% recovery and so the concentration is biased low; regardless, the concentration is orders of magnitude less than a concentration that would cause unacceptable risk

to mammals. 3 Source is LANL (2012). LCS - Laboratory control sample NA - Not available

TABLE D-16

EXPLOSIVES ERA EVALUATION OF 2012 RI AND 2013 RI RESAMPLING RESULTS, INCREMENTAL SOIL SAMPLESSITE 12 EOD AREA


Explosives Detected COPCs(2) HMX (µg/kg) Tetryl (µg/kg) 2,4-Dinitro-toluene

(µg/kg)Nitroglycerin

(µg/kg) PETN (µg/kg) COCs Explosives Detected COPCs(2) HMX (µg/kg) Tetryl (µg/kg) 2,4-Dinitro-

toluene (µg/kg)Nitroglycerin

(µg/kg) PETN (µg/kg) COCs

12D1-IS01 (SS) Yes 150 J 120 2700 J Yes 58 J 1200 J

12D1-IS01-REP1 (SS) No ND ND ND Yes ND 1000 J

12D1-IS01-REP2 (SS) No ND ND ND No ND ND

12D2C-IS01 No No




12D2E-IS01 No ND No

12D2E-IS01-REP1 Yes 510 J No

12D2E-IS01-REP2 No ND No

12D2E-IS01-REP3 No ND No

12D2AA-IS01 Yes ND 60 J 1800 J Yes ND 66 J 1200 J

12D2AA-IS01-REP1 Yes ND 160 3500 J Yes 130 J 210 J 1700 J

12D3A-IS01 No No

12D3A-IS01-REP1 No No

1 Samples collected during 2012 RI selected for resampling and re-analysis during the 2013 RI resampling. 2 See Table 7-7 for details on explosives COPC selection.

COPC = Chemical of Potential ConcernCSM = Conceptual Site ModelDU = Decision UnitID = IdentificationSS = Surface soil (compared to subsurface soil sample at DU1 berm)µg/kg = microgram per kilogram

None

NoneND

ND

ND

Sample ID(1)

ND

ND

2012 RI Results

NA

NA

PETN

2,4-Dinitrotoluene, Nitroglycerin

Tetryl, 2,4-Dinitrotoluene, Nitroglycerin

None

None



NA

ND None

Consistent with CSM, berm-related samples associated with this DU havemaximum explosives concentrations. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene was detected at agreater concentration during the 2012 RI and was eliminated as a COPCduring the Step 3a evaluation of 2012 data. Nitroglycerin was initiallyselected as a COPC and was detected at a greater concentration during the2013 RI resampling. Based on the Step 3a evaluation described for 2012data, nitroglycerin is not expected to present a risk to ecological receptors atthe detected concentrations.

• Confirm no explosives are present. Confirmed no explosives of concern for DU.

None

None

NA


NA

• Source area - floor of berm for DU1• Explosives detected and 2,4-dinitrotoluene and nitroglycerin selected as COPCs• Highest nitroglycerin concentration for Site 12 detected in sample 12D2AA-IS01-REP1• Regulatory concern that explosives results may be biased low; therefore, resample and reanalyze at location with the highest nitroglycerin concentration at Site 12.

None ND

None

None

Explosives ERA Evaluation

Consistent with CSM, berm-related samples associated with this DU havemaximum explosives concentrations. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene was detected at agreater concentration during the 2012 RI and was eliminated as a COPCduring the Step 3a evaluation of 2012 data. Nitroglycerin was initiallyselected as a COPC and was detected at a greater concentration during the2013 RI resampling. Based on the Step 3a evaluation described for 2012data, nitroglycerin is not expected to present a risk to ecological receptors atthe 2013 detected concentrations. Tetryl was not detected in 2012 RIsamples, but was detected in 1 of 3 samples from 2013 RI resamplingsamples. Tetryl was selected as a COPC because plant and soilinvertebrate screening levels were not available. Tetryl concentration iswell below the screening level for mammals but a toxicity reference value isnot available to assess potential risks to birds. Based on its lowconcentration relative to screening levels for other explosives (such as 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene, which is also a nitroaromatic explosive), it is not likely thatplants and soil invertebrates are being significantly impacted by tetryl in thesoil. The detected tetryl concentration (150 µg/kg) is well below plant (6,000µg/kg) and soil invertebrate (18,000 µg/kg) soil screening values for 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene. Tetryl concentrations are not expected to present a risk toecological receptors at the site.

Confirmed no explosives of concern for DU.

• DU2E covers a large surface area compared to other DU2 sub-DUs and is within the footprint of the source area based on the CSM• Confirm no explosives are present.

The only explosives detection for this DU was in the 2013 RI resamplingsamples where PETN was detected in 1 of 4 samples. PETN was selectedas a COPC because plant and soil invertebrate screening levels were notavailable. PETN concentration is well below the screening level formammals but a toxicity reference value is not available to assess potentialrisks to birds. Based on its low concentration relative to screening levels forother explosives (such as nitroglycerin, which is also a nitrate esterexplosive), it is not likely that plants and soil invertebrates are beingsignificantly impacted by PETN in the soil. The detected PETNconcentration (510 µg/kg) is well below plant (21,000 µg/kg) and soilinvertebrate (13,000 µg/kg) draft ecological soil screening levels availablefor nitroglycerin. PETN concentrations are not expected to present a risk toecological receptors at the site.

Explosives Resample/Reanalysis Rationale

• Sample was from berm source area where maximum contaminant concentrations were expected• Explosives detected and 2,4-dinitrotoluene and nitroglycerin were selected as COPCs

• Confirm no explosives are present.

D3A

Decision Unit

D1

D2C

D2E

D2A-a

ND ND

ND ND

NDNDND

ND

ND

ND

ND ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NDND

ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND


September 2015

Appendix E ARARs

A-1

ARARs to be Met by the Selected Remedy

Requirement StatusSynopsis ofRequirement

Action to be Taken to Attain Requirement

Chemical-Specific

NAVSEA Ammunition and ExplosivesSafety Ashore, (NAVSEA OP 5,Volume 1, 7th Revision, Change 12)(May 2014), Chapter 14-2.1

Applicable

A munitions response is required atNavy real property known orsuspected to contain MEC and/orMPPEH prior to its transfer fromDoD control or conversion to a newNavy use that is incompatible withthe presence of MEC and/orMPPEH. LUCs will be implemented to address the

potential presence of MEC and/or MPPEH.

NAVSEA OP 5, Volume 1, 7th

Revision, Change 12, Chapter 14-4.2.1a

Applicable

Limit access to real propertycontaining MEC and/or MPPEH bytaking risk-based actions to prohibitand prevent unauthorized accessto Navy real property containingMEC and/or MPPEH. Describespotential LUCs that can be used tolimit exposure

No location- or action-specific ARARs were identified for the Site 12 Selected Remedy.

ARARs – Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements.NAVSEA – Naval Sea Systems Command.OP – Operations Pamphlet.MEC – Munitions or explosives of concern.MPPEH – Material potentially presenting an explosive hazard.DoD – Department of Defense.LUCs – Land use controls.


September 2015

Appendix F Costs

FORMER NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICKBrunswick, MaineSITE 12 EOD AreaLand Use ControlsCAPITAL COST

Unit Cost Extended CostItem Quantity Unit Subcontract Material Labor Equipment Subcontract Material Labor Equipment Subtotal

1 PROJECT PLANNING & DOCUMENTS1.1 Prepare Documents & Plans 150 hr $40.00 $0 $0 $6,000 $0 $6,0002 SITE WORK

2.1 Perimeter Signs on Trees/Fence 44 ea $78.00 $3,432 $0 $0 $0 $3,4322.2 Gate Removal 2 ea $450.00 $900 $0 $0 $0 $9002.3 Monitoring Well Abandonment 3 ea $2,000.00 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,0003 INSPECTIONS AND MEETINGS

3.1 Public Education Program 1 ls $7,408.20 $7,408 $0 $0 $0 $7,4083.2 Annual Inspection 1 ls $6,383.20 $6,383 $0 $0 $0 $6,383

Subtotal $24,123 $0 $6,000 $0 $30,123

Overhead on Labor Cost @ 30% $1,800 $1,800G & A on Labor, Material, Equipment, & Subs Cost @ 10% $2,412 $0 $600 $0 $3,012

Tax on Materials and Equipment Cost @ 5% $0 $0 $0

Total Direct Cost $26,536 $0 $8,400 $0 $34,936

Indirects on Total Direct Cost @ 0% $0Profit on Total Direct Cost @ 10% $3,494

Total Field Cost $38,429

Contingency on Total Field Cost @ 0% $0Engineering on Total Field Cost @ 0% $0

TOTAL COST $38,429

FORMER NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICKBrunswick, MaineSITE 12 EOD AreaLand Use ControlsPublic Education ProgramAnnual Costs

Item Cost Item Cost Item CostItem Years 1 & 2 Years 1-30 every 5 years Notes

1 Annual Inspection and Report $7,225

2 Perimeter Sign Repair/Replacement $812

3 Public Education Program $8,965 For years 1 & 2 only

Subtotal $8,965 $7,225 $812

Contingency @ 10% $897 $723 $81

$9,862 $7,948 $893

FORMER NAVAL AIR STATION BRUNSWICKBrunswick, MaineSITE 12 EOD Area

Present Worth AnalysisCapital Annual Total Year Annual Discount Rate Present

Year Cost Cost Cost 1.9% Worth0 $38,429 $38,429 1.000 $38,4291 $17,809 $17,809 0.981 $17,4772 $17,809 $17,809 0.963 $17,1513 $7,948 $7,948 0.945 $7,5114 $7,948 $7,948 0.927 $7,3715 $8,841 $8,841 0.910 $8,0476 $7,948 $7,948 0.893 $7,0997 $7,948 $7,948 0.877 $6,9668 $7,948 $7,948 0.860 $6,8379 $7,948 $7,948 0.844 $6,70910 $8,841 $8,841 0.828 $7,32411 $7,948 $7,948 0.813 $6,46112 $7,948 $7,948 0.798 $6,34113 $7,948 $7,948 0.783 $6,22314 $7,948 $7,948 0.768 $6,10615 $8,841 $8,841 0.754 $6,66616 $7,948 $7,948 0.740 $5,88117 $7,948 $7,948 0.726 $5,77118 $7,948 $7,948 0.713 $5,66419 $7,948 $7,948 0.699 $5,55820 $8,841 $8,841 0.686 $6,06721 $7,948 $7,948 0.674 $5,35322 $7,948 $7,948 0.661 $5,25323 $7,948 $7,948 0.649 $5,15524 $7,948 $7,948 0.637 $5,05925 $8,841 $8,841 0.625 $5,52226 $7,948 $7,948 0.613 $4,87227 $7,948 $7,948 0.602 $4,78128 $7,948 $7,948 0.590 $4,69229 $7,948 $7,948 0.579 $4,60430 $8,841 $8,841 0.569 $5,026

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH $241,977

Land Use Controls


September 2015

Appendix G Transcript of the Public Hearing on the Proposed Plan for Site 12

and Responses to Public Comments

_________________________________________________________

FORMER NAS

BRUNSWICK, MAINE

Public Comment Session

Remedy of Site 12Explosive Ordnance Disposal Area

_________________________________________________________

Public Meeting, held on Wednesday, July 15,

2015, taken at the Best Western Plus, 71 Gurnet Road,

Brunswick, Maine, 04011, commencing at 7:05 p.m., before

Cindy Packard, a Court Reporter and Notary Public in and

for the State of Maine.

1 PUBLIC MEETING2

APPEARANCES:2

3

Todd Bober,4

Navy/Remedial Project Manager5

BRAC PMO6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 PUBLIC MEETING3

PUBLIC MEETING2

JULY 15, 20153

MR. BOBER: All right. I'm Todd4

Bober. I work for the Navy, and I'm the5

remedial project manager. I work for the6

BRAC PMO office out of Philadelphia. I work7

with Paul Burgio. A lot of people know Paul8

up here.9

This is -- we spent some time here10

developing a poster session so people could11

get an idea of what work we've done here and12

what we're proposing.13

The site in question is Site 12,14

Explosive Ordnance Disposal Area. We studied15

it for a number of years. We've done some16

cleanup actions.17

And so this is the official public18

process where people will have an opportunity19

to provide their input on whether they think20

what we're proposing, what the Navy is21

proposing is a good idea, or whether they22

have other suggestions.23

So we did a feasibility study. We24

issued a proposed plan for everybody to25

1 PUBLIC MEETING4

review. And that's been out for the public2

to look at. And now we're soliciting3

comments up until August 7th, I believe.4

So anybody that has comments on what5

our proposed plan is can provide them shortly6

to the court reporter here, or we have some7

materials up front that where you can either8

call -- I think call Paul Burgio, or you can9

send an email or you can write official10

comments in on that form.11

As long as you provide that12

information to the Navy by August 7th, you13

know, that's the time period where people can14

have their ideas given. And then once we15

get those comments, we will officially16

provide responses. We'll share those with17

the team. And then those will become part18

of the public record, which will end up19

resulting in something called the record of20

decision.21

So that being said, I would now like22

to start the official portion of the meeting,23

which is called the public hearing process. 24

And I'd ask that if anybody has any comments25

1 PUBLIC MEETING5

that they want to write in the record right2

now, we have somebody here who can take them3

down word for word, punctuation mark for4

punctuation mark.5

So does anybody have any comments6

they would like to offer at this time?7

Yes? No? Okay. Well, like I8

said, there's no requirement to have a9

comment tonight. You can still write them10

in or whatever the instructions are on those11

papers up there. You can still provide12

comments for another few weeks.13

But we wanted people to have an14

opportunity to voice their concerns or their15

opinions at this time on our proposed action.16

So that being said, one last time,17

anybody have any official public comments18

they'd like written into the record today?19

Okay. Well, thank you, everybody,20

for coming. We're going to continue to21

answer questions here tonight. Or again, you22

can send us official comments, and we'll23

respond to them. Thanks again, everybody.24

(Whereupon, the Meeting concluded.)25

1 PUBLIC MEETING6

CERTIFICATE2

3

I, Cindy Packard, Notary Public,4

hereby certify that the foregoing is a5

correct transcription of my stenographic notes6

in the above-entitled cause.7

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I subscribe my8

hand and seal this 20th day of July, 2015.9

10

11

12

Cindy Packard13

Court Reporter14

Notary Public15

Commission Expires:16

November 9, 201517

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PUBLIC MEETING, JULY 15, 2015Page 7

Aabove-entitled 6:7action 5:16actions 3:17answer 5:22anybody 4:5,25 5:65:18

APPEARANCES 2:2Area 1:11 3:15August 4:4,13

Bbelieve 4:4Best 1:19Bober 2:4 3:4,5BRAC 2:6 3:7Brunswick 1:6,20Burgio3:8 4:9

Ccall 4:9,9called 4:20,24cause 6:7CERTIFICATE 6:2certify 6:5Cindy 1:21 6:4,13cleanup 3:17coming 5:21commencing 1:20comment 1:8 5:10comments 4:4,5,11,164:25 5:6,13,18,23

Commission 6:16concerns 5:15concluded 5:25continue 5:21correct 6:6court 1:21 4:7 6:14

Dday 6:9decision 4:21developing 3:11Disposal 1:11 3:15

E

either4:8email4:10everybody3:25 5:205:24

Expires6:16Explosive1:11 3:15

Ffeasibility3:24foregoing6:5form4:11FORMER1:4front4:8

Ggiven4:15going5:21good3:22Gurnet1:19

Hhand6:9hearing4:24held1:18

Iidea3:12,22ideas4:15information4:13input3:20instructions5:11issued3:25

JJuly1:18 3:3 6:9

Kknow3:8 4:14

Llong4:12look4:3lot3:8

MMaine1:6,20,22manager2:5 3:6

mark5:4,5materials4:8meeting1:18 3:24:23 5:25

NNAS1:4Navy3:5,21 4:13Navy/Remedial2:5Notary1:21 6:4,15notes6:6November6:17number3:16

Ooffer5:7office3:7official3:18 4:104:23 5:18,23

officially4:16Okay5:8,20once4:15opinions5:16opportunity3:195:15

Ordnance1:11 3:15P

Packard1:21 6:4,13papers5:12part4:18Paul3:8,8 4:9people3:8,11,194:14 5:14

period4:14Philadelphia3:7plan3:25 4:6Plus1:19PMO2:6 3:7portion4:23poster3:11process3:19 4:24project2:5 3:6proposed3:25 4:65:16

proposing3:13,21,22

PUBLIC MEETING, JULY 15, 2015Page 8

provide 3:20 4:6,124:17 5:12

public 1:8,18,21 3:23:18 4:2,19,245:18 6:4,15

punctuation 5:4,5p.m 1:20

Qquestion 3:14questions 5:22

Rrecord 4:19,20 5:25:19

remedial 3:6Remedy 1:10reporter 1:21 4:76:14

requirement 5:9respond 5:24responses 4:17resulting 4:20review4:2right 3:4 5:2Road 1:19

Sseal 6:9send 4:10 5:23session 1:8 3:11share 4:17shortly 4:6site 1:10 3:14,14soliciting 4:3somebody 5:3spent 3:10start 4:23State 1:22stenographic 6:6studied 3:15study 3:24subscribe 6:8suggestions 3:23

T

take5:3taken1:19team4:18thank5:20Thanks5:24they'd5:19think3:20 4:9time3:10 4:14 5:75:16,17

today5:19Todd2:4 3:4tonight5:10,22transcription6:6

Vvoice5:15

Wwant5:2wanted5:14Wednesday1:18weeks5:13Western1:19we'll4:17 5:23we're3:13,21 4:35:21

we've3:12,16WHEREOF6:8WITNESS6:8word5:4,4work3:5,6,7,12write4:10 5:2,10written5:19

Yyears3:16

0040111:20

1121:10 3:14151:18 3:3

220th6:9

20151:19 3:3 6:9,177

7th4:4,137:051:20711:19

996:17

PUBLIC MEETING, JULY 15, 2015

Page 11 _________________________________________________________

2

3

4 FORMER NAS

5

6 BRUNSWICK, MAINE

7

8 Public Comment Session

9

10 Remedy of Site 12

11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Area

12

13

14 _________________________________________________________

15

16

17

18 Public Meeting, held on Wednesday, July 15,

19 2015, taken at the Best Western Plus, 71 Gurnet Road,

20 Brunswick, Maine, 04011, commencing at 7:05 p.m., before

21 Cindy Packard, a Court Reporter and Notary Public in and

22 for the State of Maine.

Page 212 APPEARANCES:34 Todd Bober,5 Navy/Remedial Project Manager6 BRAC PMO789

10111213141516171819202122232425

Page 312 PUBLIC MEETING3 JULY 15, 20154 MR. BOBER: All right. I'm Todd5 Bober. I work for the Navy, and I'm the6 remedial project manager. I work for the7 BRAC PMO office out of Philadelphia. I work8 with Paul Burgio. A lot of people know Paul9 up here.

10 This is -- we spent some time here11 developing a poster session so people could12 get an idea of what work we've done here and13 what we're proposing.14 The site in question is Site 12,15 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Area. We studied16 it for a number of years. We've done some17 cleanup actions.18 And so this is the official public19 process where people will have an opportunity20 to provide their input on whether they think21 what we're proposing, what the Navy is22 proposing is a good idea, or whether they23 have other suggestions.24 So we did a feasibility study. We25 issued a proposed plan for everybody to

Page 412 review. And that's been out for the public3 to look at. And now we're soliciting4 comments up until August 7th, I believe.5 So anybody that has comments on what6 our proposed plan is can provide them shortly7 to the court reporter here, or we have some8 materials up front that where you can either9 call -- I think call Paul Burgio, or you can

10 send an email or you can write official11 comments in on that form.12 As long as you provide that13 information to the Navy by August 7th, you14 know, that's the time period where people can15 have their ideas given. And then once we16 get those comments, we will officially17 provide responses. We'll share those with18 the team. And then those will become part19 of the public record, which will end up20 resulting in something called the record of21 decision.22 So that being said, I would now like23 to start the official portion of the meeting,24 which is called the public hearing process. 25 And I'd ask that if anybody has any comments

PUBLIC MEETING, JULY 15, 2015

Page 512 that they want to write in the record right3 now, we have somebody here who can take them4 down word for word, punctuation mark for5 punctuation mark.6 So does anybody have any comments7 they would like to offer at this time?8 Yes? No? Okay. Well, like I9 said, there's no requirement to have a

10 comment tonight. You can still write them11 in or whatever the instructions are on those12 papers up there. You can still provide13 comments for another few weeks.14 But we wanted people to have an15 opportunity to voice their concerns or their16 opinions at this time on our proposed action.17 So that being said, one last time,18 anybody have any official public comments19 they'd like written into the record today?20 Okay. Well, thank you, everybody,21 for coming. We're going to continue to22 answer questions here tonight. Or again, you23 can send us official comments, and we'll24 respond to them. Thanks again, everybody.25 (Whereupon, the Meeting concluded.)

Page 612 CERTIFICATE34 I, Cindy Packard, Notary Public,5 hereby certify that the foregoing is a6 correct transcription of my stenographic notes7 in the above-entitled cause.8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I subscribe my9 hand and seal this 20th day of July, 2015.

10111213 Cindy Packard14 Court Reporter15 Notary Public16 Commission Expires:17 November 9, 20151819202122232425

Navy Response to Comment Received from Brunswick Area Citizens for a Safe Environment in a Letter Dated 15 July 2015 on the Proposed Plan, Site 12 Ordnance Disposal Area, dated July 2015

Comment: In our previous comments on the Draft Remedial Investigation Report for Site 12 Explosive

Ordnance Disposal Area (2013, 2014 and 2015) BACSE expressed concern that the scope of RI

investigation was not sufficient to accomplish the investigation objectives in relation the assessment of the

groundwater conditions due to the complexity often found in bedrock hydrogeologic systems. BACSE is still

concerned that data collected and presented in the Munitions Constituents Remedial Investigation Report

for Site 12 EOD, former Naval Air Station Brunswick, Maine whose findings on which the Proposed Plan

for Site 12 are based are not sufficient to either adequately evaluate site-related risks or make informed

decisions about the remedial measures necessary to allow reasonable use of the site in the future. Bedrock

is at or near the surface at many locations on the site, especially near the pond. Of particular concern is the

assumption in the RI that the Presumpscot Formation provides a continuous barrier to contaminant

migration into the permeable bedrock aquifer. This assumption is based on very limited data and current

site conditions and previous interpretations suggest that the clay layer may discontinuous, exposing the

bedrock aquifer to potential contaminants. Groundwater sampling data consists of only three monitoring

wells and two sampling events and this limited data is not sufficient to support the conclusion that there is

no contamination, i.e no contaminants of concern (COC), present in the bedrock groundwater underlying

the 24-acre site.

Response: All data collected to date from Navy contractors USA Environmental, Tetra Tech, and Bering

Sea Eccotech have not indicated any significant chemical contamination anywhere on the site, including

the pond, berm area, or other decision units. This is based on extensive sampling and laboratory analysis

and visual observations in numerous test pits and excavated areas. As a result, there are no apparent

sources of chemical contamination that might impact underlying groundwater. It is also important to note

that although the site is over 20 acres in size, most of the munitions operations occurred in the 2-acre berm

area.

Based on the current site conceptual model and lack of evidence of chemical-related impacts, the

groundwater investigation work performed is considered adequate to meet the investigation objectives. The

Munitions Constituents Remedial Investigation scope of the work included a facture trace analysis to assist

in determining locations for the wells, the well locations and depths were selected to monitor groundwater

in areas that were considered to be the most likely areas to be impacted (including two wells inside the

berm area), and the well locations in addition to the overall groundwater investigation program were

approved by both EPA and MEDEP.