United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R01-93/083
September 1993
ve/EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Pease Air Force Base
-------
50272-101
REPORTDOCUMENTA~ON 11. REPORT NO. 2. 3. Recipient'. AcCession No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/ROl-93/083
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Oate
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 09/27/93
Pease Air Force Base (Operable Unit 1), NH 6.
First Remedial Action
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
9. Performing Organization Nama and Addr- 10 Project T..klWork Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Addl'8S. 13. Type of Report & Period Cov818d
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S .W. 800/800
Washington, D.C. 20460 14.
15. Supplementary Note.
PB94-963703
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The 23-acre Pease Air Force Base (Operable Unit 1) site is part of the 4,300-acre
inactive Air Force base located in Newington and Portsmouth, Rockingham County, New
Hampshire. Land use in the area is predominantly commercial and residential, with
wetlands and woodlands located on site. Current land use at the site is institutional,
agricultural, abandoned land, and unoccupied residential. There are three wetlands
areas on and adjacent to the site, and many of the 3,700 dwellings located within a
l-mile radius of Pease Air Force Base (AFB) have wells and/or springs located on their
associated properties. While the Town of Newington has a large number of private
wells, the vast majority of Portsmouth residences are serviced by municipal water only.
From 1951 to 1991, the site was used as a military installation by the U.S. Navy and
Air Force. During its history, Pease AFB was the home of the 100th and the 509th
Bombardment Wings, whose mission was to maintain a combat-ready force capable of
long-range bombardment operations. The New Hampshire Air National Guard currently is
stationed at the air field area and uses some of the facilities. Over time, various
quantities of fuels, oils, solvents, lubricants, and protective coatings were used at
the base, and releases of contaminants into. the environment occurred. Zone 1
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Pease Air Force Base (Operable Unit 1), NH
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment, debris, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene), other organics (PAHs), metals (arsenic, chromium,
lead)
b. IdentilierslOpan-Ended T8rmS
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement 19. Security Class (This Report) 21. No. of Pages
None 190
20. Security Class (This Page) 22. Price
None
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
SHlnstructIons on Re"8r89
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
-------
EPA/ROD/ROl-93/083
Pease Air Force Base (Operable Unit 1), NH
First Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
encompasses six areas of concern: LF-2, LF-3, LF-4, LF-5 (the Source area OU for the
Landfill-5 area), the Bulk Fuel Storage Area, and the Paint Can Disposal Area. The
23-acre LF-5 area was used from 1964 to 1979 as the base's primary landfill for domestic
and industrial refuse. Types of waste disposed of in LF-S include waste oil and solvents,
paints, paint strippers and thinners, pesticide containers, and empty cans. A small drum
staging area located at the southern entrance to the landfill was used for the temporary
storage of drums encountered onsite, miscellaneous soil, and metals. In addition, the
landfill received an estimated 20,000 gallons of sludge from the base industrial
wastewater treatment plant, which may have contained TCE residues, grass clippings, wood
chips, miscellaneous soil, and concrete rubble. There are several surface water pathways
that channel surface runoff away from the LF-5 area toward the Piscataqua River. Surface
drainage from LF-2 and LF-4, other inactive landfills in the vicinity, as well as from a
portion of LF-5, flows into ditches located on both sides of the Railway Ditch and leads
to a swampy area. A portion of LF-S's surface runoff enters directly into Flagstone Brook
and flows north into the Piscataqua River. Site contamination has severely affected
surface waters and sediment due to overland flow and ground water discharge. In 1983, an
onsite investigation was conducted in three stages at the Pease site as part of the
Department of Defense's Installation Restoration Program (IRP). The first stage revealed
elevated contamination levels in soil and debris in the LF-5 area and, in 1987, the second
stage identified 5- and 55-gallon drums in the LF-5 area as a potential threat to human
health and the environment. In 1991, as part of the third stage of the investigation, 54
85-gallon overpacks containing drums and waste material and more than 2,000 empty, crushed
drums were removed and disposed of offsite. Based on the Phase II IRP investigation, a
total of 20 sites at Pease AFB will be investigated further. Studies conducted during the
RI determined that previous improper landfilling operations have caused contamination of
native soil and that burned refuse now is in contact with ground water and fractured
bedrock. In 1993, EPA determined that two other landfills in Zone 1 (LF-2 and LF-4)
should be considered concurrently with LF-5. This ROD addresses onsite contaminated soil,
sediment, debris, and ground water in the LF-2, LF-4, and LF-5 areas, as OUI. Future RODs
will address ground water. contamination in Zone 1 and sediment contamination in Flagstone
Brook, onsite drainage ditches, and associated wetlands, if necessary. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sediment, debris, and ground water are VOCs,
including benzene; other organics, including PAHs; and metals, including arsenic,
chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating, dewatering, and
consolidating 221,500 yd3 of landfill soil and debris that would still be in contact with
ground water after capping; consolidating any soil and waste materials from LF-2 and LF-4
on LF-5; backfilling the excavated area with clean fill to a level at least 2 feet above
the natural ground water table after capping, and placing excavated waste above the clean
fill; excavating and consolidating 3,200 yd3.0f sediment from the Railway Ditch that
contain contaminants exceeding site-specific cleanup goals; utilizing erosion control
measures during sediment excavation and transporting excavated sediment to a central
staging area for thickening; dewatering and bulking excavated material, as required, and
disposing of excavated sediment onsite on LF-5; capping LF-5 after consolidation of all
waste and soil with a 1,200,000 ft2 RCRA-approved composite barrier cap; installing a
passive gas collection system to capture and vent landfill gases; treating ground water
extracted during dewatering process onsite using multi-media filtration, ion exchange, and
activated carbon adsorption; discharging the treated ground water to the onsite wastewater
treatment facility; disposing of all treatment residuals including concentrated salt
solution, iron sludge, and spent activated carbon offsite; restoring any affected
wetlands, as needed; monitoring soil gas, ground water, and air; and implementing
institutional controls, including deed restrictions, and site access restrictions such as
fencing. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $23,992,000, which
-------
EPA/ROD/ROl-93/083
Pease Air Force Base (Operable Unit 1), NH
First Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Chemical-specific ground water cleanup goals are based on health and ecological risk-based
concentrations for soil and solid waste in the LF-5 area and health-based concentrations
for Railway Ditch sediment, and include arsenic 50 ug/l, benzene 5 ug/l, lead 15 ug/l, and
TCE 5 ug/l for ground water; arsenic 0.508 mg/kg and lead 0.065 mg/kg for soil and debris;
-------
- -
Record of Decision
ForA
Source Area Remedial Action
At
Landfill 5 (aul)
Pease Air Force Base, NH
September 1993
Prepared for:
Headquaners Air Force Base Disposal Agency (HQ AFBDA)
The Pentago~ Wasbingto~ DC 20330
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
Base Oosme Division (AFCEEjESB)
Brooks Air Force Base, TX 78235-5328
Prepared by:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1 Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380-1499
:MICO! \. RPT:00628O''..6.004\l!5ro
-------
Section
I.
II.
LANDFILL 5
RECORD OF DECISION
- -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TItle
~
DECLARATION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
SITE N~ LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
SITE HISTORY AND E~ORCEMENT ACI'IVlTlES ................ 11
A
B.
Site Use and Response History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 11
Enforcement Iiistory ..................................... 12
fiI. CO~P.AR.TICIPATION ...................~...r........... n
IV.
v.
VI.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION. . .. 23
.. . . ,
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . .. -... . .. . . . ~ . . . . .. 1.7
A
B.
C.
D.
E.
Subsurface Soils and Solid Waste .. ... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 28
Surface Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . .. 30
Surface Water and SedimentS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . .. 33
Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42
Wetlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48
S~y OF SI1'E. RISKS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51.
A
B.
Human Health Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51
Ecological Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79
VU. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . .. 85
A
B.
Statutory RequirementsjResponse Objectives. '. . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85 .
Technology and Alternative Development and Screening. . . . . . . . .. 86
VUI. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89
MK01 \R.PT:0062SO''..6.004\lfSrod.aIl
A
Source Conn-ol Alternatives Analyzed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89
ill
-
-------
Section
IX.
x.
XL
B.
C.
D.
E.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CoDIinued)
- -
Title
~
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES.. 99
A
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
L
Overall ProteCtion of Human Health and the Environment. . . . . . .. 102
Compliance with ARARs .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . .. 102
Long-Term EffeCtiveness and Permanence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 103
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment. . . .. 104
Short-Term EffeCtiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 105
Implementability ......... 0 . . . . . 0 . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o. 105
COSt. . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0 0 . . . . . 0 0 . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . .. 106
State Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 . 0 . . . 0 . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . .. 107
Comm1]nity Acceptance. . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 0 0 . . 0 . 0 . . . . . 0 . . . 0 . . . . 0 107
'mE SEI..ECI'ED REl\fEDY . . . . ... -..... -.. -.... .". . .. .". . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 109
A. Methodology for Ceanup Level Determination. . :. 0 . .- -. . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 109
Bo Groundwater Ceanup Levelsrrr~ninent Goals 0.. 0 . 0 . 0 . . . . . 0 .. 111
C. Landfill Soil and Solid Waste CI~nnp Levels- . ~ 0 . 0 - 0 .0. 0 . . . 0 . 0 0 111
D. Sediment Oeanup Levels. . . . . 0 . . 0 . 0 . . . . . . . . 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . 0 117
Eo Surface Water Oeazmp Levels ..... -. . . 0 : . . 0 . 0 . . . . . 0 . . 0 . 0 .. 119
Fo Description of Remedial Components. 0 0 0 . 0 . ~-'. 0 . 0 . 0 . . . . . . 0 . .. 119
- .
STATUTORY DE'IERMIN"'ATION .............................. 133
A
The Selected Remedy is Protective of Human Health and the
Environment 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . . . 0 . . 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 . . . . . . .. 133
The Selected Remedy Attains ARARs 0.... 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . . . 0 . . 0 .. 134
The Selected Remedial Action is Cost-Effective 0.. 0 0 0 . . . 0 . 0 . . .. 139
The Selected Remedy Utilizes Per.manent Solutions and
Alternative Treatmem or Resource Recovery Technologies to
the Maximum Extent Practicabl~ .... 0 . . . . . . . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 o. 141
The Selected Remedy Does Not Satisfy the Preference for Treattnent
which Permanently and Significantly Reduces the Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume of the Hazardous Substances as a
Principal Element o. 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . . 0 - . . . . 0 . . 0 0 . . 0.. 0 . . 0 0 0 . . .. 142
XIL DOCUl\1ENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . .. 143
MKD1 \R.PI':006.28026'()()4\1f5rod.a11
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
- -
Section
Title
~
XIII. STATE ROLE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 145
XIV. ACRONYMSjREFERE.."'iCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Acr-l/R-l
APPENDIX A - ARARS FOR THE LANDFILL 5 SELEcrED RE..'\1EDY
(ALTER.J.'\TATIVE SC-2A)
APPENDIX B -DEClARATION OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX C - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPL'lDIX D - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
MKDl\RPT:006Z8026 ~\1f51Od.a1l
v
-------
Table No.
8
9"
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
LIST OF TABLES
- -
TItJe
Pa~e
1
Snmm:!ry of Site Investigations, LF-5 and Vicinity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
2
Snmmary of Elevated Metals Concentrations in Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32
3
Locations of Elevated Dissolved Metals Concentrations in
Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46
4
Chemicals of Concern in Main Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52
5
Chemicals of Concern in Hot Spot Soils - Drum Removal Area. . . .. 54
6
Chemicals of Concern in Hot Spot Soils - Staged UST Locations. . .. 56
7
Chemicals of Concern in Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57
Chemicals of Concern in Surface Water - Flagstone Brook. . . . . . . .. 60
Chemicals of Concern in Surface Waier - Railway Ditch. . . . . . . . . .. 61
Chemicals of Concern in Sediment - Flagstone Brook. . . . . . . . . . . .. 63
Chemicals of Concern in Sediment - Railway Ditch. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64
Summary of Chemicals of Concern by Medium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66
Snmmary of Exposure Parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72
Snmm:!ry of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices. . . . . .. 77
Summary of Detailed Alternatives Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 101
Zone 1 Oeanup Goal Selection - Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 112.
Site-Specific Oeanup Goal Selection, Landfill Soil and Solid
Waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 114
Zone 1 Oeanup Goal Selection for the Railway Ditch and
Flagstone Brook - Sediment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 118
Zone 1 Oeanup Goal Selection for the Railway Ditch and
Flagstone Brook - Surface Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 120
MKD1\R.Pr:00628026.004\LfSrcd..aD
VI
-------
Firore No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
LIST OF FIGURES
- -
Title
Pa~e
General Land Use Map. . . . . . . . . ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Landfill 5 (LF-5) Site Map .................................. 5
Location of Delineated Wetlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
Distribution of Organics in Subsurface Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29
Distribution of Organics in Surface Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. 31
Distribution of Organics in Surface Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35
Distribution of Organics in Sediments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37
Distribution of Organics in Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43
Remedial Process Flow Sheet f~r Alternative SC-ZA- ... . . . . . . . . .. 122
Detail of Typical Final Cover S~m L Landfill Barrier Cap .... . .. 126
Proposed Final Grades Landfill Barrier Cap ................... 127
Wetlands Potentially Impacted by Landfill Barrier Cap ........... 131
vii
MKDl\RPT:00628026.OO4\1f5rocLa1I
-------
DECLARATION
- -
SITE ~A,.\1E AJ."ID LOCATION
Pease Air Force Base (PAFB), Landfill 5, New Hampshire
STATE:\1ENT OF BASIS .4l'I"1> PURPOSE
This decision document presents a selected source control remedial aCtion designed to
provide containment of landfill wastes at Landfill 5, Pease AFB, NH. This decision
documem was developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986, and, to the extent praCticable, the National Contingency Plan.
Through this document the Air Force plans to remedy the threat to human health, welfare
or the environment posed by cODtamin~ted soil, debris, and sediment associated with
Landfill5. Conramm::tted groundwater, ~ water, and additional sediment associated
with Landfill 5 will be addressed in the Zone 1 FS. Tms decision is based on the
Administrative Record for the site. The Adnrini~trarive Record for the site is located at the
Informarion Repository in Building 43 at Pease International Tradeport (formerly Pease
AFB, New Hampshire). The .Administrative Record Index as applies to T ~t1cffi11 5 may be
found in Appendix D. J
The State of New Hampsbire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) and the
U.S. Environmental ProteCtion Agency (USEP A) concur with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF TIm SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from LandfillS, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present
an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF mE SELECI'ED REMEDY
This acrion addresses the principal threat posed by Landfill 5 by preventing endangerment
of public health" welfare, or the environment by implementation of this ROD which calls
for consolidation and containment of landfill wastes.
The selected remedy includes excavation and consolidation, above the groundwater table,
of satUrated landfillS debris and construction of a cap over Landfill 5. It is also proposed
that all soil and debris from Landfills 2 and 4 would be excavated and transported to
Landfill 5 for consolidation and used as subgrade fill material prior to capping of Landfill
5. A final decision under CERClA for Landfills 2 and 4 will be required prior to
implementation of the proposed consolidation plan. The selected remedy also includes
MKDl\RPT:00628026.004\U5nxlaJI
viii
-------
extraction of groundwater to facilitate excavation of saturated landfill debris, treatment of
the groundwater in an on-site mobile treatment system and discharge of treated groundwater
to the base wastewater treatment facility. - -
The seleCted remedy is expected to prevent the pOtential for direct contact betWeen
contaminated landfill soils/debris and human and ecological receptors, and to minimi7p-
contaminant leaching to sediments and surface waters of Flagstone Brook and Railwav Ditch
and to groundwater. .
The treatment processes used to treat groundwater extracted during consttuction dewatering
will ultimately be selected by the remedial contractor providing the mobile treatment system.
Technologies considered in the Feasibility Study include carbon adsorption, ion exchange
and multi-media filtration.
The preferred discharge method for the treated water is to the base wastewater treatment
facility. Coordination with the City of Portsmouth as the current operator, would be
required prior to discharge. Treated water will meet the pretreatment criteria established
by the City of Portsmouth. Ultimate discharge will be to the Great Bay via a ~ationa1
Pollutant Discharge F1imin~tion System (NPDES) permit.
As part of LandfillS closure the Air Force will submit a monitoring program for approval
by the NHDES and the USEP A. The purpose of the monitoring program is to verify the
effectiveness of the containment system. i
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected source control remedy is protectlve of human health and the environment,
complies with federal and state requirements, that are legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the remedial action, is cost effective and uses permanent solutions.
Treatment is not the principal element of the source control alternative because treatmem
of landfill debris is not practical or cost-effective given the size and heterogeneity of the
landfill contents. The selected source control remedy may however involve treatment of
groundwater extracted during construction dewatering, which should remove much of the
contaminants currently present in groundwater. Because this remedy will result in hazardous
substances remaining on site, a review will be conducted by the USAF, the USEP A and the
NHDES within five years after landfill closure to ensure that the remedy is providing
adequate protection of human health and the environment. This review will be conducted
at least every five years as long as hazardous substances remain on site above health-based
cleanup levels.
The foregoing represents the selection of a remedial action by the United States Air Force
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, with concurrence of the New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.
~l \RPT:006:SO'''..6.~\1fSrod.aU
IX
-------
ii'
~~.
,.ii.
'4t
'~
r.
.:or
.
~.
:,. :.:
t.
1",
'a
J
I~
~l
I
t
~.'
j
~;
~
...
.~-
'""
;t'
..(..
-+.
~.
-:--....-..--..-
Concur and recommended for immediate implementation:
~//2- ~/7..2
J'
_:
~'.. .
.. .
.~ .
:.~ '
JAMES F. BOATRIGHT
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
. (Installations)
t'i:
..
'... '.
a,.:
~.
~1'
.....
?i'
~~.
.,.
!Q;
:~.
. II '
~~ '
~'.
. .
~~ ~ , Dare: 1-<-7-7}
Paul G. Ke .
By:
TItle:
Acting Regional AtiTTriT1;c:ttator, USEP A
J}
.
,
,,. :,
. -
MKDl \RPT:0062SQ26..~\lfSroc1.aJI
x
-------
1. SITE ~AME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
- -
Pease AFB is a National Priorities List site consisting of numerous areas of contamination.
This ROD addresses source area contamination at Landfill-5 (LF-5). LF-5 encompasses
approximately 23 acres in the northern section of Pease AFB. Records indicate that LF-5
was used continuously from 1964 to 1975 as the primary base landfill, although some
disposal occurred as late as 1979. Domestic and industrial refuse reportedly disposed of in
the landfill includes waste oils and solvents, paints, paint strippers and thinners, pesticide
containers and empty cans and drums. In addition, the landfill received sludge from the
base industrial wastewater treatment plant. LF-5 has been investigated under the Air Force
Installation Restoration Program (IRP). Results of the investigation indicate that sediments,
surface water, soil and groundwater have been impaCted by activities at LF-5.
The 4,365-acre Pease Air Force Base (AFB) is located in the towns of Ponsmouth and
Newington, Rockingham County, New Hampshire (approximately 3 miles northwest of the
City of PortSmouth). As shown in Figure 1, Pease AiFB is located on a peninsula bounded
on the west and southwest by Great Bay; on the northwest by Little Bay; and on the north
and northeast by the Piscataqua River. The base is situated in the approximate center of
the peninsula.
At the beginning of World War II, an airport at the current Pease AFB location was used
by the U.S. Navy. The Air Force assumed control of the site in 1951, and construction of
the present facility was completed in 1956. During Its history, Pease AFB has been the
home of the 100th Bombardment Wing and the 509th Bombardment Wing whose mission
was to maintain a combat-ready force capable of long-range bombardment operations. Over
time, various quantities of fuels, oils, solvents, lubricants, and protective coatings were used
at the base, and releases of cont~minantS into the environment occurred.
"-
The New Hampshire Air National Guard (NHANG) relocated the 157th Military Airlift
Group (MAG) from Grenier Field at Manchester, NH, to Pease AFB in 1966. The mission
of the group was changed in 1975, when it was designated as the 157th Air Refueling Group.
MKOl \ RPT:00628O''..6.004\1fSrod..all
1
-------
In December 1988, Pease AFB was selected as one of 86 military installations to be closed
by the Secretary of Defense's Commission on Base Realignment and OOsure. The base was
closed as an active military reservation on 31 March 1991. The New Hampshire Air
National Guard remains at the airfield and will use some of the existing facilities. The
remainder of the reservation will be divided betWeen the State of New Hampshire's Pease
Development Authority (PDA), the Department of the Interior, and the USAF.
L:md use in the vicinity of LF-5 varies. LF-5 is bordered by Me:rimac Drive to the north,
an abandoned railroad bed to the east; Flagstone Brook to the west; and a Bulk Fuel
Storage Area (BFSA) to the southeast (see Figure 2). Zone features near LF-5 include
L:mdfill-2 (LF-2) to the northeast; Landfill-3 (LF-3) to the east; the BFSA to the southeast;
a Paint Can Disposal Area (PCDA) to the south; the Air National Guard's (NHANG)
North Ramp to the west; and Landfill-4 (LF-4) to the nonhwest (see FIgure 1). LF-2, LF-3,
LF-4, LF-5, and the PCDA are inactive disposal areas located within restricted access areas.
The BFSA is still used by the NHANG for bulk fuel storage. The NHANG uses the nonh
j
ramp for large aircraft maintenance and as a temporary staging area. Undeveloped land
is located along the western boundary of LF-5.
A portion of the site located at the southern entrance of LF-5 was used as a temporary
staging area for drums that were removed from the eastem area of LF-5 in the fall of 1989.
This area continues to be used to temporarily store drummed solids and liquids generated
during investigation activities conducted as pan of the basewide Insta.l1ation Restoration
Program (IRP). Stored drummed solids and liquids are eventUally disposed of off-base.
Off-base, a commercial and residential area is located along Spaulding Tmnpike,
approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the Pease AFB eastern boundaIy and approximately
1,500 feet nonh of LF-5. An abandoned outdoor theater and a water supply booster station
are located approximately 150 feet nonh of the Pease AFB boundary. A small shop and
a shopping mall are located on the eastern side of Spaulding Turnpike.
~\RPr;OO628a"..6.004\lf5rocU1l
2
-------
".
""t'~~ :'::~~'\:;;',:' - '-: ;i'\ "Y3-' -. ',sa Hilt' " :t',
52 'jr~#~ c:, '.~~~:,~::=: ~~~~ \/";$ ~ ~ :'8~7 '~~::---- i~, - .------ '- ,':- ,,;/:',
:' ~ ~, ,~,~,-Z~;;,:,~;-~~;~Z"~~_~i,~~':,~~,: ~$ C' - ~."-'~,'~,:,::,'-~,;' :'~;/ ~"":
.>-= -- -, --- ---'~' ~ ~d" ~o~...""-~ ":;~ - -~~ '3' ' '"'-',.''':,--''' :"-" ,
, ;- '~;;';'''s;;ft'~ " ~ J'\.#~: ;~~,;~,~ ~p c.lri":(" ~'"i';~; , .
\ ':;?-';iI/" " r "......'. -"~IM"I.. ~ 'Acre '~,.'
,/ - '~-..; ~' ,~, ',~::! \.;;0 '0 ',',
:-iewiZJgtOD ,'. '& ''2.: ~;i;-':::" .,. 64\.')-- .-':",~5
-~-. - ~~~' . / -~'- "-~-~~={~i:,:,::.;:~,-~"",-,-:'.,~,0_~~~_~,<:~.'o:~:.:
~... '::;n , ' -;/7 , ~ ~ \ \. Rotti~ ~::i,j ..0( '-43 ~~ "'~a'
ht ';>"''''',:;, " /" -i) :\ Farm.....". "~ . ,,:...., ' '
ill I' ,:".. /' /' , .<90. ~!' 'R-7f .~, 3C ~?.....
'~,7' .~ /' 0', ,'~-::";"- -1fJ' ~ ''-, '
I _..~.'. w" .'~ /r::i'",,,--,,, .. ...._~ - L~I>
---- ~ "', -.. ,-;: .......~ 'q'''f';~ r.
. ,57"~" '~~l '~UI~ , ... -,.;' . " ':o,-'~ "k~
"," ' r .~'~ /-;/ 4, .-. ~,\ v~
" ...,~-«--/..'- ~ /.~..... ,w..;~ ~~... 54
,,' , j." "'j ~~ -~~~~~029P11i"8'"
-ii:.' .,' ~-'j-'~ "'., ~"~4'" '~"""~ ~..
.""" ""J - " '-,J - ~~~=' ';:.~:.;-;; ,:-.':' '..;~~~~
. - / .. --.--- -<'" Z ',,~ ""', ',,~
/' ,_~d'Sew1ngtOn !,,>~ ~r- :-'''\ '~I' ~~~~"-'~
-----,'" " , \ ~ u., , , ' ,;i ;' :-:' ~
~ - /..' --.'1~ m' ' -T N t:'I\ ,~ N :\. " ':;.. .~,.""':I ~.;..,
~c.~.N:~,. ",~ ~':1, .;, ~ . V-- ~.l #/ ~: ..' ~ "\' 8:2-
- ,:::'-- "~p.::.~ " LANDFILL 5 \ ~c:. - ~ , ' ~..::St.1 ;,. ~,~ ~
-, '\ '7 ,,' -- ..-... ' ~ -- .:.. H .,~ ';l'j,9~ ~
l ", - - \;.""Q ..~- ~ ,/,~~':' '
.,..:, ,=,~. ~' ': .1, - :. - ~.:~;XiXj,i) (-'~'..~"\ ~~ ,eo
/ ~,,,- ~ ~9"':,*~'-~/.' c~.:<-':" ::/.,
" . -.- "...', "~'~"c::.':;;:: ;,.
- -.w~-/ - ,~-~." '.~' ,~
"', " " ' '- - ~ ~, ... WEi
,.....-; .'.'. ~.. ..: -.,.'
'.. ,v,/ ..""-' , ,.,;';' ~... 0" '
. I ~.~. ....:.."'f: ~ ..
, ~-~~,,...:.;::.' '--; _.--~ ~"\. ,,,,~ .' '"
/' ';~~-..> -. -= ."'---"''''=--~L./~"''''.'- ---'\. ~ ,:.. .~r..i~~-.
:,'/'\ /"" ,- -=-8 ",- ;-:i~' ---,~~;::-- -- . ,
'" , ... ~- -;"...:of. ,~,.- ,..,,;a~ . _#" .
L S :\IJ.r::IT~Rr RESE'R~J..Tle-:q:~:-'--; '!.£.:.?:.:.-~~~;~\../-' ~,:,:"'\
,.,.,,-,~, ,,-/ ,. .~. ,.;~'#~')';,-.., = ",'
, , '/ "~-'~'-"- ,-....""... ... ' 'I
'- . /'. -~ \-~:II&..._~ _..;:#~' '0. ....... .....
'''"'P''L~ S Eo ~ I R....E..QB..eE ~SE./ - ~,:".;.:/,....,." \\~~:i~:~~~..~'" ~<" < ,/" :':
. /'.. ~-"\.... "-.:!'".. "...~~" ", "--: ~." ~... .. -" -- ~.
::-- '.""" ,.,;.-.. !. .' '.- \. .. ~~~:....""': If.. ~A.~ .:.~~ ":. - .::(.-
~ / - ~. ~~'" ~'~""" \.7 ~~~'" '- - -~"':
.'- '. .' ,/" " . - /-..\ ,,:.',,-;;":"~ \;:~.," .~. "':
-"~~~, - - -. \~- -=--7' '-~:.._-' '-:..' '-"~ ':~..?~ -"''::'~'~~
\ /," ,~ ~\' . ,,' ,-~ ,,- '~ .
.. ~.~ -- ~ "'.., ./ ,.".. \ \.0\ :s-
\ /' ..-~..~ . . ...~~/.' "4' t~~ ~. ~
- C"""~ ,""'", '\~""""_I - ..-;.,'
- 4i'#~~:'..' "".: -~~~...'~:~ ," :". ~ '.
. ~ ... -;.Y " r:::..,.", -. ...-'''' #.", \ \.;::....
"... , ~;,'""~::' .~ '........"l .~ "'.." . "":'1.~"'~ "r ~~~
, -' - 1'.:'0' ' ,\ /---'; ~:';;'''.\~ ': --: -, ~.
~ ~ ~ ~.<;".~:~~~;.i7~ --:-: .-
- -y.., 1 ...... ..: ::.... -,:.. . -- '" -
.' .'----~ ". ..-----.-..... -- '.-
, '¥'";~::='" .' :;,~ <~7.::~,I;€ ' .~\\
--- ,: -:~',,-.' ",--~~~"', "'",:'::"'...r \\
;aoi.
~j"
..
.."" ...-
...-~~~;..
.' ,
-----
= =.-.
/:
-:~ -"~
/ ~' ~~ - --
/ ~-~~wn. /
, ,~ Hill: ~........:: \
;// .'-- I - . ,
\/'
-
\
, \"
"\ .
,
"\
~
.'
~.
"'\
/,'
\
,. --
. .'
~ --1.\ ~:
NOfmi I ~~ ~
B8e:~I~~~, ~~~~~; /
D8I8Ii -- tram USGS 7,5 ""'n, yr;.., PonsmouIn, --"';)-
NH - Me OU8CF8ngt8. c:aaa '956, ?q '981 ana ~988 "
Landfill 5 (LF-5) Area
Stage 4. Record of Decision
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
FIGURE 1
GENERAL LAND USE MAP
-------
~
'I~
LEGEND:
WE!.LS'BORINGS
~SI3!Igage
o F>;ezo""'ter
(j F>;ezomolle"SOd tIOnng
@ - weUCo..n>uraenl
@ Monitar_UBearocl<)
o Sut1ac8 ,oil sam"'e
,,- Surface eomr:tl.ltlet8Ya11On(FT/1.4SU
.-/50 ': - ImtMll
= =::.a, I_nalt'~-I
. ilSt;rr
: :: ::-:'r roaClS ana hUS
. Sod IXInng
~~ ="""'"95
a' Seep
""II:~ ;f'nC8
~
HO'rfH
°OC 0 to"m) 20D XI:I tQ)
.~...o NOTE:
~>\-
W7 '
y~~\)
~-~
Landfill 5 (LF-S) Area
Slage 4, Recard af Decisian
Pease Air Fan:e Base. New Hampshire
SCALE IN FEET
110..__:
Dead... 01 .......".-...-- c:Dn'1DMIQOtI 01
PA~IfO'ft--~QI*~''2'JI87
FIGURE 2
LANDFILL 5 (LF-S) SITE MAP
-------
There are approximately 3,700 dwellings within a I-mile radius of Pease AFB. Based on
water usage surveys conducted in 1988 and 1992 and on available U.S. Geological Survey
- -
(USGS) and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) information,
it was determined that a number of these dwellings have wells and or springs located on
their associated properties. The Town of Newingron in particular has a large number of
private wells. The vast majority of PortSmouth residences surveyed are serviced by town
water only. A complete compilation of area springs and wells for Pease AFB, based on
information available to date can be found in the Pease AFB Off-Base Well InventOry
Letter Repon (F-518). Information is presented in tabular form in Tables 1 through 7 of
the Letter Repon. W elliocarion maps are provided as attachmentS to the repon.
Pease AFB is located on a peninsula within the Piscataqua River drainage basin (see
Figure 1). Drainage is radially away from the penins~ into Great Bay toward the west,
little Bay to the nonhwest and nonh, and the Piscataqua River to the east. Little Bay flows
into the Piscataqua River at the northern end ~f the peninsula. Great Bay, Little Bay, and
the Piscataqua River are all tidally influenced. Consequently, these bodies of water are
subject to semidiurnal water-level variations.
There are several surface water pathways that channel surface runoff away from the IF-S
area toward the Piscataqua River (see Figure 2). Surface drainage from LF-2, and portions
of LF-3 and LF-5, flows into ditches located on both sides of the railway spur (collectively
known as the Railway Ditch), which subsequently flows north and enters a swampy area east
of the railroad tracks. The Railway Ditch eventually joins with Flagstone Broo~
approximately 3,000 feet north of IF-5.
A portion of LF-5's surface runoff flows directly into Flagstone Broo~ which flows north
through a series of weirs and empties into the Piscataqua River near the General
Sullivan Bridge. The total drainage area of the storm water collection system within the
headwaters of Flagstone Brook is approximately 78 acres, which includes a number of
industtial areas of the base. Below the confluence of the eastern and western branches,
MKOl \ RPT:00628O'''.6.004 \1f5rod..a.1.1
7
-------
Flagstone Brook flows north along the western edge of LF-5. Surface runoff seeps from
LF-5 discharge directly into Flagstone Brook.
- -
In addition to the Railway Ditch and Flagstone Brook, several wetland areas exist in the
LF-5 vicinity. On and immediately adjacent to the landfill are three wetlands: Wetlands
XV, XVI, and xvn (see Figure 3). Wetlands XVI drains to Flagstone Brook and Wetlands
XV and xvn drain to the Railway Ditch. East of the landfill, between the railroad and
Merrimac Drive, are Wetlands 1, n, m, IV, V, and VI. Wetlands 1, III, IV, and V drain
toward Merrimac Drive, and Wetlands n and VI drain to the Railway Ditch. North of the
landfill, there are several wetlands associated with the Railway Ditch and Flagstone Brook
Wetlands vn and vm are associated with the Railway Ditch until it reaches Wetlands IX
and joins Flagstone Brook through a. culven under the railroad. Wetlands X is located
north of LF-5 and west of Flagstone Brook and has no identified surface water connection
to Flagstone Brook However, snbsw:face flow may exist under the roadbed. West of the
landfiTI, Wetlands XIn is immediately adjacent to Flagstone Brook and a portion of it flows
into Flagstone Brook near its conjunction with Meduna.c Drive. It is not known if LF-5 is
within a l()()..year flood plain, smce flood plain location maps were not available for Pease
AFB.
A more complete description of the site can be found in the Stage 3C Landfill-5 Remedial
Investigation (RI) Repon (F-500).
MKD1\RPT:~ 004\lfSrocLaI1
8
-------
8
8
8
.\
'\
','. ."..,'
\'" .
.-
\
.\-,
\
r
\ \ - - /'
\ ,.
...,--,--~
.-,..,
,-
-.
-
i
/
.~\
} '--..- ~
I LEGEND:
I
;-
""StJ ~;~=c:o"tcu(l...v.tlQn(~:USL)
= Rooas C-I\'OO-)
aB-
Pr_mmary wet&ands a.II".~:'on Me
Aug...SI . Septamoer 1991
W.uandS area
I" .;..-1
....- F8ra f8.1SMg)
: : : :::r.n.r roadS and a'aItS
I .6. ~ NOTE.
i NO!,"" \=
I '. c ~'CIII 111m 0100 P888eAFB \
SCALE IN FEE'T y,-
; -....s-... , ,../
: ~... Of DfaOGrIfMl8W: CD'TOIIaon or ....... ~ )
, C).F9'rtr1Ien&1~."zea'~'2J'8~ ...
landfill 5 (LF.5) Area
518ge 4, Record of Decision
Pesse Air Force Base. New Hampshire
FIGURE 3
-------
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
A. Site Use and Response History
--
Records indicate that LF-5 was used continuously from 1964 to 1975 as the primary base
lan~ although some disposal occurred as late as 1979. Domestic and industrial refuse
reponedly disposed of in the landfill includes waste oils and solventS, paintS, paint strippers
and thinners, pesticide containe~ and empty cans and drums. In addition, the landfill
received an estimated 20,000 gallons of sludge from the base industrial wastewater treatment
plant. Sludge from the base wastewater treatment facility, which may have contained
trichloroethylene (TCE) residues, grass clippings, wood chips~ miscellaneous soils, and
concrete robbIe, was temporarily stored at the landfill pending ultimate disposal. As
previously discussed, a small drum staging area used for temporary storage of drums
encountered on-base, miscellaneous so~ and metals is located at the southern landfill
entrance. Based on aerial photographs, this area may have been a drum StOrage area as
early as 1960.
- .
One method of hmrlti11iT1g used betWeen 1964 and 1975 was trenching. Based on review of
aerial photographs and other information, trenches were constructed 15 to 20 feet wide, 150
to 300 feet long, and 6 to 8 feet deep (or to bedrock). The trenches were then filled with
refuse and covered with local fill. Today, the settled trenches appear to cover about
one-third of the 23-acre landfill. The trenches are located in the north-central, central, and
southwestern portions of the landfill. Surface filling or b~r1rli11iT1g was also a major
landfilling technique used at LF-5. The fill between the trench areas was probably
emplaced using these methods.
In 1983, an 1RP Phase I Problem Identification/Records Search was conducted at Pease
AFB. The study identified LF-5 as a potential source for the release of cont~m;T1antS into
the environment. In response to this finding, a pre-survey was conducted to obtain sufficient
information for use in the p]~T1T1;T1f: of a more detailed study. The pre-survey was completed
in 1984. Based on the pre-survey, Remedial Investigations (RIs) were conducted in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
MKDl \RPT:0062S()?..6.004 \1f5rod.aU
11
-------
Act (CERCIA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) .of 1986, at LF-5 and at 18 other IRP sites at Pease AFB. The_inYestigations were
conducted in three stages betWeen 1984 and 1991.
During Stage 2 of the investigation (OCtober 1987 through May 1989) 5- and 55-gallon
drums were identified in LF-5. Because these drums were determined to present a potential
threat to human health and the environment, fast-track remedial action was initiated. Drum
removal was completed during Stage 3 RI field activities. The RI field work was completed
in OCtober 1991. During drum removal. 54 85-gallon overpacks contaiT11T1g drums and waste
material and over 2,000 empty, crushed drums were removed and disposed of at a licensed
off-base disposal facility.
To date, LF-5 RI activities have included geophysical surveys, sampling of smf:ace and
subSUIface soils, test pit investigations, sampling of groundwater beneath and SUIToundmg
IF-5, sampling of sediments and surface water in Flagstone Brook and the Railway Ditch,
j
a wetlands determiT1~tion in the area of IF-5, and measurement of groundwater levels and
hydraulic gradients at LF-5. Table 1 provides a snmm:ny ofR! activities performed to date.
-.
A more detailed description of the LF-5 site history can be found in the RI in Subsection
2.L
B. Enforcement mstOIY
The enforcement history at LF-5 is summarized as follows:
.
In 1976, the Department of Defense (DOD) devised a comprehensive
Installation Restoration Program (IRP) to assess and control environmental
coDt.amimu;on that may have resulted from past operations and disposal
practices at DOD facilities. .
In 1983, an IRP Phase I Problem IdentificationjRecords Search was
conducted at Pease APE. As a result, a total of 18 JRP sites were identified
and 16 were recommended for follow-on investigations (Phase IT).
.
MKDl\RPT:0062Sa26.004\1f5rod..a11
12
-------
Tablc I
Summary of Sitc Invcsligntions,
LF.5 and VIcinity,
Pease AFII, Nil
Date I Activity r Sampling Points Purpose
Stage 1
11 /84 Surface walcr sampling SW-2,3,4,6,7,8,9' Evaluatc surface water fur TOX, TOC, O&Ci,
cyanidc, phcnols, mctals, alllilindanc.
11/84-2/85 Monitor well installalion and 502 (RPW-2) Estahlish grmlliliwaicr nlllllilllling poinls upgradicnl of
developmcnt 50S (RIIW-5) 1.F-5.
3/85 Surfacc waler sampling SW-2,3,4,6,7,8,9' Evaluate surface watcr fur TOX, TOC,
O&Ci, cYilnhlc, 1,IICIIIIIs, melals, alllilimianc.
3/85-4/85 Groundwater sampling (round 1) 502, 505 Evaluate grmulliwater fur TOX, '('OC, O&G, cyanidc
(502 anll 5(5), phenols, melals, alllilintlane (5115 only).
4/85-5/85 Grouudwatcr samplillg (rouud 2) 5112, 505 Sam!: as l"IIund 1.
Surveying 502, 505 - Determine clcval ions anillol'al ions.
5/85
8/85-9/85 Su.-faee waler resalllpling SW-2,3,4,6,7,B,9' He-evahlilte :ilil face Water for cyanillc, 0& (j, illill
lindane hccausc hulding times werc exceeded.
H/85-9/85 Groundwater resamllling 5112, 505 Re-evaluate grmlllliwatcr for I'hclIIIls, cyanide, and
lindanc hccause huMing timcs were exceeded.
H/ltS.9/H5 Slug t cst S02 Determine hydraulic CllIIIIIII:tivit y. I
Date Activity Scope Purposc Rcpurt
-
Stage 2
III/H7-I/H8 Aerial photugraph review I'hutographs from 1952, I 96(), Evaluate areal extent of I.P-5. ITH Nil. I"
a 1111 1976
111/87-1/118 Magnctometcr survcy 25- x 50-foot grid Evaluatc arcas uf hnrh:d fcrrous ITH No. I~
10- x lII.fuot suhgritls material (i.c., IIIIIIIIS).
MKOt\IWI':OO628026.0iJ4\lfSrod,lbt I
-------
Table I
I> 1111: Activity SCUll&: I'm (lose nC(lurt
Stage 2 (continued)
10/87-1/88 BPR survey JO. x II)-(oot subgri\ls Verify anomalous magnetometcr ITR Nil. I~
readings.
Bcgin t t /M1 Watcr Icvc!mcasurcmcnls Stage 1 wells, Stage 2 wclls, Evalnate hydrolugic charadcristics. ITR No. Jb
(quarterly) piezometers, gages as installed
12/87 Survey Monitor wells 502 and 505 Establish locations and elevations. ITR No. Ib
3/88-4/88 Test pit excavation IS pits: 915 to 929 Investigate magnetic and nrR ITR No. 2<
IInumalies; determine Ilel't It and
character of fill.
3/88.4/88 Piclomcter installation III test pits 919, 920, 924, 929 Obtain water level measurements. ITR No. 2<
(llorth), alld 929 (south)
_.
4/M8 Staff gage installation 818 to 824 Ohtain watcr Icvelmcasnrcl11cnls; ITR Nu. 2<
estahlish surface watcr and scdiment
liallll'ling IUl"ati()n~.
4/8M-5/88 Survey Tcst pits, burings, gagcs, and Dctcrminc elevations and locations. ITR No. 2<
piezomcters
9/88-111/88 Bedrock well installatiun and 604, 605, 606 Evaluate bedrock waler Ilualily. ITR No. 3~
development ,
10/88 Test (lit excavatinn 914, 915, 976 Evaluate refuse type and saturatcd ITR No.3'.
thickucss.
11/88- ]2/88 Survey Munitor wells and lest pits Detcrminc elevations aud locations. rm No. J~
Summary of SUe Investigations
tF-S Qnd Vicinity
Pease AFB, Nil
(Continued)
M KII 1 \ IUr r: OO('28026.0~1 \11.5. 01111.11
14
-------
Table'
I Date I Activity I Scope I Purpose I Rcport I
Siage 2 (continued)
11/88 Surface walcr and scdiment 818 to 824 Evaluale surface water for VOCs, I'm No.4"
sumpling SVOCs, IJeslicides/I'CUs, herhicides,
totalmelals, and cyanide. Evaluate
sedimcnt for VOCs, SVOCs,
pesticides/PCBs, melals, herhicides, and
TPlls.
11/88 Minirate pumping lest 604 Estimale hydraulic conductivily. ITR No. 4<
11/88-12/88 Round 1 groumlwater sampling 604,605,606 Evaluale gl"llllllliwaler for VOCs, ITR No. 4<
SVOCs, pcsticides/I'CUs, helhicides,
dissolved lUelals, common anions, lolal.
- hardness, and nilrnlc/nihilc.
5/'d9 Surface water and sediment 818 t£J 'd24 Evaluate surface walel fOI VOCs, I'm No. 4<
sampling IJeSlicides/I'CUs, tolal metals, UOD, and
ummonia/nil II Igen. Evaluate sedimcnt
for cyanidc.
Date Activity Scope f'UfJlllse
.
Siage 3 I
9/89 Sediment and surface water 10 locations (818 10 824, 826 Evaluate surface watcr (IUality and measure ils IJlltelilial
sampling to 828) effect (III macroinveltehralc popuJalilllls.
10/89 Overhunlen well installalion 567, 568 Evaluale IIvelhurdcn gmlllulwaicr (Iualil y.
HI/'d9-1/911 Unllll I'clllilval IHM One-ucre truet. Southcastern IHM pelJ'Ullllclllo lemove Pllssil,lc conlaminanl
section of landfill. sourcc.
11/89-12/89 Bedrock .well installalion 625 10 630 Evaluale hedrork groundwaler (IUalily.
Summary of Sitc Investigations
LF-S and Vicinity
I.ease AFB, Nil
(Continued)
M KO I \ 1l1"(,:00628026.0iJ4 \US rod.1 "I
15
-------
Tobie 1
Date I Activity I Scope Purpose
Stage 3 (continued)
11/89-4/90 Column leaching test 405,406,407,408 Evaluate effect of soil contamination tin groundwater
quality.
2/90 Minirato pumping tests 625, 627 to 630 Evaluate Illluifer characteristics.
3/90, 10/90, Groundwater sampling See groundwater analyle Characterize bedrock and overhunlen groundwater
6/91, summary table (Appendix A). quality in the LP-5 area.
8/9t, 10/91
9/90 Overburden well installation 578 EVllluate overburden groundwater Ijuality west of I.f.S.
Paired with bedrock well 629 to calculate vertical
hydraulic gradient.
5/91 Test pit excavation 9001 to 9010 Delineate potential PCE source upgradient of I.f-S.
5/9t Landfill cover soil sampling 32 locations (336 to-367) Characterize landfill cover material to assess air, direct
200- x 2OO-ft grid contact, and surface runoff pathways.
5/91.6/91 Borehole permeability tests 7039 to 7048 Further delineate landfillsulilt waste allli estahlbh
permeability values in the underlying materiaj.
5/91-7/91 Bedrock well installation 6003 to 6006 Evaluate bedrock water Ijuality in/ncar LF-5.
5/91.7/91 Overburden well installation 5007,5008,5015 Delineate PCE Illume area. .
5/91-7/91 Overburden well installiltioll 5009 to 5011, 5014 Monitor overburden water quality. f'aired with bedrock
wells to calculate vertical hYllraulic gradient.
5/91.7/91 Overburden well installation 5012,5013 Monitur water ftuality hydraulically downgrallient uf the
northern trencb area.
5/91-7/91 Bedrock well installation 6001, 6002 Evaluate Ledrock water quality upgradicnt of LF-S.
Dclineate potential PCE suurce.
Summary of Site Investigations
I.F.5 and Vicinity
I'cosc Aft'lI, Nil
(Continued)
M KOI \R,rr;OO628026.004\IfSrod.lbt
16
-------
Table I
Summary of Site Investigations
LF.S and Vicinity
I.ease AFB, Nil
(Contlnucd)
I Date I Activity I Scupe I ['urpose I
Stage J (continucd)
6/91 Scdiment and surfacc water 1M locations (818 to 824, 826 Evaluatc surface watcr (IUality anll mcasure its putential
sampling 10828,8031 to 8038) cffcct un macruinvertehratc populations.
6/91, Wctlamls dclincatiun In ami adjacenl to LF.5 Idcntify wctlands areas.
10/91
1/1)1 l'ulIIl,ing lest 4M-huur tcst un well 6311 Estinlilte hydraulir wllliurtivily wilhin thc lalllUiII.
9/91 Test pit excavation and suil 91112 10 9021 Characterize LF-5 soil and debris.
sampling
9/91 TCLI' analyscs Railway Ditch sediments Evaluatc learhability of soil and scdimcnts.
Tesl pits
111/91 Sedimcnt al1ll surfacc walcr Five locations (801H, 81172 tn Fmthcr deliucatc known I:Unlamination.
sampling 8014, 8(179)
'Currcsllonds to surface waler Iillmplin8 points 824, 823, 822, 821, 8211, 819, alll1818, as shown in Figure 2.1-1 in (1-51111.
11(1.452.
-------
.
.
.
In 1984, Phase II (Problem Confirmation and Quantification) was initiated via
conducting a presurvey to obtain sufficient information to plan a more
detailed stUdy. Based on the presurvey resultS, LF-5 anctT9 other IRP sites
(three areas were dropped and four areas were added as IRP sites) were
recommended for further study and were entered into the RI/FS process
(F-447). .
.
In OCtober 1987, the .4.ir Force initiated a second pan of the Phase II studv
(Stage 2). At this point, the IRP approach was adjusted to be consistent with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EP A) Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) terminology and philosophy. Stage 2 field activities
were concluded in May 1989.
.
Following groundwater analyses in Phase II (Stage 2), five sites were
identified for initiation of interim remedial measures (IR.\1s). LF-5 was
among these sites, due to the presence of buried drums in the landfill and due
to high CODtamin::!nt levels in LF-5 soils and groundwater (F-455).
.
On 14 July 1989, Pease AFB was proposed for addition to the National
Priorities List (NPL). The effective date of addition was February 1990.
In 1990, a Technical Review Committee (mC) was established to facilitate
communication and coordination among various agencies and the public
concerning Pease AFB IRP activities. The mc assists in keeping the local
comm1mity apprised of investigative/remedial actions and findings at Pease
AFB. The mc is comprised of individuals representing the Air Force;
NHDES; EP A; PDA; the Towns of Newington, Greenland, and Portsmouth;
and a community representative. mc meetings are held monthly.
.
On 24 April 1991, the U.S. Air Force, EPA, and NHDES signed a Federal
Facilities Agreement (FFA) estabH..hing the protocol and timetable for
conducting the RI/FS and Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD /RA) .
processes at Pease AFB.
In October 1991 (Stage 3), a drum removal ~'\1 was conduCted at LF-5.
During field aCtivities 54 85-gallon overpacks containing drums, waste
materials, and over 2,000 empty, crushed drums were removed and disposed
of at an off-base, licensed facility (F-463).
As part of the timetable established in the FF A the U.S. Air Force, in an effon to
streamline aCtivities, designed a basewide stra7: ~ plan for conduCting an RI/FS
investigation. This strategy plan grouped the numerous sites into seven zones. The zones
were delineated based on hydrogeological similarities, analytical resultS, geographical
location, surface features, and types of source areas contained within the zones. RI/FS
MKD1\RPT:~-6.~\lfSrocI..AU
18
-------
reportS have been or will "be prepared for each zone. As noted for Stage IT, prior to
inclusion of Pease AFB on the NFL, five sites, including LF-5, were 2~ an accelerated RII
FS approach because of the potential threat they posed to human health and the
environment. The U.S. Air Force, EP A, and NHDES agreed that the source area RI/FS
reportS, as well as the remedial actions at these sites, would continue on an accelerated
track toward source area cleanup, independent of the zones in which they were contained.
.
In April 1992, the u.s. Air Force submitted a Draft Final RI Repon for LF-5
(F-500).
.
In August 1992, the U.S. Air Force submitted a Draft Final FS for LF-5
(F-494 ).
MKOl\RPT:00628026..004\1t5rod.a1J
19
-------
MXD1\RPr:00628026.OOI\ltSroc1a1l
20
--
. .
-------
III. CO:MMUNITY PARTICIPATION
- -
Throughout the site's history, the community has been actively involved. EP ~ NHDES, and
the U.S. Air Force have kept the community and other interested parties apprised of site
aCtivities through informational meetings, fac: sheetS, press releases, public meetings, and
1RC meetings.
During January 1991, the U.S. Air Force released a community relations plan., which
outlined a program to address community concerns and keep citizens informed about and
involved in remedial aCtivities. This plan was updated and released in the summer of 1993.
Numerous faCt sheetS have been released by the U.S. Air Force throughout the IRP
program at Pease AFB. These fact sheetS are intended to keep the public and other
concerned parties apprised of developmentS and milestones in the Pease IRP. The fact
sheetS released to date that concern LF-5 are summarized as follows:
Fact Sheet
Release Date
Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Update
October 1991
Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Update
December 1992
Proposed Plan for Landfill-5 Source Area
January 1993
July 1993
Revised Proposed Plan for Landfill-5 Source Area
In addition to the fact sheetS, a number of public meetings have been held concerning the
remediation of LF-5. On 14 November 1991 an IRP update public meeting was held and
on 12 January 1993 an IRP public workshop and meeting was conducted to provide the
public with information on the status of the IRP at Pease AFB. On 27 January 1993 the
U.S. Ai.r Force conducted a public hearing and information session for the LF-5 Proposed
Plan, during which oral commentS on the Proposed Plan were received. A transcript of oral
commentS received during this meeting and U.S. Air Force response to commentS are
included in the anac:ted Responsiveness Summary (Appendix C). In addition, a public
MKD1\RPT:00628O''-6.004\If5roc1.aU
21
-------
comment period for the Proposed Plan was conduCted betWeen 14 January and 13 F.ebruary
1993. Responses to written commentS received during this period-are also included in
Appendix C.
TRC meetings have been held on a monthly basis since 1990 (see SubseCtion IT.B). T.arough
these meetings, lines of communication among the public and the various lead agencies have
been kept open.
On 5 August 1993, the U.S. Air Force conduCted a public hearing and information session
for the Revised Proposed Plan for LF-5 during which commentS on the Proposed Plan were
received. A transcript of commentS n:ceived during this meeting and the U.S. Air Force
response to commentS are included in the attached Responsiveness Snmm:lry (Appendix C).
In addition, a public comment period for both the Revised Proposed PIan for Landfill-5 and
the Proposed Plan for Landfills-Z and -4 was held from 20 July to 19 August 1993.
Responses to written comments received during that period are also included in Appendix
j
c.
A complete information repository, containing documents relating to the Pease AFB IRP,
is maintained at Pease AFB in Building 43. An anm;11;~tive record pertaini11~ to the
Pease AFB IRP is located in Building 43 of Pease AFB. An index of the anmi'!Tic;trative
record is m:linta;rted in the EP A Region I Headquarters.
MKDl\RPT:00628026..004\1tSrod.al1
22
-------
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE AcnON
- -
Zone 1 encompasses six areas of concern. including the source area operable unit for LF-5.
Other areas of concern include LF-2, LF-3, and LF-4, the BFSA, and the PCDA The
remedy presented in this Record of Decision (ROD) provides for source control at LF-5.
Remediation at a Superfund site typically involves activities to remove or isolate
contaminant source materials in conjunction with activities that mitigate migration of
cont~mination through groundwater, surface water, andjor air pathways. 11ris ROD
addresses only source control measures. Management of conr~min~'Ot migration will be
addressed in a separate ROD for Zone 1, which is scheduled for completion in September
1994.
Source materials at LF -5 have been identified as landfill soil and solid wastes, landfill
surficial soils, and sediment in the Railway Ditch and associated wetlands. Although
sediment in Flagstone Brook may represent an additional source, canrnminantS present in
this medium may be directly related to runoff from other sources and,. therefore, are
addressed in the Zone 1 Draft FS, which was completed in August 1993,. rather than in the
LF-5 source control FS. Groundwater and surface water are not considered source
materials, however, remedial action objectives (RAOs) and cleanup goals have been
established for these media, as well as for the source materials, since they will be affected
by source control activities.
Subsequent to the completion and public review of the original Proposed PIan for LF-S, it
was proposed that two additional source areas, LF-2 and LF-4, be excavated (in their
entirety) and consolidated onLF-5. The volume increase of materials consolidated on LF-5
would total approximately 76,320 cubic yards (yd3). The two landfills, which are adjacent
to (in the case of LF-2) or within 200 feet (in the case of LF-4) of LF-S, cover a total area
of approximately 12 acres. The materials in LF-2 and LF-4 are mainly soil and debris as
with LF-5. In keeping with the public's desire to consolidate Iannfill materials wherever
possible to provide for more available land whose future use is not restricted, it was
determined that consolidation of LF-2 and LF-4 onto LF-5 would be the best strategy in
MKDl\RPT:00628O'..6.004\1fSrod.all
23
-------
terms of meeting the public's requests. Because LF-2 and LF-4 are part of the Zone 1
operable unit. consolidation of LF-2 and LF-4 onto LF-5 will be add1:essed in the Zone 1
Proposed Plan and ROD. A final decision under CERCLA. will be required prior to
implementation of the LF-2 and LF-4 excavation and consolidation plan.
The selected source control remedy for LF-5, as described in the Proposed Plan, was
developed by combining componentS of different source control technologies to aid in
obtaining a comprehensive approach for site source area remediation. In summ:ny, the
remedy provides for:
.
Excavation and consolidation of selected sediments on the existing landfill.
.
Excavation of soil and debris in LF-2 and LF-4 and consolidation on LF-5
(not included in the original LF-5 Proposed Plan but added in the revised
Proposed Plan).
.
Excavation of soil and solid wastes predicted ID be below the water table after
capping and placement of excavated. ~terial on the existing landffil..
Dewatering of areas requiring excavation, on-site tt~11t]ent of the extracted
groundwater, and discharge to the local pubIic1y-owned treatment works
(pOTW) may be necessazy.
.
Regrading and capping of the existing 1annffi1
.
Conducting long-term environmental monitoring and placement of
institUtional controls.
The remedial action addresses the following primaIy risks and principal threats to human
health and the environment posed by the site:
.
.
Risks posed to ecological receptors from direct contact with, or ingestion of,
sediment in the Railway Ditch and associated wetlands containing
conr:lTTri"~nts in excess of concentrations that may present a risk.
Risks posed to hnm~ns from direct contact with, or ingestion of, cont:lmin~ted
soils or debris that may present a health risk.
MICD1\RPI':OO628026.004\USrod.al1
24
-------
.
Risks posed to ecological receptors from direct contact with, or ingestion of,
soil or debris containing COnT:!minantS in excess of concentrations that may
present health risks. - -
.
Migration of cont:!minantS from soil or debris within the LF-5 source area
into the groundwater, which may inhibit attainment of the groundwater RAOs
for Zone 1.
.
Migration of contaminantS from soil or debris within the LF-5 source area
into surface water, including wetlands. which may inhibit attainment of the
surface water ROAs for Zone 1.
The selected source control remedy will complete the mitigation of the site risks related to
source areas as described in Subsection 1.6 of the LF-5 FS (F-494).
MKOl \RJ'T:00628Q26.004\lf5rod.a1l
25
-------
- -
MKD1\RPT:00628026.004\If5rod.a11
26
-------
v. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACfERISTICS
- -
Subsections 13 and 1.4 of the FS contain an overview of the RI. Based on the results of
the RI. a working conc~ptUal model was developed that incorporates all known data
concerning LF-5 and vicinity, including geological. hydrological. analytical. field
measurementS, and visual observations. The salient points of the model are summarized as
follows:
.
.
Several primary, discrete contaminant source areas exist within 1£-5.
.
Landfill operations have caused the excavation of native soils down to
bedrock in places; consequently, buried refuse is in direCt contact with
groundwater and weathered and fractured bedrock.
.
ConT;lminated soil is a likely source for some of the contamina11ts that have
been observed in other matrices in the LF-5 area.
.
An enhanced groundwater recharge area for LF-5 and its vicinity overlaps the
central trench area.
.
Groundwater within LF-5 is conrnmi11ated with. halogenated volatile organic
compounds (VOCS), aromatic VOCs, and semivoIatile compounds (SVOCs);
metals; and peSticides. The concentrations of a few of these substances
exceed federal and state standards.
.
Aromatic and halogenated VOCs are discharged from groundwater to surface
water in the Railway Ditch and Flagstone Brook.
.
A groundwater plume containing VOCs (halogenated) is migrating from 1£-5.
.
The extent of the halogenated VOC plume east of the Railway Ditch is
known; the downgradient limit coincides with wells 5009 and 6003.
.
Surface water and sediment in Flagstone Brook appear to be affected by other
sources in addition to LF-S.
Surface water and sediment in the Railway Ditch appear to be significantly
affected by LF-S.
---
The results of the RI as conceptualized are discussed in more detail in the subsections that
follow.
27
MKDl\RPI":OO6Z8026.004\1.f5rod.a1I
-------
A. Subsurface Soils and Solid Waste
- -
Source charaCterization at LF-5 included the collection and analysis of subsurface soil and
solid waste samples. Subsurface soils refer to material colleCted at a depth of 2 feet or
greater. All subs1IIface soil samples were collected from the landfill over a period of 4
years. Samples were obtained from approximately 30 test pits and several samples were
collected during drum removal operations. Figure 4 depicts the distribution of organics in
subsurface soils in and adjacent to LF-5. Major findings of the analyses of all test pit soil
samples are snmm;nized as follows:
'.. ..
.
.
The highest total SVOCs were detected within the drum removal area.
.
The highest total VOCs were detected in soils colleCted near the central
trench area. Total xylenes were the largest component [33
milligrams/kilogram. (mg/kg)] of the total aromatic VQCs.
l,~Dichlorobenzene (DCB) was detected in soil from the southwestern corner
of the central trench area at a. concentration of 0.140 mg/kg.
j
Low concentrations of total aromatics were detected in test pit soils collected
from the nonhem trench area..
.
.
TCE was detected in soils from test pit 9014 at a concentration of 0.005 mg/
kg.
.
ArseDic was detected above the background concentrations in the sample
from test pit 9018. The copper background concentration was exceeded in
samples from test pit 9013. Zinc concentrations exceeded the background.
concentration in samples from test pits 983, 9013, 9015, 9016, and 9018.
Cadmium concentrations exceeded the background concentrations in samples
from test pits 9013, 9016, and 9021. The mercmy background concemrarion
was exceeded in samples from test pits 9016 and 9017. Lead concentrations.
exceeded the background concentration in samples from test pits 982, 983,
984, and 9016. The nickel background concentration was exceeded in the
sample from test pit 9015.
Soil samples from test pits 9016 and 9020 were also subjected to the Toxicity Characteristic
Learhi~g Procedure (TG..P). Leachate was analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, metals, pesticides,
and herbicides. Laboratory data indicate that no TCLP regulatory limits were exceeded.
MKD1\RPT:0062!026..004\lf5rod.aJ1
28
-------
...----' \ i )' _:~~ - - ,,-~ LANDFILL 2 - / ~ LEGEND: -
. '- I/,- \\~ \'~ / ~ 0 Sur1ace soil samoie
; r~ I ~s:c=- = S:;6~ I / ~: ~ Sail test pit -
, "!~~~I @@f2i c212~ -~ ~\' /' /1" t . Sail boring
, :\ :-';' 64A:6.7 ~:~ ~\\ \ ; \ /' -
- '.;1 ~;=~ \~ \~! :' \ I I o.co-I Total concentrations (mg/kg)
: \ q - C3Q5 "!27~ ~"~i3 \, ~ I , i A: Total at'Omanc VOCs
~\ \\.~ \\ A: 15.9 ~\, ;. \- \~ - H: Total halogenated VCCS
- -, ~ H- ND r- .::.S" - ~ -- - S - tal - -I
- ,- i\1 i \\ s; NA '- II, g.,?: : : 10 semlVOla11 as
\, \, ~ C:63..\ =::a~"O , 6:. ; NA Not analyzed
; \ ~ i ~ ~6- ~ ~~~: ND Notdeteaed
, I'~I ~!::::::.~'i~ ~O \ Surfacetcpographycorncur
, ! '\........... ~ ? \ r - 10 foot imarvaJ
LANDFILL 5~' , , I ,"~l .:" (q. r-' - Feet aDQve mean sea leVel,
i 'II ','"0 1,!::~2 \ \. ==, ~="'''''ana
j ) t ~:?56 ~;~ :\~, ' ~~ //:
/'kV,: !;\\ ) :; c~~ \.... ~~_./
,'g; i I ~; I~, - "-., \. '~'V-
;~ _1-;34~ I ~. \
t:l:i I; J~"':::~ : >~'
I / i 11,1 / ~5i? \, @"!0i"7 ~!: I '~
,/ 'ij I ~ A:ND ~~ ,\
I rl;~ t\ ~:~-, 'f';'; li= ~~ \; ,)\ I
/-i,/ /i(' i Y ~ q75 l~rrn~~16!~ ~ ~;:.58 - ~" (\. J
/ (I H: NO ' \ ~ q ... \ V
I I' : S:~_., \\ ~ IA:HD I A:H:~ do.p LANDFILL
a / I I r"'\... '.-'--. \ H'ND _.....~':\. 3
/~, , .. ~~ ;I \\ - 5; NA q~' .. 5: 190W.9 "W- ~\ /'
i /.' / 0::5 . ; / \\ ~ j \ ~,. - '8 "'22 ~ '0' \ ~
-------
Contaminants in subsurface soils at LF -5 are of concern since they are, in some landfill
areas, in contact with f!roundwater and have the Dotential to mie:rate fmm the site via this
~ .-
medium.
B. Surface Soils
A total of 32 landfill surface soil samples (336 through 367) were collected from a depth of
o to 2 feet to characterize the landfill cover soil. Surficial (0 to 2 feet) test pit samples were
also used to describe the landfill cover soils. Figure 5 depiCts the disttibution of organics
in surface soils in and adjacent to LF-5. The results of the laboratory analyses may be
snmm~rized as follows:
.
.
Aromatic and halogenated VOCs were detected at low concentrations in soils
collected from all areas of the landfill. The highest concentrations were
detected in soils from test pit 983 and soil sample 357.
.
SVOCs were detected in all soil samples. From areas outside the drum
removal area., total concentrations ranged from 0.06 mgjkg (9013) to 1,684
mgjkg (360)". MoSt of the highest total SVOCs were detected in soil samples
cOllected from the drum removal area (345, 354, and 355) and teSt pits from
the drum removal area (982, 983, and 984).
.
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (P AHs) (e.g., chIysene) were most often
detected in soil from the drum removal area.
.
The highest concentrations of total pen-oleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) were.
detected in the samples from location 364 (2,500 mgjkg) from the northern
trench area and location 345 (2,200 mgjkg) from the drum removal area.
.
Pesticides were detected in most of the surface soil samples. Both heptachlor
and dieldrin were elevated in the sample from location 354 (drum removal
area), and dieldrin was detected in the sample from locations 366 and 984.
Most of the samples that contained metals that exceeded the background
concentrations were colleCted from the drum removal area and the northern
trench area. Table 2 includes a S11mm~ry of locations and concentrations that
have metals concentrations that exceed background in surface soils at LF-5.
MX01 \RPI':006280"'..6.004 \1t5roc1.aU
30
-------
,--- ! \ i \ \':- ~: a.: . - \. ~\ / jt ~ LEGEND:
:, ,<-\ r Surlace_y""",,",
~ { I H- NO i : NO ~, \. r- - 10 foot Interval
II ! { ~~ ~ i356 S;,;;o.s H; ~g '\ ,"'-J' = = : u~=~::::: ~~el
~. ; ~\ ~ ~~~1 ~~ (, ~ \...~ \ ~ ,]\ I
<:), I . 0.QG7 '(j ~\-
I / J S;~ A:ND ::::?4~~. - ~.-J"
-- ,/ ~.. / J~q ~;:0228 , ~;~ ~~'- \; (I vi
/ ~, - II 10. "24 ~.5 -:c:::. '-'\: .
A:.QQ1 A: NO "016 )\ '0' iJ--- ~
I( ~;~ ) @ C!75 ~;~~ ~ ~\--.140. ~NO :NO -NO'~:: .
! (i/ P: .O'lln - P: 1.6 'WNO :.Da7: NO ~ H-.DG5 ' S: 8583 LANDFILL
/ ~/ I.. ND \ 5: 1 5:9.0 - ~.302 ""
01 / II A:ND :]352\\ s;.a \\ ~:016'! P:.OO'11 ~t~7 -', - '\"\. 3 /"
/1.:::, I) H:ND :f'J p: ocs A:ND ~ :;36 ,&~~: c; . 23!'J~ ~~:.. V
I 1/' ~JJ03 Gr-s ~;;~1 .. II ~;:;.4 ' \ """345 ~ q22 ~ ~2~' ). ~~Q. \
. ~ H:ND m JI P:.::!7 i' . ."? "'82 J QIII4/"''''- '-iJO~ \
/ (I, I i.'..' IiiJ //~,.rl1:i,.; r"~::g I ;:.: ~/- \. .~~
1fl:. ~ ~/' \ : -ND ,
I;' 5:3.7 J':-: " ;' : .
/ ) P:3.S4 S:1 . ~ .-,344 H:NO
/; ~ ~~~ '34~~~ J33:'~~221 ~\\P'N~ l,..-..'
/) ~'16 P:ND J/ \
. -1 r"']348 II -ND
:NO :ND ,,;>43 \.
/'''' I :ND \\. NO S: 1.5 A: ND oJ
J / S:1.2'~:ND~.03 ,,337 H:NO \ ~~
I . P:5.3 S:3.S -' S: '5.3 )' ~
P:-048 ~~46
-------
Table 2
Summary of Elevated Metals Concentrations In Soil
LF-S, Stage J, Pease AFU, Nil
Cumpound As U Ua Cr Cu Mn Na Ni l'b V Zn IIg Cd Sc
Uackground
concenlralionl
(1III/kl) 15.2 61.3 262 49.4 54.3 1,020 366 70.5 54.0 150 219 1.2 6.7 1.4
Norlhem trench area 365. 364. 364. 90121 3621 3645 90125 90125
(28.6) (4,430) (dup.) (2151) (1,080l) (159) (259J) (11.9J)
364. (54.0J) 364. 90135 3M5 90135
(dul") (dup.) (75.5) (9621) (9.0)
(35.t) (55.7) 90125 9013<1 9013<1
90Ud (193) (3621) (1351)
(1331) 3605
(81.2)
Drun} rellloval area 3645 354. 9838 3545 983d
(195) (1301) (2,560) (55.81) (m)
982d
(86.S)
983d
(74.1)
-. 984d
(71.6)
Olher area. 9018d 3521 90ISd 3421 9015d 9016l1 9021d 90111
(37.8) (65.81) (86.5) (120J) (246J) (2.9) (19.9J) (8.1)
3495 9016d 9017d 901611
(S41) (491) (1.6) (11.4)
351. 901811
(67.7J) (258J)
3S85 I
(78.6J)
9016<1 I
(114)
loldlaround concenilltlon. Were esllbllshed In both I lelter report dated 4 December '1191 Ind I letter Include4 In Appendix 0 In 11.500.
. I ' ~ Sample callecUon deplh was 0 to 2 reet. .
" . Sample calleellon depl~ wa, >:1 reet.
.: I (28.6) a C.oncenlrallon (mIl. g).
. 364 a Sample locallon.
NOle: 1be common mlneral-rormln. mlnera'. aluminum and. .lIicon Ire nollncluded.
..
MKOI \RPT:00628026.004\1rSrodlbl
32
-------
.
One surface soil sample (9013) was subjected to TCLP. Leachate from the
test was analyzed for VOCS. SVOCs. metals, pesticides, and herbicides.
Preliminary laboratory data indicate that TCLP reglliarory limitS were not
exceeded.
ContaminantS in surface soils at LF-5 are of concern because of the potential for direct
human and ecological receptor contact with these soils and the potential for cont~m;T1antS
in surface soils to migrate to surrounding surface water bodies and wetlands.
C. Surface Water and Sediments
The LF - 5 surface drainage system consistS of tWo main drainage channels. The first,
Flagstone Brook. has itS headwaters at the Nonh Ramp and flows northward forming the
western boundary of LF-5. The second, the Railway Dit~ flows northward along the
eastern border of LF-5, eventUally joining Flagstone Brook, approximately 3,000 feet nonh
of LF-5. Flagstone Brook eventually drains to the Pisca.taqua River to the east of Pease
AFB. j
Nine surface waxer/sediment stations were sampled to characterize Flagstone Brook. while
15 stations were sampled to determine the impact of LF-5 on the Railway Ditch. Sampling
results and data interpretation are discussed in Subsection 4.5 of the Zone 1 Draft Final RI
(F-500). The sampling history of all LF-5 surface waters and sediment stations is
summarized in Appendix B of that document. Figures 6 and 7 present the disttibution of
organics in LF-5 surface waters and sedimentS, respectively.
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) is the only VOC confirmed in the surface waters of
Flagstone Brook at concenttations greater than 1 microgram per liter (JJg/L). This sample
was colleCted at station 821 during the January 1990 sampling round. No SVOCs were
detected in the Flagstone Brook surface waters. The pesticide DDT and itS metabolite
DDE were the only pesticides confirmed in Flagstone Brook surface waters; these tWo
compounds were detected at concenttations of 0.14 JJg/L and 02 IJ!J/L, respectively, at
~l\RPT;OO6:SO"..6.()()';\lf5rod..alI
....
""
-------
station 819 during the May 1989 sampling round. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were
not detected at any location. - -
The highest concenttations of aromatic VOCs and SVOCs in the flagstone Brook watershed
were detected at seeps 8079 and 826, respectively. Total aromatic VOCs were detected at
54 IJ.g/L for station 8079 during the October 1991 sampling round, and the SVOC
4-methylphenol was detected at 3.0 JJ.g/L for station 826 during the September 1989
sampling round.
DDT (station 819) was the only organic compound detected in the Flagstone Brook
watershed that exceeded ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) (O.OOllJ.g/L).
VOCs were not detected in any of the sediment samples taken in Flagstone Brook; however,
VOCs were detected in seep sediments. The VOCs detected in sediments were
chlorobenzene (0.07 mg/kg) and ~4-DCB (0.002 mg/kg) at seep 8079. SVOCs have been
I
detected in the sediments of all but tWo of the Stations (stations 821 and 82IA) in the
Flagstone Brook watershed. Stations 8031 and 8032 had the highest total sediment SVOC
concentrations, 3.07 mg/kg and 2.48 mg~ respectively. The greatest contnDutors to the
total SVOC concentrations at all stations were P AHs. It is imponant to note that the
highest total SVOC concentration was reponed for Station 8034 which is upgradient from
LF-5. This implies that sources other than LF-5 are contributing SVOCS and pOSSIDly other
cont;lminantS to surface water and sediments in the Flagstone Brook drainage.
Pesticides/PCBs were detected in the sedimentS at six stations in the Flagstone Brook
drainage. The highest total pesticidejPCB concentration was detected at the upgradient.
station (8031) and was based on a single hit of 1.00 mg/kg for heptachlor epoxide. Other
pesticidesjPCBs observed in Flagstone Brook drainage sedimentS, and the number of
stations at which they were reported include: 4,4'-DDT (4), 4,4'-DDE (3),
gamma-chlordane (1), and Aroclor-1260 (1).
MKD1\RPT:00628026.004\1f5rod.a11
34
-------
8
~.
."
(.
~
~ SIal! - piing lOcatIOn
_lS8dImom sam
~ Surlacl
a'Se8p
rotll ""C8ntra1JOl'l'
I 0.00 I (I'~:"- VOCs
A: Tenal 8IC na18
-------
--
~
L.EGEND:
10.00 I Tola! COIIC8mr.nion. ,- Sur1aC8 c:on1EU'l8I8V8DOn(FTIMSW
~ SI8ft ;age (lIQIkg) ../5O '0_,"",-
~ SuItaco WI1er/S8DI_nt sarncling IDcatlon A; T013J aromanc VOC. = """"1--...-1
aI' H; Tola! naJog8l13t8D VOC:. : : = Otner tQ80S and U'adS
Seep S; TOIa!..."MSlatJl8S
P: p...aoosIPc:a. 0 Buuo'"9S
CJ -""'Y 081''''''180 -nandS ND Not D8ll1Q8d ~ ;:.nc.
~ coU8Ct8d an oat85 as "Otl: :>8"ea:!"I CDnC8rrt~a:O:'ls.
~ 6\) NOiE; Landfill 5 (LF-5) Area
NORTH Stage 4, Record 01 Decision.
... ....... I ... ... .... Pease Air Force Base, New HampshIre
SCAlE IN FEET FIGURE 7
_....s..-: DISTRIBUTION OF ORGANICS IN
DeIaJI.... Of ...--wo-..._b- CICII"n08IDOn of SEDIMENTS
DAFSIra'n"" ~ a&tea'. '231117
-------
Inorganic concentrations in surface waters in the Flagstone Brook drainage were compared
with the State of New Hampshire freshwater chronic criteria for the "'protection of aquatic
life, when available. Metals for which criteria are hardness- or pH-dependent have been
adjusted assuming hardness of 20 mgJL and pH of 6.5. The state A WQC for seven
inorganics were exceeded at one or more sta~ons in the Flagstone Brook drainage. Zinc.
concentrations at stations 819, 819A, 826, 8031, and 8079 exceeded the state AWQC (0.027
mg/L). The state AWQC for iron (1.0 mg/L) was exceeded at stations 819, 826, 8031, and
8079; and the state AWQC for lead (0.000041 mg/L) was exceeded at three stations (826,
8031, and 8079). The four other compounds that exceeded surface water criteria and the
number of stations are beryllium (1), copper (2), nickel (1), and thallium. (1).
Inorganic sediment concentrations in the Flagstone Brook drainage were compared to
concentrations at upgradient station 8031. Sta~on 8031 had the highest detected
concentrations of barium (445 mgjkg) and chromium (91.9 mgjkg) in sediments when
compared to other Flagstone Brook drainagcr samples. In generaL. inorganic sediment
concentrations did not exceed the upgradient sampl~ by more than an order of magnitude,
the exceptions being mercury and beryllium,' which were not detected at station 8031.
Mercury was. identified in a duplicate sample taken at Station 8032 (0.15 mg/kg) in June
1991. Beryllium was identified at stations 819A (027 mg/kg) and 8079 (0.41 mg/kg) during
June and October 1991 sampling, respectively. The only other compound that exceeded the
upgradient concentration by more than an order of magnitude was aluminum, which was
detected at station 826 (20,800 mg/kg) in a sample colleCted in September 1989.
Aromatic and halogenated VOCs were detected in surface water at nine stations in the
Railway Ditch during the 1991 field investigations at LF-5 (see Figure 7). Aromatic VOCS
detected included chlorobenzene, benzene, toluene, ethyIbenzene, trimethylbenzene, and
butylbenzene. Chlorobenzene was the most frequently detected and also showed the highest
concentration of 2.0 pg/L at station 8073. Halogenated VOCs were detected at the same
stations where aromatic VOCS were present. Halogenated VOC con~m;mlT1ts included
PeE, TCE, trans- and cis-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE), 1,1-DCA, l,4-DCB, and l,2-DCB.
TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, l,l-dichloroethane (DCA), and l,4-DCB were the domiT1~nthalogenated
~1 \RPT:00628OZ6.004\1f5rod.aU
39
-------
VOCs present in Railway Ditch surface water. TCE was detected at the highest
concentration (9 J.Ig/L at station 8074). No aromatic or halogenated \::0Cs were detected
in surface water downstream of station 827. The area of aromatic/halogenated VOC
su,rface water contamination extends from staff gage 8061 downstream to station 820/822.
No SVOCs were detected in SUIface water sampled from the Railway Ditch. The pesticide
DDT and its metabolite 4,4' -DDD were detected in surface water collected from four
Railway Ditch stations (820, 827, 828, and 8074). The highest concentrations of DDT and
4,4'-DDD in surface water were detected at staff gage 820. No herbicides or PCBs were
detected in Railway Ditch SUIface waters.
Aromatic VOCs were detected in sediments at nine stations in the Railway Ditch during the
1991 field investigations at LF-5 (see Figure 7). Aromatic VOCs detected included
chlorobenzene, l,2-DCB, methylene chloride, 2-butanone, toluene, and acetone; 2-butanone
had the highest detected concentration of 0.2 mg/kg at station 806L Halogenated VOCs
1
were detected in sediment at three stations in the Railway Ditch and included 1,2-D~
T~ and 1,1-DCA. The aromatic VOC l,2-DCE was detected in the highest concentration
at station 8036 (0.45 mg/kg). Aromatic VOCs were detected in sediments in the upper
Railway Ditch from staff gage 8061 downstream to station 8074, while halogenated VOCs
were detected at stations 8074, 8036, and 8073. No VOCs were detected in sediments
sampled below station 8074.
SVOCs were detected in sediments sampled at eight stations in the Railway Ditch.
Phenanthrene, fluoranthene, and pyrene were the most common SVOCs out of a total of
15 SVOC compounds detected. The highest SVOC concentration detected in Railway Ditch
sediments was a 27-mg/kg concentration of benzoic acid at station 824. SVOCs were
detected throughout the Railway Ditch system from station 824 downstream to station 8033.
Pesticides were detected in sediments at 10 statior:s in the Railway Ditch. DDT was the
most widely distributed pesticide in the Railway Ditch sediments and was detected at six
stations. The DDT metabolites 4,4-DDE and 4,4-DDD were both detected at seven stations
MKDl \RPT:00628026.004\1f5rod..a11
40
-------
in the Railway Ditch. The highest sediment concenttation of pesticide (DDT) was detected
at station 8036. No herbicides or PCBs were detected in Railway Ditch sediments.
- -
Inorganic concenttations detected in surface waters of the Railway Ditch drainage were
compared with the State of New Hampshire freshwater chronic criteria for the protection
of aquatic life. State A WQC for five inorganics were exceeded at one or more stations in
the Railway Ditch drainage. Arsenic concentrations at starions 8036, 8037, and 8073
exceeded the state A WQC (0.048 mgjL). State A WQC for copper (0.003 mgjL) was
exceeded at stations 8035 and 8061. A total or 10 stations (820,823,827,8035,8036, 8037,
8061, 8072, 8073, and 8074) exceeded the state AWQC for iron (1.0 mgjL). Lead
concenttatioDS at seven stations (820, 822, 8035, 8036, 8061, 8072, and 8073) exceeded the
state A WQC (0.00041 mgjL), and the state A WQC for zinc (0.027 mgjL) was exceeded at
stations 8035, 8036, 8037, and 8061.
Railway Ditch sediment concentrations of inorganics were compared to the upgradient
station on Flagstone Brook (8031). Inorganics condentrations in Railway Ditch sediments
that were one order of magnitude greater in concentration than those detected at Station
8031 are described as follows. Eight sediment inorganics were one order of m~gJ1;tude
greater in concentration than those detected at station 8031. These included: arsenic at
seven StariODS, iron at one station, lead at two StatiODS, calcium at three stations, cobalt at
one station, potassium at one station, manganese at six stations, and silicon at eight StatiODS.
Four inorganics (beryllium. selenium, silver, and thallium) detected in Railway Ditch
sediments were not detected at station 8031.
Potential pathways by which contamiIlants have entered Flagstone Brook and the Railway
Ditch include overland flow (erosion) and groundwater discharge. The P AHs and pesticides
observed in sediments are transported via erosion of LF-5 soils. VOCs deteCted in the
Railway Ditch surface waters reflect contaminated groundwater discharge. The relative
absence of VOCs in Flagstone Brook surface waters may result from dilution, losses due to
volatilization, or a smaller contaminant load migrating westward, as opposed to eastward
toward the Railway Ditch.
~l \RPT:006ZSO''...6.004 \lfSrod..aI1
41
-------
Halogenated VOCs in Railway Ditch waters have been determined to have originated from
three separate source locations in the vicinity of LF-5; the c~al trench area
(chlorobenzene, 1,4-DCB, and C-l,2-DCE), the southern tren~ area (PCB), and an area
south of the landfill near the PCDA
Based on sampling results in Flagstone Brook and the Railway Ditch, it is estimated that
approximately 3,000 yd3 of Railway Ditch sediments will require remediation.
D. Groundwater
During the LF-5 characterizatio~ 38 groundwater sample locations were tested for VOCS
with varied frequency. Both aromatic and halogenated VOCs have been detected on- and
off-site. However, the off-site aromatic VOCs have been detected in wells 502 and 5008.
Well 5008 is downgradient of both 12-5 and the BFSA
j
All of the groundwater samples collected from monitor wells installed within the established
12-5 boundaIy have coTtrnined VOCs. Outside the landfill boundaIy, halogenated VOCs
were detected in samples collected from five wells located east of the southern section of
12-5 (502, 538, 568, 626, and 6003); and one well located northeast of the landfill (5011).
Figure 8 depicts the distribution of the concentrations of total haloge~d VOCs, total
aromatic VOCs, and total SVOCs for each well.
The highest concentrations of total aromatic VOCs (primarily benzene, chlorobenzene, and
1,4-DCB) and SVOCs are typically detected in groundwater collected from wells near the
central trenches (567, 603, 604, 605, and 6005).
The highest concentrations of halogenated VOCs, primarily TCE and PeE, in groundwater
are hydraulically downgradiem of the southeastern corner of LF-5, but low concentrations
have been detected in samples from one well, located adjacent to the central portion of the
southern. boundaIy, during three separate sampling events. Low concentrations of
dichlorinated alkenes and alkanes cis-l,2-DCE, l,l-DCA, and l,2-DCA are present across
42
(J9 f15 /tJ3
-------
the landfill, but the higher concentrations (> 5 J.Jg/L) are restricted to the southeastern
region of LF-5. The highest detected concentrations of total SVO_C~ and total aromatic
VOCs have been in the central trench area (605 and 606); benzene has repeatedly exceeded
the Federal Maximum CODt:lrnimlT1t Level (MCL) of 5 ~/L in samples collected from one
well (5014) in this area. No other final or proposed MCLs have been exceeded for aromatic
VOCs or SVOCs at LF-5. The MCLs for TCE (5 /.J!S/L) and vinyl chloride (2 J.Jg/L) have
been exceeded in groundwater samples collected from well 502, and the MCL for PCE
(5 /.J!S/L) has been exceeded in all samples from wells 502 and 538.
Groundwater samples collected from 38 wells in and around LF-5 have been analyzed for
pesticides. Low concentrarions (below quantitation limitS) of either delta-BHC,
endosulfan 1, or 4,4' -DDD have been detected in groundwater samples collected from three
of the wells (605, 606, and 629). The two samples cont:linin~ endosulfan I were collected
from wells located downgradient of the central trench area. (605 and 606).
The
concentrations present are not above any exist;ing federal or state criteria.. No herbicides
have been detected in groundwater samples collected from the wells in and around U-5.
A total of 96 groundwater samples collected from 38 wells were analyzed for dissolved
metals. Table 3 summarizes those wells at which dissolved metal concentrations have
exceeded background. Iron and manganese were consistently present at concentrations
above established background concentrations near the central trench area (wells 567, 604,
605, 606, 630, 6005, and 6006). In all wells in which dissolved maIl::,aaI1ese concentrations
exceeded the background concentrations, aromatic VOCs were detected. A ~mil~T
correlation existS with dissolved iron except in wells 508 and 5010, which do not contam
VOCs. The majority of the metals concen~tions that were present in elevated
concentrations were located in wells near the central trenches.
Dissolved arsenic was detected above the background concentration (SO JJ.g/L) in seven
wells; six of these wells are located near the central trenches (567, 605, 630, 6005, and 6006)
and the seventh (501) is located downgradient of the BFSA Dissolved arsenic was detected
MKDl\RPT:00628O''-6.004\lf5rod.aU
45
-------
TQbl~ J
locations of Elevated Dissolved Metals Concen.rations In Groundwater
I.F.S, Siage 3, Pease AFD, Nil
Parameler: As Fe Mn Mg 81 Co '11 U K AI Na Ni
Background 50 1,090 59.7 41,300 13,400 50 200 163 12,\/110 439 8,81111 11111
cullccnlrilliun
(1111/1.)
l,ocalions 501 (2/5) 5010 (1/1) . 567 (2/3) 5010 (1/1) 606 (2/4) 501 (1/5) 5008 (1/1) 567 (1/3) 508 (1/2) SUW 606
567 (3/3) 501 (5/5) 561 (1/3) 5014 (1/1) S67 (1/3) 501 (1/4) 606 (4/4) (1/1) (1/4)
5014 (1/1) 567 (3/3) 60S (2/3) 6~ (1/4) 567 (1/3)
6006 (1/1) 6~ (4/4) 606 (2/4) 60S (1/4) 60S (2/4)
60S (4/4) 60s (4/4) 606 (1/4) 606 (2/4)
606 (4/4) 606 (4/4) 630 (1/3) 630 (1/3)
630 (3/3) 630 (3/3)
5014 (1/1)
600S (1/1)
6006 (1/1)
(2/4) . Number of lime. above backsround/number of lime. analyzed.
. Alllho weill wllhln Ihe landfill have concenlrallonl Ihal exceed Ihe backlJ'Ound concenlrallon.
8
I
M KO I\RIYf:00628026.004\1C5rod.lbl
46
-------
at lower concenttations in wells that are hydraulically up gradient of the trench area (502
and 505), and in well 629.
- -
Contaminant migration in groundwater beneath and adjacent to LF-5 is
detail in Subsections 5.2 and 53 of the Zone 1 Draft Final RI (F-500).
pointS of the discussion are presented in the paragraphs thaI follow.
discussed in
The salient
Six potenrial groundwater cont::!min(lnt migration pathways exist at IF-5. The six
pathways are overburden and bedrock groundwater pathways to the nonh, east, and west
of LF-5.
The bedrock and overburden water-bearing zones within LF-5 are intimately
interconnected hydraulically. Excavating and lancifiIlinp; activities resulted in removal of
much of the relatively low-permeability Marine Oay and Silt (MCS) and Glacial Till
(GT) UDitS, that, in many other areas, act ~ an aquitard between the bedrock and
overburden aquifers. Consequently, low-permeability material, which would otherwise
separate groundwater in the overburden from groundwater in the weathered bedrock, is
only sporadically present throughout LF-5. The observed CODt::!min::!nt distributions
within IF-5 are consistent with the single hydraulic unit model.
Groundwater beneath LF-5 is recharged primarily from the south, although a local
groundwater mound, which acts as an enhanced recharge zone, has developed in the
central trench area. The center of this recharge zone is located north of well 604 (see
Figure 8).
The location of this recharge zone coincides with an area characterized by elevated
concentrations of several aromatic and halogenated VOCs. A north/south-trending
groundwater divide transects this recharge zone along an axis through test pits 925, 927,
and 928, and bedrock wells 604 and 605. Groundwater (bedrock and overburden) flows
radially away from the recharge area and then joins the dominant flow pattern toward
Flagstone Brook to the west and the Railway Ditch to the east.
~1 \RPT:Q0628(j'..6.()().I.\1fSrocUll
47
-------
Hydraulic gradients across LF-5 indicate that groundwater flows toward both the Railway
Ditch and Flagstone Brook, thereby resulting in discharge from th~ water table to
surface water. Although the Railway Ditch was not flowing d~g the September 1989
surface water sampling event, it appears to be a perennial stream because flow has been
noted during all previous and subsequent sampling rounds. Organic cODtaminants
present in surface water samples from staff gages along the Railway Ditch are the same
as found in groundwater at LF-5. Although groundwater is also discharging into
Flagstone Brook, with the exception of a small amount of PCE in one of four surface
water samples collected at staff gage 821, there is a relative absence of contaminantS
detected in surface water samples. The relative absence or cont::rminanrs in Flagstone
Brook may result from dilutio~ because of itS relatively high discharge, contaminant
losses resulting from aeration and volatilization, and/or it may be a reflection of a
relatively smaller cont::rminant load migrating westward rather than eastward toward the
Railway Ditch.
E..Wetlands
.. .
In addition to the Railway Ditch and Flagstone Brook, several wetlands areas exist in the
LF-5 vicinity. On and immediately adjacent to the landfill are three wetlands: Wetlands
XV, XVI, and xvn (see Figure 3). Wetlands XVI drains to Flagstone Brook and
Wetlands XV and xvn drain the Railway Ditch. East of the landfill, between the
railroad and Merrimac Drive, are Wetlands I, IT, ill, IV, V, and VI. Wetlands I, Ill, IV,
and V drain toward Merrimac Drive, and Wetlands II and VI drain to the Railway
Ditch. North of the landfill, there are several wetlands associated with the Railway
Ditch and Flagstone Brook. Wetlands vn and VITI are associated with the Railway
Ditch until it reaches Wetlands IX and joins Flagstone Brook through a cu1ven under
the railroad. Wetlands X is located north of LF-5 and west of Flagstone Brook and has
no identified surface water connection to Flagstone Brook. However, subsurface flow
may exist under the roadbed. West of the la.:-:.:fill, Wetlands xm is immediately
adjacent to Flagstone Brook and a portion of it flows into Flagstone Brook near its
conjunction with Merrimac Drive. More detailed information pertaining to the wetlands
MKDl \RPT:00628026.004\1f5rod.a1J
48
-------
in the LF-5 vicinity is presented in the Wetlands Delineation Repon in Appendix M of
the LF-5 RI (F-500).
- -
Based on wetland area surface soil and sediment sampling resultS that were available
during preparation of the FS, it was assumed that sediment in Wetlands VI and XV,
located outSide the northern boundary of the landfill on either side of the Railway Ditch
and south of Merrimac Drive, would require remediation. The estimated volumes of
sediment in Wetlands VI and XV that may require remediation are 4,209 yd3 and 2,400
yd3, respecrively. However, it should be noted that these volumes were conservatively
estimated assuming that the entire wetlands will require sediment excavation. While
sediment samples from the ponions of these wetlands immediately adjacent to the
Railway Ditch contained COnT::!mimlTlt concentrations exceeding the No Observable
Adverse Biological Effects Levels (ER-Ms), published by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric .Anmini~tra.tion (NOAA) samples were not collected from these wetlands at
locations .fanher away from the Railway Ditch so there are no data to suggest that
remediation of the entire wetlands is necessary. j Confirmational sampling has been
conducted in these wetlands to confirm whether sediment removal is necessary.
Remedial volumes resulting from the sampling results will be confirmed prior to
implementation of remedial action. Excavation will be avoided, wherever possible, to
avoid the adverse long-term effects of wetlands destruction.
MKOI \Rl'T:00628026..004\L5rod.a1l
49
-------
- -
. .
MXD1\RPT:00628026..004\1f5rod.a1l
50
-------
VI. SUMl\1ARY OF SITE RISKS
- -
A Risk Assessment (RA) was performed to estimate the probability and magnimde of
potential adverse human health and environmental effectS from exposure to
contaminantS associated with the Site. The public health risk assessmem followed a
four-step process:
1.
Contaminant identification, which identified those hazardous rub stances
which, given the specifics of the site, were of significant concern.
2.
Exposure assessment. which identified actUal or potential exposure pathways,
characterized the potentially exposed populations, and determined the eXtent
of possible exposure.
3.
Toxicity assessment. which considered the types and magnitude of adverse
health effeCtS associated with exposure to hazardous substances.
4.
Risk characterization, which integrated the three earlier steps to summarize
the potential and actual risks posed by carcinogenic risks.
. i
The results of the baseline human health and ecological risk assessments for Pease AFB are
discussed in the subsections that follow.
A. Human Health Risk Assessment
A total of 75 CODt::!mimmtS of concern, listed in Tables 4 through 12, were selected for
evaluation in the human health risk assessment. These CODt::!min::!nts constitute a
representative subset of the more than 98 conT~minantS identified at the site during the RL
The 75 CODT~minantS of concern were selected to represent potential site-related hazards
based on toxicity, concentration, frequency of detection, mobility, and persistence in the
environment. A summary of the health effectS of each of the contaminants of concern can
be found in Subsection 632 and Appendix L4 of the LF-5 Draft Final RI (F-500).
MKDl \ RPT:00628O"'..6.004 \1fSrcd..all
51
-------
Table 4
Chemicals of Concern in Main SoUsa
I.F -5, Pease AFB, NIl
- -
Range of Range of Upper 95%
Sample Averaged Confidence
Frequency Quanritation (Detected) Mean Limit of the
of Limits COUCf:utrarions: Coucentrarion~ Mean
Chemical Detecrioub (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Organics
Aroclor-1242 2/33 0.045-9.1 1.6-53 0.43 1.0
Aroclor-1248 3/33 0.045-9.1 0.82-3.4 039 I 0.88
Bis(2-ethyih.exyl) 27/33 0.45-15 0.055-1.0(1.1) 0.66 1.0 I
phthalaIe
4,4' -DDD 8/33 0.009-1.8 0.003-0.23 0.062 I 0.13
I
4,4' -DDE 14/33 0.014-1.8 O.OOl~.71 0.085 0.25
4,4' -DDT 23/33 0.009-0.41 0.002-3.4 0.18 0.66
Dibenzofuran 7/33 0.35-2.4 0.055-30 0.56 1.0
l.4-Dic:h1orobenzcm: 2/31 0.35-15 0.057~.11 O.4zes O.64d
Diddrin 5/33 0.;~!9-1.8 0.009-0.24 0.D68 0.15
Di-n-butyl phthalate 6/33 035-15 0.03~.084 0.4
-------
Table 4
Chemicals of Concern in Main Soilsa
LF-5, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
- -
I Range of Range of Upper 95%
Sample Averaged Confidence
Frequency Quanritarion (Detected) Mean Limit of the
of Limits Concentrations" Concentrationd Mean
Chemical Detecrion~ (mgjkg) (mg/kg) (mgjkg) (mg/kg)
Organics (continuea""') I
Dibenzo( a.h)- 8/33 I 035-2.4 0.082-23 0.51 0.88
anthracene
Fluoranthene 213/33 I 0.36-2.4 0.045-200 2.7 U.5
Fluorene 7/33 I 035-2.4 0.075-<12 0.77 L7
Indcno(1,2.3-cd)- 10/33 035-2.4 0.17-87 L1 2.6
pyrenc
P"""'~l'It,",ene 16/33 035-2.4 0.048-240 2.4 10
Pyrcnc 213/33 0.36-0.45 0.048 (0.040) - 2.4 10
, J 210 .
p.....t~l"1tlnrophenol 4/33 1.8-76 0.D93-0.94 1ZS zst
1norganics ,
ArseDic 36/36 1.(1 4.0-28.6 9.7 11
Cadmium 4/36 L7-7.6 2.0-1l.9 L7 2.1
Copper 36/36 3.(1 6.8-215 23" 28
Lead 33/36 9-15 7.1-193 37 49
Manganese 36/36 Iff 105-1,080 333 388
Mercury 8/34 I 0.11-0.28 0.14-0.81 0.13 0.17
Zinc 32/36 15-34 25-259 68 89
-rhe listed dI_i""lc were scIcaec1 as chemicals of a:ma:m for both the human health and ecological risk asses:smCDtS.
~umbcr of sampling ICJCaliaas at which the c:IIcmica1 was cIctcctcc1 c:ompa=1 with the IDtai. n1lD1bcr of sampling locaEious.
c:n the mimmum. or maxim- detected cozu:=tmion d.if[crec1 from the ~ minimum or maximum ~ am.cenaa1iaD. the detccu:d
CODCCI1aation is given in pm'CDthescs. .
~can was calcWarec1 for tbc averagt:d =muions using the minimum variance unbiased estimation approach for lognormaUy c1istnbu=d
cWa (F-230).
~ the maximum deQ:aed concenaation.
'sample quantitation limizs weze unavailable. Metho(1 detection limit is indicated (F-484).
MKOl \RPT:00628O''..6.004\1f5rod.tbl
53
-------
Table 5
Chemicals of Concern in Hot Spot Soils - Dnun Removal Areaa
LF-S, Pease AFB, NH
Range of Range of Upper 95%
Sample Averaged Confidence
Frequency Quantitation (Detected) Mean Limit of the
of Limics Concemrations= Concemrarion:l Mean.
Chemical Deteaion~ (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Ofganit;s
alpha-C11lordane I 2/6 0.23-13 I 0.011-L7 2.6. 15,953.
gamma-Chlordane 1/6 0.23-13 r L7 1.5 28"
4,4' -DDD 5/6 2.2 I 0.021(0.011)-0.67 0.37 39"
4,4-DDE 2/6 0.0046-2.1 0.15-0.26 0.15 0.46.
4,4' -DDT 4/6 0.0046-0.20 0.16-6.0 1.9 19,4Ue
Dibcazofuran 6/6 0.35-2.4' 0.38(O.093)-UO 37 87,oose-
Dieldrin 2/6 0.046-2.6 1.5-1.5 0.57 lis-
Heptachlor 2/6 O.c:3-LO 0.154U6 0.09 0.42<
2-MethyJnaphthaJcuc 5/6 19 0.18(0.039)-41 19 Tl,71S'
Napntn"J""'e 5/6 19 O.18(0.054}04 Tl 95,617
PAHs
Acenaphthene 6/6 0.33( 0.69(0.19)-190 67 113,721e
Anthracene 6/6 0.33' U(0.30)-220 90 75,8JU
Bcnzo( a)anthraccne 6/6 0.33( 2.3(0.17)-890 242 568,l96e
Bcnzo( a)pyrcne 6/6 0.33' L7(0.55)-750 199 633~
Bcnzo(b )fluoranrn~e 6/6 0.33' L7(O.61)~10 182 394,me
Bcnzo(g.h,i)peryicnc 5/6 19 Ll(0.41)-12O 45 6,71?
Bcnzo(k)fluoranthc:nc 6/6 0.33' 1.5(0.47)-300 129 86,.z:ne
Chrysc:ne 6/6 0.33' 2.1(0.74)-910 239 724,l2lr
Dibenzo( a,h)- 5/6 0.38-19 0.38-88 28 16,-WS-
anthrac::cnc
Fluoranthenc 6/6 0.33' 4.1(1..:>1-l,3OO 379 SOS,37Z'
F1uorenc 6/6 0.33' 0.59(0.15)-200 69 218,424e
MKDl\RPT:00628O"'..6.004\USrod..tbl
54
-------
Table 5
Chemicals of Concern in Hot Spot Soils - Drum Remuval Area3
LF -5, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Range of Range of Upper 95%
Sample Averaged Coniidence
Frequency Quantitation (Deteaed) Mean Limit of the
of Limits Concentrations" Concenttationd Mean
Chemical DetecrionO (mgjkg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Organics (continued)
Indeno(l.2.3-cd)- I 5/6 19 1.0(0.39)-190 60
Zl,94Z'
pyrene
Phenanthrene 6/6 0.33f 3.7(1.:)-l.2OO I 326 I 429, 142c
Pyrenc 6/6 0.33f I 61-1.,400 354 509,661c
Toluene 2/5 . 0.006-0.007 0.007(0.004)- 0.014 2..T
0.082
Inorganics -
Boron 1/3 17-23 ,18.9 13 MC
Copper 6/6 3.11 14.8(13.9)-130 31 140"
Lead 6/6 zot 5.1-55.8 23 108"
Mercury 2/4 0.11-0.22 0.29-0.34 0.18 O.9
-------
Table 6
Chemicals of Concern in Hot Spot Soils - Staged UST I..3citiona
LF -5, Pease AFB, NH
I Cl1emical I Range of Averaged (Dete~) Concenttationso I
Orgrmics
Bis(2-ethylhc:xyl) pbthalate 0':4 (021-0.:7)
Di-n-bntyl phthalate 0.048 (0.043-0.os2)
PAHs
Be:IZO(a)~e 0.066 (0.065-0.066)
ChIysene 0.049 (0.048-0.D49)
F1uoranthenc 0.059 (0.05~.D60)
Pyrene 0.078 (O.071-o.D84)
lnorganics
Arsc::Dic 35.1" (6.2-35.1)
Barium i 8,2O(r (4,430-8.200)
Boron 309 (195422)
Cadmium 2.4 (2.2-2.5)
Chromium 54.0" (2LO-54.0)
Lead 187 (159-214)
Zinc 1,690" (962-1,690)
~ listed ~n~;~Js were selected as r""",";t"3ls of concern for both the human bealth and ecological risk .
assessments.
"The range represents the analytical results of duplicate samples from one sampling location (364). The
arithmetic mean of the samples is presented, tmlcss otherwise indicated, and the results of the duplicate samples
are given in parentheses. Because there is only one sampling location. an upper 95% con1iden~ limit of the
mean was not calculated.
'The higher reported value is indicated instead of the mean because the relative percent differen~ of the
concentrations for the duplicate samples exceeded the aitcrion (i.e.. 50%).
MKDl \RPT:00628026.004\1f5rod.:b1
56
-------
Table 7
Chemicals of Concern in Groundwat~
LF -5, Pease AFB, NH
- -
Range of Range of Upper 95%
Sample Averaged Mean Confidence
Frequency Qm.nrit:lrion (Detected) Concentra- Limit of
of Limits Concentrations= tion~ the Mean
Chemical Detection~ (JlgfL) (JlgfL) (JIg/L) (JlgfL)
O~anics
Acetone 1/9 10 46 9.6 18
Benzene 9/Zl 0.7-10 035(030)-U (14) 1.5 2.4
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) 8/25 10-11 L0-8.3(11) 5.0 5.5
phthalate
n-Butylbenzene 3/25 LO 0.45(0.40)-2.0 0.57 0.67
sec-Butylbenzene 8/25 LO 0.30(0.40)-3.0 0.76 0.98
Chlorobenzene 11/37 1.0-12. 0.30-66(80) 5.7 9.9
Chloroethane 3/Zl 2.0-3.0 l.3(LO)-2.5(3.0) 1.3 L4
4-Chloro-3- 9/25 10-11 2.5(2.0)-10(11) .S.6 6.1
methylphcnol
~-Dichloro- 8/Zl 0.6-2.0 0.30(0.20)-12(32) 12. 2.0
benzene
l.4-Dichloro- 11/Z1 O.6-LO 0.20-28(38) 6.4 9.5
benzene
Dichlorodifluoro- 4/Zl 2.0-9.0 3.9(2.0)-13(23) 32 4.0
methane
1.1- Dichloroethane 5/Zl 0.4-1.0 032(0.50)-14(15) 1.3 2.2
~-Dichloroethane 4/Zl 0.10- LO 0.26(0.10)- 0.37 0.44
1.4(2.2)
cis-1,2- 7/Zl 0.5-1.0 0.30(0.10)-8.6(22) 0.82 1.4
Dichloroethene
Diethyl phthalaIe 9/25 10-11 3.7(1.0)-8.3(11) S2 5.6
Dimethyl phthalate 4/25 10-11 L0-8.0(1l) S2 5.6
Di-n-butyl phth:lhr~ 4/25 10-11 3.2(2.0)-8.3(11) 5.4 5.7
Ethyl ether 2/9 2.0 2.0-19(40) 3.1 6.9
Isopropyl-benzene 8/24 LO 0.50-2.0 0.12 0.87
MKOI \RPT:00628026.004\1f5rod.tb!
57
fYiJ/U/93
-------
Table 7
Chemicals of Concern in Groundwarera
LF-S, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
- -
Range of Range of Upper 95%
Sample Averaged Mean Confidence
FTequency Quantitation (Detected) Conc:entra- Limit of
of Limits Conccnttationsc tion~ the Mean
Chemical Detectionb (JJg/L) (JJg/L) (J.ifYL) (JJg/L)
Organics (conrinued)
. 2-Methyl- 2/25 I 1.0-11 8.0(11)-8.3(11) 5.4 5.7
naphthalene
Naphthalene 4/25 1.0-11 3.8(1.0)-8.3(11) 5.3 5.6
PARs 3/25 10-11 3.3(1.0)-8.3(11) 5.3 5.7
Fluoranthenc
n-Propyibem:cnc 8/25 1.0 0.20-3.0 0.ii7 0.85
TetrachIoro- 6/1:1 0.2-1.0 0.30-21(56) 1.8 - 3.3
ethcnc i
Tricbloroethcae 6jZ7 0.6-1.0 0.43(0.51)-1:1(46) 1.6 3.4
I.2.4- Trimethyi- 5/24 1.0 0.1G4.0 CJ.64. 0.90
beuzcnc
Xylenes (total) 3/11 1.6-2.0 1.6(20)-2.6(5.7) 1.2 1.4
lnorganics
-
Arsenic (filtered) 13/1:1 5-7.5 3.4(5.0)-153(194) 30 46
(total) 13/19 5-1.4 5.0-353 65 101
Boron (fiItered) 24/26 100 67(100)-305(340) 117 139
(total) ?JJ/ZIJ 100- 100-269 133 154
Cobalt (fiItcrcd) 4/Z7 40-45 Z7( 40)-80 24 28
(total) 6/ZIJ 40 4O(10)-U4(127) 34 45
Iron (filtered) Zl/1:1 40-291 31(42)- 8,041 12,933
(total) 55,300(64,800)
2O/ZIJ 40" 1,620-173,000 40,281 55,640
M"n~..~ (fiJtercd) '13/1:1 10-19 10(12)- 842 l,262.
(total) 5,268(6,260)
2O/ZIJ t
-------
Table 7
Chemicals of Concern in Groundwater-
LF -5, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
- -
Range of Range of Upper 95%
Sample Averaged Mean Confidence
Frequency Quantitation (Detected) Concentra- Limit of
of Limits Concentrations: tiond the Mean
Chemical Detectionb (J-lgfL) (J-lgfL) (J-lgfL) (J-lgfL)
Inorganics (continued)
Silicon (filtered) 25/2fj 4,820 3,450(3.570)- 8.980 11.022
(total) 24,850(24,900)
71J/20 4,630-95,700 21.306 29389
Silver (filtered) 5/7:7 18-30 17(30)-30 15 17
(total) 5/20 30 23(7.5)-30 18 21
Thallium (filtered) 8/7:7 10-200 41(10)-215(589) 60 82
(total) 2/19 10 10-10 5.5 6.2
asctCCtl:d as ..h......"".<: at cxmcem far tile hUllW1 hc::aI1h risk assessment 0DI:y.
~umber of wdIs at wbid1 the chemical was deU:aI:d .......t-..d with the: tOtal DlllDbc:r of wells.
cr.r the: ",in;..,um or maximum cIeU:cIed ............."""ri"" diffc:za1 £ram the: IIIiIIDIrGm avcaged t'QU...........rinn. the: dea:cted amcenaation is
given in pan:mhc:scs.
dAri%llmetic mean. basc:c1 on ~ CQD"""""tiODs.
"Sample: q\I3DtiQtion limits were uaavailablc:. The: mctI10d det=!ion limit is indicstc:d (F-484).
MXOl \RPT:00628026.004 \lfSrod.tbl
59
-------
Table 8
Chemicals of Concern in Surface Water - Flagstone Brooxa
LF-5, Pease AFB, NH
Range of Range of Upper 95%
Sample Averaged Confidence
Frequency Qwmriration (DeteCted) Mean Limit of the
of Limits Concentrations" Conc:--ntration ~ Mean
Chemical Detection~ (~/L) (Jlg/L) (Jlg/L) (~/L)
Organics i
!
I
Chlorobenzenc 1/5 1.0-1.3 0.40 0.53c 0.6r I
4,4'-DDD 1/5 0.07-0.10 0.022 (0.01) 0.03~ 0.051c
4,4' -DDE 1/5 0.07-D.10 0.013 (0.020) 0.038" 0.053c
4,4'-DDT 1/5 0.07-0.10 0.073 (0.14) 0.050 0.063
lA-Dichlorobenzene 1/4 O.5O-LO 0.20 O.3r 0.42"
T .u,d:u.e 1/5 0.Q33..Q.05 0.020 O.Q2lc 0.02S"
Tetrach1oroethcne 1/5 O.20-LQ 0.35 (Ll) O~ 0.50"
/nmganit:s I
J'. Jtnn;nl11JJ 1/5 200 765 (1.050) 233 516
Ammomat 2/3 0.10 0.075-D.Q95 O.~ O~
Barium 2/5 50 51 (100)-62 (104) 38 55
Boron 3/5 100 80 (123) - 79 ill
130 (210)
Copper 1/5 10-30 24 (34) 12 20
Iron 5/5 0.tJ4& 260 (286) - 995 1.950
2.750 (4,480)
Zinc 5/5 0.01' 7.7 (12)-146 48 102
~D1c:ss othc:rwisc indicated, the dlcmicaJ was selected as a dlcmiI:al of conc:em for both the human health and =ologicaJ risk assessmentS..
~umbcr of sampling locatiODS at which the dlcmiI:al was dctea=1 compared with the tOtal number of sampling locatio=.
"If the minimum or maximum c1etcctcd cona:mration c1iffe:red from the l1:SpCCtive minimum or muimum averaged COI1C:Dtr.uion, the
~ co=tration is g:iv= in parentheses.
d Arithmetic mean based 011 the averaged CODC:I:I.trations..
"Ezcccds the muimum detected :md/ or averaged =tratiOl1.
tsdcacd as a dII:micaJ of cono:n: for the =oJogical risk - I WCDt ollly.
'Sample quantitation limitS WC%I: . ~ :wi1abIe. The method dea:a:ion limit is indicated (F~).
~ \RPT:00628O''..6.004\USroc1..tbl
60
-------
Table 9
Chemicals of Concern in Surface Water - RailwarDttcha
12-5, Pease AFB~ NH
Range of Range of Upper 95%
Sample Averaged Confidence
Frequency Qwmritation (Detected) Mean Limit of the
of Limits Conc:entraIionsc ConccntraIiont1 Mean
C1emical Detection!> (JJg/L) (JJg/L) (J4l,/L) (IJSS!L)
O~c.r
Cblorobenzene 11/15 1.0-1.1 0.10-2.0 0.81 1.0
4,4' -DDD 4/14 0.077-0.11 0.03 (0.02) - 0.064 0.084
0.17 (031)
4,4' -DDT 2/14 0.077-0.11 0.088 (0.16) - 0.D88 0.15
0.55 (1.4)
l,4-Dichlorobcnzene 8/15 0.5-1.0 0.25 (030)-2.0 0.68 0.94
1,1-Dichloroethane 6/15 0.4-1.0 020-2.0 0.53 0.73
cis-1,2-Dichloroethcnc 11/15 0.67-1.0 0.20-2.0 0.59 0.79
Trichlorocthcne 8/15 0.60-1.0 020-9.0 1.2 2.2
lnorganics I
Aluminum W/15 200 211-12,467 1.299 2,732
(37,200)
Ammoniac 2/4 0.10 0.15-0.27 0.13 0.25
Arsenic 12/15 5.0 4.4 (5.1)-850 84 183
Barium 6/15 50 35-339 (968) 55 92
Boron 11/15 100 106-227 (351) 126 153
Copper 4/15 10-30 11-102 (287) 15 Zl
Iron 14/15 169 409-220,483 24,669 SO,739
(658,000)
Lead 10/15 3.0-5.0 3.1 (3.7)-96 14 25
(280)
M~n~n~ 15/15 10' 72 (35) - 2,014 3,234-
10,897 (31,500)
Mercwy 1/15 0.1-0.2 0.23 (0.55) o.rm 0.099
Nickel 4/15 15-16 9.6 (15.7)-54 15 21
(154)
Thallium 3/15 10-73 37 (90) - 118 282
1,417 (4,240)
Zinc 12/15 10-13 15 (14)-328 56 94
(974)
~1 \RPT:00628026.004\1f5rod.tbl
61
-------
Table 9
Chemicals of Concern in Surface Water - Railway Dirtfi8
LF-S, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
auAlcss otbezwise incticated.. the c:bcmica1 - seleaed as a chemica1 of CODCem for the Inmaan health and ecologU:a1 risk assessments..
~umber of sampling locazions at wIIid1 the chemical was dereacd ~ with the toca1 nWllbe:r of sampliDg locazioDS.
"If the miDimum or maximum d==ed concamaticm diffc:n:c1 from the rapcaive miDimum or "'-'112,= m:zag=1 a:mcenaaaoD, the deICCII:d
CCIIC:I2aation is gi\q in pareIIIDcscs.
d Arithmelic mean based on the awezaged CODCeZ1aaDoDs.
"Sdeaed as a cheuW:al of COIICI:m for the ccologicaJ risk 1I..ent only.
'sample quantitation limit': were 1ZDaII'ai1ab1c. ~ethod c:l=:aion limit is indicued (F-484).
MKDl \RPT..m.r;2S026 004\IfS%OdJ:bl
62
-------
'-'Ao
:GEND:
.. Sudl91D8
~ Manazor well (B8cnod<)
- ~ "'--IOvercura8n,
@ "'-- (Hyondl
o Pia_-
I 0.00 I 1'0:;0 =oanntJons (IIQII)
A: To~ ~mallC VOCs
H: TC:aI "aJOganal8o VOCs
S: 7c:a: semrvalanles
NA ~!T. a:"IatyZ8a
NO ~~ ::18:"'80
SamCU8S COll8Ctec." ~'9' 8:rC8O: as :':Of8C7.
../ sO ~.,,: :Ul/--.nrFTIlASU
= l'loaas ,uonalVoa-1
: :: cu.':':aas ano hrlS
o SUlIO>n;s
~ Fine.
.:::::::.
NO~
o .'00 ., XII '0:1
~=j
b~\
,y
Landfill 5 eLF-51 Area
Stage 4, Record of Decision
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
FIGURE 8
DISTRIBUTION OF ORGANICS IN
GROUNDWATER
SCALE IN FEET
~ "'''Scucw:
';::: aI "~-'.'--" CDmDUDQn Of
-- ~ Glild ttl23J8?
-------
Table 10
Chemicals of Concern in Sediment - Flagstone Brooka
IUnge of Upper 95%
Range of Sample Averaged Confidence
Frequency Quantitarion (Detected) Mean Lim.itofthe
of Limits Concentrations" ConCCDttation~ Mean
Chemic.al Detectionb (mgjkg) (mgjkg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Organics
4,4'-DDD 4/5 0.020-0.035 0.009 (0.005)-021 I 0.069 7.5~
4,4' -DDE 3/5 0.018-0.035 0.021-0.12 0.036 0.57'
4.4' -DDT 2/5 0.01B-a.085 0.020-Q.035 0.023 0.087"
Inorganics
Antimony 2/5 1.7-26.7 2.5 (2.2)-5.9 (2.5) 6.8" 15y
Boron 3/5 15.8-26.7 4.8 (2.7)~.1 (52) 7.4e ~
Cadmium 1/5 0.5-2.7 U 0.90 3.?
Lead 5/5 19 7.95 (6.4)-63.1 36 37r
SI"I~n~ 1/5 0.17-U I 0.95j 0.55 4.9"
Tha1Iium 1/5 0.13-26.7 9.6 (192) 11 23.900.000c
"Se1ected as a d1c:miA:a1 of COIICe:m for both die h1lDlal1 health aDd ~ risk . ~.......,
"Number of sampling locaboDs at whid1 the c:bcmiI:aI. - ac=c:tcd .....~...1 with the totall11Ullbcr of sampling locations.
"If the miDimum or maxiDmm c!cII:cted ama:mr.nion c1iffercd from tile ~ minimum or mamnum ~ ccmc:=traziOD. the
detected amccnaauon is giv1:D in p;m:nthcscs.
d~can - c:aJc:u1aa:c1 for the aw::r.tpi amc:cm:r.aions using the minimum variaDcc unIriascd "","",,,rinn approad1 for lognormaily c1isz:ribatcd
data (F-Z30).
"Exc=ds the maximum detected amccnaatiol1.
MKDl \R1'T:00628O''..6.004\lf5rod.lbl
63
-------
Table 11
CL:- weals of Concern in Sediment - Railway Ditcha -
Range of Range of Upper 95%
Sample Averaged Confidence
Frequency QuantitaJion (Detected) Mean Limit of the
of Limits ConccntrarioDS ConccmraIion4 Mean
Chemical Detection~ (mg/kg) C (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Organics
Acetone I 3/15 O.013-L4 O.D29-o.20 0.073 0.21"
Bem:oic acid 4/13 1.8-16 0.12-14 (Zl) 3.5 16
Bis(2-ethyihcxyl) 6/14 0.36-7.4 0.18-0.49 0.60" 0.83"
phthalate
2-Butanone 3/15 0.13-0.77 0.019-0.20 0.024 0.041
a1pha-Chl~ 1/15 0.097-4.8 O.ll 0.39" La"
gamma-Chlordane! 1/14 0.097-4.8 0.078 OZ 0.67
4,4' -DDD 8/15 0.022-0.55 0.0038 0.68 148
(O.OOI7}-3.l
(4.9)
,
4,4' -DDE 10/15 0.022-0.55 0.0029-0.28 0.079 0.31--
4;4' -DDT 9/14 0.022-0.55 0.0074-3:.9 (10) 1.1 6r
I.4-DichJorobca7eDe 3/14 0.36-7.4 0..14-0.76 0.64 1.18
1,2-DichIoroethenc 3/15 0.006-0.068 0.007-0.45 0.019 0.058
(total)
PARs
Acenaphthene 3/15 0.106-7.4 0.26-0.67 037 0.56
AcenaphthyIenc 2/15 0.136-7.4 0.42-0.79 0.41 0.61
BeDZO(a)- 13/15 0.40-7.4 0.0097 0.27 0.91"
anthracene (0.0062)-0.53
(0.59)
Benzo( a)pyrene 12/15 0.0072-7.4 0.0049-0.36 0.25 U
Beuzo(b )- 12/15 0.0055-7.4 0.039 (O.0Q82)- 0.39 L7
fl1lCJI':'nth~e 0.66 (0.76)
Beuzo(g,h,i)- 8/15 0.023-7.4 0.020 (0.007)- 0.25 0.83"
perylene 0.26
Benzo(k)- 12/15 0.00.53-7.4 0.0Q94 0.25 0.96"
fluoranthenc (0.0033)-0.46
(0.76)
~ \RPT;OO628026.004\1f5rod.tbl
64
-------
Table 11
Chemicals of Concern in Sediment - Railway Dirclia
(Continued)
Range of Range of Upper 95%
Sample A vcraged Confidence
Frequency Quantitation (Deteaed) Mean Limit of the
of Limits Concenttations Concentration~ Mean
Chemical Detection~ (mg/kg) C (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mgjkg)
P AHs (continued)
Chrysene 13/15 0.40..7.4 0.036 (0.010)- 030 0.63=
0.53 (0.58)
Dibenzo( a.h)- 3/15 0.0018-7.4 0.0041"{).090 0.37" 6.2:' I
anthracene
Fluoranthene 3/15 0.40-7.4 0.087 (0.020)- 0.44 0.90
0.94 (L4)
Indeno(~d)- 9/15 0.013-7.4 0.028 (0.011)- OIr 0.94=
pyrene 0.25
Phcuanthrenc 8/15 0.084-7.4 0.044 (0.030)- 0.22 0.4r
0.25 (L4)
Pyrene 12/15 0.082-7.4 , 0.09j4. (0.019)- 0.38 0.00
0.84 (0.94)
lnorgarri&s
Antimony 3/15 0.0021-0.26 8.5-24 (3.5) 18 4se
Arsenic 14/15 8.2 8.0 (4.8)-800 95.6 341
Boron 8/15 23-264 8.9..75 29 48
Cobalt 13/15 13-53 8.7 (72)-57 18 25
Iron 15/15 I 4' 9,340 (8,970)- 35,400 57,400
195,000
Lead 15/15 38 13 (10)-621 106 271
Man~nese 15/15 La' 185 (97)-8.430 2,610 6,650
Nickel 14/15 66 18 (15)-79 34 41
Zinc 15/15 I Z3 25-409 113 190
-UDiess othl:%Wise incticared. the chcmica1 was seJccrcd as a chemical of amce:m for both the human health anc1 ecological risk
-------
'fable 12
I
Summary or Chemicals or Conc~rn by Mediumq
I.F-S, Pense AFO, Nil
Snil (Drum
Soil Excavalion Soil (UST Surface Water- Surface Walcr- Sedimcllt- Scdimcllt-
Chcmical (Main) Area) Location) Groundwater Flagstone Brook Railway Dilch FI(tgslouc Brook Railway Dilch
OrgQlI/CS
Acetone x x
Aroclur-1242 x
Amdur-I248 x
Benzene x
Benzoic acid x
Bis(2-clhylhcxyl) phlhalale x X X x
2-Bulanone x
II-nulylhenzene x
scc- Butylbenzene x
alpha-Chlordane x 'If
gamma-Chlordane x 'If
Chlorobenzene x -- x x
Chloruclhanc x
4-Chluro-3-mclhylllhenol x
4,4'-DDD x x x x x x
4.4'-DDE x x x x x
4.4'-DDT x x x x x x
Dibcnzofuran x x I
1.2-Dichlorobenzene x I
1,4-Dichlorobenzene x x x x x
DichlorodiOuoromethane x
I, I-Dichloroethane x x
..2- Dichloroethene >f >f XII
Dieldrin x x
Diethyl phthalate x
M KO 1 \RP'I':0U628026.004\IfSrod.lbl
66
-------
Table tZ
Summary of Chemicals of Concern by Medillmll
LF-5, Pease AFU, NH
(Continued)
Soil (Drum
Soil Excavation Soil (UST Surface Water- Surface Walcr- Scdimcnt- Scdimcnt-
Chemical (Main) Area) Location) Groundwater Flagstonc Brook Railway Dill:h Flagstone Brook Railway [)itch
Dimethyl phthalate x
Di.n-butylllhthalate x x x
Ethyl ether x
Heptachlor x
- - .
Isopropyl hcnzcne x
Lindane x
2-Methylnaphthalene x x x
Naphthalcne x x x
PAHs
Accnaphthene x x x
Acenaphthylcne x ~. x
Anlhracene x x
Denzo( a )anthracene x x x
Bcnzo( u)pyrcnc x x x x
Benzo(b )nuoranlhene x x x
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene x x x
nenzo(k)nlloranthenc x x t x
Chryscnc x x x I x
Oihcnzo( a,h )anthracene x x x
Fluoranthenc x x x x x
rlutlrcllc x x
Indcno( 1,2,3-c.d)pyrcnc x x x
Phenanthrene x x x
Pyrene x x x x
Pentachlorophenol x
M KO 1 \ It l'I':IH)ft2R026.0I~1\lf5 fllt!.1 II I
-------
\. '.
Tobie I~
Summary of Chemicals of Concern by Medium-
Ui'.5, Pease Ati'B, Nil
(Continued)
Soil (Orum
Soil Excavation Soil (UST Surface Watcr- Surface Watcr- Scdimcnt- Scdimcnt-
Chemical (Main) Area) Location) Groundwater Flagstone Brook Railway Ditch Flagstonc Brook Railway Ditch
n-Propylbenzene I x
Tetrachlorocthene x x
Toluenc x
TricbloroethclII' x x
1,2,4- Trimethylbenzenc x
X ylcnes x
Itlorgotlics
Aluminum x x
Ammonia "If 'If
Antimony x x
Arsenic x x x x x
Banum x -- x x
Boron x x x x x x x
Cadmium x x x
Chromium x
Cobalt x x
Copper x x x x
Iron x x x x
Lead x x x x X I X
Manganese x x x x
Mercury x x x
Nickel x x x
Selenium x x
Silicon x
Silver x
MKOI \ Rl''r:00628o26.00I\lfSrod.tbl
68
-------
Table 12
SUlIIlIIUry of Chemlcnls of Concern by Mediumll
LF-S, Pense AFB, Nil
(Continued)
Sui I (Drum
Sui I Excavaliull Suil (LJSl' Sua-face Walcl- Siliface Walcl- SCllilllcnt- Scllilllcnt-
Chemical (Main) Area) Lucation) Groundwater Flagstone Brouk Railway Ditch Flagstunc Bruuk Railway Dilrh
Thallium x x x
Zillc X X X X
'An .x. Indicllel Ihlilhe chemical wlsseleclcd IS II chemlcat of concern for bOlh Ihe human heallh and ecoiogicill risk 85iCSSnlenls, unless olhcrwisc Indicaled.
"Selccted 16 II chemical of concern for Ihe ecolugkul risk ISSCiSlllcnl ullly.
f( ~i6.I'ulllcr.
ala wcre fur .Iolu!" !somcn (I.e., cis- and Iruns-).
M KO I \ It 1~I':OO(,28026.004 \1 rSrod.lbl
I
I
-------
The potential human health effectS associated with exposure to the conramimmIS of
concern were estimated quantitatively through the development of several hypothetical
exposure pathways. These pathways were developed to reflect the potential for exposure
to hazardous substances based on the present uses, potential future uses, and location of
the site.
LF-5 is the largest of the landfills within Zone 1 and is located in the cemer of the zone.
LF-5 currently is not used. The only site being used within Zone 1 is Site 13, the BFSA
It is assumed that future land use within Zone 1 will be restricted to prohibit building
construction on the landfills, which includes 12-5. The areas within the zone that are
currently or have previously been used for industrial purposes are assumed to have an
industrial futUre use potential. However, areas adjacent to the landfills could be future
residential areas, particnlarly in the northern, eastern, and westem portions of the zone.
Two surface water bodies, Flagstone Brook and the Railway Ditch, are associated with
LF-5. These surface waters may potentially be aff~cted by site cont~mmants through
groundwater discharge and overland flows. Flagstone Brook and the Railway Ditch have
no current uses. It is possible, however, that if residential development were to occur in
Zone 1 in the future, these surface waters could be used for recreational activities (e.g.,
wading).
Groundwater is not currently used on or immediately downgradient of the site. However,
it is possible that in the future the groundwater may be used on the base for industrial.
purposes (ie., drinking water, showering, process water) or, if residences were to be built
witlrin Zone 1, for domestic use. As such, human health risks due to exposure to
groundwater at LF-5 were evaluated in the LF-5 RA included in the LF-5 FS (F494).
While future groundwater use is evaluated in the RA, it is most likely that current.
off-base public water supply sources would be used. Groundwater is currently used for
domestic purposes by local off-base residenIS. An extensive survey of private wells has
given no indication that groundwater cont~minants associated with LF-5 have affected
private wells.
The following is a brief summary of the exposure pathways evalUated. A more thorough
description can be found in Subsection 6.3.1 of the RA (Subsection 6.3.1 of the Rl).
Only source control remedial actions are considered in this ROD. Groundwater
~l \RPT:00628026.004\1f5rod.a11
70
-------
remedial actions will be addressed in the Zone 1 FS, scheduled for completion in
September 1993. - -
Only one current exposure pathway was evaluated, based on current land use scenarios.
The current on-site maintenance worker was assumed to be exposed to cont;lminants via;
1) incidental soil ingestion, and 2) dermal contact with soil. In each case, the exposure
frequency was assumed to be 250 days/year ror a duration of 25 years. For ingestion,
rates of 7.8 mg/day for the main landfill, 3.1 mg/day for the drum removal area, and 1.6
mg/ day for the staged underground storage tank (UST) area were assumed. The drum
removal area and staged UST area are locations on the landfill that were identified as
hot spots and were consequently evaluated separately in the RA because of the type and
concentrations of conT;lminaTlts in these areas.
FutUre use exposure pathways evaluated were as follows:
.
Soil - FutUre maintenance wor.1~er (fame exposure parameters ~ CtIII'ent
maintenance worker).
.
Surface water - There are two potentially exposed populations:
Future Zone 1 resident - This scenario assumes exposure via dermal
contact (wading) at a rate of 1 hour/event at a frequency of 75 events
per year for Flagstone Brook and 25 events/year for the Railway
Ditch, all over a period of 30 years.
Future Zone 1 recreational user - This scenario assumes the same
exposure rate, frequency, and duration as the residential scenario.
.
Sediment - Again, both future residential and recreational users are
evaluated. In each case, both incidental ingestion and dermal contact were
assumed to occur at a rate of 6.25 mg/ day (both Flagstone Brook and the
Railway Ditch) at frequencies of 75 events/year and 25 events/year for
Flagstone Brook and the Railway Ditch, respectively. In each instance, an
exposure duration of 30 years was assumed.
Snmm4ries of exposure parameters for each pathway evaluated are presented in Table 13
(Le., exposure frequency, exposure duration, etc.). For each pathway evaluated, an average
MKOI \RPT:00628026.OO4\USrod.all
71
-------
Table 13
Summary of Exposure Paralllctcl'S
I.F-S, Peuse AFB, Nil
Exposure Route/Receptor Parameter Reference
All cXl}Osurc routes Avcraging time - noncarcinogenic Exposure duration (years) x 365 days/year. F-171
risk
Averaging lime - carcinogenic risk 70 yellrs x 365 days/year. 17-171
Body weight 70 kg. 11-2112
Groundwater ingestion - adult resident Ingestion rate 2 liters/day. 11-202
Exposure frequency 350 days/year. 1'- 2112
L!xJlosurc duration 30 years. F-2Ul
Noningestion groundwater uses - adult Exposure equivalent 2 liters/day. 1'-197
resident Other parameters SlIlIIe ItS groundwater ingestion rontc.
Incidental soil ingestion - maintenance Ingestion ratc 7.8 mg/day (7.8E-06 kg/day) for the main 1'-2112
worker landfill, based on IIn estimated 1.25 hours of (daily ingestion
eXIJOsure IJer day and an ingestion rate of rate)
-- 50 InS/S-hour workday.
3.1 IIlg/day (3.1E-06 kg/day) for the drum
removal area, based on an estimated 0.5
hour of cXIJUsurc IJer day and an ingestion
ratc of 50 mg/8-hour worklJay.
1.6 109/day (1.6E-06 kg/day) ror the slaged t .
; UST location, based on an estimated 0.25
hours/day and an ingestion rate of 50 I
mg/8-hour workday.
t!xllOsure rre1luency 250 days/year. 11-202
Exposure duration 25 years. F-202
M KO I \Rlrr:00628o26.004\IrSrod.lbl
72
-------
Table 13
SUlIlIlIUry of Exposure Ilu"uUleten
LF-S, .Ieuse AI?", Nil
(Continued)
Expusure ROllte/Rccclltur Paramctcr Refcrence
Dermal contact wilh soil - maintenance Surfacc arca 1,000 cm2 «lIIc-halr uf the lIIean hallli and F-133; F-17G
worker furcarm surface area of allullmales).
Adherence factor 511-07 kg/clUJ. p- 176
Other parameters Same as incidental suil ingestion route..
Dermal cOlltact wilh surfacc water - Surface area 6,300 cmJ (hased un mean leg allli feet F-lIIl
adult resident/recreatiunal user surface area of adults).
Exposure time 1 huur/event for Flagstone Brook and the Estimated, site-
Railway Ditch. specific
EXjlosurc frequency 75 events/year fur Flagstone Drook P-197
- - - (estimated). (75 evenls
25 events/year for thc I{ailway Ditch tutal/year)
(estimatcd).
_.
Expusure dnratiun 30 years. 17-202
Incidental sedimcnt ingestiun - adult Ingestiun rate 6.25 IIIg/day (6.25E-OG kg/llay) fur F - 2112
residcnt/ recreatiunal user Flagstonc Druok alllithc Railway Ditch, (daily liIIil ingestion
based un an estimatell I huur of CXIHlSllre r!Ite)
per day and a cunsumption uf lOll mg/ 16
waking huurs (hascd un the llaily snil
ingestion rate). t
Exposure frequency 75 eveJ\ts/year fur Flagstunc Druuk P-197 I
(estimated). (75 events
25 events/year fur the Railway Ditdl tntal/ year)
(estimated).
Exposure duration 30 years. F-202
~Al(nl\ UlrIO.Onr.'uu)')t, ont\ 'f<...,..t I'.,
-------
Table IJ
Summary of Exposure Parameters
LF.S, Pease AFB, Nil
(Continued)
EXllllsurc Routc/RccclJtur Parameter Refcrcnce
Dcrmal contact with sedimcnt - adult Skin surface area .,000 c012, F-176
resident/recrcational user
Sedimcnt-to-skin adherence factor SH-07 kg/c012 (assumcd to he the same as F-176
soil).
Other parameters Same as incidental sediment ingeslilln
exposure rOllte.
M KOI \ltfYr:00628o26.004\IfSrod.lbl
74
-------
and a reasonable maximum exposure estimate was generated corresponding to exposure
to the average and the maximum concentration deteCted in that pattiallar medium.
Excess lifetime cancer risks were determined for each exposure pathway by multiplying
the exposure level with the chemical-specific cancer faCtor. Cancer potency factors have
been developed by EP A from epidemiological or :mim::! 1 studies to refleCt a conservative
"upper bound" of the risk posed by potentially carcinogenic compounds; i.e., the trUe risk
is unlikely to be greater than the risk predicted. The resulting risk estimates are
expressed in scientific notation as a probability (e.g., 1 x 1Q-6 for 1/1,000,000) and
indicate (using this example), that an average individual is not likely to have greater than
a one-in-one-million chance of developing cancer over 70 years as a result of site-related
exposure as defined for the compound at the stated concentration. Current EP A
practice considers carcinogenic risks to be additive when assessing exposure to a mixture
of hazardous substances.
The hazard index was. also calculated for, eachj pathway as EP A's measure of the
potentia] for noncarcinogenic health effects. A hazard quotient is. calculated by dividing
the exposure level by the reference dose (RID) or other suitable benchmark for
noncarcinogenic health effects for an individual compound. Reference doses have been
developed by EP A to proteCt sensitive individuals over the course of a lifetime and they
refleCt a daily exposure level that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of an adverse
health effeCt. RIDs are derived from epidemiological or :mim:!1 studies and incorporate
uncenainty faCtors to help ensure that adverse health effects will not occur. The hazard
quotient is often expressed as a single value (e.g., 0.3) indicating the ratio of the stated
exposure as defined to the reference dose value (in this example, the eXposure as
charaCterized is approximately one-third of an acceptable exposure level for the given
compound). The hazard quotient is only considered additive for compounds that have
the same or similar toxic endpoint and the sum is referred to as the hazard index (HI).
(For example, the hazard quotient for a cQmpound known to produce liver damage
should not be added to a second whose toxic endpoint is kidney damage.)
MKDl \ RPT:00628026.004 \1f5roc1.a1l
75
-------
Calculated risks for each individual chemical of concern for each exposure pathway
evaluated are presented in Appendix L 7 of the RA A S11mm~ry of additive chemical
risks for each pathway evaluated is presented in Table 14 of this ROD. The conclusions
of the human health risk assessment are summarized in the paragraphs that follow.
For the main landfill soils, the cancer risks ranged from 1 x lO-5 to 9 x 1 104). Aroclor-1242, Aroc1or-1248,
dieldrin, and arsenic each posed a risk of > 10-6. The cancer risks posed by contact with
hot spot soils was 5 x 10-7 for the staged UST location and ranged from 1 x 10-3 to 4 x
10.3 for the drum removal area. P AHs contributed most of the risk for the drum
removal area (> l 1~). There was no apparent risk of
noncancer health effeCtS posed by contact with either main landfill or hot spot soils. The
hazard indices for soil were below 1 at all exposure concentrations.
Cancer risks based on future groundwater use ranged from 6 x lcr to 3 x 10-3 based on
J .
filtered samples and 1 x 1 10"')- . Benzene, bis-(Z-ethylhexyl) phtbalate (DEHP),
~4-dichlorobenzene, ~-dichloroethane,. tetrachloroethene, and trich1oroethene- each
posed greater than a. 10-0 risk. The total hazard indices ranged from 30 to 100 based on
filtered samples, and from 10 to 40 based on unfiltered samples. Arsenic and thallium
had hazard indices that exceeded 10; manganese had a hazard index that exceeded L
Thallium was detected in unfiltered samples only during one sampling round. The
presence of thallium could not be confirmed during subsequent sampling rounds.
The canc~r risks posed by surface water contact were miT1im~ 1 , ranging from 9 x 10-10 to .
5 x 1
-------
Table 14
Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices
Tulal Lifctime Cancer Risk.'" TUlallluzunllntlcx.'c
Uppcr 95 (/lllIcl 95
Perccnt Perccnt
Cunfidence Cllnlidcncc
Mcdium RME Mean Limit Maximum Mean Limit Maximum
Main soils Current or future IE-OS 4E-05 9E-04 lE-02 2E-02 2E-III
maintenance worker
Ilut spot soils - Current or future 1E-03 4E-03 4E-03 2E-IH 6I.~-11I 6I~-O 1
drum remuval maintenance wurker
area
Ilot sput soils - Currcnt or flit lire 5E-01 NA NA 1E-03 NA NA
IilugelllJST muinlcnunce wmkcr - -
lucaliun
(irOllllllwalcr" Fill urc rcsidcnt 6E-04 1 E-03 - 3E-1H :mllli 4EHII I E + 112
(liltcrcd) (liltered) (filtcred) (1iIIercll) (fillerell) (lillclcll)
Jli-03 21!-1I] 71!-1I3 IE I lit IE I III 4E 1-111
(IUlul) (tutal) (total) (Illtill) (totul) (Iulill)
SlIrface water - Current mainlcnance 9E-10 1 E-09 lE-09 9E-O(i 1 E-05 IE.OS
Flagslone Brook workcr
Puture rcsidcnt/- 4E-U8 5E-OS 5E-OS 4E.04 4E-04 5E-04
recreational USer I
Surface watcr - Current mainlcnance 1 E-09 2E-09 5E-1I9 IE-II) 2E-05 lII!-1I5
Ruilway Vitch workcr
Plltllre resillcnl/- 2E-08 3E-OS BE-08 IE-04 2E.1I4 HE II"
recrcalional uscr
Sediment - Curren. maintenance 2E-1O 5E-I0 5E-1O 2E-()4 3E-04 3E-04
Flagslone Brook worker
MKO'\IU"';U0628026.004\USrotl.lbl.
-------
Table 14
Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices
(Continued)
'I'otal Lifetime Cancer Risk'''' Tutailiazard Indcx'"
Upper 95 Upper 95
Percent Percent
Cunfidence Cunfillcllce
Medium RME Mean Limit Maximum Mean Umit Maximum
Future residcnt/- IE-09 4H-09 31!-09 2£!-()3 4E-O] 4E-O)
recreational user
Sediment - Current maintenance 2H-01 SH-01 9H-01 tlE-04 2E-O] 5H-O]
Railway Ditch wurker
Future resident/- 1E-01 2E-06 4E-06 3E-03 JE!.()2 2E-02
recreational user
NA = Not applicable.
'Values arc rounded to one significant number.
bMaximum cancer risk at hazarduus waste liites arc regulated in the range of 11!-1I6 tll IE-04 (106 tu 1114). nisks IIf Icss thilll IEllfi (III") ille gellc.-ally
not of conce.....
cA III,zard index of One (tB+OO) or grcater is usuuUy considered the benchmark of potential concern.
d"Filtered" and "total" values arc based on inorganics data for mtered and unmtered (total) samples, respectively.
M KO 1 \It .rl':00628026.004\IfSI'od.lbl
78
I
I
-------
posed greater than a 10~ risk. The hazard indices for sediment from both Flagstone
Brook and the Railway Ditch were below the criterion of 1. - -
B. Ecological Risk Assessment
The objecrives of the ecological risk assessment were to identify and eStimate the
potential ecological impacts associated with the chemicals of concern at LF-5, Pease
AFB. The assessment focused on the potential impaCtS of chemicals of concern found in
the soi4 surface waters, and sediments to terresttial and aquatic flora and fauna that
inhabit or are potential inhabitants of the site, including Flagstone Brook and the
Railway Ditch.
The species evaluated and their relevant exposure pathways are listed as follows:
White-Tailed Deer
.
.
.
Incidental ingestion of soil.
Ingestion of vegetation (browse).
Ingestion of surface water.
Shrew
.
.
Incidental ingestion of soil.
Ingestion of soil invenebrates (earthworms).
Robin
.
.
Ingestion of soil invenebrates (earthworms).
Ingestion of surface water.
Earthworm
.
Ingestion/absorption of soil.
MKCl \RPT:00628026.004\1f5rod.a1.1
79
-------
Aquatic Biota
--
.
.
Direct contact with surface water.
Direct contact with sedimentS.
Terrestrial Plants
.
Direct contact with soil.
Although wildlife present at LF-5 may be exposed to chemicals of concern through the
dermal absorption and inhalation routes, there is little scientific information available with
which to assess these types of exposures; therefore, these routes of exposure were not
evaluated in the RA It was assumed that exposure to terrestrial wildlife primarily occurs
when the anim~ls feed in those areas affected by site cont;Jmin~rjon. For this assessment,
avian and mammalian species with the greatest potential for exposure were selected for
evaluation of exposure. Species selected were representative of major foraging guilds and
trophic levels that are present at LF-5. Although amphibians and reptiles are important
components of this ecosystem, sufficient exposure and toxicity data were not available for
their evaluation. However, a brief discussion of potential sensitivity of these phylogentic
groups to environmental perturbations were included in the uncertainty analysis. An
ecological inventory of Pease AFB by the New Hampshire Natural Heritage program did
not identify any threatened, endangered, or species of special concern at LF-5.
The aquatic life inhabiting Flagstone Brook and the Railway Ditch was described in Section
3 of the RI. The transpon and fate of chemicals migrating from the site via surface water
nmoff, groundwater discharge, or air transpon of dust or vapors may potentially result in
the exposure of flora and fauna that inhabit these surface waters. NHDES has adopted
many of the AWQC developed by EPA for the protection of 95% of all aquatic life,
including fish, aquatic invenebrates. and plantS. Comparisons of surface water
concentrations with the New Hampshire A WQC for the protection of freshwater aquatic life
were used to assess the likelihood of adverse effects to aquatic life. Where A WQC were
not available for contamin~ntS of concern, toxicity values were developed from toxicological
MKD1\RPT:00628026.004\1f5rod.al1
80
-------
data in the literature. Where possible, the lowest observed effect level (LOEL) for a species
similar to those reponed in Flagstone Brook or the Railway Ditch ~as used.
During the FS, in order to assess potential adverse effectS to aquatic life from exposure to
sedimentS, chemicals of concern identified in the sedimentS of Flagstone Brook and the
Railway Ditch were compared with biological effect levels developed by NOAA. The
biological effect level used in this assessment was an environmental Effect Range-Low
(ER-L) value, which is a concentration that is the lower tenth percentile of a range of
sediment concenttations in which biological effectS have been observed. Whenever an ER-L
was not available for an organic nonpolar chemical, interstitial water concentrations were
estimated using the equilibrium partitioning (EP) approach and compared to A WQC or
toxicity data.
Since completion of the LF-5 Draft Final FS (F-494), it has been determined via review of
,
RA protocols, review of characterization study results for Pease AFB, RIfFS experience at
other sites, and discussions with EP A Region I ~epre~nta.rives that ER-Ls are unrea1istically-
conservative. Consequently a revised approach to seleCting cleanup goals for organic.
compounds in sediments was instituted at Pease. Rather than using ER-Ls as cleanup goals
for organics in sedimentS, the EP method was used to calculate sediment cleanup goals.
Under this method the cleanup goal for a specific organic compound in sediment would be
set at that compound concentration in sediment which would not partition to the pore water
at a concentration exceeding an established A WQC or other toxicity value. Cleanup goals
established for organic cont~m;n::mtS in sedimentS, as presented in this ROD, may be revised
prior to remediation. Cleanup goals for metals in sedimentS will continue to be ER-Ls.
In addition to the comparisons just described, a qualitative evaluation of the benthic
community sampling results was presented in Subsection 35.3 of the RI and will be
summarized in the paragraphs that follow.
The disttibution and composition of vegetative communities observed at LF-5 were
described in Subsection 35.1 of the RI. A direct comparison of soil concentrations with
:\fiaJl \RPT:~OO4\1f5rod..al1
81
-------
available phytotoxicity data was used to qualitatively assess potential adverse effeCtS on
vegetation.
- -
There is currently no EP A guidance for quantitatively evaluating potential adverse effeCtS
to plants growing in contaminated soils. Based on a visual inspection of plants grown at .
LF-5, no signs of phytotoxic effeCtS (i.e., necrosis, chlorosis, or stUnted groWth) were
observed. New Hampshire and EP A A WQC provide protection for 95% of all aquatic life,
including plants. Therefore, potential toxicity to aquatic plants was not evaluated separately,
but was taken into account in the comparison of surface water concentrations to the New
Hampshire and EP A A WQC. In the case of rooted or emergent aquatic plants, sufficient
toxicity data were not available, and therefore, rooted and emergent aquatic plants were not
evaluated in the RA
The results of the environmental evaluation indicate chemicals of concern identified in the
surface so~ surface waters, and sediments at LF-5 may adversely affeCt seleCted target
species and aquatic life. In general, the chemicals of donce~ by medium, that contributed
moSt to the total hazard indices were as follows:
.
Soil- PeSticides, benzo(a)pyrene, lead, and zinc.
.
Surface waters - Alnmim1m, copper, iron, lead, zinc, and DDT.
.
Sediments - Arsenic, DDT, DDD, DD~ alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, .
and lead.
Total hazard indices, for target species, based on average and maximum exposure
concentrations ranged from 2.76 (deer; hot spot) for average exposure concentrations to'
2.86 x Ht (masked shrew; hot spot) for maximum exposure concentrations. The hazard
indices for LF-5 surface water evaluations, average and maximum concentrations, ranged
from 1.47 (Flagstone Brook; acute criteria) to 2,810 (Railway Ditch; chronic criteria),
respectively. The hazard indices calculated for the LF-S sediment evaluation ranged from
77.4 (Flagstone Brook; average concentration) to 12,800 (Railway Ditch maximum
concentration).
MKD1 \RPI':OO628026.004\1f5rod..a11
82
-------
Macrobenthos population analyses were also conducted in Flagstone Brook and the Railway
Ditch to provide information in support of the ecological risk assessznent for LF-5. Results
of the community analyses are discussed in the paragraphs ~at follow. A total of 1,626
benthic macroinvenebrates representing 47 taxa were collected in 20 samples from in and
adjacent to Flagstone Brook stations 8031, 821, 819, and 818. Information on taxa and
pollution tolerance values were used to calculate biotic indices for each of the taxa
encountered.
The one-way analysis of variance (AL"IOV A) statistical method was performed on the data
set to determine whether a significant difference in the total number of org~lT1ic;mc; and total
number of taxa. existed between sampling stations. The data show a downstream increase
in the total number of taxa while the total number of individuals exh11rirs no significant
increase.
Index values were computed for each sample data set from Flagstone Brook. A general
,
trend was observed in the biotic index for Flagstone Brook. At station 803~ the biotic index
of 3.1 is indicative of fair water quality. The next station downstr~ Station 821, had. the
highest biotic index value (3.8), which is indicative of poor water quality, while biotic index
values at stations 819 (32) and 818 (2.7) exhibited an improvemem in water quality
downstream of LF-5. - The lowest biotic index value was observed at station 818, which is
indicative of good water quality. This corroborates the diversity, evenness, and community
similarity data that indicate a downstream improvement in water quality below LF-5.
For the Railway Ditch, a total of 218 benthic macroinvenebrates representing 22 taxa were
collected from three stations (826, 826, and 828). Stations 827 and 828 were located in the
Railway Ditch, and station 826 was located as a conn-ol point west of Flagstone Brook.
Station 826 was located in a stream similar in size and characteristics to the Railway Ditch
stations for use as a control or reference station to compare surface water, sediment, and
macrobenthos data. The conn-ol station (826) had the most taxa (13) and the largest
number of individuals (190) of the three stations sampled. Stations located downstream of
LF-5 exhibited a decrease in the total number of taxa in comparison to station 826.
MKOl \RPT:00628O''-6.QO.;\1fSrod.all
83
-------
Additionally, downstream stations had lower total numbers of individuals in comparison to
station 826. - -
A one-way ANOV A was performed on the quantitative data. set to determine whether a
significant difference in total number of individuals and total number of taxa existed
between each sampling station. The results of this statistical analysis indicated that station
826 (control) had significantly more org~ni"ms and taxa than either of the two stations
located in the Railway Ditch (827 and 828). There were no statistical differences between
the two downstream stations with respeCt to either the number of organim1" or the number
of taxa.
Station 826, the control station, had a biotic index value of 3.4, which is indicative of fair
to poor water quality, while stations 827 and 828 had index values indicative of good water
quality. The two downstream stations had ~mil~T biotic index values, diversities, and species
. composition and are different from the community at station 826. -
i
.''..i..
Actnal. or tbre.atened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by.
implementing the- response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and
substantial endangermem to public health, welfare, or the environment. However,
remediation of LF-S soils and sediments under the ROD will serve to elimm::lte LF-S as a
source of cont~min::ltion, thereby reducing the threat of endangerment. Additionally, Zone
1 groundwater remediation, which is to be addressed in the Zone 1 Draft Final FS
(completed in August 1993) will reduce conrnmin:lnt mobility such that future human health
and ecological risks via exposure to groundwater and surface water at and around LF-S will
be reduced to acceptable levels.
MKD1\RPT:00628026.~\1f5rod.a11
84
-------
VII. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTER..~ATIVES
A. Statutory RequirementsjResponse Objectives
- -
Section 121 of CERCL\ establishes several statutory requirements and preferences,
including: remedial actions must be protective of human health and the environment;
remedial actions, when complete, must comply with all federal and more stringent state
environmental standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations, unless a waiver is invoked;
the remedial action selected must be cost-effective and utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable; and a preference for remedies in which treatment that permanently and
significantly reduces the volume, tOxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances is a
principal element over remedies not involving such treatment. Response alternatives were
developed to be consistent with these mandates.
Based on prelimin~ry information relating to types of cont~min~:n~, environmental media
of concern, and potential exposure pathways, RAOs were developed to aid in the
development and saeeDing of alternatives. These RAOs were developed to mitigate
existing and future potential threats to public health and the environment via. source control
These response objectives for sediment were:
.
To protect ecological receptors from direct contact with, or ingestion o~
sediment containing CODt~minaT1tS in excess of concentrations that may present
a health risk (total hazard index greater than 1). .
.
To protect human receptors from direct contact with, or ingestion o~ sediment
containing contaminants in excess of concentrations that may present a health
risk (total cancer risk greater than 1
-------
.
To protect hllm~n') from direct contact with. or ingestion of, CODt;:!m;n~ted
soils or debris that may present a health risk (total cancer risk greater than
104 or a total hazard index greater than 1). - -
.
To protect ecological receptors from direct contact with. or ingestion of, soil
or debris containing cODtamin::lnts in excess of concentrations that may present
health risks (total hazard index greater than 1).
.
To reduce the migration of contam;n::l1Jts from soil or debris into the
groundwater, which may inhibit attainment of the groundwater RAGs for
Zone 1.
.
To reduce the migration of cont:lm;n~nts from soil or debris into surface
water, which may inhibit attainment of the surface water RAGs for Zone 1.
The source control response objeCtive for groundwater and surface water was the following:
.
To reduce the migration of contamin~nts from sediments and landfill soil and
solid wastes within the LF-5 source area, which may inhibit ::Ifrninmem of the
groundwater and SUIface water remedial objectives for Zone L
J
The remedia.! response objectives for mitigation of cont;tmTn::lnt migration will be addressed
in the Zone 1 FS and its subsequeItt ROD.
B. Technology and Alternative Development and Screening
CERCLA and the National Contingency Plan (NCP) set forth the process by which remedial
actions are evaluated and selected. In accordance with these requiremems, a range of
alternatives was developed for LF-5.
With respect to source control, the RIfFS developed a range of alternatives in which
treatment that reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume (TMV) of the hazardous subStances
is - a principal element. This range included an alternative that removes or destroys
hazardous substances to the maximum extent feasible, eliminating or minimi7ing to the
degree possible the need for long-term m::ln::lgement. This range also included alternatives
that treat the principal threats posed by the site but vary in the degree of trearment
MKD1\RPT:00628026:004\lfSrod.a.D
86
-------
employed and the quantities and characteristics of the treatment residuals and untreated
waste that must be managed; alternatives that involve little or no .1I'~atment but provide
protection through engine:ring or institutional controls; and .a no action alternative.
~l\RPI":OO628026..004\15rod.al1
87
-------
- -
MKD1\RPT:00628026..004\USrocL11l
88
-------
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
- -
The information presented in the LF-5 Draft Final RI was used to prepare an FS. The FS
provides a screening of 13 source control remedial alternatives. Five alternatives passed
through the screening process and were retained for detailed evaluation. .
This section provides a narrative summary of each alternative evaluated. A detailed tabular
assessment of each alternative can be found in Table 53-1 of the FS.
A. Source Control Alternatives Analyzed
The source control alternatives analyzed for the site include:
.
Alternative SC-l: No Action/Institutional Controls (considered as a baseline
requirement by CERCLA).
.
Alternative SC-2A: Sediment ~d Landfill Consolidation, T .ancHi11 Capping,
and Potential On-site Construction Dewatering, Treannent, and Disposal..
Alternative SC-3A; Sediment Consolidation, Landfill Capping, and On-site
Landfill Waste Dewatering, Treatment, and Disposal..
.
.
Alternative SC-4D: Sediment and Landfill Consolidation, Hot Spot Thermal.
Treatment On-site, Landfill Capping, and Potential On-site Construction
Dewatering, Treatment, and Disposal.
.
Alternative SC-5A; Sediment and Landfill Waste On-site RCRA. Landfilling
and Potential On-site Construction Dewatering, Treatment, and Disposal
Alternative SC-! - No Actionnnstitutional Controls
This alternative was evaluated in detail in the FS [0 serve as a baseline for comparison with
the other remedial alternatives under consideration. Under this alternative, no treatment
or containment of disposal areas would occur. This alternative does include fencing and
deed restrictions for the property, and also includes a long-term monitoring program. This
alternative would not meet the source control remedial objectives for the site.
MKOl \RPT:00628026.004 \I.fSrocUU
89
-------
Estimated time for design and consttuction: 2 months
Estimated period for operation: 30 years
Estimated capital cost: 5174,400 - -
Estimated operation and maintenance cost (net present wonh): $2,948.315
Estim;lted total cost (net present wonh): $3,123,000
Alternative SC-2A - Sediment and Landfill Consolidation. Landfill Canpin!!. and On-site
Groundwater Treatment and DisDosal for Construction Dewaterine
This alternative involves excavation and consolidation ot 1) sediments containing
contaminants at levels in excess of established treatmem goals, and 2) lancifil1 debris and
contaminated soils that would otherwise remain in contact with groundwater after landfill
capping. During excavation, air emissions would be controlled with synthetic covers, such
as geomembranes. Also during construction, the excavation would be dewatered via a
system of advancing well points. Extracted groundwater would be treated in an on-site
mobile unit to meet site-specific groundwater treatmem goals (either risk-based, or based
onfederaljstate groundwater MCLs). These goals will)be metviamultimediafiltrarion, ion
~rn~1'tge, and activated carbon adsorption. Treated water would be discharged to the local
POTW via existing sewer lines. Therefore, treated water would meet Federal Oean Water
Act (CW A, 40 CPR 403) pretreatment standards for discharge to a POTW. In addition, the
treated water would meet New Hampshire pretreatmem standards, per Env- Ws 900, Part
904.07, as well as requirements imposed by the local POTW. Following consolidation, the
landfill would be capped with a composite-barrier-type cap. A security fence and deed.
restrictions would be used to prevent unauthorized access and future activities that could
compromise the composite-barrier cap integrity.
Based on the MODFLOW model, approxinJately 53,500 yd3 of satUrated landfill material.
would require consolidation. The total excavated volume is estimated at 145,500 yd3.
Additionally, sampling results suggest that a total sediment volume of 9,600 yeP would
require consolidation. The additional LF-2jLF4 debris, which will also be consolidated on
LF-5 (see Sections IV and XII), would increase the total excavated volume by approximately
76,320 yd3. This is an increase of greater than 100% in volume. However, when this
volume is partially used to fill the excavation at LF-S, and partially spread over an area of
MKD1\RPr:0062S026.004\lfSrod.a1I
90
-------
28 acres on top of LF-5, cap design and final grading are unaffeCted. Additional volumes
from LF-2/LF4 and additional costs (if any) associated with placement of LF-2/LF-4 soils
and debris on LF-5 are discussed in the Proposed Plan for LF-2/LF4 completed in July
1993.
Risks posed by exposure to contaminated sediments, soils. and debris would be eliminated
as soon as the cap is in place. This would also minimi7e the pOtential for LF-5 to act as a
source of surface water and groundwater cont;:!mination by reducing the mobility of
conrnmimmts in the landfill materials and sediments. All so~ sediment, and air applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) would be met.
Treatmem residuals, including concentrated salt solution and iron sludge, would be disposed
of off-site. Spem activated carbon would be transponed off-site for regeneration or disposal-
For implementation of Alternative SC-2A, acquisition of approvals from and coordination
with the New Hampslrire Wetlands Board and NHDES would be required. Quarterly air
monitoring and bi-anmull groundwater modelling would be required. Per CERCLA
guidance, the monitoring is esrim::.ted to continue for a period of 30 years (for costing
purposes), with the understanding that continued monitoring or other remedial actions
subsequent to the 30-year period, are the responsibility of the Air Force. Five-year reviews
to assess performance of the containment system would also be needed.
Estimated time for design and construction: 1 year
Estimated time of operation: 30 years
Estimated capital cost $17,362,700 .
Estimated operation and maintenance cost (net pres em wonh): $6,629,721
Estimated total cost (net present wonh): $23,992,000
Alternative SC-3A - Excavation and Consolidation of Sediments on Landfill. Landfill
Canpine:. and On-site Landfill Waste Dewaterin:. Treatment. and Disnosal
Under Alternative SC-3A, excavation and placement of an estimated 9,600 yd3 of
cont.am1n::.ted sediments and regrading and capping the existing landfill would occur as
~l \RPT:00628026.004\1f5rod.a1l
91
-------
described for Alternative SC-2A. No landfill excavation would be performed; however,
landfill debris would be dewatered. Dewatering would occur such that-the post-capping
water table would be lowered to a level 2 feet below the debris. This difference would
minimi7e some of the shon-term impacts associated with landfill excavation; however, it
would require long-term groundwater extraCtion and possibly treatment in order to keep the
waste dewatered. The dewatering strategy is based on water-table elevations predicted by
the MODFLOW model. The dewatering system would consist of six enraction wells and
a collection trench. The combined groundwater extraction rate for the. six wells is expected
to average 45 gallons per minute (gpm). The bottom of the collection trench would be set
at 80 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
The extracted groundwater would be treated via lime precipitation and carbon adsorption.
Row rates to the treatment system would average 45 gpm, with a maximum anticipated flow
rate of 60 gpm. The treatment system would be enclosed to prevent freezing during winter
months. Treated effluent would be discharged to the local POTW, as specified for
j
Alternative SC-2A.
Residuals generated from the groundwater treatment system include spent carbon (it is
anticipated that two 2,200-pound units would be employed in series), and approximately
11.25 tons peryear of hydroxide/carbonate sludge. Treatability studies would be required
for verification of these residuals amounts. It is anticipated that the sludge will pass the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests; however, dewatered sludge would
have to be analyzed to verify this, in accordance with the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Sludge would be disposed of off-site in accordance with state and
federal regulatioDS. Spent carbon would be regenerated off-site.
Treated water would meet the standards for discharge to the local POTW, as described for
. .
Alternative SC-2A. Long-term monitoring of on-site groundwater would contiIme for an
estimated 30 years, as for Alternative SC-2A, with the same provisions for extended
monitoring or remedial actions, as necessary. As with Alternative SC-2A, institutional
controls such as fencing and deed restrictions, would be necessary. Monitoring of
MKOl\RPT:00628026..004\1fSIOd..ai1
92
-------
groundwater levels within the landfill would be required to ensure that the dewatering
system was maintaining water levels beneath the waste material --
Estimated rime for design and construCtion: 1 year
Estimated period for operation: 30 years
Estimated capital cost: 513,084.000
Estimated operation and maintenance cost (net present wonh): 510,916,,337
Estimated total cost (net present wonh): $24,000,000
Alternative SC-4D - Sediment and Landfill Consolidation. Hot Soot Thennal Treatment
On-site. Landfill CaDDin~. and Potential On-site Constnlction Dewaterin!!. Treatment. and
Dis~osal
Under this alternative, excavation and consolidation of sedimentS and landfill debris
predicted to be below the water table would be conducted in the same manner as for
Alternative SC-2A. The volumes of sediment and J~T'lnfil1 material excavated and
consolidated would be 9,600 yd3 and 53,500 yd3, respectively. Details on consolic1~ring.
regrading, and capping of the existing landfill as "veil as environmental monitoring and
placement of institutional conn-ols would, be the same as for Alternative SC-2A.
Groundwater collected during construction dewatering would be treated and discharged to
the local POTW as with Alternative SC-2A., The same type and amount of treatment
residuals would be produced and these would be disposed of off-site as described for
Alternative SC-2A Treatment goals and ARARs are expected to be met as with
Alternative' SC-~ and the same long-term monitoring requirementS as for AlternatiVe
SC-ZA are anticipated.
The only significant difference in the activities posed in Alternative SC-4D versus
Alternative SC-2A is the thermal treatment of hot spot soils and the placement of treated
residuals back into the landfill. The hot spot soils to be treated include several areas in the
drum disposal area wbich, after drum and tank removal operations, were found to contain
high concentrations of cont~minants of conce~ most notably P AHs. Thermal treatment
has been proposed for these soils to reduce the overall toxicities and quantities of LF-5
contaminants.
MKOl \ RPT:00628O"..6.004\ 1f5roc1.a11
93
-------
For treatment, the Low Temperature Thermal Treatment system (LT3(!t) or its equivalent
would be used. As part of the L T3 process, during soil excavation, fielcLsaeening would be
conducted to determine whether elevated P AH levels remain. Additionally, periodic TCLP
analyses of the contaminated soil would be performed to ensure that RCRA LDRs would
be met. It is possible that by the time remediation is initiated, the final rule for
contaminated soils will become final. In this instance, thermal treatment would be the only
LDR compliance necessary. Otherwise, a treatability variance from EPA may be required
such that existing LDR treatment standards can be satisfied. Currently, treatment goals are
based on current hot spot data and a projected removal efficiency of 95 % for the L T3
system. Treatability studies may be required if a more accurate removal efficiency is
required. If LF-5 receives a CAMU designation (see SeCtions IV, IX, and X), LDRs would
not apply to this alternative.
Air monitoring would be required throughout hot spot soils excavation and treatment
activities, as would institutional controls for minimi~rion of shon-term human health risks
posed during excavation. Following treatment, TCLP Joil analyses would be condncted on
the residuals to ensure that metals have not been concentrated or thcir solubilities changed'
such that- TCLP criteria are exceeded. If TCLP criteria are exceeded, pozzalonic
stabilization of residuals will be performed prior to lancifiTling in order to reduce
cont:!minant leachability (mobility).
EStimated time for design and construction: 2 years
Estimated period for operation: 30 years
Estimated capital cost: $23,526,400
Estimated operation and maintenance cost (net present worth): $6,605,687
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $30,132,000
Alternative SC-5A - Sediment and Landfill Waste On-site RCRA Landfillin, and Potential
On-site Construction Dewaterin~ and DiSDosal
In this alternative, all of the landfilled solid waste would be excavated and placed into a
secure RCRA Subtitle C landfill on-site. Sediment excavation activities, on-site treatment
MXD1 \RP'I':006280"..6.004 \lt5rod.a.ll
94
-------
of groundwater for construCtion dewatering, and environme::ltal monitoring would be
performed as described for Alternative SC-2A. - -
The facility would be designed to hold, at a minimum. the 151,000 yd3 or solid waste
estimated to be landfilled. In addition, the facility should have the capacity to hold an
estimated 70,000 yd3 of soil from below the existing waste depositS, and an estimated 19,000
yd3 of thickened sedimentS, plus an allowance of 17,000 yd3 for intermediate cover soil The
new landfill would be constructed to RCRA Subtitle C standards. It would have a
double-composite bonom liner system, providing for leachate collection and leak deteCtion.
A perimeter containment berm. constructed of selected earthen materials, would define the
lateral limitS of the lined facility. On completion of filling, the landfill would be capped with
a multilayered composite final cover system, such as that described for Alternative SC-2A.
The maximum elevation of the new landfill would be 140 (=) feet MSI.., based on a.
contained volume of about 390,000 yd3 (including 150,000 ycf of excavated material). This
elevation would be approximately 40 feet above the maximum elevation of the present site..
To achieve that heigh~ the sides of the landfill would rise at a slope not exceeding 3:1
(horizontal:vertical) to about elevation 130. Above elevarion.130, top slopes would be at
"a m;n;mnm of 20:1 (5%). ConstruCtion of the RCRA Subtitle C lan~ including
dewatering, excavation, stockpiling filling, grading, liner and leachate collection syste~
waste placement and compaCtion, and composite cap construCtion, would be expected to
require approximately 2 years.
Leachate generated from the landfill would be collected in a wet well and would be pumped
into an aboveground storage system. Off-site treatment and disposal of leachate will be
performed, as required. Eventually the leachate could be processed through a groundwater
treatment plant constructed on the base. Leachate generation has been estimated at
between 1,400 and 2,100 gallons per day (gpd) based on a pre1im;n~ry evaluation of the
proposed landfill conditions. It has been assumed that the leachate would be treated
off-base for the first 5 years of operation and at a plant constructed on the base after that
time.
MKDl \ RPT:00628O''..6. 004 \ 1f5rod.a.1J
95
-------
Similar to Alternatives SC-2A. and SC-4D, groundwater extracted during construction
dewatering would be treated on-site with a mobile treatment plant. In.;his alternative, the
I1135S of contaminantS treated would be greater than for Alternatives SC-ZA and SC-4D since
more extensive dewatering would be conduCted. Ion-exchange salt solution and iron sludge
from the mobile treatment plant would be disposed of off-site. Activated carbon used in
the groundwater treatment piant (GWI'P) would be transported off-site for regeneration.
No residuals associated with soil handling and capping activities are expeCted to be
produced. It was assumed that 05% of the landfill material would require off-site treatment
to comply with ARAR.s: all other waste materials would be incorporated into the RCRA
Subtitle C landfill.
Risks to human and ecological receptors via exposure to the waste materials, sediment, and
surface soils would be miTlimi'T-ed under this alternative. Containment of waste materials
in the lined facility and collection of leachate for off-site treatment' would eHmm~te
potential contributions to groundwater that would exist for all other alternatives. This
alternative may help achieve groundwater ARARs dore quickly than Alternatives. SC-!,
SC-~ SC-3A. and SC-4D because of the complete isolation OIsource COTlt:lmimmN and
a reduction in the volume of conrnmin~ted groundwater present at the site that wOuld be
effected during construction dewatering activities.
As in the previous capping alternatives (SC-~ SC-3A, and SC-4D), indirect treatment of
the landfilled material would occur through natural biotraI1Sformation and desorption
processes within the landfill. These processes may reduce the toxicity of the waste materials.
In contrast to the previous capping alternatives, however, cont~m;n~Tlts leached from soil
and debris by water infiltrating the cap would be collected and treated off-site, thereby.
reducing the TMV of contamiT1~ted leachate.
Predicted air emissions from the landfill are expected to be less than EP A's proposed action
level vf 150 mg/year (above which active control of emissions is required), but air
monitoring would be conduCted to ensure compliance with federal and state requirements
for hazardous and toxic air pollutants.
MKOl \RPT:00628026.004\lt5rod..a1J
96
-------
Monitoring of the volume of leachate generated from the bottom collection system of the
landfill would evaluate the effectiveness of the inner geomemb~ liner. Groundwater
quality monitoring around the landfill for conventional leachate parameters would be used
to evaluate the entire landfill's containment effectiveness. Periodic sampling and analysis
of groundwater around LF-5 for conventionalleacha.te parameters would be conducted as
pan of the long-term groundwater monitoring program. This program would evaluate the
effectiveness of the RCRA cell in containing site cont~mimlT1tS.
Coordination and consultation with NHDES would be required for this alternative.
Acceptance by the Waste Management Division would be expected. Coordination and
consultation with the !'l ew Hampshire Wetlands Board would be expected because of
activities in and around wetland areas. It is also expected that consultation with the Water
Supply and Pollution Control Division of NHDES would be required concerning the effluent
discharge from the GWfP. Consultation and coordination with the Air Resources Division
of NHDES may also be required because of potential odor and particulate emissions from
the excavation areas and stockpiled waste mat~rials.I
Estimated time for design and construction: 2 years
Estimated period for operation: 30 years
Estimated capital cost: $28,813,600 ,
Estimated operation and maintenance cost (net present worth): $11,461,724
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $40.275,000
:\fKOl \RPT:00628026.004\1fSIQd.all
97
-------
- -
MKD1\RPT:0062SO''..6.004\If5roc1.a1J
98
-------
IX. SUMl\1A.RY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
- -
Section 121(b)(1) of CERCLA presents several factors that must be considered when
assessing alternatives. Building on these specific statUtory mandates, the NCP articulates
nine evaluation criteria to be used in assessing the individual remedial alternatives.
A detailed analysis was performed on the alternatives using the nine evaluation criteria in
order to select a site remedy. The following is a Sl1mm~ry of the comparison of each
alternative's strengths and weaknesses with respect to the nine evaluation criteria. These
criteria are summarized as follows:
Threshold Criteria
The two threshold criteria described must be met in o~der for the alternatives to be eligible
for selection in accordance with the NCP.
1.
Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether
or not a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed
through each pathway are elimiTlated, reduced, or controlled through
treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2.
Compliance with ARARS addresses whether or not a remedy will meet ail of
the ARARs of other federal and state environmental laws and/or provide
grounds for invoking a waiver.
Primarv BalaDcin~ Criteria
The followiDg five criteria are utilized to compare and evaluate the elements of one
alternative to another that meet the threshold criteria..
3.
Long.term effectiveness and permanence address the criteria that are utilized
to assess alternatives for the long-term effectiveness and permanence they
afford, along with the degree of certainty that they will prove successful.
MKOl \ RJ"I': 0062S026.004 \1f5rod.a11
99
-------
4.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment addresses the
degree to which alternatives employ recycling or treatment that reduces
toxicity, mobiliLy, or volume, including how treatment is Used to address the
principal threats posed by the site.
5.
Shon-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve
protection and any adverse impactS on human health and the environment
that may be posed during the consttuction and implementation period, until
cleanup goals are achieved
6.
Implementability addresses the technical and arlmini"trative feasibilitv of a
remedy, including the availability of materials and services need~d to
implement a particular option.
7.
Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs,
as well as present-worth costS.
Mod~~ Criteria
The modifying criteria are used on the final evaluation of remedial alte:natives generally
after public commentS on the RI/FS and Proposed pian are received.
8.
9.
State acceptance addresses the state's position and key conN"TIlS related to the
preferred alternative and other alternatives, and the state's comments on
ARARs or the proposed use of waivers.
Commnnity acceptance addresses the public's general response to the
alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and RIfFS report. Community.
acceptance of both the original and the revised Proposed Plans for LF-5 waS
evaluated based on written comments and verbal comments received in public
meetings during the public comment period.
Detailed tabular assessments of each alternative according to the threshold and balancing
criteria can be found in Tables 5.2-1 through 5.2-6 of the FS.
Following the detailed analysis of each individual alternative, a comparative analysis,
focusing on the relative performance of each analysis against the threshold and balancing
crite~ was conducted. This comparative analysis can be found in Table 15.
MRD1\RPr:00628026.004\lf5rod.all
100
-------
Table 15
Summary of Hetalled Alternatives Evaluationo
LI~ -5, Pease AII'II, Nil
I'wlc:ctiun 01"
I/lIlIIan I/ealth Cost Anulysisb
ShOrl-Term "ong-Term anLi COlllpliance (Sensitivity
l!I£celivcllcss l!lfcctivcllcss Reducliun in Implemcillabilily I!nvirunment wilh 1\ I(A I(s I\nalysis).
Ilemedial Alternative Ilanking Training TMV Ranking Ranking Ilunking Ilanking (in SI,OnO)
S(;..I No Aclion/'nslilulional Conlrol5. AU C C A C lie 3,123
S(;..2 Scdhnenl and Londrill Consolidullun, U U DC AU 1\11 I\U 23,~9l (ll,687
l.andfill Ca'Jlllng, and On.Sile 10 2.5,17~)
OrounLiwaler Treulllleni Hnd l)isJlu~ul
for C'.onslruclion Dewalerlng.
Se.3A Sediment C'..onsolidaliun. Landfill AU D D An All All 2.I,nun (21,658
Capping, and On-Sile (imundwaler lu 2.1,961)
Trealmenland Uls,JusallO Dcwalcr
l.andfill Wasle.
SC-4D Scdimcnl and l.andfill C.onsolidatlon, II n All n All 1\11 30,132 (2~,JI5
1101 SpOI Soil Thermal Trealmenl - 10 ~1,266)
On-Sile, and On.Sile Oroundwaler
Trculmenl and Disposal for
Omslruclion Dewalering.
SC-5A Sedlmenl and l.andrm Wasle Oll-Sile II AD U U A 1\ 40,275 (3C.,6l~
RCIlA l.anLifilling and Disposal 'or 1047,6(11)
Conslrucllun Dewalering.
a. The ranking syslem Is defined a5 follows:
A. The alternative meels Ihe Inlenl of Ihe crilerion.
U. The alternative partially meels Ihe Inlenl of Ihe crileriun.
C. 'nle aUernative does nolllleel Ihe Inlenl of Ihe crileriun.
All. The alternative was ranked belween A and n.
IIC. The alternative was ranked belween nand C.
b. l!slimaled cosis represenllhe 3D-year presenl worth CDS!.
c. The sensilivily analysis cosls reprcsenllhe upper and lower limils of Ihe 50% confidence 'nlerval.
M KII I \ 'lI' 1':00628026.004 \1 f5 rod.1 hi
-------
The following subseCtion presents the nine criteria. including the two modifying criteria
not discussed in the FS, a brief narrative summary of the alternatives, and the streI1:,aths
and weaknesses according to the detailed and comparative analysis.
A. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
In the long term. Alternative SC-l would minirni7e the exposure of bt1m~n" and large
animals to landfill so~ solid wastes, and surrounding sediment by restricting site access
and development. However, site worker and small anim~1 exposure would not be
mitigated. In addition, contaminant leaching to groundwater would continue, thereby,
allowing human exposure via potential groundwater use as well as through recreational
uses of drainage channels to wbich a portion of groundwater and overland flows
discharge. The continued leaching of contaminants would also affect wetlands habitats at
LF-S.
Alternatives SC-2A, SC-3A, SC-4D, and SC-SA wJuld achieve overall proteCtion of
1mman and ecological receptors from coutaminated soils and sediments. These four
alternatives would also contribute to attamment of overall Zone 1 groundwater. and
surface water objectives. For each of the four alternatives, protection of human and
ecological receptors fro~ smface water contamin~ntS is expected over the long term, due
to elimination of le.arhate and contaminated sediments as sources. Alternative SC-5A
would further reduce the potential for contaminant migration to groundwater and surface
water over that of the other alternatives by encasing all landfill wastes in a RCRA cell.
Over the shon teI'm, groundwater use restriCtions would be necessary to mitigate risks
associated with groundwater use in the early stages of remediation.
B. Compliance with ARARs
Complete ARAR compliance would not be attained for Alternative SC-l due to the lack
of remediation planned for that alternative. Of the three types of ARARs
MKDl \RPT:00628026.004\15rod..1.11
102
-------
(location-specific, action-specific, and contaminant-specific), location-specific .~ are
the only ARARs for which compliance would be anained. - -
Alternatives SC-2A, SC-3A, SC-4D, and SC-5A would ail be expected to achieve
compliance with location- and action-specific ARARs. For conT::!mTnant-specific ARARs,
all four alternatives would meet soil, sediment, and air ARARs.
C. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
The deed restrictions and site access restrictions in Alternative SC-l would reduce, but
would not prevent, human contaCt with contaIninated soils, sediments, surface water, and
groundwater. Exposures to ecological receptors would not be mitigated. In addition, no
reduction in COnT::!mTn::!nt TMV would be achieved. Therefore, continued human and
ecological receptor exposure is expected over the long term.
For Alternatives SC-2A, SC-3A, SC-4D, and SC-5~ significant risk reduction is achieved
by elimina.ting dermal and ingestion exposure routes (both human and ecological
receptors) to conT::!mTn::!tion in site soils and sediments from LF-2, LF4, and LF-5. For
all four alternatives, it is expeCted that long-term reliability would be enhanced via
periodic inspections, and management and monitoring for a period of 30 years (this
time-frame is typically chosen for costing purposes). For Alternative SC-3A, it is
assumed that groundwater would require treatment for a period of 30 years to maintain
long-term effectiveness.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirements of CERCLA 120(h)(3)(B)(ii), should any
additional remedial actions be required (including continued monitoring) either during
or subsequent to the 3D-year rime period, the Air Force will be responsible for
implementation of these actions, regardless of when the need arises. This ensured the
long-term effectiveness of Alternatives SC-2A, SC-3A, SC-4D, and SC-5A subsequent to
the 3D-year monitoring and treatment periods described.
MKDl \RPT:00628026.004\Lf5rod.a11
103
-------
There exists a potential for furore receptor exposures to site contaminants due to failure
of the containment strategy-cap failure for Alternatives SC-2A, -$C-3A, SC4D, and
SC-SA Each source control alternative would contribute to. attainment of overall Zone
1 objeCtives for groundwater and surface water.
D. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Alternative SC-l would nOt reduce the TIvIV of contaminants through treatment because
the alternative does nOt provide for treatment.
Each of the remaining alternatives, Alternatives SC-2A, SC-3A, SC-4D, and SC-5A
would provide for some degree of reduction in !MY, but would not significantly reduce
TMV as a principal element of the remedy. All four alternatives would reduce TMV for
groundwater currently in contact with solid waste. This would serve to reduce the
mobility of soil contaminants in LF-2. LF-4, and U-S. In the case of Alternative SC-SA,
which provides for on-site RCRA landfilling off coDtamiTl~ted soils and sediments.
reduction in the mobility of soil contam;nantS would be signfficantly increased over the
other three alternatives. For Alternative SC4D, reduction of the !MY of hot spot soils
via thermal treatment (LT3) would be achieved.
All four alternatives (SC-2A, SC-3A, SC-4D, and SC-SA) involve on-site groundwater
treatment, which constitutes irrevemole treatment. All four alternatives will produce
groundwater treatment residuals (either concentrated ion salt solution, iron sludge and
spent carbon, or carbonate and metal hydroxide sludge and spent carbon). In each case,
off-site disposal/regeneration is expected. Thermal treatment residuals (Alternative
SC-4D) would be tested for TCLP criteria and to determine the percent COTltarmnant
destruction achieved prior to placement back in the excavation.
MKDl\ RPT:006.28026.004\15md.a11
104
-------
E. Short- Term Effectiveness
- -
Implementation of Alternative SC-l would :lOt be expected to have significant impaCtS on
the community. In addition, impactS to workers would not be expeCted, and use of personal
protective equipment (PPE) would m;n;m;?:e potential impactS during fence and wall
installation and water sampling activities. .\finor environmental impacts would be possible
during implementation, and would be mitigated via use of erosion concrol measures. The
total time for implementation of Alternative SC-l is estimated to be 2 months.
Each of the four remaining alternatives (SC-2A.., SC-3A. SC-4D, and SC-5A) would result
in potential community and worker exposure to emissions generated during remedial
activities (landfill excavation - Alternatives SC-2A.., SC-4D, SC-5A; thermal treatment -
Alternative SC-4D; groundwater treatment - Alternative SC-3A). These impacts would be
m;TI;m;?:ed using engineering conn-oIs and site-specific health and safety procedures.
Sediment excavation and landfill dewatering dUring implememation of Alternatives SC-2A.
SC-4D, and SC-SD could impact wetlands environmentS at LF-5. Long-term groundwater
I
extraction during implementation of Alternariv~ SC-3A could result in even greater impacts.
Landfill capping could compound the effect by reducing groundwater recharge in the area
(Alternatives SC-2A, SC-3A. and SC-4D). Installation of a RCRA I~urifill (Alternative
SC-5A) could funher exacerbate the problem. In all cases. wetlands mitigation may be
performed as part of remedial activities.
F. Implementability
Alternative SC-l, with itS m;nim~ I consttuction activities. is easily constrUCted and is not
hindered by site conditions. Monitoring and maintenance activities would be easily
performed. Composite barrier cap construction, as planned for Alternatives SC-2A, SC-3A,
and SC-4D, is a proven and well-known technology. Site conditions are not expeCted to
inhibit consttuction. Composite-barrier caps are considered reliable engineering controls.
Cap construction would have to be limited to warmer months, and modeling would be
required to better prediCt the post-capping water table elevation. More comprehensive
~l\RPT:00628026.004\lfSro
-------
modelling and pilot-sCale treatability studies would likely be required for Alternative SC-3A
due to the expeCted long-term groundwater pumping and on-site" fi'eatment planned.
Thermal treatment (Alternative SC-4D) is a proven and well-known technology and should
not be adversely impacted by site conditions. However, there would be some difficulties
associated with materials handling and low throughput rates due to potentially high soil
moisture content. Construction of a RCRA landfill (Alternative SC-5A) is a proven and
well-known technology. However, site conditions, such as bedrock and water table elevation,
aCtual volume of wastes to be landfilled. and the necessity to import construCtion fill
material could hinder consttuction. As with Alternatives SC-2A and SC-4D, groundwater
treatment for construction dewatering is a well known and reliable technology that is not
difficult to implement.
All five alternatives (SC-I, SC-~ SC-3A, SC-4D, and SC-5A) would potentially require
acquisition of permits/approvals for implementation. In addition, all alternatives would
require some degree of monitoring and maintenance activities. In each case, the activities
are easily performecL )
G. Cost
The estimated present worth value of each alternative and the options are as follows:
Capital Prcsc:nt
Altc:mative Costs O&M Worth
SC-1 No action, institutional CODttoIs. $174,000 S2.948,315 $3,123,000
SC-2A Sediment/landfill consolidation, capping. $17,362,700 $6,629,721 $23,992,000
on-site groundwater treatment and
disposal for dewatering.
SC-3A Sediment CODSOlidaIicm. IandfiI1 capping, S13,084,OOO S10,916,337 $24,000,000
on-site groundwater treatment and
disposal to lower water table bc10w solid
waste.
SC-4D Sediment/landfill consolidation, hot spot $23,526.,400 $6,605,687 S30,132,OOO
thermal treaanent., landfill capping,
on-site groundwater treatment and
disposal for constrUction dewatering.
MKOl\RPT:00628026..004\1f5rod.a11
106
-------
I I Capital I I Prescnt I
Alternative CoStS O&M- W orch
SC-5D Sediment/landfill waste on-site RCRA. 528,813,600 SlL461.724 $40,275,000
Iandfilling, on-site groundwater
treatment and disposal for construction.
H. State Acceptance
NHDES has been involved in the environmental activities at Pease AFB since the
mid-1980s, as summarized in Section II of this document. The RI was performed as an Air
Force lead. with state and EPA oversight, in accordance with the FFA NHDES has
reviewed this document and concurs with the selected remedy. A copy of the Declaration
of Concurrence is attached as Appendix B.
I. Community Acceptance
The commentS received during the public COlDIQ.ent aeriods and the public hearings on both
the origiDal and revised LF-5 Proposed Plans are snmm;lt1zed in the attached document
I
entitled "The Responsiveness Snmm~ry" (Appendix C). The selected remedy bas been
modified from that presented in the original Proposed Plan based on public comment, as
described in Section X
MKDl \RPT:0062S026.~\l5rod.a11
107
-------
- -
MKOl\RPT:0062S026..004\1f5rod.an
108
-------
X. TIm SELEcrED REMEDY
- -
The selected remedy is comprehe::J.Sive in that it provides for source control and reduCtion
of exposure to site contaminantS via containment, and it also contributes to attainment of
overall Zone 1 objeCtives (to be presented at a later date in the Zone 1 FS) of migration
control for surface water and groundwater.
The selected remedy, Alternative SC-2A, involves excavation and consolidation of sediments,
which contain levels of contamination in excess of selec:ed cleanup levels. on LF-5.
Landfill debris from LF-5 that was prediCted to be saturated after capping (as determined
via MODFLOW modelling) would also be excavated and consolidated on LF-S. In addition.
LF-2 and LF-4 soil and debris would be excavated and consolidated on LF-5 (see SeCtions
IV and XII). However, since LF-2 and LF-4 are part of the Zone 1 operable unit, final
decision under the Zone 1 ROD will be required prior to implementation of the proposed
excavation and consolidation plan for LF-2 and LF-4. Following consolidation, the landfill
would be covered with a composite-barrier type cap }to prevent water infiltration. During
construction, in order to facilitate excavation, groundwater would be colleCted and treated
in a temporary on-site mobile system. Discharge of treated water to Flagstone Brook was
specified in the original Proposed Plan. Based on public comment to the original Proposed
PIa.n, this strategy was revised to specify discharge to the local POTW via the sanitary sewer.
A. Methodology for Oeanup Level Determination
Ceanup levels have been seleCted for each medium of concern at LF-5. Cleanup levels
have been established for chemicals of concern identified in the risk assessment seCtion of
the LF-5 Draft Final RI Repon and for contaminantS detected at levels exceeding ARARs'
or risk-based concentrations.
The approach used to determine risk-based concentrations is consistent with the approach
used to evaluate human health risk in the risk assessment section of the LF-5 Draft Final
RI Repon (F-500). This approach was originally presented in a protocols document
~l\RPT:00628026..004\1fSrod..aU
109
-------
submitted to EP A Region I and mIDES. This document was subsequently amended and
a revised version was resubmitted.
- -
Risk-based concentrations were derived for the chemicals of concern in each medium. based
on the most reasonable maximally exposed human receptor (current or futUre) for the
medium. The chemicals of concern include those substances that were identified as
chemicals of concern in the risk assessment section or the LF-5 Draft Final RI Repon
(F-500). In addition, risk-based concentrations were derived for a few chemicals that were
not selected as chemicals of concern in the RA, bUt whose maximum reponed concenttation
exceeded one or more ARAR.
Risk-based concentrations were derived for each noncarcinogenic chemical in a medium
based on a goal of a hazard index of 1. For each carcinogenic chemical, the concentrations
were derived based on a goal of lcr (l-in-l million) lifetime cancer risk, with the following
exceptions. Some chemicals, although categorized by EP A as carcinogens, are not
considered to be carcinogenic through all exposurd routes. For example, several metals,
inclurling cadmium. chromium (VI), and nickel. are not d~~mied as carcinogens through the
oIal. exposure route. Therefore, in deriving risk-based concentrations for a given medium.
if a carcinogenic chemical was not considered to be carcinogenic through the applicable
exposure routes, the risk-based concentration for the chemical was based on a hazard index
of 1 (i.e., noncarcinogenic risk).
Oeanup levels were selected after comparing maximum cont~minant concentrations
detected for each conta.min~nt of concern in each medium with appropriate
chemical-specific ARARs, human health, and, if applicable, ecological risk-based
concentrations.
In general, where ARARs were available and deemed appropriate, the ARARs were
selected as cleanup levels. Where ARARs were not available, or if the basis on which the
ARAR was established was not consistent with LF-5 exposure scenarios, a risk-based
concentration was selected as the cleanup goal. When ARARs were selected as the cleanup
MK01\RPT:0062SO''..6.004\USZ'OCUU
110
-------
goal. a human health risk was calculated for the ARAR concentration. Ceanup leveis were
not establisbed for chemicals deteCted at maximum concentrations-that were lower than
appropriate ARARs or risk-based concentrations.
Oeanup levels for the various contaminated media at LF-5 are summarizec in the
subsections that follow.
B. Groundwater Cleanup LevelsjTreatment Goals
The seleCted remedy for LF-S does not address groundwater beneath and in the vicinity of
LF-S. Contamination in groundwater will be addressed in the Zone 1 FS. Proposed Plan.
and ROD. However, the LF-S source control remedy would be expeCted to contribUte to
attainment of the Zone 1 objectives and cleanup goals via removal of contaminant sources
and would facilitate the implementation of potential groundwater actions that will be
evaluated during the Zone 1 RIfFS process. For the purposes of this ROD, the Zone 1
cleanup levels are to be considered ('T.BC) guidelines for treatment of groundwater extra!:ted
for construction dewatering purposes. Treatment requirementS established in the state,
federal, and local P01W pretreatment standards will serve as ARARs.
Table 16 presentS ARARs, risk-based concentrations, maximum average deteCted
concentrations in groundwater, and selected cleanup levels for contamimmtS detected in
groundwater. The cleanup levels were calculated using the Zone 1 objectives for
groundwater.
c. Landfill Soil and Solid Waste Oeanup Levels
'--
Table 17 presentS human health and ecological risk-based concentrations, maximum
detected concentrations, and selected cleanup levels for contaminantS detected in soils in
the landfill, including the hot spotS. Oeanup levels were established for 22 contaminants
in the landfill (excluding hot spot soils) detected at concentrations exceeding either human
health or ecological risk-based concentrations. The majority of cleanup goals were
MKDl \RPT:006:S026.004\1f5rod.aJl
111
-------
Table 16
Zone 1 Cleanup Goal ~election - Groundwater
LF-5, Pease AFB, Nil
.- . ---...-.--------------.. ---
- (&IUIWUIIII__.__-
01: 'IInlel'
---._-- ---.- --I._____.!'.!!!e[!!lial ~!i.A:rts .J . ---"--
1.lrc:llme
Ilealih
.-- MrJ,'. ----- -. M[J!j~H_- .tiIUJflJ" ~-]-1WYiIm)~
--itisk :'lft~~X~~-:::"--=::'=::'~:--::--:.-MI~i;\-;;,~=-~;:-'.:======----
-----.-- ~:un~c!!!!!!~!"!! u~"" J I --- -- -- I )clcllell (:Icannjl
lIalllrd I ('ancer Conccnlralion Uoal
--_luili<4 -_'n__- ~~i~kc~,_,,_-,,-T!!I!!I fJ!~ju_"-= CJ!gIJ,)._-
Acetone 1.00B+02
Rcnzene 5.00IHOO. O.OOIHOO -- 5.00!!+00
P13~-el!I)'!~m!lI!!!!!~!!!L__..tQQ!HQ~.._~. -=- ~:~Q!!!~=- ~:~-==~-==- -_!OOIJ:!:gQ =--~-=~:=
!!:-lIuly!hcnzcnc - ---~- ------ ---- -------..--
lec-Butylbenzene ------
9~!!!(Jbc~~~ !.OII!!!.~---- '--J,~Q!!!~- ':=!.OOI1:tOZ.. 7,!!Q!!:t~ --.- -_h.-
Chlnrocthanc
1::~~~r~-= 3~!!!Y!e!len~=. ~===:~~=~~-=-=~~~-~ ..-:.-=~~n~~--= ====--=~~~--~--~-~-=
!.!=!~!£hlor!lbe!!!£!!L_. - ~:~OBt~---~~!!!H~ no.
!.~-:-!JJ.cI1h!!.(~E!!~__. . 7.~01!tO! ?:S~!!t~1 .-
Dlehluwlllrluurulllelhu 110
!.!.: l>ichluroClhaneb
!J - Oichloroelhallc
£!!= 1.2 - Uichloroethenc
Die!!!y! e!!lhalalC
pimcthyl phthalate
QJ-n-butyl hlhulate
~Iell\l:r
t11uorlnlhene
!.!.l!£!wlbenzCllc ------- .-.- '--"-_w
~=M~!!Y!!!!JI!!!!!!!lcne -- ------ ---------- ---.----
~!!I!!.thulcllo
!!.::.!'~~P}'!!J~ze,!~
Tolrachluruelhenc
;!'rlchlorocthene
!I~I~-'!!!!!!~!!.y!ben~~ -.-- .n.__. -. - --...
Villyl chlUllde i.OOH +00. O.OOB+OO 2.0011+00
~lcnc'(lotal)- -1.~n+Q1~_. 1.00nf~1- -I.OOn!04
_..__.!!!!!!&811K-s
~~!~!11£_____._---_.. H~!!t~!_. _d_" ---... 5.ool!+ 01 ---U_'-- -_J.!!!!!!!~!
!!!!!~II ----.. .-. 6.2iiiiioi -~~!!!~
Cobalt
lrun
! .cadb
Mung~nele
Nickel
Selenium
3~~!!i:~- 460lHOI NA
---\.47n~~00---- ----1.40ntoi-- -5:0011100
- ~(iH!! i oli' -..- i:iiii! i iii - -"-6iiiiiii iiii
2.00i! i ou - N'r\! i: ..-
- uiiiOi'ii oii '---NA--
: ~ ~ ~~H i ~!.. u~:'N1_.~-
. ~~I~I!J ~~ NTY~ -
I.OOI! I 01 NTVA
- i2iiii i iii - -'N"--
,uiiitiii i iii N,'
-_: ~J!~~! ~! . - --. - H~. -...
-.-. !:5.~!H Q! .--. N~._-
46Kfi.-0I 2.201!.t 011 NA
. u- -.- ..--"- - n__- --i20ii f 010.- -.-- NA--
n_"____.- ----iiOITim-.' ---'N-A'--
--~=--~- ~~~~~=-_J;i~ij1'~f.-.- .~-=E1___'
!.IOI! t 01 NA
n__.___--- ----'4:ooii ;.0.-." -~-NA-
...-- "---.-'-'-'. ._--..Ioii ;-oi - --- -, NA" ----
".U"--"'.-' '2.0iiii'Ot) .-... NAhU-
- i.iiiii j oi - -. --. NA h. -
----- j:iiiiiiciiu- NAu_u-
-.u ---- ----.-- '------'iooii.i 00 - -- u_-r\iJ~V A---.
-ioon+oo .- - O.OOB+OO'- - 5.00IHOO --l.oon-o! ----'- -..--------- nH![!~Q=--- ==:-:::I~!E!!L~-'-.H~!~T@
j.iiiij!+oii -.- --iioii!!tii~= '-S:oontiiil' _h' --...-..- _n .--.- ~~~!H~Q 1~~!HQ!. _.t~~!~!!!Q.!J
- _h_- -- !:281!:! ~L- 0.. --.-._u_-- --on _.1~Q!!:! 00 NI\
2.248-02 8.1011+00-" ---200£i+oo
7.00n+04 --.!.00ni04 =-_.-~:~!f!Qr= -~.-===:-~:~~:?~~!~~~:. - ~1h~
4.0011+03' --_00__--
.._-.. --.--. _....
..- .'-'-. ----..
6.001H02 6.001!+02
"'''7.5011+01 ---. ---7.S0i!+01
_i.oOI!.~~j"' ='i.oOUtii3 _-=j.iiiiij:jiij
8.1011+01
. S.OOUtOO - -0.000+00 _. ... 5,OO"tOO-- --+,:oontoo ._--. ._u_.. _.
7:iiiin+or- 7.00n+01- -7.00tlt'01
-------- --iiiiiili-oj2 -.---------
N'J'V
--'.-------
1.461!- 02
--"-. .--- ---
-- !:1~!! ~J
N'IV
...o~ N'!y - -
-_1 ~!!H ~}-- -
3.00!!t!!
_!:1~!i! ~IL_.
0- ! .~~!! ! ~3
__1.00!!!.!!! _ui6S1!'t02--
:_---'i9intQL~
-'--'- H~P:tQL.-
36S1!+03
.--- --~.~!E~l=
-- ___J:1~!!t~1_-
...- . -.- -- -- ~:~m! ~L_-
1.241!i III
--iool!+o.- i.24iii iii --.
- ----. -:=lfrY-.--==
P71!!!IO
.-... .---. -- ._~ ---.
. ..- -~- u_.. . u
---
--_.
4.OIIn +03
. 3.00n+02 J!
--.--
--~---- ----
- --.-------
----
. -.-.- _. -. -._u_--..---.
--------
- -----. ---~.OOIH.!!L
'---.
'---
------
.-------- -----.-
3:5311102 . -ioU/i.ol
.. h - .2.69i!.. 02 -. - - ;;1;'- h-
~------------ ----T27iii'02"-.' ----'tfl~VA--'
'----.--'."--...-. '-----i:7.jn.~os'- ---N'i'VA -..
-.---.---.---.. --h.. 6. 'on .0. - ---- T.stiij-, oi
. '-'-'-''''.'- h.._- 4.7Hii-toi' . i6Sii+oj
..-.....------.---..-- '-4:J3ni02.h -~oiI+oi
-------'- _m ~ Q~ITi@-_~ ~= ~~_..=
_--.!~~! U1 -
--~TL_._m
.--. ~TY__.__-
. J.50!!:!:g!~_~~ooiiTgf~ :'=POB+OL ==--==---=-=~= _._.!.~~fH~L_.
- --- .------- ._.___~6SI!! Q} ~u
'-:-OOB+02 --,- ---..OoB+OZ-'- .- --.- __J.oon+02 --1.00n+02----1:~Qg! QL-
j]QiftQI-- -=j~iiii!~C~ =1.001!:!:~!. -------- --_Um~tQ~_-
-------
Table 16
Zune 1 Cleanup 0001 Selection - Groundwater
LF-5, Pease AFR, Nil
-:.- "".... ''''... ---n__. "-'I-===r-~-~~ooo--P';;-lr"";IARAI"T') J-lolfCllnle' "~--~~-(:'II:C~I:~~~~~:~~~d~~=~:~r- ~~~~~:~f~c~r -::I~I~I:::)
-'-::"" ,- - ,-,~,.f~1!.JI;~!ln~II.,~~M!J ~ _1 M< w', NllnrllL .RL1!6'-,_. A~;:~ ."~~~d ..~,L.~;\~~' ~.._.~;~;~:;;');" --.. ~~~
...__~~G~!/'''5 ~~!! nucu -'
~jlic~!!.. ~ . . --. --=Fjy.-~-=-~-r-"'-----'--'1-----9-.s:ji!+(j".f- r --'NYVA--
Silvcr . 5.ooIHOI 5.008+01 1.008+02 1.J0f!+02' -----'---- ---iiiiin+oj- --_nNA---
. T~IT!!'!I-= -'- .- 2.!!!UHQlt..!.. - - ~,!lJiB=!H --- 1:00fi=.Olh --.--.. --.~ -..-- _.-.. - ~~~:~~IT!~~ ==. '~==c'=: -~~:- --;..! liMn llj .:. _.-~~: ~lliiTIT~p.
(a) MC!. '" Maximum Conlamlnanl Levcl, May 1992.
(b) MCI..o .. Maximum Cotllamlnanl tcvclCioal, May 199Z.
(c) NIIUI'IIS .. New Ilampshire Dcparlmcnt of Public Ilealih Servlccs, Junc 5,1992.
(II) I~CI~A" I~CI\A Correctivc Actloll Lcvcls (40 CFH 264.S21 (a) (l)(i-iv) Apl1clldlx A)
(c) Lifctimc Ilcalih Advlsnry, April 1992.
(f) 1/IIIcss nlhcrwise inllicalcd, risk-bascd COllcclllrations arc bascd on a hazard Index of one fnr noncarcinllgclIS allil 1110-6 callccr risk fur <:aldnogclls.
Calculilliun¥ alc bascd IIn Ihc exposurc scellurio DlIII US$IIIIIJlIIIIIIS prcsclllcdill Subsc<:lioll 2.3 and II - SOU.
(g) MUKhllumlicleclcd conccnlrallolls wcrc lukclI (mmlhc risk a$5C$$IIICIII,cCIIIIII of Ihc I.F - 5 Drafl Flnulltll\epnll (F - SOO).
(h) Althuugh calegorlzcd 85 a cat'elnogell. IlIlhe absellcc of slopc faclors Ihe risk-based conccnirallllll W8S based 1IIIIIIIncarelllllgcllic risk.
(I) Allhnugh catcgorlzed as 8 carelnllsclI, Ihc chcmical is 11111 cllllslLlel'cll curelnosenic IhrouSh Ihe apl1licablc expn$ure roulcs.
. '" Vuluc U$cllto Iclccl cleanuJl goal.
P '" I'wposcilltandard
NTV u A lisk - bascd clillcelilralion was IInl culculaled duc 10 Ihe unavaiiabililY of Ihe applicable IlIxk/ly value.
NTV A '" Nil applicable loxlcity value or AItAIl .
NA . AI~AI~ IIr rllk- hUICdcollcclllnllloll excccd. maxlmlllll detccled cOlicenlnllllln.
-------
,
i: 2-Mc:thvInaphtbaiene 159E-03 ' ; 2.1iE+Ol 8.90E+OO ! NA i
:1 NaDhtllalene 1.59E+03 ; 2..73E+OZ ' 3.
-------
Table 17
Site-Specific Cleanup Goal Selection --
. Landfill Soil and Solid Waste
LF - 5, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
; i 2 - M ctlIvlnaph tI1a.Iene ; 1.62E+03 : I :'!7E+Ol . 4.10E+Ol :"l7E+Ol i
!: Nanhth.a.lene ! 1.62E+03 . I ~ 73E+02 6.40E+Ol ~A j
:iPAHs !
:! .<\a:naDhthene 2.18E+OS . I : l.94E+02 L90E+02 NA I
ii .~e : 1.09E+06 .; I ;.02E+03 UOE+02 , NA i
'I ~a~thraczne I I 8..86E-0l .: .., cOE+OO 8.90E+02 8..86E-oll
" ! I 8.86E-Ol . I ~ .88E+02 6.10E+02 ; 8..86E-ol1
;i b uoranthene
Ji Be=dt)tIuoramhc:De : I 8.86E~1 . i 1.OIE+03 3.00E+az : 8.86E-oll
:1 B~~ene ; 1.45E+04 . I I !.05E+03 UOE+az NA I
'I I I 8.86E-Ol 7.00E-oz . 7-50E+02 7.00E-OZ I
il Benzo{a )pyrene
Chnsene ! I ~ L48E+03 9.l0E+02 ' 8.86E-ol i
I. 8..86E-Ol . i
II Dibem.c( a.h)am!lrac:cJe , ! 1.z6E+03 8.8OE+0l 8.86B-011
F1uoranthene : l.45E+oS I :.. 79E+02 . 1.3OE+03 ; 2.j9E+02 i
11 F1uorene i 1.4$E+OS ., -, l.39E+02 2.OOE+02 , NA I
T IDdeno(l.2.3-cd)JM'CDe I ' 8.86E-Ol ~ i 6.00E+02 L90E+02 : 8..86E-Ol i
;1 Phenanthrene : 1.45E+04 I i :"'''3E+OO . L20E+03 : 233E+ooi
il ?vrene , 1.09E+OS i I 1.!3E+02 . L40E+03 1-53E+021
I' Toluene I 8.08E+04 .. I l.33E+OO 8..2OE-az NA I
:, [Domnia I
i Boron ::'97E+06 ! 5.99E+OO . L89E+01 : S .99E+OO1
I CoODer 1 ""E+06 : :.:.sE+OO . l.30E+02 2.L~+OO1
c ~ - - . c . c~ - ,
:
Risk Based Concentration"
~IOglcal
~k- Based
wecentrations
. ::u~lk~) b
Hot Spot Soils
- ::>rum RemovaJ Area
.' Or1!1UJics
'. aioha-Chlordane
. ga=a-Chlordane
: 4.4'-DDD
.! 4A'-DDE
:! 4.4'-;:JDT
. Dibenzofuran
: Dieldrin
'i Heotac!l1or
Hazard
Index
Cancer
Risk:
8.49E+OO
8.49E+OO :
4.60E+01
3.2SE +01
3.2SE+Ol
.1.00E-01 .
:.liE-.J3 .
:"77E-Ol .
3.40E-02 .
!.OOE-03 .
1.70E+03
i.07E-Q2
2.S1E-Ol
L38E-1)4 .
9.79E-1J3 .
.!Lead
!; M erc:ur-.'
.).19E.,..04
9.89E+03
o-.>E 02
:'OOE-02 .
: ~um
i Deteaed
; Coocentration
(!!J~)C
1. 70E +00
LjOE+OO
6.iOE-01
:"60E-Ol
6.00E+OO
!.lOE+02
l.!OE+OO
1.60E-01
~-58E.,..01
3.40E-01
Cleanup
Goal
(m!!lU)
~.OOE-Q11'
3.00E-03I/
:'77E-01 !
3.40E-02 :/
1.00E-031
NA I
l.38E-04,1
9.i9E-03I!
0. -.:>E 02 .1
:'OOE-02;
(a) Unless othc::wisc iDdicaIed. r1sk- based conc:cnlrauons are based on a hazard index of one for noncan:inogem and a 10""
can= risk for carcinogens. Calculations are ba.sc:d on the exposure scenario and 3.5.Sumptions prcem.ed in Subsection :.3 in F -SOD.
(b) . EcolOgical risk- based conccnlrations were developed based on the exposure =arios and 3.5.Sumptions pr=:nIed in
Subsection 2.3 in F - SOO.
(c) Maximum detected COocentratiODs were taken from the risk assessment section of the LF - 5 Draft F""maI RI Report (F - ;00).
(d) Although categorized as a carcinogen. the chemical is not considered to be carc-.nogenic through the applicable exposure roUteL
(c) Although categorizcQ as a carcinogen. in the abseDc:e of slope factors the risk- based concentration was based on noncarc:inogcDic risk.
NA = Not applicable. risk-based concentrations exceed maximum detected concentration.
. = Value used to select cleanup goal.
MKOl\RPT:00623026.OO4\If5rod1 i. wk3
115
-------
Table 17
--
Site-Specific Cleanup Goal Selection
Landfill Soil and Solid Waste
LF - 5, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
\
\\
:\
Hot Spot Soils
'-
I
l
~
~- Based. Concentration'
::.c:oiopcai
\ ~-Based
I CoucensraUODS
\' ~um 1
Deteeted i
CoDccI1tratiOl1 \
Qeanup
Goal
II
: - Staved. UST Loc:;;!tion I Index Ri$k (m..n...,b (''''
-------
ecological risk-based concentrations. Ecological risk-based concentrations were developed
as described in Subsection 2..3 of the LF-5 FS. Cleanup goals were also established for
- -
contaminantS in the drum removal area hot spo~ soils. Again. most of the cleanup goals
were ecological risk-based concentrations. Drum removal area hot SpOt COntaminantS for
which cleanup levels were established include seven pesticides, one SVOC, 10 P.~. and
four metals. Oeanup levels were not established for any contaminantS in the staged UST
location hot spot.
D. Sediment Cleanup Levels
Table 18 presentS human health risk-based concentrations, maximum concentrations
deteCted in sediment. and 1BC criteria that were used in determining ecological risks.
These TBC criteria are the NOAA biological effects levels (ER-Ls) established by Technical
I
Memorandum NOS OMA 54 March 1990. ~e NOAA sediment guidelines are not
enforceable and, consequently, are not considered A,RARs, they appear to be appropriate
toxicity benchmark values and were used in deriving ecological risk-based cleanup levels.
In all cases, these 1BCs were seleCted as sediment cleanup goals. As a result, cleanup goals
were established for five pesticides, seven P AHs, and five metals in the Railway Ditch, and
for three pesticides and two metals in Flagstone Brook. As described in Subsection 2.1 of
the LF-5 Draft Final FS, remediation of sediment in Flagstone Brook will be an objective
of the Zone 1 remedy. It should be noted that ODE. ODD, and DOT were deteCted in
most sediment samples colleCted at Pease AFB and may be indicative of background levels.
Human health risk-based concentrations were typically orders of magnitude greater than the
NOAA criteria and were not used to seleCt cleanup goals. As shown in Table 2.4-2 of the
FS, there are no human health risks associated with these ecologically based TBC sediment
criteria.
MKOI \ RPT:0062SO"'..6.004\lfSrod.aU
117
-------
Table 18
Zone 1 Cleanup Goal Selection
for the Railway Ditch and Flagstone Brook - Sediment
LF-5, Pease AFB, NH
Risk. Based Concemrallon- M;wmum
mc Iml:/ke) Detc:ctcd Canup
Critena" Hazara Canccr C~lncentratton Goal
~aliwav Ditch ( ID2Ike) fndex Risk. (1D1!!ke)' '!D!!!k.I!)
vrf!amcs
Acctone 3.99E.,..05 :.OOE-Ol :-lA
BenzoIc ."'c,d 1.o0E+07 :.70E"'O! :-I.-\
Bis( Z -~n\'ihe.'tV1) phthalate t).o5E~02 ~.90E-'Jl :-IA
Z-Butanone 1.99E+05 Z.OOE-()l :-lA
alol1a-C::ioraane :.OOE-.14 . l>.o3E-IJ1 l.lOE -IJ1 :.OOE-.)4
gamma - CJ1Jora3ne 5.00E-.)4 . o.a3E-Ol "".80E-V2 :.OOE-.)4
~.4'-DDD ::.OOE-')3 . 3.iOE.,.V2 ~. 90E .,...)() ':.OOE-.)3
~.4'-DDE ':.OOE-IJ3 . ':.oIE-OZ :.80E-1)J ::.OOE-.)3
~.4'-iJDT LOOE -,)3 . :'.61E-02 l.00E-Ol LOOE-In
1.4 - DicnJorooenZJCne 3.88E-02 i.60E-iH :-IA
1.Z - DicalorDCtnene r tOtal)~ 3.99E-Q4 ~.50E-Ol :-lA
PAHs
Accnaontl1ene t..:OE-.)J l.96E-'J6 o.iOE-')! l..:OE-I)1
Acenanntl!vlene UIE-05 7.90E-.)1 :-1A
BenZOl a lanttlraCene :.30E-.n . ".64E-oo 5.90E-Ol ':.30E-Ol
BenzOl o)fiuorantllene 1>.64E"'oo 7.60E-Ol Z'JA '
BenzOl k.JOuoranthene ".D4E.,..OO 7.60E-0l Z'JA !
I
BenZOl g.hj',pervlene 1.31E+05 ':.60E-Ol Z'JA
BenzOl a IpYretIe ~.OOE-I)1 o.04E.,..oo 3.60E-Ol Z'JA I
C!lrvsene 4.00E-Ol . c>.D4E+oo 5.80E-Ol 4.00E-Ol I
Di beDZOl a.I1 )anthracene ".OOE-.n . 6.04E.,..00 9.00E-02 c>.OOE-02
FluoranUlene 6.00E-Ol . 1.31E+06 l.40E+OO 6.00E-Ol
[ndenotl.:..3-cd)\M=e 6.64E;.-00 Z..50E-0l :-IA .I
Phenantllrene z.:5E-Ol . L31E+OS l.40E-OO Z~E-Ol
Pvrene 3.50E-Ol . 9.81E+OS 9.40E-Ol 3..50E-Ol I
: Total PAHs' ~.OOE+OO . 1..31 E +OS 6.64E +00 3.89E;.-OQ . ~.OOE+oo
IlK1l'g3lJic:r I
! Anumonv "I
Z.OOE-oo . 6..54E+04 3.50E-Ol Z.OOE..-oo I
i Arsenic 3.30E+Ol . Z-18E+02 3,OOE+02 3.30E+Ol I
"; Boron 1.47E..-07 7ASE ...01 Z'JA
'Cobalt NTV 5.i4E+Ol :-rrv A
: Iron :-rrv 1.95E+05 :-rrv A I
. Leaab 3.50E+Ol . l..58E+05 ".21E.,..02 3.50E+Ol
Maneanc:se L64E+07 3.43E..-03 :-1A
Nickel" 3.00E+Ol . 3.27E..-06 7.92E+.)1 3.00E.,..Ol
Zinc I~OE+02 . 3.27E-07 ~.09E..-02 l":OE+OZ '
:-lal!:Stone BrooK
Urt<-JDJCS
4.4'-DDD Z.OOE-03 . I.2.3E..-OZ z..10E-0i z..OOE-03
4.4'-DDE Z.OOE-03 . 1.87E+03 l.::OE-.n ::'OOE-03
"4.4'-DDT l.OOE-03 . 1.87E+03 3..50E-02 l.OOE-03
Totat PArise ~.OOE+oo . ~.36E-04 z.:lE-')() 1.1lE+00 . :-IA
iaareaDJCS ::.OOE+OO
: Antimonv z..OOE+oo . :.18E+04 2..50E+OO
. Boron ~.91E-06 5.::0E-OO NA
Cadmium- 5.00E..-00 i.09E+04 1.20E+00 Z'JA
Lea
-------
E. Surface Water Cleanup Levels
- -
Table 19 presentS ecological risk-based ARARs, human health risk-based concentrations,
maximum detected concentrations, and cleanup levels for conrnmin(!nts detected in surface
water in the Railway Ditch. The cleanup goals were derived to satisfy the Zone 1 Railway
Ditch RAGs. As discussed previously, the LF-5 source control remedy would be expected
to contribute to atta:imnent of the Zone 1 objectives and cleanup goals. All cleanup goals
were based on New Hampsbire surface warer standards that are protective of aquatic life.
Chronic criteria were used to evaluate ecological risks in the baseline RA and therefore, are
selected as the applicable ARARs for Zone 1. Oeanup levels were established for one
pesticide, 10 metals in the Railway Ditch, and one pesticide and four metals in Flagstone
Brook. Human health risks associated with Zone 1 ARAR concentrations selected as
cleanup goals are presented in Table 14-7 of the LF-5 Draft Final FS. As shown in the
table, cancer risks greater than 1O~ exist due to the use of ARARs as cleanup goals for
DDT, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and TCE. The maximumJresiduaI cancer risk was forTCE (2.15
x 10-5). No excess noncancer human health risks would result.
F. Description of Remedial Components
The chosen LF-5 remedy, whose main remedial goal is source contro~ will involve the
following key components:
.
Excavation and consolidation of Railway Ditch sediments that contain
cont~min~nts at concentrations exceeding site-specific cleanup goals. A
mobile laboratory will be on-site to confirm the removal of conrnm;n~ted
material. The excavated material will be dewatered and bulked, if necessary;
and consolidated on LF-5.
.
Landfill debris that would still be in contact with groundwater after capping
will be excavated and consolidated on dry locations on the landfill prior to
capping. The excavation will be backfilled with clean fill to a level at least 2
feet above the natural groundwater table after capping and excavated waste
will be placed above the clean fill. -
MK01\RPT:006:!S026.~\lfSrod.aIJ
119
-------
Table 19
Zone 1 Cleanup Goal Selection for the Railway Ditch -
Surface Water
LF-5, Pease AFB, NH --
:1
il
:, Railwav Ditcb
. OrI;AlUCS
:1 Cb!orobenzene
114.4'-DDD
:1 ;::::-~~:oroben2l:ne
:~ 1.1- iJichJoroetllane'
;: cis-l.2- Dicbloroetbene
:: Trichloroetbene
!! IDCraIJics
: .o\Iummum
II Ammonia
.~I).I.~'J...,
- .
;1 Arsemc (V) ~.80E+01 ' NC I S.sOE+02; 4.80E+011
II Barium ! I NC : 9.68E+02 i NCA '
:! Boron : I 3.51E+02 ! NCA !
II Cadmiwr1' I 9.ilE-Q1 b e, 9.71E-Ol I i NC i ! 8.70E+OO I 9.71E-ol i
,I CotllXr ; 9.98E+00 ' 0 , 9.98E+00 I ! I 2.8'iE+02 I 9.98E+OO I
i Iron I 1.00E+03 0' UIOE+03 I NC i i 6.58E+OS I LOOE+031
i Lead ; 2.41.1::.+00 I e. 2.~iE+OO I , NC I ' 2.8OE+G2: 2.50E+OO I
I M8II~- ' i ' I 3.lSE+G4 i NCA~
Merazno' . 1.20E -02 e. l.20E-02 NC I 55OE-01. : l.20E-«Z
Nic:ket : l.33E+02 I U3E+02' I NC : I i l.S4E+G2 ! l.33E+02 :
ThalliIllD I 4.00E+Ol-" ., 4.ooE+Ol Q I NC T I 4.24E+OS , 4.ooE+Ol1
Zinc : 8.96E+O' I 0, 8 QoC:.O' I ; NC I ; 9.74E+a2 ! 9.00;:: +O~
~
FAWO~
i{w,:- Basea
CoDCeDtratiOD (JLeJL ~c
Baseci 00 I Ba.scd 00
Hazard Ca:x=:r
! ndex I Risk
S.ooE+01
6.UE...()4 I
l.ooE-03
7.63E+02 ~
1.5SE-011
L12E~11
1.95E+021
1.16E+04 a.g
l.05E-Q6 i
6.01E+05 i
1.16E+04 4.g
2.19E~04 .
1.02E+03 i
8.70E...01
. 2.20E""Q3 Q
:z.::oE +03 ~
NC
NC
. M.mmum
I Deteaed
I CoucenIr3tlOD
( LLI!:,L )
2.00E~!
3.10E-Q1 :
l.40E+oo I
2.00E~1
Z.OOE+OO I
:'OOE+OOI
9.ooE+OO I
3.i2E+04 i
., 70E-01 !
Ceanup
Goal
( u.2/L )
NA ;1
NA I
1.00E-0311
NA 'I
NA I
NA :,
NA ;1
8.iOE+0111
NA I'
(a) NH - Stale of New H.amPsmre War.c:r Quality Cdu::ria!Dr TaD: SubaaDa::s - Procect:icm. of.AquaIK: Ute (frI:sAwarcr cIIroDic c:riu:ria).
AprU 1990.
(b) FAWQC - Federal AmbieDt War.c:r QuaJiIy Qiu=ria flrprolClCtion ofaqlWic life (freslr8tc:rc:llroDic criteria), SPA. 1991.
(c) UDiess otla:rwisc inctica&cd. risk-based ccma::ncratioDs ar: based on a IIamd iDdc:x of ODe aDd a 10-- caucerriskftr c:arciDog=s.
CaJc:ulatioas are based on sa:mrios anc1 assnmptiODS pr1:SI:DteI1 in SubscctioD 2.3 in F-sm..
(d) Vahle presmted is the l.Dwcst Obsa:w:d Effect ~ (LOEL).
(e) Value is fir tOtal dichlaro~
(f) Although categOrized as a carciDogen. in the abscDce of a slope facur. the riK-based axx:emrarioD is based on IIOIICaI'Cinogc risk.
(g) Value is freshwater acme c:mt:ion fir tOtal ~ .
(h) Values pn:seIUCd are fer a tempcnmre of 14"CaDd a pH 0(73 in Railway Diu:h.
(i) CIroDic aiu:riOD based on a measured hardness of 8Z mrtL as Caco, fir Rai1'MIy Ditch.
(j) Although categorized as a carcinogen. the chemica! is not considered to be carcinogeDic tbrougit the appticable czpaIIIr'e rauIe.
NC = Not caku1ated Chc:mX:a1 is DOt of amcenI to Imman hea!th tbrough the surfao: Wolter patItway.
NCA "" RisJc-based levels were DOt c:aIcuIatel1 aDd no applicable ARAR£ are 3\1ai1able.
NA "" Not app1icable. ARARs aDfjJar risk-based CODCI:tItl31ion cceed mamnam detcacd c:cmc&:Dtr.IQon.
o "" V aluc used to select c:lca.nup goal.
MKOl\R."T:00628J26.OO4\1f::rodl9.wtc3
120
-------
.
The LF-5 debris excavation area will be dewatered. as necessa.-y, during the
excavation process (i.e., the groundwater table will be artiiiciallv lowered
rendering the area !O be excavated dry). Any groundwater eXtI'act~d as part
of the de\\l-atering process will be treated in an on-site mobile treatment unit
to meet site-specific groundwater treatment objectives. Treated groundwater
will be discharged to the local POTW via the sanitary sewer.
.
Soil and waste materials from LF-2 and LF-.+ will be consolidated on LF-5.
A final decision under CERCIA for LF-2 and LF-4 ~ill be required prior to
implementation of the proposed consolidation plan for LF-2 and LF-4.
.
Following consolidation of all wastes. including material from LF-2 and LF-4,
the landfill will be capped with a composite barrier cap, which will meet
performance standards required in a RCRA cap. As pan of the cap
construction, a passive gas collection system will be installed to caprure and
vent landfill gases. It is estimated the cap will cover the entire landfill, an
area of approximately 12 million square feet. Deed restrictions will be
imposed to restrict future construction activities that could violate the integrity
of the cap.
.
The remedial action will be moDitored to ensure that the integrity of the cap
is maintained as well as monitoring gJ10undwater elevation to ensure that the
waste material remains dIy.
.
Five-year reviews would be required as part of the environmental monitoring
program. The 5-year reviews would assess the performance of the
containment system and make recommendations, as appropria.te, regarding
additional remedial action.
Figure 9 provides a remedial process flow sheet for the selected remedy that depictS the
elementS described. Detailed descriptions of the various componenIS follow.
Sediment excavation and consolidation on LF-5 would be performed in a phased approa.ch.
SedimentS would first be excavated and placed on compacted soils adjacent to the Railway
Ditch. These activities will be conducted in accordance with the requirementS of Env-Ws
415. During excavation, silt fences, hay bales, and other erosion control measures would be
used for control or erosion and runoff. Following excavation, the sedimenIS would be
transponed to a central staging area for thickening. Thickening would involve. mixing the
sedimenIS with sandy soil in a 1:1 ratio. The use of heavy equipment and engineering
conn-ols, such as containment, during thickening would be facilitated by the installation of
~
121
MKDl \RPI':006280"'..6.00J\ IfSrod..all
-------
Contaminated
Sediment.
(9,600 cubic yards)
Landfill Soli and
Solid Wast.
(28 Bcr.,)
Landfill 5011 and Solid Wa,t.
Selow Waler Tabte and
Assoclaled Overburden
* (221,500 cubic yard,)
Groundwater
* * (50 galtons per minute)
EXCAVATION SEDIMENT CONSOUOA TION
.. I rHlCKENING ON LANDFill
(19,200 cublo yards)
INSTAll COMPOSITE FENCING
- BARRIER CAP AND DEED
OVER lANDFilL RESTRICTIONS
I
- - CONSOLIDATION
EXCAVATION ON LANDFill
TEMPORARY MULTIMEDIA ACT IV A TED
-. EXTRACTION fon FII.TRATION.ION CAIIUON DIS~;IIAIIGE
DEWATERING OF EXCIIANGE FOR ADSORPTION FOR TO POTW
EXCAVATION INORGANICS REMOVAL OIlGANICS I1EMOVAI.
l I I
OFF-SITE OFF-SITE I
TREATMENT AND TREATMENT AND
DISPPSAL OF DISPOSAL OF
RESIDUALS RESIDUAl S
NOTe:
* Includes IF-2 and IF-4 malerlals
* * Exlracllon rate could vary II dewatering 01
I.F-2 and IF-4 malerlals Is Included In tho
I.F.5 r'ln1edlaI6Iratugy.
P'8..~J\\
}.,-vt\ ~r.)
--~v('-_.--
Landfill 5(LF-5) Area
Stage 4, Record 01 Decision
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
. FIGURE 9
REMEDIAL PROCESS FLOW SHEET FOR
ALTERNATIVE 2A
-------
a concrete pad within the staging area. Following thickening, sediments would be placed
on LF-5 for compaction. along with excavated landfill debris, prior to-iandfill regrading and
cappmg.
As described in Section vn of this ROD, it is anticipated that 3,200 yd3 of sediments from
the Railway Ditch will be excavated and consolidated, according to the method presented
previously. In addition, it is currently believed that a total of 6,600 yd3 of sediments from
tWo site wetlands may require similar remediation. During remedial design, available data
(including additional Stage 4 data) will be used to refine this estimate, as well as to
determine the potential for and magnitude of harmful environmental effeCts resulting from
wetlands excavation. During remedial design, it will be determined whether excavation in
a particular wetland would result in more harm to the ecosystem and greater human health
risks than can be justified by the expected CODt:am;n~nt reduction.
Since excavation would result in destruction of portiobs of the affected wetla.nds, excavation
. will be avoided wherever possible. The remedial design also will include wetlands
. restoration or formation of new wetlands, as necessary.
Currently, restoration of the Railway Ditch following excavation is not anticipated. The
ditch will likely be allowed to stabilize and revegetate naturally. The necessity for
,
immediate stabilization and revegetation will be reevaluated, if during remedial design, it
becomes apparent that regrading and capping actions at LF-5 would adversely impact the
ditch.
This alternative also involves excavation and consolidation of lanrifill soil and debris
predicted to be in contact with groundwater or within 2 feet above the groundwater table
as it would exist following capping of LF -5. Available groundwater elevation data. were used
in conjunction with the MODFLOW model to predict what portion of landfill soils would
require excavation under this scenario. All excavated materials would initially be stockpiled
within a bermed area atop the lanrifil1. The MODFLOW model estimates the volume of
excavated soil and debris at a total of 145,500 yd3, approximately 92,000 yd3 of which
~1 \RPT;OO628026.004\1f5rod.1JJ
123
-------
represe~tS unsamrated materials that are to be returned to the landfill following placement
of clean fill to 2 feet above the water table. The remaining '33.500 yd3 would be
consolidated on the landfill. Material from LF-2 and LF-4 will also be consolidated on IF-5
prior to capping. The quantities of this material were estimated to be approximately 76,.320 .
cubic yards from LF-2 and LF4 combined. Consolidation of this additional material onto
LF-5 is not expected to significantly change the cap design criteria originally presented in
the FS.
During excavation/consolidation activities, erosion runoff and odor and particulate emissions
woJ1ld be controlled via the use of a temporary runoff detention basin adjacent to the
stockpile. and placement of geomembranes on the stockpile and sideslopes of the excavation
areas. Continuous on-site air monitoring will also be conducted during excavation.
Construction activities during landfill debris excavation and consolidation may be facilitated
J
via dewatering of the excavation below the static water table. A system of well points would
be inStalled, which would allow groundwater extraction at an average rate of apprrmm~tfl!ly
50 gpm.. Following extraction. groundwater would be treated in a mobile on-site unit
composed of multimedia filtration, ion exchange, and activated carbon adsorption units.
Runoff teom the stockpile would also be treated in the mobile unit.
Treated effluent would comply with MCLs and federal, state, and local requirements for
discharge to a P01W. As such, treated water will be: 1) discharged to the local P01W
via sanitary sewer lines, or 2) used for site dust control (see Fignre 9, for a schematic).
Subsequent to consolidation of sediments and landfiIlmaterials on LF-5, the landfill would
be capped with a composite barrier that would meet RCRA performance standards. The
cap would consist of the following (from bottom to top):
.
A subbase/gas venn1ation layer, consisting of a 12-inch lift of sandy soils
placed on a graded and compacted 12-inch layer of intermediate soil overlying
the landfill. Decomposition gases would be vented via passive gas vents
constrUcted of perforated and solid-walled plastic pipe. The vents would be
installed at 200-foot intervals through the final cover and linked to the sand
MKDl\lU'T:00628026.004\If5IOd.a11
124
-------
subbase laver, which would aid in the interceDtion and tranSmission of crases
- . 0
to the ventS. A geotexrile would overlie the sand laver and would serve as a
bedding layer for the overlying composite barrier. . -
.
A composite barrier layer, consisting of a clay mar overlain by a 40-mil, very
low density polyethylene CVLDPE) geomembrane. The clay mat would be
composed of bentonite clay bonded to a geomembrane or a geotexrile.
.
A drainage composite layer, composed of a single-layer high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) drainage net with a nonwoven needle-punched
geotextile. This layer would allow for water percolation, while preventing
cover soil intrusion.
.
A protective cover layer, comprised of a minimum of 36 inches of drainage
sand and 6 inches of mulched. seeded topsoil. This layer would provide
protection against erosion and frost penetration.
The draiDage composite layer and its underlying geomembrane would be terminated in a
perimeter anchor trench. The trench would be fitted with a subdrain of perforated plastic
piping embedded in crushed stone. An estimated 1W,OOO yeP of perimeter landfill materials
adjacent to the Railway Ditch and Flagstone Brook would be excavated and regraded to
allow for appropriate cODStrUction of the anchor trench, drainage, access, and setbacks from
site waterways. Figure 10 provides a schematic of the final cover system for the barrier cap
at LF-5.
The composite-barrier cap system would cover an estimated 28 acres. Final grading prior
to capping would result in a minimum slope of 5% on top, and a maximum of 33%
sideslope. Figure 11 depicts proposed final grades for the landfill barrier cap. Subsidence
of the landfill surface would be monitored annually. Final grading may be contoured to
blend with the surrounding topography. This grading will be presented in the remedial
design.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.004\lfSrod.all
125
-------
-
~cn' ." .. h ...
,.. CD' ..." ,->";;::;.;i::~~,;;":';;~:}:';:"""
to ~. . .." ."..'.'''.'., '.h .-' .. ''',...
y g: ::">'0';';'j "'.... :':c::':', "::;;:~;;i~~,:,;;i~;;;:;':;d;''::': .,,;: ',. '..' . .
- r :;r;?r~~-'~;;t~;'{~):{;I(~c;~~~?-\~;;;r;?'tjf~
-_I=~VLDP~
-
"- .......
- -
.. .
::.,:~.",:£~ Loam
-,:+!J{
Prepared subgrade over
12 inches (minimum)
intermediate soil cover
NOT TO SCALE
-~
Landfill 5(LF-5) Area
S~e 4, Record 01 Decision
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
FIGURE 10
DETAIL OF TYPICAL FINAL COVER SYSTEM
LANDFILL BARRIER CAP
-------
In addition, plans exist for construCtion of a Nonh Ramp access road, by the PDA, wbich
will ttaverse a portion of the LF-5 cap. The Air Force has worked and will work with the
- -
PDA in coordinating the design and construction activities for the cap and the access road.
A figure depicting the planned layout of the access road can be found in the remedial design
of Drawing No.1, sheet 1 of 6, entitled "Nonh Apron Access Road - Conceptual Design,"
by Hoyle and Tanner Associates.
As with excavation aCtivities, capping may result in destruction of wetlands adjacent to LF-5.
(Potentially impacted wetlands are shown in Figure 12.) Mitigation of capped wetlands will
involve construction of wetlands in non-wetlands areas. Appropriate wetlands reconstruCtion
plans will be based on a wetlands function and value assessment conducted prior to
commencement of construCtion activities.
Groundwater will be monitored via sampling and analysis on a semi~nmlal basis for an
assumed duration of 30 years. This duration is: typidilly assumed for costing purposes, per
CERClA guidance. As stated in SeCtion IX.' any future additional. actions found to be
necessary, regardless of when, will be conducted by the Air Force. Analysis would likely
include VOCS, SVOCS, metals, nitrate, sulfate, chemical oxygen demand (COD), and other
selected inorganics. In addition, pesticides and phenols would be monitored bi-::Inm1ally.
It is anticipated that surlace water at LF-5 will undergo the same sampling regimen as
groundwater, with the addition of biannual PCB analyses. Sediments would be analyzed
semiannually for SVOCs and annually for VOCs, pesticidesjPCBs, metals, sulfate, nitrate,
and other inorganics. SedimentS would be tested for phenols biannually. As with
. groundwater, surface water and sediment monitoring may continue for a period of 30 years.
Specifics of the groundwater, suriace water, and sediment monitoring programs will be
finalized during remedial design.
In addition to monitoring of ambient air at three, stations on the landfill (upwind, downwind,
central), soil gas monitoring along the LF-5 periphery would be conducted to monitor gas
buildup beneath the cap. Approximately eight 41termediate soil vents would be installed at
locations betWeen passive gas ventS. In all cases, samples would be analyzed for methane
~1 \RPT:00628O"-6.004\1f5ro
-------
and VOCS over a period of 30 years, unless annual evaluations of the monitoring program
indicate that a change in the program is necessary. - -
Five-year reviews of the containment system would be required for performance assessment
and possible reevaluation and adjustments to the remediation program.
Prior to implementation of Alternative SC-~ pre-design studies would be required to more
accurately detemrine design parameters. These studies would include:
.
Wetlands sampling for more accn.rate determination of design excavation
volumes.
.
Additional groundwater modeling to more closely define the depth of the
water table following capping.
.
Modeling of erosion/nmoff from the cap to determine whether restoration of
Flagstone Brook or the Railway Ditch (stl.bilization and revegetation) would.-
be necessary.
-.
.
Evaluation of sampling results for LF-2 and LF-4 to deteTTT'riTtl'! adrlirion~1
consolidated soil and debris vo1nmes in the event that they are consolidated
onLF~ .
.
Groundwater treatability studies for determin~tion of mobile treatment mrit
d~gn parameters.
MKD1 \RPT:00628026..004\U5rod..aU
130
-------
8
8
8
"
.
I.EGEND:
- ElrSrttQ SUt141C8 contOUl".v~lJan
~ eFT MSl) . 2 fOCllm8fVa1
= Raacs IUDhalt'gavecU
: : : cm., roads ana :raus
c::J Buoc,"9S
"'I:~ I=.rc:. 18J1ISMgJ
Uarsny .rNS
" T'H :'n.
NOTE:
~ graoes snown regreHnt coyermg Of the 08Dns 11"(1 SOtS ~~om
:.::'-5 ana me Siomems trom FaaosJ:JtW Brook and me Aa-..
:>t1Ct1. omy. AoorllOl'\allanO'hIl mai.,..ts tram IF-2 it'lO LF-' Mil alSO
De consolaatea on L~.5 ItOUI ~an:anal YClume Of ~0Im.a18ly
76.000 OJOIC vatOSI The Cl8DO$1tICln 01 LF-6IZov 4, matenatS IS Sldl
unOlt conSi08rauon. ConsotIoatlOn on LF.S t$ a DOSSlDdrty. A t8VtMO
':gur. ."In De u'ccW'ocwatea onee "~I 08$19" oaram8t8rs at. etsaollsn
- 118 - PraoaMd irW graoe . iancfliU ba,n,' ::ao
18PPI'DU'M!8) . FT.~Sl . 5 Ioo1lm'-."a1
e-.g - 01 MSW liD CoaerD"",,:.'
~
_TH
it
~",~=
". ~,
PnM &FtI - '(. \
Landfill 5 (IF-S) Area
Stage 4. Record of Decision
Pease Air Force Base. New Hampshire
FIGUI'IF "
.. 0.... ..
-------
XI. STATUTORY DETER..'\1INATION
- -
The remedial action seleCted for implementation at Pease .AFB site is consistent with
CER~ an~ to the extent practicable, the NCP. The seleC""~d remedy is protective of
human health and the environment, attains ARARs or invokes appropriate waivers, and is
cost-effective. The selected remedy does not satisfy the stamtory preference for treatment
that permanently and significantly reduces the mobility, toxicity, or volume of hazardous
substances as a p~.ncipal element. Additionally, the seleCted remedy utilizes alternative
treatment technologies and resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable.
A. The Selected Remedy is Protective of Human Health and the Environment
The remedy at this site will permanently reduce the risks posed to human health and the
enviromnent by eHTTrin~ring, reducing, or controlling ~osures to human and environmental
receptors through treatment, engineering OOntrols, and institutional controls; more
specifically:
.
.
.
.
Excavation and consolidation of ,cont~m;nated 1~nrlfi11 soils and debris and
cont~min~ted sedimems on LF-5, thereby ~Hm;n~ting learhing for
cont:lm;n~ntS to groundwater and reducing receptor exposure via containment.
I
Dewatering of landfill soils and debris during construction and treatment of
water to reduce toxicity prior to discharge to a local POTW.
Capping of landfill to prevent water infiltration and reduce volume of leachate
produced, and funher reducing receptOr exposure to cont~minants.
Deed restrictions to prevent futUre construction that may pose a threat to cap
integrity, thereby m~mt:lin;ng co~TTrin~nt containment.
Moreover, the selected remedy will achieve potential human health risk levels that attain
the lcr to l~ incremental cancer risk range and a level protective of noncarcinogenic
endpoints, and will comply with ARARs and other TBC criteria..
133
a9/21/93
-------
B. The Selected Remedy Attains ARARs
- -
The selected remedy will attain all of the SUbstantive, non-procedural requirements of
federal and state ARARs. ARARs for LF-5 are set forth in Table 20 contained in Appendix
E of this document, which contains a complete list of ARARs including the regulatory
citation, and a brief summary of the reqtrirement, and the action to be taken to attain the
requirement.
The ARARs identified for LF-5 include:
Chemical-Specific ARARs
There were no chemical specific ARARs identified for the LF-5 selected remedy.
Location-Specific ARARs
..
Fish and. Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
.
Executive Order 11990 (40 CFR 6, Appendix A), Protection of Wetlands
.
Floodplains Executive Order 11888 Minimi7-ation Of Flood ImpactS And
Protection of Beneficial Value of Floodplains
Clean Water Act, Section 404 (40 CPR 230; 33 CFR 32G-330), Prohibition of
Wetland Filling .
.
.
State of New Hampshire .AcJmini~ttative Code Env-Ws 415 - Rules To Prevent
Pollution From Activities In Or Near State Surface Waters
.
State of New Hampshire Administrative Code Env- Wt 300, 400, 600 - Criteria
And Conditions For Fill And Dredging In Wetlands
Action-Specific ARARs
.
.
.
\)
.
RCRA - Releases From solid Waste Management Units
.>
RCRA. - Closure and Post Oosure
RCRA. - Preparedness and Prevention
RCRA - Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures
MKOl\RPT:0062S026.004\1fS~
134
-------
G .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
RCRA - Requirements for Tank Systems
RCRA - Use and Management of Containers
- -
RCRA - Temporary Storage of Hazardous Solis
RCRA - Requirements for Equipment Leaks AI TSDFs
RCRA - Design and Operating Requirements for Waste Piles and Landfills
CW A - Pretreatment Standards for POTW Discharge
New Hampshire Rules for Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste
New Hampshire Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste
Facilities
.
New Hampshire Pretreatment Standards
.
,
New Hampshire Terrain Alteration Requirements
New Hampshire Ambient Air limits for Toxic Air Pollutants
.
.
New Hampshire Fugitive Dust Conn-ol Requirements
Policies. Guidelines and Criteria To Be Considered
In additio~ the following policies. criteria, and guidelines (to be considered, or ''TBCs") will
be considered during the implementation of the remedial action:
.
.
~ .
.
.
.
EP A Risk Reference Doses
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52
EP A Carcinogen Assessment Group Potency Factors
Federal Groundwater ProteCtion Strategy
RCRA - Proposed Air Pollutant Emission Standards For Owners and
Operators of TSDFs
CAA - Proposed Performance Standards for NMOC Emissions at New and
Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
135
MKDl \ RPT:0062SO''-6.00i \1f5rod..1.1l
-------
.
CERCIA Off-Site Disposal Policy
- -
Table 20 included in Appendix A provides a complete listing of the ARARs and TBCs for
Alternative SC-2A, including regulatory citations, requirement synopsis, actions to be taken
to attain the requirements, and determinations as to whether the requirementS represent
ARARs or TBCs.
The following narrative presentS a summary of some of the key ARARs and their
applicability to the selected remedy.
Federal and State Water Quality Criteria
The preferred option for discharge of treated groundwater collected during construction
dewatering is to the base wastewater treatment plant. Under this option, discharge limitS
would be based on factors regulated by the pdTW's NPDES permit, pretreatment
regulations, and water pollution control laws, which are discussed under action-specific
ARARs. Because final discharge from the POTW would be to Great Bay, federal and New
Hampshire Water Quality Criteria are ultimately applicable to this discharge option.
Pretreatment standards are being developed with the City of PortSmouth who is the current
operator of the plant. Both the Pretreatment Standards and CW A NPDES will be attained
upon successful establis.hment of pretreatment standards for discharge from the on-site
mobile groundwater treatment system.
Federal and State Air Quality Regulations
The technologies proposed in the selected remedy will not create any new sources of air
emissions. Therefore, many federal and state regulations governing air quality do not apply
to the selected remedy. The only air quality standards that are applicable are particulate
standards promulgated under the Oean Air Act and New Hampshire Ambient Air Quality
Standards. The particulate standard would apply to remedial construction activities
MKD1 \R.PT:00628O''..6..004\1fSrocUU
136
-------
"
associated with cap installation. These standards would be attained through monitoring and,
if necessary, use of dust suppression techniques or engineering controli. :Potential emissions
from the closed landfill would be in compliance with Performance Standards for
N onmethane Organic Compounds for new and existing mumcipallandfills as specified under
the Oean Air Act.
State Location-Specific Regulations
All of the location-specific ARARs that apply to the selected remedy are based on the close
proximity of the site to Flagstone Brook and Railway Ditch. New Hampshire Environmental
Regulations provides that removal of soils or other activities conducted adjacent to streams
must not cause unreasonable soil erosion, cause unreasonable harm to significant wildlife
habitatS, unreasonably interfere with natural water flow, lower water quality, or
unreasonably cause or increase flooding. Additionally, NHDES regulations provides
standards for erosion control and soil excavation. Irbplementa.tion of the selected remedy
I
would not impact the drainage or natUral flow of Flagstone Brook and Railway Ditch.
Erosion control measures will be employed during constrUCtion to minimi'Te soiljsedimem
from entering Flagstone Brook or Railway Ditch.
Federal and State Hazardous Waste Regulations
The applicability of RCRA and New Hampshire Hazardous Waste Regulations depends on
whether the wastes are RCRA hazardous wastes as defined under these regulations. To
date, there is no information available (i.e., manifestS) to indicate that RCRA-regulated
materials were disposed of at LF-5. However, because toxic constiments are present in the
waste materials and groundwater at LF-5 many portions of the federal and State hazardous
waste regulations are relevant and appropriate to the selected remedy.
RCRA General Facility Standards, Preparedness and Prevention, and Contingency Plan and
Emergency Procedures will be attained during operation of the mobile groundwater
treatment system. The facility will be designed, maintained, constructed, and operated to
MKDl \RYI':OO628026.004\Lf5rod.a1l
137
-------
miT1imi7e the possibility of an unplanned release that could threaten human health or the
environment. During remedial construction. safety and communicate!!" equipment will be
installed at the site, and local authorities will be familiari7.ed with site operations.
Contingency plans will be developed and implemented during site work and treatment
system operation. A program will be developed for handling storage, and recordkeeping in
accordance with New Hampshire Hazardous ~anageI!lent Rules.
A post closure monitoring program will be developed for LF-5 in accordance with RCRA
Releases from Solid Waste Management UnitS and Oosure and Post-Oosure regulations.
During treatment of cOT1tamiT1ated groundwater collected during construction dewatering,
sludges conrniT1i"g some toxic constituentS will be prodnced. A component of groundwater
treatment includes laboratory analysis of this sludge, including Toxicity Characteristic
Leachate Procedure (TCLP) testing. If the sludge fails TCLP testing, this material will be
considered hazardous. As a characteristic hazardoJs waste, RCRA regulations inclUding
Land. Disposal Restrictions, will apply and the sludge will be treated and disposed of in a
RCRA Subtitle C facility.
Because toxic constituents are present on site, OSHA regulations protecting worker health
and safety at hazardous waste sites are applicable to the implementation and long-term
operation of the seleCted remedy. Site workers will have completed training requirementS
and will have appropriate health and safety equipment on site. Contractors and
subcontractors working on site will follow health and safety procedures.
Although LF-5 may take material from LF-2 and LF4 as subgrade fill, it is not necessary
for LF-5 to obtain a pennit under the New Hampshire Hazardous Waste Rules or other
New Hampshire regulations.. Landfills 2, 4, and 5 are all part of a single National Priorities
List site, Pease Air Force Base, (55 Federal Register 6154, February 2~ 1990), and
therefore the activities can be viewed as taking place on site. Moreover, if Landfills 2, 4,
and 6 are viewed as separate facilities, CERCI.A ~ 104(d)(4) allows the lead agency broad
discretion to treat non-contiguous facilities as one site for the purpose of taking response
MKD1\RPT:0062S026.004\1f5roc1..a11
138
-------
~
action. including where the sites, as here, are related based on geography or on the basis
of waste treatment compatibility. See 55 Federal Register 8690 (March 8, 1990).
- -
C. The Selected Remedial Action is Cost-Effective
In the judgment of the Air Force, the selected remedy is cost effective (ie.. the remedy
affords overall effectiveness proportional to its costs). Once alternatives that were
protective of human health and the environment and that either attain. or, as appropriate,
waive AR.ARs were identified, the overall effectiveness of each alternative was evaluated
by assessing the relevant three criteria-long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction
in 1MV through treatment; and shon-term effectiveness. The relationship of the overall
effectiveness of these remedial alternatives was determined to be proportional to their costs.
A snmm::ny of the costS associated with each of the source control remedies follows. All
costS are presented in. net present wonh costS.
Capital Present
Alternative Costs O&M Worth
SC-l No action. institutional controls. $174,000 $2.948,315 $3.123.000
SC-2A Sediment/landfiIl consolidation. capping, $17,362,700 $6,629,721 $23,992,000
an-site groundwater trL2tment and I
disposal for dewatering.
SC-3A Sediment consolidation, landfill capping, ,$13,084,000 510,916,337 $24,000,000
on-site groundwater trL2tment and
disposal to lower water table below solid
wastc.
SC4D Sediment/landfill coDSolidation. hot spot $13,526,400 $6,605,687 $30,132000
thermal trcaanent, landfill capping,
on-site groundwater treatment and
disposal for construction dewatering.
SC-5D Sediment/landfill waste on-site RCRA $28.813,600 $11.461,724 $40,275,000
]"nnfit1in3, on-site groundwater
trcatment and disposal for construction.
Four of the alternatives are protective and attflin ARARs: SC-2A, SC-3A, SC-4D, and
SC-5A Comparing these alternatives, the selected alternative, SC-2A, combines the most
cost-effective remedial alternative components that were evaluated. The remedy provides
MKOI \ RPT:()()62.8(r..6.004 \ lf5 rod..i.lI
139
-------
a degree of protectiveness proportional to its costs. Alternative SC-5A is 40% more costly
than Alternative SC-2A. without providing a commensurate incre~e in protectiveness.
While ..:.\lternative SC-4D considers the EP A preference for a treatment component via
thermal rrearment of hot spot soils, it is 20% more costly and does not provide an increased
degree of protectiveness over Alternative SC-2A. since Alternative SC-2A.prevents receptor
access to and migration of hot spot contaminants. Alternative SC-3A. like Alternative
SC-2A. involves the construction of a cap over the landfill and landfill debris dewatering.
However, Alternative SC-3A would provide for reduction of contaminant migration via
arrificiallowering of the water table to a level below in-site debris. In contrast. Alternative
SC-2A. would reduce migration of cont;!min~nts by placing landfill debris on top of the
landfill at least 2 feet above the water table. Each would achieve the same degree of
protectiveness., but Alternative SC-2A would do so at a slightly lower cost. Additionally,
while the costs for Alternative SC-2A and Alternative SC-3A are very nearly the same, it
must be remembered that all present worth coStS were calculated assuming a 30-year project
life. In reality, the pump-and-treat component of SG-3A would have to continue indefinitely
to provide long-term effectiveness. In addition, continuous pumping of the aquifer beneath
LF-5 could adversely affect wetlands in the area by removing an important source of
recharge. Additionally, contaminant migration mitigation is addressed in the Zone 1 Draft
FS, which was completed in August 1993. Alternative SC-1 (no-action) does not meet all
ARARs and is not sufficiently protective of h11m~n health and the environment.
\)
A summary of costs for key elements of the selected source control remedy follows. All
costs are net present wonh.
Component of Remedv
Present Worth ($)
T~~nfill excavation/consolidation
Sediment excavation/consolidation
Groundwater dewatering system
Mobile groundwater treatment system
Composite barrier cap installation
O&M
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
$4,334,050
539,175
651,000
332,610
6,215,160
5,290,669
6.629.721
$23,992,000 (rounded)
~l \RPr:006.28O''..6.004\1f5~
140
-------
v
O&M includes groundwater, surface water, sediment and air monitoring, 5-year SARA
review, surveying and subsidence monitoring, replacement costs fop-fencing and monitor
wells, and access resirictions. Miscellaneous includes mobilization and health and safety
costS, contingency costs, and additions and modifications to monitoring systems.
D. The Selected Remedy Utilizes Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
Once those alternatives that attain or, as appropriate, waive ARARs and that are protective
of human bealth and the environment were identified, the Air Force identified which
alternative utilizes permanem solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. This determination was made by
deciding which one of the identified alternatives provides the best balance of trade-offs
I
among alternatives in terms of: 1) long-term effectiveness and permanence; 2) reduction of
toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment; 3) short-term effectiveness; 4)
implementability; and 5) cost. The balancing test empha~7ed long-term effectiveness and
permanence and the reduction of TMV through treatmem; and considered the preference
for treatment as a principal element, the bias against off-site land disposal of untreated
waste, and comTTl11P1ty and state acceptance. The selected remedy provides the best balance
of trade-om among the alternatives.
Alternatives SC-3~ SC-4D, and SC-5A all out rank Alternative SC-2A based on emphasis
on reduction of TMV through treatment. In addition, both Alternatives SC-3A and SC-4D
place greater emphasis on the preference for treatment as a principal element. However,
the costs for Alternatives SC4D and SC-5A exceed those for Alternative SC-2A by 20 and.
40%, respectively. As described, implementation of the treatment portion of Alternative
SC-3A extends the remedial action beyond the 3D-year time frame allotted for costing
purposes, and may adversely impact wetlands at LF-5 via dewatering of a wetland recharge
area.. In addition, implementation of remediation will further address the reduction ofTMV
and EP A preference for treatment. Alternative SC-l contains no provision for reduction
in ~ or for consideration of the statutory preference for treatment as a component of
remediation.
MKOl \ RPT:00628O''..6.004\lf5rod.aJJ
141
-------
E. The Selected Remedy Does Not Satisfy the Preference for Treatment which PermanentIv
and Significantly Reduces the Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume oft!e_Hazardous -
Substances as a Principal Element
The principal element of the selected source control remedy is the containmf"nt of waste in .
LF-5. The principal eleme:::u of the Zone 1 remedial alternative is m::ln::lgement of
contaminant migration via groundwater and surface waters. Together, these elements
address the primary threat at the site, namely, direct contact with CODtamin:'!nts in landfill
soil and debris and migration of this cont:lmin::!tion to groundwater and surface waters.
Treatment is not the principal element of the selected source amtrol alternative because
treatment of landfill debris is not practical or cost-effective given the size and heterogeneity
of the landfill contents. The selected source control remedy may, however, involve
treatment of groundwater extracted during construction dewMp-ring, which should remove
much of the conrnmin::lnts cur.rently present in groundwater.
/
MKDl\RPT:00628026..004\U5rod.a11
142
-------
XIL DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
- -
The LF-5 Draft Final FS (F-494) was completed in August 1992. The original Proposed
Plan for LF-5 was completed in January 1993. This Proposed Plan documented the U.S. Air
Force's seleCted remedy for source control at LF-5. During the public comment period (14
January through 13 February 1993) and public hearing (27 January 1993) that followed the
public expressed a preference for consolidating as many Pease landfills as possible in one
area. so as to mlnimi7.e the total acreage o~ land that would be designated as having
restriCted use. In addition, several other concerns were raised regarding the selected
remedy, such as disposal of treated groundwater from construction dewatering in Flagstone
Brook.
In response to public input, the U.s Air Force ~mpleted'a revised Proposed Plan for LF-5
I
source control, which included as a remedial cOJ:nponent, the potential consolidation of LF-Z
and LF-4 onto LF-5. This revised Proposed pIan fot LF-5 was completed in July 1993 and
public comment period for the Revised Proposed Plan was held from 20 July to 19 August
1993. The following paragraphs describe changes to the seleCted remedy and other minor
changes that occurred following issuance of the original Proposed Plan for LF-5.
One modification involves the potential consolidation of materials from two other Zone 1
Ja"dfil1" (LF-2 and LF-4) onto LF-5. The chaItge would result in: 1) an increase in the
total volume of landfill soil and debris to be consolidated (an additional 76,320 yd3), 2)
possible changes in the final height and grading of the landfill prior to capping, 3) possible
impacts to additional Zone 1 wetlands already, expected to be impacted, and 4) increased
shon-term risks associated with soil inhalation, due to the increased time for and extent of
excavation. These changes would be expected to be small in comparison with the entire
scope of LF-5 remedial actions and are not expected to significantly alter the cap design
. criteria presented in the LF-5 FS. These changes would not be expected to adversely impact
the overall ranking of Alternative SC-2A as the preferred alternative. Sections vm. IX, and
X provide further detail on the potential impaCtS of adding LF-2 and LF-4 remediation to
the scope of Alternative SC-2A
~l'.RPT:0062SO''..6.004\lf5rod.al1
143
-------
Consolidation of LF-2 and LF-4 onto LF-5 is the preferred alternative in part due to public
commentS on :he original Proposed Plan for LF-5. These ccnnmems...=>..xpressed a desire for
consolidation of as many landfills as possible in order to retain more land at Pease AFB for
unrestricted development. The remedial action was also selected due to itS relative ease of
implementation. and due to the resulting closure of both LF-2 and LF-4 that would result.
Excavation and consolidation of LF-2 and LF-4 onto LF-5 is not evaluated in an FS as is
the typical practice. Instead. the Air Force's plans to implement this remedy will be
outlined in the Proposed Plan and Record of Decision for Zone 1. A final decision under
CERCIA will be required prior to implementation or the proposed excavation and
consolidation plan for LF-2 and LF-4.
A second modification involves disposal of treated groundwater from construction
dewatering. Based on public commentS received on the original Proposed Plan. discharge
of treated groundwater extracted during construction dewatering will be to the sanitary
sewer rather than Flagstone Brook. . j
Since issuance of the revised Proposed Plan for T ~nnfi1'-5, there have been no significant
modifications to the LF-S selected remedy. Public commentS and comments from EPA and
NHDES penaining to the specifics of the LF-2/LF-4 remedy are addressed in this ROD.
MKD1\ RPT:00628026.004\!fSrocLaII
144
-------
u
XIII. STATE ROLE
- -
The NHDES reviewed the various alternatives and has indi<=3:ted itS support for portions of
the selected remedy. The state has also reviewed the RI, RA. and FS to determine if the
selected remedy is in compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate state
environmental laws and regulations. The NHDES, as a party to the FF A, concurs with the
selected remedy for the Pease AFB site. A copy of the declaration of concurrence is
attached as Appendix B.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.004\1f5rod.alI
145
-------
XIV. ACRONYMS/REFERENCES
v
AA15
AFB
AFCEE/ESB
Al'J"OVA
ARARs
AWQC
BAT
BCf
BFSA
BMP
CAA
CAMU
c-l,2-DCE
CERCLA
CFR
CO
COD
CWA
CZMA
DCA
DCB
DCE
DEHP
DOD
DOT
DRE
DRED
EP
EPA
ER-L
ER-M
ESA
FFA
FR
FWCA
gpd
gpm
GPR
GWTP
HO
En
HMTA
HQ AFBDA
LIST OF ACRONYMS
- -
Ambient Air limitS
Pease Air Force Base
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
analysis of varianc~
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementS
Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Best Available Technology
Best Conventional Technology
Bulk Fuel StOrage Area
Best Management Practices
Oean Air Act
Corrective Action Management Unit
cis-l,2-dichloroethylene
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Code of Federal Regulations
carbon monoxide
chemical oxygen demand
Oean Water Act
Coastal Zone Management Act,
1.1-dichloroethane
l.4-dichlorobenzene
l,2-dichloroethylene
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Department of Defense
Department of Transponation
destruction and removal efficiency
Department of Resources and Development
equilibrium partitioning
U .5. Environmental Protection Agency
Effect Range-Low
Effect Range-Medium
Endangered Species Act
Federal Facilities Agreement
Federal Registry
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
gallons per day
gallons per minute
ground penetrating radar
groundwater treatment plant
hydrochloric acid
hazard index
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
Headquarters Air Foree Base Disposal Agency
Acr-!
MKOl\RPT:00628O"..6.004\ lf5rod.acr
-------
IRM
IRP
LDRs
LT3
MCL
MCLG
mgjkg
mgjL
MSL
NAAQS
NCP
NESHAP
miANG
NHCAR
NHDES
NHPA
NOAA
NPDES
NPL
NSPS
NSDWS
O&G
O&M
OSHA
PARs
PCBs
PCDA
PCE
PCSs
PDA
POHC
POTW
PPE
RA
RAO
RCRA
RD IRA
RID
RIfFS
RI
ROD
RSA
SARA
SCOPE
LIST OF ACRONYMS
(Continued)
- -
Interim Remedial :\1easures
Installation Restoration Program
Land Disposal Resttictions
Low Temperature Thermal Treatment
Maximum Contaminant Level
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
milligrams per kilogram
milligrams per liter
mean sea level
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Contingency Plan
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollution
New Hampshire Air National Guard
New Hampshire Code of Anminic:trative Rules
New Hampshire State Department of Environmental Services
National Historic Preservation Act
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administ:ration
National Pollutant Discharge F.limin~tion System
National Priorities List J
New Source Performance Standards
National Secondary Drinking Water Standards
oil and grease
operation and mamtenance
Occupational Safety and Health Act
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
polychlorinated biphenyls
Paint Can Disposal .Area
tetrachloroethene .
potential (groundwater) CODT~min~nt sources
Pease Development Authority
principal organic hazardous constituent
publicly owned treatment works
personal protective equipment
Risk Assessment
remedial action objective
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remedial DesignjRemedial Action
reference dose
Remedial InvestigationjF easibility Study
Remedial Investigation
Record of Decision
Revised Statute Annotated
Superfund AmendmentS and Reauthorization Act
Seacoast Citizens Overseeing Pease Environment
~\RPT;0062S026.004\It:5rod.3a
Acr-2
-------
SDWA
SMCL
SVOCs
TEC
TCE
TCLP
TMB
TMV
TPHs
TRC
TSCA
TSD
~/kg
~/L
UIC
use
USCA
UST
VLDPE
VOCs
WHPA
LIST OF ACRONYMS
(Continued)
Safe Drinking Water ACt
Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
semivolarile organic compounds
treated as to be considered
trichloroethylene
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
trimethyl benzene
toxicity, mobility, or volume.
total petroleum hydrocarbons '
TechniCal Review Committee
Toxic Substances Conn-ol Act
treatment, storage. and disposal (facility)
micrograms per kilogram
micrograms per liter
underground injection control
United States Code
United States Code Annotated
underground storage tank
very low density polyethylene,
volatile organic compounds
Wellhead Protection Area
- -
Acr-3
MKDl\RPT:00628O'''..6.004\If5rocLacr
-------
"
F -103
F-133
F-171
F-176
F -197
F-200
F-202
F-230
F-368
F-428
F-447
F-455
REFERENCES
Driscoll, F.G. 1986. Groundwater and Wells. Second ediri.ca.. Johnson Division.
St. Paul. MN.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1985. Devewpmem of Statistical
Distributions or Ranges of Standard Factors Used in Exposwe Assessments. Office
of Health and Environmental Assessment, Waslrington, DC. OHEA-E-161.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection ..:\gency). 1989. "Risk Assessmenr Guidance
for Superfund - Volume 1." Human Health EvahJ.ation Manual. Part A. Interim
Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/540/1-89/002.
EP A (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. "Supplemental Risk
Assessment Guidance for the Superfund Program." Draft Final. U.S. EPA
Region I Risk Assessment Work Group. EPA/901/5-89/001.
EP A (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. Meeting among U.S. Air
Force, Roy F. Weston, Inc., U.S. EP A Region L and the State of New Hampshire.
EPA Region L Boston. MA. 10 September 1991-
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protectio~ Agency). 1991. Protecting the Nation's
Groundwater. EP A's Strategy for the 1990s. Final Report of EP A Groundwater
Task Force. 212-1020.
EP A (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. "Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund: Volume I: Human Health Evaluation J.'\tfarwal. Supplemental
Guidance. "Standard Default Exposure Factors." Interim Final Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response. Waslrington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.6-
03.
Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Staristical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY.
Rand, l.R. 1990. Seabrook Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. VoL II - Sire
Characteristics. Seabrook, NH.
u.S. Department of the Air Force. 1993. Installation Restoration Progrr:rm
Proposed Plan for IRP Size 5, Landfill 5 - Source Area, Pease AFB, NH January
1993.
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1986. Insra1Iarion Restoration Program, Phase
II - Confirmation/Quantification, Stage 1 Final Report, PeaseAFB, NH. June 1986.
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1989. Installa1ion Restoration Program, Stage 2
Draft Final Report, Pease AFB, NH.
R-1
MKOI \R.PT:00628a"..6.000$\ 1fS reeL-:f
-------
F-463
F-484
F-494
F-500
F-518
REFERENCES
(Continued)
- -
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1990. Insta1lati.on Restoration Program, Stage 3,
Dnun Removal at IRP Site 5 (LF-5) Infomwl Technical Information Report for
Pease AFB, NH. December 1990.
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1991. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Pease AFB, NH. January 1991. Draft Final.
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1992. Installation Restoration Program. Stage
3C, Feasibility Study, Landfill 5, Pease AFB, NH.
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1992. InstaiIarion Restoration Program, Stage 3C
Landfill 5 Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH. Apri11992. Draft Final.
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1992. Off-Base Well Inventory Letter Report.
Pease AFB, NH. 17 September 1992.
- .
R-2
MKDl\RPT:00628026.004\lf5rod..ref
-------
"
. :~~:~~~~7~~~'..:" -.
.
''5 "
...' .~
,..;'
;,-:.:
"."
-------
TobIe 20
ARARs for Altcl'llulive SC-2A - Sediment ond I.undfill Consolidatioll; f,alldlill CUlllling;
On-SHe (~l"Oulldwutcr Trenhncut aUld UlsllOsul for Cunstnu:liull Ucwlltcriug
LF-S, I'ease AFII, Nil
Acliun Tu lie Takell Tu
Media Requiremenl Requlremenl Synopsis Allnill Ite(luiremelllS Shllus
ClmMICAI. SI'I'CIJiI<;
Gwundwaler, 11I!1>l!ItAL-I!I'" ltisk Itelerence nuses (ltn)s) Rmli arc dose levels developed based on Ihe liI'A Itills have heen used lu TIIC
surlace waler, nonearcino!!enie eflecls and un: used 10 characletile risks due 10 expusure
sedimenl, lioil develop hazard Indices. A halan.! index III less lu .-onlaminanls inglllum!waler,
Ihun or equal 10 I is cunsidered uccel'lalJle. surlace waler, scdimenl, alld sui Is.
See 5u"SCClillll 1.7 and 2.3 (11-494).
.Sedimenl II!!I 1!!ItAI.-NIIAA Technical Mell\lIrundulI\ Relerence dose. rur vuriuus mnluminunls ill Wele wnsideled when selecling Tile
NOS OMA 5l liedlmenlli and Ihelr pUlenlial crlccls IIn "iola sedimenl dean-uplevcls. Sec
exposed 10 Ihe conluminunls. Tahle 2.4-1 (11-4\1.1).
Sedimenl, suil JII!DlJltAI...m'A Cardn.)gen Asscssmenl Group I'olency-raclon; arc developed by Ihe I!I'A I!I'A Can'iullgenic I'uleney I'arlun; Tile
!'olellcy l'acl
-------
Table 20
AltAlh ror AllcrnuUve SC-2A - Sediment and' (.onliOIl Consolilllllion; "undlill CUlllling;
On-Site Groundwater Treatment and Disposal ror Construction Uc\yatcring
LF-S, fease AFO, Nil
(Continued)
Acliun Tu lie T~ken Tu
Media Requlremenl Requlremenl Synopsis Allain Requiremenls SI~lus
Well~nds I'm}J!RAlrCWA 41J.1, Seclion 41J.1(1J)(i) Conlains requlremenls ror discharge or dredge The range or ~lIernalive$ evalu;lled Appliral>le
Guidelines rur Speci/irulion or lJispusal Siles or rill malel'ul, including Ihal nu dischurge is WCJ'e Ihuse whirh I>c51 meel Ihe
ror Ihedged or Fill Malerial 40 CJII( I'ar! 21U permilled Ir Ihere Is a pracllcahle allernative 10 pmje"l purpuse or minimiliug
IIle propo$ed disehurle which would huve u les:> 'cuehiug ur wnlaminunls rmm
udvel1ie Impacl on Ihe aquallc ecosyslem, und soun'e area suils Inlo groundwaler
Ihul no dlseharae permilled unlcs:> uppropliale u/\l1 surrace waleI', All or Ihe
IInd praellcalJ'c ilcJIII are IlIken 10 mlnlmile ullernatives have similar udverse
polenlial advene Impaels on Ihe alJualie iml'aels on Ihe hndlill S wellands,
eeOliYllem. IInwever, Ihe seleeled allernalive
had Ihe leasl adverse impael.
Remedial o"livilles will be
designed 10 mlnlmile pOlential
advcnie arreelS 1111 Ihe ul,uallc
<.-,. ecosyslem, Any wellam.ls advelSely
Urlerlell will he leshllell ur
replaced,
Soil H!I>IJllAlAiroundwaler J'luleclinn Slrulegy 1!1'A's Slralegy fur prulectlng gruundwuler In 1!I'A's generul Jlllllry /111' pmle"l/ng Tile
Ihe ,990's outlilles pulicy IInd hnplemellialioll gmundwuler hus been laken inln
ptlncl,lle. Iniendelilu pruleellhe lIalllln' rlln~iI!llAL..16 lJ~C 661 el. 5el'" I'ish unll Itequire$ lIederal agencie, 10 lake Inlo Helevanl fclleral agendes willlJe Applkah'e
Wildlife nlCl.dinalillll Al'l I:Ullsilielalillll Ihe crlerl Ihul waleHelaled ....nlal'le1':IHI62H021i.fKH\IISrud,apl'
A-]
-------
Table 20
ARARs for AUcrnulivc SColA - Sediment and' Landnn Coosolldalion; l,uodl1ll CUfJI)ing;
On-Site Groundwuter Treatment and Disposal fur Constructlou Ucwatel'ing
I.F-S. Pease AFB. Nil
(Continued)
A"lion To lie Ta~en To
Mcdia Ilcqulrcmcnl Ilcquhclllcni Synopsis Allain Ilequirements Slatus
Wcllunds, Hivcrs SI'ATB-RSA 48S:A-17 Nil Admin, Code I!nv- I.!5lablish erllerla for conducl/nB any acllvily in SelJilllenl cxcavation plans und rap Al'plkahle
Ws 4 IS, Ilules Relalive 10 I'revenllon of or near slale surrace walers which signiricanlly inslallalion will meet. suhstantive
I'ollullon rrom Urcdging, I/illing, Minlnl, allers lerraln or may olhc/Wise adver.;ely arrecl relluirelllenis or Ihese NIIDES
Transpor1ing, Conslrucllon waler qualily, Impede nalural runorr or crcate rules prior 10 inilialion.
unnalural runoff. AClivltlcs within Ihe sWjle or
Ihese provisions Include excavalion, dredging,
fillin" mining and grading of lopsoil in or lIear
weiland areas.
Wclland., Hivers STATB..llSA 482-A, Nil Admin. Code Bnv-WI Regulule rillinland olhcr aClivilics in or I'r0l'0se<.l work in Ihe wetlan<.ls in Al'l'licahlc
300, 400, 600, New llampshire Crileria and a_djacenllo wellands, and eslablish crileria ror and adjacent 10 Ihe Sile 5 landfill
Condition. for Fill and Dredging in Weiland. Ihe prolecllon 0' wellands from a"'verse will "e revlewcd by Ihe Wellands
ImpaCls on fish, wildlife, commerce and public Uoard and will comply wilh slale
recreallon. - wdlan'" proleellon requirements.
(]rnundwaler ,\CI'I()N sl'Jo:nt'lC
fll!l)f!RAIAlCltA 40 (;fIR Secllon. 264.90 . Oeneral racUlly rcqulremenl' ror aroundwaler (lruundwaler monitllling will he Hclevanl
264.101 (Subpart I'), Ilelmes from Solill monltorlna al aUecleil racililies and leneral !'Unduele'" in accordance wilh Ihcse &
Walle Managemenl Units. Idcnlilies requiremenls for corrcclive acllon prollram5 if re1luiremenls, See Appendix 1/(11- Approl'riale
procedurcs 10 be followed 10 ensure Ihal required al re,ulaled facililles. <)~).
groundwaler standards arc mel.
Fl!l)l!IlAl~RCRA 40 CI'R Secllons 264.110- Ownen or opcralors of a land rill musl <.Ievelu!, '111C I.mtrill will he dused in lleleVa~t
26'1.120 (Subpall U) Closure and 1'051 Closure all'" su"lIIll plans which Idenliry Ihe aClivilics manner consistenl wilh Ihese &
I)isposal Unils - Ilequiremenls for closing Ihe which will be performed 10 close (I.e., cap) Ihe reKulaliufls, Al'pHll'riale
landfill and roul/nc lIIonllorlnl of Ihe land rill and Ihe acllvilies which will be
aroundwaler around Ihe 18ndlill fur a period of conducled "urlnllhc poil dosur. Ilcliull.
up 10 30 years after closure or the lundrill.
M KO I \ 1I1'I':OO62H026.004 \1 IS rod .811P
A-3
-------
Table 20
AICAUs for Alternative SC-2A - Sediment and LandOIl Consolidation; Landlill Cntltling;
On-Site Groundwater Treatment and Disposal for Construction ncwulcl'ing
LF-S, Pease AFB, NH
(ConUn"cd)
ACliun Tu lie Taken To
Media Requlrcmenl Requlremenl Synopsis I\IIQln !tcquircments Stalus
IIUI)l!ItAl...RCRA 4U Clift I'arl 264.30-37 IdenllnCl 'equlremenll which musl be mel I\cllvilles liud. as on-sile ftclevanl
(Subpart C) Preparedness and Prevenllon lIurlnl deslln, construction, and operation or rerontourlng, cap conslrucllun and &.
TSD racillales 10 minimize possibilit)' or rires, design, conslruction, and operation AplJrnpriate
explosions or unplanned releases or wasle. or an on-sile grnundwaler
trcalmenl system will comply wilh
all purliuns or Ihis re'luiremeni.
l'IIIIURAI..llCltA 40 CIIlll'arl 264..50-264..56 IlIenllflCl tho requlrementl which mUlt be Consll'uclion and operatlun ur an !tefcvanl
(Subpart D) Contingency Plan and Emergency addressed In a condngenc)' plan. l1.ach TSI> on-site gmundwaler Irealmenl &.
I',ocedures facilily musl have a conlinlen~'Y plan which s)'slcm will cumpl)' wilh ull J\1'pmpliate
Idenllrlel !III procedures 10 be followed In the ponions ,If Ihis re1luiremenl,
evenl or fire, explosion or a planned release
rrom a racility.
~
lIazarduus WUlilo IIUl>lIIll\l.-llCilA 40 Cllll Seclions 26-1.190-198 'l'anlll or lank lyslom8 which aro to bo used 10 Tunks uicd In Ihe IIn-,lIc I\l'plicahle
(Subpart J) Requiremenll ror the design, lempilrarily Ilore hazardous liquids or as parI groundwater !realmenl s)'stem will
InUallllion Ind operilion or any tlnh or tank or I Irollmenll)'llem ror ha&urdoul liquldi or cl)lII)ll)' with Ihe~e reatllallou~,
1)'Ileml which Ire ulell 10 Ilure or hcal IIludael mU1l1 be deslgued, Inslalled and
hazardous liquids or Iludges. operaled In accordance wilh Ihe RCRA
slandards.
lIazardous Wasto l'UUUllAl...RCltA 4U (;IIR 264.110-118 (:olliain. requlremenl. ror use and I\ny cllnlaluers which are I\ppliedblc
(Subparll), Use and Mlinoaellleni or mllna&emenl of cuntalners huhUna hazardllus uncuvered h)' reCIJl1louril1g will I
ContaineR lubslancCl. meellhe requiremenls or Ihis
regulation. Any containers used to I
slore Irclllllleol sludges, "hol SpOI"
wasle, or Irealmenl fillers will also
mecl Ihese re'luircmenls,
Soils, Sedimenlli 11l!l>l!IlAl...RCllA 40 CIIR Seclions 264,250- Ueneral deslln Ind opera lion requlremenls ror Wasle Ililes used ror IClIIlJorary J\ ppllcahlc
264.2511 (Subparl I.) lemporary slora&o of hazardouliloils. sloragc ul CXl'uvuled IlIlIIUiII dchri~
IAlcalluns musl have an Impermeable liner and or sedimeOI Ihal are nol localed
malerlals slored 1.1 piles musl be rree or 011 Ihe exisling IlIlIdlili will comply
slandingliquld. wilh Ihesc re'luircmel1lS,
M~f1" ""!':OO628026.004\llSrod,II'P
,
A-11
-------
Table 20
AUAlts for AUel'nntivc SC-2A - Sedlmcnt and "aUtUili CnnsolitluUou; t:8IIdlili Call1.lug;
On-Site Groundwater Treatment and Disposal for Conslruction Uewalcl'ing
LF-S, Pease AFB, Nil
(Continued)
ACliun Tu lie Taken 'I'u
Media Requiremenl . Requiremenl Synopsis Allain Ile'luiremenls Sialus
Air H!IH!RAIAtCRA 40 CPR I'art 2M, Conlains air pullulanl emission siandards fur I!<)uil'menl used in remedial AI'I"kah'e,
Al'pendix 1111 el)uil'menlleuks al hazardnus wasle Ireallllenl, aelivilies will lIIeel Ihe desigu or rclevant
slorage ami disposal facilities (rSUl's). sl'edficillinns, and will be and
Cllnlulns deslin slledUe'uliuns und mllnilllied IlIr ledks. '1I'I"III'liale
requiremenls fur muniluring fur leuk del«liuli. depending 1111
II h. 8111111coble 10 ciluiplll.eni Ihal Clllliains ur IlIlalurganirs
conluc's hazardous wasles wilh organic
-------
:,,,'.. j.
Table 20
AItAlts for AlterlluUvc SC-2A - Sediment and' LandOn ConsoUdaUon; Lundlill CUlllllng;
On-SUe Groundwater Treatment Itnd Disposal for ConstrucUon Dewatering
LF-S, Pease AFB, Nil
(ConUnued)
Acliun 'I'll lie Ta~ell To
Media Ilc(lulremenl Requlremenl Synopsis Allain Ilequiremeilis Sialus
Waler III!Ul!llAL-CWA 40 CFIt I'ul <103 I!I'A Siamianh; 10 be followed In eslablishing lIischarge lu waslcwaler Irealmenl A....Ii"able
I'rolroal/llelll Siamlanis prelrealmenl ernuenl discharge limils Cur ..Ianl will meel Ihe prelreal/llelll
pollulanll which will be discharged 10 a le'luire/llCllls uC Ihe Cleall WaleI'
"uhlidy owned Irellmenl wnrks. "..I.
lIazardous Was Ie Cl!IlCI.A OCC-Sile UispolIll'oliey - OSWI!R This policy requires oCf-slle receiving facilily 1o. The ocr-sile receiving Cacilily will Tile
Dlrecllve 9834.11, 11/13/87 be In compliance wllh all permlls and wllh have 10 be licensed and In
applicable 'laic end federel requiremenls. compliance wilh permils alld wilh
appn..ahle hlale and fe,krill
re'llliremenis before any /IIuleriul
Crom l.an.trill .s is laken IIfe-sile.
lIazardous Walle Sl'A'I'1!-NIl Admin. Code IJnv-Wm 400-404 Requiremenls for Ihe Idenlificallon end listing Ilesidue Crom groulldwaler A!'Plieuble
ldenliCicatiun IIlId Listing of lIalarduus Wusle of hazardous Wasle.-. Ireal/llenl will he unalYled and
identiCied 10 delermine if iI is
halanlnus IlIinr lu allY a"lillll Ihal
invulves lIealmelll or dispusal.
lIalalduus WaSie SI'ATI!-NII Admill. Codc I!nv 3B, 7UI-705, General requlremenls fur OWllers or operalors All remedial aclivilies will comply Itc/evanl
707, 7U8, 7U9 Siandards for Owners and of hazardous wasle silel or Irealmenl facililies, wilh Ihe subslalilive provision of &
Operalors uf lIalUrduu/i Wusle I'a~ililiu Inciudillil clusure 0' hazarduus waslc faciliUes. slale hazan'nus wasle regulallnns. Applieahle
If any slalc slandard under Ihesc
regulalinns is IIInre sirillgcni Ihall I
IlCllA Sialidard, Ihen Ihe more I
slringclIl slale slalldard will
cnnlrnl. Sim'e Ihcse slalc
regulallulls uddress und
IlIcnlpurale by refelellcc /IIallY uf
Ihe IlCllA hazardous wasle
regulalions, scc Ihe acliolls 10 be
lakell IIlIdcr sperine llellA
re&ulalinns Iblcd nhnvc.
M K"" """":OO628026.004\1fSrod.app
A-f
01)/21/1)'
-------
Table 20
ARARs Cor Altcrnutivc SC-2A - Scdlmcnt and' Landfill Consolidation; LandOIl CUI)I)ingj
On-Site G.'ollndwuter Treutment nnd UlSI)OSld for Consll'lu:lioll UC\Vlltcring
LF-S, Pease ArB, Nil
(Continued)
Acli.." Tu lie Tuken Tu
Medi. Rcqulrcmcllt Rcqulrcmcnt Synop:;is Allialll He1Iui!'emenls Slatus
Waler SI'ATI!-NII Admin. Codc I!nv-Ws 90\) 1"11'1 '111i:; rcgulation cstablishes guldellncs for those Hemedial aClivilies discharging 10 1\1'1'1i<'ablc
9001.07 Prelreatmenl Standard, wasleS which arc prohlblled hom beillg waSlewaler Ireallllellll'lalll mllsl
illirudueeiliu II publicly owneilireulmeill Ctllllply wilh preirealllleni
works (I'O'IW). Sewer use ordinances passed slandards.
b)' Ihe lown owning Ihc r01W may conlain
standard, equal 10 or morc slrlngenl Ihan [Jnv-
WI 904.07. RSA 48S-A:S, IV aulhorizes Ihe
,llIle 10 enforce loeul prclreatmenl slandards
which havc been pn:viously approved by Ihe
'laic,
- - - -
SI'ATI!-RSA 4'.1S.A:11 allil Nil Allmill. Code (I.sllablbhcs crlleria III conllnl ero:;llIn und run- Scdhnenl ewrav"lion and c'ap I\PI'Ii<'ahle
l!nv.Ws 41S Terrainl\lIeralion orr for IIny aclivily Ihal slgnirtcanlly allcn; Ihc Inslallalion will comply wilh Ihcse
lerrain. _. rC1lniremellls. SUl'h ileliulIS will he
couulinale" wilh the NIII>I !S.
Air SI'ATI1-NII Allmin. (:Ode I!nv-A 1300 Towie ~llIbli,hcli Amblcnl Air Umlls (I\AI.5) III I!eleasc IIf Ctlniliminllnis 10 Ihe IIlr AI'I'lirahle
Air I'ollulanls prolecllhe publle from coneenlralions of from UIlY on.slle relllcd/al aClivities
(l0llullnl.ln Imblclil air Ihlllllll)' uusc will nnl rcsuilin cn'cellence of Ihe
adverse !lcaUh crrccls. rcspective AAL, if one cxlsls,
Bmlssions rrnm Ihc landfills
passive gas collecllon s)'Slem arc
nol ul)eclcd 10 result In .
ewceedence of Ihesc slandards. I
I'wposed air elliissinns will he
courc/inuled wilh Ihe Air
Ilesollrccs Division.
M KOI \ ItPT:OOt,28026.004\lfSrod.app
A-7
-------
.IL"!.'
Table 20
ARARs for Alternutive SC-2A - Sediment and' Landfill Consolidation; Landlill CnlJlling;
On-SUe Gl'Oundwater Treatment and msposal for Construction Ucwatering
LF-5, Pease AFB, Nil .
(Continued)
ACliIJIITu lie Ta~en '1'..
Mellia Rcqulremenl Requlremenl Synopsis Allain RC1luircmcnts Stains
Air S'J'ATH-NII Admin. Code I!nv-A 300 Amblcnl &Iablishu primal}' Ind secondal}' Icvels for Thcsc ambienl air Icvcls will bc Applicablc
Air Qualil)' Siandards cliht Ilr contlmlnanl' (parllculale mallcr, h1corl",ruled with Pederal NAAQs
sulfur dioxide, clrbon munoxlde, nilrulen lu eslablMI largellevels which may
dioxide, ozunc, hydroclroon., "uurldel, 1111.1 nlll IIc eXl'ccllcll line III air
lead). cmlsslulis from on-slle Icllvilics,
Including cxcavation and
groundwaler Irealmcnl. I'rul'0sed
air emissions will bc fOonlinalell
wilh Air Resourccs Divisiuli.
Air STATU-Nil Admin. Code I!nv-l002 Fugillve Require. precaullon. 10 prevenl, abale, Ind rrecaulions 10 cOlilrol fugilive dust AI'I'licublc
Dusl C'..onlrol conlrol fUillive duSI durin. speclficd aCllvilics, cOllisions will be rcquircd during
Includln. exclvallon, conslruction, and bulk scdimelll cxcavulillll. alld cal'
hlullnl. illslallalioll aclivilies. These
-- precaulions will be included ill Ihe
remedial design.
I
1
MKO!\ IWI':OO628026.004\U5rod.opp
A-6
-------
,~,
"
~...'>'
'-.:~.;':;:~,...:.- '
. ":"" :::""'.-.
-:-~.
-'
, ...
'"
.-:...';'" ..'"
"
, ,
- ,
"
:.-' .~r.:#"::...~ .~ ':
. '.'
,-~
-
.'
.-....
,~ . .
~
-:' ...' -
--'
"
'.
"
" r.~ '.oJ'"
~~"
.:
.....~.
.....
_.-~..
--
')"~'
n,
~# -';:".'
.
~...
:,--=:~:, ,,:-,~~
""'.'" .~
-:{';:~..' .... . ~
~ " --'-,~,',..!.-,Ji,.,,=,~:',~,.,.,~-,-,~';".,;
. ,:jjf' , -~:~. .
. ',.l
., ..
,--. : ~..,":";"~.:~-:.
~~ ';, ':-::;~~i~~:
-
;,;,..;.
.
, ..
~
-"""- ,,::7."--:
-~
....',
"...;,
, ,
APPENDIX B,'
, -'~.
."1.:
-1',,' ,,' ~,::--r:
:." :':""::.:
.-:.1: .,
~..
"."
"' -' '#
.,~
-.
-
..:...
\RPI~oS 004\1f5rod.app -.,
,.~;':t' '..'~;. -~:
.:, ~ ;..."" .
,,:'l~~};?" -s\~>'ir:i~:t,~:
. .".
-,1/.',
."'c,
, .'
'--, -
-------
TO BE PROVIDED
- -
....
MKDl\RFT:0062:8026.004\1f5rod.app
B-1
-------
8
\-.
LEGEND:
-- Prt8rmn8ry -ilanes dellneatzon tin.
Au~. S8P1811108r 1991
I.;.,;.'" w_"'..
..:6..
-...
o
o 'to. ..
!--
...---:. "';' ""-
~AFB\.<
~~.., -\
SC;AL£ WI FEET
I ~,ne UID Scuce
8
e
o
;-
so EZI8btIQ""81:8 COtIGUtl888v:i1t1On(FT,t.jISLI
../ : 0 IaaI om_'
=-,-"'-
: = = OII1or ""'III InCS ".
- ~(.IISMg)
a E\uoodmgs
w.uanas .83 DOIennaJly
1mpact8d: Dy lanatlll ban..,. ClO.
Landfill 5 (LF-5) Ares
Stage 4. Record of Decision
Pease Air Force Sese. N- Hampshire
F1GURE12
-------
~~ES
Subject:
State of ~ew Hampshire
DEPARI':'Y1E~1 OF ~"1RONMENTAL SERVICES
6 Hazen Drive. P.O. Box 95, Conconi. :m 03302~5
603-171-~S03 FAX 603.271-?8n7
~
(&T~i1#j'.
';0.
\~. !.i
\~
roc ~: ~ :'-"K 1.goo.733-Z964
- -
September 16, 1993
Mr. Alan P. Babbitt
Deputy for Hazardcus Materials and Waste;
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force .
(environment. Safety and Occupational Health)
Suite 5C866, Pemagon
Washington, D.C. 20330-1660
RE:
Site 5 Source Area Record of Decision
Peese Air Force Base Superfund Site
Peese Air Force Base, New Hampshire
Declaratfon of Concu~
Dear Mr. Babbitt:
The New Hampshire Dttpartmf:tf1t of EnvironmerrtaJ Services (NHDES) has reviewed the
September 1993 Record of Decision (ROC)' regarding source control remediaJ actions at
Site 5 - Landfif( 5 at the Pease Air Force Base Superfund Sits IocatBd in Newingtcn and
Portsmouth. New Hampshire. Managemerlt of contaminant migration will be addl'9ssed
in the Zone 1 ROD. The source control action consists at a multf-ccmponent approach
for the containment of contaminant source 'matertm as outflned in the following:.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Am RXSOt:R~ :>IV.
04(\;0. MIda"'-
(:aQer 80a %CI33
o--L :-r.M. m~.~~
'rtL. 1SDS-2"!437'O
I'IIa ou:J-i1-I>a1
Excavation and consolidation of selected Railway Ditch sediments 0" the existing
landfill.
Excavation of soil and solid wasms' .n .lAndfflls 2 and 4 and concolidaticn on
Landfill 5. .
Excavation of soil and solid wastes predicted to be below the water ~e atter
capping and clacement of excavated materiaJ 0" the existing landfill. Dewatering
of areas requiring excavation, on-stte treatment of the 8X1raCt8d groundwater and
discharge to the local wastewater treatment plant may be necessary. Treated
effluent will aJso be used for site dust control.
Regrading and capping of the landfill with a composite cap. The cap wiH consist
of the following (from top to bottom):
w..sn; ~"~~:lIV
5 Haz= I)noe
~. X.if. 03~
To!. ~:;;~.~
?ax ec3.~.:.sJ6
WA-n::R lIJI.t;OT11ICP.o; DTV
tW So. M8i= su-
P.O.3ca:DOl
~. !\;.Jl. C133112.2CQ8
Tel. eo3-:!:'t-.uc16
Pts OIXJ-~-' ~a I
WATER. SUPPU" &: POLLunc.'l CONTROL i:)]
P.o. 8ft 95
~ :'UI. U13O:~S
'N. a-..".)~
-------
o
Letter to Alan P. Sat:bitt .
Re: Site 5 ROD Declaratfon 01 ConculTence
September 16, 1993
Page 2
-
A Pf'Ot"'*"'e COv""aye.. compr;Mri of a minimum.of 36 inches of erai.
sand and 6 inches of mUlched. seeded tOpsoil.
A drainage composite laye.. com- Of a single-lay". high-den
POlyethyien". (HPDEj d"'inage net with a no"""""", needle-puncl
gQOta)(fjle. Tha d~;n;fge composite layer and the underly;m; geomemorc
will' be terminated in a perimeter anchor tr&nch fitted With a Subdrain
per10rated .:Jlastic pipe empedded in crushed stone.
A composite barri"r layer. cansisting of a clay mat """rlain by a 4oofTlii. vo
low density ;>olYethylene (VLDPEJ geom"mbrane. The clay mat will i
composed of bentonite clay bOnded to geomembrane or a 9fJOtextl1e.
v.
A 12';''''11 subbas" gas ventilation layer with - ventB """rlain witI1
9-'" to 08"'" as a bedding layer for the 0V9tIying COIl1pOsite barrier
Destruction 01 wetlands will I'equi... the<:onstruction of 8pp/Cprtafe wetfands. base.
0" a functional evaluation and assessInent 01 wetfands Prior to "",""",n"""'ent a
COnstnJction activities, in non-wetfand areas.
vr.
Placement 01 institutional controls. Deed I'BStridons wiB be i"'P08ed to restrict
. future activities that could violate the integrity of the cap.
VII.
Conducting Iong-tem, "nvfronmental,monilonng to ensure the intee. ity Of the cap
is maintained and ensure the waste material remains dry.
Based upon its l'IIView. NHDES has determined the sourca ar&a I'!If!Iedlai action ;s
conaialent with. o. ""C&eds. applicable o. re4evant and appro~ - atandat'ds.
NHCes. as a party to the Pease Air Fcrce Base Federal Facility Agrsement and actfng
as agent for the Slats of New Hampshire. concurs with the selected ",",edial action. This
concurrence is based upon ~e StateJs understanding that: .
A.
NJ./OES wiR continu.. :0 Participate in tit.. P- Air F"""" Base F'ederaJ F'aciliiy
Agreement and in the review and approval of th8 Zone 1 ROD. -ial design
and action documents. end the follcwing Landfllf 5 operntfonaI designs and
monitoring plans:
TM ~pping system;
The gas management system and PC>S!-ctosu... landfill gas monltnrtng plsn;
-------
"
v
8.
i.
c.
Letter to Alan P. Babbitt
Re: Site 5 ROC Declaration 01 ConC'..uTence
September 161' 1993
Page 3
- -
i"hQ gtormw~tQr manag9mAnt (drajnage) syS'tem as typicaJly incorporated
into landfill closure plans through issuance of a Significant
Alteraticn.of.Terrain Permit; .
The groundwater and surface water monitoring system:
Long-term operation and maintenance pian; and
PO$:t closure access contrel systems.
The purpose of the NHDES' closure standards is to ensure. "...all facilities shail be
closed in a manner that dc~ nut endanger public health or adversely affect the
environment and which minimizes the potential for accidents that couid lead to.
personal injury or property damage" (Env-Wm 312.0~). NHDES' Landftll Capping
System Standards (Env.Wm 2505. 10) require landfill capping systems be designed
to, "...reduce leachate generation by limmng to the extent practicable precipitation
and sur1aa:. w~tf:ff infiltration at the waste. through placement ot low-permeabiiity
cover materials over the landfflled areas". The low permeability banief shall.
"minimize the infiltration of water into undertying wastes so as to limit cor:rtinued
leachate productfon and the asso,ciated adverse impacts to the quality of
groundwater and 9urfacs waters; and con~ist of a geomembrane with a minimum
thi
-------
cc:
Letter to Alan P. Babbitt
Rs: SIte 5 ROC Cectaratfon of ~ncurrenc8
September 16, 1993
Page 4
- -
ccmpiianca with the 9xistthg National Pollt.."ion Discharge Eiminaticn System
permit. pretr9atmem regulations and water pOllution control laws.
o.
Ar;y wetlands adversely impacted by the 50U:"CS control action wiil be :-e=rtoreci.
subject to thg provisions of RSA 4.82-A and :.-w-Wt 100 through Wt 800.
E.
The Pgas8 Development Authority (PDA) plans to construct an access read to the
North Ramp. aojacent to Landff1/5. The Air Fcrca and 'the PDA will coordinate the
consciidation and the design and construction of the landfill cap and ~ccefJC road
to ensure the integrity of the cap and capping systems.
F.
Long4rm monaorin; will be n9C8&sary in ordlil' to dstsrmine tl'1e effectiveness at
the source contro! action. Long-term monitoring at the management of
contaminants in groundwater wffJ be addre8S8d in the Zen. 1 ~OD. The Tr8quancy
I .
and loc.atfon of water quali1y monitoring is determined on a site specific basis and
is typically ~red tr1-annuaJly until a. baseNne condftton is established. A
comprehensive. detaiJed revlswwill be conduC32 ~ the Air Force, ttT8 U~EP Aantt
the NHCES within ttve years after ~ediaticn to ensure the remedy provided
adequate pl'OtClCtian of human heat!h and th9 QfTVfronment.
,
Sincsrely,
C?~w.{
~-
Robert W. Varney
Commissioner
Philip J. O'Brien. Ph.D.. Director, NHDES-WMD
Carf W. Baxter, P.E., NHOES-WMEE
Richa.r'C H. Psase, P.E.. NHCES-WMEB
Martha A. Moore, Esq., NHOOJ-PDA'
Michael J. Daly, EP A
Arthur L Ditto, P ,E., AF3DA
-------
.
.
.
Ii
..........
.
.
~ .' .~...'.
.
.
~-" ~
\ "\ I ~"
'\ I
.'I
If
\,
'"
"
.....,
,.....
.. '1--
~
'"
..
LEGEND: ~ ~~FTIMSl)
~ Stall gage I 0.00 I TolBI c:oncomra1lons ~) ./50 10 i0oi-
@) MoniIot well (Bedrock) A: To1aI aroma1ic YOCs = - (aphaJVpa¥8d)
C MonIIor wetl (0wIbunIen) H: Tola! haIog8na18d VOCs : = = 0lIl, rood8 8nd..
Ct MoniIor - (Hybrid) $: Tola! oemNoIaIiI8s ~ -.go
O P18ZOII18I8' NA NOI analyzed
NO NOI cIo- ~-
Samples - in 6/91 .xcept.. not8d.
...:::::::... ~ Landlill 5 (LF-5) AIM
NORI'H Slage 4, Record of Del:l8lon
I P88se Air Foree BIM, Hew Hampshire
.... 0 1D1C11 ... ... ....
SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 8
-UIp_: DISTRIBUTION OF ORGANICS IN
D."........~""",*"-" GROUNDWATER
PAFB ttom ..Ioal pnoU)gr~PhY dal8d 11123187
.- "R' .~
-.---.- -.--
-..-. .-
.-. ---.. .--
..
-------
!
- - - - -. ~:"'t'~
"'":
-'
-I'
. ~~;' ",
~""
:-. . .~ .
'-
LEGEND:
-'8- ~.........~b8tIIor.P
1---1. FTAl8L. 8"""'1
. - - ElllllrvlMlalM8WMII!IIInIUnIIII
.- EIIdno.....~
~ IFTIIoISl).a.--
= AIIIIIIf8llll8lWDMdl';'
: : : 0Iw", 811d....' ,
~ 8uIdIo9 . .
"'.... Fila (nIIthg)
, =:.-
$- ~~::
. .".... -........ "-
. IOMI_PIIT )
==~~~~~. ~S-
NOTE:
The.,.... --. ..-. ~ oI1h8 dobrto and lOb Iran
LF-6 and 1h8 --Iran ~ IInIok 8nd1h8 Railway
DIIeII, l1l1I)'. AdcI1IonoJ '-dllllllllfl8l0 Iran LF.2 .nd IF-4 wIII.1oo
III c:aniaIId8l8d on LF.5 (ta1818ddItIonoI.......,. "'_aDnotlly
78.000 cuIIIc Y-J. The doPD8lllon of IF-e (lano 41 -.tats Is .1111
..,.., c:ansIdor8Uon. CanooIId81Ion ... IF.51o . ~. A-d
ligon wllbllncarpor_...... fInol cIeoIgn 111_" 8I88bIIsh
LAndfill 5 (LF-5) A...
Stege 4, RecOrd o. DecIsion
Peale Air Fon:e 88M, New H8111p8h1r8
FIGURE 11
PRnpn~~n e.OJ" I ..... 0 ..~~ , ...- _.. .
j.
',.
OJ
~~
t~
r "R .~.
; t. ~. ~. .
. - - - --
. "- . .-
---..._~
. .
------- |