EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Pease Air Force Base,
Site 8, NH
9/30/1994
PB94-963719
EPA/ROD/R01-94/093
-------
Record of Decision
for Site 8
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
September 1994
Atch 1-2
-------
Record of Decision
for Site 8
Pease Air Force Base, NH
September 1994
Prepared for:
Headquarters Air Force Base Conversion Agency (HQ AFBCA)
The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
Base Closure Division (AFCEEjESB)
Brooks Air Force Base, TX 78235-5328
Prepared by:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1 Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380-1499
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.fm
-------
Contents
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 8
Table of Contents
Title
Paee
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A.
B.
Site Use and Response History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Enforcement History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION.. 18
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.
B.
e.
Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22
Hydrogeology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24
Distribution of Contaminants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS....... ........................... 60
A.
B.
Human Health Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61
Ecological Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64
VII. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 66
A.
B.
Statutory Requirements/Response Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66
Technology and Alternative Development and Screening. . . . . . . . .. 67
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68
IX.
SUMMARY OF TIlE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78
A.
B.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. . . . . . . .. 80
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of Contaminants
Through Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81
e.
D.
iii
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.fm
-------
Contents
x.
XI.
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 8
Table of Contents
(Continued)
Title
Paee
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Short-Term Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82
Implementability ........................................ 82
Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83
State Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83
Community Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83
THE SELECTED REMEDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83
A.
B.
e.
D.
E.
Methodology for Cleanup Level Determination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 99
Soil Cleanup Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 100
Sediment Cleanup Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 104
Surface Water Cleanup Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 105
Groundwater Cleanup Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 106
STATUTORY DETERMINATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 107
A.
B.
e.
D.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 107
Compliance with ARARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 108
Cost Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 110
Use of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent
Practicable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 113
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 114
E.
XII. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. . "" . .. . . . . .. 114
XIII. STATE ROLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 115
REFERENCES/GLOSSARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117/121
APPENDICES
A.
B.
e.
D.
E.
ARARs for the Preferred Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-I
Declaration of Concurrence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. B-1
Responsiveness Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. C-1
Administrative Record Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., D-l
Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-1
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.fm
IV
-------
Table No.
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 8
List of Tables
Title
Paee
1
Summary of Stages 1, 2, and 3 Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-1
2
Summary of Highest Concentrations of Organic Compounds -
Stage 2 and Stage 3 Soil Sample Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-10
3
Summary of Highest Metals Concentrations Above Background
Levels - Stage 2 and Stage 3 Soil Sample Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-13
4
Summary of Highest Concentrations of Dissolved Organic
Compounds - Stages 2,3, and 4 Overburden (Product-Containing
Wells) Sample Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-14
5
Summary of Highest Detected Concentrations of Dissolved Metals -
Stages 2, 3, and 4 Overburden (Product-Containing Wells) Sample .
Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-17
6
Summary of Highest Detected Concentrations of Total Metals -
Stages 2, 3, and 4 Overburden (Product-Containing Wells) Sample
Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-18
7
Summary of Highest Detected Concentrations of Organic Compounds
- Overburden Well Sample Results - Dissolved Phase. . . . . . . . . . . .. E-19
8
Summary of Highest Detected Concentrations of Dissolved Metals -
Overburden Well Sample Results - Dissolved Phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-21
9
Summary of Highest Detected Concentrations of Total Metals -
Stages 2, 3, and 4 Overburden Wells Sample Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-22
10
Chemicals of Concern in Main Soil (0 to 2 feet deep) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-23
11
Chemicals of Concern in Main Soil (0 to 15 feet deep) . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-25
12
Chemicals of Concern in Hot Spot Soil (0 to 2 feet deep) . . . . . . . . . . .. E-27
13
Chemicals of Concern in Hot Spot Soil (0 to 15 feet deep) . . . . . . . . . .. E-28
14
Chemicals of Concern in Groundwater - Overburden. . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-29
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.fm
v
-------
Table No.
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 8
List of Tables
(Continued)
Title
Paee
15
Chemicals of Concern in Groundwater - Bedrock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-31
16
Chemicals of Concern in Groundwater - Hot Spot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-33
17
Most Reasonable Maximally Exposed Receptor (RME) ............. E-35
18
Potential Exposure Routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-35
19
Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices -
Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-36
20
Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices -
Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-37
21
Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices -
Surface Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-38
22
Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices-
Sediment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-38
23
Summary of Chemicals of Concern by Medium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-39
24
Exposure Routes of Potential Concern to Ecological Receptors. . . . . .. E-43
25
Deer Mouse - Total Hazard Indices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-44
26
Chipping Sparrow - Total Hazard Indices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-44
27
Comparison of Hazard Quotients in Pickering Brook Based
on Ambient Water Quality Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-45
28
Comparison of Hazard Quotients in Knights Brook Based
on Ambient Water Quality Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-46
29
Comparison of Sediment or Interstitial Water Concentrations in
Pickering Brook with NOAA Biological Effect Levels or A WQC ....., E-47
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.fm
VI
-------
Table No.
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 8
List of Tables
(Continued)
Title
Paee
30
Comparison of Sediment or Interstitial Water Concentrations
in Knights Brook with NOAA Biological Effect Levels or A WQC . . . . .. E-48
31
Alternatives Retained for Detailed Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-49
32
Summary of Detailed Alternatives Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-50
33
Present-Worth Costs of Alternatives 1 Through 8 """"""""" E-53
34
Data and Criteria Used for Evaluation of Leaching Potential
of Metals in Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-54
35
Selection of Cleanup Goals for Organics in Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-56
36
Selection of Cleanup Goals for Organics in Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . .. E-59
37
Selection of Cleanup Goals for Inorganics in Groundwater. . . . . . . . . .. E-62
38
Carcinogenic Risks and Hazard Indices Calculated Based on
Groundwater ARAR Concentrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E-64
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.fm
VII
-------
Fi2Dre No.
1
2a
2b
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 8
List of Figures
Title
Pa~e
General Location Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
General Vicinity Land Use Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Site lA>cation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Surface Water and Sediment Sampling lA>cations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
Groundwater Elevations in the Overburden - 20 January 1992 ...... 27
Distribution of Total Petroleum and Aromatic Hydrocarbons
in Soils - 0- to 5-Foot Depth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31
Distribution of Total Petroleum and Aromatic Hydrocarbons
in Soils - 5- to 15-Foot Depth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33
Distribution of Total Petroleum and Aromatic Hydrocarbons
in Soils - Below IS-Foot Depth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35
Distribution of Metals Above Background Levels in Soils -
Site 8 ................................................. 41
Extent of Total VOCs in Overburden Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43
Maximum Concentrations of Halogenated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
in Overburden and Hybrid Wells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49
Maximum Concentrations of Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Overburden
and Hybrid Wells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51
Maximum Concentrations of Halogenated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in
Bedrock Wells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53
Surface Water and Sediment Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57
Remedial Process Flow Sheet - Alternative 4 ................... 85
SVE Low-Permeability Cap Drainage Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89
Approximate SVE System Layout - Alternative 4 ................ 93
viii
MKOI \R.PT:00628026.003\site8rod.fm
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE 8
List of Figures
(Continued)
Fi~re No.
Title
Pa~e
17
Groundwater Treatment Plant Schematic - Alternative 4 """'." 95
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.fm
ix
-------
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Pease Air Force Base (Pease AFB), Site 8, New Hampshire
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents a selected remedial action designed to protect human and
ecological receptors at Site 8, Pease AFB, New Hampshire. This document was developed
in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 USC Subsection 9601 et seq.), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, and the National Contingency Plan
(NCP) (40 CFR Part 300). Through this document, the Air Force plans to remedy the
threat to human health, welfare, or the environment posed by contamination at Site 8. This
decision is based on the Administrative Record for the site. The Administrative Record for
the site is located at the Information Repository in Building 43 at Pease International
Tradeport (formerly Pease AFB). The Administrative Record Index as it applies to Site 8
is provided in Appendix D.
The State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) concurs
with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF mE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from Site 8, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in the Record of Decision (ROD), may present
an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod,fm
Xl
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This action addresses the principal threat posed by Site 8, preventing endangerment of
public health, welfare, or the environment by implementation of this ROD through
remediation of the soil and groundwater, and, consequently, minimizing the leaching
potential of soil contaminants.
The selected remedy includes in situ soil vapor extraction (SVE) treatment of source area
soil contaminated above cleanup goals. Extracted soil vapor will be treated for removal of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The remedy also will involve the construction of an
asphaltic concrete cap to minimize rainfall and snowmelt infiltration into the area of SVE
treatment. The cap will help to minimize the moisture content of the soil to be treated by
SVE. One component of the alternative involves recovery and off-base disposal of free-
phase product floating on the water table in the source area. A groundwater recovery
system will be designed to capture dissolved-phase contamination in overburden
groundwater that exceeds cleanup goals and to prevent continued migration of contaminated
groundwater to the bedrock groundwater. An on-site groundwater treatment plant (GWTP)
will be constructed for long-term treatment of recovered groundwater.
STATUTORY DETERMINATION
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with
federal and state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost effective. The remedy uses permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The determination will reflect
the requirement of CERCLA 120(b )(i) that states "Remedial actions, in which treatment
that permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants is a principal element, are to be preferred over
remedial alternatives not involving such treatment." A review will be conducted by the Air
Force, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and NHDES no less than every
MKOI \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.fm
XlI
-------
5 years after completion of remediation to ensure that the remedy provides adequate
protection to human health and the environment.
The foregoing represents the selection of a remedial action by the Air Force and EP A
Region I, with the concurrence of NHDES.
Concur and recommended for irnrnediate implementation:
By:
Date:~~;)ol (CPr
~ySJo\~t~ ('\A:nq
John P. Devillars
Regional Administrator
Date:
q \'2D( q 4-
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod-fm
Xlll
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
Pease Air Force Base (AFB), located in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, is included on the
federal National Priorities List (NPL). Based on Remedial Investigations and Feasibility
Studies (RIjFSs) conducted at a number of 'areas at Pease AFB, several areas containing
groundwater were identified that require remedial action to address sources of
contamination to the environment. This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses
contamination at one of the areas, referred to as Site 8 (Fire Department Training Area 2)
(FDTA-2). Site 8 is located in the northern portion of Pease AFB in the area designated
as Zone 5.
Pease AFB is located in the Towns of Newington and Greenland and in the City of
Portsmouth, located in Rockingham County, New Hampshire. As shown in Figure 1, Pease
AFB is located on a peninsula in southeastern New Hampshire. The peninsula is 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 City of Portsmouth is located east and
southeast of the base. Pease AFB occupies 4,365 acres and is located approximately in the
center of the peninsula.
At the beginning of World War II, the U.S. Navy used an airport located at the present
Pease AFE. The Air Force assumed control of the site in 1951, and construction of the
existing facility was completed in 1956. During its history, Pease AFB has been the home
of the lOOth and 509th Bombardment Wings whose mission was to maintain a combat-ready
force capable of long-range bombardment operations. The New Hampshire Air National
Guard (NHANG) relocated the 157th Military Airlift Group from Grenier Field in
Manchester, New Hampshire, to Pease AFB in 1966. The mission of the group was changed
in 1975, when it was designated as the 157th Air Refueling Group. Over time, various
quantities of fuels, oils, solvents, lubricants, and protective coatings were used at the base
MKOI \ RPT:00628026.003\si te8rod.txt
1
-------
for routine maintenance operations, and releases of contaminants into the environment
occurred as a result of usage and disposal of these and other materials.
In December 1988, Pease APB was selected as one of 86 military installations to be closed
by the Secretary of Defense's Commission on Base Realignment and Closure. The base was
closed as an active military reservation on 31 March 1991. NHANG remains at the airfield
and uses some of the existing facilities. The remainder of the reservation has been divided
among the Department of the Interior, the State of New Hampshire's Pease Development
Authority (PDA), and the Air Force. PDA now operates the runway and flightline areas
as a commercial airport.
There are approximately 3,700 dwellings within a I-mile radius of Pease APB. 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 Newington, in particular, has a large number of
private wells. The majority of Portsmouth residences surveyed are serviced by town water
only. A compilation of area springs and wells for Pease APB, based on information
available to date, is presented in the Pease APB Off-Base Well Inventory Letter Report
(G-599) contained in Appendix G of the Draft Final Zone 5 RI Report (G-635).
Surface drainageways at Pease APB flow radially away from t~e center of the peninsula, into
Great Bay toward the west, Little Bay to the northwest and north, and the Piscataqua River
to the east. Little Bay flows into the Piscataqua River at the northern end of the peninsula.
Great Bay, Little Bay, and the Piscataqua River are all tidally influenced. Consequently,
these water bodies are subject to semidiurnal water level fluctuations.
Land use in the vicinity of Site 8 varies. Site 8 is surrounded by the Field Maintenance
Squadron Equipment Cleaning Area (FMS, Site 11) to the southeast, Construction Rubble
Dump 1 (CRD-1, Site 9) to the northwest, the Town of Newington to the north, and
Taxiway D to the south (see Figure 1). Undeveloped forested land is located along the
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
2
-------
.1 1~:~ ,~,\~~:;::):, '"
111:,l;ll::i~!\
I I, I ~.I'
:1 'J,' 'I ~I; .
lii:ii:1t,' ,
i,'h:i~ :' , '
1,'I~ ~'~jl~1~1;!~.: ,:
,1'1".\5'0" "'f'
I i: ~:I!\:~I'I~ " .t;:.;."
'1'1:11.",." ,,~".~"i!,II~'::1
. '~I, 'II "II,'II"'IoO/''''II'I! "11"'"
",,,,,:f'" "ill"I'I;/'I.~""""':',
, ..' :' ': ;1'[1" ';,I:.,,-$>/. ::,1,';.,.'
',If.il II\I'I!::~'~:~".I'I':'
" :. t ,:d:, : ": ,,:i~'9.,: ' ,
, "::.i'llrl:!::I"li!::i:::::,
~, :q::'jll 'I(. II' ,
.. 1jJj:'!;;1 -JI[III"
, "~!I i;, I 'J' I : i ! ,I
i' d ,I J I I' ~
i:.!:
.'
, .
, "
:1.,1,
I
"
, '
. i;
'\
. ' '. ,
"
"
\1 "":'
SIH
NO
SiTe NAME .IA8BREV'ArtON)
ONE ~~~
(LF.1) 2 13
(LF.2) 1 16
ILF 3) 1 17
(lF~) 1 18
(LF 5) I 22
(IF-6) of 23
(ForA I) 2 ,(;
(FOT" 21 5 31
(CRD 1) 5 32
(LFTS) 2 33
(nAS) 5 ""
(MMA) G 35
SITE NAME. (ABBREVIATION)
Buill F~t 510"'90 Aroa
BuIlding ~, a PCB Spill
Conslrucllon Aubblr Dump 2
MUfutIQM Roslduo 80'181 Atoa
BurnAm" t
P"u.s &0010.
F\a9slono Ebook/Ra...,....y DItch
e"I1"'"9 2404
BuHdlng 11:J
Buddll'9 229
ButIdIng 222 Jot Engrno Tosl CoR
Buliitug 226
SITE
NO
SITE NAME. (ABBREVIATION)
(cne 2)
(MRB')
(BA.')
ZONE
,
2
.
G
2
1
I
J
3
3
3
3
36 BUilding 119
37 BUI'n!\roP. 2
39 Bu,ldIng 120
39 Au,kJlny 227
40 Aulo Hobby Shop (I\H$t
41 GoIr Cour50 Mi'I.nlro."..no' A"':I II.eMf\)
43 Mclnly'o RO.ld 01"'" Dt"po'wd Nfl:>' {MI1Q(")/'I
44 P01LIII C;'1I' DI!>f'Ot;:i1 A,c.' (PC:l"q
045 OkJ Jr>t Er'9n1' T,.~.15L.llld (O.Jt:TS)
4r; RR TI;,ck... H"II'MClr)o'" (lm~ III
47 C''W011 Cour...,. P.~IICItj.I A'('tI (,.il'lC1g.Slo,ayt'j (\;(..Pftl
4J1 roo 13\1111 n,'\f)n:>.lIoll ",,,:'
(0,1\ 2)
ONE
3
,
,
,
.
7
,
l8f'ldl1fl1
lfKddl2
U.ndI'.3
LJllfoc,,,14
l.1dhR 5
lard!. 6
7 ~If'" [Xopfl,~t 1''''"'fl9 luna 1
" 1='",..- Dcp;I.nv>n1 TI.,.n.lIg ,.",.a <
9 COIISlrvclJOl'1 Rubbk> O~np 1
11) LN'ldPod F'~ Tan'< $.Ivdgo'> ~t ~a
11 ""S (quopmr"nf CII...nong SIll"
, Z IrAtlnllOf'l": ". ~'I\t..~n.'''' "'(1"
(BFSA)
(JETC)
L:::::>.
HO~nI
. ",.., ."onl oliRP lone
rIJ!8 IRP 5"0
Site 0 (FTDA-2)
Stage 3, Record 01 Decision
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
."",
--~
LEGEND:
SCALE IN FE ET
FIGURE 1
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
~:~~,~;~;:,~~~;;:~~~,~:::; ~~:I.~~'~~!!
-------
eastern Site 8 boundary, which includes the Newington Town Forest (which is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places). Pickering Brook, which flows off base in a north-
northeasterly direction, also is located in the forested land.
Pease AFB officially closed on 31 March 1991. Land uses at the base since closure include
industrial, commercial, and military. Figure 2a presents the general vicinity land use map
for the Zone 5 area of Pease AFB. The locations of off-base features in the vicinity of Site
8 also are shown in Figures 2a and 2b. Off-base land use is primarily residential, although
the Newington Town Forest is located immediately north of the base boundary. The
Newington Town Forest, established in 1640 by early settlers, is believed to be the oldest
community forest in the United States. This property, totaling 112 acres, was community
owned in full from 1710 until 1919, when 5 acres were sold to the church to build a new
parsonage. During this communal period, a portion of the property was cleared for pasture
and the remainder was held as a source of timber for construction, as a resource for
financing public buildings, and as fuel for fires for less fortunate individuals. Approximately
90% of the original property was acquired by the Air Force in 1952. Subsequently, 30 acres
were cleared for the runway and 69 acres remained in a natural state and were managed as
a forest area by the Air Force. Figure 2b shows the location of the Newington Town Forest
area in relation to the boundaries of Pease AFB. The Newington Town Garage is located
on the western side of Nimble Hill Road and also is immediately north of the base
boundary. Commercial and residential areas are located off base along Spaulding Turnpike,
approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the Pease AFB eastern boundary, and Interstate 1-95,
which is located along the southeastern base boundary. The largest commercial complex
is a shopping mall located on the eastern side of Spaulding Turnpike. Other nonresidential
land uses in the vicinity of Site 8 include a cemetery on Nimble Hill Road and an
abandoned transfer station located on Little Bay Road.
Pickering Brook is the primary surface water pathway that carries runoff away from the Site
8 area toward the Piscataqua River (see Figure 3). The headwaters of Pickering Brook are
located in an extensive, forested wetlands area. Pickering Brook flows off base
approximately 1,500 feet downstream and then joins Flagstone Brook to flow into the
MK01 \ R.PT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
5
-------
Piscataqua River. Be~ore Pickering Brook reaches Flagstone Brook, it joins other small
tributaries that flow from properties along Fox Point Road, which is northeast of Site 8. In
addition to Pickering Brook, several wetlands areas exist in the vicinity of Site 8. The
wetlands northeast of Site 8, identified as Wetlands XII, are relatively extensive. East of
Merrimac Drive, at the headwaters of Pickering Brook, Wetlands XIII surrounds the brook.
Wetlands XIII is immediately adjacent to Flagstone Brook, and a portion of it flows into
Flagstone Brook near its conjunction with Merrimac Drive. It is not known whether Site
8 is within a 100-year floodplain because floodplain location maps are not available for
Pease AFB.
Site 8 slopes toward the north from a high of approximately 117 feet above mean sea level
(ft MSL) in the southeast to approximately 50 ft MSL to the north-northeast. Less than 10
feet of relief exists across the former burn areas. A bedrock outcrop exists in the
southeastern part of the site area. A more complete description of the site is presented in
the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report (G-577).
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTMTIES
A. Site Use and Response History
Records indicate that Site 8 was active as a fire training area from 1961 to 1988. The
majority of the fire training exercises were performed in a large circular pit area located in
the southeastern portion of the site. Small and large aircraft crash fires were simulated
using approximately 200 and 500 to 1,000 gallons of JP-4 fuel, respectively.
Fire training exercises were conducted approximately two to four times per month.
Exercises were curtailed during the winter months because of adverse weather conditions.
Prior to 1971, mixed waste oils, solvents, and fuels were collected from drums and bowers
located across the base and transported to Site 8 as the main method of disposal. The pit
area was first presaturated with water, and then the waste oils solvents and fuel were
, ,
poured on top of the water and onto mock aircraft. The mixture was allowed to burn for
1 to 2 minutes and was extinguished using an aqueous film-forming foam. Sometime in the
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
6
-------
y
~f.,. ""
j PEAse -~~
, I AIR FORC.r-", .
II ~): Bo~~gfRY .." )\
\ " I~', ,,~
',I ,', 'I ,J /'/""'.:'. It "'::/, ,.";.~,\,~,-:~,.,,, "
, " .. ./ 1/';,..' ~ ' ',:' ","b"'" , '~-:::"";'\~
':.u S, ~)J LIT A I( Y I{ J.;:-:; lc,!fi)'-"\ T IlI"N "';;:. "'-':'::~':':::"')'\ CITY OF
'I) (. I"; , . \, ~_'.~I~~..~,","":"'"",,,,' PORTSMOUTH
), IV'EASjl; ,1I1~,.L''.U1~Uj,; Ht\HE// ,--(' ,'" ":::~:.~:::'>:):"." "
':!,' ':,:):-J.,_L--)..' /~-,,~.,:...' ~,.~.':::,::\~:-t,) 'r-<,~""i/."<,
'r" I (". /' \ .. \, '..,.. .. ~ I, """" "-9
'( ~~ -., ~ '.... ~ ' .,., ""'-... "".;' 'Y' ..~ ': ''\,,:.
<,---{':.", ~ " \ \' \ ';". \' '\-'i':'!' ..-{{{f" '>' "~)
,:, J'" 1-1'>' \,,-., '<.~ "I';~,~ :,"'::'::\;:::~"\', ~~
:,'./.li!" i, / /' ,I J: 7 II ~ ' ; \~;,J'\~;,.' '. 1\
,';( l' ," (/",''\-,0';/1 'PEASE'] '-:'" \.,",,' \/,';"-:':,~::;:::: :'\
fl-- "- ,) ""\(1) / ~;~:n('1:1 \~ ::~~~i~~,:{' " -:, ''', /;f- (,':',':'::::,;:,'}~j:::; )'1
'( ': J ' , "\ ' I \ I ') " ;' ",' " - ,\
('I !' . .' , ,,' 'v" ", .' I \ I' ~, ,),' . '" ...... '
lI.m~/" GH't' i - --;:" . ! ~. ' I: \ . ~ '.,. I''''' """'"
')": ',/ ':... ,.' \.i\'\\ '" I,. I ;' ".,~,,,,;,,,,,,,,, /,
.:. ,',"t'J.- / ,. pE.IISE
F'by,n p, ':". "'\ " ';'\ \ ". ~AIR FonCE
j. ,~ "'r.J . - , ,\1/ 'Y.' \. I' , OASE
' , ". . \ " " \ \:.. , BOUNDARY
.Ii, ' /', ,-:'.'1" '\ ' ~ (/' , , \: /\ Pnnn.wa)' ',£-//::q.<:
M.' \ \' .~~ \1,(1' l ":/\ <..2!anor.. v;:;'"
lJ A Y Swan " \ ~..,., ... \ , ) \i\\;~, ' (r ~:,:;'<:/~::';':<;;i::~,;;:i'~ ~..
../ < >?~~'J ~\i\ j" ( , r \\:":;'::~~~~>L{:21':f,$~#_...../
- \ <\11/'" .......- ~! '" r.,..r' CITY OF :
--- "'.....:;;/.' .v\/ ,'Lf\.. ~~....- ,.;. I. PORTSMOUTH
- - - - - - - - Ly.~, t '~,., " ".. ~\i% ,~-, '" ".> ;):.,,\~~\:" n~~::;',:",
~ "I~ ' I rV~-( ; i ,,, l.o.,L", \.~"" , . ,!< ,~~,:,;f.~ -~I,~--T'
r ( I" . '. \f ? ."' \ . ~..~,.H''''I!(.I~~~I' .1. ".; .': /
, p,.."p, I )/! (,' '~o\ \ "'(2;' M'';;< >: " /
. ",. . \ .'> /,~,,"~".~;:......'!' /.;!(.totIO, .l" -"'--....-...-..-~--.',., I':'
\: "-'" "', ... t, "'~(~"\'\(\/:-:'/~", (I J.!;;'-:"~';(." 1 l :~~:---- '--:F'~',.' / ,,'
( ""':-"/' ." .- . ,,' ,I,'. :bl ':.r_:~:--<~i~tt~{}\",: j.;,'D (:~J "i,OI) ,I~.:l'~ ..:~:~:: ._~ :,.\-or,.::..,,! ':.
\ ,"/h ~,'-.- "" : C,- (:O-':~'-7:f;:~~J\1;~:~/"(/I,l1r~'~~:::..:--::!.\"" ,
x.- , \' , 'I, \ ' c,," \" " '. ,,: '{'\i. ,';;' - CrtOr! - - 'OO.[}- \, ,
' /...............~ ,: ~ .," . I '! .,' . " '1('1 ~) .'. iI, " ' 'q- ~ - . "':....", ... .' I I
, ---':"" 11M -, - ~-',,' '.i !" GREE'NLAND' "" f:,-1: -r..:''',;,> --- -':,'.- "', '
:", ' -;"C;~'-,.,,~':, ,,>;: .-, \\', ~'I";::'i ~i{~\~;.,-\,,~\ $!~'~~~;I. ~~:.-~:..,~: ::, ~> -.\. ", ' I
NOTES:
/
\
'."- 'I
/'
C
~
1"
'"
,!
~
'-
J~~
, ~o,
." ,,0
. !. ~
""''' ,
IV,
~~I
v
1
l \)
i
\.
)
/~
i:' )
,y-, /
1
Hoyt
HIlt
'""18 I
"JREA 7'
-...
-.
":--
'- -
Wf't'''~ PI
~ ~
NORTH ~
' Pe..e AFB
Y>1 n '.Q) loon ;'QOO
SCALE IN FEET ~
111',..'-4,'",;"",,,, .
I , U'~ " I 'ifl''''',,,,''''',11 71\,1')00/. r .,.I',moull!,
,j'I':" toll ;~""r''''''I~' .I,,!'''' I""".', I I' lf1nn
Sile 6 (FTOA.2)
Slage 3, Record 01 Decision
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
FIGURE 2A
GENERAL VICINITY LAND USE MAP
-------
''';}'''"''~'''''''.'''''
... \ ,
P",S'i;AN£
C,...
,...,
FRINK TRUST
i."
, ,
'~
'Q
~~
6>~
~.
/"'-
./ "-
"-
" ..
"
,
-
8
Cl:
OJ
"-
'if
~
k:'
--
".
'\~"I-
'.,~
""'~(("
';'?o
\~
\
,\
\
\
\
:,'\
"
"
"
..
"
,.
"
,.
"
"
"
"
"
"
\,
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
II
"
II
", \\
"1 "
, II
. II
" "
'J"
. II
" ,\
" \'
" \'
"'" ~.
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
~"'
NORTH
RAMP
LEGEND:
= R08ds('$lJhaIVpo_)
- - - Roads."rr8~$.
- - - (ur1I>Il'ed .-.)
CJ Bullclmg.
.-- Fenceline
',..= \...'
Ma~hy are...
Propmly 11M (hum
1;u p.,r0l11 map.
apprOk,male only)
r Ar~:I of Stilt
I IOvD511ga!1Ons
/,1 Aloa. 01 NI:"WlngtOi'1 Town
FOluSI on PP.1.SO AI'I)
.'
SurlaOll w.181'
",.tnogo
TroOSIWOOd.
------- Ba", boundary
~
~n<
~- NOTE,
( ~-
~t:~~ )
'\,,<
S~. 8 (FfDA-2)
Slag. 3, Record 01 Decision
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
FIGURE 28
SITE LOCATION
SCALE IN F£ET
:~::~ ~;:.. ~~;':;tOO'..~~I'''' r'O"''''':'''1O'' o!
......in"('I"T'",,,","'Iooc'II~.r,,,.,d"N>t1:'{':""I7
-------
S"g~ ~it~ 8 (FDT A.2)
Pease Air FO~:C~~~:' 01 D~cislon
, New Hampshire
SURFACE WFfURE 3
SAMPU~OCANDSE~MENT
-------
mid-1970s, the practice of mixing waste oils and solvents with fuel for training fires ceased,
and only JP-4 fuel was used. The exact date on which this change occurred is unknown, but
was most likely after the pit was refurbished in 1974.
Refurbishment of the large circular pit occurred from 1974 to 1975, and consisted of
installation of a sprinkler and drain system. An underground sprinkler-type system was
installed that allowed lP-4 to be sprayed onto, the pit area through an underground fuel line.
An 8-inch-diameter drain pipe, approximately 200 feet long, was constructed at the edge of
the burn pit. Excess fuels and fire training materials eventually discharged through this pipe
into a drainage ditch at the northern end of the site.
In 1983, an Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Phase I Problem Identification/Records
Search was conducted at Pease AFB (G-84). The study identified Site 8 as a potential
source for the release of contaminants into the environment. In response to this finding, a
pre survey was conducted to obtain sufficient information for use in the planning of a more
detailed study. The pre survey was completed in 1984. Based on the presurvey, Rls were
conducted at Site 8 and 18 other IRP sites at Pease AFB in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as
amended; the NCP; and all relevant EP A guidance, including EP A's guidance for conducting
RI/FSs under CERCLA. The investigations were conducted in three stages from 1984
through 1992.
The Stage 1 investigation at Site 8, which began in 1984, was designed to identify potential
impacts of previous fire training activities on soil and groundwater quality at the site. The
results of those investigations were presented in the IRP Phase II - Confirmation/
Quantification, Stage 1 Final Report for Pease AFB (G-525), submitted in June 1986.
Stage 2 field work at Site 8 was performed from October 1987 through May 1989. The
primary purposes of the Stage 2 investigation were to characterize the source areas and to
more accurately delineate the extent of groundwater contamination. The Stage 2 field
investigations are described in detail in four Interim Technical Reports (ITR Nos. 1 through
MK01 \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tX!
13
-------
4) (G-530; G-531; G-536; G-537) and in the IRP Stage 2 Draft Final Report for Pease Air
Force Base (G-533). Soil-gas and soil sampling and aerial photograph review were used to
conclude that the former bum areas at Site 8 were potential source areas for volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). During fire training exercises, surface runoff had been
discharged from the former bum areas to the drainage ditch located north of the former
bum areas. Based on this information, the ditch was identified as a secondary contaminant
source.
Stage 3 activities at Site 8 were performed from September 1989 through June 1993, and
include the Site 8 RI/FS, two interim remedial measures (IRMs), and a pilot-scale soil
vapor extraction (SVE) treatability study. Site 8 RI activities included geophysical surveys;
test pit investigations; surface and subsurface soil sampling; groundwater, surface water, and
sediment sampling; historic aerial photograph reviews; and hydrogeologic testing. Table 1
provides a summary of RI activities performed to date at Site 8. The Draft Final Site 8 RI
and FS Reports were submitted in November 1992 and January 1993, respectively.
The first IRM was performed in February and March 1990 and involved the removal of
approximately 262 tons of contaminated soil from a drainage ditch located in the
northeastern corner of the site. This drainage ditch received surface runoff from the former
main bum pit. The purpose of the soil removal IRM was to prevent potential migration of
contaminants from the relatively highly contaminated drainage ditch soil to deeper soil and
groundwater. The excavated soil was disposed of off base at a licensed treatment/disposal
facility.
The second IRM is a pilot groundwater remediation system, which has been in operation
since August 1990. The groundwater remediation IRM was designed to initiate control of
off-site dissolved VOC migration and to evaluate a pump-and-treat system as a potential
source control measure. Data collected during the operation of the groundwater treatment
IRM were used in the preparation of the FS Report, and will be used for design of a final
remedial action at the site.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
14
-------
The pilot groundwater remediation system consists of extraction wells, a groundwater
treatment plant (GWTP), and subsurface recharge trenches. The system recovers a
combined 11 gallons per minute (gpm) from two overburden extraction wells (562A and
566), located at the northeastern end of the source area in the dissolved-phase contaminant
plume. Two other overburden wells (563 and 564), equipped with product skimmers, pump
product directly to the oil/water (o/w) separator in the GWTP.
Unit processes in the GWTP include o/w separation, metals precipitation, flocculation,
clarification, bag 'filtration, air stripping, and liquid-phase carbon adsorption. The effluent
from the GWTP consistently meets drinking water standards, the requirements agreed on
by NHDES and the Air Force for discharge through subsurface trenches. A detailed
explanation of the pilot groundwater remediation system is presented in the IRP Site 8
Groundwater Treatment Plant Report (G-552). To date, the pilot groundwater remediation
system has extracted and treated approximately 5.1 million gallons of contaminated
groundwater, and has recovered approximately 1,100 gallons of free-phase product from the
subsurface at Site 8.
After preparation of the FS, which proposed SVE and other treatment technologies to
remediate contaminated soils at Site 8, the Air Force performed a pilot-scale treatability
study to evaluate the effectiveness of SVE as part of the remedy selection process. The
results of the SVE study demonstrate the effectiveness of SVE as a remedial technology for
soil at Site 8, and are detailed in the Site 8 Soil Vapor Extraction Treatability Study Letter
Report (G-680). The results of the SVE study will be used to help establish design criteria
for a full-scale SVE system at Site 8.
B. Enforcement History
In 1976, the Department of Defense (DOD) devised a comprehensive IRP to assess and
control migration of environmental contamination that may have resulted from past
operations and disposal practices at DOD facilities. In response to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, and in anticipation of CERCLA, DOD
MK01 \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
15
-------
issued a Defense Environmental Quality Program Policy Memorandum, dated June 1980
(DEQPPM 80-6), requiring identification of past hazardous waste disposal sites on DOD
agency installations. The program was revised by DEQPPM 81-5 (11 December 1981),
which reissued and amplified all previous directives and memoranda on the IRP.
Pease AFB was proposed to be added to the NPL in 1989 and was listed on the NPL in
1990. On 24 April 1991, the Air Force, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and
NHDES signed a Federal Facility Agreement (FF A) establishing the protocol and timetable
for conducting the RI/FS process at Pease AFB. As part of this timetable, the Air Force,
in an effort to streamline activities, designed a basewide strategy plan for conducting an
RIfFS. This strategy plan grouped the various sites into seven zones or operable units
based on geographic location, potential receptors, and potential future uses. Prior to the
inclusion of Pease AFB on the NPL, five sites (including Site 8) were on an accelerated
RIfFS approach because of the potential threat they posed to human health and the
environment. The Air Force, EP A, and NHDES a.greed that the RI/FS Reports for these
five sites and the remedial actions would continue on an accelerated schedule. The
remaining RI/FS Reports for each zone have been prepared as outlined in the strategy plan.
III. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Throughout the site's recent history, there has been community concern and involvement.
EP A, NHDES, and the Air Force have kept the community and other interested parties
apprised of site activities through informational meetings, fact sheets, press releases, and
public meetings.
In January 1991, the Air Force released a community relations plan that outlined a program
to address community concerns and keep citizens informed and involved during remedial
activities. This plan was updated and released in summer 1993.
Numerous fact sheets have been released by the Air Force throughout the IRP at Pease
AFB. These fact sheets are intended to keep the public and other concerned parties
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
16
-------
apprised of developments and milestones in the Pease APB IRP. The fact sheets released
to date that concern Site 8 are summarized as follows:
I Fact Sheet I Release Date I
Pease APB Installation Restoration Program Update October 1991
Pease APB Installation Restoration Program Update December 1992
Interim Groundwater Treatment - Sites 8, 32/36, and 34 January 1993
Remedial Investigation Results, Site 8 January 1994
Site 8 Proposed Plan January 1994
In addition to the fact sheets, a number of public meetings have been held concerning the
remediation of Site 8. On 14 November 1991, an IRP update public meeting was held, and
on 12 January 1993, an IRP public workshop and meeting were cO,nducted to provide the
public with information on the status of the IRP at Pease APB. On 1 March 1994, the Air
Force conducted a public hearing and information session on the Site 8 Proposed Plan,
during which oral comments on the Proposed Plan were received. A transcript of oral
comments received during this meeting and the Air Force's response to comments are
included in the attached responsiveness summary (see Appendix C). A full transcript is
available in the Administrative Record file at Pease APB. In addition, a public comment
period for the Proposed Plan was conducted between 26 January and 10 March 1994.
Responses to written comments received during this period also are included in Appendix C.
An Administrative Record containing documents and correspondence relating to the Pease
APB IRP is maintained at Pease APB in Building 43. An index of the Administrative
Record is maintained at EP A Region I in Boston, Massachusetts, and also is presented, in
a condensed form, in Appendix D.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod,txt
17
-------
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION
.
Zone 5 encompasses three sites, including the operable unit for Site 8. The other two sites
are Sites 9 and 11. The locations of these sites are shown in Figure 1.
Remediation at a Superfund site typically involves activities to remove or isolate
contaminant source materials in conjunction with activities that mitigate migration of
contamination through groundwater and/or surface water pathways. This ROD addresses
both source control measures and management of migration of contaminated groundwater
at Site 8.
In general, the maximum extent of soil contamination is within 500 feet of the former burn
areas horizontally and from the surface to approximately 30 feet below ground surface (ft
BGS) vertically. The majority of soil contamination consists of aromatic hydrocarbons
(ARCs) (e.g., benzene and toluene) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs).
Groundwater in both the overburden and bedrock water-bearing zones has been impacted
by past activities at Site 8. In the overburden, two distinct plumes are present. The first is
a plume of free-phase product that is floating on the water table. Observations from soil
borings, piezometers, and monitor wells across the site indicate that the free-phase product
may exist in multiple, isolated pockets within a narrow band extending from the former burn
areas northward to Merrimac Drive. The second plume cOJ:?tains dissolved contaminants
(both aromatic and chlorinated VOCs) and extends from the former burn areas to the base
boundary, the Newington Town property, and the properties owned by Harvey, Cross, and
Coleman. The locations of these properties are shown in Figure 2b. In bedrock, no free-
phase product has been detected; however, a plume of dissolved VOC contamination has
been detected that originates at Merrimac Drive and extends northwest off base onto the
Newington Town property.
There are two surface water bodies in the vicinity of Site 8: Pickering Brook and Knights
Brook. Pesticides, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (P AHs), and metals were detected
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
18
-------
in Pickering Brook. Low levels of VOCs and P AHs also were detected in the sediment
samples from Knights Brook.
The selected remedy for Site 8, as described in the Draft Final Site 8 Proposed Plan
(G-679), provides for the potential combination of two source area remedial alternatives
evaluated in the FS and for management of contaminant migration in the overburden water-
bearing zone. The primary source area remedial alternative consists of in situ SVE of
source area soil (Alternative SC-3 in the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report) (G-611). The
secondary source area action is installation of downgradient groundwater recovery trenches.
Also included in this alternative is recovery and off-base disposal of free-phase product,
management of dissolved-phase contaminant migration in the overburden water-bearing
zone, on-site treatment of recovered groundwater, discharge of treated groundwater to
subsurface recharge trenches, and institutional controls.. Specifically, the preferred
alternative includes the following elements:
.
In situ SVE of source area soil with contaminant concentrations that exceed
cleanup goals. This includes installing vapor extraction vents and drawing a
vacuum on the vents to remove VOCs from the soil. The vapors extracted
from the soil will be treated to remove VOCs.
.
Construction of an asphaltic concrete cap (blacktop pavement) to minimize
rainfall and snowmelt infiltration into the area of SVE treatment. The cap
will aid in lowering the water table. The cap will be installed only in the
existing clearing at the source area. The area will be limited to ensure
minimal disturbance of the Newington Town Forest.
.
Construction of groundwater jfree-phase product recovery trenches
downgradient of the free-phase product plume as a contingency measure. The
trenches will be installed only in the unlikely event that free-phase product
begins to migrate away from the source area because of operation of the SVE
system. The free-phase product will be monitored with monitor wells. If free-
phase product is detected in these monitor wells, the recovery trenches will
be installed to intercept free-phase product.
.
Recovery and off-base disposal of free-phase product floating on the water
table in the source area. This will be accomplished by installing wells in the
area of free-phase product and removing the product using small-diameter
skimmer pumps. The recovered product will be disposed of off base at a
licensed treatment/disposal facility.
19
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
-------
.
Management of migration in the downgradient overburden water-bearing
zone. The groundwater recovery system will be designed to captUre
overburden groundwater that contains dissolved-phase contaminants at
concentrations exceeding cleanup goals, and to prevent continued migration
of contaminated groundwater to the bedrock water-bearing zone. This system
will manage the migration of both organic compounds and metals present at
concentrations exceeding the cleanup goals.
.
Monitoring the progress of the overburden groundwater recovery system to
evaluate its effectiveness in controlling continued migration of contaminants
into the bedrock. If it is determined that overburden groundwater extraction
alone is not controlling migration of contaminants into the bedrock (i.e., the
levels in the bedrock increase or remain the same over time), groundwater
extraction also will include active extraction from the bedrock groundwater
zone in areas where contamination exists above cleanup goals.
.
Construction of a new GWTP for long-term treatment of recovered
groundwater. Treated groundwater will be discharged to subsurface recharge
trenches.
.
Environmental monitoring during remedial operations, including air and
personnel monitoring during construction to ensure that worker protection is
maintained.
.
Long-term environmental monitoring, including groundwater, surface water,
and sediment sampling and analysis. This process will be implemented
through a groundwater management permit in accordance with NHDES
regulation Env-Ws 410.
After preparation of the FS, which proposed SVE and other treatment technologies to
remediate contaminated soils at Site 8, the Air Force performed a pilot-scale treatability
stUdy to evaluate the effectiveness of SVE as part of the remedy selection process. The
results of the SVE study demonstrate that SVE is an effective remedial technology for
remediating soil at Site 8.
The remedial action will address the following primary risks and principal threats to human
health and the environment posed by contamination at the site:
.
Risks posed to human receptors from ingestion of contaminated groundwater
that may present a health risk.
20
09/16/94
-------
.
Risks posed to ecological receptors from direct contact with, or ingestion of,
surface soil at the site. The results of the ecological risk assessment revealed
that contaminants in surface soil at the site posed risks to representative
species in excess of the EP A benchmark values; however, the values fall into
the range of uncertainty for requiring remedial action.
The results of the risk assessment revealed that exposure to soil, surface water, and
sediment does not pose a risk (either carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic) to potential current
or future human receptors at the site above the EP A threshold criteria. The results of the
ecological risk assessment revealed that contaminants in surface soil at the site posed risks
to representative species in excess of EP A benchmark values and are detailed in Subsection
VI.B of this report.
v. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Section 1 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611) contains an overview of the Draft
Final Site 8 RI Report (G-577). Based on the results of the RI, a working conceptual model
was developed that incorporates all available applicable data (from Stages 1, 2, and 3)
concerning Site 8 and its vicinity, including geological, hydrological, and analytical data and
field measurements and visual observations. The salient points of the model are
summarized as follows:
.
The two former burn areas are the primary contaminant source areas at Site
8. Soil contamination in these former burn areas primarily consists of TPHs
and AHCs. Dioxin was detected .in seven surface soil samples.
.
A former secondary source area is the drainage ditch that receives runoff
from the large former burn area via a drain pipe. Contaminated soil was
removed from the drainage ditch.
.
Contamination in the soil in the area of the former burn pits is most
widespread both at the ground surface and at the water table.
.
Free-phase floating product detected in several overburden wells acts as a
secondary contaminant source.
21
MK01 \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod. tX!
-------
.
A domi~ant hydrologic feature of Site 8 is a north-n~rthe~t/south-southwest-
trending bedrock trough that controls the dIreCtIOn of overburden
groundwater flow.
Unsaturated overburden conditions exist on the western and southeastern
limbs of the bedrock trough.
.
.
Overburden groundwater flows along the axis of the bedrock trough and
discharges to Pickering Brook to the northeast and to the bedrock along the
western limb of the bedrock trough.
.
A regional bedrock recharge zone exists east of the former burn areas.
Bedrock groundwater flows from approximately east to west across the former
burn areas and discharges to the headwaters of Knights Brook.
.
The light, nonaqueous-phase liquid (LNAPL) free-phase product is located
along the axis of the bedrock trough and acts as a contaminant source.
.
Overburden and bedrock groundwater at Site 8 is contaminated with
halogenated and aromatic VOCs, SVOCs, metals, and pesticides. The
concentrations of several of these substances exceed federal and state
standards.
.
Overburden groundwater contamination primarily consists of aromatic and
halogenated VOCs and is generally confined to the axis of the bedrock trough.
.
Bedrock groundwater VOC contamination at concentrations above regulatory
criteria is confined to two areas.
.
A corridor of the low-permeability Glacial Till (GT) unit that is either thin
or, in some areas, absent may have produced a conduit for contaminated
overburden groundwater to migrate into bedrock.
.
Dissolved organic contaminants are migrating beyond the Site 8 boundary and
off-site in groundwater and surface water.
These conceptual results of the RI are discussed in more detail in the subsections that
follow.
A. Geology
This subsection provides a brief summary of basewide and site-specific geologic conditions.
A more detailed discussion of the geology at Site 8 is presented in the Draft Final Site 8 RI
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
22
-------
Report (G-577). Site 8 and its vicinity are underlain by metasedimentary and igneous
bedrock that is overlain by up to approximately 70 feet of glacial deposits. Test pit and
monitor well drilling logs indicate that the glacial deposits near Site 8 consist primarily of
the Upper Sand (US) unit discontinuously underlain by the Marine Clay and Silt (MCS)
and/ or the GT unit. The US interfingers with the MCS where the MCS is present. The
bedrock and overburden units are described in Subsections 1.4.6.1 and 1.4.6.2 of the Draft
Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611), respectively.
Bedrock Geolo2;Y
The bedrock at Pease AFB consists of folded, faulted, and metamorphosed sedimentary and
igneous rocks of the Proterozoic to Lower Ordovician age Merrimack Group. The
Merrimack Group is Late Proterozoic to Lower Or90vician in age. At Pease AFB, the
Merrimack Group includes the Kittery and Eliot Formations (G-417), which consist of shales
and sandstones that have been metamorphosed to phyllite and quartzite. The Merrimack
Group was deformed, metamorphosed, and intruded by the Exeter diorite and by both felsic
and diabase dikes. Continental rifting initiated in Early Triassic time resulted in a
northeast-southwest trend of faults, joints, and diabase dike intrusion. Limited tectonic
activity has occurred since Mesozoic time in the form of successive crustal depression and
rebound resulting from continental glaciation and deglaciation.
Descrintion of Bedrock Units
The bedrock underlying Site 8 primarily consists of metamorphosed sedimentary rocks of
the Eliot Formation. The Eliot Formation is described as a variably calcareous, dark gray
to dark green quartz-chlorite-sericite phyllite interbedded with sericite-chlorite quartzite.
Interbedding is commonly observed on the centimeter scale. Diabase dikes were identified
throughout Site 8. The dikes are typically dark green to black, fine- to medium-grained,
massive pyroxene-plagioclase diabase with traces of pyrite and magnetite. These dikes are
more resistant to weathering than the host metasedimentary rocks and tend to form
localized bedrock topographic highs. In addition, the diabase dikes encountered at Pease
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
23
-------
AFB contain more ma~etite than the surrounding rocks or overburden and, therefore, may
represent local electromagnetic anomalies.
Overburden GeoloC'
The generalized stratigraphic sequence of the glacial deposits of coastal New England is (in
ascending order): till; stratified drift, including subaqueous outwash; marine clay and silt of
the Presumpscot Formation; and subaerial outwash, such as ice-contact deltas and marine
washover fans (G-468). Except for the GT unit, all of the glacial units were deposited in
a marine environment (G-491; G-493; G-377; G-468).
The glacially derived overburden at Pease AFB is Wisconsinan in age. Based on drilling
information, glaciomarine deposits have been divided into four units as follows (from oldest
to youngest):
.
.
.
.
Glacial Till (GT).
Lower Sand (LS).
Marine Clay and Silt (MCS).
Upper Sand (US).
The overburden at Pease AFB also includes sediment that is Recent in age, such as marsh
deposits and manmade filL Although all four units are present at Site 8, one or more of the
units may be absent at any particular location. A mor~ detailed discussion of the
overburden lithology is presented in the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report (G-577).
B. Hydrogeology
Groundwater occurs in both the bedrock and the overlying unconsolidated deposits at Pease
AFB. In some areas of Pease AFB, the unconsolidated deposits are unsaturated and the
water table occurs in the bedrock unit. At other locations, the GT and/or the MCS units
may form semiconfining layers and separate the shallow overburden water-bearing zone
from either the bedrock or a deeper overburden water-bearing zone. Groundwater at Site
MK01 \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod. txt
24
-------
8 was observed in the overburden and in bedrock. To the west and east of Site 8, the
overburden is unsaturated. Figure 4 illustrates the boundaries between saturated and
unsaturated overburden as measured in January 1992. The extent of unsaturated
overburden conditions varies on a seasonal basis. Figure 4 indicates that unsaturated
overburden conditions exist east and west of the bedrock trough.
Overburden Hydroeeolo2.}'
The saturated thickness in the overburden ranges from 0 feet (unsaturated areas) to
approximately 49.8 feet (at monitor well 5002). Groundwater elevations in the overburden
range from a maximum of 95 ft MSL near the former burn areas to a minimum of 63 ft
MSL toward the north, near piezometer 7064. Figure 4 is a contour map of groundwater
elevations at Site 8 under static (nonpumping) conditions based on monitor wells screened
in the overburden. The figure was prepared from data recorded on 20 January 1992, at
which time recovery wells 562A, 563, 564, and 566 had not been operating for 1 week, and
water level elevations were the highest recorded over a 12-month period. Water elevations
measured from hybrid wells are included in Figure 4 for reference only and were not used
in developing the contours. Where appropriate, water elevation data were corrected for the
effect of free-phase product.
In the former burn areas, groundwater flows principally from east to west toward the center
of the bedrock trough along a horizontal gradient of 0.01 ftlft. Near the western side of the
former burn areas, the groundwater flow direction changes to the north-northwest, and the
horizontal gradient decreases to 0.002 ft/ft. Farther to the north, groundwater flow is
directed to the northeast, toward Pickering Creek, where the horizontal gradient increases
to 0.03 ft/ft.
Groundwater elevations in the overburden were observed to fluctuate 2 to 6 feet seasonally.
The highest groundwater elevations typically occurred in the spring and early summer, while
the lowest groundwater elevations typically occurred in the late summer and fall.
MKO 1 \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
25
-------
A series of aquifer ahd laboratory tests was conducted to characterize the hydraulic
properties of the overburden at Site 8. The hydraulic testing included slug tests, short-term
pumping tests, and long-term pumping tests in the overburden and bedrock. Several split-
spoon samples were tested using a flexible-wall permeameter to calculate vertical hydraulic
conductivity. Vertical hydraulic conductivities also were calculated from column leach tests,
but were considered to be inaccurate because the soil samples used in the test were
composited and recompacted, thereby destroying the horizontal structure of the soil. The
hydraulic conductivity estimated from the slug and pumping tests ranged from 0.49 to 63.38
ft/ day, and the geometric mean was 4.11 ft/ day. Based on laboratory analyses of samples
collected from the US unit, the vertical hydraulic conductivity estimated from the
permeameter tests ranged from 0.005 to 6.2 ft/ day, and the geometric mean was 0.27 ft/ day.
Two long-term pumping tests were conducted in the overburden at well 562A. During the
first test, conducted in July 1991, the discharge rate was 2.5 gpm, and no drawdown was
recorded in any of the observation wells. The second test, conducted during September
1993, was performed at pumping rates between 16.5 and 15.8 gpm, resulting in
approximately 9 feet of drawdown in well 562A. The average results of the time-drawdown
and recovery data analyses yielded an estimated transmissivity of 9,980 ft2/day and a
hydraulic conductivity of approximately 1,275 ft/day.
Bedrock Hydro~eolo~
The bedrock at Site 8 consists of weathered and/or fractured (shallow) bedrock and
competent bedrock. All Site 8 bedrock wells were completed in competent bedrock, with
the exception of monitor wells 6021, 6083, and 513, which were constructed as shallow
bedrock wells.
Bedrock integrity influences the permeability of the bedrock. Factors used to describe
bedrock integrity include chemical and physical weathering and fracture density.
Weathering and shallow fracturing are limited in areal extent across Site 8, and, as a result,
the shallow bedrock is likely less important as a discrete hydrogeologic unit at Site 8 than
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
26
-------
..
:""'1 ~,\~\
,---='c-\C
' I
~r.n::~ .
tEMETERY\1
\ l \
\ f~ tJ-=-~t -,
y~-
~.
~
~
~~~4~,~~"
a
/'~
I 1"'\
! / )!
'l IJ !
\ (;
. '-.--! '
NSATURATED 0 ) ~-- - - - - ,/
OVERBURDEN ( /' /' I
-~--//~ (,0'
>\ l ~/\
= Roeds(89phalVpBVld) (GrOunctwalor e~uiPOI0nll;t1 hno'ntov:thon
: : = Rood8ltrails. &;:~~~r~~;e1In~g:r~~erval (FT/MSL)
(unpaved .(888)
U Buildings '''.IA Overburden groundwalor olevi\!IOn at we:1
e-- Fenceline ,.~"" Edge 01 unsaluralod oV9fburdon
~
NORT H
AMOP
~/')~~..
P..o~ AFB )
~,C;
'v
NOTE
Site 8 (FTDA-2)
Stage 3, Record ot Decision
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
FIGURE 4
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS IN THE
OVERBURDEN-20JANUARY1992
SCALE IN FEET
II..... y". <.;",,.,-',
11"'.11 ,"t."., 0' II'OO!,)'}' ""f''''!'''' f.n"'p,I;o,hun 01
"1\11\ I...,.., :...".,1 f"""C)!1':1"h~ d:lln,111/7:l.Rl
-------
elsewhere at Pease AFB. For example, weathered bedrock was observed in only 12 of 38
rock cores collected from Site 8, and shallow fracturing was observed in only 6 of 38 cores
from Site 8.
Competent bedrock in the vicinity of the site has negligible primary (intergranular) porosity;
thus, movement of groundwater in the competent bedrock is directly related to the bedrock
structural fabric (i.e., bedding plane separations, foliation patterns, and fracture and joint
sets). Lithologic heterogeneities in the bedrock (e.g., diabase dikes) may influence
groundwater flow locally, but are expected to have little influence on regional bedrock
groundwater flow.
Groundwater elevations in the bedrock at Site 8 typically range from 95 ft MSL near
FDTA-2 to 86 ft MSL west of FDTA-2, near monitor wells 620 and 637. Figure 1.4-12 of
the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611) is a potentiometric elevation contour map based
on measurements in bedrock wells collected on 20 January 1992. In the bedrock,
groundwater flows toward the west and northwest across the site. Horizontal gradients
range from 0.008 ft/ft across Site 8 to 0.03 ft/ft northwest of Site 8 toward CRD-1 (Site 9).
Similar to overburden groundwater, groundwater elevations in the bedrock fluctuate 2 to 4
feet seasonally. The highest groundwater elevations typically occur in the spring and early
summer, while the lowest elevations occur in late summer and fall.
The hydraulic properties of the bedrock water-bearing zone at Site 8 were estimated using
slug test data collected from well 513, the results of three short-term pumping tests, and the
results of the long-term (48-hour) pumping test at well 622. Appendix I of the Draft Final
Site 8 FS Report (G-611) contains the results of the long-term pumping test performed at
bedrock well 622. The hydraulic conductivity of the competent bedrock reported from the
slug tests and short-term pumping tests ranged from 0.02 to 0.30 ft/day, and the geometric
mean was 0.13 ft/day. However, data collected from the long-term pumping test at well 622
indicated that the mean hydraulic conductivity of the competent bedrock is approximately
4 ft/day. The results of the long-term pumping test are considered to be more
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
29
-------
representative of actual site conditions since studies have indicated that the larger the scale
(i.e., the longer the duration) of a pumping test, the greater the permeability measured
(G-93). The higher hydraulic conductivity value estimated from the long-term pumping test
is attributed to the interception of more fractures during longer term tests. The effective
porosity of the competent bedrock is estimated at 0.001 based on the results of the long-
term pumping test at well 622.
Groundwater seepage rates were estimated for the bedrock water-bearing zone based on the
range of horizontal hydraulic gradient values (0.008 to 0.03 ft/ft), a hydraulic conductivity
value of 4 ft/day, and a range of effective porosity of 0.01 to 0.001. Using Darcy's equation
and these input values, the estimated bedrock groundwater seepage rates at Site 8 range
from 3.2 to 120 ft/ day.
C. Distribution of Contaminants
Soil Ouality
The maximum concentrations of organic compounds and metals detected in Site 8 soil south
of Merrimac Drive are presented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. In general, soil
contamination is confined laterally to within 500 feet of the former burn areas and is
vertically confined by the water table, which fluctuates to create a smear zone of
contaminants in the soil. Soil contamination probably also exists as residual saturation in
pore spaces where free-phase product has migrated through the vadose zone. The analytical
results from soil boring logs and the mobile laboratory indicate that, north of Merrimac
Drive, soil contamination associated with Site 8 activities is limited to the water table and
capillary fringe (see Appendix B of the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report)(G-577).
Soil contamination at Site 8 primarily consists of AHCs and TPHs. The lateral and vertical
extents of ARCs and TPHs beneath the three source areas are shown in a series of contour
maps (Figures 5 through 7) that represent the area from the ground surface to
approximately 30 ft BGS. The highest concentrations ofTPHs and ARCs in the shallow soil
(0 to 5 ft BGS) were detected in the center of the two former burn areas, with some
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
30
-------
.----------' ~-----.-/ ,<,,0
~~ D:)-:tG~"l
~\\\\\~~ ~
~~ ~.
~~
/0
Sile 8
(FDT A.21
';:;J1~JI
DRAINAGE DITCH
!p.r.: ~~i(1
61
(0 21 011<2
0122
'6.6
(".!Ji)
...
330
(0.2'A!Y1.1-
./ @5I0
/
~lll
/
,
100
/
/
53q I .
- - - L-~E::::::'::':-'::':--'
---j--- 9,'00 ~~
I ~.
7800 .,000 C 4041 ~
(0.2) ~1' 17' ~
\ -;,.5' ~ . (jj.,a'l~
\ 1(4-45) \ \! ...
.... './ - - '\. 10,000"
",'" '- - l3,2Oq "$71
'" "" 50 (3.35) / ..- 112 26.7 I !
~, .. ,",'" '-- / 0.' , '00'
~'" '" 41&7140 \
'- ,-" 7..0 W1&3~&30
$"'~" 0 1036$ @ 1ffi\1&9 \
W'''''<.", $111 564 W \
NO $11<7,-'- 9.5
~ ~o ,02) ~'-":::..-:::."- :4.051
~ ""
~ ''':::.. ~ 83
"!o.. "-"
,"-
"O~'z~ "-
'00 10. 21$c
DISrnlBUnON OF TOTAL "- "
PETROLEUM 'IYDROCARBONS (TPHI ~" "- "- "-
IN SOILS. 0 TO 5 FOOT DEP'tH $1e~~ '- '- "-
.....
\15
016
(403)
'3.9
(3.5.4)
$180
$i~:11
I
I
\ I
\'70 I
(0. 21 !yJ.5 I
@;~~f2
TPH AHC
(m!l'Kgl.., rlllQlKg)
~100 D:J ~100
>1.000 m:J >1.000
LEGEND:
. Sail lest pli
... SoIl borIng
@ PI8IornelellbO""g
@ Monllo' wellf0v9lbulden)
@ MomlOt welJlBedlock)
@ 1.40",101 wall(HybfldJ
If Surface COniourtelevalion
.J Fr/MSl. 101001 muuval
== RoadS{asphaIlJpaved)
J..,
.. Sampling location
. 6770 Canconllallon 01 TPH Imglkg)
0' AHC (p g'Kg) In salls
NO NOI dolected
: : : Roads,1rads - unpaved areas
~ BUI!.::hnqs --J--I fenc@l,n£l
CO I S) Samplo collection Cfoplh
~10.000 - ~10.000
.------,--""--'./~ rJ~
~----- '/O;:I'\'If~ r.::;...s;(..r"--'\\ -)
0.11.. 1'1. 01 P"OW3Q.-.mtneVol:: (O"IIpdlbOtl 01 .v<
P"'J 8 "om...... ~'ltIfI1 Oilid 1111:W1
[Site 8 (FTUA.2)
Sloge 3, Record 01 Decision
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
FIGURE 5
DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL PETROLEUM AND
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN SOILS.
o TO 5 FOOT DEPTH
-------
'/----------'1\'* -------- :';~..
~ ---- o~ fi::'?~.""
~-----------~ ~
/0
Sile 8
(FDT A.21
(,)';'.] I
~ --- . -~
~~Yf;/// LI1<~'~'2
:-----~ ...-----/- --~
..------' ~
c;A0 -
/~-
SiI~ 8
(FOT A'2)
r~;nl
132
(6.651
W20
DRAINAGE DITCH
DRAINAGE DITCH
NO
(10' I~' 01: '2
NO
1'0. 12) 01:<2
NO
(,i. IS)
(!)1141
@~IO
$122
NO
,,4 15)
(/;<1
@5:a
$'22
NO
16.65)
~~~I
~.ri,
~ '~~. 03
~~ .....~'-..
J", ",,-
------....-r-'""", 0 ~'
'"' 'a $<
VA NO'"
DISffilBUnON OF TOTAL . , 'PA . .
PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (TPH) - 7P~ '\ 10) ",,0, $ ,~
IN SOILS. 5 TO 15 FOOT DEPtH -;;- "" , ..............-.
TRANSITE DrtAIN
'\
BUR~ AREA
.1000' \
,10000), (jY10
!)'~91 22.5
_000 (11 . 11 5)
(12' U)
....
4
(8- 10)
$1IS0
$715!
--
18.8
(10 5.11 5)
(1)1081001
$'4011
@~~~2
~~~~2
NO
(8. '0)
$1151
NO
(10.12)
DISffilBunON OF AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS (AHCI IN SOILS
5 TO 15 FOOt DEPTH
NO $"51
f7.75)
NO
('0.11)
AromoUe Hydrocarbon. Doleclod
1.2.Dtchlorooonlene Chlorobenlene
1,2,4.Tflc:hlolobenzone Elhylbenlene
1.4.(J,chlorobenzone Toluene
Benlene Xylene (total)
'"
"
."
,.,
ft lOop
----~ "'..
p..r~)
Site 8 (FTDA-21
Stage 3, Retord o' DO(:ision
Pease Air Forc:e B098, New Hampshire
FIGURE 6
DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL PETROLEUM AND
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN SOILS.
5 TO 15 FOOT DEPTH
LEGEND:
. Smllest pi!
.. 50.1 bOlOng
E.e PIOlomelor/borlng
o Monnor woll(OIerburden)
. MaMOI well(Bed1ock)
(t Monitor woll(l-Iybfld)
If Surlace contour eJevallon
J FTIMSl. 10 loc~ ,"le'Val
=== RoadstasphalL'pavedl
,..,
.. Sampling locallon
6770 Coneenll.Ioon 01 TPH Imglkgl
01 AHC fJlg'Kg) In sOils
ND N01 doleC1ed
(0 I 5) Sample collet1lon doplh
TPH AHC
ImgtKgI" rM)lKg)
~100 [IJ :-100
~ 1.000 trr:.1 ~, ,000
..c::..
NORTH
: : : RoadSlllalis. un~veo aleas
c::J BUl5dlngs -+--" Fer.ceJlne
~10.000 - ~10.000
SCALE IN FEET
81\" Uap sou.CQ
0.:1' 1'.' 01 prta:O\O'I'nmGlI.c oomP.'lt>o'\ 0'
PAf8'rO'T1 "r.. 1)"'O:OQI.on, G"'" 1'.'?3t81
-------
--~~~ @.~
~~ G:}';@~'~
~~._.~
('j~'J'-
/
Sile 8
(FOTA.21
i.:)','Jj
DRAINAGE DITCH
!p. 1. i (~'j ~ (. :....1.
0';<2
56.4
(26.2651 (j)111
@:~~~2
07151
17
LEGEND:
. SollleSI pIt
.. Soil bOlmg
Et) Plezometer/oormg
o MOnlto' well(OIerburClcn)
8 Monitor weIiIAod:ock)
~ Montlo' woll(Hybr,d)
I{ Surface conlourlelevalion ,,,, TPH AHC
J FT IMSl . 10 lool,nlo'v" + Samphng 10..I1Ion (mgiKg) , f11'9'Kg)
::::::: noadsf8sphalllpaved) 6770 ~~~~~1~~;9~1,~~~,!~91k9) ~ 100 CD ~ 100
: : : AoadSllral's. unpaved alea~ NO Not doloC1cct ~ 1,000 D:J ~ 1 ,000
C) BUildings -;--f F(lncc',nr> (0 t 5) Sampl9 colleC1lOn ck!p1h ~ 10.000 - ~ 10,000
..-----/ /\.:j~ /'l,' .,,~ /,
~ // ~/0 ,.\ ~I;:~',~~ :, ,'~
-~ -~ '\ \"~:'\";', 1
.-- -~ . .~\;.-, '.~0~:.- X'~ ./
Y'O ..- .. ','\ " ~....' "\\-; . //1
,,", . '. ..., " ~. .. . .
('.. .). . \ .-, . ....-'r"".~ ~/ .
" \-. \ . ','. :.\ \\:~~I DRAINAGE DITCH
.~..~~::\.¥-...;.....-~/;::: NO
r\>"""::.\""-~/I'lli (:71;<2
~,-\ \ -'>, .~~/~Y /'.
I X-\ .>< ".' -.5;" ,....-; ='>2
" -"~ \ ',:',..:>- ,.;..-- /~I y
1.'~\i~~~W;:;;;
~~~\' \',-.-'
~P6;f~;.--\~-\. Z-~1 '5'%5
\ .,. \ ~ ---- '\ ~7Z:G
'...<\).;( \. (' '0', 'eJ I
. .)..... \ .....--1
i 1!W20 " ,- \,:, '.. .'
IH,DOII.
19 (30.30
-~ ~ ::.-: ..t
,-
Sile 8
(FDT A-2)
B"nl
!;>.ZI «.S~..: (~
~..." ."./.
. "".
(
0<:;'9 ~I!
\,0 e'
5'1@ ~ NO
1/ -- - -- - . (13)
II /' ~ -- - ~ I
/' /' /' (' Fire Training Buiidlng
/'ft 'V W'15 ~
-- ~r.5 1/
.::- - /' 1/ 8' TRANS 11 E ORA I N
'- 1/-
. ~--- 1/
, "-..,,
=710
I~q ~
DlSTIIiBUTlON OF AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS (AHC) IN SOIl.S
BELOW 15 FOOT DI;PTH
Aromltic Hydrocarbons Detected
1,2.D1chlolobenzone Chlorobenleno
1,2.4,Tllchlorobenzen9 ElhylbenZ9n9
1.4.Qlchlorobenlene T uluene
Benzene Xylene (Iolal)
[.=:J EX10n1 01 observed ."Uoa1mg. product
~
H~H
$715Z
e700
$ml,
~~~t2
$1~51
/I
---- ~1 ::.
-"'1$0 ~
)r"'~~ )
'r
She 8 (FTDA.2)
Siage 3, Record o' Decision
P.o~ Air Fotee. Bo~, Now Hampshire
FIGURE 7
DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL PETROLEUM AND
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN SOilS.
BElOW 15 FOOT DEPTH
'"
SCALE IN FEET
8u."""~""C"
r..', ,.". o' p-..o:OV""''''''''o(: corro..:.o' 0'
f'Aln"o-'.~-" (>"'O'oo;'.('I'>r~.'I~ 11:r.\81
-------
contamination extending away from the former burn areas toward the north. During the
field investigation, free-phase product was observed in wells 510, 540, 563, 564, and 5006
(see Figure 7), and soil contamination (TPHs and ARCs) probably exists at depths below
15 ft BGS, near the water table. Thus, although soil analytical results are not available for
depths greater than 15 ft BGS for the northern portion of the free-phase product area,
deeper soil contamination (ARCs and TPHs) is assumed to be associated with the free-
phase product observed near the water table.
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) and chlorinated benzenes [1,2- and
1,4-dichlorobenzene (-DCB), chlorobenzene, and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene] were the ARCs
detected in soil at Site 8. BTEX compounds are significant components of lP-4 fuel. The
highest concentrations of toluene and xylenes in soil (128 and 210 mgjkg, respectively) were
detected at the water table beneath the smaller of the two former burn areas (see Table 2).
The ARCs detected, with the exception of the chlorinated benzenes, have densities less than
water, and a separate LNAPL has formed on the water table surface. Because LNAPLs
migrate in the groundwater flow direction, soil contamination in the unsaturated zone near
the water table (capillary zone) also would be expected to exist in the downgradient
direction.
Halogenated hydrocarbons (HHCs) were detected less frequently than ARCs at Site 8 and
were confined to soil samples collected west and south of the smaller former burn area and
east of the larger former burn area. The HHCs present in Site 8 soil include 1,2-
dichloroethene (1,2-DCE), 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), tetrachloroethene (PCE), 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane (PCA), trichloroethene (TCE), and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (l,l,l-TCA).
The highest concentrations of TCE and PCA (5 and 2.5 mgjkg, respectively) were detected
to the west of the smaller former burn area. The highest concentration of PCA was
detected near the ground surface (4 to 4.5 ft BGS), and the highest concentration of TCE
was detected at the water table (30 to 30.5 ft BGS); otherwise, the levels of PCA and TCE
were below 0.02 mgjkg. The highest concentration of PCE (0.018 mgjkg) was detected,
along with 0.418 mgjkg of 1,1,1-TCA, in the 20 to 22 ft BGS sample from boring 7751 to
MKO 1 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
37
-------
the west of the cemetery. With the exception of PCA, all HHCs detected in Site 8 soil also
were detected in Site 8 groundwater.
Oxygenated hydrocarbons (OHCs) were detected north of the tWo former burn areas, in the
smaller former burn area, and southwest of the larger former burn area. The OHCs
detected in Site 8 soil include isophorone, vinyl acetate, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, diethyl ether,
acetone, and 2-butanone. The highest concentration of OHCs (34,000 J.lg/kg of 4-methyl-
2-pentanone) was detected in boring 714 at 7 ft BGS. None of these compounds were
detected in Site 8 groundwater.
The distribution of P AHs at Site 8 appears to be limited to the former burn areas; however,
some P AHs were detected from 0 to 2 ft BGS south and west of the former burn areas.
Naphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene were the most coinmonly detected P AHs in Site 8
soil. Phenanthrene, pyrene, and chrysene also were detected at several locations. In
general, P AHs were detected in the former bum areas, to depths of 26.5 ft BGS, near the
water table. P AHs are known components of lP-4, and the occurrence of P AHs correlated
strongly with the occurrence of elevated levels (> 100 mg/kg) of TPHs in Site 8 soil.
Naphthalene is the most mobile of the P AHs detected at Site 8, and is the most likely P AH
to migrate to the groundwater. Naphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene were the PAHs
detected in groundwater at the highest concentrations.
Site 8 soil was originally sampled for total dioxins. Dioxins ~ere generally detected in the
upper 2 feet of soil in and around the former bum areas. In September 1992, Site 8 soil
was resampled for specific dioxin compounds to depths of 16 ft BGS. Dioxins were detected
in and around the former burn areas in the upper 2 feet of soil only. The highest
concentration of dioxins [4.94 nanograms/gram (ng/g)] was detected in boring 7555. The
term dioxin refers to related compounds known as chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
chlorinated dibenzofurans. Dioxins occur as contaminants in several herbicides, such as
2,4,5- T and Silvex, and may result from the burning of chlorinated phenols, chlorinated
benzenes, and PCBs (G-357). Herbicides were not detected in Site 8 soil (four samples),
and the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) Aroclor-1260 was detected only in one soil sample
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod,txt
38
-------
(08-7144-B013) at Site 8. Chlorinated benzenes were detected in Site 8 soil; however, they
were detected outside of the former burn areas (borings 7145, 7148, 7015, and 7016).
The pesticides detected in Site 8 soil were DDT and its degradation products DDD and
DDE, alpha- and gamma-chlordane, lindane (gamrna-BHC), dieldrin, and heptachlor
epoxide. Pesticides were detected at depths to 15 ft BGS, although most detections
occurred in the shallow (0 to 2 ft BGS) soil. Lindane, DDD, DDE, and DDT were detected
in groundwater at Site 8.
Sodium and trace amounts of antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
magnesium, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, thallium, and zinc were detected at
levels exceeding the background concentrations for soil established from background soil
boring samples at Pease AFB (see Table 3). The distribution of these metals across Site
8 is shown in Figure 8. Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, molybdenum, and
nickel are possible constituents present in fuel oil that may have been disposed of at Site
8 prior to 1971. Nickel is a common additive in JP-4 (G-357). Most of the metals present
at concentrations that exceed background levels were detected within 150 feet of the former
burn areas. Mercury and molybdenum were detected at concentrations exceeding
background levels in borings 7146 and 7147, which are located outside the former burn
areas, along unpaved roads. Cadmium and total chromium also were present at
concentrations exceeding background levels in boring 7146. The metals detected at
concentrations exceeding background levels in the vicinity of the smaller former burn ar~a
were located in the upper 6 feet of soil. East of the larger former burn area, metals were
detected at concentrations exceeding background levels to depths of 11.5 ft BGS. Of those
metals present at concentrations exceeding background levels in Site 8 soil, arsenic, lead,
and nickel also were present in groundwater at concentrations exceeding Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs).
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\sile8rod.lxt
39
-------
Groundwater Oualit,y
Overburden/Hybrid Groundwater Quality
A total of 22 overburden wells and five hybrid wells were sampled at various frequencies
throughout the characterization of overburden/hybrid groundwater contamination at Site
8. It should be noted that well 613 was originally constructed as a hybrid well. Well 613
was reconstructed in February 1992 as a bedrock ~ell and was renamed well 613A. Well
613A has been sampled only once (March 1992), and the results of the analysis are
discussed herein under bedrock groundwater quality and are presented in Subsection 1.5.3.2
of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611). Piezometers 7751, 7752, and 7786 were
installed to determine off-site groundwater quality at the locations of bedrock wells 6043,
6045, and 6046, respectively. The three piezometers are discussed in this subsection under
dissolved-phase well groundwater.
In general, VOCs are more widespread and were detected at greater concentrations in
overburden groundwater than in bedrock groundwater. Both free-phase product and
dissolved-phase contamination are observed in the overburden groundwater at Site 8. Free-
phase product was not observed downgradient of well 566; the dissolved-phase contaminant
plume (primarily VOCs) extends off base at concentrations below MCLs (see Figure 9).
The following discussion of wells containing free-phase product is divided into a discussion
of product occurrence and a discussion of the chemical analyses of groundwater in these
free-phase product-containing wells.
Free-Phase Product Well Groundwater Quality
Free-phase product is present at the water table in the vicinity of the former burn areas.
Although the area of free-phase product is relatively limited in extent (see Figure 9), the
product acts as a continuing source of dissolved-phase groundwater contamination.
Measurable amounts of free-phase product (LNAPLs) have been observed in three
overburden groundwater recovery wells (563, 564, and 566) and in three overburden
MK01 \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
40
-------
!::~>' /:::::::::/
/'~> />~ $7538
+,," /,,' ...
'/':,~::::::::::::::':"
$7e3'
$7074
Site 8
(FDTA-2)
~
$7031
.Bk
0.5 11
714
561
@51J
015
$F0.q
J;BkO I 16.5.171
16
Cd 051
Mo 0 JTJ
C. 09:
Cr 55.1
Cu .15'
H 0.1;
M 9660J
Mo 056J
Ilt 51.S
0.,
O. ,
e.!!
8.,
,.,
8.,
8.,
e . ~
8.'
03078
-
--
Cd DE!'
Cr S37
Mo 0 7SJ
Cd 0.5
Cr 58'
H 0 'J
Mo 0 66J
M 10000
0-05
0.0.5
0.0.5
10.10.5
10-105
10-10.5
'0,'05
10.10!.
10.105
N,
!iOJ
As 2E4
Cu 55.2
Mn 705
Ni 73.6
Sb 555
Th 36.4
10.5-11
10.5 -11
10.5.11
10.5.11
10.5."
10.5.11
~151
r cBkQ I
'" I
$7011'1
--
--
..... - .~..
>'
/'///
- 1117"'"
1\,1S.112/"t1ll'5' IlOo1£!I'9O:!J. DCN
.~ ~ee'
'0"'", ~
LEGEND:
Mol~ls DptKI('d
~
Surf.lee Sod Samples
o Burldrngs
r-- Melal dOIec19d
t ,..- Concenlrahon 01 molals
I Pb 164.31 2 I in '0,1, (mgtKg)
'-" Sample colleC1lon dePth (Ieel)
below ground surface
~ ;lf~~~c~;~~~~~C~'~:~~~~:
I cBka I 5 I below backgrOOlnd
L Samplo colleCllon dcplh
As.. Arsenic
Cd . Cadmium
Cr . Chromium
Cu - Copper
Hg - Mercury
Mg - Mt\gnCSlum
Mn - M.:1ngcn5csc
Me . Molybdenum
NI. NIckel
Pb . Lo"d
Sb - Anl:mony
Th . Th.1lturT'l
Zn . Zmc
SarI BOIrng
- - - RoadSllrads (unpaved areas)
.-- ROJd~ ra!.:ch;)l~ P:JV~dl
-)I'---*," Fencehn~
L. ~
NORTH ~
- .""
~ Peas. AFB
~,~~~):~~~~c~EET
Dr-. a -] ,:' :''':'~';I--r''': C':-~ iJ' en el p~Fe
""-~'''1 ::'::':~":'>.f::;1'''-: t' ?j~~
NOTE'
Silo B
Stage 3, Record 01 DecisIon
Pease Air Force Base, Now Hampshire
FIGURE 8
DISTRIBUTION OF METALS ABOVE
BACKGROUND LEVELS IN SOILS. SITE 8
Background levels were oblained from
-The Tolerance Limits lor Background Sods al
Pease AFB', Lener Report, dated 17 April, 1992
94p.1993
-------
.- "-'-.......
"'2'"
L)
~7e7!
'~.......
"
---.....--....
.,.,.. -----";1'
,/ ,/
/
I
\
LEGEND:
Q' 51011 gag.
. Soli boring
Iborlng
Ci Plezornoler
II(Ove!bu'den) : = =
@ Monllor w.
Monnor w.II(Bedroc:k)
@) brid)
~ Manila' w.II(Hy
.--
Fenceline
.~
>"
.'>0
~~
Po..., ~FB~ ~
l' :(,
"/
.L::::...
N~TH
. SCALE IN FEET
::;',;.~',.', ~~~ ~:E;:;:~::::~:~~:::; ,~~::;:~'~~.~:'
-------
groundwater monitor wells at Site 8 (510,540, and 5006) (see Figure 9). Free-phase product
has not been observed in overburden recovery well 562A, located downgradient of the free-
phase product wells. Measured product thicknesses ranged from 0 feet to a maximum of
10.95 feet measured in well 563 during March 1991. The product layer thickness in each
well varies as a function of a number of factors, including pumping rates, pumping
frequency, quantity and efficiency of product removal by the recovery wells, groundwater
elevation, and amount of rainfall. Further, a discrepancy typically exists between the
apparent measured thickness and the actual product thickness in the subsurface (G-112).
The apparent thickness reflects the thickness of the capillary fringe in addition to the true
product thickness. The weight of the product depresses the water level in the well,
increasing the apparent product thickness even more. The ratio of apparent product
thickness to true product thickness typically ranges from 2 to 4, and may be as high as 10
(G-112).
Samples of product have been collected from the ojw separator at the Site 8 pilot GWTP
and directly from well 563, and the samples were analyzed. The results of these analyses
are summarized in the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report (G-577). The detected compounds
include those expected for waste fuel and lP-4 product (i.e., BTEX, PCE, TCE, and PAHs);
pesticides; Aroclor-1260; and dioxins.
In general, groundwater samples from wells that contain free-phase product contain
dissolved-phase contaminants similar to those contaminants found in the product. Tables
4, 5, and 6 summarize the highest observed concentrations of each contaminant detected in
groundwater from overburden wells that contain free-phase product. As shown, of the AHCs
detected, benzene, ethylbenzene, and toluene all exceeded the referenced guideline
concentrations (state or federal MCLs) in monitor well 563. The detected HHCs that
exceeded guideline concentrations and are not considered to be common laboratory
contaminants were 1,2-DCA, cis-1,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE, TCE, 1,2-dibromoethane, and
vinyl chloride. The SVOCs fluorene and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate exceeded guideline
concentration levels at monitor well 563. The pesticides gamma-BHC and heptachlor were
detected at concentrations that exceed guidelines in groundwater at monitor well 510.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
45
-------
Heptachlor epoxide md gamma-chlordane also were detected in well 510 at concentrations
equal to the guideline concentrations. The dissolved metals detected above background
levels (G-609) were arsenic, cobalt, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, potassium, silicon, silver,
and sodium. Total metals whose concentrations exceeded background values and referenced
guidelines were arsenic, cobalt, lead, potassium, and sodium.
The HHCs that have been consistently detected in groundwater samples from wells
containing free-phase product were TCE, cis-l,2-DCE, 1,2-DCA, and 1,1,I-TCA. Those
compounds only occasionally detected included 1,1- DCA, 1,1- DCE, trans-l,2- DCE, PCE, and
vinyl chloride.
The AHCs that have been consistently detected in groundwater samples from wells
containing free-phase product include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes. The
PAHs detected were generally naphthalene or 2-methylnaphthalene. Pesticides (i.e.. DDD,
DDT, DDE, andgamma-BHC) were detected in all groundwater samples from wells that
contain free-phase product, except those from well 5006. A more detailed discussion of
free-phase product well groundwater quality is presented in the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report
(G-577).
Well 566 was sampled for dioxinsjfurans in November 1992. No dioxinsjfurans were
detected. A groundwater sample collected in November 1992 from well 566 was analyzed
for 1,2-dibromoethane. This compound was not detected.
Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Well Groundwater Quality
The dissolved-phase contamination observed in overburden and hybrid well groundwater
samples includes VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticides. Tables 7, 8, and 9 summarize the highest
observed concentrations of each contaminant detected in groundwater samples from
overburden and hybrid wells that contained only dissolved-phase contamination. As shown,
of the AHCs detected in groundwater, the only contaminant concentrations detected above
MCLs was for benzene in monitor well 511. Benzene also was detected at concentrations
MK01 \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod. txt
46
-------
above MCLs in recovery well 562A. The HHCs whose concentrations in groundwater
samples equalled or exceeded guidelines were 1,2-DCA, cis-1,2-DCE, and TCE. Total
metals in groundwater that exceeded the maximum background concentrations established
for Pease AFB and federal regulatory values were arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, and nickel. The total lead concentration in groundwater exceeded the MCL, but
was below the maximum background concentration.
Figure 10 illustrates the distribution of these compounds. The distribution of HHCs in
overburden groundwater appears to be well-defined if groundwater analytical data from
wells containing free-phase product are included in the analysis. There appear to be two
areas of HHC concentrations in the overburden at Site 8: a northern and a southern area.
The southern area is bounded on the north by wells 541 and 561, and the northern area is
limited to wells in the bedrock trough (north of well 510). None of the dissolved-phase
groundwater contamination in the southern area exceeds MCLs. In the northern area, MCL
exceedances were noted only at well 562A. HHCs were not detected in off-site piezometers
7751, 7752, and 7786. The distribution of AHCs in overburden wells is not as well-defined
as that of the HHCs. Groundwater samples from all overburden wells, except wells 514,
541, 561, and 5002, with dissolved-phase contamination indicated the presence of B1EX
compounds (see Figure 11). Benzene has not been detected in wells 541 and 561. Benzene
and 1,2-dichlorobenzene have been detected in well 5002. Only sec-butylbenzene has been
detected in well 514 (see Figure 11). Benzene concentrations that exceed MCLs have been
detected in wells 511 and 562A. AHCs were not detected in off-site piezometers 7751, 7752,
and 7786.
Groundwater samples collected from seven overburden wells (565, 539, 562A, 5049, 561,
577, and 541) and one hybrid well (511) contained detectable concentrations of SVOCs.
The groundwater sample collected from well 5049 contained concentrations of bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate (a common laboratory contaminant) above the MCL. SVOCs were
not detected in off-site piezometers 7751, 7752, and 7786.
MK01 \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod. tJet
47
-------
Pesticides have been "detected on-site in wells 5003 and 539. However, the most recent
groundwater sampling event showed no evidence of pesticides in the overburden
groundwater. A groundwater. sample collected in September 1992 was analyzed for
dioxinsjfurans. Octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD) was detected at a concentration
of 59 picogramsjliter (pgjL) in a sample collected from well 565. Groundwater samples
also were collected in November 1992 from wells 5002 and 562A and were analyzed for
dibromoethane (EDB). This compound was not detected.
A number of groundwater samples collected from overburden wells contained dissolved
metals concentrations that exceeded proposed soluble metals maximum background
concentrations (G-609). The dissolved metals detected at concentrations exceeding
proposed background levels were arsenic, calcium, cobalt, iron, manganese, potassium,
sodium, vanadium, and thallium. Table 8 summarizes the dissolved portion of metals in
groundwater. Total metals whose concentrations exceeded established maximum
background levels and MCLs were arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, and
nickel. The total lead concenfration in groundwater exceeded the MCL, but was below the
maximum background concentration.
A more detailed description of dissolved-phase contaminants in groundwater is presented
in the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report (G-577).
Bedrock Groundwater Quality
Organic groundwater contamination in the bedrock is generally limited to relatively low
concentrations of VOCs. Both HHCs and AHCs have been detected on- and off-site. The
highest detected concentrations of benzene, cis-1,2-DCE, and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
exceeded their respective referenced guidelines in at least one well.
The highest concentrations of HHCs in groundwater samples from bedrock wells were
detected in wells located downgradient of the former burn areas, where the overlying GT
unit is absent (see Figure 12 of this report and Figure 1.4-10 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.txt
48
-------
@
~
v
~I ~J
~~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
/
,
,
,
,
.;'')j
\
\
/ .
, -'
, ,
, ,
,," :'
- - - - n n__- ----------- ------m__----- -- - -- -~//' \
I' ,,"
/i ,'- (I
l' I I I
c:::> ~I ," ~.
D Q ,I , I , '/
n \' , .
\.r,tJ " 1:.11. '"-....:;:
~ I - '-------'"--- I / "'/ '-...;:: ,
::::::::~"-~-;----------- ---:.-:.-:.-:.-:.-:.- ",' -_/' j~/ ,,:;
"'~........... /''; (' $1 @"mOCl~:.r).,,,,
"('- ~..' ~
I \ I, ,I C:::JO " --,,@I~~:~:::::: 1 /;/
"..'_..-;:-.=1 J ---" / I
::~~~C'\I ~ '/ A
-::"1 "J1_..Jl- .
'. - -- . C!ffi::J I I,
~: ~ ~ I II I
o ' 1,,';,
1 I, "<>
o,' l' '""
~ ,@.I.ucet, HI ~.u ~
@'CII'OCltIl'llttl:t...,.. 1--,TCt ~I'"'' :t
~'./ _1,'1 5
o ' / f ~
< ;
~ /! / ~
~ // --mr--!,~ I -~ ---===
I ------..----- ~=--========------
% -------- fj{'//-
//.~I -=- : ~"'. /
~ ~~ ~
.-.-' .~ 9. ,..o'/f,{j", .,."'1/
. ..&,~/ ~~
~.. S..CO~~I. ....~tv : / ((,~~
,~,~ .,.~ If' ; ,,":~ ':.~' ~ .~
,\ . ,TOW' GARAGE ~/ // 1"_.,,.1 ..1 ~
"\ ~/ ~ -f;' // """'I"" _I
,\ \\ v/ //;(/ ~ :i! 1:,
\\ 1/. // /,/ Inl:lCl 1,.&11 -,
,\ I \ 0 -"/ // ~
,\ " /1/ /// '''I&.~
\~~' . /I?-~- /..
~\ ~r/ ~
I .::;;--., II ~ ~ ~
.;:c-- ~t:iJ!!J ~ 1--,
- @I!:J @-~
\ C!!!' ~ @!.:::.=:
J!,....I
,---.,,-..., C~ ~ c=
~, \ I -- /@ @ @I -- I.
'~', .-:::::?" -....., ...-
'i-'- ..~04im"'::'I'_~=_=="'~ '- "
" ':.-;;----- 6 "" ~"-~ ',,-, --, ,-
',....--------..::, '!: / ......;-
:.:>' -;:-,-,---- ; EJe () 0 "------ giG
'':::,'... ~ .......~....~ " --
-,-~- . \~~;::,:: '::
""".:::.... ~~ 00.. ~
--:.-- "'", SlIe8(FDTA-2) @I--I
"'," :::::.,
...------ =~~~~
"";",,... ----....- '~""""
" ...",:::- '':-~~
/ ,,' "'.,.,
I ",,"" """..:-....
: ;",,'" ~'O ....~~.......
I "~.. ---,
I ...""", "\...~ """"'.......
I ' ~
""...'" """~........
-'
,
\,
, ,
----
--- -
l
,.
/
L!Q.VC).
CJ-
""'-- '"
8CI "..,(~
112 w.. .....,
-"'-
~("""""'IOI
---
~~~
~~~:
CA . """'-
"DCA.'.1.~
12DCA .1.2.~
110Ct: .1.1.~
G'JDCI.._1.2.~
1120C8 ..,.,...t.2.~
DCnI .~
~.T..~
tllT'CA".1, '.T~
TCI .T~
YC .~~
eo. .w...~...
- -...
o ...-
C) ~....(~}
@ ~Of'''''f~
= Rc8aI.!UCII\AIL"...."
--
:::::: 1\lI'OII-..0 .'...,
--
----
'X
""
-~
NOTE'
S~e 8 (FTDA-2)
Slage 3, Record 01 Decision
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
FIGURE 10
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF HALOGENATED
ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS(HHC) IN
OVERBURDEN AND HYBRID WELLS
~
NOR'TH
SCALE IN FEET
alii. MIl' Sou,e.
D.~"": III"" 01 Dhc1OO",,""'Dlr>e CO!T'p.llIl'on 01
r,Arn 1'0'" ..,,81 P"o!OG"'P"Y dll~18d 11I:r.J,'87
-------
l' "\
" ," \
~ OQ (;' ,/'/ \f
LITi1..EBAYROAO !!J\ D St __]':"-""'-___----------"'" ,/'--C:: .--.;f;~:
i -----= ---=, - ~::==::-"-------- "........~....~....-::- ,,/..- ~:;~:
r-'\\-~ -- -'I,' - - ,; ~I -" \ , ''..'..,,-,..-/ ( C;':'-.:..:;;;-'.'/
-....... \ \,\ \ -\\...::\\-::..1\1,- r~~~~-'I\-~\ /""""....... ~ --;;',1
CE:J \ ",",,\-", , ;--,\ ' I \r~O " " ~~ /;/'
~ ~J~':V:=~:::==~'~~-:~J\ \\\\ ~I_~! \ I ----" ','
>. (')\',- "'- Jf-\' c:eme~ery =~:-~,~~; -~ \ '" /~/
, ii, \,-", " J'--~'~"'~" ")' -,,- ~ . II
' I I -,-",,,,-...--,- "~ '.=--- 1'1 '''' .' ,~
-; l fIr ;'~~\;-j:::--::.;:-- ~: .. ","0."", .' // ~
I \ ..; \\ 'I ~'- ~'-- .. \ 0 , /:' ~
, I, \-.- - -" \ \ ' "
" \ . ! i-'~ I, \' 1 ~ \ ~ ' ;:
--} jX"'""" '\ui ..-.,-,,-,,= 1\
f) \~ eo ~\\ ~-;.J'~~-:"7--;: '0,0"
dl ~'u_--------- _u~:l~;"-~":;> /
-- ... '>(// Q~1
.-.-' .~. ':-0 ~
-------
lib -j~=:::::== ::::::::::::.....
- ..::! -----=::-....::- -- ........ ::::.:: ......
~~~ "
"
"
'~
'-', -
'0-./
('-.....
c::JO
;'
/
@! NOT 0':=01
"
~,
I ~,] j
@j NOT OET>:<:TEO
"-
'1''-
\1 '~---
l;, ...- ::= :::- - -.=.::::... ~ .......
...-::; ----
~ ..........
"
"
,......
............
.............
..............
.............
"""",
-.......:.......
.......,
,.....
-----
/ --
--- ----
--- -
----
L!CiEHD:
@ MOI'I1o,....nI~)
= RO&CI:IIUCtv.!I:p.r.«I)
-FIl'II»Ione
~'"
,...eeJ 1'tIoI'I!IoIO'1J
812
~ClfW'll~}
aetect..."...""
~ !lnPII"Vm) 01
~8CI~{~1
~~0818d8d
.. . ~reon~ t.tCL
HIIIoQ«\8Hd~""8Cl8d.
,2DCA .1,2.~
o1ZDCf. ,~'.2.~1'o8n8
P'Cf:.T~
,,,TCA -1,1, ,.TI'ICfIIOru«I'\It...
Tel! .T~
VC .~cNc1r1d8
:::::: ~~:~~',..,!
-....-
U ""''''
..6...
N~H
NOTE'
S~e 8 (FiUA-2)
Stege 3, Reeon! 01 Decision
Peese Air Force Base, New Hampshire
FIGURE 12
MAXIMUM CONCENTRA"TlONS OF HALOGENTATED
ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS(HHC) IN
BEDROCK WELLS
3CO
-st
SCAL,l IH FEET
B... u.p Sov'C:8
c.:.~ .f" 01 ~,,,~I'oe CDlTlpoll:JOrl 01
PM8"""'"". ~'.ohy 0'118d 11.73'87
-------
Report) (G-611). Groundwater samples from 11 bedrock wells (612, 613A, 622,623, 636,
637, 6021, 6022, 6025, 6044, and 6046) contained detectable concentrations of HHCs.
Figure 12 illustrates the distribution of these compounds and suggests the presence of two
areas of contaminant concentrations: a south- and a northwest-trending area. The southern
area is limited in extent and centered around well 612 (near the former burn area). HHC
concentrations that exceed MCLs have not been detected in the southern area. Well 612
is the only location where PCE has been detected in bedrock groundwater. The northwest-
trending area extends from well613A (along Merrimac Drive) toward well 6046 (near the
cemetery). Cis-I,2-DCE was present at concentrations exceeding its MCL in samples
collected from wells 636 and 6022 and from samples collected from bedrock well 622 during
the pumping test. Bedrock well 622 was resampled in June 1993, under pumping test
conditions, to clarify significant inconsistencies in the laboratory analytical results [see
Appendix I of the Draft Final Site FS Report (G-611)]. The results of the June 1993
sampling round indicate that the maximum concentration of cis-1,2-DCE was 28 Jl.g/L, which
is below the MCL of 70 Jl.g/L.
Groundwater samples from 13 bedrock wells (513, 611, 612, 613A, 621, 622, 623, 636, 637,
6021, 6022, 6023, and 6025) contained detectable concentrations of AHCs. The distribution
of the ARCs is discussed in the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611). The presence of
various BTEX compounds in groundwater shows a pattern that may be explained by the
different rates of migration of the various BTEX compounds from a source located at or
near the former burn areas [see Table 1.6-1 of the Draft Final. Site 8 FS Report (G-611) and
Subsection 5.1 of the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report (G-577)]. Benzene concentrations
exceeding the MCL were detected in wells 612, 622, and 636.
Low concentrations of SVOCs have been detected in bedrock groundwater samples collected
both on- and off-site. The highest concentrations of SVOCs were detected in groundwater
samples collected from well 6024. Pesticides were not detected in groundwater samples
collected from any bedrock wells.
MKOI \ R.PT:00628026.003\si te8rod.txt
55
-------
Well 613A was samp'ted for dioxinsjfurans in September 1992. None of these compounds
were detected. The dissolved metals whose concentrations exceeded background levels were
iron, lead, potassium, sodium, and vanadium. The total metals whose concentrations
exceeded background levels were iron, potassium, and sodium.
Surface Water and Sediment
Pickering Brook
Pickering Brook is a relatively narrow stream that originates on base but flows off base in
a northeasterly direction. Several small tributaries enter Pickering Brook before it
discharges to Flagstone Brook. Overburden groundwater from the Site 8 area is believed
to discharge to Pickering Brook. In addition, sediment from the on-site drainage ditch may
have discharged to Pickering Brook, especially during heavy rainfall events. Surface water
and sediment samples were collected at seven stations in the Pickering Brook drainage from
1988 through 1992. These stations are shown in Figure 13. Sediment samples were
analyzed for TPHs, organic compounds, total organic carbon (TOC), and metals. Surface
water samples were analyzed for organic compounds, ammonia as nitrogen, hardness, and
inorganic compounds.
The analytical results indicate the presence of PAHs, pesticides, TPHs, and metals in four
sediment samples collected along Pickering Brook (locations 8024, 8025, 8027, and 8089).
The pesticide DDT and its metabolites DDD and DDE were detected at concentrations
exceeding the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Biological Effects
Range - Low (ER-L) (G-415). Total PAR concentrations ranged from approximately 596
tlgjkg (mostly naphthalene) at location 8027 (the farthest upstream location) to 15 J.lgjkg
at location 8024 (the farthest downstream location) (see Figure 13). Concentrations of
TPHs greater than 100 mgjkg were detected (using Method E418.1) at three sediment
sampling locations (801A, 8024, and 8025). The metals detected in sediment samples at or
above their respective ER-L values were lead (locations 801A and 8089) and nickel
(location 8024).
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
56
-------
~
~¥
~o_~
o~O'
1;.
~9-1
. ;.;~
G~n' 1'1\11 '3~,r:'Gf"j
"4" l'At:t I~' O I G~' ," .
;~~. _l~tlli~ ~MI 12~':~ :~: .~
I'. - '-'-- "1'" 17,~(lO 6'91 ... .
8079 . Z" 51.9 (j/91 -
IC;'OCF.Udl- "OI'G~' . - --- -',t. ND,,~l\hovc
;~:I'~I~'U11'1t('1 O,~;~ ~~: ~I~~ .nu .._._h '~I">'" ~~tUd~
I C., 42~OO (j 91 - .BO-.!.~ -. - OY".... '''"'00 8,.
1"tQ 1"300J(;')1 CI'DCE] '.0]G'91
l.,~...- -. jJ~~O.? ~~ .~_... :.-0M2 ~1
'-.;;.." /
.}C.(111~ !
~n~~~~
c,.,..-
(]
/r\j~ -.
P/qe"~I)' " ~...... '..
'Sl Brook
"JI '."
151.29 filII'
J<1 (j.91
290J (j'9!
19J (j.91
74.21' "
4~.7 C;,q,
G8.' (if'"
101 /il",
~'00J ,GMI
z
.,
rT.?=J ~ -1
cr--'f -,....- I
r:;r-z ,
Old Post ~ ";\ \,
"- Road IA b}1' -'--~-.:--~-----
V -;-- -..ro- ''....':...';",:
"';'IOIINa
..""I~ffll"
-;'---::::::-l~
~:,'~
\
/"1'"
I ..j
,e>
" rl') :
'\, l'
-"'- rf
~"
,,\,
~
:.-
~
"
'\
\
, I
"
Q
'~.~~\ (/
(, 0"
, 0,'
,/Vf,IU""--"-~'''''''-''~ ", ~~;
.',,~) . //
L f'GEr 10'
,-,,,,,,j',.I,'I"':,"
I un'" --1,,-1"''''1,1''"''''''''1}
i ",uc:r: i 10 T.9,. .- ",,,., .,,,,.m,,,,,.
j L--. ,..."'K,mt,,,hQW'!III)'1
. (":"f'ltur...,I,I"""'Ct.'(I
. .~.IOv.'NIt[1rs
:"".'!"""'" CIII(''',IIE 2'91)
~"'-I~"I"I)lrtI9P?"111
1_~!.1'1~.~!_J...-t);lh'!.1t:;...nll)l,,'9
" L--. Conc(>nlr;:a\lon!o ("'g/lo,91
- Cllp'ln,,:;)1 dl"~IC'd
'.C>:InCl!'ntt;}hon abovfJ
~'OAA c",.Ht::!! (G ., I 51
V(.,.:~. ",'..., ,..II
tlJDC!; II": '.~II'(hj",oulll()'ll()
TCE. T ,", "nrot!.hun(l
CF Chln.utom,'
I,,"TMO I"" hU''''''''yIbonZDnO
T 120C( rll'.11 I ? OCl
T lOI'If'1\1I
A Acolono
St'll"vnt.1h',' lJoq.II'''-'.IJ,'II't!t'd
PAil T"t,III'A't~
ACF. "c""!I,'~III"",O
NAP to/"I,I,lh.,'.,,,.,
flUAN r!uQ!,""'''rn(l
FLU rh,()O,"'f'
PIIEN PhUI',tntllfnnn
PY Pylono
"",,, 1"""1'"
"'l1 '.'"1'''''''''''
11.1 '.,.1""1
p"
I'b 1".11'
Sl ~~,'" ,..,
II V ,n ..I,,,,,,
Zn bll..
.,
As /l.I',,""c
"~ I',,,,,",
OCt 1'''')"''''''
n n,.,,",
Cft C..I!,,,,'"
Cr (.111011""'"
re 11(",
ttg M"'~II'y
rL'''''~KJIJ:;.'I'CO', ~h'It'tlcd.
ODD d II' ODD
DOE .1 dOne
DOT "." [)OT
ENOl IlIf"J~,IJII.I" 1
PCB 101;tl pnlycl'10ltl!o1tt'fJ lllpl":'IOIS
JJI'IIoIL'LHn Ilfd'Ix...\lbl'I!'\ d,'I,'(,Io'1l
TPH. T 01.,1 p~trolt'um hVdroc",uoll',
6. ~
IIOn1ll ~
'L_-I..=....f-+-:-:1---1-:~;t Pease AF8
SCALE IU rEEr
:', :. I :,:f!,';',";',' ~',....I' II """"'';'' "';""':'1' ,.'
I'f! ," "." ...11,' "',,,' 'I "1 "d.w! : 1 ~ 11./
lEGEt4D:
,;,
o 5h;.I"wo 11.'"d
DllfJWrII
5'100
St..ge 3. RecDrd 01 Decision
Pease Air Force Bnse. New HI"'9
(rJ" :.JJ""'''1IOc,'''''''
.... 10111.,,1"1/1
. ..:.::-: ltf'a'.ls(:I',ph:.IIlp,wl"d,
~O..~.cIJOtl"dilry
"
t.-J 1\11"'-"'''')''
~ M.II~h"",f'.,
FIGURE 13
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY
1\(1.10-..11",1..
(UIlf);Jv{!od .lIr,,~)
'/.WE,'J-I
-------
The inorganic compounds detected in Pickering Brook surface water samples that exceeded
the NHDES Freshwater Chronic Criteria (G-403) were aluminum (locations 80lA, 80lB,
8026, and 8027), iron (locations 80lA and 8027), lead (locations 80lA and 8027), nickel
(location 80lA), and zinc (location 80lA). The exceedances for lead, nickel, and zinc were
based on a hardness of 20 mg/L CaC03. The highest concentrations of metals were found
in the upper portion of the drainage area (see Figure 13).
Knights Brook
Knights Brook is located northwest of Site 8, entirely outside the Pease APB boundary. It
originates as several small springs that merge and flow north to Little Bay. The results of
spring water quality sampling are presented in Subsection 1.5.4.3 of the Draft Final Site 8
FS Report (G-611). Surface water and sediment samples were collected at two locations
(8028 and 8029) in the Knights Brook drainage area during June 1991 (see Figure 13). The
analytical results showed the presence of VOCs (toluene) and PAHs in both sediment
sampling locations in Knights Brook. TPHs also were detected at location 8028. Toluene
was not detected in upgradient bedrock wells, and P AHs are relatively immobile in
groundwater and are generally transported short distances via overland flow. Metals were
not detected above ER-L values.
The organic contaminants detected in surtace water samples from Knights Brook were
predominantly pesticides and VOCs. Both contaminant types were detected at sampling
location 8029. The VOC cis-l,2-DCE detected at location 8029 also was detected at
location 8028. Cis-l,2-DCE is a degradation product produced by the dehalogenation of
TCE, and is generally more mobile than TCE. It is suspected that the presence of cis-l,2-
DCE and TCE in surface water samples collected from Knights Brook may be attributable
to Site 8 activities because these contaminants were detected in upgradient Site 8 bedrock
wells. However, pesticides were not detected in upgradient bedrock wells. Metals were not
detected above NHDES Freshwater Chronic Criteria.
MKOl \RPT:00628026.003\siteBrod.txt
59
-------
Springs and Shallow. Dug Wells
Sediment samples were collected from Watering Spring, Pickering Spring, and the Coleman
shallow dug well (see Figure 13). Two VOCS [toluene (60 p.gjkg) and 4-methyl-2-pentanone
(MIBK) (2 J p.gjkg)] were detected in the sediment sample collected from Pickering Spring
(see Subsection 1.5.4.2 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report) (G-611). The MIBK is most
likely due to laboratory contamination. Mercury also was detected in one of the two
sediment samples collected from Pickering Spring, but it is not present in upgradient wells.
Water samples were collected from Watering Spring, Pickering Spring, Frink Spring, and six
off-site shallow dug wells. VOCS were not detected in these water samples, except as
follows.
The VOC cis-1,2-DCE was detected in water samples from Pickering Spring collected in
1988, 1989, 1991, and 1992. Cis-1,2-DCE was not detected in the water sample collected
in 1990. In addition, TCE was detected below the laboratory quantification limit in the
water samples collected during May and June 1991 and January 1992. Cis-1,2-DCE also has
been detected in water samples from Watering Spring. Also, toluene and 4-isopropyltoluene
have been detected in water samples from the Coleman shallow dug well (see Subsection
5.3 of the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report) (G-577). The inorganic compounds detected in
water from one or more sampling locations whose concentrations exceed the NHDES
Freshwater Chronic Criteria were aluminum, iron, lead, and zinc (see Figure 13). Of these
inorganic compounds, the criteria for lead and zinc were based on a hardness of 20 mgjL
CaC03.
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A risk assessment was performed to estimate the probability and magnitude of potential
adverse human health and environmental effects from exposure to contaminants associated
with the site. The risk assessment followed a four-step process:
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\si te8rod.txt
60
-------
1.
Data evaluation and contaminant identification, which identified those
chemicals that, given the specifics of the site, were of significant potential
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 the chemicals of concern.
4.
Risk characterization, which integrated the first three steps to summarize the
potential for cancer and adverse noncancer health effects posed to the
evaluated receptors.
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 number of chemicals of concern (listed in Tables 10 through 16) were selected for
evaluation in the human health risk assessment. The potential risks to human health were
evaluated separately for each medium, in accordance with guidance from EP A Region I.
The media that were considered were soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment. The
soil data were evaluated separately for a hot spot (a former bum area) and the remainder
of the soil (main soil). The groundwater data were assessed separately for the overburden
and bedrock water-bearing zones, and for a hot spot in the overburden. The surface water
and sediment data for Knights and Pickering Brooks also were evaluated separately.
A most reasonable maximally exposed individual (RME) was selected for each medium
based on both current and future land and water uses. The site is currently inactive. Future
land use at Site 8 within the base boundaries was assumed to continue as industrial,
although future residential development may occur off base. The groundwater is not
currently used, but could potentially be used for drinking or other purposes in the future.
The surface water might be used for recreational activities, either currently or in the future.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
61
-------
The current and futute RMEs that were selected for each medium are presented in Table
17. The exposure routes that were considered are presented by medium in Table 18.
Each RME was e,:,aluated for potential cancer and noncancer health effects. The potential
for cancer risk was expressed as the probability of developing cancer over a 70-year lifetime.
Maximum cancer risk is usually regulated at hazardous waste sites in the 10-6 to 10-4 range
(i.e., 1-in-1-million to 1-in-1O,000). Risks of less than 10-6 are not usually of regulatory
concern. The potential for noncancer health risks was expressed as a hazard index. A
hazard index of greater than 1 is usually considered the benchmark for potential concern.
The total lifetime cancer risks and total hazard indices are presented by medium in Tables
19 through 22. Where applicable, the cancer risks and hazard indices were calculated using
three concentrations: the mean, the upper 95% confidence limit of the mean, and the
maximum. Chemicals that exceeded a 10-6 lifetime cancer risk and/or a hazard index of 1
also are indicated in each table. Table 23 provides a summary of chemicals of concern by
medium. For the main soil, the cancer risks ranged from 3 x 10-7 to 9 X 10-5. Dioxins/
furans, PARs, and/or arsenic contributed most of the risk, posing greater than a 10-6 risk
at all exposure concentrations for the future scenarios. The cancer risks calculated for
dioxins/furans are likely to be overestimates of the upper-bound risk. In the absence of
data concerning the presence of the 2,3,7,8- isomers of the penta-, hepta-, and hexa-
chlorinated compounds, it was conservatively assumed that these compounds were present
entirely as the 2,3,7,8- isomers, the only dioxin/furan isomers that are considered to be
potentially carcinogenic. The cancer risks posed by contact with hot spot soil ranged from
1 x 1O.g to 2 X 10-7. There was no apparent risk of noncancer health effects posed by contact
with either main or hot spot soil. The total hazard indices for soil were below 1 at all
exposure concentrations.
Cancer risks based on use of the overburden groundwater for domestic purposes ranged
from 3 x 10-5 to 4 X 10-5 based on either filtered or unfiltered (total) samples. Benzene,
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 1,4-DCB, 1,2-DCA, and vinyl chloride each posed greater than
a 10-6 risk at one or more exposure concentrations. The total hazard indices ranged from
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
62
-------
3 to 20 based on either filtered or unfiltered samples. 1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene exceeded a
hazard index of 10, and naphthalene and manganese (unfiltered and filtered samples)
exceeded a hazard index of 1 at one or more exposure concentrations.
For the bedrock groundwater, cancer risk ranged from 7 x 10-5 to 2 X 10-4 based on filtered
samples, and from 3 x 10-4 to 3 X 10.3 based on unfiltered samples. The highest risk was
posed by arsenic (> 10-4 at several exposure. concentrations). Benzene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate, and 1,2-DCA each posed a > 10-6 risk at one or more exposure concentrations.
The total hazard indices ranged from 1 to 5 based on filtered samples, and from 3 to 40
based on unfiltered samples. Based on the data for unfiltered samples, arsenic and lead
exceeded a hazard index of 10 at the maximum concentration, and had a hazard index of
between 1 and 10 at the other exposure concentrations. Other chemicals that had a hazard
index between 1 and 10 based on the unfiltered data were chromium (as chromium VI),
manganese, and nickel.
Cancer risks for the hot spot groundwater ranged from 1 x 10-1 to 5 X 10-1 based on either
filtered or unfiltered samples. Several chemicals posed a risk of greater than 10-4 each at
one or more exposure concentrations: benzene, 4,4' -DDD, 4-4' -DDT, 1,2-dibromoethane,
TCE, vinyl chloride, and arsenic. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and
methylene chloride each posed a risk between 10-6 and 10-4 at all exposure concentrations.
The total hazard indices for hot spot groundwater ranged from approximately 200 to 400
based on either filtered or unfiltered samples. Chemicals that exceeded a hazard index of
10 at one or more exposure concentrations were 2-methylnaphthalene, naphthalene,
2-nitroaniline, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, and arsenic. A number of other chemicals had hazard
indices between 1 and 10.
The cancer risks posed by surface water and sediment contact were minimal for both
Knights Brook and Pickering Brook. Cancer risks posed by surface water contact ranged
from 5 x 10-8 to 6 X 10-8 for Knights Brook and from 2 x 10.7 to 5 X 10-7 for Pickering Brook.
The cancer risks posed by contact with sediment in Knights Brook was approximately 2 x
10-7 at all exposure concentrations. The cancer risks posed by contact with sediment in
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
63
-------
Pickering Brook ranged from 2 x 10-7 to 4 X 10-7. There is no apparent risk of adverse
noncancer health effects posed by contact with surface water or sediment in Knights Brook
and Pickering Brook. The total hazard indices for surface water and sediment from both
Knights Brook and Pickering Brook were below the criterion of concern of 1.
B. Ecological Risk Assessment
The potential risks to ecological receptors were evaluated for all media at Site 8 for which
the possibility of exposure exists. The media considered were surface soil (0 to 2 ft BGS),
surface water, and sediment. As with the human health risk assessment, soil data were
evaluated separately for the former I-acre burn area (hot. spot) and the remaining 3-acre
site (main site) soil. The potential for adverse impacts on aquatic life was evaluated
separately for the surface water and sediment of Pickering Brook and Knights Brook.
The ecological receptors used to evaluate the potential risks represent species and
communities for which the potential of risk seemed most probable and for which adequate
data exist to determine the likelihood of impact. The receptors and exposure routes
evaluated in the ecological risk assessment are presented in Table 24.
The potential risk posed to ecological receptors (Le., deer mouse, chipping sparrow, and
aquatic communities) was assessed by comparing estimated daily doses or medium-specific
concentrations with critical toxicity values (CTVs) or appropriate medium-specific criteria
values. Hazard quotients were calculated, by contaminant, for each receptor by dividing the
estimated daily intake by the CTV, or, when medium-specific criteria were available,
concentrations were compared directly to cri teria to determine the corresponding hazard
quotient. Hazard quotients were summed across all exposure pathways for each
contaminant, by receptor, to develop specific hazard indices.
A hazard index of less than 1 indicates adverse effects are not likely to occur and no action
is required. A hazard index of greater than 10 indicates that risks are at a level of concern
and action is usually required. A hazard index between 1 and 10 is subject to interpretation
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
64
-------
based on the toxicity of the chemical and the uncertainty in the calculation. The less toxic
the chemical, and the more uncertainty in the risk calculation, the less concern is associated
with hazard indices between 1 and 10.
The total hazard indices for all ecological receptors are presented in Tables 25 and 26. The
hazard indices for ecological receptors were calculated using two concentrations: mean and
maximum, where available. The following paragraphs provide an overview of the findings
of the Site 8 ecological risk assessment and highlight contaminants that contributed
substantially to the total hazard for each receptor.
The total hazard indices for the deer mouse ranged from 9.2 to 88. The primary
contributors to the hazard indices for the main site were lead and dioxinsjfurans in soil and
boron and n-nitrosodiphenylamine in vegetation. The primary chemical of concern at the
hot spot was lead in soil and vegetation.
Total hazard indices for the chipping sparrow ranged from 4.8 to 1.6 x 101. For both the
main site and hot spot, the consumption of potentially contaminated vegetation was the
pathway of greatest concern. The chemicals of concern in surface soil that contributed
substantially to the total hazard indices at the main site were copper and xylenes (total).
Xylenes (total) was the chemical of greatest concern at the hot spot.
Potential risks to aquatic life inhabiting Pickering Brook and ~ghts Brook were evaluat~d
by comparing surface water contaminant concentrations to Ambient Water Quality Criteria
(A WQC), or to aquatic toxicity data when A WQC were not available. The hazard quotients
based on acute and chronic criteria for Pickering Brook and Knights Brook are presented
in Tables 27 and 28, respectively.
The potential risks to aquatic, benthic, and epibenthic life inhabiting the sediments of
Pickering Brook and Knights Brook were assessed by comparing sediment or interstitial
water concentrations to ER-L values or chronic freshwater A WQe. For Pickering Brook,
the following chemicals of concern had hazard quotients (HQs) greater than 1 at maximum
MK01 \ RP'I":OO628026.003\site8rod.txt
65
-------
concentrations: 4,4:-DDE (HQ= 150), 4,4'-DDD (HQ=75), 4,4'-DDT (HQ=34), lead
(HQ=2.1), mercury (HQ= 1.1), and nickel (HQ= 1.1). For Knights Brook, the following
chemicals of concern had hazard quotients greater than 1 at the maximum concentrations:
naphthalene (HQ = 1.6), acenaphthene (HQ = 12), and mercury (HQ = 1.6). The hazard
quotients based on comparisons to NOAA ER-L values or chronic A WQC for Pickering
Brook and Knights Brook are presented in Tables 29 and30, respectively. A more detailed
discussion of the ecological risk assessment is pres~nted in Section 6 of the Draft Final Site
8 and Zone 5 RI Reports (G-577; G-635).
VII. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
A. Statutory Requirements/Response Objectives
Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several statutory requirements and preferences,
includIng the following: 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, requirement's, criteria, or limitations, unless a waiver
is invoked; the remedial action selected must be cost-effective and use 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 toxicity, mobility, or volume (TMV) of the hazardous substances
is a principal element over remedies not involving such treatment. Remedial alternatives
were developed to be consistent with these mandates.
Based on preliminary information relating to types of contaminants, environmental media
of concern, and potential exposure pathways, remedial action objectives (RAOs) were
developed to aid in the development and screening of alternatives. These RAOs were
developed to mitigate existing and future potential threats to human health and the
environment via source control and management of migration of groundwater.
The RAOs for Site 8 were identified as follows:
MKO 1 \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
66
-------
Soil
.
Protect ecological receptors from direct contact with, or ingestion of, soil
containing contaminants in concentrations that may present an unacceptable
risk.
.
Prevent leaching of contaminants from soil to groundwater that would result
in groundwater contamination that may present a health risk (total
carcinogenic risk greater than 10-4, or a hazard index greater than 1).
Groundwater
.
Protect human receptors from ingestion of contaminated groundwater that
may present a health risk (total carcinogenic risk greater than 10-4, or a
hazard index greater than 1).
.
Prevent discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface water bodies where
it may present increased risks to human health and the environment.
B. Technology and AJternative 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 requirements, a range of
alternatives was developed for Site 8.
With respect to source control, the RIjFS developed a range of alternatives in which
treatment that reduces the 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 minimizing to the degree possible the need for
long-term management. This range also included alternatives that treat the principal threats
posed by the site but vary in the degree of treatment employed and the quantities and
characteristics of the treatment residuals and untreated waste that must be managed;
alternatives that involv~ little or no treatment but provide protection through engineering
or institutional controls; and a no-action alternative.
In Section 3 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-61l), technologies were identified,
assessed, and screened based on implementability, effectiveness, and cost. These
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
67
-------
technologies were placed in the categories identified in Section 300.430(e)(3) of the NCP.
Section 4 of the Site 8 Draft Final FS Report (G-611) presents the remedial alternatives
developed by combining the technologies. The purpose of the initial screening was to
reduce the num~er of potential remedial actions for further detailed analysis while
preserving a range of options. The alternatives retained after the initial screening are
evaluated in detail in Section 5 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611).
Eight alternatives were retained for detailed analysis. Table 31 identifies the eight
alternatives that were identified through the screening process.
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
This subsection describes each alternative evaluated. A detailed tabular assessment of each
alternative is presented in Tables 5.2-1 through 5.2-8 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report
(G-611).
Alternative 1
The no-action/institutional control alternative for Site 8 is limited to the following site
access restrictions and institutional controls:
.
Placement of a security fence and warning signs around the site.
.
Long-term environmental monitoring, including groundwater, surface water,
and sediment sampling and analysis.
.
Placement of deed restrictions on future land development and use of
groundwater at the site. The restrictions would remain in effect for several
decades.
.
Attachment of easements restricting groundwater use on off-base properties
where groundwater contaminants at concentrations exceeding cleanup goals
can be traced to the contaminant source area at Site 8. The easements would
restrict the use of contaminated groundwater and allow access to properties
as necessary for performance of monitoring or remedial actions.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
68
-------
.
Extension of a public drinking water system to off-base properties where
groundwater contaminants at concentrations exceeding cleanup goals can be
traced to the contaminant source area at Site 8. (Note: Monitoring of
residential wells, to date, does not indicate the presence of Site 8
contaminants; however, this precaution is considered necessary for this
alternative. )
No treatment of soil or groundwater, nor recovery of free-phase product, is involved in this
response action. Removal of contaminants would occur only by mechanisms of natural
attenuation, such as biodegradation, volatilization, and dilution.
Alternative 2
Estimated time for design and construction: 6 months.
Estimated period of operation: 30 years.
Estimated capital cost: $313,000.
Estimated operation and maintenance (O&M) cost (net present worth):
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $1,340,000.
$1,113,305.
This alternative would consist of the following components:
.
Management of migration in the downgradientoverburden and bedrock
water-bearing zones. The groundwater recovery system would be designed to
prevent continued downgradient migration of dissolved-phase groundwater
contamination that exceeds cleanup goals. The combined pumping rate of the
overburden and bedrock recovery systems is estimated to exceed 40 gpm.
.
Construction and operation of an on-site GWTP to treat groundwater
extracted for management of migration. The proposed GWTP was designed
to accommodate a maximum flow of 60 gallons per minute (gpm). The
treatment processes to be employed in the GWTP are discussed in detail in
Section 5 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611). Treated groundwater
would be discharged to subsurface recharge trenches. Effluent from the
proposed GWfP would comply with the requirements of Env- Ws 410 for a
groundwater remediation system. Effluent would be monitored for selected
compounds at a frequency agreed to during remedial design.
.
Placement of a security fence and warning signs around the source area.
.
Placement of institutional controls restricting future land development and use
of groundwater.
69
MK01 \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
-------
Alternative 3
.
Long.term environmental monitoring, including groundwater, surface water,
and sediment sampling and analysis.
Estimated time for design and construction: 12 months.
Estimated period of operation: 30 years.
Estimated capital cost: $1,189,500.
Estimated O&M cost (net present worth): $5,445,000.
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $6,635,000.
This alternative would consist of the following components:
.
Construction of a groundwater/free-phase product recovery trench
downgradient of the free-phase product plume to minimize off-site migration
of contaminated overburden groundwater and free-phase product. It is
estimated that the trench would recover a maximum of 2 gpm of groundwater.
.
Installation of approximately 40 product recovery wells in areas where the
greatest amounts of free-phase product have been detected. It is estimated
that dual-phase pumps would be installed in 10 of the wells, and product
skimming pumps would be installed in the remaining wells. Based on the rate
at which product has been recovered during the IRM, it is estimated that a
maximum of 20 gallons per day (gpd) of product would be recovered by the
product recovery wells. It is estimated that 0.10 gpm of groundwater would
be extracted by each of the dual-phase pumping systems.
.
Off-base treatment/disposal of recovered free-phase product.
.
Management of migration in the downgradient overburden and bedrock
water-bearing zones. The groundwater recovery system would be designed to
prevent continued downgradient migration of dissolved-phase groundwater
contamination that exceeds cleanup goals.
.
Construction and operation of an on-site GWTP to treat groundwater
extracted for management of migration. Treated groundwater would be
discharged to subsurface recharge trenches.
.
Placement of a security fence and warning signs around the source area.
.
Placement of institutional controls on future land development and use of
groundwater at the site.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
70
-------
.
Long-term environmental monitoring, including groundwater, surface water,
and sediment sampling and analysis.
Institutional controls and access restrictions, including fencing and deed restrictions, would
be implemented as described for Alternative 2. Management of dissolved contaminant
migration in downgradient overburden and bedrock groundwater would be implemented as
for Alternative 2. Environmental monitoring proposed for this alternative would be
implemented as described in Appendix G of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611).
Alternative 4
Estimated time for design and construction: 8 to 12 months.
Estimated period of operation: 30 years.
Estimated capital cost: $1,830,300.
Estimated O&M cost (net present worth): $6,016,000.
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $7,846,000.
Alternative 4 includes the following components:
.
In situ SVE of source area soil contaminated at concentrations above cleanup
goals, and treatment of extracted soil vapor for removal of volatilized
orgarucs.
.
Construction of an asphaltic concrete cap (blacktop pavement) to minimize
rainfall and snowmelt infiltration into the area of SVE treatment. The cap
will aid in lowering the water table.
.
Construction of groundwater jfree-phase product recovery trenches
downgradient of the free-phase product plume as a contingency measure. The
trenches would only be installed in the unlikely event that free-phase product
begins to migrate away from the source area.
.
Recovery and off-base disposal of free-phase product floating on the water
table in the source area.
.
Management of migration in the downgradient overburden water-bearing
zone. The groundwater recovery system will be designed to capture dissolved-
phase overburden groundwater contaminants whose concentrations exceed
cleanup goals, and designed to prevent continued migration of contaminated
groundwater to the bedrock water-bearing zone.
71
MKOI \RPT;OO628026.003\site8rod.txt
-------
Alternative 5
.
Construction of a new GWTP for long-term treatment of recovered
groundwater because of an increase in the volume of extracted groundwater.
Treated groundwater would be discharged to subsurface recharge trenches.
Environmental monitoring during remedial operations.
.
.
Perform long-term environmental monitoring, including groundwater, surface
water, and sediment sampling and analysis.
Estimated time for design and construction: 18 months.
Estimated period of operation: 30 years.
Estimated capital cost: $7,257,596.
Estimated O&M cost (net present worth): $6,117,375.
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $13,374,971.
This alternative includes the same source area remedial action as the preferred alternative
(Alternative 4), but the management of migration action includes the extraction of
overburden and bedrock groundwater rather than overburden groundwater only as for
Alternative 4. This alternative would consist of the following components:
.
In situ SVE treatment of source area soil contaminated at concentrations
above cleanup goals, and treatment of extracted soil vapor for removal of
volatilized organics.
.
Construction of an asphaltic concrete cap to minimize rainfall and snowmelt
infiltration into the area of SVE treatment. The cap would aid in lowering
the groundwater table.
.
Recovery and off-base disposal of free-phase product floating on the water
table in the source area.
.
Management of migration in the downgradient overburden and bedrock
water-bearing zones. The groundwater recovery system would be designed to
prevent continued downgradient migration of dissolved-phase groundwater
contamination that exceeds cleanup goals.
.
Construction and operation of an on-site GWTP to treat groundwater
extracted for management of migration. Treated groundwater would be
discharged to subsurface recharge trenches.
72
MK01 \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod,txt
-------
.
Environmental monitoring during remedial operations.
.
Long-term environmental monitoring, including groundwater, surface water,
and sediment sampling and analysis.
Institutional controls would be implemented in the same manner as for Alternative 2. Site
access restrictions and deed restrictions would remain in-place until sampling and analysis
confirmed that remedial actions had eliminated the need for restrictions. Environmental
monitoring also would be implemented as described for Alternative 1. Because of the
aggressive remedial actions associated with Alternative 5, the duration of environmental
monitoring likely would be shorter for Alternative 5 than for Alternative 1.
Alternative 6
Estimated time for design and construction: 12 months.
Estimated period of operation: 30 years.
Estimated capital cost: $5,720,000.
Estimated O&M cost (net present worth): $8,169,569.
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $13,890,000.
This alternative would include the following components:
.
Excavation and ex situ, solid-phase biological/vapor extraction treatment of
former burn area soil contaminated at concentrations in excess of cleanup
goals. An estimated 42,000 yd3 of former burn area soil are contaminated at
concentrations above cleanup goals and thus require treatment. To access
and remove all former burn area soil requiring treatment, an estimated
175,000 yd3 of soil would be excavated. This alternative also would involve
treatment of offgas for removal of volatilized organics, and on-site backfilling
of treated soil into the former burn area excavation.
.
Extraction, treatment, and disposal of groundwater and free-phase product in
the bottom of the open excavation for a period of approximately 6 months.
A groundwater/product mixture would be pumped from the excavation at a
rate of approximately 25 gpm. It is estimated that this pumping rate would
lower the water table in the excavation by a maximum of 2 feet.
73
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod. tX!
-------
.
In situ SVE treatment of vadose zone soil in the migrating free-phase product
zone. Treatment of extracted soil vapor for removal of volatilized organics
also would be involved in this alternative.
.
Management of migration in the downgradient overburden and bedrock
water-bearing zones. The groundwater recovery system would be designed to
capture dissolved-phase groundwater contamination that exceeds cleanup
goals.
.
Construction and operation of an on-site GWfP to treat groundwater
extracted as part of the excavation dewatering and management of migration
remedial actions. The unit processes are discussed in detail in Section 5 of
the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611). Treated groundwater would be
discharged to subsurface recharge trenches.
.
Environmental monitoring during remedial operations.
.
Long-term environmental monitoring, including groundwater, surface water,
and sediment sampling and analysis.
Institutional controls would be implemented in the same manner as for Alternative 2. Site
access restrictions and deed restrictions would remain in-place until sampling and analysis
confirmed that cleanup goals in restricted media had been attained. Environmental
monitoring also would be implemented as described in Appendix G of the Draft Final Site
8 FS Report (G-611). Owing to the remedial actions associated with Alternative 6, the
duration of environmental monitoring likely would be considerably shorter for Alternative
6 than for Alternative 1.
Estimated time for design and construction: 12 months.
Estimated period of operation: 30 years.
Estimated capital cost: $18,430,300.
Estimated O&M cost (net present worth): $6,876,000.
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $25,306,000.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
74
-------
Alternative 7
This alternative would include the following components:
.
Excavation and on-site thermal desorption of former burn area soil with
contaminant concentrations that exceed cleanup goals.
.
Excavation and stockpiling of. soil not requiring treatment that must be
removed to access soil requiring treatment.
.
Extraction, treatment, and disposal of ponded groundwater and free-phase
product in the bottom of the open excavation for a period of approximately
6 months.
.
In situ SVE treatment of vadose zone soil in the migrating free-phase product
zone, and treatment of extracted soil vapor for removal of volatilized organics.
.
Management of migration in the downgradient overburden and bedrock
water-bearing zones. The groundwater recovery system would be designed to
capture dissolved-phase groundwater contamination that exceeds cleanup
goals.
.
Construction and operation of an on-site GWTP to treat groundwater
extracted as part of the excavation dewatering and management of migration
remedial actions. Treated groundwater would be discharged to subsurface
recharge trenches.
.
Off-base treatment/disposal of recovered floating product at an approved
transport, storage, and disposal (TSD) facility.
.
Environmental monitoring during remedial operations.
.
Long-term environmental monitoring, including groundwater, surface water,
and sediment sampling and analysis.
.
Stabilization of treated soil that failed Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) testing for metals.
.
Backfilling of treated and stabilized soil into the excavation.
.
Backfilling of soil not requiring treatment, whose excavation is incidental to
the removal of soil requiring treatment.
75
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
-------
This alternative is similar to Alternative 6, with the exception that thermal desorption would
be substituted for bioremediationjvapor excavation as the ex situ soil treatment process.
Excavation, screening, segregation, and stockpiling of former bum area soil would be
implemented as described for Alternative 6, with the following exception. Soil would be
removed from the excavation at a rate equal to the rate of soil treatment (Le., approximately
200 yd3 jday) by the on-site thermal desorption units. This would avoid stockpiling 30,000
to 40,000 yd3 of contaminated soil awaiting treatment outside of the excavation. Treated
soil would be stockpiled until completion of the excavation dewatering remedial action.
Institutional controls would be implemented in the same manner as for Alternative 2. Site
access restrictions and deed restrictions would remain in-place until sampling and analysis
confirmed that remedial actions had eliminated the need for restrictions. Environmental
monitoring also would be implemented as described in Appendix G of the Draft Final Site
8 FS Report (G-611). Because of the remedial actions associated with Alternative 7, the
duration of environmental monitoring likely would be considerably shorter for Alternative
7 than for Alternative 1.
Estimated time for design and construction: 18 months.
Estimated period of operation: 30 years.
Estimated capital cost: $27,271,400.
Estimated O&M cost (net present worth): $6,091,000.
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $33,362,000.
Alternative 8
This alternative would include the following components:
.
Excavation and on-site thermal desorption of all source area soil with
contaminant concentrations that exceed cleanup goals.
Excavation and stockpiling of soil not requiring treatment that must be
removed to access soil requiring treatment.
.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
76
-------
.
Extraction, treatment, and disposal of ponded groundwater and free-phase
product ponded in the bottom of the open excavations for a period of
approximately 6 months.
.
Management of migration in the downgradient overburden and bedrock
water-bearing zones. The groundwater recovery system would be designed to
capture dissolved-phase groundwater contamination that exceeds cleanup
goals.
.
Construction and operation of an on-site GWfP to treat groundwater
extracted as part of the excavation dewatering and management of migration
remedial actions. Treated groundwater would be discharged to subsurface
recharge trenches.
.
Off-base treatment/disposal of recovered floating product at an approved
TSD facility.
.
Environmental monitoring during remedial operations.
.
Long-term environmental monitoring, including groundwater, surface water,
and sediment sampling and analysis.
.
Stabilization of treated soil that failed TCLP testing for metals.
.
Backfilling of treated and stabilized soil into the excavation.
.
Backfilling of soil not requiring treatment, whose excavation is essenti<;J.I to the
removal of soil requiring treatment.
.
Environmental monitoring and controls during remedial operations.
Alternative 8 is identical to Alternative 7, with the exception that soil in the migrating
floating product zone (Le., product that has migrated downgradient of the former burn
areas) would be excavated and treated by thermal desorption rather than treated in situ by
SVE.
The excavation and stockpiling of source area soil would be as described for Alternative 6,
except that the volume of contaminated soil removed would be 59,000 yd3 and the
excavation would be performed in two stages. The initial stage of excavation would involve
the same excavation area volume and procedures as described for Alternative 7. It is
77
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
-------
estimated that approximately 17,000 yd3 of contaminated soil would be excavated and
treated during the second stage.
Estimated time for design and construction: 30 months.
Estimated period of operation: 30 years.
Estimated capital cost: $35,616,100.
Estimated O&M cost (net present worth): $5,057,000.
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $40,674,000.
IX. SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Section 121(b)(1) of CERCLA presents several factors that must be considered when
assessing remedial alternatives. Building on these specific statutory mandates, the NCP has
promulgated nine evaluation criteria to be used in assessing individual remedial alternatives.
A detailed analysis was performed on the alternatives using the nine evaluation criteria to
select a site remedy. A summary of the comparison of each alternative's strengths and
weaknesses with respect to the nine evaluation criteria is presented as follows and tabulated
in Table 32 in Appendix E. A detailed comparison of alternatives is presented in Section
5 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611).
Threshold Criteria
The two threshold criteria that follow must be met for the remedial alternatives to be
eligible for selection in accordance with the NCP:
1.
Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether a
remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed through
each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment,
engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs) addresses whether a remedy will meet all of the ARARs or other
federal and state environmental laws, and/or will provide grounds for
invoking a waiver.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
78
-------
Primarv Balancine Criteria
The following five criteria are used to compare and evaluate the elements of one alternative
to another that meet the threshold criteria:
3.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence addresses the criteria that are used to
assess alternatives for the long-term effectiveness and permanence they afford,
along with the degree of certainty that they will prove successful.
4.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume (TMV) through treatment addresses
the degree to which alternatives employ recycling or treatment that reduces
the TMV of contaminants, including how treatment is used to address the
principal threats posed by the site.
5.
Short-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 construction and implementation period, until
cleanup goals are achieved.
6.
Implementability addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of a
remedy, including the availability of materials and services needed to
implement a particular option.
7.
Cost includes estimated capital, operation and maintenance (O&M), and
present-worth costs.
Modifyin~ Criteria
The modifying criteria that are used in the final evaluation of remedial alternatives,
generally after public comments on the RI and FS Reports and Proposed Plan are received,
are as follows:
8.
State acceptance addresses the state's position and key concerns related to the
preferred alternative and other alternatives, and the state's comments on
ARARs or the proposed use of waivers.
9.
Community acceptance addresses the public's general response to the
alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and RI and FS Reports.
79
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod,txt
-------
A detailed tabular assessment of each alternative according to the nine criteria is presented
in Tables 5.2-1 through 5.2-8 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611).
Following the detailed analysis of each alternative, a comparative analysis, focusing on the
relative performance of each alternative against the nine criteria, was conducted. This
comparative analysis is summarized in Table 32.
The following subsections describe the nine criteria, including the two modifying criteria not
discussed in the Draft' Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611); a brief narrative summary of the
alternatives; and the alternatives' strengths and weaknesses according to the detailed and
comparative analysis.
A. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses how an alternative as
a whole will protect human health and the environment. This includes an assessment of
how human health and environmental risks are properly eliminated, reduced, or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) for remediating contamination at the site is
designed to provide overall protection by preventing continued leaching of contaminants
from soil containing contaminant concentrations exceeding cleanup goals into the
groundwater. This will be accomplished by removing VOCs from soil via SVE and by
recovering free-phase product using the skimmer pumps and, potentially, the groundwater
recovery trench. Alternative 4 also is designed to prevent further migration of contaminated
groundwater via groundwater extraction. All the other alternatives, except the no-
action/institutional control alternative (Alternative 1), also are protective of human health
and the environment.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod. txt
80
-------
B. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Compliance with ARARs addresses whether a remedy complies with all state and federal
environmental and public health laws and requirements that apply or are relevant and
appropriate to the conditions and cleanup options at a specific site. If an ARAR cannot be
met, the reasons must be clearly stated and a waiver may be required.
With the exception of the no-action alternative (Alternative 1), all the other alternatives that
received detailed analysis in the FS would meet the ARARs. The no-action alternative
would not meet ARARs because it would potentially allow continued migration of
contaminants from the highly contaminated source area groundwater and soil away from the
site.
C. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of an alternative to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment over time once the cleanup goals
have been met.
All the alternatives, except the no-action/institutional control alternative (Alternative 1),
would provide long-term effectiveness because they all include removing and/or treating the
contamination from source area soil. Alternative 1, the no-action/institutional control
alternative, is not considered permanent or effective in the long term.
D. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of Contaminants Through Treatment
Reduction of TMV of contaminants through treatment includes the three principal measures
of the overall performance of an alternative. The 1986 amendments to the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) emphasize that, whenever possible, a
remedy should be selected that uses a treatment process to permanently reduce the level
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
81
-------
of toxicity of contaplinants at the site, the spread of contaminants away from the source of
contamination, and the volume or amount of contamination at the site.
All the source control alternatives, except Alternative 1 (the no-action/institutional control
alternative), reduce, to some' extent, the TMV of contaminants because they all include
either soil treatment and/or groundwater migration control.
E. Short-Term Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness refers to the likelihood of adverse impacts on human health or the
environment that may be posed during the construction and implementation of an
alternative until cleanup goals are achieved.
All of the alternatives retained for detailed analysis in the FS would be effective in the short
term. Because of the potential for release of contaminants through volatilization during
excavation activities, however, special engineering precautions would be taken to minimize
the potential for contaminant emissions to ensure short-term protection of workers and
nearby residents during cleanup-related construction activities. Because Alternatives 4 and
5 require no large-scale excavations and have less risk of contaminant emissions, these
alternatives rated higher than Alternatives 6, 7, and 8, which do include large-scale
excavation and handling of highly contaminated soil.
F. Implementability
Implementability refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of an alternative,
including the availability of materials and services needed to implement the alternative.
All the alternatives in the detailed analysis are implementable and have been used
successfully at other sites. However, potential difficulties in staging soil in the excavation
alternatives (Alternatives 6, 7, and 8) could prove to be extremely difficult because of the
larger quantities of soil and the limited area available to stage the soil on-site.
MK01 \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
82
-------
G. Cost
The estimated present-worth costs of the alternatives are shown in Table 33.
H. State Acceptance
NHDES has been involved in oversight of the study of Pease AFB since the mid-1980s, as
summarized in Section II of this document. The RI was performed with an Air Force lead,
with state and EP A oversight in accordance with the FF A. NHDES has reviewed the Draft
Final Site 8 Proposed Plan (G-679) and concurs with the selected remedy. A copy of the
Declaration of Concurrence is presented as Appendix B.
I. Community Acceptance
The comments received during the public comment period and the public hearing on the
Proposed Plan and FS Report are summarized in the Responsiveness Summary (Appendix
C). The selected remedy has not been significantly modified from that presented in the
Proposed Plan.
X. THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy (Alternative 4) is comprehensive in tha! it provides for source control
and management of migration, and it also contributes to the overall attainment of Site 8
objectives. The components of this alternative involve:
.
In situ SVE treatment of source area soil contaminated at concentrations
exceeding cleanup goals, and treatment of extracted soil vapor for removal
of volatilized organics.
.
Construction of an asphaltic concrete cap to minimize rainfall and snowmelt
infiltration into the area of SVE treatment. The cap will help to minimize the
moisture content of the soil to be treated by SVE.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
83
-------
.
Recovery and off-base disposal of free-phase product floating on the water
table in the source area.
.
Management of migration in the downgradient overburden water.-bearing
zone. The groundwater recovery system will be desi~ed to capt,!re dlss01ved-
phase contaminant overburden groundwater that IS contamInated above
cleanup goals, and to prevent migration of contaminated groundwater to the
bedrock water-bearing zone.
Construction of an on-site GWfP for long-term treatment of recovered
groundwater. Treated groundwater will be discharged to subsurface recharge
trenches.
.
.
Environmental monitoring, such as groundwater sampling, groundwater
elevation monitoring, surface water (including wetlands) monitoring, and soil
contamination monitoring, during remedial operations.
.
Long-term environmental monitoring, including groundwater, surface water,
and sediment sampling and analysis.
Figure 14 is a schematic diagram of the remedial processes employed in Alternative 4.
Institutional controls will be implemented in the same manner as for Alternative 2, as
described in the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611). Site access restrictions and deed
restrictions will remain in-place until sampling and analysis confirmed that remedial actions
had eliminated the need for restrictions. Environmental monitoring also will be
implemented as described in Appendix G of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611).
Soil VaDor Extraction of Source Area Soil
SVE will be implemented in Site 8 vadose zone soil that has contaminant concentrations
that exceed cleanup goals. Most of the soil contaminated in excess of cleanup goals is in
the vicinity of the water table, at approximately 21 to 25 ft BGS, and is contaminated with
floating free-phase product, or is smeared with product constituents as a result of seasonal
water table fluctuations. Soil cleanup goals also are exceeded in the 0- to 15-ft-BGS zone
in areas of Site 8 where contaminants were discharged at the ground surface.
MKOI \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
84
-------
, I
!
. i
Source Control
,-------,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L______----1
. ,
.' I
, I
All
Source Area
Soils
(59.000 CY)
. ,
.
. I
n
:1
1\
{ I
Source Area
Groundwater and
Free-Phase
Product
. !
; I
. I
Management
of Migration
,-------,
I
I
I
I
I
L______----1
. ,
I
I
Downgrodient
Overburden
Groundwater
. ;
I """
"\IIIOTMf\~f1QI5l-.sDII'C'/III"
I
I Asphalt Cap to Passive Air
I
I Minimize Infiltration Supply Wells
I
I
I ~-
I In-Situ , Moisture Oxidation .
I Soil Vapor Extraction Separation J of Organics
I (If Necessary)
I
I
I
I free-Phose Product
I
I
I
I
I Product - Oil/Water Temporary "
I Recovery Wells Separation Storage )
Pretreated Groundwoter I
Condensate Water
,
I Residuol,
I Chemical Precipitation Air Stripping liquid Phose
I Overburden and Filtration to Remove Corban Adsorption .
Recovery for Iron and Volotile to Remove
I Wells Mongonese Removal Orgonic Compounds Non-Volotile Organics
I
Oil-Go...
Vopor-Phose .
Carbon Adsorption
(If Necessary)
11
Discharge
To
Atmosphere
To RCRA
Approved
Incinerotion
F ocility
Off-Site
Disposal in
RCRA Subtitle
D Londfill
To Subsurfoce
Recharge
Trenches
Discharge
To
Atmosphere
'-~I
SUe 8 (FDTA-2)
Stage 3, Record of Decision
Pease Air Force Bose, New Hampshire
FIGURE 14
REMEDIAL PROCESS FLOW SHEET
ALTERNATIVE 4
-------
SVE removes volatile contaminants from the subsurface by mechanically drawing air
through the pore spaces of the vadose zone soil. The increased flow of air through soil
pores enhances volatilization of organic compounds and results in movement of organic
vapors through the soil to extraction vents. The extraction vents are connected to a vacuum
blower system that draws the contaminant-laden airstream to the surface. The airstream is
typically treated for removal of contaminants prior to discharge to the atmosphere.
SVE has several advantages over other available technologies for remediation of VOC-
contaminated soil:
.
SVE is an in situ method that has the potential for treating large volumes of
soil at reasonable costs in comparison to other available technologies.
.
SVE systems are relatively easy to install and use standard, readily available
equipment. This allows for rapid mobilization and implementation of
remedial actions.
.
SVE systems are generally relatively simple in design.
A pilot-scale SVE treatability study was conducted at Site 8 during April, May, and June
1993. The results of the study indicate that SVE will be effective in remediating vadose
zone soil at Site 8 that is contaminated at concentrations that exceed cleanup goals. The
objectives of the treatability study included:
.
Determination of whether soil deeper than 15 ft BGS has sufficient
permeability to allow enhanced movement of contaminant-laden soil vapor to
the extraction vents.
.
Collection of site-specific data to estimate the rate at which SVE will remove
contaminants from the subsurface.
.
Determination of the types of organic contaminants that SVE will remove
from the subsurface at Site 8.
.
Collection of site-specific data necessary to evaluate the implementability and
cost of SVE at Site 8.
87
MKOI \RYT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
-------
Typical SVE systemS consist of an array of vents in the area of the unsaturated (vadose)
zone requiring remediation. These vents are manifolded to blowers or vacuum pumps.
Valves connected to each pipe provide the flexibility to withdraw air from specific areas or
at different air flow rates.
Extracted soil vapors are normally pretreated prior to passing through blower and the
emission control systems. Water droplets and particulate matter are removed via gravity by
decreasing the velocity of the vapor stream in air/water separators. The vapor exiting the
air/water separator passes through a filter, blower or vacuum pump, and an air emissions
treatment unit prior to discharge to the atmosphere. The air emissions from the SVE
system will be treated to comply with NHDES regulations.
The final design of a full-scale SVE system for Site 8 will be based on the pilot testing
conducted at the site. The system will consist of SVE vents; passive air supply vents; and
manifold, blower, and air emission control systems.
A low-permeability cap, constructed of asphaltic concrete, will be placed over the area to
be treated by SVE, excluding the area within the Newington Town Forest. An evaluation
of the capping scenario using a numerical model calibrated to conditions at Site 8 indicates
that the cap will result in a lowering of the water table in the soil to be treated by
approximately 12 to 18 inches. This will allow the SVE system to provide treatment to soil
in the smear zone that would have otherwise been below the water table. The runoff
generated by the asphalt cap will be controlled by detention basins, swales, and other
surface drainage structures as shown in Figure 15.
Operational monitoring of the SVE system will include monthly sampling and analysis of
vapor extracted from the subsurface by the SVE system. The relative concentration of
VOCs in the vapor will be measured with a photoionization detector (e.g., HNu) or flame
ionization detector ( e.g., OVA) and recorded. If the concentration of VOCs in the vapor
decreases to nondetectable levels, or if the concentration stabilizes at a low concentration
,
soil samples in the contaminated areas will be collected and analyzed for VOCs. If the soil
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
88
-------
, .
- ,
.....-
......-
--,~~
........
po, ~..
---
...
,. ,
, .\
. .
-.,..-
@;6022
~'-'
~~
~
'-
J~~A"':::
~
NOf!TH
,.
'00
Siage ~lte B (FTDA-2)
Pease Air F ,Record 01 Deel I
oree Base, New H~~n
SVE LOW ~~URE 15 pshlre
DRAIN~GMEEABILITY CAP
PLAN
SaM Mlp s:::,ALE IN FEET
~;:a~ ~::: d'OO,lmrN1!JC
proo!OO'.~ :~~~:~
-------
sample analytical results indicate tbat cleanup goals have been achieved, the source control
remedial action to address soil contamination will be considered complete. If VOC
concentrations in the soil are not below cleanup goals, additional remedial actions or
modification of the SVE system to enhance treatment will be considered. It is expected that
the soil cleanup goals will be achieved within 5 years based on the estimated mass of
contamination and the estimated vapor extraction rates.
Recovery and OfT-Base Disposal of Free-Phase Product
Recovery of free-phase product from source area wells will be implemented in a similar
manner as for Alternative 3, as described in the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611).
Passive air supply vents screened through a product layer and the water table will be used
as wells for product extr,action. Product would be recovered from all passive vents with
floating product layers thick enough for skimming or dual-phase pumping. Criteria for use
of dual-phase or skimmer pumps will be the same as discussed for Alternative 3, as
described in the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611). Oil/water separation, on-site
product storage, and off-base product disposal will be implemented as discussed previously
for Alternative 3. Groundwater/floating free-phase product recovery trenches may be
installed downgradient of the free-phase product plume as a contingency measure. The
trenches would only be installed in the unlikely event that free-phase product begins to
migrate away from the source area as a result of operation of the SVE system. The free-
phase product will be monitored with monitor wells. If free-phase product is seen in these
monitor wells, the recovery trenches will be installed to intercept floating product.
Manal:ement of Mi&ration in the DOWD&radient Overburden Water-Bearin~ Zone
The management of migration component of this alternative will involve the collection of
overburden groundwater outside the source area that contains contaminant concentrations
that exceed cleanup goals. Groundwater extraction. and subsequent treatment will effectively
minimize further migration of the dissolved-phase contaminant plume in the downgradient
overburden water-bearing zone. The overburden wells that will be used for extraction will
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.txt
91
-------
be in the vicinity of wells 562A and 566. The locations of these wells are shown in
Figure 16.
The design of the ~anagement of migration groundwater extraction system will be prepared
using a three-dimensional groundwater flow model incorporating data from the Draft Final
Site 8 RI Report (G-577) and performance data from the on-site GWfP.
The overburden recovery wells are located upgradient of the zone where contaminated
overburden groundwater appears to migrate to the bedrock water-bearing zone. [The
hydrologic connection between the overburden and bedrock water-bearing zones at Site 8
is discussed in Subsection 1.6.2.2 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611)]. As a result,
the management of migration groundwater recovery system for this alternative will be
designed to prevent migration of contaminated groundwater to the bedrock water-bearing
zone. Following implementation of this alterp.ative, and the subsequent elimination of the
source of dissolved-phase contaminant migration to the bedrock water-bearing zone,
contaminants present in excess of cleanup goals in the bedrock water-bearing zone will
attenuate naturally. The Air Force will verify through the submittal of periodic data
evaluations and 5-year reviews to EP A and NHDES that the cleanup of the overburden and
bedrock zones is progressing. If the data indicate that the cleanup of the bedrock zone 'is
not progressing, then the Air Force will implement a bedrock groundwater recovery system.
Groundwater Treatment
Groundwater will be treated by a new GWTP to be constructed at Site 8. Wherever
possible, the new GWfP will use equipment from the pilot GWfP. The treatment
processes employed at the GWfP will be chemical precipitation, filtration, air stripping, and
activated carbon adsorption. A schematic diagram of the GWfP is presented in Figure 17.
Dissolved-phase contaminants designated for remedial action at Site 8 consist of VOCS
,
SVOCs, metals, and pesticides.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.txt
92
-------
,,? /'
r/
#/
1/
~~/
~(/
,,~/
~/
//
//
//
//
/
@6D22
o
o
) LEGEND
) @ OVERBURDEN RECOVERY wELL
@ BEDROCK WELL
/
./
--
. VAPOR EXTRACTION WELL
o
PASSIVE AJR SUPPLY WELL
'..... ~~~UNDWATER TRANS,",'SSION
~ F"ENCE
C () EXTENT OF" F"REE-PHASE
G PRODUCT
O GROUNDWATER RECOVERY
WELLS
~~
~ apl.rwa
o :10 H»
I I I Pea.. ArB
~lNn[T
---
~-., ............
,..,.. "- ~~~....... "/1J~.
P:\"1MI\~nm-7.P8Q
Site B (FTDA-2)
Stage 3, Record 01 Decision
Paase Air Force Ba88, New Hampshire
FIGURE 16
APPROXIMATE SVE SYSTEM LAYOUT
ALTERNATIVE 4
",...
-------
.' .
~ 1
rI
. I
,. ,
\ I
I I
r I
i I
, ,
\. i
Over
Exlracti
Prel
Groundw
Dual
Pumpin
Recave
"\*"""~~-.D8IC
Off -Site
Corban Regeneration
I
Vapor Phose
Activated Carbon to
Remove Volotile
Organic Com~~)nds
JCIf Necessa
Vapor Phose
burden
on Wells Chemical Air
I 8ag .J
Precipitation -" Filtration Stripping I
Holding Tank for Iron and
I Manganese Removal
Uquid Phase
reated . Sludge
ater from
Phose liquid-Phose
g Producl c Activated Carbon 10 -"'-
o
ry Wells ~ Sludge Remove Non-Volatile
a Thickening Organic Compounds
0
E
ii:
Off-Site
Corbon Regeneration
Sludge
'-- Dewolering
~
,~
Discharge
To
Atmosphere
Dischorge
To
Subsurface
Recharge
Trenches
Off-Sile
Disposol in
RCRA
Sublitle D
Landfill
She 8 (FDT A.2)
Siage 3, Record 01 Decision
Pea", Air Force Bose, New Hamp.hlre-
FIGURE 17
GROUNDWATER TREATMENT PLANT
SCHEMATIC . ALTERNATIVE 4
8/"/H
-------
GWTP Metals Removal
Metals removal from the GWTP influent is required to prevent fouling of the GWfP air
stripping and carbon adsorption units. Iron and manganese concentrations of less than 1
and 0.5 mgjL, respectively, are required for optimal operating conditions. Chemical
precipitation and coagulation followed by filtration will continue to be used for metals
removal prior to air stripping.
Sludge will be pumped from the bottom of the clarifier to a holding tank for thickening.
Supernatant from the thickener will be routed to the influent holding tank for reprocessing.
Thickened sludge will be dewatered in a filter press. The sludge will typically consist of iron
and manganese hydroxides and is expected to pass TCLP testing; however, dewatered sludge
would be analyzed for hazardous levels of inorganics and organics as specified by RCRA.
Sludge will be disposed of off base in accordance with federal and state regulations.
Clarifier effluent will be routed through filters for removal of suspended solids that do not
settle in the clarifier.
These unit processes will reduce metals concentrations in the extracted groundwater to meet
discharge criteria. Some organics also may be removed during chemical precipitation and
filtration.
GWTP Or2anics Removal
Organics will be removed from the GWfP process water stream via air stripping and
activated carbon adsorption. Air stripping is a relatively inexpensive, yet effective, means
of removing VOCs from the aqueous phase. The air stripping unit will consist of a column
containing plastic packing media or will consist of a stack of aerated trays. The air stripper
is expected to remove 97% to greater than 99% of VOCs from the contaminated
groundwater. Pease AFB has approval from the NHDES Division of Air Resources to emit
VOCs from the existing Site 8 pilot GWfP air stripper without treatment. Based on
conversations with NHDES, it is assumed that for long-term operation of the GWfP, air
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
97
-------
stripper emissions"will not require treatment prior to discharge to the atmosphere and will
still comply with federal and state ARARs. However, final determination on the need for
air emissions control will be made by NHDES during remedial design.
Liquid-phase activated carbon adsorption will continue to be employed for removal of trace
levels of contaminants not removed from the groundwater by air stripping. Carbon
adsorption is effective for removal of a wide variety of contaminants, including volatile and
nonvolatile organic compounds, such as chlorinated hydrocarbons, AHCs, P AHs, base-
n~utral acid-extractable compounds (BNAs), pesticides, and PCBs, all of which may be
present in the GWTP process water.
For the conceptual GWI'P design included in the FS, the option of replacing the existing
organics removal processes (i.e., air stripping and carbon adsorption) with ultraviolet
(UV) / chemical oxidation was investigated. Based on the analysis presented in Appendix
J of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611), treatment by air stripping and carbon
adsorption will be more cost effective than UV / chemical oxidation. Groundwater treatment
options will be re-evaluated in greater detail during the remedial design phase of this
project. The technologies that best meet the GWI'P design criteria (including contaminant
removal rates, reliability of available equipment, and cost effectiveness) will be selected.
GWTP Effluent Disposal
During operation of the SVE system, most of the GWTP effluent will not be discharged to
the four existing recharge trenches located to the south and west of the source area.
Instead, most of the treated effluent will be discharged to recharge trenches located farther
to the west or to the north of the site. This process will avoid raising the water table in the
source area and, thus, will maximize the volume of soil exposed to treatment by SVE.
Discharge of a limited volume of effluent to the trenches located to the south of the site will
be continued to maintain a hydraulic barrier, blocking southward migration of
contamination. On-site groundwater level monitoring during operation of the SVE system
will be used to determine the optimum distribution of GWfP effluent.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod,txt
98
-------
Effluent from the GWTP will comply with NHDES standards for reinjection to the ground.
Effluent will be monitored periodically to ensure compliance with these standards.
A. Methodology for Cleanup Level Determination
Cleanup levels have been selected for each medium of concern at Site 8. Cleanup levels
have been established for chemicals of concern identified in the risk assessment section of
the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report (G-577) and for contaminants detected at levels exceeding
ARARs, risk-based concentrations, or leaching-based concentrations.
The approach used to determine risk-based concentrations is consistent with the approach
used to evaluate both human health and ecological risks in the risk assessment section of
the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report (G-577). This approach is presented in the Protocols for
Generation of Baseline Risk Assessments for Pease Air Force Base (G-568).
Risk-based concentrations were derived for the chemicals of concern in soil and
groundwater based on the RME (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 of the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report (G-577). In addition, risk-based
concentrations were derived for a few chemicals that were not selected as chemicals of
concern in the risk assessment, but whose maximum reported concentration 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 10-6 (I-in-I 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 exposure routes. For example, several metals,
including cadmium, chromium VI, and nickel, are not classified as carcinogens through the
oral 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
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
99
-------
exposure routes, th~ risk-based concentration for the chemical was based on a hazard index
of 1 (i.e., noncarcinogenic risk).
Ecological risk-ba~ed concentrations were calculated for chemicals of concern in surface soil
(0 to 2 ft BGS) at Site 8. These concentrations were based on the maximally exposed
ecological receptor to ensure that the concentrations are protective of all other receptors
that can be evaluated. Ecological risk-based concentrations for surface water and sediment
were evaluated using A WQC and NOAA ER-L values, respectively.
Cleanup levels were selected after comparing maxImum contaminant concentrations
detected for each chemical of concern in each medium with appropriate chemical-specific
ARARs, human health risk-based concentrations, 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 Site 8 exposure scenarios, a risk-based
concentration was selected as the cleanup goal. When ARARs were selected as the cleanup
goal, a human health risk was calculated for the ARAR concentration. Cleanup levels were
not established for chemicals detected at maximum concentrations that were lower than
appropriate ARARs or risk-based concentrations.
Cleanup levels for the vanous contaminated media at Site 8 are summarized in the
subsections that follow.
B. Soil Cleanup Goals
Cleanup goals for soil at Site 8 were determined based on an evaluation of:
.
The. results of the human health risk assessment of source area soil to a
maxImum depth of 15 ft BGS.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
100
-------
.
The results of the ecological risk assessment of source area soil at a depth of
o to 2 ft BGS.
.
The leaching potential of organic soil contaminants as determined by
application of the Summers Model.
.
The leaching potential of inorganic contaminants as inferred from a
qualitative review of the distribution of inorganic contaminants in soil and
groundwater at Site 8.
.
Available soil ARARs.
The results of the human health risk assessment indicated that for both current and future
use soil exposure scenarios, total lifetime cancer risks did not exceed EP A's acceptable
range of 1O~ to 10-4, and total hazard indices did not exceed EPA's action level of 1.
Therefore, reduction of human health risks resulting from the soil exposure pathway was not
considered an RAO.
The results of the ecological risk assessment for surface soil (0 to 2 ft BGS) at Site 8
indicated that the average cumulative hazard index for the deer mouse was 4.18 x 10\ with
the majority of the hazard index attributable to lead. The ecological risk assessment
revealed that site soil contaminants posed ecological risks exceeding EP A benchmark values.
The majority of the potential risk (90%) is attributable to lead exposure to the deer mouse.
One of the key assumptions used throughout the calculation of risks was the assumption that
the deer mouse is continuously exposed to the maximum concentration observed at the site.
However, lead concentrations at Site 8 slightly exceeded the background lead concentration
(65 mg/kg) for only two of 12 samples. It is more realistic to examine potential exposure
based on average lead concentrations in soil. The average lead concentration in Site 8 soil
was well below background lead concentrations. As indicated in the previous discussion,
and coupled with more realistic assumptions used in the calculation of potential ecological
risk, remediation of surface soils to background levels at Site 8 to reduce ecological risk is
not warranted.
The potential for soil contaminants to leach to groundwater resulting in groundwater
contaminant concentrations that exceed cleanup goals is the predominant factor driving
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\sile8rod. IX!
101
-------
cleanup of Site 8 soil. Since human health and ecological risks from site soil are minimal,
reducing the leaching of contaminants to groundwater, thereby reducing the human health
risks resulting from the groundwater exposure pathway, represents the most significant RAO
for site soil.
The leaching potential of organic contaminants was evaluated quantitatively using the
Summers Model, as described in Subsection 2.5 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611).
Because the leaching of inorganic contaminants is more complex than the leaching of
organic contaminants owing to speciation, pH sensitivity, and oxidation/reduction potential,
the leaching potential of inorganic contaminants was qualitatively evaluated by examining
the distribution of inorganic contaminants in both soil and groundwater at Site 8.
Based on a qualitative evaluation of the distribution of metals in soil and groundwater, there
does not appear to be a correlation between site-related soil contamination and metals
concentrations in groundwater that exceed MCLs. T~ble 34 provides a summary of data and
criteria used for this qualitative evaluation. Possible exceptions are lead and arsenic, which
have been detected at concentrations that exceed MCLs in Site 8 monitor wells that contain
free-phase product. These high concentrations of lead are likely a result of dissolution of
this metal from the free-phase product rather than leaching from soil. The presence of high
concentrations of arsenic in groundwater is likely indicative of the reducing conditions of the
groundwater at Site 8. Biological activity has. depleted oxygen levels in the groundwater,
resulting in the reduction of metal oxides of iron, manganese, and arsenic in the naturally
occurring soil to metal species that are more soluble and more mobile in groundwater.
Soil ARARs that may be relevant to Site 8 soil include RCRA Corrective Action Levels and
the State of New Hampshire Interim Policy for the Management of Soils Contaminated from
Spills/Releases of Virgin Petroleum Products.
The RCRA Corrective Action Levels were developed based on human health risks resulting
from in f f .1' .d'
ges Ion 0 sOl In a res I entlal exposure scenario. Because the exposure scenario for
Site 8 involves incidental ingestion of, and dermal contact with, contaminated soil in an
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
102
-------
industrial exposure scenario, the RCRA levels are not consistent with the Site 8 exposure
scenarios. Therefore, more emphasis has been placed on the results of the human health
risk assessment at Site 8 than on a comparison of site soil concentrations with the RCRA
Corrective Action Levels.
The New Hampshire Interim Policy for Spills/Releases of Virgin Petroleum Products
provides a cleanup goal of 1.0 mg/kg for total BlEX. However, it does not address waste
oils or solvents, which are also present at Site 8. The cleanup goals presented in this policy
were developed using a generalized leaching model assuming subsurface conditions
considered typical in the State of New Hampshire.
Table 35 provides a comparison of maximum detected concentrations of organics in soil with
ARARs and target levels based on leaching potential. The list of chemicals provided in this
table includes the organic chemicals that have been selected as soil chemicals of concern
and/or contaminants that were detected in both soil and groundwater. Cleanup goals for
organics in soil were established if the maximum concentration detected in Site 8 soil
exceeded either the State of New Hampshire ARAR for B1EX or the target levels based
on leaching potential for all other organic contaminants.
The RCRA Corrective Action Levels were not selected as cleanup goals because the Site
8 exposure scenarios are not consistent with the exposure scenario used to establish the
RCRA levels.
The human health risk assessment prepared for soil at Site 8 evaluated data from the soil
interval of 0 to 15 ft BGS. Human receptors were assumed not to come into contact with
soil at depths greater than 15 ft BGS. However, three remedial alternatives include
excavation and remediation of soil below 15 ft BGS to address the leaching potential of soil
contaminants. After treatment, this soil may be replaced on-site at depths of less than 15
ft BGS. To ensure that the cleanup goals for organic contaminants based on leaching
potential are also protective of human health, the cancer risks and hazard indices for these
concentrations at the 0 to 15 ft BGS interval were calculated and are presented in Table 35.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
103
-------
The methodology for calculation of these risks and hazard indices is presented in Appendix
L of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611).
Because a risk assessment was not performed for soil deeper than 15 ft BGS, and because
cleanup goals were not established for inorganics based on leaching potential, a list of
inorganic cleanup goals based on human health risks has been developed for soil at depths
greater than 15 ft BGS. These cleanup goals are intended for implementation only on soil
that would be excavated from depths greater than 15 ft BGS and replaced in the excavation
at depths of less than 15 ft BGS after treatment. Tbese concentrations were based on a
lifetime cancer risk of 10-6 and a hazard index of 1 for each individual contaminant. The
methodology for calculation of these concentrations is presented in Subsection 2.3 of the
Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611).
Although ecological risks were not conside~ed severe enough to warrant remediation,
ecological risk-based concentrations for soil were calculated and presented in Subsection 2.4
of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611). These concentrations are based on a hazard
index of 10 for ecological receptors. Although they were not used to establish soil cleanup
goals, the ecological risk-based concentrations for soil contaminants provided in Table 2.4-1
of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611) would be considered if soil from depths greater
than 2 ft BGS are excavated for treatment. Soil with contaminant concentrations greater
than the ecological risk-based concentrations would not be placed in the 0 to 2 ft BGS depth
interval. A summary of the cleanup goals established for ~oil at Site 8 is presented in
Table 35.
C. Sediment Cleanup Goals
The human health risk assessment for sediment in Knights and Pickering Brooks indicated
that the total lifetime cancer risks did not exceed 10-6 and the total hazard indices did not
exceed 0.01. Both the human health cancer risks and hazard indices are, therefore, below
EP A action levels.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
104
-------
The ecological risk assessment indicated a cumulative mean hazard index of 91 for Pickering
Brook and 10 for Knights Brook. The contaminants that contributed 93% of the hazard
index for Pickering Brook sediments were the pesticides DDD, DDE, and DDT. Of this
93%, only one sampling station (8024) contributed the greatest amount to the cumulative
hazard index. The majority (75%) of the cumulative mean hazard index for Knights Brook
was contributed by acenaphthene and mercury. Mercury and acenaphthene were detected
in only one of the Knights Brook sediment sampling locations. Therefore, based on the
frequency of detections of pesticides in Pickering Brook and mercury and acenaphthene in
Knights Brook, potential risks posed to ecological receptors from sediment do not warrant
remediation.
Based on the preceding information, RAOs for Site 8 do not include reducing risks resulting
from the sediment exposure pathway. Therefore, cleanup goals for sediment are not
necessary and have not been established.
D. Surface Water Cleanup Goals
The human health and ecological risk assessments for surface water in Knights and
Pickering Brooks did not reveal exposures that resulted in unacceptable risks to human or
ecological receptors. Total lifetime cancer risks for human receptors did not exceed 10-6,
and total hazard indices did not exceed 10-2. Both the human health cancer risks and hazard
indices are, therefore, below EP A action levels. The cumulative chronic hazard index for
average contaminant concentrations in Pickering Brook was 65.9, with 78% attributable to
aluminum. Iron contributed 12.2% and lead contributed 10% to the average hazard index.
The major contributor to ecological risk to surface water (i.e., aluminum) was detected at
only one surface water sampling location (8027) in exceedance of chronic Ambient Water
Quality Criteria. In addition, lead was detected in only one surface water sampling location
(8027). A cumulative chronic hazard index for average contaminant concentrations was
calculated to be 2.81 for Knights Brook. However, this hazard index was based on
contaminant concentrations detected in various springs in the vicinity of Knights Brook but
not found in Knights Brook itself. Aluminum, which was detected above chronic Ambient
MK01 \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
105
-------
Water Quality Criteria in only two springs, contributed 65% to the cumulative hazard index.
Issues identified in the preceding discussion indicate that surface water exceedances in
Pickering and Knights Brooks are not extensive and do not warrant remediation. The Air
Force will monitor surface water quality in Pickering and Knights Brooks as part of the
remedial action for Site 8. The remedial action for Site 8 also will comply with NHDES
groundwater regulation Env-Ws 41O.03c.
In summary, none of the surface water results evaluated for Site 8 showed unacceptable
risks or were above background concentrations. As a result, cleanup goals were not
established for surface water.
E. Groundwater Cleanup Goals
The methodology used to select cleanup goals for groundwater contamination was essentially
the same as that used to select groundwater target levels for input into the leaching model
(see Subsection 2.5 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report) (G-611). However, the list of
groundwater contaminants that were evaluated for establishment of groundwater cleanup
goals was limited to groundwater chemicals of concern plus groundwater contaminants that
exceed MCLs. Tables 36 and 37 present the maximum detected concentrations of
contaminants in Site 8 groundwater, ARARs, risk-based concentrations, the basis for
selecting the cleanup goals, and the cleanup goals established for each contaminant. Table
37 also includes the background concentrations for soluble metals. These background
concentrations were established as groundwater cleanup goals when they were greater than
ARARs or risk-based concentrations. Table 38 presents the risks to human health
presented by the groundwater exposure scenarios, as presented in Subsection 2.3 of the
Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611), for groundwater containing a contaminant at a
concentration equivalent to the ARARs presented in Tables 36 and 37. Tables 36 and 37
also provide a summary of the cleanup goals selected for groundwater.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
106
-------
XI. STATUTORY DETERMINATION
The remedial action selected for implementation at Site 8 is consistent with CERCLA and
the NCP. The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, attains
ARARs, and is cost effective. The selected remedy also satisfies the statutory preference
for treatment that permanently and significantly reduces the TMV of hazardous substances
as a principal element. Additionally, the selected remedy uses alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
A. Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The remedy at the site will permanently reduce the risks posed to human health and the
environment by eliminating, reducing, or controlling exposures to human and ecological
receptors through treatment and by engineering controls. Specifically, the selected remedy
employs in situ SVE of source area soil to remediate soil contaminated above cleanup goals.
This will involve extraction of VOCs from the soil. The vapors extracted will be treated for
destruction of VOCs. Volatilization of the VOC-contaminated soil also will eliminate the
threat of exposure to the most mobile contaminants through direct contact with, or ingestion
of, contaminated soil. The current risks associated with ingestion and dermal contact of the
soil requiring remediation currently fall within the target range of 1O.{) to 10-4. Leaching of
soil contaminants into the groundwater, however, may result in exceedances of groundwater
cleanup goals, which could result in increased risks associated with the groundwater
exposure pathways. EPA regulates maximum risk at hazardous waste sites by selecting an
acceptable risk level within this range. Treating the soil by in situ SVE will lower the risk
to within the range of acceptable exposure levels and also reduce leaching of contaminants
into the groundwater to within acceptable levels. By capping the site to minimize infiltration
into the area of soil vapor treatment, the risks of exposure through direct contact will be
further reduced. The current risks posed by groundwater exceed EPA's target maximum risk
range of 1O.{) to 10-4. By extracting and treating groundwater from the overburden, the risks
posed by the groundwater will be gradually reduced to an acceptable level. There are no
MKOI \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
107
-------
short-term risks associated with the selected remedy that cannot be readily controlled. In
addition, no adverse cross-media impacts are expected from the remedy.
B. Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy of in situ SVE of source area soil, recovery and off-base disposal of
free-phase product, groundwater extraction and on-site treatment and recharge, and
institutional controls will attain all of the substantive, nonprocedural requirements of federal
and state ARARs. ARARs for the Site 8 selected remedy are presented in' Appendix A.
which contains a complete list of ARARs, including the regulatory citation, a brief summary
of the requirement, and the action to be taken to attain the requirement. Although not
ARARs for the purpose of this action, the Air Force will comply with OSHA, the Off-Site
Rule, and all state and federal requirements governing management of wastes recovered or
generated at the site. In addition, policies, criteria, and guidelines that are to be considered
(TBC) also will be considered during the implementation of the remedial action. The
ARARs are presented as follows:
.
Chemical-Specific ARARs.
Federal - SDW A. Maximum Contaminant Levels.
State - NH Admin. Code Env-Ws 410, Health-Based Groundwater
Protection Standards.
.
Location-Specific ARARs.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 [36 CFR Part 800, Sections
106 and 110 (f)].
Floodplains Executive Order (EO 11888).
Wetlands Executive Order (EO 11990).
F~deral - ~W A404, Section 404(b )(i), Guidelines for Specification of
DIsposal SItes for Dredged or Fill Material.
Federal - 16 USC 661 et. seq., Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
108
-------
State - RSA 485:A-17, NH Admin. Code Env-Ws 415, Rules Relative
to Prevention of Pollution from Dredging, Filing, Mining, Transporting,
and Construction.
State - RSA 482:A, NH Admin. Code Env-Wt 300,400, and 600, New
Hampshire Criteria and Conditions for Fill and Dredging in Wetlands.
.
Action-Specific ARARs.
Federal RCRA ARARs will be relevant and appropriate and have
effect through state hazardous waste requirements, which operate in
lieu of direct federal regulations. Appendix A provides a list of these
requirements.
Federal - RCRA, 40 CFR 264.90 through 264.101 (Subpart F),
Releases from Solid Waste Management Units.
Federal- HSWA, Amendments to RCRA, 40 CFR Part 268, Land
Disposal Restrictions.
State - NH Admin. Code Env-Wm 351 through 353, 701 through 705,
707, 708, and 709, Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Facilities.
State - NH Admin. Code Env-Wm 702.10 through 702.14, Monitoring
of Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities.
State - NH Admin. Code Env-Wm 707.03, Waste Pile Requirements.
State - NH Admin. Code Env- Wm 500, Standards for Generators.
State - NH Admin. Code Env-Wm 600, Requirements for Hazardous
Waste Transporters.
State - NH Admin. Code- Wm 507.03 and 603.05, Packaging and
Labeling Requirements.
State - NH Admin. Code Env-Wm 510, 511, 604, 703, and 513.03,
Manifesting Requirements.
State - NH Admin. Code Env-Ws 412, Reporting and Remediation of
Oil Discharges.
Federal- DOT, 49 CFR Parts 107 and 171 through 179, Department
of Transportation Regulations for Transport of Hazardous Materials.
MK01 \RYI':OO628026.003\site8rod.txt
109
-------
. State - NH Admin. Code Saf-C-600, NH Department of Safety Rules
for Transport of Hazardous Materials.
Federal- RCRA 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart AA.
Federal- RCRA 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart BB.
Federal - CM National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP).
Federal- CM 40 CFR 50, National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
Federal-RCRA, 40 CFR 264.251(j)(Subpart L) and 264.30(j)(Subpart
N).
State - NH Admin. Code Env-A 800, Testing and Monitoring
Procedures.
State - NH Admin. Code Env-1002, Fugitive Dust Control.
State - NH Admin. Code Env-A 1300, Toxic Air Pollutants.
State - NH Admin. Code Env-A 300, Ambient Air Quality Standards.
.
TBC Criteria.
OSWER Directive 9834.11, 13 November 1987.
State - NH Admin. Code Env-A 1024, Control of VOC Emissions.
State - NH Guidance Document Interim Policy for the Management
of Soils Contaminated from the Spills/Releases of Virgin Petroleum
Products.
The basewide ARARs document (G-614) identifies ARARs for Pease AFB, and Appendix
A identifies those ARARs for the selected remedy for Site 8.
c. Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost effective because it will provide overall effectiveness
proportional to its costs, the net present-worth value being $13,374,971. The estimated cost
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
110
-------
of the selected remedy is an order of magnitude lower than that of Alternative 5, and
significantly lower than the excavation alternatives (Alternatives 6 through 8), and yet the
selected remedy ensures a much higher degree of certainty that the remedy will be effective
in the long run as a result of significant reduction of the toxicity and mobility of the
contaminants achieved through in situ SVE of VOCs, recovery and off-base disposal of free-
phase product, and groundwater extraction and treatment.
A summary of the costs associated with each remedial alternative is presented as follows.
All costs are presented in net present-worth costs.
30-Year Present- Present -Worth
Remedial Alternative Capital Cost Worth O&M Cost Cost
1. :\0 ActIon/Access Restrictions and Institutional Controls S313.OOO. Sl.113.305. S1.340.OOO.
(fencing. deed restrictions, monitoring, and extension of
public water supply).
2. Management of Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Migration $1.189.500. $5.445.000. $6.635.000.
in the Overburden and Bedrock Water-Bearing Zones. On-
Site Treatment of Recovered Groundwater. Discharge of
Treated Groundwater to Subsurface Recharge Trenches. and
Institutional Controls.
3. Downgradlent Groundwater Recovery Trench to S1.830.3oo. $6.016.000. S7.846.OOO.
:\1mlmize Off-Site Contaminant Migration. Recovery and
Off-Site Disposal of Free-Phase Product. Management of
Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Migration in the Overburden
and Bedrock Water-Bearing Zones. On-Site Treatment of
Recovered Groundwater. Discharge of Treated Groundwater
(Q Suosurface Recharge Trcnches. and Institutional Controls.
4. In SitU Soil Vapor ExtraCtIon of Source Area Soil. S7.257.596. S6.117 .375. $13.374.971.
Recover)" and Off-Site Disposal of Free-Phase Product.
Management of Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Migration in
the Overburden Water-Bearing Zone. On-Site Treatment of
Recover~d Groundwater. Discharge of Treated Groundwater
to Suosurface Recharge Trenches. and Institutional Controls.
5. In SitU 5011 Vapor ExtractIOn of Source Area Soil. $5.720.000. $8.169.569. $13.890.000.
Recovery and Off-Site Disposal of Free-Phase Product.
Management of Dissolved-Phase Contaminant MIgration in
Overburden and Bedrock Water-Bearing Zones. On-Site
Treatment of Recovered Groundwater. Discharge of Treated
Groundwater to Subsurface Recharge Trenches. and
I nstltutional Controls.
6. Excavation and Ex Situ BiologicaljVapor Extraction $18.430.300. $6,876.000. $25.306.000.
Treatment of Burn Area Soil Contaminated Above Cleanup
Goals. Dewatering of Open Excavation, Recovery and Off-
Site Disposal of Free-Phase Product. In Situ Soil Vapor
Extraction of Migrating Free.Phase Product Area Soil.
Management of Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Migration in
Overburden and Bedrock Water-Bearing Zones. On-Site
Treatment of Recovered Groundwater. Discharge of Treated
Groundwater to Subsurface Recharge Trenches. and
Institutional Controls.
MKO I \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod. txt
111
-------
. 3D-Year Present- Present - Worth
Remedial Alternative Capital Cost Worth O&M Cost Cost
7. Excavation and On-Site Thennal Treatment of Bum Area S27.271.4oo. S6.091.000. $33.362.000.
Soil Contaminated Above Qeanup Goals. Dewatering of the
Open Excavation. Recovery and Off-Site Disposal of Free-
Phase Product. In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction of Migrating
Free-Phase Product Area Soil. Management of Dissolved-
Phase Contaminant Migration in Overburden and Bedrock
Water-Bearing Zones. On-Site Treatment of Recovered
Groundwater. Discharge of Treated Groundwater to
Subsurface Recharge Trenches. and Institutional Controls.
8. Excavation and On-Site Thennal Treatment of All Soil $35,616,100. SS.057.000. $40.674.000.
Contaminated Above Cleanup Goals. Dewatering of the
Open Excavation. Recovery and Off-Site Dispusal of Free-
Phase Product. Management of Dissolved-Phase
Contaminant Migration in Overburden and Bedrock Water-
Bearing Zones. On-Site Treatment of Recovered
Groundwater. Discharge of Treated Groundwater to
Subsurface Recharge Trenches. and Institutional Controls.
Of the aforementioned alternatives, seven attain ARARs and are protective: Alternatives
2 through 8. Alternative 4 is the most cost-effective alternative overall, and provides a
degree of protectiveness proportional to its cost. A summary of the costs associated with
Alternative 4 (in net present-worth costs) is presented as follows:
Present -Worth
Component of Remedy Cost
Source Area Cap $140,000
Passive Air Supply Vents, SVE Vents, and Manifold System $2,546,163
LNAPL/Groundwater Recovery System $285,000
Source Area Groundwater Treatment/LNAPL Storage $58,835
Management of Migration of Groundwater Recovery System $21,400
Construction of New GWTP $2,592,800
Miscellaneous $1,613,398
O&M $6,117,375
Total $13,374,971
MKOI \ RPT:00628026.oo3\site8rod. txt
112
-------
D. Use of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment or Resource Recovery
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
EPA and the State of New Hampshire have determined that the selected remedy represents
the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be used
in a cost-effective manner for Site 8. Of those alternatives that are protective of human
health and the environment and comply with ARARs, EP A and NHDES have determined
that the selected remedy provides the best balance of tradeoffs in terms of long-term
effectiveness and permanence, reduction in TMV of contaminants through treatment, short-
term effectiveness, implementability, and cost, while considering the statutory preference for
treatment as a principal element and considering state and community acceptance.
The selected remedy does offer as relatively high a degree of long-term effectiveness and
permanence as do the excavation alternatives, and it will significantly reduce the inherent
hazards posed by the contaminated soil through SVE of the VOCs and will reduce the
hazards posed by groundwater by extraction and treatment. The hazard posed by the free-
phase product would be removed by recovery and off-base disposal of the free-phase
product.
The selected remedy treats the principal threats posed by the soil, achieving significant
VOCs reductions. The implementability of the selected remedy is comparable to the
nontreatment alternatives and significantly better than the excavation options. The selected
remedy also is the least costly in situ option and is less expensive than excavation.
The selection of this remedy is consistent with program expectations that indicate that highly
toxic and mobile wastes are a priority for treatment and that treatment is often necessary
to ensure the long-term effectiveness of a remedy. Since all in situ and excavation treatment
options are reasonably comparable with respect to long-term effectiveness and the toxicity
and mobility reductions achieved, the major tradeoffs that provide the basis for this selection
decision are short-term effectiveness, implementability, and cost. The selected remedy can
be implemented more quickly, with less difficulty, and at less cost than the other in situ and
excavation treatment alternatives and, therefore, is the most appropriate solution for Site 8.
MK01 \ RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.txt
113
-------
E. Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
By treating the VOC-contaminated soil by in situ SVE and pumping and treating
contaminated groundwater, the selected remedy addresses the principal threats posed by the
site through the use of treatment technologies. VOCs extracted from the soil will be
destroyed. Therefore, the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a
principal element is satisfied.
XII. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Air Force presented a Proposed Plan (Alternative. 4) for remediation of Site 8 in
January 1994 (G-679). The components of the preferred alternative included:
.
In situ SVE of source area soil.
.
Construction of a cap.
.
Construction of groundwater jfree-phase product recovery trenches as a
contingency.
.
Recovery and off-base disposal of free-phase product.
.
Management of migration in overburden groundwater.
.
Management of migration in bedrock groundwater as a contingency measure.
Construction of an on-site GWTP for treatment of recovered groundwater.
.
.
Environmental monitoring during remedial action.
.
Long-term monitoring.
There have been no significant changes in the selected alternative since publication of the
Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611) and Proposed Plan (G-679).
It should be noted that several regulations have been updated and some are now
enforceable, where they were not previously. Regulatory updates, as of the submission of
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
114
-------
this ROD, have been added to Appendix A Additionally, it has been determined, as part
of the initial design work, that the use or upgrade of the existing GWTP is no longer a
viable option.
XIII. STATE ROLE
NHDES, as party to the FF A, has reviewed the various alternatives and has indicated its
support for the selected remedy. The State of New Hampshire has reviewed the Draft Final
Site 8 RI Report, including the baseline risk assessment, and the Draft Final Site 8 FS
Report to determine whether the selected remedy is in compliance with ARARs (G-611;
G-577). The State of New Hampshire concurs with the selected remedy for Site 8. A copy
of the Declaration of Concurrence is attached as Appendix B.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
115
-------
REFERENCES
G-84 CHzM Hill. 1984. Installation Restoration Program Records Search for Pease AFB,
NH.
G-93 Clauser, C. 1992.
73(21 ):236-238.
"Permeability of Crystalline Rocks."
BOS Transactions,
G-112 Domenico, P.A. and F.W. Schwartz. 1990. Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology.
John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
G-357 Little, A.D., Inc. 1989. The Installation Restoration Program Toxicology Guide.
Volumes 1 through 4. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
G-377 Moore, RB. 1982. "Calving Bays versus Ice Stagnation - A Comparison of Models
for the Deglaciation of the Great Bay Region of New Hampshire." Northeastern
Geology, 4(1):39-45.
G-403 NHDES (New Hampshire Department Environmental Services). 1990. Surface
Water Quality Regulations. Water Supply and Pollution Control Division.
G-415 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1990. "The Potential
for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National
Status and Trends Program." NOAA Technical Memorandum. NOS OMA 52.
Seattle, W A.
G-417 Novotny, RF. 1969. The Geology of the Seacoast Region. New Hampshire
Department of Resources and Economic Development, Concord, NH.
G-468 Smith, G.W. and L.E. Hunter. 1989. "Late Wisconsinan Deglaciation of Coastal
Maine." In: Studies in Maine Geology - Volume 6: Quaternary Geology. RD. Tucker
and R.G. Marvinney (eds.). Maine Geological Survey. pp. 13-32.
G-491 Thompson, W.B. 1979. Surficial Geology Handbook for Coastal Maine. Maine
Geological Survey.
G-493 Thompson, W.E., K.J. Crossen, H.W. Borns, Jr., and B.G. Andersen. 1989.
"Glaciomarine Deltas of Maine and Their Relation to Late Pleistocene-Holocene
Crustal Movements." In: Neotectonics of Maine. W.A. Andersen and H.W. Borns,
Jr. (eds.). Maine Geological Survey, Department of Conservation. pp. 43-67.
G-525 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1986. Installation Restoration Program, Phase Il
- Confirmation/Quantification, Stage I Final Report, Pease AFB, NH. June 1986.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.ref
117
-------
REFERENCES
(Continued)
G-530 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1988. Interim Technical Report No.1 for the
Installation Restoration Program Stage 2, Pease AFB, NH. February 1988.
G-531 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1988. Interim Technical Report No.2 for the
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Pease AFB, NH. August 1988.
G-533 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1989. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2
Draft Final Report, Pease AFB, NH.
G-536 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1989. Interim Technical Report No.3 for the
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Pease AFB, NH. February 1989.
G-537 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1989. Interim Technical Report No.4 for the
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Pease AFB, NH. April 1989.
G-552 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1991. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3A,
IRP Site 8 Groundwater Treatment Plant. Pease AFB, NH.
G-563 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1991. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4,
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Pease AFB, NH. January 1991. Draft Final.
G-568 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1991. Protocols for Generation of Baseline Risk
Assessments for the Pease AFB Sites. Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA July
1991.
G-577 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1992. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C,
IRP Site 8 Draft Final Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH, November 1992.
G-599 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1992. Off-Base Well Inventory Letter Report. Pease
AFB, NH. 17 September 1992.
G-603 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1992. Tolerance Limits for Background Soils at
Pease AFB, NH, Letter Report. 17 April 1992.
G-609 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Background Values for Soil, Groundwater,
Surface Water, and Sediment at Pease Air force Base, Letter Report. February 1993.
G-611 WES~ON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C,
IRP Szte 8 Draft Final Feasibility Study, Pease AFB, NH. January 1993.
G-614 WES~ON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4,
Basewlde ARARs, Pease AFB, NH. January 1993.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.ref
118
-------
REFERENCES
(Continued)
G-635 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4,
Zone 5 Draft Final Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH. September 1993.
G-679 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1994. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C,
Site 8 Draft Proposed Plan, Pease AFB, NH. January 1994.
G-680 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1994. Site 8 Soil Vapor Extraction Treatability Study
at Pease AFR, NH. Letter Report. March 1994.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.ref
119
-------
AALs
AFB
AFCEE/ERB
AHCs
ARAR
AWQC
BAT
BNAs
BTEX
CERCLA
CRD-1
CTV
DCA
DCE
DEQPPM
DOD
EDB
EPA
ER-L
FDT A-2
FFA
FMS
FS
ft MSL
ft BGS
GC
GMZ
gpd
gpm
GT
GWTP
HA
HQ AFBCA
IRM
IRP
ITR
LNAPL
LS
MCL
MCLG
MCS
MIBK
MOA
NAAQS
LIST OF ACRONYMS
Ambient Air Limits
Air Force Base
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence/Base Closure Division
aromatic hydrocarbons
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
Ambient Water Quality Criteria
best available technology
base-neutral acid-extractable compounds
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Construction Rubble Dump 1
critical toxicity value
dichloroethane
dichloroethene
Defense Environmental Quality Program Policy Memorandum
Department of Defense
ethylene dibromide
Environmental Protection Agency
Biological Effects Range - Low
Fire Department Training Area 2
Federal Facility Agreement
Field Maintenance Squadron
Feasibility Study
feet above mean sea level
feet below ground surface
gas chromatograph
Groundwater Management Zone
gallons per day
gallons per minute
Glacial Till
groundwater treatment plant
Health Advisory
Headquarters Air Force Base Conversion Agency
interim remedial measure
Installation Restoration Program
Interim Technical Report
light, nonaqueous-phase liquid
Lower Sand
Maximum Contaminant Level
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
Marine Clay and Silt
4- methy 1- 2-pentanone
Memorandum of Agreement
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
121
09/19/94
-------
NCP
NESHAP
NHANG
NHDES
NOAA
NPDES
NPL
o/w
O&M
OCDD
OEHL
OHC
PA
PAH
PCA
PCB
PCE
ppm
QAPP
RAO
RCRA
RID
RI
RI/FSs
RME
ROD
SAP
SARA
SI
SVE
mc
TCE
TCLP
TMV
TOC
TPH
TSD
TSDFs
US
USAFOEHL
USGS
UV
VOC
WESTON@
LIST OF ACRONYMS
(Continued)
National Contingency Plan
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
New Hampshire Air National Guard
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Priorities List
oil/water
operation and maintenance
octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory
oxygenated hydrocarbon
Preliminary Assessment
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
tetrachloroethane
polychlorinated biphenyl
tetrachloroethene
parts per million
Quality Assurance Project Plan
remedial action objective
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Risk Reference Dose
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies
most reasonable maximally exposed individual
Record of Decision
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Site Investigation
soil vapor extraction
to be considered
trichloroethene
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
toxicity, mobility, or volume
total organic carbon
total petroleum hydrocarbon
transport, storage, and disposal
treatment, storage and disposal facilities
Upper Sand
U.S. Air Force Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory
U.S. Geological Survey
ultraviolet
volatile organic compound
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.acr
122
-------
APPENDIX A
ARARS FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.apa
-------
APPENDIX A
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4: IN SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION OF SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PHASE PRODUCT, MANAGEMENT OF DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVERBURDEN WATER-BEARING ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, DISCHARGE OF TREATED GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TRENCHES, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
SITE 8, PEASE AFB, NH
Action To Be Taken To
Medium Requirement Requirement Synopsis Altain Requirements Status
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC
Groundwater FEDERAL-SDW A-Maximum Contaminant MCLs have been promulgated for a number of MCLs were considered when Relevant and
Levels (MCLs) common organic and inorganic contaminants. selecting groundwater cleanup Appropriate
(40 CFR 141.11-141.16) 'These levels regulate the contaminants in public goals. Free-phase product
drinking water supplies, but may also be removal, groundwater extraction
considered relevant and appropriate for and treatment, institutional
groundwater aquifers ~tentially used for controls, and Groundwater
drinking water. Management Zone (GMZ)
monitoring would be conducted to
altain requirements.
Groundwater FEDERAL-SDW A-Maximum Contaminant Non-zero MCLGs are nonenforceable health- Non-zero MCLGs were considered Relevant and
Level Goals (MCLGs) (40 CFR 14I.5()"141.51) based goals for public water systems. MCLGs when selecting groundwater Appropriate
arc set at levels that would result in no known cleanup and treatment goals.
or expected adverse health effects, with an Free-phase product removal,
adequate margin of safety. groundwater extraction and
treatment, institutional controls,
and GMZ monitoring would be
conducted to altain requirements.
Groundwater FEDERAL-EPA Health Advisories (HAs) HAs are nonenforceable health-based standards HAs were considered when TBC
established for various exposure durations, i.e., selecting groundwater cleanup
I-day, 10-day, and lifetime. goals as presented in Tables 2.6-3
and 2.6-4 of the Draft Final Site 8
FS Report (G-611). Free-phase
product removal, groundwater
extraction and treatment,
institutional controls. and GMZ
monitoring would be conducted to
altain requirements.
MKOI \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
A-I
-------
APPENDIX A
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4: IN SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION OF SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PHASE PRODUCT, MANAGEMENT OF DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVERBURDEN WATER-BEARING ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, DISCHARGE OF TREATED GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TRENCHES, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
SITE 8, PEASE AFB, NH
(Continued)
.. dium
Requirement Synopsis
Requirement
Groundwater,
Soil
FEDERAL-EPA Risk Reference Doses (RIDs)
RIDs are dose levels developed based on the
noncarcinogenic effects and are used to develop
Hazard Indices. A Hazard Index of less than
or equal to I is considered acceptable.
Action To Be Taken To
Attain Requ;rements
EP A RIDs have been used to
characterize risks resulting from
exposure to contaminants in
groundwater because leaching from
soil to groundwater may potentially
occur. Free-phase product
removal, groundwater extraction
and treatment, institutional
controls, and GMZ monitoring
would be conducted to attain
requirements.
Status
TBC
Groundwater,
Soil
FEDERAL-EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group
Potency Factors
TBC
Potency Factors are developed by the EPA
from Health Effects Assessments or evaluation
by the Carcinogenic Assessment Group and are.
used to develop excess cancer risks: A range of
10"" to 10.6 is considered acceptable.
EPA Carcinogenic Potency Factors
have been used to compute the
individual incremental cancer risk
resulting from exposure to site
contamination in groundwater and
soil.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
A-2
-------
APPENDIX A
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4: IN SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION OF SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PHASE PRODUCT, MANAGEMENT OF DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVERBURDEN WATER-BEARING ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, DISCHARGE OF TREATED GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TRENCHES, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
SITE 8, PEASE AFB, NH
(Continued)
Action To Be Taken To
Medium Requirement Requirement Synopsis Attain Requirements Statn<
Groundwater STATE-NH Admin. Code, Env-Ws 410.05, Allowable limits for contaminants in Available MCLs, MCLGs, and Applicable
Health-Based Groundwater Protection groundwater are based on New Hampshire other health-based limits have
Standards Division of Public Health Services health-based been used, as appropriate, to set
standards and federal MCLs, MCLGs, and cleanup goals for groundwater
other relevant standards. extracted during remedial
activities. Target cleanup goals are
presented in the Draft Final Site 8
FS Report (G-611). Free-phase
product removal, groundwater
extraction and treatment,
institutional controls, and GMZ
monitoring would be conducted to
attain requirements.
WCATION.SPECIFIC
Historic Places National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Requires a federal agency head with jurisdiction A Memorandum of Agreement Applicable
over a federal, federally assisted, or federally (MOA) between the Air Force and
licensed undertaking to take into account the the New Hampshire State Historic
errects of Ihe agency's undertakings on Preservation Officer that covers
properties included in, or eligible for, the this issue will be signed.
National Register of Historic Places and, prior
10 approval of an undertaking, 10 arrord the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a
reasonable opportunity to comment on the
undertaking.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
A-3
-------
APPENDIX A
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4: IN SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION OF SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PHASE PRODUCT, MANAGEMENT OF DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVERBURDEN WATER-BEARING ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, DISCHARGE OF TREATED GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TRENCHES, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
SITE 8, PEASE AFB, NO
(Continued)
Action To Be Taken To
Medium Requirement Requirement Synopsis Attain Requirements Status
Wetlands Wetlands Executive Order (EO 11990) Under this order, federal agencies are required The remedial action will address TBC
40 CFR Part 6, Appendix A to minimize the destruction, loss, or impacts to identilied wetlands.
degradation of wetlands or beneficial values of Remedial activities will minimize
wetlands. harm to the wetlands to the extent
possible. Appropriate federal
agencies identilied (under this act)
will be contacted and allowed to
review the proposed work plan
prior to remedial activities.
Wetlands FEDERAL-CWA 404, Section 404 (b)(i), Contains requirements for discharge of dredge No dredging or lilling.of wetlands Applicable
Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for or lill material, including that no discharge is will occur under this alternative.
Dredged or Fill Material (40 CFR 230) permitted if there is a practicable alternative to Remedial activities will be
the proposed discharge that would have a less designed to minimize potential
adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, and adverse effects on the aquatic
that no discharge is permitted unless ecosystem.
appropriate and practicable steps are taken to
minimize potential adverse impacts on the
aquatic ecosystem.
Wetlands FEDERAJ....16 USC 661 et. seq., Fish and Requires federal agencies to take into Relevant federal and state agencies Applicable
Wildlife Coordination Act consideration the effect that water-related will be contacted to help analyze
projects will have on fish and wildlife. effects of the remedial action on
Requires consultation with the Fish and wildlife in the wetlands in and
Wildlife Service and the state to develop around Site 8 and to develop
measures to. prevent, mitigate, or compensate measures to prevent, mitigate, and
for project-related losses to fish and wildlife. compensate for adverse impacts.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
A-4
-------
APPENDIX A
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4: IN SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION OF SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PHASE PRODUCT, MANAGEMENT OF DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVERBURDEN WATER-BEARING ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, DISCHARGE OF TREATED GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TRENCHES, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
. SITE 8, PEASE AFB, NH
(Continued)
Action To Be Taken To
Medium Requirement Requirement Synopsis Allain Requirements Status
Wetlands, STATE-RSA 485:A-t7, Nil Admin. Code Env- Establish criteria for conducting any activity in Source control and management of Applicable
Rive rs Ws 415, Rules Relative 10 Prevention of or near state surface waters that significantly migration treatment systems will
Pollution from Dredging, Filling, Mining, alters terrain or may otherwise adversely affect meet substantive requirements of
Transporting, and Construction water quality, impede natural runoff, or create these NHDES rules as applicable
unnatural runofr. Activities within the scope of to wetlands prior to initiation.
these provisions include excavation, dredging,
filling, mining, and grading of topsoil in or near
wetland areas.
Wetlands, STATE-RSA 482-A, NH Admin. Code Env-Wt Regulate filling and other activities in or Proposed work adjacent to the Applicable
Rivers 300,400, and 600, New lIampshire Criteria and adjacent to wetlands, and establish criteria for wetlands will be reviewed by the
Conditions for Fill and Dredging in Wetlands the protection of wetlands from adverse Wetlands Board and will comply
impacts on fish, wildlife, commerce and public with State Wetlands Protection
recreation. Requirements.
Soil New Hampshire RSA 217A, Native Plant Prohibits damaging plant species listed as Endangered plants are not likely to Applicable, if
Protection Act endangered within the state. exist at this location, but care will endangered plants
be taken to identify and protect are identified
any before commencement of
remediation.
Historic Places National Historic Prevention Act of 1966 (16 Several statues that govern the preservation of Remedial action must be Applicable
use 470 et seq.), Protection of Historic Land historic, scientific, and archeological sites and coordinated with preservation
and Structures; Archeological and Historic resou rces. Includes action to recover and agencies and societies to minimize
Preservation Act of 1974; Historic Sites Building preserve artifacts, preserve historic properties, loss of significant scientific,
and Antiquities Act and minimize harm to historic landmarks. prehistorical, historical, or
archeological data.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
A-5
-------
APPENDIX A
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4: IN SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION OF SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PHASE PRODUCT, MANAGEMENT OF DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVERBURDEN WATER-BEARING ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, DISCHARGE OF TREATED GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TRENCHES, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
SITE 8, PEASE AFB, NH
(Continued)
Action To Be Taken To
Medium Requirement Requirement Synopsis Attain Requilements Status
Historic Places New Hampshire Historic Protection Act (RSA Authorizes municipalities to establish local Remedial actions will be Applicable
227-C) historic dislricls and to regulate construction, coordinated with preservation
alteration, and other activities affecting historic agencies and societies to minimize
properties and districts. loss of significant scientific,
prehistorical, hislorical, or
archeological data.
ACTION.SPECIRC
Hazardous FEDERAL-RCRA 40 CFR Part 264 RCRA Subtitle C establishes standards Management of hazardous waste as Relevant and
Waste/Soil applicable to treatment, storage, transport, and part of CERClA response must appropriate. Has
disposal of hazardous waste and the closure of comply with subslantive effect through
hazardous waste facilities. requirements of Subtitle C state hazardous
regulations. waste require-
ments, which
operate in lieu of
direct federal
regulations. See
discussion of these
requirements
below.
Hazardous FEDERAL-RCRA 40 CFR 264.90-264.101 General facility requirements for groundwater Groundwater monitoring and Relevant and
Waste/Soil (Subpart F), Releases from Solid Waste monitoring at affected facilities and general treatment will be conducted in Appropriate
Management Units requirements for corrective action programs if accordance with these
required at regulated facilities. requirements.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
A-6
-------
APPENDIX A
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4: IN SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION OF SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL QF FREE-PHASE PRODUCT, MANAGEMENT OF DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVERBURDEN WATER-BEARING ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, DISCHARGE OF TREATED GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TRENCHES, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
SITE 8, PEASE AFB, NH
(Continued)
Action To Be Taken To
Medium Requirement Requirement Synopsis Attain Requirements Status
Ilazardous RSA Ch. 147-A, NH Hazardous Waste Standards lor management 01 hazardous waste Management 01 waste as part 01 See lollowing
Waste/Soil Management Act and lIazardous Waste Rules, lacilities. Operates in lieu 01 lederal RCRA CERCLA response must comply section-by-section
Env-Wm, Chapters 100-1000, specific Subtitle C requirements. with the substantive standards 01 analysis.
requirements detailed below. these rules.
Groundwater STATE - NH Admin. Code Env-Ws 410.26, At contaminated sites, requires GMZ to be Remedial action will be designed Applicable
Groundwater Management Zone designated and groundwater use restricted. to meet groundwater quality
Where wells are currently in service, alternative criteria.
drinking water must be provided. Groundwater
extraction Irom wells within the zone must be
restricted. Requires development and
implementation 01 remediation plan to meet
ambient groundwater criteria.
Hazardous STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-Wm 351-353, General requirements lor owners or operators All remedial activities will comply Relevant and
Waste/Soil 701-705, 707, 708, and 709 Standards lor Owners 01 hazardous waste site or treatment lacilities. with the substantive provision 01 Appropriate
and Operators 01 Hazardous Waste Facilities Includes siting requirements Env-Wm 353.09- state hazardous waste regulations.
353.10; environmental and health requirements
(702.08); general design requirements (702.09);
other monitoring requirements (708.02); and
technical requirements (708.03).
Hazardous STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-Wm 702.10- Requirements lor installation and operation 01 Environmental monitoring during Relevant and
Waste/Soil 702.14, Monitoring 01 Hazardous Waste one or more 01 the lollowing monitoring remedial operations will be Appropriate
Treatment Facilities systems: developed and installed in
. Groundwater monitoring network. accordance with these regulations.
. Air emission monitoring network.
. Leachate monitoring network.
M KO I \R.PT:00628026.oo3\site8rod.apa
A-7
-------
APPENDIX A
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4: IN SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION OF SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PHASE PRODUCT, MANAGEMENT OF DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVERBURDEN WATER-BEARING ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, DISCHARGE OF TREATED GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TRENCHES, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
SITE 8, PEASE AFB, NH
(Continued)
Action To Be Taken To
Medium Requirement Requirement Synopsis Allain Requirements Status
Hazardous SfATE-NH Admin. Code Env-Wm 707.03, Incorporates by reference the requirements of The excavated soil stockpiled at Applicable
Waste/Soil Waste Pile Requirements 40 CFR 264, Subpart L, regarding waste piles. the site will comply with these
regulations and 40 CFR 264,
Subpart L.
Hazardous SfATE-NH Admin. Code Env-Ws 412, Establishes procedures and requirements for The requirements of this Relevant and
Waste/Soil Reporting and Remediation of Oil Discharges notification, reporting, response actions, and regulation have been used in the Appropriate
investigations for sites where discharges of oil development of the remedial
have occurred. alternative.
Hazardous Sf ATE-Nil Guidance Document Policy identifies options for treatment and The requirement has been TBC
Waste/Soil Interim Policy for the Management of Soils disposal, current analytical methods, and reviewed during the development
Contaminated from the Spills/Releases of remediation goals for virgin petroleum- of the FS Report.
Virgin Petroleum Products contaminated soil.
Groundwater SfATE-RSA 485-A:12, Enforcement of Any discharge to groundwater that lowers the Remedial alternatives involving the Applicable
Classification quality of the water below its classification is discharge to groundwater must
prohibited. comply with these standards.
Groundwater SfATE-RSA 485-A:13, Permit for Discharge Discharge or disposal must comply with Remedial measures involving Applicable
efnuent limitations. discharge to groundwater must
comply with these standards.
On-site discharges do not require a
permit.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\sile8rod.apa
A-8
-------
APPENDIX A
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4: IN SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION OF SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PHASE PRODUCT, MANAGEMENT OF DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVERBURDEN WATER-BEARING ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, DISCHARGE OF TREATED GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TRENCHES, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
SITE 8, PEASE AFB, NH
(Continued)
Aclion To Be Taken To
Medium Requirement Requirement Synopsis Attain Requirements Stalus
Groundwater !ITATE-Env-Ws 410.03, Groundwater Quality Compliance with Env-Ws 410.03 requires action Remedial action will be conducted Applicable
Criteria 10 ensure that groundwater is suitable ror in accordance with the
drinking water, does not violate Ambient requirements.
Groundwater Qualily Standards, and does not
cause surrace water quality violations (unless
due to natural condilions or exempt under
Env-Ws 410.04).
Groundwater !ITATE-Env-Ws 410.07, 410.08, 410.09, and Prohihits discharges to groundwaler without Remedial measures involving Applicable
410.10, Prohibited Discharge. Groundwater use or best available technology (BAT); discharges to groundwater must
Discharge Zone, Groundwater Discharge Permit requires controls on use or groundwater within comply with this regulation.
Compliance Criteria discharge zone; sets limits on discharges to
groundwater
Groundwater !ITATE-Env-Ws 410.20, Notirication 10 Requires Ihe permittee to provide notice or the Action will be taken in accordance Substantive
Landowners permit to all owners or lots or records within wilh this requirement. requirements
the GMZ within 30 days or the date or applicable
approval or Groundwater Management Permit.
Groundwater !ITATE-Env-Ws 410.21, Recordation Regulates recordation or notice or the Remedial action will be conducled Substanlive
groundwater management permit in the registry in accordance with the requirements
or deeds in the chain or tille ror each lot within requirement. applicable
the GMZ.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
A-9
-------
APPENDIX A
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4: IN SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION OF SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PHASE PRODUCT, MANAGEMENT OF DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVERBURDEN WATER-BEARING ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, DISCHARGE OF TREATED GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TRENCHES, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
SITE 8, PEASE AFB, NH
(Continued)
Action To Be Taken To
Medium Requirement Requirement Synopsis Allain Requirements Status
Groundwater STATB-Env-Ws 410.18, Groundwater Requires application ror a groundwater As part or the remedy, a GMZ will Substantive
Management Permit management permit ror sites where discharge be established. Action will be requirements
or a regulated contaminant at that site has taken to restore groundwater applicable
caused and continues to cause the groundwater quality criteria and restrict
quality criteria or Env-Ws 410.03 to be violated. groundwater use within the GMZ.
Errectiveness or the remedy will be
monitored.
Groundwater STATB-Env-Ws 410.27, Groundwater Speciries action to be taken in case or violation Remedial action will be conducted Substantive
Management Permit Compliance Criteria or an ambient groundwater quality standard at in accordance with this requirements
or outside the GMZ boundary. requirement. applicable
Groundwater STATB-Env-Ws 410.30, Water Quality Specifies requirements for monitoring Remedial action will be conducted Substantive
Sampling. Analysis, and Reporting groundwater quality to ensure compliance with in accordance with these requirements
the terms of the permit and groundwater regulations. applicable
protection rules.
Air FEDERAL-RCRA 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart Contains air pollution emission standards for Equipment used in remedial Applicable
M process vents associated with distillation, activities will meet these
fractionation, thin film evaporation, and solvent requirements.
extraction of air or stripping operations.
Applicable to operations that manage
hazardous wastes with organics concentrations
of 10 parts per million by weight (ppmw).
MK01 \RYf:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
A-10
-------
APPENDIX A
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4: IN SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION OF SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PHASE PRODUCT, MANAGEMENT OF DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVERBURDEN WATER-BEARING ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, DISCHARGE OF TREATED GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TRENCHES, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
SITE 8, PEASE AFB, NH
(Continued)
Action To Be Taken To
Medium Requirement Requirement Synopsis Attain Requirements Status
Air FEDERAL-RCRA 40 CFR Part 264, Contains air pollutant emission standards for Equipment used in remedial Relevant and
Subpart BB equipment leaks at hazardous waste treatment, activities will meet the design Appropriate
storage and disposal facilities (fSDFs). specifications, and will be
Contains design specifications and requirements monitored for leaks.
for monitoring for leak detection. It is
applicable to equipment that contains or
contacts hazardous wastes with organic
concentrations of at least 10% by weight.
Air FEDERAL-RCRA 40 CFR Part 264, Contains proposed air pollutant emission Required emissions controls will TBC
Subpart CC (proposed) standards for owners and operators of TSDFs be installed.
using tanks, surface impoundments, and
containers to manage hazardous wastes.
Specific organic emissions controls would have
to be installed if volatile organic concentrations
equal or are greater than 500 ppmw.
Air SfATE-NH Admin. Code Env-A 1024, Control Specifies VOC emission control methods and Precautions will be taken during TBC
of VOC Emissions establishes limitations on VOC emissions for remedial actions to minimize VOC
various industries. emissions.
Air FEDERAL-CM-National Emission Standards Maximum emission standards designed to Releases of contaminants to the air Applicable
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) protect the public from hazardous air during SVE and groundwater
pollutants. treatment will not exceed these
levels. See Subsection 3.3.3 of the
CM for details on air emission
control.
MKOt \RPT:00628026.oo3\site8rod.apa
A-tt
-------
APPENDIX A
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4: IN SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION OF SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PHASE PRODUCT, MANAGEMENT OF DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVERBURDEN WATER-BEARING ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, DISCHARGE OF TREATED GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TRENCHES, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
SITE 8, PEASE AFB, NH
(Continued)
Action To Be Taken To
Medium Requirement Requirement Synopsis Attain Requirements Status
Air FEDERAL-CAA-National Ambient Air Quality NAAQS define primary and secondary levels The levels established ror these six Applicable
Standards (NAAQS), 40 CFR 50 ror six common air contaminants (sulrur air contaminants will be used as
dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide target levels that may not be
ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead) in ambient exceeded in ambient air at the
air. nearest receptor during the source
control and management or
migration treatment system.
Air FEDERAL-EPA Policy on Control or Air Provides guidance on the control or air Controls on air stripper will be me
Emissions rrom Superfund Air Strippers at emissions rrom air strippers used at Superfund used as necessary to altain
Superfund Groundwater Sites, OSWER sites ror groundwater treatment. requirements.
Directive 9355.0-28.
Air STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-A 800, Testing Identifies procedures that must be rollowed ror During the source control and Applicable
and Monitoring Procedures the testing or air emissions rrom stationary management or migration
sources. treatment operations, air emissions
will be monitored and tested to
ensure that these sources do not
exceed applicable standards.
Air STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-1oo2, Fugitive Requires precautions to prevent, abate, and Precautions to control rugitive dust Applicable
Dust Control control rugitive dust during specified activities, emissions will be required during
including excavation, construction, and bulk remedial activities. These
hauling. precautions will be adhered to.
MKOI \RYf:00628026.oo3\site8rod.apa
A-12
-------
APPENDIX A
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4: IN SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION OF SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PHASE PRODUCT, MANAGEMENT OF DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVERBURDEN WATER-BEARING ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, DISCHARGE OF TREATED GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TRENCHES, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
SITE 8, PEASE AFB, NH
(Continued)
Action To Be Taken To
Medium Requirement Requirement Synopsis Attain Requirements Statu
Air STATE-Nil Admin. Code Env-A 1300, Toxic Establishes Ambient Air Limits (MLs) to Release of contaminants in the air Applicable
Air Pollutants protect the public from concentrations of from anyon-site remedial activities
pollutants in ambient air that may cause will not result in exceedance of the
adverse health effects. respective ML, if one exists.
Emissions from the GWfP are not
expected to result in exceedance of
these standards. Proposed air
emissions will be coordinated with
the Air Resources Division of
NHDES.
Air STATE-RSA Ch. U5C, Air Pollution Control, Air pollution controls as specified below. See below. Applicable
Nil Admin. Rules, Env. A 100-1300, as specified
below
Air STATE-Nil Admin. Code Env-A 300, Ambient Establishes primary and secondary levels for These ambient air levels will be Applicable
Air Quality Standards eight air contaminants (particulate matter, incorporated with federal NMQs
sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen to establish target levels that may
dioxide, ozone, hydrocarbons, nuorides, and not be exceeded as a result of
lead). emissions from SVE, groundwater
treatment, and other remedial
activities. Air monitoring will be
conducted during remedial
activities.
Air STATE-Env-A 505.02(a), Emergency Procedures Imposes obligations on sources of air pollution Comply with directions of state in Applicable
in case of emergency. case of "warning" status.
MKOI \RPT:0062B026.oo3\siteBrod.apa
A-13
-------
APPENDIX A
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4: IN SITU SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION OF SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PHASE PRODUCT, MANAGEMENT OF DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVERBURDEN WATER-BEARING ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, DISCHARGE OF TREATED GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TRENCHES, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
SITE 8, PEASE AFB, NH
(Continued)
Action To Be Taken To
Medium Requirement Requirement Synopsis Allain Requirements Status
Air SfATE-Env-A 902, Malfunctions of Air provides for limited relief from other No additional action required; Applicable
Pollution Control r~uipment requirements in case of malfunction. provides relief from other
(Notification requiremenls are not ARARs.) requirements.
Air Sf ATE-Nil Admin. Rules. Env. A 1002, Activities such as construclion and excavation Maintain dust control during site Applicable
Fugitive Dust Emission Control must include precautions to prevent, abate, and remediation.
conlrol fugitive dust em.issions.
Air !>TATE-Env-A 1305, Impact Analysis and Requires air quality impact analysis of devices Discharge from any new applicable Applicable
Permit Requirements emitting regulated substances. or modified facility must comply
with these requirements.
MKOI \ RP'I':OO628026.003\site8rod.apa
A-14
-------
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.fm
APPENDIX B
DECLARATION OF CONCURRENCE
-------
...----....
L 5\
f~~
~NHDES
State of New Hampshire
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIROm1ENTAL SERVICES
603-27 1-3503
FAX 603-271-2867
6 Hazen Drive. P.O. Box 95. Concord. NH 03302-0095
'--
t_----::-
TDD Access: Relay ]\;H 1-800-735-2964
September 13, 1994
Mr. Alan K. Olsen
Director, Air Force Base Conversion Agency
1700 North Moore Street, Suite 2300
Arlington, VA 22209-2802
Re:
Record of Decision for Site 8
Pease Air Force Base Superfund Site
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
Subject:
Declaration of Concurrence
Dear Mr. Olsen:
The "Record of Decision for Site 8" (Site 8 ROD) presents the selected remedial
action, designed to protect human and ecological receptors in the vicinity of the Fire
Department Training Area 2 at the Pease Air Force Base Superfund Site, located in
Newington and Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Based upon its review of the Site 8 ROD,
and acting as agent for the State of New Hampshire, the Department concurs with the
remedial action decision, selected under CERCLA, for Site 8.
The Site 8 ROD was developed in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1986 (CERCLA), and
outlines source control actions and management of migration actions to be implemented
by the Air Force in order to remedy the threat to human health and the environment posed
by contamination at Site 8.
Prior to Pease Air Force Base becoming a Superfund site, and as a party to the
"Pease Federal Facility Agreement Under CERCLA Section 120" (Pease FFA), the
Department has been actively involved in the oversight of the Air Force's environmental
response activities at Site 8. The approach to site remediation, as outlined in the Site 8
ROD, is generally consistent with the approach the Department would require in a
Remedial Action Plan for similar sites in the State of New Hampshire, regardless of their
Superfund status. While the Site 8 ROD is more conceptual than what the Department
would require in a Remedial Action Plan, to the extent practicable, the Department
evaluated the appropriateness, feasibility and effectiveness of the selected remedial
method, both long-term and short-term, to determine the degree of certainty the remedial
plan will prove successful in achieving the remedial goals of the Department.
AIR RESOURCES DI\'.
6-1 !';o, Mam Street
Caller Box 1033
Concord, J",H, 03302-2033
1el. 603.271-1370
Fax 603-171-1381
WASTE MANAGEMENT DIY.
6 Hazen Drive
Concord. S,H, 03301
1el. 603-271.1900
Fax 603.271-1456
WATER RESOURCES DIY
64 !'io, Maio SIr..1
p,O, Box ~OO8
Concord, S,H, 0330~-2008
1.1. 603.171.3406
Fax 603-271.6588
WATER SUPPLY & POLLUTION CO!'\TROL DIY,
p,O, Box 95
Concord, J",H, 0330~-OO95
1e1 603-171-3503
-------
Letter to Alan K. Olsen
Re: Site 8 ROD Declaration 01 Concurrence
September 13, 1994
Page 2
Consistent with the Department's requirement to remove, treat or contain the
contamination source to prevent the additional release of contaminants to groundwater,
the selected action includes:
In-situ soil vapor extraction (SVE) treatment of contaminated source area
soil;
.
.
Treatment of extracted soil vapor for removal of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs);
.
Recovery of free-phase floating product and disposal off-base at a licensed
treatment/disposal facility; and,
.
A contingency source control measure (Le., installation of free-phase
recovery trenches) will be install~d if it is determined free-phase product
begins to migrate away from the source area.
Consistent with the Department's requirements to contain and confine contaminated
groundwater and restore groundwater quality, the selected action includes:
.
Implementation of a groundwater recovery system designed to capture
dissolved phase contamination in the overburden groundwater;
.
On-site treatment of recovered groundwater by air-stripping with liquid-phase
activated carbon and vapor-phase activated carbon (if necessary), and
discharge to on-site subsurface recharge trenches;
.
A contingency groundwater response action (Le., recovery of bedrock
groundwater) will implemented if it is determined that the cleanup of
groundwater in the bedrock water-bearing unit is not progressing; and,
.
Monitoring of remedial performance and long-term environmental conditions.
Long-term monitoring of groundwater, surface water and sediments will be
necessary in order to determine the effectiveness of the remedial actions at Site 8. Water
quality monitoring is determined on a site specific basis and will be addressed in a
Groundwater Management Permit, issued by the Department. Frequency and location of
water quality monitoring is typically required on a tri-annual basis until a baseline condition
-------
letter to Alan K. Olsen
Re: Site 8 ROD Declaration of Concurrence
September 13, 1994
Page 3
A comprehensive, detailed review 01 all environmental monitoring data will be
conducted by the Air Force, EPA and the Department in order to ensure the remedial
action provides adequate protection of human health and the environment and complies
with applicable regulations.
Sincerely,
~yW. J- C)
Commissioner
cc:
Philip J. O'Brien, Ph.D., Director, DE8-WMD
Carl W. Baxter, P.E., DES-WMEB
Richard H. Pease, P.E., DES-WMEB
Martha A. Moore, Esq., NHDOJ-AGO
Michael J. Daly, EPA
Arthur L. Ditto, P.E., AFBCA
-------
MK01\RPI':00628026.003\site8rod.apc
APPENDIX C
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
RESPONSNENESSS~Y
OVERVIEW
The Air Force issued the Site 8 Proposed Plan to the public in January 1994. In the Site
8 Proposed Plan, the Air Force identified its preferred alternative for Site 8. The selection
of this preferred alternative by the Air Force was coordinated with U.S. EPA Region I
(EPA) and NHDES. The preferred alternative involves soil and floating fuel/solvent
mixture cleanup at the source area and groundwater containment and treatment.
The subsections that follow describe the background on community involvement with Site
8 activities and the Air Force's response to both written and verbal comments received
during the Site 8 Proposed Plan Public Comment Period of 26 January to 10 March 1994.
BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Prior to the start of the public comment period for Site 8, the Air Force issued a Fact Sheet
that summarized the contents of the Site 8 Proposed Plan. Presentations on the status of
work being conducted and results of the work at Site 8 area were made to the Pease AFB
Technical Review Committee (IRC). Additionally, the content of the Site 8 Proposed Plan
was provided to the IRC members in draft format and discussed with the TRC members
in November 1993. Input from the TRC members was taken into account in preparing the
final Site 8 Proposed Plan. Announcements were mailed to all individuals on the Pease
AFB Community Relations Plan mailing list in January 1994 prior to the beginning of the
public comment period. Additionally, press releases were issued to the media announcing
the beginning of the public comment period. Announ<:ements were published in two local
newspapers prior to the public hearing date of 1 March 1994. The original public hearing,
scheduled for 9 February 1994, had to be postponed due to inclement weather. Notices of
cancellation were sent to all media and interested parties. The rescheduled public hearing
date and public comment period extension announcements were published in two local
newspapers. It is noted that the public comment period and public hearing for Site 8 ran
concurrent with Zone 5. Proposed remedial actions for Site 8 and Zone 5 were presented
equally to the public.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD AND AIR
FORCE RESPONSES
During the public comment period, three sets of written comments were received and four
individuals provided comments at the public hearing held on 1 March 1994. Comments
received during the comment period are summarized as follows, along with the Air Force
response to each comment. A copy of the public hearing transcript is available for review,
along with the written comments received on the Site 8 Proposed Plan, at the Pease AFB
Information Repository located at 61 International Drive, Building 43, at Pease AFB, New
Hampshire.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
C-1
-------
1.
Comment (written):
Response:
2.
Comment (written):
Response:
3.
Comment (written):
Response:
4.
Comment (written):
Response:
5.
Comment (written):
Response:
6.
Comment (written):
Response:
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
There should be mention of a written Section 106 and Section
110 process which would address the preservation of the
forest.
As part of the remedial action evaluation process, the Air
Force has to evaluate all Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements, of which the ,Nation~ Histo:ic
Preservation is one. Reference to this Act IS made In the SIte
8 Feasibility Study (FS) and will be referenced in the Site 8
Record of Decision (ROD).
In all of the maps for both publications, the Newington Town
Forest designation is not correct nor outlined.
The designation and location of the Newington Town Forest
will be clearly shown in the figures included in the Zone 5 and
Site 8 RODs, as will Site 11, the Field Maintenance Squadron
Equipment Cleaning Site.
Proposed Plan 3 (sic) does not include the special history that
the site is on the National Register of Historic Places.
Reference will be made in the Site History section of the Site
8 ROD that a portion of Site 8 lies within the Newington
Town Forest. A brief discussion of the history of the Town
Forest will be included.
Why is the ROD not submitted to SHPO (NHDHR) for
approval?
SHPO does not have approval authority for environmental
remedial action RODs; this authority rests with EP A.
Why is not the National Register designation mentioned since
this definitely affects the management of the cleanup and must
be a consideration.
Reference to the fact that the Newington Town Forest is listed
on the National Register of Historic Places will be made in
the Site 8 ROD. See response to comment no. 4.
How do you expect to keep the NHDHR advised over the
next 30 years of your cleanup operations at Zone 5.
The Air Force believes the question is intended to be directed
toward, the Site 8 action because that is the only site that
would Involve the NHDHR. The Air Force and NHDHR are
C-2
-------
7.
Comment (written):
Response:
8.
Comment (written):
Response:
9.
Comment (written):
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
in the process of developing a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) governing the Site 8 remedial activities that would
occur within the boundaries of the Newington Town Forest.
One aspect of this MOA will be a provision for monitoring of
these activities. This monitoring requirement will provide the
NHDHR with status of activities for the life of the MOA. In
addition, the Air Force will use a forestry consultant during
design and implementation of the remedial action to employ
best management practices for all actions in the Town Forest.
Is there a written management plan about the disturbances
(now and future) to the Town Forest'?
As stated in response to comment no. 6, the Air Force and
NHDHR are in the process of developing an MOA that will
govern the Site 8 remedial action work within the boundaries
of the Newington Town Forest. On 28 February 1994, the Air
Force met with representatives of the NHDHR, along with
representatives from the Newington Selectmen's Office, to
review the proposed activities for Site 8 and to discuss the
potential impacts and methods to minimize them. The results
of this discussion are being used to develop the MOA. The
Town of Newington will be a concurring party to the MOA.
The N ewington Historic District Commission wishes to be
informed of the remedial operation and hopes that the
Newington Forest Management Plan recommendation will be
a consideration as you implement your remediation at Site 8.
The Air Force has established a Technical Review Committee
(TRC) that meets monthly to review and discuss
environmental activities at Pease AFB, including the remedial
action activities at Site 8. The Town of Newington's
Selectmen's Office has a representative on the TRC who can
provide the up-to-date status of the Site 8 activities to the
various Newington Boards and Commissions. Forest
management operation, consistent with the historical use of
the Newington Town Forest, is one of the factors being used
in the development of the MOA referenced in response to
comment no. 6.
As for the matter at hand this evening, we concur with the
proposed remediation of Site 8, with the understanding that
every effort will be made to avoid adverse impacts on the
Newington Town Forest, the oldest such forest in the United
States, a status that was duly recognized by the U.S. Secretary
C-3
-------
Response:
10. Comment (written):
Response:
11. Comment (written):
Response:
12. Comment (written):
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
of the Interior when the forest was listed on the National
Register of Historic Places.
The Air Force is taking into account the potential effect the
Site 8 actions might have on the Newington Town Forest.
The Air Force is working with the NHDHR to develop an
MOA governing the work activities in the Town Forest area.
In development of the MOA, strong consi~eration ~ll .be
given to specifying methods of work executIon to minImIZe
negative effects to the Town Forest area.
It is the recommendation to cap rather than remove
contaminated soil that I strongly oppose. I believe that
removal of contaminated soil from the surface to the top of
the high water table is a justified despite the cost and that
capping is not an acceptable alt~mative.
The Air Force intends to fully clean up the soil within the
source area at Site 8, meeting the cleanup goals specified in
the Proposed Plan. The remedial technology selected by the
Air Force to accomplish this cleanup is soil vapor extraction
(SVE). SVE will remove the contaminants within the soil
without having to excavate the soil. This process is estimated
to take approximately 5 years to complete. The cap the
. commentor refers to is only a component of the SVE process.
The cap makes the SVE process more efficient. Several
excavation options were considered in the FS; however, using
the nine required criteria to evaluate each alternative, the Air
Force determined that the SVE was overall a better
technology to apply at Site 8 for soil remediation than
excavation and on-site treatment of soil.
On Figure 1, the General Site Map for Site 8, and Figure 3,
AF Preferred Alternative Site Plan, the property boundaries
for the Cross lot do not correctly reflect the current town tax
maps and site plan for my lot on file in the Rockingharn
County records. This correction is important as it identifies
that the plume of contamination is across my land and I have
. been directly impacted. F or your final report attachments,
please adjust the lines as indicated on the copy enclosed.
The general site map for Site 8 and other applicable figures
will be correct in future documents, including the Site 8 ROD,
to correctly show the Cross property boundary.
The last sentence on Page 4-1 states 262 tons of contaminated
soil were removed. What was the cost to treat this soil and
C-4
-------
Response:
13. Comment (written):
Response:
14. Comment (written):
Response:
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
what was done to it? Does it become much cheaper when
done on a large scale?
The 262 tons, or 175 cubic yards (yd3), of contaminated soil
were transported to a secure landfill in Maine, Sawyer
Environmental Recovery Facilities, Inc., of Hampden Maine,
in February 1990. The cost of this disposal process was
approximately $52,000. The cost of disposal of soil if done
today and on a larger scale would not be necessarily any
cheaper (unit price). It would potentially be more expensive
because of new regulations that have been put into place that
specify how, where, and what pretreatment must be done
before contaminated items can be disposed of. Additionally,
this past disposal method is an example of just moving
contaminated media from point A to point B without any
reduction of contaminant toxicity or volume. The current
preferred EP A objective for remedial actions is to reduce
contaminant toxicity, mobility, and volume through on-site
actions, i.e., treatment in-place rather than moving the
contamination to another location.
Page 4-2, Para 4.2.1: How many tons of soil are contained
within 500 feet. horizontally to a depth of 30 feet? How
rapidly does the level of contamination decrease with depth?
Can you remove a good portion of the problem with removing
only the top "X" many feet? For example, if you removed
down to the top of the water table level, how many feet would
it be?
The levels of contamination in the soil actually increase with
depth, with the highest level of contamination being in the.
smear zone at the water table. This smear zone is
approximately 7 feet wide (vertical) and occurs at a depth of
approximately 25 feet below ground surface (ft BGS). The
total volume of soil that would have to be removed to
excavate the contaminated soil in the smear zone is estimated
at 175,000 yd3, of which approximately 59,000 yd3 of soil are
actually contaminated.
Page 4-2, Para 4.2.2: Are the contaminants of Pickering
Brook not site related because they are a different type than
found at Site 8? I could not locate Knights Brook in Figure
1. Did I overlook it? Since you refer to it in the report, it
would help to label it in Figure 1.
The results of the Site 8 Remedial Investigation determined
that groundwater from the site discharges to Pickering Brook.
C-5
-------
15. Comment (written):
Response:
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
The surface water and sediment sampling locations sampled
as part of the Site 8 Remedial Investig~tion detected
contaminants in Pickering Brook. The contamInants detected
in Pickering Brook are not considered to be Site 8 related
because of the limited ability of the contaminants to migrate
from Site 8 to Pickering Brook. However, since this property
has been owned by the Air Force for the past 40 years, any
contamination in Pickering Brook is most likely the result of
Air Force activities. Regardless of the source of the
contamination, the levels of these contaminants detected in
Pickering Brook were either below regulatory criteria or
exceeded criteria at a low frequency. These exceedences
occurred infrequently during sampling rounds at only one or
two of the sampling locations along Pickering Brook. The
results of the Site 8 risk assessment revealed that risks posed
to human and ecological receptors were acceptable and,
consequently, do not require remediation. In addition, the Air
Force continues to monitor surface water and sediment quality
at Pease AFB and will be monitoring surface water quality in
Pickering and Knights Brooks as part of the remedial action
for Site 8. Labeling of Knights Brook was inadvertently left
off of Figure 1. Knights Brook begins in the wetlands areas
shown in the Frink Trust property in Figure 1.
Page 5-1: Human Health Risk: None posed. Does this mean
that there should be no restrictions on use of the area for a
nature trail where hikers would sit on or touch the soil?
Ecological Risk: Risks posed to mouse and sparrow. What
is the risk to animals that may catch and eat those animals at
risk?
True, for all media except for groundwater. Generally,
surface use of the area would be unrestricted. For
nonresidential use, risks were evaluated assuming future
industrial/ commercial use of the property in the vicinity of the
former burn areas. This future use assumption is consistent
with the current zoning for this area. Based on this
assumption, risks were evaluated for a maintenance worker
who is the most likely maximally exposed individual. The
potential for health risks was below EPA's benchmark of
concern. Risks to a recreational user, such as a hiker, would
be expected to be even lower than risks to a maintenance
worker. Animal uptake by evaluated receptors is taken into
account in the ecological risk assessment process. Evaluation
of other animals that may eat the evaluated receptors was not
conducted. As indicated in the Proposed Plan and further
explained in the Site 8 Remedial Investigation (RI) Report,
C-6
-------
16. Comment (written):
Response:
17. Comment (written):
Response:
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
ecological risk to the evaluated receptors in Pickering and
Knights Brooks is within a range where it has been
determined remedial actions are not warranted.
Page 6-1, 2nd Para. states that soil cleanup to prevent contact
is not required because there is no risk. Please explain why
this is an overstatement selected to better support not treating
the soil. It conflicts with the previous page which said the
ecological risk was in the range of uncertainty.
The risk assessment process is divided into two groups: human
health and the environment (ecological). The process for
conducting the human health risk assessment evaluation is
well established and is based on clearly stated regulatory
guidance. The ecological evaluation is somewhat subjective
and includes many conservative assumptions that result in the
computed risk values having a large range of uncertainty. For
Site 8, the results of the human health risk assessment indicate
that, for all media except groundwater, the potential for
adverse health effects is below EP A's benchmark of concern
(i.e., the potential for risk is very low). The Air Force could
have better phrased this statement by saying the "soils do not
pose an unacceptable risk"; therefore, soil remediation is not
considered necessary. The values computed for the ecological
risk resulting from surface soil were in the uncertainty range.
The assumptions about the physical site conditions to support
the representative species are evaluated and a final
determination is made. In this case, it was determined that
the ecological risks were such that actions were not warranted.
The second paragraph on page 6-1 of the Proposed Plan does
not state there are "no" risks, but rather the source area soils
do not pose a risk.
Page 7-3, 1st Bullet: Can the SVE system operate without the
cap? SVE wells are to what depth? How do you propose to
drill so many wells in the forest without disturbing the root
structure and harming the Town Forest? How will the
increased air flow change the moisture level next to the roots
of the existing trees, and what harm could this do to the
existing trees? Will any of the SVE system interconnection
piping be aboveground? If so, what will be done to conceal
these in the forest? If not, how do you prevent damage to the
existing tree roots when installing the pipes?
The SVE system can operate without a cap. The SVE wells
will be installed to a depth of approximately 28 feet, with a
treatment interval of 10 feet (depth of 18 to 28 feet). The
C-7
-------
18. Comment (written):
Response:
MKOI \RYI':00628026.003\site8rod.apc
wells to be installed in the Town Forest area will be located
to minimize the impact to trees without compromising the
SVE process. Work in the Town Forest will be covered under
an MOA between the Air Force and NHDHR (see response
to comment no. 9). With the treatment interval starting at a
depth of 18 feet and the shallow nature of the root system of
the pine trees in the town forest, it is not expected the SVE
process will impact the moisture level at the tree roo~s.. ~e
connection of the SVE wells will be aboveground to InlIDInlZe
the impacts on the root systems. In relation to the age of the
Town Forest (300 years), the SVE system will be present for
a short period (estimated at 5 years). For this short duration,
it is believed that the negative aspects of the aboveground
piping in 1 acre of the forest can be accepted, this subject has
been discussed with the NHDHR and Newington Town
officials in the development of the MOA for the Newington
Town Forest.
Page 7-3, 2nd Bullet: The statement that the cap would aid
in lowering the water table is incorrect unless the cap removes
water rather than just shielding it. Doesn't the water above
run to the sides and flow horizontally under to the same level.
Isn't the groundwater recovery system based on this free
horizontal flow? Would you consider rephrasing your
statement to say the cap in the cleared area has a minimal
disturbance to the remaining trees although it prevents the
Town Forest from reclaiming the FDTA cleared area by re-
growth for 30 years?
The cap will be graded such that the water intercepted by the
cap is drained away from the site. This will minimize
fluctuations in the water table as the Site 8 former burn areas
represent a groundwater recharge area. The Newington Town
Forest area, as listed on the National Register of Historic
Places, does not include the former burn areas of Site 8. The
boundary for the Town Forest is the stone wall that lies north
of the Site 8 fire training area. Future use of the property
encompassed by the Site 8 fire training area will be at the
option of the new property owner once transfer occurs.
Currently, a majority of the Site 8 fire training area lies within
the Airport District at the Pease International Tradeport. The
surrounding area is zoned airport industrial by the Town of
Newington. The Air Force is unaware of any plan by the
~euse organization(s) for Pease to expand the Town Forest
mto the Site 8 fire training area. The groundwater recovery
syst~m is based on horizontal flow, the cap helps stabilize
vertIcal components of the groundwater units. A statement
C-8
-------
19. Comment (written):
Response:
20. Comment (written):
Response:
21. Comment (written):
Response:
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.apc
will be made in the Site 8 ROD that the area to be capped
will have a minimal effect on the adjacent Town Forest trees.
Page 7-3: How deep would the recovery trenches be? At the
locations shown in Figure 3, how would you prevent serious
damage to the existing Town Forest? To what extent does
Newington have a voice in whether and where the trenches
will be dug?
The trenches shown in Figure 3 are recharge trenches, not
recovery trenches. These recharge trenches are outside the
Newington Town Forest area, with the depth of the trench
being approximately 6 feet. Please note this figure will clearly
show the location of the Town Forest areas in the Site 8
ROD. As for the recovery trenches, first the need has to be
established if it is determined that the recovery trenches are
needed, then a location must be determined. If any of the
recovery trenches need to be located in the Town Forest area
the Air Force will have to coordinate this activity in
accordance with the MOA governing work in the Town Forest
area. As the Town of Newington will be a concurring party to
this MOA, its input to the location of the trenches will be
solicited. "
Page 7-3: Is there a formal report by which Newington will be
notified of progress in attaining the overburden cleanup goals?
Will these only be changed with Newington's concurrence?
The "cleanup goals will be specified in the Site 8 ROD. These
goals can only be changed through revision to, or modification
of, the ROD. This would require EP A and NHDES
concurrence and public input before the decision process is
completed. The Newington representative on the TRC will be
kept apprised of the status of the remedial action at Site 8.
Additionally, the reoccurring, 5-year review process will
become public information.
Page 7-3, Last Bullet: Why is worker protection monitoring
needed if the soil is safe for human contact as stated on page
5-1? How are we sure that funds will continue to be available
for the monitoring and reporting?
The risk assessment for human health was based on a
maintenance worker who is exposed to soil in the 0- to 2- and
0- to 15-foot levels year-round on a long-term basis. It
assumes that no major disturbance of the soil occurs. The
construction work during installation of the SVE system will
C-9
-------
22. Comment (written):
Response:
23. Comment (written):
Response:
24. Comment (verbal):
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
result in soil below 15 feet, where the higher contaminan:s
exist, being brought to the surface. This could result In
worker exposure to both soil themselves and vapors that may
emanate from the soil, and to large quantities of soil that may
be generated during construction activities. The concern for
the construction worker is for the potential risk posed by
relatively short-term exposure to higher doses of contaminants.
The risks can be very different from those posed to the
maintenance worker as a result of long-term exposure to lower
doses. Therefore, worker protection monitoring needs to be
put into place during the construction phase. It is the intent
of the Air Force to fully fund this remedial action. However,
future fund distributions are really a function of what
Congress authorizes to the Air Force as part of DOD budget
process. The future congressional actions are outside the
control of the Air Force.
Please send me the cleanup goal (J,Lg/kg) for b,2, EHPh; 1,2
DCA; and TCE.
The cleanup standards for the compounds are established by
regulatory standards known as Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs). The following MCLs have been used for these
contaminants:
.
.
.
b,2, EHPh - 6 parts per billion (ppb).
1,2 DCA - 5 ppb.
TCE - 5 ppb.
This information has been provided to the cornrnentor;
reference Air Force letter of 25 March 1994. This response
letter has been filed in the Administrative Record.
Please send me an explanation of the medial (sic) expectations
on the health of people who become exposed over time to the
chemicals detailed in your Site 8 and Zone 5 Proposed Plans.
Information provided to commentor on 25 March 1994;
reference Air Force letter of 25 March 1994. This response
letter has been filed in the Administrative Record.
As for the matter at hand this evening, we concur with the
proposed remediation of Site 8, with the understanding that
every effort will be made to avoid adverse impacts on the
Newington Town Forest.
C-10
-------
Response:
25. Comment (verbal):
Response:
26. Comment (verbal):
Response:
27. Comment (verbal):
Response:
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.apc
The Air Force is making every effort to avoid adverse impacts
on the Newington Town Forest and yet not compromise the
integrity of the remedial action. The Air Force is in the
process of setting up an MOA with the NHDHR, with the
Town of Newington as a concurring party, which will govern
the work to be conducted within the boundaries of the Town
Forest.
As for Site 8, the fire training area, SCOPE concurs with the
Air Force's proposed alternative and we applaud the Air
Force's foresight and its flexibility in implementing active
extraction in the bedrock groundwater zone if it is determined
that MM-2 is not controlling mitigation of contaminants into
the bedrock.
The Air Force acknowledges SCOPE's concurrence.
One other comment, and that has to do with Site 8, the cover,
the asphalt cover that's going to be put over the area that's
going to have the soil vapor extraction. In your comments, in
your remarks, could you tell us how you're going to deal with
that area that's inside the Town Forest, the Newington Town
Forest.
The area within the Newington Town Forest where the SVE
points are installed will not be capped with asphalt. This will
eliminate the need to clearcut the area within the Town
Forest where SVE will take place to install the cap. SVE well
spacing will be adjusted to compensate for the lack of a cap.
This will ensure that the maximum possible efficiency of the
SVE process is obtained.
Something specific to the management of migration alternative
for Site 8, just a word of caution that I just want to point out.
Any groundwater pump-and-treat action will entail movement
or shifting of the contaminant plume around in the
overburden. In the absence of active groundwater recovery
from the bedrock, we would just like to caution and
emphasize the fact that very close monitoring of water levels
in both the overburden and bedrock occur during the progress
of the remediation.
The Air Force intends to closely monitor effects the
groundwater pump-and-treat action has on both the
overburden and bedrock water-bearing zones. In some of the
monitoring points, the Air Force will use continuous
C-ll
-------
28. Comment (verbal):
Response:
29. Comment (verbal):
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
monitoring probes. This water level monitoring will ~e an
integral part of the long-term monitoring plan for the SIte.
I have about five comments. One related to the land use and
the deed restrictions. And one of the thoughts that I've had
in the past is, even when I built my house, th~ ?ank be~ore
they would give me a mortgage at first was requmng .all kinds
of things about contamination on the soil and what ID!ght have
been done in the past before they would even gIve me a
mortgage. And so if there are easements that are put on the
deed for certain monitoring of that property, it's like a red
flag, saying to any mortgage company, uh-huh, what's going on
here? Now I know the land right now is owned by the Air
Base, but there is a potential that could become private or
public land in the future.
The area of Site 8 that would require deed restrictions would
be called a Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ). The
zone boundary line is where the groundwater quality goes
from unacceptable to acceptable, and usually includes a buffer
zone. For Site 8, the GMZ would mostly be on existing Air
Force property, with a small portion being on Newington
Town property, Town Forest area behind the stone school,
adjacent to Pease AFB boundary. If the Air Force does
transfer the property to a private entity in the future, a
covenant would be in the deed that states the groundwater
could not be used, ensure rights of access to property for the
Air Force, and state Air Force responsibility to complete the
remedial action at the site. These actions would clearly show
that the responsibility for remedial action at the site belongs
to the Air Force and would insulate the new owner from any
liabilities from past Air Force activities.
The next comment I have related to..J've looked at all the
alternatives and, you know, tried to understand what you
mean by each one of them. But nowhere have I been able to
figure out what the efficiency of this soil vapor process is.
Somewhere along the line it was determined that that's an
efficient enough process to remove this contamination over a
period of 30 years, and I couldn't see anything that would tell
me how that related to excavation. So this whole concept that
you can remove this contamination by these hydraulic controls,
I guess it's pumping water, whatnot, doesn't tell me anything.
~il~ that be ultimately as efficient as taking it out and treating
It dIfferently? Is it a time difference? What happens after 30
years?
C-12
-------
Response:
30. Comment (verbal):
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\sitc:8rod.apc
There are two efficiency issues: one of the efficiencies of the
various source area (burn pit) actions, in this case it is the
SVE process versus excavation, and the other is the efficiency
of the hydraulic controls (groundwater pump and treat).
Regardless of which source area action is implemented at Site
8, pumping and treatment of the groundwater will be required.
The time it will take to remediate the groundwater to
acceptable levels would not likely be significantly affected by
selection of one source area action over another. The time
difference between the various source area actions (2 to 5
years), as compared to the estimated 30 years required for
groundwater treatment, is not that great. The efficiencies of
the various source area actions (soils treatment), using time of
execution as a measuring unit, are as follows:
.
In-place SVE - Estimated at 5 years.
.
Soil excavation and on-site biologicaljSVE treatment
- Estimated at 3 years.
.
Soil excavation and on-site thermal treatment -
Estimated at 2 years.
From this it is seen that the excavation options are shorter.
Another factor that needs to be considered in evaluating
efficiencies is the ability to be able to actually do the work.
In this case, the excavatiori of the contaminated soil is much
more difficult than the installation of the SVE system. The
contaminated soil that requires treatment is at the
groundwater table. This would result in a maximum
excavation depth of 28 feet. To remove the estimated 43,000
yd3 of contaminated soil, a total of 175,000 yd3 of soil would
have to be excavated. To handle and stage the 132,000 yd3 of
clean soil (175,000. - 43,000), approximately 5 acres of land
adjacent to Site 8 would need to be cleared to provide staging
area for this soil. Additionally, dewatering of the excavation
area would need to occur. Section 5 of the Draft Final Site
8 FS Report contains more detailed information on the
implementability of the various alternatives evaluated for
Site 8.
The third point that I had is, I've looked at all the
alternatives, I can't really figure out who decided which one
of these to choose. It sound like the Air Base looked at
several of them and decided that they would like to propose
what is SC-3, MM2. And then some of the other boards have
said, you know, we're withholding our acceptance of this.
C-13
-------
Response:
31. Comment (verbal):
Response:
MKOI \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
The Air Force identifies the alternative that it considers to be
most appropriate for the site to EPA and NHDES. This is
done in the draft Proposed Plan submitted to EP A and
NHDES under the provisions of the Pease AFB Federal
Facility Agreement. One aspect of the review of the draft
proposed plan by EP A and NHDES is acknow~edgment of
acceptance of the alternative selected by the Air F?rce. If
acceptance of the alternative cannot be made, the Air Force,
EPA, and/or NHDES meet to resolve any outstanding issues
and come to an agreement on the most appropriate
alternative. This agreed upon preferred alternative along with
the other alternatives evaluated in the FS are presented to the
public in the final Proposed Plan. What was meant by the
statement that other boards (NHDES) were withholding
acceptance is that final acceptance was being withheld pending
satisfactory completion of the public comment process. The
public comment process, especially the input received from
the public, plays an important role in the remedial action
decisionmaking process. The final decision really cannot be
made until public input is received and considered.
It seems to me that as an absolute minimum, you would have
to, from the very beginning, accept MM-3 as your minimum
criteria. And the reason I say that is that you already know
there is contamination in the bedrock water. If you don't
accept that as the minimum alternative right now, I can't
figure out at what point in the future in these contingency
plans that you would then go back and decide to adopt that.
There's nothing that says there would be public input into
that, and it's just some undetermined date in the future that
I don't feel comfortable with. If it was mandatory now as part
of the alternative that gets adopted, if it turns out that it's not
a problem, you just don't have to do it, but at least it has been
put into the proposal to begin with that is something that
needs to be addressed.
The Air Force understands the commentor's concern about
contamination in the bedrock water-bearing zone and is
equally concerned. The contamination at Site 8 emanates
from the former burn areas and enters the overburden water-
bearing zone. Migration of contamination in the overburden
flows in a northerly direction, and, at a point north of the Site
8 former bum areas, some portion of the contamination in the
o~erburden flows into the bedrock water-bearing zone. The
Air F?rce,. based on data developed for Site 8, believes that
the nugratIOn of contaminated water from the overburden into
the bedrock can be controlled by hydraulic controls
C-14
-------
32. Comment (verbal):
Response:
MKOI \RI'T:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
implemented in the overburden. Contamination in the
bedrock water-bearing zone would then attenuate naturally.
As part of the design process, the Air Force will further
evaluate the migration control process to ensure that this will
really work. Additionally, a performance standard, or a
measuring stick, will be developed to measure the
effectiveness of the migration control implemented in the
overburden. The development of the performance standards
will be done as part of the design process, which will involve
EP A and NHDES review and require their concurrence
before the design can become final. A timeline would also be
part of the performance standard that would specify when
measurements would be taken and at what point a
determination would be made to implement pumping of the
bedrock water-bearing zone if it were determined to be
necessary. Public involvement is available at the present time
through the Technical. Review Committee. If it is found
necessary or appropriate, additional public meetings could be
held. In addition, the EP A regulatory process requires a
formal review of the remediation process at 5-year intervals.
If performance of the remedial action is not meeting the
requirements of the ROD, the remedial process could be
revised, as necessary.
Now the next comment I have relates to, again, this whole
concept of what is your next alternative, this SC4-MM3, which
actually involves excavation and biological treatment. Again,
I can't tell from this why that wouldn't be a preferred
alternative. I've looked at some of your charts, A, B, C, and
all of the criteria that you judged, and it seems that, as far as
I can tell, that's just based on cost. And so it gets back to the
question, again, is the water pumping efficient or is this more
efficient, and how was that decision made? Because right now
it's not possible to tell. It does seem to me that thermal
treatment of excavated soil is probably a bit of an overkill, but
I still have real strong questions about why wasn't ... what is
there about Alternative 6 that disqualifies it? So it seems to
me that Alternative 5 has to be the bare minimum and then
Alternative 6 still has to be addressed.
The presentation made in Table 3 of the Site 8 Proposed
Plan, using the A, B, C designation is an extreme
oversimplification of the detailed analysis evaluation process
performed in the FS. The need to pump the groundwater is
common to all the remedial actions except for Alternative 1,
no action. The major difference between the various
alternatives is how the contamination in the soil will be dealt
C-15
-------
33. Comment (verbal):
Response:
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
with, either treatment in-place or by excavation and tr.eatme~t
on-site. The major factor that distinguishes the van~~s soIl
treatment methods between one another is the abIlIty to
implement the action. In this case, the ex.cavati?n of the soil
is much more difficult to implement than 1S the m-place S~
process. An evaluation of the efficiencies of the two soIl
treatment processes is provided in response. to comment. no.
29. Additionally, Section 5 of the Draft Fmal FS proVides
much more detailed information on the evaluation of the
various alternatives, including soil treatment processes.
Now the last comment I wanted to make relates to Site 8 and
your drawing of where you put your MCL line. And you're
being very careful to say that right now that line is inside the
Pease boundary. Now I cenainly would acknowledge that the
Air Base has been excellent in testing our spring in Newington
and in telling us what the levels of contamination are that are
in the spring. It's cenainly true that those levels are below
what the health regulations, the whatever minimum baseline
that you're using, but it's also very clear that the level has not
decreased after 5 years of treatment over on the Air Base.
It's not going down, it's not going up, but it's still there. It's
coming from the bedrock water that's going, I guess,
underground and coming up in springs, which to me says that
it's fairly arbitrary to, at this point in time, say this bedrock
water and the management of that is not necessary. From my
point of view, it's absolutely necessary. We don't know what's
going to happen in the future for that contamination.
The MCL line that was drawn on the presentation slide was
not just arbitrarily put at a particular location. The location
was selected based upon evaluation of the sampling data from
the various bedrock monitor wells that have been constructed
at the site. Based on this data evaluation, it is possible to
indicate where the MCL line is generally located. It is true
that the levels of contamination in the spring have not gone
down in the past 5 years or since installation of the pilot
groundwater treatment plant in August 1990. However, the
pilot system was not intended to be the final remediation and
did not influence the groundwater flow sufficiently enough to
cause levels of contamination to decrease downgradient of the
site. The information gained from monitoring the effects of
the pilot plant along with the other investigation data
generated at Site 8 have provided the Air Force reference
information to better select the most effective alternative.
Once the management of migration system (groundwater
pump and treat) is in place it will be monitored for
C-16
-------
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
performance. Please also note that the preferred alternative
provides management of migration of contaminants migrating
from the overburden water-bearing zone into the bedrock
water-bearing zone. In other words, it is intended to intercept
the contamination before it enters the bedrock water-bearing
zone. Once this occurs, the low levels of contamination now
present in the bedrock water-bearing zone will begin to
decrease as a result of natural attenuation. The first
detectable performance standard would be hydraulic response,
followed by chemistry changes. The results of monitoring
sampling will be provided, as has been done in the past, to all
affected people.
C-17
-------
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\Site8rod.apd
APPENDIX D
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
ADMINIS1RATIVE RECORD FILE INDEX
FOR TIlE
INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM
ZONE 5 AND SITE 8
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
NEW HAMPSHIRE
JANUARY 1994
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
The administrative record file is a collection of documents which form the basis for
the selection of a response action at a Superfund site. Under section 113(k) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the
U.S. Air Force is- required to establish an administrative record file for every Superfund
response action and to make a copy of the administrative record available at or near the
site.
The administrative record file must be reasonably available for public review during
normal business hours. The record file should be treated as a non-circulating reference
document. This will allow the public greater access to the volumes and also minimize the
risk of loss or damage. Individuals may photocopy any documents in the non-confidential
portion of the file, according to the photocopying procedures at the local repository.
The documents in the administrative record file may become lost or damaged during
use. If this occurs, contact the administrative record file manager at Pease AFB.
Documents may be added to the administrative record file as site work progresses. This
index will be updated as documents are added to the administrative record file.
The administrative record file will be maintained in Building 43 at Pease AFE.
Questions and/or comments about the administrative record file should be directed to:
Arthur L. Ditto, Remedial Project Manager
Air Force Base Disposal Agency
Operating Location A, Building 43
61 International Drive
Pease AFB, NH 03803-0157
(603) 430-2586
Dynamac Corporation assisted in the organization, establishment and on-site setup of the
Administrative Record File at Pease Air Force Base.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-1
-------
ABOUT THE INDEX NUMBERING SYSTEM
Document Number -
Comprised of a 3 letter site code (PEA), the category number,
the entry number and the page range of a document. (Both
page numbers will. be the same for a one page document.) If
documents are eventually placed on a microfiche system, the
document number consists of the site code followed by the
microfilm reel and frame number.
Example: PEA (1.1) #1 001-031
Site Code
PEA
(Cateiory #)
(1.1)
Entry #
Page Range
001-031
#1
Long Title
The long title and brief description of document.
Author
Indicates author or primary originator of document. If a
contractor prepared the document, indicates company
and location.
Recipient
Indicates primary recipient of document.
Date
Indicates date document was issued.
'JYpe
Indicates document type
Second Reference
Other categories pertaining to the document.
Location
Exact location( s) of document.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-2
-------
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE STRUCTURE
SITE IDENTIFICATION
1.1 Background - RCRA and other Information
1.2 Notification/Site Inspection Reports - No Entries in this Section
1.3 Preliminary Assessment (P A) Report
1.4 Site Investigation (SI) Report
1.5 Previous Operable Unit Information - No Entries in this Section
1.6 Correspondence
REMOVAL RESPONSES
2.1 Sampling and Analysis Plans - No Entries in this Section
2.2 Sampling and Analysis Data / Chain of Custody - No Entries in this Section
2.3 EE/CA Approval Memorandum
(Non-Time-Critical Removals) - No Entries in this Section
EE/CA (Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis) - No Entries in this Section
Action Memorandum - No Entries in this Section
Amendments to Action Memorandum - No Entries in this Section
Removal Response Reports
Correspondence
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION (RI)
3.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)
3.2 Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Forms
3.3 Work Plan
3.4 Preliminary RI Field Work Reports
3.5 Remedial Investigation (RI) Reports
3.6 Correspondence
FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS)
4.1 ARAR Determinations
4.2 Feasibility Reports
4.3 Proposed Plan
4.4 Supplements and Revisions to the Proposed Plan - No Entries in this Section
4.5 Correspondence
RECORD OF DECISION (ROD)
5.1 ROD - No Entries in this Section
5.2 Amendments to ROD - No Entries in this Section
5.3 Explanations of Significant Differences - No Entries in this Section
5.4 Correspondence
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-3
-------
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
STATE AND FEDERAL COORDINATION
6.1 Cooperative Agreements/SMOAs
6.2 Federal Facility Agreement (FF A)
6.3 Coordination - State/Federal
6.4 General Correspondence
ENFORCEMENT
7.1 Enforcement History - No Entries in this Section
7.2 Endangerment Assessments - No Entries in this Section
7.3 Administrative Orders
7.4 Consent Decrees - No Entries in this Section
7.5 Affidavits - No Entries in this Section
7.6 Documentation of Technical Discussions/
Response Actions - No Entries in this Section
Notice Letters and Responses - No Entries in this Section
7.7
HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
8.1 ATSDR Health Assessments - No Entries in this Section
8.2 Toxicological Profiles
8.3 General Correspondence - No Entries in this Section
NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEES
9.1 Notices Issued - No Entries in this Section
9.2 Findings of Fact - No Entries in this Section
9.3 Reports - No Entries in this Section
9.4 General Correspondence - No Entries in this Section
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.1 Comments and Responses
10.2 Community Relations Plan
10.3 Public Notice(s) (Availability of the Admin. Record
Availability of the Proposed Plan, Public Meetings)
Public Meeting Transcripts
Documentation of other Public Meetings
Fact Sheets, Press Advisories, and News Releases
Responsiveness Summary - No Entries in this Section
Late Comments - No Entries in this Section
Technical Review Committee Charter - No Entries in this Section
Correspondence
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
10.10
File,
D-4
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
11.0
TECHNICAL SOURCES, GUIDANCE, AND PROCEDURES DOCUMENTS
11.1 EP A Headquaners Guidance
11.2 EP A Regional Guidance
11.3 State Guidance
11.4 Air Force Guidance
11.5 'technical Sources
11.6 Proposed Procedures/Procedures
11.7 Correspondence
12.0 CONFIDENTIAL FILE
12.1 Privileged Documents (Extractions) - No Entries in this Section
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-5
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
1.1 Background - RCRA and Other WormalioD
PEA (1.1) #1 001~31
'Scope of Work for the Remedial InvestigationlFeasibility Study'
Pease Air Force Base
EPA, NHDES
April 1991
Scope of Work for RIlFS
None
ARF, IR
#
#
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-6
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
1.3 Preliminary Assessmeot (P A) Report
PEA (1.3) #1 001-%8
"Phase n Problem Confinnation and Quantification Presurvey Report (Field Sampling for SI Work)"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES, USAF Occupational and Environmental Health Lab (OEHL), Brooks AFB, TX
June 1984
Technical Report
None
ARF, 1R.
#
PEA (1.3) #2 001-182
"lnstallation Restoration Program Records Search"
CH2M Hill
EPA; NHDES; USAF Engineering &. Services Center, Tyndall AFB; SAC, Offutt AFB, NE
January 1984
Technical Report
None
ARF, 1R.
#
PEA (1.3) #3 001~1
"Preliminary Assessment - Updated PA Report"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
20 July 1990
Letter Report
None
ARF, 1R.
#
D-7
09/14/94
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
1.4 Site Investigation (SI) Report
PEA (1.4) #1001-309
"Installation Restoration Program, Phase II - Confirmation/Quantification Stage I, Volume I (Final Report for Period
October 1984 - July 1986)"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
HQ SAC/SGPB, Offutt AFB, NE; EPA; NHDES
August 1986
Technical Report: Field Investigations
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (1.4) #2 001-883
"Installation Restoration Program, Phase II - Confirmation/Quantification Stage I, Volume II (Appendices)"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
HQ SAC/SGPB, Offutt AFB, NE; EPA; NHDES
August 1987
Technical Report: Field Investigations
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (1.4) #3 001-308
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3B Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA; NHDES; HQ SACIDE, Offutt AFB. NE; AFSC HSD/YAQ, Brooks AFB, TX
February 1991
Technical Report: Also includes review of PA
None
ARF. IR
#
D-8
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
1.6 CorrespoDdeoce
PEA (1.6) #1 001~
.Comments Regarding the Installation Restoration Program, Phase I Record Search Report, Pease Air Force Base'
The State of New Hampshire, Water Supply and .Pollution Control Commission
HQ SAC, Offutt AFB, NE
f 6 March 1984
Letter/Comments
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (1.6) 112 001-004
.Comments Regarding the Installation Restoration Program Report (09/10/86)"
State of Ne~ Hampshire, Division of Public Health Services
NH Division of Public Health Services
24 November 1986
Comments to SI (1.4)
None
ARF
#
PEA (1.6) fI3 001~S
"Comments Regarding the Phase n, Stage 1 IRP Report (08/86 Draft).
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
3 February 1987
Comments to SI (1.4)
None
ARF
#
PEA (1.6) #4 001~7
. Air Force Responses to Comments From the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services on the Phase n,
Stage 1 IRP Draft Report"
Department of the Air Force
NHDES
8 May 1987
Responses to Com!nents to SI (1 .4)
None
ARF
#
PEA (1.6) 116 001~4
"Letter Concerning Site Walkoven made with Memben of Sherburne Civic Group"
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
18 July 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
D-9
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
2.7 Removal Respoase Reports
PEA (2.7) If}. 001~70
"Informal Technical Information Report, Soil Removal at Site 8 (FDTA-2) - Pre-NPL Actions"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
December 1990
Technical Report
None
ARF
#
PEA (2.7) #S 001-900
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3A, IRP Site 8 Groundwater Treatment Plant, Pease AFB, NH - Volume n
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
November 1991
Report
None
ARF
#
PEA (2.7) #600I-H.12
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3A, IRP Site 8 Groundwater Treatment Plant. Pease AFB. NH - Volume I
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
November 1991
Report
None
ARF
#
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-lO
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
2.8 Correspoodeoce
PEA (2.8) #3 001-001
"Letter Regarding Fire Training Aze.a No.2, Pilot Groundwater Treatment System"
Department of the Air Force
Air Force
11 Oc:tober 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (2.8) #6 001-001
"Letter Regarding Fire Training Aze.a No.2, Pilot Groundwater Treatment System"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
12 November 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (2.8) #8 001-004
"Letter Regarding the Approval of Pease Air Force Base Groundwater Permit No. 8908-25P for the Fire Department
Tnlining Aze.a"
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
I I September 1989
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (2.8) #9 001-002
"Letter Regarding Review of a Supplemental Proposal to Air Strip Contaminated Groundwater"
S~te of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
13 September 1989
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (2.8) #10001-003
"Letter Regarding Revision of Pease Air Force Base Groundwater Permit No. 8908-25P of the Fonner Fire Department
Tnlining Area No.2, Site 8"
U.S. Air Force
State of New Hampshire
18 April 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (2.8) #1 I 001-001
"Letter Regarding Groundwater Discharge Permit No. 8908-25P"
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
D-ll
09/14/94
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
. 5 July 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (2.8) #12001-002
"Letter to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Regarding Amendments to Groundwater Treatment
System air emissions.
Air Force
NHDES
20 August 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (2.8) #19001.008
Proposal to Upgrade IRP Site 8 Pilot Groundwater Recovery and Recharge Systems
Fred Symmes
Assistant Project Engineer
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Mark. McKenzie
U.S. Air ForcelPease AFB
14 September 1992
Letter with Mapa
Site 8, Pilot Groundwater Recovery and Recharge Systems
ARF
#
PEA (2.8) #23 001-004
Site 8 Groundwater Remediation System Update
Lee dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
2 December 1992
Letter with Maps
Site 8, FDTA - 2
ARF
#
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-12
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TrrLE:
AtrrHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AtrrHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TrrLE:
AtrrHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
3.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)
PEA (3.1) #1 001-210
"Quality Assurance Project Plan. Integrated Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2. to Support the Preliminary Remedial
Investigation Field Work, Labelled Stage 2 Field Work"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA; NHDES; HQ SACIDEPV, Offutt AFB, NE
November 1987
Quality Assurance Project Plan
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.1) #2 001-212
"Quality Assurance Project Plan, Integrated Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
August 1989
Quality Assurance Project Plan
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.1) #3 001-286
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
January 1991
Sampling and Analysis Plan
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.1) #7 001-003
Locations of Background Sampling Locations
Arthur L. Ditto
RPM, U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
USEPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
15 June 1992
Letter and Map
Stage 3C Background Data Base
ARF
#
PEA (3.1) #8 001-004
Aquifer Testing Proposed for Site 8 (Bedrock Well 08-622)
Robert J. Casper
Project Geologist
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Mark McKenzie
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
28 August 1992
Letter with Table and Map
Site 8, Bedrock Well 08-622, Zone 5
ARF
D-13
09/14/94
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
PEA (3.1) #11 001-RI
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum 3, Pease AFB, NH - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
October 1992
Addendum
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.1) #16 001~3
Recommendations to Characterize Overburden Groundwater Quality and Flow Direction near Site 8 (Zone 5)
Jennifer Do Toney, PoGo
Zone Manager
Roy Fo Weston, Inc.
Arthur Ditto
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
5 November 1992
Letter with Map
Site 8, Zone 5
ARF
#
PEA (3.1) #17001~5
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Analysis using Modified Method ES04.1
Edward S. Barnes, PoE., C.I.H.
Project Director
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Capt Carl Woemle
U oS. Air Force/Base Closure Division
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
19 November 1992
Letter with 4 Page Attachment
Analytical Method Recommended for EDB Analysis
ARF
#
PEA (3.1) #19 2.24-Rol
Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan, Addendum #3, QAPP Portion
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
2 December 1992
Addendum
None
ARF
#
D-14
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rodoapd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
3.2 SampIiDg and Analysis Data / Chain of Custody Forms
PEA (3.2) #1 001-027
Volatile AromaticslHalocarbons by Modified 8010/8020 - Draft Data Sheets
Roy F. Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Pease AFB
Unknown
Data
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.2) #2 001-018
Volatile AromaticslHalocarbons by Modified 8010/8020
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Pease AFB
Unknown
Data
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.2) #3 001~
CLP Volatile Organic Analysis, Case No. 15175, SDG No. AX086, 8 Water Analytical Results
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Pease AFB
Unknown
Data
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.2) #4001-037
Pease AFB GWTP Summary Tables
Roy F. Weston. Inc.
USAF
Unknown
Data
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.2) #5 001-013
Split Sampling Results Site 8 and Site 34
Richard Pease, NHDES
Art Ditto. Pease AFB
29 October 1990
Data
Site 8; Site 34
ARF
#
PEA (3.2) #6001-013
Preliminary Survey of Metal Concentrations in New Hampshire Soils - Final Report
New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services, Bureau of Health Risk Assessment
USAF
May 1991
Data
None
D-15
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
. ARF
#
PEA (3.2) tf7 ool-DI
Background Soluble Metals Concentrations for Groundwater at Peaae AFB
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
20 November 1991
Letter Report
PEA (3.6)
ARF
#
PEA (3.2) #8 ool-E.I
Tolerance Limits for Background Soils at Pease AFB, NH
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
17 April 1992
Letter Report
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.2) #10001-002
Results of Background Surface Water/Sediment Location Walkover
Arthur L. Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EP A, Region 1
19 August 1992 '
Letter
Knights Brook
ARF
#
PEA (3.2) #12 001~S2
Maximum Detec:ted Concentrations for Unfiltered Groundwater at Pease AFB, NH
Lee dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
2S August 1992
Letter with Attachments (Tables and Graphs)
Characterization of Inorganic Background Levels for Groundwater at Pease AFB
ARF
#
PEA (3.2) #14001-009
Newington Water Quality Sampling on July 18,
#210239-210241)
Scott Doane
Hydrogeologist
NHDES
Wayne Wood
428 Newington Road
Newington, NH 03803
21 September 1992
Letter with Chain of Custody and Tablea
Bedrock Well Serving
1992 and Analysis Performed on August 28, 1992 (NHDES Sample
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-16
-------
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
428 Newington Road
Tax Map 51, Lot 09
ARF
#
PEA (3.2) #15001-009
,!issue Sample Letter Report for Great Bay, Bass Pond and McIntyre Brook
Lee R. dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Through U.S. Air Force
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
9 October 1992
Routing Letters and Letter Report with Map and Table
Great Bay, Bass Pond
McIntyre Brook
ARF
#
PEA (3.2) #16 00 1-009
Thomas Drinking Water Well Sample Analytical Resuft
Kenneth W. Teague, President
Analytics Environmental Laboratory, Inc.
Through U.S. Air Force/Arthur Ditto
Evelyn Thomas
509 Newington Road
Newington, NH 03801
23 November 1992
Transmittal Letters with Attachments (Tables, Questionnaire and Map)
Artesian Well
at 509 Newington Rd.
ARF
#
PEA (3.2) #17001-005
Results of Sampling Frink Estate Well and Spring
USAF
Peggy Lamson, Newington Board of Selectmen
15 January 1993
Letter with Attachment
None
ARF (Section 3.2 Binder)
#
D-17
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
3.3 Work Plan
PEA (3.3) #1 001-144
"Work Plan for the Installation Restoration Program. Stage 3"
Roy F. Weston. Inc.
EPA, NHDES
August 1989
Work Plan
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.3) #2 001~19
"Installation Restoration Program. Stage 3C, Treatability Study Work Plan:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA. NHDES
May 1991
Work Plan
None
ARF
IRP Sites 8 and 34"
#
PEA (3.3) #3 001-028
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Action Plan"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA. NHDES
May 1991
Operations Plan
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.3) #4 001-258
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Work Plan"
Roy F. Weston. Inc.
EPA. NHDES
Ianuary 1991
Work Plan
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.3) #5 001-213
"Work Plan for the Integrated Installation Restoration Program. Stage 2, Labelled Stage 2 Work Plan"
Roy F. Weston. Inc.
EPA, NHDES
September 1987
Work Plan
None
ARF, IR.
#
PEA (3.3) fI6 001-GL.2
Installation Restoration Program. Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum I. Pease AFB, NH - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
September 1991
Addendum
None
D-18
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.3) #7 001-G5
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum Number 2 for Pease AFB, NH - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
March 1992
Addendum
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.3) #S 001-B4
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Operations Plan for Pease AFB, NH - Draft
Roy F. Weston. Inc.
USAF
May 1991
Plan
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.3) #9 001-3.5
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Work Plan Addendum 3, Pease AFB, NH
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
June 1992
Addendum
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.3) #12001-004
Groundwater Modeling Process Outline
Lee dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U .S. Air Force/Pease AFB
2 October 1992
Letter
Groundwater Modeling
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.3) #13 001-C.31
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 5 Health and Safety Plan, Pease AFB, NH - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
October 1992
Health and Safety Plan
Groundwater Modeling
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.3) #15 ooI-F
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease AFB Interim Monitoring Plan
USAF
Peaae AFB
D-19
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
"January 1994
Monitoring Plan
Groundwater Monitoring
ARF (Zone 7 Shelf)
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
#
D-20
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
3.4 Pretiminary RI Field Work Reports
PEA (3.4) #1 001-173
"Interim Technical Report No. I for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume I"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
FebruaIY 1988
Technical Report
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.4) #2 001-147
"Interim Technical Report No. I for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume D - Appendices"
Roy F. W~n, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
JanuaIY 1988
Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.4) #3 001-214
"Interim Technical Report No.2 for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume I"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
August 1988
Technical Report
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.4) #4 001-696
"Interim Technical Report No.2 for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2. Volume D - Apl'endices (Sample
Tracking Information, Analytical Results)"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA. NHDES
August 1988
Technical Report - Appendices (Sample Tracking Information, Analytical Results)
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.4) #5001-838
"Interim Technical Report No.2 for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume ill. Appendices (Analytical
Results) "
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
August 1988
Technical Report - Appendices (Analytical Results)
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.4) #6001-722
"Interim Technical Report No.2 for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume IV - Appendices (Analytical
Results) "
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
D-21
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
August 1988
Technical Report - Appendices (Analytical Results)
None
ARF. IR
#
PEA (3.4) 117 001-289
;lnterim Technical Report No.2 for the Installation Restoration Program. Stage 2. Volume V - Appendices (Field
Geological. Geotechnical. and Hydrogeological Data)"
Roy F. Weston. Inc.
EPA. NHDES
August 1988
Technical Report - Appendices (Field Geological. Geotechnical. and Hydrogeological Data)
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.4) #8 001-106
"Interim Technical Report No.3 for the Installation Restoration Program. Stage 2, Volume I"
Roy F. Weston. Inc.
EPA. NHDES
February 1989
Technical Report
None
ARF. IR
#
PEA (3.4) #9 001-658
"Interim Technical Report No.3 for the Installation Restoration Program. Stage 2. Volume n - Appendices"
Roy F. Weston. Inc.
EPA. NHDES
February 1989
Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF. IR
#
PEA (3.4) #10 001-198
"Interim Technical Report No.4 for the Installation Restoration Program. Stage 2, Volume I"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
April 1989
Technical Report
None
ARF. IR
#
PEA (3.4) #11 001-770
"Interim Technical Report No.4 for the Installation Restoration Program. Stage 2. Volume U - Appendices"
Roy F. Weston. Inc.
EPA. NHDES
April 1989
Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF. IR
#
PEA (3.4) #12001-568
"Interim Technical Report No.4 for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume ill - Appendices"
Roy F. Weston. Inc.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-22
-------
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
EPA, NHDES
April 1989
T~hnical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.4) #13 001-770
"Interim T~nic:al Report No.4 for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume IV - Appendices"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
April 1989
T~hnica1 Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.4) #14001-1,150
"Interim T~hnical Report No.4 for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume V - Appendices"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
April 1989
T~hnical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.4) #15001-729
"Interim T~hnical Report No.4 for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume VI- Appendices"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
April 1989
T~hnical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.4) #16001-803
"Interim T~hnical Report No.4 for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume vn - Appendices"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
April 1989
T ec:hnical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.4) #17 001-251
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final Report, Volume I"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
July 1990
T~hnical Report
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.4) #18001-452
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final Report, Volume n"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
D-23
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
IOPA, NHDES
July 1990
Technical Report
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.4) #19001-621
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final Report, Appendices, Volume 1"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
July 1990
Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.4) #20 001420
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final Report, Appendices, Volume n"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
July 1990
Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.4) #21001-658
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final Report, Appendices, Volume m"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
July 1990
Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.4) #22 001-688
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final Report, Appendices, Volume IV"
Roy F. Weaton, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
July 1990
Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.4) #23 001-261
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final Report, Appendices, Volume V"
Roy F. Weaton, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
July 1990
Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (3.4) #24001-340
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final Report, Appendices, Summary Analyticsl Tables"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\sitcllrod.apd
D-24
-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
July 1990
Technical Report- Appendices
None
ARF, IR.
#
PEA (3.4) #25 001-007
"Geophysical Survey Letter Report, Stage 3"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
19 October 1989
Letter Report
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.4) #27 001-014
"Recovery Well Selection Letter Report:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
II May 1990
Letter Report
None
ARF
IRP Site 8"
#
PEA (3.4) #31001-007
"Site 8 Follow-on Letter Report"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
9 October 1990
Letter Report
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.4) #34001-062
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3, IRP Site 8 Column Leach Study Letter Report"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
February 1991
Technical Report
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.4) #38 001-041
Pease AFB Monitor Well Inventory and Inspection
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
7 August 1992
Report
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.4) #39 OOI-D
Background Values for Soil, Groundwater, Surface Water and Sediment at Peaae Air Force Baae
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
D-25
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\sitc:8rod.apd
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
.26 FebN&ry 1993
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.4) #40 (XU-Map 6
Off Base Well Inventory Letter Report for Pease AFB
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
17 September 1992
Letter Report
None
ARF
#
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.apd
D-26
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
3.5 Remedial InvestigatioD (RI) Reports
PEA (3.5) #16 001-B.12
Sampling Locations and Results Drainage Area Letter Report
Roy F. We8!.on, Inc.
USAF
May 1992
Report
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #21 001-C
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH, Appendix C - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
July 1992
Appendix
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #22 001-G
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, 1RP Site 8 Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH, Appendices D-G - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
July 1992
Appendices
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #23 OOI-KI
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH, Appendix K, Part I of
2 -Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
July 1992
Appendix
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #24001-K2
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH, Appendix K, Part 2 of
2 -Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
July 1992
Appendix
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #25 001-11
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, 1RP Site 8 Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH, Appendices H-l! - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
D-27
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
,July 1992
Appendices
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #26 001-12
btstallation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH, Appendices H-12 - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
July 1992
Appendix
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #27 001.{).31
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Remedia1lnvestigation, Pease AFB, NH, Appendices L-O - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
July 1992
Appendices
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #28 001-J873
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB. NH. Appendix J, Part 1 of
4 - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
July 1992
Appendix
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #29 J874-J1752
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Remedial Investigation. Pease AFB. NH. Appendix J, Part 2 of
4 - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
July 1992
Appendix
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #30 11753-J2661
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH, Appendix J, Part 3 of
4 - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
July 1992
Appendix
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #31 J2662-13221
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-28
-------
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH, Appendix 1, Part 4 of
4 - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
1uly 1992
Appendix
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #36 A-C
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Site Characterization Summary, IRP Zone 5, Pease AFB, NH Technical Report
and Appendices A-C - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
October 1992
Report
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #37 DI-D2 .
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Site Characterization Summary, IRP Zone 5, Pease AFB, NH Appendix D -
Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
October 1992
Appendices
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #38 E-F
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Site Characterization Summary, IRP Zone 5, Pease AFB, NH Technical Report
and Appendices E-F - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
October 1992
Report
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #39 OOI-L
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH Appendix L - Draft Final
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
November 1992
Appendix
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #40 001-K.29
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH Appendices B, C, D, G,
H, 1 and K - Draft Final
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
November 1992
Appendices
D-29
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
.Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #41 001-6.4.2
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH Figures
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
November 1992
Figurea
Site 8
ARF
- Draft Final
#
PEA (3.5) #42 001-7.8
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Remediallnve&tigation, Pease AFB, NH, Technical Report - Draft
Final
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
November 1992
Report
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #55 OOI-AcrA
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease Air Force Base, Zone 5 Remedial Investigation Report Text
DRAFT FINAL
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
August 1993
Report
Zone 5
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #56 OOI-Plate 8
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease AFB Zone 5 Remedial Investigation Report Figures DRAFT
FINAL
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
August 1993
Figures
Zone 5
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #57 00 I-C
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 IRP
Appendicea A, B &. C
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
February 1993
Appendices
Zone 5
ARF
Zone 5 Remedial Investigation Pease Air Force Base, NH 03803,
#
PEA (3.5) #58 001-L.6-2
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-30
-------
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease AFB Zone 5 Remedial Investigation Report Appendices B,D. E,
F, G, and L DRAFT FINAL
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
August 1993
Appendices
Zone 5
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #59001-1
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease AFB Zone 5 Remedial Investigation Report Appendices H and I
DRAFT FINAL
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
August 1993
Appendices
Zone 5
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #60 ool-K
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease AFB Zone 5 Remedial Investigation Report Appendices J and K
DRAFT FINAL
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
August 1993
Appendices
Zone 5
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #61 001-J.2
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 IRP Zone 5
Appendices J Part 2 of 3
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
February 1993
Appendix
Zone 5
ARF
Remedial Investigation Pease Air Force Base, NH 03803,
#
PEA (3.5) #6200I-J.3
Installation Restoration Program,
Appendices J Part 3 of 3
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
February 1993
Appendix
Zone 5
ARF
Stage 4 IRP Zone 5 Remedial Investigation Pease Air Force Base, NH 03803,
#
PEA (3.5) #63 ool-M
Installation Restoration Program,
Appendices K, L & M
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
February 1993
Stage 4 IRP Zone 5 Remedial Investigation Pease Air Force Base, NH 03803,
D-31
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
1Ppendicea
Zone 5
ARF
#
PEA (3.5) #64 001-N
lnstallation Restoration Program. Stage 4 IRP Zone 5 Remedial Investigation Pease Air Force Base. NH 03803,
Appendix N
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
February 1993
Appendix
Zone 5
ARF
#
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-32
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
3.6 RI Correspondence
PEA (3.6) #1001-001
"Comments Regarding the Wort Plan for the IRP Stage 2"
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
27 July 1987
Comments Serving 3.4 {Preliminary RI Field Wort Reports)
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #2 001-006
"Letter Regarding IRP, Stage 2"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
11 November 1987
Letter Serving 3.4 {Preliminary RI Field Wort Reports)
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #3 001-001
"Letter Stating Conformance of the Stage 2, Quality Assurance Project Plan With Air Force IRP Practices"
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
12 November 1987
Letter Serving 3.4 {Preliminary RI Field Wort Reports)
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #4 00 1-00 I
"Letter Regarding the Suspect Fire Training Area"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
16 December 1987
Letter Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Wort Reports)
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #6001-001
"Letter Concerning Drilling Program"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
20 October 1988
Letter Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Wort Reports)
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #9 001-002
"Letter Concerning Disposal of Drill Cuttings From Stage 2 IRP Investigations"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
2 October 1989
Letter Serving 3.4 (preliminary RI Field Work Reports)
None
D-33
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
.ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #10001-003
"Review Comments on the Phase n, Stage 2 IRP, Draft Final Report"
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
28 Febroary 1990
Review Comments on Phase n, Stage 2, IRP Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Reports)
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #11 001-011
"Review Comments for the Pease AFB, Phase n, Stage 2 IRP Draft Final Report"
U.S. EPA
Air Force
7 March 1990
Review Comments Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Reports)
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #12001-010
"Review Comments Regarding the IRP, Stage 2 Draft Final Report (December 1989)"
U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force via EP A
7 March 1990
Review Comments Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Reports)
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #13001-020
"Review Comments to the IRP Stage 2 RI/FS Draft Report"
Department of the Air Force
Roy F. Weston, Inc.! Air Force
15 March 1990
Review Comments Serving 3.4 (preliminary RI Field Work Reports)
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #14001-004
"Sampling Data for Off-5ite Sampling at Peaae AFB"
State of New Hampshire, Water Supply and Pollution Control Division
Air Force
5 July 1990
Sampling Data
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #15001-010
"Pease AFB, Site 8 Sampling Data"
State of New Hampshire. Department of Environmental Services
Air Force. EPA
September 1990
Sampling Data
None
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-34
-------
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #16 001-003
"Off-Base Sampling at Pease AFB"
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
25 October 1990
Sampling Results
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #17 001-013
"Split Sampling Results, Site 8 and Site 34"
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
29 October 1990
Sampling Results
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #18 001-065
"Sampling Results from Pease AFS. Newington, Portsmouth"
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
17 January 1991
Sampling Data
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #19 001-002
"Installation Restoration Program (IRP) at Pease AFB, NH"
Department of the Air Force
Air Force
8 March 1989
Memorandum - Pertaining to R1
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #20 001-002
"Work Plan for the IRP Stage 3 and ITR #4"
Department of the Air Force
Air Force
3 April 1989
Memorandum - Pertaining to R1
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #21001-007
"Consolidated Comments to the IRP Stage 3 Work Plan for Pease Air Force Base, NH"
Department of the Air Force
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
I June 1989
Review Comments - Pertaining to RI
None
D-35
MK01 \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TmE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TmE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) tn:l 001-001
"Review Comments Regarding the Work Plan and QAPP - Stage 3"
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
16 June 1989
Review Comments - Pertaining to RI
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #23 001-008
"Stage 3 Work Plan - Response to Comments"
Roy F. Weston, mc.
Air Force
29 June 1989
Response to Comments - Pertaining to RI
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #24001-008
"Consolidated Comments to the IRP Stage 3 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Pease Air Force Base, NH"
Department of the Air Force
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
29 June 1989
Review Comments - Pertaining to RI
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #25 001-009
"Special Notification concerning the results of sampling monitor Well 562A at Site 8"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
1 February 1990
Letter - Pertaining to RI
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #26001-002
"Followup to Special Notification (1 February 1990) concerning groundwater samples from Well 562A at Site 8"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
16 February 1990
Letter - Pertaining to RI
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #27 001-002
"Letter aummarizing discussions betWeen Roy F. Weston, Inc. and the New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services concerning on-site handling and disposal of soil and water generated during drilling, development, purging, and
pump testing of wells"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
12 March 1990
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.apd
D-36
-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
Letter - Pertaining to 3.4
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) if29 001-007
"Review comments on the Stage 3 Work Plan for the IRP"
U.S. EPA
Air Force
71une 1990
Review Comments - Pertaining to RI
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #31 001-002
"Letter regarding well installation modification"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
5 luly 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #32 001-004
"Letter regarding procedures used in installing and abandoning monitor well 632"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
8 August 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #33 001-001
"Letter regarding lune 1990 Pickering Spring sampling results"
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Peggy Lamson, Selectman & Town Health Officer, Newington, NH
15 August 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #34 001-004
"Letter regarding the disposal of clean water, drilling mud and soil"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
25 September 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #35 001-002
"Letter regarding procedures for handling solids and liquids during well construction and soil borings"
State of New Hampshire. Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
25 September 1990
D-37
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #36 001-006
"Letter regarding Pease Air Force Base well installation - IRP Site 8"
Roy F. Weston. Inc.
Air Force
26 September 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #38 001.002
"Information Letter 3 - Documenting discussion on 25 October 1990"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
29 October 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #39 001.002
"Letter regarding the disposal of clean soil cuttings and drilling mud.
Department of the Air Force
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
I November 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #41001-008
"Response'to Comments - Draft Final Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling And Analysis Plan"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
7 February 1991
LetterfResponse to Comments
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #43 001-004
"Isaues Needing Resolution Prior to the Upcoming Field Efforts"
U.S. EPA
Air Force
10 April 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #46 OOI-C38
"RespollBe to Comments - Stage 4 Work Plan and SAP"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
28 September 1990
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-38
-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT ,
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
Response to Conunents
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #47001-
-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE;
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG mLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE;
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
R.csponse to Comments
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #53 00 I-OOS
°EPA initial approval of the IRP Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Pian°
U.S. EPA
Air Force
13 March 1991
Letter concerning EP A initial approval of Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #54001-05S
°Air Force Response to EPA comments on the Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Pian°
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA
1991
Response to Comments
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #55 001-003
Off-Base Sampling at Pease Air Force Base
Richard Pease, NHDES
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
25 October 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #56 001-001
EPA Concerns
U.S. Air Force - Internal Note
Art Ditto/USAF/Pease AFB
8 April 1991
Internal Record of Phone Conversation with EPA and NHDES
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #57001-004
Issues Needing Resolution Prior to Upcoming Field Efforts
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region I
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
10 April 1991
Letter
Stage 3 snd 4 Work Plsn (3.3)
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #5S 001-002
Review of Risk Asseasment Data and Sampling Procedures
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-40
-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIE!\'T:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Anhur Ditto, Pease AFB
16 April 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #59 001~67
Concerns about Analytical Methods
USAF
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
23 April 1991
Fax with Attachments
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #60 001-001
Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations
Anhur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
24 April 1991
Letter (Transmittal)
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #61001-008
Field Oversight Coordination
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
29 April 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #62001-004
Preliminary Sampling Schedule for Stage 3C IRP Sites through November 1991
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
02 May 1991
Fax
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #63 001-003
Review of April 25, 1991 Revised Analytical Methods
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
08 May 1991
Letter
None
ARF
D-41
09/14/94
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG mLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG mLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG mLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG mLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG mLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG mLE:
#
PEA (3.6) #64 001-002
Review of April2S, 1991 Revised Analytical Methods
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
08 May 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #65 001-005
Field Performance Review of Weston Activities, Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
Mitre Corporation
Dennis Lundquist
Human Systems Division
IRP Program Office
HSD/Y AQ
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5000
14 May 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #66 001-002
Revised Analytical Methods for Pease AFB
Logan VanLeigh, c.apt., USAF, BSC
Technical Program Manager
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
31 May 1991
Letter
Sampling and Analysis Plan (3.1)
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #67 001-005
Procedure for Establishing Background Metal Concentrations for Groundwater and Soil
Edward S. Barnes, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
03 June 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #68001-012
Information to Assist Interpretation of Data Submitted by EP A
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
06 June 1991
Letter
None
ARF
to the Air Force
#
PEA (3.6) #69001-004
RelOlution Letter for Procedures for 8260 for VQC Analysis of Water
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-42
-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Mark McKenzie, Pease AFB
Richard Pease, NHDES
Carl Gysler, Earth Technology, San Bernardino, CA
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
06 June 1991
Fax
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #70001-001
Background Determination Protocols
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
07 June 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #71 001-001
Background Determination Protocols
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
07 June 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) m 001-003
Revised Analytical Methods for Pease AFB GCrMS Method 8260 for VOA
Edward S. Barnes, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
II June 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #73 001-001
Laboratory Services
Richard Pease, NHDES
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
13 June 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #74001-004
Pease AFB Feedback on Site 8 Sampling - June 1991
Richard Pease, NHDES
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
19 June 1991
Letter
Site 8
ARF
#
D-43
09/14/94
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TmE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TmE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
. PEA (3.6) #75001-002
EPA Pump Test Infonnation Request to be Provided by Air Force
10hanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA Region 1
Art Ditto, RPM
USAF
Peaae AFB
271une 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #76001-002
Roy F. Weston, Inc., Proposed Methods for Detennining Background Concentrations at Pease Air Force Base, New
Hampshire
George Rice, Mitre Corporation
Dennis Lundquist
Human Systems Division IRP Program Office
HSDIY AQ
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5000
021uly 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #77001-001
Transmittal Letter for Protocols for Baseline Risk Assessments
Anhur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
181uly 1991
Transmittal Letter
Baseline Risk Assessments
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #78 OO!-OO1
Transmittal Letter for Protocols for Baseline Risk Assessments
Anhur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
10hanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
18 July 1991
Transmittal Letter
Baaeline Risk Asaessments
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #79001-001
Submittal of Secondary Document
USAF
Richard Peaae, NHDES
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
18 July 1991
Leiter
Site 32/36
ARF
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-44
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT,
DATE:
TYPE,
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION,
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE,
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT,
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER,
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
#
PEA (3.6) #80001-002
Exploratory Boring Soil Sampling Procedures
Edward S. Barnes
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Capt. Logan Van Leigh
U.S. Air Force
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
26 July 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #81 001-001
Vented Monitoring Wells
Scott Doane, Hydrogeologist
Groundwater Technology Section
Groundwater Protection Bureau
NHDES
Mark McKenzie
USAF/Pease AFB
31 July 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #82 001-006
Review of the Proposed Procedure for Background Determination Protocols for Pease Air Force Base, Portsmouth, NH
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
02 August 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #83 001-001
Vented Monitoring Wells - Response to July 31. 1991 Letter on same Issue Form NHDES
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
Scott Doane
NHDES
26 August 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #84001-001
Split Sampling Results
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U. S. Air Force/Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region I
and
!Ochard Pease, RPM
NHDES
D-45
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE: .
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
? September 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #85 001-002
Field Ovel'llight - September 1991
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, USAF RPM
28 October 1991
Letter
RI Field Work (3.4)
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #86 001~1
Transmittal Letter for Data Collected on Surface Water and Sediment Background Concentration
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U .S. EP A, Region I
Ed Barnes
Project Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
2 December 1991
Transmittal Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #87 001-002
Regional Literature Search to Assist Development of the Sediment and Surface Water Background Determination for Pease
AFB, Portsmouth, NH
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Art Dino, Pease AFB
2 December 1991
Lener
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #88 001-001
Fugitive Dust Pathway in the Baseline Risk Assessment
Arthur Dino, RPM, USAF
Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter RPM
U.S. EPA Region I
3 January 1992
Lener
Baseline Risk Assessment (3.5) - RI Reports
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #89 001~1
Evaluation of the Air Pathway in Baseline Risk Assessment
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
11 FebNary 1992
Letter
None
ARF
MKOI \ RI'T:00628026.003\sitc8rod.apd
D-46
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIEI'T:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
lONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIEI'T:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
#
PEA (3.6) #90 001-001
Evaluation of the Air Pathway in Baseline Risk Assessment
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
11 February 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #95 001-001
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Baseline Risk Assessment Protocols
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
25 February 1992
Transmittal Letter
Baseline Risk Assessment
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #96 001-001
Transmittal Letter for Revised Baseline Risk Assessment Protocols
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAFfPease AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
USEPA, Region 1
25 February 1992
Transmittal Letter
Revised Baseline Risk Assessment
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #98 001-003
Req~est for EPA Split Sampling Results
Arthur Dino, RPM
USAFfPease AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region I
9 March 1992
Lener
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #99 001-DI
Letter Report of Results of Statistical Comparison of Stage 3C Samples to the 66 Other Background Samples
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
9 March 1992
Lener Report
PEA (3.5)
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #100 001-001
D-47
MK01 \RYT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum Number 2 on the Draft Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis
Plan Addendum Number 2
Arthur Dine, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter
U.S. EPA, Region 1
24 March 1992
T ranamittal Letter
PEA (3.1), PEA (3.3)
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #101 001-001
Tranamittal Letter for Submittal of Stage 4 Addendum Number 2 Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan
Arthur Dine. RPM
USAF/~ease AFB .
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
24 March 1992
Tranamittal Letter
PEA (3.1), PEA (3.3)
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #102 001-001
Data You May Be Able to Provide
Thomas R. Marks, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Mark McKenzie, Pease AFB
26 May 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #103 001.{)22
Evaluation of Air Pathway in Baseline Risk Assessments
Richard Pease, NHDES
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
13 April 1992
Letter with Attachments
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #106 001-002
Oversight Role of Regulatory Agencies at Pease AFB
Michael Daly, USEPA
Mark McKenzie, Pease AFB
26 May 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #111 001-001
Submittal of Draft Secondary Documents, Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum 3 and Stage 4 Health and Safety Plan Addendum
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
24 June 1992
Letter
D-48
MKOI \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #112 001~1
Submittal of Draft Secondary Documenu, Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum 3 and Stage 4 Health and Safety Plan Addendum
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
24 June 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #113 001~
Additional Field Oversight
USAF
Michael Daly, USEPA
8 July 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #115 001~3
Pease Air Force FDT A-2 Draft Rl Report
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
29 July 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #116 001-021
Pease Air Force Base Groundwater Modeling Letter Report
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
29 July 1992
Letter with Report
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #117 001~1
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Site 8 Remedial Investigation Report
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
30 July 1992
Letter
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #118 001~1 .
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Site 8 Remedial Investigation Report
D-49
MKOI \RP'T:00628026.003\sitc8rod.apd
-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
-USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
30 July 1992
Letter
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #119 OOI~1
Transmittal Letter for Summary of Groundwater Treatment Plant Influent/Effluent Results
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAFlPease AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
USEPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
11 August 1992
Letter
PEA (2.7)
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #120 001~1
Monitor Well Inventory and Inspection Report
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
18 August 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #122 OOI~
Results of Background Surface Water Sediment Location Walkover
Richard Pease, RPM, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, RPM, Pease AFB
27 August 1992
Lener
PEA (6.4)
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #123 001~5
Risk Assessment Issues for Pease AFB
Lee dePenia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
28 August 1992
Letter Report
PEA (3.5)
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #124 OOI~1
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Groundwater Background Letter Report
Mark McKenzie for Arthur Ditto
D-50
MKOI \R.PT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.apd
-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCA nON:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
USAF/Pease AFB
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
and
Johanna Hunter
U.S. EPA, Region 1
1 September 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #125 001~
Policy on Data Transfer During Pumping Tests
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
and
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
9 September 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #128 001..()()3
Summaryof Risk Issues Meeting of August 19, 1992
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA. Region 1
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
. 16 September 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #129 001..()()1
Extension of Draft Final Report Submittal Date, Site 8 Remedial Investigation Report
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
6 October 1992
Letter
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #130 001~
Field Oversight - Mid-August-Mid-September
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, RPM Pease AFB
7 October 1991
Letter
PEA (3.4)
ARF
#
D-51
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA (3.6) #132 001-001
Pease AFB Zone 5 Site Characterization Summary
Lee dePenia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
22 October 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #137001-001
Submittal of Draft Secondary Documents, Zones I, 2, and 5 Site Characterization Summaries
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
26 October 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #138001-001
Submittal of Draft Secondary Documents, Zones I, 2, and 5 Site Characterization Summaries
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
26 October 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #139001-001
Submittal of Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum 3
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
26 October 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #140 001-001
Submittal of Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum 3
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
26 October 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #141 001-002
Pease Air Force Base Draft FinallRP Site 8 RI Report
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
13 November 1992
Letter
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-52
-------
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #143001-001
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Draft Final Primary Document, Site 8 RI Repon
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
17 November 1992
Letter
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #144 001-001
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Draft Final Primary Document, Site 8 RI Repon
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
17 November 1992
Letter
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #146001-001
Application of the Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) in Risk Assessments
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF. Pease AFB
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
1 December 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #147001-001
Explanation of Off-Base Well Inventory Repon
Arthur Ditto. RPM
USAF. Pease AFB
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
4 December 1992
Letter
Off-Base Well Inventory Letter Repon of 17 September 1992
PEA (3.5)
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #148001-001
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Ponion of the Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis
Plan (SAP) Number 3
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter. RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
D-53
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
11 December 1992
Letter
PEA (3.1)
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #149001.002
Request for Deadline Extension
Arlhur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
. 23 December 1992
Letter
PEA (6.3)
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #150 001.001
Transmittal of EPA Maximum Risk Calculation Addenda to Site 5, 8, 32/36 and 34 Draft Final RI Reports
Arlhur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
29 December 1992
Letter
Sites 5,8,32/36 and 34; PEA (3.5)
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #151 001.002
Selection of Remediation Action Alternative for Site 8, FDTA #2
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
08 J anua ry 1993
Letter
Site 8; PEA (4.6)
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #156001.002
Request for Deadline Extension
USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
19 March 1993
Letter
PEA (3.5)
ARF
#
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-54
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #IS8 001-001
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Zone S Remedial Investigation Report
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
9 March 1993
Letter
PEA (3.5); Zone S
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #IS9 001-001
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Zone S Remedial Investigation Report
USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Undated
Letter
PEA (3.S); Zone S
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #161 001-001
Submittal of Draft Documents
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
21 April 1993
Letter
Zone 3, Zone 4, LF-S
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #162001-00]
Submittal of Draft Documents
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
2] April ]993
Letter
Zone 3, Zone 4, LF-S
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #]67001-00]
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Zone 5 Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
Michael Daly, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
S August 1993
Letter
ZoneS
ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
#
PEA (3.6) #17000]-008
Locations of Surface Waters of the State of New Hampshire in the Vicinity of Former Pease AFB
Arthur Dino, Pease AFB
Richard Pease, NHDES
16 November 1993
Letter with Attachment
None
ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
D-55
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
PEA (3.6) #172001-001
Draft Final Zone 3, 4, and 5 Remedial Investigation Reports, Pease AFB, NH
EPA
USAF
30 November 1993
Memorandum
Zone 3; Zone 4; Zone 5
ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
#
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.apd
D-56
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
4.1 ARAR DeterminatioDS
PEA (4.1) #1001-024
New Hampshire ARAR List Update
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
NHDES
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
13 April 1992
Letter and Tables
None
ARF
#
PEA (4.1) #2 001-B.3
Installation Restoration Program Stage 4, Basewide ARARs, Pease Air Force Base, NH 03803 - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
January 1993
ARARs
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (4.1) #3 001-002
Waiverability of Env-WS 430, Surface Water Quality Regulations, as an ARAR
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
Richard Pease, NHDES
21 December 1993
Letter
None
ARF (Section 4.1 Binder)
#
PEA (4.1) #4001'{)25
New Hampshire ARAR List Update
NHDES
USAF
23 December 1993
Letter with Attachment
None
ARF (Section 4.1 Binder)
#
D-57
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG mLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
4.2 Feasibility Reports
PEA (4.2) #4001-DA5
Installation R~oration Program, Stage 3C. Initial Screening of Alternatives for IRP Site 8, Pease AFB, NH Technical
Report and Appendices - Draft
Roy F. Weston. Inc.
USAF
June 1992
Report
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (4.2) IS 00I-c.5
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Initial Screening of Alternatives for IRP Site 8, Pease AFB, NH Figures -
Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
June 1992
Figures
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (4.2) #9 001-B21
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8, Soil Vapor Extraction Treatability Study Work Plan for Pease
AFB, NH -Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
September 1992
Treatability'Study Work Plan
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (4.2) #10 001-L.4
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Feasibility Study for IRP Site 8, Pease AFB, NH - Appendices A-L - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
October 1992
Appendices
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (4.2) #1 1001-5.2.16
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Feasibility Study for IRP Site 8, Pease AFB, NH, Figures.- Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
October 1992
Figures
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (4.2) #12 001-5.126
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Feasibility Study for IRP Site 8, Peaae AFB, NH, Technical Report - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-58
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIE"''':
October 1992 '
Report
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (4.2) #19001-Acr.1
United States Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease AFB, Zone 5 Initial Screening of Alternatives Report -
Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
March 1993
Report
ZoneS
ARF
#
PEA (4.2) #20 ool-E.4
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 No Funher Action Decision Document for IRP Site 1 I, Pease AFB, NH 03803
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
February 1993
Report
Site 11
ARF
#
PEA (4.2) #21 001-Acr.3
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C Feasibility Study for IRP Site 8, Pease AFB, NH 03803, Technical Report-
Draft Final
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
January 1993
Report
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (4.2) #22 001-5.2-16
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C Feasibility Study for IRP Site 8, Pease AFB, NH 03803. Figures - Draft Final
Roy F. Weston. Inc.
USAF
January 1993
Figures
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (4.2) #23 OOI-L.6
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C Feasibility Study for IRP Site 8, Pease AFB, NH 03803.
through L - Draft Final
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
January 1993
Appendices
Site 8
ARF
Appendices A
#
PEA (4.2) #29OO1-A.8
U .5. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease AFB Zone 5 Feasibility Study Report - Draft Final
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
D-59
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
9ctober 1993
Feasibility Study
Zone 5
ARF (Zone 5 Shelf)
#
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-60
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
4.3 Proposed Plan
PEA (4.3) #1 001-220
"Proposed Plan for Landfill 3, Field Maintenance Squadron Equipment Cleaning Site, Fire Department Training Area I"
Roy F. Weston, Inc., Inc
EPA, NHDES
October 1990
Work Plan
None
ARF
#
PEA (4.3) #7 001-G.3
Installation Restoration Program, Proposed Plan for Zone 5, Pease AFB, NH-DRAFT
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
October 1993
Proposed Plan
Zone 5
ARF (Zone 5 Shelf)
#
D-61
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
4.5 Correspoudeace
PEA (4.5) #1 001-006
.IRP Proposed Plan for Landfill 3, Field Maintenance Squadron Equipment Cleaning Sile, Fire Department Training Area
I (October 1990, draft) Review Comments.
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
27 November 1990
State of New Hampshire Review Comments
None
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) #2 001.{)16
.EP A Region I comments on the IRP Proposed Plan for Landfill 3 , Field Maintenance Squadron Equipment Cleaning Site,
Fire Department Training Area I (October 1990, draft).
U.S. EPA
Air Force
28 November 1990
EP A Review Comments
None
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) #3 001-008
.EPA Region I additional comments on the IRP proposed plan for Landfill 3, field maintenance squadron equipment
cleaning site, Fire Department Training Area I (October 1990, draft); review comments.
U.S. EPA
Air Force
3 December 1990
Review Comments
None
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) #5001-002
Applicable ~r Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
Richard Pease, NHDES
An. Ditto, Pease AFB
25 November 1991
Letter
Pea (6.4)
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) #14001-001
Document Submittals
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
26 May 1992
Letter
Pea (10.1); Site 34
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) #16001-001
Submittal of Draft Secondary Document, Site 8 Initial Screening of Alternatives
USAF
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-62
-------
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE;
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMEr.,- NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
24 June 1992
Letter
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) #17 001-001
Submittal of Draft Secondary Document, Site 8 Initial Screening of AJtematives
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
24 June 1992
Letter
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) #24 001-004
Pease Air Force Base Site 8 Draft Feasibility Study
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
NHDES
USEPA
29 October 1992
Letter
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) II2S 001-001
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Site 8 Feasibility Study Report
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
3 November 1992
Letter
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) #26 001-001
Submittal of Draft Primary Document. Site 8 Fusibility Study Report
USAF
Richard Pease. NHDES
3 November 1992
Letter
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) #31001-001
Determination of Site Boundaries at the Time of Remedial Action Implementation (Will Migrate to Proposal)
USAF
Johanna Hunter. USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
2 December 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
D-63
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
rEA (4.5) #32 001-002
Request for Deadline Extension
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
4 December 1992
Letter
Site 34
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) #39 001-001
Submittal of the Draft Site 8 Proposed Plan
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
Johanna Hunter, USEPA .
23 March 1993
Letter
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) #40 001-001
Submittal of Draft Secondary Document, Zone 5 Initial Screening of Alternatives
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
12 March 1993
Letter
Zone 5
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) #41 001-001
Submittal of Draft Secondary Document, Zone 5 Initial Screening of Alternatives
USAF
lohanna Hunter, USEPA
12 March 1993
Letter
Zone 5
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) #43 001-004
Selection of Remedial Action Alternatives for Site 8, FDT A-2
NHDES
Art Ditto, AFBDA
12 February 1993
Letter
PEA (6.3)
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) #45 001-001
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Document, Site 8 Feasibility Study Report
USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
29 February 1993
Letter
Site 8
ARF
MKOI \RPr:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-64
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
#
PEA (4.5) #46 001-001
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Document, Site 8 Feasibility Study Report
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
29 January 1993
Letter
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) #55 001-001
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Zone 5 Draft Feasibility Study
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
Richard Peaae, NHDES
14 July 1993
Letter
Zone 5
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) #56001-001
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Zone 5 Draft Feasibility Study
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
Mike Daly, EPA Region I
14 July 1993
Letter
Zone 5
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) #57001-002
Submittal of the Revised Site 8 Proposed Plan
Arthur Ditto. Pease AFB
Mike Daly, EP A Region I
Richard Pease, NHDES
28 July 1993
Letter
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) #58 001-003
Former Pease AFB, Surface Water Issues
Richard Peaae. NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
29 November 1993
Letter
None
ARF (Section 4.5 Binder)
#
PEA (4.5) #59001-001
Site 8. Fire Department Training Area #2, Chemicals of Concern for Metals
Arthur Ditto. Pease AFB
Michael Daly, EPA
29 November 1993
Letter
Site 8
D-65
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
ARTHUR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT: .
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
. ARF (Section 4.5 Binder)
#
PEA (4.5) #62001-007
Groundwater Treatment Plant Influent/Effluent Resulu, Quarterly Reporting
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
Bill Wandie, EPA Region I
Jeff Andrews, NHDES
24 January 1994
Letter Report
Site 32136; Site 34
ARF (Section - Binder)
#
PEA (4.5) #61 001-001
Groundwater Treatment Plant Influent/Effluent Results, Quarterly Reporting
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
Bill Wandie, EPA
Jeff Andrews, NHDES
9 December 1993
LeUer
Site 32136; Site 34; Site 39
ARF (Section 4.5 Binder)
#
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-66
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (5.4) #1 001~1
Region I ROD Model Language
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Unknown
Letter
None
ARF
PEA (5.4) #4 001-002
Pease AFB IRP ROD Review Process
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
AFBCAINE
15 December 1993
Letter
None
ARF (Section 5.4 Binder)
PEA (5.4) #5 001-002
Getting to a ROD, Revised Milestones
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
Michael Daly, EPA Region I
Richard Pease, NHDES
4 February 1994
Letter
Zone I; Zone 2; Zone 3; Zone 4
Site 32/36
ARF (Section 5.4 Binder)
PEA (5.4) #10 001~1
Site 8 Record of Decision (ROD)
Arthur Ditto, AFBCAlOL-A
Michael Daly, EPA Region I
Richard Pease, NHDES
16 September 1994
Memorandum
Site 8
ARF (Section 5.4 Binder)
MKOI \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
5.4 Correspondeoce
#
#
#
#
D-67
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
6.1 Cooperative Agreements I SMOAs
PEA (6.1) #1 001.{)13
"Memorandum of Understanding Executed Between the Town of Newington. NH. and Pease Air Force Base. NH"
Town of NewingtonIPease Air Force Base
Air Force
22 August 1980
Memorandum of Understanding
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.1) /f2 001-004
"Memorandum of Understanding (MOV) between the U.S. Air Force Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory
(USAFOEHL) and Pease Air Force Base relating to procedures for conducting the IRP"
U.S. Department of the Air Force
Air Force
31 July 1987
Memorandum of Understanding
None
ARF
#
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.apd
D-68
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMEt'.,,- NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIEt'.T:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
6.2 Federal Facility Agreement (FFA)
PEA (6.2) #1 001-007
"Federal Facility Agreement under CERCLA Section 120"
U.S. EPA, Region I, State of New Hampshire and the U.S. Department of the Air Force"
EPA. NHDES. Air Force
24 April 1991
Federal Facility Agreement
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.2) #2 001-003
"Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes"
Pease Air Force Base
See Distribution List
16 January 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (6.2) #3 001-003
"Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes"
Pease Air Force Base
See Distribution List
20 February 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF. IF.
#
PEA (6.2) #4 00 1-003
"Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes"
Pease Air Force Base
See Distribution List
20 March 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF, IF.
#
PEA (6.2) #5001-002
"Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes"
Pease Air Force Base
See Distribution List
17 April 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF, IF.
#
PEA (6.2) #6001-002
"Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes"
Pease Air Force Base
See Distribution List
21 May 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
D-69
09/14/94
-------
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
PEA (6.2) #7 001-002
"Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes"
Pease Air Force Base
See Distribution List
24 June 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (6.2) #8 001-D.4
Modification 1 to Pease AFB
USAF
Michael Daly, EPA Region I
Richard Pease, NHDES
8 September 1993
FF A Modification
None
ARF, (Section 6.2 Binder)
Federal Facilities Agreement
#
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-70
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCm"fENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
6.3 Coordination. State I Federal
PEA (6.3) #1001-003
"Meeting minutes from Air Force meeting with state officials concerning Pease Air Force Base IRP"
U.S. Air Force
See Distribution List
11 March 1987
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #2 001-002
"Agenda for Meeting with State DES, Air Force, and EPA Technical Team"
fease Air force Base
See Distribution List
26 April 1990
Agenda
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #3 001~31
"Completed Applications for Department of the Army Permit (ENG Form 435) and New Hampshire Wetlands Board
Permit"
Department of the Air Force
Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division
31 August 1989
Letter and Attachments
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #4001-002
"Letter regarding emergency discharge exclusion from the requirement for a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)'
US EPA
Air Force
29 September 1989
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #6001-001
"Agenda and Notes for Working Meeting with U.S. EPA and State of New Hampshire"
US Air Force
See Distribution List
21 November 1989
Agenda and Meeting Notes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #7 001~5
. Letter response to Air Force letter of 22 August 1990 regarding CERCLA remedial actions at Pease Air Force Base, 404
permit not required'
Department of the Army
Air Force
D-71
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
3"October 1990
Response Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #8 001-033
"Point Paper on Installation Restoration Program (pease AFB) and Attachments (prepared for a meeting of J. Coit and
M. Aldrich, of Senator Humphrey's office, with Pease, NHDES, WESTON, and OEHL) "
Pease Air Force Base
J. Coit & M. Aldrich of Senator Humphrey's Office
31 March 1989
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #9 001-003
"Recommendation to Place Pease AFB on the National Priority List (NPL)"
Department of the Air Force
US EPA
27 June 1989
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #10001-004
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of January 16, 1991
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
U.S. EPAlNHDESfUSAF Attendees
Meeting Date: 16 Janual)' 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #11 001-004
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of Februal)' 20, 1991
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
U.S. EPAlNHDESfUSAF Attendees
Meeting Date: 20 Februal)' 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #12 001-004
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
USAF
See Distribution
20 March 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #13 001-004
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-72
-------
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of April 17, 1991
Asthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
U.S. EPAlNHDESIUSAF Attendees
17 April 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #14 001~3
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of May 21,1991
Asthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
U.S. EPAlNHDESIUSAF Attendees
21 May 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #15 001~
Notification of Additionallnvestigative Work in a Wetland
USAF
NHDES
Wetlands Board
P.O. Box 2008
Concord, NH 03301-3406
14 June 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #16 001~3
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of July 24, 1991
Asthur Ditto, RPM
USi\F/Pease AFB
U.S. EPAlNHDESIUSAF Attendees
24 June 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #17 OOI~3
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of August 26. 1991
Asthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Peaae AFB
U.S. EPAlNHDES/USAF Attendees
24 July 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #18 001~
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of September 26, 1991
Asthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
D-73
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
U.S. EPAlNHDES/USAF Attendees
"21 August 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #19001-004
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAFlPeaae AFB
U.S. EPAlNHDES/USAF Attendees
26 September 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #20001-004
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
U.S. EPAlNHDES/USAF Attendees
27 October 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #21 001-003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
U.S. EPAlNHDES/USAF Attendees
20 November 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #22001-003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of January 27, 1992.
Arthur Ditto. RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
U.S. EPAlNHDES/USAF Attendees
19 December 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #23 001-003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
U.S. EPAlNHDES/USAF Attendees
27 January 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
D-74
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
#
PEA (6.3) #24001-003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
U.S. EPAlNHDESIUSAF Attendees
25 February 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #25 001-002
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
U.S. EPAlNHDES/USAF Attendees
07 April 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #26001-004
NH Wetlands Permit for National Priorities List Related Work
USAF
NHDES
Wetlands Board
P.O. Box 2008
Concord, NH 03301-2008
24 April 1992
Lener
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #27001-002
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
USAF
See Distribution
22 April 1992
Minutes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #28001-008
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes, June 3, 1992
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
U.S. EPAlNHDES/USAF Attendees
3 June 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #29 001-003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of August 21, 1991
D-75
09/14/94
-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
'USAF/Pease AFB
U.S. EPAlNHDESIUSAF Attendees
Meeting Date: 21 August 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #30001-003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes - September 10, 1992
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
U.S. EPAlNHDESIUSAF Attendees
10 September 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #31 001-002
New Hampshire Sites Where SVE is Used for NAPL Removsl
John Regan, NHDES
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
Mike Daly, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
Scott Doane, NHDES
30 September 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #32001-002
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes - October 20, 1992
Arthur Ditto, RPM
EPA, NHDES, USAF
Attendees'
20 October 1992
Minutes
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #33 001-003
Application of the Reasonable Msximum Exposure (RME) in Risk: Assessments; Request for Site Specific Justification for
Using the 'Average Maximum'
Richard Pease, NHDES
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Capt. Woerhle, AFCEE
22 October 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #34001-001
Guidebook: for Environmental Pennits in New Hampshire
Richard Pease. NHDES
D-76
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8ro
-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
ATITHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
ATITHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
ATITHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
4 November 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #35 001-004
Newington Water Quality Sampling on October 14, 1992 and Analysis Perfonned on October 28, 1992, NHDES Sample
#220009
Scott Doane, NHDES
Wayne Wood, Newington, NH
Richard Pease, NHDES
Marl:: McKenzie, Pease AFB
11 December 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #36 001-Attachment 6
Quanerly Report, Second Quarter 1991
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES, USAF
19 July 1991
Quanerly Report
None
ARF, Art Ditto's office files
#
PEA (6.3) #37 001.{)34
Quanerly Repon, Third Quaner 1991
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES, USAF
24 October 1991
QuanerJy Repon, Transmittal Letters
None
ARF. Art Ditto's office files
#
PEA (6.3) #38 001.{)30
Quanerly Repon, Founh Quaner 199]
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES, USAF
] 4 January] 992
Quanerly Repon
None
ARF, Art Ditto's office files
#
PEA (6.3) #39 00].{)20
Quanerly Repon, First Quarter 1992
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES, USAF
15 April ]992
Quanerly Repon
None
ARF, Art Ditto's office files
#
D-77
09/14/94
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPLENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
. PEA (6.3) #40 001.{)32
Quarterly Report, Second Quarter 1992
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES, USAF
141uly 1992
Quarterly Report
None
ARF, Art Ditto's office files
#
PEA (6.3) #41 001.{)43
Quarterly Report, Third Quarter 1992
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES, USAF
20 October 1992
Quarterly Report
None
ARF, Art Ditto' s office files
#
PEA (6.3) #42001-Q4
Transmittal Letter for Quarterly Progress Report, Fourth Quarter 1992
Art Ditto, RPM, Pease AFB
10hanna Hunter, RPM, USEPA Region I
Richard Pease, RPM, NHDES
191anuary 1993
Transmittal Letter and Quarterly Report
None
ARF, Art Ditto's office files
#
PEA (6.3) #43 OOI-E.I
Quarterly Progress Report for Pease AFB
Art Ditto, RPM, Pease AFB
10hsnna Hunter, RPM, USEPA Region 1
Richard Pease, RPM, NHDES
26 April 1993
Report
None
ARF
#
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-78
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
6.4 General CorrespoDdence
PEA (6.4) #1 001-003
"Wetlands Application No. 89.1805.
State of New Hampshire, Depal1ment of Environmental Services, Water Supply and Pollution Control Division
State of New Hampshire
14 September 1989
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.4) #2 001-001
"Request for information for wetlands permit"
State of New Hampshire, Depal1ment of Environmental Services
Air Force
18 September 1989
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.4) #4001-005
"Air Force Letter to the Wetlands Board regarding a request for approval for a modification to the wetlands permitted
scope of work"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Delbert Downing, Wetlands Board, Concord, NH
21 November 1989
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.4) #5 001-010
"Letter to EPA regarding background information on Pease Air Force Base"
US Department of Commerce
Air Force via US EPA
7 March 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.4) #6 001-001
File # 92-679; CERCLA Related Temporary Fill of 2000 Square Feet for Wells at Pease AFB, NH
Kenneth N. Kettenring
NHDES
Wetlands Board
P.O. Box 2008
Concord, NH 03302-2008
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
26 May 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.4) #7 001-002
State Review Comments to Site 8 Initial Screening of Alternatives; Clarification of TSCA Regulation of PCBs
D-79
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Richard Pease. NHDES
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
11 August 1992
Letter
PEA (10.10); PEA (4.2)
ARF
#
PEA (6.4) #8 001~19
Lab results of groundwater samples from monitoring wells 05-5113,05-6101, and 08-6024.
NHDES
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
11 February 1993
Leiter wI attachment
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.4) #9 001~1
Quarterly Progress Report, Period of Perfonnance July, August .nd September 1993
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
October 1993
Report
None
ARF (Section 6.4 Binder)
#
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-80
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
7.3 Administrative Orders
PEA (7.3) #1 001-0.3
Pease AFB Federal Facilities Agreement Modification
USAF
Pease AFB
EPA Region I
NHDES
NH Attorney General
lanuary 1993
FFA Modification
none
ARF
#
#
D-81
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\slte8rod.apd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
8.2 Toxicological Profiles
PEA (8.2) #1 001-ZN4
Installation Restoration Program Stage 4 Toxicity Profiles, Pease Air Force Base, NH 03803
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
January 1993
Toxicity Profiles
None
ARF, IR
#
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-82
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
10.1 Comments and Responses
PEA (10.1) #1001-005
"Response to Comments - Draft Final Community Relations Plan"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
7 February 1991
LetterlResponse to Comments
None
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #2 001-003
Draft Community Relations Plan Comments
Richard Pease, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
30 November 1990
Letter Comment Report
Community Relations
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #3 001-<110
EPA Region I Comments to IRP D~ft Community Relations Plan; Pease AFB
Douglas S. Gutto
U.S. EPA Region I
Superfund Community Relations
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
7 December 1990
Letter Comment Report
Community Relations
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #4001-<111
EPA Comments on Pease AFB Community Relations Plan with Air Force's Responses
Individual Unknown (From Air Force)
U.S. Air Force
January 1991
Comment Report
Community Relations
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #5 001-004
NHDES Comments on Pease AFB Community Relations Plan with Air Force Responses
Individual Unknown (Through Air Force)
U.S. Air Force
January 1991
Comment Report
Community Relations
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #6001-002
D-83
MKOI \RYT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
Re~iew of Draft (Revised) Final Report IRP Community Relations Plan
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
25 March 1991
Letter
Community Relations
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #7 ool~3
Comments Remaining Unresolved for Stage 4 Work Plan Analysis Method
Mark McKenzie, Pease AFB
Lee dePenia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
OS May 1991
Comments
PEA (3.1)
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #8001-002
Overaight Comments on the Soil Boring/Piezometer Installation Program
Scott Doane
John Regan
NHDES
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
13 April 1992
Letter
CRD-I
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #12 ool~3
Review Comments for Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum Number 2
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
RPM. NHDES
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM. USAF
Pease AFB
08 May 1992
Letter
PEA (3.3)
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #13 001-014
Review Comments for Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum Number 2
Michael Daly
U.S. EPA Region I
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
14 May 1992
Transmittal Sheet. Letter and Comment Report
PEA (3.1); PEA (3.3)
D-84
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
LocATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #14 00l..{l13
Review of Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum Number 2 for Pease AFB
Michael J. Daly
U.S. EPA Region 1
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
14 May 1992
Letter with Comment Report
PEA (3.1); PEA (3.3)
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #25 001-007 .
Stage 3C Review of Initial Screening of Alternatives for IRP Site 8 Fire Training Area, Pease Air Force Pease, NH
Draft, June 1992
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
10 August 1992
Comments
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #27 001.()Q2
Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum 3 Review Comments
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
14 August 1992
Comments
PEA (6.3)
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #33 001-006
Review of Stage 3C Soil Vapor Extraction Treatability Study Work Plan for IP Site 8 - September 1992
Michael J. Daly
U.S. EPA Region I
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
Arthur Ditto
RPM, USAF
Pease AFB
30 September 1992
Letter with 2 Attachments
Site 8; PEA (2.0)
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #37 001.()Q2
Proposed Locations for Additional Monitoring Wells at Site 8
Scott Doane, Hydrogeologist NHDES
and
John Regan, Supervisor NHDES
Arthur Ditto, RPM, USAF
Pease AFB
9 October 1992
Letter
D-85
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Site 8; PEA (3.1)
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #38 OOI.()32
Response to Comments; Site 8 Initial Screening of Alternatives
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
through U.S. Air Force (Arthur Ditto)
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region I
and
Richard Pease
RPM, NHDES
13 October 1992
Transmittal Letters with 2 Attachments
Site 8;. PEA (3.5)
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #40 001-006
Response to Comments, Stage 4 Work: Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum 2
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region I
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
3 November 1992
Letter
PEA (3.3); PEA (3.1)
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #42 001-003
Comments on Pease Off-Base Well Inventory Letter Report
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
RPM. NHDES
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
12 November 1992
Letter
Zone 2; Zone 5; Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (10. I) #44 001-002
Review of Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum 3, Pease AFB
Michael J. Daly
U.S. EPA, Region I
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
23 November 1992
Letter
None
ARF
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-86
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIE/'.'T:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIE/'.'T:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
#
PEA (10.1) #47001-002
Review Comments of Stage 4, Site Characterization Summary, IRP Zone 5
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
1 December1992
Letter
ZoneS
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #49001-008
Review of Zone 2 and Zone 5, Site Characterization Summaries for Pease AFB
Michael J. Daly
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
4 December 1992
Letter with Comment Reports
Zone 2; Zone 5
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #61 001-002
Review Comments of Pease AFB Preliminary Findings - Fish and Shellfish Tissue Analysis
Richard Pease, RPM, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, RPM, USAF, Pease AFB
21 January 1993
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #62001-002
Review of the Air Force Selection of Remedial Action Alternative Letter for Site 8, FDT A #2, dated January 8, 1993
EPA. Region 1
Arthur Ditto. AFBDA
26 February 1993
Letter
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #63 001-004
Review of Site 8 Draft Final Feasibility StUdy IRP Pease Air Force Base, NH 03801, Draft January 1993
EPA. Region 1
Arthur Ditto, AFBDA
26 February 1993
Letter and Comments
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #69001.{)18
Response to EPA Commenta on Site 8 Draft FS
D-87
MKOl \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
USAF
EPA
27 January 1993
Response to Comments
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #70ool-m1
Response to NHDES Comments on Site 8 Draft FS
USAF
NHDES
28 January 1993
Response to Comments
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #71 001-006
Response to NHDES Comments on Zone 5 FS
USAF
NHDES
07 January 1993
Response to Comments
Zone 5
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) m 001-009
Response to EPA Comments on Site 8 Draft FS
USAF
EPA
II January 1993
Response to Comments
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (10.1)'#75 001-002
DES Review of Site 8 Draft Final Feasibility Study, january 1993 and Air Force's Response to Comments to DES Review
Comments to Site 8 Draft Feasibility Study
NHDES
Art Ditto, AFBDA
01 March 1993
Comments
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #76001-009
EP A Review of Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Zone 5, Pease Air Force
Base - February 1993
EPA
Art Ditto, AFBDA
26 March 1993
Comments
Zone 5
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #77ool.{)1l
D-88
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.apd
-------
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
IRP Stage 4 Zone 5 Remedial Investigation. February 1993 - Draft
NHDES
An Ditto, AFBDA
26 March 1993
Comments
Zone 5
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #81001.005
Response to EPA Comments on the Draft Zone 5 ISA
USAF
EP A Region 1
14 June 1993
Response to Comments
Zone 5
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #82 001~25
Response to NHDES Comments on the Draft Zone 5 ISA
USAF
NHDES
14 June 1993
Response to Comments
ZoneS
ARF
#
PEA (IO.l)-#99001~19
Response to EPA Comments on the Draft Zone 5 Rl Report
USAF
EPA
4 August 1993
Response to Comments
Zone 5
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
PEA (10.1) #100 ool~O
Response to the NHDES Comments on the Draft Zone 5 Rl Report
USAF
NHDES
5 August 1993
Response to Comments
Zone 5
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
PEA (10.1) #101001.006
Response to Comments on the Draft Zone 5 Rl Report Addendum 1
USAF
EPA
NHDES
5 August 1993
Response to Comments
Zone 5
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
D-89
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG mLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG mLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) #102 001-006
ReSponse to NHDES Comments on the Draft Zone S FS
USAF
NHDES
10 October 1993 (Attached letter is dated August 27. 1993)
Response to Comments
ZoneS
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
PEA (10.1) #103 001~33
Response to EPA Comments on the Draft Zone S RI Report
USAF
EPA
28 September 1993
Response to Comments
Zone 3
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
PEA (10.1) #110 001~17
Response to NHDES Comments on the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report
USAF
NHDES
13 April 1993
Response to Comments
Site 8
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
PEA (10.1) #111 001~10
Response to EPA Comments on the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report
USAF
EPA
13 April 1993
Response to Comments
Site 8
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
PEA (10.1) #114001-003
Remedial Technology Peer Review, Pease International Tradeport and Air National Base. New Hampshire. Peer Review
Fred Price, Mitre Corporation
Major Charles Howell, AFCEE
13 April 1993
Letter
Zone 5
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
PEA (10.1) #116001-003
Review of U .S. Environmental Protection Agency Comments on Background Data for .Pease AFB. NH
Fred Price, Mitre Corporation
Major Charles Howell, AFCEE
II June 1993
Letter
None
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
D-90
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) #130001-003
Zone S Draft Final Feasibility Study and the Zone S Draft Proposed Plan Review Comments
NHDES
USAF
29 November 1993
Comments
ZoneS
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
PEA (10.1) #133 001-004
Zone S and Site 8 Draft Fact Sheets for Proposed Plans Review Comments
NHDES
USAF
30 December 1993
Comments
Zone S; Site 8
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
D-91
MKOI \ RYf:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
10.2 CommDDity Relations PIaD
PEA (10.2) #1 OOI~
"Installation Restoration Program Community Relations Plan"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES, USAF
January 1991
Community Relations Plan
None
ARF. IR.
#
PEA (10.2) #2 001-080
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Community Relations Plan for Pease AFB, NH
Dynamac Corporation
230 Peachtree St., N.W., Ste. 500
Atlanta, GA 30303
USAF
July 1993
CRP
None
ARF
#
MKOI \ RI'T:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-92
Interim Final
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
10.3 Public Notices
#
PEA (10.3) #7 001-001
Paid Advertisement in Ponsmouth Herald for Zone 5 and Site 8 Proposed Plan Public Comment Period and Public Hearing
USAF
Ponsmouth Herald, Public
6 February 1994
Public Notice
Zone 5; Sitr 8
ARF (Section 10.3 Binder)
.#
PEA (10.3) #8001-001
Paid Advertisement in Foster's Daily Democraz for Zone 5 and Site 8 Public Comment Period and Public Hearing
USAF
Foster's Daily Democrat; Public
5 February 1994
Public Notice
Zone 5; Site 8
ARF (Section 10.3 Binder)
#
PEA (10.3) #9 001-001
Paid Advertisement in Foster's Daily Democraz for Zone 5 and Site 8 Public Comment Period and Public Hearing
USAF
Foster's Daily Democrat; Public
26 February 1994
Public Notice
Zone 5; Site 8
ARF (Section 10.3 Binder)
#
PEA (10.3) #10001-001
Paid Advertisement in the Porrsmouth Herald for Zone 5 and Site 8 Public Comment Period and Public Hearing
USAF
Porrsmouth Herald; Public
27 February 1994
Public Notice
Zone 5; Site 8
ARF (Section 10.3 Binder)
#
D-93
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
10.4 Public Meeting Transcripts
PEA (10.4) #3 001-025
Pease Air Force Base Public Workshop and Information Meeting:
Dynamac Corporation
230 Peachtree St., N.W.
Suite 500
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
USAF
12 January 1993
Meeting Sunun&ry
None
IR
#
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-94
Installation Restoration Program
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
10.5 Documentation of Other Public Meetings
PEA (10.5) #1 001-007
Meeting Minutes ofT~hnical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
30 July 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (S~tion 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) /12 001-007
Meeting Minutes ofT~hnical Review Committee
,USAF
See Distribution List
27 August 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (S~tion 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #3 001-010
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
o I October 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (S~tion 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #4001-003
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
29 October 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #5 OOI-O!3
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
26 November 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #6 001-005
Meeting Minutes of T~hnical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
07 January 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
D-95
MKO 1 \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
~ (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #7 001-003
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
31 March 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #8001-002
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
28 April 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #9 001-003
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
20 May 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #10001-005
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
29 September 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #11 001~13
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
27 October 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #12001-004
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
16 December 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
D-96
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #13 001-004
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
22 Febroary 1990
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #14 001-013
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
30 March 1990
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #15 001-004
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
27 April 1990
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #16001-010
Meeting minutes of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution List
30 May 1990
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #17001-008
Meeting minutes of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution List
27 June 1990
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) 18001-005
Meeting minutes of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution List
25 July 1990
Meeting Minutes
None
D-97
MK01 \RPT:00628026.oo3\site8rod.apd
-------
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
J\RF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #19001-005
Meeting minutes of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution List
29 August 1990
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) tf20oo1..{)12
Meeting minutes of the Technical Review Committee
Depan,ment of the Air Force
See Distribution List
26 September 1990
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) tf21 001-008
Meeting minutes of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution List
31 October 1990
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) tf22 001-004
Meeting minutes of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution List
29 November 1990
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #23 00 1-003
Meeting minutes of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution List
31 January 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) tf24 00 1-003
Meeting minutes of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution List
27 March 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-98
-------
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIEI'-'T:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) 1f2500I-006
Meeting minutes of the Technical Review Committee
Depanment of the Air Force
See Distribution List
24 April 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) 1f26 001-003
Meeting minutes of the Technical Review Committee
Depamnent of the Air Force
See Distribution List
28 May 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) 1f2700I-006
Meeting minutes of the Technical Review Committee
Depanment of the Air Force
See Distribution List
25 June 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) 1f28 001-008
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
31 August 1993
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) 1f29 ool~ll
Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes
USAF
See Distribution List
30 November 1993
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #30001-009
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
28 September 1993
Meeting Minutes
None
D-99
MKOI \RPT:00628026.oo3\site8rod.apd
-------
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
A1U' (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #31001-010
Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes
USAF
See Distribution List
26 October 1993
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #32001-002
Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes
USAF
See Distribution List
18 January 1994
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
MKOI \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-lOO
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
10.6 Fact Sheets, Press Advisories, and News Releases
PEA (10.6) #1 001-003
"News release regarding the investigation of 22 sites on Pease AFB"
U.S. Air Force
Media
30 September 1987
News Release
None
ARF
#
PEA (10.6) #2 001-002
"News release regarding presentation of the second interim technical report"
U.S. Air Force
Media
21 September 1988
News Release
None
ARF
#
PEA (10.6) #3 001-003
"News release regarding the underground water sampling program"
U .S. Air Force
Media
29 November 1988
News Release
None
ARF
#
PEA (10.6) #4001-002
"News release regarding the release of the third interim technical report"
U.S. Air Force
Media
22 March 1989
News Release
None
ARF
#
PEA (10.6) #5 001-004
"News release regarding off-base well water sampling results"
U.S. Air Force
Media
7 June 1989
News Release
None
ARF
#
PEA (10.6) #7 001-003
"Superfund Program Draft Interagency Agreement Fact Sheet"
U.S. EPA, Region I
See Mailing List
December 1990
Fact Sheet
None
D-101
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
ARF
#
PEA (10.6) #8 001-008
Pease Air Force Base Installation Restoration Program Update: Remedial Investigation/Feasibility StUdy
USAF
See Distribution List
October 1991
Fact Sheet
None
ARF
#
PEA (10.6) #9 001-011
Pease Air Force Baae Installation Restoration Program Update: Infonnation Update
USAF
See Distribution List
December 1992
Fact Sheet
None
ARF
#
PEA (10.6) #10001-004
Pease Air Force Base Installation Restoration Program Update: Interim Groundwater Treatment - Sites 8. 32/36 and 34
USAF
See Distribution List
January 1993
Fact Sheet
Sites 8, 34, 32/36
ARF
#
PEA (10.6) #20 001-004
Pease AFB Environmental Reporter Volume I, Number I
USAF
See Mailing List
January 1994
Newslener
None
ARF (Section 10.6 Binder)
#
PEA (10.6) #21 001-004
Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Update, Proposed Plan for IRP Site 8
USAF
See Mailing List
January 1994
Fact Sheet
Site 8
ARF (Section 10.6 Binder)
#
PEA (10.6) #22 001-004
Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Update, Proposed Plan for IRP Zone 5 (Site 9 and 11)
USAF
See Mailing List
January 1994
Fact Sheet
Zone 5
ARF (Section 10.6 Binder)
D-I02
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
PEA (10.6) #23 001-001
News Release Regarding Postponement of Site 8/Zone 5 Public Hearing
USAF
Media
9 FebNal)' 1994
News Release
Site 8; Zone 5
ARF (Section 10.6 Binder)
#
D-I03
MKOI \ RPT:00628026.oo3\site8rod.apd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
10.10 Correspondeoce
PEA (10.10) #1001-001
"Letter regarding concern about the hazardous waste sites at Pease AFB"
Gordon J. Humphrey, U.S. Senate
James F. McGovern, Acting S~retary of the Air Force
24 March 1989
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (10.10) #2 001-002
"Letter regarding the migration of Air Force hazardous waste beyond the Pease AFB perimeter"
Town of Newington
Robert Field, Environmental Cleanup Advisory Committee, Portsmouth, NH
11 May 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (10.10) #3 001-008
"Letter regarding groundwater sampling conducted on private property"
Department of the Air Force
Will Gilbert, Newington, NH
6 June 1989
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (10.10) #4 001-001
Submittal Letter for Draft Community Relations Plan for the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) on Cape Cod,
Massachusetts
Douglas S. Gutro, USEPA
Karen Cowden,
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
19 June 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (10.10) #5 001-002
Impact of Base Closure on Personnel Responsible for the Installation Restoration Program and Public Affairs
Merrill S. Hohman, USEPA
Col. James R. Wilson
Pease AFB, NH
27 August 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (10.10) #6 001-001
lmpsct of Base Closure on Personnel Responsible for the Installation Restoration Program and Public Affsirs (Your Letter,
August 27, 1990)
USAF
Merrill S. Hohman, USEPA
MKOI \RPT:00628026.oo3\site8rod.apd
D-I04
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AtJTHOR:
RECIPIEI'o'T:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
I I October 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (10.10) #7 001-001
Subminal of Primary Documents (Community Relations Plan)
USAF
Jim Brown, USEPA
24 October 1990
Letter
PEA (10.2)
ARF
#
PEA (10.10) #8 001-001
Subminal of Primary Documents (Community Relations Plan)
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
24 October 1990
Letter
PEA (10.2)
ARF
#
PEA (10.10) #9 001-001
Community Relations Plan Development Extension
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
17 January 1991
Letter
PEA (10.2)
ARF
#
PEA (10.10) #]0 001-00]
Community Relations Plan Development Extension
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
17 January 1991
Letter
PEA (10.2)
ARF
#
PEA (10.10) #] I 001-001
Subminal of Draft Final Primary Documents
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
5 February 1991
Letter
PEA (3. I); PEA (3.3)
ARF
#
PEA (10.]0) #]2 00]-00]
Subminal of Draft Final Primary Documents
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
D-105
MK01 \ RPT:00628026.oo3\site8rod.apd
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
5.February 1991
Letter
PEA (3.1); PEA (3.3)
ARF
#
PEA (10.10) #13001-001
Community Relations Plan
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
12 Apri11991
Letter
PEA (10.2)
ARF
#
PEA (10.10) #14 001-004
Basewide ARARs Pease AFB, NH
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
1 April 1993
Letter
PEA (4.1)
ARF
03803, January 1993, DRAFT - Review Comments
#
PEA (10.10) #15 001-002
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, No Further Action Decision Document for IRP Site II, February 1993
Review Comments
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
2 April 1993
Letter
Site 11
ARF
#
PEA (10.10) #17 ool.{)10
Zone 5 Initial Screening of Alternatives Report DRAFT March 1993
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto. Pease AFB
23 April 1993
Letter
Zone 5
ARF
- Review Comments
#
PEA (10.10) #21 ool.{)12
Proposed Plan for IR.P Site 8, Fire Department Training Area 2, March 1993, DRAFT - Review Comments
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto. Pease AFB
14 May 1993
Letter
Site 8
ARF
#
D-106
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.apd
-------
. NOTE:
11.1 EPA Headquarters GuidaDce
Guidauce documents listed as bibliographic sources for a document already included in the Administrative Record are Dot listed
separately in this index.
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
PEA (11.1) #1 001-003
Risk Assessment Issue Paper for Carcinogenicity Characterization
Tetrachloroethylene(CASRN 127-18-4), and Styrene (CASRN 100-42-5)
USEPA
USAF
14 July 1992
Guidance
None
ARF
for Trichloroethylene (CASRN 79.{)1-6),
#
PEA (11.1) #2 001-G.2
Draft Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents: The Proposed Plan and Record of Decision
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
March 1988
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.1) #3 001-B.9
The RPM Primer: An Introductory Guide to the Role and Responsibilities of the Superfund Remedial Project Manager
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
September 1987
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.1) #4 001-11.1
CERCLA Site Discrepancies to POTWs Guidance Manual
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
August 1990
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.1) #5 001.{)4I
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment
EPA
USAF
February 1992
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.1) #6001-E.I
Preliminary Assessment Guidance Fiscal Year 1988
D-I07
09/14/94
-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
.LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
January 1988
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.1) #7 OOI-G.I
Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook: (Interim Version)
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington. DC
USAF
1988
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.1) #8 001-H,6
Summary Report on Issues in Ecological Risk: Assessment
EPA
USAF
February 1991
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.1) #9 001-127
Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges
EPA
USAF
September 1988
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.1) #10 001-F.19
Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA - Interim Final
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington. DC
USAF
October 1988
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.1) #11 001-103
Final Guidance on Administrative Records for Selecting CERCLA Response Actions
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
1190/91
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.1) #12 001-B.2
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-I08
-------
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Implementing EP A's Groundwater Protection Strategy for the 1990's: Draft Comprehensive Stste Groundwater Protection
Program Guidance
EPA
USAF
1992
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.1) #13 001-021
A Handbook for Stste Groundwater Managers
Office of Water, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
May 1992
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.1) #14 001-3.40
Conducting Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
February 1991
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.1) #15 001-F.2
Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents: The Proposed Plan, The Record of Decision, and Explanation
of Significant Differences. The Record of Decision Amendment
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
July 1989
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.1) #16 001-B.12
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (part A) Interim Final
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
December 1989
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.1) #17 001-057
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume D: Environmentsl Evaluation Manual Interim Final
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
March 1989
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
D-109
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AtrrHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AurHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AurHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AtrrHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AurHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AurHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
P~A (11.1) #18 Deleted
#
PEA (11.1) #1900I-B.2
Superfund Removal Procedures Action Memorandum Guidance
EPA
USAF
December 1990
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.1) #20001-G
RCRA 9rientatiol\ Manual
EPA
USAF
1990
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.1) #21 001-295
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program:
EPA
USAF
November 1991
Guidance
None
Art's Office
Technology Profiles
#
PEA (11.1) #22 001.{)17
Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated Site Clean-Up Technologies
EPA
USAF
May 1991
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.1) #23 00 1.{)23
Bibliography of Federal Reports and Publications Describing Alternatives and Innovative Treatment Technologies for
Corrective Action and Site Remediation
EPA
USAF
May 1991
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.1) #24001-111
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies
EPA
USAF
May 1991
D-110
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.apd
-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
D-ll1
MK01 \RP'f:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
. NOTE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
11.2 EPA Regional GuidaDce
GuidaDce docWDents listed as bibliographic sources for a docWDent already iDcluded in the Administrative Record are Dot listed
separately ill this index.
PEA (11.2) #1 001-C.1
Land Disposal Restrictions Summary of Requirements
EPA. Region 1
USAF
August 1990
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.2) #2 001-107
Supplemental Risk Assessment Guidance for the Superfund Program
EP A, Region 1
USAF
June 1989
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
D-112
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
. NOTE:
11.3 State GuidaDce
Guidance documents listed as bibliographic sources for a document already included in the Administrative Record are Dot listed
separately in this index.
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMEJI,'T NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
PEA (11.3) #1001-001
ENC-WS 410 Groundwater Protection Rules
NHDES
Art Ditto, AFBDA
February 18, 1993
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (11.3) 112 001-B.8
Interim Policy for the Management of Soils Contaminated from Spills/Rele.ases of Virgin Petroleum Products
NHDES
USAF
September 1991
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.3) #3 001-048
Groundwater Protection Rules
NHDES
USAF
February 1993
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.3) #4001-37.3
New Hampshire Rules for the Control of Radiation
NHDES
USAF
April 1983
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.3) #5 001-C.15
Guidance Document for the Closure of Solid Waste Landfills in New Hampshire
NHDES
USAF
May 1990
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.3) #6oo1-D.7
Guidebook for Environmental Permits In New Hampshire
NHDES
USAF
1992
D-113
09/14/94
-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
MKOI \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-114
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
11.4 Air Force Guidance
PEA (11.4) #1001-024
"Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Pease AFB, New Hampshire"
Mitre Corporation, Civil Systems Division
Air Force
20 June 1990
Letter Report
None
ARF
#
PEA (11.4) #2 001-016
"Implementation of Department of Defense (DOD) policy guidance on IRP Policy No. I"
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution List
11 December 1981
Policy/Guidance Document
None
ARF
#
PEA (11.4) #3 001-002
"Implementation of DOD policy guidance on Installation Restoration Plan (IRP), Policy No. I"
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution List
5 March 1982
Policy/Guidance Document
None
ARF
#
PEA (11.4) #4001-003
"Relationship of the IRP to RCRA enforcement actions
Department of the Air Force"
See Distribution List
26 December 1985
Policy Document
None
ARF
#
PEA (11.4) #5 001-002
"Guidance for Air Force Installation Compliance with Volatile Organic Compound Regulations"
Department of the Air Force"
See Distribution List
8 October 1986
Guidance Document
None
ARF
#
PEA (11.4) #6001-003
"IRP Decision Documentation Policy"
Department of the Air Force"
See Distribution List
25 May 1988
Policy Letter
None
D-115
MK01 \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
ARF
#
PEA (11.4) #7 001-003
"RCRA Facility Assessment GuilUince to Installation"
Department of the Air Force"
See Distribution List
3 August 1988
Guidance
None
ARF
#
PEA (11.4) #8 001-003
"Guidance on base map construction and digitization D.O. 006 Pease AFB"
Department of the Air Force"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
6 March 1989
Guidance Document
None
ARF
#
PEA (11.4) #9 001-1.3
Handbook to Support the Installation Restoration Program Statements of Work for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Studies Version 3.0
Air Force Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory Technical Services Division
Pease AFB
May 1989
Handbook
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.4) #10 001-B1.3
United States Air Force Environmental Restoration Program NFRAP Guide:
Further Response Action Planned Decisions - Final Draft
USAF
Pease AFB
February 1993
Guidance
None
Art's Office
Making, Documenting and Evacuating No
#
PEA (I 1.4) #]] 001-087
Air Force Logistics Command Public Affairs Environmental Guidance
USAF
Pease AFB
March 31, 1989
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.4) #]2 OOI-IX.A\.3
Recommended Sampling Procedures
Air Force Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory
Pease AFB
March 1989
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
D-116
-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.4) #13 001-1.2
Report of the Defense Environmental Response Task Force
Department of Defense
Pease AFB
October 1991
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.4) #14 001-1.5
Initiatives for Accelerating Cleanup at BRAC Installations
Department of Defense
Pease AFB
June 1992
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.4) #15 - Deleted
#
D-l17
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
11.5 TecbnicaI Sources
PEA (11.5) #1 001.m2
Trichloroethylene in the Groundwater Supply of Pease Air Force Base Portsmouth, NH
U.S. Geological Survey
USAF
1982
Technical Source
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.5) #2 001~80
Geology and Groundwater Resources of Southeastern New Hampshire
U.S. Geological Survey
USAF
1964
Technical Source
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.5) #3 OOI~10
Preliminary Wetland Delineation and Evaluation Report for Pease Air Force Base, NH - Draft
The Smart Associates, Environmental Consultants, Inc.
USAF
April 1990
Technical Source
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.5) #4 001-222
The Ecology of the Great Bay Estuary, New Hampshire and Maine:
Jackson Estuarine Laboratory, Durham, NH
USAF
October 1992
Technical Source
None
Art' & Office
An Estuarine Profile and Bibliography
#
D-118
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.apd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPI;ENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMEt-.'T NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT :
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
11.6 Proposed Procedures I Procedures
PEA (11.6) #1 001-005
"Risk Assessment Data Needs and Sampling Procedures Letter Report"
Roy F. Weston, Inc
EPA, NHDES
8 March 1991
Letter Report
None
ARF
#
PEA (11.6) #2001-051
"Analytical Methods Letter Report" - Supplemental Information to Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
23 April 1991
Letter Report
PEA (3.1)
ARF
#
PEA (11.6) #3 001-055
"Protocols for Generation of Baseline Risk Assessments for the Pease AFB Sites - Revised"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
July 1991
Report
None
ARF
#
PEA (11.6) #4001-002
"Procedures for handling solids and liquids produced during well construction and soil borings at Site 8 investigations'
Department of the Air Force
NHDES
21 August 1990
Procedures
Site 8
ARF
#
PEA (11.6) #5001-002
"Disposal of Drill Cuttings From Stage 2 and 3 Investigations"
Department of the Air Force
NHDES
14 August 1990
Procedures
None
ARF
#
D-119
MKOI \RP'T:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
11.7 COm!SpClodeoce
P~ (11.7) #1 001-006
"Letter to EP A requesting review and concurrence of risk assessment data and sampling procedure letter report"
Department of the Air Force
State of New Hampshire
20 March 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (11.7) #2 00 1-002
"Letter concerning use of drilling mud"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
26 December 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA(ll.7) #3 001-002
"Analytical Methods for Pease AFB"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
23 April 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (11.7) #4001-001
Consolidated Background Values Letter Report
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
Johanna Hunter, EPA
March 9, 1993
Letter Report
None
ARF
#
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.apd
D-120
-------
APPENDIX E
TABLES
MK01 \ RF'I':00628026.003\sitc:8rod.tbl
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stages 1, 2, and 3 Activities
Sitc 8, Pease AFB, NH
I Date I Activity I Scope I Purpose I
10/84 and 1/85 Excavation of test pits 8-TP-Ithrough 8-TP-1O Assess the lateral extent of potential soil
contamination.
11/84 to 2/85 Monitor well installation and 510 through 515 (RFW-IO) Establish both upgradient and downgradient water
development through (RFW-15) quality conditions.
3/85 to 4/85 Groundwater sampling (round 1) 510-515 Evaluate groundwater for TOX, TOC, and O&G.
4/85 to 5/85 Groundwater sampling (round 2) 510-515 Same as round 1.
5/85 Surveying 510-515 Determine elevations and locations.
1/86 Groundwater resampling 511 and 512 Re-evaluate groundwater for TOX, TOe, and
O&G because of suspected mislabeling of bottles.
Slug tests 510, 512-515 Assess hydraulic conductivity.
10/87-12/87 Aerial photograph review Photographs from 1952, Evaluate areal extent of Site 8.
1960, and 1976
10/87-12/87 Soil-gas sampling Soil-gas analyzed for Screen soil for volatile contaminants to select soil
petroleum hydrocarbons, boring locations.
total hydrocarbons, and
methyl ethyl ketone
Begin 11 /87 Water level measurements Stage 1 wells; Stage 2 wells Assess hydrologic characteristics.
(quarterly) as installed
4/88 Soil borings 15 soil borings: 708-722 Characterize soil contamination, both lateral and
vertical.
4/88 Piezometer installation In soil borings 709, 715, 719 Obtain water level measurements.
and 720
MKOt \RYf:00628026.003\sitc8rod.tbl
E-}
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stages 1, 2, and 3 Activities
Site 8, Pease AFB, NO
(Continued)
I Date I Activity I Scope I Purpose !
4/88 Test pits 5 pits: 940 to 944 Assess subsurface stratigraphy and characterize soil
contamination.
4/88 Staff gage installation BOlA Obtain water level measurements; establish surface
water and sediment sampling locations.
4/88-5/88 Survey Test pits, borings, gages, Determine elevations and locations.
. and piezometers
9/88-10/88 Bedrock and overburden well 539,540,541,611,612, and Evaluate bedrock and overburden water quality.
installation and development 613
11/88-12/88 Survey Monitor wells Determine elevations and locations.
11/88 Surface water and sediment sampling 80lA Evaluate surface water for VOCs, total metals, and
SVOCs. Evaluate sediment for VOCs, metals, and
SVOCs.
11/88 Short-duration pumping test 539 and 611 Evaluate aquifer characteristics in the overburden
and bedrock.
11/88-12/88 Round 1 groundwater sampling 510-515, 539-541, 611-613, Evaluate groundwater for VOCs, SVOCs,
99-016, 99-005, 99-009, and pesticides/PCBs, herbicides, dissolved metals,
99-015 common anions, total hardness, and nitrate/nitrite.
5/89 Surface water and sediment sampling 80lA Evaluate surface water for VOCs, pesticides/PCBs,
SVOCs, total metals, BOD, and ammonia/
nitrogen. Evaluate sediment for cyanide, VOCs,
TPHs, total metals, SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, and
herbicides.
5/89 Off-base residential wells sampled 99-016,99-009,99-005, Evaluate groundwater for VOCs.
for groundwater 99-015
MKOI \RYf:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-2
-------
Table t
Summary of Stages 1,2, and 3 Activities
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Date Activity Scope Purpose
9/89 Seismic refraction and VLF 100 by 100-foot grid Characterize bedrock topography and identify
electromagnetic survcys (on-site) potential bedrock contaminant migration pathways,
respectively.
9/89 Monthly water Icvel measurements All monitor wells, Characterize overburden and bedrock groundwater
piezometers, and staff gages flow patterns.
10/89 Stratigraphic borings 9 borings: 7002-7010 Optimize well placement and support seismic
refraction survey data.
11/89 Overburden well installation 3 wells: 560, 561, and 565 Monitor overburden water quality.
11/89 Recovery well installation 4 wells: 562l\, 563, 564, and Recover product near the former burn areas and
566 limit off-site contaminant migration.
11/89 Column leach tests 7001, 7015, 7016, and 7017 Evaluate the potential effects of untreated soil
(background = 7001) contamination on groundwater.
11/89 Bedrock well installation 5 wells: 620-624 Monitor for bedrock water quality.
11/89 Survey 5 bedrock wells, 7 Establish accurate locations and elevations.
overburden wells, and 13
borings
2/90 Soil removal from drainage ditch. 262 tons removed Source control IRM.
3/90 Slug tests 563, 564, 565, and 566 Evaluate overburden aquifer characteristics.
3/90 Step-drawdown test 562l\ Evaluate overburden aquifer characteristics.
3/90 Short-duration pumping test 565 Evaluate overburden aquifer characteristics.
3/90 Short-duration pumping test 622 and 623 Evaluate bedrock aquifer characteristics.
MKOl \RPT:00628026.003\sile8rod.lbl
E-3
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stages I, 2, and 3 Activities
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
I Date I Activity -I Scope I Purpose I
9/89,3/90, Groundwater sampling See Appendix B of the Characterize water quality of site overburden and
6/91, 10/91, 3/92 Draft Final Site 8 RI bedrock monitor wells, residential wells, and off-
Report (G-577) base springs.
7/90 Seismic refraction survey Off-base between grid Characterize bedrock topography north of Site 8
coordinates 1,200 north and and locate the proposed exploratory soil borings.
2,000 north and 1,000 east
and 2,000 east (see Figure
2.3-4) of the Draft Final
Site 8 RI Report (G-577)
8/90 Exploratory soil borings and soil 17 soil borings: 7018-7034 Perform VOC screening analyses using a portable
sampling gas chromatograph (GC) and verify seismic
refraction interpretation.
8/90 Piezometer installation 5 piezometers; 7020, 7022, Characterize the overburden groundwater flow
7024, 7025, and 7026 pattern.
8/90 Pilot GWTP became operational Pump and treat Source. control and management of migration
groundwater from IRM.
overburden wens 562A, 563,
564, and 566
9/90 Stratigraphic borings 4 borings: 7035-7038 Optimize overburden well placement.
9/90 Overburden well installation 3 wells: 575, 576, and 577 Monitor potential contaminant migration to the
north-northeast (575 and 576) and overburden
groundwater quality south of Site 8 (577).
9/90 Bedrock well installation 2 wells: 636 and 637 Evaluate water quality in the bedrock water-
bearing zone north of Site 8 near the base
boundary (636) and downgradient of Site 8 (637).
MKOt \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-4
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stages 1, 2, and 3 Activities
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Date Activity Scope Purpose
9/90-10/90 Survey Soil borings: 7018-7038; Establish accurate location and elevations.
piezometers: 7020, 7022,
7024, 7025, and 7026;
overburden wells: 575-577;
bedrock wells: 636 and 637
10/90 Site 8 GWTP permit groundwater 25 wells and 1 spring; Characterize groundwater quality and support the
sampling see Appendix B of the Draft GWTP operational permit.
Final Site 8 RI Report
(G-577)
4/91 Gridding Off base properties: To more effectively locate characterization borings.
Coleman and Watson
4/91 Site 8 GWTP permit groundwater 25 wells and 1 spring; Characterize groundwater quality and support the
sampling see Appendix B of the Draft GWTP operational permit.
Final Site 8 RI Report
(G-577)
4/91-6/91 Wetlands delineation North-northeast of Site 8 Delineate wetlands boundaries.
4/91-6/91 Survey wetlands Wetlands delineation Determine accurate boundary.
4/91-6/91 Staff gage installation 8 staff gages: 8001, 8089, Establish sampling locations and monitor water
8002,8024,8025,8026,8027, elevations.
and 801B
5/91 Overburden well installation 5001 and 5002 Monitor overburden groundwater quality at the
base boundary. Paired to determine vertical
hydraulic gradient in the overburden water-bearing
zone.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-5
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stages 1, 2, and 3 Activities
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Date Activity Scope Purpose
5/91 Overburden well installation 5003 Monitor overburden water quality on base to the
northeast.
5/91 Overburden well installation 5004 and 5005 Monitor overburden groundwater quality off base.
6/91 Overburden well installation 5006 To replace hybrid wen 511.
6/91 Exploratory borings 7057-7078; piezometers: Evaluate the northern extent of VOC
7057-7059, 7061-7068, 7070, contamination and delineate the bedrock surface.
7071, 7073, 7074, and 7076-
7078
6/91 Survey Borings/piezometers: 7057- Determine accurate locations and elevations.
7078; overburden wells:
5001-5006
6/91 Risk assessment borings 7141-7152 Characterize soil for risk assessment.
6/91 Surface water and sediment sampling 7 locations; 801B, 8001, Evaluate the potential impacts that activities at Site
8024,8025,8026,8027, and 8 may have had on surface water and sediment
8089 quality.
7/91 Pumping test 48-hour test on well 562A Evaluate aquifer characteristics.
7/91 Survey Risk assessment borings Determine accurate locations and elevations.
7141-7152
9/91 Exploratory borings 7270, 7271, and 7272 Assess the areal extent of VOCs in the vicinity of
(piezometers installed) 7076 and optimize overburden well placement.
MKOJ \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-6
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stages I, 2, and 3 Activities
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Date Activity Scope Purpose
9/91 Bedrock well installation 6021-6023 and 6025 Evaluate bedrock groundwater quality north-
northeast of Site 8 (6021 and 6025). Assess extent
of VOC contamination in bedrock water-bearing
zone northwest of Site 8 (6022 and 6023).
9/91 Ecological hahitat characterization Site 8 Describe existing ecological communities for risk
assessment.
10/91 Exploratory horings 7376 and 7377 (piezometers Assess the areal extent of VOCs in the vicinity of
installed) 7076 and optimize overburden well placement.
10/91 Bedrock well installation 6024 Confirm that well 512 is upgradient of Site 8.
10/91 Survey New locations from 9/91- Determine accurate locations and elevations.
10/91
10/91 Slug tests 5001,5002, 5003, and 576 Evaluate overburden aquifer characteristics.
10/91 Site 8 GWTP permit groundwater 25 wells and 1 spring; Characterize groundwater quality and support the
sampling see Appendix B of the Draft GWTP operational permit.
Final Site 8 RI Report
(G-577)
11/91 Exploratory borings 7383, 7384, and 7385; Assess the northeast extent of the VOC plume and
piezometer 7385 optimize overburden well placement.
12/91 Overburden well installation and 5049 and 5050 Assess off-base overburden groundwater quality
development (5049). Delineate the northeast extent of the VOC
plume (5050).
12/91 Survey New locations from 11/91- Determine accurate locations and elevations.
12/91
M KOI \ RYr:00628026.003\site8rod. tbl
E-7
-------
Table I
Summary of Stages 1, 2, and 3 Activities
Site 8, Pease AFB, NO
(Continued)
I Date I Activity I Scope I Purpose I
2/92 Bedrock well installation and 3 bedrock wells: 6044, 6045, Determine extent of VOC contamination in the
development and 6046 bedrock water-bearing zone downgradient of Site
8.
2/92 Modify construction of well 613 Reconstruct open-hole Reconstruct well 613 to monitor groundwater in
hybrid well 613 to screened the bedrock.
bedrock well 613A
3/92 Survey 4 bedrock wells: 6044, 6045, Determine accurate locations and elevations.
6046, and 613A
3/92 Site 8 GWTP permit groundwater 25 wells and 1 spring; Characterize groundwater quality and support the
sampling see Appendix B of the Draft GWTP operational permit.
Final Site 8 RI Report
(G-577)
3/92 Surface soil sampling 9 locations; 7141, 7143, Determine the presence or absence of dioxins in
7144, 7145, 7146, 7149, 7150, and around the former burn areas.
7151, and 7152
3/92 Surface water and sediment sampling 7 locations: 8018, 8001, Evaluate the potential impacts that activities at Site
8024,8025,8026,8027, and 8 may have had on surface water and sediment
8089 quality.
4/92 Treatability study borings 7447 and 7448 Evaluate soil treatability characteristics.
9/92 Pumping test 48-hour test on well 622 Evaluate aquifer characteristics.
9/92 Slug tests 575, 577, 5004, 5005, and Evaluate overburden aquifer characteristics.
5050
MKOt \RPT:0062802(j.OO3\site8rod.tbl
E-8
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stages I, 2, and 3 Activities
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
! Date I Activity I Scope I Purpose I
9/92 Soil sampling 9 surface soil samples [0 to Assess the presence of dioxins (by individual
2 ft below ground surface isomers) in and around the former burn area.
(BGS)I, 8 soil samples (2 to
15 ft BGS)
9/92 Resurvey Stages 1 and 2 and select Act as a quality control measure; resurvey to
Stage 3 locations establish accurate locations and elevations.
9/92 Groundwater sampling 2 overburden wells: 565 Determine the presence or absence of dioxins (by
and 566; 1 bedrock well: individual isomers) in groundwater in the vicinity
613A of the former burn areas.
9/92-10 /92 Soil boring/monitor well installation Install bedrock well 6083 in Evaluate whether overburden is discharging to
soil boring location 7597 shallow bedrock west of the former burn areas.
10/92-1/93 Upgrade pilot GWTP Install eight Microwells. Improve recovery of contaminant plume and
and two additional recovery product. Control contaminant migration to the
trenches; upgrade GWTP; south of the former burn areas.
reconfigure wells 563 and
564 for product recovery
11/92 Groundwater sampling 2 overburden wells: 562A Analyze the ethylene dibromide using analytical
and 566; 2 bedrock wells: Method E504.
636 and 6072
4/93-6/93 Pilot SVE treatahility study Operate pilot SVE system Evaluation of SVE for remediation of vadose zone
on-site for 49 days. soil.
Note: Soil horings 7001, 7015, 7016, and 7017 wcre originally numhered 401, 402, 403, and 404, respectively.
MKO I \ RPT:0062R026.003\s;teRrod. tbl
E-9
-------
Table 2
Summary of Highest Concentrations of Organic Compounds -
Stage 2 and Stage 3 Soil Sample Results
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Maximum
Detected Sampling Interval
Compound Concentration Sample ID (ft BGS)
Aromatic Hydroarbons
1.2-Dichlorobenzene (JJg/kg) 3,300 08-7145-BOO2 0.0-2.0
1,2,4- Trichlorobenzene (JJg/kg) 800 08-403-BOOI. 13-24
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (JJg/kg) 1,300 08403-BOOI. 13-24
Benzene (JJg/kg) 8,000 08-721-BOO9 30-305
Chlorobenzene (JJg/kg) 2 0s..7145-BOO3 2.0-4.0
Ethylbenzene (pg/kg) 54,000 08-721-B009 30-305
Toluene (JJg/kg) 128,000 08-721-B009 30-305
Xylenes (total) (JJg/kg) 210,000 08-714-BOO7 215-22.0
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
1,1.1- T richlorocthane (pg/kg) 5 08-402-8001" 3.0-9.0
1,1.2.2-Tetrachlorocthane (~/kg) 2.500 08-717-BI02 4.0-45
1,2-Dichloroethane (pg/kg) 5 08-7150-8004 3.0-4.0
1.2-Dichlorocthene (total) (JJg/kg) 10 08-7150-8004 3.0-4.0
Tetrachloroethene (pg/kg) 18 08-7148-8014 12.0-14.0
Trichlorocthene (JJg/kg) 5.000 08-721-8009 30-305
Oxygenated Hydrocarbons
Acetone (pg/kg) 4,000 08-719-8002 0.0-2.0
2-Butanone (pg/!tg) 70 08-7144-8012 2.0-15.0
4-Methyl-2-pcntanone (pg/kg) 34,000 08-714-BOO7 215-22.0
Diethyl ether (pg/kg) 4 08- 7142-BOO2 1.2-2.0
lsophorone (pg/kg) 4,700 08-721-8008 26.0-265
Vinyl acetate (JJg/kg) 160 08-7144-8004 2.0-4.0
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
2-Methylnaphthalene (JJg/kg) 43,000 08-7149-8014 12.0-14.0
Bcnzo(a)anthracene (~/kg) 1,700 08- 7145-BOO2 0.0-2.0
Bcnzo( a )pyrcne (~/kg) 230 08-7143-BOO2 0.0-2.0
MKOI \ RP'T:00628026.oo3\site8rod.tbl
E-lO
-------
Table 2
Summary of Highest Concentrations of Organic Compounds -
Stage 2 and Stage 3 Soil Sample Results
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Maximum
Detected Sampling Interval
Compound Concentration Sample ID (ft BGS)
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(Continued)
Bcnzo(b )f1uoranthene (#g/kg) 150 08-7143-BOO2 0.0-2.0
Bcnzo(g,h,i)pcrylene (#g/kg) 200 08-7143-BOO2 0.0-2.0
Bcnzo(k)f1uoranthene (#g/kg) 160 08-7143-BOO2 0.0-2.0
Chryscne (~/kg) 6,100 08-721-BOO8 26.0-26.5
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (~/kg) 37 08-7143-BOO2 0.0-2.0
F1uoranthene (#g/kg) 450 08-7145-BOO2 0.0-2.0
F1uorene (#g/kg) 1,700 08-721-BOO8 26.0-26.5
Indeno(I,2,3-cd)pyrene (#g/kg) 410 08-721-8008 26.0-26.5
Naphthalene (#g/kg) 36,000 08-721-B008 26.0-265
Phenanthrene (#g/kg) 3,200 08-721-BOO8 26.0-265
Pyrene (~/kg) 2,400 08-7145-B002 0.0-2.0
Phenols
4-~ethylphenol (#g/kg) 37 08-7143-BOO2 0.0-2.0
Phthalates
Di-n-butyl phthalate (#g/kg) 5,900 08-7149-BOO2 1.0-2.0
Butyl benzyl phthalate (~/kg) 4,400 08-7149-8014 12.0-14.0
Bis(2-cthylhexyl) phthalate (~/kg) 2,000 08- 719-B002 25-4.0
Nitrogenated Scmivolatiles
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine (~/kg) 600 08-7145- B002 0.0-2.0
Nitrobenzene (#g/kg) 61 08-403-BOO1° 13-24
Pesticides
4,4'-DDD (~/kg) 120 O8-404-BOO10 15-30
4,4'-DDE (~/kg) 17 08-401-BOO1° 4-12
4,4'-DDT (~/kg) 79 O8-404-BOO1° 15-30
alpha-Chlordane (#g/kg) 43 08-7143-BOO2 0.0-2.0
Dieldrin (~/kg) 24 08-7143-BOO2 0.0-2.0
MKOI \RPT:00628026.oo3\site8rod.tbl
£-11
-------
Table 2
Summary of Highest Concentrations of Organic Compounds -
Stage 2 and Stage 3 Soil Sample Results
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Maximum
Detected Sampling InteIVaI
Compound Concentration Sample ID (ft BOS)
Pesticides (continued)
gamma-BHC (Lindane) (~kg) 12 08-404-8001. 15-30
gamma-Chlordane (pg/kg) 39 08-7143-8002 0.0-2.0
Heptachlor epoxide (pg/kg) 3 7141 0.0-2.0
PCBs
Aroclor-l260 (pg/kg) 110 08-7144-8013 2.0-15.0
Dioxins
HpCDD (ng/g) 0.94 08-7555-8001 0.5-2.0
HpCDF (ng/g) 0.6 08-7150-5001 0.0-2.0
HxCDD (ng/g) 11.5 08-7143-5001 0.0-2.0
OCDD (ng/g) 4 08-7555-8001 0.5-2.0
OCDF (ng/g) 0.5 08-7143-5001 0.0-2.0
TCDF (ng/g) 0.5 08-7144-500 1 0.0-2.0
Other
Total organic carbon (mg/kg) 3,410 08-404-8001. 15-30
Petroleum hydrocaroons (mg/kg) 181,000 08-721-8008 26.0-26.5
.Samples 401. 402, 403, and 404 were collected from soil borings 7001, 7015. 7016, and 7017, respectively.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.oo3\site8rod.tbl
£-12
-------
Table 3
Summary of Highest Metals Concentrations Above Background Levels
Stage 2 and Stage 3 Soil Sample Results
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Maximum
Background Detected Sampling
Concentration" Concentration Sample Interval
Metal (mg/kg) (mg/kg) ID (ft BOS)
Antimony, total NO 55.5 08-708-B005 11.0-11.5
Arsenic, total 15.3 264.0 08-708- B005 11.0-11.5
Cadmium, total NO 3.1 08-7144-B002 0.0-2.0
Chromium, total 37.5 58.1 08-7150-B011 10.0-10.8
Copper, total 42.0 121 08-7144-B002 0.0-2.0
Lead, total 65.3 167 08-719-8002 2.5-3.0
Magnesium 8,240 10,800 08-7150- 8011 10.0-10.5
Manganese 623 706 08-708-B005 10.0-10.5
Mercury, total NO 0.12 08-7145- 8002 0.0-2.0
Molybdenum, total NO 0.75 08-7150- B002 0.0-2.0
Nickel, total 43.4 73.6 08-708-B005 11.0-11.5
Thallium NO 36.4 08-708- BOOS 11.0-11.5
Zinc 92.3 136 08- 7144- B002 1.5-2.0
NO ( ) = Not detected (detection limit).
ft BGS = Feet below ground surface.
*From background boring concentrations (0-609).
MKOI \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.lbl
E-13
-------
Table 4
Summary of Highest Concentrations of Dissolved Organic Compounds
Stages 2,3, and 4 Overburden (Product-Containing Wells) Sample Results
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Compound
Regulatory
Guidance
Value
Source'
Maximum Detected
Concentration
VOCs (p.g/L)
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
600
MQ.
560
1,2,4- T rim ethyl benzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,400
4J
500
1,3,5- Trimethylbenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
75 MQ.
5 MQ.
100 -MQ.
700 MQ.
41
170 J
4-lsopropyltoluene
Benzene
4,700
5.4
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
2.200
180
n-ButyIbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
1
210
sec-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
77J
0.5 J
Toluene
1000
MCL
MQ.
29,000 J
9.900
Xylenes (total)
10000
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
1,I-Dichloroethane
2.8
1,I-Dichloroethene
7 MCL
200 MCL
0.05 MQ.
5 MCL
5 MCL
70 MCL
5 MCL
5 MQ.
100 MQ.
1.4
1.1,1- Trichloroethane
7J
510
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
20
0.88
1,2-Dichloropropane
Bromochloromethane
1,000
1,600
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
280
9J
trans-l.2-Dichloroethene
710
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-14
Location ID
564-MOOI
563-M005
564-MOOI
563-\{005
564-M003
510-MOO6
."',',', ..',"',",",'.,',",'"
...... ..., -""""'.'
,':;:i::~;,:@~~¥ili::;:: '"
563-MOO3
;:::;::;::,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ..
,:~~~~~~~:,:i
563-MOO5
",'..
,',",
566-MOO6
563-M005
510-MOO6
566-MOO6
... ..... ......
... ., .".
S63,:~
563-MOO3
563-MOO3
563-M003
564-MOO4
'"".",',:.;:,",-:,' :.;..: "
'5ii~MOO5, "
, ,
............. .
...... . ......
.... .....
.. :>:~~~M~~:;::::
563-MOO2
563-MOO5
"
.."
:~\~M~::
. ...... '''::';:
::~~:".":"
... .
,
n."
,:"",:""",':, ",,"',',''', ..':, "', :
:~;
-------
Table 4
Summary of Highest Concentrations of Dissolved Organic Compounds
Stages 2, 3, and 4 Overburden (Product-Containing Wells) Sample Results
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Compound
RegulatoI)'
Guidance
Value
Source.
Maximum Detected
Concentration
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
(continued)
Trichloroethene
5
2
MCL
MCL
4,400
11
Vinyl chloride
SVOCs (p.g/L)
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
1,800
2,700
Acenaphthylene
2J
3J
Acenaphthene
Phenanthrene
78J
Fluorene
MCL"
0.2
14 J
Phthalates
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
MCL
140 J
6
140 J
Phenols
Phenol
2J
120
2,4-Dimethylphenol
4-Methylphenol
2-Methylphenol
1,400
110
Nitrogenated Semivolatiles
2-Nitroaniline
170 J
2J
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Pestitides (JLg/L)
Heptachlor epoxide
beta-BHC
0.2
MCL
0.2 J
0.43 J
4,4'-DDT
92 J
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
2
2
2J
MCL
MCL
0.81 J
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-15
Location ID
.... ."
........................, ..... ......
ii!ii:!!j!;;jr:iiji!~!I:I:illl!I:::::~::ii::
563-M001
563-MOO4
564-MOO1
510-MOO6
563-MOO1
. ...
. . . . . . . . . . , .
. . . . . . . . . .. .. ...,....
. . . " .. . .' , . .
.. .:'~MOOS
..
.':$~~~~} .... .:)
S40-MOO4
566-MOO2
563-M003
563-MOO3
563-MOO5
S4O-MOO4
564-MOO4
08-510-MOO6
08-S4O-M001
08-510-MOO5
08-510-M006
08-510-MOO5
-------
Table 4
Summary of Highest Concentrations of Dissolved Organic Compounds
Stages 2, 3, and 4 Overburden (Product-Containing Wells) Sample Results
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Compound
Regulatory
Guidance
Value
Source"
Maximum Detected
Concentration
Location ID
Pesticides (p.g/L)
(continued)
gamma-SHC
4,4'-DDD
0.2
MCL
llJ
440
. ...
. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
......... ... ..... ............ ...
. .. . . . . . .. . .. ... . . . . . . . . . .. ..... .
............. '..... ",., .
~Y:m::~~~~~~~~:':;/}:..:.
OS-540-MOO4
4,4'-DDE
Heptachlor
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(mg/L)
0.4
MCL
5.6 J
0.69 J
0S-510-MOO5
5,900
.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.::-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.',:.:.:.:.:.
. ....,. ,-. .......,...............".
,',".'.',....,',',',',',','.",..',..',',,',',',",'"',',',', ,',',",",
:\;:;OS:;~tW~:\: .. ..
OS-S63-MOO3
"MCL = Federal Maximum Contaminant Level, June 1m, SDWA; MCL" = Proposed Federal Maximum Contaminant Level, June
1992, SDWA.
bCommon laboratory contaminant.
J = Estimated detected value.
= Location where an MCL guideline was exceeded.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-16
-------
Table 5
Summary of Highest Detected Concentrations of Dissolved Metals8
Stages 2, 3, and 4 Overburden (Product-Containing Wells) Sample Results
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Maximum
Background Detected
Concentrationb Concentration
Metal (p.g/L) (p.g/L)
Arsenic 23.1 *270
Barium 88.3 65.8
Calcium 73,200 41,000
Cobalt ND 326
Iron 584 164,000
Lead ND 92.4
Magnesium 18,900 16,400
Manganese 942 32,800
Nickel 32.8 82.7
Potassium 7,060 15,000
Silicon 6,400 8,540
Silver 30 53.7
Sodium 10,200 60,100
Zinc 168 45.9
ND = Not detected.
aField-fIltered using a OAS-micron filter.
bBackground values taken from G-609.
Location ill
...... 'H"H" ", ........ '....,
.........................",......." "
.............................'.. .........
............" ..........................
.... -"..... ..'.............. . '...
...;::;::':::;::;.?~'I~:
563-M005
564-M005
..
. .
. .... . . . . . . .. .. .... . . . .. ... ..
.. .. ............ .................
.. . ..................................
. ......... . ....... ..............
..::::.;;...:.::.::;.?~~f.I~~...?.... . .....
....... ............ ........ .
,'",' ,',',',,',''',',',',,''',',',',',',',',.,','., ",' ,',',',',',',',',',',',', ,',',
.. ,"'""...'....."..,...." '..'.....,."
...:.::::::;::;::;~~~M~...;;{.:.. .......
,... ..,.... ......... .....,. ..
.'..,....,..,...,... ...........,'.. ..... ..
. .. , . , .. " ",.", " ,. , . ,. , , . . ". .
......:::::.:::~~~~O()$...;\ ..
566-M006
. .. , ,..
.., .., . ..
,. , . , . , , ., . .
... ....,.... .... ""..
$~3+~QQ4 ..........
"",' ',:." :"",. ",.,,',' "",'
5~34AOO5........."..... .
..... ...S006-MOOr
. ., ,. :. .,: ".. ,.
.:.50p6-MO()r...
" "... .. ,..,
.., ".. .. ,..., ,
'.5~~MOO~i......
50()6.:MOOI
563-M005
= Location where detected concentration is above the maximum background value.
MK01 \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
£-17
-------
Table 6
Summary of Highest Detected Concentrations of Total Metals
Stages 2,3, and 4 Overburden (Product-Containing Wells) Sample Results
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Regulatory
Background Guidance Maximum Detected
Concentrationa Value Concentration
Metal (J.lg/L) (J.lg/L) Sourceb (J.lg/L) Location ID
Aluminum 46,400 30,700 J 08-5006-MOOI
Arsenic 72 50 MCL 178J 08-563-M005
Barium 221 1,000 MCL 194 J 08-5006-MOOI
Beryllium 3.1 1 MCL 2.9 08-5006-MOOI
Calcium 90,300 36,900 08-564-M005
Chromium 943 100 MCL 44.5J 08-5006-MOOI
Cobalt 106 202 J 08-563-M005
Copper 88.1 1,300 MCL 83.1 08-5006-MOOI
Iron 62,800 173,000 08-563-MOO4
Lead 97.6 15 MCL 214 J 08-563-M005
Magnesium 38,300 16,900 08-613-MOO6
Manganese 5,660 29,100 08-563-MOO4
Nickel 126 100 MCL 102J 08-5006-MOOI
Potassium 8,870 17,100 08-5006-MOOI
Silicon 42,300 40,500 J 08-5006-MOOI
Sodium 8,970 54,000 08-5006-MOOI
Zinc 220 184 08-563-M005
aBackground values taken from G-609.
bMCL = Federal Maximum Contaminant level, June 1992, SDWA.
J = Estimated detected value.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod,tbl
E-18
-------
Table 7
Summary of Highest Detected Concentrations of Organic Compounds
Overburden Well Sample Results - Dissolved Phase
Site 8, Pe:ase AFB, NH
Compound
Regulatory
Guidance
Value
Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(IJg/L)
Source"
VOCs
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
MCL
600
11
1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene
380
5.3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3,5- Trimethylbenzene
96
17
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
75 MCL
5 MCL
100 MCL
700 MCL
100
4-lsopropyltoluene
32 J
Benzene
38
7.2
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
30
n-Butylbenzene
1 J
n-Propylbenzene
28J
sec-Butylbenzene
18
tert-Butylbenzene
0.6 J
Toluene
1.000
10.000
MCL
MCL
140
Xylenes (total)
520
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
l,l-Dichloroethane
2.2
2
1,1,1- Trichloroethane
200 MCL
5 MCL
70 MCL
5 MCL
100 MCL
5 MCL
2 MCL
1.0 J
l,2-Dichloroethane
9.8
0.9 J
Chloroethane
cis-1,2- Dichloroethene
1,100
Dichlorodifiuoromethane
3
2J
Tetrachloroethene
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene
05 J
Trichloroethene
5.0
Vinyl chloride
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
£-19
Location ID
562A-MOOI
541-MOO6
562A-MOOI
541-MOO6
562A-MOOI
541-MOO6
...","',
................ ..
. ........ ,n',',
}~1@~;
562A-MOOI
511-MOO4
541-MOO6
562A-MOO5
541-:>.1006
541-MOO6
562A-MOO6
511-MOO4
511-:>.1004
562A-MOO2
539-MOO6
S62A-MOOI
565-MOO3
S62A-MOOI
565-MOO4
511-:>.1005
562A-MOO6
562A-MOO1
562A-MOO6
-------
Table 7
Summary of Highest Detected Concentrations of Organic Compounds
Overburden Well Sample Results - Dissolved Phase
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Compound
Rcgulatory
Guidancc
Valuc
Maximum
Dctcctcd
Concentration
(IJS6/L)
Sourcc.
SVOCs
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Naphthalcne
2-Mcthylnaphthalcnc
92
47 J
6 MCL 7J
6J
1 J
1.8
0.04 J
0.03 J
0.02 J
(pg/L)
59
Phthalatcs
Bis(2-cthylhcxyl) phthalatc
Di-n-octyl phthalatc
Phcnols
4-Mcthylphcnol
Pesticides
4,4'-DDT
Endosulfan I
beta-SHC
4,4'-DDD
Dioxins
OCDD
.MCL - Fcdcral Maximum Contaminant Levcl, June 1992, SDWA.
J = Estimatcd detected value.
= Location where an MCL guideline was exceeded.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.tbl
£-20
Location ID
51l-MOO5
51l-MOO4
'" '" .... .
", '. ..',",'.,'''. ... ... ,',."
. . .. .......... .... . . . . . .
... . .. . ::::5b49hNi:(jnr::::::.
.,.... .... \~:.;: :.::'::;:/ ,', ,...:.::{:};f:;i::
'"''
..,-
541-MOO4
541-MOO4
539-MOO1
51J-MOO5
539-MOOI
539-MOOI
565-MOO5
-------
Table 8
Summary of Highest Detected Concentrations of Dissolved Metals8
Overburden Well Sample Results - Dissolved Phase
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Maximum Maximum
Background Detected
Concentrationb Concentration
Metal (~/L) (~/L)
Arsenic 23.1 174
Barium 88.3 69.3
Calcium 73,200 56,300 J
Cobalt ND 66.1
Copper ND 26.7
Iron 584 41,200 J
Lead ND 3.4
Magnesium 18,900 15,400
Manganese 942 20,000
Mercury ND 0.12
Nickel 32.8 27.8
Potassium 7,060 19,800
Silicon 6,400 11,300
Sodium 10,200 18,300
Thallium ND 548
Vanadium ND 50.3
Zinc 168 74.9
ND = Not detected.
IField-f1ltered using a OAS-micron fIlter.
bBackground values taken from G-609.
Location ID
... .... "'" .. ...
.............'........,'"'''' . .... ,....
:.:::::::::::::::::Itfl~::;\:.:::::
561-MOO4
562A-MOO7
:::.:.::...::::::":::$~~~..:;.!.::=:::
. ........... . ....... .
............... "............ .......
........"........" "....... ....
::::::::I:i::::::lifii4. ..
.. ....."... n.. ...
,',',',',',',',',',',',"'.',',',',',',,',',',',',',,',','N,',.
.................... ........ ,,, ',,' ..
::::::::::::::::::::MtfM~S:(...
. .. .... . ... .. ... . ... .
,',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',' ',',',',',',.. ',',',' ,',.. .
......"......."...".....",......... ..
:::::::::::::::::::::::':i;b~i~:.r:~\.~f:;:'<:::::';:':'::::;
:ttt~~:t~{~t~~~~~~{~:~:~~::~:::mt:
5002-MOO4
, ,'" ,
,'''" . ,.. '''' "....,..,..,
:::...:::::.::$11+MOO4::.:::?::..
, ,..,
.' .. ,.
,",','.',...",','.".',..',',,','.'.',",
, ,...., ,......... , ..
, ~~(:~$003~~OO2"'::' >:.::
561-MOO4
,.. ".
. , '" .. .' ,. ,. .
......., ",....,....
,......' , .. ,........,
, , " ,. , , "" , . . , " . ,
:::::::{,,~+¥QQ;t.
. .
.. .., .. , , ..,
. ..,..., ,....,..
.. ..,. .............
:~¥)4.007<
, ... . ,...
,....,. ,... ..
,.... ..
.... .. ...... ..
<5003~~002
..
..... ..,
. ".......
.>51V~003
lii5002~M002" :
561-MOO4
. ..
Location where the detected concentration is above the maximum
background value.
... '
.. ..,
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-21
-------
Table 9
Summary of Highest Detected Concentrations of Total Metals -
Stages 2, 3; and 4 Overburden Wells Sample Results
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Regulatory Maximum
Background Guidance Detected
Concentration" Value Concentration
Metal (~/L) (~/L) Sourceb (~/L) Location ID
Aluminum 46,400 29,300 08-541-M007
Antimony ND 6 MCL 459 08-5004-M002
Arsenic 72 50 MCL 512 08-51l-M005
Barium 221 1,000 MCL 1,880 08-5004-M002
Beryllium 3.1 1 MCL 47.3 08-5004-M002
Boron ND 896 08-5004-M002
Cadmium ND 5 MCL 54.1 08-5004-M002
Calcium 90,300 54,600 08-539-MOO6
Chromium 94.3 100 MCL 188 08-5004-M002
Cobalt 106 475 08-5004-M002
Copper 88.1 1,300 AL 241 08-5004-M002
Iron 62,800 U4,000 J 08-5005-MI01
Lead 97.6 15 AL 49.4 08-541-M007
Magnesium 38,300 26,400 J 08-5004-M002
Manganese 5,660 20,000 08-51l-MOO4
Mercury 0.16 2 MCL 0.12 08-5003-M002
Molybdenum ND 880 08-5004- M002
Nickel 126 100 MCL 461 08-5004-M002
Potassium 8.870 22,900 08-5004-MOO~
Silicon 42,500 26.900 08-5050-MOOI
Silver ND 48.6 08-5004- M002
Sodium 8,970 26,000 08-5004-M002
Vanadium 58.4 488 08-5004- M002
Zinc 220 502 08-5004-M002
"Background values taken from G-609.
bMCL = Federal Maximum Contaminant Level, June 1992, SDWA.
AL = Action level (at tap), June 1991, Lead and Copper Rule.
J = Estimated detected value.
ND = Not detected.
MKOI \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-22
-------
Table 10
Chemicals of Concern in Main Soils (0 to 2 feet deep)
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Range of Range of Upper 95%
Sample Averaged Confidence
Frequency Quantitation (Detected) Mean Limit of the
of Limits Concentrations" Concentrationd Mean
Chemical Detectionb (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Organics
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) 6/15 0.34-6.1 0.040-1.0 0.51 0.90
phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate 3/15 0.34-6.1 0.U-3.8 0.81 1.3
alpha-Chlordane 1/16 0.078-0.94 0.043 0.087" 0.14.
gamma-Chlordane 1/16 0.078-0.66 0.039 0.060. 0.092.
4,4' -DDD 4/16 0.016-0.19 0.004-0.12 0.021 0.036
4,4' -DDE 3/16 0.016-0.19 0.002-0.017 0.018. 0.029"
4,4' -DDT 3/16 0.016-0.19 0.004-0.079 0.019 0.031
1,2- Dichlorobenzene 1/15 0.005-0.70 3.3 0.27 0.65
l,4-Dichlorobenzene 2/15 0.34-6.1 0.51-1.3 0.62 1.0
Dieldrin 4/16 0.016-0.19 0.007-0.024 0.016 0.025.
Di-n-butyl phthalate 8/15 0.34-6.1 0.053-3.6 1.2 1.8
Dioxins/furans 8/8 0.10-0.801 0.0000067-0.0012 0.00015 0.00042
(as 2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Ethylbenzene 3/15 0.005-0.008 0.46-2.5 0.25 0.55
2-Methylnaphthalene 3/15 0.34-6.1 0.26-3.0 0.60 1.1
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2/15 0.010-1.4 0.006-11 0.83 2.1
Naphthalene 3/15 0.34-6.1 0.12-0.51 0.41 0.75.
n- Nitrosodiphenylamine 1/15 0.34-6.1 0.60 0.45 0.79"
PAHs
Benzo( a) anthracene 3/15 0.34-6.1 0.073-1.7 0.51 0.89
Benzo(a)pyrene 2/15 0.34-6.1 0.090-0.23 0.53. 0.90.
Benzo(b )fluoranthene 2/15 0.34-6.1 0.084-0.15 0.52. 0.90.
Benzo(g,h,i) peryJene 2/15 0.34-6.1 0.071-0.20 0.52. 0.90.
MKOl \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-23
-------
Table 10
Chemicals of Concern in Main Soil8 (0 to 2 feet deep)
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Range of Range of Upper 95%
Sample Averaged Confidence
Frequency Quantitation (Detected) Mean Limit of the
of Limits Concentrations' Concentrationd Mean
Chemical Detectionb (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2/15 3.4-6.1 0.077-0.16 0.52" 0.90"
Chrysene 3/15 0.34-6.1 0.10-035 0.49" 0.86"
Dibenzo(a,h)- 1/15 0.34-6.1 0.037 0.52' 0.90'
anthracene
Fluoranthene 6/15 0.34-6.1 0.048-0.45 0.42 0.76'
Indeno( 1,2,3-cd)- 2/15 0.34-6.1 0.062-0.16 0.52" 0.90'
pyrene
Phenanthrene 5/15 0.34-6.1 0.039-2.0 0.48 0.87
Pyrene 7/15 0.34-6.1 0.040-2.4 0.51 0.93
Toluene 3/15 0.005-0.66 0.006-0.85 0.095 0.20
1,2,4- Trichlorobenzene 2/15 0.34-6.1 0.31-0.80 0.58 0.95"
Trichloroethene 1/15 0.005-0.70 0.011 0.070' 0.13'
Xylenes (total) 3/15 0.005-0.008 2.7-16 1.6 3.6
Inorganics
Boron 3/11 17-21 5.0-9.3 8.8 9.6'
Chromium 11/11 4.Q8 5.0-54 16 23
Copper 11/11 3.Q8 6.0-121 26 43
Lead 11/11 2Q8 5.3-99 37 54
Molybdenum 3/11 85-104 0.41-0.75 34' 46"
ante listed chemicals were selected as chemicals of concern for both the human health and ecological risk assessments.
bNumber of sampling locations at which the chemical was detected compared with the total number of sampling locations.
'7he ranges of detected concentrations were the same as the ranges of averaged concentrations.
dArithmetic mean.
"Exceeds the maximum detected concentration.
"The quantitation limits are for the individual categories of dioxins/furans.
&Sample quantitation limits were not available. The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-24
-------
Table 11
Chemicals of Concern in Main Soil8 (0 to 15 feet deep)
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Range of Upper 95%
Sample Range of Averaged Confidence
Frequency Quantitation (Detected) Mean Limit of
of Limits Concentrationsc Concentrationd the Mean
Chemical Detectionb (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Organics
Aroclor-I260 1/17 0.15-1.9 0.095(0.11) O.22c O.34c
Bis(2-ethyll1exyl) 7/21 0.33-6.1 0.060(0.040)-2.0 0.46 0.73
phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate 3/21 0.33-6.1 0.082(0.044)-2.3(3.8) 0.56 0.87
alpha-Chlordane 1/17 0.075-0.94 0.041(0.043) 0.11" 0.1'7"
gamma-Chlordane 1/17 0.075-0.66 0.039 0.060< 0.090<
4,4' -DDD 5/17 0.015-0.19 0.005(0.002)-0.12 0.025 0.40
4,4' -DDE 3/17 0.015-0.19 0.005(0.002)-0.017 0.022< 0.034<
4,4' -DDT 3/17 0.015-0.19 0.004-0.079 0.022 0.035
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2/21 0.33-6.1 0.51-1.3 0.52 0.80
Dieldrin 4/17 0.015-0.19 0.008(0.003)- 0.019< 0.31'
0.017(0.024)
Di-n-butyl phthalate 11 /21 0.33-6.1 0.039-2.7(3.6) 0.86 1.3
Dioxins/furans 8/8 0.10-0.801 0.0000067-0.0012 0.00015 0.00042
(as 2,3,7,8-1rCDD)
Ethylbenzene 5/26 0.005-0.022 0.16(0.002)-10(20) 0.65 1.4
2-Methylnaphthalene 3/15 0.34-6.1 0.22(0.26)-1.6(3.0) 0.55 0.93
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 4/26 0.010-6.8 0.005(0.004)-3.7(11) 0.28 0.54
Naphthalene 3/21 0.33-6.1 0.15(0.12)-1.2(1.8) 0.38 0.63
n- Nitrosodiphenylamine 1/15 0.34-6.1 0.39 (0.60) 0.41< 0.75<
PAHs
Benzo( a )anthracene 3/21 0.33-6.1 0.12(0.073)-0.94(1.7) 0.45 0.72
Benzo( a )pyrene 2/21 0.33-6.1 0.13(0.090)-0.20(0.23) 0.45< 0.73<
Benzo(b )fluoranthene 2/21 0.33-6.1 0.13(0.084)-0.16(0.15) 0.45< 0.72<
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 3/21 0.33-6.1 0.12(0.059)-0.48(0.20) 0.45" 0.72<
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2/21 0.33-6.1 0.13(0.077)-0.17(0.16) 0.45< 0.72<
MK01 \RP'f:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-25
-------
Table 11
Chemicals of Concern in Main Soila (0 to 15 feet deep)
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Range of Upper 95%
Sample Range of Averaged Confidence
Frequency Quantitation (Detected) Mean Limit of
of Limits Concentrations. Concentrationd the Mean
Chemical Detectionb (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Chrysene .3/21 0.33-6.1 0.10(0.037)-0.20(0.35) 0.43. 0.72.
Auoranthene 7/21 0.33-6.1 0.11(0.048)-0.53(0.45) 0.41 0.68.
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)- 2/21 0.33-6.1 0.12(0.062)-0.17(0.16) 0.45. 0.72.
pyrene
Phenanthrene 5/21 033-6.1 0.10(0.039)-1.1(2.0) 0.44 0.72
Pyrene 7/21 0.33-6.1 0.11(0.040)-1.3 0.45 0.73
Toluene 7/26 0.002-3.4 0.001-0.28(0.85) 0.069 0.13
1,2,4- Trichlorobenzene 2/21 033-6.1 0.031-0.80 0.49 0.76
Trichloroethene 3/26 0.005-3.4 0.004-0.12(0.011) 0.066. 0.13.
Xylenes (total) 5/26 0.005-0.022 0.91(0.012)-70(140) 4.6 9.7
lnorganics
Arsenic 21/21 1.QB 4.8(4.0)-264 21 42
Boron 3/17 16-22 5.0(4.9)-9.3(10) 9.0 9.5.
Chromium 17/17 4.QB 4.6(4.1)-56(58) 15 21
Copper 17/17 3.QB 8.6(6.0)-85(121) 26 34
Lead 15/17 2.7-17 3.7(2.0)-167 31 47
Molybdenum 3/17 0.39-106 0.43(0.41)-0.71 (0.75) 25. 33.
'"The listed chemicals were selected as chemicals of concern for the human health risk assessment only. Data for 0- to 15-foot-deep soil
are not used in the ecological risk assessment.
bNumber of sampling locations at which the chemical was detected compared with the total number of sampling locations.
9:f the minimum or maximum detected concentration differed from the respective minimum or maximum averaged concentration, the detected
concentration is given in parentheses.
dArithmetric mean.
"Exceeds the maximum detected and/or averaged concentration.
'The quantitation limits are for the individual categories of dioxins/furans.
&Sample quantitation limits were not available. The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-26
-------
Table 12
Chemicals of Concern in Hot Spot Soila (0 to 2 feet deep)
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Range of Range of
Sample Averaged
Frequency Quantitation (Detected) Mean
of Limits. Concentrationsd Concentration'
Chemical Detectionb (mg/kg) (mgjkg) (mg/kg)
Organics
Butyl benzyl phthalate 1/1 0.33 3.4 3.4
Di-n-butyl phthalate 1/1 0.33 5.9 5.9
Dioxins/furans 1/1 0.10-0.811 0.000013 0.000013
(as ~3,7,8-lICI>I»
Ethylbenzene 1/1 0.005 6.6 6.6
Heptachlor epoxide 1/1 0.010 0.003 0.003
2- Methylnaphthalene 1/1 0.33 22 22
PARs
Fluorene 1/1 0.33 0.87 0.87
Phenanthrene 1/1 0.33 0.52 0.52
Pyrene 1/1 0.33 0.45 0.45
lIoluene 1/1 0.005 8.0 8.0
Xylenes (total) 1/1 0.005 56 56
Inorganics
Lead 1/1 20 11 11
~e listed chemicals were selected as chemicals of concern for both the human health and ecological risk assessments.
bNumber of sampling locations at which the chemical was detected compared with the total number of sampling locations.
"Sample quantitation limits were unavailable. The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
"The detected concentrations were the same as the averaged concentrations.
'Arithmetic mean. Because there was only one data point. the upper 95% confidence limit of the mean was not calculated.
'The quantitation limits are for the individual categories of dioxins/furans.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-27
-------
Table 13
Chemicals of Concern in Hot Spot Soila (0 to 15 feet deep)
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Range of Upper 95%
Sample Range of Averaged Confidence
Frequency Quantitation (Detected) Mean Limit of
of Limits Concentrations" Concentrationd the Mean
Chemical Detectionb (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Organics
Butyl benzyl phthalate 1/2 0.34 3.9(3.4)-3.9(4.4) 2.0 14"
Di-n-butyl phthalate 2/2 0.33 0.059-4.2(5.9) 2.1 15<
Dioxins/furans 1/1 0.000013 0.000013 NAg
(as 2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Ethylbenzene 1/1 0.0051 1O( 6.6)-10(12) 10 NAg
Heptachlor epoxide 1/1 0.007 0.003 0.003 NN
2-Methyinaphthalene 1/1 0.331 33(22)-33(43) 33 NAg
PAHs
Fluorene 1/2 0.34-3.5 1.3(0.87) 0.74 4.3<
Phenanthrene 1/2 0.34 0.61 (0.52)-0.61(0.70) 0.39 1.8<
Pyrene 1/2 0.34-35 1.1 (0.45) 0.64< 3.6<
Toluene 1/] O.OOS' ]4(8.0)-14(17) ]4 NN
Xylenes (total) 1/1 O.OOS' 97(56)-97(150) 97 NAg
In organics
Arsenic 2/2 1.0! 7.7(5.8)-9.9 8.8 16"
Chromium 2/2 3.6 3.1(4.3)-57 30 200<
Lead 2/2 :w! 7.8( 4.2)-25 17 72<
Nickel 2/2 5.0! 7.7(5.8)-40 24 12Y
"The listed chemicals were selected as chemicals of concern for the human health risk assessment only. Data for 0- to 15-foot-deep soil are not used in
the ecological risk assessment.
b:-';umber of sampling locations at which the chemical was detected compared with the total number of sampling locations.
"If the minimum or maximum detected concentration differed from the respective minimum or maximum averaged concentration. the detected
concentration is given in parentheses.
d Arithmetric mean.
-------
Table 14
Chemicals of Concern in Groundwater- - Overburden
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Upper
Range of 95%
Sample Range of Averaged Confidence
Frequency Quantitation (Detected) Mean Limit of
of Limits Concentrations" Concentrationd the Mean
Chemical Detectionb (JJg/L) (JJg/L) (JJg/L) (JJg/L)
Organics
Benzene 4/15 0.70-7.0 0.40(0.20)-8.8(15) 1.1 2.1
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 5/15 10-11 3.9(1.0)-7.0 5.1 5.5
sec-Butylbenzene 4/15 1.0 0.55(0.40)-13(18) 1.6 3.2
Chlorobenzene 2/15 1.0-12 0.35(0.20)-2.4(7.2) 0.68 0.90
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 3/15 0.50-5.0 0.35(0.20)-5.3(11) 0.78 1.4
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1/15 1.0-2.0 1.5(0.70)-53 0.57 0.69
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 3/15 0.50-5.0 0.32(0.10)-4.3(17) 0.71 1.2
Dichlorodifluorom ethane 1/15 2.0-90 14(3.0) 2.8 4.3"
1,2-Dichloroethane 1/15 0.20-2.0 4.2(0.80)-4.2(12) 0.68 1.1
cis-l,2- Dichloroethene 6/15 0.50-5.0 1.2(0.40)-332(1,100) 25 64
trans-l,2- Dichloroethene 1/15 0.50-25 3.1(0.50) 0.81< 1.2"
Di-n-octyl phthalate 3/15 10-12 4.1(1.0)-4.8(6.0) 5.2" 5.4<
Ethylbenzene 4/15 1.0-10 2.3(0.70)-54(100) 7.5 15
Isopropylbenzene 4/15 1.0 1.7(0.20)-26(30) 3.7 7.4
4-Isopropyltoluene 4/15 1.0 0.40(0.20)-28(32) 2.8 6.1
2-Methylnaphthalene 2/15 10-12 7.3(4.0)-9.0(16) 5.7 6.2
4-Methylphenol 1/15 10-12 4.2(1.0) 5.3" 5.4"
Naphthalene 3/15 1.0 9.5(6.0)-32(60) 4.4 8.5
n- Nitrosodiphenylamine 1/15 10-12 4.1(1.0) 5.3< 5.4c
n- Propylbenzene 4/15 1.0 0.40(0.20)-25(28) 2.6 5.5
Toluene 4/15 1.0-10 0.40(0.10)-1.6(3.4) 0.66 0.82
1, 1, I-Trichloroethane 2/15 0.20-5.0 0.65(0.37)-0.71(2.0) 0.48 0.53
Trichloroethene 8/15 0.60-6.0 0.35(0.20)-2.1(6.0) 0.65 0.85
1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene 4/15 1.0 1.0(2.0)-238(380) 23 52
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.tbl
E-29
-------
Table 14
Chemicals of Concern in Groundwater- - Overburden
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Upper
Range of 95%
Sample Range of Averaged Confidence
Frequency Quantitation (Detected) Mean Limit of
of Limits Concentrations" Concentrationd the Mean
Chemical Detectionb (pg/L) (pg/L) (pg/L) (pg/L)
1,3,5- Trimethylbenzene 4/15 1.0 0.40(0.20)-44(96) 6.2 13
Vinyl chloride 1/15 0.20-10 1.2(1.0) 0.86 0.96
Xylenes (total) 4/15 2.0-5.0 2.0(0.60)-296(410) 31 69
Inorganics
Barium (filtered) 2/15 50 41(56)-69 29 34
(total) 7/15 50 52-952( 1,880) 109 216
Chromium (fUtered) 0/15 10-30 NA NA NA
(total) 7/15 10 7.8(10)-106(188) 20 33
Cobalt (fUtered) 1/15 40 66 23 28
(total) 3/15 40 31( 42)-248( 475) 39 65
Copper (filtered) 5/15 10-30 10(11)-27 9.6 13
(total) 8/15 10-45 10-132(241) 26 41
Iron (fUtered) 10/15 101-414 31(57)- 2,419 5,434
25, 7DO( 41,200)
(total) 15/15 1 DOl 599 (1,540)- 27,407 38,593
77, 900 ( 124,000)
Manganese (fUtered) 14/15 15' 18(10)-6,012(9,410) 1,148 2,105
(total) 15/15 15' 28(15)-6,907(9,470) 1,762 2,756
Nickel (fUtered) 2/15 15 17(15)-28 9.5 12
(total) 10/15 15 11(15)-248(461) 43 72
Vanadium (fUtered) 3/15 40 32(42)-35(50) 23 25
(total) 4/15 40 3O( 4O)-254( 488) 40 67
Zinc (fUtered) 4/15 10-24 21(13)-75 14 23
(total) 12/15 10-107 28(26)-274(502) 67 99
NA = Not applicable. Chemical was not detected in any samples.
"Selected as chemicals of concern for the human health risk assessment only.
bNumber of wells at which the chemical was detected compared with the total number of wells.
"If the minimum or maximum detected concentration differed from the respective minimum or maximum averaged concentration. the detected
concentration is given in parentheses.
dArithmetic mean based on averaged concentrations.
"Exceeds the maximum detected and/or averagc:d concentration.
'Sample quantitation limits were unavailable. The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
MKOl \RPI:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-30
-------
Table 15
Chemicals of Concern in Groundwater' - Bedrock
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Range of Upper 95%
Sample Range of Averaged Confidence
Frequency Quantitation (Detected) Mean Limit of
of Limits Concentrationsc Concentrationd the Mean
Chemical Detectionb (~/L) (~/L) (~/L) (~/L)
Organics
Benzene 9/2IJ 0.70-1.0 0.38(0.20)-8.8(13) 1.4 2.3
Benzoic acid 1/19 11-60 19(1.0)-19(24) 25' 27
Bis(2-ethylbexyl) phthalate 13/19 10-12 2.0(1.0)-59(110) 7.5 12
sec- Butylbenzene 4/2IJ 1.0-2.0 0.45(0.2IJ)-1.2(2.0) 0.55 0.62
1,2- Dichlorobenzene 5/2IJ 050-1.0 0.41(0.40)-1.5(2.0) 050 0.59
1,2-Dichloroethane 3/2IJ 0.2IJ-2.0 0.43(057)-1.1 (2.0) 0.48 0.55
cis-l,2- Dichloroethene 10/2IJ 0.50-1.0 0.52(0.57)-75(94) 12 2IJ
Diethyl phthalate 1/19 10-12 4.6(3.0) 5.3' 5.4'
Dimethyl phthalate 8/19 10-12 3.8(1.0)-12(26) 5.5 6.2
Di-n-butyl phthalate 1/19 10-12 4.0(2.0) 5.2' 5.4'
Di-n-octyl phthalate 3/19 10-12 4.1(1.0)-4.6(2.0) 5.2' 5.3'
Ethylbenzene 3/2IJ 1.0-2.0 0.48(0.20)-3.9(8.8) 0.76 1.1
Isopropylbenzene 3/2IJ 1.0-2.0 0.33(0.20)-1.6(3.0) 0.57 0.68
4-IsopropyItoluene 2/2IJ 1.0-2.0 0.43(0.30)-1.8(3.0) 0.57 0.68
2-MethyInaphthalene 1/19 10-12 4.4(2.0) 5.2' 5.4'
Naphthalene 3/2IJ 1.0-2.0 0.67(1.0)-4.8(9.0) 0.95 1.5
n- Nitrosodiphenylamine 4/19 10-11 4.6(2.0) 5.1' 5.3'
n- Propylbenzene 2/2IJ 1.0-2.0 0.60(0.30)-2.2(4.0) 0.60 0.74
Toluene 10/2IJ 1.0 0.10-0.80(2.0) 0.47 0.52
1,1,1- Trichlorethane 1/2IJ 0.2IJ-2.0 0.64(1.2) 0.44 0.48
Trichloroethene 8/2IJ 0.40-2.0 0.30(0.10)-1.4(3.0) 0.56 0.68
1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene 3/2IJ 1.0-2.0 0.53(0.60)-16(29) 1.3 2.7
1,3,5- Trimethylbenzene 2/20 1.0-2.0 8.0(1.0) 0.52 0.55
Xylenes (total) 5/2IJ 2.0-4.0 0.82(050)-11(31) 1.5 2.3
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-3!
-------
Table 15
Chemicals of Concern in Groundwater' - Bedrock
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Range of Upper 95%
Sample Range of Averaged Confidence
Frequency Quantitation (Detected) Mean Limit of
of Limits Concentrationsc Concentrationd the Mean
Chemical Detectionb (JJg/L) (JJg/L) (JJgfL) (JJg/L)
lnorganics
Aluminum (filtered) 0/2fJ 200 NA NA NA
(total) 7/2fJ 200 161(222)- 9,157
174,300(318,000) 24,188
Arsenic (filtered) 6/2fJ 3.0-5.0 2.8(5.0)-9.8(16) 3.3 4.1
(total) 5/2fJ 3.0-5.0 4.2(5.8)-147(196) U 24
Barium (filtered) 0/2fJ 50 NA NA NA
(total) 3/2fJ 50 21(16)-1,201(2,100) 85 186
Chromium (filtered) 0/2fJ 10 NA NA NA
(total) 4/2fJ 10 7.6(10)-400(739) 26 60
Copper (filtered) 2/2fJ 10 10(16)-10(16) 5.5 6.2
(total) 4/2fJ 10-30 7.9(10)-908(1,600) 51 129
Iron (filtered) 1l/2fJ 40-190 26(42)- 1,175 2,274
10,485(38,800)
(total) 2fJ/20 40- 7,640 418-700,000 52,720 112,241
(1,270,000)
Lead (f11tered) 3/20 2.0-3.0 2.5(3.5)-13(24) 2.2 3.2
(total) 7/2fJ 2.0-12 3.9-156(244) 12 25
Manganese (filtered) 19/2fJ 10-26 10-2,055(3,040) 259 480
(total) 20/2fJ 71 14-6,105(10,600) 765 1,324
Nickel (f11tered) 2/2fJ 15 12(15)-17(19) 8.2 9.0
(total) 5/2fJ 15 14(16)-1,596(2,870) 92 229
Vanadium (f11tered) 4/2fJ 40 30(41)-39(58) 23 25
(total) 4/2fJ 40 30(41)-174(328) 28 42
Zinc (f11tered) 4/2fJ 10-18 7.7(10)-34 7.2 9.7
(total) 17/2fJ 10-105 8.6(10)-1,154(2,060) 81 179
NA ~ Not applicable. Chemical was not detected in any samples.
"Selected as chemicals of concern for the human health risk assessment only.
bNumber of wells at which the chemical was detected compared with the total number of wells.
"If the minimum or maximum detected concentration differed from the respective minimum or maximum averaged concentration, the detected
concentration is given in parentheses.
dArithmetic mean based on averaged concentrations.
"Exceeded the maximum detected and/or averaged concentration.
MKOI \ RPI':00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
£-32
-------
Table 16
Chemicals of Concern in Groundwater - Hot Spot8
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Range of Upper 95%
Sample Confidence
Ouantitation Range of Averaged Mean Limit of the
Frequency of Limits (Detected) Concentrations" Concentrationd Mean
Chemical Detectionb (/-lgjL) (/-lg/L) (/-lg/L) (/-lg/L)
Organics
Benzene 6/6 0.70-50 25 (7.8)-2,505 (4,700) 689 1,507
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) 4/6 10-1,600 8.3 (1.0)-214(140) 60 124
phthalate
Bromochloromethane 1/6 1.0-6,200 1,275 (1,000) 226 649
sec-Butylbenzene 6/6 1.0-3,100 53 (3.0)-800(77) 155c 416c
4,4'-DDD 4/6 0.10-53 0.21-157 (440) 41 95
4,4'-DDT 4/6 0.10-53 0.050 (0.040)-24 (92) 8.1 16
1,2- Dibromoethane 1/6 1.0-6,200 1,805 (510) 328 924c
1,2- Dichlorobenzene 2/6 0.50-3,100 5.3 (16)-330 (560) 118 250
1,4- Dichlorobenzene 2/6 0.50-3,100 3.0 (2.0)-16 (41) 65c 168c
cis-l,2- Dichloroethene 5/6 25-100 22 (1.8)-1,017 (1,600) 466 787
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene 3/6 0.50-3,100 105 (0.60)-321 (710) 100 197
2,4-Dimethylphenol 2/6 10-1,600 4.5 (2.0)-266 (120) 72 152.
Di-n-octyl phthalate 1/6 10-1,600 72 (140) 72 147
Ethylbenzene 6/6 1.0-10 36 (2.9)-1,424 (2,200) 445 880
Isopropylbenzene 6/6 1.0-3,100 5.3 (6.0)-865 (180) 180 458.
4-Isopropyltoluene 4/6 1.0-3,100 5.3 (3.0)-110 (170) 159. 414.
Methylene chloride 1/6 0.20-28,000 2,940 (280) 565. 1,524.
2-Methylnaphthalene 5/6 10-11 30 (9.0)-1,330 (2,700) 364 769
2-Methylphenol 3/6 10-1,600 4.6 (1.0)-252 (110) 70 145c
4-Methylphenol 4/6 10-500 7.7 (2.0)-808 (1,400) 171 430
Naphthalene 6/6 25-3,100 10 (8.0)-1,300 543 1,014
2-Nitroaniline 1/6 5.0-8,000 182 (170) 317 685.
n-Propylbenzene 6/6 1.0-3,100 2.5 (3.0)-880 (210) 195 475.
PAHs
Phenanthrene 3/6 10-1,600 4.3 (1.0)-194 (78) 59 117
Toluene 6/6 1.0 85 (4.4)-14,580 (29,000) 3,215 7,885
Trichloroethene 6/6 0.60-30 5.2 (0.40)-1,694 (4,400) 336 886
1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene 6/6 1.0-10 17 (13)-1,200 (1,400) 572 996
1,3,5- Trimethylbenzene 6/6 3,100 6.0 (2.0)-1,025 (500) 322 645c
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod. tbl
£-33
-------
Table 16
Chemicals of Concern in Groundwater - Hot Spota
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Range of Upper 95%
Sample Confidence
Ouantitation Range of Averaged Mean Limit of the
Frequency of Limits (Detected) Concentrationsc Concentrationd Mean
Chemical Detectionb (~/L) (~/L) (~/L) (~/L)
Vinyl chloride 2/6 0.20-6,200 4.7 (0.90)-634 (11) 124c 330.
Xylenes (total) 6/6 0.50' 116 (45)-6,800 (9,900) 2,529 4,626
Inorganics
Arsenic (filtered) 5/6 5.0 4.3 (11)-174 (196) 61 116
(total) 5/6 5.0 4.8 (5.5)-186 (270) 98 164
Cobalt (mtered) 2/5 40 75-326 92 218
(total) '2/5 40 157-202 84 168
Iron (filtered) 6/6 40-283 108 (52)-111,000 (164,000) 50,244 92,600
(total) 6/6 101,000 4,323 (463)-171,000 (173,000) 80,009 143,330
Lead (mtered) 1/5 3.0 92 20 58
(total) 3/5 3.0 34 (16)-214 58 143
Manganese (mtered) 6/6 lor 175 (73)-19,352 (32,800) 8,834 16,154
(total) 6/6 101 289 (164)-22,500 (29,100) 9.588 17,362
"Selected as chemicals of concern for the human health risk assessment only.
bl'liumber of wells at which the chemical was detected compared with the total number of wells.
"If the minimum or maximum detected concentration differed from the respective minimum or maximum averaged concentration. the detected concentration
is given in parentheses.
d Arithmetic mean based on averaged concen trations.
"Exceeded the maximum detected and/or averaged concentration.
lSample quantitation limits were unavailable. The method detection limit is indica'ted (G-563).
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-34
-------
Table 17
Most Reasonable Maximally Exposed Receptor (RME)
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Pathway Current Scenario Future Scenario
Soil Maintenance Worker Maintenance Worker
Groundwater None Off-Base Resident
Surface Water Off-Base Off-Base
Resident/Recreational User Resident/Recreational User
Sediment Off-Base Off-Base
Resident/Recreational User Resident/Recreational User
Table 18
Potential Exposure Routes
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Pathway Exposure Routes
Soil . Incidental ingestion.
. Dermal contact.
Groundwater . Ingestion.
. Noningestion use (e.g., showering).
Surface Water . Dermal contact.
Sediment . Incidental ingestion.
. Dermal contact.
MKOI \RYf:00628026.003\site8rod. tbl
E-35
-------
Table 19
Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices - Soil
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Total Lifetime Cancer Risk" Total Hazard Index
Upper 95% Upper 95%
Location and Confidence Confidence
Depth RME Mean Limit Maximum Mean Limit Maximum
Main Soil Current Maintenance 3E-07 5E-07 lE-06 8E-Q4 iE-03 2E-03
(0 to 2 feet Worker
deep)
Future Maintenance 5E-06 IE-05 3E-05 2E-02 2E-02 4E-02 to
Worker 5E-02b
Main Soil Future Maintenance lE-05 2E-05 9E-05 4E-02 7E-02 4E-0l
(0 to 15 feet Worker
deep)
Hot Spot Current Maintenance lE-08 NA NA 2E-04 NA NA
Soil Worker
(0 to 2 feet
deep)
Future Maintenance 2E-07 NA NA 4E-03 NA NA
Worker
Hot Spot Future Maintenance 2E-07 2E-07 2E-07 6E-03 7E-03 to 7E-03 to
Soils Worker 8E-03b 8E-03b
(0 to 15 feet
deep)
NA = Not applicable. There was only one data point.
"Chemicals posing greater than a 10.6 (IE-06) lifetime cancer risk at one or more exposure concentrations:
Main soil (0 to 2 feet deep) - dioxinsjfurans and PAHs.
Main soil (0 to 15 feet deep) - dioxinsjfurans, PAHs, and arsenic.
~he first and second values are based on the assumption that chromium is prescnt as chromium III and chromium VI,
respectively. A range is presented only when the two values differed after rounding to one significant f1gure.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-36
-------
Table 20
Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices - Groundwater
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Total Lifetime Cancer Risk" Total Hazard Index"
Upper 95% Upper 95%
Groundwater Confidence Confidence
Zone RME Mean Limit Maximum Mean Limit Maximum
Overburdenc Future Resident 3E-05 (filtered) 3E-05 (filtered) 4E-05 (filtered) 3E + 00 (filtered) 5E + 00 (filtered) 2E + 01 (filtered)
3E-05 (total) 3E-05 (total) 4E-05(total) 3E+00 (total) 5E+00 to 2E+Ol (total)
6E+OOd (total)
Bedrock< Future Resident 7E-05 (filtered) 9E-05 (filtered) 2E-04 (filtered) lE+OO (filtered) lE + 00 (filtered) 5E + 00 (filtered)
3E-04 (total) 5E-04 (total) 3E-03 (total) 3E+00 (total) 6E+00 (total) 4E+01 (total)
Hot SpotO Future Resident lE-Ol (filtered) 3E-0l (filtered) 5E-0l (filtered) 2E + 02 (filtered) 3E + 02 (filtered) 4E + 02 (filtered)
lE-Ol (total) 3E-Ol (total) 5E-0l (total) 2E + 02 (total) 3E+02 (total) 4E+02 (total)
'Chemicals posing greater than a 10-6 (IE-06), but less than 10-4 (IE-04), lifetime cancer risk at one or more exposure concentrations:
Overburden: benzene, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride.
Bedrock: benzene, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and 1,2-dichlorocthane.
Hot spot: bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and methylene chloride.
Chemicals posing greater than a 10-4 (lE-04) lifetime cancer risk at one or more exposure concentrations:
Bedrock: arsenic.
Hot spot: benzene, 4,4'-000, 4,4'-00T, 1,2-dibromoethane, trichloroethene, vinyl chloride, and arsenic.
bChemicals posing greater than a hazard index of 1 but less than a hazard index of 10 at one or more exposure concentrations:
Overburden: naphthalene and manganese.
Bedrock: chromium (as chromium VI), manganese, and nickel.
Hot spot: sec-butylbenzene, 4,4' -ODD, 4,4' -OOT, cis-l,2-dichloroethene, isopropylbenzene, phenanthrene, toluene, trichloroethene, lead, and manganese.
Chemicals posing greater than a hazard index of 10 at one or more exposure concentrations:
Overburden: 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene.
Bedrock: arsenic and lead.
Hot spot: 2-methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, 2-nitroaniline, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, and arsenic.
-------
Table 21
Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices - Surface Water
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Total Lifetime Cancer Risk Total Hazard Index
Upper 95% Upper 95%
Surface Water Confidence Confidence
Body RME Mean Limit Maximum Mean Limit Maximum
Knigbts Brook Current or Future 5E-08 6E-08 6E-08 2E-04 3E-04 3E-04
Resident/Recreational Uscr
Pickering Brook Current or Futurc 2E-()7 3E-07 5E-07 2E-03 6E-03 9E-03
ResidenljRecreational User
Table 22
Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices - Sediment
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Total Lifetime Cancer Risk Total Hazard Index
Upper 95% Upper 95%
Surface Water Confidence Confidence
Body RME Mean Limit Maximum Mean Limit Maximum
Knights Brook Current or Future 2E-07 2E-07 2E-07 tE-03 2E-03 2E-03
Resident/Recreational User
Pickering Brook Current or Future 2E-07 3E-07 4E-07 2E-03 3E-03 3E-03
Resident/Recreational User
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-38
-------
Ta ble 23
Summary of Chemicals of Concern by Mediums
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Soil- Soil- I Groundwater-I Groundwater- Groundwater- Surface Water- Surface Water- Sediment- Scdiment-
Chemical Mainb lIot Spatb Overburdenc Bed rockc Hot SpatC Knights Brook Pickering Brook Knights Brook Pickering Brook
Organics
Aroclor-1260 x(d) x
Benzene x x x
Benzoic acid x
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate x (s,d) x x x x
Bromochloromethane x
sec-Butylbenzene x x x
Butyl benzyl phthalate J( (s,d) x (s,d)
alpha-Chlordane x (s,d)
gamma-Chlordane J( (s,d)
Chlorobenzene x
Chloroform x
4,4'-DDD x (s,d) x x x x
4,4'-DDE x (s,d) x
4,4'-DDT x (s,d) x x
1,2-Dibromoethane x
1,2-Dichlorobenzene x (s) x x x
1 ,J-Dichlorobenzene x
1,4-Dichlorobenzene x( s,d) x x
Dich lorodifluorome thane x
1,2-Dichloroethane x x
cis-l,2- Dichloroethene x x x x
trans-l,2-Dichloroethene x x
Dieldrin x (s,d)
Diethyl phthalate x
2,4-Dimethylphenol x
Dimethyl phthalate x
Di-n-butyl phthalate x (s,d) x (s,d) x
Di-n-octyl phthalate x x x
Dioxins/furans (as 2,3,7,8- x (s,d) x (s,d)
TCDD)
Endosulfan I x x
Ethylbenzene x (s,d) x (s,d) x x x .
Ileptachlor epoxide x (s,d)
M KOI \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-39
-------
Table 23
Summary of Chemicals of Concern by Medium8
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Soil Soil Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Surface Water Surface Water Sediment II
Chemical Mainb Hot Spotb Overburden' Bedrock' lIot Spot' Knights Brook Pickering Brook Knights Brook Pi
Organics (continued)
Isopropylbenzene x x x
Isopropyltoluene x x x
Methylene chloride x
2-Methylnaphthalene x (s,d) x (s,d) x x x
4-Methyl-2-pentanone x(s,d) x
2-Methylphenol x
4-Methylphenol x x
Naphthalene x (s,d) x x x x x
2-Nitroaniline x
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine x( s,d) x x
PAHs
Acenaphthene x
Benzo(a)anthracene x (s,d) x x
Benzo(a)pyrene x (s,d) x x
Benzo(b )fluoranthene x (s,d) x x
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene x (s,d) x
Benzo(k)fluoranthene x (s,d) x x
Chrysene x (s,d) x x
Dibenzo( a,h)anthracene x (s)
Auoranthene x (s,d) x x
Auorene x (s,d) x
Indeno( 1 ,2,:Hd )pyrene x (s,d) x
Phenanthrene x (s,d) x (s,d) x x
Pyrene x (s,d) x (s,d) x x
n-Propylbenzene x x x
Toluene x (s,d) x (s,d) x x x x
I ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene x (s,d)
MKO I \RPTOO628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-40
-------
Table 23
Summary of Chemicals of Concern by Medium8
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Soil- Soil- Groundwater- Groundwater- Groundwater- Surface Water- Surface Water- Sediment- Sediment-
Chemical Mainb Hot Spotb Overburdcnc Bcdrockc lIot SpotC Knights Brook Pickering Brook Knights Brook Pickering Brook
Organics (continued)
1,1 , I-Trichloroethane x x
Trichloroethene x (s,d) x x x x
1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene x x x
1,3,5- Trimethylbenzene x x x
Vinyl chloride x x
Xylenes (total) x (s,d) x (s,d) x x X
Inorganics
Aluminum x x x x x
Arsenic x (d) x x x x x
Barium x x x x x
Beryllium x x x
Boron x (s,d) x x x
Calcium x x
Chromium x (s,d) x (d) x x x x x
Cobalt x x x x
Copper x (s,d) x x x x
Iron x x x x x x x
Lead x (s,d) x (s,d) x x x x x
Magnesium x x
Manganese x x x x x x x
Mercury x x
Molybdenum x (s,d)
Nickel x (d) x x x x x
Selenium x x
Silicon x x
Sodium x x
Thallium x
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-41
-------
Table 23
Summary of Chemicals of Concern by Mediums
Site 8, Pease AFB, NO
(Continued)
Chemical
Inorganics (continued)
Vanadium
Zinc
Soil-
Hot Spotb
Groundwater-
Overburden"
Groundwater-
Bedrock"
Groundwater-
Hot Spot"
Surface Water-
Knights Brook
Surface Water-
Pickering Brook
Sediment-
Knights Brook
Sediment-
Pickering Brook
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
"An .x. indicates that the chemical was selected as a chemical of concern for both the human health and ecological risk assessments, unless otherwise indicated.
bAn .s. indicates a chemical of concern in O-to 2-foot-deep soil; a .d" indicates a chemical of concern in 0- to IS-foot-deep soil. Only the chemicals of concern in 0- to 2-foot-deep soil were evaluated
in the ecological risk assessment.
"Selected as chemicals of concern for the human health risk assessment only.
MKOI \RYf:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-42
-------
Table 24
Exposure Routes of Potential Concern to Ecological Receptors
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Deer Mouse
. Incidental ingestion of soil.
. Ingestion of vegetation (browse).
Chipping Sparrow
. Ingestion of plant seeds.
. Ingestion of surface water.
. Incidental ingestion of soil.
Aquatic Biota
. Direct contact with surface water.
. Direct contact with sediment.
Terrestrial. Plants
. Direct contact with soil.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\sitc8rod.tbl
E-43
-------
Table 25
Deer Mouse - Total Hazard Indices
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Main Site Main Site Hot Spot
(average) (maximum) (average)
3.3E+ 01 8.8E+01 9.2E+00
> 10 Lead > 10 Lead > 1 Lead
(soil) (soil and vegetation) (soil and vegetation)
> 1 Boron > 1 Dioxinsjfurans
(vegetation ) (SOil»
1 n-Nitrosodiphenylamine > 1 Boron
(vegetation) (vegetation)
> 1 Dioxinsjfurans > 1 n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
(soil) (vegetation)
Table 26
Chipping Sparrow - Total Hazard Indices
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Main Site Main Site Hot Spot Hot Spot
(average) (maximum) (average) (maximum)
4.80E+00 1.6E+Ol 4.6E+00 5.2E+00
> 1 Copper > 1 Copper > 1 Xylenes (total) > 1 Xylenes (total)
(vegetation) (vegetation) (vegetation) (vegetation)
> 1 Xylenes (total)
(vegetation)
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-44
-------
Table 27
Comparison of Hazard Quotients in Pickering Brook
Based on Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Hazard Quotients Hazard Quotients
Based on Acute Criteria Based on Chronic Criteria
Chemical Average Maximum Average Maximum
Orl:'anics
4,4' -DDD 4.67E-0l 8.33E-Ol NE NE
Endosulfan 1.ooE-OI 1.82E-Ol 3.93E-Ol 7.14E-Ol
Inorganics
Aluminum 5.97E + 00 2.59E+Ol 5.15E+Ol 2.23E + 02
Arsenic 8.54E-03 3.09E-02 1.51E-Ol 5.48E-Ol
Barium 1. 77E-03 6.84E-03 NE NE
Beryllium 1.ooE-02 1.92E-02 2.45E-01 4.72E-Ol
Boron NE NE NE NE
Calcium NE NE NE NE
Chromium
Hexavalent 7. 13E-02 2.31E-Ol 1.04E-Ol 3.35E-Ol
Trivalent 9.04E-03 2.91E-02 7.58E-02 2.44E-Ol
Iron NE NE 5.86E + 00 2.45E + 01
Lead 2.68E-02 1.00E-Ol 6.71E+00 2.51E + 01
Magnesium NE NE NE NE
Manganese NE NE NE NE
Nickel 1.56E-02 4.54E-02 1.41E-Ol 4.IOE-Ol
Silicon NE NE NE NE
Sodium NE NE NE NE
Vanadium NE NE NE NE
Zinc 6.62E-01 1.78E+00 7.29E-Ol 1.96E + 00
NE = Not evaluated because of lack of data.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
£-45
-------
Table 28
Comparison of Hazard Quotients in Knights Brook
Based on Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Hazard Quotients Hazard Quotients
Based on Acute Criteria Based on Chronic Criteria
Chemical Average Maximum Average Maximum
Organics
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 1.06E-03 1.06E-03 3.33E-01 3.33E-01
4,4' -DDD 1.38E + 00 1.61£+00 NE NE
Chloroform 1.04E-05 1.04E-05 2.42E-04 2.42E-04
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 4.4OE-04 1. 72E-03 NE NE
Endosulfan 9.09E-02 9.09E-02 3.51£-01 3.51£-01
Trichloroethene 1.01£-05 1.11E-05 2.19E-05 2.28E-05
Inorganics
Aluminum 2.11E-01 4.55E-01 1.82E + 00 3.92E+00
Calcium NE NE NE NE
Iron NE NE 1.55E-01 4.88E-01
Magnesium NE NE NE NE
Manganese NE NE NE NE
Silicon NE NE NE NE
Sodium NE NE NE NE
Zinc 1.36E-01 3.55E-01 . 1.49E-01 3.91E-01
NE = Not evaluated because of lack of data.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-46
-------
Table 29
Comparison of Sediment or Interstitial Water Concentrations
in Pickering Brook with NOAA Biological Effect Levels or AWQC
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Hazard Quotients
NOAA Biological New Hampshire
Effect Levels Chronic Water
(ER-ls) Quality Criteria
Chemical (mg/kg) (Ilg/L) Mean Maximum
Organics
Aroclor-1260* 0.05 0.014 2.2&02 2.4&02
4,4'-DDD 0.002 NA 2.1E+01 7.5E+01
4.4'-DDE 0.002 NA 4.1E+01 1.5E+02
4.4'-DDT 0.001 NA 2.3E + 01 3.4E+01
Naphthalene 0.34 NA 3.5&01 8.1&01
PAHs
Benzo( a )anthracene 0.23 NCA 3.9&02 1.0&01
Benzo( a)pyrene 0.4 NA 2.2&02 5.5&02
Benzo(b )fluoranthene NCA NCA NE NE
Benzo(k)fl uoranthene NCA NCA NE NE
Benzo(g.h.i)perylene NCA NCA NE NE
Chrysene 0.4 NA 4.5&02 1.0&01
Fluoranthene 0.6 NA 5.0&02 1.4&01
Fluorene 0.035 NA 3.1&01 3.1&01
Indeno(1.2.:kd)pyrene NCA NCA NE NE
Phenanthrene 0.225 NA 1.8&01 2.6&01
Pyrene 0.35 NA 8.0&02 1.9&01
PAHs (total) 4 NA 4.5&02 8.7&02
I norganics
Aluminum NCA NA NE NE
Arsenic 33 NA 4.0&01 6.1&01
Barium NCA NCA NE NE
Beryllium NCA NA NE NE
Boron ~CA NCA NE NE
Chromium 80 NA 3.2&01 4.8&01
Cobalt NCA NCA NE NE
Copper 70 NA 1.3&01 2.5&01
Iron NCA NA NE NE
Lead 35 NA l.2E + 00 2.1E+OO
Manganese NCA NCA NE NE
Mercury 0.15 NA 1.0E+OO l.lE+OO
Nickel 30 NA 6.6&01 l.lE+OO
Selenium NCA NA NE NE
Thallium NCA NA NE NE
Vanadium NCA NCA NE NE
Zinc 120 NA 5.1&01 9.7&01
* Estimated interstitial concentrations, all others are sediment concentrations.
NCA = No criterion available.
NA = Not applicable.
NE Not evaluated because of lack of data.
MKOI \RP'f:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
£-47
-------
Table 30
Comparison of Sediment or Interstitial Water Concentrations
in Knights Brook with NOAA Biological Effect Levels or AWQC
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Hazard Quotients
NOAA Biological New Hampshire
Effect Levels Chronic Water
(ER-Ls) Quality Criteria
Chemical (mgfkg) (JlgfL) Mean Maximum
Organics
4- Methyl-2-pentanone NCA NCA NE NE
Naphthalene 0.34 NA 9.7E-01 1.6E+OO
PAHs NE NE
Acenaphthene 0.15 NA 6.2E+OO 1.2E+01
Benzo( a )anthracene 0.23 NA 1.3E-02 2.6E-02
Benzo( a)pyrene 0.4 NA 7.5E-03 1.2E-02
Benzo(b )fluoranthene NCA NCA NE NE
Benzo(k )fluoranthene NCA NCA NE NE
Chrysene 0.4 NA 6.7E-02 8.0E-02
Auoranthene 0.6 NA 3.0E-02 3.5E-02
Pyrene 0.35 NA 4.6E-02 4.6E-02
PAHs (total) 4 NA 2.5E-01 4.6E-0l
Toluene NCA NCA NE NE
Inorganics
Arsenic 33 NA 2.8E-01 4.2E-01
Aluminum NCA NA NE NE
Bariu,m NCA NCA NE NE
Beryllium NCA NA NE NE
Boron NCA NCA NE NE
Chromium 80 NA 2.3E-Ol 3.8E-01
Cobalt NCA NCA NE NE
Copper 70 NA 1.4E-Ol 2.2E-01
Iron NCA NA NE NE
Lead 35 NA 4.4E-Ol 7.3E-Ol
Manganese NCA NCA NE NE
Mercury 0.15 NA 1.3E+OO 1.6E+OO
Nickel 30 NA 4.5E-01 6.6E-Ol
S~lenium NCA NA NE NE
Vanadium NCA NCA NE NE
Zinc 120 NA 3.1E-01 4.3E-Ol
NCA = No criterion available.
NA = Not applicable.
NE = Not evaluated because of lack of data.
MK01 \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-48
-------
Table 31
Alternatives Retained for Detailed Analysis
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Alternative
No. Description
1 No Action/Access Restrictions and Institutional Controls (fencing, deed
restrictions monitorinj1;, and extension of public water supply).
Management of Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Migration in the Overburden and
Bedrock Water-Bearing Zones, On-Base Treatment of Recovered Groundwater, .
2 Discharge of Treated Groundwater to Subsurface Recharge Trenches, and
Institutional Controls.
Downgradient Groundwater Recovery Trench to Minimize Off-Site Contaminant
3 Migration, Recovery and Off-Site Disposal of Free-Phase Product, Management
of Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Migration in the Overburden and Bedrock
Water-Bearing Zones, On-Base Treatment of Recovered Groundwater,
Discharge of Treated Groundwater to Subsurface Recharge Trenches, and
Institutional Controls.
In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction of Source Area Soil, Recovery and Off-Base
4 Disposal of Free-Phase Product, Management of Dissolved Contaminant
Migration in the Overburden Water-Bearing Zone, On-Site Treatment of
Recovered Groundwater, Discharge of Treated Groundwater to Subsurface
Recharl!e Trenches, and Institutional Controls.
In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction of Source Area Soil, Recovery and Off-Base
Disposal of Free-Phase Product, Management of Dissolved-Phase Contaminant
5 Migration in the Overburden and Bedrock Water-Bearing Zones, On-Site
Treatment of Recovered Groundwater, Discharge of Treated Groundwater to
Subsurface Recharge Trenches, and Institutional Controls.
Excavation and Ex Situ Biological/Vapor Extraction Treatment of Former Burn
Area Soil Contaminated Above Cleanup Goals, Dewatering of Open Excavation,
6 Recovery and Off-Base Disposal of Free-Phase Product, In Situ Soil Vapor
Extraction of Migrating Free-Phase Product Area Soil, Management of
Dissolved Contaminant Migration in the Overburden and Bedrock Water-
Bearing Zones, On-Site Treatment of Recovered Groundwater, Discharge of
Treated Groundwater to Subsurface Recharge Trenches, and Institutional
Controls.
Excavation and On-Site Thermal Treatment of Former Burn Area Soil
Contaminated Above Cleanup Goals, Dewatering of the Open Excavation,
Recovery and Off-Base Disposal of Free-Phase Product, In Situ Soil Vapor
7 Extraction of Migrating Free-Phase Product Area Soil, Management of
Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Migration in the Overburden and Bedrock Water-
Bearing Zones, On-Site Treatment of Recovered Groundwater, Discharge of
Treated Groundwater to Subsurface Recharge Trenches, and Institutional
Controls.
Excavation and On-Site Thermal Treatment of All Soil Contaminated Above
CI~anup Goals, Dewatering of the Open Excavation, Recovery and Off-Base
8 Disposal of Free-Phase Product, Management of Dissolved-Phase Contaminant
Migration in the Overburden and Bedrock Water-Bearing Zones, On-Site
Treatment of Recovered Groundwater, Discharge of Treated Groundwater to
Subsurface Recharl!e Trenches, and Institutional Controls.
MKOl \ RPT:00628026.(XJ3\site8rod.tbl
£-49
-------
Table 32
Summary of Detailed Alternatives Evaluation.
Site 8, Pease AFB, NO
Protection of
Human Compliance Cost
Short-Term Long-Term Reduction in TMV of Health and with Analysisb
Effectiveness Effectiveness Contaminants Implementability Environment ARARs (sensitivity
Remedial Alternative Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking analysist
1. No Action/Institutional Controls (deed
restrictions, monitoring, and extension of AB C C A C BC $1,340,100
public water supply).
2. Management of Dissolved-Phase
Contaminant Migration in the
Overburden and Bedrock Water-Bearing AB BC BC AB BC D $6,635,000
Zones, On-Site Treatment of Recovered ($5,956,000 to
Groundwater, Discharge of Treated $8,146,000)
Groundwater to Subsurface Recharge
Trenches, and Institutional Controls.
3. Downgradient Groundwater Recovery
Trench to Minimize Off-Site $7,846,000
Contaminant Migration, Recovery and ($6,346,000 to
Off-Site Disposal of Free-Phase Product, AD BC B AB BC B $8,238,000)
Discharge of Treated Groundwater to
Subsurface Recharge Trenches, and
Institutional Controls.
4. In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction of Source
Area Soil, Recovery and Off-Site
Disposal of Free-Phase Product,
Management of Dissolved-Phase
Contaminant Migration in the An AB B B B AD $10,674,000
Overburden Water-Bearing Zone, On- ($10,021,000
Site Treatment of Recovered to
Groundwater, Discharge or Treated $11,355,000)
Groundwater to Subsurface Recharge
Trenches, and Institutional Controls.
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-50
-------
Table 32
Summary of Detailed Alternatives Evaluations
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Protection of
Human Compliance Cost
Short-Term Long-Term Reduction in TMV of Health and with Analysisb
Errectiveness Errectiveness Contaminants Implementability Environment ARARs (sensitivity
Remedial Alternative Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking analysist
5. In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction of Source
Area Soil, Recovery and Orr-Site
Disposal of Free-Phase Product,
Management of Dissolved-Phase $13,890,000
Contaminant Migration in the ($12,610,000
Overburden and Bedrock Water-Bearing AB AB B B B AB to
Zones, On-Site Treatment of Recovered $14,608,(00)
Groundwater. Discharge of Treated
Groundwater to Subsurface Recharge
Trenches, and Institutional Controls.
6. Excavation and Ex Situ Biological/Vapor
Extraction Treatment of Former Burn
Area Soil Contaminated Above Cleanup
Goals, Dewatering of the Open
Excavation, Recovery and Orr-Site
Disposal of Free-Phase Product, In Situ
Soil Vapor Extraction of Migrating Free-
Phase Product Area Soil, Management of
Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Migration B AB AB BC AB AB $25,306,000
in the Overburden and Bedrock Water- ($23,128,000
Bearing Zones, On-Site Treatment of to
Recovered Groundwater, Discharge of $26,786,(00)
Treated Groundwater to Subsurface
Recharge Trenches, and Institutional
Controls.
MKO I \ RPT:00628026.003\sile8rod.tbl
E-Sl
-------
Table 32
Summary of Detailed Alternatives EvaluationS
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Protection of
Human Compliance Cost
Short-Tenn Long-Tenn Reduction in TMV of Health and with Analysisb
Effectiveness Effectiveness Contaminants Implementability Environment ARARs (sensitivity
Remedial Alternative Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking analysis)C
7. Excavation and On-Site Thennal
Treatment of Fonner Bum Area Soil
Contaminated Above Cleanup Goals,
Dewatering of the Open Excavation,
Recovery and Off-Site Disposal of Free-
Phase Product, In Situ Soil Vapor
Extraction of Migrating Free-Phase
Product Area Soil, Management of
Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Migration B AB AB B AB AB $33,362,000
in the Overburden and Bedrock Water- ($28,901,000
Bearing Zones, On-Site Treatment of to
Recovered Groundwater, Discharge of $37,743,(00)
Treated Groundwater to Subsurface
Recharge Trenches, and Institutional
Controls.
8. Excavation and On-Site Thennal
Treatment of All Soil Contaminated
Above Cleanup Goals, Dewatering of the
Open Excavation, Recovery and Off-Site
Disposal of Free-Phase Product,
Management of Dissolved-Phase
Contaminant Migration in the $40,674,000
Overburden and Bedrock Water-Bearing B A A B AB A ($46,309,000
Zones, On-Site Treatment of Recovered to
Groundwater, Discharge of Treated $34,095,(00)
Groundwater to Subsurface Recharge
Trenches, and Institutional Controls.
'7he letter ranking system is described in Subsection 5.3 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611). The ranking worksheet is presented in Appendix H of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report
(G-611).
bEstimated costs represent present-worth costs. Detailed cost estimates are presented in Appendix D of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611).
~e sensitivity analysis costs represent the upper and lower limits of the 50% confidence interval.
MKOI \RYf:00628026.003\sile8rod.tbl
E-'i2
-------
Table 33
Present-Worth Costs of Alternatives 1 Through'S
Site S, Pease AFB, NH
30- Year Presenl- Present-Worth
Remedial Alternative Capital Cost Worth O&M Cost Cost
t. No Action/Access Restrictions and Institutional Controls (fencing, deed restrictions, monitoring, and $313,000. $1,113,305. $1,340,000.
extension of public water supply).
2. Management of Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Migration in the Overburden and Bedrock Water-Bearing $1,189,500. $5,445,000. $6,635,000.
Zones, On-Site Treatment of Recovered Groundwater, Discharge of Treated Groundwater to Subsurface
Recharge Trenches, and Institutional Controls.
3. Downgradient Groundwater Recovery Trench to Minimize Off-Site Contaminant Migration, Recovery $1,830,300. $6,016,000. $7,846,000.
and Off-Base Disposal of Free-Phase Product, Management of Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Migration
in the Overburden and Bedrock Water-Bearing Zones, On-Site Treatment of Recovered Groundwater,
Discharge of Treated Groundwater to Subsurface Recharge Trenches, and Institutional Controls.
4. In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction of Source Area Soil, Recovery and Off-Base Disposal of Free-Phase $7,257,596. $6,117,375. $13,374,971.
Product, Management of Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Migration in the Overburden Water-Bearing
Zone, On-Site Treatment of Recovered Groundwater, Discharge of Treated Groundwater to Subsurface
Recharge Trenches, and Institutional Controls.
5. In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction of Source Area Soil, Recovery and Off-Base Disposal of Free-Phase SS,720,OOO. $8,169,569. $13,890,000.
Product, Management of Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Migration in the Overburden and Bedrock
Water-Bearing Zones, On-Site Treatment of Recovered Groundwater, Discharge of Treated
Groundwater to Subsurface Recharge Trenches, and Institutional C..ontrols.
6. Excavation and Ex Situ Biological/Vapor Extraction Treatment of Bum Area Soil Contaminated Above $18,430,300. $6,876,000. $25,306,000.
Cleanup Goals, Dewatering of the Open Excavation, Recovery and Off-Base Disposal of Free-Phase
Product, In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction of Migrating Free-Phase Product Area Soil, Management of
Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Migration in the Overburden and Bedrock Water-Bearing Zones, On-Site
Treatment of Recovered Groundwater, Discharge of Treated Groundwater to Subsurface Recharge
Trenches, and Institutional Controls.
7. Excavation and On-Site Thermal Treatment of Bum Area Soil Contaminated Above Cleanup Goals, $27,271,400. $6,091,000. $33,362,000.
Dewatering of the Open Excavation, Recovery and Off-Base Disposal of Free-Phase Product, In Situ Soil
Vapor Extraction of Migrating Free-Phase Product Area Soil, Management of Dissolved-Phase
Contaminant Migration in the Overburden and Bedrock Water-Bearing Zones, On-Site Treatment of
Recovered Groundwater, Discharge of Treated Groundwater to Subsurface Recharge Trenches, and
Institutional Controls.
8. Excavation and On-Site Thermal Treatmenl of All Soil Contaminated Above Cleanup Goals, Dewatering 535,616,100. $5,057,000. $40,674,000.
of Open Excavation, Recovery and Off-Base Disposal of Free-Phase Product, Management of Dissolved-
Phase Contaminant Migration in the Overburden and Bedrock Water-nearing 7..ones, On-Site Treatment
of Recovered Groundwater, Discharge of Treated Groundwater 10 Subsurface Recharge Trenches, and
Institutional Controls.
MKO I \ RPT:00628026.003\site8rod .tbl
E-53
-------
Table 34
Data and Criteria Used for Evaluation of Leaching Potential of Metals in Soil
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Maximum
Groundwater Maximum Soil Stage 3 Soil
Concentration Groundwater Concentration Background
Detected ARAR" Detected Concentrationb
Contaminant (I-lg/L) (I-lg/L) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Aluminum 30,700 NA 17,900 56,400
Antimony 459 6 55.5 . ND
(20.7)<
Arsenic (total) 512 50 264 25.2
Barium 1,880 2,000 55.1 262
Beryllium 47.3 4 0.59 3.83
Boron 896 620d 10.3 ND
(20.7)<
Cadmium 54.1 5 3.1 ND
(2.1)'
Calcium 75,600 NA 2,460 20,900
Chromium (total) 188 100 58.1 49.4
Cobalt 475 NA 21.2 32.4
Copper 241 1,300 121 54.3
Iron 173,000 NA 33,300 115,000
Lead 214 15 167 54.0
Magnesium 26,400 NA 10,800 15,500
Manganese 29,100 NA 706 1,020
Mercury 0.12 2 0.12 ND
(0.14)'
Molybdenum 880 40" 0.75 ND
(104)'
Nickel 461 100 73.6 70.5
Potassium 22,900 35,OOOd 2,320 4,780
Selenium ND 50 NO ND
(1.2)1 (1.2)'
Silicon 40,500 NA 1,400 2,710
MK01 \ RPT:00628026.003\sit~8rod.tbl
E-54
-------
Table 34
Data and Criteria Used for Evaluation of Leaching Potential of Metals in Soil
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Maximum
Groundwater Maximum Soil Stage 3 Soil
Concentration Groundwater Concentration Background
Detected ARARa Detected Concentrationb
Contaminant (J,lg/L) (J,lg/L) (mgjkg) (mg/kg)
Silver 48.6 100' ND 3.4
(5.2)1
Sodium 57,100 NA 191 174
Thallium 548 2 ND ND
(23.2Y (2.4t
Vanadium 488 20' 44.4 150
Zinc 502 2,000' 136 219
aValue presented is an MCL unless otherwise noted.
bStage 3 background levels reported are the upper 95% tolerance limits for the nine background soil samples
collected during Stage 3 (G-603) for the metals detected. The leaching potential of metals in soil will be
re-evaluated using Stage 4 background data when they are available.
-------
Table 35
Selection of Cleanup Goals for Organics in Soil
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
Cancer Risks and Hazard fndices
Calculated Using Target Levels
ARARs Based on Leachine:
Target Levels
Based on Maximum
New . LeachingC Concentration
RCRA. lIampshireb (unsaturated) Hazard Cancer Detected' Cleanup Goals
Organic Chemical (mg/kg) (mg/klt) (mg/kg) Index Risk (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Aroclor-1260 19 NIV 2.05&05 0.110 NA
Benzene 1.0d 0.030 NlV 9.128-10 8.000 1.0d
gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.016 1.578-04 2.18&08 0.012 NA
Bis(2-ethvlhexyl) phthalate 50 44 6.468-03 6.46&07 2.000 NA
Butvl benzvl phthalate 20,000 1.5 2.20&05 NIV 4.400 1.5
alpha-Chlordane 20 1.308-01 3.63&06 0.043 NA
gamma-Chlordane 20 1.308-01 3.63&06 0.039 NA
4,4'-DDD 3 6.2 8.098-04 2.08&07 0.120 NA
4,4'-DDE 2 0.44 2.468-04 2.09&08 0.017 NA
4,4'-DDT 2 1.8 1.41E-03 8.55&08 0.079 NA
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 74 2.418-03 NC 3.300 NA
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 9.3 9.108-05 2.34&07 1.300 NA
1,2-Dichloroethane 8 0.005 NIV 4.778-10 0.005 NA
cis-I,2-Dichloroethene 0.30 8.818-05 NC 0.010' NA
trans-l 2-Dichloroethene 0.43 6.31E-05 NC 0.010' NA
Dieldrin 0.04 0.002 1.17E-04 3.35M8 0.024 0.002
Di-n-butyl phthalate 3,410 l.ooE-Ol NC 5.900 NA
-
Ethylbenzene 8,000 1.0d 56 1.64 E-03 NC 54.000 1.0d
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-56
-------
Table 35
Selection of Cleanup Goals for Organics in Soil
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Cancer Risks and lIa7.ard Indices
Calculated Using Target Levels
ARARs Based on Leachine:
Target Levels
Bascd on Maximum
Ncw LeachingC Concentration
RCM" lIampshireb (unsaturated) Hazard Cancer Detected. Cleanup Goals
Organic Chemical (mg/kg) (me:/ke:) (mg/kg) Index Risk (mg/kg) (mgjkg)
Heotachlor eooxide 0.08 0.31 7.ooE-02 2.96&06 0.003 NA
1,2,3,4,6,78-HoCDD (dioxin) 0.014 N1V 1.96&06 0.00055 NA
2-Mcthvlnaohthalene 5.4 3.96&04 NC 43.000 5.4
4-Methvl-2-oentanone 4,000 2.8 1.64 &04 NC 34.000 2.8
4-Methvlphenol 43 2.52&03 N1V 0.037 NA
Naohthalene 1.4 1.03&04 NC 36.000 1.4
n-Nitrosodiohenvlamine 100 0.36 5.28&05 1.85&09 0.600 0.36
OCDD {dioxin} 0.14 N1V 1.96&06 0.004 NA
PAHs
Bcnzo(a )anthracene 10 NIV 1.91&05 1.700 NA
Benzo(b )nuoranthene 8.0 NIV 1.53&05 0.150 NA
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 64 N1V 1.22&04 0.160 NA
Benzo(e:,h,i)oervlene 827,000 1.52E+Ol NC 0.200 NA
Benzo( a )pyrene 80 NIV 1.53&04 0.230 NA
Chrvsene 2.9 NIV 5.55&06 6.100 2.9
Dibenzo( a,h )anthracene 72 N'IV 1.38E-04 0.037 NA
Fluoranthene 460 8.ME-03 NC 0.450 NA
MKO 1 \ RI'T:00628026.003\site8rod.tbl
E-S7
-------
Table 3S
Selection of Cleanup Goals for Organics in Soil
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices
Calculated Using Target Levels
ARARs Based on Leachinl!:
Target l.evels
Based on Maximum
New Leaching< Concentration
RCRA" Ilampshireb (unsaturated) Hazard Cancer Detected" Cleanup Goals
Organic Chemical (ml!/kl!) (ml!/kl!) (mg/kg) Index Risk (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Auorene 530 9.72E-03 NC 1.700 NA
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd )ovrene 46 NIV 8.80E-05 0.410 NA
Phenanthrene 18 3.30E-04 NC 3.200 NA
Pvrene 820 2.01E-02 NC 2.400 NA
Toluene 20,000 1.0d 18 2.64&04 NC 128.000 1.0d
1,2,4- Trichlorobenzene 3,000 47 1.38E-02 NC 0.800 NA
Trichloroethene 60 0.046 2.25E-05 4.30&10 5.000 0.046
Xvlenes (Iolal) 200,000 1.0d 190 2.79E-04 NC 210.000 1.0d
"Soil values from RCRA Corrective Action Levels, 1990.
bState of New Hampshire Interim Policy for the Management of Soils Contaminated from Spills/Releases of Virgin Petroleum Products, 1991.
.Soil concentration developed from leaching model as discussed in Subsection 2.5 and Appendix A of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611).
dRepresents 1.0 mg/kg of total BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes).
"Maximum as presented in the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report (0-577).
'Maximum detected value presented is for lotal 1,2-dichloroethene.
NIV = No available applicable toxicity value.
NIV A = No applicable toxicity or ARAR value available.
NA = Not applicable. ARARs and risk.based concentrdtions exceed maximum detected concentrations.
NC = Not applicable. Chemical is not a carcinogen.
MKOI \RP'f:00628026.oo3\site8rod.tbl
E-58
-------
Table 36
Selection of Cleanup Goals for Organics in Groundwater
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
ARARs Risk-Based Concentrations
Based on Maximum
Lifetime lIealth Noncancer Based on Cancer Basis Detected Cleanup
MCt" MCLGb NHDPIISc Advisory
-------
Table 36
Selection of Cleanup Goals for Organics in Groundwater
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
ARARs Risk-Based Concentrations
Based on Maximum
Lifetime Ilealth Noncancer Based on Cancer Basis Detected Cleanup
MCL" MCLGb NllDPllSc Advisoryd Hazard. Risk' of Cleanup Concentration GQilI
Contaminant (pg/L) (pg/L) (pg/L) (pg/L) (pg/L) (lJg/L) Goal (lJg/L) (pg/L)
Di-n-octyl phthalate 730 HR 140 NA
Ethylbenzene 700 700 700 700 2,700 MCL 2,200 700
Ileptachior 0.4 0 0.4 0.00941 MCL 0.69 0.4
Isopropylbenzene 89.1 HR 180 89.1
4-lsopropyltoluene NIV NIVA 170 NIVA
Methylene chloride 5 0 5 9.31 MCL 280 5
2-Methylnaphthalene 13.4 IIR 2,700 12.4
2-Methylphenol 350 1,830 NIIDPHS 110 NA
4-Methylphenol 350 1,830 NHDPHS 1,400 350
2-Nitroaniline 2.13 NIVA 170 NIVA
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine 8.69 CR 2 NA
aCDD (dioxin) 3&028 3&02g NIV 5.7E-02b MCL 5.9&05 NA
n-Propylbenzene NIV NIVA 210 N'IVA
Tetrachloroethene 5 0 5 1.58 MCL 9 5
Toluene 1,000 1.000 I,O()(J 1,000 2,650 MCL 29,000 1,000
1.1.I-Trichloroethane 200 200 200 200 2,530 MCL 7 NA
Trichloroethene 5 0 5 5.01 MCL 4,400 5
1.2,4- Trimcthylbenzcnc 19.8 IIR 1,400 19.8
MKOI \RPT:00628026.oo3\sitc8rod.tbl
E-60
-------
Table 36
Selection of Cleanup Goals for Organics in Groundwater
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
ARARs Risk-Based Concentrations
Based on Maximum
Lifelime Health Noncancer Based on Cancer Basis Detected Cleanup
MCL" MCL
-------
Table 37
Selection of Cleanup Goals for (norganics in Groundwater
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
ARARs Risk-Based Concentrations' Background Maximum Detected
Concentration Concentration
Lifetime Based on (J-ig/L) (J-ig/L)
Health Noncaneer Based on Cleanup
Inorganic MCL" MCLGb NHDPHSc Advisory" Hazard Cancer Risk . Ooal
Chemical (J-ig/L) (J-ig/L) (J-ig/L) (J-ig/L) (J-ig/L) (J-ig/L) Total Dissolved Total Dissolved (J-ig/L)
Aluminum NTV 46,400 - 30,700 - NTVA
Antimony 6 6 6 3 14.6 NA - 459 - 6
Arsenic 50' 50 0.0481 72 23.1 512 210 50
Barium 2,000 2,000 2,000 5,000 2,560 221 136 1,880 69.3 NA
Beryllium 4 4 4 0.0198 3.1 - 47.3 - 4
Cadmium 5' 5 5 5 18.3 NA - 54.1 - 5
Chromium 100 100 100 100 183g 94.3 - 188 - 100
(total)
Cobalt NTV 106 50 415 326 NTVA
Copper 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,350 88.1 31.6 241 1Ji1 NA
Iron NTV 62,800 1,090 124,000 J 164,400 NTVA
Lead 15g 0 15 10.6 91.6 16.1 214 92.4 15
Manganese 1,500 183 5,660 3,110 29,100 32,800 1,500
Nickel 100 100 100 100 130 126 61.3 461 82.1 tOO
Silver 50 100 183 NA - 48.6 53.7 NA
Thallium 2 0.5 2 0.4 NTV - 200 - 548 2
MKOI \RYf:00628026.003\sile8rod.lbl
E-62
-------
Table 37
Selection of Cleanup Goals for (norganics in Groundwater
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
ARARs Risk-Based Concentrations' Background Maximum Detected
Concentration Concentration
Lifetime Based on (ttg/L) (ttg/L)
Health Noncancer Based on Cleanup
Inorganic MCLa MCLGb NHDPHSc Advisory" Hazard Cancer Risk Goal
Chemical (ttg/L) (ttg/L) (ttg/L) (ttg/L) (ttg/L) (ttg/L) Total Dissolved Total Dissolved (ttg/L)
Vanadium 20 256 72.3 50 488 57.7 50
Zinc 11,000 220 234 502 74.9 NA
aMCL = Maximum Contaminant Level, December 1992.
bMCLG = Maximum Contaminant Level Goal, December 1992.
~HDPHS = New Hampshire Department of Public Health Services, March 1991.
dEPA Lifetime Health Advisory, December 1992.
'Developed based on a noncancer hazard index of 1 and a cancer risk of 10.6, using the exposure scenario, assumptions, and toxicity values presented in Subsection 2.3
of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-61l).
'Basis of cleanup goal.
8Yalue reported is the Federal Action Level. The MCL is 50 ttg/L.
NTY = A risk-based concentration was not calculated because the applicable toxicity value was not available.
NTY A = No applicable toxicity value or ARAR.
NA = ARAR or risk-based concentration exceeds maximum detected concentration.
M KO I \ RPT:00628026.003\sile8rod.lbl
E-63
-------
Table 38
Carcinogenic Risks and Hazard Indices Calculated
Based on Groundwater ARAR Concentrations
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
I I (I'g/L) MCL MCLG NHDPHS LHA
Hazard Hazard Hazard Hazard
Contaminant Index Cancer Risk (Ilg/L) Index Cancer Risk (Ilg/L) Index Cancer Risk (Ilg/L) Index Cancer Risk
Organics
Benzene 5 NTV 3.41E-06 0 0 0 5 NTV 3.41E-06
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 6 0.0082 9.86E-07 0 0 0 6 0.0082 9.86E-07
Bromochloromethane 90 NTV NA
sec-Butylbenzene
Chlorobenzene 100 0.685 NA 100 0.685 NA 100 0.685 NA 100 0.685 NA
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2- Dichlorobenzene 600 0.594 NA 600 0.594 NA 600 0.594 NA 600 0.594 NA
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 600 NTV NA 600 NTV NA 600 NTV NA 600 NTV NA
1,4- Dichlorobenzene 75 0.017 4.05E-05 75 0.017 4.05E-05 75 0.017 4.05E-05 75 0.017 4.05E-05
Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,000 0.685 NA 1,000 0.685 NA
1,2-Dichloroethane 5 NTV 1.07E-05 0 NTV 0 5 NTV 1.07E-05
cis-l,2- Dichloroethene 70 0.384 NA 70 0.384 NA 70 0.384 NA 70 0.384 NA
trans-l,Z- Dichloroethene 100 0.274 NA 100 0.274 NA 100 0.274 NA 100 0.274 NA
Diethyl phthalate 5,000 0.171 NA
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate 800 0.022 NA
Di-n-butyl phthalate 34,000 9.32 NA
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene 700 0.259 NA 700 0.259 NA 700 0.259 NA 700 0.259 NA
Heptachlor 0.4 0.044 4.25E-05 0 0 0 0.4 0.044 4.23E-05
Isopropylbenzene
4-lsopropyltoluene
MKOI \RPT:00628026.003\sile8rod.tbl
E-64
-------
Table 38
Carcinogenic Risks and Hazard Indices Calculated
Based on Groundwater ARAR Concentrations
Site 8, Pease AFR, NH
(Continued)
MCL MCLG NHDPHS LHA
Hazard Hazard Hazard Ha7.ard
Contaminant (Ilg/L) Index Cancer Risk (Ilg/L) Index Cancer Risk (Ilg/L) Index Cancer Risk (Ilg/L) Index Cancer Risk
Methylene chloride 5 0.0024 5.37E-07 0 0 0 5 0.0024 5.37E-07
2-Nitroaniline
n- Nitrosodiphenylamine
OCDD (dioxin) 3E-02" NTV 5.28E-05 3E-02" NTV 5.28E-05
n-Propylbenzene
T etrachloroethene 5 0.027 3. 17E-06 0 0 0 5 0.027 3.17E-06
Toluene 1,000 0.377 NA 1,000 0.377 NA 1,000 0.377 NA 1,000 0.377 NA
1,1,1- Trichloroethane 200 0.079 NA 200 0.079 NA 200 0.079 NA 200 0.079 NA
Trichloroethene 5 0.046 9.98E-07 0 0 0 5 0.046 9.98E-07
1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5- Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl chloride 2 NTV 5.15E-05 0 0 0 2 NTV 5. 15E-05
Xylenes (total) 10,000 0.274 NA 10,000 0.274 NA 10,000 0.274 NA 10,000 0.274 NA
gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.2 0.Q18 3.05E-06 0.2 0.018 3.05E-06 0.2 0.Q18 3.05E-06 0.2 0.018 3.05E-06
4,4' -DDD
4,4' -DDT 0.1 0.011 7.98E-07
Benzoic acid 28,000 0.192 NA
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol 350 0.192 NTV
4-Methylphenol 350 0.192 NTV
Naphthalene 20 1.49 NA 20 1.49 NA
Phenanthrene
MKO I \RPT:00628026.003\sile8rod.lbl
E-65
-------
Table 38
Carcinogenic Risks and Hazard Indices Calculated
Based on Groundwater ARAR Concentrations
Site 8, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
MCL MCLG NHDPHS LHA
Hazard Hazard Hazard Hazard
Contaminant (J-Ig/L) Index Cancer Risk (~/L) Index Cancer Risk (J-Ig/L) Index Cancer Risk (~/L) Index Cancer Risk
Metals
Antimony 6 0.411 NA 6 0.411 NA 6 0.411 NA 3 0.205 NA
Arsenic 50 4.57 1.03E-03 50 4.57 1.03E-03
Cadmium 5 0.274 NA 5 0.274 NA 5 0.274 NA 5 0.274 NA
Chromium (total) 100 0.003- NA 100 0.003- NA 100 0.003- NA 100 0.003- NA
0.548b 0.548b 0.548b 0.548b
Cobalt
Iron
Lead 15< 1.42 NTV 0 0 0 15< 1.42 NTV
Manganese
Silver 50 0.274 NA 100 0.548 NA
Thallium 2 NTV NA 0.5 NTV NA 0.4 NTV NA
Vanadium 20 0.078 NA
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level.
MCLG = Maximum Contaminant Level Goal.
NHDPHS = New Hampshire Department of Public Health Services.
LHA = EPA Lifetime Health Advisory.
p = Proposed value.
NA = Not applicable. Chemical is not a carcinogen or is not of carcinogenic conce,:n through the evaluated exposure routes.
NTV = An applicable toxicity value(s) was not available. .
.Calculated using MCL of 3 x W-S JJg/L for total 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents. The toxic equivalent for OCDD is 0.001.
~he hazard index depends on the relative concentrations of chromium III and chromium VI.
------- |