PB95-963711
EPA/ROD/R01-95/111
March 1996
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Pease Air Force Base,
Zone 1, NH
6/26/1995
-------
Record of Decision
Zonel
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
July 1995
-------
Table of Contents
Section Title Page
DECLARATION ix
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 1
II. ZONE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 9
A. Zone Use 9
B. Response Activity 14
C. Enforcement History 16
III. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 17
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE
ACTION 18
V. SUMMARY OF ZONE CHARACTERISTICS 21
A. Soil and Solid Waste 22
B. Groundwater 31
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 50
A Data Evaluation and Reduction 51
B. Human Health Risk Assessment 52
C. Ecological Risk Assessment 57
VII. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES 62
A. Statutory Requirements/Response Objectives 62
B. Technology and Alternative Development and Screening 66
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 68
IX. SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
ALTERNATIVES 70
A. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 72
B. Compliance with ARARs 72
C. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 72
D. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment 73
E. Short-Term Effectiveness 73
F. Implementability 74
G. Cost 74
H. State Acceptance 74
I. Community Acceptance 75
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sa hi 07/19/95
-------
Table of Contents
(Continued)
Section Title Page
X. THE SELECTED REMEDY 76
A. Methodology for Cleanup Level Determination 76
B. Groundwater Cleanup Goals 77
C. Soil Cleanup Goals 78
D. Description of Remedial Components 78
XL STATUTORY DETERMINATION 83
A. The Selected Remedy Is Protective of Human Health and
the Environment 83
B. The Selected Remedy Attains ARARs 83
C. The Selected Remedy Is Cost Effective 84
D. The Selected Remedy Uses Permanent Solutions and Alternative
Treatment or Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum
Extent Practicable 85
E. The Selected Remedy Satisfies the Preference for Treatment
That Permanently and Significantly Reduces the Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume of the Hazardous Substances as a
Principal Element 86
XII. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 87
XIII. STATE ROLE 88
REFERENCES/ACRONYMS R-l/Acr-1
APPENDIX A - TABLES
APPENDIX B - DECLARATION OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX C - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX D - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zooelnxU» IV 07/14/95
-------
List of Figures
Figure No. Title Page
1 General Location Map 3
2 General Zone 1 Location Map 5
3 Distribution of Organics in Soils at LF-2 and LF-4 23
4 Source Area Sampling Locations at PCDA. 29
5 Distribution of Organics in Water Table Groundwater 33
6 Distribution of Organics in Bedrock Groundwater 35
7 Area! Extent of Trichloroethene, Tetrachloroethene, and Benzene
in Groundwater 39
8 Distribution of Selected VOCs in Groundwater 41
9 Distribution of Metals in Groundwater 45
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sa V 07/14/95
-------
List of Tables
Table No. Title Page
1 Summary of Stage 1 Through Stage 4 Activities A-l
2 Summary of Highest Organics Concentrations in Soils — LF-2 A-11
3 Summary of Highest Metals Concentrations in Soils — LF-2 A-13
4 Summary of Highest Concentrations of Organics in Soils — LF-4 A-14
5 Summary of Highest Metals Concentrations in Soils — LF-4 A-17
6 Summary of Highest Concentrations of Organics in Water Table
Groundwater A-18
7 Summary of Highest Concentrations of Metals Detected in
Water Table Groundwater A-20
8 Summary of Highest Concentrations of Organic Compounds in
Deep Bedrock Groundwater A-21
9 Summary of Highest Concentrations of Metals Detected in
Bedrock Groundwater A-23
10 Chemicals of Concern in Site 2 Soil (0 to 2 feet deep) A-24
11 Chemicals of Concern in Site 4 Soil (0 to 2 feet deep) A-25
12 Chemicals of Concern in Site 44 Soil (0 to 2 feet deep) A-27
13 Chemicals of Concern in Site 44 Soil (0 to 15 feet deep) A-29
14 Chemicals of Concern in Site 2 Groundwater — Water Table A-31
15 Chemicals-of Concern in Site 4 Groundwater — Water Table A-32
16 Chemicals of Concern in Site 4 Groundwater — Deep Bedrock A-33
17 Chemicals of Concern in Site 5 Groundwater — Water Table A-34
18 Chemicals of Concern in Site 5 Groundwater — Deep Bedrock A-36
19 Chemicals of Concern in Site 44 Groundwater — Water Table A-38
20 Chemicals of Concern in Site 44 Groundwater — Deep Bedrock A-39
MKDl\RPTK»62»026.004\zonelrDd^a vi 07/14/95
-------
List of Tables
(Continued)
Table No. Title Page
21 Summary of Chemicals of Concern by Medium A-40
22 Most Reasonable Maximally Exposed Receptor (RME)/
Other Primary Potential Receptors A-42
23 Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices A-43
24 Summary of Hazard Quotients and Hazard Indices for the
Short-Tailed Shrew, Site 2 A-46
25 Summary of Hazard Quotients and Hazard Indices for the
Short-Tailed Shrew, Site 4 A-47
26 Summary of Hazard Quotients and Hazard Indices for the
Short-Tailed Shrew, Site 44 A-48
27 Summary of Hazard Quotients and Hazard Indices for the
Robin, Site 2 A-49
28 Summary of Hazard Quotients and Hazard Indices for the
Robin, Site 4 A-50
29 Summary of Hazard Quotients and Hazard Indices for the
Robin, Site 44 A-51
30 Summary of Detailed Alternatives Evaluation A-52
31 Documentation of ARARs for Groundwater Management of
Migration — Alternative MM-2 — Limited Action/Natural
Attenuation and Biodegradation of Contaminated Groundwater/
Institutional Controls/GMZ A-53
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sa vii 07/14/95
-------
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Pease Air Force Base (Pease AFB), Zone 1, New Hampshire
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents a selected remedial action designed to protect human and
ecological receptors at Zone 1, Pease AFB, New Hampshire. Zone 1 includes the following
sites: Landfill 2 (LF-2), Landfill 3 (LF-3), Landfill 4 (LF-4), Landfill 5 (LF-5), the Bulk Fuel
Storage Area (BFSA), the Paint Can Disposal Area (PCDA), and the Railroad Tracks
Herbicides. However, for reasons outlined in Section n, only LF-2, LF-4, the PCDA, and
Zone 1 groundwater are addressed in this ROD. Additionally, three drainageways have
received runoff and contamination and have been evaluated in Zone 1 documents. These
drainageways consist of Flagstone Brook, Pauls Brook, and the Railway Ditch.
This Record of Decision (ROD) document was developed in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42
USC Section 9601 et seq.), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) of 1986 and the National Contingency Plan (NCP). Through this document,
the Air Force plans to remedy the threat to human health, welfare, or the environment
posed by groundwater contamination in Zone 1. This decision is based on the
Administrative Record for the site. The Administrative Record for the site is located in
Building 43 at Pease AFB (61 International Drive). The Administrative Record Index as
it applies to Zone 1 is provided in Appendix D.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy at Zone 1 addresses the principal threat posed by the migration of
contaminated groundwater from the LF-5 source area. Implementation of this remedy will
prevent endangerment of public health, welfare, and the environment by allowing natural
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sa IX 07/14/95
-------
physical and chemical attenuation processes to remove residual contamination in
groundwater.
The selected remedy also involves the placement of deed restrictions on the use of
groundwater in areas of Zone 1 where MCLs are exceeded for the time period during which
the MCLs are exceeded and long-term environmental monitoring in the zone. In addition,
a Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ) will be established in accordance with New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) Regulation Env-Ws 410. A
GMZ is the designation used by NHDES to denote a subsurface volume in which
groundwater contamination associated with a discharge of a regulated contaminant is
contained and managed. The use of the contaminated groundwater is managed typically
through institutional controls such as deed restrictions, and groundwater is monitored in the
GMZ.
No further action under CERCLA is planned for LF-2, LF-4, and the PCDA. These sites
will be closed according to applicable New Hampshire regulations. LF-5 and the Railway
Ditch are addressed separately in the Draft LF-5 ROD (G-617). Removal of soil and solid
waste from LF-2 and LF-4 and consolidation of this material in LF-5 also have been
addressed in the LF-5 ROD. Removal of waste materials from the PCDA was performed
during an intensive test pit operation at this site and is discussed in the Zone 1 Remedial
Investigation (RI) Report. The two remaining drainageways that have been affected by
Zone 1 activities (Flagstone Brook and Pauls Brook) will be addressed in a separate
drainageways document to be prepared by the Air Force at a later date. The purpose of
the decision to separate drainageways was to allow additional time to address several
outstanding issues associated with the drainageways and to not delay the actions for the
remainder of the Zone 1 sites. LF-3 has been addressed in a No Further Action Decision
Document (NFADD) (G-587), which presents the basis for no action. The Railroad Tracks
also have been recommended for no further action in the Railroad Tracks (Site 46) Site
Investigation Letter Report (G-573). In addition, the BFSA is not addressed in the selected
remedy for the zone because the site has been excluded from the amended Federal
Facilities Agreement (FFA) and is being addressed by the Pease AFB Underground Storage
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zooelro
-------
Tank (UST) Management Program. Required actions at the BFSA are being coordinated
with the State of New Hampshire under the UST Management Program.
NHDES concurs with the selected remedy for Zone 1.
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. A review will be conducted by the Air Force, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and NHDES no less than every 5 years after
implementation to ensure that the remedy provided adequate protection of human health
and the environment and will continue to do so.
The foregoing represents the selection of a remedial action by the Air Force and EPA
Region I, with the concurrence of NHDES.
Concur and recommended for immediate implementation:
U.S. Air Force
Date:
Alan K. OlseiJ^^ ~~
Director, Air Force Base Conversion Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
V \ • ' V
By: **--* W \ V • Date: L
John P. DeViUars
Regional Administrator
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sa xi 04/11/95
-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
Pease Air Force Base (AFB) is a National Priorities List (NPL) site consisting of numerous
areas of contamination. This ROD addresses sources of contamination in Zone 1. Zone
1 comprises Landfill 2 (Site 2 or LF-2), Landfill 3 (Site 3 or LF-3), Landfill 4 (Site 4 or
LF-4), Landfill 5 (Site 5 or LF-5), the Bulk Fuel Storage Area (Site 13 or BFSA), the Paint
Can Disposal Area (Site 44 or PCD A), and the Railroad Tracks Herbicides (Site 46).
However, for reasons outlined in Section n, only LF-2, LF-4, the PCDA, and Zone 1
groundwater are addressed in this ROD. Zone 1 occupies approximately 350 acres on the
northeastern margin of the former Pease AFB.
Pease AFB is located in the Town of Newington and the City of Portsmouth, both of which
are in Rockingham County, New Hampshire. Pease AFB occupies approximately 4,365
acres, as shown in Figure 1. The base is located on a peninsula in southeastern New
Hampshire bounded on the west and southwest by Great Bay, on the northwest by Little
Bay, and on the north and northeast by the Piscataqua River. The base is situated
approximately in the center of the peninsula.
At the beginning of World War II, an airport at the present Pease AFB location was used
by the U.S. Navy. The Air Force assumed control of the site in 1951, and construction of
the facility was completed in 1956. Various quantities of fuels, oils, solvents, lubricants, and
protective coatings were used at the base over time, and releases of contaminants into the
environment occurred.
In December 1988, Pease AFB was selected as one of 86 military installations to be closed
by the Secretary of Defense's Commission on Base Realignment and Closure. The base was
closed as an active military base on 31 March 1991. The New Hampshire Air National
Guard (NHANG) remains at the airfield and uses some of the existing facilities.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelnxUa 1 07/14/95
-------
The remainder of the base has been divided among the Department of the Interior (DOI),
the State of New Hampshire's Pease Development Authority (PDA), and the Air Force.
Although the ultimate disposition/future use of the property has yet to be determined by
the PDA, some assumptions have been made concerning future use scenarios for sites in
Zone 1. The landfills are considered to have restricted future use potential; construction
of residences will not occur on the landfills. Construction of residences could, however,
occur adjacent to identified source or fill areas. Roads, parking lots, and open space are
typical future uses that are reasonable for landfills. The PCDA is located in the NHANG
restricted-access area. It is assumed that this area will continue to have restricted access in
the future.
Land use in the vicinity of Zone 1 varies. An off-base commercial and residential area is
located along Spaulding Turnpike, approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the Pease AFB
eastern boundary and approximately 500 feet north of the northern boundary of Zone 1.
The North Ramp is adjacent to Zone 1 to the west.
Pease AFB is located within the Piscataqua River drainage basin. Drainage flows radially
away from 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
variations.
Several surface water pathways channel surface runoff away from Zone 1 toward the
Piscataqua River. The primary surface water pathways at Zone 1 include Flagstone Brook,
the Railway Ditch, and Pauls Brook, as shown in Figure 2. Approximately 75% of Zone 1
is drained by Flagstone Brook and the Railway Ditch, including all of UF-2, LF-4, LF-5, and
the PCDA, and a portion of the BFSA. Flagstone Brook, below the Railway Ditch
confluence, discharges into the Piscataqua River near the General Sullivan Bridge.
MKDl\RFTKX)6a026.004\zonelnxUa 2 07/14/95
-------
LISTING OF CURRENT IRP SITES
SITE NAME • (AIMtVUTKM)
STTE NAME • (AIMEVUmON)
SITE NAMf • (ASBHtVIATIOH)
Si* Fuel Storage Area
Bu**tg410 PCBSp*
Construction Rubbte Dump 2
Muntons Residue Burial A>H
Bum AIM!
PiuB&ook
Flegslone Brook/Railway Oilch
Bu*»ng244
Bu*«nol13
BUk»ng229
BuMng 22? Jei Engme Test Cell
BuUng226
HMMI1
LandM2
L«ndMI3
linrM5
Landtille
Fire Oepafknenl Traminp. Area t
Fire Depsrhnenl Trammg Araa 2
Consuuction Rubble Dump 1
Leaned Fuel Tank Sludge Disposal Area
FMS Equipment Cleaning Site
Munnons Mainlenanace Area
AuM HoH>y Stop
Gdt Course Maintenance Aiea
Mclmyre Road Drum Disposal Area
Paint Can Disposal Area
CM Jet Enojne Test Stand
RR Tracks HertMCKlet
,'AHSi
IGCMA
MRODA
IPCDA.
IOJETS
IRRTH)
Gott Course Posticida ATM (Mlimf^Slotag*) iGCPA
EOD Burn Detonation ATM
ZOIW1
Stag* 4, Record of Decision
Pwx Air Fore* Ban*. New Hampshire
Areal extent ol IRP Zone
IRP Site
FIGURE 1
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
-------
nQURI2
GENERAL ZONE 1 LOCATION MAP
I
-------
The southern portion of Zone 1 is drained by Pauls Brook, which flows off base to the
northeast under the Spaulding Turnpike and discharges into the Piscataqua River.
Several wetland areas have been identified in Zone 1, and the area of wetlands delineation
is shown in Figure 2. On and immediately adjacent to LF-5 are three wetlands: Wetlands
XV, XVI, and XVII. Wetlands XVI drains to Flagstone Brook, and Wetlands XV and XVII
drain to the Railway Ditch. Surrounding LF-3, between the railroad tracks and Merrimac
Drive, are Wetlands I, II, III, IV, V, and VI. Wetlands I, III, IV, and V drain toward
Merrimac Drive, and Wetlands II and VI drain to the Railway Ditch. In the northern
section of Zone 1, there are several wetlands associated with the Railway Ditch and
Flagstone Brook. Wetlands VII and VIII are associated with the Railway Ditch until it
reaches Wetlands IX and joins Flagstone Brook through a culvert under the railroad.
Wetlands X is located north of LF-4 and west of Flagstone Brook and has no identified
surface water connection to Flagstone Brook. West of LF-5, Wetlands XIII is immediately
adjacent to Flagstone Brook, and a portion of it flows into Flagstone Brook near its
conjunction with Merrimac Drive. According to the New Hampshire National Heritage
Inventory (G-395), the headwaters of Flagstone Brook are located near a wetland classified
as a Southern New England Acidic Seepage Swamp. This wetland is dominated by red
maples, and contains plants not found elsewhere on base or in the area, and is classified as
an exemplary wetland.
Wetlands XIII, which abuts a portion of Flagstone Brook, is a large, forested wetlands area
containing several shallow ponds. In addition, Wetlands VI, east of the northern portion
of Flagstone Brook, is described as an emergent, depressional wetland. Both Wetlands XIII
and VI are exemplary wetlands.
Because Pease AFB was a U.S. military installation, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) did not delineate floodplains at the base. Therefore, it is not known
whether Zone 1 is within a 100-year floodplain. There are no records indicating that
flooding has occurred at Pease AFB.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sa 7 07/14/95
-------
A more detailed description of the zone, including zone geology and hydrogeology, is
presented in the Draft Final Zone 1 Remedial Investigation (RI) Report (G-623).
MK01\RPT:00628Q26.004\zonelnxUi 8 07/14/9S
-------
access road leading from Merrimac Drive to the railroad tracks. A detailed summary of the
results of the investigation at LF-3 is presented in the LF-3 No Further Action Decision
Document (NFADD) (G-587). The LF-3 NFADD forms the basis for no action at that site
under CERCLA, and, as a result, LF-3 is not discussed further in this document.
LF-4 is located south of Merrimac Drive and northwest of LF-5 and encompasses
approximately 7 acres. LF-4 was used for the disposal of domestic and industrial refuse
between 1963 and 1964. The disposal method used was to trench and cover with clean fill.
Removal of soil and solid waste fill material from LF-4 and consolidation of this material
in LF-5 prior to capping and final closure of LF-5 are addressed in the Draft LF-5 ROD
(G-617).
LF-5
LF-5 is bordered by Merrimac Drive to the north, an abandoned railroad bed to the east,
Flagstone Brook to the west, the BFSA to the southeast, and the PCDA to the southwest.
LF-5, which is the largest site in Zone 1, encompasses approximately 23 acres.
Records indicate that LF-5 was used continuously from 1964 to 1975 as the primary base
landfill, although some disposal occurred as late as 1979. Domestic and industrial refuse
reportedly disposed of in the landfill included waste oils and solvents, paints, paint strippers
and thinners, pesticide containers, and empty cans and drums. The landfill also received an
estimated 20,000 gallons of sludge from the industrial waste treatment plant (Building 226
in Zone 3). Trichloroethene (TCE) was used in the main shop areas served by the
industrial waste treatment plant, and, consequently, the sludge may have contained TCE
residues.
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sa 10 07/14/95
-------
In addition to receiving landfill wastes and industrial sludge, sludge from the base
wastewater treatment facility, grass clippings, wood chips, miscellaneous soils, and concrete
rubble were temporarily stored at the landfill pending ultimate disposal. A small drum
staging area used for temporary storage of drums encountered on base, miscellaneous soils.
and metals was located at the southern landfill entrance.
The LF-5 source area has been addressed in a separate ROD, which was submitted to and
accepted by EPA and NHDES in September 1993. Currently, the LF-5 source area is in the
remedial design/remedial action phase of the CERCLA process. Because source area
concerns are being addressed separately, this Zone 1 ROD addresses the managemem-of-
migration of contaminated groundwater associated with the LF-5 area.
BESA
The BFSA was the main storage area for fuels at the base. The BFSA encompasses
approximately 16 acres and is located at the northeastern section of the base. The site is
bordered by Merrimac Drive to the east, LF-3 and LF-5 to the north, and the PCDA to the
southwest. Currently, the BFSA contains two aboveground and two USTs. The
aboveground tanks are surrounded by earthen berms.
The BFSA has been in operation from 1953 to the present. Major spills were reported to
have occurred at this site in 1963, 1975, and 1980. In March 1993, the BFSA was removed
from the FFA because the sources of contamination at the site were petroleum products,
which are non-CERCLA regulated wastes. Upon removal from CERCLA, the BFSA was
put under the state's jurisdiction, and, as a result, is not discussed further in this document.
However, petroleum product contamination and remediation at the BFSA is being addressed
by the Pease AFB UST Management Program.
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelrod.u 11 07/14/95
-------
PCDA
The PCDA is a heavily wooded, 9-acre area located primarily between a secondary access
road to LF-5 and the main access road near the southern end of LF-5. The site is abutted
by LF-5 to the north, the BFSA to the northeast, the NHANG complex to the south, and
the North Ramp to the west.
The PCDA was reportedly used by both the Air Force and contract painters over a 30-year
period to store and dispose of drums that contained paint and paint residues. The Air
Force Civil Engineering Department may have used this area to stage and store curbing and
other roadway maintenance materials. In addition, reports suggest that the area at or near
the junction of two access roads to the site was a common location for burial of waste
flocculent generated at the industrial waste treatment plant. An intensive test pit operation
(ITPO), including removal of potential contaminant sources such as grossly contaminated
soil and crushed drums, was performed in 1992 and is discussed in the Zone 1 RI Report
(G-623).
Railroad Tracks
The railroad tracks traverse from the northeastern corner of the base into Zone 1. In Zone
1, the tracks pass near LF-2, LF-3, and LF-5, and around the BFSA before exiting Zone 1
at the southwestern boundary of the zone.
Herbicides were used historically at Pease AFB to control unwanted vegetation along the
railroad tracks located in Zones 1 and 3 in the northeastern portion of the base. Ureabor,
manufactured by Occidental Chemical Company, was the primary herbicide used along the
railroad tracks. The last reported use of this chemical was in 1985 or 1986. The site was
evaluated during the Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation (PA/SI) performed in 1990.
Upon review of the site history and site sampling data, the Air Force, EPA, and NHDES
concluded that the site did not warrant inclusion in the FFA as an area of concern and,
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sa 12 07/14/95
-------
therefore, did not require a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). As a result,
the railroad tracks are not discussed further in this document.
Drainagewavs
Flagstone Brook is the primary stream draining Zone 1. It originates from two culverts at
the northern end of the North Ramp/aircraft parking apron. The western culvert drains
stormwater from an approximate 20-acre area, which includes the North Ramp/aircraft
parking apron and the hot cargo holding pad. The eastern culvert drains stormwater from
a portion of the North Ramp, the taxiway, the indoor firing range, a small area of industrial
buildings, and Nashua Avenue.
Below the confluence of the eastern and western branches, Flagstone Brook flows north
along the western edge of LF-5. A small stream that drains wetlands located west of
Flagstone Brook discharges into Flagstone Brook near the northern end of LF-5, south of
Merrimac Drive. North of Merrimac Drive, wetlands occupy areas on either side of
Flagstone Brook and discharge into Flagstone Brook downstream, near the base boundary.
Pauls Brook receives stormwater runoff from the BFSA, the civil engineering maintenance
area, and the mobile home park. Pauls Brook begins as an emergent wetlands west of
Merrimac Drive and flows eastward off base under Merrimac Drive toward the Piscataqua
River.
»
The Railway Ditch originates in wetlands south of and along a railway spur located in the
eastern section of Zone 1. Both sides of the spur are ditched and collect surface water
runoff and seepage from wetlands adjacent to the railway. Wetlands and seeps along and
adjacent to LF-2, LF-3, and LF-5 discharge into the Railway Ditch. At the point where the
railway crosses Merrimac Drive, the two drainages flow through emergent wetlands, enter
a culvert, and coalesce northeast of Merrimac Drive. Downstream of Merrimac Drive, the
Railway Ditch flows into Flagstone Brook.
MK01\WT:00628026.004\zonelrod.H 13 07/14/9$
-------
Several outstanding issues associated with the drainageways require resolution prior to
establishing remedial action remedies. As a result, Flagstone Brook and Pauls Brook are
not discussed further in this ROD and will be addressed separately in a Proposed Plan,
along with other drainageways at Pease AFB. Railway Ditch remediation was included in
the LF-5 ROD. An additional area of contaminated sediments associated with the Railway
Ditch that is contiguous to the sediment removal area described in the LF-5 ROD was
identified in the Zone 1 RI and FS Reports. Because this additional area of the Railway
Ditch requiring sediment removal is of the same scope as that specified in the LF-5 source
A
area ROD and such removal is consistent with the intent and objectives of the LF-5 source
area ROD, the work necessary to remove these sediments will be conducted as part of the
LF-5 source area remedial action and is not discussed further in this Zone 1 ROD.
B. Response Activity
In 1983, an Installation Restoration Program (IRP), Phase I Problem Identification/Records
Search (G-84) was conducted at Pease AFB to assess whether potential hazardous waste
sites warranted further investigation. Based on the results of that investigation, further study
was deemed necessary at LF-5. A Phase II presurvey was conducted to obtain sufficient
information to develop a work scope and cost estimate for a more detailed study. The
presurvey was submitted to the Air Force in 1984. Following the presurvey, RIs were
conducted in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA, at LF-5 and 18 other IRP
sites at Pease AFB. The investigations in Zone 1 were conducted in four stages between
September 1984 and January 1993.
The Stage I investigation (September 1984 to August 1986) was designed to identify
potential impacts of previous activities on groundwater and surface water quality at Zone
1. Field work was performed at LF-2, LF-4, LF-5, and the BFSA. The results of this
investigation are presented in the IRP Phase II — Confirmation/Quantification, Stage I Final
Report for Pease AFB (G-525) issued in June 1986.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sa 14 07/14/95
-------
The Stage 2 field investigation (October 1987 to May 1989) focused on characterizing the
source areas at LF-2, LF-4, LF-5, and the BFSA, and more accurately delineating the extent
of contamination in soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment. The Stage 2 field
investigation is described in the IRP Stage 2 Draft Final Report for Pease AFB (G-533) and
Interim Technical Report (ITR) Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (G-530; G-531; G-536; G-537).
Stage 3 investigations in Zone 1 focused on LF-5 field work and were conducted between
September 1989 and October 1990 and between May and November 1991. Groundwater,
soil, surface water, and sediment sampling occurred during this stage. A wetlands evaluation
was performed and included assessment and delineation activities. In addition to these
investigative tasks, drum removal at LF-5 was conducted as an Interim Remedial Measure
(IRM) in December 1989. The Stage 3 field investigation is described in the IRP Stage 3
LF-5 Site Characterization Summary (G-542), the Stage 3 Drum Removal at IRP Site 5
(LF-5) Informal Technical Information Report (G-541), the Stage 3 IRP Site 5 and IRP Site
8 Column Leaching Study Letter Report (G-551), the IRP Stage 3C Draft Final LF-5 RI
Report (G-580), and the IRP Stage 3C Draft Final FS Report for IRP Site 5 (G-574).
Stage 4 activities (May 1991 to January 1993) were performed to further define the areal
extent of contamination, to evaluate the potential for contaminant migration, and to provide
additional data needed to develop a working conceptual model of the zone. Field
investigations were performed at LF-2, LF-4, the BFSA, and the PCDA. The results of the
Stage 4 activities in Zone 1 are included in the Zone 1 Site Characterization Study (G-590)
and the Draft Final Zone 1 RI Report (G-623).
Table 1 in Appendix A provides a summary of the field investigation activities in Stages 1
through 4. Data collected during the latter part of Stage 4 were used to complete the
baseline risk assessment and Zone 1 FS Report. A more detailed description of Zone 1
history is presented in Sections 1 and 2 of the Zone 1 RI Report.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod« 15 07/14/95
-------
C. Enforcement History
The enforcement history relative to Pease AFB, including Zone 1, is summarized as follows:
• In 1976, the Department of Defense (DOD) devised a comprehensive IRP to
assess and control environmental contamination that may have resulted from
past operations and disposal practices at DOD facilities.
• In June 1980, DOD issued a Defense Environmental Quality Program Policy
Memorandum (DEQPPM) requiring identification of past hazardous waste
disposal sites on DOD agency installations. The DEQPPM was issued in
response to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA),
and in anticipation of CERCLA.
• On 14 July 1989, Pease AFB was proposed for addition to the NPL. The
effective date of addition was February 1990.
• On 24 April 1991, the Air Force, EPA, and NHDES signed the FFA
establishing the protocol and timetable for conducting the RI/FS and
remedial design/remedial action processes at Pease AFB.
As part of the timetable established in the FFA, the Air Force, in an effort to streamline
activities, designed a basewide strategy plan for conducting an RI/FS investigation. This
strategy plan grouped the sites at Pease AFB into seven zones or operable units based on
geographic location, potential receptors, and potential future uses. RI/FS reports were
prepared for each zone.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrodja 16 07/14/95
-------
III. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Throughout the history of IRP activities at Pease AFB, the community has been actively
involved and informed. EPA, NHDES, and the Air Force have kept the community and
other interested parties apprised of zone 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 about and involved in remedial
activities at the base. This plan was updated and reissued in November 1994.
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
apprised of developments and milestones in the Pease AFB IRP. The fact sheets released
to date that concern Zone 1 are summarized as follows:
Fact Sheet
Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Update
Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Update
Summary of LF-5 Source Area Proposed Plan
Revised Summary of LF-5 Source Area Proposed Plan and
Summary of Consolidation Plans for LF-2 and LF-4 into LF-5
Summary of Zone 1 Proposed Plan
Release Date
October 1991
December 1992
January 1993
July 1993
August 1994
A complete information repository containing documents relating to the Pease AFB IRP is
maintained at Pease AFB in Building 43. An Administrative Record containing
correspondence pertaining to the Pease AFB IRP also is located in Building 43 at Pease
AFB. An index of the Administrative Record is maintained at EPA Region I Headquarters
in Boston, Massachusetts.
MK01\RPT.00628026.004\zonelrod.M 17 07/14/95
-------
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION
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 (excluding the LF-5 source area) and management-of-migration
measures in Zone 1. The remedial alternative developed for Zone 1 was designed to reduce
potential human health and environmental risks identified in the risk assessment for Zone 1.
The results of the risk assessment are presented in the Zone 1 RI Report (G-623) and are
summarized in Section VI of this ROD along with an evaluation of the exposure pathway
as presented in the Draft Final Zone 1 FS Report (G-622).
The risk assessment forms the basis for concluding that contaminants in soil and
groundwater at LF-2 and LF-4 and in soil at the PCDA do not pose unacceptable risk to
human or ecological receptors and that remedial actions under CERCLA are not warranted.
The risk assessment indicated that risks exist in exceedance of EPA's acceptable risk range
(10"4 to 10"6 for cancer risks, and a hazard index of less than 1 for noncancer risks) for
groundwater at LF-5 and the PCDA, However, further analysis of site-specific conditions
at the PCDA led to the conclusion that this assessment was overly conservative and that no
further remedial action under CERCLA was warranted for PCDA groundwater. The
majority of the unacceptable risk posed by human receptor exposure to PCDA water table
groundwater was attributable to the PCB Aroclor-1260 and metals. Yet, as outlined in
Subsection 2.5.3 of the Zone 1 FS Report (G-622), Aroclor was detected at the MCL (0.5
Aig/L) in one sampling round only. In addition, the metals concentrations contributing to
total risk were detected at PCDA wells that had a thin saturated interval. Consequently,
groundwater samples from these wells were highly turbid, which resulted in elevated metals
concentrations not representative of actual groundwater quality. Furthermore, because
groundwater is not in contact with contaminated PCDA soils most of the year, remaining
soil contamination does not pose a threat to the underlying groundwater. Additionally,
given the low yields of wells installed at the PCDA, it is not likely that groundwater could
be used for consumptive purposes. Finally, since the PCDA is located in the NHANG
Mk01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sa 18 07/14/95
-------
cantonment area, an area served by public water supplies, future residential use of the
PCDA and human exposure to PCDA groundwater are unlikely. For these reasons, no
further action is proposed for LF-2, LF-4, and the PCDA under CERCLA.
Final closure of LF-2, LF-4, and the PCDA will be performed under state jurisdiction.
Limited actions, including environmental monitoring, will be conducted at these sites in
accordance with NHDES guidelines. These limited actions are not discussed in this ROD,
which only addresses those actions required under CERCLA.
The human health risk assessment indicated that contaminants in groundwater at LF-5 may
pose a health risk to potential future on-zone residents in excess of EPA threshold criteria.
To address these potential risks, the following remedial action objectives (RAOs) were
developed:
• Protect human receptors from exposure (via ingestion and noningestion
exposure routes) to contaminated groundwater that may present unacceptable
health risks in exceedance of EPA's risk range.
• Comply with chemical-specific applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) and/or established background levels for spec.ac
contaminants in groundwater, as appropriate.
To meet these objectives, the Air Force has established zone-specific cleanup levels for
groundwater (see Section X). Cleanup goals for groundwater were established for
contaminants that exceeded either human health risk-based concentrations, regulatory-based
concentrations, or background values.
The remediaf alternative developed for Zone 1 addresses the RAOs associated with
groundwater at LF-5. Management-of-migration activities address dissolved-phase
groundwater contamination at LF-5 and include contamination within the boundary of LF-5
and contamination that has migrated beyond the LF-5 footprint.
MK01\RPT00628026.004\2onelrod-M 19 07/14/95
-------
In summary, the remedy provides for:
• Natural attenuation and biodegradation of residual-contaminated
groundwater.
• Long-term environmental monitoring in Zone 1.
• Placement of deed restrictions on the use of groundwater in Zone 1 in areas
where MCLs are exceeded.
• Establishment of a GMZ in Zone 1.
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sa 20 07/14/95
-------
V. SUMMARY OF ZONE CHARACTERISTICS
Section 1 of the Draft Final Zone 1 FS Report contains an overview of the Draft Final
Zone 1 RI Report (G-623). Based on the results of the RI, a working conceptual model was
developed that incorporates all known data concerning Zone 1 and its vicinity, including
geologic, hydrogeologic, and analytical data; field measurements; and visual observations.
The salient points of the model are summarized as follows:
• Several disposal areas exist in Zone 1, including the LF-5 and PCDA areas.
• Much of the Glacial Till (GT) unit has been excavated across LF-5;
consequently, the debris is, in places, located directly on top of the shallow
bedrock, and a direct physical and hydraulic connection exists between the
overburden and the bedrock.
• The sites located in Zone 1 have relatively small amounts of saturated
overburden because the sites are located on topographic highs. Water is
commonly first encountered in the shallow bedrock.
• Relatively small quantities of debris and contaminated soil exist at LF-2 and
LF-4.
• Contaminated soil is a likely source for some of the contaminants that have
been observed in other matrices in the LF-5 area.
• A regional groundwater recharge area exists in the northeastern portion of
Pease AFB that encompasses the PCDA and Zone 1. A local water table
groundwater high, which acts as an enhanced recharge zone, exists near the
central portion of LF-5.
• Groundwater at LF-5 is contaminated with several different aromatic
hydrocarbons (AHCs), halogenated hydrocarbons (HHCs), semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOCs), metals, and pesticides.
• AHCs and HHCs are discharged from groundwater to surface water at the
Railway Ditch and Flagstone Brook.
• A groundwater plume containing HHCs is migrating east from LF-5. The
extent of the halogenated volatile organic compound (VOC) plume east of the
Railway Ditch is known; the downgradient limit coincides with wells 5009 and
6003.
• A groundwater plume containing AHCs is present at LF-5. The extent of the
AHC plume is known and is primarily restricted to the LF-5 site boundary.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zoneltDd^« 21 07/14/95
-------
The results of the RI as conceptualized are discussed in more detail in the subsections that
follow.
A. Soil and Solid Waste
Source characterization at LF-2 included collection and analysis of soil from three surface
soil sampling locations and two test pit locations. A total of 13 test pits were excavated, and
visual observations of the contents were made. All soil samples were submitted for VOC.
SVOC, pesticide/polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), and metals analyses. In addition, test pit
samples also were analyzed for chlorinated herbicides and diesel fuels. The contaminant
groups identified in LF-2 soil consist of the following:
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Benzoic acid.
PCBs.
AHCs.
Oxygenated hydrocarbons (OHCs).
Metals.
The maximum concentration and location for each organic compound detected in soil are
presented in Table 2 (Appendix A). Figure 3 shows the distribution of organics in LF-2 soil.
Table 3 (Appendix A) presents a similar summary for inorganics.
SVOCs were detected in all LF-2 samples collected. The majority of the SVOCs detected
were PAHs.
Xylene and diethyl ether were the only two VOCs detected at LF-2. Both were detected
at concentrations below laboratory quantification limits.
PCBs (Aroclor-1248 and -1254) were detected at one location at LF-2. The sample was
collected from soil associated with a trash layer. However, the source of PCBs in this area
was not identified, and PCBs were not detected in any other soil samples collected at LF-2.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrodja 22 07/14/95
-------
I LEOCNO: SO*. OMMNCS
Total - serm-volaata organic compound nvoc
Total-voMla organic compound Tvoc
Pevoleum hydrocarbon me
anon (mg>g)|Duc*cat«] Tola). p^^u^ hydrocarbon T»n
Diesel range petroleum hydrocarbon Oil*
•fir
Chtonnalad herbicides cuw
Polycnlonnaled biphen
F 2 sampling location
LF-4 sampling location
Concentration (mo/kg)
Cnwnical class
LEOCNO: BASE MAP FEATURES
^^ floaosloavedl *x Surface contour elevation
—"*•" x-*0 |Ft,MSLI 10 tool mterval
•. Marsny area
Surface water drainage
O Surface wrl sampling location
e Test pn location
\
&
(CM.E MFCiT
»•• g* pnoroof wt>n«nc
pnoroof wt>n«nc
n« prwDet^iv
Zonel
Sutge 4, Record ol Decision
Peese AirForce Base, New Hampshire
FIGURES
DISTRIBUTION OF ORGAJIfiS IN SOILS
AT LANOFN.L-2 i
-------
No pesticides, chlorinated herbicides, or diesel fuels were detected in LF-2 soil samples.
In addition, Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) analysis of soil from one
test pit location did not result in concentrations above TCLP limits.
Characterization of LF-4 source materials involved excavation of nine test pits. Soil samples
were collected from four of these test pits at depths ranging from 0 to 1.5 feet below ground
surface (ft BGS) to 11 to 13 ft BGS. In addition, seven surface soil locations were sampled.
Soil samples were submitted for VOC, SVOC, pesticide/PCB, and metals analyses.
Additionally, test pit soil samples were analyzed for chlorinated herbicides and diesel fuels.
One sample was analyzed for TCLP hazardous waste characterization under RCRA.
The contaminant groups identified in LF-4 soil include the following:
PAHs.
Phthalates.
Phenols.
Nitrogenated SVOCs.
Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs).
Diesel fuel.
Benzoic acid.
Pesticides.
PCBs.
AHCs.
OHCs.
Tables 4 and 5 (Appendix A) provide the maximum concentrations of organics and
inorganics detected at LF-4 and their locations. Figure 3 shows the distribution of organics
in soil at LF-4.
VOCs present in LF-4 soil included chlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylenes (total), and diethyl ether. All VOCs were detected at very low
concentrations, either below or just above laboratory quantification limits. The highest total
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sa 25 07/14/95
-------
VOC concentration of 0.95 mg/kg was detected in the sample from test pit location 9069.
VOCs were not detected in the TCLP leachate sample (9068).
PAHs were present in all LF-4 soil samples, with the highest total PAH concentration (32.8
mg/kg) detected in test pit 9067. A total of 12 PAHs were detected at concentrations above
background levels. Phthalates were detected at levels below both laboratory quantification
limits and background levels. Phenols also were detected at levels below laboratory
quantification limits. Benzoic acid was detected at surface soil locations 3012 through 3017,
in surficial samples from test pits 9066 and 9067, and in subsurface samples from all LF-4
test pits. No benzoic acid soil concentrations detected at LF-4 exceeded background or
laboratory quantification limits. SVOCs were not detected in the TCLP leachate sample
from location 9068.
Low levels of the pesticides 4'-DDT, 4'-DDD, 4'-DDE, and lindane were detected in three
LF-4 surface soil samples. PCBs (Aroclor-1232, -1242, and -1254) were detected in LF-4
test pit samples, but were not detected in surface soil samples. Neither pesticides nor PCBs
were detected in the TCLP leachate from sampling location 9068.
TPHs were detected at levels above basewide background (240 mg/kg) at five of the nine
surface soil locations sampled. Diesel-range TPHs were detected at locations 9068 and
9069. The maximum detected TPH concentration (34.2 mg/kg) also was at location 9069.
Seven metals were detected at concentrations exceeding background levels. Metals results
for TCLP leachate at location 9068 were all within acceptable TCLP regulatory criteria.
The nature and extent of source material contamination and source area remediation at
LF-5 are discussed extensively in the Draft Final LF-5 RI Report (G-580), Draft Final LF-5
FS Report (G-574), Draft Final LF-5 Proposed Plan (G-506), and Draft Final LF-5 ROD
(G-617). Therefore, further discussion of LF-5 is not presented here.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.M 26 07/14/95
-------
PCDA
Characterization of the contaminants detected in PCDA soil has included the following tasks
presented in chronological order:
• Collection of four surface soil samples during the 1990/1991 PA/SI (G-553).
• Excavation of 10 test pits (9001 through 9010) during the preliminary test pit
operation, and collection and laboratory analysis of 12 soil samples from seven
of the 10 test pits in May 1991.
• Excavation of 24 test pits during the ITPO, and collection and laboratory
analysis of 45 soil samples from the test pits during the summer of 1992.
Figure 4 depicts the PCDA source area sampling locations. Soil samples from each
sampling location were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, and metals. Soil
samples from selected locations were analyzed for herbicides and TPHs.
Surface soil analytical results indicated the presence of the VOC trichlorofluoromethane at
low concentrations at locations 313 and 316. Several PAHs were detected at location 317,
in a drum sludge sample. Fluorene also was detected at location 314. TPH concentrations
exceeded background at locations 313, 316, and 317. Metals detected at levels above
background in PCDA surface soil samples were lead, chromium, barium, iron, and
manganese.
During the preliminary test pit investigation, the analytical sampling results provided the
following data (see Figure 4 for sampling locations):
• SVOCs were detected at levels below background in samples from test pits
9005, 9006, 9007, 9008, and 9010.
• Low concentrations of VOCs were detected in soil samples collected from test
pits 9007 and 9010.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sa 27 07/14/95
-------
• TPHs were detected at low concentrations at test pits 9001, 9003, 9005, 9006,
9007, and 9008. Background TPH levels were exceeded at one location only
(test pit 9010 at 340 mg/kg).
• Lead exceeded background in surficial soil samples collected from test pit
9008 (178 mg/kg) and test pit 9010 (93.8 mg/kg).
• 4,4'-DDE was detected at a concentration of 0.017 mg/kg in test pit 9007.
DDT was detected at a concentration of 0.018 mg/kg in test pit 9008.
An ITPO was performed in 1992, including removal of potential contaminant sources such
as grossly contaminated soil and crushed drums, and is discussed in the Zone 1 RI Report
(G-623). During the ITPO, a total of 43 post-excavation soil confirmation samples were
collected from depths below 2 ft BGS in test pits 9029 through 9049. Analytical results from
ITPO soil sampling are presented in Appendix A of the Zone 1 Site Characterization
Summary (G-590) and Appendix A of the Draft Final Zone 1 RI Report (G-623). The
results are summarized as follows:
• VOCs were detected in soil samples collected from test pits 9030, 9032, 9033,
9034, 9035, 9039, and 9041. Specific VOCs detected include
tetrachloroethene (PCE), chloromethane, 1,2-dichloroethene, toluene.
ethylbenzene, diethyl ether, xylenes, and acetone. The highest total VOC
concentrations were detected in samples from test pit 9032 (5.9 mg/kg).
• SVOCs did not exceed background concentrations in any of the samples
collected. However, low levels of various PAHs and benzoic acid were
detected. The maximum detected total SVOC concentration was detected at
a depth of 5 ft BGS in test pit 9029.
• The DDE concentration exceeded background in a sample from te*st pit 9039
(0.02 mg/kg). DDT was detected at levels below background in samples from
test pits 9034 and 9035. PCBs were not detected at any ITPO locations.
• Herbicide analyses were performed for test pit 9032 only. 2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
was detected at 17 ft BGS (0.02 J mg/kg).
• TPHs were detected at low concentrations at test pits 9029 and 9030. The
maximum TPH concentration of 16 mg/kg was detected at a depth of 5 ft
BGS in test pit 9029.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrodJa 28 07/14/95
-------
T . . .
I f ? i • r * : : ' !
NEWHAMPStORE ' '
AIR NATIONAL GUARD /
COMPLEX
Discrtte suriac* soil sampMdafitWar
Soil bamg laaciian/idtnOi*!
JMA Sampling location •ponuimm only
— — Zona 1 sits* boundary (PCD*)
Zoncl
SMg* 4, Rcoort ot Occtolon
Pww Air Fore* But, N*w Hmpchlra
FIGURE 4
SOURCE AREA SAMPLING LOCATIONS
ATPCOA
LEGEND: BASE MAP FEATURES
»'"• Surtac* comour/tl«vKtion{FT/MSL)
90 10 loot innni1
Aircraft VMS • North Ramp
Roads lasptialvpand)
: : : Om»t roads and oai»
BuHdings ••-*• Fanes
-------
• Numerous metals were detected in all ITPO test pits at levels below
background.
During the ITPO, approximately 660 tons of contaminated soil and source materials that
posed potential risks to PCDA groundwater were excavated and temporarily stored at
designated locations at LF-5, before being transported off-site to an approved
treatment/disposal facility.
B. Groundwater
A detailed discussion of the distribution of groundwater contamination in Zone 1 is
presented in Subsection 4.3 of the Draft Final Zone 1 RI Report (G-623). The salient
points of the discussion are presented in this subsection.
Because of the close proximity of the Zone 1 sites to each other, and to aid in the
presentation of contaminant distribution in Zone 1 groundwater, groundwater contaminant
distribution is discussed on a zonewide basis in both the Draft Final Zone 1 RI Report
(G-623) and the Draft Final Zone 1 FS Report (G-622). However, LF-5 is considered to
be the major source of groundwater contamination in Zone 1. Other potential sources of
groundwater contamination (i.e., LF-2, LF-4, and the PCDA) have been determined to
require no further action under CERCLA (G-501; G-617; G-574). Groundwater beneath
these sites will be addressed under State of New Hampshire landfill closure regulations.
Therefore, the selected remedy discussed in Section X of this ROD is intended to address
only the Zone 1 groundwater beneath LF-5. However, because both the Zone-1 RI Report
(G-623) and the Zone 1 FS Report (G-622) provide descriptions of Zone 1 groundwater
contamination-on a zonewide basis, a similar discussion is presented here.
Naturally occurring discontinuities in aquitard lithologic units in Zone 1 have resulted in a
single, relatively thin water-bearing unit, which includes the shallow bedrock. As a result,
the overburden and shallow bedrock are referred to herein as the water table unit.
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelnxJ.sa 31 07/14/95
-------
Zonewide distribution of total aromatic and total halogenated VOCs and total SVOCs in
water table groundwater is presented in Figure 5. Distribution of these compounds in
bedrock groundwater is presented similarly in Figure 6.
The VOC plumes identified in the LF-5 RI Report (G-580) included an HHC plume, which
illustrates the distribution of TCE and PCE, and one AHC plume, which illustrates the
distribution of benzene. These compounds were chosen because concentrations of these two
exceed Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) at LF-5; the two compounds also are
relatively widespread in site groundwater.
The results of total and soluble metals analyses were compared to one another and to field
turbidity values measured at the time of sampling. Field turbidity values, recorded at the
time of sampling, were used to determine which metals groundwater samples (total or
soluble) appear to be most representative of groundwater quality in Zone 1.
A summary of the groundwater contamination findings, as presented in the LF-5 RI Report
(G-580), is as follows:
TCE and PCE originate from an unidentified source south of the drum
removal area near well 502.
One benzene plume appears to originate in the vicinity of the central trench
area.
SVOCs were present at low concentrations in wells 567, 604, 605, 630, and
6005 in the vicinity of the central trench area.
Low concentrations of the pesticides delta-BHC, endosulfan-1, or 4,4'-DDD
were detected in samples from wells 605, 606, and 629 in LF-5.
Dissolved arsenic has been detected in wells located in the vicinity of the
central trench area.
A discussion of Stage 4 analytical data, and relevant historical analytical data, is presented in
Subsection 4.3 of the Draft Final Zone 1 RI Report (G-623). Analytical results from wells 502,
5007, 5008, and 6105 at the BFSA are discussed in the RI Report because they help define the
extent of one or more contaminant plumes. All other data collected to assess groundwater
quality in the BFSA are presented in the BFSA Site Investigation Report (G-669).
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sa 32 07/14/95
-------
Simpta uMd tor lowing
LEGEND: BASE MAP FEATURES
AM ii 0(1 traM • nonh wnp
FIGURES
MSTRIBUTION OF ORQAMCS IN
WATER TABLE QROUNOWATER
::: omwrawto«rdmo
-------
NEWHAMPSMRE
AIR NATIONAL OUARD
NORTH
190 W) MO «00
KALEMFEET
LEGEND: BASE MAP FEATURES
..... ~- Ajrcnft wu • null > rvnp
= RomUt (uphalvpmd)
: r - Ottwr toacB and nih
r^ BuJOmgi ^
Bu* boundwy
Zon*1
Stag* 4, Record of Owstoton
I AlrForo* B*M, Nn» Hampdiii*
FIGURES
D6TRIBUTION OF ORGANICS IN
BEDROCK GROUNOWATER
-------
Zone 1 Water Table Flow Unit
A total of 32 wells monitor the water table flow unit (including overburden and shallow
bedrock) beneath Zone 1. Twenty-three of these monitor wells are completed in the
overburden; nine monitor wells are completed in shallow bedrock. The compounds present
in the shallow flow unit include:
AHCs. • Phenols.
HHCs. • PCBs.
OHCs. • Pesticides.
PAHs. • Metals.
Phthalates.
A summary of the highest concentrations detected, the location of the highest detection, and
a comparison of background and MCLs for organic compounds is presented in Table 6
(Appendix A). Both nonfiltered (total) and filtered (dissolved) metals results are presented
in Table 7 (Appendix A).
The principal water table flow unit VOC plumes in Zone 1 originate from LF-5. The
distribution of TCE and PCE in the water table flow unit is defined by monitor wells 502,
538, 568, and 5007 (see Figure 7).
Both TCE and PCE have been detected at the highest concentrations and above MCLs at
monitor well 502. The maximum concentrations for both compounds at well 502 were 46.0
Aig/L (October 1990) for PCE and 56.0 ^ig/L (October 1990) for TCE. PCE concentrations
also exceeded the MCL at monitor well 538 at LF-3. The highest concentration of PCE
was detected in well 6087 (16 //g/L), which was installed at the PCDA in the area of highest
soil contamination and debris identified and removed during the ITPO. The well was
installed to monitor the water table because two deep bedrock wells were previously
installed (6001 and 6002) and had not detected any deep bedrock ground water
contamination. Only a sample for VOC analysis was collected during the sampling event
because very little water was in the well. Well 6087 could not be properly developed
because of extremely slow recharge. As a result of the inability to develop well 6087
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelro
-------
adequately, the subsequent groundwater sample was extremely turbid and is most likely not
representative of groundwater quality. These data suggest a nearby HHC source in the
southern part of LF-5. Both TCE and PCE have been detected at lesser concentrations in
deep bedrock groundwater.
The distribution of benzene is defined by water table monitor wells 502, 567,5014, and 5008
(see Figure 7). Historical maximum concentrations have been observed at location 5014
located in the southwestern corner of the central trench area. The benzene concentration
at location 5014 exceeded the MCL (5 /^g/L); a benzene concentration of 9.0 /^g/L was
detected in October 1991. Benzene concentrations decrease across LF-5; at water table
monitor wells 502 and 5008, the benzene concentrations are below the laboratory
quantification limit. Benzene also has been detected at several well locations that monitor
deep bedrock groundwater, as shown in Figure 7.
Six additional VOCs, which have primary MCLs, have been detected in the groundwater at
LF-5 within the TCE plume, the PCE plume, or both. These compounds are 1,2-
trichlorobenzene, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, cis-l,2-dichloroethene, chlorobenzene, trans-1,2-
dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride. These compounds have not been detected consistently,
and occur at concentrations below their respective MCLs, with the exception of vinyl
chloride. This compound was detected at a maximum concentration of 8.1 /zg/L (October
1990), which exceeds the MCL (2.0 /^g/L). Vinyl chloride has not been detected in other
water table wells.
VOCs (i.e., toluene, methylene chloride, xylenes, ethylbenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and 1,2-
dichloroethane) have been detected in wells located outside the boundaries of the TCE and
PCE plumes (see Figure 8). The distribution of these compounds is sporadic, and
concentrations, with the exception of methylene chloride, are below MCLs. As shown in
Figure 8, both TCE and PCE are present at concentrations below laboratory quantification
limits in wells 5011 and 7652, respectively. With the exception of well 05-567, benzene is
not present in wells located outside the ARC plume.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sa 38 07/14/95
-------
DEEP BEDROCK
LEGEND: QflOUNDWATH FEATURES
Moniw«M«(B«»Bdi)
O Monitor •••(Owitunlwi)
-------
LEGEND
O Monitor w»n (wattr tab*)
• Monitor well (bedrock)
O Monitor wall (want UBI« Moapt 509)
® Hydrapunch»bonng
IPCEOAI;
Wan daiumuiliuil TCE Thcnioromwn*
• SamplMVMd tor tcnMnlng lf2rxA t.ZDcfiloroWriin*
Da*
purpOMonhKgnbwnpl.)
^ TncMoro.man.
T Tohwn*
PCE
M»PXYl MAPXyton*
100 100 MO 400
^te
^^ /""^f^1*1**
SCAUMFEET
LEGEND: BASE MAP FEATURES
~"™~' AircTBtt VMS • iiuiUi nn^
: r I Ottwr ro«ds and nil*
C2] Buildings ^=jŁ- Bn* boundary
-«-^ F«ne» K«) Manny «M
Zoml
Stto* 4, RMord of OtcKton
PMM Air Fora* B*M, Htm HwipsMra
FIGURE 8
DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED VOC» IN
GROUNDWATER
-------
VOC concentrations in water table wells outside LF-5 are low, generally below laboratory
quantification limits, and are below MCLs.
Some of the salient points of metals analysis and field turbidity measurements for wells that
monitor the water table flow unit are as follows:
Arsenic, lead, nickel, chromium, beryllium, copper, and zinc exceeded their
respective background concentrations in total metals analysis. Total metals
concentrations above background were detected in numerous wells at LF-5.
in 2-inch-diameter wells at the PCDA, and in wells 7466 and 509 at LF-4.
Of these metals, arsenic, nickel, cadmium, and barium exceeded background
levels in soluble metals analysis. Wells in which soluble metals exceeded
background are located in the vicinity of LF-5 and LF-4.
The wells that contained several total metals concentrations that exceeded
background also contained high turbidity, usually in excess of 100 NTU.
Arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and lead exceeded primary
MCLs in the total metals analysis. MCLs were exceeded most often in wells
located in the southern and central areas of LF-5, and in most wells at the
PCDA PCDA area wells are mostly 2-inch-diameter wells with a thin
saturated interval and tended to be high in turbidity and suspended solids.
The results of soluble metals analysis indicate that only arsenic, cadmium, and
nickel concentrations exceeded MCL guidelines. Arsenic concentrations
exceeded the MCL at LF-5 locations 5014, 567, and 5007. Concentrations of
cadmium at the PCDA (44-7646) and nickel (05-606) exceeded the respective
MCLs at one location each.
Total iron concentrations exceeded secondary MCLs at most Zone 1 monitor
well locations. Soluble iron concentrations exceeded secondary MCLs at LF-5
wells 5010, 5014, 5113, and 567; at PCDA wells 7675 and 6088; and at well
508 in LF-4. Total manganese concentrations exceeded secondary MCLs at
most Zone 1 monitor well locations. Soluble manganese exceeded MCLs at
most LF-5 and PCDA locations, at well 508 in LF-4, and at monitor well 506
in LF-2.
MK01\RPT:00628026.0M\zonelro
-------
Soluble metals results tended to exceed background and MCLs within or close to the LF-5
boundary and at wells that also contain organic chemical contamination. Soluble metals
data are believed to be more representative of actual groundwater metals contamination in
the water table flow unit in Zone 1. Figure 9 shows the locations where total or soluble
metals exceeded both background and primary or secondary MCLs for wells with turbidity
values less than 100 NTU. This figure shows that, for groundwater with turbidity values less
than 100 NTU, the only metals to impact Zone 1 water table groundwater are arsenic, iron,
and manganese. Arsenic impacted groundwater at LF-5 location 567. Iron impacted
groundwater at LF-5 wells 567, 5010, and 5014; at well 508 in LF-4; and at PCDA locations
5015 and 6088. Manganese impacted groundwater at LF-5 locations 567 and 5014. Metals
did not impact water table groundwater at other Zone 1 sites.
Three chemical classes of SVOCs (i.e., PAHs, phthalates, and phenols) were detected in
samples from the water table unit in Zone 1. The individual compounds and maximum
detected concentrations are presented in Table 6 (Appendix A). In general, SVOC
concentrations were low, mostly below quantification limits, and occur sporadically in wells
across Zone 1.
Three pesticides and one PCB compound were detected in the water table flow unit, each
present in only one well: alpha-BHC (13-5008), heptachlor (13-502), and 4,4'-DDD (05-
567). The PCB congener Aroclor-1260 (1.8 ug/L) was detected in well 7646 at the PCDA.
Pesticide concentrations did not exceed MCLs. Aroclor-1260 was detected above the MCL
in one round only at a concentration of 0.5 /^g/L in well 44-7646.
The herbicide 2,4,5-T (Silvex) was detected at a concentration below the laboratory
quantification limit and below the MCL at location 13-5008 (BFSA) in December 1991. No
other herbicides were detected in Zone 1 groundwater.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sa 44 07/14/95
-------
ind background tow*, and had low tMd turtxHty vttuw (< 100 NTU)
O IM^XM
LEGEND: MM MAP FEATURES
HOflh IKJTI^
RQURE9
ownmuTiON OP MCTALS IN
OMXJNOWATCR
::: OVmmdtand
-------
Deep Bedrock Flow Unit
A total of 29 monitor wells characterized the deep bedrock flow unit beneath Zone 1.
Groups of compounds detected in groundwater samples collected from wells completed in
the deep bedrock flow unit included:
AHCs; • Phenols.
HHCs. • TPHs.
OHCs. • Pesticides.
PAHs. • Metals.
Phthalates.
A summary of highest concentrations, locations of highest detection, and comparison to
background levels and MCLs for organic compounds is presented in Table 8 (Appendix A).
The same information is summarized for unfiltered (total) metals and for filtered (dissolved)
metals in Table 9 (Appendix A).
The principal deep bedrock plume in Zone 1 originates from LF-5 (TCE, PCE, and
benzene). The distribution of TCE and PCE in deep bedrock groundwater is defined by
wells 604, 625, 6005, 626, and 6003. PCE is more widespread, and present in each of the
aforementioned monitor wells, with the exception of well 6005. A maximum concentration
of 5.3 J fjg/L of PCE was detected in November 1988 in water from well 604. PCE
concentrations decrease away from monitor well 604. At well 6003, located near the Zone
1 boundary, a concentration of 0.4 J A
-------
location 502). The maximum concentration of TCE in bedrock was 2.0 ^g/L, detected in
December 1992 at location 6005. TCE concentrations decrease downgradient.
The benzene plume that exists in deep bedrock groundwater is restricted to monitor wells
604,605, 606,630, 6005, and 6006. The primary contamination source appears to originate
in the vicinity of the LF-5 central trench area. A maximum benzene concentration of 14.0
Aig/L was detected at monitor well 605 (March 1990). Benzene concentrations generally
decrease across LF-5, although concentrations of 4.1 /^g/L (monitor well 630) and 4.0 ^g/L
(monitor well 6005) have been detected.
VOCs have been detected in wells located outside the boundaries of the TCE, PCE, and
benzene plumes. The distribution of these compounds is sporadic, and the concentrations
do not exceed MCLs.
The wells completed within deep bedrock, once developed, monitor waters that are
significantly less turbid than those wells completed in the overburden (see Appendix E of
the Draft Final Zone 1 RI Report). As a result, fewer primary metals were detected with
concentrations that exceed background and MCLs. Turbidity values for wells completed in
the deep bedrock were very low, generally less than 4.0 NTU. The metals arsenic, nickel,
iron, and manganese impact deep bedrock groundwater at LF-5 (see Figure 9). Arsenic
impacts bedrock groundwater at LF-5 locations 605, 606, 6005, and 6006. Arsenic is the
only primary metal to exceed the background level in total metals analysis. Nickel impacts
deep bedrock groundwater at LF-5 well 606. Iron and/or manganese impact bedrock
groundwater at LF-5 monitor well locations 605,606,625,630, 6005, and 6006. These wells
are located in the vicinity of the central trench and drum removal areas. Metals do not
impact deep bedrock groundwater at other Zone 1 sites.
The SVOC chemical classes identified in Zone 1 groundwater sampling results consist of
PAHs, phthalates, and phenols. Individual compounds and maximum detected
concentrations are presented in Table 7 (Appendix A). SVOCs are sporadically distributed
and were detected at low concentrations, generally below laboratory quantification limits.
MKn\RPT:0062M26.«M\zooelro4*» 48 07/14/95
-------
The pesticides alpha-endosulfan, beta-BHC, delta-BHC, DDT, and 4,4'-DDD were detected
at low concentrations (below laboratory quantification limits and MCLs) at monitor well 60S
at LF-5. Alpha-endosulfan also was detected at low concentrations at LF-5 monitor well
606.
TPHs have been detected in one deep bedrock monitor well; a concentration of 0.28 J //g/L
of TPHs was detected in monitor well 605 in June 1991. TPHs have not been detected in
other deep bedrock monitor wells in Zone 1.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zoneliod.sa 49 07/14/95
-------
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A baseline risk assessment was performed for the various sites and media in Zone 1, and
is presented in Section 6 of the Draft Final Zone 1RI Report (G-623). The purpose of the
baseline risk assessment is to evaluate the potential health risks posed to human and
ecological receptors by exposure to zone-related contaminants. The risk assessment is
intended to provide information that can be used to determine the need for remedial action
in the zone.
The risk assessment was performed for all media associated with the IRP sites in Zone 1,
with the exception of LF-5 soil. The baseline risk assessment for LF-5 soil is presented in
the Draft Final LF-5 RI Report (G-580). Human health and ecological risk assessments for
surface water and sediment in Flagstone Brook and the Railway Ditch and a human health
risk assessment for LF-5 groundwater also were included in the Draft Final LF-5 RI Report.
These media were re-evaluated in the Zone 1 RI Report because of the availability of new
site and background data. Groundwater data were grouped for the risk assessment based
on the results of the zonewide characterization and the zone conceptual model. Specific
locations were included in the data set corresponding to the likely source of detected
groundwater contaminants Therefore, locations impacted primarily by Site 5 sources were
included in the Site 5 groundwater data set (bedrock and/or overburden) even if the
location was physically located at Site 2 or Site 4.
Discussion of the ecological risk assessment for surface water and sediment in Flagstone
Brook, the Railway Ditch, and Pauls Brook is not provided here because these areas will
be discussed in a separate ROD for drainage ditches at Pease AFB.
The approach and methodology for preparing the risk assessment were originally presented
in a protocols document submitted to EPA Region I and NHDES (G-568). This document
was subsequently amended based on a meeting among Roy F. Weston, Inc. (WESTON*),
the Air Force, EPA Region I, and NHDES (G-217), and a revised version was submitted
(G-601).
MK01\RTr:00628026.00*\zooelro
-------
The baseline risk assessment is divided into three main subsections:
• Data Evaluation and Reduction (Subsection 6.2).
• Human Health Risk Assessment (Subsection 63).
• Ecological Risk Assessment (Subsection 6.4).
These subsections are presented in the RI Report and are described briefly in the
subsections that follow.
A. Data Evaluation and Reduction
The objectives of the data evaluation and reduction are to review and summarize the
analytical data for each medium and to select the chemicals of concern to be evaluated in
the risk assessment. The reviewed data include sampling results for soil, groundwater,
surface water, and sediment collected during Stages 2, 3, and 4 of the IRP. The chemicals
analyzed in each medium consist of SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, VOCs, and inorganics
(metals).
A preliminary data summary was performed on all media data sets. The guidelines followed
in preparation of the data summary are explained in detail in Subsection 6.2.1 of the Draft
Final Zone 1 RI Report (G-623).
Based on the preliminary data summary, a maximum of approximately 25 to 30 chemicals
of concern were selected for each data set (G-217) using the following criteria. A chemical
was eliminated as a chemical of concern when:
• The chemical was detected in fewer than 5% of the samples and was not
reported at high concentrations based on professional judgment (G-189;
G-217).
• The chemical was not detected at a concentration above background
concentrations. Only inorganic chemicals were eliminated as chemicals of
concern based on a comparison with background. Although no organic
chemicals were eliminated based on a background comparison, those organics
that were not reported at concentrations above background are identified in
•
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonel«xlsb 51 07/14/95
-------
the relevant Section 6 and Appendix K tables of the Zone 1 RI Report
(G-623).
Final summary tables were prepared for the chemicals of concern in each data set. Unless
otherwise indicated, the final summary tables contain the following information for each
chemical: frequency of detection, range of sample quantitation limits, range of averaged and
detected concentrations, mean concentration (based on the averaged values), and upper
95% confidence limit of the mean concentration. These summary tables are presented as
Tables 1Q through 20 (Appendix A). Table 21 (Appendix A) presents a summary of
chemicals of concern by medium for all media considered, except surface water and
sediment.
B. Human Health Risk Assessment
In accordance with guidance from EPA Region I, the potential risks to human health were
evaluated separately for each medium for the chemicals of concern listed in Tables 10
through 21. The media that were considered were soil and groundwater. For reasons stated
in Section n, surface water and sediment in Zone 1 are not addressed in this ROD. The
soil data were evaluated separately for LF-2, LF-4, and LF-5, and the PCD A. Soils from
0 to 2 feet deep were evaluated for each site. An additional assessment was made for
PCDA soil from 0 to 15 feet deep. The water table and deep bedrock were evaluated
separately for each of the applicable sites in the zone. The resulting groundwater risk
evaluations were for LF-2 water table groundwater, LF-4 water table and deep bedrock
groundwater, LF-5 water table and deep bedrock groundwater, and PCDA water table and
deep bedrock groundwater.
A most reasonable maximally exposed individual (RME) was selected for each medium
based on both current and future land and water uses. The zone is currently inactive.
Future land use in Zone 1 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 (although this is unlikely
because aquifer yields in parts of the zone are low and the residences currently existing
MW)l\RPT:00628026.0a4\zoMliod-ib 52 07/14/95
-------
adjacent to the base are serviced by public water supplies). The current and nature RMEs
that were selected for each medium are presented in Table 22 (Appendix A). This
subsection briefly summarizes the exposure pathways evaluated. A more thorough
description is presented in the risk assessment (Subsection 6.3.1 of the Draft Final Zone 1
RI Report).
The current use exposure pathways evaluated were as follows:
Soil — The risk assessment evaluated this pathway for LF-2, LF-4, and the
PCDA [exposures to LF-5 soil were considered in the Draft Final LF-5 RI
Report (G-580), LF-5 FS Report (G-574), and LF-5 ROD (G-617)]. For all
three IRP sites, the maintenance worker was considered as the RME, with a
trespasser also considered as a potential (although less likely) receptor. The
exposure scenario assumed for all three sites was contact with the soil at a
frequency of 6 days per year. Exposure was assumed to occur via incidental
ingestion and dermal contact.
Groundwater — Groundwater in Zone 1 is not currently used. Therefore, no
RMEs or exposure scenarios were chosen.
Future use exposure scenarios were as follows:
Soil — This pathway was evaluated for LF-2, LF-4, and the PCDA. The
maintenance worker was chosen again as the RME for these sites. Because
future development of LF-2 and LF-4 is expected to be limited, future
maintenance activities for these sites were assumed to occur only 1 day/month
year-round (i.e., 12 days/year). For the PCDA, a full-time maintenance
worker (i.e., 250 days/year) was assumed. Building construction could
potentially occur at the PCDA, and the site could support full-time
maintenance activities. As with the current exposure scenarios, incidental
ingestion and dermal contact were considered the likely exposure routes.
Groundwater — For each hydrologic unit considered, an on-zone resident was
selected as the future RME (Table 22, Appendix A). The on-zone resident
was assumed to be exposed to groundwater contaminants 350 days/year for
30 years (G-225). The exposure routes considered for Zone 1 groundwater
are both ingestion and noningestion (i.e., showering) routes.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zoneliwt*b 53 07/14/95
-------
For each pathway evaluated, average and reasonable maximum exposure estimates were
generated corresponding to exposure to the average and maximum concentrations detected
in that particular medium.
Excess cancer risks were determined for each exposure pathway by multiplying the exposure
level by the chemical-specific cancer factor. Cancer potency factors have been developed
by EPA from epidemiological or animal studies to reflect a conservative upper bound of the
risk posed by potentially carcinogenic compounds (i.e., the actual risk is unlikely to be
greater than the risk predicted). The resulting risk estimates are expressed in scientific
notation (e.g., 1 x 1CT6 for 1/1,000,000) and indicate (using this example) that an average
individual is Likely to have 1-in-l-million chance of developing cancer over 70 years as a
result of site-related exposure as defined for the compound at the stated concentration.
Current EPA practice considers cancer risk to be additive when assessing exposure to a
mixture of hazardous substances.
A hazard index also was calculated for each pathway as EPA's measure of the potential for
noncancer health effects. A hazard quotient is calculated by dividing the exposure level by
the reference dose (RfD) or other suitable benchmark for noncancer health effects for an
individual compound. Reference doses have been developed by EPA to protect sensitive
individuals over the course of a lifetime, and they reflect a daily exposure level that is likely
to be without an appreciable risk of an adverse health effect. RfDs are derived from
epidemiological or animal studies and incorporate uncertainty factors to help ensure that
adverse health effects will not occur. The hazard quotient is often expressed as a single
value (e.g., 03), indicating a ratio of the stated exposure as defined to the reference dose
value (in this example, the exposure as characterized is approximately one-third of an
acceptable exposure leyel for the given compound). A hazard quotient is only considered
additive for compounds that have the same or similar toxic endpoint, and the sum is
referred to as the hazard index. For example, the hazard quotient for a compound known
to produce liver damage should not be added to a second whose toxic endpoint is kidney
damage.
NOC01\RFT:0062a02&004\zooeliod.*b 54 07/14/95
-------
The total lifetime cancer risks and total hazard indices are presented by medium in Table
23 (Appendix A). 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 the 10"6 lifetime cancer risk and/or a hazard index of
1 also are indicated in each table. The cancer risk posed to the RME for the soil pathway
was greater than 10"6, but less that 10~5 at one or more exposure concentrations for the
following scenarios:
• For LF-2 soil, the cancer risks ranged from 8 x 10"7 to 2 x 10"6 for current use
scenarios, and from 2 x 10"6 to 5 x 10"6 for future use scenarios.
• For LF-4 soil, the cancer risks ranged from 10"* to 3 x 10"* for future use
scenarios.
• For PCDA soil, the cancer risks ranged from 3 x 10"* to 6 x 10"* in shallow (0-
to 2-foot-deep) soil, and from 3 x 10r* to 9 x 10"* in deep (0- to 15-foot-deep)
soil for future use scenarios.
Only the PAHs individually or collectively posed greater than a 10"* risk. Based on only
those chemicals of concern detected above background, current and future use scenario risks
for both shallow and deep soil at the PCDA and for current use scenarios at LF-4 were less
than 10"*. Although potential risks, based on all chemicals of concern, from exposure to soil
at LF-2, LF-4, and the PCDA exceeded the lower limit of the range regulated at hazardous
waste sites, there were no unacceptable human health risks above the EPA threshold criteria
of 10"4, as defined in the Zone 1 Proposed Plan (G-697). There is no apparent potential for
adverse noncancer health effects posed by exposure to soil at any of the sites'(all hazard
indices were less than 1). In addition, qualitative and quantitative evaluations conducted
to assess contaminant leaching potential indicated that leaching of dieldrin and manganese
from PCDA soil to groundwater is of potential concern. However, PCDA groundwater is
not in contact with contaminated soil most of the year, and recent analytical results from
two PCDA wells indicate that dieldrin was not detected. Therefore, no remedial objectives
(ROs) were chosen and no RAOs were established for Zone 1 soil at any of the operable
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelro
-------
units (OUs) based on potential human health risks posed by exposure to contaminated
groundwater as a result of leaching from soil.
Cancer risks based on use of water table groundwater for domestic purposes ranged from
10"7 for LF-2 to 3 x 10~3 for LF-5 based on filtered samples. Potential cancer and noncancer
risks above those usually considered acceptable by regulatory agencies (cancer risks greater
than 10**, and hazard indices greater than 1) were calculated for both LF-5 and PCDA water
table groundwater. ROs were chosen and RAOs were established for LF-5 water table
groundwater, as outlined in Section VR The majority of the unacceptable risk posed by
human receptor exposure to PCDA water table groundwater was attributable to the PCB
Aroclor-1260 and metals. Yet, as outlined in Subsection 2.5.3 of the Zone 1 FS Report
(G-622), Aroclor was detected at the MCL (0.5 /^g/L) in one sampling round only. In
addition, the metals concentrations contributing to total risk were detected at PCDA wells
that had a thin saturated interval. Consequently, groundwater samples from these wells
were highly turbid, which resulted in elevated metals concentrations not representative of
actual groundwater quality. Furthermore, because groundwater is not in contact with PCDA
soil most of the year, the remaining soil contamination does not pose a threat to the
underlying groundwater. Additionally, given the low yields of wells installed in the PCDA,
it is not likely that groundwater could be used for consumptive purposes. Finally, since the
PCDA is located in the NHANG cantonment area, an area served by public water supplies,
future residential use of the PCDA and human receptor exposure to the PCDA groundwater
are unlikely. For these reasons, ROs were not chosen and RAOs were not established for
PCDA water table groundwater, as described in Section VII. No unacceptable potential
cancer or noncancer risks in exceedance of EPA's risk range were noted for LF-2 or LF-4
water table groundwater. Therefore, no ROs or ROAs were established based on human
health risks (see Section VII).
Cancer risks based on use of deep bedrock groundwater for domestic purposes were
evaluated for LF-5 and the PCDA only because there were no chemicals of concern
established for LF-2 and LF-4 deep bedrock groundwater. Cancer risks were 3 x 10*3 for
MK01\RFT.00628026.004\zonelro
-------
LF-5 and 7 x 10"7 for the PCDA based on maximum concentrations for unfiltered samples.
Based on these results, only LF-5 deep bedrock groundwater posed potential risks in
exceedance of EPA's acceptable risk range (10"4 to 10"6 for cancer risks, and a hazard index
of less than 1 for noncancer risks). ROs were chosen and RAOs were established for LF-5
deep bedrock groundwater, as outlined in Section Vn. No unacceptable risks in exceedance
of EPA's risk range were noted for LF-2, LF-4, or PCDA deep bedrock groundwater.
Therefore, no ROs or RAOs were established for these OUs based on human health risks
(see Section VQ).
C. Ecological Risk Assessment
The ecological risk assessment evaluated the potential adverse impacts on terrestrial
organisms inhabiting LF-2, LF-4, and the PCDA, and aquatic life living in Flagstone Brook,
the Railway Ditch, and Pauls Brook. Subsequently, the risks to terrestrial receptors as a
result of potential exposure to lead at LF-4 and the PCDA were revised and presented in
an Addendum to the Zone 1 RI and FS Reports (G-696). For the reasons outlined in
Section n of this ROD, the results of this assessment for Flagstone Brook, the Railway
Ditch, and Pauls Brook are not presented here. These results will be discussed in a separate
document. However, since the total hazard indices for certain terrestrial species were based
in part on ingestion of surface water, surface water in Zone 1 is discussed in this context
only.
The objectives of the ecological risk assessment were to identify and estimate the potential
impacts associated with the chemicals of concern in Zone 1. The assessment focused on the
potential impacts of the chemicals of concern found in the soil, surface water, and sediment
to terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna that inhabit, or are potential inhabitants of, the
zone, including Flagstone Brook, the Railway Ditch, and Pauls Brook.
The ecological risk assessment was performed in two phases. The results of the original
assessment were presented in the Zone 1 RI Report (G-623). The original assessment
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrodJb 57 07/14/95
-------
incorporated overly conservative assumptions that resulted in unrealistically high hazard
indices for LF-4 and the PCDA. An Addendum to Ecological Risks (G-696) was prepared
for LF-4 and the PCDA based on more realistic assumptions. The methodology and results
of the original assessment and the addendum are provided in the paragraphs that follow.
The terrestrial species evaluated and their relevant exposure pathways are as follows:
• Short-tailed shrew.
Incidental ingestion of soil as a result of earthworm ingestion,
burrowing, and preening.
Ingestion of earthworms.
• American robin.
Ingestion of earthworms that may have bioaccumulated chemicals of
concern.
Ingestion of soil as a result of earthworm ingestion.
Ingestion of surface water.
• Terrestrial plants.
Direct contact with soil.
The potential risk posed to ecological receptors was assessed by comparing estimated daily
doses or medium-specific concentrations to 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 criteria 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 that 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
MKDl\RPT:00628026.004\zonelro«Ub 58 07/14/95
-------
potential concern, and may warrant action. A hazard index between 1 and 10 is subject to
interpretation based on the toxitity of the chemical and the uncertainty in the calculation.
In addition, the frequency of detection and reproducibility of the data should be
investigated. Whether a remedial action must be initiated should be examined on a site-by-
site basis, after careful consideration of the levels of the hazard indices compared to the
possible adverse impacts of remedial action on the ecological habitat (e.g., loss of existing
wetland communities and other habitats, or increased contaminant migration resulting from
resuspension of contaminated fine-grained particles).
The total hazard indices for all ecological receptors are presented in Tables 24 through 29
(Appendix A). It is difficult to determine which contaminant concentrations, mean or
maximum, most accurately reflect actual exposure concentrations. Therefore, 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 ecological risk assessment for Zone 1 and highlight contaminants that contributed
substantially to the total hazard for each receptor. In the following paragraphs, the average
and maximum hazard indices are presented.
For the short-tailed shrew, the average and maximum cumulative hazard indices were as
follows:
42 and 12.5 for LF-2.
1 x 104 and 3.3 x 104 for LF-4.
1.4 x 104 and 4.2 x 10* for the PCDA.
For the American robin, the average and maximum cumulative hazard indices were as
follows: -
• 1.0 and 20.6 for LF-2.
• 153 and 438 for LF-4.
• 184 and 435 for the PCDA.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelnxl.sb 59 07/14/95
-------
Nearly all of the risk to the shrew at LF-2 (93%) is due to the ingestion of earthworms.
The contaminant contributing the majority of the total hazard (71%) was phenanthrene.
Benzo(a) anthracene, which contributed 23% of the maximum cumulative hazard index, was
the only other chemical with a maximum hazard index greater than 1 (2.9). Selection of
ROs and screening of remedial technologies for LF-2 soil were not performed as part of the
Draft Final Zone 1FS Report in part because the mayimym hazard quotient for the shrew,
while exceeding 1, was in a range in which the necessity of remedial action was questionable
given the uncertainty associated with the method used to derive risk values. In addition, the
hazard quotients calculated for the robin are attributable to ingestion of surface water from
the Railway Ditch, which will be addressed in a separate document. Therefore, LF-2 has
been proposed for no further action under CERCLA, and will be closed in accordance with
state landfill closure regulations.
The primary contributor to the cumulative risk to both the shrew and the robin at LF-4 and
the PCDA (greater than 90%) is the ingestion of earthworms. In addition, the contaminant
contributing the majority of the maximum cumulative hazard (98% for the shrew and 49%
for the robin at LF-4, and 99% for the shrew and 64% for the robin at the PCDA) was lead.
There is a great deal of uncertainty associated with the calculation of bioaccumulation
factors for lead in earthworms. Selection of ROs and screening of remedial technologies
for LF-4 and PCDA soil were not initially performed for the Draft Final Zone 1 FS Report
in pan because the nunrimiim hazard quotient for the shrew, while exceeding 1, was
questionable, given the uncertainty associated with the calculation of bioaccumulation
factors for lead in earthworms.
In addition, potential risks to the short-tailed shrew and the robin at LF-4 and the PCDA
as a result of exposureto lead in soil were revised and presented in the Addendum to
Ecological Risks for LF-4 and the PCDA (G-696). In the addendum, three key assumptions
used in the calculation of ecological risks at Pease AFB were modified based on additional
information. The modifications were as follows:
• Initially, it was assumed that ecological receptors were continuously exposed
to contaminant concentrations equivalent to the maximum concentrations
MK01\RPT.-00628026.004\a>oelro
-------
observed at the site. For lead, it was assumed that the shrew and the robin
were exposed to lead concentrations of 138 and 178 mg/kg, respectively.
However, when it was noted that lead concentrations exceeded background
for only one of 10 samples at LF-4 and for two of nine samples at the PCDA,
a more reasonable assumption of exposure to average lead concentrations in
soil was made.
The bioaccumulation factor (BAF) used in the original risk assessment
(G-623) for both LF-4 and the PCDA was 11. However, review of the
calculations indicated that a more appropriate BAF was 2.75 (G-696).
Original earthworm ingestion rates for both the shrew and the robin were
found to be too high. Revisions to these ingestion rates in the addendum
(G-696) resulted in decreases in total estimated dose of approximately 95%
for both species.
When the revised assumptions were incorporated into the risk calculations, the following
total hazard indices resulted:
3.3 and 4.5 for the shrew at LF-4 and the PCDA, respectively.
2.6 and 3.6 for the robin at LF-4 and the PCDA, respectively.
Based on these observations and revised calculations, it was deemed inappropriate to
proceed with remedial actions based solely on ecological risk. Therefore, LF-4 and the
PCDA have been proposed for no further action under CERCLA, and will be closed in
accordance with state landfill closure regulations.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelro«Lsb 61 07/14/95
-------
VII. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
A. Statutory Requirements/Response Objectives
Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several statutory requirements and preferences,
including: (1) remedial actions must be protective of human health and the environment;
(2) remedial actions, when complete, must comply with all federal and more stringent state
environmental standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations, unless a waiver is invoked;
(3) 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 (4) 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. Response alternatives
were developed to be consistent with these mandates.
Based on preliminary information relating to the types of contaminants, environmental
media of concern, and potential exposure pathways, RAOs were developed to aid in the
development and screening of alternatives. These RAOs were developed to mitigate
existing and future potential threats to public health via the migration of contaminated
groundwater. RAOs for Zone 1 are discussed in this subsection.
The results of the risk assessment conducted during the Zone 1RI (see Section VI) indicate
that there are no unacceptable human health risks above the EPA threshold criteria
associated with the exposure of current and future potential receptors to soil at LF-2, or the
water table and deep bedrock groundwater beneath LF-2. In addition, the results of the
qualitative and quantitative evaluations conducted to assess the potential for contaminants
to leach to groundwater indicated that only two organics and no inorganics at LF-2 are
predicted to be of potential leaching concern according to the leaching models used. The
organics chrysene and dibenzo(a4i)anthracene are present in soil at concentrations on the
MK01\RJT:00628026.00«\zooelro(Lrt> 62 07/14/95
-------
same order of magnitude as the maximum allowable concentrations predicted by the
analysis. Therefore, leaching of contaminants from LF-2 soil is not considered a concern.
The risk assessment revealed that site soil contaminants posed ecological risks exceeding
EPA benchmark values. The ecological risk assessment indicated that there is potential risk
posed to the shrew as a result of ingestion of invertebrates in LF-2 soil. However, these
risks were in a range in which the necessity of remedial action was questionable given the
uncertainty inherent in the derivation of risk values.
The aforementioned information provides the basis for concluding that LF-2 soil and
groundwater do not pose an unacceptable current or potential future threat to human health
or the environment. Therefore, no RAOs were developed for this site, and no further action
is proposed under CERCLA for LF-2. Actions will be performed for final closure of the
site in accordance with NHDES landfill closure requirements. NHDES will have jurisdiction
over closure activities, and closure plans will be coordinated with the respective NHDES
divisions, independent of CERCLA and the FFA.
As discussed in Section VI, the results of the baseline risk assessment for Zone 1 indicate
that no unacceptable current or potential future threat to human receptors would result
from exposure to contaminants in LF-4 soil, or the water table and deep bedrock
groundwater beneath LF-4. In addition, the results of the qualitative and quantitative
evaluations conducted to assess the potential for inorganic and organic contaminants to
leach to groundwater indicated that LF-4 soil contaminants do not pose a leaching concern.
The risk assessment revealed that site soil contaminants posed ecological risks exceeding
EPA benchmark values. However, these risks were recalculated in the addendum and
resulted in a cumulative hazard index of less than 10. It was determined, based on the
recalculated hazard index, that remedial action was not required. For this reason,
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrodJb 63 07/14/95
-------
development of RAOs and screening of remedial technologies were not performed in
response to the ecological risk assessment results.
For these reasons, it was concluded that LF-4 soil and groundwater would require no further
action under CERCLA. Closure of the site will proceed under NHDES guidelines
independent of CERCLA and the FFA. Closure activities will be coordinated with the
respective NHDES divisions, but are not included in this ROD, which addresses only those
actions that are required under CERCLA.
The human health risk assessment indicated that contaminants in water table and deep
bedrock groundwater at LF-5 may pose a health risk to potential future on-zone residents
in excess of EPA threshold criteria. To address these potential risks, the following RAOs
were developed:
• Prevent off-base migration of contaminated groundwater.
• Protect human receptors from ingestion of contaminated groundwater that
may present unacceptable risks in exceedance of EPA's acceptable risk range
(total cancer risk greater than 10"*, or a total hazard index greater than 1).
• Comply with chemical-specific ARARs and/or established background levels
for specific contaminants in groundwater, as appropriate.
PCDA
The baseline risk assessment conducted during the Zone 1RI (see Section VI) indicates that
PCDA soil does not pose a current or potential threat to human health. Potential risks
above those usually considered acceptable by regulatory agencies were calculated for PCDA
water table groundwater. However, given the low yields of wells installed in the PCDA and
the fact that groundwater is not in contact with PCDA soil most of the year, it is not likely
that groundwater could be used for consumptive purposes. In addition, since the PCDA is
located in the NHANG cantonment area and the fact that the area is served by public water
MK01\RPT«)628026.00<\iooelrodJb 64 07/14/95
-------
supplies, future residential use of the PCDA and human receptor exposure to PCDA
groundwater are unlikely.
Qualitative and quantitative evaluations conducted to assess contaminant leaching potential
indicated that leaching of dieldrin and manganese from PCDA soil to groundwater is of
potential concern. However, PCDA groundwater is not in contact with contaminated soils
most of the year, and recent analytical results from two PCDA wells indicate that dieldrin
was not detected. In addition, waste materials from the PCDA were removed during the
ITPO.
The ecological risk assessment revealed that site soil contaminants posed ecological risks
exceeding EPA benchmark values. The majority of the risk (90%) is attributable to lead
exposure, based on estimated concentrations in earthworms that impact the potential risk
calculated for the shrew and the robin, the potential receptors. However, lead was detected
in soil at levels above background in only two of the PCDA locations sampled. It should
be noted that ecological risks attributed to soil lead concentrations for both receptors were
revised using more reasonable assumptions regarding exposure and toxicity (G-696). The
resulting hazard quotients for both species were less than 5. Contaminants contributing the
remaining 10% of the potential risk were detected at levels above background in only five
closely spaced locations. Many of the levels reported above background were within the
statistical margins of error associated with background levels.
Based on the aforementioned observations, it was deemed inappropriate to proceed with
remedial alternatives based on human health and ecological risks. Therefore, no RAOs for
PCDA soil or groundwater were developed, and the PCDA is considered to require no
further action under CERCLA. Closure of the PCDA will proceed in accordance with state
requirements and will be coordinated with the respective NHDES divisions, independent of
CERCLA and the FFA.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrodJb 65 07/14/95
-------
B. Technology and Alternative Development and Screening
CERCLA and the 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
groundwater at Zone 1 that is affected by the LF-5 source area.
With respect to the management-of-migration of contaminated groundwater in the zone, the
RI/FS developed a range of three alternatives in which treatment that reduces the TMV
hazardous substances is a principal element. One alternative involves the removal or
destruction of hazardous substances to the maximum extent feasible, eliminating or
minimizing to the degree possible the need for long-term management. A second
alternative includes natural attenuation processes to clean contaminated groundwater,
institutional controls to restrict the use of groundwater, and monitoring. The third
alternative is the no-action alternative.
In Section 3 of the Draft Final Zone 1 FS Report, technologies were identified, assessed,
and screened based on implementability, effectiveness, and cost. These technologies were
separated into source control (for Flagstone Brook, Pauls Brook, and the Railway Ditch)
and management-of-migration alternatives and were presented in Section 4 of the Draft
Final Zone 1 FS Report The purpose of the initial screening was to narrow the number
of potential remedial actions for further detailed analysis while preserving a range of
options. The retained alternatives were then evaluated in detail and screened in Section 5
of the Zone 1 FS Report
In summary, all three of the management-of-migration remedial alternatives screened in
Section 4 of the Zone US Report were retained for detailed analysis. Nine source control
alternatives pertaining to the drainageways also were retained, but are not discussed in this
ROD, as mentioned previously in Section n. Alternatives were not developed for LF-2,
LF-4, LF-5, or the PCDA. LF-5 was addressed separately in the LF-5 ROD (G-617). LF-2,
LF-4, and the PCDA are considered to require no further action under CERCLA, but are
to be closed according to applicable New Hampshire regulations. As pan of closure, soil
MK01\WT:00628026.004\zoiielro
-------
from LF-2 and LF-4 was excavated and consolidated on LF-5, as specified in the LF-5 ROD
(G-617).
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrodjb 67 07/14/95
-------
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
This section provides a narrative summary of each management-of-migration alternative that
was evaluated in detail in Section 5 of the Zone 1 FS Report. A detailed tabular
assessment of each alternative is presented in Tables 5.3-1 through 5.3-3 of the Zone 1 FS
Report
The alternatives analyzed for Zone 1 are as follows:
• Alternative MM-1 — No Action (always considered as required by CERCLA).
• Alternative MM-2—Limited Action/Natural Attenuation and Biodegradation
of Contaminated Groundwater/Institutional Controls/GMZ.
• Alternative MM-3 — Collection of Zone 1 Groundwater with On-Base
Treatment using Metals Precipitation/UV Chemical Oxidation/Carbon
Adsorption, On-Base Disposal of Groundwater Through Recharge Trenches,
and Institutional Controls/GMZ.
Alternative MM-1 — No Action
The no-action alternative was evaluated in detail in the Zone 1 FS to serve as a baseline
for comparison with the other remedial alternatives under consideration. Under this
alternative, no treatment or containment of groundwater would occur and no action would
be taken to control potential migration of contaminants in Zone 1 groundwater.
Alternative MM-2 — Umited Action/Natural Attenuat'ftD 9Pd Biftdegradation of
Contaminated Gromtdwater/Inttitntional Controls /GMT.
This alternative would consist of the following components:
• Natural attenuation and biodegradation of residual-contaminated groundwater
from the LF-5 source area.
• Placement of deed restrictions on future use of groundwater in Zone 1 in the
vicinity of the LF-5 source area.
MK01\Rrr:00628026.004\zonelRxUb 68 07/14/95
-------
Establishment of a GMZ in Zone 1 in the vicinity of the LF-5 source area.
Long-term environmental monitoring in the zone to allow the continued
evaluation of the magnitude of contamination, including groundwater, surface
water, and sediment sampling and analysis.
Estimated time for design and construction: None required.
Estimated period of operation: Not applicable.
Estimated capital cost: $0.
Estimated operation and maintenance (O&M) cost (net present worth): $2,054,000.
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $2,054,000.
Alternative MM-3 — Collection of Zone 1 Groundwater with On-Base Treatment Using
Metals Precipitation/UV Chemical Oxidation/Carbon Adsorption. On-Base Disposal of
Groundwater Through Recharge Trenches, and Institutional Controls/GMZ
This alternative would consist of the following components:
• Extraction of contaminated Zone 1 groundwater and on-base treatment via
chemical precipitation, UV/chemical oxidation, and carbon adsorption.
• On-base recharge of treated groundwater.
• Placement of deed restrictions on future use of groundwater in Zone 1 in the
vicinity of the LF-5 source area.
• Establishment of a GMZ in Zone 1 in the vicinity of the LF-5 source area.
• Long-term environmental monitoring in the zone to allow the continued
evaluation of the magnitude of contamination, 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: $1,947,100.
Estimated O&M cost (net present worth): $5,861,400.
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $7,809,000.
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sb 69 07/14/95
-------
IX. SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Section 121(b)(l) of CERCLA presents several factors that must be considered when
assessing alternatives. Building on these specific statutory mandates, the NCP has
promulgated nine evaluation criteria to be used in assessing the individual remedial
alternatives.
A detailed analysis was performed on the alternatives using the nine evaluation criteria to
select a site remedy. This section presents a summary of the comparison of each
alternative's strengths and weaknesses with respect to the nine evaluation criteria. These
criteria are summarized as follows.
Threshold Criteria
The two threshold criteria described must be met in order for the 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 ARARs addresses whether a remedy will meet all of the
ARARs or other federal and state environmental laws and/or provide grounds
for invoking a waiver.
Primary Ralanying Criteria
Once an alternative satisfies the threshold criteria, the following five criteria are used to
compare and evaluate the elements of one alternative to another:
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.
MK01\RPTK»6»)26.004\ionelKxUb 70 07/14/95
-------
4. Reduction of TMVthrough treatment addresses the degree to which alternatives
use recycling or treatment that reduces TMV, 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. ImplementabUity 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, O&M, and present-worth costs.
Modifying Criteria
The following modifying criteria are used in the final evaluation of remedial alternatives
generally after public comments on the RI and FS Reports and Proposed Plan are reviewed:
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.
Community acceptance of the Proposed Plan for Zone 1 was evaluated based
on written comments and verbal comments received in public meetings during
the public comment period.
Detailed tabular assessments of each alternative according to the threshold and balancing
criteria are presented in Tables 5.3-1 through 5.3-3 of the Zone 1 FS Report.
Following the detailed analysis of each individual alternative, a comparative analysis,
focusing on the relative performance of each analysis against the threshold and balancing
criteria, was conducted. This comparative analysis is shown in Table 30 (Appendix A).
MK01\Rrr:00628026.004\zonelrod.sb 71 07/14/95
-------
The following subsections present the nine criteria, including the two modifying criteria not
discussed in the Zone 1 FS Report; a brief narrative summary of the alternatives; and the
strengths and weaknesses of each alternative according to the detailed comparative analysis.
A. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives MM-1 (no action) and MM-2 (limited action) would provide protection over
the long term because it is expected that cleanup goals would be achieved over the long
term through natural attenuation and biodegradation processes. Alternative MM-3 involves
extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater and, as a result, would likely achieve
cleanup goals in a shorter time frame than Alternatives MM-1 and MM-2, potentially
decreasing the duration of monitoring and institutional controls. Implementation of
Alternative MM-3, however, would likely cause impacts on the surrounding wetlands as a
result of changes in water table elevation. These impacts on the wetlands would exist for
as long as the groundwater extraction system were operational.
B. Compliance with ARARs
The no-action alternative would not comply with ARARs over the short term. Alternative
MM-2 or MM-3 would comply with all ARARs in the short term. Alternative MM-3 would
likely attain ARARs sooner than other alternatives because it involves extraction and
treatment of groundwater. However, the Air Force has modeled the contaminant plume
and has estimated that the ARARs would be achieved in 11 years through natural
attenuation (no treatment) and 5 years through groundwater extraction and treatment.
C Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative MM-2 would provide short- and long-term protection to human receptors by
eliminating the potential for direct contact with contaminated groundwater via
implementation of institutional controls. Long-term groundwater monitoring would track
\OC01\RPTKX3628026.004\ajiielrodJb 72 07/14/95
-------
contaminant levels and would provide early warning of potential contaminant migration
outside the boundary of the GMZ.
Alternative MM-3 also would provide short- and long-term protection to human receptors
by implementation of institutional controls. However, because this alternative involves
extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater, it is likely that contaminant levels
would be reduced to acceptable levels in a shorter time frame than the no-action and
limited-action alternatives, thereby reducing the required duration of institutional controls
and monitoring. Groundwater extraction and treatment also would minimize potential
impacts from groundwater contaminants to downgradient surface water, sediment, and
wetlands.
D. Reduction of Toricity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
The reduction of TMV for Alternatives MM-1 and MM-2 would be through natural
attenuation processes. Alternative MM-3 would reduce the TMV of groundwater
contaminants via extraction and treatment. However, natural attenuation and groundwater
extraction and treatment both will reduce the TMV of groundwater contaminants in
relatively short time periods (5 and 11 years, respectively).
E. Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementation of Alternatives MM-1 and MM-2 would not be expected to cause adverse
impacts on the environment, the surrounding community, or site workers. However, there
would continue to be the potential for contaminated groundwater to discharge to surface
water where it could cause potential future risks to ecological receptors.
Implementation of Alternative MM-3 would not be expected to cause any impacts on the
community or site workers. The groundwater treatment plant will use UV chemical
oxidation, which produces little to no volatile air emissions. However, Alternative MM-3
would impact the surrounding wetlands via lowering of the water table. Treated
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sb 73 07/14/95
-------
groundwater would be reinjected to offset these impacts, but the net impact to wetlands
would remain significant.
F. Implementability
All of the alternatives evaluated are implementable from a technical standpoint and have
been used successfully at other sites. The major difference among alternatives in this
category is the length of time necessary to implement the remediation. From a regulatory
perspective, the no-action alternative would not be implementable because it would not
comply with federal and state requirements.
G. Cost
The estimated present-worth costs of the alternatives are as follows:
Remedial Alternative
1. No Action
2 Limited Action/Natural Attenuation
«ti«t Biodegradation of Contaminated
Groundwater /Institutional Controls/
GMZ
3. Collection of Zone 1 Groundwater and
On-Base Treatment Using Metals
Precipitation/UV Chemical
Oxidation/Carbon Adsorption, On-
Base Disposal of Groundwater
Through Recharge Trenches, and
IlMttattWfMll r"1fTTr>1f
Capital
Cost
Not costed
SO
$1,947,100
Present-Worth O&M
Cost at Year 30
Not costed
$2,054,000
$5,861,400
Total Present-
Worth Cost
Not costed
$2,054,000
$7,809,000
H. State Acceptance
NHDES has been involved in the environmental activities at Pease AFB since the mid-
1980s, as summarized in Section n. The RI was performed with an Air Force lead, with
NHDES and EPA oversight, in accordance with the FFA. NHDES has reviewed this
MHn\RPT.00628a26.004\zonelrodJb
74
07/14/95
-------
document and concurs with the selected remedy. A copy of the Declaration of Concurrence
is provided in Appendix B.
I. Community Acceptance
The comments received during the public comment period and the public hearing on the
Zone 1 Proposed Plan are summarized in the Responsiveness Summary (see Appendix C).
The selected remedy has not been significantly modified from that presented in the
Proposed Plan.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelnxlsb 75 07/14/95
-------
X. THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy (Alternative MM-2) involves the removal of groundwater contaminants
in Zone 1 in the vicinity of the LF-5 source area by natural physical and chemical
attenuation processes, such as biodegradation, volatilization, and dilution. The remedy also
includes the placement of deed restrictions on the use of groundwater in a GMZ and
monitoring of groundwater in this GMZ. The selected remedy is a comprehensive one in
that it minimises exposure to site contaminants and attains the overall Zone 1 objectives of
managing the migration of contaminated groundwater.
A. Methodology for Cleanup Level Determination
Cleanup levels were evaluated for each medium of concern in Zone 1. Cleanup goals have
been established for chemicals of concern identified in the risk assessment section of the
Draft Final Zone 1 RI Report (G-623) and for contaminants detected at levels exceeding
ARARs, risk-based concentrations, or background values.
The approach used to determine risk-based concentrations is consistent with the approach
used to evaluate human health risk in the risk assessment section of the Draft Final Zone
1 RI Report (G-623). This approach was originally presented in a protocols document
submitted to EPA Region I and NHDES. This document was subsequently amended, and
a revised version was submitted. In summary, risk-based concentrations were derived from
the chemicals of concern in each medium, based on the most reasonable maximally exposed
human receptor (current or future) for the medium.
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* (1-in-l-million) lifetime cancer risk, with the following
exceptions. Some chemicals, although categorized by EPA as carcinogens, are not
considered to be carcinogenic through all exposure routes. For example, several metals,
including '•admium chromium VI, and nickel, are not classified as carcinogens through the
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zoaeliodJb 76 07/14/95
-------
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
exposure routes, the risk-based concentration for the chemical was based on a hazard index
of 1 (i.e., noncancer risk).
Cleanup goals were selected after comparing maximum contaminant concentrations detected
for each chemical of concern in each medium with appropriate chemical-specific ARARs,
background values, 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 goals. Where ARARs were not available, or if the basis on which the
ARAR was established was not consistent with Zone 1 exposure scenarios, a risk-based
concentration or background value was selected as the cleanup goal. When ARARs were
selected as the cleanup goals, a human health risk was calculated for the ARAR
concentration. Cleanup goals were not established for chemicals detected at maximum
concentrations that were lower than appropriate ARARs or risk-based concentrations.
Cleanup goals for media in Zone 1 are summarized in the subsections that follow.
B. Groundwater Cleanup Goals
The results of the evaluation of the human health risk assessment for groundwater indicated
that LF-5 groundwater posed cancer and noncancer risks to future on-zone residents in
excess of EPA threshold criteria. A comparison of maximum detected concentrations in
groundwater with ARARs indicated the several chemical-specific ARARs were exceeded.
Therefore, risk-based concentrations, chemical-specific ARARs, and background levels
(inorganics only) were evaluated in the development of cleanup goals for LF-5 groundwater.
Based on a similar evaluation of groundwater at LF-2, LF-4, and the PCDA no cleanup
goals were established. Therefore, no further action is proposed for LF-2, LF-4, and the
PCDA groundwater under CERCLA
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelro
-------
The list of groundwater contaminants that were evaluated for establishing groundwater
cleanup goals was limited to groundwater chemicals of concern at LF-5. The groundwater
cleanup goal selection tables on pages 80 and 81 present the maximum detected
concentration, chemical-specific ARARs, risk-based concentrations, and the cleanup goals
established for each contaminant. Cleanup goals were established for 10 contaminants in
LF-5 groundwater. Contaminants for which cleanup goals were established consist of six
organics, one PCB, and three inorganics.
C Soil Cleanup Goals
The results of the human health risk assessment indicated that no unacceptable health
effects (cancer risks greater than 10"4, or hazard indices greater than 1) to human receptors
resulting from incidental ingestion of, or dermal contact with, contaminated soil at LF-2,
LF-4, or the PCDA are expected. At LF-2, LF-4, and the PCDA, the ecological risk
assessment and addendum to the ecological risks (G-696) revealed several soil contaminants
that posed ecological risk exceeding EPA benchmark values; however, the levels of
ecological risk posed by detected contaminant concentrations were in a range in which the
necessity of remedial action was questionable given the uncertainty inherent in calculating
ecological risk values.
Based on the preceding information, cleanup goals for soil in Zone 1 are not necessary and
have not been established.
D. Description of Remedial Components
The selected remedy (Alternative MM-2) for Zone 1 will involve the following key
components:
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zon«lrwLtb 78 07/14/95
-------
Cleanup Goal Selection - Water Table Groundwater
Chemical
Cleanup Goal
Organic* (fJg/L)
Benzene3
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate"
Dichloroethane (1,1-)*
Tetrachloroethene*
Trichloroethene"
Vinyl chloride*
5.0
6.0
8.1
5.0
5.0
2.0
Pesticides/PCBs (vg/L)
Aroclor-12608
0.5
Inorganics (mg/L)
Arsenic6
Manganese0
Thallium6
0.05
0.942
0.002
'Risk-based value.
"Regulatory-based value.
°Maximum background concentration.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sb
79
07/14/95
-------
Cleanup Goal Selection — Deep Bedrock Groundwater
Chemical
Cleanup Goal
Organic* (iJg/L)
Benzene*
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate*
Dichloroethane (1,1-)'
Tetrachloroethene*
Trichloroethene*
5
6
. 8.1
5
5
Inorganics (mg/L)
Arsenicb
"Thallium"
0.05
0.002
•Risk-based value.
"Regulatory-based value.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\2onelnxLsb
80
07/14/95
-------
Natural attenuation andbiodegradation of residual-contaminated groundwater
in Zone 1 in the vicinity of the LF-5 source area.
Placement of deed restrictions on future use of groundwater in Zone 1 in the
vicinity of the LF-5 source area.
Establishment of a GMZ in Zone 1 in the vicinity of the LF-5 source area.
Long-term environmental monitoring in the zone to allow the continued
evaluation of the magnitude of contamination, including groundwater, surface
water, and sediment sampling and analysis.
Detailed descriptions of the various components follow.
Institutional Controls
Alternative MM-2 involves the establishment of a GMZ and placement of deed restrictions
on the use of groundwater within the GMZ in the vicinity of the LF-5 source area. Deed
restrictions will prohibit the use of groundwater by any current or future landowner(s).
Preventing the use of groundwater will reduce the potential for human receptor contact with
and ingestion of potentially contaminated groundwater. It is expected that these restrictions
will remain in effect until groundwater cleanup goals are achieved.
Environmental Monitoring
A long-term environmental monitoring plan, including groundwater, surface water, and
sediment sampling and analysis, will be implemented to allow for the continued evaluation
of the effectiveness of the selected remedial action in Zone 1. Groundwater will be
monitored to support the establishment of the GMZ, and to satisfy state landfill closure
requirements (NH Env-Wm 2507.00 et seq.).
Groundwater samples will be collected from monitor wells located at or near the perimeter
of the GMZ. Analytes will include VOCs, SVOCs, and metals. Within the GMZ, monitor
wells selected to evaluate the LF-5 source area also will be sampled. Per CERCLA
guidance, it is assumed that monitoring will continue for 30 years, or until determined
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonel«xljb 81 07/14/95
-------
otherwise during the SARA review process. However, the sampling program will be
conducted until cleanup goals are achieved.
Modifications to the monitoring plan will be expected over time, based on interpretation of
the analytical results. In addition, over the long term, it is likely that fewer monitoring
locations would be required because of the effectiveness of the remedial action in removing
the source materials in LF-5 and eliminating contact of these materials with groundwater.
MK01\RFTK)062a026.004\B»elRxUb 82 07/14/95
-------
XI. STATUTORY DETERMINATION
The remedial action selected for implementation for Zone 1 is consistent with CERCLA
and the NCP. The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment,
attains ARARs, and is cost effective.
A. The Selected Remedy Is Protective of Human Health and the Environment
The remedy at Zone 1 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, engineering controls, and institutional controls. Specifically,
this will be accomplished through the natural attenuation and biodegradation of
contaminated groundwater, the establishment of a GMZ, and deed restrictions on
groundwater use in Zone 1 within the established GMZ.
B. The Selected Remedy Attains ARARs
This remedy will attain all applicable or relevant and appropriate federal and state
requirements that apply to Zone 1. Environmental laws from which ARARs for the selected
remedial action are derived, and the specific ARARs include:
• Chemical-specific ARARs.
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
State of New Hampshire Regulations.
• Location-specific ARARs.
- - Executive Order 11888, Protection of Floodplains.
Executive Order 11990 (40 CFR 6, Appendix A), Protection of
Wetlands.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA).
State of New Hampshire Regulations.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelnxljb 83 07/14/95
-------
Action-specific ARARs.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
State of New Hampshire Regulations.
The basewide ARARs document (G-614) identifies ARARs for Pease AFB and provides
a detailed discussion of ARARs. Table 31 (Appendix A) provides a complete list of
ARARs and to be considered (TBC) criteria for Alternative MM-2, including regulatory
citations, requirement synopses, actions to be taken to attain the requirements, and
determinations as to whether the requirement is applicable, relevant, and appropriate, or
to be considered.
C. The Selected Remedy Is Cost Effective
The Air Force considers the selected remedy to be cost effective (i.e., the remedy affords
overall effectiveness proportional to its cost). Once alternatives that are protective of
human health and the environment and that either attain or, as appropriate, waive ARARs
were identified, the overall effectiveness of each alternative was evaluated by assessing the
relevant three criteria: long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction in TMV through
treatment, and short-term effectiveness.
A summary of the costs of each remedial alternative follows. All costs are presented in net
present-worth costs.
Remedial Alternative
1. No Action
2 Limited Action/Natural Attenuation
Groundwater /Institutional
Controls/GMZ
Capital Cost
Not costed
SO
Present- Worth O&M
Cost at Year 30
Not costed
$2,054,000
Total Present-
Worth Cost
Not costed
$2,054,000
MK01\RPT:00628in6-004\zooelrodjb
84
07/14/95
-------
Remedial Alternative
3. Collection of Zone 1 Groundwater and
On-Base Treatment Using Metals
Precipitation/UV Chemical
Oxidation/Carbon Adsorption, On-Base
Disposal of Groundwater Through
Recharge Trenches, and Institutional
Controls/GMZ
Capital Cost
$1,947,100
Present-Worth O&M
Cost at Year 30
$5,861,400
Total Present-
Worth Cost
$7,809,000
Alternative MM-2 is the most cost effective, and the relationship of its overall effectiveness
to its cost is proportional. A summary of the costs of key elements associated with
Alternative MM-2 (in net present-worth costs) is presented as follows:
Component of Remedy
Groundwater Sample Collection and Data Reporting
Laboratory Analyses
Monitor Well Maintenance
SARA Review
Total
Present- Worth Cost
$553,600
$1,305,000
$64,700
$130,700
$2,054,000
D. The Selected Remedy Uses Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment or Resource
Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
Once those alternatives that attain or, as appropriate, waive ARARs and that are protective
»
of human health and the environment were identified, the Air Force identified the
alternative that uses permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. This determination was made by
deciding which one of the identified alternatives provides the most favorable balance in
consideration of the following factors: (1) long-term effectiveness and permanence; (2)
reduction of TMV through treatment; (3) short-term effectiveness; (4) implementability; and
(5) cost. The balancing test emphasized long-term effectiveness and permanence, the
reduction of TMV through treatment, community and state acceptance, and the preference
MKQl\RPT:00628026.004\zonelnxLsb
85
07/14/95
-------
for treatment as principal element and community and state acceptance. Of the alternatives
evaluated, the selected remedy provides the most favorable balance of the factors
considered.
Alternative MM-3 includes treatment of contaminated groundwater, and, based on an
emphasis on the reduction of TMV through treatment, this alternative slightly outranks
Alternatives MM-1 and MM-2. Over the long term, however, it is expected that Alternatives
MM-1, MM-2, and MM-3 will achieve the same level of reduction in TMV. However, the
cost of Alternative MM-3 exceeds those of Alternative MM-2 by 500%.
E. The Selected Remedy Satisfies the Preference for Treatment That Permanently and
Significantly Reduces the Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the Hazardous Substances
as a Principal Element
The principal element of the selected remedy is the management of groundwater
contamination. Treatment is not the principal element of the selected alternative because
treatment does not significantly reduce the amount of time necessary to achieve cleanup
goals. Furthermore, treatment is not cost effective, given that reduction in TMV through
natural attenuation is an available option.
MW>l\RFT:oeliaUb 86 07/14/95
-------
XII. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Draft Final Zone 1 FS Report (G-622) was submitted in December 1993. The
description of Alternative MM-2 was presented in the Zone 1 Proposed Plan (G-697). No
changes to the Zone 1 selected remedy have occurred since issuance of the Zone 1
Proposed Plan.
MTOl\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sb 87 07/14/95
-------
XIII. STATE ROLE
NHDES has reviewed the various alternatives and has indicated its support for the selected
remedy. NHDES also has reviewed the Zone 1 RI and FS Reports, including the risk
assessment, to determine whether the selected remedy is in compliance with applicable or
relevant and appropriate state environmental laws and regulations. NHDES concurs with
the selected remedy for Zone 1. A copy of the Declaration of Concurrence is provided in
Appendix B.
MK01\RPT:006M026.004\zonelrodJb 88 07/14/95
-------
REFERENCES
G-84 CH2MHill. 1984. Installation Restoration Program Records Search for Pease AFB,
NH.
G-169 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1988. "Drinking Water Regulations:
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper." 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142. Federal Register,
53(160):31516.
G-189 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund — Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual. Part A. Interim Final.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/540/1-89/002.
G-217 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. Meeting among U.S. Air
Force, Roy F. Weston, Inc., U.S. EPA Region I, and the State of New Hampshire.
EPA Region I, Boston, MA 10 September 1991.
G-225 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund: Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance.
Standard Default Exposure Factors. Interim Final. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response. Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.
G-262 Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY.
G-395 New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory. 1990. An Ecological Inventory of
Pease AFB. Department of Resources and Economic Development.
G-501 U.S. Department of the Air Force. 1993. Installation Restoration Program, Draft
Proposal Plan for IRP Sites 2 and 4, Landfill 2 and Landfill 4, Pease AFB, NH. June
1993.
G-506 U.S. Department of the Air Force. 1993. Installation Restoration Program, Revised
Draft Final Proposed Plan for IRP Site 5, Landfill 5 - Source Area, Pease AFB, NH.
July 1993.
G-525 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1986. Installation Restoration Program, Phase II
— Confirmation/Quantification, Stage 1 Final Report, Pease AFB, NH. June 1986.
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.
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelrod.ref R-l 07/18/95
-------
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-541 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1990. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3,
Drum Removal at IRP Site 5 (LF-5) Informal Technical Information Report for Pease
AFB,NH. December 1990.
G-542 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1990. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3,
Landfill 5 Site Characterization Summary Informal Technical Information Report for
Pease AFB, NH. November 1990. Draft.
G-551 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1991. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3,
IRP Site 5 and IRP Site 8 Column Leach Study Letter Reports. February 1991.
G-553 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1991. Installation Restoration Program Stage 3B,
Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection. Pease AFB, NH. Draft Report. February
1991.
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-573 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1992. Installation Restoration Program, Pease AFB
Railroad Tracks (Site 46) Site Investigation Letter Report, Pease AFB, NH. September
1992.
G-574 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1992. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C,
Feasibility Study, JLandfill 5, Pease AFB, NH.
G-580 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1992. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C,
Landfill 5 Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH. April 1992. Draft Final.
G-587 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1992. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, No
Further Action Decision Document for IRP Site 3. Pease AFB, NH. September 1992.
G-590 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1992. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Site
Characterization Summary, Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.ref R-2 07/18/95
-------
G-601 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1992. Protocols for Generation of Baseline Risk
Assessments for Pease AFB, NH. February 1992.
G-614 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4,
Basewide ARARs, Pease AFB, NH. January 1993.
G-617 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4,
Landfill 5 Record of Decision Report, Pease AFB, NH. June 1993.
G-622 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4,
Zone 1 Draft Final Feasibility Study Report, Pease AFB, NH. December 1993.
G-623 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.) 1993. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Zone
1 Draft Final Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH. October 1993.
G-653 Feenstra, S., D.M. MacKay, and J.A. Cherry. 1991. A Method for Assessing
Residual NAPL Based on Organic Chemical Concentrations in Soil Samples.
Ground Water Monitoring Review, Spring 1991:128-136.
G-669 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1994. Installation Restoration Program, Site 13,
Bulk Fuel Storage Area, Site Investigation Report, Pease AFB, NH. February 1994.
G-696 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc,). 1994. Installation Restoration Program, Technical
Memorandum - Addendum to the Ecological Risk Assessment for LF-4 and the PCD A.
Pease AFB, NH. August 1994.
G-697 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1994. Installation Restoration Program, Proposed
Plan for Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH. July 1994.
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelrod.ref R-3 07/18/95
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AFB
AFCEE/ESB
AHCs
ARARs
BAFs
BFSA
CERCLA
CTVs
DEQPPM
DOD
DOI
EPA
FEMA
FFA
ftBGS
FWCA
GMZ
GT
HHCs
HQAFBCA
IRM
IRP
ITPO
ITR
LF-2
LF-3
LF-4
LF-5
MCLs
MOU
NCP
NFADD
NHANG
NHDES
NPL
O&M .
OHCs
OUs
PA/SI
PA/SI
PAHs
PCB
PCDA
PCE
Pease Air Force Base
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence Base Closure Division
aromatic hydrocarbons
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
bioaccumulation factors
Bulk Fuel Storage Area
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
critical toxicity values
Defense Environmental Quality Program Policy Memorandum
Department of Defense
Department of the Interior
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Facilities Agreement
feet below ground surface
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Groundwater Management Zone
Glacial Till
halogenated hydrocarbons
Headquarters Air Force Base Conversion Agency
Interim Remedial Measure
Installation Restoration Program
intensive test pit operation
Interim Technical Report
Landfill 2
Landfills
Landfill 4
Landfills
Maximum Contaminant Levels
Memorandum of Understanding
National Contingency Plan
No Further Action Decision Document
New Hampshire Air National Guard
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
National Priorities List
operation and maintenance
Oxygenated hydrocarbons
operable units
Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation
Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
polychlorinated biphenyl
Paint Can Disposal Area
tetrachloroethene
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelrod.aCT
Acr-1
07/14/95
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
(Continued)
PDA Pease Development Authority
PEA 3 letter site code
Pease AFB Pease Air Force Base
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RAOs remedial action objectives
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
RfD reference dose
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RI ' Remedial Investigation
RME reasonable maximally exposed
ROD Record of Decision
ROs remedial objectives
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SVOCs semivolatile organic compounds
TBC to be considered
TCE Trichloroethene
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TMV toxicity, mobility, or volume
TPHs Total petroleum hydrocarbons
TRC Technical Review Committee
USAFOEHL U.S. Air Force Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory
UST Underground Storage Tank
VOC volatile organic compound
WESTON* Roy F. Weston, Inc.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zon«lrod.acr
Acr-2
07/14/95
-------
APPENDIX A
TABLES
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelrod.sa 07/14/95
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stage 1 Through Stage 4 Activities
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Stage 1 Activities
Date
11/84
11/84-2/85
2/85-3/85
3/85
3/85-4/85
4/85-5/85
5/85
8/85-9/85
8/85-9/85
Activity
Surface water sampling
Monitor well installation and
development
Slug test
Surface water sampling
Groundwater sampling (round 1)
Groundwater sampling (round 2)
Surveying
Surface water resampling
Groundwater resampling
Sampling Points
SW-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
501 through 509
501, 502, 503, 504, 506, 507,
509
SW-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
501 through 509
501 through 509
501 through 509
SW-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
505
Purpose
Evaluate surface water for TOX, TOC, O&G (1-9)
cyanide, phenols, metals, and lindane (2-9).
Establish groundwater monitoring points around
LF-2, LF-4, LF-5, and the BFSA.
Evaluate hydraulic conductivity.
Evaluate surface water for TOX, TOC,
O&G (1-9), cyanide, phenols, metals, and lindane
(2-4, 6-9 only).
Evaluate groundwater for TOX, TOC, O&G, cyanide
(501 through 509), phenols, metals, and lindane (505
through 509 only).
Same as round 1.
Determine elevations and locations.
Re-evaluate surface water for cyanide, O&G, and
lindane because holding times were exceeded.
Re-evaluate groundwater for phenols, cyanide, and
lindane because holding times were exceeded.
MKO!\Rri':00628026.004\7.onc 1 rod apa
A-l
07/14/95
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stage 1 Through Stage 4 Activities
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Staff 2 ActMOet
Date
10/87-1/88
10/87-1/88
10/87-1/88
Begin 11/87
12/87
3/88-4/88
3/88-4/88
4/88
4/88
Activity
Aerial photograph review
Magnetometer survey
GPR survey
Water-level measurements
(quarterly)
Rcsurvey
Test pit excavation
Piezometer installation
Soil borings
Piezometer installation
Scope
Photographs from 1952, 1960,
and 1976
25- x 50-ft grids
10- x 10-ft subgrids
(Landffll-2, -3, -4, -5)
10- x 10-ft subgrids
(Landfills -2, -4, -5)
Stage 1 wells, Stage 2 wells,
piezometers, gages as installed
Monitor wells 501 through 509
02-905 through 908
03-909, 910
04-911 through 914
05-915 through 929
02-905
03-910
04-911, 914
05-916, 919, 920, 924, 929n,
929s
03-700, 768, 769
03 700, 769
Purpose
Evaluate areal extent of and surface topography of
Zone 1 sites.
Evaluate areas of buried ferrous material (i.e.,
drums).
Verify anomalous magnetometer readings.
Evaluate hydrologic characteristics.
Verify locations and elevations.
Investigate magnetic and GPR anomalies; determine
depth and character of fill.
Obtain water-level measurements.
Characterize soil contamination.
Obtain water-level measurements.
MK01\RFT:00628026 004\zone Irod apa
A-2
07/14/95
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stage 1 Through Stage 4 Activities
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Stage 2 Activities (Continued) ;
Date .
4/88
4/88-5/88
9/88-10/88
10/88
10/88
11/88-12/88
11/88
11/88
11/88-12/88
Activity
Staff gage installation
Survey
Water table and bedrock well
installation and development
Test pit excavation
Piezometer installation
Survey
Surface water and sediment
sampling
Minirate pumping test
Round 1 groundwater sampling
Scope
26-818 through 824
23-813
Test pits, borings, gages, and
piezometers
02-537
03-538
05-604, 605, 606
02-968, 969, 970
04-971, 972, 973, 980, 981
05-974, 975, 976
04-972, 981
Monitor wells and test pits
23-813
26-818 through 824
05-604
02-506, 507
03-538
04-508, 509
05-505, 604, 605, 606
13-501, 502, 503, 504
Purpose
Obtain water-level measurements; establish surface
water and sediment sampling locations.
Determine elevations and locations.
Evaluate overburden and bedrock water quality.
Evaluate refuse type and saturated thickness.
Obtain water-level measurements.
Determine elevations and locations.
Evaluate surface water for VOCs, SVOCs,
pesticides/PCBs, herbicides, total metals, and
cyanide. Evaluate sediment for VOCs, SVOCs,
pesticides/PCBs, metals, herbicides, and TPHs.
Estimate hydraulic conductivity.
Evaluate groundwater for VOCs, SVOCs,
peslicidcs/PCBs, herbicides, dissolved metals,
common anions, total hardness, and nitrate/nitrite.
MK01\RFT:0062R02fi.004\7.one1md.apa
A-3
07/14/95
-------
Table 1
Summaiy of Stage 1 Through Stage 4 Activities
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Stitt 1 AttMtltt (CMOtuttt)
Date
5/89
5/89
9/89
10/89
10/89
10/89-1/90
11/89-12/89
11/89-4/90
1/90
2/90
Activity
Surface water and sediment
sampling
Round 2 groundwater sampling
Sediment and surface water
sampling
Stratigraphic boring
Water table well installation
Drum removal IRM
Bedrock well installation
Column leaching test
Chemical analysis hand auger
boring
Miniratc pumping tests
Scope
23-813
26-818 through 824
02-506, 507, 537
03-538
04-508,509
05-505,604
13-501, 502, 503, 504
St*g« 3 Activate
10 locations (818 through 824,
826 through 828)
05-7000
05-567, 05-568
1-acre tract; southeastern
section of landfill.
05-625 through 05-630
405, 406, 407, 408
05-7011
05-625, 05-627 through 05-630
Purpose
Evaluate surface water for VOCs, pesticides/PCBs,
total metals, BOD, and ammonia/nitrogen. Evaluate
sediment for cyanide.
Evaluate groundwater for VOCs, SVOCs,
pesticides/PCBs, herbicides, dissolved metals,
common anions, total hardness, nitrate/nitrite.
Evaluate surface water quality and measure its
potential effect on macroinvertebrate populations.
Optimize monitor well location and screen depth.
Evaluate overburden groundwater quality.
IRM performed to remove possible contaminant
source.
Evaluate bedrock groundwater quality.
Evaluate effect of soil contamination on groundwater
quality.
Obtain laboratory analysis during drum removal.
Evaluate aquifer characteristics.
MKOI\RIT:006281)26.004\zonelrod.apa
A-4
07/14/95
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stage 1 Through Stage 4 Activities
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Stage 3 Activate* Continued)
Date
3/90, 10/90, 6/91,
8/91, 10/91
9/90
5/91
5/91
5/91
5/91-6/91
5/91-6/91
5/91-6/91
5/91-7/91
5/91-7/91
Activity
Groundwater sampling
Water table well installation
Test pit excavation
Landfill cover soil sampling
Stratigraphic borings
Piezometer installation
Borehole permeability borings
Borehole permeability tests
Bedrock well installation
Water table well installation
Scope
See groundwater analyte
summary table (Appendix B).
05-578
44-9001 through 44-9010
32 locations (336 through 367)
200- x 200-ft grid
03-7054, 05-7055, 05-7056, 05-
7079, 13-7053, 44-7049 through
44-7052
03-7054, 05-7040 through 05-
7046, 13-7053, 44-7049 through
44-7052
05-7039 through 05-7048
05-7039 through 05-7048
05-6003 through 05-6006
05-5007, 13-5008, 44-5015
Purpose
Characterize bedrock and overburden groundwater
quality in the LP-5 area.
Evaluate overburden groundwater quality west of LF-
5. Paired with bedrock well 629 to calculate vertical
hydraulic gradient.
Investigate potential PCE source upgradient of LP-5.
Characterize landfill cover material to assess air,
direct contact, and surface runoff pathways.
Optimize locations and screen intervals for
overburden monitor wells.
Monitor water levels in overburden.
Installed to conduct borehole permeability tests
within LF-5.
Further delineate landfill solid waste and establish
permeability values in the underlying material.
Evaluate bedrock water quality in/near LF-5.
Evaluate extent of PCE in groundwater.
MKUl\RIT:0062«02fi.n(M\zonelrod.apa
A-.S
07/14/95
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stage 1 Through Stage 4 Activities
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Stop J AttMOu (CteM*»««Q
Date
5/91-7/91
5/91-7/91
5/91-7/91
6/91
6/91,
10/91
7/91
9/91
9/91
10/91
11/91
Activity
Water table well installation
Water table well installation
Bedrock well installation
Sediment and surface water
sampling
Wetlands delineation
Pumping lest
Test pit excavation and soil
sampling
TCLP analyses
Sediment and surface water
sampling
Surface soil sampling
Smpe
05-5009 through 05-5011, 05-
5014
05-5012, 05-5013
44-6001,44-6002
17 locations (818 through 824,
827, 828, 8031 through 8038)
In and adjacent to LF-5
48-hour lest on well 05-630
05-9012 through 05-9021
Railway Ditch sediments,
test pits
Five locations (8061, 8072
through 8074, 8079)
46-372 through 46-377
Purpose
Monitor overburden water quality. Paired with
bedrock wells to calculate vertical hydraulic gradient.
Monitor water quality hydraulically downgradient of
the northern trench area.
Evaluate bedrock water quality upgradient of LF-5.
Delineate potential PCE source.
Evaluate surface water quality and measure potential
impacts to macroinvertebrate populations from
surface water/sediment contamination.
Identify wetlands areas.
Estimate hydraulic conductivity of the bedrock
aquifer beneath the landfill.
Characterize LF-5 soil and debris.
Evaluate teachability of soil and sediments.
Further characterize known contamination.
Evaluate herbicide usage along railroad tracks.
MK01\RFT:00628026.0M\zonelrod.»pa
A-6
07/14/95
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stage 1 Through Stage 4 Activities
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Stage 4 Activities
Date
8/91
9/91 to 11/91
9/91 to 10/91
11/91
5/92
5/92
5/92
6/92
6/92-8/92
8/92
Activity
Surface soil samples
Stratigraphic, characterization, and
exploratory borings
Piezometer installation
Water table/bedrock well
installation
Stratigraphic borings
Piezometer installation
Bedrock well installation
Water table well installation
Intensive test pit operation (ITPO)
Test pits
Scope
02-3009 through 3011
04-3012 through 3017
13-7280 through 7299; 7350
through 7369; 7453
13-7280, 7284d, 7284s, 7285,
7287, 7291, 7294, 7299, 7353,
7354, 7355, 7358, 7359, 7360,
7361, 7363, 7369
13-5045, 5047, 6036, 6037
04-7461, 7467, 7464, 7465
04-7462, 7466
04-6052
13-5069
44-9029 through 9049
02-9072 through 9084
04-9063 through 971
Purpose
Characterize landfill cover material to assess air,
direct contact, and surface runoff pathways.
Characterize soil quality and determine lithology.
Characterize overburden groundwater flow direction.
Evaluate groundwater quality and flow direction
adjacent to the BFSA.
Characterize lithology and optimize monitor
well/piezometer placement.
Evaluate overburden groundwater quality
downgradient of LF-4.
Evaluate bedrock groundwater quality downgradient
of LF-4.
Evaluate overburden groundwater quality
downgradient of the BFSA.
Characterize the PCDA soil and debris. Remove
drums and contaminated soil.
Characterize soil and debris in LF-2 and
LF-4.
MK01\RTT:00628026.004\zone Irud.apa
A-7
07/14/95
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stage 1 Through Stage 4 Activities
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
St*gt4ActM&i(Conti*u*)
Dale
8/92
8/92
8/92
8/92-9/92
8/92-9/92
9/92
10/92-11/92
10/92-11/92
10/92-11/92
Activity
Surface water samples
Sediment samples
Water table well installation
Stratigraphic borings
Piezometer installation
Surface soil sampling
Bedrock well installation
Stratigraphic borings
Piezometer installation
Scope
26-8106, 8110, 8111, 8114
13-8157
23-8118, 8120 through 8125
26-818A, 819A, 821A, 8106
through 8117, 8119
13-8157
13-5097
13-7514, 7515, 7517, 7518,
7519, 7540, 7546, 7549, 7550,
7558, 7560, 7562
44-7572
13-7517, 7546
44-3044 through 3049
44-6087, 6088, 6089, 6091
44-7627, 7644, 7646, 7647,
7652, 7657, 7666, 7675, 7681,
7700, 7710, 7718, 7721, 5098
44-7644, 7646, 7647, 7652,
7657, 7675, 7710, 7718, 7721
Purpose
Evaluate surface water quality and further delineate
known contamination.
Evaluate sediment quality and further delineate
known contamination.
Evaluate overburden groundwater quality.
Characterize lithology and optimize monitor well
placement.
Characterize overburden groundwater flow.
Characterize surface soil to assess air, direct contact,
and surface water pathway. ,
Evaluate groundwater quality in fractured and
competent bedrock. Characterize bedrock flow
direction.
Characterize lithology.
Characterize overburden groundwater flow direction
and groundwaler quality.
MK01\RFT:00628026004\zone1rodapa
A-8
JD7/U/9S
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stage 1 Through Stage 4 Activities
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Stage 4 Activities (Continued)
Date
11/92-12/92
11/92,12/92
11/92-12/92
11/92-12/92
12/92
12/92
1/93
1/93
1/93
Activity
Bedrock well installation
Water table well installation
Stratigraphic borings
Piezometer installation
Surface water/sediment samples
Groundwater sampling
Groundwater sampling
HydroPunch* -borings
Straligraphic borings
Scope
02-6094, 6100
04-6102
05-6101
13-6090, 6092, 6093, 6095,
60%, 6104, 6105
05-5113
02-7755, 7774, 7775, 7783, 7787
04-7788, 7789, 7791
13-7723, 7734, 7758, 7759,
7763, 7764, 7793, 7794
02-7755, 7775, 7783
04-7789, 7791
13-7723, 7759, 7793, 7794
8177, 8178, 8179
See Subsection 2.4.7.2
See Subsection 2.4.7.2
44-7833 through 7836, 7838
through 7840, 7842 through
7845
44-7832, 7841
Purpose
Evaluate bedrock groundwater quality.
Evaluate overburden groundwater quality.
Characterize lithology and optimize monitor well
placement.
Characterize lithology and monitor water levels in
overburden.
Evaluate surface water /sediment quality and further
delineate known contamination.
Assess potential groundwater contamination.
Assess potential groundwater contamination.
Evaluate groundwater quality.
Characterize lilhulogy.
MKOI\KrT:0062802r>.004\zonclrnd.apa
A-9
07/14/95
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stage 1 Through Stage 4 Activities
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Date
1/93
1/93
1/93-2/93
6/93
6/93
Activity
Piezometer installation
Pumping test
Slug tests
Test pits
Groundwater sampling
St*g*4Aat#to(C*«iiuH4
Scope
13-7837
48-hour test on well 13-6104
02-6100, 6094, 7775, 7783
04-6102
05-5113, 6101
13-5069, 6090, 6092, 6096,
6104, 6105, 7723
44-6091, 7644, 7646, 7647,
7652, 7657, 7675, 7710
13-9174 through 9193; 9203
through 9205
See Subsection 2.4.7.2 of the
Zone 1 RI Report
Purpose
Replace 13-7280, which was inadvertently destroyed
and subsequently abandoned.
Evaluate aquifer characteristics within Zone 1.
Evaluate overburden and bedrock aquifer
characteristics.
Evaluate the extent of contamination.
Assess potential groundwater contamination
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonc1rod.afu
A-10
07/14/95
-------
Table 2
Summary of Highest Organics
Concentrations in Soils — LF-2
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Compound
Volatile Organics
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Xylene (total)
Maximum
Concentration
Detected
(mg/kg)
Sample ID
0.011 J
3009-S001
Sampling Interval
(ft BGS)
0-1.0
Oxygenated Hydrocarbons
Diethyl ether
0.003 J
9080-S002
9079-S003
2.0
3.0
Semi volatile Organics
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(lr23-cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
0.98 J
L3J
4.0
8.8
9.4
7.4
6.9
7,8
9.9
Z9J
1.9 J
22
4.0
5.8
1.7 J
1.5 J
26.0
22.0
3009-S001
3009-S001
3009-S001
3009-S001
3009-S001
3009-S001
3009-S001
3009-S001
3009-S001
3009-S001
3009-S001
3009-S001
3009-SOOl
3009-S001
3009-SOOl
3009-SOOl
3009-SOOl
3009-SOOl
0-1.0
0-1.0
0-1.0
0-1.0
0-1.0
0-1.0
0-1.0
0-1.0
0-1.0
-0-1.0
0-1.0
0-1.0
0-1.0
0-1.0
0-1.0
0-1.0
0-1.0
0-1.0
MK01\RFT:0062Sa26.004Vzcnclrod.4»i
A-ll
07'U/95
-------
Table 2
Summary of Highest Organics
Concentrations in Soils — LF-2
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Compound
PCBs
Arochlor-1248
Arochlor-1254
Other
Benzole acid
Maximum
Concentration
Detected
(mg/kg)
11.0
18.0
Sample ID
9079-S003
9079-S003
Sampling Interval
(ft BGS)
3.0
3.0
0.42 J
3009-S001
0-1.0
J = Estimated concentration compound detected below laboratory quantification limits.
Shading * Location where maximum detected concentration exceeded the background value.
MK01\lUT:OQ62«B6.aM\melrad.*«
A-12
07/U/M
-------
Table 3
Summary of Highest Metals Concentrations
in Soils - LF-2
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Element
Aluminum
Arsenic
Boron
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Silicon
Vanadium
Zinc
Maximum
Concentration
Detected
(mg/kg)
12^00
10.2
26.1 J
50.4
.0.79
1,580
175
15.7
25.8
22,800
44.6
3,630
512
41.1
1580
23.6
60.2
Sample ID
9079-S003
3009-S001
9079-S003
9079-S003
3009-S001
3009-S001
9079-S003
3009-S001
9079-S003
9079-S003
3010-S002
9079-S003
3009-S001
9079-S003
3009-S001
3009-S001
9079-S003
Sampling Interval
(ft BGS)
3.0
0-1.0
3.0
3.0
0-1.0
0-1.0
3.0
0-1.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
0-1.0
3.0
0-1.0
0-1.0
• 3.0
J = Estimated concentration compound detected below laboratory quantification limits
MK01\RPT:0062S026.00*\l«ttlrod.«pi
A-13
mi 14/95
-------
Table 4
Sununaiy of Highest Concentrations of
Organics in Soils — LF-4
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Compound
Volatile Organics
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
1,4-Dicolorobenzenc
Toluene
Oilorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Xykne (total)
Oxygenated Hydrocarbons
Diethyl ether
Maximum
Concentration
Detected
(ngAg)
0.035
0.85
0.002 J
0.018
0.043
0.003 J
Sample ID
9069-S003
9069-S003
9069-S003
9069-S003
9069-S003
Sampling Interval
(ft BGS)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
9069-S003
3.0
SemivoiatUe Organics
PAHs
>\r»n*nhtkf>n*
Anthracene
Benzo(a)aBthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(glh>i)peryleae
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
»
Dibenzo(a4>)anthraceae
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Indeno(L13-c,d)pyrene
2-Methybaphthaleae
Naphthalene
0.43 J
0.41
2.6
25
2.4
L8
2.4
17
0^1
OJT7J
0.49
6.0
1.7
030 J
0.57 J
9067-S002
9068-S012
9067-S002
9067-S002
9067-S002
9067-S002
9067-S002
9067-S002
9067-S002
9068-S012
9068-S012
9067-S002
9067-S002
9069-S003
9069-S003
2.0
9.0-13.0
2.0
2.0
10
10
10
10
10
9.0-D.O
9.0-13.0
10
10
3.0
3.0
A-14
07/14/93
-------
Table 4
Summary of Highest Concentrations of
Organics in Soils — LF-4
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Compound
Semivolatile Organics (continued)
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Maximum
Concentration
Detected
(mg/kg)
Sample ID
Sampling Interval
(ft BGS)
4.1
4:9 J
9067-S002
9067-S002
2.0
2.0
Phthalates
Bis(2-ethyihexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Diethylphthalate
8.9
0.055 J
0.054 J
9069-S003
3016-S002
9068-S012
3.0
0-10
9.0-13.0
Phenols
4-Methylphenol
4-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
0.091J
0.16 J
0.14 J
9069-S003
3014-S002
3014-S002
3.0
0-2.0
0-2.0
Nitrogenated SemivolatUes
n-Nhrosodiphenylamine
0.074 J
9068-S012
9.0-13.0
Pesticides
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
gamma-BHC (lindane)
0.0025 J
0.0014 J
0.0041 J
0.00036 J
PCBs „
Aroclor-1232
Aroclor-1242
Aroclor-1254
23
3.1 J
031 J
3017-S002
3013-S002
3016-S002
3013-S002
0-2.0
0-20
0-2.0
0-2.0
9069-S003
9068-S012
9069-S003
3.0
9.0-13.0
3.0
MK01UtFT:0062SQ26.0a*\xanclroii.q>i
A-15
07/14(95
-------
Table 4
Summary of Highest Concentrations of
Organics in Soils — LF-4
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Compound
Other
Benzoic acid
Total petroleum hydrocarbons
(E418.1)
TPH (SW8100)
Maximum
Concentration
Detected
(mg/kg)
037 J
11400
342
Sample ID
3014-S002
911-S001
9069-S003
Sampling Interval
(ft BGS)
0-10
0-1.0
3.0
J » Estimated concentration compound detected below laboratory quantification limits.
Shading • Location where maximum detected concentration exceeded the background value.
MK01\KPT:OM210tt.OMMaMlnd.4M
A-16
07/14/95
-------
Table 5
Summary of Highest Metals
Concentrations in Soils — LF-4
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Element
Aluminum
Arsenic
Boron
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silicon
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Maximum
Concentration
Detected
(mgAg)
14,200
15.0 J
40.4 J
983
0.75
3,2201
52
25.6 J
35.4
35.8
31,900
138
5,730
L090J
23
83.0 J
U20
2,770
109
27.2
191
Sample ID
3012-S002
9068-S112
9067-S002
9068-S112
9067-S002
9068-S112
911-S001
9068-S112
911-S001
9068-S112
9067-S002
911-S001
9066-S001
9068-S112
911-S001
9068-S112
3013-S002
3014-S002
9069-S003
9067-S002
9069-S003
Sampling Interval
(ft BGS)
0-2.0
9.0-13.0
2.0
9.0-13.0
2.0
9.0-13.0
0.1.0
9.0-D.O
0-1.0
9.0-13.0
2.0
0-1.0
1.0
9.0-13.0
0-1.0
9.0-13.0
-0-2.0
0-2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
J = Estimated concentration compound detected below laboratory quantification limits.
Shading = Location where maximum detected concentration exceeded the background
value.
MK01\RPT:00«2S026.0M\ZDaelrod.>pa
A-17
07/14/95
-------
Table 6
Summary of Highest Concentrations of Organics in Water Table Groundwater
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Maximum Detected
Concentration
Organics Compounds (u.f/D Location ID
Volatile Omaies \
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Benzene
sec-Butyibenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
i CUorobenzene
1,2- Dkhlorobenzene
1,4- Dichlorobenzene
Isopropylbenzene
4-Isopropyitoluene
N-Propylbenzene
MJ»-Xvtene
Methyfene chloride
Toluene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
13,5 -Trimetbvlbenzene
9.0 5014-M001
4.0
0.9 J
22.0
2.0
5008-M002
5008-M002
502-M007
567-M004
32.0 567-M004I
1.0 i 5014-M001
020 J
5008-M101
5014-MOOl
7844-M001
1.0 5014-MOOl!
03 J
5008-M002
54.0 J • ! 7835-M003
0.8 J
0.20 J
0.10 J
0.10
7845-MOO]
567-M004
502-M007
502-M008
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
CbJoroetbane 3.0 502-MOO?!
as- 1,2-Dichloroethene
Dicblorodifluorometaane
U-Dichloroethane
1.2-DicUoroetbane
trans- 1,2-Dichloroethene
Total- 1,2-Dichloroethene
Methyl chloride
Methytethylketone (2-batanone)
Tetrachloroethene 0*CE)
Trichioroethene (TCE)
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinvl chloride
9.0 502-M007
20.0 J ; 502-M001
12 i 502-M005
050 J 502-M007
0.10 J
6.90 J
3.0
13.0
56.0
46.0
502-M007
502-M102
5007-M101
7675-M002
502-M005
502-M005
020 J 6087-M001
8.10 502-M005
Oxycenated Hydrocarbons '
piethyl ether 40.0 502-M102
Seouvolttilc Orooacs
PAHs !
Fluoranthene
Pvrene
Naphthalene
Phthatetes
Benzyl- butyl phthalate
Bisft-ethyihexyl) phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n- butyl phthalate
1.0 J i 578-MOOli
3.0 J 7644-M002
2.0 J 502-M007
25.0
1.100
2.0 J
7644-M002
7644-M002
567-M002
502-M003
2.0 J 578-M001
MK01\RPT«»2a026.00*zlro<»6.wk3
A-18
18-Jul-95
-------
Table 6
Summary of Highest Concentrations of Organics in Water Table Groundwater
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Organics Compounds
Maximum Detected
Concentration
filE/L")
Location ID
Semivolatile Oreanics (continued) !
Diethvlphthalate j 1.0 J
5012-M001
Phenols
4-Chloro-3-methvlphenol I 10 J
5014-M001 '
! Pestitides/PCBs \
Alpha BHC
Aroclor-1260
4-4'-DDD
Heptachlor
0.06
1.80
0.03 J
0.04 J
r 5008-M101
7646-M002
567-M004
502-M005
Herbicides
2.4.5-TP CSilvex) 1 0.05 J
5008-M001
'Exceeds proposed primary MCL.
J = Estimated concentration. Compound detected below laboratory quantification limits.
Shading = Location where the maximum detected concentration exceeds the MCL value.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zlrod6.wk3
A-19
18-Jul-95
-------
Table 7
Summary of Highest Concentrations of Metals
Detected in Water Table Groundwater
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
ij
Anffhte
Aluminum, Soluble
A iiifHitmtii t tOtll
Arsenic, soluble
Arsenic, total
Barium, soluble
Barium, total
Beryllium, total
Boron, soluble
Boron, total
Padmnim total
Calcium, soluble
Calcium, total
Cobalt, soluble
Cobalt, total
Copper, soluble
Copper, total
Iron, soluble
Iron, total
Lead, soluble
Lead, total
Magnesium, soluble
Magnesium, total
Manganese, soluble
Mancanete, total
Mercury, soluble
MoModenum, total
Nickel soluble
Nickel total
Maximum Detected
Concentration i Location ID
fu/L1 ! (u/L) I
0.439*
82 3J*
0.194*
0353*
0.0599
0.638
0.0057*
0.15*
0.405
0.0053
167.0
149.0
0.462 .F*
0.0796
0226
0.0158
0.188*
553*
232.0*
0.007
0.165"*
508-MOO]
5007-M101
567-M004
567-M004J
5014-M001
7647-M002
7647-M002
5008-M003
7647-M002
7646-M002I
567-M003I
7652-M002
5007-M1011
5014-M001
7647-M002
568-M001
7647-M002
5014-M001
7647-M002
567-M002
7647-M002
463* 567-M003
685 J*
5007-M101
13.9* 7675-M002
13.2* 7675-M002
0.0002 508-M001
0.136 7675-M102
0.046*
0.457**
5014-M001
7657-M002
Potassium, soluble 13.1* 567-M002
Potassium, total
Silicon, soluble
Silicon, total
Sodium, soluble
Sodium, total
Thallium, soluble
Vanadium, total
Zinc, soluble
Tjinf , tntstl
20.4* 7647-M002
21.7* i 567-M004
95.7 J* 5007-M101
54.0 J* 506-M003
52.0* 506-M004
0589 J 567-M002
0.212*
0.144 J
0.403*
7647-M002!
509-M002!
5007-M101
'Above background (G-563).
"Exceeds proposed primary MCL.
J m Estimated concentration. Compound detected below laboratory quantiScation limits.
Shading * Location where the maximum detected concentration exceeded the MCL/SMCL
value.
MK01\RPTfl062a026.00*zlrod7.wk3
A-20
18-Jul-95
-------
Table 8
Summary of Highest Concentrations of Organic Compounds in
Deep Bedrock Groundwater
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Organic Compound
Volatile Organic Compounds
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
14 - Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4 - Trichlorobenzene
14,4 - Trimethylbenzene
14 - Xylene
13,5 - Trimethylbenzene
13 - Dichlorobenzene
4— Isopropvl toluene
Benzene
i Chlorobenzene
! Ethvlbenzene
Isopropylbenzene
,M,P- Xylene
N-Butylbenzene
N-Propylbenzene
P - Dichlorobenzene
sec-Butylbenzene
! tert-Butylbenzene
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Haloeenated Hydrocarbons
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1 -Dichloroethane
14 — Dichoroe thane
Chloroform
cis - 1,2 - Dichloroethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Methyl chloride i
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Total- 14 - dichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vinyl chloride !
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
PAHs
! Naphthalene
Phenols
4— Chloro - 3 — methylphenol
Maximum Detected
Concentration
(jLg/L)
32 J
03 J
4.0 J
0.7 J
0.4 J
0.7 J
05 J
59.0
80.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
0.7 J
3.0
38.0
3.0
0.9 J
2.0
5.7 J
2.0 J
15.0
22 J
04 J
0.9 J
23.0
33 J
53 J
8.0
2.4 J
3.0
1.0 J
10.0
10.0
Location ID
605-MOOli
606-M004J
604-M005
6005-M001
6005-M002!;
630-M103
6005-M002
6105-M001
605-M004
6005- MOO 1
6005-M002
6005-M001
606-M004
6005-M002
604-M005
630-M003 1
630-M103'
604-M005 :
606-M004
606-M004I
6005-M001 1
6102-M001
604-M003 !
6094-M001
6005 -M001 I
605-M003jj
6100-MOOll
6005-MOOlli
6005-M002
604-MOOll
604-M0011
6006-M001
630-M001
6002- M002
6005-MOOli
1!
;
604-M005 ;
605-M101,,
MK01VRPTK»628026.0(M\zlrod8.wk3
A-21
18-Jul-95
-------
Table 8
Summary of Highest Concentrations of Organic Compounds in
Deep Bedrock Groundwater
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Ornnjf C/ffiiDQU.nd
Maximum Detected
Concentration
Cue/Lt
Phthalates
Bts(2-ethvihexvl) phthalate
Di-n-butvl phthalate
Diethvtohthalate
Dimetbvtohthalate
8JOJ
6.0 J
11.0
8.0 J
Location ID
605-M101
604-M004
630-M003
628-M004
Pesticides
Alplut endosulf an
BetaBHC
DDT
DeluBHC
14.4-DDD
0.02 J
0.01J
0.02 J
0.04 J
0.1
605-M101
605-M001
605-M001
605-M101
605-M004 !
J • Estimated concentration. Compound detected below laboratory quantification limits.
Shading = Location when the maTimum detected concentration exceeded the MCL value.
MK01\RPT:006M026.00*zlrod8.wk3
A-22
W-Jul-95
-------
Table 9
Summary of Highest Concentrations of Metals
Detected in Bedrock Groundwater
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Metal
Aluminum, soluble
Aluminum total
Arsenic, soluble
Arsenic, total
Barium, soluble
Barium, total
Boron, soluble
Boron, total
PadnMim, soluble
Cadmium, total
Calcium, soluble
Calcium, total
Chromium, total
Cobalt, soluble
Cobalt, total
Copper, total
Maximum Detected
Concentration
(mg/L}
0349
1.66
0.187 J*
0.195 J*
0.107 a
0.111
0336 a
0.269
0.0051 a
0.0056
150
108
0.0103
0.0602
0.0636
0.01
Iron, soluble 64.8
Iron, total
Lead, soluble
Lead, total
Magnesium, soluble
Magnesium, total
Manganese, soluble
Manganese, total
Mercury, soluble
j Mercury, total
Nickel soluble
Nickel total
Potassium, soluble
Potassium, total
Silicon, soluble
Sodium, soluble
Sodium, total
Thallium, soluble
Vandium, soluble
Vanadium, total
Zinc, soluble
Zinc, total
Location
Sample ID !
6088-M002 j
626-M104 ;
6005 -M001 1
6005 -M001
6005-M001 1
6005-M001 i;
605-M001 1
605-M004 •
627-M001
6100-M002
606-M003
605-M004
626-M004
606-M003
630-M103
6001 -M001 :
604-M005 '
130 626-M104
0.0087 * 625-M006 ;'
0.0308 *J
39.1 J3
630-M103 '••.
604-M004
342 ! 6006- M002 \
6.02 a
4.04
0.0007 J
0.00014
0.122 *»
0.0903
17.7*
15.4 a
24.9*
119 a
110 a
0.579 J
0.0488
0.0489
0.078 J
0.132 J
630-M001 i
630-M003 'I
630-M102 i
6003-M002 i
606-M003 !
605-M004 I
606-M002
606-M004 1
606-M001
6101-M002
6101-M002 !
606-M002 j
6005-M001 !
6005-M001
6094-M001
6004- M002
*Above background (G-563).
'Exceeds proposed primary MCL.
J = Estimated concentration. Compound detected below laboratory quantification limits.
Shading = Location where the maximum detected concentration exceeded the MCL/SMCL
value.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zlrod9.wlc3
A-23
18-Jul-93
-------
Table 10
Chemicals of Concern in Site 2 Soil (0 to 2 feet deep)*
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Organic*
Benzok acid
Dibenzofuran
2-MethvinaivhtnaleiK
N*ph»hsUn*
PAHs
A r«i *nhtllF1la*
Acenaphthyieae
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyreae
Benzo(b)fliiamithene
BenaXgJijfyperykae
Bfn7Qft^f\wrmnttt*nr
Chryseae
Dibffn7ftf a Manthrarfjiff
Fluorantheae
Fbioreae
Indeno(lr23-c,d)pyreae
»L__.__»U____
mcDanuirciK
Pyrene
Xylenes (total)
Frequency of
Detection6*
2/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
2/3
1/3
2/3
1/3
1/3
2/3
2/3
' 1/3
Range of
Sample
Ouantitation
Limits
(»«/kg)
1.8
036-0.43
036-0.43
036-0.43
036-0.43
036-0.43
036-0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
036-0.43
0.43
036-0.43
036-0.43
0.43
0.43
0.006
Range of
Detected
Concentrations"
(ng/kg)
0.063-0.42
1.9
1.7
1.5
0.98
13
4.0
0.041-8.8
0.052-9.4
0.046-7.4
0.041-65
0.038-73
0.049-9.9
2.9
0.059-22
4.0
5.8
0.038-26
0.069-22
0.0010
Mean
Concentration1"1
(mg/kg)
0.46'
0.77
0.70
0.63
0.46
0.57
1.5
3.0
32
2J6
2.4
2.7
3.4
1.1
7.4
1.5
2.1
83
7.4
0.0023*
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(ing/kg)
1.2*
2.4*
2.T
1.9*
1.2*
1.6*
5-21
ir
ir
9.6'
9.0*
101
13'
3.T
29*
5Jf
IS
34*
29*
0.0043*
The listed chemicals were selected as chemicals of concern for both the human health and ecological risk
There was only one sample for each sampling location. Therefore, the summary statistics were based on the
detected fOTHTitf^tyft
'Number of «*™p<"«c locations at which the chemical was detected compared with the total number of sampling
locations.
"Arithmetic mean.
detected concentration.
A-24
07/14/95
-------
Table 11
Chemicals of Concern in Site 4 Soil (0 to 2 feet deep)'
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Organic*
Benzole acid*
Bis(2-ethyihexyl) phthalate'
4,4'-DDD«
4,4'-DDE*
4,4'-DDT«
Dibenzofuran
Di-n-butyl phthalate'
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Naphthalene
4-Nitrophcnol
n-Nitrosodiphenyiamine
Frequency of
Detection"
8/8
1/9
2/9
1/9
2/9
2/8
2/9
1/9
2/9
1/9
1/8
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(n>g/kg)
1.9
036-0.62
0.009-2.4
0.018-2.4
0.009-2.4
037-0.42
036-0.62
1.8-2.8
037-0.62
0.53-0.93
037-0.51
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations0
(mg/kg)
Mean
Concentration"
(mg/kg)
0.040-037
0.19
0.002-0.003
0.001
0.003-0.009
0.064-0.17
0.050-0.055
0.14
0.036-0.076
0.16
0.041
0.11
0.21'
0.089'
0.097*
0.085*
0.18'
0.19*
LO*
0.191
031'
0.191
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(mg/kg)
027
0.23'
?.r
6.51
SJff
0.26'
034'
2.01
0.351
038'
035*
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Anthracene*
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(gAi)perylfine
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenao(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(L23-c,d)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrcne*
3/9
2/9
4/9
4/9
4/9
4/9
4/9
4/9
3/9
5/9
3/9
4/9
5/9
5/9
037-0.62
037-0.62
037-0.62
037-0.62
037-0.62
037-0.62
037-0.62
037-0.62
037-0.62
039-0.62
037-0.62
037-0.62
039-0.62
039-0.62
0.045-0.43
0.075-036
0.16(0.086)-2.6
0.16(0.081)-2^
0.18(0.086)-2.4
0.11(0.054)-!^
0.15(0.089)-2.4
0.19(0.095)-2.7
0.087-0.61
0.073-6.0
0.039-0.41
0.11(0.051)-1.7
0.040-4.1
0.040-2.1
022
0.23
0.49
0.45
0.45
039
0.43
0.51
026
0.97
021
038
0.68
0.44
0.40
032
1.5
12
1-2
0.97
1.1
1.5
0.41
93'
0.41
0.96
6.71
1.7
MK01VJUT:0062I026.004Vuaclrod.i|»
A-25
07/14/95
-------
Table 11
Chemicals of Concern in Site 4 Soil (0 to 2 feet deep)'
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
f htmiiral
Inorganics
CmAnt'nnn
Coffer
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Frequency of
Detection"
1/9
9/9
9/9
4/9
9/9
9/9
Range of
Sample
Quantisation
Limits
(mg/kg)
1,8-3.1
3.0*
20>
0.054-0.12
5.0*
1.0*
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'
(mg/kg)
5.2
13-54
0.51-138
0.14-15
20-63
30-139
Mean
Concentration"
(mg/kg)
1.4
24
45
074
33
52
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(«ng/kg)
23
36
66?
2.0
45
75
The listed chemicals were selected as chemicals of concern for both the human health and ecological risk
"Number 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.
*The m<>y was <*«lmi«n>nt. "»'ng the minimum variance unbiased
ftfimation approach for lognonnalry distributed data (G-262).
•Chemical was not detected above background.
'Exceeds the maximum detected and/or averaged concentrations.
'Selected as a ^lifff^y^i of concern for *h**- ccoloaind risk assessment only.
'Sample quantitation limits were not available. The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
A-26
07/I4/W
-------
Table 12
Chemicals of Concern in Site 44 Soil (0 to 2 feet deep)*
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Organic*
Benzole arid'
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate'
4,4'-DDDe
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dibenzofuran
Dieldrin*
Di-n-butyl phthalate'
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Frequency of
Detection"
1/8
1/8
1/8
4/8
6/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
V8
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(mg/kg)
1.7-1.9
034-0.48
0.017-0.084
0.017-0.18
0.017-0.018
034-0.48
0.017-0.018
034-038
034-0.48
034-0.48
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations1
(mg/kg)
Mean
Concentration"1
(mg/kg)
Upper 95%
Confidence
I .'mil of the
Mean
Concentration
(mg/kg)
039
0.19(0.16-0.22)
0.042
0.006-0.042
0.025-0.081
0.23
0.004
0.095
0.080
0.10
0.84'
0.19
0.019
0.026
0.038
0.19
0.022'
0.17*
0.18'
0.18'
1.1'
0.201
0.038
0.083'
0.10'
021
Q.QW
020*
0.23'
0.22'
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene'
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene'
Benzo(a)pyrene'
Benzo(b)fluoranthene'
Benzo(g^,i)perylene*
Benzo(k)fluoranthenee
Chrysene*
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracenec
Fluoranthene*
Fluorene
Indeno(123-c,d)pyrene*
1/8
1/8
2/8
4/8
4/8
4/8
4/8
4/8
4/8
2/8
5/8
1/8
4/8
034-0.48
034-0.48
034-0.48
035-037
035-037
035-037
035-037
035-037
035-037
034-0.48
035-036
034-0.48
035-037
0.082
0.17
0.056-0.45
0.081-0.53
0.081-0.46
0.087-0.43
0.053-036
0.11-0.46
0.11-0.64
0.049-0.11
0.057-1.7
0.41
0.064-034
0.18'
O.I?
021
021
020
021
0.18
021
025
0.16'
0.40
021
0.17
0.23'
0.20"
036
037
033
035
034
033
0.44
0.26'
1.7
0.27
031
MK01\RPT:00628026.00«\2ooclro
-------
Table 12
Chemicals of Concern in Site 44 Soil (0 to 2 feet deep)'
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Chemical
Omnifx (ermtimted)
Phenanthrene
Pyrene'
Frequency of
Detection"
4/8
5/8
Range of
Sample
Qwtitatkm
T -jmjfo
(«8/kg)
035-037
035-036
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations1
(ng/kg)
0.073-1.7
0.053-0.98
Mean
Concentration**
(mg/kg)
032
030
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(mg/kg)
1.1
0.93
Inorganics
CibfOOUUfll
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
'I'^raflllliH
Vanadium
8/8
8/8
8/8
2/3
8/8
1/1
8/8
4.0*
20*
UP
0.11
5.0*
20*
4.0"
19-41(45)
2.4(1.9)-178
205-1,480
0.070-031
17-59
673
13-87
26
61
604
0.14
31
673*
28
31
929"
1,048
537"
43
NA
49
The listed chemicals were selected as chemicals of concern for both the human health and ecological risk
"Number of sampling locations at which the chemical was detected compared with the total number of sampling
locations.
Tf ^K» minimum of m^yjuftimi detected concentration differed from the respective **"•*«""*" or maximum
averaged concentration, the detected concentration is given in parentheses.
'Unless otherwise indicated, the mean was calculated "«*"g the minimmn variant unbiased estimation approach
for lognormaUy distributed data (G-262).
'Chemical was not detected above background.
*Eirmh the maximum detected and/or averaged concentrations.
•Selected as a chemical of concern for die ecological risk assessment only.
kSample quantitation Emits were not available. The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
'Arithmetic mean. The maximum variance unbiased estimation approach cannot be used to calculate a mean
based on one data point
NA * Not applicable. An upper 15% confidence limit of the mean concentration cannot be calculated based
on one A*** point.
MKOlUtrrOOtnOM.OMXnclradjp*
A-28
07/14/95
-------
Table 13
Chemicals of Concern in Site 44 Soil (0 to 15 feet deep)'
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Frequency of
Detection"
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(mg/kg)
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations0
(mg/kg)
Organics
Benzole acid*
Bis(2-ethyihexyl) phthalate"
4,4'-DDDc
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dibenzofuran
Di-n-butyl phthalate'
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
5/16
3/16
1/16
5/16
6/16
1/16
1/16
1/16
1/16
1.7-1.9
034-0.48
0.016-0.092
0.016-0.18
0.016-0.092
034-0.48
034-039
034-0.48
034-0.48
0.045-0.47(039)
0.051(0.048)-
0.19(022)
0.030(0.042)
0.004-0.042
0.025-0.063
(0.081)
0.23
0.095
0.080
0.10
Mean
Concentration11
(mg/kg)
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.83'
0.17
0.018
0.020
0.026
0.19
0.171
0.18'
0.18'
ISf
0.21'
0.026
0.033
0.043
0.19
0.19*
0.20"
0.191
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthyiene*
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracenee
Bcnzo(a)pyrenee
Benzo(b)fluoranthence
Benzo(gAi)perylenec
Benzo(E)fluoranthenec
Chrysene'
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracenee
Fluoranthene*
1/16
2/16
3/16
9/16
8/16
8/16
7/16
8/16
9/16
3/16
10/16
034-0.48
034-0.48
034-0.48
034-037
034-037
034-037
034-037
034-037
034-037
034-0.48
034-036
0.082
0.049-0.17
0.080(0.056)-
0.45
0.045-0.83
0.081(0.048)-
0.79
0.087(0.055)-
0.92
0.053(0.044)-
0.58
0.11(0.053)-0.62
0.055-0.83
0.11(0.049)-0.18
0.057(0.044)-1.7
0.18'
0.18'
0.19
020
021
021
0.19
020
022
0.17
032
0201
021'
022
031
. 0.28
029
026
0.26
033
0.19*
0.61
MK01\XFT:0062S026.00«\2nKlnd.i|»
A-29
07/14/95
-------
Table 13
Chemicals of Concern in Site 44 Soil (0 to 15 feet deep)*
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
^hrtn?ra*
Organic* (continued)
Fluorene
Indeoo(l,23-c,d)pyrene<
Phenmthrene
Pyrene*
Frequency of
Detection"
1/16
7/16
7/16
10/16
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(•ngAg)
034-0.48
034-037
034-037
034-036
Inorganics
Lead
MailgMMUM-
Mercury
Nkkel
Titanium
Vanadium
16/16
16/16
3/11
16/16
1/1
16/16
20«
Iff
0.051-0.12
Sff
Iff
iff
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'
(mg/kg)
0.41
0.064(0.038)-
OSJ
0.056-1.7
0.053(0.039)-1.6
Mean
Concentrationd
(l>g/kg)
0.20
0.19
024
027
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(»g/kg)
022
0.25
039
0.49
2.4(1.9)-
149(178)
205(204)- 1,480
0.060(0.070)-
031
18(17)-59
673
9.2-87
47
532
0.085
24
673*
18
186'
953
0.451
27
NA
46
The listed chemicals were selected as chemicals of concern for the human health risk assessment only.
"Number 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.
"Unless otherwise indicated, the mean was calculated using the •"*«'"""" variance unbiased estimation approach
for tognonnaUy distributed data (G-262).
'Chemical was not detected above background.
'Exceeds the maximum detected and/or averaged concentrations.
•Sample quantitarion limits ware not available. The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
"Arithmetic mean. The minimum variance unbiased estimation approach cannot be used to calculate a mean
based on one data point
NA - Not applicable. An upper 95% confidence limit of the mean concentration cannot be calculated based
on one data point.
A-30
07/14/M
-------
Table 14
Chemicals of Concern in Site 2 Groundwater — Water Table*
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Frequency
of
Detection"
Organics
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
1/2
1/2
Range of Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(«/L)
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'
(/•S/L)
Mean
Concentration"
(W5/L)
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(«g/L)
0.60-1.0
1.0-5.0
0-57(0.50-0.60)
037(0.10)
OJO
0.7T
0.92'
33'
Inorganics
Sodium (filtered)
2/3
4,220-8,180
6,827(7360)-
27,967(48300)
12301
35,516'
The listed chemicals were selected as chemicals of concern for the human health risk assessment only.
"Number 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.
"Arithmetic mean based on the averaged concentrations.
'Exceeds the maximum detected and/or averaged concentrations.
'Sample quantitation limits were unavailable. The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
MK01\RFT:0062SC)26.0MV2a»elrod.ap»
A-31
-------
Table 15
Chemicals of Concern in Site 4 Groundwater - Water Table*
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
fhymif«l
Organic*
Bis(2-ethylhoryl)
phthalate
L2-Dkhloroethane
Naphthalene
Frequency
of
Detection"
1/4
1/4
1/4
Range of Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(«/L)
10
0.20-1.0
1.0
Range of Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'
0«/L)
3.0(1.0)
0.30
0.45(0.40)
Mean
Concentration"
(«g/L)
4.5*
03ff
0.49t
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(wg/L)
5.T
0.48'
0.52'
Inorganics
Aluminum (filtered)
Iron (filtered)
Lead (filtered)
Mercury (filtered)
Silicon (filtered)
Sodium (filtered)
1/4
1/4
2/4
1/4
4/4
4/4
200
40
3.0
0.1-02
300f
8,250-10,800
185(439)
290(1,090)
4.0(6.0)-5.1(7.0)
0.1(02)
4,883(5,250)-6,560
5^20-14,600(15,600)
121
89
3.1
0.1
5,545
9,197
171
246
53*
0.1
6^98
13,847
only.
The listed «*»»mif«it were selected as <*i'>>mir«k of concern for the human health risk
"Number of wells at which the chemical was detected compared with the total number of wells.
Tf the minimum or nujomum detected concentration differed from the respective minimum or maximum averaged
concentration, the detected concentration is given in parentheses.
"Arithmetic mean based on the averaged concentrations.
•Exceeds the maximum detected and/or averaged concentrations.
'Sample Quantitation i"»**« were not available. The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
A-32
07/14/95
-------
Table 16
Chemicals of Concern in Site 4 Groundwater — Deep Bedrock"
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Frequency of
Detection"*
Organic*
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
m,p-Xylenes (total)
o-Xylene
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(«/L)
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Range of
Detected
Concentrations"
(/«/L)
Mean
Concentration"4
(flg/L)
Upper 95%
Confidence
limit of the
Mean
Concentration
teA)
1.0
0.10
2.0
0.70
030
3.»
A-33
07/14/95
-------
Table 17
Chemicals of Concern in Site 5 Groundwater - Water Table*
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Organics
Benzene
Bis(2-ethyihexyl) phthalate
sec-Butylbenzene
CUorobenzene
Chloroethane
4-Chlaro-3-methylphenol
i ?.pv^>i"robfn7f nf
1,4-Dkhlorobenzene
DicUorodifiuoromethane
U-Dkhloroethane
ds-l^-Dichloroethene
Diethyl ether
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyi phthalate
Isoptopyibenxeiie
Naphthalene
Frequency
of
Detection"
3/11
3/11
3/11
4/11
1/11
2/11
2/11
3/11
2/11
2/11
3/11
1/3
2/11
1/11
1/11
2/11
2/11
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
I imift
(Mg/L)
0.70-1.0
10-12
1.0
110-12
2.0-3.0
10-11
050-2.0
050-1.0
2JO-9JO
0.40-1.0
1.0
2.0
10-12
10-12
10-12
1.0
1.0
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'
034(030)-9.0
1.0-31(160)
0.40(0.20)-2.0
050-12(22)
1.9(2.0-3.0)
25(2.0)-10
0.42(020)-0.8
3(2.0)
16(6.7)-28(32)
3.7(3.0)-6.1(20)
035(050)-
6.0(7.6)
0.20-73(9.0)
19(35-40)
3.8(2.0)-4.6(2.0)
1.0
3.8(2.0)
0.90-1.0
030-1.0(2.0)
Mean
Concentration"
13
7.0
0.66
3.0
12
5.4
0.49
6.6
2.4
0.93
12
7.1
5.1'
4.9*
5.1€
058
053
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
2.7
11
0.91
55
13
63
056
13
33
1.9
23
25-
53'
5.6«
5.4'
0.68
0.62
PAHs
Fluoranthene
n-Propytbenzene
Tetrachloroethenc
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
1/11
2/11
3/11
2/11
1/11
10-12
1.0
020-1.0
0.60-1.0
020-2.0
33(1.0)
020-1.0
1.9(1.0)-22(56)
13(051)-27(46)
25(1.0-8.1)
5.1'
052
3.6
2.9
0.91
5.4'
0.62
75
72
12
A-34
07/14^3
-------
Table 17
Chemicals of Concern in Site 5 Groundwater — Water Table*
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Chemical
Frequency
of
Detection"
Inorganics
Arsenic (filtered)
Boron (filtered)
Cobalt (filtered)
Iron (filtered)
Lead (filtered)
Manganese (filtered)
Nickel (filtered)
Silicon (filtered)
Thallium (filtered)
5/11
2/11
1/11
8/11
2/11
10/11
4/11
11/11
3/11
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(A«/L)
5.0-10
100
40-50
40-295
3.0-15
10-24
15-40
4,410-4,820
10-200
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'
(/«/L)
5.0(6.0)-
153(194)
150-253
80
34(42)-55300
33(5.0-7.0)
10(14)-
3,875(4,970)
15(16)-46
3,926(4,000)-
21,700
43(120)-
215(589)
Mean
Concentration"
(^g/L)
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(Kg/L)
22
78
26
7,764
1.9
1,130
16
10,116
40
47
ID
36
17,192
2.3
1,848
22
13,101
74
The listed chemicals were selected as chemicals of concern for the human health risk assessment only.
"Number 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 the averaged concentrations.
'Exceeds the maximum detected and/or averaged concentrations.
'Sample quantitation limits were not available. The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
MK01\RPT:00628O26.004\zooclrod.tp»
A-35
07/14/95
-------
Table 18
Chemicals of Concern in Site 5 Groundwater — Deep Bedrock*
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Organic*
Acetone
Benzene
Bi»(2-cthylhexyl)
phthalate
sec-Butylbenzene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
12-Dichlorobenzene
M-Dichlarobeozene
Dichlorndifluorfflnetnane
1,1-Dichloroethane
12-Dkhloroethane
Dicthyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Ethyibenzene
Methyl chloride
N>pbthilf"f-
n-Propyibenzene
Tetrachloroetheae
Trichloroetheae
12,4-TrimethyIbenzene
Frequency
of
Detection"
1/3
6/15
4/15
6/15
8/15
4/15
6/15
7/15
2/15
3/15
6/15
5/15
4/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
3/15
5/15
3/15
5/15
4/15
Range of Sample
Quantitation
1 .imifrc
(<«/L)
10
0.70-1.0
10-13
1.0
1.0-12
10-13
0.50-2.0
050-1.0
2.0-9.0
0.40-1.0
020-1.0
10-13
10-13
10-13
1.0
0.40-10
1.0
1.0
020-1.0
0.60-1.0
1.0
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations1
(«B/L)
46
0.40(0.60)-8.9(14)
2.0(1.0)-6.2(8.0)
030(0.10)-3.0
0.40(030)-50(80)
4.0(10)-7.7(10)
030(020)-8.9(32)
035(020)-20(38)
3.9(2.0)-13(23)
0.42(0.99)-14(15)
023(020)-
0.93(22)
4.0(1.0)-65(11)
4^(10)-62(8.0)
5.6(6.0)
25(0.90-4.0)
0.98(33)
055(0.40)-10
020-3.0
035(020)-
12(53)
035(020)-
43(8.0)
0.10-4.0
Mean
Concentration"
(«/L)
19
U
4.9
0.82
6.7
5.4
15
5.6
3.0
1.7
0.41
5.1
53
53
0.63
0.77
12
0.76
0.43
0.74
0.73
Upper 95%
Confidence Limit
of the Mean
Concentration
(/«/L)
59*
2.6
5.4
12
13
5.8
2.6
8.9
43
33
0.49
5.4
5.4
5.4
0.86
0.89
2.4
1.1
054
12
1.1
MK01\m:0062KB6.0M\»OMlrod.**
A-36
07/14/93
-------
Table 18
Chemicals of Concern in Site 5 Groundwater — Deep Bedrock"
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Chemical
Inorganics
Arsenic (filtered)
(total)
Boron (filtered)
(total)
Iron (filtered)
(total)
Frequency
of
Detection"
Range of Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(«B/L)
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations0
(MB/L).
8/15
7/15
6/15
5/15
13/15
15/15
5.0-10
5.0
100
100
40-291
Aff
3.0(5.0)-135(187)
5.0(7.0)-146(195)
82(113)-304(340)
99(142)-269
40(45)-
36,150(64,800)
5,710(4,600)-
105,450(130,000)
Mean
Concentration11
(«B/L)
Upper 95%
Confidence Limit
of the Mean
Concentration
(«B/L)
38
44
100
93
8,764
30,606
62
71
139
126
15,092
44,612
The listed chemicals were selected as chemicals of concern for the human health risk assessment only.
"Number 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.
"Arithmetic mean based on the averaged concentrations.
"Exceeds the maximum detected and/or averaged concentrations.
'Sample quantitation limits were not available. The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
MK01\RPT:0«2S026.004 \zootlrod.tpi
A-37
07/14/95
-------
Table 19
Chemicals of Concern in Site 44 Groundwater — Water Table*
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Organic*
Arodor-1260
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
2-Butanone
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Dicblorodifluoromethane
1^-Dichloroethane
Methyl chloride
Frequency
of
Detection"
1/9
5/9
1/11
1/9
1/12
1/12
1/12
Range of Sample
Quantitation
T imifc
(*/L)
1.0-1.1
10-12
10
10-12
2.0
1.0
2.0
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'
te/L)
1.8
1.0-1,100
13
25
0.40
0.20
15(3.0)
Mean
Concentration*
(AS/L)
0.67
126
5.7
73
0.95*
0.48*
1.0
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(«/L)
0.93
352
7.0
11
1.0*
0-5?
1.1
PAHs
Pyrcne
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichlo'ofluoT'Oincthtne
Inorganics
Calcium (filtered)
Iron (filtered)
Mammtiiim (ftltomi)
Mmganeie (filtered)
Poussium (filtered)
Silicon (filtered)
Sodium (filtered)
1/9
3/12
2/12
3/12
9/9
6/8
9/9
9/9
1/9
9/9
9/9
10-12
1.0
1.0
1.0
2001
40
200'
10
5,000
300*
6,240
3.0
0.20-16
0.20-0.80(2.0)
0.10-0.40(020)
4,970-150,000
55(42)-35,100
747-28^00
23(21)-13,900
4305(7,710-
8,120)
3,650-
6,193(6,840)
3,890-35,800
4.9*
1.7
0.50
0.43-
43,474
4,440
8,907
1,901
2,701
5,273
15,956
53'
4.1
0.57
Q3T
70^59
12,740
14,154
4,708
3,074
5,810
22^77
The listed chemicals were selected as chcmirak of concern for the human health risk assessment only.
"Number of wells at which the chemical was detected compared with the total number of wells.
If the minimum or «y«mimi detected concentration differed from the respective minimum or maximum averaged
concentration, the detected concentration is given in parentheses.
"Arithmetic mean based on the averaged concentrations,
•Exceeds the maximum detected and/or averaged concentrations.
Sample quantitation limits were not available. The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
A-38
07/14/93
-------
Table 20
Chemicals of Concern in Site 44 Groundwater — Deep Bedrock*
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Organic;
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroe thane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Frequency
of
Detection"
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(«/L)
1/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
10
0.50-1.0
2.0-9.0
0.20-1.0
020-1.0
1.0-5.0
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'
te/L)
4.0(1.0)
0.43(0.60)
23(1.0-2.0)
0.54(0.40-1.0)
0.43(0.40-0.90)
1.8(3.0)
Mean
Concentration"
0«/L)
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(/«/L)
4.8*
0.48*
13
0.51
0.48e
0.98
53e
Qjsy
2.1'
0.53
0.52s
i.r
Inorganics
Iron (filtered)
(total)
Sodium (filtered)
(total)
2/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
40
4tf
900f
900*
526(58)-1310
9,740-
72,050(104,000)
4200(4,160)-
10,080(12,400)
4,445(3,890)-
32,000
469
32,685
6,138
16309
1,186
66,935
9391
30497
The listed chemicals were selected as chemicals of concern for the human health risk assessment only.
"Number 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.
"Arithmetic mean based on the averaged concentrations.
•Exceeds the maximum detected and/or averaged concentrations.
'Sample quantitation limits were not available. The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
MK01UUT:0062S026.004\iooelrod.ip»
A-39
07/14/95
-------
Table 21
Summary of Chemicals of Concern by Medium*
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
C^wnircal
Quanta
Acetone
Arodor-1260
Benzene
Btt2-etbvlhexvh ohthalate
2-Butsoone
fec-Butvtbenzene
Butvi benzyl chtfaalate
ateba-CUonUne
wnma-Qilcptane
Cblordanef total)
Qdorobenaene
Chloroethane
4— CMoro— 3— metnviDoenol
4.4--DDD
4.4--DDE
4.4--DDT
DibcoBoftirtD
1,2 • DidikMobcnzmt
1.4-DKhJorot.enane
: Soil
Site 2
0— 2ft
X
X
^
1.2-Dichloioetfaane
cis-U-DichloiDeihene
1.2-Dicntaoetnene (tout)
Dieldrin
Diettnl ether
JMIflVi PHI IH| eWB
>i-n-butvl ohthalase
2,4— Duutioiibftool
AOOrUOVlD^B^BO^
Metbvl diloride
2-MetMnsoJnhtlene
4*ohth«lene
4-NitroDhenot
n— Niti*^^lk>b««vl«'»«««
>AHl
Acenaobtbeae
Anthreoene
Benotatenthraoene
Benaofatovnae
X
X
X
-X
X
X
x
Site 4
0— 2ft
x°
Xs
x"
x-
X8
X
x*
X
X
X
X
X
X*
X
x
Site 44
0— 2ft
x°
Xs
x°
X
X
X
0— 15ft
•f
if
Tf
X
X
X
x" !
X
X
X
X
X*
X
Xs
if
X*
X
X
X
x°
X
Xs
x*
Groundwater"
Site 2 Site 4 Site 5
WT WT DB ' WT DB
Site 44
WT i DB
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
I X X
i
X
X
X
I
!
i
I
x 1 - x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
L *
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
1
I
j
1
1
X X
X
1 i
X
MX01\RFT«062S02«JM\zlrod2l.i>k3
A-40
U-Jul-95
-------
Table 21
Summary of Chemicals of Concern by Medium*
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Chemical
Soil
Site 2
0-2 ft
Site 4
0-2 ft
Site 44
0-2 ft 10- 15 ft
Groundwaterb
Site 2
WT
Oreaaics ('continued)
Benzofb)fluoranthene
Benzofzijtocrvlene
Benzo(k)fluoramhene
Chrysene
DibenzofaJrtanthracene
Fluorantheae
Fluorene
Indenofl.23-cd)pvrene
Fhenanthrene
Pyrene
n— fhopvlbenzene
Tetracfaloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tricfalorofluoromethane
1.2.4— Trimethvibenzene _^
1.3.5-Trimethvlbenzene
Vinyl chloride
m,p-Xylenes (total)
o— Xylene
iX^enes (total)
Inorganics
'Aluminum
Arsenic
barium
i Beryllium
j Boron
^adniiuni
Calcium
ZBroroflwi
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
vlaenesium
rianeanese
Mercury
Nickel
~OtŁSS]URl
Selenium
Silicon
Sodium
[halliuin
[Itanium
Vanadium -
Zinc
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x°
if
X0
if
x°
X6
X0
X
x°
X
if
X6
X0
X6
jf
x°
X0
X
jf
X
x°
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Site 4
WT 1 DB
SiteS
Site 44
WT 1 DB WT DB I
i
x
X
!
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
i
• ,
X ' !
X
xxx
X !
x i x x I
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
! |
X i
X X 1
x !
x |
X
i 1
X ' 1
X X
!
'An V indicates that the chemical was selected as a chemical of concern for both the human health and ecological risk
assessments, unless otherwise indicated.
''Selected as chemicals of concern for the human health risk assessment only.
'Chemical was hot detected above background.
'Selected as a chemical of concern for the ecological risk assessment only.
DB=Deep bedrock.
WT=Water table.
MK01\RFT:0062S026.00*zlrod2Lwk3
A-41
18-Jul-95
-------
Table 22
Most Reasonable Maximally Exposed Receptor (RME)/
Other Primary Potential Receptors
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Pathway/
Data Set
SoU
Site 2
Site 4
Site 44
Current Scenario
RME
Maintenance
worker
Maintenance
worker
Maintenance
worker
Others
Trespasser
Trespasser
Trespasser
Future Scenario
RME
Maintenance worker
Maintenance worker
Maintenance worker
Others
Trespasser
Trespasser
Building
worker,
trespasser
Groundtvater
If -2 Water Table
LF-2 Deep Bedrock
LF-4 Water Table
LF-5 Water Table
LF-5 Deep Bedrock
PCDA Water Table
PCDADeep
Bedrock
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
On-zone resident
On-zone resident
On-zone resident
On-zone resident
On-zone resident
On-zone resident
On-zone resident
On-zone
worker
On-zone
worker
On-zone
worker
On-zone
worker
On-zone
worker
On-zone
worker
On-zone
worker
MK01MPT:0062l<&6.a*\a«clnd.4
A-42
07/14*3
-------
Table 23
Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Medium
Soil*
LF-2 (0 to 2 feet
deep)
LF 4 (0 to 2 feet
deep)
PCDA (0 to 2
feet deep)
PCDA (0 to 15
feet deep)
RME
Current maintenance
worker
Future maintenance
worker
Current maintenance
worker
Future maintenance
worker
Current maintenance
worker
Future maintenance
worker
Future maintenance
worker
Groundwater*
LF-2 Water
Table
Future cm-zone
resident
Total Lifetime Cancer Risk*'
Mean
8E-07 (ALL)
8E-07 (BG)
2E-06 (ALL)
2E-06 (BG)
1E-07 (ALL)
1E-07 (BG)
3E-07 (ALL)
3E-07 (BG)
6E-08 (ALL)
6E-11 (BG)
3E-06 (ALL)
3E-09 (BG)
3E-06 (ALL)
2E-09 (BG)
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit
Maximum
2E-06 (ALL)
2E-06 (BG)
5E-06 (ALL)
5E-06 (BG)
4E-07 (ALL)
4E-07 (BG)
7E-07 (ALL)
7E-07 (BG)
1E-07 (ALL)
1E-10 (BG)
4E-06 (ALL)
6E-09 (BG)
4E-06 (ALL)
4E-09 (BG)
2E-06 (ALL)
2E-06 (BG)
5E-06 (ALL)
5E-06 (BG)
7E-07 (ALL)
7E-07 (BG)
1E-06 (ALL)
1E-06 (BG)
1E-07 (ALL)
1E-10 (BG)
6E-06 (ALL)
6E-09 (BG)
9E-06 (ALL)
5E-09 (BG)
Total Hazard Index*'
Mean
3E-05 (ALL)
3E-05 (BG)
6E-05 (ALL)
6E-05 (BG)
6E-04 (ALL)
6E-04 (BG)
1E-03 (ALL)
1E-03 (BG)
9E-04 (ALL)
9E-04 (BG)
4E-02 (ALL)
4E-02 (BG)
3E-02 (ALL)
3E-02 (BG)
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit
Maximum
8E-05 (ALL)
8E-05 (BG)
2E-04 (ALL)
2E-04 (BG)
2E-03 (ALL)
2E-03 (BG)
4E-03 (ALL)
4E-03 (BG)
2E-03 (ALL)
2E-03 (BG)
1E-01 (ALL)
1E-01 (BG)
8E-02 (ALL)
8E-02 (BG)
8E-05 (ALL)
8E-05 (BG)
2E-04 (ALL)
2E-04 (BG)
2E-03 (ALL)
2E-03 (BG)
4E-03 (ALL)
4E-03 (BG)
2E-03 to 3E-03 (ALL)'
2E-03 to 3E-03 (BG)'
1E-01 (ALL)
1E-01 (BG)
9E-02 (ALL)
9E-02 (BG)
1E-07
(Filtered)
1E-07
(Filtered)
1E-07
(Filtered)
2E-03
(Filtered)
3E-03
(filtered)
3E-03
(filtered)
MK01\RFI':U0628026.004\?.onelrod.apa
A-43
07/14/95
-------
Table 23
Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Medium
GrtNMdwnW (Con
LF-4 Water
Table
LF-2 Deep
Bedrock
LF-5 Water
Table
LF-5 Deep
Bedrock
PCDA Water
Table
PCDA Deep
Bedrock
i
RME
Owed)
Future on-zone
resident
Future on-zone
resident
Future on-zone
resident
Future on-zone
resident
Future on-zone
resident
Future on-zone
resident
Total Lifetime Cancer Risk**
Mean
8E-07
(filtered)
NA
5E-04
(filtered)
8E-04
(filtered)
9E-04
(total)
8E-05
(filtered)
7E-07
(filtered)
7E-07
(total)
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit
8E-07
(filtered)
NA
1E-03
(filtered)
1E-03
(filtered)
1E-03
(total)
1E-04
(filtered)
7E-07
(filtered)
7E-07
(total)
Maximum
8E-07
(filtered)
NA
3E-03
(filtered)
3E-03
(filtered)
3E-03
(total)
4E-04
(filtered)
7E-07
(filtered)
7E-07
(total)
Total Hazard Index**
Mean
3E-01
(filtered)
8E-04
(filtered)
8E-04
(total)
9E+00
(filtered)
4E+00
(filtered)
4E+00
(total)
IE + 01
(filtered)
4E-03
(filtered)
4E-03
(total)
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit
Maximum
5E-01
(filtered)
1E-03
(filtered)
1E-03
(total)
IE +01
(filtered)
6E+00
(filtered)
7E+00
(total)
3E+01
(filtered)
5E-03
(filtered)
5E03
(total)
5E-01
(filtered)
1E-03
(filtered)
1E-03
(total)
4E+01
(filtered)
1E+01
(filtered)
2E+01
(total)
8E+01
(filtered)
5E-03
(filtered)
5E-03
(total)
'Values are rounded, to one significant figure.
Maximum cancer risk at hazardous waste sit<
not of concern.
sites is regulated in the range of 1E-06 to 1E-04 (10* to 10"*). Risks of less than 1E-06 (10*) are generally
MIU>l\KFT:00628026004\zonelro
-------
Table 23
Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices
' Zone I, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
CA hazard index of 1 (IE+00) or greater is usually considered the benchmark of potential concern.
dALL - Includes all evaluated chemicals of concern.
BG = Includes only the evaluated chemicals of concern that were detected above background.
The first and second values are based on the assumption that chromium is present entirely as chromium HI and chromium VI, respectively. A range is present
only if the two values differed after rounding to one significant figure.
'Filtered and total values are based on organics data plus inorganics data for filtered and unfiltered (total) samples, respectively.
NA = Not applicable. There were no carcinogenic chemicals of concern.
MK01\RJT:00628026.004\zonelrod.apa A-45 07/14/95
-------
Table 24
Summary of Hazard Quotients and Hazard Indices
for the Short-tailed Shrew, Site 2
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
I
: Che""*9'
Hazard Quotients for
Invertebrate
Ingestion
Average
Hazard Quotients for
Soil Ingestion
Niixmi***** j AvciHffG
Marimum
i
Total
Hazard Indices
Average
Maximum '
Orgxaics
Benzokacid '
Dibenzofuran
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
1.75E-04
NE
7.73E-03
5^7E-04
3.03E-04
NE
1.88E-02
1J2E-03
1.75E-04
NE
7.73E-03
5.57E-04
; 3.03E-04 j
NE ;
1.88E-02 !
U2E-03 ,
PAHs il
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
1 Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(&h4)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a4i)anthracene
Fhioranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l,23-cd)pyrene
| Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Xyfenes (total)
1.94E-03
NE
2.83E-04
9.23E-01
1.71E-01
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
1.76E-02
8.70E-03
NE
2.77E+00
3J7E-02
NE
4.14E-03
NE
7.69E-04
2.69E+00
4.98E-01
9.45E-05
NE
531E-05
727E-02
4.84E-03
NE NE
NE ' NE
2.02E-04 2.03E-03
NE
1.44E-04
2.12E-01
1.41E-02
NE
NE
NE : NE NE
NE NE
NE NE
NE
NE
521E-02 2.14E-03 636E-03
2-T7E-02
NE
8.24E+00
9.98E-02
NE
4.25E-04
NE
226E-01
358E-03
2.02E-07
1.16E-03
NE
6.71E-01
1.06E-02
2.02E-07
Conalative Hazard Index:
434E-03 ii
NE NE !!
336E-04
9.96E-01
1.76E-01
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
1.97E-02
9.12E-03
NE
3.00E+00
3.73E-02
2.02E-07
4J5E-I-00
9.14E-04 j
2.90E+00 1
5.12E-01 1
NE
NE
NE
NE ji
NE ;
5.84E-02
2.48E-02 ,
NE l
8.91E+00
1.10E-01 !
2.02E-07
1.25E+01 !
NE - Not evaluated due to lack of dose and/or CTV.
MK01\RFT:00628>26.00«zlrod24.wk3
A-46
lS-Jul-95
-------
Table 25
Summary of Hazard Quotients and Hazard Indices
for the Short-tailed Shrew, Site 4
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
ii
Chemical
i Hazard Quotients for
Invertebrate
• Ingestion
Average
Maximum
Hazard Quotients for
Soil Ingestion
Average
total
Hazard Indices
Maximum | Average
Maximum
Organics
Benzoic acid*
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalatea
4,4'-DDD"
M'-DDE"
4,4'-DD1*
Dibenzofuran
Di- n - butyl phthalate*
2,4 - Dinitrophenol
Naphthalene
n- Nitrosodiphenyiamine
p-Nitrophenol
NE
NE
1.81E-04
1.17E-02
2.02E+00
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
2.18E-04
1.17E-02
2.20E+00
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
8.16E-05
2.73E-04
2.11E-07
1.50E-05
1.89E-03
NE
152E-05
S.06E-04
4.93E-05
2.96E-05
7.60E-03
2.67E-04
2.74E-04
2.53E-07
1JOE-05
2.06E-03
NE
1.59E-05
5.06E-04
8.16E-05
2.73E-04
1.82E-04
1.17E-02
2.67E-04
2.74E-04
2.18E-04 '
1.17E-02
2.02E+00 2.20E+00
NE NE
1J2E-05 1J9E-05
5.06E-04
6.69E-05 4.93E-05
2.96E-05
7.60E-03
2.96E-05
7.60E-03
5.06E-04
6.69E-05
2.96E-05
7.60E-03
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1,23 - cd)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
9.47E-04
433E-05
1.49E-01
239E-02
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
230E-03
133E-03
NE
2.16E-01
2.00E-03
1.82E-03
6.92E-05
7.95E-01
133E-01
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
1.42E-02
2.43E-03
NE
130E+00
9.53E-03
4.62E-05
8.13E-06^
1.17E-02
6.79E-04
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
2.81E-04
6.47E-05
NE
1.75E-02
2.12E-04
8.87E-05
130E-05
626E-02
3.76E-03
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
1.73E-03
1.18E-04
NE
1.06E-01
1.01E-03
9.93E-04
5.14E-05
1.60E-01
2.46E-02
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
1.91E-03
822E-05
8^7E-01 ;i
136E-01 'I
NEjl
NE!!
NEii
NE '
NE '
2.58E-03 j 1J9E-02
139E-03 2.54E-03 ,
NE NE j.
233E-01 1.41E+00 \
221E-03 : 1.05E-02
Inorganics :
Parimjiiff;
Copper
Lead
Mercury „
Nickel
Zinc
1.12E+02
4.18E-01
1.04E+04
3.08E+00
1.69E+01
l.OSE-t-02
4.05E+02
9.52E-01
3.21E+04
3.26E+01
326E+01
2.90E+02
137E-01
1.10E-02
230E+00
2.03E-02
1.18E-01
1.15E-01
4.94E-01
2JOE-02
7.12E-KK)
2.15E-01
228E-01
3.08E-01
Cumulative Hazard Index:
Cumulative Hazard Index:
(Above Background)
U2E+02 : 4.05E+02
429E-01 : 9.77E-01 ,
1.04E+04 . 321E+04
3.10E+00 L3^8E+01
1.70E+01
1.08E+02
328E+01 !
2.90E+02
1.06E+04 329E+04
1.06E+04 328E+04
NE - Not evaluated due to lack of dose and/or CTV.
a — Soil concentration below background level.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004^1rodZ5.wk3
A-47
18-Jul-95
-------
Table 26
Summary of Hazard Quotients and Hazard Indices
for the Short-tailed Shrew, Site 44
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Hazard Quotients for
Invertebrate
Ingestion
Average
Maximum
Hazard Quotients for
Soil Ingestion
Average
Maximum
Total
Hazard Indices
Average
Maximum
Orgutks
j Benzole add*
| Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalatea
1 4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT_
! Dibenzofuran
Dieldrin
' Di-n-butylphthalate*
2-Methyhiaphthalene
Naphthalene
NE
ME
138E-03
2.11E-01
2.09E+01
NE
1.48E+01
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
3.05E-03
4.92E-01
4.45E+01
NE
2.82E-04
2.61E-04
1.60E-06
2.71E-04
1.%E-02
NE
1.48E+01 '1.44E-02
NE 2.74E-05
NE J8.86E-04
NE '8.81E-05
2.82E-04 I 2.82E-04 2.82E-04
2.74E-04
3J4E-06
632E-04
4.18E-02
NE
1.44E-02
2.74E-05
8.86E-04
8.81E-05
2.61E-04
138E-03
2.74E-04 i
3.05E-03
2.11E-01 : 4.92E-01
2.09E+01
NE
4.45E+01
NE
1.48E+01 1.48E+01
2.74E-05 2.74E-05
8.86E-04 i 8.86E-04
8.81E-05 j 8.81E-05 |
PAHs i
Acenaphtbene
i Acenaphthylene*
Anthracene
: Benzo(a)anthracenea
: Ben2o(a)pyrene1
• Benzo(b)fluoranthenea
Benzo(&]M)pervlenea
Benzo(k)fluoranthenea
! Chrysene*
Dibenzo(aji)anthracenea
FluoTantbenea
Fluorene
Indeno(l,23-cd)pvrenea
Phenaathrene
Pyrene*
3.47E-04
NE
3.98E-OJ
636E-02
1.03E-02
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
951E-04
L27E-03
NE
1.01E-01
134E-03
3.47E-04 1.69E-05 1.69E-05
NE NE
8.65E-05 7.48E-06
1.62E-01
2.44E-02
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
4.02E-03
2.43E-03
NE
539E-01
4.45E-03
5.01E-03
2.93E-04
NE
NE_,
NE
NE
NE
1.16E-04
621E-:05
NE
823E-03
1.43E-04
NE
1.63E-05
128E-02
L6.92E-04
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
4.91E-04
1.18E-04
NE
438E-02
4.72E-04
3.63E-04 3.63E-04 |
NE
4.73E-05
6.86E-02
1.06E-02
NE
NE
NE
NE !
1.03E-04 _,
1.75E-01
2J1E-02
NE
NE
NE
NE • NE ,
NE ' NE i
1.07E-03 i 4^1E-03 j
133E-03 2J4E-03 1
NE NE
1.09E-01 i 5^3E-01
1.49E-03 i 4.92E-03
laorgtaies
CfOTOOtttUD
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
3.17E+01
1.42E+04
5.51E-01
1.81E+00
1-.63E+01
NE
NE
i
5.0SE+01
4.14E+04
U5E+00
4.04E+00
3J)5E+01
NE
NE
3.87E-01
3.16E+00
2.69E-02
120E-02
1.13E-01
NE
5.00E+00
Cumulative Hazard
6.17E-01
9.18E+00
6.60E-02
2.67E-02
2.13E-01
NE
1.57E+01
nder
3.21E+01
1.43E+04
5.78E-01
1^2E-KX)
1.64E+01
NE
5.00E+00
1.43E+04
Cumulative Hazard Index:
(Above Background) 1 43E+04
5.12E-I-01
4.14E+04
1.42E+00
4J07E+00
3.08E+01
NE !
1.57E+01
4.15E+04
4.15E+04
NE- Not evaluated due to lack of dose and/or CTV.
a - Soil concentration below background level
MK01\RPT:0062aD26.00«zlrod2«.wk3
A-48
18-Jul-95
-------
Table 27
Summary of Hazard Quotients and Hazard Indices
for the Robin, Site 2
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Hazard Quotients for
Invertebrate
Ingestion
Average Maximum
Hazard Quotients for
Soil Ingestion
Average
Maximum
Hazard Quotients for
Surface Water
Ingestion
Average Maximum
j
Hazard Indices 1
Average Maximum :
Organic;
Beozoic acid
Bis(2 - ethyl hexyl)pblhalate
Chlorobenzene
4,4'-DDD
4,4'- DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dibenzofuran
1,4 — Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
2 - Methyloaphtbalene
Naphthalene
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE i NE
NE NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
4.71E-04
2.08E-04
2.22E-04
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
2.34E-03
1.03E-03
4.31E-04
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
PAHs
Acenaphlhene
Acenapbthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthneene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b )fl uoranthene
Benzo(g,b,i )perylene
Benzoflclfluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fl uoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Tetiachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes (total)
NE
3.63E-04
4.48E-04
3.03E-04
1.49E-03
4.40E-03
3.24E-03
2.31E-03
2.68E-03
2.37E-03
1.61E-03
2.36E-03
1.17E-03
3.61E-04
4.17E-03
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE NE
7.7gŁ-04
1.03E-03
8.25E-04
4.33E-03
1.28E-02
9.40E-03
6.68E-03
7.80E-03
6.91E-03
4.23E-03
6.98E-03
3.17E-03
1.01E-03
1.24E-02
NE
NE
NE
NE
7.27E-05
8.97E-05
2.33E-04
4.79E-04
5.11E-04
4.05E-04
3.79E-04
NE
1.S6E-04
2.06E-04
6.35E-04
1.40E-03
1.49E-03
1.17E-03
1.10E-03
4.25E-04 1.24E-03
5.38E-04
1.75E-04
1.18E-03
2.33E-04
3.29E-04
1.39E-03
NE
NE
NE
1.80E-06
1.57E-03
4.60E-04
3.49E-03
6.3JE-04
9.21E-04
4.13E-03
NE
NE
NE
1.80E-06
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
• NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
InorgMoics
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium (trivaleat)
Chromium (hexavalent)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
3.49E-01
NE
NE
4.0Ł-02
7.2SE-04 j
3.7«E-03
4.17E-03
NE
8.9SE-03
3.21E-01
1.30E-03
1.8SE-01
4.74E-05
9.88E-04
NE
1.22E-01
1.01E-02
NE
4.24E+00
NE
NE
1.19E-01
2.51E-03
2.69E-02
2.99E-02
NE
1.92E-01
1.06E+01
2.6CE-02
3.49E+00
4.74E-04
1.02E-02
NE
NE
NE
4.71E-04
2.08E-04
2.22E-04
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE !
NE
2.34E-03 i
1.03E-03 i1
4.31E-04 !'
NE j
NE ||
NE |j
NE i'
NE j NE
NE | NE
(I
NE
4.3SE-04
5.38E-04
5.37E-04
1.97E-03
4.91E-03
3.64E-03
2.69E-03
3.11E-03
2.91E-03
1.78E-03
3.J3E-03
1.40E-03
6.90E-04
5.56E-03
NE
NE
NE
1.80E-06
NE ;|
9.33E-04 l|
1.24E-03 ;
1.46E-03 il
5.73E-03 !
1.43E-02 1
1.06E-02 J
7.78E-03
9.04E-03
8.49E-03
4.70E-03
1.05E-02
3.81E-03
1.93E-03
1.6JE-02
NE 1
NE
NE
1.80E-06
NE
3.49E-01
NE
- NE
4.0«E-02
7.25E-04
3.76E-03
4.17E-03
NE
8.9SE-03
3.21E-01
NE !
4.24E+00
NE !
NE
1.19E-01
2.51E-03
2.69E-02
2.99E-02
NE
1.92E-01
1.06E+01
1.30E-03 | 2.60E-02
1.85E-01
4.74E-05
3.49E+00
4.74E-04
9.88E-04 j 1.02E-02
NE NE NE
1.56E+00 j 1.22E-01 ! 1.56E+00
2.20E-01 , 1.01E-02 ; 2.20E-01 i
NE - Not evaluated due to lack of dose and/or CTV.
Cumulative Hazard Index:
1.08E+00
2.06E+01
MX01\WT:0062W26.004\zltodZ7.wk3
A-49
18-J«1-9S
-------
Table 28
Summary of Hazard Quotients mod Hazard Indices
for the Robin, Site 4
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
! Orguua
Beozoic acid*
: Bistt-ethylheivnDluhalate'
1 ftaouna-BHC
; Chlorobenzene
4.4--DDD1
4.4'- DDE1
4.4--DDT
Dibenzotean
Di-a-buM pbthttote*
1 ,4 - Dichlorobeazene
2.4-Dimtropkenot
Naphthalene
n - NitroaodiDhenvUmine
D-Nitroohenot
Hazard Quotient! for
Invertebrate
Ingestton
Averaae
NE
NE
NE
NE
8.82E-03
1.27E-02
1.12E-01
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
M'TJiBin
NE
NE
NE
NE
1.06E-02
1.27E-02
1.22E-01
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Hazard Quotients for
Soil InaesUoa
Average
NE
NE
NE
NE
4.20E-05
6.67E-05
4.32E-04
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Maxim urn
NE
NE
NE
NE
3.04E-05
6.67E-03
4.70E-04
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Hazard Quotients for
Surface Water
Ingestioa
Average
NE
NE
7.1SE-05
NE
3.37E-06
4.42E-05
2.17E-04
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE NE
Kfarimuin
NE
NE
8.04E-03
NE
6.16E-06
4.89E-05
6.03E-04
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
PAHt
AceMDhtbeae
Anthracene
Beozotalanthraeene
BenzoUtovreae
Benzofbttuonathene
BenzofLhJtoetvieae
Beazofklfluonuuhene
Chroeae
Dibenzitfajiteathraceae
nnonnthene
Fluoreae
1.78E-04
4.64E-05
2.39E-04
6.16E-04
3.6JE-04
3.76E-04
4.30E-04
3.53E-04
3.78E-04
3.09E-04
USE -04
IndenoflOJ-cd^pwene 6.69E-05
Pbeoanthrene
Pvrene
1.61E-04
Tetrachloroetheae NE
3.41E-04
7.43E-05
USE -03
3.41E-03
3.05E-03
1.74E-03
2.40E-03
1.S9E-03
8.91E-04
1.90E-03
3.25E-04
2.97E-04
1.95E-03
7.67E-04
NE
Inornate*
Aluminum
Bahum
Boron
Calcium
Cadmium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mainenum
Mercury
Nickel
SiKcoo
NE
NE
NE
NE
2.19E+00
4.02E+00
NE
6.97E+01
NE
1.13E-01
2.07E+00
NE
7.35E+01
NE
NE
NE
NE
791E+00
9.13E+00
NE
2.16E-MJ2
NE
1.20E+00
3.99E+00
NE
1.97E+02
NE - Not evaluated due to lack of doee and/or ci'v.
a - Soil coacentration below background level.
3.56E-05
3.S7E-OS
7.71E-05
7.16E-05
7.06E-OS
6.16E-03
6.83E-03
8.02E-05
4.11E-05
1.54E-04
3.56E-05
6.0SE-05
LOSE -04
7.00E-03
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
1.10E-02
4.32E-01
NE
6.34E-02
NE
3.05E-03
392E-02
NE
3 JOE -01
6.83E-05
3.71E-03
4.13E-04
3.97E-04
3.81E-04
2.86E-04
3.81E-04
4.29E-04
968E-03
9.52E-04
6.31E-03
2.70E-04
6.31E-04
3.33E-04
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE 1 NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
3.96E-02
9.84E-01
NE
l.ME-01
NE
3.23E-02
1.14E-01
NE
8.36E-01
NE
NE
2.37E-02
NE
NE
6.61E-03
3.25E-02
NE
7.32E-03
NE
NE
NE
844E-03
NE
NE
7.11E-02
NE
NE
2J7E-02
1.37E-OI
NE
I.07E-02
NE
NE
NE
330E-02
Cumulative Hazard Index:
Cumulative Hazard Index:
C Above "f.fkiroup'ft
Total
Hazard Indices
Average
NE
NE
7.13E-03
NE
8.87E-03
1.28E-02
1.13E-01
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Maximum :
NE
NE
8.04E-03
NE
1.06E-02 |
1.28E-02
1.23E-01
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE :
NE
NE
2.13E-04 4.10E-04 •
8.21E-05
3.16E-04
6.87E-04
6.36E-04
4.37E-04
4.98E-04
4.33E-04
4.19E-04
4.63E-04
2.13E-04
1.28E-04
4.32E-04
2.31E-04
NE
1.31E-04 |
1.69E-03 !
3.81E-03
3.43E-03
2.03E-03 '
2.78E-03
2.31E-03
9.88E-04
2.86E-03
3.90E-04
5.67E-04 i
2.60E-03 "
HOE -03 "
NE i
;i
NE
NE
2.37E-02
NE
2.20E+00
4.43E+00
3.25E-02
6.98E+01
7.32E-03
1.16E-01
2.13E+00
NE
7 39E+01
1 33E+02
NE H
NE
7.11E-02
NE
7.95E+00
1.02E+01
1.37E-01 !
2.UE+02
1.07E-02
1.23E+00
4.10E+00
NE 1
1 98E+02
438E-MH
MK01\RPTM(2nM.OO«alndZt.i*3
A-50
U-Jul-M
-------
Table 29
Summary of Hazard Quotients and Hazard Indices
for the Robin, Site 44
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Hazard Quotients for
Invertebrate
Ingestion
Average
Maximum
Hazard Quotients for
Soil Ingestion
Average
Maximum
Total
Hazard Indices
Average
Maximum
Orgaaics
Benzole acid3
Bis(2- ethylhexyi)phthalatea
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dibenzofuran
Dieldrin
Di-n-butylphthalatea
2-Methylnapbthalene
Naphthalene
NE
NE
6.70E-02
2.28E-01
1.16E+00
NE
136E-01
NE
NE
. NE
NE
NE
1.48E-01
532E-01
2.48E+00
NE
136E-01
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
3.19E-04
120E-03
4.47E-03
NE
5.45E-04
NE
NE
NE
NE
7.06E-04
2.80E-03
9J3E-03
NE
5.45E-04
NE
NE
NE NE
NE
NE
6.74E-02
2.29E-01
1.17E+00
NE
137E-01
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE '•
1.49E-01
535E-01
2.49E-t-00 !
NE!
137E-01 ;
NE
NE
NE i
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylenea
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracenea
! Benzo(a)pyrenea
Benzo(b)fluoranthene*
Benzo(gji4)perylenea
Benzo(k)fluoranthenea
Chrysene*
Dibenzo(a,h)anthiacenea
Fluoranthene2
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 A3 - cd)pyrenea
Phenanthrene
Pyrenea
6J1E-05
135E-04
4.27E-05
1.02E-04
2.66E-04
2.72E-04
1.74E-04
2.14E-04
1.74E-04
1.16E-04
1.28E-04
1.71E-04
3.06E-05
1.52E-04
1.08E-04
6.51E-05 !130E-05
135E-04 :2.70E-05
929E-05 3.29E-05
2.61E-04
330E-05
628E-04 3.10E-05
5.46E-04 3.40E-05
3.49E-04 '2.86E-05
4.60E-04
4.47E-04
1.61E-04
5.40E-04
3.25E-04
5.94E-05
8.10E-04
3.58E-04
3.40E-05
3.95E-05
126E-05
638E-05
3.41E-05
2.78E-05
5.06E-05
4.70E-05
UOE-05^
2.70E-05
7.14E-05
8.41E-05
730E-05
6.83E-05
5.71E-05
730E-05
1.02E-04
1.75E-05
2.70E-04
6^1E-05
5.40E-05
2.70E-04
7.81E-05
1.62E-04
7.56E-05
135E-04
2.97E-04
3.06E-04
2.03E-04
2.48E-04
7.81E-05
1.62E-04 '.
1.64E-04
3.45E-04 •
7.01E-04 [
6.14E-04 :
4.06E-04
533E-04
2.13E-04 5.49E-04
129E-04 1.78E-04
1.91E-04 . 8.10E-04
2.05E-04 ; 3.90E-04
5.83E-05 1.13E-04
2.03E-04 1.08E-03 j
1.56E-04 155E-04 • 5.13E-04 |!
Inorganics
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Titanium
Vanadium
6.65E+01
9.59E+01
9.13E+00
6.65E-02
1.99E+00
NE
NE
1.06E-I-02
2.78E+02
2.24E+01
1.48E-01
3.74E+00
NE
NE
332E+00
8.71E-02
1.83E+00
1.80E-03
5.68E-02
NE
3.58E+00
530E+00
2J3E-01
6.98E+01 :
959E-f01
1.11E+02 i
2.79E+02J
4.47E+00 1.10E+01 2.68E+01
4.01E-03 L6-83E-02 1 lJ2E-01j
1.07E-01
NE
2.05E+00
NE
3.84E+00 1
NE ij
1.13E+01 ! 3J8E-fOO 1.13E+01
Cumulative Hazard Index: 1.84E+02
Cumulative Hazard Index: i
(Above Backeround) ! 1.84E+02
435E+02 I
1'
435E+02 i
NE - Not evaluated due to lack of dose and/or CTV.
a — Soil concentration below background level.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zlrod29.wk3
A-51
18-Jul-9<
-------
Table 30
Summary of Detailed Alternatives Evaluation"
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Remedial Alternative
MM-1 No action.
MM-2 Limited action/institutional controk/Groundwater
Management Zone (OMZ). Includes monitoring of
groundwatcr in Zone 1 to track potential phunc
initiation.
MM-3 Groundwaler Extraction and On-base Treatment and
Disposal (UV Oxidation Technology with Carbon
Adsorption).
Shon-Term
Bffeclivenest
Ranking
AB
AB
B
Long-Term
Birectiveness
Ranking
BC
AB
A
Reduction in
TMV Through
Treatment
Ranking
C
C
AB
Impkmenlabilily
Ranking
AB
B
B
Protection of
Human Health
and
Environment
Ranking
C
A
A
Compliance
with
ARARs
Ranking
C
AB
AB
Cost Analysis*
(in $1,000)
Not estimated
$2,034.
$7.804.
* The ktter ranking system is defined as follows:
A > The alternative meelt the intent of the criterion.
B - The alternative partially meets the intent of the criterion.
C - The alternative does not meet the intent of the criterion.
AB - The alternative was ranked between A and B.
BC - The alternative was ranked between B and C.
b Estimated costs represent the 30-year present worth cost.
MKOI\RPT:00628026.004\zone Irod apa
A-52
07/14/95
-------
Table 31
Documentation of ARARs for Groundwater Management of Migration — Alternative MM-2
Limited Action/Natural Attenuation and Biodegradation of Contaminated Groundwater/Institutional Controls/GMZ
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
Media
Requirement
Requirement Synopsis
Action to be Taken to Attain
Requirements
Basts
Chemk»l-Sp«clflt
Groundwater
FBDERAL-SDWA-Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
(40 CFR 141.11-141.16)
MCLs have been promulgated for a
number of common organic and inorganic
contaminants. These levels regulate the
contaminants in public drinking water
supplies, but may also be considered
relevant and appropriate for groundwaler
aquifers potentially used for drinking
water.
Primary MCLs have been set as the
cleanup goals when the primary MCL was
available. See Section VII for
groundwater cleanup goals. Deed
restrictions will protect public health by
prohibiting use of contaminated
groundwater. Source removal, as set
forth in the LP-S Source Removal ROD,
and natural attenuation will be relied
upon to achieve cleanup goals. GMZ
monitoring will be performed to confirm
compliance with cleanup goals. It is
estimated that cleanup goals will be
attained within approximately 11 years
under this alternative.
Applicable
Groundwater
FEDERAL-SDWA-Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs)
(40 CFR 141.50-141.51)
MCLGs are nonenforceable health-based
goals for public water systems. MCLGs
are set at levels that would result in no
known or anticipated adverse health
effects with an adequate margin of safely.
Non-zero MCLGs were considered when
selecting cleanup goals. See Section VII
for groundwater cleanup goals. Deed
restrictions will protect public health by
prohibiting use of contaminated
groundwater. Source removal, as set
forth in the LF-5 Source Removal ROD,
and natural attenuation will be relied
upon to achieve cleanup goals. GMZ
monitoring will be performed to confirm
compliance with cleanup goals. It is
estimated that cleanup goals will be
attained within approximately 11 years
under this alternative.
Relevant and Appropriate
MK01\RFr:(K)628026004\zonclrodapa
A-53
07/14/95
-------
Table 31
Documentation of ARARs for Groundwater Management of Migration — Alternative MM-2
Limited Action/Natural Attenuation and Btodegradatkm of Contaminated Groundwater/InstUutional Controls/GMZ
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Media
Requirement
Requirement Synopsis
Action to be Taken to Attain
Requirements
Basis
Groundwater
STATE NH Admin Code Env-Ws
410.05, Ambient Growtdwater
Quality Standard! and Criteria
Standards for quality of ambient
groundwaler.
Availabk MCLs, MCLGs, and other
heaHh-based limits have been used as
appropriate to set cleanup levels. See
Section VII for froundwater cleanup
goals. Deed restrictions will protect
public health by prohibiting use of
contaminated groundwater. Source
removal, as set forth in the LF-5 Source
Removal ROD, and natural attenuation
will be relied upon to achieve cleanup
foals. GMZ monitoring will be
performed to confirm compliance with
cleanup goals. It is estimated that
cleanup foals will be attained within
approximately 11 yean under this
alternative.
Applicable
Ciroundwater
STATE-New Hampshire Primary
Drinking Water Criteria (MCU and
MCLGs) under RSA Ch. 485,
Promulgated as Env-Ws 316, 317, and
318
Standards for public drinking water
systems. Used as ckanup standards for
aquifers and surface water bodies that are
potential drinking water sources.
Availabk MCU, MCl.Gs. and
other health-based limits have been
used as appropriate to set ckanup
kvels. See Section VII for groundwater
cleanup goals. Deed restrictions will
protect public health by prohibiting use of
contaminated groundwaler. Source
removal, as set forth in the I.F-5 Source
Removal ROD, and natural attenuation
win be relied upon to achieve cleanup
goals. GMZ monitoring will be
performed to confirm compliance with
ckanup goals. It is estimated that
ckanup goals will be attained within
apprunimalely II years under this
alternative.
Rckvant and Appropriate,
to the extent these limits
are more stringent than
federal MCU and MCLGs.
MKOI\RIT:00628026 004\zone 1 rod apa
A-54
07/14/95
-------
Table 31
Documentation of ARARs for Groundwater Management of Migration — Alternative MM-2
Limited Action/natural Attenuation and Biodegradation of Contaminated Groundwater/Institutional Controls/GMZ
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Media
Oroundwaler
Groundwater
Hazardous
Waste
Requirement
Locntlon-SDMiflc
STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-Ws
410.18 State of New Hampshire
Oroundwaler Protection Rules
Aetlon-Soeclflc
STATR-NH Admin. Code Env-Ws
410.26, Slate of New Hampshire
Groundwater Protection Rules
FEDERAL-RCRA, Subtitle C.
40 CFR Part 264, Hazardous Waste
Regulations
Requirement Synopsis
For sites with contaminated groundwater
or unlined landfills, requires delineation of
a Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ)
based on hydrogeologic data.
Groundwater quality within a GMZ shall
not be degraded outside the GMZ, GMZ
boundaries must be clearly marked by
physical features (such as reproducible
survey markers, trsvis rods, or monitor
well rods) or property lines. Extraction of
groundwater from wells within the GMZ
must be restricted by easements, and an
alternative water supply must be provided
for wells within the GMZ that are in
service.
RCRA Subtitle C establishes standards
applicable to treatment, storage, transport,
and disposal of hazardous waste, and to
closure of hazardous waste facilities.
Action to be Taken to Attain
Requirements
A GMZ will be established in accordance
with this rule.
Land use restrictions will prevent the use
of contaminated groundwater from within
the GMZ. Source control, as set forth in
the LF-S Source Control ROD, and
natural attenuation will be relied upon to
restore groundwater quality, and it is
estimated that compliance will be attained
in 11 years. Groundwaler monitoring will
be conducted at the boundaries of the
GMZ to ensure that compliance is
attained.
Management of hazardous waste as part
of a CBRCLA response must comply with
substantive Subtitle C regulations.
Basis
Applicable
Applicable
Relevant and Appropriate.
Has effect through state
hazardous waste
requirements that operate
in lieu of direct federal
regulation. See discussion
of these requirements
below.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonclrod.apa
A-55
07/14/95
-------
Table 31
Documentation of ARARs for Groundwater Management of Migration — Alternative MM-2
Limited Action/Natural Attenuation and Btodegradatkm of Contaminated Groundwater/Iastitutlonal Controls/GMZ
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Media
_!_..«
Waste
Hazardous
Wacfle
Hazardous
Waste
Hazardous
Waste
_t™
Waste
Groundwater
Requirement
PpnRRAI.RntA JO PPR 264 90.
264.101 (Subpart F), Release* from
Cfjui Wads* Ihf nsiBs«*>isit*s»i 1 latili
STATB-NH Admin. Code Env-Wm
Hazardous Waste Facilities
STATE-RSA Ch 147-A. New
Hampshire Hazardous Waste
Management Act and Hazardous
Waste Rules, Env-Wm Chapter 100-
1000. Specific requirements discussed
below.
STATB-NH Admin. Code Env-Wm
702.11, Groundwater Monitoring
CTATR_NH Admin rtale Pjtv-Wm
702.12, Other Monitoring
STATB-NH Admin. Code Env-We
604, Abandonment of Wells
Requirement Synopsis
ensure that groundwaler standards are
Ko^sircmcflits: for (rouadwater monitoring,
and. if accessary, corrective action at
hazardous waste facilities.
Identifies procedures to be followed to
requirements for groundwaler monitoring,
and, if necessary, corrective action at
hazardous waste facilities.
Standards for management of hazardous
waste and closure of hazardous waste
facilities. Operates in Iku of federal
RCRA Subtitle C requirements and, as
such, the substantive standards of these
rules must be complied with in the
management of hazardous waste as part of
a CERCLA response.
Specifies the types of hazardous waste
treatment facilities that must monitor
migration of hazardous waste as specified.
_-fc«. • • K»
certain types of facilities.
Imposes requirements for closure of wells.
Action to be Taken to Attain
Requirements
Source Area ROD, will be relied upon to
achieved in an estimated 11 yean under
this alternative.
GMZ monitoring will be conducted in
Applicable requirements will be satisfied.
See discussion of specific provisions
below.
GMZ monitoring will be conducted In
compliance with these requirements.
compliance with any applicable
requirements.
If any groundwaler welb will be
abandoned, these well closure
requirements will be satisfied.
Basis
Rele ri
Relevant and Appropriate
See analysis of specific
provisions below.
Relevant and Appropriate
Applicable
MK01\RrT:00628026.004\zonelrod.apa
A-56
07/14/95
-------
Table 31
Documentation of ARARs for Groundwater Management of Migration — Alternative MM-2
Limited Action/Natural Attenuation and Biodegradation of Contaminated Groundwater/Institutional Controls/GMZ
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Media
Groundwater
Groundwalcr
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Requirement
STTATE-NH Admin. Code Bnv-Ws
410.03. Groundwater Quality Criteria
STATE-NH Admin. Code Bnv-Ws
410.20, Notification to Landowners
STATE-NH Admin. Code Bnv-Ws
410.21, Recoidation
STATB-NH Admin. Code Env-Ws
410.27, Groundwater Management
Permit Compliance Criteria
STATB-NH Admin. Code Bnv-Ws
410.30, Water Quality Sampling,
. Analysis, and Reporting.
Requirement Synopsis
Compliance with Env-Ws 410.03 requires
action to ensure that groundwater is
suitable for drinking water, does not
violate Ambient Groundwater Quality
Standards, and does not cause surface
water quality violations (unless as a result
of natural conditions or e«empt under
Env-Ws 410.04).
Requires the permittee to provide notice
of the permit to all owners of lots of
records within the GMZ within 30 days of
the date of approval of the groundwater
management permit.
Regulates recordation of notice of the
groundwater management permit in the
registry of deeds in the chain of title for
each lot within the GMZ.
Specific action to be taken in case of
violation of an Ambient Groundwater
Quality Standard at or outside the GMZ
boundary.
' Specifies the requirements for monitoring
groundwater quality to ensure compliance
with the terms of the permit and
groundwater protection rules.
Action to be Taken to Attain
Requirements
Remedial action will be conducted in
accordance with the requirements.
Action will be taken in accordance with
this requirement.
Remedial action will be conducted in
accordance with the requirement.
Remedial action will be conducted in
accordance with the requirement.
Remedial action will be conducted in
accordance with these regulations.
Basis
Applicable
Substantive requirements
are applicable
Substantive requirements
are applicable
Substantive requirements
are applicable
Substantive requirements
are applicable
M K01\KIT:00628026.004\zone 1 rod.apa
A-57
07/14/95
-------
APPENDIX B
DECLARATION OF CONCURRENCE
MK01\RFT.00628026.004\zonelnxLsa 07/19/95
-------
State of New Hampshire
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord. NH 03302-0095
NHDES 603-271-3503 FAX 603-271-2867
TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964
April 13, 1995
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 Zone 1 at the Pease Air Force Base Superfund Site;
Newington and Portsmouth, New Hampshire
Sub]: Declaration of Concurrence
Dear Mr. Olsen:
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (Department) has
reviewed the "Record of Decision for Zone 1" (Zone 1 ROD) for the Pease Air Force Base
Superfund Site in Newington and Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The Air Force prepared
the Zone 1 ROD in accordance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (CERCLA). The Zone 1 ROD documents
the actions to be taken to remedy potential threats to human health, welfare and the
environment resulting from releases, or threatened release, of hazardous substances at
the Pease AFB sites collectively known as Zone 1. As a party to the "Pease Federal
Facility Agreement Under CERCLA Section 120" (Pease FFA), the State has participated
in the oversight of the Air Force's Zone 1 Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies
The State also has provide the Air Force with updated lists of all the potential State
Applicable and Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) during the remedial
planning and remedy selection processes.
Modification #1 to the Pease FFA (March 1993) established Zone 1 to be the
geographic grouping of sites (mostly landfills and ditches separated by forests and
wetlands), located entirely within the Town of Newington, New Hampshire. The original
Pease FFA (April 1991) designated Landfills 2, 3,4,5, and the Bulk Fuel Storage Area
(Sites 2,3,4,5, and 13) to be Areas of Concern (AOCs) which required investigations and
evaluations under Superfund. Additional evaluations of Pauls Brook and Flagstone Brook
(Sites 23 and 26) were required to determine if they should become AOCs. In the Pease
FFA Modification #1 the Paint Can Disposal Area (Site 44) was added to the Pease FFA
as an AOC and the Railroad Track Herbicide Area (Site 46) was added as a site requiring
additional evaluation to determine if this area should be an AOC. Also, the Bulk Fuel
Storage Area was removed from the jurisdiction of CERCLA (since the contaminants at the
site are petroleum-related and exempt from CERCLA) and placed under the jurisdiction of
the applicable State statutes.
AIR RESOURCES DIV. WASTE MANAGEMENT DIV. WATER RESOURCES D[V. WATER SUPPLY & POLLUTION CONTROL DIV.
64 No. Main Street 6 Hazen Drive 64 No. Main Street P.O. Box 95
Caller Box 2033 Concord. N.H. 03301 P.O. Box 2008 Concord. N.H. 03302-0095
Concord. N.H. 03302-2033 Tel. 603-271-2900 Concord. N.H. 03302-2008 Tel. 603-271-3503
Tel. 603-271-1370 Fax 603-271-2456 Tel. 603-271-3406 Fax 603-271-2181
Fax 603-271-1381 Fax 603-271-1381
-------
Letter to Alan K. Ol*«n
Re: Zone 1 ROD Declaration of Concurrence
April 13,1995
Page 2
In a letter dated September 16,1993, the State concurred with the Source Area
ROD for Landfill 5 which was fast-tracked in order to accelerate the implementation of the
actions necessary to contain the primary source of groundwater contamination in Zone 1.
The State also concurred with the decision to incorporate Pauls Brook and Flagstone
Brook into a basewide surface water operable unit (intended to ensure the potential threats
to human health and the environment are thoroughly investigated) and with the no further
action decisions for Landfill 3 and the Railroad Tracks Herbicide Area.
Consistency with State Remediation Policy and Rules
In accordance with the requirements of CERCLA, the Zone 1 ROD documents the
analyses of facts which support the selection of the environmental response action
necessary to protect human health and environment due to the potential threats posed by
contaminants at Landfill 2, Landfill 4, the Paint Can Disposal Area, and contaminated
groundwater in Zone 1. While no further action under CERCLA is planned for Landfill 2,
Landfill 4 and the Paint Can Disposal Area, these sites are to be closed in accordance with
the Department's Solid Waste Rules, in a manner that is consistent with how similar sites
are addressed in the State of New Hampshire. The closure of these solid waste sites, the
Bulk Fuel Storage Area and the source control actions at Landfill 5 will collectively address
the sources of groundwater contamination in Zone 1.
The selected remedy for contaminated groundwater in Zone 1 includes the
establishment of a Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ) in accordance with New
Hampshire's Groundwater Protection Rules. The Zone 1 GMZ is the contained volume of
contaminated, or potentially contaminated, groundwater that will be restored to the State's
ambient groundwater quality standards through passive (natural) processes. While the
State has previously expressed a concern that some sections of its Groundwater
Protection Rules were not selected as ARARs in the Zone 1 ROD, consultation with EPA-
New England indicates that the substantive issues of concern will be addressed utilizing
EPA guidelines through the authority provided by CERCLA.
Groundwater use within the GMZ may be restricted through institutional controls
while groundwater quality is restored. A notice of the GMZ must be recorded in the
registry of deeds in the chain of title for each lot within the GMZ. Although not required
by CERCLA, the Department will issue a Groundwater Management Permit in order to
track water quality monitoring on a site specific basis. A comprehensive detailed review
of all environmental monitoring data will be conducted by the Air Force, EPA-New England,
and the State to ensure the remedial action provides adequate protection of human health
and the environment and complies with applicable regulations.
-------
Letter to Alan K. Olsen
Re: Zone 1 ROD Declaration of Concurrence
April 13,1995
Page3
State Concurrence
The State reviewed all information in the Zone 1 Administrative Record, evaluated
the cumulative risks associated with current and future potential exposures to the
contaminants at the sites addressed by the Zone 1 ROD, and determined the actions set
forth in the Zone 1 ROD are consistent with the requirements of CERCLA. As a party to
the Pease FFA, and acting as agent for the State of New Hampshire, the Department
concurs with the no-action decisions selected under CERCLA for Sites 2, 4 and 44 and the
selected remedy for the management of contaminated groundwater in Zone 1 within a
Groundwater Management Zone.
In striving to achieve the maximum benefit with limited public (and private)
resources, the State continues to seek reasonable and practical solutions to the often
costly and complex environmental challenges associated with contaminated site cleanups.
Through the partnership and dedication exhibited by all parties, the rapid implementation
of the actions necessary to protect human health and the environment will serve to
expedite the achievement of our mutual environmental goals and facilitate efforts to restore
the local economy in order to protect the welfare of those in the communities surrounding
Pease AFB. As always, the Department stands ready to provide the guidance and
assistance the Air Force may require in order to take the actions necessary to protect
human health and the environment in a complete and cost-effective manner.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Varney
Commissioner
cc: Philip J. O'Brien, Ph.D., Director. DES-WMD
Cart 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
James Snyder, USAF
-------
APPENDIX C
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
MK01\RFT:00628026.0M\zonelrcxJ.sa 07/14/95
-------
APPENDIX C
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The Air Force issued the Zone 1 Proposed Plan to the public in July 1994. In the Zone 1
Proposed Plan the Air Force identified its preferred alternatives and disposition for the
various sites contained within the boundaries of Zone 1. Zone 1 consists of the following
sites and operable units: Sites 2, 3, 4,5, 13, 23, 26, 44, and 46 and a groundwater operable
unit. Additionally, the Air Force explained in the Zone 1 Proposed Plan that the ditch sites
(Flagstone Brook, the Railway Ditch, and Pauls Brook) and the Bulk Fuel Storage Area
(Site 13) were not included as part of the Zone 1 Proposed Plan alternatives. It was further
explained that these sites would be addressed either under a separate document, as an
addition to a remedial action, or under another environmental program. The selection of
the Air Force's preferred alternatives was coordinated with EPA Region I and NHDES
prior to being presented to the general public in the Zone 1 Proposed Plan.
BACKGROUND OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Prior to commencement of the public comment period, the Air Force issued a fact sheet
that summarized the contents of the Zone 1 Proposed Plan. Presentations on the status of
work being conducted and the results of the work in the Zone 1 area were made to the
Pease AFB Technical Review Committee (TRC). Additionally, the content of the Zone 1
Proposed Plan was presented to and discussed with the members of the TRC.
Announcements were mailed to all individuals on the Pease AFB mailing list in July 1994
prior to the beginning of the public comment period. Newspaper announcements
(advertisements) were published prior to the public hearing date of 18 August 1994.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.apc C-l 07/14/95
-------
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
AND AIR FORCE RESPONSES
During the public comment period for the Zone 1 Proposed Plan, no written comments
were received, and verbal comments were made by three individuals at the Zone 1 Proposed
Plan public hearing held on 18 August 1994 at the Newington Town Hall. The comments
received and associated Air Force response to those comments follow:
1. Comment (verbal):
Response:
2. Comment (verbal):
Response:
This project on Zone 1,1 thoroughly support. I've presented
this to my board, and they concurred with the ideas of what the
Air Force is doing on the cleanup.
The Air Force acknowledges the commentor's support.
Now I'm getting to the big question, and the question is cost
and what the Air Force is doing with hiring a remediation
coordinator (contractor) and the cost, the cost of $150 million.
The Air Force, as a matter of policy, has decided to hire a
single contractor for each closing base to be used for
implementation of the various remedial actions selected for that
specific base. For Pease AFB, this basewide remedial action
contract has a maximum ceiling of $150 million. Each work
order issued to the contractor will be individually priced, and
the Air Force will monitor the contractor's performance to
ensure that the work is done in accordance with contract
requirements and in a cost-efficient manner. It is not expected
that the full capacity ($150 million) of this basewide remedial
action contract will have to be used to complete all the
necessary remedial action activities at Pease AFB.
MKn\RJT:006MB6.004\xooelrodjpc
C-2
07/14/95
-------
3. Comment (verbal):
In general SCOPE, at our last meeting we discussed -- which
was the 2nd of August - we discussed the Zone 1 Proposed
Plan and were in general agreement that the Proposed Plan is
the right way to go and that we do support the Air Force's
actions in the Remedial Action.
Response:
The Air Force acknowledges SCOPE'S agreement with the
proposed Zone 1 actions.
4. Comment (verbal):
I did have a question, but I think you answered it. In the
railroad bed itself, I was concerned that the investigation should
. have gone from the border (base) all the way up to, I think it's
Dover Avenue, at the old BX, because that's where the railroad
bed ended. And along in there herbicides were probably used.
Response:
The railroad track herbicide usage area (Site 46) covers the
total length of the railway bed, from the base boundary to the
end point within the base. This site was put into Zone 1 for
convenience because Zone 1 is where the railroad tracks begin
on the base. The investigative work on the railroad track area
covers the total length. Additionally, work in Zone 3 and at
Site 32/36 also covered some of the railroad bed areas,
especially at the end point identified by the commentor.
5. Comment (verbal):
I've got one question you might answer later oh or now, it
doesn't matter. We looked at the construction of Landfill 5 and
commented previously that the PDA, if they were going to build
a road to the north ramp, because it is prime industrial area,
that it should be, the preliminary work should be done as the
construction of Landfill 5 was being done so that we don't have
to come back later on and redo everything.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.apc
C-3
07/14/95
-------
Response:
The Air Force did take into account the future possibility of the
PDA constructing an access road to the north ramp area when
we designed the remedial action for Landfill (LF-5). The Air
Force was able to adjust the toes (edges) of the landfill to
facilitate the future road. This action did not cost the Air
Force any additional money. As a result, a road can be
constructed without having to do any modification to the final
LF-5 cap.
6. Comment (verbal):
Speaking of costs, we did address this at our August meeting,
the cost of the projects, and our technical advisor was
concerned of the cost of some of the projects, especially the
waste water treatment plants here (Landfill 5) and out at Site
8. And we've really got, as taxpayers, we've got to watch and
monitor the costs.
Response:
The Air Force also is concerned about the cost of remedial
actions that are being or will be implemented at Pease AFB.
Along with watching costs, the Air Force must ensure that the
remedial action being purchased will meet the cleanup
requirements. This is a balancing process, and sometimes it is
necessary to take a conservative approach to minimize the
potential risk of failure of a treatment system. The water
treatment plant purchased for the LF-5 work was necessary as
a contingency in the event that water encountered during the
excavation process required treatment. The Air Force will
reuse this plant to support the Landfill 6 work, and also is
considering using it at several underground storage tank sites at
Pease AFB. These types of actions by the Air Force will result
in an overall savings to the federal taxpayer. The Air Force
C-4
07/14/95
-------
welcomes the continued oversight by the public and SCOPE on
cost-management issues.
7. Comment (verbal):
So I hope that, with the money that's already been appropriated
for Pease and earmarked for Pease, that we put it to the best
use, we don't spend a lot of money on redundancy that we may
not need, on things that the state would like to see, things that
the EPA would like to see, but we cannot afford.
Response:
The Air Force concurs with this statement. The Air Force
cannot afford, nor is it in the federal taxpayer's interest, to
spend money on work or items that are not beneficial to the
cleanup process at Pease AFB. Cost benefit analysis is an
appropriate topic for the Pease Restoration Advisory Board to
put to the Air Force and regulators as an item it considers
should be taken into account when determining the need for
additional expenditures.
8. Comment (verbal):
I just want to say that as a resident of Newington, I feel very
comfortable with the Air Force's approach on Zone 1. The
presentation that was made was very thorough tonight. It gave
me good confidence that the Air Force is treating this problem
in a very cost-effective way and coming up with the best
solution that we can with the funds available.
Response:
9. Comment (verbal):
The Air Force appreciates the confidence this commentor has
in the Air Force's ability to properly address the Zone 1 issues.
I do have one question. My understanding from your briefing
was that the opportunity for redevelopment of the Landfill 5
site would be somewhat in, in five years -- excuse me, eleven
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.apc
C-5
07/14/95
-------
years. If a particular company chose to, would like to develop
that earlier, is it feasible that, in your estimation, that they
could, if they could find a site to transport the contents of
Landfill 5 to, that they could do that, and do you have any
estimate of what the cost of that would be?
Response: The 11 years is the estimated time it will take the groundwater
to cleanse itself (naturally attenuate). After that pehod, the
groundwater under LF-5 would be clean, but the waste would
still be there. It would be possible in the future for a developer
to propose to excavate and remove the waste material from
LF-5 and relocate it to another regulatory-acceptable location.
Obviously, this type of action would have to comply and satisfy
all regulations that may govern such an action. Based on
today's regulations, it would cost many millions of dollars to do
this. For instance, Alternative SB evaluated in the LF-5
Feasibility Study involved off-site disposal of the landfill waste.
The off-site waste disposal cost associated with this alternative
was in excess of $150 million.
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zooelro
-------
APPENDIX D
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
MKOJ\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod^a 07/14/95
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE INDEX
FOR THE
INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
NEW HAMPSHIRE
JULY 1995
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\ronelrod.ap
-------
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 AFB.
Questions and/or comments about the administrative record file should be directed to:
Arthur L. Ditto, Remedial Project Manager
Air Force Base Conversion Agency
Operating Location A, Building 43
61 International Drive
Pease AFB, NH 03803-0157
(603) 430-2586
Dynamic Corporation f'"f~1 in the organization, etublithment and on-tite setup of the Administrative Record File at Peaae Air Force Bate.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelnxUpd D-l 07/14/95
-------
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
(Category
(1.1)
Entry »
#1
Page Range
001-031
Long Title
Author
Recipient
Date
Type
Second Reference
Location
The long title and brief description of document.
Indicates author or primary originator of document. If a
contractor prepared the document, indicates company and
location.
Indicates primary recipient of document.
Indicates date document was issued.
Indicates document type
Other categories pertaining to the document.
Exact location(s) of document.
MK01\RFT:00628026.00«\ionelio
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD ĄD-V- STRTirTi;mE
1.0 SITE BOENTIFICATION
1.1 Background - RCRA and other Information
1.2 Notification/Site Inspection Reports
1.3 Preliminary Assessment (PA) Report
1.4 Site Investigation (SI) Report
1.5 Previous Operable Unit Information
1.6 Correspondence
2.0 REMOVAL RESPONSES
2.1 Sampling and Analysis Plans
2.2 Sampling and Analysis Data / Chain of Custody
2.3 EE/CA Approval Memorandum (Non-Time-Critical Removals)
2.4 EE/CA (Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis)
2.5 Action Memorandum
2.6 Amendments to Action Memorandum
2.7 Removal Response Reports
2.8 Correspondence
3.0 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
4.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS)
4.1 ARAR Determinations
4.2 Feasibility Reports
4.3 Proposed Plan
4.4 Supplements and Revisions to the Proposed Plan
4.5 Correspondence
5.0 RECORD OF DECISION (ROD)
5.1 ROD
5.2 Amendments to ROD
5.3 Explanations of Significant Differences
5.4 Correspondence
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelreNlJpd D-3 07/14/95
-------
6.0 STATE AND FEDERAL COORDINATION
6.1 Cooperative Agreements/SMOAs
6.2 Federal Facility Agreement (FFA)
6.3 Coordination - State/Federal
6.4 General Correspondence
7.0 ENFORCEMENT
7.1 Enforcement History
7.2 Endangerment Assessments
7.3 Administrative Orders
7.4 Consent Decrees
7.5 Affidavits
7.6 Documentation of Technical Discussions/Response Actions
7.7 Notice Letters and Responses
8.0 HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
8. 1 ATSDR Health Assessments
8.2 Toxicological Profiles
8.3 General Correspondence
9.0 NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEES
9.1 Notices Issued
9.2 Findings of Fact
9.3 Reports
9.4 General Correspondence
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.1 Comments and Responses
10.2 Community Relations Plan
10.3 Public Notice(s) (Availability of the Admin. Record File,
Availability of the Proposed Plan, Public Meetings)
10.4 Public Meeting Transcripts
10.5 Documentation of other Public Meetings
10.6 Fact Sheets, Press Advisories, and News Releases
10.7 Responsiveness Summary
10.8
10.9 Technical Review Committee Charter
10.10 Correspondence
11.0 TECHNICAL SOURCES, GUIDANCE, AND PROCEDURES DOCUMENTS
11.1 FPA
11.2 EPA Regional Guidance
MKDl\RPT:00«8026.004\iooelio
-------
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)
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelroiapd D-5 07/14/95
-------
1.1
• RCRA s*d Other
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (1.1)11001-031
'Scop* of Work for the Remedial mveetigation/Feaaibility Study'
Pease Air Force Base
EPA, NHDES
April 1991
Scop* of Work for RI/FS
None
ARF, »
U N*tJ&*MaVSsteIwpectio> Reports
'NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
(PA) Report
PEA (1.3) ft 001-068
•Phu* D Problem Confirmation tad Quantification Presurvey Report (FMld Sampling for SI Work)*
Roy F. Wetton. be.
EPA, NHDES, USAF Occupation! and Environmental Health Lib (OEHL), Brooks AFB, TX
Jun.1984
Technical Report
NOD.
ARF, R
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONO TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (1.3) 12 001-182
•Installation Restoration Program Records Search*
CH2MHU1
EPA; NHDES; USAF Engineering & Services Center, Tyndall AFB; SAC, Offutt AFB, NE
January 19S4
Technical Report
None
ARF, IR
f
PEA (1.3) n 001-041
Roy F. Wenoo, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
20 Jury 1990
Letter Report
Nona
ARF, IR
- Updated PA Report*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (1.4) #1001-309
1.4 SetcbreMicaliM (9) Report
i Program, Fhaea II - Coafirmatioa/QiuaificMioa Stage I, Volume I (Final Report for Period
October 1984-July 1986)'
Roy F. Weeton, lac.
HQ SAC/SOPB, Oflutt AFB, NE; EPA; NHDES
August 1986
Technical Report: Field Investigations
None
ARF, Dt
*
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\tonelnxLapd
D-7
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (1.4) #2 001-883
'Installation Ratontion Prognm, Phase n - Confirmation/Quantification Stage 1 , Volume U (Appendices)'
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
HQ SAC/SGPB, Offutt AFB, ME; EPA; NHDES
August 1987
Technical Report: Field Inveaigationi
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (1.4)13 001-308
•Installation Restoration Prognm, Stage 3B Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection*
. Roy F. Western, lac.
EPA; NHDES; HQ SAC/DE, Oflutt AFB, NE; AFSC HSD/YAQ, Brooks AFB, TX
February 1991
Technical Report: Also includes review of PA
None
ARF, R
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
.AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (1.4) #6001-817
Pease AFB Railroad Tracks (Site 46) Site Investigation Letter Report
Weston
USAF
24 September 1992
Letter Report
PEA (1.6)
ARF, IR
IS Pretinus Operable Unit Information
• NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
1.6 Correspondence
PEA (1.6) #10014)02
'Comments Regarding the Installation Restoration Program, Phase I Record Sesrch Report, Pease Air Force Base*
The State of New Hampshire, Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
HQ SAC, Offim AFB, NE
16 March 1984
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (1.6) fi 001404
'Comments Regarding the Installation Restoration Program Report (09/10/86)*
State of New Hampshire, Division of Public Health Services
NH Division of Public Health Services
24 November 1986
Commend to SI (1.4)
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (1.6) » 001-005
•Comments Regarding the Phase n. Stage 1 IRP Report (08/86 Draft)*
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelnxLapd
D-8
07/14/95
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
3 February 1987
Comment* to SI (1.4)
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (1.6) #4 001-007
•Aii Fore* ReepowM to Comment* From th« New H«mp*hin Department of Environmental Service* on th« Phau D,
Sttfel IRP Draft Report'
Department of A* Air Force
NHDES
SMay 19S7
RMPOOMI to CoaoMttt to SI (1.4)
None
ARF
I
PEA (1.6) #6 001404
•Ltutt Couema* Site Wtlkovtn m«d* wi* M«gb«n of Sbertum Cmc Group-
SttU of N«w H«q»hin, D^wnmuit of Envuonmntal ScrvioM
Ait Force
IS July 1990
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (1.6) rt 001-001
Railroad Track SI Untr Repon
USAF
lohaim* HUOMT, USEPA
Rkbard PWM, NHDES
None
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelRxL»pd
D-9
07/14/95
-------
2.1 Sampling and Analysis Plans
'NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN TfflS SECTION AT THIS TIME
2 -2 Sampling and Analysis Data / Chain of Custody
•NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
2 J EE/CA Approval Memorandum (Non-Time Critical Removals)
• NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
2.4 EE/CA (Eafmeeriat Evaluation / Cost Analysis)
•NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
2.5 Action Memorandum
'NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
2.6 Amendments to Action Memorandum
'NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
2.7 Removal Response Reports
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (2-7) « 001-452
LONG TITLE: "Informal Technical Information Report, Drum Removal at Site S (LF-5) - Pre-NPL Action*"
AUTHOR: Roy F. Weoon, Inc.
RECIPIENT: EPA, NHDES
DATE: December 1990
TYPE: Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF
»
2.8 Correspondence
'NOTE; NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
MKm\RPT:00628026.004\2onelrodjpd D-10 07/14/95
-------
3.1
wd tuutjm "»» (SAF)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.1) f 1001-210
•Quality Aiaurance Project Plan, la
•r
i ReatonrJon Program, Stag* 2, to Support the Pre
Investigation Field Work, Labelled Stag. 2 Field Wort"
Roy F. Wtston, Inc.
EPA; NMDES; HQ SAC/DEPV, Offiitt AFB, NE
November 19T7
Quality AMurance Project Plan
Noa*
ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.1)12 001-212
'Quality Aimrance Project Plan, Integrated Inaullation Rutoration Profram, Stag* 3"
Roy F. WMOO, be.
EPA, NHDES
Au|u»tl9S9
Quality Aaaunoc* Projwt Plan
Nona
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.1) «3 001-216
'huMllation Raatoratioc
Roy F. WMUMI, be.
EPA, NHDES
Jaouaiy 1991
Saopliai and Analysis Plan
Nona
ARF
Program, Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan"
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.1)47 001-403
Loeaaooa of Background Sampling Locations
Arthur L. Ditto
RPM, U.S. Air Fom/PMa* AFB
lohanoaHuoMr, RPM
USEPA, Region 1
and
Richard Peaae, RPM
NHDES
15JunalW2
UaacandMap
Stag* 3C Background Data Baae
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.1) f 110014(1
hwaUationRealontioDPr
Roy F. Weaton, Inc.
USAF
October 1992
igram, Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum 3, Peaae AFB, NH - Draft
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA(3.1)»192.24-R.l
Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan. Addendum #3, QAPP Portion
Roy F. Weaton, Inc.
USAF
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelrod.apd
D-ll
07/14/95
-------
DATE:
TYPE.
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
2 December 1992
Addendum
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.1)020 001-007
Letter Report - Proposed Aquifer Tett of Well 6104
James Soukup, George Swedberg, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Mark McKenzie, Peue AFB
06 January 1993
Letter Report
Zone 1; Site 13
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
3.2 Sampling tad Analysis Data / Chain of Custody Forms
PEA (3. 2) #1 001-027
Volatile Aromatics/Halocarbons by Modified 8010/8020 - Draft Data Sheets
Roy F. Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Pease AFB
Unknown
Data
None
ARF
*
PEA (3 -2) « 001-018
Volatile Aromatics/Halocarbons by Modified 8010/8020
Roy F. Wetton, Inc.
Pease AFB
Unknown
Data
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3 2) K 001-013
Preliminary Survey of Metal Concentration* in New Hampshire Soils - Final Report
New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services, Bureau of Health Risk Assessment
USAF
May 1991
Data
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(3.2)*7001-D1
Background Soluble Metals Concentrations for Groundwaier at Pease AFB
Roy F. Wcston, Inc.
USAF
20 November 1991
Latter Report
PEA (3.6)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (32) ft 001-E.l
Tolerance Limits for Background Soils at Pease AFB, NH
Roy F. Waaton, Inc.
USAF
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelnxtapd
D-12
07/14/95
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
17 April 1992
LattarRaport
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.2) *10 001-002
Raautti of Background Surfec* Water/S«dimant Location Walkovar
Arthur L. Ditto, RFM
U.S. Air Fona/Paaae AFB
Johanna Huntar.RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
19 August 1992
Knights Brook
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE.
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3 .2) *H 001-052
Maximum Dattctad Coneantrations for Unfitend Groundwatar *t PMM AFB, NH
Tatk Manager
Roy F. WMMD, Inc.
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Forea/Pease AFB
23 August 1992
Latter with Atuchnwau (Tiblw and Gnphi)
Ouncuriutton of looiftnic B*ek|rouod Uvtli for Qroundwtwr tt PMM AFB
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.2) 111 001-007
ZOM 1 Oroundwiur Mod*! CalilMration
Roy F. WMOB, be.
USAF
17 May 1993
Zonal
ARF(SKtioo3.2BiiidaT)
3-3 WottFlM
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.3) *1 001-144
•Work Plan for the Imullitk
Roy F. W«Mon, IDC.
EPA.NHDES
Aufn»tl989
Work Plan
Nona
ARF
iProfram, Stag* 3"
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.3) n 001-028
•Installation Raatontioa Program, Stag* 3C, Aetioo Plan*
Roy F. Waaton, Inc.
EPA.NHDES
May 1991
Nona
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrodjpd
D-13
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3 .3) #4 001-258
"InstaUation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Work Plan"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
Itnuary 1991
Work PUn
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3. 3) *5 001-213
•Work PUn for me Integrated Installation Restoration Program. Stage 2, Labelled Stage 2 Work Plan*
Roy F. Wetton, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
eptember 1987
Work PUn
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA(3.3)*6001-GL.2
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum 1 , Peaie AFB, NH - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
September 1991
Addendum
None
ARF, IR
9
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3 .3)^7001-05
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Work PUn Addendum Number 2 for Pease AFB, NH - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
March 1992
Addendum
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.3) « 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
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.3) 19 001-3.5
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Work Plan Addendum 3, Pease AFB, NH
Roy F. Wsjston, Inc.
USAF
June 1992
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (3.3) flO ui-R2
Stage 4 Health and Safety Plan Addendum - Section 9 Paint Can Disposal Area Test Pit and Drum Handling Procedures
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelnxUpd
D-14
07/14/95
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
22 June 1992
NOM
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.3) f 12 001-004
Groundwater Modeling PncMt Outline
LeedePenia
Teak Manager
Roy F. WMUB, be.
Artbut Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Fone/Peeie AFB
2 October 1992
Groundwater Modeling
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PBA(3.3)«3001-C.31
batallation Renontkm Profnm, Stage 5 Hetltfa ind Safety Plan, Peaae AFB, NH - Drift
Roy F. We«on, Inc.
USAF
October 1992
Heekh and Safety Plan
Oroundwater Modeling
ARF, Dt
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.3) #14 001-036
U.S. Air Force InMallatio
i Rero
Roy F. Weeton, Inc.
USAF
April 1993
Work Plan
LF-5
ARF,»
i Program Peaae AFB Landfill 5
Bgn Work PUn DRAFT
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.3) f 16 001-4.1
Work Plan to Evaluate the Sedimentt of Mcbcyre Brook FlagBone
Brook, Peeaa AFB, NH
Roy F. Weewn. be.
USAF
October 27,1993
Work PUn
Mebtyra Brook; FlagMone Brook
ARF (Section 33 Binder)
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
3.4 Prebanury KI Field Work Reports
PEA (3.4) l\ 001-173
'Interim Technical Report No. 1 for the Innallition ReitontioD Program, Stage 2, Volume I*
Roy F. Weatto, be.
EPA, NHDES
Technical Repoit
None
ARF, IR
MK01\RFr:00628026.004\zoiielro(Lapd
D-15
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TY?E:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) fl 001-147
"Interim Technical Report No. 1 for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume II - Appendices"
Roy F. Weaton, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
January 1988
Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) #3 001-214
"Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume I"
Roy F. Wetton, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
August 1988
Technical Report
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) #4 001-696
"Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume n - Appendices (Sample
Tracking Information, Analytical Results)"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
August 1988
Technical Report - Appendices (Sample Tracking Information, Analytical Results)
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) « 001-838
"Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume ID •
Results)"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA. NHDES
August 1988
Technical Report - Appendices (Analytical Results)
None
ARF, IR
Appendices (Analytical
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) *6 001-722
•Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume IV - Appendices (Analytical
Results)"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
August 1988
Technical Report - Appendices (Analytical Results)
None
ARF, IR
t
PEA (3.4) n 001-289
"Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume V - Appendices (Field
Geological, Oeotechnical, and Hydrogeological Data)"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
August 1988
Technical Report - Appendices (Field Geological, Geotechnical, and Hydrogeological Data)
None
ARF, IR
i
MK01\RJT:0062S026.004\zonelrod.apd
D-16
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) IS 001-106
•Interim Technical Report No. 3 for me Inatalla
Roy F. WMttM, IDC*
EPA, NHDES
February 1989
Technical Report
None
ARF, Dt
i ProfTem, Sup 2, Volume P
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) #9 001-658
'Interim Technical Report No. 3 for me loMtlUtioa Reetonbon Program, Stag* 2, Volume U - Appendices'
Roy F. WMoa, Int.
EPA, NHDES
February 19«9
Technical Report - Appeadieea
None
ARF, IR
f
PEA (3.4) * 10 001-198
•Interim Technical Ripoit No. 4 for the Imulbtioa R««ontion Prognm. Stt(« 2, Volume I*
Roy F. W<«oa, Inc.
EPA. NHDES
April 1989
Technical R«port
Noo.
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) #11 001-770
•bMrim Technical Ripon No. 4 for th* ImttlUtioo Retention Profiwn, Sag* 2, Votumt 0 - Appradicn-
Roy F. WMtta, me.
EPA, NHDES
April 1919
Twhnied R*eoft - ApptodicM
Noo*
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) #12 001-561
•mMrim Technical Rtoon No. 4 fur m* ImulUti
Roy F. WMUB, be.
EPA, NHDES
April 1919
Twfanic*] Rtpoit - Appmdicw
i PtofTun, Sttf* 2, Vohim* m - Appandicn'
ARF, Dt
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) «3 001-770
•bMrim Technical Rtpon No. 4 for m* Inmllauoa Rwtomion Profrmm, SUf* 2, Vohraw IV - Appmdic**'
Roy F. Wettoo, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
April 1919
Tecfinictl Report - AppndicM
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (3.4) #14 001-1,1»
'burim T*chnk*l Rtpott No. 4 for the bualhtion Rtatomion Profnm, Slat* 2, Volume V - Appendices'
Roy F. Weetoo. Inc.
EPA, NHDES
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonclrodjpd
D-17
07/14/95
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
April 1989
Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) #15 001-729
'Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Instillation Reiteration Program, Stage 2, Volume VI - Appendices'
Roy F. Wetton, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
April 1989
. Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) 1 16 001-803
•Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume VH - Appendices'
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
April 1989
Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE.
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) tn 001-251
•Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final Report, Volume I*
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
July 1990
Technical Report
None
ARF, IR
i
PEA (3.4) *18 001-452
'Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final Report, Volume II*
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
July 1990
Technical Report
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) «9 001-621
'Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final Report, Appendices, Volume I*
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
Jury 1990
Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) 120 001-420
•Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final Report, Appendices, Volume 0*
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
July 1990
Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelnxUpd
IMS
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) 121 001-658
"Inetallafion Reettraaon Prognm, Stag* 2, Dnft Final Report, Appendicee, Vohim* ID*
Roy F. WeMon, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
July 1990
Technical Report - Appendicat
NOM
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4)122001-688
•Inatallation Reetontion Pr
Roy F. WeMon, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
July 1990
Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
>fnm, Stt|e 2, Dnft Final Repon, Appendicei, Volume IV
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) O3 001-261
'Installation ReetontMa Pr
Roy F. Weeton; Inc.
EPA, NHDES
July 1990
Technical Repon - Appendicei
None
ARF, IR
*nm, Stage 2, Dnft Final Report, Appendices, Volume V
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) #24 001-340
'InMllation Reetontion Pr
Roy F. Weetoo, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
July 1990
Technical Report - Appendicei
None
ARF, IR
igrun, Stag* 2, Dnft Final Report, Appendicei, Summary Analytical Tablet'
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION.
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA 0.4) 125 001-007
•Oeopbyeical Survey Letter Report, Stage 3"
Roy F. Weeton, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
19 October 19*9
Letter Report
None
ARF
t
PEA (3-4) 132 001-331
•InMllation Reetontion Pr
Roy F. Weeteo, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
November 1990
Technical Report
None
ARF
)gnm. Stage 3, Landfill 5 She Characterization Summary*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (3.4) 133 001-068
"Installation Reetontion Prognm, Stage 3 Site 5 Column Leach Study Letter Report*
Roy F. Wewm. Inc.
EPA, NHDES
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelnxlJpd
D-19
07/14/95
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
February 1991
Letter Report
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) #38001-041
Peue AFB Monitor Well Inventory tnd Inspection
Roy F. Wenon, Inc.
USAF
7 August 1992
Report
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(3.4)«9001-D
Background Value* for Soil, Grouodwtter, Surface Water and Sediment at Pease Air Force Base
Roy F. Weiton, Inc.
USAF
26 February 1993
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
3.5 Remedial Investigation (81) Reports
PEA (3.5) II 001-CS
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3 Pease AFB, NH, DIP Site 5 Column Leach Study Letter Report
Roy F. Weiton, Inc.
USAF
14 February 1991
Letter Report
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3 .5)12001-0.4
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Landfill 5 Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH Technical Report - Draft
Final
Roy F. Weiton, Inc.
USAF
April 1992
Report
LF-5
ARF
t
PEA (3.5) 13 001-6.4.5
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Landfill 5 Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH Figures - Draft Final
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
April 1992
Figure*
LF-5
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (3.5)#4001-F.154
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Landfill 5 Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH Appendices A-F - Draft
Final
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrodjpd
D-20
07/14/95
-------
DATE: April 1992
TYPE: Appenrticm
SECOND REFERENCE: LF-5
LOCATION: ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.5) I5001-M.30
LONG TITLE: bttllttkM RMontion Proftim, Sttfe 3C, Landfill 5 RuMdiil Invi«i|MH9i>,PMM AFB, NH AppodiewO, H. L tod
M - Drift Fiml
AUTHOR: Roy F. Wanon, Inc.
RECIPIENT: USAF
DATE: April 1992
TYPE: AppwdieM
SECOND REFERENCE: LF-5
LOCATION: ARF
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA <3.5)*6001-K
LONOTTTLE: iMUlUtiooRMMMMD Program, Stag*3C, Landfill 5 Remedial InvMifMion, PMM AFB, NH Appendicat I-K - Draft
Foal
AUTHOR: Roy F. Weaton, IDC.
RECIPIENT: USAF
DATE: April 1992
TYPE: AppwdieM
SECOND REFERENCE: LF-5
LOCATION: ARF
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.5) I16001-B.12
LONG TITLE: s.nyl.1^ Loertiodt and RMutU Dninig* Ant Litur Report
AUTHOR: Roy F. WMHO, Inc.
RECIPIENT: USAF
DATE: Mty 1992
TYPE: R«p«t
SECOND REFERENCE: Son.
LOCATION: ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.5) «2 001-B43
LONOTTTLE: bMltetioBRMontiooPragnm, Sttf*4. No FunhwActionDMUKMDocuanfcr IRPSiw 3, PMW AFB, NH
AUTHOR: Roy F. WMUO, be.
RECIPIENT: USAF
DATE: SglMliii 1992
TYPE: DmaooDoeuoMt
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: ARF
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.5) *33 001-3.1.1
LONG TITLE: ii.iu*». ».«««i~. p^ym «t.r A «k.rt..~«»i»«i~..«.»-».? I»PTO«.I a^.. ACT MU T^.h.^1 B^o^.
Dnft
AUTHOR: Roy F. WMM, be.
RECIPIENT: USAF
DATE: . October 1992
TYPE: Report
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: ARF
»
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.5) J34001-C
LONG TITLE: bttllMioaRMttntioaProfnm, SU|«4, SiuCluractaizitxxiSuiaiury.IRPZoo*!, PMM AFB, NH Appmdie«A-C -
-Dnft
AUTHOR: Roy F. WMUO, be.
RECIPIENT: USAF
MK01\RPTK)0628026.004\ioaelRxUpd D-21 07/14/95
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
October 1992
Appendices
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER.
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3 .5) #65 001-ACR.4
U.S. Air Force Instillation Restoration Program Peate AFB Zone 1 Remedial Investigation Report Text-DRAFT FINAL
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
October 1993
Report
Zonel
ARF (Zone 1 Shell)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3 .5) #66 001-6.4-4
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Petit AFB Zone 1 Remedial Investigation Report Figuret-DRAFT
FINAL
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
October 1993
Figures
Zonel
ARF (Zone 1 Shelf)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(3.5)*67001-F
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease AFB Zone 1 Remedial Investigation Report Appendices A, B, C,
D. E and F-DRAFT FINAL
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
October 1993
Zonel
ARF (Zone 1 Shelf)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.5) #68 001-04/19/93
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease AFB Zone 1 Remedial Investigation Report Appendix B DRAFT
FINAL
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
April 1993 (Draft Final used to supplement)
Appendix
Zonel
ARF
t
PEA(3.5)*69001-L
U.S. Air Force Instillatio
and L-DRAFT FINAL
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF *
October 1993
Appendices
Zonel
ARF (Zone 1 Shelf)
Restoration Program Peuc AFB Zone 1 Remedial Investigation Report Appendices G, H, I,
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA 0-5) /70 001-H-4.95
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease AFB Zone 1 Remedial Investigation Report Appendix H Part 1 of
2-DRAFT
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelro
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
April 1993 (aleo UMd to supplement 10/93 DRAFT FINAL)
Zonl
ARF (Zone 1 Shelf 1)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.5) 471 001-H
U.S. Air Fore* limillitioa Reetorition Program PeaM AFB Zone 1 Remedial Iinreetifation Report Appendix H Part 2 of
2-DRAFT
Roy F. Weeton, lac.
USAF
April 1993 (alao UMd to mpplemeni 10/93 DRAFT FINAL)
Appendix
ZoOCl
ARF (Zoo* 1 Shelf)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTrTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.5)
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
July 1993
Remedial Design
LF-5
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.5) #105 001-13250-8
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Peue AFB, Remedial Design Excavation/Relocation Plan for Waste,
Soil and Sediment Landfills 2, 4 and 5 Technical Specifications DRAFT (90% Submittal)
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
July 1993
Specifications
LF-2, LF-4. LF-5
ARF
*
PEA (3.5) #114 001-009
Letter Report to Establish Remedial Goals for Sediments in Flagstone Brook
Roy F. Wetton, Inc.
USAF
19 April 1994
Letter Report (RI)
Flagstone Brook
ARF, 3.5 Shelf
*
PEA (3.5) 115 001-039
Cumulative Risk Evaluation for Zone 1 through Zone 5 at Pease AFB, N.H.
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
March 1994
Risk Evaluation Report
For Zones 1 through Zone 5
ARF, General 3.5 Shelf
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
3.6 RI Ccrrepondence
PEA (3.6) #1 001-001
•Comments Regarding the Work Plan for the OtP Stage 2*
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
27 July 1987
Comments Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Reports)
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (3.6) 12 001-006
•Letter Regarding DU>, Stage 2*
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
11 November 19S7
Letter Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Reports)
None
ARF
*
PEA (3.6) » 001-001
•Letter Stating Conform*!
» of the Stage 2, Quality Assunnrn Project Plan With Air Force IRP Practices'
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
MKQl\RFT:00628026.004\zonelnxLapd
D-24
07/14/95
-------
DATE: 12 Novwtor 19S7
TYPE: UnvS«mM,3.4(PniiaiMryRIFMldWori:R«poiti)
SECOND REFERENCE: Noo*
LOCATION: ARF
»
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.6) *6 001-001
LONG TITLE: "Umr Cooe«rninj Drilling Program'
AUTHOR: Roy F. Wmon, IDC.
RECIPIENT: Air FOR*
DATE: 20 Octootr 19U
TYPE: Uwr Serving 3.4 (Pr«liiniii«ryRIFi«ld Work R«porti)
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.«) 19 001-002
LONG TITLE: 'Unw Concerning Dupoul of Drill Cutting. From Sttg* 2 IRP InvMtigttion*'
AUTHOR: Roy F. W«MOO. Inc.
RECIPIENT: Air Fan*
DATE: 2 OcwlMr 19S9
TYPE: U«wSir»Mig 3.4 (PrtBiniMryRI Field Work Report*)
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.6) «0 001-003
LONG TITLE: "Review Comment aa n* RUM D, Su|« 2IRP, Dwft Finil R^torf
AUTHOR: SttK of N«w lUapAin, D^MRnMol of EnvtroanMOUl SWVUM*
RECIPIENT: Air Fore*
DATE: 2t Fibratry 1990
TYPE: R*viwrConnn«»ooPtai»n. Stij.2, IRP Saving 3.4 (Pwltiainiry RI FWd Work R^oM)
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: ARF
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.6) «1 001-011
LONOTTTLE: 'RmMw CoanMi tot the PMM AFB, Ph«»» H, SUM 2 IRP Draft Fiml JUpoif
AUTHOR: U.S. EPA
RECIPIENT: Air Fan*
DATE: 7 Much 1990
TYPE: R*viwCaannnuS«rviaf 3.4(PnlimiiiMyRIFMld Wort lUpom)
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: ARF
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.6) «2 001-010
LONG TITLE: "RtWMW ConmaH R«t«du« th* IRP, Sttfe 2 Dnft Ffflil R*ort (DwMter I9t9)'
AUTHOR: U.S. DipuaiMat of COOBBBC*, N«6aMl OeMaic and AtrnMobme AdaMMnboo
RECIPIENT: Ak Forei vit EPA
DATE: 7 Much 1990
TYPE: Rwiw»CooBn«ouS«vinf 3.4 (PrrtimiiiuyRIFi^d Work R««tti)
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: . ARF
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.6) f 13 001-020
LONG TITLE: *R«vww f "•"•«-'• to dM IRP Sli|* 2 RI/FS Dnft R«pon'
AUTHOR: DHMTOHK of IM Air Force
RECIPIENT: Roy F. WMOD, toc./Air FOR*
DATE: IS Much 1990
TYPE: R*»iwO)0«B««iS«vinf 3.4 (PreiiinintrylUFirid Work R^ottt)
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026,004\ronelrodjpd D-2S 07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG 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) Hi 001-065
•Sampling Results from Pease AFB, Newington, Portsmouth'
Sute of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
17 January 1991
Sampling Data
None
ARF
*
PEA (3.6) #19 001-002
'Installation Reiteration Program (DIP) at Pease AFB, NH°
Department of the Air Force
Air Force
8 March 1989
Memorandum — Pertaining to RI
None
ARF
*
PEA (3 .6) «20 001-002
•Work Plan for the DtP Stage 3 and TTR #4'
Department of the Air Force
Air Force
3 April 1989
Memorandum — Pertaining to RI
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) Ł21 001-007
•Consolidated Comments to the IRP Stage 3 Work Plan for Peate Air Force Base, NH'
Department of the Air Force
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1 June 1989
Review Comments - Pertaining to RI
None
ARF
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) 122 001-001
•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
t
PEA (3.6) 123 001-008
'Stage 3 Work Plan - Response to Comments'
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
29 June 1989
Response to Comments — Pertaining to RI
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (3 .6) 124001-008
•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.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelnxLapd
D-26
07/14/95
-------
DATE: 29 June 19*9
TYPE: Review Comments - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.6) 127 001-002
LONGTTTLE: "Leder wmmariang diacuatioai between Roy F. Weeton, Inc. and the New Hanvehin Depaitmem of EnviroonMoul
Service* concerning on-ehe handling and diapoaal of aoil and water geoented during drUUaf, development, purging, and
pump tearing of well*'
AUTHOR: Roy F. Weeton, Inc.
RECIPIENT: Air Fane
DATE: 12 March 1990
TYPE: Letter - Pertaining to 3.4
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: ARF
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.6) «2S 001-004
LONG TITLE: "Letter regarding recent and echeduled tame activity in the bulk fuel storage area*
AUTHOR: Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT: Roy F. Wenon, Inc.
DATE: 10 May 1990
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: ARF
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.6) *29 001-007
LONG TITLE: -Review comment* on die Stage 3 Work Plan for the IRP'
AUTHOR: U.S. EPA
RECIPIENT: Air Force
DATE: 7 June 1990
TYPE: Review Comment* - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.6) 130 001-002
LONG TITLE: 'Leoer onnrernint propoead drilling locatiooi, Stage SB-
AUTHOR: Roy F. Weeton, be.
RECIPIENT: Air Pone
DATE: 12JUM1990
TYPE: Letter - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.6) 131001-002
LONG TITLE: 'Letter retarding well installation modification'
AUTHOR: Roy F. Weeton, be.
RECIPIENT: Air Force
DATE: 5 Jury 1990
TYPE: „ Lener
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: . ARF
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.6) 194 001-004
LONG TITLE: 'Leder regarding the disposal of clean weter, drilling mud and soil'
AUTHOR: Roy F. Weeton, be.
RECIPIENT: Air Force
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrcKLapd D-27 07/14/95
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
25 September 1990
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TOTE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3 .6) 135 001-002
'Letter regarding procedures for handling solids tnd liquids during well construction and soil borings"
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
25 September 1990
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3 .6) 138001-002
'Information Letter 3 - Documenting discussion on 25 October 1990*
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
29 October 1990
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3. 6) #39 001-002
"Letter regarding the disposal of clean soil cutting! and drilling mud*
Department of the Air Force
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1 November 1990
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #40 001-007
"Stage 3 , Landfill 5 Site Characterization Summary Informal Technical Information Report; review comments"
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
30 January 1991
Review Comments
PEA (3 .4) #32 001-338
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT.
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) Ml 001-008
'Response to Comments - Draft Final Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling And Analysis Plan"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
7 February 1991
Letter/Response to Comments
None
ARF
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #42 001-017
"EPA review comments on the Stage 3, Landfill 5 She Characterization Summary Informal Technical Information Report"
U.S. EPA
Air Force
14 February 1991
Review Comments
PEA (3.4) 132001-338
ARF
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\ZonelnxUpd
D-28
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6)443 001-004
•IMUM N«*4iof RMohition Prior to to Upcominj FwM Efforts'
U.S. EPA
Air Fore*
10 April 1991
No«»
ARF
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)144 001-030
•RMpooM to Coomiats. I^adfiD 5 ShaChancMrizMioaSuiimiiry-Informal Tadiaicd
Roy F. WMon, Inc.
Air Fore*
7 IIIM 1991
RMpODBt tO Cotnmaott
PEA (3.4) 132001-33$
ARF
*
PEA (3-6) M5 001-030
•(R«viaed)R*eponM to Command Landfill 5 - She <
Roy F. WMHO, lac:
Air Fore*
17 July 1991
ity, Informal Technical InformttioD Report"
PEA (3.4) f32 001-338
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) IM6 001-038
Step 4 Work Ptan «nd SAP"
Roy F. WMoa, toe.
Air Fora*
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT.
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3-«) *<7 001-011
•Rwimr coaiMBU on tfa* butaltaboa RtMontii
i Plu (IRP) SIM* 4 Work PUn tod Sugpla« tad AndyiU PUn"
StM* of N«w Htopbin, DtputmM of EnviraoniMMl Swvic**
Air Fore*
1« OetotMT 1990
MOM
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA <3.6) MS 001-017
Tb* Tow* of NmnaMM
TWTownof N«wioftoo
Air Fore*
29 October 1990
Review CocmaMM
Nona
ARF
i oo *• IRP Sttg* 4 Work PUn'
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTrTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (3.6) *49 001-076
•EPA tKfaaicil nvMw of DM Draft IRP Staj* 4 Work PUn tad Sanpimt and Aariyw PUn fat PMM Air Fore* Btw1
U.S. EPA
Air Fora*
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\ronelro
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
2 November 1990
Review Comment!
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT: •
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #50 001-002
•Response to Air Force questions on fUte comments to the Stage 4 Work Plan"
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
3 December 1990
Response to Air Force questions on State of New Hampshire comments
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #51 001-007
"Response to EPA comments on the Pease AFB Stage 4 Work Plan/Sampling and Analysis Plan*
U.S. Air Force
EPA
10 December 1990
Air Force responses to EPA comments
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) #52 001-008
'Air Force Response to NHDES Comments - Drift Final Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan*
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
7 February 1991
Response to Comments
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #53 001-00*
"EPA initial approval of the DIP Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan*
U.S. EPA
Air Force
13 March 1991
Letter "•""•""'•••g EPA initial approval of Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan
None
ARF
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) #54 001-058
'Air Force Response to EPA comments on the Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan'
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA
1991
RsMpoowto Comments
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 Racord of Phone Conversation with EPA and NHDES
None
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrocUpd
D-30
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) *57 001-004
iMuea Needing Reeohmoc Prior to Upcoming Field Effiorti
Johanna Huaer. RPM
U3. EPA, Rtfion 1
ARbur Ditto, RFM
USAF, PMM AFB
10 April 1991
Stage 3 and 4 Work PUn (3.3)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) lit 001-002
Review of Riik Aimiinent Data and Sampling Procedures
Johanna Hunt**, USEPA
Aithur Ditto, Pease AFB
16 April 1991
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) t!9 001-067
Concerns about Analytic*! Methods
USAF
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Roy F. Weeton, Inc.
23 April 1991
Fax win Attachments
NOD*
ARF
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) #60 001-001
Suite* Wuer and Sediment Sampling Location*
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PeueAFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
24 April 1991
Letter (Tranatnioal)
Nona
ARF
f
PEA (3.6) Ml 001-008
, USEPA
Arthur Ditto, Peaa* AFB
29 April 1991
Nona
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) M2 001-004
Preliminary Sampling Schedule for Stage 3C KP Site* through November 1991
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Peaaa, NHDES
02 May 1991
Fax
Nona
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\ZOnelrodjpd
D-31
07/14/95
-------
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) #63 001-003
Review of April 25, 1991 Revised Analytic*] Methods
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Arc Ditto, Peue AFB
08 May 1991
Letter
None
ARF
t
PEA (3.6) #64 001-002
Review of April 25, 1991 Revised Analytical Methods
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
08 May 1991
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3 .6) #65001-005
Held Performance Review of Weston Activities, Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
Mitre Corporation
Dennis I
Human Systems Division
IRP Program Office
HSD/YAQ
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5000
14 May 1991
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #66 001-002
Revised Analytical Methods for Pease AFB
Logan VanLeigh, Capt., USAF, BSC
Technical Program Manager
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
31 May 1991
Letter
Sampling and Analysis Plan (3.1)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
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
Now
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3 .6) #68 001-012
Information to Auist Interpretation of Data Submitted by EPA to the Air Force
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
06 June 1991
None
ARF
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelnxUpd
D-32
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6)1*9001-004
RMofction Ltttr far Proocdun* fcr 1260 for VOC AMlyw of Wtur
Mut McKMBM, PMM AFB
Ricwjd PMM, NHDBS
Cut Oyiter. EMh Twtoolofy, Su Bmudioo, CA
JohimiHuaMr, USEPA
06 Juw 1991
Fax
Now
ARF
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) 00 001-001
ckgt
USAF
Ricwtd PMM, NHDES
07 Juw 1991
NOD*
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) fJ\ 001-001
Background DMraiwtioo Protocol*
USAF
JowaMHiuMr, USEPA
07 Juw 1991
NOM
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) m 001-003
Rnvind Analytical M«hodi tot PMM AFB OC/MS Mwhod S260 for VOA
Edwwd S. BUOM, Roy F. W««oa, Inc.
USAF
lUun»1991
Now
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) fJ3 001-001
Ltbontocy Swvicw
Rkfavd PMW, NHDES
Ait Dtao, PMM AFB
13 JUM 1991
Now
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6)475 001-002
EPA Pw*> T«« Inform*
JohiaatHuattr.RPM
U.S. EPA R*f»o 1
ArtDiBo, RPM
USAF
PMM AFB
27IUD.1991
i to b* PraviMd by Air Fete*
Now
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelro
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) J76 001-002
Roy F. Weston, Inc., Proposed Methods for Determining Background Concentrations tt Pease Air Force Btse, New
Himpshire
George Rice, Mitre Corporation
Dennis Lundquist
Human Systems Division DIP Program Office
HSD/YAQ
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5000
02 Jury 1991
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG 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) m 001-001
TransmhUl Letter for Protocols for Basrtine Risk Assessments
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PeueAFB
Richard Pe.se, RPM
NHDES
IS Jury 1991
Tnnsmittal Letter
Butliw* Risk Assessments
ARF
t
PEA (3.6) #78 001-001
Transmhlal Letter for Protocols for Baseline Risk Assessments
Arthur Ditto, RPM
US AF/Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
18 Jury 1991
Transmitul Letter
Ramlin* RuUc Assessments
ARF
0
PEA (3. 6) «80 001-002
Exploratory Boring Soil Sampling Procedures
Edward S. Barnes
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Capt. Logan Van T*«g**
U.S. Air Force
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
26 Jury 1991
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) Ml 001-001
id Mo
ngWeOs
Scott Douw, Hydrogeotogist
Groundwater Technology Section
Groundwatcr Protection Bureau
NHDES
MarkMcKeazie
USAF/Pease AFB
31 July 1991
Letter
None
ARF
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelnxLand
D-34
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.6) 1C 001-006
LONG TITLE: R«vwwef ttwPropoMdProoidunfor BKkinuiid DMmniiiMion PraloeoU for P«u* Av Fan* BM^ Paramoutfi, NH
AUTH(»: JohttMHiulK, USEPA
RECIPIENT: Art Ditto, PMM AFB
DATE: 02 Au|U« 1991
TYPE: Utt«r
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION. ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.6) «3 001-001
LONGTTTLE: V«Md Moaftarii« W«IU - RMpooMtoJury 31, 1991 Lean on HIM IMIM Form NHDES
AUTHOR: Arthur Ditto, RPM
RECIPIENT: Scott DOMM
NHDES
DATE: 26 Au|u* 1991
TYPE: Utter
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.6) **4 001-001
LONG TITLE: Split Suoplinf Recuhi
AUTHOR: Arthur Ditto, RPM
U. S. Air Force/PMM AFB
RECIPIENT: JohiaM Hitter, RPM
U.S. EPA. R*fion 1
ud
Ricfatrd PMM. RPM
NHDES
DATE: 9 September 1991
TYPE: LMttr
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.6) «5 001-002
LONG TITLE: Field Oversight - September 1991
AUTHOR: Rtafcerd PMM, NHDES
RECIPIENT: Arthur Ditto, USAF RPM
DATE: 2* October 1991
TYPE: Utter
SECOND REFERENCE: RI Field Work (3.4)
LOCATION: ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.6) fS6 001-001
LONG TITLE: Tnontal Utter for Data Collected on Sur&ce Wtur tod Sediment Beckfrouod Coocenmtkm
AUTHOR: JoiuaM HuaMr, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT: Ed BUM*
Project MeMger
Roy F. Wenon, Inc.
DATE: 2 December 1991
TYPE: TfiMmitttl Utter
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: ARF
i
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.6) «7 001-002
LONG TITLE: Region*! Litentur* Setrch to tasM. Development of ihe Sediment ind Surface W«ter BtckgrouodDeieniiiiiMion for PMM
AFB, Poranwuth, NH
AUTHOR: JOUHM HuaMr, USEPA
RECIPIENT: An Ditto, PMM AFB
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zooelrod.«p
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
2 December 1991
Letter
None
ARF
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) «8 001-001
Fugitive Duit Ptthwiy in the Baseline Risk Aueument
Arthur Ditto, RPM, USAF
PeueAFB
Johanna Hunter RPM
U.S. EPA Region 1
3 January 1992
(3.5) - RI Reports
*
Bueline Risk
ARF
PEA (3.6) #89 001-001
Evaluation of the Air Pathway in Bueline Risk Aweument
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
11 February 1992
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3 .6) #90 001-001
Evaluation of the Air Pathway in p«««liiMi Riak Aueument
USAF
Richard Peaae, NHDES
11 February 1992
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #95 001-001
Trmnraittal Letter for Submitul of Bueline Riak Ai
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PeueAFB
Richard Peue, RPM
NHDES
25 February 1992
tnt ProtoeoU
Balding RUk Aueaatnent
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
PEA (3.6) 196 001-001
Trantmhtal Letter for Revised Bait line Riak Ataesament Protocola
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PMW AFB
Joharma Hunter, RPM
USEPA, Region 1
25 February 1992
Trausnuttal Letter
Revised Bueline Riak Aueument
ARF
t
PEA (3.6)198 001-003
Requect for EPA Split Sampling Renilta
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Peue AFB
MK01\RPT:00628026.0M\zonelrodJpd
D-36
07/14/95
-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Johanna HuaMr, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
9 Much 1992
Noo*
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONQTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) 199 001-D1
Letter Report of Reeuhs of Statistical Comparison of Stage 3C Samples to the 66 Other Background Samples
Roy F. WMOB, IDC.
USAF
9 Much 1992
Letter Report
PEA (3.5)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #100 001-001
Trenaminal Letter for Submiiul of Stag* 4 Work PUn Addendum Number 2 on the Drift Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis
Plan Addendum Number 2
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PMMAFB
Johaeoa Hinttr
U.S. EPA, R«g»on 1
24 March 1992
Traaraiaal LMMT
PEA (3-D. PEA (3.3)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #101 001-001
Tranmiatl UOac for Submiaal of Stag* 4 Addendum Numbar 2 Work Plan and Sampling and Anaryiii Plan
Arthur Dino, RPM
USAF/PMMAFB
Richard PMM, RPM
NHDES
24 March 1992
PEA (3.1), PEA (33)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #102 001-001
Data You May B* Abl* to Provide
Thome. R. Marti, Roy F. Wettoa, Inc.
Mark McKeoie, PMM AFB
26 May 1992
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) >103 001-022
Evaluation of Air Pathway in BaMline Risk
Richard Pease, NHDES
Art Dmo, Peue AFB
13 April 1992
Letter with ABachmeats
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
PEA (3.6) #106001X102
Oversight Role of Regulatory Agencies at Pease AFB
Michael Daly, USEPA
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrodJpd
D-37
07/14/95
-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Mark McKenzie, Pease AFB
26 May 1992
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #111001-001
Submhul of Draft Secondary Document!, Suge 4 Work Plan Addendum 3 and Suge 4 Health and Safety Plan Addendum
USAF
Richard Peue, NHDES
24 June 1992
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3. 6) #112 001-001
Submittal of Drift Secondary Documemi, Suge 4 Work Plan Addendum 3 and Suge 4 Health and Safety Plan Addendum
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
24 June 1992
Letter
None
ARF
f
PEA (3.6) 1113 001-002
Additional Field Oversight
USAF
Michael Daly, USEPA
8 July 1992
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG 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) #116 001-021
Pease Air Force Base Groundwater Modeling Letter Report
Lee dePenia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
29 July 1992
Letter with Repent
None
ARF
t
PEA (3.6) f 120 001-001
Monitor Well Inventory and Inspection Report
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pane, NHDES
IS August 1992
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (3.6) 1122 001-002
Resuhs of Background Surface Water Sediment Location Walkover
Richard Pease, RPM, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, RPM, Pease AFB
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrodjpd
D-38
07/14/95
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
27 Aufiut 1992
PEA (6.4)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #123 001-005
Ride AiuiimiBt luu
LeedePenu
TaikM*oafcr
Roy F. Weeton, Inc.
Aflhur Ditto, RPM
iforPttMAFB
28 AufUft 1992
Letter Report
PEA (3 .5)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #124 001-001
TtaMOBtttJ Letter for Submntal of Groundwater Background Letter Repon
Mark McKeasie for Arthur Ditto
USAF/PeeaeAFB
Richard PeaM, RPM
NHDES
and
Johanna Hunter
U.S. EPA, Region 1
1 September 1992
Noo.
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) f 125 001-002
Policy on DM* Tnnifa: During Pumping T«U
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PMwAFB
Riehnd PMW, RPM
NHDES
•ad
labumtHunMr, RPM
US EPA. RH»OO 1
NOD*
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #126 001-001
TnaMatal Ltan for Subauul of Drift Primtry Documm, Siu 3 No Fu
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PMNAFB
lohuBMHuaMr.RPM
U.S. EPA/Rtfioa 1
9 S^ttariwr 1992
tfatt Action D«
i Documm (NFADD)
SH*3
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
PEA (3.6) #127 001-001
Tnnanintl Lmu for SubmitMl of Dnft Primary Documnt, Ste 3 No Further Aetna Decision Document (NFADD)
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PeeaeAFB
N(K01\RPT:00628026.004\zooelro
-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
9 September 1992
Letter
Site 3
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3 .6) #128001-003
Summary of Risk Issues Meeting of August 19, 1992
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Peaie AFB
16 September 1992
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #130 001-002
Field Oversight - Mid-August-Mid-September
Richard Peaae, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, RPM Peaie AFB
7 October 1991
PEA (3.4)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #131 001-001
Peue AFB Zone 1 She Characterization Summary
LeedePenia
Taak Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Capt. Carl Woerhle
U.S. Air Force
Baae Closure Division
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
21 October 1992
Zonel
ARF
f
PEA (3.6) 1137001-001
Submittal of Draft Secondary Documents, Zones 1, 2, and 5 Site Characterization Summaries
USAF
Richard Peas*. NHDES
26 October 1992
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) f 138001-001
Submittal of Draft Secondary Documents, Zones 1, 2, and 5 Site Characterization Summaries
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
26 October 1992
None
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelRxUpd
D-40
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) f 139 001-001
Sutattal of Stic* 4 Sanplint tad An*ly*i» Plan
USAF
JohanaHumar, U3EPA
26 October 1992
Now
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #140 001401
SubmMal of SM|« 4 «"T'T«t and Analytic Plan
USAP
Ricfaud PMW, NHDES
26 October 1992
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA 0.6) #145 001-004
No Further Action D«citioo for Sh* 3
Arthur Dtao, RPM
USAF, PMW AFB
Johanna Huittr, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
1 Decanter 1992
Site 3
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3 •«)'146 001-001
Application of the Reaaonable Maximum Expocura (RME) in Risk i
Aftfaur Ditto, RPM
USAF, PMW AFB
Richard PMW, RPM
NHDES
1 Dac«Bfe«r 1992
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR.
PEA (3.6) 1147 001-001
y-^ii.f^ti^i of off-Bu* W«U Inventory Report
Arthur Dino, RPM
USAF, PMW AFB
Rienard PMW, RPM
NHDES
4 D*canb«r 1992
Off-Baw W«D InvOTtofy L«Mr Rnoit of 17 Scpumbw 1992
PEA (3.5)
ARF
t
PEA (3.6) #141001-001
Tnaaoiaal Im»f for Subnuoal of QuaUty Awunnc* Project Plan (QAPP) Ponton of th* Stag* 4 Samplint ud Analyut
Plan(SAP)Nurab«3
Arthur Dteo, RPM
USAF, PMW AFB
MK01\RFT:00678026.004\zonelroiUDd
D-41
07/14/95
-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
11 December 1992
Letter
PEA (3.1)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #149001-002
Request for Deadline Extension
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Peaae AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Peaie, RPM
NHDES
23 December 1992
Letter
PEA (6.3)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3 .6) #150 001-001
Tranimittal of EPA Maximum Ritk Calculation Addenda to Site 5,8, 32/36 and 34 Draft Final RI Reports
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Peace AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Peaae, RPM
NHDES
29 December 1992
Letter
Site* 5, 8, 32/36 and 34; PEA (3.5)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3. 6) 4156 001402
Request for Deadline Extension
USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Richard Peaae, NHDES
19 March 1993
PEA (3 .5)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (3.6) «60001-001
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, landfill 5 Record of Decision
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
21 April 1993
Letter
LF-5
ARF
I
PEA (3.6) #161 001-001
Submhlal of Draft Documents
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
MKDl\RPT:00628026.004\zonelKxlapd
D-42
07/14/95
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
21 April 1993
Zow3.Zow>4.LF-5
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #162 001-001
Subtotal of Dnft Documtoti
USAF
RicfaMd PMM, NHDES
21 April 1993
Zoot3, Zoo* 4, LF-5
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #163 001-001
Submttl of Dftn Pnnuy Docunmt, Luidfili 5 R*cotd of Decision
USAF
JohiaMHuoMr. EPA
21 April 1993
LF-5
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) f 164 001-001
Subtotal of Dnft Prantiy Docui
USAF
Rknud PMM, NHDES
2» April 1993
, Zone 1 Rmwdul InvMugatioaRMOit
Zoo* 1, PEA (3.5)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONO TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #165 001-001
Subtotal of Dnft Primtiy Doeunwm, Zone 1 R«
USAF
lohumHumr, EPA
28 April 1993
idol bvMbgMionRipofl
1, PEA (3.5)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONO TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3 .6) #170 001-001
Loertow of Suite* WtMn of th« Stm of New HuBMhin in *• Vicinity of FOTBMT PMM AFB
Afthur Ditto, PMM AFB
Riduid PMM, NHDES
LMUrwitfa AttMfamwt
Now
ARF(Swtion3.6BiaMr)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #171001-002
Zoo* 1 Dnft Final RMndul InvMbfttion R«po«
NHDES
USAF
24 November 1993
ZOMl
ARF(SMbon3.6BinMT)
MKDl\RFT:00628026.0M\zoiielio
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.6) #175 001-002
LONG TITLE: Zone 1 Drift Final Remedial Investigation Report
AUTHOR: NHDES
RECIPIENT: USAF
DATE: 27, November 1993
TYPE: Letter
SECOND REFERENCE: Zone 1
LOCATION: ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.6) #176 001-003
LONG TITLE: Zone 1 Drift Final Remedial Investigation Report
AUTHOR: NHDES
RECIPIENT: USAF
DATE: 15 December 1993
TYPE: Letter
SECOND REFERENCE: Zone 1
LOCATION: ARF (Section 3 .6 Binder)
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrodJpd D-44 07/14/95
-------
4.1 ARAR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.1) f\ 001-024
New Hampahire ARAR Lin Update
Richard H. Peaae, P.E.
NHDES
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force/Pew. AFB
13 April 1992
Latter end TablM
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.1)12001-8.3
InmUttiooRMtontkmPr
Roy F. Weeion, Inc.
USAF
January 1993
ARARt
«ramStafc4,BeMwifeARARi, PMM Air Force BaM,NH03S03-Draft
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.1) 13 001-002
Waiverabiljty of Env-WS 430, Surface Water Quality Regulations, u an ARAR
Arthur Ditto, PMM AFB
Richard PMM, NHDES
71 TTanemhar im
Nona
ARF (Section 4.1 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.1) *4 001-025
New Hampehire ARAR Lin Updatt
NHDES
USAF
23 DicambiT 1993
lanar rail rtitarlimanr
Nona
ARF(S«tioa4.1 Bind«)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.2) n 001-BJ9
Roy F. Weawo, fee.
USAF
October 1991
Report
Sate 5
ARF
4J FiiiTiTlj Reporti
. Stage 3C, Initial Seneoiat of Ahemativee for DIP Site 5, PMM AFB, NH
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
Final
Roy F. Weeton, Inc.
USAF
Profnm, Sta|* 3C, Feenbility Study for OtP Site 5, PMM AFB, NH - Technical Report - Drift
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrodjpd
D-45
07/14/95
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
August 1992
Report
SiteS
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.2) #7 001-5.2.14
Installation Reiteration Program, Stage 3C, Feasibility Study for IRP Site 5, Pease AFB, NH - Figures - Draft Final
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
August 1992
Figure*
SiteS
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.2) K 001-1.3
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Feasibility Study for IRP Site S, Pease AFB, NH - Appendices A-I. Draft
Final
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
August 1992
Appendices
SiteS
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.2) f!6 001-MM3-9
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease AFB Zone 1 Initial Screening of Alternatives Report DRAFT
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
May 1993
Feasibility Study
Zonel
ARF
tt
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.2) #44 001-R.4
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease AFB, Zone 1 Feasibility Study Report, Text - DRAFT FINAL
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
December 1993
Feasibility Study
Zonel
ARF (Zone 1 Shelf)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.2) #45 001-J.7
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease AFB, Zone 1 Feasibility Study Report Appendices - DRAFT
FINAL
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
December J993
Feasibility 'study
Zonel
ARF (Zone 1 Shelf)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (4.3) #1 001-220
"Proposed Plan for I
Roy F. Weston, Inc., Inc
EPA, NHDES
4J Proposed Plan
3, Field Maintenance Squadron Equipment Cleaning Site, Fire Department Training Area 1 '
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelrodJpd
D-46
07/14/95
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
October 1990
WorkPUa
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.3) *2 1.1-Fifun 4
R*vi»*d Propond Pbn for IRP Sitt 5, Undfill 5 Source Ant - Revind Drift Fjatl
Roy F. WMton, Inc.
USAF, EPA, NHDES, Public
July 1993
PropoMdPUa
Landfill 5
ARF (LF-5 Shelf), Dt
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.3) 19 001-R.l
iMUlMoD RMKmtioa P
Roy F. WMUO, Inc.
USAF
Jttuuy 1994
PropoMdPUn
Zone 1
ARF (Zoo* 1 Shelf)
, Propoetd PUn for IRP Zone 1. Peue AFB, NH
'NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTOE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.5) #1 001-006
.FOT
1 (October 1990, dnft) RCVMW ComnMBH'
SttMof N«wH>npdiin, D^uoMtt of Eov
Air Fore*
27 Nov»lMr 1990
SUM of N*wH*ap«bin Review ComnwoH
Noo.
ARF
ial SwvieM
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION.
PEA (4.5) *2 001-016
'*P4 "l8"* f «~~»~«.~.*.lBPPrnr»^lPI..«f»t-.iirf
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.5) #4 001-001
Submitul of Draft Final Primiiy Document, Landfill 5 Feasibility Study Report
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
Unknown
Letter
Landfill 5
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) K 001-002
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
Richard Pease, NHDES
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
25 November 1991
Letter
Pea (6.4)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.5) #8 001-001
TjnHfill 3 Decision Document
USAF
Edward S. Barnes
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1 Weston Way
Wen Chester, PA 19380
03 February 1992
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.5) #13 001-001
Request for Deadline Extension for Review of the Draft IRP Site 5 Feasibility Report Dated April 1992
Johanna M. Hunter, USEPA
Art Ditto, Peas* AFB
22 May 1992
She 5
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.5) #18 001-002
Feasibility Study Reports
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
10 August 1992
Letter
She* 5, 34, and 32/36
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.5) #19 001-001
Submittal of Landfill 5 Draft Proposed Plan
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
12 August 1992
1 *tt*v
Landfills
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrocUpd
IMS
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (45) 120 001-001
Submfcal of Landfill 5 Dnft Prapond PUn
USAF
Richard PMM, NHDES
12Au|«i*1992
Landffil5
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.5) 121 001-003
Landfill 5 SOUK* ATM Dnft Final Inability Study R*poit
Edward S. BUM*. Roy F. WMOO, Inc.
USAF
Johanna Hunttr, USEPA
Richard PMM, NHDES
14AU|IM1992
UndfillS
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4S) m 001-001
Subntaal of Draft Final Primary Documm, Undfill 5 F*anbilily Study Report
USAF
Johanna Hunter. USEPA
lSAu|UMl992
LudfillS
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.5) 123 001-001
Submtaal of Dnft Final Primary Document, Landfill 5 F«aribility Study Raxnt
USAF
Riehanl PMM, NHDES
UAu(iull992
Landfills
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.5) 127 001-001
Undfill 5 Dnft PrapOMd PUn
USAF
Johanna Huntar, USEPA
Riehaid PMM. NHDES
17Novw*«1992
LandfillS
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.5) *52 001-001
SubMjml of Dnft Secondary Doeumaot, Zoo* 1 Initial Scrarainf of AlurnativM
Arthur Ditto, PMM AFB
Richard PMM, NHDES
3Junal993
Zonal
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
PEA (4.5) 153 001-001
Submtaal of Dnft Secondary Dominant, Zont 1 Initial ScrMninf of Ahamativw
Arthur Diao, PMM AFB
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonclnxUpd
D-49
07/14/95
-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Mike Dtly, EPA Region 1
3 June 1993
Letter
Zone 1
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE: .
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.5) *54 001-001
Submitttl of Proposed Plans for Landfills 2 and 4 and Landfill 5
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
Mike Daly, EPA Region 1
Richard Pease, NHDES
25 June 1993
Letter
LF-2, LF-4, LF-5
ARF
#
PEA (4.5) #58 001-003
Former Pease AFB, Surface Water Issues
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
29 November 1993
Letter
None
ARF (Section 4.5 Binder)
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrodjpd
D-50
07/14/95
-------
5.1 ROD
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (S.I) 12 001-12.1
LONG TITLE: U.S. Air Fore« toiUlUtion RMWHUOC Program, PMM AFB. Record of Detinoofor t Source AIM Remedul Action «
Landfill 5
AUTHOR: Roy F. Wetton, Inc.
RECIPIENT: USAF
DATE: September 1993
TYPE: ROD
SECOND REFERENCE: LF-5
LOCATION: ARF (LF-5 Shelf)
5.2 >••*••»!»ROD
»NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
5.3 ExpMBanaeg of!
•NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TOME
5.4 C
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (54) #1 001-001
LONG TITLE: Region 1 ROD Mo
-------
Cooperanre Agreements / SMOAs
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.1) #1 001-013
"Memorandum of Understanding Executed Between the Town of Newington, NH, and Pease Air Force Base, NH"
Town of Newington/Peate Air Force Baae
Air Force
22 August 1980
Memorandum of Understanding
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.1) n 001-004
"Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 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 Jury 1987
Memorandum of Understanding
None
ARF
f>
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
6.2 Federal Facility Agreement (FFA)
PEA (6.2) « 001-097
'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
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.2) fi 001-003
•Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes'
Pease Air Force Baae
See Distribution Lilt
16 January 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
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, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.2) *4 001-003
•Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes'
Pease Air Force Base
See Distribution List
20 March 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF. IR
9
MK01\RPT:00628026.0W\zonelro
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TRIE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.2) IS 001-002
•Rmtdid ProjM Muu«m MMtncMinutM •
PMM Air Fom But
SMDuttibutiODLin
17 April 1991
MMting MioutM
NOD*
ARF, IR
*
PEA (6 3) #6 001-002
PMM Air Fon* BM*
SMDutribuboaLiM
21 May 1991
MMtmt MinulM
Noo*
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.2) n 001-002
"Ftn'Hi*1 Project Muipn Meeting Miauui'
PMM Air Fan* But
24 Junt 1991
Noa*
ARF. IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.2) tl 001-0.4
ModificttMM 1 to PMW AFB F«J«r«l Facilhiw ApMOMBt
USAF
MiefaMl Driy, EPA Rifta I
Ricfaud PMM, NHDES
FFA ModffieMioa
NOM
ARF,
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) « 001-031
'Completed Applications for Department of the Army Permit (ENG Form 435) tnd New Hampshire Wetlands Board
Permit
Department of the Air Force
Army Corpt of Engineer!. New England Division
31 August 1989
Letter and Attachments
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTrTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTrTLE:
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 (6.3) #4 001-002
"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
t
PEA (6.3) #5 001-002
"Letter in response to Air Force question regarding necessity of e permit for me proposed landfill cleanup operation'
Department of the Army
Air Force
17 October 1989
Letter
None
ARF
*
PEA (6.3) *6 001-001
'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
t
PEA (6.3) fl 001-025
'Letter response to Air Force letter of 22 August 1990 regarding CERCLA remedial actions at Pease Air Force Base, 404
peiuiil not required*
Department of the Army
Air Force
3 October 1990
Response Ltltw
None
ARF
I
PEA (6.3)18 001-033
'Point Piper on Installation Restoration Program (Pease AFB) and Attachments (Prepared for a meeting of I. 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
t
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelro
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (63) 19 001-003
LONG TITLE: •RecoaMneodetiooto PUee PMM AFB on ttw National Priority Li* (NPL)*
AUTHOR: Depenneotof th* Air FOR*
RECIPIENT: US EPA
DATE: 27Iun*19S9
TYPE: Leaer
SECOND REFERENCE: Noo*
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (6.3) f 10 001-004
LONG TITLE: RMMdial Project Maufm' MMliof Minut*. of January 16, 1991
AUTHOR: After Dido, RPM
RECIPIENT: U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendee*
DATE: Meeting Dal*: 16 January 1991
TYPE: Meeting MinuM*
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (6 3) #11 001-004
LONG TITLE: B.meiliil Project Manafen' Maeting Minute, of February 20, 1991
AUTHOR: After DHto, RPM
USAF/PMMAFB
RECIPIENT: U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendi.i
DATE: Meeting Daw: 20 February 1991
TYPE: Meeting MiaM*
SECOND REFERENCE: Noo.
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (6.3) #12 001-004
LONG TITLE: R«n*dial Project Manafi
AUTHOR: USAF
RECIPIENT: SM Dwributioa
DATE: 20 March 1991
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE: Nan*
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (6 J) f 13 001-004
LONG TITLE: RMMdial Project Managm' MMUBI MUMM of April 17,1991
AUTHOR: After Dido, RPM
USAF/PMMAFB
RECIPIENT: U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attend***
DATE: 17 April 1991
TYPE: Meetiai Minute.
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (63) f 14 001-003
LONG TITLE: Remedial Project Manaten' Meeting Minm** of May 21. 1991
AUTHOR: After Dido, RPM
USAF/PMMAFB
RECIPIENT: U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendeei
DATE: 21 May 1991
TYPE: Meetiaf Minute.
SECOND REFERENCE: Noo.
LOCATION: ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026,004\ionelro
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) #15 001-004
Notification of Additional Investigative Work in i Wetland
USAF
NHDES
Wetlands Board
P.O. Box 2008
Concord. NH 03301-3406
14 June 1991
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
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 (6.3) #16 001-003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutei of July 24, 1991
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Peaae AFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendee*
24 June 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
8
PEA (6.3) #17 001-003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutei of August 26, 1991
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Peese AFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendee*
24 Jury 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
If
PEA (6.3) #18 001-004
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of September 26, 1991
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
21 August 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
,. I
PEA (6.3) #19 001-004
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutei
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Peese AFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
26 September 1991
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF
#
PEA (6.3) #20 001-004
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
MK01\RFTK)0628026.004\zonelRxLapd
D-56
07/14/95
-------
DATE: 27 October 1991
TYPE: MMtaf MiauMt
SECOND REVERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (6.3) fi\ 001-003
LONGTTTLE: Rnwdul Project Muafin' Mating Miautw
AUTHOR: Arthur Ditto, RFM
USAF/PMMAFB
KECIPIENT: U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF AtModMi
DATE: 20 Novtmbw 1991
TYPE: MMtiac MiaulM
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (6.3) 122 001X103
LONO TITLE: RMMditl ProJMt M«M|«i' MMtiac Miouut of January 27, 1992
AUTHOR: Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PMMAFB
RECIPIENT: U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF AuandM.
DATE: 19 D*c*mb«r 1991
TYPE: M«Kin M'lr1***
SECOND REFERENCE: Non*
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (63) «23 001-003
LONG TITLE: RMMOM! Project Mtat|«s' Mating MiauM
AUTHOR: Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PMMAFB
RECIPIENT: U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF AMOMM
DATE: 27 Itmury 1992
TYPE: MMtajMiiMM
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (6.3) «24 001-003
LONG TITLE: RMMdMl Piojwt MuMmn'MMtiaf MiaMM
AUTHOR: Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PMMAFB
RECIPIENT: U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF AHairtm
DATE: 25 Ftbiuuy 1992
TYPE: MMtuK MiouM*
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (63) 125 001-002
LONGTTTLE: RMMdttl PraJMt Mumgm' MMtiog MinutM
AUTHOR: Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PMMAFB
RECIPIENT: U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF AMnteM
DATE: 07 April 1992
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (6.3) «6 001-004
LONG TITLE: NH W«luu Pwmit for National PriorUM Li« RdaMd Work
AUTHOR: USAF
MK01\RFT:00628Q26.0M\zoMlRxUpd D-57 07/14/95
-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
NHDES
Wetlands Board
P.O. Box 2008
Concord, NH 03301-2008
24 April 1992
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) #27 001-002
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
USAF
See Distribution
22 April 1992
Minute*
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) #28 001-008
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes, June 3, 1992
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Feaac AFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
3 June 1992
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) 129 001-003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minute* of August 21 .
Arthur Ditto. RPM
USAF/Peaw AFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendee*
Meeting Date: 21 August 1992
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF
1991
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) *30 001-003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minute* - September 10, 1992
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PeeaeAFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendee*
10 September 1992
Meeting Minute*
Nona
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) *32 001-002
RemeduU Project Managers' Meeting Minutes - October 20, 1992
Arthur Ditto, RPM
EPA, NHDES, USAF
20 October 1992
Minute*
None
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelTO
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) 133 001-003
Applicnoo of th* ItMtooibto MVDIDUID Łxponm AME) ID Riik Ai
Vmag *• •Anngt Maximum"
Richard PMM. NHDES
Art Ditto, PMM AFB
JohamaHurttr, USEPA
Ctpt. WoHhlt, AFCEE
22 October 1992
; RMJUMI for Sin Specific Jmtiftcatioo for
Norn
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) *34 001-001
Guidebook for Eaviroaa
nut PC
Richud PMM, NHDES
Aft Ditto. PMM AFB
lohuncHunr, USEPA
4 Novwribv 19»2
Noo»
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) *36 001-AluchnM» 6
QuutMiy RMOR, SMood Qiuit« 1991
Roy F. WMIOO, be.
EPA, NHDES, USAF
19 July 1991
QuaiMrtyRMon
NOM
ARF, Ait DiBo't offie* filM
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) *37 001-034
QunMfty Rowci, Third Qwutw 1991
Roy F. WMMO, be.
EPA, NHDES, USAF
24 October 1991
QuuMriy RMOR, Tnanuttal LMMTS
NOM
ARF, Art Dteo'i offie* «|M
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) #31001-030
QuuMriy RMOR, 1
Roy F. WMtoa, be.
EPA. NHDES, USAF
14 laauuy 1992
QuuMriyRwon
NOM
ARF, Art Dtoo'i offic* fite
•1991
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) «39 001-020
QuuMrty Rioon, Pint Quarar 1992
Roy F. WMWO, be.
EPA, NHDES, USAF
15 April 1992
Quuuriy Ripon
ARF, An Ditto1! offic* Ł!M
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zoaelnxiJixl
D-59
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) #40 001-032
Quarterly Report, Second Quarter 1992
Roy F. Weston, IDC.
EPA, NHDES, USAF
14 July 1992
Quarterly Report
None
ARF, Ait Ditto'! office file>
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) #41 001-043
Quarterly Report, Third Quarter 1992
Roy F. Weaton, Inc.
EPA, NHDES, USAF
20 October 1992
Quarterly Report
None
ARF, Ait Ditto'* office file*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) #42001-Q4
Transmitul Letter for Quarterly Progrea* Report, Fourth Quarter 1992
Art Ditto, RPM, Peue AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM, USEPA Region 1
Richard Peue, RPM, NHDES
19 January 1993
Trantmittal Letter and Quarterly Report
None
ARF, Art Ditto'* office file*
t
PEA (6.3) #43 001-E.l
Quarterly Piogieu Report for Peate AFB
An Ditto, RPM, Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM, USEPA Region 1
Richard Peue, RPM, NHDES
26 April 1993
Report
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
6.4 General Correspondence
PEA (6.4) #1 001-003
"Wetland* Application No. 89-1805"
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Service*, Water Supply and Pollution Control Division
State of New Hampshire
14 September 1989
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.4) #2 001-001
"Re<]ueet for information for wetlands peiuut
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Service*
Air Force
IS September 1989
Letter
None
ARF
t
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelnxLapd
D-60
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TRIE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.4) *3 001-001 .
•Lawr raeardiof tfa* approval of p*rmit No. WPP-3341 for Landfill 5
Statt of Now HaoMhin, Department of EoviroomMal ScnrieM
Air Face*
11 October 1919
NOM
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.4) t4 001-005
'Air Fore* Latter to the Wetland* Board retaroHnf t requeat for approval for t modificatiao to *• wetlands permitted
•cop* of work*
Roy F. Waatoo, be.
DaflMrt Downuif, Watbada Boari, Concord, NH
NOM
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.4) IS 001-010
•Lout to EPA rafartin* twckj
US Daymuiau of Commrc*
Air Fore* via US EPA
7 Much 1990
id infonnttion on PMM Air Fore* B*M*
NOB*
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.4) #6 001-001
Fik 192-679; CERCLA R*ktad Ttopomy Fill of 2000 Squat* F«*t for W*U§ at PMM* AFB, NH
Knatfh N. Ka«atn«
NKDES
WottaadtBoud
P.O. Box 200*
Coocord, NH 03302-2008
Ait Ditto, PMM AFB
26 May 1992
Nom
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.4) «S 001-019
Lab mutt* of grouadwMar MrnpU* fa
NHDBS
AnDino, PMMAFB
11 Fitauuy 1993
UMTW/I
NOM
ARF
utorinj w«lb 05-5113,05-6101, and 01-6024.
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.4) 19 001-041
Quaflaciy Pro«nat Report, Pviod of Parfcrmuc* July, Aufuat and S*pMmb« 1993
Roy F. Warn**, be.
USAF
Oetob«1993
Rapon
NOM
ARF (Swtioo 6.4 Binder)
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\iooelrodapd
D-61
07/14/95
-------
7.1 Enforcement History
•NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
7.2 Endangenaent Assessments
'NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
73 AdiiiiiihtnUiTe Orders
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (7-3) *1 001-H.3
LONG TITLE: Peaie AFB Federal Facilities Agreement Modification
AUTHOR: USAF
RECIPIENT: Peaie AFB
EPA Region 1
NHDES
NH Attorney General
DATE: January 1993
TYPE: FFA Modification
SECOND REFERENCE: none
LOCATION: ARF
7.4 Consent Decrees
'NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN TEDS SECTION AT THIS TIME
IS Affidarits
'NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
7.6 Documentation of Technical Discussions / Response Actions
»NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
7.7 Notices, Letters, and Responses
'NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TTME
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelro4apd D-62 07/14/95
-------
8.1 ATSDKB*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE.
LOCATION:
PEA (S.I) tl 001-B1
buiallttion RMKHMMI
, Su«
PMM AFB, NH, Vohn» I Draft
Roy F. WMton, be.
USAF
Stptutor 1991
HMttfa,
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
8J Toxkaloiical Prate
PEA (8 .2) #1 001-ZN4
InHilhrtffti RMMMtion Pragnm Stif* 4 Toxicity Profito*. PMM Air Fore* Buc, NH 03803
Roy F. WMUD, be.
USAF
Juauiy 1993
Toneity Profilw
Noo»
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
8J
PEA (8.3) *1 001-001
HMtth AiMunwatSpbt Simple
NHDES
ArtDiBo, PMM AFB
26 July 1991
PEA (6.4)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (8.3) ti 001-001
HMhh AiMinmm RMOB for PMM AFB
USAF
AT3DR
MulSlopE'32
1600 Clifton RMd
Attantt, GA. 30333
26Juatl992
NOM
ARF
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelro(Upd
D-63
07/14/95
-------
9.1 Notices Issued
* NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
9.2 Findings of Fact
•NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
93 Reports
PEA (9.3) #1 001-015
Landfill 5 Closure WetUndi Assessment tnd Mitigation Report
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
November 1993
Report
Landfill5
ARF (LF-5 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
9.4 General Correpoadence
PEA (9.4) f\ 001-001
Landfill 5 Wetlands Assessment and Mitigation Report
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
Michael Daly, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
3 December 1993
Letter
LF-5
ARF (Section 9.4 Binder)
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelro(tapd
D-64
07/14/95
-------
W.I
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (10.1) f 1 001405
LONG TITLE: '•T*—* *•*
AUTHOR: Roy F. WMMO, be.
RECIPIENT: Air Fore*
DATE: 7 F*bniuy 1991
TYPE: LMUr/RMpaawtoComnMau
SECOND REFERENCE: Noo*
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (10.1) 12 001-003
LONOTTTLE: Dnft CoamunV RdMiaw Pita Conmati
AUTHOR: Richard PMM, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT: Arthur Ditto, Pi.
RPM, U.S. Air Fate*
DATE: 30 NovwtMr 1990
TYPE: LMMrCoooMBR^oit
SECOND REFERENCE: Community RclMnai
LOCATION: ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (10.1) 13 001-010
LONG TITLE: EPA Region 1 Common to OtP Dnft Community lUUtkxu PUn; PWM AFB
AUTHOR: Doiiflu S. OuBo
U.S. EPA R*ian 1
Supwftmd Community lUUtiou
RECIPIENT: Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Fan*
PMMAFB
DATE: 7 Dwwmtxr 1990
TYPE: LMttr CoamMOt lUport
SECOND REFERENCE: Coemunity R^Mioni
LOCATION: ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (10.1) 14 001-011
LONG TITLE: EPA fi«m«
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
25 March 1991
Community ReUtiom
ARF
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) #7001-003
Comment* Remaining Unresolved for Stage 4 Work Plan Analysis Method
Mark McKenzie, Peaie AFB
Lee dePenia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
05 May 1991
Comment*
PEA {3-D
ARF
#
PEA (10.1) #8 001-002
Ovenight Comment* on the Soil Boring/Piezometer Instillation Program
Scott Doane
John Regan
NHDES
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Peaae AFB
13 April 1992
Letter
CRD-1
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) #9 001-002
Preliminary Aaaeaament/She Inspection Draft Fact Sheet Comments
Richard Peaae, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
17 April 1992
Comments
PEA (10.6); PEA (6.3)
ARF
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) #12 001-003
Review Comments tor Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum Number 2
Richard H. Peaae, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, USAF
Pease AFB
08 May 1992
Latter
PEA (3 .3)
ARF
f
PEA (10. I) «3 001-014
Review Comments for Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum Number 2
Michael Daly
U.S. EPA Region 1
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Peas* AFB
14 May 1992
Transnntul Sheet, Letter and Comment Report
PEA (3.1); PEA (3 .3)
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.0W\zonelnxl.apd
D-66
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
r 2 for PMM AFB
PEA (10.1) *14 001-013
Review of Stag* 4 Work PUa tod Samplinf ind Antlytu PUn i
MkhMlI. DOy
U.S. EPA Region 1
Federal FacUibM Superftiad Section
Arthur Dine, RPM
U.S. Air Fone/Feue AFB
14Miy 1992
Leoar with Comment Report
PEA (3.1); PEA (3.3)
ARF
*
PEA (10.1)122 001-006
Inuw Neediag RMohnioii tot the Draft Final Remedial Invwtijation Report for Ludfitt 5, Dued April 1992
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
28 July 1992
ReeponMto Couuuenu
Landfills
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONO TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1)127001-002
Sttf* 4 Work PUB Addendum 3 R«vww CommMM
Richud PMM, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, PMM AFB
MAu|u«1992
PEA(6J)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONO TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) *30 001-002
lUvww Commnu of Drift Landfill 5 Soure* Am Prapood PUa
Ricbtid H. PMM, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
Arthur Dtoo, P.E.
RPM, USAF
PMM AFB
10 SMtMtfMT 1992
LF-5; PEA (4.3)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) 135 001-001
RWMW CcogMBM for Ludfill 3
Ricferd H. PMM, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, USAF
PMM AFB
2Oaobwl992
No Further Action Decision Docui
ZOMI
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (10.1)136 001-001
Review Conanerti for Landfill 3 (IRP Sitt 3)
Richard H. PMM, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
Arthur Dioo, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
PMM AFB
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zoaelro
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
2 October 1992
Lasts
Zone I
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) #40 001-006
Response to Comment*, Suge 4 Work Han tnd Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum 2
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
Johanna. Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
3 November 1992
PEA (3.3); PEA (3.1)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTrTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) *41 001-002
EPA Review of IRP Stage 4, No Further Action Decision Document (NFADD) for Site 3
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA Region 1
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
S November 1992
She 3
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) #44 001-002
Review of Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum 3, Pease AFB
Michael J. Daly
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
23 November 1992
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10. 1) *48 001-003
Review Comments of Stage 4, She Characterization Summary, IRP Zone 1
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
Aitfnir Ditto, P.Ł.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
1 December 1992
Letter CoosmBflt Report
LF-4; Zone 1; LF-2
ARF
f
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrodjipd
D-68
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) 150 001404
lUviewof Zoo* 1, Sbe Oiaracterizalioc Summary for P*aa* AFB, October 1992
MMfcaeU. Dary
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Federal FacilitiM Superfund Swoon
Arthur Dido, P.E.
RPM, USAF
PMMAFB
9 December 1992
Zoo* 1; PEA (3.5)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) 151 001-004
Review of the Zonal Sit* Characterization Summary feu PMM AFB
Michael). Daly
U.S. EPA, Ration 1
Fec^Fecilitie. Superfund Section
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Fan*
PMMAFB
9 December 1992
Letter wim Comment Report
Zoml
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1)153 001-004
EPA Review of IRP LF-5, Drift PropoMd PUn, November 1992
lohanoi Mutter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, PMM AFB
17 December 1992
LF-5; PEA (43)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1)*54 001-002
Review CoaaDeaa/PMM
Rkturd H. PMM, P.E
RPM.NHDES
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM , U.S. Air Force
PMMAFB
4J«nuryl993
Letter Report
Site 46
ARF
i AFB RtUroed Tnek (She 46) Site InvMtintion
Report
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) fSS 001-002
Reepott* to Comments, LF-5 Drift Proposed PUn and Feet Sheet
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Johum Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
5 January 1993
LF-5
ARF
MK01\rOT:00628026.004\zonelrodapd
D-69
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) fn 001-001
Siem Club Comments on Cleanup of Site 5 u Pease Air Force Bue
Scott Diummey, Siem Club
USAF
15 February 1993
Landfills
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10. 1)*74 001-002
Proposed Plan for IPR Site 5, Landfill 5, Source Area
Seacoast Citizens Oveneeing Pease Environment (SCOPE)
USAF
22 January 1993 •
Landfills
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (io. nm 001-023
Review of the Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Zone 1, Initial Screening of Alternatives Report, Pease AFB
USEPA, Region 1
USAF
27 August 1993
Comments
PEA (10.10); Zone 1
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
f
PEA (10.1) #84001-018
Response to EPA Comments on the Zone 1 Draft Remedial Investigation Report
USAF
EPA
IS October 1993
Response to Comments
Zonel
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG 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 (10.1) «5 001-018
Response to NHDES Comments on the Zone 1 Draft Remedial Investigation Report
USAF
NHDES
15 October 1993
Response to Comments
Zone 1; PEA (10.10)
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
i
PEA (10.1) *M 001-015
Response to the EPA Comments on the Zone 1 Draft FS Report
USAF
EPA
29 November 1993
Response to Comments
Zooel
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
t
PEA (10.1) *87 001-018
Response to NHDES Comments on the Zone 1 Draft FS Report
USAF
NHDES
MK01\RPT:00628Q26.004\zonelradJipd
D-70
07/14/95
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
30 November 1993
Reeponee to Comment!
ZOM!
ARF (Section 10.1 Kate)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1)1107 001-001
Raepoan to NHDES CommMU on the 30 % Submtaul of the Remedial Detifn for tfa* Landfill 5 Fuul Clown Sy Mm
USAF
NHDES
3 November 1993
Reeponee 10 Commeotl
LendfiUS
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) 110$ 001-004
Reeponee 10 EPA <
USAF
EPA
3 November 1993
ReepOMetol
on the 30% Subnteal of the Remedial Daeifn for the Landfill 5 Final Clown SyMm
ARF (SMion 10.1 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) f 109 001-006
Reaponie ID NHDES Common on the 90% Submtaal of th. 1
WtM, SoU tad Scdanou; LudfiUs 2, 4, and 5
USAF
NHDES
3NovMnb*rl993
KMpOflM tO COttOMOtC
Landfill 2; Landfill 4; Landfill 5
ARF (SMbon 10.1 Biadv)
ago far mt Exeavaoon/Rdocatioo Plan for
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) fl 16 001-403
Review of U.S. EavirooBUttl ProMction Aj«cy
FfM Pfioa* Mittv Cotpucalion
Ma>or ChaiU. Howdl, AFCEE
11 June 1993
Commtntt on Backfround Data for PMM AFB, NH
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) fill001-004
PMT Rmiw of labal Scntmaf of AlMnativM, Zoo* 1, PMM AFB, NH
Fnd Priw, Mim Coqranoon
Major CharlM HowWl, AFCEE
16 Jury 1993
1
ARF (SMbon 10.1 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (10.1) #130001-005
Review of *• Air Fore* buullitioo R*
NH
EPA
USAF
, Zoo* 1 Initial Scmunf of AfcaraativM Repon, Peat* AFB.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelRxUpd
D-71
07/14/95
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
27 Augutt 1993
Letter with Attachment
Zoael
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG 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 (10.1) #121 001-012
Peue AFB Zone 1 Drift Feasibility Study Review Comments
NHDES
USAF
1 October 1993
Letter with Attachments
Zonel
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
I
PEA (10.1) #126 001-002
EPA Review of Mclntyre Brook and Flagstone Brook Sediment Evaluation Work Plan
EPA
USAF
16 November 1993
Fax
None
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
PEA (10.1) #129 001-010
Pease AFB Zone 1 Draft Final Remedial Investigation Review Comments
NHDES
USAF
29 November 1993
ConHDCOtS
Zonel
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
PEA (10.1) #131 001-002
Work Plan to Evaluate the Sfdunfitti of Mclntyre Brook and Flagstone Brook Review Comments
NHDES
USAF
29 November 1993
Zone 3
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
PEA (10.1) #134 001-003
Pease AFB Zone 1 Feasibility Study Report Draft Final Review Comments
NHDES
USAF
3 January 1994
Conuncott
Zonel -
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
PEA (10.1) #136 001-010
Pease AFB, Zone 1 Draft Final Remedial Investigation
NHDES
USAF
29 November 1993
Review Comments
Zone 1; PEA (3.6)
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
t
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrodapd
D-72
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.2) H 001-040
Roy F. WOMB, Inc.
EPA, NHDES, USAF
January 1991
Community Relation! Plan
NOM
ARF.IR
ma Community Ralaboni Plan*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.2) fl 001-0*0
U.S. Air Fore* toaullatio.
DyMOMC CofpucMou
230 Paachtra* St. N.W.. Si*. 500
Atlanta, GA 30303
USAF
July 1993
CRP
NOM
ARF
i Program Community Ralatjoni PUn for Paaa* AFB, NH 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:
MJ FaMk Notice
PEA (10.3) II 001-001
Pud Advwtiaamant of January 27, 1993 Public Hearing on PrapOMd Plan for Landfill 5 Soure* Ana
USAF
Foatr'i Daify Dtmocrar, PubBe
23 January 1993
PubbeNotie.
NOM
ARF.IR
*
PEA (10 J)«2 001-001
Paid AdvMWWMBt of January 27, 1993 Public Haarmf for Propoaad Plan tot Landfill 5 SOUR* Ana
USAF
fVfumum* HmU, Public
24 January 1993
Public Notio.
NOM
ARF.IR
t
PEA (10 J)« 001-001
Pud AdvattiaaoMt in Feaer't Daily Democrat tor Landfill 5 Rwind PrapcMd PUn Publk CemoM Pniod and Public
USAF
Foatr't Daify Danaem, Public
31 July 1993
PubBeNotic*
LF-2. LF-4, LF-5
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE.
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (10 J)M 001-001
Paid AdvtcMamg in Pommaah Htroid for Landfill 5 Rcviaad Prapoaad Plan Public Comnant Pariod and Public
Haarins
USAF
forometok HtroU, Public
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.apd
D-73
07/14/95
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
1 August 1993
Public Notice
LF-2, LF-4, LF-5
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
10.4 Public Meeting Transcripts
PEA (10.4) #1 001-052
Pease Ail Force Bate, New Hampshire Official Transcript of Public Hearing for Proposed Plan for Landfill 5 Source Area
R & R Associates
P.O. Box 863
Exter, NH 03833
USAF
27 January 1993
Tnuucript
Landfills
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG 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 (10.4) fl 001-7.4
Public Hearing Summary of Pease Air Force Base Public hearing on Landfill 5 Source Area Proposed Plan
Dynamac Corporation
230PeachtneSt., N.W.
Suite 500
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
USAF
27 January 1993
Hearing Summary
Landfills
ARF, IR
tt
PEA (10.4) f3 001-025
Pease Air Force Bate Public Workshop and Information Meeting: Installation Restoration Program
Dynamac Corporation
230PeachtreeSt., N.W.
Suite 500
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
USAF
12 January 1993
Meeting Summary
None
IR
I
PEA (10.4) K 001-034
Peese AFB Official Transcript of Public Hearing for Revised Proposed Plan for Landfill 5
RftR Associates, Inc.
USAF
5 August 1993
Tnnscnpt
LF-5
ARF (LF-5 Shelf)
t
PEA (10.4)17001-8.3
Final Summary of Pease AFB Public Hearing on the Revised Proposed Plan for the landfill 5 Source Area and (he
Consolidation of T *nK*fifl* 2 and 4 Whhm t ^i^fin 5
Dy&amsc Corporation
USAF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrodJpd
D-74
07/14/95
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
5 Auf
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
25 July 1990
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) *5 001-005
Meeting ""T"»f of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
S«e Diftribution List
29 Augutt 1990
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) ft 001-012
Meeting minutei of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution Lift
26 September 1990
Meeting Minutei
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG 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 (10.5) 17 001-008
Meeting minutei of me Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution Lilt
31 October 1990
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #8 001-004
Meeting minutei of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution Lilt
29 November 1990
Meeting Minutei
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) t9 001-003
Meeting minutei of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
See Diftribution Lilt
31 January 1991
Meeting Minutei
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
*
PEA (10.5) 1 10 001-003
Meeting tni«mt»« of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution Lin
27 March 1991
Meeting Minutei
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
MKDl\RPT:00628026.004\zonelro
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (10-5)f 11 001-006
LONG TITLE: Muting minmei of me TechmceJ Review Commne*
AUTHOR: Deputmemofn* Air Force
RECIPIENT: See Distribution Lid
DATE: 24 April 1991
TYPE: Meeting Minute*
SECOND REFERENCE: Noo.
LOCATION: ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (10.5) f 12 001-003
LONG TITLE: Meeting minute* of the Technicel Review Commne*
AUTHOR: Depenmentof (he Air Force
RECIPIENT: See Dutribution Lut
DATE: 2S M*y 1991
TYPE: Meeting Minute.
SECOND REFERENCE: Noo*
LOCATION: ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (10.5) #13 001-006
LONG TITLE: Meeting minuc** of me Technical Review CommiBee
AUTHOR: Department of tb« Air Fore.
RECIPIENT: See Dutributioa Lut
DATE: 23 June 1991
fypg. Meeting MinubM
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (10.5) #14 001-007
LONG TITLE: Meeting Minute, of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR: USAF
RECIPIENT: See Distribution Lift
DATE: 30 July 1991
TYPE: Meeting Minute*
SECOND REFERENCE: Noo*
LOCATION: ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (10.5) f IS 001-007
LONOTTTLE: Meeting MinuM* of Techaic*! Review ComnBOM
AUTHOR: USAF
RECIPIENT: See Dumbubon Lift
DATE: 27 AafUt 1991
TYPE: MeetiasMinMw
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (10 S) nt 001-010
LONO TITLE: Meeting Matte* of Technwel Review Comma**
AUTHOR: USAF
RECIPIENT: See Dutribuboo Lift
DATE: - 01 October 1991
TYPE: Meetittf MUM**
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF (Seetion 10.5 Binder)
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (10.5) #17 001-003
LONG TITLE: Meeting Minute* of Technical Review Commmet
AUTHOR: USAF
RECIPIENT: Se* DiMribution Lift
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelio
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
29 October 1991
Meeting Minutes
Nose
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) #18 001-013
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
26 November 1991
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #19 001-005
Meeting Minute* of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
07 January 1992
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG 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 (10.5) #20 001-003
Meeting Minute* of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
31 March 1992
Meeting Minute*
Noae
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
*
PEA (10.5) *21 001-002
Meeting Minute* of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
28 April 1992
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
It
PEA (10.5) 122 001-003
Meeting Minute* of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
20 May 1992
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (105) #23 001-003
Meeting Minute* of Technical Review Committee
USAF
TRC Distribution List
28 Jury 1992
Meeting Minute*
None
Environmental Division File Room - Technical Review Committee File
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelnxUpd
D-78
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) «4 001-005
Media* MiaMM of Technical Review Commaee
USAF
SeeDbttibutianLiK
29 September 1992
Meeting Miautei
Nan*
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) 125 001-013
Meeting Minute, of Technical Review Commme.
USAF
SeeDietribulioaLiK
27 October 1992
Meeting Mimim
None
ARF (Swtmn 10 J Baxter)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) 126 001-004
MMting Minutx of Ttchnieil R«vww Commituc
USAF
SMDiMributiaoLuc
16 Pioimtir 1982
MMiafMiiMM
Noo*
ARF (S«aoo 103 Binder)
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) 127 001-003
MMtiQf MiauM of Ttcfamctl R«VMW CommtOM
USAF
TRCDuBftutiooLut
17 Fcbniuy 1992
ARF (S»etioa 10.5 Bindv)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5)121001403
Mining Hii»«M of Technical Review Committe
USAF
TRCDt«ribu6coLu<
23Metebl9»3
ARF (Sectkn 10 J Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (103)129 001406
Mining Mianei of Technical Review Committee
USAF
TRCDjettnutionLut
27 April 1993
Meeting Minuet
None
ARF (Section 103 Binder)
*
PEA (10.5) 130 001406
Meeting Minutei of Technical Review Commhue
USAF
TRCDiMribubonLut
MK01\RPT:0062
4\zonelrwUpd
D-79
07/14/95
-------
DATE: .
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
25M«y 1993
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) #31 001-012
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
TRC Distribution Lilt
29 July 1993
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
PEA (10.5) #32 001-002
Meeting Minutes of Technictl Review Committee
USAF
TRC Distribution List
27 Jury 1993
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) #33 001-008
Meeting Minutes of the Technics! Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
31 August 1993
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
If
PEA (10.5) #34 001-009
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
28 September 1993
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10 J) #35 001-010
Technics! RgVM'w Committw Milling Minute*
USAF
See Distribution List
26 October 1993
Meeting Mattes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) #36 001-011
Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes
USAF
See Distribution ^ T**
30 November 1993
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
MKQl\RFT:00628026.004\zonelro
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) «37 001-002
Technical Review Coma*** Meeting Minute*
USAF
See Dieaibuboa Lift
11 January 1994
Meeting MinuM
Nona
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
»
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT.
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) 131001-003
Meeting Mima** of Technical Review Counitte
USAF
TRC Dietributioa Lut
1 Much 1994
Meeting MinuM
Noot
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) 139 001-012
MMtinf MUMM of Technical Review Commim*
USAF
TRC Duoifautioa Lin
26 April 1994
MMaif MiniM*
Naa>
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Fact AMU, PnHAe>iioriN,MdNtwt
PEA (10.6) *1 001-003
"N«w
tiat *• iov«««if«tioo of 22 HIM on PMM AFB*
U.S. Ail Fore.
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTirLE.
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.6) 12 001-002
U.S. Air Fore*
Ma.
21!
Noa*
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.6) 13001-003
*N«wi f»l«>»» rafardiof A* uad*r|rouod w«t« unpliaf frognm"
U.S. Air Fore*
M*di*
29 Novwabtr 19SS
NOM
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\ionelro«Upd
D-81
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE.
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.fi) 14 001-002
"Newi releaie regarding the releue of the third interim technical report*
U.S. Air Force
Media
22 March 1989
News Releaie
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG 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 (10.6) ft 001-002
'News releaie regarding drum removal at Landfill S*
U.S. Air Force
Media
1989
Newt Releaie
None
ARF
i
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
ARF
i
PEA (10.6) «8 001-008
Pease Air Force Baae Installation Restoration Program Update: Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
USAF
1991 Mailing List
October 1991
Fact Sheet
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE-
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.6) 19 001-011
Peaae Air Force Baae Installation Restoration Program Update: Information Update
USAF
1992 Mailing List
December 1992
Fact Sheet
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.6) *12 001-008
Pease Air Force Base Installation Restoration Program Update: Proposed Plan tor Landfill 5 Source Area
USAF "
1993 Mailing List
January 1993
Fact Sheet
LF-5
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (10.6) 113 001-006
Peue Air Force Base Installation Restoration Program Update: Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation
USAF
1993 Mailing List
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\ionelrodapd
D-82
07/14/95
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
January 1993
FM Sheet
Now
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG 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 (10.6) f 14 001-002
Newa Release 93-01- Comment Period Open* for Propoaed Plan on Landfill 5 Source Ana
USAF
All Local Newa Media - Radio, Pnaa, TV
15 January 1993
Newt Ralaaia
PEA (44)
ARF, IR
*
PEA (10.6) f II 001-OM
Reviled Propoead Plan fcr Landfill 5 Source Area and the Plan to ConwJidate Landfill* 2 and 4 Within Landfill 5
USAF
Sea Mailing Lin
July 1993
Fact Sheet
LF-2, LF-4, LF-5 .
ARF (Section 10.6 Binder)
t
PEA (10.6) f 19 001-002
Newa Releaaa. Final Plan* Iteuad for Cleanup of Two Site* at Peaae AFB
USAF
27 September 1993
Newa Raleaae
LF-5; She 34
ARF (SMion 10.6 Bindw)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.6) 120 001-004
PaawAFB]
USAF
SM Mailing Li*
January 1994
NawikMMr
Noaw
ARF (Section 10.6 Bindac)
rVohnwl.Numbvl
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.6) f24 001-004
PatMAFB]
USAF
cVonmal.NuaibaTZ
April 1994
QuatMrtyN*
Nona
ARF (SMbeo 10.6 Biadar)
U.T
'NOTE; NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
NOTE! NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zoDelrcxUpd
D-83
07/14/95
-------
10.9 Technical Renew Committee Charter
* NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN TEDS SECTION AT IBIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
10.10 Correspondence
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 Secretary of the Air Force
24 Much 1989
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10. 10) #2001-002
"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
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
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
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
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 (10.10) #4 001-001
Subminal Letter for Draft Community Relations Plan for the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) on Cape Cod,
Massachusetts
Douglas S. Outro, USEPA
Karen Cowdea,
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
19 June 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (10.10) K 001-002
Impact of Baa* Closure on Personnel Responsible for the Installation Restoration Program and Public Affairs
Merrill S. Hohman, USEPA
Col. Jamea R. Wilson
Pease AFB, NH
27 August 1990
Letter
None
ARF
#
PEA (10.10) #6 001-001
Impact of Base Closure on Personnel Responsible for the Installation Restoration Program and Public AfEain (Your Letter,
August 27, 1990)
USAF
Merrill S. Hohman, USEPA
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.apd
D-84
07/14/95
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
11 October 1990
Now
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.10) fl 001-001
Submrial of Primary DoeunMnu (Community Relation! PUn)
USAF
Jim Brown, USEPA
24 October 1990
PEA (10.2)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.10) ft 001-001
Subtotal of Primuy Documnti (Co
USAF
Richard PMM, NHDES
24 October 1990
BtyR.
i PUn)
PEA (10.2)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.10) #9 001401
Community Relaooat Plan D«
USAF
Johumi Hunur, USEPA
17 lawny 1991
tlopi
PEA (10.2)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE.
LOCATION:
PEA (10.10) f 10 001-001
fommmiHy ReltHn
USAF
Richard PMM, NHDES
17jMMuyl991
PEA (10.2)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.10) 111 001-001
Submhul of Draft Fml Primuy Document!
USAF
Richard FMM, NHDES
5 February 1991
PEA (3.1); PEA (3.3)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR.
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.10) 112 001-001
Submhttl of Drift Foul Primuy Documntt
USAF
Johtnnt HUM, USEPA
5 Fdmury 1991
PEA (3.1); PEA (3.3)
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelro
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.10) #13 001-001
Community Relation! PUn
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
12 April 1991
Letter
PEA (10.2)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10. 10) #14 001-004
Basewide ARARi Pease AFB, NH 03803, January 1993, DRAFT - Review Comments
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Peaie AFB
1 April 1993
Letter
PEA (4.1)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.10) #19 001-005
Draft Record of Decision for Landfill 5 Source Area Remedial Action, April 1993 - Review Comments
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
11 May 1993
Letter
LF-5
ARF
If
PEA (10.10) *20 001-002
Peaae AFB Review of Landfill S Draft Record of Decision
Johanna Hunter, EPA Region 1
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
13 May 1993
Faxed Letter
LF-5
ARF
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelrod.apd
D-86
07/14/95
-------
11.1
'NOTE;
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.l)f 1001-003
Rill fLiimnnnl luuc Piper for C*rcinof«niciry Chinctwizttioa for TrichloroMhytow (CASRN 79-01-6),
TcncUoroidiylm* (CASRN 127-18-4), tod Sryrta* (CASRN 100-42-5)
USEPA
USAF
14 Jury 1992
Now
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.1)12001-0.2
Drift GuidioM on Pnpviof Supvrfuod Dcciooo Documents: Th« Proposed Plan tad Record of Decision
Office of EnMiency* Remedial Redman, EPA, Wedunfion, DC
USAF
Mochl9U
Ouiduie*
NOM
Ait'iOffiM
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.1)13001-8.9
TiMRPMPriiMr. An teroductory Quid* todw RoUtnd RMpomibUitiM of th« Supwftiad R«Mdul Pn>)«t
Office of EmciMcy tod RMMdul RMpoot, EPA, Wufaiafuo, DC
USAF
S*pmriwrl987
Oiudiae*
NOM
Ait'iOfBc*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONO TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.1) #4 001-11.1
CERCLA Sit* DuenpuKM* to POTWi Ouid«ne« Manul
OfBe*ofEmM|MeyiDdR«iMdulRMponM,EPA,
USAF
Aufiuil990
NOB*
Art's Offic*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.1)*5 001-041
FnoMrwoct for Ecolofiol Risk Aii>iim«m
EPA
USAF
F*niuyl992
Ait'i Offic*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.1) M001-E.1
Pralinmuy AmnmiBt Guidanc* Fuul Y*«r 19S8
Otto of Emanocy md Rwndiil R«poa««. EPA. Wubiafton, DC
USAF
Jamiuy 19M
OuMboc*
NOD.
Alt'* Office
I
NCK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrodJpd
D-87
07/14/9$
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11. l)*7001-G.l
Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook (Interim Version)
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
1988
Guidance
None
Art'i Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(11.1)#8001-H.6
Summary Report on Issues in Ecological Risk Assessment
EPA
USAF
February 1991
Guidance
None
Art's Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
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
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(11.1)#10001-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
I
PEA (11. 1)11 1001-103
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
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (11. 0*12001-8.2
Implementing EPA's Groundwater Protection Strategy for the 1990's: Draft Comprehensive State Groundwater Protection
Program Guidance
EPA
USAF
1992
Guidance
None
Art's Office
i
PEA (11. 1)>13 001-021
A Handbook for State Groundwater Managers
Office of Water, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
MKQl\RPT:00628026.004\zonelrod.apd
D-88
07/14/95
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
May 1992
None
Att'i Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.1) #14 001-3.40
Conducting Remedial Inveetifa
iou/Feasibility Studiee for CERCLA Municipal LiodfiU Shu
Office of Emergency and Remedial Ropoow, EPA, Wuhington, DC
USAF
February 1991
Guidance
None
Art'i Office
t
PEA(11.1)#15001-F.2
Guidance on Preparim Supi
rftndDe
i Documents: The Propoeed Plan, Tfat Record of Dectrion, and Explanation
of Sijnifie«« DifhraaoM, Th« Rwocd of D«a«oo AawBdmnt
OfBe*ofEiMq«wyuidR«i»dulR«paaM, EPA, Wuhinjton, DC
USAF
July 1989
Guidance
None
Alt'i Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.1) #16001-8.12
Riifc Annimmt Ouidino for Supertmd Voium* I: Huaum Heath Evthiirioa Miimil (Put A) Imrirn Foal
Office of EoMffeacy ud Remedial Reepome, EPA, Waduoftoo, DC
USAF
December 19S9
Guidance
None
Aft't Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #17 001-057
Riak Amnmenr Guidance for Superftiod Volume U: Environmental Evaluation Menial Interim Final
Office of Emergency and Remedial Reepome, EPA, Wariuagtoa, DC
USAF
Man* 1989
Guidance
None
Art's Office
#
PEA (11.1)#U Deleted
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE.
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.1) #19001-8.2
i Guidance
EPA
USAF
December 1990
None
Alt'i Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
PEA (11.1) #20001-G
RCRA Orientation Manual
EPA
USAF
1990
MK01\RFT:0062S026.004\a3iielnxLapd
D-89
07/14/95
-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Guidance
None
Art's Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11. 1)«1 001-295
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology Profiles
EPA
USAF
November 1991
Guidance
None
Art's Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.1) #22 001-017
Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated Site Clean-Up Technologies
EPA
USAF
May 1991
Guidance
None
Art's Office
I
PEA (11.1) #23 001-023
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
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11. 1)124 001-1 11
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies
EPA
USAF
May 1991
None
Art's Office
•NOTE:
11 J EPA Reffcsul Guidance
GndaiKedocaMatsBstedttbibliogniilikMarcesforadoc^
n OB notx*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.2I#1 001-C.l
Land Disposal Restrictions Summary of Requirements
EPA, Region 1
USAF
August 1990
Guidance
None
Art's Office
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (\l2)ti 001-107
Supplemental Risk AiiMirmnt Guidance for the Superfund Program
EPA, Region 1
USAF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelro
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
June 1919
Guidance
Nooe
Alt'* Office
'NOTE;
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
11J State
I for*
PEA (11.3) f 1001-001
ENC-WS 410 Groundwater Protection Rule
NUDES
Alt Ditto, AFBDA
February IS, 1993
NOB*
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.3) C001-B.8
Interim Policy for the Management of Soib Co
NHDES
USAF
•1991
I from SpiUi/Retaaae* of Viifin Petroleum Produeu
Noa*
Alt'l Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.3) #3 001-04*
Groundwater Protection Ruta
NHDES
USAF
Febniwy 1993
Ait'i Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11J)«4 001-37.3
N«w huqnfain Rule* for (be Cootrol of RedtMioa
NHDES
USAF
April 1983
Art'« Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(11J)*5001-C.15
Guidance Documea for the Clown of Solid Wane Landfills in New Hanpafcin
NHDES
USAF
May 1990
NOM
Ait'i Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA(11.3)«001-D.7
Guidebook for EnvironmeBUl Petmiti in New Hampahin
NHDES
USAF
MK01\RPTK»628026.004\zonelro
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
1992
None
Art's Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
11.4 Air Force Guidance
PEA (11. 4) #1001-024
'Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Peaie AFB, New Hampihiie*
Mitre Corporation, Civil Systems Division
Air Force
20 June 1990
Letter Report
None
ARF
It
PEA (11. 4) 12 001-016
•Implementation of Department of Defense (DOD) policy guidance on IRP Policy No. 1 *
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution Lie
11 December 1981
Policy /Guidance Document
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11. 4) #3 001-002
'Implementation of DOD policy guidance on Installation Restoration Plan (IRP). Policy No. 1 '
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution Lilt
5 March 1982
Policy/Guidance Document
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11. 4) *4 001-003
'Relationship of the IRP to RCRA enforcement actions
Department of the Air Force*
See Distribution List
26 December 1985
Policy Document
None
ARF
t
PEA (11.4) « 001-002
•Guidance for Air Force Installation Compliance with Volatile Organic Compound Regulations'
DepaftnMnt 01 the Air Force*
See Distribution List
8 October T986
Guidance Document
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (11. 4) *6 001-003
*IRP Decision Documentation Policy*
Departmectof the Air Force'
See Distribution Lilt
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonelnxlaixl
D-92
07/14/95
-------
DATE: 25 Miy IMS
TYPE: PofieyLana*
SECOND REFERENCE: Nona
LOCATION: ARF
«
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (11.4) #7 001-003
LONG TTTLE: 'RCRA Facility Anxnntnt Guidance to Innallation"
AUTHOR: Dapanmaot of dw Air Fora"
RECIPIENT: Sw Diioibutioo Lut
DATE: 3 Aufiut 19U
TYPE: Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE: Nan
LOCATION: ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (11.4) rt 001-003
LONG TITLE: 'Guidance on O«M imp conaructioo and digitization P.O. 006 Peaaa AFB'
AUTHOR: Department of til* Air Fore*'
RECIPIENT: Roy F. Weatta, Inc.
DATE: 6 Much 1919
TYPE: QuMtM* DocunMot
SECOND REFERENCE. Now
LOCATION: ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (11.4) 19 001-1.3
LONG TITLE: Handbook to Support tfa* bMUlUtioo RMtonboa Pngnm i»*«im»i of Work for Rcmdul bvwti|«ion/F(MibUity
StudiwV«nna3.0
AUTHOR: Air Fore* Occupation*! tad EavironmMUl HMbfa Ltbontory Twttaiol Sirvkw Divmoo
RECIPIENT: PMMAFB
DATE: May 1919
TYPE: Hudbook
SECOND REFERENCE: Norn
LOCATION: Art'. Offie*
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (11.4) f 10 001 -B1.3
LONGITTLE: Unil«d SMM Air Fore* Eoviranmuul Rutonnion ProfiUB NFRAP Quid*: Making, Docun»ntinj »nd Ev.outinj No
Funhar RacpooM Action Plaaoad Dacisiooj - Final Draft
AUTHOR: USAF
RECIPIENT: PMMAFB
DATE: Fabrauy 1993
TYPE: GuiduM
SECOND REFERENCE: Moo.
LOCATION: Art'.OfBc.
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (11.4) fll 001-0*7
LONG TITLE: Air Fora Logittiei Command Public Affiun EnvnaaOMntal Guidance
AUTHOR: USAF
RECIPIENT: PMMAFB
DATE: Match 31. 19S9
TYPE: Ondaan
SECOND REFERENCE: NOM
LOCATION: Alt's Offic.
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (11.4) 112 001-TX.A1.3
LONG TITLE: Btnmmiaiiilail Suapbag Prooaduro
AUTHOR: Air FOR* Oc«upttwoal a^ EoviionnMntal Haattfa Labonlory
RECIPIENT:
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\2onelnxL«pd D-93 07/14/95
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Match 1989
Guidance
None
Alt'I Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(11.4)«3001-J.2
Report of the Defense Environmental Response Task Force
Department of Defenie
PeaaeAFB
October 1991
Guidance
None
Ait'i Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.4)4114 001-1.5
Initiative* for Accelerating Cleanup at BRAC Installation!
Department of Defenie
PeaaeAFB
June 1992
Guidance
None
Art'i Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.4) t 15 -Deleted
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
MS Technical Source
PEA (11. 5) f 1001-022
Trichloroechylene in the Groundwater Supply of Peaae Air Force Base Poittmouth, NH
U.S. Geological Survey
USAF
1982
Technical Source
None
Art'i Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11. 5) 12 001-080
Geology and Gioundwater Resource* of Southeastern New Hampshire
U.S. Geological Survey
USAF
1964
Technical Source
None
Art's Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.5) *3 001-010
Prelinnn«ry*Wedand Delineation and Evaluation Report for Pease Air Force Bate, NH - Draft
The Smart Associates, Environmental Consultants, Inc.
USAF
April 1990
Technical Source
None
Art's Office
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonelnxUpd
D-94
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG 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 (11.6) 11001-005
•Rfck AMMMOt Dm Nwdt tod Stapling Proctdunt L«Mr Rtport'
Roy F. W«MO, be
EPA, NHDES
S Much 1991
Uttar Report
Son*
ARF
*
PEA (11.6) 12 001-051
"AMlytieal Method* Letter Ripoif - Supplcmenttl
Roy F. Wtetoo, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
23 April 1991
Letter Report
PEA (3.1)
ARF
*
PEA (11. 6) *3 001-055
•Pmoeolt for Onmion of Btwlin* Riik
Roy F. W««on, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
July 1991
Infonnttioa to Sttfe 4 Stapling tad AmUyiu PUn
for th« PMM AFB SiM* - R*viMd*
Now
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.6) fi 001-002
•Dupottl of Drill Cumap From Sug* 2 and 3
Dtpiitmiat of tb* Air Fore*
NHDES
14Aufiull990
Now
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
11.7
PEA (11. 7) fl 001-006
*LMMr to EPA raquwonf review ind coocumoe* of riik i
f A* Air Fore*
del* end tenpliag procedure lever report'
20 Much 1991
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.7) 12 001-002
•LMtt cooMmuw UM of drilling mud-
Roy F. WMKNI, Inc.
Air Fora*
26 Dtc«o*«r 1990
Noo.
ARF
MK01\RJT:00628026.004\zooelKxUpd
D-95
07/14/95
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA(1 1. 7) « 001-002
LONG TITLE: 'Analytic*! Method* for Pease AFB'
AUTHOR: Roy F. Weaon, Inc.
RECIPIENT: Air Force
DATE: 23 April 1991
TYPE: Letter
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (11.7) #4001-001
LONG TITLE: Consolidated Background Valua Letter Report
AUTHOR: USAF
RECIPIENT: Richard Pane. NHDES
Johanna Hunter, EPA
DATE: March 9, 1993
TYPE: • Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\ionelnxLapd D-96 07/14/95
-------
12.1
•BOH; NO EMTOES IN THB SECTION AT THIS TOffi
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zooelro
------- |