PB95-963704
EPA/ROD/R01-95/104
March 1996
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision;
Pease Air Force Base,
Zone 4, NH
7/30/1995
-------
Record of Decision
for a
Remedial Action at Zone 4
Pease Air Force Base, NH
January 1995
Prepared for:
Headquarters Air Force Base Conversion Agency (HQ AFBCA)
The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
Base Closure Division (AFCEE/ERB)
Brooks Air Force Base, TX 78235-5328
Prepared by:
Roy F, Weston, Inc.
1 Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380-1499
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.(m 02/06/95
-------
Record of Decision
for Zone 4
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
January 1995
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Pjge
DECLARATION ix
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 1
II. ZONE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 8
A. Zone Use and Response History 8
B. Enforcement History 12
III. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ; 14
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION ... 15
V. SUMMARY OF ZONE CHARACTERISTICS 19
A. Surface Soil, Subsurface Soil, and Buried Debris 21
B. Groundwater 28
C. Surface Water and Sediment 52
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 59
A. Human Health Risk Assessment 59
B. Ecological Risk Assessment 64
VII. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES 69
A, Statutory Requirements/Response Objectives 69
B. Technology and Alternative Development and Screening 72
VIIL DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 74
A Source Control/Management-of-Migration Alternatives Analyzed 74
IX. SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES . 79
A. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment ......... 81
B. Compliance with ARARs '. .... 81
C. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 82
D. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment 83
E. Short-Term Effectiveness 83
F. Implementabiliry 84
G. Cost 85
H. State Acceptance 86
I. Community Acceptance 86
X. THE SELECTED REMEDY 87
A. Methodology for Cleanup Level Determination ; . . . . 87
B. Groundwater Cleanup Goals 88
C. Soil Cleanup Goals : 89
MK01\RPT:0062SQ26.0W\zone4rod.fm iii . 12'3"/94
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Section . Title Page
D. Surface Water 90
E. Sediment 90
F. Description of Remedial Components 91
XI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 97
A, The Selected Remedy Is Protective of Human Health and the
Environment 97
B. The Selected Remedy Attains ARARs 97
C. The Selected Remedy Is Cost Effective 99
D. The Selected Remedy Uses Permanent Solutions and Alternative
Treatment or Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum
Extent Practicable 101
E. The Selected Remedy Satisfies the Preference for Treatment That
Permanently and Significantly Reduces the TMV of Hazardous
. Substances as a Principal Element 102
XII. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 103
XIII. STATE ROLE 104
REFERENCES/GLOSSARY R-l/Acr-1
APPENDIX A - TABLES
APPENDIX B - DECLARATION OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX C - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX D - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
Mk01\RPT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.fm IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title
1 Summary of Stages 1 Through 4 Activities A-l
2 Chemicals of Concern in Site 6 Soil (0 to 2 feet deep) A-14
3 Chemicals of Concern in Site 17 Soil (0 to 2 feet deep) A-16
4 Chemicals of Concern in Site 17 Soil (0 to 15 feet deep) A-18
5 Chemicals of Concern in Site 40 Soil (0 to 2 feet deep) A-20
6 Chemicals of Concern in Site 40 Soil (0 to 15 feet deep) A-22
7 Chemicals of Concern in Site 6 Groundwater — Overburden A-24
8 Chemicals of Concern in Site 6 Groundwater — Bedrock A-26
9 Chemicals of Concern in Site 6 Groundwater — Hybrid Wells A-28
10 Chemicals of Concern in Site 17 Groundwater — Overburden A-30
11 Chemicals of Concern in Site 17 Groundwater — Bedrock A-32
12 Chemicals of Concern in Site 17 Groundwater — Hybrid Well A-33
13 Chemicals of Concern in Site 40 Groundwater — Overburden and
Bedrock . A-34
14 Summary of Exposure Parameters A-35
15 Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices A-38
16 Receptors and Hazard Indices for Chemicals of Concern in Soil A41
17 Chemicals of Ecological Concern in Lower Grafton Ditch Surface
Water . . '. A-42
18 ER—L-, ER—M-, and EqP-Based Hazard Quotients for Chemicals of
Concern in Lower Grafton Ditch Sediment A-43
19 Alternatives Retained for Detailed Evaluation A-44
20 Summary of Detailed Alternatives Evaluation A-45
MK01\Rn:00628026.004\zone4rod.fm V 12/20/94
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table No. Title Page
21 Cleanup Goal Selection — LF-6 Groundwater A-46
22 ARARs for the Selected Remedy — Excavation of Landfill
Soil and Solid Waste from LF-6 and On-Base Disposal at LF-5,
Dewatering of the LF-6 Excavation with Discharge to a Local POTW,
Wetlands Restoration Within the LF-6 Footprint, and Establishment
of a GMZ and Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Plan in Zone 4 . . A-52
MK01\RPT:00628026,004\zone4n«J.fin VI 12/20/9 J
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page
1 General Location Map 3
2 General Vicinity Land Use Map 5
3 Area of Wetlands Delineation 9
4 Distribution of Contaminants in Surface Soils — LF-6 23
5 Distribution of Contaminants in Subsurface Soils — LF-6 25
6 Distribution of Contaminants in Surface Soils — CRD-2 29
7 Distribution of Contaminants in Subsurface Soils — CRD-2 31
8 Distribution of Contaminants in Surface Soils — AHS 33
9 Distribution of Contaminants in Subsurface Soils — AHS 34
10 Distribution of VOCs in Overburden and Hybrid Well Groundwater —
LF-6 37
11 Distribution of SVOCs in Overburden and Hybrid Well Groundwater —
LF-6 39
12 Distribution of Inorganics in Overburden and Hybrid Well Groundwater —
LF-6 41
13 Distribution of VOCs in Bedrock Groundwater — LF-6 43
14 Distribution of SVOCs and Inorganics in Bedrock Groundwater — LF-6 . . 45
15 Distribution of Contaminants in Groundwater — CRD-2 49
16 Distribution of Contaminants in Groundwater — AHS 51
17 Distribution of Contaminants in Surface Water — Grafton Ditch 53
18 Distribution of Contaminants in Sediment — Grafton Ditch 55
19 Remedial Process Flow Sheet for Alternative 4 92
MKOl\RPT:OOfi2S026.004\zone4ro
-------
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Pease Air Force Base (Pease AFB), Zone 4, New Hampshire
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents a selected remedial action designed to protect human and
ecological receptors at Zone 4, Pease AFB, New Hampshire. Zone 4 includes four sites:
Site 6 (Landfill 6), Site 17 (Construction Rubble Dump 2), Site 20 (Grafton Ditch), and Site
40 (Auto Hobby Shop). This 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) (40 CFR Part 300).
Through this document, the Air Force plans to remedy the threat to public health, public
welfare, or the environment posed by contamination at Site 6 in Zone 4. This decision is
based on the Administrative Record for the site. The Administrative Record for the site
is located at the Information Repository in Building 43 at Pease AFB (61 International
Drive). The Administrative Record Index as it applies to Zone 4 is provided in Appendix
D.
The State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) concurs
with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE ZONE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from Site 6, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in the Record of Decision (ROD), may present
an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, public welfare, or the
environment.
MK01\RPT:0062S026.0M\zone4rod.fm IX 12/20/94
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This action addresses the principal threat posed by Site 6, preventing endangermem of
public health, public welfare, or the environment by implementation of this ROD through
remediation of landfill soil, solid waste, and groundwater, and, consequently, minimizing the
leaching potential of soil and solid waste contaminants.
The selected remedy includes the excavation of contaminated landfill soil and solid waste
associated with Site 6. The excavated materials will be disposed of at Landfill 5, another
base landfill that is scheduled for final closure. Landfill 5 will be capped using a RCRA
composite-barrier type cap.
The selected remedy also includes groundwater extraction at Site 6 during excavation
activities for dewatering purposes. Contaminated groundwater will be extracted via a sump
in the excavated area and will be treated in a temporary, on-site groundwater treatment
unit. Discharge of treated water will be to the local POTW, via the base sanitary sewer.
The Air Force has determined that no action is necessary under CERCLA to ensure the
protection of human health and the environment at Sites 17, 20, and 40.
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 isj:ost effective. The remedy uses permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The determination will reflect
the requirement of CERCLA 120(b)(i) that states "Remedial actions, in which treatment
that permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants is a principal element, are to be preferred over
remedial alternatives not involving such treatment." A review will be conducted by the Air
Force, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and NHDES no less than every 5
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4«xl.fni X 12/20/94
-------
years after completion of the remedial action for Site 6 until such time that the ground water
at Site 6 meets cleanup standards. No actions are necessary under CERCLA to ensure the
protection of human health and the environment at Sites 17, 20, and 40, and no 5-year
reviews are necessary for those sites.
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.
Date:
Alan K OlseiF
Director, Air Force Base Conversion Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
By:
\
John P. DeVillars.
Regional Administrator
Date:
MK01\ RPT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.hn
XI
12/20/94
-------
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 Record of Decision (ROD) addresses sources of
contamination in Zone 4. Zone 4 comprises Landfill.6 (Site 6 or LF-6), Construction
Rubble Dump 2 (Site 17 or CRD-2), Grafton Ditch (Site 20), and the Auto Hobby Shop
(Site 40 or AHS), and occupies apprpximately 100 acres located on the southeastern margin
of the former Pease AFB.
The former base 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 in the
approximate 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 faculty was completed in 1956, Over time, various quantities of fuels, oils, solvents,
lubricants, and protective coatings were used at the base, and releases of contaminants into
the environment occurred.
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 reservation on 31 March 1991. The New Hampshire Air
National Guard (NHANG) remains at the air field and uses some of the existing facilities.
The remainder of the reservation has been divided among the Department of the Interior,
the State of New Hampshire's Pease Development Authority (PDA), and the Air Force.
MK01\KPT:0062S026.0W\K>ne4rod,txt 1 12. r 9-!
-------
None of the sites in Zone 4 are currently in use. At this time, the ultimate disposition/
future use of any portion of Zone 4 has not been determined. It is expected that residences
and/or business or industry will not be constructed in the vicinity of LF-6 and CRD-2
because of the relatively extensive wetland areas. As a result, much of this area of Pease
AFB will remain undeveloped wetlands.
Land use in the vicinity of Zone 4 varies. The Pannaway Manor development, a residential
area off base, is located approximately 1,100 feet southwest of LF-6. Zone 4 also is
bordered by the Spaulding Turnpike, located approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the
eastern base boundary, and Interstate 1-95, located directly along the southeastern base
boundary. A general land use map for Pease AFB, including Zone 4, is shown in Figure 2.
As part of the environmental investigations at Pease AFB, available information regarding
water usage within a 1-mile radius of the base was reviewed. This area encompasses the
entire Town of Newington, and parts of the Towns of Greenland and Portsmouth. Privately
owned wells within a 1-mile radius of Pease AFB are used for potable, sanitary, and
agricultural purposes. There are also wells for which use is undocumented. A complete
compilation of area springs and wells for Pease AFB, based on information available to
date, can be found in the Pease AFB Off-Base Well Inventory Letter Report (G-599).
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.
The primary surface water pathway from Zone 4 toward the Piscataqua River is Grafton
Ditch. The headwaters of Grafton Ditch are near Site 34 in Zone 3 and drain a portion of
the flight apron. Grafton Ditch flows within an underground pipe (storm sewer) from the
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.txt 2 12/27/9 J
-------
LISTING OF CURRENT IRP SITES
RuCtt* Durtijl J
R»j+Oufl Bunal A/ta
Amo Hobby Shoo
Matrtpnanc* Arf?
& p^-imnni Tiatnmg AftB 1
Tt*ni Tiampo AIM ?
«jmp 1
,> L Tank Slgog* EMooul *r»»
-; -T^ Clejn,rg S.tt
Parti Cwl Drapol* Arr*
O« J«l Engine T
E^ Birr* De»njfron Alga
Zone 4
Stage 4, Record of Decision
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
FIGURE 1
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
-------
LEGEND: GENERALIZED LAND USE Land tee was developed from available maps, inducting uSGS topographic maps
phororevised lo i960, aenai photography, flie basa-wide pnotografnmeinc mapping
compitaiton ba»d en 1987 aerial phoiogiaphy. and WEST ON peisonnal observation).
RESIDENTIAL . INSTfTUTIONAL
I Piibhc/Sermpubiic -> schools, hospitals.
' municipal builaings, cemeteries, etc.
> Govarnmtm Owned (Pease Air fare* Basa]
I mixed uses • currently tfiactryfl
Urban • medium lo high density
Rural • low density
COMMERCIAL
Mined retait/twsinms • rnajor aresi
INDUSTRIAL
Mixed heavy Ihrougp light • major ireis
TPANSPORTATION
Major nighways. loads, ale.
OPEN
Watti • surface wasx damage
Wooded aria
Orchard • ptaniauc-n
Uarsny ar«a - large areas
Open • Agricultural, undeveloped, oi
M3R1K
a Ko^no torn
T- i '
SCALE IN FEET
LAU MAP Soiyc*
>*>•# MI»* of
MOTE:
H wBi o*v«Mp«d to «ia»c*ta general
utd shovs only rnar&r USH within eT4A&
area» ar« ngi dirlvrmiiatee by lype
ftf nouvng. e G H iingto muni tamriy etc
3 Tt" MH is currently inactive «od mul land us*t
have bqeo susperyK^ or arc changing
Zon««
Stagt 4, Record ol Decision
Peaw Air Fore* Bas*. New Hampshire
FIGURE 2
GENERAL VICINITY LAND USE MAP
4
-------
industrial area and does not become a surface drainage again until it enters Zone 4, east
of Grafton Drive.
Surface water runoff flows radially away from the hill that contains LF-6 and radially away
from CRD-2. Surface water runoff from both LF-6 and the southern half of CRD-2 enters
Grafton Ditch. From the northern half of CRD-2, surface water runoff flows into the
wetland areas bordering the site.
The wetlands delineation for Zone 4 is shown in Figure 3. In addition to the wetlands
associated with Grafton Ditch, several other relatively extensive wetlands exist in the Zone
4 vicinity. Wetlands surround both LF-6 and CRD-2, and a marshy area is located south
of the AHS. Surface water runoff from the eastern portions of CRD-2 enters a relatively
large wetlands, which is bounded to the east by 1-95. 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 4 is within a 100-year
floodplain. There are no records indicating that flooding has occurred at Pease AFB.
A more detailed description of the zone, including zone geology and hydrogeology, is
presented in the Draft Final Zone 4 Remedial Investigation (RI) Report (G-632).
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.txt 7 12/27/94
-------
II. ZONE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
A. Zone Use and Response History
Records indicate that Zone 4 disposal activities began in 1952 at CRD-2. CRD-2,
approximately 9 acres in size, received primarily inert construction rubble and debris
between 1952 and 1987. No known hazardous wastes were disposed of at CRD-2. Materials
observed in the fill material during investigative activities and site walkovers include asphalt,
concrete, and coarse soil. CRD-2 is bordered by wetlands to the east, Grafton Ditch on the
south and southwest, and unoccupied residential bousing to the north.
LF-6, approximately 3 acres in size, is a former landfill that reportedly received domestic
and industrial wastes between 1970 and 1974. Some of this waste may have included some
spent thinners and solvents. Medical waste from the former base clinic also was disposed
of in LF-6. LF-6 is bordered by Grafton Ditch to the north, woodlands and CRD-2 to the
east, and wetlands and woodlands to the west and south.
Grafton Ditch flows southeast into Beaver Pond and, beyond the pond, to its confluence
with Hodgson Brook, eventually emptying into the Piscataqua River in Portsmouth, New
Hampshire. The ditch receives surface water runoff from LF-6 and CRD-2 in addition to
storm water from upstream storm sewers in the southeastern section of Zone 3 and housing
areas along Dover Avenue.
The AHS, used for light maintenance and vehicle repair, generated several types of waste,
including waste oil, solvents, and washwater from a washing bay used for painting and
washing vehicles. Solvents and degreasers were reportedly used in small volumes associated
with cleaning individual vehicle parts. Two underground storage tanks (USTs) were
originally installed at the AHS: a 1,000-gallon steel tank for collecting waste oil from vehicle
oil changes and a 1,000-gallon fiberglass kerosene tank. Two oil-water separators and a
drain in the center of an outdoor concrete pad also were located at the AHS. All of these
underground structures and associated contaminated soil have been removed from the site.
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zone4rod.txt 8 ' H'27'94
-------
;;
LEGEND:
•—-» BBM boundafy'lanci line
^~ * Surlaoi contaur/atovalion
*0 (FTrMSL) - 10 tool Interval
(£j. Marshy vtl
_*. . Surlaca wa1«f bodies and marshes
Area ol wailands deirnaaiion
Area ol &i& inveslnatnn
NORTH
a M 1« MO HB om MII
Zone 4
Slag* 4. Record of Decision
Pease Air Force Base. New Hampshire
FIGURE 3
AREA OF WETLANDS DELINEATION
-------
The AHS is bordered by wetlands to the south, industrial buildings to the west, and
undeveloped land directly adjacent to the north and east.
In 1976, the Department of Defense (DOD) developed a comprehensive Installation
Restoration Program (IRP) to assess and control the migration of environmental
contamination that may have resulted from past operations at DOD facilities. In 1983, an
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-6 and CRD-2.
A Phase II presurvey was conducted to obtain sufficient information to develop a scope of
work and cost estimate for a more detailed study. The presurvey was submitted to the Air
Force in 1984. With the passage of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) in 1986 and its inclusion of requirements specific to federal facilities, the Air Force
revised its program to parallel the RI/FS approach required under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). RIs were conducted
in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and all relevant guidance, including
EPA's Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under
CERCLA (Interim Final, October 1988, OSWER Dir. 9355.3-01) and other EPA guidance
for conducting RI/FSs under CERCLA, at LF-6, CRD-2, and 17 other IRP sites at Pease
AFB. The investigations in Zone 4 were conducted in four stages between September 1984
and August 1993.
The Stage I investigation (November 1984 to January 1986) was designed to identify
potential impacts of previous activities on sediment and groundwater quality at LF-6 and
CRD-2. Field work was performed at LF-6, CRD-2, Grafton Ditch, and in the vicinity of
the AHS. The results of this investigation are presented in the IRP Phase II —
Confirmation/Quantification, Stage 1 Final Report for Pease AFB (G-525) issued in August
1986.
The Stage 2 field investigation (October 1987 to May 1989) focused on characterizing the
source areas and more accurately delineating the extent of contamination in soil and
MK01\RPT:0062S026.0CW\zone4rod.txt H 12/2T'94
-------
groundwater. 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, and 4
(G-530; G-531; G-537).
Stage 3 investigations in Zone 4 were limited to the AHS and were performed during the
second basewide Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation (PA/SI) conducted in 1990
(G-553). Surface soil and groundwater samples were collected from .the area as part of this
investigation.
Stage 4 activities (October 1991 to August 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. Based on the
data collected from the early Stage 4 investigation, a Site Characterization Summary (SCS)
(G-593) was prepared for Zone 4.
A UST investigation was conducted at the AHS at the same time as the later Stage 4
investigations in Zone 4 to investigate the former location of a waste oil tank. The results
of the investigation are detailed in the UST Phase III Site 40 Limited Site Investigation
Report (G-690).
Table 1 in Appendix A provides a summary of the field investigation activities in Stages 1
through 4. Data collection during the latter part of Stage 4 was performed to complete the
baseline risk assessment and Zone 4 Feasibility Study (FS). A more detailed description
of Zone 4 history is presented in Subsections 1.3 and 2.1 of the Draft Final Zone 4 RI
Report (G-632).
B. Enforcement History
The enforcement history relative to Pease AFB, including Zone 4, is summarized as follows:
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.Drt 12
-------
• In 1976, DOD devised a comprehensive ERP 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 (RCRA) of 1976,
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, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
(NHDES) signed a Federal Facility Agreement (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\RFT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.ttt 13
-------
III. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Throughout the history of IRP activities at Pease AFB, the local 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 public and other concerned parties apprised
of developments and milestones in the Pease IRP. The fact sheets released to date that
concern Zone 4 are summarized as follows:
Fact Sheet
Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Update
Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Update
Summary of Zone 4 Proposed Plan
Release Date
October 1991
December 1992
April 1994
A complete information repository containing documents relating to the Pease AFB IRP is
maintained at Pease AFB in Building 43. The 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 in Boston,
Massachusetts.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\ione4rod.tjtt
14
-------
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 and management-of-migration measures at Zone 4. The remedial
alternative developed for Zone 4 was designed to reduce potential human health and
environmental risks identified in the risk assessment for Zone 4. The results of the risk
assessment, which are presented in the Draft Final Zone 4 RI Report (G-632) and are
summarized in Section VI of this ROD, form the basis for concluding that contaminants in
soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment associated with activities at CRD-2, Grafton
Ditch, and the AHS do not pose sufficient risk (current or future) to human and ecological
receptors to initiate remedial actions under CERCLA. Consequently, no further action is
proposed for these sites under CERCLA Final closure of CRD-2 and the AHS 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 remedial alternative developed for Zone 4 addresses potential human health and
environmental risks associated with landfill soil, solid waste, and groundwater at LF-6.
Source control activities involve remediation of contaminated landfill soil and solid wastes.
Management-of-migration activities address dissolved-phase groundwater contamination at
LF-6 and include contamination within the boundary of LF-6 and contamination that has
migrated beyond the LF-6 footprint.
In keeping with the public's desire to consolidate on-base landfill materials, as expressed
during the LF-5 public comment process, it was determined that consolidation of LF-6 onto
LF-5, another base landfill scheduled for closure, would be the best strategy in terms of
achieving this goal. In summary, the remedy provides for the following tasks:
MK01\RPT:0062S026.004\zone4iod.ixi 15 12/2"/94
-------
• Excavation and removal of all landfill soil and solid waste from LF-6.
• Visual screening of all landfill soil and solid waste to separate out drums,
stained soils, or pockets of visually differing materials. A hazardous waste
determination, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 261 — Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Waste, will be made on suspect materials. Materials
classified as hazardous will be disposed of off base at an appropriate
treatment/disposal facility.
• Short-term excavation dewatering to facilitate removal of the saturated landfill
soil and solid waste. On-zone treatment of extracted groundwater. Discharge
of treated groundwater to the local POTW, via the sanitary sewer.
• Disposal of excavated soil and solid wastes in LF-5 prior to closure of LF-5
with a RCRA (composite-barrier) cap.
• Creation, re-establishment, and enhancement of wetlands within the footprint
of LF-6 on completion of excavation activities.
• Natural attenuation and biodegradation of residual contamination remaining
in groundwater after excavation dewatering and treatment.
• Long-term environmental monitoring in the zone, including groundwater,
surface water, and sediment sampling and analysis.
• Placement of deed restrictions on use of groundwater at LF-6.
• Establishment of a Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ). GMZ is a
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. Access to and use of contaminated
groundwater are managed typically through institutional controls such as deed
restrictions. A GMZ is established in accordance with NHDES Env-Ws 410.
The results of the risk assessment (summarized in Section VI) for LF-6 soil indicated that
no unacceptable health risks to human receptors are expected. This includes exposure
resulting from incidental ingestion of, or dermal contact with, contaminated soil. The results
of the ecological risk assessment indicated that some of the contaminants detected in LF-6
surface soil resulted in an ecological risk with a hazard index or hazard quotient greater
than 1.
MK01\RPT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.m 16 12/r'W
-------
Additionally,, contaminants associated with landfill wastes in contact with groundwater could
potentially leach to groundwater or surface water at concentrations that may cause surface
water or groundwater contamination that may present an unacceptable human health risk.
To protect ecological and human receptors from these potential risks, the following remedial
action objectives were developed:
Protect ecological receptors from direct contact with, or ingestion of, landfill
soil and solid wastes containing contaminants at concentrations that may
present an unacceptable risk.
Isolate landfill soil and solid waste from contact with rainfall infiltration and
groundwater to minimize the production of landfill leachate that could result
in leaching to surface water or groundwater that may present an unacceptable
health risk in exceedance of EPA's risk range of 10"4 to 10"* (total cancer risk),
or a hazard index greater than 1.
Comply with location- and action-specific Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) and/or established background levels
for specific contaminants in soil, as appropriate.
To meet these objectives, the Air Force has established site-specific cleanup actions for
landfill soil and solid waste. The remedial alternative selected for the site must achieve the
Air Force's cleanup objectives. Cleanup goals for landfill soil and solid waste are not
typically established for contaminants because the standard remedial actions for landfills
either provide a barrier to the contaminants or remove the waste from contact with the
environment.
The human health risk assessment indicated that contaminants in groundwater from
overburden and hybrid wells at LF-6 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 were developed:
• Protect human receptors from ingestion of contaminated groundwater that
may present an unacceptable health risk in exceedance of EPA's risk range
of 1CT4 to 10** (total cancer risk), or a hazard index greater than 1.
MK01\RPT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.txt . 17 12/2'/W
-------
Comply with chemical-specific ARARs and/or established background levels
for specific contaminants in groundwater. as appropriate.
To meet these objectives, the Air Force has established site-specific cleanup levels for LF-6
groundwater (Section X). Cleanup goals for groundwater were established for contaminants
in LF-6 groundwater that exceeded either human health risk-based concentrations or
regulatory-based concentrations.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zcine4rod.txt 18 12/27/94
-------
V. SUMMARY OF ZONE CHARACTERISTICS
Section 1 of the Draft Final Zone 4 FS Report (G-631) contains an overview of the Draft
Final Zone 4 RI Report (G-632). Based on the results of the RI, a working conceptual
model was developed that incorporates known, applicable data concerning Zone 4, including
geological, hydrological, analytical, field measurements, and visual observations. The model
is summarized as follows.
LF-6
The LF-6 overburden groundwater flow system conceptual model includes:
• Two overburden groundwater flow systems (fill/Upper Sand and Lower Sand)
exist on the northern edge of LF-6.
• The debris is partially saturated within the landfill.
• The overburden flow direction is strongly influenced by Grafton Ditch, which
follows the trend of a bedrock trough. Overburden groundwater flow is
predominantly toward the north or northeast, except on the western edge of
the landfill.
• Overburden groundwater flow discharges to Grafton Ditch along the northern
and northeastern margin of LF-6.
• Overburden groundwater contamination is generally confined to the landfill
area, extending approximately 400 feet west and approximately 300 feet east
of the landfill. Overburden groundwater containing contaminants at
concentrations above Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) does not extend
more than 250 feet east of LF-6.
• Overburden groundwater flow from LF-6 does not extend across Grafton
Ditch.
• The majority of the overburden groundwater contamination occurs in the
western half of the landfill.
• Vertical hydraulic flow gradients are predominantly upward west of the
landfill and predominantly downward east of the landfill.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.txi 19 12/37/94
-------
The LF-6 bedrock groundwater flow system conceptual model includes:
• Bedrock groundwater flow is predominantly northeastward.
• Bedrock groundwater contamination is similar to overburden contamination
and is present beneath the landfill.
• Bedrock groundwater contamination extends approximately 800 feet east of
LF-6.
• Shallow and deep bedrock groundwater contamination at concentrations
above MCLs does not extend farther than 250 feet downgradient (east) of
LF-6.
• The shallow bedrock flow unit is discontinuous, within LF-6.
• Bedrock groundwater discharges to Grafton Ditch north and east of LF-6.
The CRD-2 overburden groundwater flow system conceptual model includes:
• The predominant overburden groundwater flow directions are northeastward
and eastward.
• The fill/Upper Sand unit is generally unsaturated, except in areas of thick
Upper Sand.
• Vertical hydraulic gradients in the overburden are downward, except east of
CRD-2.
• Organic and filtered metals overburden groundwater contaminant
concentrations do not exceed MCLs.
The CRD-2 bedrock groundwater flow system conceptual model includes:
• Bedrock groundwater contamination does not exceed MCLs; bedrock
contamination is primarily related to LF-6.
• The predominant bedrock groundwater flow directions are northeastward and
eastward.
MK01\RFT:00628CI26.004\zone4rod.txt 20 12/27/94
-------
AHS
The AHS groundwater flow system conceptual model includes:
• The overburden and shallow bedrock form one groundwater flow unit.
• Sources at the AHS are from contamination related to Tank 103.00 and other
localized sources. The soil contamination related to Tank 103.00 has been
removed, but localized groundwater contamination remains near the former
UST.
• Organic groundwater contaminant concentrations do not exceed MCLs;
arsenic and lead concentrations in filtered groundwater samples exceed MCLs
in two piezometers.
• The vertical hydraulic gradient at the AHS is downward between the
overburden and shallow bedrock.
The significant findings of the RI are presented in more detail in the subsections that follow.
A. Surface Soil, Subsurface Soil, and Buried Debris
Source characterization at Zone 4 included the collection and analysis of subsurface soil,
buried debris, and surface soil samples. Surface soil refers to that material from 0 to 2 feet
below ground surface (ft BGS), and subsurface soil refers to material collected at a depth
of 2 feet or greater. Soil contamination was identified at LF-6, CRD-2, and the AHS, each
area having different contaminant source characteristics. The most significant soil
contamination observed at Zone 4 was detected at LF-6.
Samples were obtained from soil borings (8 samples), test pits (18 samples), and surface soil
(11 samples) at LF-6. The distribution of contaminants in surface soil and subsurface soil
samples is shown in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. Contamination within the fill in LF-6 is
widespread both at the surface (0 to 2 ft BGS) and at depth. Soil contamination at LF-6
MK01\RPT:00628026.004'\zone4iod.txt 21 - 12/27/94
-------
is primarily aromatic hydrocarbons (AHCs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs), and metals. In addition, medical waste was observed
at three locations (two test pits and one boring) during investigative activities. The results
of the laboratory analyses are summarized as follows:
• AHCs [benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) and
dichlorobenzene] were detected at low concentrations in soil collected from
two borings, six test pits, and one surface soil sample. The highest
concentrations (1.4 mg/kg of ethylbenzene and 12 mg/kg of xylenes) were
. detected from the subsurface of soil boring 771, in the northern portion of the
landfill.
• PAHs were the most widespread organic contaminant in LF-6 soil, but were
detected primarily in surface soil samples taken from the central portion of
the landfill. The maximum surface soil total PAH concentration was 851.9
mg/kg in sample 3036. The maximum subsurface total PAH concentration
was 13.3 mg/kg in test pit 9052.
• TPHs (EPA Method 418.1) were detected in samples from two Stage 2 soil
borings (770 and 771) and TPHs (Method 8100) were detected in soil samples
from three Stage 4 test pits (9051, 9052, and 9056). The maximum TPH
concentration detected using Method 418.1 was 3,600 mg/kg from soil boring
771, and the maximum TPH concentration detected using Method 8100 was
27.3 mg/kg from test pit 9056.
• Surface and subsurface soil over much of the area of the landfill contained
metals that exceeded the background concentrations established for Pease
AFB. Concentrations of 12 of the metals analyzed were in exceedance of
background levels.
Soil samples from six test pits also were subjected to Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) analysis. Leachate was analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
semivolatile organic ^compounds (SVOCs), metals, pesticides/PCBs, and herbicides.
Laboratory data indicate that no TCLP regulatory limits were exceeded.
Contaminants detected in LF-6 surface soils are of concern because of the potential for
direct ecological receptor contact with these soils and the potential for contaminants in
surface soil to migrate via runoff to Grafton Ditch surface water and wetlands areas.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.txi 22 12/27/94
-------
LtCtMD:
H Su*t*nwd
* Z« Munot*
SUflMCE SftL CONTAHMAHn
MIK
ACE
DOC
ooo
DDT
NOTE:
Zone*
SUg* 4, Ftocord ol 0*ei«lon
Pu» Air Fore* B*M, N»w Hampihtn
FIGURE 4
DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINANTS IN
SURF ACE SOILS-LF-6
-------
\
LEQCNO:
(n -QJ Qjyg]
Sr«.&.
r*» »••]
g UBonngnuwnntr
-1X****C4*M1I
SUBSURFACE
TF*M
TFH
JWT
*>CCI
cs,
•TgtfPn
A-llti
A-19U
TtC
CHL
C-CHL
C* C*c«v"i
DDO. OH. DOT - Potioth
Bwuf ***• PiWfcaW
CWqtn*
Gamm* Cr^waan*
9CAUWFEET
NOTE:
Zone 4
Stag* 4, Record of Dcciilon
PMM Air Fore* B*M, »*•* Hampshin
FIGURE 5
DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINANTS IN
SUBSURFACE SOILS - LF-6
-------
Contaminants in subsurface soil at LF-6 are of concern because they are in contact with
ground water and have the potential to migrate from the site via this medium.
CRD-2
Eighteen soil samples from seven soil borings and four test pits were analyzed to evaluate
the extent of organics and metals in soil within CRD-2. Contamination within the fill at
CRD-2 is less widespread than at LF-6, and is composed primarily of PAHs and TPHs.
TCLP analyses performed on samples from two test pits and containing likely source
materials, including asphalt and tar paper, indicate that no TCLP regulatory limits were
exceeded. The distribution of contaminants in surface and subsurface soil samples is shown
in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. The results of the laboratory analyses may be summarized
as follows:
PAHs were the most widespread organic contaminants in CRD-2 soil,
although PAHs were detected generally at low concentrations. The highest
concentrations were present in surface soil. The maximum total PAH
concentrations in surface (7458) and subsurface (7460) soil were 10.75 and
3.78 mg/kg, respectively.
TPHs (Method 418.1) were detected in 14 samples from soil borings, four of
which exceeded the maximum basewide background concentration of 240
mg/kg. The maximum TPH concentration of 7,400 mg/kg was detected in
borehole 7455, in the northern portion of CRD-2.
Fifteen soil samples were analyzed for metals from seven borings and three
test pits in CRD-2. Concentrations of 10 metals exceeded maximum basewide
background concentrations.
AHS
A total of 16 soil samples from five borings and four surface soil locations were analyzed
to determine the extent of organic and metals contamination in soil at the AHS. Soil
contamination from the major source, the former Tank 103.00, was detected to bedrock (10
to 12 ft BGS) during excavation. Contaminated soil from this area was removed and
replaced with clean fill in December 1992 and January 1993, thereby eliminating this as a
MK01\RPT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.txt 27 12/r/W
-------
further possible source. Other potential sources at the AHS include the former
aboveground waste oil tank/bowser at the northeastern comer of the parking lot and the
former solid waste dumpster at the southeastern corner of the parking lot.
Soil contamination, other than that detected during the UST investigation, consists mainly
of PAHs and TPHs. The distribution of contaminants in surface and subsurface soil boring
samples is shown in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. The results of the laboratory analyses
may be summarized as follows:
• PAHs were detected in each of the 16 samples analyzed. Four PAH
compounds had concentrations exceeding maximum basewide background
values. The maximum detected total PAH concentrations in surface (7542)
and subsurface (7542) samples were 9.18 and 0.92 mg/kg, respectively.
• TPHs (Method 418.1) were detected in samples taken from the southern and
eastern sides of the AHS during PA/SI sampling. The maximum TPH
concentration detected was in an area of stained surface soil at location 304
(29,000 mg/kg), the former location of the solid waste dumpster. TPHs
(Method 8100) were detected in only one of five surface soil samples taken
from risk assessment borings.
• Concentrations of seven metals exceeded maximum basewide background
values in samples taken from the eastern and southern sides of the AHS.
B. Groundwater
Groundwater samples from selected wells and piezometers for each of the .three Zone 4
sites (LF-6, CRD-2, and the AHS) were analyzed to delineate the distribution and chemical
characteristics of groundwater contaminants associated with each site. The subsections that
follow summarize4he results of chemical analyses for groundwater samples collected at each
site.
LF-6
A total of 49 groundwater samples were taken from 19 overburden and 3 hybrid wells at the
site. Organic and inorganic contamination is present in groundwater in both the fill/Upper
MK01\RPT:00628026.0W\zone4rod.m 28 12/27/94
-------
T.ii
Sug* 4, Record ol D*ctiion
Ptu* Air Fon» Sax. New Hampthin
FIGURE 6
DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINANTS IN
SURFACE SOILS • CRD-I
-------
Zon«4
St»g» 4, RKord of cwenion
PMW Mr FOR* But, New H«mp*Mre
FIGURE 7
DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINANTS IN
SUBSURFACE SOILS - CRD-2
PUB [ran- mum tnutttt ana 1 \rarn
-------
LEGEND:
Soil Baring
Soil Boring/Ptazormter
Beads (aspharVpartd)
Roatteflrails
(unpaved areas)
Zone boundary
Buildings
Concentration of
Contaminant (moA8.)
7544
TPH
O&l
t_
— — t
Location
t—Concerrtratton (mg/kg)
ND • Not Detected
Compound
SHE 40 - SURFACE SOIL CONTAMINANTS
BBP Benzyl Butyl Phthaiale
TPAH Total Potyiudoar Aromatic Hyarocanxins
TPH Total P«troteum Hydrocarbons (81001
As Arssruc
Pb Lead
Th Thallium
Cu Copper
SCALE IN FEET
Baso Mao Source.
Detail area ot DhotogrammaTnc compilation of
PAFB from aenal pfiotogfaony dated 11/23/87.
PeawAFB
Zone 4
Stage 4, Record of Decision
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
FIGURE 8
DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINANTS IN
SURFACE SOILS - AHS
ZlROC-f06;9v>-9633d!- 5*1
33
-------
V
v^
LEGEND:
© Soil Boring — 50-"~ Topographic
,~ Contour Interval
({3i soil Borlng/Plazomet*r
_-— Zone boundary
• Roads (asphalt/paved) ^^
(unpaved areas) 1 1 Buildings
Concentration o<
sntafflinanl (niQ/ko.)
7541
TPAH
-------
Sand and the Lower Sand at LF-6. Organic contamination detected in overburden and
hybrid well groundwater samples consists primarily of VOCs, though widespread distribution
of S VOCs exists at lower concentrations at LF-6, Contamination is contained mainly within
the landfill footprint, and detected organic concentrations decrease markedly within 350 feet
downgradient of the landfill.
VOCs detected at concentrations above the MCLs in overburden and hybrid groundwater
include benzene, chlorobenzene, trichloroethene (TCE), vinyl chloride, and the common
laboratory contaminant methylene chloride. All of the wells containing concentrations of
these compounds above MCLs, except hybrid well 534, are located within the landfill
footprint. Benzene, the most frequently detected VOC exceeding the MCL (5 (Jg/L), was
detected in samples collected from five overburden piezometers (7468,7621,7596,7606, and
7611) and all three hybrid wells (534, 535, and 608). Figure 10 depicts the distribution of
VOCs in overburden and hybrid groundwater at LF-6.
SVOCs, mostly naphthalenes, phenols, and phthalates, were detected in overburden and
hybrid groundwater at LF-6. Of these compounds, only bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, a
common laboratory contaminant, was detected above the MCL (6 Mg/L)- However, at each
of the three sampling locations where the compound was detected (7621, 533, and 535), it
was not detected consistently in subsequent sampling rounds and it was not detected in
duplicate samples. Figure 11 depicts the distribution of total SVOCs in overburden and
hybrid groundwater in each well.
Metals were detected above maximum background levels and MCLs in filtered groundwater
samples from both overburden and hybrid well locations. Arsenic and lead were present
in overburden groundwater samples, and arsenic and cadmium were present in hybrid
groundwater samples at levels exceeding criteria values, as shown in Figure 12.
Organic contaminant compounds in the bedrock groundwater at LF-6 are similar to those
detected in overburden and hybrid groundwater, except that concentrations were generally
lower. Of the organic compounds detected, only benzene was present at concentrations
MK01\RPT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.uct . 35 12/27/94
-------
above the MCL, and all samples exceeding the MCL were taken from wells within the
landfill footprint. A total of 26 samples were taken from the 10 bedrock wells at LF-6.
The maximum detected arsenic concentration in an unfiltered bedrock groundwater sample
from well 609 exceeded the MCL of 0.050 mg/L, but only marginally exceeded the
maximum background value of 0.072 mg/L established for Pease AFB.
Figure 13 presents the distribution of total VOCs in bedrock groundwater at LF-6.
Figure 14 depicts the distribution of both total SVOCs and inorganics in the groundwater
of each bedrock well.
Contaminant migration in groundwater in Zone 4 is discussed in detail in Subsections 5.2
and 5.3 of the Draft Final Zone 4 RI Report (G-609). The salient points of the LF-6
discussion are presented in the paragraphs that follow.
Groundwater occurs in both the overburden and bedrock flow systems beneath LF-6, and
groundwater in these units is the dominant contaminant transport mechanism away from the
site. Groundwater in the bedrock and overburden moves toward Grafton Ditch from the
potentiometric high, which corresponds to the topographic and bedrock high, south of LF-6.
Within LF-6, overburden groundwater migrates toward the west, north, and east. The
vertical hydraulic gradient is downward, and the landfill acts as a recharge area.
Overburden groundwater in the western section of the landfill migrates west and downward,
except in the vicinity of well 6054, which has an upward gradient. Overburden and bedrock
groundwater then migrates northerly and upward, toward Grafton Ditch, where it either
discharges or migrates to the northeast.
Groundwater on the eastern side of LF-6 migrates downward and northeastward. Because
the majority of the contaminants at LF-6 are aromatic hydrocarbons, they are relatively
strongly biodegradable. It appears that those groundwater contaminants in the overburden
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.txt 36 12/27/94
-------
2on«4
Stig* 4, FtKord el Decision
PMM Air Fore* B«M, New Huipstttn
FIGURE 10
DISTRIBUTION OF VOCs IN OVERBURDEN
AND HYBRID WELL GROUNDWATER . LF-6
-------
fvOC OV»UWH MB
m Prm
unr [>,«„
U 0«I1I«1M
4.44OO
NA*
a,«««p
tc-JBf
NOTE:
ZOO* 4
StBQi 4, Rteord at Occttion
PMM Air Fart* But, N*w HtmpiDira
FIGURE 11
DISTRIBUTION OF SVOCS IN OVERBURDEN
AND HYBRD WELL GROUNDW ATER - LF-6 _
-------
h#p*n4 wuil
fg- Merwpi^tr
MOHOMK COWT4WUKTB M OV»*UR»H WD HTUB
HI NKhrt
n LMa
El
Cu
torn.
Zon*4
Sua* 4, R*con) ol Dtcliton
Pt«M Air FOPM B«M, H*w Hamp.httt
RGURE12
OtSTRIBimON OF INORGANICS IN OVERBURDEN
AND HYBRID WELL GROUMDWATER - LF<6
-------
Zon»4
Stag* 4, Rtcort ol Cweaion
P**M Airfare* B*M, Ntw Hwnpihir*
FIGURE 13
DISTRIBUTION OF VOC» IN BEDROCK
GROUNDWATEfl • \.F-6
-------
tHHOUTftC HYOAOCARBOfS ** MWOAWC COWTAUDUTO OPTCTfp
Zon*4
Slag* 4. (tocord ol O«ci»ion
F>t«M Air Fofct BM«,
FIGURE 14
DISTRIBUDON OF SVOC'S AKD INORGANICS IN
BEDROCK GROUNDWATER • LF-6
-------
groundwater flow zone not discharged to Grafton Ditch degrade before reaching wells 5039
and 5066 because VOCs have not been detected in these downgradient locations.
Groundwater at the northern portion of LF-6, next to Grafton Ditch, likely discharges to
Grafton Ditch. Based on groundwater elevation contours and evidence of an upward
vertical gradient in piezometer 7468, Grafton Ditch likely represents a groundwater divide
in the overburden.
CRD-2
During the CRD-2 characterization, a total of 18 groundwater samples were collected from
eight overburden wells and from one hybrid well. Based on the analytical results, low levels
of organic contamination are present in overburden and hybrid groundwater. The
concentrations of VOCs and SVOCs detected in groundwater did not exceed MCLs, except
for the common laboratory contaminant bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. However, this
compound was only detected in one of the three samples collected from well 558.
A total of six groundwater samples also were collected from the two bedrock wells (619 and
6030) at CRD-2. Low levels of organic contamination, all below MCLs, were detected in
one bedrock well at CRD-2. Trimethylbenzene and 1,1-dichloroethane were detected in
well 619, which is located upgradient of CRD-2. These results likely reflect migration of
contaminated groundwater from LF-6, and the outer edge of the bedrock groundwater
plume from LF-6.
The concentrations of several metals from unfiltered groundwater samples collected at
CRD-2 exceeded MCLs. These elevated levels are most likely a result of sampling artifacts
and are not representative of actual conditions at CRD-2. In late 1993, EPA sampled four
wells at CRD-1, a site in Zone 5 with stratigraphy similar to CRD-2, using a low-flow
sampling technique to confirm the actual metals concentrations in overburden groundwater.
The results revealed that metals concentrations were well below regulatory guidelines. In
addition, metals concentrations in filtered groundwater samples at CRD-2 have consistently
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\ione4rod.wt 47 12 'r "54
-------
been below regulatory guidelines. Figure 15 depicts the distribution of VOC, SVOC, and
inorganics contamination in groundwater at CRD-2.
Groundwater flow in the overburden at CRD-2 is predominantly eastward, toward the base
boundary. Unsaturated conditions, where the elevation of the base of the fill is greater than
the water table elevation, generally occur in the fill at CRD-2. Therefore, groundwater flow
is largely limited to the Lower Sand because of the limited saturation of the Upper Sand
and/or fill. The vertical hydraulic gradients are downward across CRD-2.
AHS
Groundwater samples from seven piezometers and two shallow bedrock wells were analyzed
for organic contaminant and metals concentrations. Figure 16 depicts the distribution of
contaminants in groundwater at the AHS.
Organic contamination was detected in groundwater from five of the seven piezometers
(2008,5505, 6097, 7539, and 7543) surrounding the AHS building. In addition, bedrock well
523, located approximately 200 feet west of the building, contained relatively low levels of
organic contaminants. All detected organic compounds were present at concentrations
below existing MCLs.
Maximum detected concentrations of arsenic and lead from filtered groundwater at the AHS
exceeded MCLs. The concentration of arsenic in a filtered groundwater sample from
piezometer 7541 (0.0648 J mg/L) exceeded the MCL of 0.050 mg/L in one sampling round
(November 1992). Arsenic was not detected in the filtered sample from this piezometer in
June 1993. Filtefed groundwater from piezometer 7539 (0.018 mg/L) slightly exceeded the
MCL for lead (0.015 mg/L) during the June 1993 sampling round, but lead was not detected
in the previous sampling round from this location.
Groundwater flow in the overburden at the AHS is predominantly south-southeastward,
toward Grafton Ditch. Bedrock is relatively shallow near the AHS (10 to 14 ft BGS), except
MK01\RPT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.txt 4g 12/27/94
-------
4tt GROUHDWATER
NOTE:
Zon*4
St*0* 4, Rccon) ol D«ci*lon
PWM Air Fore* But,
FIGURE 15
DISTRIBUTION OF COHTAMINAWTS IN
GROUNDWATER • CRO-2
-------
o
2008 A£L
X
EB
20
1,3 -DCB
1,4- DCB
28
133J
8 WES
1.0
1.0
9/92
9/92
11/92
11/92
S23
1,2- DCB
1,3 -DCS
CB
CE-li-OCE
14- DCB
TCE
TCFW
PCE
Ma
Si
Ca
2jO
2JD
2J>
2fl
3
ZU
30
0-1J
23.7
6.72
8O3
11/02
11/02
9/91
991
11flE
11«B
991
11/88
11/92
11/92
11/92
5505 WES
ce
1,2 DCB
1,4-DCB
1,3 DCB
PCE
B
Ca
K
Wg
Ha
Si
55
1
4
3
OM
0.2J
0205
105
9.04
19.T
79.9
6.49
6/93
6/93
6/93
6/93
6/93
2/93
2/93
2/93
243
2/93
6/93
35AEL
MTBE | 51 12/93
1A4TCB
1.2DCB
1.3DCB
82
CB
1,40GB
6097 WES t
HTBE
EB
1.0
38
16
2/93
2/93
1/93
1*3
\754;
7539
t.l.l-TCA
Ha
PtJ*
SI
OJJ
30.0
0.01 ej
e.83
11/92
11/92
6/93
11/92
LEGEND:
© Monitor wen (Ovartmrten)
® Monitor wed (Hybrid)
© Monitor wall
-------
at piezometer 5505, where bedrock is greater than 26 ft BGS. Limited data suggest that the
vertical hydraulic gradient is downward, at least at well cluster 7541/6079. Similarities in
inorganic geochemistry data suggest that the overburden and shallow bedrock are
interconnected at this location.
C. Surface Water and Sediment
The primary surface water pathway from the Zone 4 area toward the Piscataqua River is
Grafton Ditch. The headwaters of Grafton Ditch are near Site 34 in Zone 3 and drain a
portion of the flight apron. Grafton Ditch flows within an underground pipe (storm sewer)
from the industrial area in Zone 3 and does not become a surface drainage again until it
enters Zone 4, just east of Grafton Drive. The portion of Grafton Ditch addressed in this
Zone 4 ROD is the lower portion located east of Grafton Drive. In addition, a separate
drainage, located approximately 400 feet south of the lower portion of Grafton Ditch, flows
parallel to Grafton Ditch until it joins the ditch, approximately 520 feet west or upstream
of LF-6. Surface water runoff flows radially away from the hill that contains LF-6 and
radially away from CRD-2. Surface runoff from both LF-6 and the southern half of CRD-2
enters Grafton Ditch. Runoff from 1-95 also is directed into Grafton Ditch south of CRD-2.
Twenty surface water/sediment stations were sampled within the Grafton Ditch drainage
area of Zone 4 to characterize the extent of organic and inorganic contamination. The
locations of these sampling stations and specific analytes detected in surface water and
sediment at each station are shown in Figures 17 and 18, respectively. Sampling results and
data interpretation are discussed in detail in Subsection 4.4 of the Draft Final Zone 4 RI
Report (G-632).
Toluene, chlorobenzene, and cis-l,2-dichloroethene were detected in surface water at the
upper reaches of Grafton Ditch (stations 810, 8055, and 8054) and from downstream, near
1-95 (stations 807, 8132, and 8133). Toluene was detected in the lower portion of Grafton
Ditch (stations 807, 8132, and 8133) at concentrations greater than the basewide background
value (0.8 J /Jg/L). Two SVOCs were detected in the lower portion of the Grafton Ditch
MK01\RFT:0062S026.0W\zone4rod.txt 52 . 12/27/94
-------
ZOIW4
SUg* 4, Rtcord or Dtctoton
p*a>« Air Fore* Ba», Htm Hcmpthlm
FIGURE 17
DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINANTS IN
SURFACE WATER - GRAFTON DITCH
SCAIE IN FEET
U
P4FEJ 1-t.n „
-------
(Tj t >«.•***
(J) l«i ^MM
v HUM MM tm.it.
DOD
DOE
DOT
PCB
w b«*greomJ «C R t
ttxiDivodar
t M uaf ji
TL Huh.™
In /nc
0 SO 100
HO
SCALE IN FEET
Ban U>p Sot^f*
DMWI v*> al ptwoywivnf
PAFB torn Mnd (MlooiWhy «*«d
ZOIW4
Stag* 4. Rtconj of Dacltlan
Pm» Air Fore* Btu, H*w Httnp*hlm
FIGURE 16
DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAMINANTS IN
SEDIMENT - GRAFTON DITCH
-------
drainage area: phenol at station 8132 and 4-methylphenol at stations 8132 and 8133.
SVOCs were not detected in the background surface water samples; however, NHDES
Freshwater Chronic Criteria were not exceeded in the Grafton Ditch samples.
Three different pesticides were detected in surface water samples in Grafton Ditch that
were not detected in background surface water samples: alpha-endosulfan, DDD, and
lindane. Lindane was the only organic compound in Zone 4 surface water that was detected
at a concentration exceeding the NHDES Surface Water Quality Regulations, Freshwater
Chronic Criteria.
Organic contaminant concentrations in sediment were generally higher in the upper portion
of the watershed at station 810 (located upstream of LF-6 and CRD-2), with the exception
of station 807, the farthest downstream sampling location in Zone 4, which is located
adjacent to 1-95. In general, VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticides were detected at various
concentrations throughout the Grafton Ditch drainage area.
Toluene and ethylbenzene were the VOCs detected most frequently in sediments.
Maximum detected concentrations of 1.4 J- and 0.17 mg/kg, respectively, were located
upgradient of LF-6 at station 8051. The greatest contributors to the total SVOC
concentrations in the upper and lower portions of Grafton Ditch were PAHs. It is
important to note that the highest total SVOC concentration was reported at station 810,
which is upgradient of LF-6 and CRD-2.
The highest concentrations of pesticides were detected in sediment at stations 810, 8052, and
8055, located upstream of LF-6. However, DDD, DDE, and DDT were detected in
sediment throughout the drainage area at concentrations exceeding the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) biological effects range—median (ER—M) values
and EPA Equilibrium Partitioning (EqP) approach values.
Inorganic concentrations in surface water in Grafton Ditch were compared to NHDES
freshwater chronic criteria for the protection of aquatic life, when available. The criteria
MK01\RFT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.lxt 57 12/:7/94
-------
for metals that are hardness-dependent have been adjusted using the average hardness value
of 143.5 mg/L CaCO3 calculated from four measured values in Grafton Ditch surface water.
Seven inorganic compounds exceeded the NHDES criteria in Zone 4 surface water. Iron
concentrations exceeded the NHDES criteria value of 1.0 mg/L upstream of LF-6 (stations
8055, 8130, and 8051); downstream of LF-6 (8131); and surrounding CRD-2 (stations 808,
8047, 8046, 8132, and 807). Concentrations of lead exceeded the criteria concentration of
0.005 mg/L at stations 8054, 8051, and 808, encompassing the upper and lower portions of
the drainage area. Aluminum, copper, selenium, and zinc concentrations exceeded
regulatory criteria in the lower reaches of Grafton Ditch, downstream of CRD-2. Silver was
detected at station 8130 only, upstream of LF-6.
Inorganic contaminants in sediment exceeding NOAA biological effects range—low (ER—L)
values were arsenic, lead, and silver. Lead was detected at 10 of the 20 sampling locations
along the entire length of the Grafton Ditch drainage area. The NOAA ER—L value for
silver was exceeded at station 810, the farthest upstream sampling station, and the NOAA
ER—L level for arsenic was exceeded upstream of LF-6 at station 8055.
MK01\RPT:00628026.«W\zonc4rod.ttt 58 12/27/94
-------
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A risk assessment was performed to estimate the probability and magnitude of potential
adverse human health and environmental effects from exposure to contaminants identified
in Zone 4. The public health risk assessment followed a four-step process:
1. Contaminant identification, which identified those hazardous substances that.
given the specifics of each of the sites hi the zone, were of significant concern.
2. Exposure assessment, which identified actual or potential exposure pathways,
characterized the potentially exposed populations, and determined the extent
of possible exposure at each of the sites.
3. Toxicity assessment, which considered the types and magnitude of adverse
health effects associated with exposure to hazardous substances at each of the
sites.
4. Risk characterization, which integrated the three earlier steps to summarize
the potential and actual risks posed by hazardous substances at each site,
including cancer and noncancer risks.
The results of the baseline human health and ecological risk assessments for Zone 4 sites
are discussed in the subsections that follow.
A. Human Health Risk Assessment
A total of 104 chemicals of concern, listed in Tables 2 through 13 in Appendix A, were
selected for evaluation in the human health risk assessment. These contaminants constitute
a representative subset of the more than 117 contaminants identified in the zone during the
RI. These 104~chemicals of concern were selected to represent potential site-related
hazards based on toxicity, concentration, frequency of detection, mobility, and persistence
in the environment. A summary of the health effects of each of the chemicals of concern
is presented in Section 6 of the Draft Final Zone 4 RI Report (G-632).
Potential human health effects associated with exposure to the chemicals of concern were
estimated quantitatively through the development of several hypothetical exposure pathways.
MK01\RJT:006^026.004\zone4ro
-------
These pathways were developed to reflect the potential for exposure to hazardous
substances based on the present uses, potential future uses, and locations of the sites in the
zone.
Zone 4 is currently not in use; however, minor maintenance activities may be performed in
the zone in the future. In addition, the human health risk assessment conservatively
assumed that some areas in Zone 4 could be future residential areas. However, because of
the extensive wetlands that exist throughout Zone 4, it is not expected that residences
and/or businesses or industries will be constructed in Zone 4, and it will remain
undeveloped wetlands.
Grafton Ditch is currently not in use. However, it was assumed for risk assessment purposes
that local residents might use the ditch for recreational activities (i.e., wading) in the future.
Groundwater from Zone 4 is not currently used. Zone 4 groundwater could potentially be
used in the future for industrial purposes (i.e., drinking water, showering, and industrial
process water) or, if residences were to be built in Zone 4, for domestic use. While future
groundwater use is evaluated conservatively in the risk assessment, it is most likely that
current public water supply sources would be used. Public water supplies are currently
available for use by local off-base residents.
The following discussion is a brief summary of the exposure pathways evaluated. A more
thorough description is presented in Subsection 6.3.1 of the Draft Final Zone 4 RI Report
(G-632).
Under current land use_conditions (i.e., inactive), access to Zone 4 is limited to maintenance
workers and trespassers. A maintenance worker is assumed to be more likely to come in
direct contact with soil at Zone 4 and was selected as the most reasonable maximally
exposed individual (RME) under current and future potential land use. Current
maintenance activities in Zone 4 are minimal. There are no routine maintenance activities
at LF-6 or CRD-2. Maintenance activities at the AHS include lawn mowing during the
warmer months. The current RME for the soil pathway (0- to 2-foot deep) at LF-6 and
MKDl\RPT:00628026.004\zone4iod.txt 60 12/27/94
-------
CRD-2 was estimated to be exposed to soil for 1 day/month, 6 months/year (i.e., 6
days/year) for 25 years. The current RME for the AHS was assumed to be exposed to soil
for 2 days/month for the six warmer months of the year (i.e., 12 days/year) for 25 years.
Although Grafton Ditch has no current uses, it is possible that maintenance workers might
come into contact with surface water and sediment while performing zone-related
maintenance activities. The current RME is estimated to be exposed to surface water and
sediment 12 days/year for 25 years.
A current RME was not selected for the groundwater pathway. Groundwater is not used
currently in Zone 4, and local private wells have not been affected by zone contaminants.
The future use exposure pathways evaluated were as follows:
• Soil — Future Maintenance Worker — At CRD-2 and the AHS, exposure was
assumed to be 250 days/year. At LF-6, where future use is expected to be
limited, exposure was assumed to be 12 days/year for 25 years.
• Surface Water/Sediment — On-Zone Resident — Recreational activities were
assumed to be limited to wading at a frequency of 75 days/year for 30 years.-
• Groundwater—On-Zone Resident — The magnitude and duration of exposure
of a resident to groundwater are expected to be greater than that for workers.
Expected exposure was assumed to be 350 days/year for 30 years.
Summaries of exposure parameters for each pathway evaluated are presented in Table 14
in Appendix A (e.g., exposure frequency and exposure duration). For each pathway
evaluated, an average and a reasonable maximum exposure estimate was generated
corresponding to^xposure to the average and the maximum concentrations detected in that
particular medium. •
Excess lifetime 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
MK01\Rrr:00628026.0W\ione4rotJ.txt 61 12/27 .'94
-------
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 as a probability (e.g., IxlO"6 for 1/1,000,000) and indicate (using this
example) that an average individual is not likely to have greater than a 1-in-1-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 risks 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 uncertainly factors to help ensure that
adverse health effects will not occur. The hazard quotient is often expressed as a single
value (e.g., 0.3) indicating the ratio of the stated exposure as defined to the reference dose
value (in this example, the exposure as characterized is approximately one-third of an
acceptable exposure level for the given compound). 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.)
Calculated risks for each chemical of concern for each exposure pathway evaluated are
presented in Appendix L.4- of the Draft Final Zone 4 RI Report (G-632). A summary of
additive chemical risks for each pathway evaluated is presented in Table 15 in Appendix A
The conclusions of the human health risk assessment are summarized in the paragraphs that
follow.
MK01\RPT;00628026.004\zone4rod.t« 62 12/27/94
-------
Soil and solid waste at LF-6, soil and debris at CRD-2, and soil at the AHS were found to
pose no unacceptable human health risks in excess of EPA's threshold criteria associated
with exposure of current or potential future human receptors to these media. The results
of qualitative and quantitative evaluations conducted to assess the potential for organics and
inorganics to leach to groundwater indicated that neither organics nor inorganics present in
CRD-2 and AHS soil or LF-6 soil beneath the landfill are of potential concern for leaching.
However, contaminants in the landfill material at LF-6 currently in contact with the
groundwater may pose potential future risk because they could leach to groundwater.
Cancer and noncancer risks for LF-6 overburden, LF-6 hybrid, CRD-2 overburden, CRD-2
hybrid, and AHS overburden/bedrock groundwater were calculated based on organics and
filtered inorganics data. Cancer and noncancer risks for LF-6 bedrock and CRD-2 bedrock
groundwater were calculated based on organics and both filtered and unfiltered (total)
inorganics data.
Contaminants in LF-6 overburden and hybrid groundwater were found to pose a risk to
potential future on-zone residents in excess of EPA threshold criteria for both cancer and
noncancer risks. Arsenic posed greater than a 10"4 cancer risk in both groundwater units.
Among the chemicals in LF-6 overburden groundwater that had hazard indices exceeding
1 were chlorobenzene, naphthalene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, arsenic, and manganese.
Arsenic, manganese, and naphthalene in LF-6 hybrid groundwater also had a hazard indices
greater than 1. Cancer risks for LF-6 bedrock groundwater ranged from 10"4 to 10"*, and
hazard indices were all less than 1.
Overburden groundwater at CRD-2 was found to pose a risk to potential future on-zone
residents for noncancer risks posed by the presence of manganese. The hazard indices
calculated for CRD-2 overburden groundwater ranged from 5 to 45, depending on which
concentrations were used in the calculations (i.e., mean, maximum, or upper 15% confidence
level). The hazard index for manganese exceeded 10 at the two highest exposure
concentrations. No other chemical had a hazard index greater than 1.
MK01\RPT:00628026.00*\zone4rod.wt 63
-------
The maximum cancer risks and maximum hazard indices for AHS groundwater exceeded
10"4 .and 10, respectively. Arsenic posed greater than a 10"* risk at all exposure
concentrations. No other chemical had a cancer risk greater than 10"6. Manganese had a
hazard index greater than 10, and arsenic had a hazard index that ranged from 1 to 10 at
all exposure concentrations.
The cancer risk for all but one of the lower Grafton Ditch surface water and sediment
scenarios was less than 10"6; however, the risks for all concentration scenarios were less than
10"4. The maximum cancer risk posed by lower Grafton Ditch sediment was slightly greater
than 10"6 based on all chemicals of concern, but was less than 10"6 based only on the
chemicals of concern detected above background. All hazard indices for surface water and
sediment from lower Grafton Ditch were below the criterion of concern of 1.
B. Ecological Risk Assessment
The objectives of the ecological risk assessment were to identify and estimate the potential
ecological impacts associated with the chemicals of concern in Zone 4. The assessment
evaluated the potential impacts of soil contamination at LF-6 and CRD-2 to terrestrial
receptors and assessed the potential for adverse effects associated with surface water and
sediment contamination in lower Grafton Ditch to terrestrial and aquatic life.
The species evaluated and their relevant exposure pathways are as follows:
Short-Tailed Shrew
• IngestioiLof surface soil at LF-6.
• Ingestion of soil invertebrates at LF-6 (i.e., earthworms).
Deer Mouse
• Ingestion of vegetation at CRD-2 (i.e., leaves and stems).
• Ingestion of surface soil at CRD-2.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.m 64 12/27/94
-------
Chipping Sparrow
Ingestion of vegetation at LF-6 and CRD-2 (i.e., plant seeds).
Incidental ingestion of surface soil at LF-6 and CRD-2.
Ingestion of surface water from Grafton Ditch.
Belted Kingfisher
Ingestion of fish in Grafton Ditch.
Ingestion of surface water from Grafton Ditch.
Aouatic Biota
Direct contact with surface water from Grafton Ditch.
Direct contact with sediment in Grafton Ditch.
As discussed in Appendix L.7 of the Draft Final Zone 4 RI Report (G-632), the AHS was
not included in the ecological risk assessment because the AHS, parking area, and
surrounding grass lawns do not provide a suitable habitat or cover for many species. Insect-
and worm-eating birds may visit the site, but their use of the site also is expected to be
minimal because of the limited suitable habitat available. In addition, the potential areas
of concern at the site were possible leaking underground storage tanks, located below the
0- to 2-ft-BGS soil level that defines the depth to which potential ecological risk exists.
The potential risks to the short-tailed shrew, deer mouse, chipping sparrow, and belted
kingfisher were assessed by comparing the estimated daily doses of the chemicals of concern
(average and maximum) with Critical Toxicity Values (CTVs) (i.e., acceptable daily intakes)
derived for each species. Potential risks to aquatic life inhabiting the surface water were
assessed by comparing average and maximum surface water concentrations of chemicals of
concern to NHDES Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) or aquatic toxicity data where
AWQC were noT available. Potential risks to aquatic benthic and epibenthic life inhabiting
the sediment of Grafton Ditch were assessed by comparing the average and maximum
sediment or interstitial water concentrations for chemicals of concern to NOAA biological
effect levels or appropriate freshwater toxicity values and AWQC. Hazard quotients were
calculated for each contaminant by dividing the estimated daily intake by the CTV or the
average and maximum concentrations by the chosen criteria. Hazard quotients were
MK01\RPT-.0062S026.004\zone4rod.txt 65 12/27/94
-------
summed across all exposure pathways for each contaminant to develop contaminant-specific
hazard indices. Contaminant-specific hazard indices (average and maximum concentrations)
were then added to provide cumulative hazard indices for target species. A hazard quotient
or index greater than 1 indicates that the species of concern may be at risk to an adverse
effect through exposure, but does not necessarily indicate that an adverse effect will occur.
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
potential concern and may warrant action. A hazard index between 1 and 10 is subject to
interpretation based on the toxicity 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).
For the purpose of the ROD, chemicals that had hazard indices or hazard quotients greater
than 1 are discussed. However, the complete list of chemicals of concern and associated
risks is included in Section 6 of the Draft Final Zone 4 RI Report (G-632).
Maximum risk to terrestrial receptors at LF-6 was primarily the result of estimated short-
tailed shrew exposure to soil chemicals of concern through earthworm ingestion and
incidental soil ingestion. The highest hazard indices were attributed to exposure to lead,
zinc, and cadmium. Table 16 in Appendix A presents the maximum total hazard indices and
the corresponding recejrtors at LF-6.
The ecological risk assessment indicated that there was limited risk posed to ecological
receptors at CRD-2 as a result of soil contamination, and the risks calculated were not
significant enough to initiate remediation under CERCLA at the site. Only three chemicals
(alpha- and gamma-chlordane and chromium) had associated hazard indices greater than
1 for ecological receptors at CRD-2 (see Table 16). However, alpha- and gamma-chlordane
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\»3ne4rod.t)rt 66 12/27/94
-------
were detected in only three of seven surface soil samples, and their associated maximum
hazard indices were slightly greater than 1. The average hazard indices for these chemicals
were less than 1.
Chromium was detected in only one surface soil sampling location at a concentration
exceeding the background concentration. All surface soil samples (including background)
were analyzed for total chromium, which includes the trivalent and hexavalent forms of
chromium. The risk assessment assumes that all of the chromium exists in the hexavalent
(more toxic) state. However, the bioavailability and toxicity potential of certain metallic
species, including chromium, are dependent on their form. It has been shown that most of
the chromium in soil typically occurs as trivalent chromium; hexavalent chromium is very
unstable in soils (G-330). As a result, the calculated hazard index is considered to be a
conservative estimate of the risk to the evaluated ecological receptor. The true effects
associated with exposure to chromium at CRD-2 are difficult to assess, given the uncertainty
involved.
Potential risks to the aquatic communities in lower Grafton Ditch were assessed by
comparing surface water concentrations to corresponding NHDES AWQC. One organic
(lindane) and seven inorganic chemicals (silver, iron, aluminum^ lead, copper, selenium, and
zinc) had maximum hazard quotients greater than 1 (see Table 17 in Appendix A). Lindane
(station 808), silver (station 8130), and selenium (station 8049), whose maximum hazard
quotients were 3.12, 817, and 2, respectively, were each detected at only one of 20 surface
water sampling locations in Grafton Ditch. Lead was detected in only three of 20 surface
water sampling locations and had a maximum hazard quotient slightly above 1. Of the
remaining inorganics, only aluminum and iron exceeded a maximum hazard quotient of 10.
The elevated concentrations of iron and aluminum may be the result of total suspended
solids, microbial biodegradation, aqueous chemical reactions, and/or surface reactions of
primary minerals in the wetlands. Increased biological activity occurring in more stagnant
areas of Grafton Ditch may have caused reducing conditions that would result in higher
solubility and higher concentrations of metals in the wetlands surface water. It is suspected
MK01\RPT:00628026.0(M\ione4rCKj.txt 67 13/27'94
-------
that the presence of the majority of the inorganic contaminants in surface water is
attributable to mobilization of naturally occurring concentrations in soil and sediments.
The potential impacts of sediment contamination on the benthic and epibenthic communities
in lower Grafton Ditch were initially evaluated by comparing sediment concentrations to
NOAA-based ER—Ls and ER—Ms. In addition, the EqP approach, a method recognized by
EPA as a measure of bioavailability, was used to subsequently assess the potential impact
of hydrophobic organic chemicals in sediment. The maximum hazard quotients generated
using these three approaches are presented in Table 18 in Appendix A, Those chemicals
that had maximum hazard quotients greater than 1 based on the EqP approach for organic
chemicals and NOAA ER—Lvalues for inorganics were butyl benzyl phthalate, 4,4'-DDT,
4,4'-DDD, pyrene, lead, and silver. DDT was detected at seven of 20 sediment sampling
locations. Out of these seven sampling locations, only two were responsible for the majority
of potential risk associated with DDT. The concentrations at stations 810 and 8052 were
690 and 380 ppb, respectively. Although DDD was detected at 14 of 20 sampling locations,
only two locations were responsible for the majority of potential risk. The maximum hazard
quotient for DDD was calculated to be 4.9. The remaining constituents (pyrene, lead, and
silver) were either detected infrequently at sediment sampling locations and/or their
associated maximum hazard quotients were slightly above 1.
' MK01\RPT:00628026.004\2one4rod.w 68 12/17/94
-------
VII. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
A. Statutory Requirements/Response Objectives
Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several statutory requirements and preferences,
including: remedial actions must be protective of human health and the environment;
remedial actions, when complete, must comply with all federal and more stringent state
environmental standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations, unless a waiver is invoked;
the remedial action selected must be cost-effective and use permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable; and a preference for remedies in which treatment that permanently and
significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances is a
principal element over remedies not involving such treatment. Response alternatives were
developed to be consistent with these mandates,
Based on preliminary information relating to types of contaminants, environmental media
of concern, and potential exposure pathways, Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) were
developed to aid in the development and screening of alternatives. These RAOs were
developed to mitigate existing and future potential threats to human health and the
environment via source control. RAOs for each of the sites in Zone 4, which were
presented in detail in the Draft Final Zone 4 FS Report (G-631), are discussed briefly in
the following paragraphs.
LF-6
Based on the ecological risk assessment (summarized in Section VI), some of the
contaminants detected in LF-6 surface soil present unacceptable ecological risk.
Additionally, contaminants associated with landfill wastes in contact with groundwater could
leach to groundwater or surface water at concentrations that may present an unacceptable
human health risk. To protect ecological and human receptors from these potential risks,
the following RAOs were developed:
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zone4rod.m 69 . 12/27/94
-------
• Protect ecological receptors from direct contact with, or ingestion of, landfill
soil and solid wastes containing contaminants at concentrations that may
present an unacceptable risk.
• Isolate soil and solid waste from contact with rainfall infiltration and
groundwater to minimize the production of leachate that could result in
leaching to surface water or groundwater that may present unacceptable risks
in exceedance of EPA's risk range, or a hazard index greater than 1.
• Comply with location- and action-specific ARARs and/or established
background levels for specific contaminants in soil, as appropriate.
The human health risk assessment indicated that contaminants in groundwater from
overburden and hybrid wells at LF-6 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:
Protect human receptors from ingestion of contaminated groundwater that
may present unacceptable risks in exceedance of EPA's risk range, or a
hazard index greater than 1.
Comply with chemical-specific ARARs and/or established background levels
for specific contaminants in groundwater, as appropriate.
CRD-2
The baseline risk assessment conducted during the Zone 4 RI (see Section VI) indicates that
CRD-2 soil poses no current or potential threat to human health. It also was concluded that
CRD-2 soils did not pose unacceptable risk as a result of the low frequency of the
exceedances of a hazard index of 1, and, therefore, did not warrant remedial action.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, which was detected in the overburden groundwater at CRD-2,
was found to pose a risk to future on-zone residents, but given the low frequency of
detection, its common occurrence as a laboratory contaminant, and the fact that there is an
extremely remote chance that human receptors could or would use the groundwater, the Air
Force has concluded that there is not sufficient risk posed by bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate to
MK01\RPT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.txt 70 ' 12/27/94
-------
warrant a remedial action. In addition, manganese detected in CRD-2 groundwater was
found to pose risk to potential future on-zone residents in excess of the EPA threshold
criteria for noncancer risks. However, there is an uncertainty associated with derivation of
risk values for manganese, and the drinking water standard for manganese is a secondary
standard for taste and odor, and is not a primary enforceable standard set for health risks.
Therefore, the Air Force has concluded that there is not sufficient risk posed by manganese
to warrant a remedial action.
The aforementioned information provides the basis for concluding that CRD-2 soil and
groundwater do not pose an unacceptable current or potential future threat to human health
or the environment. Therefore, no further action is proposed under CERCLA for CRD-2.
Actions will be performed for final closure of the site in accordance with NHDES landfill
closure requirements (Env-Wm 312) for construction debris landfills. NHDES will have
jurisdiction over closure activities, and closure will be completed in accordance with NHDES
Solid Waste Rules.
AHS
As discussed in Section VI, the results of the baseline risk assessment for Zone 4 indicate
that no unacceptable health risks to human receptors in excess of EPA's threshold criteria
would result from exposure to contaminants in AHS soil.
Three chemicals (arsenic, lead, and manganese) in AHS groundwater posed a potential risk
to future zone residents in excess of EPA threshold criteria for carcinogens and
noncarcinogens. However, as discussed previously, there is uncertainty associated with
derivation of rist values for manganese, and the drinking water standard for manganese is
a secondary standard for taste and odor, and is not a primary enforceable standard set for
health risks. Furthermore, the average detected level of manganese in AHS groundwater
was only slightly above the Pease AFB background value for manganese. Lead and arsenic,
although detected at concentrations slightly above the MCLs, were detected only in one well
each and in only one sampling round. Because there is an extremely remote chance that
MK01\RPT:00628026.0CW Vone4rod.txt 71 . 12-'IT'94
-------
human receptors could or would use the groundwater, and even if the groundwater were to
be cleaned to the MCL for arsenic, unacceptable risk would remain; therefore, the Air
Force has determined that remedial action for arsenic and lead is not warranted.
For these reasons, it was concluded that AHS soil and groundwater would require no further
action under CERCLA. Monitoring of AHS groundwater and restrictions on groundwater
use at the site under NHDES guidelines (Env-Ws 410) will proceed independent of
CERCLA and the FFA. These actions will be coordinated with the respective NHDES
divisions, but are not included in this ROD, which only addresses those actions that are
required under CERCLA-
Grafton Ditch
The results of the human health risk assessment revealed that Grafton Ditch surface water
and sediment did not pose unacceptable risks to human receptors. The ecological risk
assessment indicated that some chemicals detected in surface water and sediment resulted
in hazard indices greater than 1. However, these chemicals either marginally exceeded a
hazard index of 1 and/or infrequently exceeded 1. For these reasons, the Air Force has
concluded that remedial action is not warranted at Grafton Ditch. Conditions in Grafton
Ditch will be monitored via surface water and sediment sampling and analysis, which are
included in the environmental monitoring program of the preferred alternative for LF-6.
In addition, the removal of all materials from LF-6 is expected to improve conditions in
Grafton Ditch over time.
B. Technology and Alternative Development and Screening
CERCLA and the National Contingency Plan (NCP) set forth the process by which remedial
actions are evaluated and selected. In accordance with these requirements, a range of
alternatives was developed for LF-6.
MK01\RJT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.M 72 12/27/94
-------
With respect to source area contamination and the management of migration of
contaminated groundwater in the zone, the FS developed a range of alternatives in which
treatment that reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume (TMV) of the hazardous substances
is a principal element. This range included an alternative that removes or destroys
hazardous substances to the maximum extent feasible, eliminating or minimizing to the
degree possible the need for long-term management. This range also included alternatives
that treat the principal threats posed by the site but vary in the degree of treatment
employed and the quantities and characteristics of the treatment residuals and untreated
waste that must be managed; alternatives that involve little or no treatment but provide
protection through engineering or institutional controls; and a no-action alternative.
In Section 3 of the Draft Final Zone 4 FS Report (G-631), technologies were identified,
assessed, and screened based on implementability, effectiveness, and cost. These
technologies were combined into source control and management-of-migration alternatives
and were presented in Section 4 of the Zone 4 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. Each alternative was then evaluated in detail
and screened in Section 5 of the Zone 4 FS Report.
In summary, of the seven source control and five management-of-migration remedial
alternatives screened in Section 4 of the Zone 4 FS Report, five source control and four
management-of-migration remedial alternatives were retained for detailed analysis. These
alternatives were combined to form six alternatives that were developed to include both
source area actions and management-of-migration controls. Table 19 in Appendix A
identifies the six combined alternatives that were retained through the screening process.
MK01\RPT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.tJct 73 12 2"'9-1
-------
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
This section provides a narrative summary of each alternative that was evaluated in detail
in Section 5 of the Zone 4 FS Report. A detailed tabular assessment of each alternative
is presented in Tables 5.2-1 through 5.2-6 of the Zone 4 FS Report.
A. Source Control/Management-of-Migration Alternatives Analyzed
The combined alternatives analyzed for Site 6 in Zone 4 include:
• Alternative 1: No Action (always considered as required by CERCLA).
• Alternative 2: Limited Action/Institutional Controls.
• Alternative 3: Landfill Excavation, Consolidation, and capping; On-Zone
Groundwater Treatment and Discharge for Excavation Dewatering; and
Institutional Controls.
• Alternative 4: Landfill Excavation and On-Base Disposal at LF-5, On-Zone
Groundwater Treatment for Excavation Dewatering, Discharge of Treated
Groundwater to the Local Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW), and
Institutional Controls.
• Alternative 5: Landfill Excavation and On-Base Disposal at LF-5; On-Zone
Groundwater Treatment and Discharge for Excavation Dewatering;
Collection, On-Zone Treatment, and Discharge of LF-6 Overburden
Groundwater; and Institutional Controls.
• Alternative 6: Landfill Excavation and Off-Base Disposal of Soil and Solid
Waste; Off-Base Treatment/Disposal of Medical Waste; On-Zone
Groundwater Treatment and Discharge for Excavation Dewatering;
Collection, On-Zone Treatment, and On-Zone Discharge of Recovered
Overburden and Bedrock Groundwater; and Institutional Controls.
Alternative 1 — No Action
The no-action alternative was evaluated in detail in the FS to serve as a baseline for
comparison with the other remedial alternatives under consideration. Under this alternative,
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.ttt 74 12/27/S4
-------
no treatment or containment of source areas would occur and no action would be taken to
control potential migration of contaminants in Zone 4 groundwater.
Alternative 2 — Limited Action/Institutional Controls
This alternative would consist of the following components:
• Placement of a security fence and warning signs around LF-6.
• Long-term environmental monitoring in the zone, including groundwater, soil,
surface water, and sediment sampling and analysis.
• Placement of deed restrictions restricting future land development and use of
groundwater at LF-6.
• Establishment of a Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ) in Zone 4.
Estimated time for design and construction: 14 months.
Estimated period of operation: 30 years.
Estimated capital cost: $78,000.
Estimated operation and maintenance (O&M) cost (net present worth): $2,144,000.
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $2,222,000.
Alternative 3 — Landfill Excavation. Consolidation, and Capping: On-Zone Groundwater
Treatment and Discharge for Excavation Dewatering; and Institutional Controls
This alternative would consist of the following components:
Excavation of saturated landfill soil and solid wastes at LF-6, placement of
clean backfill to a height of 2 feet above the water table, replacement of
excavated material in the landfill above the water table, and placement of a
single-barrier cap over the landfill. Dewatering of the areas containing
saturated landfill soil and solid wastes to facilitate excavation of this material.
On-zone treatment and discharge of the extracted groundwater during
construction and on-zone subsurface recharge of treated groundwater.
Placement of a security fence and warning signs around LF-6.
MK01\RPT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.txt 75 12': "'94
-------
Long-term environmental monitoring in the zone, including groundwater, soil-
gas, surface water, and sediment sampling and analysis.
Placement of deed restrictions restricting future land development and use of
groundwater at LF-6.
Establishment of a GMZ in Zone 4.
Estimated time for design and construction: 24 months.
Estimated period of operation: 30 years.
Estimated capital cost: $2,806,000.
Estimated O&M cost (net present worth): $2,398,000.
Estimated total cost (netpresent worth): $5,204,000.
Alternative 4 (the Preferred Alternative^ - Excavation of LF-6 Soil and Solid Waste and
Consolidation of Material on LF-5 (Another Base Landfill Scheduled for Closure):
Application of Institutional Controls to Restrict Use of Groundwater in Zone 4: and
Monitoring of Zone 4 Groundwater. Surface Water, and Sediment
This alternative would consist of the following components:
Excavation and removal of all landfill soil and solid waste from LF-6.
Screening waste as it is excavated to separate out any drums, visually
contaminated soil, and medical waste. Any waste determined to be hazardous
will be disposed of off-site at an approved waste treatment/disposal facility.
Short-term excavation dewatering to facilitate removal of the saturated landfill
soil and solid waste. On-zone treatment of extracted groundwater. Discharge
of treated groundwater to the local POTW, via the sanitary sewer.
Disposal of excavated soil and solid wastes in LF-5 prior to closure of LF-5
with a RCRA (composite barrier) cap.
Creation, re-establishment, and enhancement of wetlands within the footprint
of LF-6 on completion of excavation activities.
Natural attenuation and biodegradation of residual contaminated
groundwater.
Long-term environmental monitoring in the zone, including groundwater,
surface water, and sediment sampling and analysis.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.ui 76 12/27/94
-------
Placement of deed restrictions on use of groundwater at LF-6.
Establishment of a GMZ in Zone 4.
Estimated time for design and construction: 18 months.
Estimated time of operation: 30 years.
Estimated capital cost: $2,530,000.
Estimated O&M cost (netpresent worth): $2,066,000.
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $4,596,000.
Alternative 5 — Landfill Excavation and On-Base Disposal at LF-5: On-Zone Groundwater
Treatment and Discharge for Excavation Pewatering: Collection. On-Zone Treatment, and
Discharge of LF-6 Overburden Groundwater. and Institutional Controls
This alternative would consist of the following components:
Excavation and removal of all landfill soil and solid waste from LF-6.
Backfilling of site with clean fill.
Short-term excavation dewatering to facilitate removal of the saturated landfill
soil and solid waste. On-zone treatment and discharge of extracted
groundwater. On-zone subsurface recharge of treated groundwater.
Disposal of excavated soil and solid waste in LF-5 prior to closure of LF-5
with a RCRA (composite barrier) cap.
Installation of pumping wells screened in the overburden and shallow bedrock
and construction of an on-zone groundwater treatment plant (GWTP).
Removal and treatment of contaminated overburden and shallow bedrock
groundwater at LF-6. On-zone disposal of the GWTP effluent by subsurface
recharge.
Long-term environmental monitoring in the zone, including groundwater,
surface water, and sediment sampling and analysis.
Placement of deed restrictions on use of groundwater at LF-6.
Establishment of a GMZ in Zone 4.
Estimated time for design and construction: 21 months.
Estimated period of operation: 30 years.
Estimated capital cost: $3,495,000.
MK01\RPT:0062S026.004\rone4rod.un 77 12/27/44
-------
Estimated O&M cost (net present worth): $4,890,000.
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $8,385,000.
Alternative 6 - Landfill Excavation and Off-Base Disposal of Soil and Solid Waste: Off-
Base Treatment/Disposal of Medical Waste: On-Zone Groundwater Treatment and
Discharge for Excavation Dewatering; Collection, On-Zone Treatment, and On-Zone
Discharge of Recovered Overburden and Bedrock Groundwaten and Institutional Controls
This alternative would consist of the following components:
Excavation and removal of all landfill soil and solid waste from LF-6.
Backfilling of site with clean fill.
Short-term excavation dewatering to facilitate removal of the saturated landfill
soil and solid waste. On-zone treatment and discharge of extracted
groundwater. On-zone subsurface recharge of treated groundwater.
Installation of pumping wells screened in the overburden, shallow bedrock,
and deep bedrock and construction of an on-zone GWTP. Removal and
treatment of contaminated overburden, shallow bedrock, and deep bedrock
groundwater at LF-6. On-zone disposal of the GWTP effluent by subsurface
recharge.
Off-base treatment and disposal of excavated medical wastes in accordance
with NHDES regulations.
Disposal of excavated soil and solid wastes in an off-base, state-permitted
solid waste landfill.
Long-term environmental monitoring in the zone, including groundwater,
surface water, and sediment sampling and analysis.
Placement of deed restrictions on future groundwater use at LF-6.
Establishment of a GMZ in Zone 4.
Estimated time for design and construction: 21 months,
Estimated period of operation: 30 years.
Estimated capital cost: $17,123,000.
Estimated O&M cost (net present worth): $5,195,000.
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $22,318,000.
MK01\RPT:0062802fi.OW\zone4rod.tet 78 12/27/94
-------
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. The following is a summary of the comparison of each alternative's
strengths and weaknesses with respect to the nine evaluation criteria. These criteria are
summarized in the following paragraphs.
Threshold Criteria
The following two threshold criteria must be met 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 attain applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements under federal environmental laws and
state environmental or facility siting laws, or whether there are grounds for
invoking a waiver pursuant to the requirements of the NCP.
Primary Balancing Criteria
The following five criteria are used to compare and evaluate the elements of one alternative
to another that meet the threshold criteria:
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence address 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\RPT:0062S026.0
-------
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants through treatment
addresses the degree to which alternatives employ recycling or treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants, including how treatment
is used to address the principal threats posed by the site,
5. Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve
protection and any adverse impacts on human health and the environment
that may be posed during the construction and implementation period, until
cleanup goals are achieved.
6. Implementability addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of a
remedy, including the availability of materials and services needed to
implement a particular option.
7. Cost includes estimated capital, O&M, and present-worth costs. A 30-year
assessment period was used to estimate remedial alternative 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 both the original and the revised Proposed Plans
for Zone 4 was evaluated based on written comments and verbal comments
received in public meetings during the public comment period.
A detailed tabular assessment of each alternative according to the threshold and balancing
criteria is presented in Tables 5.2-1 through 5.2-6 of the Zone 4 FS Report.
Following the detailed analysis of each individual alternative, a comparative analysis,
focusing on the relative performance of each alternative against the threshold and balancing
criteria, was conducted. This comparative analysis is presented in Table 20 in Appendix A.
MK01\RPT:0«28026.004\zone4rod.txt 80 12/27/94
-------
The following subsections present the nine criteria, including the two modifying criteria not
discussed in the Zone 4 FS Report; a brief narrative summary of the alternatives; and the
strengths and weaknesses of each alternative according to the detailed and comparative
analysis.
A. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, would not address potential risks to ecological and
human receptors. Alternatives 2 through 6 would provide protection to human and
ecological receptors through institutional controls, including access and deed restrictions.
Through capping, Alternative 3 would provide increased protection of human health over
Alternative 2 by minimizing the migration of contaminants to groundwater. A landfill cap
also would minimize the ecological risk associated with contaminants in landfill debris by
isolating the contaminated materials from the environment.
By removing the source materials, Alternatives 4,5, and 6 would eliminate future migration
of contaminants to groundwater, increasing the protection of human health compared to
previous alternatives. Groundwater treatment under Alternatives 5 and 6 would further
increase protection of human health by minimizing the migration of groundwater
contaminants downgradient and deceasing the time required to meet groundwater cleanup
goals. Removal of the contaminated soil and solid wastes from the site also would eliminate
ecological risks associated with contact with soil contaminants. However, transportation of
LF-6 material off-site would potentially increase short-term human and ecological receptor
exposure to contaminants via materials handling.
B. Compliance with ARARs
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not be expected to comply with chemical-specific ARARs during
the 30-year assessment period because the source area (landfill material) would be left in-
place, partially saturated in groundwater. Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 all would eventually
comply with chemical-specific ARARs. The Air Force believes that Alternatives 3 and 4,
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.tjtt 81 12/27/94
-------
which rely on natural attenuation and biodegradation, would be expected to comply with
chemical-specific ARARs in groundwater in approximately the same time as would
Alternatives 5 and 6, which involve active treatment of the groundwater, Contaminant
transport modeling was performed for this site assuming a natural attenuation scenario and
a groundwater extraction/treatment scenario. The model simulated the transport and
attenuation of benzene from the source area over a period of 10 years. It was estimated
that the groundwater cleanup goal for benzene (5 fjg/i.) would be achieved in approximately
10 years through natural attenuation and approximately 5 to 6 years via groundwater
recovery.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would not meet action-specific ARARs for RCRA or State of New
Hampshire landfill closure regulations. Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 would comply with action-
specific ARARs. All alternatives would be expected to comply with location-specific
ARARs.
C. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
All of the alternatives, with the exception of Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, would
provide protection over the long-term because they all involve, at a minimum, application
of institutional controls to prevent human receptor exposure to site contaminants in soil and
groundwater. Alternatives 2 through 6 provide increasing levels of protectiveness by
reducing the magnitude of residual risks, thereby reducing the potential exposure to human
receptors. Alternatives 3 through 6, however, provide additional long-term effectiveness by
minimizing the risk of ecological contact with source material; Alternative 3 provides
protection by capping the landfill; and Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 remove the source materials
altogether from the site.
For all alternatives, the long-term effectiveness would be contingent on how effectively
engineering and institutional controls were enforced.
MK01\RFT:00628026.C04\zone4rod.m 82 12/27/94
-------
D. Reduction of Toricity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Some reduction in the TMV of contaminants in soil and groundwater may occur under all
of the alternatives, including the no-action alternative, as a result of biodegradation and
natural attenuation processes. This reduction would probably be slow and may be
considered minimal even over several decades. The mobility of contaminants under
Alternatives 3,4, 5, and 6 would be further reduced by removing contaminated soil and solid
wastes from groundwater and isolating the material within state-approved capping systems
or disposal facilities. Reduction of the toxicity and volume of contaminated soil and solid
wastes would be slow, being dependent on biodegradation and natural attenuation processes.
Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 also would reduce the TMV of contaminated groundwater by
collecting and treating overburden groundwater during excavation dewatering activities. The
TMV of groundwater contaminants would be further reduced under Alternatives 5 and 6
because of the long-term collection and treatment of groundwater.
E. Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternative 1 would not create any short-term or adverse impacts on human health or the
environment during implementation because this alternative involves no action.
Alternative 2 would not be expected to pose potential risks to site workers, the surrounding
community, or the environment because there would be minimal disturbance to source area
soil at LF-6. The only short-term impacts would be associated with the continuing effects
of site contamination. Volatile and paniculate emissions generated by excavation activities
associated with Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 could impact site workers and the surrounding
community. This potential for exposure would be minimized via engineering controls and
site-specific health and safety procedures. Site workers would be adequately protected with
appropriate personal protective equipment. The potential risk to adjacent communities
would be minimal because trucking routes would not pass through residential areas or
MK01\RPT:0062S026,004\zone4rod.txt 83 Ol.T/95
-------
heavily populated areas. The LF-6 soil and solid waste placed in the payload area of the
trucks would be covered during the transport between LF-6 and LF-5. Additionally, the
duration of excavation activities would be minimal (approximately 6 months). Excavation
activities would increase short-term impacts to adjacent wetlands. Wetlands also would be
impacted as a result of the construction of a haul road to be used for transporting LF-6
material to LF-5. However, any wetlands impacts from the road construction would be
restored once the excavation and transportation activities were completed. Wetlands
impacts would be rninimized by the use of erosion and sedimentation controls.
Transportation of landfill material (Alternatives 4, 5, and 6) would increase the potential
for impacts on the local community and environment.
F. Implementability
All the alternatives in the detailed analysis are implementable and have been used
successfully at other sites. The differences in this category are in the length of time required
to implement the alternative; the degree of difficulty in both administration and
implementation; and the availability of treatment equipment, other specialty equipment, and
construction specialists.
The no-action alternative would be the most technically implementable alternative because
it involves no remedial action. However, this alternative would not likely be implementable
from an administrative perspective because it will not comply with action-specific ARARs.
Alternative 2 also would be technically implementable and may be difficult to implement
administratively because it would not comply with federal and state solid waste rules and
landfill closure requirements.
Alternatives 3,4,5, and 6 are expected to be administratively implementable. However, the
administrative difficulties associated with implementation of Alternative 6 would be expected
to be greater than the other alternatives because of regulatory requirements and approvals
needed for off-base transportation, particularly interstate transport of medical waste and
incineration of medical waste, if required.
MKOl\RFT:OM2S026.C04\zone4rod.at 84 12/27/94
-------
Excavation under Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 would use currently available technologies.
However, excavation of the wastes would require the involvement of specialists to safely and
effectively remove the wastes. Site-specific conditions would require that dewatering be
conducted to allow for complete excavation of soil and solid wastes. Although these
technologies are available, there could be limited availability of treatment equipment, other
specialty equipment, and construction specialists to implement excavation under these
alternatives.
Implementation of Alternative 3 would be complicated by space restrictions and the inability
to stockpile large quantities of wastes on-site. Construction of the cap under Alternative 3
would use currently available technologies.
G. Cost
The estimated present-wonh costs of the alternatives are as follows:
Remedial Alternative
1. No Action
2. Limited Action/Institutional Controls (Le., fencing;
deed restrictions; soil, groundwater, and surface water
monitoring; and GMZ).
3. Excavation and Consolidation of Landfill Soil and
Solid Wastes in Contact with the Groundwater,
On-Zonc Groundwater Treatment and Disposal for
Excavation Dewatering, Capping of LF-6; and
Institutional Controls.
4. Excavation of Landfill Soil and Solid Wastes, On-Base
Disposal at LF-5 of Landfill Soil and Solid Wastes,
On-Zone Groundwater Treatment for Excavation
Dewatering, Discharge of Treated Groundwater to the
Local POTW, and Institutional Controls.
Capital Cost
Not costed
$77,800
$2,805,600
$2^30,200
Present-
Worth O&M
Cost at
Year 30
Not costed
$2,143,900
$2^98300
$2,065,400
Total
Present-
Worth Cost
Not costed
$2,222,000
$5,204,000
$4,596,000
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.oa
85
-------
Remedial Alternative
5. Excavation of Landfill Soil and Solid Wastes; On-Zone
Groundwatcr Treatment and Disposal for Excavation
Dewatcring; On-Base Disposal at LF-5 of Landfill Soil
and Solid Wastes; Collection and On-Zone Treatment
of Recovered Overburden Groundwater; Discharge of
Treated Groundwater to Recharge Trenches; and
Institutional Controls.
6. Excavation and Off-Base Disposal of Landfill Soil and
Solid Waste; Excavation and Off-Base Treatment/
Disposal of Medical Waste from LF-6, On-Zone
Groundwater Treatment and Disposal for Excavation
Dewatering, Collection and On-Zone Treatment of
Recovered Overburden and Bedrock Groundwater,
Discharge of Treated Groundwater to Recharge
Trenches, and Institutional Controls.
Capital Cost
$3,494400
$17,123,000
Present-
Worth O&M
Cost at
Year 30
$4,890,000
. $5,195,100
Total
Present -
Worth Cost
$8,385,000
$22,318,000
H. State Acceptance
NHDES has been involved in the environmental activities at Pease AFB since the mid-
1980s, as summarized in Section II, and has been actively and continuously involved in the
evaluation of Zone 4 remedial action decisions. The RI was performed with an Air Force
lead, with NHDES and EPA oversight, in accordance with the FFA. NHDES has reviewed
.this document and concurs with the selected remedy. A copy of the Declaration of
Concurrence is presented in Appendix B.
I. Community Acceptance
The comments received during the public comment period and the public hearing on the
Proposed Plan are summarized in the Responsiveness Summary (see Appendix C). Public
comments were supponive of the proposed remedial action, and, as a result, the selected
remedy has not been modified from that presented in the Proposed Plan.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonc4rod.txt
86
12/27/94
-------
X. THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy is comprehensive in that it provides for source control and reduction
of exposure to site contaminants via excavation and removal of landfill soil and solid waste,
and it also contributes to attainment of overall Zone 4 objectives of migration control for
groundwater and surface water.
The selected remedy, Alternative 4, involves excavation of LF-6 soil and solid waste and
consolidation of this material on LF-5, another base landfill scheduled for closure. To
facilitate excavation of LF-6, groundwater will be collected and treated in a temporary on-
site mobile system. Discharge of treated water to the local POTW via the sanitary sewer
will be performed. Following consolidation on LF-5, LF-5 will be covered with a RCRA
composite-barrier type cap to prevent water infiltration. Within the footprint of LF-6,
backfilling will occur to create, re-establish, and enhance the wetlands areas that currently
surround the majority of the site. Approximately 2.2 acres of wetlands restoration will occur
at the site.
A, Methodology for Cleanup Level Determination
Cleanup levels were evaluated for each medium of concern in Zone 4. Cleanup goals have
been established for chemicals of concern identified in the risk assessment section of the
Draft Final Zone 4 RI Report (G-632) and for contaminants detected at levels exceeding
ARARs or risk-based concentrations.
The approach used to determine risk-based concentrations is consistent with the approach
used to evaluate human health risk in the risk assessment section of the Draft Final Zone
4 RI Report (G-632). 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.
MK01\RPT:00628026,004\zone4rod.t)(t 87 i:'"'94
-------
Risk-based concentrations were derived for each noncarcinogenic chemical in a medium
based on a goal of a hazard index of 1. For each carcinogenic chemical, the concentrations
were derived based on a goal of 10"6 (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 cadmium, chromium VI, and nickel, are not classified as carcinogens through the
oral exposure route. Therefore, in deriving risk-based concentrations for a given medium,
if a carcinogenic chemical was not considered to be carcinogenic through the applicable
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,
human health risk-based concentrations, and, if applicable, ecological risk-based
concentrations.
In general, where ARARs were available and deemed appropriate, 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 4 exposure scenarios, a risk-based
concentration 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. The cleanup goals for media in Zone 4
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-6 groundwater posed cancer and noncancer risks to future on-zone residents in
exceedance of EPA's risk range of 10"4 to 10"6, or a hazard index of greater than 1. A
comparison of maximum detected concentrations in groundwater with ARARs indicated the
MKO:\RJT:00628026.004\zone4rod.tirt ' 88 12/27/94
-------
several chemical-specific ARARs were exceeded. Therefore, risk-based concentrations and
chemical-specific ARARs were evaluated in the development of cleanup goals. Using this
methodology, cleanup goals were established for LF-6 groundwater, but no further action
is proposed for CRD-2 or AHS groundwater under CERCLA.
The list of groundwater contaminants that were evaluated for establishing groundwater
cleanup goals was limited to groundwater chemicals of concern at LF-6. Table 21 in
Appendix A presents the maximum detected concentration, chemical-specific ARARs, risk-
based concentrations, and the cleanup goals established for each contaminant. Cleanup
goals were established for 14 contaminants in LF-6 groundwater. Contaminants for which
cleanup goals were established were seven VOCs, two SVOCs, and five inorganics.
C. Soil Cleanup Goals
The results of the human health risk assessment indicated that no unacceptable health risks
in excess of EPA's threshold criteria to human receptors resulting from incidental ingestion
of, or dermal contact with, contaminated soil at LF-6, CRD-2, or the AHS are expected.
At LF-6, the ecological risk assessment revealed several soil contaminants that posed
ecological risk exceeding the EPA benchmark value of a hazard quotient of 1. However,
cleanup goals for landfill soil and solid waste are not typically set because the standard
remedial actions for landfills normally provide either a barrier to the contaminants or
remove the waste from contact with the environment. It also was concluded that CRD-2
soils did not pose unacceptable ecological risk as a result of the low frequency of
exceedances of a hazard index of 1, and, therefore, did not warrant remedial action.
Based on the preceding information, cleanup goals for soil in Zone 4 are not necessary and
have not been established.
MK01\RFT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.ttt g9 13 '17/94
-------
D. Surface Water
The human health risk assessment for surface water in Grafton Ditch did not reveal
exposures as a result of detected contaminants that resulted in unacceptable health risks to
human receptors in excess of EPA's threshold criteria.
The results of the ecological risk assessment indicated that some chemicals detected at
Grafton Ditch surface water sampling locations resulted in hazard indices greater than 1.
However, the majority of these exceedances occurred infrequently at surface water sampling
locations, and the majority of the exceedances were only marginally above 1. Other
exceedances are believed to be the result of naturally occurring soil conditions and
biological degradation. It was subsequently determined that the contamination in Grafton
Ditch does not pose unacceptable ecological risks, and cleanup goals for surface water do
not need to be established.
E. Sediment
Sediment in Grafton Ditch was evaluated against chemical-specific criteria and human
health risk-based remedial objectives. The results of the human health risk assessment
indicated that no unacceptable health risks to human receptors resulting from incidental
ingestion of, and/or dermal contact with, contaminated sediment are expected in Zone 4.
The ecological risk assessment identified several chemicals detected at Grafton Ditch
sediment sampling locations that exceeded a hazard quotient of 1 based on NOAA ER—L
values or EqP values.__ However, these chemicals were either detected infrequently at
sediment sampling locations and/or their associated maximum hazard quotients were slightly
above 1. It was subsequently determined that the sediment contamination hi Grafton Ditch
does not pose unacceptable ecological risks, and cleanup goals for sediment do not need to
be established.
MK01\RPT:00628026.0W\ione4rod.txt 90 12/27/94
-------
F. Description of Remedial Components
The selected remedy (Alternative 4) for Zone 4 involves source control at LF-6 and will
involve the following key components:
• Excavation and removal of all landfill soil and solid waste from LF-6 and
disposal of excavated soil and solid waste in LF-5 prior to final closure of
LF-5 with a RGRA cap. All landfill soil and solid waste will be screened
during excavation to separate out drums, stained soils, or pockets of visually
differing materials. A hazardous waste determination, in accordance with 40
CFR Part 261 — Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, will be made
on suspect materials. Materials classified as hazardous will be disposed of off
base at an appropriate treatment/disposal facility.
• Dewatering of the LF-6 excavation area, as necessary, during the excavation
process (i.e., the groundwater table will be artificially lowered in the
immediate vicinity of excavation rendering the area to be excavated dry). Any
groundwater extracted as part of the dewatering process will be treated in an
on-zone mobile treatment unit to meet site-specific groundwater treatment
objectives. Treated groundwater will be discharged to the local POTW via
the sanitary sewer.
• Creation, re-establishment, and enhancement of wetlands within the footprint
of LF-6 on completion of excavation activities.
• Natural attenuation and biodegradation of residual contaminated
groundwater. Contaminant transport modeling performed for LF-6
groundwater estimated that the groundwater cleanup goal for benzene (5
/zg/L) would be achieved in approximately 10 years through natural
attenuation. Benzene is considered an accurate predictor of the attenuation
rates for LF-6 groundwater contaminants.
• Management of the Zone 4 groundwater release will be implemented through
a groundwater management permit in accordance with the New Hampshire
regulations contained in Env-Ws 410.
• Placement of deed restrictions on the use of groundwater at LF-6.
• Long-term environmental monitoring in the zone, including groundwater,
surface water, and sediment sampling and analysis.
Figure 19 presents a remedial process flow sheet for the selected remedy that depicts the
elements described. Detailed descriptions of the various components follow.
MK01\RPT:00628026.(XM\ionc4rod,l)Ct 91 12 .'2 ".'9-1
-------
Landfill Soil and
Solid Waste
(34,680 cubic yards)
Excavation :.
and
Loading
Consolidation
on Landfill 5
Wetlands
Restoration in
LF*6 Footprint
Groiindwater,
Surface Water,
and Sediment
Monitoring
N)
Overburden and
Bedrock
Groundwater
Natural Attenuation
and
Biodegradation of
, Groundwater
Contaminant*
•-.* Deed :•;•.!•;:;;
Restrictions
Monitoring of
Groundwater
Management
Zone
Pease AFB
Zone 4
Stage 4, Record of Decision
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
FIGURE 19
REMEDIAL PROCESS FLOW SHEET
FOR ALTERNATIVE 4
Z4RODFI9{ZRFSS14N|2SFS&I «)CONCO»D)| I Oi9) S/94) a/94
-------
Landfill Excavation and Consolidation of LF-6
Alternative 4 involves excavating landfill soil and solid waste at LF-6 and consolidating the
material on LF-5 prior to LF-5 closure. This action will eliminate direct contact between
the contaminant source and the groundwater and will not restrict future use and
development of the property. Determination of the volume of soil and solid waste within
the landfill requiring excavation was made using test pit logs and fill isopach data.
Approximately 34,680 yd3 of soil and solid waste will require excavation from LF-6. The
actual volume of materials requiring removal and consolidation will be determined in the
field by visual observation.
Prior to landfill excavation, a sheet piling wall will be placed along the northern border of
the landfill for excavation dewatering to take place without affecting Grafton Ditch and
associated wetlands. The sheet piling will be keyed into the clay layer located beneath the
northern portions of the landfill and Grafton Ditch, and shall provide a sufficient
hydrogeological barrier during dewatering activities.
The excavated materials will be temporarily stockpiled on top of the landfill within an
earthen bermed area to facilitate transportation to LF-5. A reinforced geomembrane will
be placed on the stockpile, as required, to control odor and paniculate emissions.
Geomembranes also will be placed temporarily on the side slopes of the excavation areas
to control odor and paniculate emissions.
Landfill Excavation/Transportation/Consolidation Construction Sequence
Prior to site excavation activities, the sheet piling wall along the northern perimeter of the
landfill and temporary runoff and erosion controls will be constructed. At the completion
of these activities, excavation will begin in the northern area of the landfill and landfill soil
and solid wastes will be placed south of the excavation. Excavation of the landfill will take
place by first removing the unsaturated soil and solid wastes over a small area of the landfill
and loading the material directly into trucks for transport to LF-5. A sump will then be
MK01\RPT:OM28026.004\K>ne4rod.t« ' 93 i: r 94
-------
constructed in the saturated waste and the area dewatered before excavating additional
material. Groundwater from the excavation dewatering activity will be treated in a mobile
groundwater treatment plant (GWTP) and discharged to the local POTW.
During excavation, both unsaturated and saturated soils and solid waste will be visually
screened for drums, stained soils, or pockets of visually differing materials. Drums or
materials identified as being potentially hazardous as a result of the visual screening process
will be staged separately from the rest of LF-6 excavated materials. These suspect materials
will be sampled to determine the waste classification. Materials classified as hazardous will
be disposed of off base at an appropriate treatment/disposal facility. Suspect materials
classified as nonhazardous will be transported with the rest of LF-6 soil and solid waste for
consolidation into LF-5 prior to final closure of LF-5.
Soil and solid wastes will be stockpiled on top of or adjacent to LF-6 within earthen berms.
Liquids from the stockpile will be allowed to flow back into the excavation where the
dewatering process will remove and treat them. After liquids have drained from the soil
and solid waste, the material will be loaded into trucks and transported to LF-5.
Transport to LF-5 will take place using watertight, covered trailers to prevent releases of
excess leachate or solid waste on roadways located between the two sites. At LF-5 the
material will be spread and compacted in conjunction with LF-5 closure plans. Continuous
air monitoring will be conducted during landfill excavation to determine the level of worker
protection warranted and to evaluate potential air emissions that could affect the
community.
Clean fill will be backfilled into the LF-6 excavation and compacted as required to prevent
significant settlement. The site would be graded in conjunction with the final grading and
wetlands restoration plan.
MK6l\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.ttt 94 12/27/94
-------
Excavation Dewatering and Treatment
A dewatering system will be employed during construction to facilitate excavation within the
saturated zone of waste. Preliminary estimates indicate that groundwater will be extracted
at a rate of approximately 50 gallons per minute (gpm) during excavation. Groundwater will
be extracted from a sump within the excavated area. The extracted groundwater will be
treated in a mobile GWTP employing ion exchange, multimedia filtration, and activated
carbon for organic and inorganic contaminant removal.
Landfill Restoration/Wetlands Restoration Plan
After the landfill soil and solid waste had been excavated and removed from LF-6, a final
survey of the area will be made. If necessary, the area will be regraded and/or backfilled
with clean soil to bring the grade to the contours required for wetlands restoration.
Approximately 2.2 acres of wetlands will be restored in the footprint of LF-6. The restored
wetlands area will be contiguous with the existing marsh and wetlands associated with
Grafton Ditch.
Herbaceous and shrub species will be planted in the area of wetlands restoration. These
species will be similar to those found in the adjacent wetlands. The specified plant species
will provide cover and food for the variety of wildlife species found in Zone 4.
Environment al Monitoring
A long-term environmental monitoring plan will be implemented and will include
groundwater, surface water, and sediment sampling and analysis to allow for the continued
evaluation of the effectiveness of the selected remedial action in Zone 4. 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.). Surface water and sediment sampling will be
performed to monitor surface water and sediment quality in Grafton Ditch.
MKOl\RPT:0062SOZ6.«M\zone4rod.t* 95 12/27/94
-------
Groundwater samples will be collected semiannually from monitor weils located at or near
the perimeter of the GMZ. Analytes will likely include VOCs, SVOCs, and metals. Within
the GMZ, monitor wells selected to' evaluate the LF-6 source area will be sampled
triannually for the first 5 years after remedial action implementation, and then semiannually
thereafter. For cost-estimating purposes, it is assumed that monitoring will continue for 30
years. However, the sampling program will be conducted until ARARs are achieved.
Surface water and sediment locations will be sampled semiannually for the first 5 years after
remedial action implementation, and then annually thereafter. Surface water samples will
be analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and metals. Sediment samples will be analyzed for SVOCs
and metals.
The details of the groundwater, surface water, and sediment monitoring programs will be
finalized during remedial design. Modifications to the monitoring plan would be expected
over time based on the interpretation of analytical results. In addition, over the long term,
it is likely that fewer monitoring locations would be required as a result of the effectiveness
of the remedial action in removing the source materials in LF-6 and eliminating contact of
these materials with the groundwater.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zonc4tod.t« 96 12/27/94
-------
XI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The remedial action selected for implementation for Zone 4 is consistent with CERCLA
and, to the extent practicable, the NCP. The selected remedy is protective of human health
and the environment, attains ARARs, and is cost effective. The selected remedy also
satisfies the statutory preference for treatment that permanently and significantly reduces
the TMV of hazardous substances as a principal element. Additionally, the selected remedy
uses alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable.
A. The Selected Remedy Is Protective of Human Health and the Environment
The remedy at this zone 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:
• Excavation of contaminated landfill soil and solid waste from LF-6, thereby
eliminating leaching of contaminants from soil to groundwater and reducing
receptor exposure.
• Dewatering of landfill soil and solid waste during excavation and treatment
of water to reduce toxicity prior to discharge to a local POTW.
• Establishment of a GMZ and deed restrictions on groundwater use in Zone 4.
B. The Selected Remedy Attains ARARs
This remedy wilLattain all federal and state ARARs that apply to Zone 4. Environmental
laws from which ARARs for the selected remedial action are derived, and the specific
ARARs are as follows:
• Chemical-Specific ARARs.
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
MKDl\RPT:00628026.004\zonD4iod.wt 97 12/27/94
-------
State of New Hampshire Ambient Groundwater Protection
Regulations — Env-Ws 410.
State of New Hampshire Primary Drinking Water Criteria — Env-Ws
316 and 319.
State of New Hampshire Surface Water Quality Regulations.
• Location-Specific ARARs.
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
Executive Order 11990 (40 CFR 6, Appendix A), Protection of
Wetlands.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA).
Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 404 (40 CFR 230 and 30 CFR 320
through 330), Prohibition of Wetlands Filling.
State of New Hampshire Groundwater Management Regulations —
Env-Ws 410.26.
State of New Hampshire Dredging Rules - Env-Ws 415, Env-Wt 300
through 400, and Env-Wt 600.
• Action-Specific ARARs.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA.
Clean Air Act (CAA).
State of New Hampshire Hazardous Waste Management Act.
State of New Hampshire Solid Waste Management Act.
State of New Hampshire Groundwater Protection Regulations —
Env-Ws 410.
The basewide ARARs document (G-614) identifies and describes ARARs for Pease AFB.
Table 22 in Appendix A of this ROD provides a complete list of ARARs and to be
considered (TBC) criteria (federal and state criteria considered pertinent but not legally
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\ione4rod.txt 98 12/27/94
-------
binding) for Alternative 4, 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 TBC. It is noted that the NHDES Solid Waste
Rules Env-Wm 2604, Infectious Waste, requires that infectious waste be treated before
disposal. However, NHDES has determined that Env-Wm 2604 is not applicable to the
medical waste found in LF-6, and that the medical waste does not require treatment because
of the amount of time that the waste has been in LF-6 and the fact that soil and solid waste
from LF-6 will be placed in a landfill (LF-5) that will have a RCRA Subtitle C-type cap.
Therefore, Env-Wm 2604 is not applicable to the medical waste in LF-5, and while Env-Wm
2604 is relevant because of the presence of infectious waste, it is not appropriate.
Accordingly, Env-Wm 2604 is not an ARAR.
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 costs). Once alternatives that were 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 of
contaminants through treatment, and short-term effectiveness.
Summaries of the costs of all the remedial alternatives follow. All costs are presented in
net present-worth costs.
Remedial Alternative
1. No Action
2. Limited Action/Institutional Controls (i;e.,
fencing; deed restrictions; soil, groundwater,
and surface water monitoring; and GMZ).
Capital Cost
Not costed
$77,800
Present-Worth
O&M Cost at
Year 30
Not costed
$2,143,900
Total Present-
Worth Cost
Not costed
$2,222,000
MK01\RPT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.txt
99
-------
Remedial Alternative
Capital Cost
Present-Worth
O&M Cost at
Year 30
Total Present-
Worth Cost
3. Excavation and Consolidation of Landfill
Soil and Solid Waste in Contact with
Groundwater, On-Zone Groundwater
Treatment and Disposal for Excavation
Dewatering, Capping of LF-6, and
Institutional Controls.
$2,805,600
$2,398,300
$5,204,000
4. Excavation of Landfill Soil and Solid Waste,
On-Base Disposal at LF-5 of Landfill Soil
and Solid Waste, On-Zone Groundwater
Treatment for Excavation Dewatering,
Discharge of Treated Groundwater to the
Local POTW, and Institutional Controls.
$2,530,200
$2,065,400
$4,596,000
5. Excavation of Landfill Soil and Solid Waste,
On-Zone Groundwater Treatment and
Disposal for Excavation Dewatering, On-
Base Disposal at LF-5 of Landfill Soil and
Solid Waste, Collection and On-Zone
Treatment of Recovered Overburden
Groundwater, Discharge of Treated
Groundwater to Recharge Trenches, and
Institutional Controls.
$3,494,500
$4,890,000
$8,385,000
6. Excavation and Off-Base Disposal of
landfill Soil and Solid Waste, Excavation
and Off-Base Treatment/Disposal of
Medical Waste from LF-6, On-Zone
Groundwater Treatment and Disposal for
Excavation Dewatering, Collection and
On-Zone Treatment of Recovered
Overburden and Bedrock Groundwater,
Discharge of Treated Groundwater to
Recharge Trenches, and Institutional
Controls.
$17,123,000
$5,195,100
$22,318,000
Four of the six alternatives provide protection to human and ecological receptors and attain
ARARs: Alternatives ^"through 6. Alternative 4 is the most cost effective, and its cost is
proportional to its overall effectiveness, A summary of the costs for key elements associated
with Alternative 4 (in net present-worth costs) is presented as follows:
MK01\RFT: 0062S026.004\2one4nxI.txt
100
12/27/94
-------
Component of Remedy
Landfill Excavation/Disposal on LF-5
Site Restoration
Temporary GWTP
Miscellaneous
O&M
Total (rounded)
Present-Worth Cost
$789,800
$537,700
$348,700
$853,980
$2,065,400
$4,596,000
O&M includes groundwater, surface water, and sediment monitoring; monitor well
maintenance; and 5-year SARA reviews, intended to review the status and progress of the
remedial action, as discussed in 40 CFR 300.430(f)(4)(ii). Miscellaneous includes
mobilization, demobilization, air quality monitoring, health and safety costs, engineering,
procurement, administrative and legal fees, and contingency costs.
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 which
alternative 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 of contaminants through treatment; (3) short-term effectiveness; (4)
implementability; and (5) cost. The balancing test emphasized long-term effectiveness and
permanence and the reduction of TMV of contaminants through treatment, and considered
the preference for treatment as principal element, the bias against off-site land disposal of
untreated waste, and community and state acceptance. Of the alternatives evaluated, the
selected remedy provides the most favorable balance of the factors considered.
Alternatives 5 and 6 involve treatment of contaminated groundwater, and based on an
emphasis on the reduction of TMV of contaminants through treatment, these alternatives
slightly outrank Alternative 4. Over the long term, however, it is expected that Alternatives
MKOl\RPT:0062S026.
-------
4, 5, and 6 will all achieve the same level of reduction in TMV. Alternatives 3 through 6
provide increasing levels of long-term effectiveness by reducing the potential magnitude of
residual risks. However, the costs for Alternatives 5 and 6 exceed those for Alternative 4
by 100% and 500%, respectively.
E. The Selected Remedy Satisfies the Preference for Treatment That Permanently and
Significantly Reduces the TMV of Hazardous Substances as a Principal Element
The principal element of the selected remedy is the excavation and removal of waste from
LF-6 and management of groundwater contamination. Together, these elements address the
primary threat at the site, namely, direct contact of landfill contaminants with groundwater
and further migration of these contaminants to groundwater and surface water.
Treatment is not the principal element of the selected alternative because treatment of
landfill soil and solid waste is not cost effective given that consolidation of LF-5 is an
available option. Consolidation minimizes the total base areas requiring long-term
management.
MK01\RFT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.ttt 102 12/27/94
-------
XII. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Draft Final Zone 4 FS Report (G-631) was completed in November 1993. The
description of Alternative 4 in that document indicated that treated water generated from
excavation dewatering activities would be discharged to on-zone groundwater recharge
trenches. Based on preliminary design considerations, a modification of this alternative
involves disposal of treated groundwater from excavation dewatering to the local POTW via
the sanitary sewer. This modification was included in the Draft Final Zone 4 Proposed Plan
(G-688). No other changes to the Zone 4 selected remedy since issuance of the Draft Final
Zone 4 Proposed Plan have occurred.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4KXi.ixt 103 12/27/SM
-------
XIII. STATE ROLE
NHDES reviewed the various alternatives and indicated its support for the selected remedy.
NHDES also reviewed the Zone 4 RI Report, including the risk assessment, and the Zone
4 FS Report to determine whether the selected remedy is in compliance with state ARARs.
NHDES concurs with the selected remedy for Zone 4. A copy of the Declaration of
Concurrence is provided in Appendix B.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\ione4tod.un 104 12/27/94
-------
REFERENCES
G-84 CH2MHill. 1984. Installation Restoration Program Records Search for Pease AFB,
NH.
G-116 Driscoll, F.G. 1986. Groundwater and Wells. Second edition. Johnson Division, St.
Paul,MN.
G-150 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1985. Development of Statistical
Distributions or Ranges of Standard Factors Used in Exposure Assessments. Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. OHEA-E-161.
G-194 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. Supplemental Risk Assessment
Guidance for the Superjund Program. Draft Final. U.S. EPA Region I Risk
Assessment Work Group. EPA/901/5-89/001.
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-330 Kabata-Pendias, A. and H. Pendias. 1984. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants. CRC
Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.
G-337 Kelley, J.T. and A.R. Kelley (eds.). 1986. "Coastal Processes and Quaternary
Stratigraphy of Northern and Central Coastal Maine." SEPM Eastern Section Field
Trip. 15 to 18 May 1986.
G-415 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1990. "The Potential
for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National
Status and Trends Program." NOAA Technical Memorandum. NOS OMA 52.
Seattle, WA.
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.
MK01\RFT:0062S02fi.004\zone4rod.rcf R-l 12/06 '94
-------
G-531 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1988. Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Pease AFB, NH. August 1988.
G-533 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1989. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2
Draft Final Report, Pease AFB, NH.
G-536 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1989. Interim Technical Report No. 3 for the
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Pease AFB, NH. February 1989.
G-537 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1989. Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Pease AFB, NH. April 1989.
G-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-593 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1992. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Site
Characterization Summary, Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH. May 1992.
G-599 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1992. Off-Base Well Inventory Letter Report. Pease
AFB, NH. 17 September 1992.
G-609 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Background Values for Soil, Groundwater,
Surface Water, and Sediment at Pease Air Force Base, Letter Report. February 1993.
G-614 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4,
Basewide ARARs, Pease AFB, NH. January 1993.
G-631 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4,
Zone 4 Draft Final Feasibility Study Report, Pease AFB, NH. November 1993.
G-632 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4,
Zone 4 Draft Final Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH. September 1993.
G-688 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1994. Installation Restoration Program, Draft Final
Proposed Plan for Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH. April 1994.
G-690 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Underground Storage Tank Program, Phase
III; Limited Site Investigation Report, Volume III: Site 40: Auto Hobby Shop,
Building 103 (Tank 103.00), Pease AFB, NH. October 1993.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\ione4ro
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AALs
AFB
AFCEE/ERB
AHC
ARARs
AWQC
BTEX
CAA
CERCLA
CTVs
CWA
DEQPPM
DOD
EPA
EqP
ER-L
ER-M
FFA
FS
ftBGS
FWCA
GMZ
gpm
GPR
GWTP
HQAFBCA
HSWA
IRP
ISA
IS/PA
ITR
LS
MCL
MCLG
MMR
MOU
NC
NCP
NHANG
NHDES
NHPA
NMOCs
NOAA
NPL
O&M
ambient air limits
Air Force Base
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence/Base Closure Division
aromatic hydrocarbon
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Ambient Water Quality Criteria
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
Clean Air Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Critical Toxicity Values
Clean Water Act
Defense Environmental Quality Program Policy Memorandum
Department of Defense
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Equilibrium Partitioning
biological effects range — low
biological effects range — median
Federal Facilities Agreement
Feasibility Study
feet below ground surface
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Groundwater Management Zone
gallons per minute
ground-penetrating radar
groundwater treatment plant
Headquarters Air Force Base Conversion Agency
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
Installation Restoration Program
Initial Screening of Alternatives
Industrial Shop/Parking Apron
Interim Technical Report
Lower Sand
Maximum Contaminant Level
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
Massachusetts Military Reservation
Memorandum of Understanding
not calculated
National Contingency Plan
New Hampshire Air National Guard
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
National Historic Preservation Act
nonmethane organic compounds
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Priorities List
operation and maintenance
MKOl \RPT:00628026.004\ione4ro
-------
PA/SI
PAH
PDA
POTW
QAPP
RAO
RCRA
RfD
RI
RME
ROD
SAP
SARA
SI
TRC
USAFOEHL
LIST OF ACRONYMS
(Continued)
Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation
polymiclear aromatic hydrocarbon
Pease Development Authority
Publically Owned Treatment Works
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Remedial Action Objective
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
reference dose
Remedial Investigation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Record of Decision
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Site Investigation
Technical Review Committee
U.S. Air Force Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory
MK01\RPT:0062a026.0W\zone4nxJjCT
Acr-2
12/06/94
-------
APPENDIX A
TABLES
MK01\RPT:00623026.0W\zon«4rod.lbl
-------
Table
Summary of Stages 1 Through 4 Activities
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
. ' STAGE 1
Date
Activity
Scope
Purpose
LF6
11/84- 1/85
3/85-4/85
4/85-5/85
5/85
1/86
Monitor well installation and
development
Groundwater sampling (round 1)
Groundwater sampling (round 2)
Surveying
Slug tests
533 through 535 (RFW-33
through RFW-35)
533-535
533-535
533-535
533-535
Assess any impact LF-6 might have on local
groundwatcr and surrounding wetlands.
Evaluate groundwater for TOX, TOC, O&G,
phenols, and metals.
Same as round 1.
Determine elevations and locations.
Assess hydraulic conductivity.
Date
11/84
3/85-4/85
4/85-5/85
5/85
1/86
Activity
Monitor well installation and
development
Groundwater sampling (round 1)
Groundwater sampling (round 2)
.Surveying .
Slug tests
Scope
CRD-2
532 (RFW-32)
532
532
532
532
Purpose
Installed downgradient to evaluate whether the
contamination is migrating into wetlands.
Evaluate groundwater for TOX, TOC, O&G,
phenols, and metals.
Same as round 1.
Determine elevations and locations.
Assess hydraulic conductivity.
MKni\KI'l':(KI62H(l2f.(KM\-nme4ro
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stages 1 Through 4 Activities
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
STAGE 1
Date
' Activily
Scope 1
Purpose
Grafton Ditch
11/84, 3/85, and
8/85
Surface water and sediment sampling
SW22 through SW29 and
SD3 through SD5
Monitor water
outfalls and to
off base.
quality changes with distance from
evaluate whether waste is migrating
Date
2/85
3/85-4/85
4/85-5/85
5/85
1/86
Activity
Monitor well installation and
development
Groundwater sampling (round 1)
Oroundwatcr sampling (round 2)
Surveying
Slug tests
Scope
AIIS Vicinity
523 (RFW-23)
523
523
523
523
Purpose
Installed downgradicnt to evaluate whether
contamination is migrating into wcthimls.
Evaluate groundwater for TOX, TOC, O&O,
phenols, and metals.
Same as round 1.
Determine elevations and locations.
Assess hydraulic conductivity.
MK28026.IKMV<>nc4rod.l1>l
A-2
12/22/W
-------
Table
Summary of Stages 1 Through 4 Activities
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
STAGE 2
Dale
Activity
Scope
Purpose
Reference
LF-«
10/87-12/87
10/87-12/87
Began tl/87
11/87
3/88
3/88
3/88
3/88
10/88
Aerial photograph review
Magnetometer survey
Water level measurements
(quarterly)
(iround penetrating radar
(GPR)
Excavation of test pits
Sampling of test pits
Piezometer installation in
test pits
Air sampling
Soil borings
Photographs from 1952, 1960, and
1976
Gridded areas of LF-6
Stage 1 wells; Stage 2 wells as
installed
C! ridded areas of LF-6
It) lest pits (931) through 939) in
areas of magnetic and GPR
anomalies
931, 933, and 938
930 and 937
13 air samples at various locations
around the test pits
2 soil hortngs (770 and 771)
Obtain a history of the types of waste disposal
activities, drainage patterns, and land use.
Locate magnetic anomalies.
.Assess hydrologic characteristics.
Further characterize areas containing
magnetic anomalies.
Characterize subsurface conditions and obtain
soil samples for laboratory analysis.
Analyze for various parameters including
VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, herbicides,
cyanide, and metals.
Obtain water-level measurements (both
subsequently vandalized and destroyed).
Analyze for VOCs.
Chemical and geotechnical analyses to
characterize soil contamination, both lateral
and vertical.
G-530
G-530
G-530
G-530
G-531
G-531
G-531
G-531
G-536
MK2K02
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stages 1 Through 4 Activities
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
STAGE 2
Date 1 Activity
Scope
Purpose
Reference
Lf-6 (Continued)
10/88
in/88
9/88-10/88
11/88
11/88-12/88
12/88 and
5/89
Additional test pits
Piezometer installation
Bedrock well installation and
development
Mini-rate pumping test
Survey
Groundwatcr sampling,
rounds 1 and 2
3 test pits (977, 978, and 979)
In soil boring 770, and test pits
977 and 978
607, 608, and 609
609
Tcsl pits, piezometers, and
monitor wells
533, 534, 535, 607, 608, and 609
Further define the limits of the fill.
Obtain water level measurements.
Evaluate bedrock water quality and define
gruundwatcr flow direction.
Evaluate aquifer characteristics in the
overburden and bedrock.
Determine elevations and locations.
Evaluate ground water for VOCs, SVOCs,
pcsticidcs/PCBs, herbicides, dissolved metals,
common anions, total hardness, and
nitrate/nitrite.
G-536
G-536
G-536
G-536 and
G-537
G-536
G-537
Date
Activity
Scope
Purpose
Reference
CRD-2
10/87-12/87
Began 11/87
3/8H
Aerial photograph review
Water level measurements
(quarterly)
Excavation of (csl pits
Photographs from 1952, 1960, and
1976
Stage 1 wells; Stage 2 wells as
installed
5 test pits (960 through %4)
Obtain a history of the types of waste disposal
activities, drainage patterns, and land use.
Assess hydro logic characteristics
Visual identification of waste types.
G-530
G-530
G-531
A-4
I2/22/9'1
-------
Table
Summary of Stages I Through 4 Activities
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
STACE 2
Dale
Activity
Scope | Purpose
Reference
CRD-2 (Continued)
3/S8
10/88
H1/K8
10/88
10/88
11/88
M/88
11/88-12/88
12/8K and
V«'>
Piezometer installation in
test pits
Soil boring
Piezometer installation
Bedrock well installation
and development .
Overburden well installation
and development
Mini-rate pumping test
Slug test
Survey
Groundwalcr sampling,
rounds 1 and 2
%3
2 soil borings (784 and 785)
In soil borings 784 and 785
619
558 (clustered with 619)
619
558
Test pits, piezometers, and
monitor wells
532, 558, and 619
Obtain water level measurements.
For chemical and gcolcchntcal analyses to
characterize soil contamination, both lateral
and vertical.
Obtain water level measurements.
Evaluate bedrock water quality and define
groundwatcr flow direction.
Evaluate overburden water quality and define
groundwater flow gradients between the
overburden and bedrock (low zones.
Evaluate aquifer characteristics in the
overburden and bedrock.
Evaluate aquifer characteristics in the
overburden.
Dctcrmihe elevations and locations.
Evaluate groundwatcr for VOCs, SVOCs,
pesticidcs/PCBs, herbicides, dissolved metals,
common an ions, total hardness, and
nilratc/nitrilc.
G-531
G-536
G-536
G-536
G-536
G-536 and
G-537
G-536 and
G-537
G-536
G-537
MKni\K)rl'-lilir,2WI2fi Ill>4\sitni-4nu
A-5
-------
Table I
Summary of Stages 1 Through 4 Activities
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
STAGE 2
Date
'Activity
Scope
Purpose
Reference
Grafton Ditch
4/88
11/88
11/88-12/88
5/89
Installation of staff gages
Round 1 surface water and
sediment sampling
Surveying of staff gages
Round 2 surface water and
sediment sampling
807 through 810
807 through 810
807 through 810
807 through 810
Surface water and sediment sampling.
Sampled for VOCs, SVOCs, pcsticides/PCBs,
herbicides, metals, and TPHs.
Determine surface water elevations.
Sampled for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticidcs/PCBs,
herbicides, metals, TPHs, cyanide, BOD,
COD, TOC, ammonia, and nitrate/nitrite.
G-536
O-536
t!-53f>
CJ-537
AHS Vicinity
11/88
5/89
Round 1 groundwalcr
sampling
Round 2 groundwater
sampling
523
523
Evaluate bedrock water quality parameters.
Evaluate bedrock waler quality parameters.
fJ-536
t;-.S37
STAGE 3
Date
8/90
8/90
9/91
Activity
Surface soil sampling
Gruundwatcr sampling
Groundwater sampling
Scope
Soil samples 301-304
Well 523
Well 523
Purpose
Assess surface soil contamination.
Assess groundwater quality.
Assess shallow bedrock groundwatur quality.
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stages I Through 4 Activities
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
1
STAGE 4
Dale
Activity
Scope
Purpose
LF-6
7/91
8/91
10/91
HI/'M
10/9)
10/91-11/91
10/91-11/91
11/91
12/91, in/92,
and 1 1/92
5/92
5/92
r>/92
Monthly water level
measurements
Surface soil sampling •
Strat (graphic borings
Pic/oinclcr installation
Fish sampling
Overburden well installation
and development
Bedrock well installation and
development
Survey
Groundwatcr sampling
Bedrock well installation and
development
Overburden well installation
and development
Straligrapliic borings and
|>ic/.«i meter installation
All monitor wells, piezometers, and staff
gages
3018, 1019, 3020
8 borings (7401-7404 and 7406-7409)
2 piezometers (741)2 and 74(13)
Beaver Pond
8 wells (5033, .'5036-5040, 5043, and 5044)
2 wells (6026 and 6032)
Bedrock wells, overburden welts, and
borings
See Appendix B of the Draft Final
Zone 4 Rl Report (G-632).
2 bedrock wells (6053 and 6054)
2 overburden wells (5066 and 5068)
2 soil borings with pie/omclcrs (7468 and
74TW)
Characterize overburden and bedrock
groundwalcr flow patterns.
Perform risk analysis.
Optimize well placement and collect
gcotechnical samples.
Obtain water level measurements.
Evaluate Fish population evaluation.
Monitor overburden water quality.
Monitor for bedrock water quality.
Establish accurate locations and elevations.
Characterize water quality of overburden
and bedrock monitor wells.
Replace bedrock wells 608 and 607.
Characterize overburden water quality
downgradicnt of LF-6.
Characterize the overburden groundwater
ftdw pattern.
MKIII\Hi'i'OI)f.2K02f..O(H\7onc1r(>d.lhl
A-7
12/22/'M
-------
Table 1
Summary or Stages 1 Through 4 Activities
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued).
Date
7/92
8/92
8/92
9/92
9/92-10/92
9/92-10/92
10/92
10/92
12/92
10/92-11/92
11/92
Aclivity
Groundwaler sampling
Test pit excavation
Piezometer installation
Surface soil samples
Shallow and deep bedrock
well installation and
development
Stralmraphic borings and
bedrock coring
Modify construction of well
603
Slug test welts and
piezometers
Piezometer installation
Surface soil sample
STAGE 4
Scope
LF-6 (Continued)
Wells 608, 5066, 5068, 6053, 6054;
piezometers 978, 7403, 7468, and 7469
7 test pits (9050-9056)
Test pits 9051, 9052, 9054, 9055, and 9056
7 soil samples (3032-3038)
2 wells |
-------
Table I
Summary of Stages 1 Through 4 Activities
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
STAGE 4
Date
Activity
Scope
Purpose
LF-6 (Continued)
12/92
1/93
5/W
5/9.1
6/93
6/»»
6/93
6/93
Groundwaler sampling
(Jroundwater sampling
Bedrock well installation
Soil boring and pic/omctcr
ins! alia) inn
Well development
Groiimlwaler sampling
Step lest and long-term
pumping test
Survey
4 piezometers (7402, 7621, 9055, and
9056)
Pic/omeler 7621
Bedrock well 61 15
Soil borings 7858 and 7859;
borings/piezometers 7860, 7861, and 7872
Well 6115 and piezometer 7600
Wells 6032, 6081, 6082, and 61 15;
piezometer 7600.
Well 6115
Well 6115; borings 7858-7861 and 7872
Collect additional data on contaminant
distribution in LF-6.
Confirm VOC concentrations.
Collect additional data on bedrock
groundwatcr contamination and for (he
pumping lest.
Collect straligraphic information and
additional monitoring points for the
pumping test.
Perform groundwatcr sampling.
Collect additional ground water data.
Estimate hydraulic parameters and
determine degree of hydraulic
communication between bedrock and
overburden. '
Establish accurate locations and elevations.
MKUl\kl'l':(KI(i2K(]2fi.lKrt\/Iinc4r<>d.lhl
A-9
I2/22/-M
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stages 1 Through 4 Activities
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
STAGE 4
Date
Activity
Scope
Purpose
CRD-2
7/91
10/91-11/91
10/91-11/91
10/91-11/91
11/91
12/91 and
in/92
4/92-5/92
5/92
5/92
7/92
8/92
Monthly water level
measurements
Stratigraphic borings and
piezometer installation
Overburden welt installation
and development
Bedrock well installation and
development
Survey
Groumlwater sampling
Risk assessment borings
Slratigraphic borings and
piezometer installation
Overburden well installation
and development
Ci round water sampling
Test pit excavation
All monitor wells, piezometers, and staff
gages
2 borings with piezometers (7405 and
7410)
4 wells (5034, 5035, 5041, and 5042).
I well (6030)
Bedrock wells, overburden wells, and
borings
See Appendix B of the Draft Final Zone 4
Rl Report (G-632).
6 borings (7455-7460); pie/omcters
installed in 7458 and 7460
2 soil borings with piezometers (7459 and
7467)
1 well (5067)
Overburden well 5067
6 lest pits (9057-9062)
Characterize overburden and bedrock
groundwater flow patterns.
Evaluate stratigraphy and characterize
overburden groundwalcr flow patterns.
Monitor overburden water quality.
Monitor bedrock water quality.
Establish accurate locations and elevations.
Characterize water quality of overburden and
bedrock monitor wells.
Perform risk assessment and characterization
of overburden groundwater (low.
Characterize overburden groundwater flow.
Monitor overburden groundwater quality
downgradient of CRD-2.
Screen possible northeastern migration of
contaminants.
Chemically and physically characturi/.u soil
contaminants and potential treatment volumes.
MKl>l\JU'T:llOfi2KU2M«HV<>nc<1rtjd.lhl
A-10
!2/22/'M
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stages 1 Through 4 Activities
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
STAGE 4
Dale
Activity
Scope
Purpose
CRO-2 (Continued)
10/92 and
12/92
12/92
Slug lest wells and piezometers
Survey
5041, 5042, 6030
New locations
Evaluate overburden and bedrock flow zone
characteristics.
Determine accurate locations and elevations.
Grafton Ditch
r./9i
6/91
7/91
7/91-8/91
10/91
10/91
10/91
12/92
12/92
12/91
Surface water and sediment
sampling
Mamtbenlhos sampling
Wetlands delineation
Wetlands surveying
Sediment sampling
Ecological investigation
Fish sampling
Surface water and sediment
sampling
Staff gage installation
Survey
Locations 807, 810, and 8046-8055 (see
Table 2.4-8 of (he Draft Final Zone 4 Rl
Report) (G-632).
Locations 807, 8047, 8048, 8052, and 8054
Zone 4
Wetlands delineation
Location 8082
Zone 4
Beaver Pond
Locations 8127 and 8130-8133
Locations 8158, 8173. 8174, 8176, and
8180-8189
New locations
Characterize surface water and sediment
quality.
Compare biological community structure to
surface water and sediment chemistry.
Delineate wetlands boundaries.
Determine accurate boundary.
Characterize sediment quality.
Evaluate and assess vegetation.
Characterize fish population.
Characterize surface water and sediment
quality.
Obtain water level measurements.
Establish accurate locations and elevations.
MKI))\HI'l1:
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stages 1 Through 4 Activities
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
STAGE 4
Date
t Activity
Scope
Purpose
AHS
8/92 and
9/92
9/92
9/92 and
11/92
9/92-10/92
10/92
10/92
10/92
10/92-11/92
11/92
12/92
12/92-1/93
Soil boring and piezometer
installation - LIST
Risk assessment borings and
piezometer installation
Groundwater sampling — LIST
Shallow bedrock well
installation
Well installation and soil
sampling - UST
Surveying — IRP
Power auger soil boring
Survey — UST
Groundwatcr sampling — IRP
Ground water sampling — UST
Soil excavation and sampling
Soil borings 2007-2011 and 2083-2085;
piezometer installed in boring 2008
Borings 7539 and 7541-7544;
piezometers installed in all but 7542
Piezometer 2008
Well 6079
Well 5505
New locations
Borings
New locations
Well r>079; piezometers 2008, 7539,
7541, 7543, and 7544
Wells 5505, 6079; pie/omelcrs 7539,
7541, 7543, and 7544
Former waste oil lank area
Characterize soil around former waste oil
UST.
Perform risk assessment and characterization
of overburden groundwaler flow.
Characterize overburden groundwatcr in
vicinity of former UST.
Characterize shallow bedrock groundwaler.
Characterize upgradienl overburden well.
Establish accurate locations and elevations.
Assess availability of overburden
groundwatcr.
Establish accurate locations and elevations.
Characterize overburden and shallow
bedrock groundwaler quality.
Characterize overburden and shallow
bedrock groundwaler quality.
Remove contaminated soil, iwo oil/watur
separators, and wash rack.
MKlH\KI'r.UtH,2W>260
-------
Table 1
Summary of Stages 1 Through 4 Activities
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
STACK 4
Date
Activity
Scope
Purpose
AHS (Continued)
1/93
2/93
6/93
Well installation - UST
Groundwatcr/sampling —
UST/IRP
(iroundwalcr/.sampling
Piezometer 6097
Piezometers 5505 and 6097
Piezometers 5505, 7539, 7541, 7543,
7544, and 6097; well 6079
Replace piezometer 2008 removed during
excavation.
Characterize overburden ground water
quality.
Confirm overburden groundwalcr quality.
BOD, = Five-day biological oxygen demand.
COD = Chemical oxygen demand.
PCBs = Potychlorinated biphenyls.
TOX = Total organic halogens.
TOC = Total organic carbon.
TPHs = Total petroleum hydrocarbons.
O&G = Oil and grease.
VOCs = Volatile organic compounds.
SVOCs = Semivolatilc organic compounds.
M Kl) I \1U'11:OOfi2B02f..ni W\/i >nc4rnd. 11) I
A-13
I2/22/V4
-------
Table 2
Chemicals of Concern in Site 6 Soil (0 to 2 feet deep)3
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Organics
Acetone
Aroclor-1260
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
aJpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
4-Chloroaniiine
4,4'-DDD'
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dibenzofuran
Dieldrin*
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Frequency
of
Detection6
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(mg/kg)
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'"
(mg/kg)
Mean
Concentration11
(mg/fcg)
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of
the Mean
Concentration
(mg/kg)
6/12
2/11
8/10
3/11
3/11
2/10
3/11
2/11
2/11
5/10
1/11
4/10
5/10
0.010-0.58
0.17-1.8
034-035
0.086-9.2
0.086-0.49
0.34-0.41
0.017-0.18
0.017-0.18
0.017-0.19
0.34-037
0.017-0.18
0.34-0.40
0.34-037
0.016(0.015)-0.050
0.93-0.97
0.078-0.58
0.025-0.034
0.012-0.045
0.10-0.17
0.002-0.11
0.052-0.080
0.015-0.15
0.056-11
0.048
0.081-2.5
0.054-63
0.037
0.45
0.23
0.28*
0.10*
0.17
0.053
0.044
0.054
0.68
0.036
031
0.42
0.089'
1.2'
0.36
2.4=
0.25'
0.20'
0.24'
0.11'
0,16'
5.4
0.075'
0.83
2.1
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene1
Anthracene
Benzo(a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluor anthene
Fluor ene
7/10
1/10
7/10
7/10
7/10
. 7/10
6/10
7/10
7/10
6/10
8/10
6/10
0.34-037
034-0.41
0.34-037
034-037
0.34-037
0.34-037
0.34-037 .
0.34-037
034-037
0.34-037
034-037
034-037
0.037-24
0.13
0.076-46
0.16(0.14)-56
0.14(O.H)-47
0.13(0.11)-43
0.27-38
Q.B(0.11)-35
0.17(0.14)-56
0.13-17
0.041-150
0.047(0.037)-24
1.1
0.18e
1.8
2.5
2.2
1.9
1.6
1.9
2.7
0.78
8.0
1.1
35'
0.19*
65'
66s
48*
38
26
31
68'
6.9
1,708'
20
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\ion«4rod.tbl
A-14
12/22/W
-------
Table 2
Chemicals of Concern in Site 6 Soil (0 to 2 feet deep)*
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Chemical
PAHs (continued)
Indeno(l,23-cd)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Frequency
of
Detection"
Range of
Sample
Quanthation
Limits
(mg/kg)
6/10
7/10
. 7/10
034-037
034-037
034-037
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'
(mg/kg)
Mean
Concentration11
(mg/kg)
0,25-36
031(0.25)-150
025(0.21)-110
1.6
6.8
4.6
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of
the Mean
Concentration
(mg/kg)
24
70T
246'
Inorganics
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Silver
Zinc
2/10
10/10
10/10
4/10
2/10
10/10
1.6-23
3.0" .
20s
0.051-0.12
3.3-4.6
1.0"
2.6-3.2
9.4-138
6.0-148
0.14-4.4
23-53
24-352
13
30
31
0,61
6.6
73
1.9
71
108
27"
33
. ni
The listed chemicals were selected as chemicals of concern for both the human health and ecological risk assessments,
unless otherwise indicated.
"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 mean was calculated using the minimum variance unbiased estimation approach for lognonnally distributed data
(G-262).
"Exceeds the maximum detected and/or averaged concentrations. .
'Chemical was not detected above background.
'Selected as a chemical of concern for the ecological risk assessment only.
kSample quantitation limits were not available. The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
MK01\RPT:0062S026.0W\zone4rod.lb]
A-15
12/23'94
-------
Table 3
Chemicals of Concern in Site 17 Soil (0 to 2 feet deep)*
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Frequency
of
Detection"
Organics
Benzoic acid'
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate*
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
4,4'-DDDe
4,4'-DDE
4,4' -DDT
Dibenzofuran
Endosulfan sulfate
Hcptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
2/6
2/6
.3/7
3/7
3/6
4/6
4/7
2/6
1/7
2/7
2/7
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(mg/kg)
Range of Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'"
(mg/kg)
1.7-2.1
034-0.39
0.088-0.85
0.084-0.85
0.075-036
0.19-0.36
0.017-0.19
034-0.41
0.017-0.36
0.009-0.085
0.008-0.18
0.078-0.082
0.20-0.22
0.012-0.51
0.017-0.45
0.003-0.081
0.009-0.15
0.045-0.17
0.054-0.080
0.016
0.044-0.050
0.009-0.072
Mean
Concentration*
(mgAg)
o.es'
0.19
0.21
0.20
0.073'
0.099
0.083
0.151
o.oer
0.027
0.035
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(mg/kg)
1.0"
0.21
0.35
033
0.12'
O.l5it
0.12
0.2^
O.llf
0.041
0.060
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenapbthylene'
Anthracene'
Benzo(a)anthracenec
Benzo(a)pyrene*
Benzo(b)fluoranthene*
Benzo(g,h,i)pcrylenc'
Beazo(k)fluoranthenc'
Chrysene"
Dibenzo(a,h)anthiacene
Fluoranthene*
Fluorenc
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrenee
Phenantkrene
Pyrene"
5/6
1/6
5/6
5/6
5/6
5/6
4/6
.. 5/6
5/6
3/6
6/6
3/6
4/6
5/6
6/6
0.34-036
0.34-0.41
0.34-0.36
0.34-036
034-0.36
034-0.36
034-0.41
0.34-036
034-036
034-0.41
036
034-0.41
034-0.41
034-036
0.36
0.049-0.17
0.029
0.076-033
0.19-0.93
0.18-0.74
0.11-0.67
0.16-0.75
0.22-0.66
0.17-0.78
0.057-033
0.036-1.8
0.044-0.13
0.15-0.73
0.34-1.4
0.043-2.2
0.10
0.16(
0.16
0.48
0.42
0.42
030
0.45
0.47
0.19
0.92
0.14'
030
0.63
0.99
0.15
0.21f
0.23
0.71
0.61
0.61
0.49
0.63
0.68
0.26
1.5
0.191
0.48
i.O
1.7
MKO1 \ RFT:00628026.004\zone4rOd.lbl
A-16
12/22/94
-------
Table 3
Chemicals of Concern in Site 17 Soil (0 to 2 feet deep)*
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Chemical
Frequency
of
Detection"
Organic* (continued)
Pentachlorophenol
Xylenes (total)
2/6
1/7
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(nig/kg)
Range of Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations''
(mg/kg)
Mean
Concentration13
(mg/kg)
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(mg/kg)
1.7-2.1
0.005-0.006
0.12-0.33
0.028
0.71'
0.0064
uaf
0.013
Inorganics
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Nickel
6/6
1/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
0.20*
2.0-2.3
20*
4.0«
5.0*
031-52
33
1,450-3,250
18-53(55)
16-46(47)
13
u
2,118
28
26
2.9
2.2
2,722
39
35
The listed chemicals were selected as chemicals of concern for both the human health and ecological risk assessments.
bNumber of sampling locations at which the chemical was detected compared with the total number of sampling locations.
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.
'Chemical was not detected above background.
Exceeds the maximum detected and/or averaged concentrations.
The numbers in the table are rounded to two significant figures. The upper 95% confidence limit of the mean
concentration exceeded the maximum concentration based on the unrounded numbers.
"Sample quantitation limits were not available. .The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
MK01\RFT:OW28026.004\zone4nxl.ibl
A-17
12/21/94
-------
Table 4
Chemicals of Concern in Site 17 Soil (0 to 15 feet deep)"
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Frequency
of
Detection"
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(rag/kg)
Range of Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'
(mg/kg)
Mean
Concentration11
(mg/kg)
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Organic*
Benzoic acid
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chiordane
4,4'-DDD!
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dibenzofuran
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
3/8
2/8
3/8
4/8
4/8
4/8
4/8
2/8
2/8
2/8
1/8
1/8
1.7-2.1
034-0.40
0.088-0.92
0.084-0.92
0.017-036
0.017-0.36
0.017-0.19
034-0.41
0.009-0.092
0.008-0.18
034-0.41
034-0.41
0.078-0.99
035(0.20)-0.49(0.78)
0.094(0.012)-0.51
0.096(0.013)-0.45
0.003-0.14(0.097)
0.009-0.093(0.15)
0.043(0.045)-0.13(0.17)
0.12(0.054)-0.14(0.080)
0.044-0.048(0.050)
0.013(0.009)-0.072
0.18
0.25
0.78
0.25
0.20
0.18
0.049
0.059
0.061
o.ir
0.022
0.028
0.19*
0.20
1-0-
032
0.32
0.29
0.081
0.092
0.089
0.19*
0.034
0.046
0.19*
0.21
PAHs
Acenapbthene
Anthracene'
Benzo(a)anthracene'
Benzo(a)pyrene'
Benzo(b)fluoranthene'
Benzo(g,h,i)peryienfit
Benzo(k)fluoranthene'
Chryscne'
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene'
Fluorene
Indeno( l,23-cd)pyrene'
Phenanthrene
Pyreue'
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
5/8
4/8
_ 5/8
5/8
3/8
7/8
3/8
4/8
6/8
7/8
0.34-039
034-039
034-039
034-039
034-039
031-0.41
034-039
034-039
0.34-0.41
0.36-038
034-0.41
0.34-0.41
034-038
0.36-038
0.055(0.049)-0.15(0.17)
0.077(0.049)-0.20(033)
0.29(0.10)-0.56(0.93)
0.21(0. 15)-0.45(0.74)
0.18(0.11)-0.48(0.67)
0.23(0.13)-0.44(0.75)
0.24(0.13)-0.45(0.66)
0.28(0.11)-0.48(0.78)
0.099(0.037)-0. 18(033)
0.036-1.1(1.8)
0.044-0.17(0.13)
0.21(0.13)-0.43(0.73)
0.085-0.84(1.4)
0.043-1.2(2.2)
0.14
0.15
0.32
0.30
0.29
0.24
031
032
0.17
0.54
0.16e
0.23 .
0.38
0.55
o.ir
0.18
0.42
0.37
038
0.29
039
0.40
0.19'
0.81
0.19*
0.29
0.54
0.88
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\ione4rod.tbl
A-18
12/22/94
-------
Table 4
Chemicals of Concern in Site 17 Soil (0 to 15 feet deep)"
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Chemical
Frequency
of
Detection11
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(mg/kg)
Organics (continued)
Peotachlorophenol
Phenol
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2.4,5-Trichlorophenol
2/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1.7-2.1
0.34-0.41
0.34-0.41
1.7-2.1
Range of Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'1
(mg/kg)
Mean
Concentration0
(ng/kg)
0.21(0.087)-O56(0.33)
0.43
0.42
0.24
0.81'
0.22
0.22
0-86'
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Iff
0.28
0.27
Iff
Inorganics
Antimony
Beiyllium
Chromium
Thallium
2/7
9/9
9/9
1/9
20-23
0.20"
4.0*
2.1-17
23-26
0.48((X31)-3.0(5.2)
16-53(58)
20
15
0.87
29
4.4
20
1.4
36
8.3
The listed chemicals were selected as chemicals of concern for both the human health and ecological risk assessments.
"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.
"Arithmetic mean based on the averaged concentrations.
'Exceeds the maximum detected and/or averaged concentrations.
'Chemical was not detected above background.
'Sample quantitation limits were not available. The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
MK01 \RPT:00628026 004\zone4rod. tbl
A-19
12 "12.
-------
Table 5
Chemicals of Concern in Site 40 Soil (0 to 2 feet deep)3
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Organics
Benzoic acid'
Benzyl alcohol
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate'
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Frequency
of
Detection"
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(mg/kg)
Range of Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'
(»gAg)
Mean
Concentration1*
(mg/kg)
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(mg/kg)
7/9
1/9
6/9
1/9
1/9
1/9
3/9
1/9
1/9
1.8-18
034-3.6
034-039
0.34-3.6.
034-3.6
034-3.6
0.34-3.6
0.34-3.6
034-3.6
0.037-0.49(038)
0.095
0.21-1.7
0.049
0.067
0.089
0.12-0.24
0.078
0.049
13'
0.36'
0.44
035*
035'
036'
036'
036' .
035*
3.1'
0.69'
0.75
0.69'
0.69'
0.69'
0.70'
0.691
0.69'
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene'
Anthracene"
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Beazo(b)fluorantheae
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene'
Chrysene"
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene*
Fluorene
Indeno( lA3-cd)pyrene
Fhenanthrene
Pyrene*
2/9
4/9
6/9
7/9
7/9
7/9
7/9
7/9
9/9
- 4/9
9/9
3/9
7/9
6/9
9/9
0.34-3.6
035-3.6
035-3.6
0.39
039
0.39
035-039
039
033*
035-3.6
033*
035-3.6
035-039
039-3.6
033*
0.096(0,048)-O.U(0.096)
0.046-0.18
0.046-0.14
0.17(0.089)- 1.1
0.14(0.083)-1.2
0.13(0.075)-1.7
0.15-23
0.13(0.078)-0.74
0.043-1.4
0.053-0.28
0.050-1.7
0.040-0.11(0.085)
0.14-0.88
0.28(0.10)-O.SO
0.039-2.4
0351
. 032'
031'
0.43
0.45
0.49
0.53
0.36
0.49
036f
0.65
0331
037
0.53
0.72
0.69'
'0.671
0.66(
0.64
0.68
0.82
0.96
0.53
0.78
0.69*
0.96
0.68'
0.53
0.85'
1.2
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.tbl
A-20
12/22/94
-------
Table 5
Chemicals of Concern in Site 40 Soil (0 to 2 feet deep)'
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Chemical
Frequency
of
Detectionb
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(mg/kg)
Range of Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'
(mg/kg)
Mean
Concentration"
(mg/kg)
Inorganics
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
9/9
9/9
5/9
9/9
1/9
1/4
4/4
9/9
8/9
1.0*
4.0*
15-31
20*
2.1-5.6
20-26
20*
4.0*
22
4.4-20(27)
13-41
9.5-65
25-340
15
23
408-7%
9.7-104
49-381
9.5
28
28
100
3.1
14
552
32
120
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(mg/kg)
12
33
42
162
5.7
21
759
50
191
'The listed chemicals were selected as chemicals of concern for both the human health and ecological risk assessments.
"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.
"Arithmetic mean based on the averaged concentrations.
'Chemical was not detected above background.
'Exceeds the maximum detected and/or averaged concentrations.
'Sample quantitation limits were not available. The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
MK01\RPT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.tbl
A-21
-------
Table 6
Chemicals of Concern in Site 40 Soil (0 to 15 feet deep)9
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Organic*
Benzoic acid'
Benzyl alcohol
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Dibenzofuran
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate*
2-Methylnaphthaleiie
Naphthalene
Frequency
of
Detection11
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
. Limits
(mgAg)
Range of Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'
(rag/kg)
Mean
Concentratioa"
(mg/kg)
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(mg/kg)
7/9
1/9
6/9
1/9
1/9
1/9
3/9
1/9
1/9
1.7-18
034-3.6
0.34-0.39
034-3.6
0.34-3.6
0.34-3.6
034-3.6
0.34-3.6
034-3.6
0.067(0.037)-0.71(0.38)
0.095
0.18(0.044)-1,7
0.049
0.067
0.089
0.12-0.24
0.078
0.049
1.4'
0.361
0.42
035*
035*
0361
0.36'
0.35*
035*
3.2f
0.69'
0.72
0.69'
0.69*
0.69'
0.70;
0.69'
0.69'
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthyiene*
Anthracene*
Benzo(a)aothracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fmoranthenee
Chrysene*
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene*
Fluorene
lndeno(l,23-cd)pyrene
Phenaathrene'
Pyrene"
Trichlorofluoromethane
2/9
4/9
6/9
7/9
7/9
7/9
7/9
7/9
9/9
_ 4/9
9/9
3/9
7/9
6/9
9/9
4/9
0.34-3.6
035-3.6
035-3.6
035-0.39
035-039
035-039
035-0.39
035-0.39
035-038
035-3.6
035-0.38
035-3.6
035-039
0.35-3.6
035-0.38
0.005-0.007
0.096(0.048)-0.15(0.096)
0.046-0.18
0.052(0.046)-0.16(0.14)
0.17(0.089)-1.1
0.16(0.083)-1.2
0.15(0.075)-1.7
0.15(0.078)-23 "
0.16(0.078)-0.71(0,74)
0.11(0.043)-1.4
0.053-0.23(0.28)
0.11(0.038)-1.0(1.7)
O.OS5(0.040)-0.15(0.085)
0.14(0.075)-0^8
0.20(0.042)-0.80
0.11(0.036)-2.4
0.002-0.0090
035*
0321
0.32'
039
0.41
0.46
0.50
033
0.47
035' .
034
0.34'
0.33
0.49
0.64
0.0037
0.691
0.671
0.66'
0.58
0.63
0.78
0.92
0.47
0.74
0.69'
0.75
0.68r
0.48
0.82'
1.1
0.0050
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\Zone4rod.tbl
A-22
12/22/
-------
Table 6
Chemicals of Concern in Site 40 Soil (0 to 15 feet deep}*
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
{Continued)
Chemical
Inorganics
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency
of
Detection6
. Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(mg/kg)
Range of Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'
(mg/kg)
Mean
Concentration*
(mg/kg)
9/9
9/9
7/9
9/9
1/9
1/4
4/4
9/9
8/9
Iff
4.0«
15-31
20*
1.9-5.6
20-26
20*
4.0*
22-37
4.4-16(27)
15(13)-41(46)
9,5-65
16(7.1)-340
7.7(15)
23
408-796
9.7-104
33(46)-381
9.6
30
30
90
23
14
552
32
112
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(mg/kg)
12
35
42
155
3.6
21
759
50
186
'The listed chemicals were selected as chemicals of concern for both the human health and ecological risk assessments.
"Number of sampling locations at which the chemical was detected compared with the total number of sampling locations.
If the mjpiTniim or maximum detected concentration differed from the respective miniminn or maximum averaged
concentration, the detected concentration is given in parentheses.
"Arithmetic mean based on the averaged concentrations.
'Chemical was not detected above background. •
'Exceeds the maximum detected and/or averaged concentrations.
'Sample quantitation limits were not available. The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
MKOt\RPT:00628026.«WUone4roet.tbl
A-23
-------
Table 7
Chemicals of Concern in Site 6 Groundwater — Overburden3
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Organics •
Acetone
Benzene
Benzene acid
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
2-Butanone
Chlorobenzene
4-Chloro-3-
methylphenol
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
Diethyl ether
Diethyl phthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Methyl isobutyl ketone
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
Phenol
Toluene
Trichloroethene
1,2,4-
Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5-
Trimethylbenzene
m,p-Xylenes (total)
Frequency
of
Detection*
1/1
7/18
5/17
3/17
1/1
8/18
2/17
6/18
7/18
1/18
1/1
4/17
1/17
7/18
2/18
1/1
5/17
5/17
5/18
~4/16
7/18
5/18
7/18
7/18
7/18
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(A6/L)
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'
<«5/L)
Mean
Concentration11
(Mg/L)
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(^/L)
100
1.0
50-60
10-550
500
1.0-25
10-550
0.50-2.0
0.40-1.0
1.0-10
10
10-12
10-550
1.0
1.0-25
20
10-12
10-12
1.0-5.0
10-550
1.0
0.60-10
1.0
1.0
1.0
105(160)
1.9(1.6)-31(33)
17-2,000(2,200)
1.0-3,500
168(86)
0.35(0.20)-
355(390)
12(ll)-25
030(1.0)-L5(16)
0.60(0.40)-32(34)
22(20-24)
88(170)
3.8(2,0)-165(170)
22(21-23)
3.7(2.8)-125(130)
48(42)-170
120(230)
3.0(2.0)- 135(140)
45-1,750(1,800)
3.0-220
7.0(4.0)-33
0.20-580
030(0.10)-20
0.65(0.80)-40
030(0^0)- 12
6.0-260(280)
105
5.5
157
211
168'
23
22
2.9
5.6
2.2
88
19
21
18
14
120
15
147
16
24
68
2.0
5.8
2.5
37
NAe .
9.4
360
570
NA*
57
4S;
4.7
9.9
4.3
NA*
36
48'
33
31
NA*
29
325
37
52'
129
3.9
10
4.0
67
MK01\RPT.0062S026.004\zone4rod.tbl
A-24
13/22/94
-------
Table 7
Chemicals of Concern in Site 6 Groundwater — Overburden'
Zone 4, Pease AFB, Nrf
(Continued)
Chemical
Frequency
of
Detection*1
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
G*/L)
Organic* (continued)
o-Xylene
7/18
1.0
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'
(A*/L)
Mean
Concentration4
(«g/L)
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(Mg/L)
0.95(0.90)-
130(140)
16
30
Inorganics
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
1/17
6/17
3/17
3/17
2/17
11/17
5/17
17/17
3/17
200
5.0
50
100
10-30
40-181
3.0-5.0
10*
LS
3,406(502-6,310)
7.0-217(220)
69(66)-118
2S7(285)-545(547)
8.0(10)-12(18)
45(43)-
22,150(22,400)
2.0(3.0)-10(32)
17-912(1,220)
12(16)-62
295
24
37
110
' 5.8
2,607
2.7
' 331
12
634
47
49
171
6.7
5,101
3.9
454
18
'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.
'Not applicable. An upper 95% confidence limit of the mean concentration cannot be calculated based on one
data point.
'Exceeds the maximum detected and/or averaged concentrations.
*Sample quantitation limits were not available. The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
MKO:\RFT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.lbt
A-25
12/22 9-i
-------
Table 8
Chemicals of Concern in Site 6 Groundwater — Bedrock3
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Frequency
of
Detection6
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(*g/L)
Ofganics
Benzene
Butyl benzyl
phthalate
Chlorobenzene
1,2-
Dichlorobenzene
1,4-
Dichlorobeazene
Dichlorodi-
Quoromethane
1,1-
Dichloroe thane
Diethyl phtbalate
2,4-
DLmetbylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Isopropyl benzene
4-Isopropyl
toluene
2-Methylphcnol
4-MetbyIphenol
Naphthalene
Phenol
n-Propyibenzene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
3/7
1/7
3/7
1/7
1/7
1/7
3/7
1/7
1/7
3/7
2/7
1/7
1/7
T/7
1/7
1/7
1/7
3/7
. V7
0.70-1.0
10-11
1.0-1.2
0.50-5.0
0.50-5.0
2.0-10
0.40-1.0
10-11
10-11
1.0
1.0
1.0
10-11
10-11
10-11
10-11
1.0-5.0
1.0
0.60-0.50
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'
-------
Table 8
Chemicals of Concern in Site 6 Groundwater — Bedrock"
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Chemical
Frequency
of
Detection11
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(«B/L)
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations1
(MB/L)
Mean
Concentrationd
(«/L)
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(WB/L)
Organic* (continued)
!"> 4-
A, ..,•*-
Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5-
Trimethylbenzene
m.p-Xylenes (total)
o-Xylene
4/7
4/7
3/7
2/7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.25(0.10)-3.0
0.10-2.0
1.0-55(56)
0.40-26
0.86
0.66
8.6
4.1
1.6
1.1
24
11
Inorganics
Calcium (filtered)
(total)
Magnesium
(filtered)
(total)
Potassium
(filtered)
(total)
Sodium (filtered)
(total) "
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
2/7
2/7
7/7
7/7
20tf
20ff
2001
200"
5,000
5,000
900"
900"
1,460-
251,500(254,000)
1,900-
239,000(240,000)
412-
61,900(62,600)
612-
59,650(60,600)
6,450(8,150)-
8,475(10,400)
6,110(7,610)-
8,065(9,720)
9,640-71,100
9,730-66,300
56,427
54,621
14^11
14,005
3,918
3,811
28,903
27,219
121,220
115,846
30,010
29,055
5,747
5,506
43,305
40,461
The listed chemicals were selected as chemicals of concern for the human health risk assessment only.
bNumber of wells at which the chemical was detected compared with the total number of wells.
If the imtrimiiTn 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\R?T:00628026.004Vone4rod.tt)l
A-27
12 -y
-------
Table 9
Chemicals.of Concern in Site 6 Groundwater — Hybrid Wells*
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Organics
Acetone
Benzene
Benzole acid
2-Butanone
Chlorobenzene
Chlorocthane
4-Chloro-3-
methylphenol
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodi-
fluoromethane
Diethvl ether
Diethyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Methyl isobutyl
ketone
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
Toluene
1,2,4-
Trimethylbenzene
U,5-
Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl chloride
Frequency
of
Detection"
3/3
3/3
2/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
1/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
1/3
3/3
-3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
-------
Table 9
Chemicals of Concern in Site 6 Groundwater — Hybrid Wells"
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Chemical
Frequency
Of
Detection11
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
• te/L)
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'
(«/L)
Mean
Concentration*
(«/L)
Organic* (continued)
m,p-Xylenes (total)
o-Xylene
3/3
3/3
0.50'
OJOf
13(6.0)-61(64)
6.0(3.0)-29(37)
30
14
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(«B/L)
75'
36'
Inorganics
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
3/3
3/3
3/3
V3
1/3
3/3
'3/3
3/3
2/3
5.0
50'
1001
5.0
40
4tf
10(
15-83
10-141
107(54)-
405(592)
68(62)-115(163)
182(124)-
992(1,110)
3.1(6.0)
78(62-99)
3,808(679)-
30,600(38,200)
129(100)-
948(2,190)
11(22)-185(242)
63(106)-
125(475)
216
89
540
2.7
39
19,053
547
82
66
493'
129*
1,236*
33*
96'
42,273'
1,238'
236e
163*
The listed chemicals were selected as chemicals of concern for the human health risk assessment only.
"Number of wells at-which the chemical was delected compared with the total number of wells.
If the minimnm 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:00628026.004 \zone4rod.tbl
A-29
12/2'.94
-------
Table 10
Chemicals of Concern in Site 17 Groundwater — Overburden3
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Organics
Benzoic acid
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Chlorobeozenc
4,4'-DDE
1,4-
Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodi-
fiuoromethane
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoro-
methane
Frequency
of
Detection"
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(*«/L)
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'
(«B/L)
Mean
Concentration"1
(«g/L)
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
G«/L)
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
50-55
10-17
1.0-1.2
0.10-0.12
0.5-1.0
2.0-9.0
10-11
1.0
0.60-1.0
1.0-5.0
13
14{30)
030(0.10)
. 0.073(0.090)
0.50
0.60(0.20)
4.0
0.75(1.0)
0.35(0.20)
030(0.10)
25'
6.5
0.4«e
. 0.055
0.48
1.2'
5.1'
0.53
0.461
0.62=
28C
8.6
OJ4e
0.060
OJ2=
1.8e
5.5'
0.59
OJlr
o.9r
Inorganics
Barium (filtered)
Calcium
(filtered)
Copper (filtered)
Iron (filtered)
Magnesium
(filtered)
Manganese
(filtered)
Potassium
(filtered)
2/8
8/8
1/8
2/8
8/8
8/8
5/8
50
2001
10-30
40-141
nyf
10'
5,000
42(60)-107(136)
22,400(10,800)-
173333(183,000)
12
43-55,500(69,800)
2,680(2,200)-
26,250(29,000)
20(16)-
8,260(9,130)
5,940(5,700)-
12,867(13,800)
36
72,988
6,7
843
11,789
936
6,478
57
172,297
9.5
18,878,050'
32,608'
963901
13,282'
MK01\ RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.tbl
A-30
12/27/9*
-------
Table 10
Chemicals of Concern in Site 17 Groundwater — Overburden"
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Chemical
Frequency
of
Detection"
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
(«/!•)
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations'
(«g/L) '
Mean
Concentrationd
(«/L)
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
(«/L)
Inorganics (continued)
Silicon (filtered)
Sodium (filtered)
8/8
7/8
300'
7,070-11,600
5,195(4,980)-
10,493(13,400)
6,370-
26,600(33300)
6,895
11,230
8300
20,289
'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.
The mean was calculated, based on the averaged concentrations, using the minimum variance unbiased
estimation approach for lognonnally distributed data (G-262).
'Exceeds the maximum detected and/or averaged concentrations.
'Sample quantitation limits were not available. The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
MK01\RPT:OOfi28026.004\zone4rod.tbl
A-31
a':" 94
-------
Table 11
Chemicals of Concern in Site 17 Groundwater — Bedrock*
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Organics
Benzoic acid
1,1-Dicbloroethane
Dimetbyl phthalate
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Frequency
of
Detection6
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
C«/L) -
1/2
1/2
V2
1/2
50-64
0^40-LO
10-13
1.0
Range of
Averaged
(Detected)
Concentrations*
(**/!-)
22(7.0)
0.25(0.10)
5.2(4.0)
0.40(030)
Mean
Concentration"1
(**/L)
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit of the
Mean
Concentration
0*A)
24'
0.38*
5.1'
0.45e
33*
1.2'
5.6'
0.7T
Inorganics
Calcium (filtered)
(total)
Potassium (filtered)
(total)
Sodium (filtered)
(total)
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
200£
200'
5,000"
5,000'
900"
9001
98,900(65,200)-
99,800(114,000)
85,850(69,700)-
101,650(104,000)
8,013(7,050)-
11,450(12,300)
7,775(7,720)-
11,300(12,000)
53,625(44,300)-
64,450(68,400)
59,600(57,600)r
67,300(71,400)
99,350
93,750
9,732
9,538
59,038
63,450
99,415
95,438
10,539
10,409
60,299
64,116
'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 TTiVpinyim or maxunumTdetected concentration differed from the respective minitmim or maximum averaged
concentration, the detected concentration is given in parentheses.
"The mean was calculated, based on the averaged concentrations, using the minimum variance unbiased estimation
approach for lognonnally distributed data (G-262).
'Exceeds the maximum detected .and/or averaged concentrations.
'Sample quantitation limits were not available. The method detection limit is indicated (G-563).
MK01\RFT:0062S026.004\ione4rod.tbl
A-32
-------
Table 12
Chemicals of Concern in Site 17 Groundwater — Hybrid Well"
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Frequency
of
Detection"
Range of
Sample
Quantiiation
Limits
(*
-------
Table 13
Chemicals of Concern in Site 40 Groundwater — Overburden and Bedrock"
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
Frequency
of
Detection"
Range of
Sample
Quan diadem
Limits
<«/L)
Organics
13-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethaae
1/6
1/6
2/6
1.0
1.0
1.0
Range of Detected
Concentrations1
0
-------
Table 14
Summary of Exposure Parameters
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
Exposure Roule/Repeptor
All exposure routes
( i round wul er ingcstion — adult resident
Noningusliun gruundwiiler uses — adult
resident
Incidental soil ingcstion — maintenance
worker
Parameter
Averaging lime — noncarcinogenic
risk
Averaging lime — carcinogenic risk
Body weight
Ingcstion rate
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Exposure equivalent
Other parameters
Ingest ion rate
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
Exposure duration (years) x 365 days/year.
70 years x 365 days/year.
70kg.
2 liters/day.
350 days/year.
30 years.
2 liters/day.
Same as ground water ingcstion route.
50 mg/day.
6 days/year for the current maintenance
workers at Sites 6 and 17.
12 days/year for the current maintenance
worker at Site 40 and (he future
maintenance worker at Site 6.
250 days/year for the future maintenance
workers at Sites 17 and 40.
25 years.
Reference
G-225
G-225
G-225
G-217
G-225
G-225
G-225
MKOI\HrI':
A-35
-------
Table 14
Summary of Exposure Parameters
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH .
(Continued)
Exposure Route/Receptor
Parameter
Reference
Dermal contact with soil — maintenance
worker '
Surface area
Adherence factor
Other parameters
1,000 cm2 (one-half of I he mean hand and
forearm surface area of adult males).
0.5 rag/cm*.
Same as incidental soil ingcslion route,
G-150; CM94
G-194
Dermal contact with surface water —
maintenance worker/adult resident/
recreational user
Surface area
Exposure lime
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
2,000 cm2 for the maintenance worker,
based on the mean hand and forearm
surface area of adult mates.
f>,300 cm1 for the resident/recreational
user, based on mean leg and feet surface
area of adult males.
I hour/day.
12 days/year for (lie maintenance worker
(estimated).
75 days/year for the resident/recreational
user,
25 years for the maintenance worker.
3(1 years for the resident/recreational ustr.
Ci-H6
(estimated)
(•-217 (for 75
days/year)
(1-225
MK<]|\KI'l:Unf.2KII2f..rH>4\z<»it')rod.llil
-------
Table 14
Summary of Exposure Parameters
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Exposure Route/Receptor
Parameter
Reference
Incidental sediment ingest ion —
maintenance worker/adult
resident/recreational user
Ingeslion rate
Exposure frequency
Exposure duration
6.25 mg/day (estimated).
12 days/year for the maintenance worker
(estimated).
75 days/year for the resident/recreational
user.
25 years for the maintenance worker.
30 years for the resident/recreational user.
G-217 (for
75 days/year)
G-225
Dermal contact with sediment —
maintenance worker/adult
resitknl/rccreatinnal user
Skin surface area
1,000 cm2.
Sediment-to-skin adherence factor 0.5 mg/cm2.
Other parameters
Same as incidental sediment ingestion
exposure route.
CJ-217
U-225
MKlll\l
-------
Table 15
Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
Medium
1
RME
Total Lifetime Cancer RisklJ>
Mean
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit
Maximum
Total Hazard Index"
Mean
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit
Maximum
Son"1
Site 6 (0 to 2 feel deep)
Site 17 (0 lo 2 feet deep)
Site 17 (0 to 15 feet deep)
Site 40 (0 lo 2 feet deep)
Silc 40 (0 lo 15 feet deep)
Current maintenance
worker
Future maintenance
worker
Current maintenance
worker
Future maintenance
worker
Future maintenance
worker
Current maintenance
worker
Future maintenance
worker
Future maintenance
worker
6E-07 (ALL)
GE-07 (BG)
1E-06 (ALL)
IE-06 (BG)
2E-07 (ALL)
5E-08 (BG)
7E-06 (ALL)
2E-06 (BG)
5E-06 (ALL)
2E-06 (BG)
4E-07 (ALL)
3E-07 (BG)
8E-06 (ALL)
7E-W> (BG)
8E-06 (ALL)
'6E-06 (BG)
1E-05 (ALL)
IE-OS (BG)
2E-05 (ALL)
2E-05 (BG)
3E-07 (ALL)
9E-08 (BG)
IE-OS (ALL)
4E-06 (BG)
7E-06 (ALL)
2E-06 (BG)
6E-07 (ALL)
4E-U7 (BG)
IE-OS (ALL)
l.)li-06 (BG)
IE-OS (ALL)
9E-t)f> (BG)
1E-05(ALL)
IE-OS (BG)
3E-05 (ALL)
3E-05 (BG)
3E-07 (ALL)
IE-07 (BG)
IE-OS (ALL)
6E-06 (BG)
9E-06 (ALL)
4E-06 (BG)
lE-Ofi(ALL)
8E-07 (BG)
2E-05 (ALL)
2E-05 (BG)
2E-05 (ALL)
IE-OS (BG)
5E-04 (ALL)
5E-04 (EC})
1E-03 (ALL)
1E-03 (BG)
3E-04 to
4E-04* (ALL)
3E-04 lo
4E-04C (BG)
1E-02 to
2E-02' (ALL)
IE-02 lo
2E-02' (BCi)
3E-02 (ALL)
3E-02 (BG)
3E-03 (ALL).
3E-03 (B(J)
7E-02 (ALL)
7E-02(BG)
6E-02 to
7E-()2C (ALL)
61Z-02 lo
7E-02' (BG)
2E-03 (ALL)
2E-03 (BG)
4E-03 (ALL) .
4E-03 (BG)
SE-04 to
6E-04* (ALL)
5E-04 lo
6E-04' (BG)
2E-02 (ALL)
2E-02 (BG)
4E-02 (ALL)
4E-02 (BG)
5E-03 (ALL)
5E-03 (BG)
1E-01 (ALL)
1E-01 (BG)
1E-01 (ALL)
IE-OI (B(i)
3E-03 (ALL)
3E-03 (BG)
5E-03 (ALL)
5E-IM (B(i)
6E-04 to
8E-04' (ALL)
6E-04 to
KK-04* (IIG)
3E-02 (ALL)
3E-(I2(B(J)
6E-02 (ALL)
(»E-02 (B(J)
IE-02 (ALL)
IE-02 (BG)
2E-01 (ALL)
2E-01 (BG)
2E-01 (ALL)
211-01 (BG)
MKOI\Kri':IW.2K02f,(«MVoni.-1r
-------
Table 15
Summary or Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
T
Medium
RME
Total Lifetime Cancer Risk""
Mean
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit
Maximum
Total Hazard Index"
Mean
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit
Maximum
(i round water'
She ft overburden
Site ft bedrock
Site ft hybrid wells
Site 17 overburden
Sile 17 bedrock
Site 17 hybrid well
Site 41) overburden and
1 it'll rock
Future on-zonc
resident
Future on-zonc
resident
Future on-zonc
resident
Future on -zone
resident
Future on-zone
resident
Future on-zonc
resident
Future oa-/one
resident
5E-04
(filtered)
2E-06
(filtered)
2E-06
(total)
5E-03
(filtered)
2E-06
(filtered)
NC
NA
KE-04
{filtered)
1E-03
(filtered)
4E-06
(filtered)
4E-06
(total)
8E-03
(filtered)
2E-06
(filtered)
NC
NA
1B-03
(filtered)
5E-03
(filtered)
9E-06
(filtered)
9E-06
(total)
8E-03
(filtered)
3E-06
(filtered)
NC
NA
1E-03
(filtered)
7E+00
(filtered)
3E-01
(filtered)
3E-01
(total)
3E+01
(filtered)
5E+OU
(filtered)
2E-02
(filtered)
2E-02
(lulal)
IE-01
(filtered)
•JE + 00
(filtered)
1E + 01
(filtered)
6E-01
(filtered)
6E-01
(total)
5E + 01
(filtered)
5E+01
(filtered)
2E-02
(fdlcrcd)
2E-02
(total)
IE-01
(filtered)
2E + 01
(filtered)
6E+01
(filteretl)
1E + 00
(filtered)
lE^OO
(total)
5E+01
(filtered)
5E+01
(filtered)
2E-02
(filtered)
2E-02
(total)
lE-01
(filtered)
2E+01
(filtered)
A-3»
I2/27/V4
-------
Table 15
Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Medium
!
RME
Total Lifetime Cancer Risk'*
Mean
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit
Maximum
Total Hazard Index1*
Mean
Upper 95%
Confidence
Limit
Maximum
Surface Water"
Graft on Ditch (lower)
Current maintenance
worker
Future recreational
user
2E-U9 (ALL)
2E-09 (BO)
5E-08 (ALL)
5E-08 (ALL)
3E-09 (ALL)
3E-09 (BG)
7E48 (ALL)
7E-08(BG)
5E-09 (ALL)
5E-09 (BG)
1E-07 (ALL)
1E-07(BG)
2E-04 (ALL)
2E-04 (BG)
4E-03 (ALL)
4E-03 (BG)
3E-04 (ALL)
3E-04 (BG)
5E-03 (ALL)
5E-03 (BG)
6E-04 (ALL)
rtE-04 (BG)
1E-02 (ALL)
1E-02(BG)
Sediment11
Oriiflun Ditch (lower)
Current maintenance
worker
Future rccrealiunul
user
1E-07 (ALL)
2E-08 (BO)
7E-07 (ALL)
2E-07 (BG)
1E-(I7 (ALL)
3E-08 (BO)
9E-07 (ALL)
2E-07 (BG)
2E-07 (ALL)
7E-08 (Bf J)
1E-06(ALL)
6E-07 (BG)
3E-04 (ALL)
3E-04 (BG)
2E-03 (ALL)
2E-G3 (BG)
4E-04 (ALL)
4E-04 (BG)
3E-03 (ALL)
3E-03 (BG)
9E-04 (ALL)
9E-04 (BG)
(,E-(>3 (ALL)
(>E-()3(BG)
'Values arc rounded to one significant figure.
"Maximum cancer risk al ha/ardous waste sites is regulated in the range nf 10s to 104 (Jli-Ofi In 111-04). Risks of (ess (him ID* (IH-Oip) nre gcncrnlly mil of finn'cni.
CA h*/ard index of I (lli + 00) or grenlcr is usually considered (he benchmark of potunlial concern,
dALL = Includes all evaluated chemicals of concern.
BO - Includes only the evaluated chemicals of concern that were delected above background.
"l"hc Tirsl and second values are based on the assumption thai chromium is present entirely as chromium lli and chromium VI, respectively. A range is presented only if ihc Iwo values differed nflcr
'rounding
to one significant figure.
'I'lliercd and tola! values are based on organics data plus inorganics data for filtered and unftllcrcd (lolul) samples, respectivcly.
N(.' ~ Not calculaled. A (otictty value was not available for Ihc chcmind <>( tnnrern.
NA = Not applicahlc. 'Ilierc were no carcinogenic chemicals of concern through the evaluated exposure routes.
M K(i I \ It I" I': imri2KI)2f..l)IM \yonc4 t.«i ibl
A-40
\2/27/'>.l
-------
Table 16
Receptors and Hazard Indices for Chemicals of Concern in Soil
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
.i
; Chemical
, CRD-2 :
Maximum •
! Hazard Index :
Receptor
LF-6
Maximum
^iazard Index
j.
i
Receptor '
Orgznics
: Aroclor-1260
..alpha -Chlordane
gamma - Chlordane
U,4 '-DDT
:PAHs
Benzo(a)anthracene
! Benzo(a)pyrene
; Phenanthrene
NC !
! 1.85E+00 i
1.63E+00 ;
NC i
: NC j
! NC I
NC !
-
-
Chipping sparrow
Chipping sparrow
—
-
-
-
1.14E+01
NC '
1.11E-MX)
825E+01
Short -tailed shrew
-
Short -tailed shrew
Short -tailed shrew
1.79E+01
239E+00
5.14E+01
Short -tailed shrew
Short -tailed shrew
Short -tailed shrew
Inorganics
• Cadmium
i' Chromium
Copper
ILead
.• Mercurv
Zinc
! NC
i 3.12E+01 i
! NC
: NC i
NC :
NC
—
Chipping
—
—
—
-
-
sparrow
—
—
-
-
1.16E+02
NC
1.02E+02
1.75E+04
5.69E+01
7.04E+02
Short - tailed shrew :
•
Chipping sparrow
Short -tailed shrew \
Short-tailed shrew ![
Short— tailed shrew '.'
NC = Not a chemical of concern at this location, or the hazard index did not exceed 1.
MKOl,RPT:0062H>:6.004-,z4rodll6.wk3
A-41
:i-Dec-9-
-------
Table 17
Chemicals of Ecological Concern in Lower Graf ton Ditch Surface Water
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
'i
i Chemical
Maximum :
Concentration Maximum Chronic
(uwL\ Hazard Quotient
: Organics !
: Linda ne
2.50E-01 ;
3
12E+00
i Inorganics
-'" Aluminum
•' Copper
i: Iron
", Lead
! Selenium
Silver
Zinc
1.07E+03
4.40E+01 i
6.70E+04
1.90E+01
l.OOE+01 !
9.80E+01 1
1.57E+02'
1.23 E +01
2.73E+00
6.70E+01
3
77E+00
2.00E+00 !•
8.17E+02
1.09E+00
MK01\RPT:00628026.00*i4rodtl7.wk3 A—42 21-D«-94
-------
Table 18
ER-L-, ER—M-, and EqP-Based Hazard Quotients for Chemicals of
Concern in Lower Grafton Ditch Sediment
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
Chemical
ER— L-Based
Maximum
Hazard
Quotient
Organics
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
4,4'-DDD
4r4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
NA
NA
8.50E+02
5.00E+01
6.90E+02
ER— M-Based
Maximum
Hazard
Quotient
EqP-Based
Maximum -
Hazard Quotient
NA
NA
8.50E+01
6.67E+00
9.86E+01
1.82E + 01
1.57E + 00
4.90E+00*
4.45E-07*
1.03E + 03
PAHs
Benzo(a)amhracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
2.48E+00
1.23E+00
1.68E + 00
2.33E + 00
1.78E+00
2.86E+00
3.56E-01
1.96E-01
2.39E-01
3.89E-01
2.90E-01
4.55E-01
1.50E-01
6.46E-02
1.21E-02
4;96E-01
7.64E-01
2.38E+01
Inorganics
Arsenic
Lead
Silver
1.10E + 00
7.43E+00
4.70E+00
4.27E-01
2.36E + 00
2.14E+00
NA
NA
NA
*Based on NHDES Freshwater Acute Criteria.
NA = Not applicable.
MK01\RPT:006:SO:6.0W\zone4ro
-------
Table 19
Alternatives Retained for Detailed Evaluation
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
Alternative
No.
Alternative
Components
Description
SW-1A/MM-1A
No action.
SW-1B/MM-1B
Limited action/institutional controls (i.e., fencing; deed
restrictions; soil, groundwater, and surface water monitoring; and
GM2).
SW-2B/MM-1B
Excavation and consolidation of landfill soil and solid waste in
contact with grouadwater, on-zone groundwater treatment and
disposal for excavation dewatering, capping of LF-6, and
institutional controls.
SW-3/MM-1B
Excavation of landfill soil and solid waste, on-zone groundwater
treatment for excavation dewatering, disposal of treated
groundwater to the local POTW, on-base disposal at LF-5 of
landfill soil and solid waste, and institutional controls.
SW-3/MM-2
Excavation of landfill soil and solid wastes, on-zone groundwater
treatment and disposal for excavation dewatering, on-base disposal
at LF-5 of landfill soil and solid waste, long-term collection and
on-zone treatment of recovered overburden groundwater,
discharge of treated groundwater to recharge trenches, and
institutional controls.
SW-4/MM-3A
Excavation and off-base disposal of landfill soil and solid waste,
excavation and off-base treatment/disposal of medical waste from
LF-6, on-site groundwater treatment and disposal for excavation
dewatering, long-term collection and on-site treatment of
recovered overburden and bedrock groundwater, discharge of
treated groundwater to recharge trenches, and institutional
controls.
MKO l\RPT:00628026.004\ione4rod.tb I
A-44
12/27/94
-------
Table 20
Summary of Detailed Alternatives Evaluation0
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
Remedial Alternative f
1. No Action
2. Limited Action/Institutional Controls (i.e., fencing; deed
restrictions; soil, groondwater, and surface water
monitoring; and GM£).
3. Excavation and Consolidation of I-andfill Soil and Solid
Wastes in Contact with Groundwater, On-Zone
Groundwater Treatment and Disposal for Excavation
' Dcwatcring, Capping of LF-6, and Institutional Controls.
4. Excavation of Landfill Soil and Solid Waste, On-Zone
(Iroundwalcr Treatment for Excavation DC watering,
Disposal of Treated Groundwater to the Local POTW,
On-Base Disposal at LF-5 of Undfill Soil and Solid
Waste, and institutional Controls.
5. Excavation of Landfill Soil and Solid Waste, On-Zonc
firoundwater Treatment and Disposal for Excavation
Dcwalcring, On-Base Disposal at LF-5 of Landfill Soil
and Solid Waste, Collection and On-Zone Treatment of
Recovered Overburden Uroundwaler, Discharge of
Treated Groundwatcr to Recharge Trenches, and
Institutional Controls.
r>. Hucavaliun and Off-Base Disposal of Landfill Soil and
Solid Waste, Excavation and Off-Dasc
Treatment/Disposal of Medical Waste from LF-6,
On-Zonc Groundwutcr Treatment and Disposal for
Ihcavation Ilewatering, Collection and On-Zone
Treatment of Recovered Overburden and Bedrock
Groundwater, Discharge of Treated Groundwater to
Recharge Trenches, and Institutional Controls.
Short-Term
Effectiveness
Ranking
AD
U
B
II
D
B
Long-Tcrm
liffccliveness
Ranking
C
BC
U
B
AD
A
Reduction in
TMV Ranking
C
C
H
U
AB
AD
Implcmentabilily
Ranking
A
A
AB
A
AU
B
Protection of
Human Health
and Environment
Ranking
BC
BC
B
B
AB
AB
Compliance
with
ARARs
Ranking
B
B
AB
AB
A
A
O»l Analysis'"
(sensitivity analysis)1
(in $1,000)
Not costed
2.222
(1,969 to 2,375)
5,204
(4,884 to 5/iRI)
4,5%
(4,320 to 4,9a'i)
MRS
(8,098 to 9,2fi3)
22,281
(19,784 to 26,404)
'I he ranking system is defined as follows:
A = The alternative meet the intent of the criterion.
11 * 1 Tic alternative partially meets the intent of the criterion.
<' - 'Lite alternative tli>cs not meet the inlciu of the crilcriim.
AU ~ 'I he altcrriHlive was ranked hclwrrn A and K.
IIC = I he alleiniilivc was ranked lictwecn B and C.
Intimated costs represent the 30-year present-worth cost.
'Ilie sensitivity analysis costs represent the upper and lower limits of the 50% confidence interval.
MKlM\ltl>T:t
A-45
12/27/'M
-------
Table 21
Cleanup Goal Selection — LF-6 Groundwater
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
t
Contaminant
ARAR
Risk-Bused
Concentration
Maximum
Detected
Background
Concentration
Maximum Detected Concentration*
Overburden
Hybrid
Bcdruck
Cleanup
(ioal
Orgaitics
Volatile Organic Compounds (/jg/L)
Acetone
Benzene
2-Bulanone
Chlnrobcnzenc
Chloroelhane
1 ,2-Dichloroltcnzcnc
1 ,4- Dichiorobenzcne
1,1-Dichloroelhane
cis- 1,2-Dichloroethene
Dichlorodiftuorom ethane
Dielhyl ether
Elhylhcnzcne
7.00E+02
5.ooE+oo
1.70E + 02
t.(K)E-K)2
NE
6.0QE + 02
7.50E+01
8.IOE+OI
7.00E+01
1.00Ef03
NA
7.00E + 02
3.65E + 03
1.47E + 00
2.19E + 04
I.46E + 02
NP
NP
I.H5E + (H)
1.83EKI3
1.83E + 02
NP
3.65E+03
2.70E + 03
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
U.OE+02
3.30E+01
8.6E + 01
3.<>E + ()2 J
--
-
8.5E + 01
3.4E+01
2.4E + OU
--
1.70E+02
I.3E + H2
9.5E + 01
2.30E + 01 J-
3.fiOE+U2
4.8E + 01
1.IE + 01
--
5.2E + 01 J-
--
--
1.7E + 01
1.50E + 02J
1.IE + 02J-
--
1.2UE'fOI
--
2.3E + IH
-
2.0E + 00
1.4Et(M
I.1E + 01
-
9.0E-01 J
..
3.()E + «I
NA
5.DOEHIO
J.70EH12
l.OOE+02
NA
NA
7.,snr.+oi
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M Kll I \KI' l':(HHi2HH26.(KM\/i
A-46
\'i/27/>>-\
-------
Table 21
Cleanup Goal Selection — LF-6 Ground water
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Contaminant
ARAR
Risk-Based
Concentration
Maximum
Detected
Background
Concentration
Maximum Detected Concentration"
Overburden
Hybrid
Bedrock
Cleanup
Goal
Organic* (continued)
Isopropylbenzenc
4-lsopropylloluenc
Melhylene chloride
Methyl isobutyl ketotic
n-Propylbcnzcnc
Toluene
Triclilnroelhenc
1 ,2,4-Tritnethylbenzcnc
1 ,3,5-Tri mclhylhenzene
Vinyl chloride
Xylcnes (total)
NE
NE
5.00E+00
3.50E+02
NE
l.OOE+03
5.00E+00
NE
NE
2.00E+00
l.OOE + 04
NP
NP
9.31E+00
1.83E+03
NP
2.65E+03
5.01E+00
1.98E+01
NTV
NP
3.65E + 04
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
--
•-
1.7E+02J
2.30Et02
--
5.8E + 02
2.00E+01 J
4.0E+01 J
1.2E+01 J
"
4.2E+02
-
--
-
s.r.E+oi
-
6.5E + 01 J-
--
2.0E + 01 J-
1.3E+0)
6.8E+00 J-
1.01+02
2.0E+OOJ
4.0E + On J
-
--
2.0E+OOJ
1.4E+02
9.0E-01 J
8.0E+00
2.0E + 00
--
8.2E+01
NA
NA
NS
NA
NA
NA
5.00E+00
1.98E+01
NA
2.00E+00
NA
A-47
12/27/-J4
-------
Table 21
Cleanup Goal Selection — LF-6 Groundwater
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
t
Contaminant
ARAR
Risk-Based
Concentration
Maximum
Detected
Background
Concentration
Maximum Delected Concentration*
Overburden
Hybrid
Bedrock
Cleanup
Goal
Organics (continued)
Scmivolalilc Organic Compounds
Benzoic add
Bis(2-ethylhcxyl) phlhalalc
Butyl benzyl phthalale
4-Chloro-3-melhylphcnol
Di-n-butyl plithalatc
Diethyl phthalale
2,4- Dimelhylphcnol
2-Mcthylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
Phenol
2.80E+04
G.OOE + 00
fi.OOE+OO
NE
3.40E + 04
5.GOE+03
NE
3.50Et02
3.50E + 02
2.(K)E+01
4.UUE + U3
1.46E+05
6.08E + 00
NP
NTV
NP
2.92E+04
7.30E+02
1.83E-MH
1.83E + D2
1.34E+01
2.19EH14
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
2.2E+03 J
3.50E+03 J
-
2.5E40I
--
1.7E + 02J
2.3E + 01
1.40E + 02J
1.8E + 03
1.8E+02 J
3.3E + OI
1.3E+02 J
--
-
2.yE+m
l.()EtO(U
6.4E+01
--
--
1.4E + 02
3.2E+01 J-
--
--
--
2.UE+UOJ
--
..
2.AE + 01
4.0E-K1I) J
i.2Et01
LSEtOZ
8.0E + OOJ
1.IE+01
NA
NS
NA
NA
NA
NA .
NA
NA
3.50E + 02
2.nOE + ()l
NA
MKOI\IU'[HH!l,2Hn2f, (
A-4H
12/>7/'J4
-------
Table 21
Cleanup Goal Selection — LF-6 Groundwater
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Contaminant
ARAR
Risk-Based
Concentration
Maximum
Delected
Background
Concentration
Maximum Dcluclud Cuncuntraliun'
Overburden
Hybrid
Bedrock
Cleanup
Goal
Inorganic^ (mg/L)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cudmium
Calcium
Chromium VI
Cobalt
NE
5.WE-02
2.0QE + 00
6.20E-01
5.00E-03
NE
l.OOE-OI
. NE
NTV
4.87E-05
2.56E + 00
3.29E + 00
NP
NP
1.83E-01
NTV
4.64E+01"
3.98E-01'
7,20E-02a
2.31 E-02'
2.21E-01U
8.83E-02'
ND"
ND'
NDU
ND1
9.03E+01"
7.32E+01'
9.43E-02U
ND(
1.06E-01"
ND1
6.31E + OOJ
2.20E-01 J
1.18E-01
5.47E-01
--
-
1.8E-02
-
-
5.92E-01
1/.3E-01
1.11E+00
5/.OE-03
--
--
9.86E-02
--
--
-
--
--
2.4E + 02
--
--
NA
5.00E-02
NA
C..20E-01
5.00E-03
NA
NA
NA
MKlJI\IU'T:IHtf.2fln2filMH\7:rmr
-------
Table 21
Cleanup Goal Selection — LF-6 Groundwater
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
1
Contaminant
ARAR
Risk- Based
Concentration
Maximum
Delected
Background
Concentration
Maximum Delected Concentration*
Overburden
Hybrid
Bedrock
Cleanup
Goal
Inorganics (continued)
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
NE
1.50E-02
NE
NE
1.00E-01
3.50E+01
NE
MTV
1.06E-02
NP
1.83E-01
7.30E-01
NP
NP
6.28E + UJ"
5.84E-01'
9.76E-02"
NO
3,83E + or
1.89E+011
5.66E-KX)0
9.42E-1)]1
1.26E-01"
3.28E-02'
8.87E+00U
7.06E+l)Or
8.97E+(r
1.02E+04'
2.24E+01
3.16E-02
--
J.22E+00
6.15E-02
--
--
3.82E + 01
-
--
2.jyE + (M)
2.42E-01
--
-
--
--
u.U&E^ 01
--
-
3.15E + OI
1.02E+02
NA
1.5DE-D2
NA
NS
1.0()E-()I
NA
NA
M Kltl \KI' r:OOf.28026.U04\zonc4n>d.lbl
A-50
12/27/M
-------
Table 21
Cleanup Goal Selection — LF-6 GroUndwater
Zone 4, Pease Al It, NH
(Continued)
Contaminant
ARAR
Risk-Based
Concentration
Maximum
Delected
Background
Concentration
Maximum Detected Concentration*
Overburden
Hybrid
Bedrock
Cleanup
Goal
Inorganics (continued)
Zinc
2.00E+OII
NP
2.20E-OT
l.f>8E-Ol'
--
4.75E-01
--
NA
"Maximum delected* concentrations were taken from the Draft Final Zone 4 RI Report (G-632).
''Overburden and hybrid maximum inorganic concentrations represent filtered data. Maximum bedrock inorganic concentrations represent unfiltcrcd data.
= Not a chemical of concern in overburden or bedrock groundwatcr, as indicated.
NA = Not applicable. Maximum detected concentration did not exceed an ARAR or risk-based concent ration, or was less than background.
NC = Not considered. Organic* background data were not considered in cleanup goal selection.
NE = A regulatory-based remedial objective has not been established and is consequently unavailable.
NP = A risk-based concentration not presented since risk was calculated to be less than 10* in the Draft Final Zone 4 RI Report (G-632), or the risk was
due to groundwalcr from the hybrid welts.
NTV = A risk-based concentration was not calculated because the applicable toxicily value was not available.
NS - Cleanup goal not selected.
u = Represents unfillcrcd data.
f - Represents filtered data.
A-51
12/27/W
-------
Table 22
ARARs for the Selected Remedy — Excavation or Landfill Soil and Solid Waste from LF-6 and
On-Base Disposal at LF-5, Dewatering of the LF-6 Excavation with Discharge to a Local POTYV, Wetlands Restoration
Within the LF-6 Footprint, and Establishment of a GMZ and Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Plan in Zone 4
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
Media
Requirement
Requirement Synopsis
Action lo He Taken To
Attain Requirements
Chemlcal-SpecHIc
Groundwaler FEDERAL-SDWA-Maximum Contaminant
levels (MCLs)
(40 CI'-R 141.11 - 141.16)
MCLs have been promulgated for a number of
common organic and inorganic contaminants.
These levels regulate Ihc contaminants in public
drinking water supplies, but may also be
considered relevant and appropriate Tor
groundwaler aquifers potentially used for
drinking water.
MCLs were considered when
selecting cleanup goals. See Table
21 for groundwaler dean up gojls.
Source removal, short-term
pumping and treatment during
excavation dewulcring, natural
attenuation, and tiM/. monitoring
will he performed to attain MC1.S.
Relevant and
Appropriate
Groundwater FEDRRAL-SDWA-Maximurn Contaminant
\fvel (ioflts (MCLGs) (40 LTH 141.50 - 141.51)
Non-zero MCI (is ;>rc nonenCorccablc health
goals for public water systems. MCLGs are set
at levels that would result in no known or
expected adverse health effects with an
adequate margin of safely.
Non-zero MCLGs were considered
when selecting cleanup goals. See
Table 21 for groundwaler cleanup
goals. Source removal, short-term
pumping and treatment during
excavation dcwaicring, natural
attenuation, and tiM/ monitoring
will be performed lo attain cleanup
goals.
Rclcvanl and
Appropriate
f irnundwater NH Primary Drinking Water Criteria (MC1.S
and MCLGs) Under RSA Ch. 485, Promulgated
as PJIV-WS Slf. and 317
Standards for public drinking water systems.
Used as cleanup standards for aquifers and
surface water bodies lhal are potential drinking
water sources.
Available MCLs. MCLlis. and
other licaltli-hascd limits liave
been used as appropriate to set
cleanup levels for groundwalcr
extracted during remedial
activities. Target treatment goals
are presented in Table 21. Source
removal, short-term pumping and
treating during excavation
duwutcring, natural allcnuation,
and (iM/. monitoring will lie
performed lo attain cleanup goals.
Relevant and
Appropriate, l*i
Ihc extent more
stringent than
federal MCU
and MOIXls.
MKMI\UI'l*:
-------
Table 22
ARARs for the Selected Remedy — Excavation of Landfill Soil and Solid Waste from LF-6 and
On-Hase Disposal at LF-5, Dewatering of the LF-6 Excavation with Discharge to a Local POTW, Wetlands Restoration
Within the LF-6 Footprint, and Establishment of a GMZ and Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Plan in Zone 4
i Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Media
Requirement
Requirement Synopsis
Action To Ite Taken To
Attain Requirements
Basis
( iroundwatcr SI ATll-NI 1 Admin Code Hnv-Ws 410.05
Ambient Groundwiirer Quality Standards
.Standards for quality of groundwaler.
Available MCI-s, MCl.Gs, and
other health-based limits have
been used as appropriate to set
cleanup levels for groundwaler
extracted during remedial
activities. Target treatment goals
are presented in Table 21. Source
removal, short-term pumping and
treating during excavation
dewatering, natural attenuation,
and (>M7, monitoring will be
performed to attain cleanup goals.
Applicable
Surface Water STATH-HSA 4S5A:8. Surface Water
Classification Standards
New Hampshire Surface Water Quality
standards for toxic pollutants in Class D waters
are applicable.
If there is an unacceptable risk
associated with surface waler, then
surface waler quality criteria are
relevant and appropriate as
cleanup standards.
Applicable .
Soils
Locallon-SnttlHt
Nil RSA 217A — Native Plant Protection Act
Prohibits damaging plant species listed as
endangered within the stale.
Care will be taken to identify and
prorecl any endangered plants
before commencement of
remediation.
Applicable, if
endangered
plants identified.
National Historic Preservation Act nf 19tifi (16
USC 470 el seq.), Protection of Historic Land
and Strut-lures; Archcological and Historic
Preservation Art of 1*174; Historic Sites Building
und AnlH|uilivs Acl
Several statutes that govern the preservation of
historic, scientific, and archcological silcs and
resources. Includes action to recover and
preserve artifacts, preserve historic properties,
.mil minimi/L- harm ID historic landmarks.
Remedial actions must be
coordinated with preservation
agencies and societies to minimize
loss of significant scientific,
prchistorical, historical, ur
l data.
Applicable, if
any.
!2/27/'M
-------
Table 22
ARARs for the Selected Remedy — Excavation of Landfill Soil and Solid Waste from LF-6 and
On-Base Disposal at LF-5, Dewatering of the LF-6 Excavation with Discharge to a Local POTVV, Wetlands Restoration
Within the LF-6 Footprint, and Establishment of a GMZ and Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Plan in Zone 4
Zone 4, Pease APR, NH
(Continued)
Media
Requirement
Requirement Synopsis
Action To He Taken To
Attain Requirements
Uasis
Nil Historic Preservation Act (RSA 227-C)
Authorizes municipalities to establish local
historic districts and to regulate construction,
alteration, and other activities affecting historic
properties and districts.
Remedial activities will be
coordinated with preservation
agencies and societies to minimize
loss of significant scientific,
prchistorical, historical, or
n [Theological data.
Applicable, il
any.
Wetlands
Wetlands Executive Order (I'D) 11 WO,
40 CPU Part 6, Appendix A
Under this order, federal agencies arc required
to minimize the destruction, loss, or
degradation of wetlands, and beneficial values
of wetlands.
Appropriate federal agencies
identified (under this act) will be
contacted and allowed In review
the proposed work plan prior to
initiating the remedial activities,
Remedial activities will minimise
harm to wetlands to (he extent
possible.
Applicable
Wetlands
FliDIJRAL-CWA 404, Section 42K»2MIlH\/onC'lrod.lbl
-------
Table 22
ARARs for the Selected Remedy — Excavation oF Landfill Soil and Solid Waste from LF-6 and
On-Base Disposal at LF-5, Dewatering of the LF-6 Excavation with Discharge to a Local POTW, Wetlands Restoration
Within the LF-6 Footprint, and Establishment of a GMZ and Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Plan in Zone 4
, Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Media
Requirement
Requirement Synopsis
Action To lie Taken To
Attain Requirements
Basis
Wetlands, Rivera STAHl-Nll Rnv.Ws -IIS, Dredging Rules; RSA
4R5: A-17, Dredging and Oinlrnl or Runoff
Kslablish criteria Tor conducting any activity in
or near state surface waters that significantly
alters terrain or may otherwise adversely affect
water quality, impede natural runoff, or create
unnatural runnff. Activities within the scope of
these provisions include excavation, dredging,
Tilling, mining, and grading of topsoil in or near
wetlands areas.
Soil excavation and grading
activities will meet the substantive
requirements of these rules as
applicable to wetlands prior to
initiation.
Applicable
Wetlands, Rivers STATK-KSA 4B2 A, Nil Administrative Code
Hnv-Wt 3KMW, hOO, New Hampshire Criteria
and Conditions for Fill and Dredge in Wetlands
Regulate filling and other activities in or
adjacent to wetlands, and establish criteria for
the protection of wetlands from adverse
imparts on fish, wildlife, commerce, and public
recreation.
Proposed work adjacent to the
wetlands will comply with
substantive requirements of the
stale wetlands protection statute
and regulations. Any wetlands
damaged during construction will
be restored.
Applicable
FKDURAURCRA 4ft CFR 2M
RCRA .Subtitle C establishes standards
applicable to treatment, storage, transport, and
disposal of hazardous waste and the closure of
hazardous waste facilities.
Management of hazardous waste as
part of CBRCLA response must
comply with substantive
requirements of Subtitle C
regulations.
Relevant and
Appropriate.
If as effect
through state
hazardous waste
requirements
which operate in
lieu of direct
federal regula-
tions. See
discussion of
Ihusc require-
ment!! below.
A-55
12/27/M
-------
Table 22
ARARs for the Selected Remedy — Excavation of Landfill Soil and Solid Waste from LK-6 and
On-Base Disposal at LF-5, Dewatering of the LF-6 Excavation with Discharge to a Local POTW, Wetlands Restoration
Within the LF-6 Footprint, and Establishment of a GMZ and Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Plan in Zone 4
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Media
Requirement
Requirement Synopsis
Action To Be Taken To
Attain Requirements
Basis
Air
PEDERAL-RCRA, 40 CFR 264 Subpart AA
Contains air pollution emissions standards fur
process vents associated with distillation,
fraclionation, thin-film extraction, or air or
steam stripping operations. Applicable to
operations thai manage hazardous wastes wilh
organic concentrations of at least 10 ppmv.
Equipment used in remedial
activities will meet the •
requirements and he monitored for
compliance,
Applicable
Air
FEDURAURCRA 40 CFR 264, Subpart DR
Contains air pollutant emission standards fur
equipment leaks at hazardous waste TSD
facilities. Contains design specifications and
requirements for monitoring (or leak detection.
It is applicable to equipment that contains or
contacts hazardous wastes wilh organic
concentrations of at least 10% by weight.
Equipment used in remedial
activities will meet the design
specifications, and will be
monitored for leaks.
Applicable
Air
I•i'.niiHAI.-RCKA 40 C1;R HA, Subpart
I'roposcd
Contains proposed air pollutant emission
standards for owners and operators of TSI)
facilities using tanks, surface impoundments,
and containers to manage hazardous wastes.
Specific organic emissions controls would have
to be installed if volatile organic concentrations
are equal or greater than 500 ppmw.
'ITiesc emissions control standards
will lie evaluated during remedial
design and will be installed if VOC
concentrations arc equal to or
greater than 500 ppmw.
rue
Air
FHDFRAI.-Clcan Air Act Ci'H 60 (Siibparl
WWW, proposed). Performance standards for
nonmcthanc organic compounds (NMOOi)
Contains proposed performance standard for
NMOC emissions from landfill gases at new
municipal solid waste landfills. A control
device would be used to reduce the NMOCs in
the collected gas by 98% weight.
'Che requirements of this proposed
regulation will be met for NMOCs.
Tiu:
!2/27/'M
-------
Table 22
ARARs for the Selected Remedy — Excavation of Landfill Soil and Solid Waste from LF-6 and
On-Base Disposal at LF-5, Dewatering of the LF-6 Excavation with Discharge to a Local POTW, Wetlands Restoration
Within the LF-6 Footprint, and Establishment of a GMZ and Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Plan in Zone 4
' Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Media Requirement
1 larardous Waste lU'.nURAl /-I ISW A Amendments to RCRA, 40
(JFK 2A8, Land Disposal Restrictions
i:i'nr!.RAi,-R<:RA 40 CFR 2M.w-iM.iot
(Suhparl }'), Release from Solid Waste
Management Units
llrcnrdous Waste RSA Ch I74A, Nil Hazardous Waste
Management Act and Hazardous Waste Rules,
Hnv-Wm Chapters 100-IWIO, Specific
Requirements Detailed Below
\ lawrdous Waste STATE-NI 1 Admin Code Env-Wm 4QfM
-------
Table 22
ARARs for the Selected Remedy — Excavation of Landfill Soil and Solid Waste from LF-6 and
On-Base Disposal at LF-5, Dewatering of the LF-6 Excavation with Discharge to a Local POTVV, Wetlands Restoration
Within the LF-6 Footprint, and Establishment of a GMZ and Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Plan in Zone 4
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Media
Requirement
Requirement Synopsis
Action To lie Taken To
Attain Requirements
.STATE-MI I Admin Code Env-Wm 353, 701-705,
708, and 709, Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste Facilities
General requirements for owners or operators
of hazardous waste facilities, including closure
of hazardous waste facilities. Includes siting
requirements (Hnv-Wm 353.09-353.10).
environmental and health requirements
(702.08), general design requirements (702.09),
other monitoring (7118.02), and technical
requirements (708.03).
Remedial activities will comply Relevant and
with the substantive provision of Appropriate
stale hazardous waste regulations.
STATK-NI! Admin Code Rnv-Wm 500 et seq,,
Standards for Ha/ardous Waste Ciencratnrs
General definitions and requirements for
generators of hazardous wastes. Outlines
procedures to determine whether a person is a
generator. Defines requirements for ID
numbers, rccordkccping procedures, and off-*
site shipment of hazardous wastes.
Required procedures wit) tit Relevant and
followed for rccordkecping and Appropriate
off-site shipment.
STATP.-NII Admin Code Knv-Wm 702.10-
702.14, Monitoring nf Ha7ardous Waste
Treatment Facilities
Requirements for installation and operation of
one or more of the following monitoring
systems:
• Groundwaler monitoring network.
• Air emissions monitoring network,
monitoring network.
Environmental monitoring during Relevant anil
remedial operations will he Appropriate
conducted in accordance with these
regulations.
STATE-NH Admin Code Wm 707.03 - Waste
Pile Requirements
Incorporates by reference the .requirements of
40 CPU 264, Sulipart I, regarding waste piles
Any excavated soil stockpiled at
site wilt comply with these
regulations.
Applicant
MKUiytl'l :0(»62KU2fi tHM\/"nc4rod.thl
A-58
I2/Z7/-M
-------
Table 22
ARARs for the Selected Remedy — Excavation of Landfill Soil and Solid Waste from LF-6 and
On-Base Disposal at LF«5, Dewatering of the LF-6 Excavation with Discharge to a Local POTYV, Wetlands Restoration
Within the LF-6 Footprint, and Establishment of a GMZ and Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Plan in Zone 4
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
' (Continued)
Media
Requirement
Requirement Synopsis
Action To Re Taken To
Attain Requirements
Basis
STATIi-NII hnv-Wm 353.09 and 353.10, Si I ing
Requirements for Hazardous Waste facilities
and Variances
Restrictions on siting of hazardous waste
facilities.
Any new hazardous waste facility
must comply with siting
requirements or criteria for a
variance. The quantity of
contaminated groundwater in the
gmundwater treatment system
should not contribute significantly
to the degradation of groundwater
in case of spill or accident.
Applicable
STATIi-NH Admin Code Env-Wm 708,03,
Additional Technical Standards — Treatment
Standards
General requirements for selection of
treatment methods. The treatment method
must accomplish one or more of (he following
objectives:
• Render the waste nonhazardous.
• Render the waste safe for handling and
transport.
* Render the waste amenable to recovery or
reuse.
• Render the waste more amenable to long-
term storage.
• Reduce the volume of the hazardous waste.
The design and operation of the
groundwaler treatment plant wilt
be in accordance with these
regulations.
Applicable
Su rface Wale r STATfi-RSA 4R5-A: 12, Wale r Pollution and
Waste Disposal
Prohibits the disposal of wastes in such a
manner as will lower the quality of any surface
water below the minimum requirements of the
surface water classification.
Remedial action and disposal of
landfill soil and solid waste from
I.P-A into I.F-5 will eliminate any
potential leaching of wastes into
groundwaler and surface water at
LM.
Applicable
A-59
-------
Table 22
ARARs for the Selected Remedy — Excavation of Landfill Soil and Solid Waste from LF-6 and
On-Base Disposal at LF-5, Dewatering of the LF-6 Excavation with Discharge to a Local PQTVV, Wetlands Restoration
Within the LF-6 Footprint, and Establishment of a GMZ and Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Plan in Zone 4
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Media
Requirement
Requirement Synopsis
Action To Ite Taken To
Attain Requirements
Basis
STATR-NII Admin Code Env-Ws 410,
Groundwater Protection
Prohibits discharge of hazardous waste in
groundwaler, or any discharge to groundwater
that would result in a violation of surface water
quality in adjacent surface waters. Also,
groundwater cannot be altered su as to make it
unsuitable Tor drinking. I Establishes the
requirements for protection of gnwndwater
quality outside I he boundary of the GMZ.
Hxcavalion and disposal of landfill
soil and solid waste from IJ'-fr into
1,1'' S would eliminate any potential
leaching of hazardous waste into
groundwaicr at I.P-fi. GMZ
monitoring would be conducted in
accordance with these
requirements.
Applicable
STA'lli-Unv-Ws 410.03, Oroundwater CJuality
Criteria
Compliance with Env-Ws 410.03 requires action
to ensure that groundwater is suitable for
drinking water, dues not violate Ambient'
fjroundwatcr Quality Standards, and doe$ noi
cause surface water quality violations (unless
owing lo natural conditions or exempt under
Hnv-Ws 410.04).
Reed restrictions will protect
public health by prohibiting use of
contaminated groundwaicr.
Groundwaler Management '/one
(GMX) monitoring will confirm
compliance with cleanup goals. It
is estimated that cleanup goals will
be attained within approximately
10 years under this alternative.
Applicable
Uroundwatcr
Nil linv-Ws 410.26, Groundwaicr Management
Zone
At contaminated sites, requires GM7. to be
designated anil groundwater use restricted.
Where wells arc currently in service, alternative
drinking walcr must he provided, (iroundwatcr
extraction from wells within Ihe zone must be
restricted by easement or ownership if required
lo complete Ihe remedy.
CM/, will be designated and
institutional controls will rcslrici
groundwaicr use. The Air 1'orcc
estimates that natural attenuation
will restore groundwater in
approximately 10 years.
Applicable
STATIMISA 495-A:l7 and Nil Admin Code
tinv-Ws 415, Terrain Alteration
Establishes criteria lo control erosion and
runoff for any activity that signiiicuntly alters
the terrain.
Remedial activities will be
conducted in accordance with Ihcsc
requirements.
Applicable
M KO l\KI'r:OOf.2B02fi.004\ionc4 rod. ll>l
A-00
-------
Table 22
ARARs for the Selected Remedy — Excavation of Landfill Soil and Solid Waste from LF-6 and
On-Base Disposal at LF-5, Dewaleritig of the LF-6 Excavation with Discharge to a Local POTVV, Wetlands Restoration
Within the LF-6 Footprint, and Establishment of a GMZ and Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Plan in Zone 4
, Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Media Requirement
Air RSA OU2S-C Air I'ollution Control; Nil
Admin Rules. Erw-A 100-1300, as specified
below.
linv A 505. 2(e), Emergency Procedures
Air STATP.-NII Admin Code Knv-A 1002,
l-'ugitive Dust Control
Air STATIi-NI I Admin Code Knv-A 1300, Toxic Air
Pollutants
Air STATE-MI 1 Admin Code Env-A 300, Ambient
Air (Jualily Standards
Requirement Synopsis
Air pollution controls as specified below.
Imposes obligations on sources of air pollution
in case of emergency.
Requires precautions In prevent, abate, and
control fugitive dust during specified activities,
including excavation, construction, and bulk
hauling.
Establishes Ambient Air Limits (AALs) to
protect the public from concent rations of
pollutants in ambient air thai may cause
adverse health effects.
Establishes primary and secondary levels Tor
eight air contaminants (particulale matter,
sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen
dioxide, ozone, hydrocarbons, fluorides, and
lead).
Action To Re Taken To
Attain Requirements
See discussion below.
Comply with directions of state in
ease of "warning* status.
Precautions to control fugitive dust
emissions will be required during
remedial activities. Monitoring will
be conducted to ensure
compliance.
Release of contaminants to the air
from any on-sile remedial activities
will not result in exceedancc of the
respective AAL, if one exists.
Proposed air emissions will be
coordinated with (he Air
Resources Division of NHDES.
These ambient air levels will be
combined with federal NAAQs to
establish target levels that may no)
be exceeded as a result of
emissions from on-sile activities,
such as excavation and
gmundwater treatment. Proposed
air emissions will be coordinated
with the Air Resources Division of
Nil DBS.
Rasis
Sec below
Applicable
Applicable
Applicable
Relevant and
Appropriate
M K<> I \ 111' l':IWh2KI)2ri.lltl4\7»nc4 rod. Mil
A-61
I2/27/-M
-------
Table 22
ARARs Tor the Selected Remedy - Excavation of Landfill Soil and Solid Waste from LF-6 and
On-Base Disposal at LF-5, Dewatering of the LF-6 Excavation with Discharge to a Local POTW, Wetlands Restoration
Within the LF-6 Footprint, and Establishment of a GMZ and Long-Term Environmental Monitoring Plan in Zone 4
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
1
Media Requirement
Air STATB-NH Admin Code Env-A 800, Testing
and Monitoring Procedures
Air STfATD-Nll Admin Code tinv-A 1024, Control
of VOC Emissions
Air STATR-NII Admin Code Hnv-A 1305, Impact
and Analysis Permit Requirements
l-TiDGRAl-U.S. DPA Policy on Control of Air
Emissions from Supertund Air Strippers ai
Superfund Ciroundwatur Sites, OSWliR
Directive 9355.0-28
ITiDURALrU.S, IIPA Region 1 memorandum,
12 July 1989 from Louis (lilto In Merril S.
Hohman
Requirement Synopsis
Identifies procedures that must be followed for
testing of air emissions from stationary sources.
S|«cifies VOC emission control methods ami
establishes limitations on VOC emissions for
various process categories.
Regulates air quality impacl analysis of devices
emitting regulated substances.
Provides guidance on the control of air
emissions from air strippers used at Superfund
sites and distinguishes between requirements
for attainment and nonaitainmcnt areas Tor
o/.one.
States that Superfund air strippers in o/.onc
iiDiialtuiniucnl areas generally merit controls on
all VOC emissions.
Action To He Taken To
Attain Requirements
Air emissions from groundwatcr
treatment or soil excavations will
be monitored and tested to ensure
that these sources do not exceed
applicable standards.
VOC emissions during excavation
at U'-d and grading at l.r 5 will be
monitored 10 ensure compliance.
Discharge from any new or
modified facility must comply with
the requirements of this section.
If air stripper is used for
groundwalcr treatment, controls on
air stripper will be used as
necessary to allain stale ARARs,
criteria, and guidance.
Remedial actions, including air
si rippers, wilt include controls to
reduce VOC emissions.
Hasis
Applicable
•rue.
Applicable
TUC
II H
MKOI\lUrf:(lll(>2802l..OlMVc>nc'lrod.ll>l
A-62
-------
APPENDIX B
DECLARATION OF CONCURRENCE
MK01\RPT:0062S026.004\zone4rod,fm 12/20/5U
-------
State of New Hampshire
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095
603-271-3503 FAX 603-271-2867
TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964
December 20, 1994
Mr. Alan K. Olsen
Director, Air Force Base Conversion Agency
1700 North Moore Street, Suite 2300
Arlington, VA 22209-2802
Re: Record of Decision for Zone 4
Pease Air Force Base Superfund Site
Pease Air Force Base, New Hajnpshire
Subject: Declaration of Concurrence
Dear Mr. Olsen:
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services has reviewed the "Record of
Decision for Zone 4" (Zone 4 ROD) for the Pease Air Force Base Superfund Site, located
in Newington and Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The Zone 4 ROD was drafted by the Air
Force in accordance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1986 (CERCLA) and selects a preferred remedy having
the following components:
• Excavation and removal of all landfill soil and solid waste from Landfill 6 and
disposal of the waste at Landfill 5, prior to closure of Landfill 5 with a RCRA
(composite barrier) cap.
• Screening of the waste as it is excavated to separate out drums and visually
contaminated soil. Any waste determined to be hazardous will be disposed of
off site.
• Short-term excavation dewatering to facilitate removal of the saturated landfill soil
and solid waste. Treatment of extracted groundwater in a temporary facility located
at Landfill 6 with discharge of the treated groundwater to the POTW, via the sanitary
sewer.
• Creation, re-establishment, and enhancement of wetlands within the footprint of
Landfill 6 and natural attenuation and biodegradation of residual contaminated
groundwater.
AIR RESOURCES DIV. WASTE MANAGEMENT DIV. \WTER RESOURCES DIV. WATER SUPPLY & POLLUTION CONTROL D'V.
frJ No M»n SiretL 6 Haien Dmt 6i No. Mam Sireei P.O. Boi 9f
Ciller Bo< 203; Ccn:onl. N.H. 03301 P.O. Boi :008 Cor=oro. N H (H-CC-OWi
CMtort. NH.O:-3K-:03j Te:. 603.;-1.1900 Contort. N H 03302-2008 T«!.W3-:7t-3;
-------
Letter to Alan K. Olsen
Re: Zone 4 ROD Declaration of Concurrence
December 20,1994
Page 2
• Long-term environmental monitoring of the zone, including groundwater, surface
water, and sediment sampling and analysis.
• No further action under CERCLA for the Auto Hobby Shop, Construction Rubble
Dump 2 and Grafton Ditch.
Consistency with State Remediation Policy and Solid Waste Rules
Prior to Pease Air Force Base becoming a Superfund site, and as a party to the Tease
Federal Facility Agreement Under CERCLA Section 120" (Pease FFA), the Department
has been actively involved in the oversight of the Air Force's environmental response
activities at Zone 4. The approach to site remediation, as outlined in the Zone 4 ROD, is
generally consistent with the approach the Department would require in a Remedial Action
Pian for similar sites in the State of New Hampshire, regardless of their Superfund status.
While the description of the selected remedial action in the Zone 4 ROD is less detailed
than what the Department would require in a Remedial Action Plan, to the extent
practicable, the Department evaluated the appropriateness, feasibility and effectiveness
of the selected remedial method, both long-term and short-term. The Department also
evaluated the degree of certainty the remedial plan will prove successful in achieving the
remedial goals and policies of the Department.
The New Hampshire Groundwater Protection Rules (Env-Ws 410) establish standards,
criteria and procedures to remediate sites with contaminated groundwater. Generally, the
rules require that remediation of such sites include source removal, containment of
groundwater contamination within the limits of a specified Groundwater Management Zone,
and reduction of groundwater contaminant levels within that zone. Additionally, the New
Hampshire Solid Waste Rules, specifically Env-Wm 300 and 2500, establish the
standards, criteria and procedures that must be followed when closing solid waste landfills.
The selected remedy described in the ROD is consistent with the approach that would be
required to comply with these rules at similar sites within the State. For example, the
selected action includes the excavation of all landfill soil and solid waste from Landfill 6
which addresses the Department's requirement to remove, treat or contain the source of
groundwater contamination. Removing the source of groundwater contamination at this
site will facilitate the natural attenuation of contaminant levels in groundwater.
Contaminated groundwater will be managed in accordance with the provisions of a
Groundwater Management Permit within a Groundwater Management Zone.
-------
Letter to Alan K. Olsen
Re: Zone 4 ROD Declaration of Concurrence
December 20,1994
Page 3
Long-term monitoring of groundwater, surface water and sediments will be necessary in
order to determine the effectiveness of the remedial actions and compliance with the
Groundwater Protection Rules at Zone 4. Water quality monitoring is determined on a site
specific basis and will be addressed in a Groundwater Management Permit, issued by the
Department. Frequency and location of water quality monitoring is typically required on
a tri-annual basis until a baseline condition is established. A comprehensive, detailed
review of all environmental monitoring data will be conducted by the Air Force, EPA and
the Department in order to ensure the remedial action provides adequate protection of
human health and the environment and complies with applicable regulations.
State Concurrence
The Department, acting on behalf of the State of New Hampshire, concurs that the
selected remedy, described in the ROD, satisfies the requirements of CERCUA. The
Department's concurrence is based on an understanding that the selected remedy under
CERCLA includes the excavation and consolidation of Landfill 6 into Landfill 5 and that a
Groundwater Management Zone will be established at Landfill 6.
Furthermore, the Department understands that the Air Force is committed to executing
certain additional non-CERCLA environmental response actions which include: 1) closing
Construction Rubble Dump 2.in accordance with the State's Solid Waste Rules; 2)
establishing Groundwater Management Zones at Construction Rubble Dump 2 and the
Auto Hobby Shop (with groundwater quality addressed through a Groundwater
Management Permit for each of these sites); and, 3) monitoring surface water quality in
Grafton Ditch in order to ensure the IRP closure actions are sufficient to prevent violations
of the State's Ambient Surface Water Criteria.
Very truly yours,
Robert W. Varney
Commissioner
Philip J, O'Brien, Ph.D., Director, DES-WMD
Carl W. Baxter, P.E., DES-WMEB
Richard H. Pease, P.E., DES-WMEB
Martha A. Moore, Esq., NHDOJ-AGO
Michael J. Daly, EPA
Arthur L Ditto, P.E., AFBCA
James Snyder, AFCEE
-------
APPENDIX C
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4ro
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The Air Force issued the Zone 4 Proposed Plan to the public in April 1994. In the Zone 4
Proposed Plan, the Air Force identified its preferred alternatives for the four sites in
Zone 4. The selection of these preferred alternatives by the Air Force was coordinated with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region I and the New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services (NHDES).
The following subsections describe the background on community involvement with Zone
4 activities and the Air Force's response to both written and verbal comments received
during the Zone 4 Proposed Plan public comment period of 26 April to 26 May 1994.
BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Prior to the start of the public comment period, the Air Force issued a Fact Sheet that
summarized the contents of the Zone 4 Proposed Plan. Presentations on the status of work
being conducted and the results of the work in the Zone 4 area were made to the Pease Air
Force Base (AFB) Technical Review Committee (TRC). Additionally, the content of the
Zone 4 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 April 1994
prior to the beginning of the public comment period, and press releases were issued to the
media announcing the beginning of the public comment period. Newspaper announcements
(advertisements) were published prior to the public hearing date of 12 May 1994.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
AND AIR FORCE RESPONSES
During the public comment period, written comments were received from one
environmental group and one verbal comment on the Zone 4 Proposed Plan was made by
a citizens' group at a public hearing.
MK01\RPT:00628026.0Q4\zone4rod.apc C-l 12/r 94
-------
1. Comment (verbal):
Response:
I'm concerned that, one, that maybe the cost of creating the
wetlands may be more than to just backfill the area.
The cost of establishing a wetlands at the former landfill
location will be approximately the same as backfilling the
excavated area. The cost savings from not having to buy fill
material and associated placement labor costs will offset the
added planting cost associated with wetlands establishment.
2. Comment (verbal):
Once we create a wetlands, at no time in the future will we be
able to do any kind of development on that particular three and
a half acres. And right now that area is high enough and dry
enough so that if at some time in the future the state was to
develop that area, that would be, to my - I'm included to think
that that would be a prime area to do some developing. So if
we put it into wetlands, we're never going to be able to take it
out of a wetlands because of the headache and the paperwork
involved in trying to mitigate filling in wetlands.
Response:
In evaluating the benefits or need for constructing a wetlands
at the Landfill 6 area, the Air Force needed to look at various
remedial activities being proposed for Pease AFB from a
holistic viewpoint. As a result of capping Landfill 5,
approximately 1 acre of wetlands will be lost. The Air Force is
obligated to mitigate that loss of 1 acre. The establishment of
wetlands at Landfill 6 will result in the creation of
approximately 2 acres of wetlands that will be used as the
mitigation wetlands for those lost at Landfill 5 and Landfill 6.
Establishment of wetlands does preclude the possibility of
redevelopment. However, in evaluating the .potential for
MK01\RPT:0062S026.004\zone4ro
-------
3. Comment (verbal):
Response:
redevelopment in this area, the Air Force reviewed the future
land use plans in this area and determined the proposed future
use of this area, as proposed by the Pease Development
Authority and the City of Portsmouth, is that of a resource
reserve area, As a result, the Air Force considers the
establishment of wetlands at Landfill 6 to be consistent with the
community's reuse plans for the area around Landfill 6.
On the natural attenuation and the biodegradation of the
residue of contaminated groundwater, I think maybe you need
to expound upon that a little bit, because a lot of people aren't
very familiar with what actually is going to happen to this
groundwater if we're going to take it out of the ground
contaminated and not clean it up, or if we do clean it up, to
what extent, and then put it right back into the ground so it will
naturally clean itself up.
The natural attenuation process does not involve the pumping
and treating of groundwater. The contaminated groundwater
is left in-place and natural processes, such as biodegradation,
occur that result in the groundwater "cleaning" itself. This
natural process is facilitated by the fact that the source of
contamination, i.e., Landfill 6 waste, will have been removed.
4. Comment (verbal):
One other thing on the placement of deed restrictions on the
use of the groundwater at Landfill 6, again, in the future, if we
were to not turn that into wetlands, I have a problem with
placing a deed restriction on it. And I'm not sure, will that
deed restriction on the groundwater affect any development on
that parcel of land?
MKOl \RPT.00628026.004\zone4rodapc
-------
The same with the Auto Hobby Shop. I'm not sure if there's
going to be a deed restriction on that. And that's another area
that will most likely be developed. It may not be developed in
the near future, but in the long term, I imagine we're going to
have development take place in that area.
Response:
The deed restrictions for use of groundwater at Landfill 6 and
the Auto Hobby Shop will only need to be in-place for the time
period during which the contamination levels in the
groundwater exceed the standards. Once the natural
attenuation process results in groundwater quality meeting
standards, the deed restrictions can be removed. The Air Force
does not foresee the Landfill 6 area being used for
redevelopment purposes other than open space (see response
to comment no. 2). The deed restrictions at Landfill 6 will not
impact this planned use. The Auto Hobby Shop is serviced by
a municipal water supply system so the deed restrictions on
groundwater use at the Auto Hobby Shop should not have any
impact on reuse of that facility.
5. Comment (verbal):
If we were to develop that area, Landfill 6, would we be able
to get there on the existing dirt road that's there right now, or
will we be blocked because CRD-2 is going to be capped and
therefore we won't be able to construct a road over it? And it
would be pretty hard to construct a road around it because of
the wetlands, there's a lot of wetlands around there. And just
to get to Landfill 6 from the Jones School would be difficult
unless you could travel right across the top of that cap
(CRD-2).
MK01\RFT:0062SQ26.0M\zone4rod.apc
C-4
12/27/94
-------
Response:
As stated in the response to comment no. 2, the prospects of
development occurring at the Landfill 6 area are slight.
However, the following response is provided relative to a road
over CRD-2 to access the Landfill 6 area. First, NHDES has
advised the Air Force on several occasions that, while it is not
prohibited, the state does not fully support that type of activity
(roads) over the top of a closed rubble dump. The primary
concern of the state is the performance of the cap, and it
believes that a road would compromise the integrity of the cap.
With this all said, the Air Force will have to retain a method of
access to Landfill 6 to conduct long-term monitoring. The most
likely method of access will have to be over CRD-2 after
completion of capping. This would be a single-lane unpaved
road. Construction of this limited use road by the Air Force
will have to be coordinated with the State of New Hampshire.
6. Comment (verbal):
Response:
One last thing. When we look at the dollar figure, $4.5 million
for the total cost of this project, 2.0 million is going to be the
operations and maintenance costs for this project. Do we have
that money? Will we be able to depend on having that money
once we do the remedial action to take care of the operation
and maintenance costs, the monitoring in the future? We need
to know if we're going to have those dollars.
The Air Force has the money available to implement the
remedial action for Landfill 6. The out-year costs (i.e.,
operation and maintenance and long-term monitoring) have
been budgeted for by the Air Force. These out-year
requirements will be submitted to Congress as part of the
Department of Defence's budget requirements. The bottom
line for the out-year requirements is that it will be up to
MKOU RPT:00628026.004\zojie4rod.apc
C-5
-------
Congress to authorize the funds. The Air Force has and will
continue to identify the future requirements.
7. Comment (written):
The Proposed Plan distributed to the public for comment
acknowledged groundwater contamination in excess of EPA
guidelines at essentially all sites in Zone 4. Yet, Alternative 4
only treats groundwater at Landfill 6 resulting from dewatering
processes. It would be helpful if the specific concentration of
contaminants was indicated in the Proposed Plan. To what
extent do the contaminants exceed EPA guidelines? 10%?.
100%?, 10 fold? Of particular concern are the PAHs, and
chlorinated PAHs, as they are known carcinogens.
Response:
A Proposed Plan is intended only to summarize the nature and
extent of contamination and not be a detailed technical
document. The Air Force tried to keep the level of detail in its
Proposed Plan such that the layman will. be able to easily
understand the problem and the proposed corrective action.
The level of detail requested in this comment is contained in
the Zone 4 Feasibility Study (FS) Report. The FS Report and
other reports related to Zone 4 are available for public review
as stated in the Zone 4 Proposed Plan.
8. Comment (written):
Table 1 on page 6-3 lists the groundwater cleanup goals for
Landfill 6. Under the 'Basis' column, both MCL and NHDES
standards are used. It is unclear what the justification was for
switching standards for different contaminants. A cynic would
suspect that the less stringent standard was chosen for each
different contaminant.
MKO l\RTT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.apc
C-6
12/27/94
-------
Response:
The standards listed in Table 1 of the Zone 4 Proposed Plan
represent the most stringent standard for the particular
chemical of concern. In selecting cleanup goals, EPA guidance
requires the most stringent standard, be it a state standard or
federal standard, be used, rather than applying a single
regulatory standard across the board, such as the Safe Drinking
Water Act standards.
9. Comment (written):
The cleanup plan for Grafton Ditch appears to be quite lacking.
Although several sites in Zone 4 are acknowledged to
contribute to the contamination of Grafton Ditch and it
contains contaminants above EPA guidelines, no significant
cleanup is planned. If the sources of contamination originate
upgradient, then they should be stopped there. Even if the
upgradient sources are removed, Grafton Ditch is still
contaminated and should be cleaned up.
Response: Any contamination upgradient of Grafton Ditch that may be
flowing into Grafton Ditch will be addressed as pan of the
Zone 3 remedial action at Pease AFB. The contamination
levels in Grafton Ditch were evaluated, in accordance with EPA
guidelines, and the determination was made that a remedial
action was not warranted. Additional information on this
evaluation is contained in the Zone 4 FS Report, available for
public review at Building 43, 61 International Drive, Pease
AFB.
10. Comment .(written): The Sierra Club suggests the following amendments to the
remedial action plan for Zone 4:
MK01\RPT:0062S026.W\ione4rod.apc
C-7
-------
1) On-zone treatment and discharge of groundwater at
Landfill 6 and Grafton Ditch.
2) More uniform use of ARARs in determining
contaminant levels; the more stringent ARAR would be
preferred.
3) A more definitive analysis of contaminants whose
presence or concentration was inconclusive as reported
in the Proposed Plan. Specifically the appearance of
several contaminants in groundwater at CRD-2.
4) Additional study into the sources and ultimate sinks of
contaminants that enter Grafton Ditch. The cleanup of
any subsequent sources and removal of accumulated
contamination in Grafton Ditch.
Response: This response is keyed to the commenter's numbered
suggestions:
1) As stated in the response to comment no. 9, treatment
of Grafton Ditch surface water is not warranted. The
natural attenuation process for addressing the
contaminated groundwater at Landfill 6 will result in
restoration of that groundwater in approximately the
same time period as that of an active pump-and-treat
process (10 years for natural attenuation and somewhat
less for pump and treat — 6 to 8 years).
2) The ARARs used for development of cleanup goals and
the process for selection of ARARs were in accordance
MK01\RPT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.apc C-8 12/27/94
-------
with regulatory guidelines (see response to comment no.
8 for additional information).
3) A Proposed Plan is intended to summarize the site(s)
characterizations. The details being asked for here are
available in the Zone 4 FS and Remedial Investigation
(RI) Reports. These reports and other related Zone 4
information are available for public review at Pease
AFB. See information in the Proposed Plan on the
location and hours that the information repository is
open to the public.
4) Studies are .ongoing pertaining to the locations
upgradient of Graf ton Ditch. This study area is called
Zone 3, and appropriate remedial action will be taken
based on the results of the studies. The public will be
invited to review and comment on the activities the Air
Force proposes for Zone 3.
MK01\RFT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.apc C-9 I- ':".'**
-------
APPENDIX D
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
MK01\RJT:0062SQ26.004\zone4rod.fm 12/22/94
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE INDEX
FOR THE
INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
NEW HAMPSHIRE
DECEMBER 1994
MK01\RFr:00628026.004\zone4rod.idi D-l 12/22/94
-------
ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FLLE
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 Disposal Agency
Operating Location A, Building 43
61 International Drive
Pease AFB, NH 03803-0157
(603) 430-2586
Dynamic Corpontioa utnud in the orgmniiition, cdiblithnax ind on-tite K*up of tiu Admmiitntm Record File it Peu* Air Force Bue.
MK01\RPT:OM28026-004\zone4rod.idx D-3 . 12/22/94
-------
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 (I.I) #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\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.idx
12/22/94
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE STRUCTURE
1.0 SITE IDENTDTTCATION
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-Tune-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 (El) Reports
3.6 Correspondence
4.0 FEASD3IIJTY 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\zone4rod.i
-------
6.0 STATE AND FEDERAL COORDINATION
6.1 Cooperative Agreements/SMC As
6.2 Federal Facility Agreement (FFA)
6.3 Coordination - State/Federal
6.4 General Correspondence
7.0 ENFORCEMENT
7.1 Enforcement History
7.2 Endangennent 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 Late-Comments
10.9 Technical Review Committee Charter
10.10 Correspondence
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4nxJadJt D-6 12/22/94
-------
11.0 TECHNICAL SOURCES, GUIDANCE, AND PROCEDURES DOCUMENTS
11.1 EPA Headquarters Guidance
11.2 EPA Regional Guidance
11.3 State Guidance
11.4 Air Force Guidance
11.5 Technical Sources
11.6 Proposed Procedures/Procedures
11.7 Correspondence
12.0 CONFIDENTIAL FILE
12.1 Privileged Documents (Extractions)
MK01\RFT:0062S026.0CM\zoiie4rod.idx D-7 12/22/94
-------
1.1 Background - RCRA and Other Information
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
REORIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
FEA (1.1) *1 001-031
"Scope of Wort for the Remedial Invettigition/Fe«ibility Study'
Peue Air Force Bue
EPA, NHDES
April 1991
Scope of Work for RI/FS
None
ARF, K
U Notification/She Inspection Reports
» NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
1.3 Piffiiiimary t
(PA) Report
, 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 (1.3) « 001-068
*Fbue n Problem Confirmation and Quantification Prenirvey Report (Field Sampling for SI Work)*
Roy F. Weiton, Inc.
EPA, NHDES, USAF Occupational and Environmental Health L*b (OEHL), Brook* AFB, TX
June I9S4
Ttctuucu Kfpott
None
ARF, IR
t
PEA(1J)*2 001-182
'InjuOlition Reconiioo Prognm Record* Setrcb*
CH2MHJ11
EPA; NHDES; USAF Engineering & Service* Center, Tyndall AFB; SAC, OfEun AFB, NE
Junury 1984
Technical Report
None
ARF, IR
#
FEA(1J)0 001-041
•prdimirMry Aneiimcnt — Updated PA Report*
Roy F. Weffon, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
20 July 1990
Letter Report
None
ARF, IR
MK01\RPT:00628(J».004\zon64rod4dx
D-9
12/22/94
-------
1.4 Ste Inrestigation (SI) Report
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (1.4) #1001-309
'Installation RenoratioQ Program, Phue II - Confirmation/Quantification Stage I, Volume I (Final Report for
Period Ooober 19S4 - July 1986)'
Roy F. Wetton, Inc.
HQ SAC/SGPB, Offiin AFB, NE; EPA; NHDES
Augtut 1986
Technical Report: Field Investigations
None
ARF, R
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLED
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (1.4) #2001-883
"Installation Restoration Program. Phase n * Confimutioii/Qu*ntific«doaStage 1, Volume n (Appendices)'
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
HQ SAC/SGPB, Ofiutt AFB, NE; EPA; NHDES
August 19S7
Technical Repoit: Field Invcjtigitioni
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (1.4) *3 001-308
"Initallccion Rettontion Program, Stage 3B Prdiminaiy Ane*»»ent/Sit« Inspection"
Roy F. Wefton, lac.
EPA; NHDES; HQ SAODE, Offtn AFB, NE; AFSC HSD/YAQ, Brooks AFB, TX
Febnury 1991
Technical Report: Also include* review of PA
None
ARF, IR
#
U Pi grime Operable Unit Infonnatun
* NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
1.6 Coirapondeote
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (1.6>« 001-002
'Commentt Regarding
-------
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE.
LOCATION:
PEA (1.6)« 001-005
•Comment* Regarding the Kate 0, Stage I IRF Report (08/86 Draft)"
Stele of New Hunpthire, Dcpimceai of Environment*! Service!
Air Force
3 Febnuty 1987
Commenu to SI (1.4)
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER;
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (1.6) #4 001-007
'Air Force RetponKi to Comments From tin New Htmpihin Department of Environmental Service* on the
Phue D, Suge 1 IRP Dnft Report'
Department of die Air Force
NHDES
8 Miy 1987
Rexpoiiaeito Commenti to SI (1.4)
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (1.6) «6 001-004
'Letter Concerning Site Wtlkoven mtde with Meoiben of Sherburoe Civic Group'
Suu of New Hunpthire, Department of Enviromnentel Service*
Ail Force
18 July 1990
Letter
NOD*
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\ione4rodjdx
D-ll
12/32/94
-------
2.1 Sampling ""* Analysis Flans
• NOTE; NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
22 Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody
'NOTE; NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
23 EE/CA ApprOTal Memorandum (Non-Time Critical Removals)
•NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
* 1A EE/CA {fjiflinMriiig Evainatum/Coft Analysis)
'NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
l£ Action Memorandum
» NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
•NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TTME
2.7 Removal Response Reports
•NOTE: NO ENTRIES
2.8 Cortcspoodcncc
•NOTE: NO ENTRIES
MK01\RFT:0062S026.004\ion«4iod.idjt D-12 12/22/94
-------
3.1 Somptmg and Aulysi Plan (SAP)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
FEA 0.1) #1 001-210
*Qu*Iiiy Aanuance Project Plan, Integrated Installation Restoration Program, Suge 2, to Support the
Preliminary Remedial lavenigation Field Work, Libelled Stage 2 Field Work'
Roy F. Weaton, Inc.
EPA; NHDES; HQ SAC/DEPV, Offun AFB, NE
November 1987
Quality Aamrauce Project Flu
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.1)12001-212
'Quality Aaauraoce Project Plan, Integrated Installation Rettorttioo Program, Suge 3'
Roy F. Werton, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
Augim 1989
Quality Aicunoce Project PUn
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.1) #3 001-286
•Installation Restoration Program, Suge 4 Sampling and Analyiu Plan*
Roy F. Wetton. Inc.
EPA, NHDES
January 1991
Sampling *ad Analytis Plan
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LOfoG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.l)f] 001-003
Locations of Background Sampling Location!
Arthur L. Ditto
RPM, U.S. Air Force/Pate AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
USEPA, Region 1
and
Richard PeaK, RPM
NHDES
IS June 1992
Letter and Map
Suge 3C Background Data Baje
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA<3.1)«1 001-R1
InMllatton Rectorttion Program, Stage 4 Sampling and Analyait Plan Addendum 3, Peaae AFB, NH - Dnft
Roy F. Wwton, Inc.
USAF
October 1992
Addendum
None
ARF
#
MKDl\RPT:00628026.004\ione4rod.idx
D-13
12/22/94
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan, Addendum #3. QAPP Portion
Roy F. We*ton, lac.
USAF
2 December 1992
Addendum
None
ARF
3J Sampfiog and Analysis Data/Cham of Custody Forms
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG1TTLE:'
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (331 « 001-027
Volatile Aromatici/Halocarboiu by Modified 8010/8020 - Drift D«U Sheets
Roy F. Wecton, Inc.
PeaaeAFB
Unknown
Data
None
ARF
tt
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA<3.2)«001-018
Volatile Arotnatica/Hatoeirbonjby Modified 8010/8020
Hay F. Weewn, Inc.
PeateAFB
Unknown
Data
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.2) «001-013
Preliminary Survey of Metal Concentrations in New Hampshire Soils - Final Report
New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services, Bureau of Health Risk Ascesnmrt
USAF
May 1991
Data
None
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(3.2)/7001-D1
Background Soluble Mettls Concentrations for Oroundwiter at Pease AFB
Roy F. Weaton, be.
USAF
ZONovember 1991
Letter Report
PEA (3.6)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA(3,2)#8001-E.l
Tolerance Liaau for Background Soils at Pease AFB, NH
Roy F. Wcfton, IDC.
USAF
17 April 1992
Later Report
MKDl\RPr:0062S026.004\zone4iad.idx
D-14
12/22/94
-------
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.2) #10 001-002
Resulti of Background Surface Water/Sediment Location Walkover
Arthur L. Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Peaie AFB
Johanna Hunter. RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
19 August 1992
Letter
Knighti Brook
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.2) #12 001-052
Maximum Detected Concentration! for Unfihered Groundwater it Pease AFB, NM
LeedePenU
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, lac.
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Foice/Peaae AFB
25 August 1992
Letter with Anachmenta (Tables and Gnpha)
Chaneterizatioa of loorganic Background Levdi for Giouadwater at Peeae AFB
ARF
33 Wort Plan
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.3) #1001-144
"Work Plan for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3*
RoyF. Wenon, lac.
EPA.NHDES
Augufl 19(9
Wort Plan
None
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND &EFERENCET
LOCATION:
PEA (3.3) *4 001-258
•Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Work Plan*
RoyF. We«ton,Ine.
EPA.NHDES
January 1991
Work Plan
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA (3.3) #i 001-213
*Work Plan for (be Integrated Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Labelled Stage 2 Wort Plaa"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
September 1987
Work Plan
MK01\RPT:0062S026.004\zone4rodJdx
D-15
12/22/94
-------
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(3.3)*6001-OL2
Instillation Rectoittion Program, Stage 4 Wort Plan Addendum I. Pea»e AFB, NH - Draft
RoyF. Wenon, Inc.
USAF
September 1991
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE: "
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA <3.3) *7 001-OS
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum Number 2 for Peate AFB, NH - Draft
Roy F. Wefton, Inc.
USAF
March 1992
Addendum
None
ARF, Dt
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.3) #9001-3.5
Installation Reitontion Program, Stage 4, Work Plan Addendum 3, Peate AFB, NH
Roy F. Wciton, Inc.
USAF
June 1992
Addendum
None
ARF, IR
It
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.3) #11001-003
Cocvenion of Well 06-608 to a Fractured Bedrock Monitor Well
LeedePenia
Task Manager
Roy F. Wexton, Inc.
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
8 September 1992
Letter and Diagram
LF-6 aod Well 06-601
ARF, IR
i
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (33) #12 001-004
Gmmdwater Modeling Process Outline
LeedePenia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weaon, Inc.
Arthur Ditto, RPM
V.S. Air Foree/PetwAFB
2 October 1992
Letter
Groundwater Modeling
ARF, IR
It
MK01\RPT:00628026.0M\ione4rod.idx
D-16
12/22/94
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG THUG:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
• DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.3) #15 001-F
U.S, Air Force Innallaiion Restoration Program Peace AFB Inierim Monitoring Plan
USAF
PeucAFB
January 1994
Monitoring Plan
Groundwater Monitoring
ARF (Zone 7 Shelf)
3.4 fn
r HI FkU Work Reports
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) f 1 001-173
"Interim Technical Report No. 1 for the Installation Rertonrioo Program, Stage 2, Volume I*
Roy F. Western, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
February 198S
Technical Report
None
AKF, IR
' t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) #2001 -147
"Interim Technical Report No. 1 for the IruuUation Refutation Program, Stage 2, Volume D - Appendices"
Roy F. We»ton, toe.
EPA, NHDES
January 1988
Technical Report - Appendice*
Nona
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) 13 001-214
"Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the InnaUation Reparation Program, Stage 2, Volume I"
Roy F. Wcfton, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
August 19S8
Technical Report
None
ARF, IR
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) #4 001-696
"Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the In
itallation Reiteration Program, Stage 2, Volume Q - Appendice*
(Sample Tracking Information. Analytical Renitti)'
Hoy F. Wenon, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
Technical Report - Appendice* (Sample Tracking Information, Analytical Reaihi)
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR;
MK01\RPT:00628CB6.0(W\Mne4ro
-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
EPA, NHDES
August 1988
Technical Report •
None
ARF! IR
Appendices (Analytical Remits)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) #6 001-722
'Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the Installition Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume IV - Appendices
(Analytical Route)*
Roy F. Wetton, Inc.
EPA. NHDES
August 1988
Technical Report - Appendices (Analytic*! Results)
None
ARF, IR
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA <3.4) fJ 001-289
"Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the Installation Restontion Program, Stage Z, Volume V - Appendices
(Field Geologic*!, Geotechniul, and HydrogcologicalData)'
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
August 1988
Technical Report - Appendices (Field Geological, Geotechnieal, and Hydrogeological Data)
None
ARF, IR
(C
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) #10 001-198
'Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume I'
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
April 1989
Technical Report
None
ARF, IR
ff
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE;
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) #11 001-770
'Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Installation Restoration Prognm, Stage 2, Volume H - Appendices'
Roy F. Weston, bK.
EPA, NHDES
April 1989
Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
t
PEA(3,4)m001-«a
•Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Installation Restoration Prognm, Stage 2, Volume, ffi • Appendices'
Roy F. Weston, lac.
EPA, NHDES
April 1989
Technical Report - Appendice*
None
ARF, IR
MK01\RFT:00628Q26.004\zone4rod.idx
D-18
12/22/94
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) «3 001-770
"Interim Technical Report No. 4 for (he Inctallstion Restoration Program, Slige 2, Volume IV - Appendice*'
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
April 1989
Technical Report - Appendices
Nome
ARF, IR
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) * 14 001 -1,150
'Interim Technical R«port No. 4 for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume V - Appeadicei'
•Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
April 1989
Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) *15 001-729
'Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Instillation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume VI - AppendiceT
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
April 1989
Technical Report * Appendicei
None
ARF, IR
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) 116001-803
'Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Volume Vn - Appendicei*
Roy F. Weffoti, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
April 1989
Technical Report - Appendicc*
None
ARF, Dt
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) *17 001-251
•Installation Rutontioo Pr
igram, Stage 2, Draft Final Report, Volume I*
Roy F. Weaton, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
July 1990
Technical Report
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4)118001-452
"Installation Restoration Prognm, Stage 2. Dnft Final Report, Volume II'
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA. NHDES
July 1990
Technical Report
Now
ARF, IR
#
MK01\RPT:0062a026.004\ione4ro
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TY?E:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) #19 001-621
"Insulation Restoration Program. Stage 2, Drift Final Report, Appendices, Volume I'
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA. NHDES
July 1990
Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) 120 001-420
"Instillation Restoration Program, Sage 2, Drift Finil Report, Appendices, Volume D"
Roy F. Werton, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
July 1990
Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, »
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) #21 001-658
"Installation Restoration Prognm, Stage 2, Draft Final Report, Appendices, Volume m"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
July 1990
Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) #22 001-688
'Installation Restoration Prognm, SUge 2, Drift Filial Report, Appendices, Volume IV*
Roy F. Wettoo, IDC.
EPA, NHDES
July 1990
Technical Report - Appendices
None
ARF.IR
a
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) A3 001-261
•Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final Report. Appendices, Volume V
Roy F. WMton, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
July 1990
Technical Report - Appendices
Nqne
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) #24 001-340
'Installation Rettontion Program, Stage 2, Draft Final Report, Appendices, Summary Analytical Tables'
Roy F. Weatoa, Inc.
EPA, NUDES
July 1990
Technical Report - Appendices
Nona
ARF, IR
MK01\RPT:0062S)26.004\zoae4rodJdx
D-20
12/22/94
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4) »8 001-041
fate AFB Monitor Well Inventory tad Inspection
Roy F. Wefton, Inc.
USAF
7 Auguit 1992
Report
None
ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(3.4)f39001-D
Background Values for Soil, Groundwuer, Surface Water and Sediment at Peue Air Force Bate
Roy F. Weaton, Inc.
USAF
26 February 1993
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(3.4)#40001-M»p6
Off Baae Well Inventory Letter Report for Pean AFB
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
17 September 1992
Letter Report
None
ARF
If
35 Remedial In«sti««t>on (HI) Reportx
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(3.S)I900I-D
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Site Characterization Summary, IRP Zone 4, Peaae AFB, NH
Appendices
Roy F. Wefion, Inc.
USAF
May 1992
AppcndicB*
None
ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG. TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.5)1100014129
emanation Restoration Prognm, Stage 4 Site Characterization Summary, OtP Zone 4, Puae AFB, NH
Technical Report
RoyF. Wetton, Inc.
USAF
May 1992
Report
None
ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT.
PEA(3.S)fl6001-B.I2
Sampling Locations and Results Drainage Area Lener Report
RoyF. Wenon, Inc.
USAF
MKOl\RPT:00628026.004\ione4rod.klx
D-21
I2/22/M
-------
DATE: May 1992
TYPE: Report
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION: .
PEA(3.5)*44001-Acr. 5
United States Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease Air Force But, Zone 4 Remedial Investigation
Report Text -Drift Final
Roy F. Wesun, Inc.
USAF
September 1993
Report
Zone 4
ARF (Zone 4 Shelf)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3 JS) #45 001-6.4-3
United States Air Force Instillation Restoration Program, Peas* Ait Force Base, Zone 4 Remedial Investigation
Report-Figures—Draft Final
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
September 1993
Report
Zone 4
ARF (Zone 4 Shell)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3 ,S) #46 001-1
United States Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease Ait Force Base, Zone 4 Remedial Investigitioo
Report, Appendices B, C, D, E, F, H, G and 1-Drift Final
Roy F. Wecon, Inc.
USAF
September 1993
Appendices
Zone 4
ARF (Zone 4 Shelf)
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.5) *47 001-0
United Sutes Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Peue Air Force Base, Zone 4 Remedial Investigation
Report, Appendices J, L and O—Draft Final
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
September 1993
Appendices
Zone 4
ARF (Zone 4 Shelf)
~ I
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
FEA(3.5)«4SOOt-K.l
United States Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease Air Force Bate, Zone 4 Remedial Investigation
Report, Appendix K, Part 1 of 2-Draft Final
Roy F. Wefton, Inc.
USAF
September 1993
Appendices
Zone 4
ARF (Zone 4 Shelf)
f
MKDl\RFT:0062802fi.004\a>ne4rod-idx
D-22
12/22/94
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TY?E:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
United State* Air Force Iniullattao Reiteration Program, Pease Air Force Base, Zone 4 Remedial Investigation
Report, Appendix K Pan 2 of 2-Draft Final
Roy F. Weaon, Inc.
USAF
September 1993
Appendix
Zone4
ARF (Zone 4 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3,5) #50 00]-O
United Sute* Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pear Air Force Bate, Zone 4 Remedial Invertgttsan
Report, Appendices M, & N
Roy F. Weston, Inc. •
USAF
MirchlW3
Appendicet
Zone 4
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(3.5)*51001-J.l
United Sutet Air Force Instillation Rettontion Program, Peuc Air Force Bue, Zone 4 Remedial Investigation
Report, Appendix I 1 of 4
Roy F. Wenon, he.
USAF
March 1993
Appendix
Zone 4
ARF
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(3.5)*52001-J.2
United State* Air Force Installation Reaontion Program, ptaae Air Force Bate, Zone 4 Remedial Investigation
Report, Appendix 12 of 4
Roy F. Wenon, Inc.
USAF
March 1993
Appendix
Zone 4
ARF
*•
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(3.5)«3001-J.3
United States Air Force Instillation Restoration Program, Pease Air Force Base, Zone 4 Remedial Inveitigiiion
Report, Appendix I 3 of 4
Roy F. Wetcon, Inc.
USAF
Matce 1993
Appendix
Zone 4
ARF
1
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR.
RECIPIENT:
PEA (3^)154001-1.4
United States Air Force Installation Restontioa Program, Feaae Air Force Base, Zone 4 Remedial Investigation
Report, Appendix] 4 of 4
Roy F. Wenon, Inc.
USAF
MKO]\RPT:006280M.004\ione4rod.idjt
D-23
12/22/94
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
March 1993
Appendix
Zone 4
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION: .
FEA<3.5)/102001-R.7
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Peate AFB, Zone 4 Remedial Investigation Report DRAFT
Section 6
Roy F. Western, Inc.
USAF
April 1993
Report
Zone-4
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
3PEA(3J)#103001-L.7
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Peace AFB, Zone 4 Remedial Investigation Report DRAFT
Appendix L
Roy F. Weaoa. Inc.
USAF
April 1993
Appendix
Zone 4
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3 ,5) #115 001-039
Cumulative Risk Evaluation for Zone L through Zone 5 at Peue AFB, N.H.
Roy F, Weston, Inc.
USAF
March 1994
Rick Evaluation Report
For Zones 1 through Zone 5
ARF, General 3. 5 Shelf
3.6 RI Correspondence
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6)01 001-001
•Comment! Regarding the Work Plan for (he IRP Stage 2'
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air For»
27 July 19S7
Common Serving 3.4 (Preiiminary RI Field Work Report*)
None
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA (3.6) « 001-006
"Leoer Regarding IRP, Stage 2"
Roy F. 'Western, Inc.
Air Force
11 November 1987
Letter Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Wort Reports)
MK01\RITi00628026.004\ione4rod.iojt
D-24
12/22/94
-------
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #3 001-001
"Letter Stating Conformmee of the Stage 2, Quality Ataunnce Project Flan With Air Force IRP Practices'
Sute of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Service*
Air Force
12 November 1987
Letter Serving 3.4 (Preliminary Rl Field Work Report*)
None
ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) 16 001-001
"Letter Co&cernmg Dtilliiig
Roy F. Wetton, Inc.
Air Force
20 October 19SS
!.««•• Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Reporu)
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) f 10 001-003
•Review Comments on the Phaae D, Stage 2 IRP, Draft Final Report"
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Service*
Air Force
28 February 1990
Review Comment! on Phate n. Stage 2, IRP Serving 3.4 (Preliminary R] Field Work Reports)
Now
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) «1001-011
•Review Commend for the Peue AFB, Pbate n. Stage 2 IRP Draft FuuJ Report"
U.S. EPA
Air Force
7 March 1990
Review Comments Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Report*)
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE: ^
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3,6) #12 001-010
•Review Comment* Regarding the IRP, Stage 2 Draft Final Report (December 1989)*
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmotpheric Admuristntion
Air Force via EPA
7 March 1990
Review Comments Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Reports)
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA (3.6) #13 001-020
•Review Comment* to the IRP Stage 2 Rl/FS Draft Report*
Department of the Air Force
Roy f. Wetton. Inc. I far Force
IS March 1990
Review Comments Serving 3.4 (Preliminary Rl Field Work Report*)
MKO]\RJrr:00628026.004\wne4rod.idjE
D-25
12/22/94
-------
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION; ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #19 001-002
•Tn«.li«4n« Restoration Pragma (1RP) it Peue AFB, NH*
Department of the Air Force
Air Force
8 Much 1989
Memorandum - Pertaining to RI
None
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #20 001-002
•Work Plan for the KP Suge 3 ud TTR #4*
Department of Che Air Force
Air Force
3 April 1989
Memorandum - Pertaining to RI,
None
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) *21 001-007
"ConwjKdated Comment* to (he KP Stage 3 Wort Plan for Peace Air Force Base, NH"
Department of the Air Force
Roy F. Wetton, Inc.
1 June 1989
Review Commam — Pertaining to RI
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGimE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE;
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) *22 001-001
"Review Commenta Regarding the Work Plan and QAPP - Stage 3'
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
16 June 1989
Review Comment* - Pertaining to RI
None
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #23 001-008
•Stage 3 Work Flan - Re*poo*e to Comment*"
Roy F. Weaton, Inc.
Air Fore*
29 June 1989
Ropotue to Comment* - Pertaining to RI
None
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
PEA (3.6) #24 001 -008
•Conaoltdated Comment* to the IRP Stage 3 Qualify Auurance Project Flan (QAPP) for Peace Air Force Bate,
NH*
Department of the Air Force
Roy F. Wetton, Inc.
29 June 19&9
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zone4rod.i4x
D-26
12/22/94
-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Review Comment! — Pertaining to RI
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) 127 001-002
'Lean- summarizing ditcuiiions between Roy F. Wesion, Inc. and the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services concerning on-site handling end disposal of toil tod water generated during drilling,
development, purging, and pump testing of well*"
Roy F. Wcston, Inc.
Air Fore*
12 Much 1990
Letter — Pertaining to 3.4
None
ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE.
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #29 001-007
•Review commeoU on the Stage 3 Work Plan for the ISP'
U.S. EPA
Air Force
7 June 1990
Review Comments — Pertaining to RI
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #31 001-002
'Letter regarding well initallation modification'
Roy F. Wetton, Inc.
Air Force
S July 1990
Letter
None
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #34 001-004
"Lester regarding the disposal of clean water, drilling mud and nil*
Roy F. Weaon, Inc.
Air Force
25 September 1990
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER^
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
PEA (3.6) «S 001-002
'Letter regarding procedure* for handling tobd* end liquids during well construction and toil boriogi*
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
Air Force
25 September 1990
Letter
None
ARF
t
PEA (3.6) *38 001-002
'Information Letter 3 - Documenting discussion on 25 October 1990*
Roy F. Wesjon, toe.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\rone4rod.idj(
D-27
12/22/94
-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Air Force
29 October 1990
Letter
None
ART
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION: •
PEA (3.6) «9 001-002
"Letter regArcitoff the difponl of clean toil cuttings tod drilling mid"
Department of Che Air Force
Roy F. Werton, Inc.
1 November 1990
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #41 001-008
•Response to Comment! - Drift Fatal Stage 4 Wort Plin and Sampling And Analysis Plan'
Roy F. Wetton, Inc.
Air Fore*
7 February 1991
Leaer/Recponie to Comments
None
ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONQTITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION;
PEA (3.6) #43 001-004
"louts Needing Resolution Prior to the Upcoming Field Efforts*
U.S, EPA
Air Force
10 April 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3,6) #46 001-038
•Response to Comment* - Stage 4 Work PUn tod SAP*
Roy F. Wenon, Inc.
Air Force
28 September 1990
Response to CoouDerjti
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
PEA (3.6) 147 001-Oil
"Review eoaunent* on the Installation Ratorttion Plin (QtP) Suge 4 Work PUn rad Sampling ind Aotl>iu
PUn"
Sute of New Hwnpihire, Deptrmwol of Environmental Service*
Air Force
16 October 1990
Review CommtoU
None
ARF
I
PEA (3,6) #48 001-017
"The Town of Newington review commenu en ihe IRP Suge 4 Work PUn'
MK01\RPT-.0062E026.004\zone4rod.idi
D-28
12/22/94
-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
The Town of Ncwingwn
Air Force
29 October 1990
Review Comment*
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) «9 001-076
"EPA technical review of the Daft IRP Stage 4 Work PUa md Sampling and Analysis Plan for Paw Air
Force Bue'
U.S. EPA
Air Force
2 November 1990
Review Comment!
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER.
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #50 001-002
"Reipome to Air Force questions on rate comments to the Stage 4 Work PUo"
Sute of New Hampihire, Department of Environmental Scrvicei
Air Force
3 December 1990
Response to Air Force questions on Sute of New Hampshire comment*
None
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE.
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #51001-00-7
*Retponie to EPA comments on the Peue AFB Stage 4 Work Plan/Sampling and Analyst* Plan"
U.S. Air Force
EPA
10 December 1990
Air Force responses to EPA commenti
None
ARF
9
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE.
LOCATION:
PEA (3,6)/TS2 001-008
*Air Force Reipome to NHDES Comment! - Draft Final Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling and An*lyu> Plan'
Roy F. Wetton, Inc.
Air Force
7 February 1991
Rctpoiuc to Comments
None
ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA (3.6} #S3 001-008
'EPA initial approval of the IRP Stage 4 Work PUn and Sampling and AnaJyiii PUn*
U.S. EPA
Air Force
13 March 1991
Lrttrr concerning EPA initial approval of Sttge 4 Work Plan and Sampling and Analyti* Plan
MK01\RrT:00628026.004\»ne4iod.idj(
D-29
12/22/94
-------
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6)054001-058
'Air Force Response to EPA comment* on the Stage 4 Work Plan ind Sampling tad Analysis Plan*
Roy F. Wefton, Inc.
EPA
1991
Reiponie to Comment*
Noae
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTmJE:
AUTHOR:,
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) «<5 001-001
U.S, Air Force - Internal Note
Aft Ditto/USAF/Peaie AFB
8 April 1991
Intemtl Record of Phon* Conversation with EPA and NHDES
None
ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) 497 001-004
biuu Needing Resolution Prior to Upcoming Field Eftbrti
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Peaae AFB
10 April 1991
Letter
Stage 3 and 4 Work PIu (3.3)
ARF
*
PEA (3.6) 158 001-002
Review of Rut Anemnent D*u tad Sampling Procedures
Johum* Hunter, USEPA
Arthur Ditto, Peue AFB
16 April 1991
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) K9 001-067
Cgneanu «bout Ao*)ytiul Methodi
USAF
USAF
Johum* Humer, USEPA
Roy F. W«Moa, Inc.
23 April 1991
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
PEA (3.6) MO 001-001
Suriue Water and Sediment Sampling Locttioni
MK01\RrT:00628026.004\zone4rod.idx
D-30
12/12/94
-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Peue AFB
Johtnaa Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
24 April 1991
Letter (Tranimittal)
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE: .
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) «1 001-008
Field Ovenigbt Coordination
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Arthur Ditto, Pent AFB
29 April 199!
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #63 001-003
Review of April 25, 1991 Revised Analytic*! Methodi
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
An Ditto, Pe*te AFB
08 M«y 1991
Letter
None
ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) «4 001-002
Review of April 25, 1991 Revited Analytical Methodi
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Art Ditto, Peue AFB
OS May 1991
Letter
None
ART
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6)*tf 001-005
Field Performance Review of Weston Activitie*, Peue Air Force Bue. New Hampihin
Mitre CofpontioD
Deficit Lundauixt
Human Syttemi Diviiion
IRP Program Office
HSD/YAQ
Brooki AFB, TX 78235-5000
14 May 1991
Letter
Noae
ARF
• *
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
FEA (3 -6)«6 001-002
Revised Analytical Method* for Pewe AFB
Logan VaaLetgn. Ctpt., USAF, BSC
Technical Program Manager
Jobuiai Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
MK01\RPT:00628026.0M\zone4rod.idx
D-31
12/22/94
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
31 May 1991
Letter
Sampling uid Analysis PUn 0.1)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR.:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #67001-005
Procedure for Eaublidring Background Moil Concentration! for Grouadwater tnd Soil
Edward S. Bunei, Roy F. Wenoo, Inc.
USAF
03 June 1991
Letter
None
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #68 001-012
Information to A»sm Interpretation of Data Submitted by EPA to the Air Force
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Alt Ditto, Peaxe AFB
06 Tune 1991
Letter
None
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #69 001-004
Resolution Letter for Procedures for 8260 for VOC Analysis of Water
Mark McKenzte, Peaie AFB
Richard Peaie, NHDES
Carl Gytler, Earth Technology, San Bernardino, CA
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
06 June 1991
Fax
None
ARF
it
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6} fTO001-001
Background Determination Protocols
USAF
Richard Peate, NHDES
07 June 1991
Now
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(3.6)f7100U»l
Background Detenmnatk
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
07 June 1991
i Protocol*
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
PEA <3.fi)f72 001-003
Reviled Analytical Methods for Peaie AFB GC/MS Method 8260 for VOA
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zone4rod.idx
D-32
12/22/94
-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Edward S. Barnes, Roy F. Weiton, Inc.
USAF
11 June 1991
Letter
None
ARF
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) m 001-001
Laboratory Service*
Richard Peue, NHDES
Art Ditto, Pette AFB
13 June 1991
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(3.6)lT75001-002
EPA Pump Ten Information Request to be Provided by Air Force
Johann* Humer, RPM
U.S. EPA Regioo 1
An Ditto, RPM
'USAF
Peue AFB
27 June 1991
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) *77 001-001
Tranimittal Letter for Protocoli for Biteline RUk Aueumenu
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
Richard Pt»K, RPM
NHDES
18 July 1991
Tnnimittil Letter
BuelijM Risk Aueunenti
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT: _
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) fit 001-001
Tnmnitttl Ltntr for Protocol! for Biteline Riik Anewmeou
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PeueAFB
Johanni Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Regioo 1
18 July 1991
Tnnimitu) Letter
Baieline Ruk Auetnneoa
ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECtPrENT:
PEA (3.6) #80 001-002
Exploniory Boring Soil Sampling Procedure*
Edward S. Bimef
Roy F. Weson, Inc.
Capt. Login Van Leigh
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.id)t
D-33
12/22/94
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
U.S. Air Fore*
Air Force Center for Environment*! Excellence
26 July 1991
Later
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) «2 001 -006
Review of the Proposed Procedure for Background Determination Protocol! for Peaie Air Force But,
Portimouth, NH
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
An Ditto, Peate AFB
02 Augua 1991
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #»4 001-001
Split Sampling Recutu
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U. S. Air Force/Peaae AFB
Johanna Humer, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region t
and
Richard Pea*e, RPM
NHDES
9 September 1991
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) «5 001-002
Field Overtigbt - September 1991
Riclurd Peue, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, USAF RPM
2! October 1991
Letter
RI Field Work (3.4)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA <3.6) *86 001-001
Traaunittal Letter for DtU Collected on Surface Wiier and Sediment Background Concentration
Johanna Hunter, RPM
US. EPA. Region 1
EdBerma
Project Manager
Roy F. Wefton, Inc.
2 December 1991
Tumnuttil Letter
Nooo
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
PEA 0.6)187001-002
Regional Literature Search to Awin Development of die Sedtmeot and Surface Water Btctground
Determiiution for Peaie AFB, PDrUmouth, NH
MK01\RJT:00628026.004\ione4rodJdx
D-34
12/22/94
-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Johanna Hunter. USEPA
Art Ditto, Peaie AFB
2 December 1991
Nooe
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3 .6) (R8 001401
Fugitive DuA Pathway in the Baseline Rut Aueumem
Arthur Ditto, RPM, USAF
PeueAFB
Johanna Hunter RPM
U.S. EPA Region 1
3 January 1992
Bueline Risk Attemnan (3-5) - RI Repoitt
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #89001-001
Evaluation of die Air Pathwiy in Baieline Ritk Awetsmect
USAF
lohvuu 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 Baielioe Ri«k Aneatnent
USAF
Richard Peue, NHDES
II February 1992
Letter
None
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #95 001-001
Traniraittal Leon for Subminal of BajeHne Ride
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Peaie AFB
Richard Peue, RPM
NHDES
25 February 1992
Tmumittal Letter
Batelinr Rat Aaieanntat
ARF
t
PlOtOCOU
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA (3.6) *96 001-001
Tnntmitta] Letter for Reviled Ban-line Ride Ani-iimrrH Protoeoli
Artbur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PeueAFB
Jobaona Hunter, RPM
USEPA, Region 1
25 February 1992
Transmhtal Lener
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.idx
D-35
12/22/W
-------
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Reviled Baseline Riik Assessment
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA 0. 6) #98 001-003
Request for EPA Split Sampling Results
Arthur Ditto, RFM
USAF/Pesse AFB
Johanna Hunter. RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
9 March 1992
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #99 001-Dl
Irttftf Report of Result! of Statistical Comparison of Stsge 3C Simples to the 66 Other Background Samples
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
9 March 1992
Letter Report
PEA (3.5)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA 0.6) (HOO 001-001
Tnnitntnal Letter for Subnuttal of Suge 4 Work Plan Addendum Number 2 on the Draft Stage t Sampling and
Analysis Plan Addendum Number 2
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Peate AFB
Johanna Hunter
U.S. EPA, Region 1
24 March 1992
Tranmnttal Letter
PEA (3.1), PEA (3.J)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA C3.6) #101 001 -001
Truumioal Letter for Subminal of Stage 4 Addendum Number 2 Work Pltn and Sampling and Aotlytii Plan
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Peas* AFB
Richarf Pease, RPM
NHDES
24 Match 1992
PEA C3-1). PEA (33)
ARF •
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #103 001-022
Evaluation of Air Pathway in Biselhm Risk Assessment!
Richard Pease, NHDES
Ait Ditto, P***e AFB
13 April 1992
Letter with At""hinTBff
None
ARF
*
MK01\RPT:OOS28026.004\K>ne4rod.i
-------
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) 1105 001-003
Peate Air Force Bue Zone 4 Draft Site ChartwerizMicin Sumnuiy
Edward S. Bum, Roy F. Weaon, Inc.
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richird Pate. NHDES
08 M»y 1992
Letter
None
ASF
t
PEA (3.6) #106001-002
Oversight Role of Regulatory Ageneiet it Peate AFB
Michael D*ly, USEPA
Mark MeKeozie, Peue AFB
26 May 1992
Lean
None
ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) fill 001-001
Submittil of Draft Secondary Document!, Stage * Work Plin Addendum 3 tad Stage 4 Health and Safety Plan
Addendum
USAF
Richird Peue, NHDES
24 June 1992
Letter
None
ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) *U2 001-001
Submittal of Dnft Secondary Documents, Stage 4 Wort Plan Addendum 3 and Stage 4 Health and Safety Plan
Addendum
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
24 June 1992
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA <3.«> 1113 001-002
Addition*] Field Overright
USAF
Michael Daly, USEPA
8 July 1992
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (3.6) «16 0014121
Peaie Air Force Bate Groundwater Modeling Letter Report
Lee dePerna, Roy F. Wefton, Inc.
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
MK01\RrT:00628026.004\zone4rod.idx
D-37
12/22/94
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION;
29 July 1992
Letter with Report
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #120 001-001
Monitor Well Inventory and Inspection Report
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Peite, NHDES
18 August 1992
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) *122001-002
Reoiht of Background Surface Witer Sediinent Li
Ridurd Pemw, RPM, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, RPM, Pttie AFB
27 August 1992
nation Walkover
PEA (6.4)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGimJE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #123 001-005
Risk Assessment Issues for Pease AFB
LeedePenia
Tail Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Anhiir Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pe*** AFB
28 August 1992
Letter Report
PEA (3.5)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (3.6)«24 001-001
Tmnmhtal Letter for Submittal of Oroundwater Background Letter Report
Mark McKtoow for Ardmr Ditto
USAF/PeueAFB
Ridurd Pemie, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Johanna Huroer
U.S. EPA, Region 1
1 September 1992
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (3.6) #125 001-002
Policy on Data Transfer During Pumping Te
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PeueAFB
Richard Peue, RPM
MK01\RPT:0062S02£.004\zone4rod.idx
D-38
12/22/94
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
NHDES
tad
Johaena Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
9 September 1992
Later
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) *128 001-003
Summary of Riik Ittue* Meeting of Augun 19, 1992
Johanna Hinder, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pea«e AFB
16 September 1992
Letter
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 Feaie, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, RPM Peue AFB
7 October 1991
Letter
PEA (3.4)
ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) 1139 001-001
Submittai of Stage 4 Sampling md An*ly«is Pkn Addendum 3
USAF
Johttui* Hunter, USEPA
26 October 1992
Letter
None
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #140 001-001
Suhmitud of Sug* 4 Swnplini md Amlyiit PUn Addendum 3
USAF
Richud Pcue, NHDES
26 October 1992
Lean-
None
ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA (3.6) #146 001-001
Application of the Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) in Riak *«* •••••••»
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF. Peue AFB
Richard Peue, RPM
NHDES
1 December 1992
Letter
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zonc4ro
-------
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
REGIMENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #147 001-00!
EnpUnttioo of OfF-Bue Well Inventory Report
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Peue AFB
Richard Petie, RPM
NHDES
4 December 1992
Laser
Off-Bus Well Inventory- Letter Repon of 17 September 1992
PEA (3.5)
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #148 001-001
Truumittal Letter for SubmitUl of Qmlity Anunnce Project PUn (QAPP) Portion of the Stage 4 Simplinj
and Aulysii Flu (SAP) Number 3
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pan AFB
Jofaunu Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
i rift
Richird Peue, RPM
NHDES
11 December 1992
Letter
PEA (3.1)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #H9001-002
Requea far Deadline Extenrion
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Peue AFB
Johtnni Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
ud
Richard Pette, RPM
NHDES
23 December 1992
Letter
PEA (6.3)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) 1153 001-001
SubmiBcl of Dnft Prtmiry Documeat, Zone 4 RemedUl tnvettgMxcm Report
USAF
Riduird Peue, NHDES
9 Much 1993
LeOer
PEAp.5);Zooe4
ARF
i
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
PEA (3.6) #154 001-001
Submrttil of Drift Priaury Document, Zone 4 RemedUl Invetbguioa Repofl
MK01\RPT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.idx
D-40
12/22/94
-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
USAF
Jotunni Hunter, EPA
9 Much 1993
Letter
PEA (3.5); Zone 4 .
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) C156001-002
Requen for Deadline Extenrion
USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Richard Petit, NHDES
19 Mirth 1993
Letter
PEA (3.5)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #157001-001
Submmal of Rexponaet to Comment* of the Zone 4 Site Characterization Summary
USAF
JOBWHW Hunter, EPA
Richard Pe»te, NHDES
IS March 1993
Letter
Zone 4
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) «61 001-001
Submitul of Drift Documents
USAF
Richard Pet«e, NHDES
21 April 1993
Letter
Zone 3, Zone 4, LF-5
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) * 162 001-001
Submnttl of Draft Documents
USAF
Richard Peoe, NHDES
21 April 1993
Zone 3, Zone 4, LF-5
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6) #170001-008
Locrioai of Sur&ce Witen of the State of New H*mpihire in (be Vicinity of Former Peue AFB
Arthur Ditto. P«*teAFB
Rkhtrt Feue, NHDES
16 November 1993
Letter with Atuchmem
None
ARF (Section 3.6 Binder) ,
I
MK01\RPT:006280Z6.004\zone4rod-iojt
D-41
12/22/94
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (3.6) * 172 001-001
LONG TITLE: Drift Final Zone 3, 4, and 5 Remedial Investigation Reports, Peate AFB, NH
AUTHOR: EPA
RECIPIENT: USAF
DATE: 30 November 1993
TYPE: Memorudum
SECOND REFERENCE: Zone 3; Zone 4; Zone S
LOCATION: AKF (Section 3.6 Binder)
t
MK01\RPT:0062S026.0M\ione4iod.idJc D-42 12/22/94
-------
4.1 ARAB Dttenninaliom
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE;
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.1) #1 001-024
New Hampihire ARAR Lin Update
Richard H. Feaae, P.E.
NHDES
Arlfaur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force/Pe*ae AFB
13 April 1992
Leaer and Tib lo
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
FEA<4.})*2001-B.3
Installation Reiteration Program Stage 4, Buewide ARARi, P*t«e Air Force Baae, NH 03803 - Draft
Roy f. Wenon, Inc.
USAF
January 1993
ARAIU
None
ARF, IR
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.1) 13 001-002
Wajverability of Env-WS 430, Surfice Water Quality Regulation!, u an ARAR
Arthur Ditto, Peaie AFB
Richard Peiie, NHDES
21 December 1993
Letter
None
ARF (Section 4.1 Binder)
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.1) #4 001-025
New Hampihire ARAR Lift Update
NHDES
USAF
23 December 1993
Latter with Attachment
None
ARF (Section 4.1 Binder)
Feaabilit> Reports
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.2) 128 001-MM3B-3
U.S. Air Force Installation Rotonrion Program Pease AFB Zone 4 Initial Scnening of Alternative* Report
DRAFT
Roy F. Weaton, lac.
USAF
April 1993
Featibiliry Study
Zoo* 4
ARF (Zont 4 Shelf)
*
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\ior»e4rod.idx
D-43
12/22/94
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(4.2)B0001-ACR.3
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Petse AFB Zone 4 Fusibility Study Tut - DRAFT FINAL
Roy F. Wenon, Inc.
USAF
November 1993
Feasibility Study
Zooe4
ARF (Zone 4 Shelf)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT: •
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.2) fil 001-L.II
U.S. Air Force InitiUitioa Restoration Program Peue AFB Zone 4 Feuibility Study Appendices DRAFT
FINAL
Roy F. Weaton, Inc.
USAF
November 1993
Appeadicei
Zone 4
ARF (Zone 4 Shelf)
tt
4.3 Proposed Flan
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE;
AUTHOR:
RECJDTENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.3) K 001-048
Inttalktion Restoration Program, Proposed. PUn for Zone 4, Petw AFB, NH-DRAFT FINAL
Roy F. Wenon, Inc.
USAF
April 1994
Proposed Plan
Zone 4
ARF (Zone 4 Shelf)
i
4.4 Supplements and Rerisams to die Proposed Pbn
'NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
4J Correspondence
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.5)15001-002
Applicable or Relevant tod Appropriate Requirement* (ARARi)
RMurd PMJO, NHDES
Art Ditto, Peue AFB
25 November 1991
Letter
Pea (6.4)
ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
PEA (4.5) «* 001-001
Submhtal of Draft Secoadary Document, Zone 4 Initial Screening of Alternative*
Arthur Ditto, Pea*e AFB
Johtnna Hunter, EPA Region 1
5 April 1993
MKDl\RPT:00628026.(XM\zonc4rod.idx
D-44
12/22/94
-------
TYPE: Lener
SECOND REFERENCE: Zone 4
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.5) #49 001 -001
Submit!*! of Draft Secondary Document, Zoo
Arthur Ditto, Peue AFB
Riehud Peue, NHDES
5 April 1993
Letter
Zone 4
ARF
14 Initial Screening of Aherwrivej
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.5) *58 001 -003
Former Pe**e AFB, Surface Water Inuex
Riehud Peue, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Peue AFB
29 November 1993
Letter
None
ARF (Section 4 J Binder)
t
\QCOX\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.idx
12/22/94
-------
5.1 ROD
* NOTE: NO ENTRIES
5J Amttdmcnts to ROD
*NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
* 5.3 Explanations of Spiifimit Diffi
* NOTE! NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
5A Corresp
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (5.4) *1 001-001
Region t -ROD Model Ltnfiuge
USAF
lohtim* Hunter, USEPA
Unknown
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (5.4) #4 001-002
Peaw AFB IRP ROD Review Process
Arthur Ditto, Pette AFB
AFBCA/NE
15 Dectmber 1993
1 *Hfr
None
ARF (Section S.4 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTirLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE;
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (5.4) #5 001-002
Getting to * ROD, Revised Miletioae*
Arthur Ditto, Pewe AFB
Michtel D*ly, EPA Region I
RicbudPcue, NHDES
4Febnwry 1994
Zone 1; Zoa»2; Zone 3; Zot»4
Site 32/36
ARF (Section 5.4 Binder)
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\w>ne4rod.idi
D-46
12/22/94
-------
6.1 Cooperatm Agreementi/SMOAi
DOCUMENT NUMBER;
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.1) #2 001-004
'Memorandum of Undemanding (MOU) between the U .S. Air Force Occupitioul and Environment*! Health
Laboratory (USAFOEHL) tad Peate Air Force Bate relating to procedure* for conducting the JRF'
U.S. Department of the Air Force
Air Force
31 July 1987
Memorandum of Undemanding
None
ARF
6J' Fcdend Facility Afncntent (BTA)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.2) #1 001-097
•Federal Facility Agreement under CERCLA Section 120*
U.S. EPA, Region I, Suteof New Hempihire and the U.S. Department of the Air Fence'
EPA. NHDES, Air Force
24 ApriJ 1991
Federal Facility Agreement
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6,2) #2 001-003
'Remedial Project Managen Meeting Minute**
Pea*e Air Force Baie
See Diatribution Lid
16 January 1991
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.2) f3 001-003
•Remedial Project Managen Meeting Minutea*
Pent Air Force Bate
See Diitiibution Litt
20 February 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYFE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.2) *4 001 -003
'Rfmnditi Project Managen Meeting Minute**
Peaae Air Force Ba*e
See Dinribua'on Litt
20 March 1991 .
None
ARF, IR
IXXrUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
PEA (6.2) «5 001-002
•Remedial Project Managen Meeting Minutei*
MK01\RPT:006280I6.004\zone4rod.iQx
D-47
12/22/9*
-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Pct» Air Fore* Base
See Distribution Lilt
17 April 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.2) 06 001-002
'Remedial Project Manager* Meeting Minute*'
Feue Air Force Sue
See Dutribution List
21 May 1991
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF, at
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:.
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.2)07 001-002
•Remedial Project Manager* Meeting Minutes'
Peue Air Force Hue
See Distribution Lin
24 June 1991
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE;
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.2) #8001-11.4
Modification 1 to Pcue AFB Federal Facilidei Agreement
USAF
Mieluel Daly, EPA Region I
Richard Pcue, NHDES
8 September 1993
FFA Modification
None
ARF, (Section 6.2 Binder)
63 CoonBaatioii • State/Federal
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (63) #1 001-003
'Meeting muanea from Air Force meeting with tute ofGcul* concerning Pea** Air Force Btw IRP*
U.S. Au Force
See Dicritnition Lift
IHrfareh 19S7
Meeting Minutet
None
ARF
ft
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA (63) 12 001402
•Agenda for M**ciag with Sttte DES, Air Force, tnd EPA Technieal Team*
Peu* Air Force Baie
See Diitribution Lift
26 April 1990
Agenda
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zoae4rod.idjt
D-48
12/22/94
-------
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) *3 001-031
'Completed Application! for Department of the Army Permit (ENG Form 435) and New Hampshire Wetland*
Board Permit"
Department of the Air Force
Army Corpi of Engineer!, New England Diviiion
31 August 1989
Letter and Attachmenta
None
ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (63)160014)01
'Agenda and Note* for Working Meeting with U.S. EPA and State of New Hampshire*
US Air Force
See Dictribution Lift
21 November 1989.
Agenda mud Meeting Notet
None
ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) fl 001 -025
'Letter retponie 10 Air Force letter of 22 Auguat 1990 regarding CERCLA remedul tctioni it Peue Air Force
Bue, 404 penrnl not required*
Department of the Army
Air Force
3 October 1990
Reipoate Leoer
None
ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (63) It 001-033
'Point Ptper OB h»i«ll*tion Reftonnoo Program (Peue AFB) and Attaelunente (Prepared for a meeting of J.
Cott «nd M. Aldricfc, of Senator Humphrey'» office, with Peaae, NHDES, WESTON, and OEHL)'
Peau Air Force Base
J. Cott Sc. M. Aldrich of Senator Humphrey'! Office
31 March 1989
Latter
None
ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE: ~
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6 J) K 001-003
•Recommendation to Place Peaae AFB on The National Priority Lin (NPL)'
P*j.'t PCTf B* Ol uV6 Ajf fOTCC
us EPA
27 lone 1989
Letter
None
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTm-E:
AUTHOR:
PEA (6 3) «0 001-004
Remedial Project Manager!' Meeting Minute* of January 16, 1991
Arthur Ditto, KFM
MKDl\RPT:0062S02«.004\ione4rodi
-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
USAF/PetK AFB
U.S. EPA/NHDESAJSAF Attande
Meeting Date. 16 January 1991
Meeting Mioutet
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) #11 001-004
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minute* of February 20, 1991
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PeueAFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAFAtWndte
Meeting Dal*: 20 Febnuiy 1991
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION: '
PEA (6.3) t\2 001404
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutei
USAF
Se* Distribution
20 March 1991
Meeting Minutei
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) #13 001-004
Remedial Project Manager*' Meeting Minutes of April 17, 199]
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PeaieAFB
U.S. EPA/NKDES/U5AF Attendee*
17 April 1991
Meeting Minuet
None
ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) *14 001-003
Remedial Project Mtatgen' Meeting Minutes of May 21, 1991
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PeauAFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
2! May 1991
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA (6.3) *16 001 -003
Remedial Project Manafen' Meeting Minute* of July 24, 1991
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PeawAFB
U.S. EPA/NHDESAJSAF AttB»to«
24 June 1991
Meeting Minutet
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.iiJx
D-50
12/22/94
-------
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) f 17 001-003
Remedial Project Mitugen' Meeting Minute* of Augu«26, 1991
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Peoe AFB
U.S. EPA/NKDES/USAF Attendee.
24 July 1991
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) til 001 -004
RemedUJ Project Muiigen' Meeting Minute* of September 26, 1991
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pette AFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendee!
21 August 1991
Meeting Minutei
None
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) #19 001-004
Remedial Project Muugen' Meeting Minute*
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pem* AFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Aoendeei
26 September 1991
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) *20 001-004
Remedial Project Muugen' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Peue AFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
27 October 1991
Meeting Minute*
Nooe
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBEf.:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) 121 001-003
Rfimriiil Project Mucgen' Meeting Minute*
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PeueAFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendee*
20 November 1991
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:OOo28026.004\ione4rod.i
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) *22 001-003
Remedial Project Mtnigot' Meeting Minutes of January 27, 1992
Anhut Ditto. RPM
USAF/Feaae AFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
19 December 1991
Meeting Minute)
None
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) O3 001-003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PeueAFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
27 January 1992
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) *24 001 -003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PeueAFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendee*
25 February 1992
Meeting Minuies
None
ASF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) f23 001-002
Remedial Project Manigen' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/PeueAFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendee*
07 April 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONO TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) #27 001402
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting
USAF
See, Distxibuaoa
22 April 1992
Minute*
NOD*
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
PEA (6.3) *28 001-008
Remedial Project Ittatgen' Meeting Minute*, June 3, 1992
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
3 June 1992
NflO)l\RFT:0062*02c.004\ione4rod.idx
D-52
12/22/94
-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) *29 001-003
Remedial Project Manager*' Meeting Minute* of August 21, 1991
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Peue AFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendee*
Meeting Date: 21 August 1992
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE.
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) 130 001-003
Remedial Project Mintgeri' Meeting Minutes - September 10, 1992
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendee*
10 September 1992
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF
9
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) 132 001-002
RemodUl Project Managed' Meeting Minutes - Ocuiber 20, 1992
Arthur Ditto, RPM
EPA, NHDES, USAF
20 October 1992
Minute*
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) 133 001-003
Application of the Reasonible Maximum Exposure (RME) in RUk Ajnettmeau; Request for She Specific
Justification for Using the 'Average Maximum'
Richard Pcue, NHDES
Ait Ditto, Ptue AFB
Johanna Hunter. USEPA
C«pt. Woerhle, AFCEE
22 October 1992
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA (6.3) B4 001-001
Guidebook for Environment*! Pemriu in New Hampchire
Richard Pease, NHDES
Art Ditto, Pcue AFB
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
4 November 1992
Letter
MK01\RFT:0062Sa26.004\zoae4rod.idx
D-53
12/22/94
-------
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) «6 001-Attachment 6
Quarterly Report, Second Quarter 1991
Roy F. Wenon, Inc.
EPA, NHDES, USAF
19 July 1991
Quarterly Report
None
ARF, An Ditto'i office files
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR: .
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) #37 001-034
Quarterly Report, Third Quirter 1991
Roy F. Wenon, Inc.
EPA, NHDES, USAF
24 October 1991
Quarterly Report, Tnnimiutl Letters
None
ARF, Art Ditto1* office files
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6 J) 4<38 001-030
Quarterly Repotl, Fourth Quarter 1991
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES, USAF
14 January 1992
Quarterly Report
None
ARF, Art Ditto'i office files
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) «9 001-020
Quarterly Report, First Quarter 1992
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES, USAF
15 April 1992
Quarterly Report
None
ARF, An Ditto1* office 61ex
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6 J) MO 001-032
Quarterly Report, Second Quarter 1992
Roy F. Weiton, Inc.
EPA. NHDES, USAF
14 Jury 1992
Quarterly Report
None
ARF, Art Ditto'* office filet
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE;
TYPE:
PEA (6.3) #41 001-043
Quarterly Report, Third Quarter 1992
Roy F. Wecton, Inc.
EPA, NHDES, USAF
20 October 1992
Quarterly Report
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\ione4rod.idx
D-54
12/32/94
-------
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
None
ARF, An Dtao'i office file*
DOCUMENT NUMBER
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.3) HI 001-04
Truumitttl Letter for Quarterly Piognu Report, Fourth Qutner 1992
Art Ditto, RPM, Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM, USEPA Region 1
Riehird Peue, RPM, NHDES
19 January 1993
Trtntmitttl Letter tad Quarterly Report
None
ARF, Art Dhto'l office file*
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(6.3)«43001-E.l
Quarterly Progreu Report for Peue AFB
An Ditto, RPM, Pene AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM, USEPA Region I
Richard Peiie. RPM, NHDES
26 April 1993
Report
None
ARF
9
6.4
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.4) «5 001-010
'Letter to EPA ngttdiag background information on Pe*t* Ait Fore* Bue*
US Department of Commerce
Air Force via US EPA
7 Much 1990
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (6.4) «9 001-041
Quarterly PrOfiew Report, Period of Performance July, August and September 1993
Roy F. Wecon, Inc.
USAF
October 1993
Report
Nona
ARF (Section 6.4 Binder)
MK01\RFT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.idx
D-55
12/Z2/94
-------
7.1 Enforcement History
• NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
7 J
* NOTE; NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
7 j
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE: •
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (7-3) #1 001-0.3
Peue AFB Federal Facilities Agreement Modification
USAF
Petse AFB
EPA Region 1
NHDES
NH Attorney Genet*]
Jusuiy 1993
FFA Modification
ARF
7.4 Consent Decrees
*M>TE! NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT IBIS TIME
1£ AfBdariti
•NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
TA Docnmottitioii of Technical DBCttssuns/Respoase Actions
*NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
7.7 Notices, Letten, and Rcspanses
•NOTE; NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
\OG01\RFT:00628026.004\zoiie4ro
-------
8.1 ATSDR Health Assexmtnu
• NOTE: NO ENTRIES
S J To nr ohn*^B I Profiles
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (8.2) #1 001-ZN4
LONG TITLE: Imulktion Reffontion Program Sage 4 Toxicity Profiles, Peue Air Force Bue, NH 03803
AUTHOR: Roy F. Waton, Inc.
RECIPIENT: USAF
DATE: Junury 1993
TYPE: Toxicity Profile*
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF, K
8J General Cormpomfance
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (B.3) fl 001-001
LONG TITLE: Hetltb Aueumenl Report for Peue AFB
AUTHOR: USAF
RECIPIENT: Leslie Campbell
ATSDR
M«i] Stop E-32
1600 Clifton Roui
Atlanta, GA. 30333
DATE: 26 June 1992
TYPE: Letter
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\ione4rod.id)t D-57 12/22/94
-------
9.1 Notice Issued
*NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT TOSS TIME
92 FnuKogs of Fact
'NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
93 Reports
•NOTE! NO ENTRIES
9.4 General Correspondent*
•NOTE: NO ENTRIES
MK01\RPT:0062802fi.004\zone4rod.idJc D-5& 12/22/94
-------
10.1 Caotxncdls sjod Responses
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) #1 001-005
"Response to Comment) - Drift Final Community Relations Plan*
Roy F. Wetlon, Inc.
Air Force
7 February 1991
Letter/Response to Common
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) K 001-003
Draft Community Relation! Plan Comment!
Ricbtrd Peue, P.E,
RPM, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
30 November 1990-
Lettci Comment Report
Community Relations
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) *3 001-010
EPA Region 1 Comment! to IRP Drift Community Relation! Plan; Peue AFB
DouglaiS. Gutto
U.S. EPA Region 1
Superfund Community Relations
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Peaic AFB
7 December 1990
Letter Comment Report
Community RttlBtiom
ARF
f
PEA (10.1) W 001-011
EPA Comments on Pease AFB Community Relation* Plan with Air Force'i Recponsea
Individual Unknown (From Air Force)
U.S. Air Force
January 1991
. "Null*1* Report
Cotnmiirnry Relations
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1)15 001-004
NHDES Comment* on Pe*« AFB Community Relations Plan wftfa Air Fa
Individual Unknown (Tbraugb Air Force)
U.S. Air Force
January 1991
Commctf Report
Community Relations
ARF
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zotiB4ro(Lidx
D-59
12/22/94
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1)f6 001-002
Review of Draft (Reviled) Final Report IRP Community Relations P1«n
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Anfaur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
25 Much 1991
Letter
Community
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE: ^
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1)/7 001 -
-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Richard H. Peue, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM. USAF
Peate AFB
08 May 1992
Lener
PEA (3.3)
AKF
DOCUMEKT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1)113001-014
Review Comment* for Suge 4 Work Flu tad Sampling and Aaitytit PUn Addendum Number 2
MiduelDaly
U.S. EPA Region 1
Fedenl Facilities Superfund Section
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Ail Force
Peate AFB
14 May 1992
Tnaimttta! Sheet, Letter and Comment Report
PEA (3.1); PEA (3.3)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) ft4 001-013
Renew of Stage 4 Work Ptan and Sampling and AnalytU PUn Addendum Number 2 for Ptaie AFB
Michael J. Daly
U.S. EPA Region 1
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
Arthur Dioo, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
14 May 1992
Ltflati wnb Conunciit Report
PEA (3.1); PEA (3 J)
ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1)115001-006
Zone 4 Site CbaracttrizaiioD Summary, May 1992 Review Commena
Richard Peue, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Pevae AFB
02 June 1992
PEA (6.3); Zone 4
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT •-
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) A3 001-011
Review of Daft Zone 4 Site Characterization Summary Report
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Arthur Ditto
RPM, USAF
Peaae AFB
1 August 1992
Transmit!*] Letter with Comment Report
Zone 4; PEA £35)
ARF
MK01\RFT:0062S026.00J\ioae4rod.klx
D-61
12/22/94
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) *27 001-002
Suge 4 Wort Pltn Addendum 3 Review Comments
Richard Pease. NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
14 August 1992
Comment!
PEA (6.3)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) #32 001-023
Response to Comments on Zone 4 Site Ctuncterization Summary
Roy F. Westoo, Inc.
Through U.S. Air Force (Arc Dine)
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Riciurd Fe«*e, RFM
NHDES
30 September 1992
Trtnsmittal Letter* with Letter Report
Zone 4; PEA (3.5)
ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE: .
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) #40 001-006
Response to Comments, Stsge 4 Work Plsn and Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum 2
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
•nd
Richard Pease, RFM
NHDES
3 November 1992
Letter
PEA (3.3); PEA 0.1)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) #42 001-003
Comments on Pease Off-Base Well Inventory Letter Report
Richard H. Peue, P.E.
RFM, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
Zone 2; Zone 5; Site- S
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA (tO.l) #44 001-002
Review of Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum 3, Pease AFB
Michael I. Daly
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Fedenl Facilities Superfund Section
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\rone4rod.id)£
D-62
12/22/94
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
8PM, U.S. Air Force
Peue AFB
23 November 1992
Laser
None
ARP
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) 161 001-002
Review Cottunenw of Peue AFB Prdiminuy Finding* - Fish and Shellfish Twue Aoijyni
Riehird Peue, RPM, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, RPM. USAF, Peue AFB
21 Jtmury 1993
Letter
None
ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1)*9S 001-007
Response to EPA Comment! on the Zone 4 RI
USAF
EPA
13 September 1993
Ittspoiue to Cottuxwctt
Zone 4
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE;
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA <10. 1)196 001-015
Response to NHDES Comments on the Drift Zone 4 RI
USAF
NHDES
13 September 1993
Zone 4
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE.
LOCATION:
PEA (10.1) «97 001-011
Response to die EPA Comment! on the Zone 4 Draft FS Report
USAF
EPA
3 November 1993
Rejpctuo to Conmcoti
Zone 4
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
PEA (10.1) 198 001-OOS
RespooM to the NHDES Comments on the Zone 4 Dr*ft FS Report
USAF
NHDES
2 November 1993
R&tponffcto Comments
Zone 4
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
I
PEA (10.1) #115 001-002
Peer Review of Inhitl Screening Ahemitives, Zone 4, Petit Intercitiontl Tndepon, NH
Mm\RPT:00628026.004\zo»K4nxJ.idx
D-63
12/22/94
-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Fred Price, Mitre Corporation
Major Chute* Howell, AFCEE
7 M*y 1993
Letter
Zone 4
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG-TTTLEr
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT;
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (tO.l) #116 001-003
Review of U.S. Environment*! Protection Agency Comments on Background Diti for Peue AFB, NH
Fred Price. Mitre Corpontion
Mtjor Chute* Howell, AFCEE
11 June 1993
Letter
Nona
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
OCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10. l)f 125 001-002
Zone 4 Feuibilhy Study Report Comment* ud Rupomca
Arthur Ditto, Peue AFB
Michael Dtly, EPA
10 November 1993
Letter
Zone 4
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
f
Coaummitj Relations PUa
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.2) fl 001-040
*Ia*ttlJ*tion Rectotmtioa Program Community Relation* Flu'
Roy F. Wetton, Inc.
EPA, NHDES, USAF
Itiuury 1991
Cotnmuairy Relations Plan
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(lO^)f2 001-OM
U.S. Air Force Inralktion Restontion Prognm Community ReUtioni PUn for Peue AFB, NH Interim Fuul
Dyatmic Cotpor»tion
230 PMchtreeSt., N.W., Ste. 500
AtUnt., GA 30303
USAF
July 1993
CRP
None
ARF
I
* NOTE: NO ENTRIES
10*3 Public Notico
MK01\RPT:0062802J5-004\zone4rod.idi
D-64
12/22/94
-------
10.4 Public Meeting Transcripts
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.4) « 001-025
Pe*ie Air Force Hue Public Workihop ud Information Meeting: Installation Reatontioa Program
Dynamic Corporation
BOPuchtreeSt., N.W.
Suha500
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
USAF
12 January 1993
Meeting Summary
None
nt
i
10.5 DociiiiiiectJtiori of Other Public Meetmgt/TRC
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5)100 001-004
Meeting Minute* of the Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Diminution Lilt .
22 February 1990
Meeting Minutei
None
ARF (Section 10 J Binder)
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) 10 001-013
Meeting Minutei of Ibe Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution Lift
30 March 1990
Meeting Minutei
Nona
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) #1 001-004
Meetm; Minutei of the Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Dirtribtmon Lin
27 April 1990
None
ARF (Section 10.S Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) fl 001-010
Meeting minute* of tht Technical Review Committee
Department of die Air Force
See DiflributioD Lift
30 May 1990
Meeting Minutea
Nose
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
MKGl\RPT:00628026.004\zonc4rod.idx
D-65
12/22/9*
-------
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) « 001-008
Meeting mimt" of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
Sec DittribintOQ Utt
27 June 1990
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
t
PEA (10.5) #4 001-005
Meeting minutes of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution List
IS July 1990
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10.S 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:
LONO TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) K 001-005
Meeting minutes of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution Lut
29 Augurt 1990
Meeting Mioutei
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
i
PEA (10.5) « 001-012
Meeting minutes of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
See Dtitribution TJ«
26 September 1990
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
t
PEA (10. 5) r? 001-008
Meeting mantel of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution Lift
31 October 1990
Meeting Minute*
Nose
ARF (Section 10.S Binder)
*
PEA (10.5) « 001404
Meeting minute* of the Technical Review Committee
Deptrtment of the Air Force
See Dittribution Lot
29 November 1990
Meeting Minutei
None
ARF (Section 10J Binder)
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.tdi
D-66
12/22/94
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10,5) *9 001-003
Meeting minute* of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
Sec Distribution Lift
31 January 1991
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) #10 001-003
Meeting minute* of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution Lin
27 March 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
t
PEA (10.5) II1001-006
Meeting minute* of the Technical Review Committee
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution List
24 April 1991
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:
PEA (10.5) *
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.3) #15001-007
Meeting Minute* of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution Lid
27 Auput 1991
Meeting Minutei
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) #16 001-010
Meeting Minute* of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution Lift
01 October 1991
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10,5) 117 001-003
Meeting Minute* of Technic*! Review Committee
USAF
See Diitribution Lin
29 October 1991
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10,5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) *18 001-013
Meeting Minute* of Technicjj Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution Lift
26 November 1991
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) #19 001-005
Meeting Minnies of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Dutributwn List
07I*nuuy 1992
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) «0 001-003
Meeting Minute* of Technical Review Connnhtee
USAF
See Dutributkra Lut
31 Much 1992
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
f •
MK01\RPT:0062S026.004\zone4rod.id)t
D-68
12/22/94
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) *21 001-002
Meeting Minute* of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Dittribua'on Lut
28 April 1992
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) K2 001-003
Meeting Minute* of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Dittribvtion Lilt
20 May 1992
Meeting Mimitei
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) #23 001-003
Meeting Minute* of Technical Review Committee
USAF
TRC Distribution Lin
28 July 1992
Meeting Minute*
Nose
Environmental Division File Room - Technical Review Committee File
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) *24 001-005
Meeting Minute* of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
29 September 1992
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) *23 001-013
Meeting Minute* of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution Lid
27 October 1992
Meeting Mimnea
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) m 001-004
Meeting Minute* of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution Lin
16 December 1992
Meeting Minrae*
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
I
MK01\RJT:0062802fi.004\zone4rod.idx
D-69
12/22/94
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER;
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOfTO REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) *27 001-003
Meeting Minute* of Technical Review Committee
USAF
TRC Distribution Lin
17 February 1992
Meeting Minutel
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) tn& 001 -003
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
TRC Distribution Lin
23 Much 1993
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10 JS Binder)
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) #9 001-006
Meeting Minutei of Technical Review Committee
USAF
TRC Diitribution Lia
27 April 1993
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10,5) «0 001-006
Meeting Minutei of Technical Review Committee
USAF
TRC Diitribution Lin
25 Miy 1993
Meeting Minutet
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) #31 001-012
Meeting Minute* of Technical Review Committee
USAF
TRC Distribution List
29 July 1993
Meeting Minutei
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) #32 001-002
Meeting Minutei of Teduoc*] Review Committee
USAF
TRC Distribution Lut
27 July 1993
hfMtifif Ntinutca
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
t
MK01\RFT:0062802fi.OM\zone4ro
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR: ->
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) 133 001-008
Meeting Minute* of the Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution Lin
31 Aiiguft 1993
Meeting Miauiei
NOM
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
I
PEA (10.5)134 001409
Meeting Minute* of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution UK
28 September 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:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) #35 001 -010
Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes
USAF
See Distribution List
26 October 1993
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
*
PEA (10.5) »6 001-Oil
Technical Review Committee Meeting Minute*
USAF
See Distribution List
30 November 1993
' Meeting Minutn
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
i
PEA (10.5) #37 001-002
Technical Review Committee Meeting Minute*
USAF
See Distribution Lift
11 January 1994
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) *31 001-003
Meeting Minute* of Technical Review Coamiaae
USAF
TRC Dttmbmion Lift
1 March 1994
Meeting Minute*
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
g
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.idi
D-71
12/22/94
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTILE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.5) «9 001-012
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
TRC Dittribimon liit
26 April 1994
Meeting Mioutea
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
g
10.6 " fact Sheets, Press Advisories, and News Releases
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLED
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.6) #1 001-003
*Newi reletae regarding the investigation of 22 ntes on Peue AFB"
U.S. Air Force
Media
30 September 1987
Newt Releue
None
ARF
*
PEA (10.6) Wi 001-002
"Newj ideate regarding presentation of the aeeond interim technical report*
U.S. Air Force
Modi*
21 September 19S8
New! Release
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.6) « 001-003
*Newi release regarding the underground water umpling program*
U.S. Air Force
Media
29 November 1988
Newi Releue
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10,6) H 001-003
•Superfimd Program Draft Intengency Agreement Ftct Sheet*
U.S. EPA, Region I
SM Mailing Lot
FactSlMet
Nooe
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR.:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA (10.6) IS 001-OOS
Pease Air Force Baas Imullitic
USAF
1991 Mailing Lift
October 1991
Fact Sheet
i Rotontion Program Update: Remedial Invedigaticin/Feiaibility Study
MK01\RFT:00628026.004\zone4rod.idx
D-72
12/22/94
-------
SECOND REFERENCE: None
LOCATION: ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.6) *9 001-011
PetK Air Force Bate Installation Reoontion Program Update: Information Update
USAF
1992 Milling Lift
December 1992
Fict Sheet
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.6) 1 13 001-006
Pette Air Force Bue Installation Restoration Program Update: Preliminary Auetsmem/SHe Invescgttioa
USAF
1993 Mailing Lit)
Jtnuaiy 1993
Fact Sheet
None
ARF
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.6) CO 001-004
Pease AFB F-rrt""*nffiefflal Reporter Volume 1 , Number 1
USAF
See Mailing List
January 1994
New (letter
None
ARF (Section 10.6 Binder)
9
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.6) *24 001-004
Peue AFB Environmental Reporter Volume 1 , Number 2
USAF
Matting Lift
April 1994
Quarterly Newiletter
None
ARF (Section 10.6 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.6) *Z5 001-005
Peue AFB Installation Restoration Program Update: Propcned Plan for IRP Zone 4
USAF
Mailing LiA
April 1994
F*ct Sheet
Zone 4
ARF (Section 10.6 Binder)
f
10.7
•NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
MK01\RFT:0()628026.004\ione4rod.idi
D-73
12/22/M
-------
10.8 Late Comments
* NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
10.9 Technical Review Committee Charter
*NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE: '
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
10.10 Comspandeace
PEA (10.10) #1 001-001
'Letter regudingccaceni about the hszardout watte sites M Feue AFB*
Gordon J. Humphrey, U.S. Senate
James F, McOovtrn, Acting Secretary of the Air Force
24 March 1989
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTtTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.10) #4 001-001
Subroitlal Letter for Draft Community Relations Flu for the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) oa
Cap* Cod, Mtiucausem
DouglaiS. Gutro, USEPA
Karen Cowden,
Roy F. Wesion, Inc.
19 June 1990
Letter
None
ARF
it
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
'DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.10) #5 001-002
Impact of Bue Closure on Personnel Responsible for the Installation Restoration Program and Public Affairs
Merrill S. Hofamta, USEPA
Col. Jan*. R. WiUon
Pease AFB, NH
27 August 1990
Letter
None
ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.10) « 001-001
Impact of Base Clown on Personnel Responsible for die Installation Restoration Program and Public Affairs
(Your Letter, August 27. 1990)
USAF '
Merrill S. Hobmao, USEPA
11 October 1990
Letter .
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
PEA (10.10) #7 001-001
Submittal of Primary Document* (Community Relations plan)
USAF
MK01\RPT:0062S02&004\zone4rod.idx
D-74
12/22/M
-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Jim Brown, USEPA
24 October 1990
Letter
PEA (10.2)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.10) #8001-00]
SubnuOal of Primary Document* (Community ReUtkuu Plan)
USAF
Richard Petit, NHDES
24 October 1990
Letter
PEA (10.2)
ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.10) #9 001-001
Community Relation* PUn Development Extension
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
17 January 1991
Letter
PEA (10.2)
ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.10) #10001-001
Community Relttioiu PUn Development Extenaion
USAF
Richard Peaw, NHDES
17 January 1991
Letter
PEA (10.2)
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.10) #11 001-001
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Dociimcmi
USAF
Richard fate, NHDES
5 February 1991
Letter
PEA (3.1); PEA (3 J)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE;
LOCATION:
PEA (10.10) 112 001-001
Submttul of Draft Final Primary Document!
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
5 February 1991
Letter
PEA (3.1); PEA <3 J)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
PEA (10.10) #13001-001
Community Relitioni Plm
USAF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rod.idx
D-75
12/22/94
-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Johanna Huner, USEPA
12 Apri] 1991
Letter
PEA (10.2)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.10) #14 001-004
Buewide ARARi Peuc AFB, NH 03803, January 1993. DRAFT - Review Commenu
Richard Peaae, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Pe*se AFB
1 April 1993
PEA (4.1)
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (10.10) «6 001-005
Zone 4 Drift Remedial Investigation Review Comment)
Richard Peaie, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Peue AFB
16 April 1993
Lener
Zone 4
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA {10.10) #18 001-003
Zone 4 Drift Remedial Investigation — Review Comment!
Rich.nl Peue, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, PUK AFB
29 April 1993
Letter
Zone 4
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:
PEA (10.10) OA 001-013
Zone 4 Initial Screening of Alternative* Report, DRAFT 1993 - Review Comment!
Riehud Peue, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Peaie AFB
24 May 1993
Letter
Zone 4
ARF
t
PEA (10.10) *25 001-004
Review of die Air Force Innallation Rettondoo Program, Draft Remedial Invutigitioa Report, Zone 4, Peaae
AFB, March 1993
Mike Daly. EPA Region 1
Arthur Ditto, Peaae AFB
25 May 1993
Faxed Letter
Zone 4
ARF
t
PEA (10.10) #26 001-00*
MKOl\RPT:0«2S026.004\ionc4rod.idi
D-76
12/22/94
-------
LONG TITLE: Review of the Air Force InfUlktion Renontion Prognm, Initial Screening of Ahen»tiv« (ISA] Report, Zone
A, feue AFB, April 1993
AUTHOR: Mike Italy, EPA Region 1
RECIPIENT: Arthur Ditto. Pen* AFB
DATE: 25 Mty 1999 .
TYPE: Fixed Leder
SECOND REFERENCE: Zone 4
LOCATION: ARF
t
DOCUMENT NUMBER: PEA (10.10) 129001-001
LONG TITLE: Proposed PUn F*cl Sheet for Zone 4
AUTHOR: . Altfaur Ditto, Peue AFB
RECIPIENT: Michttl Dtty, EPA
Ridurd Peue, NHDES
DATE: 14Junutyl994
TYPE: Letter
SECOND REFERENCE: Zone 4
LOCATION: ARF (Section 10.10 Binder)
*
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone4rodidjt D-77 12/22/94
-------
11.1 EPA He*dqiurten Guidance
* NOTE: Guidance documents listed as Iribbographk sources for a document already inctuded in the AdmmstntiTe Record
are not listed separately in this index.
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11. !)fl 001-003
Riit Auessmem luue Piper for Ctrcinogenicity Characterization for Tricbloroethylene (CASRN 79-01-6),
Tewehloroethylene (CASRN 127-18-4), and Styrene (CASRN 100-42-5)
U5EPA
USAF
14 July 1992
Ouidtutcc
None
ARF
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.1) «001-C.2
Draft Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents: The Propoied Plan and Record of Decision
Office of Emergency & Keroedial Response, EPA, Washington, DC •
USAF
Much 1988
Guidance
None
Art's Office
tt
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONO TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
FEA(ll.l)f3001-B.9
The RPM Primer: An Introductory Guide to the Rote and Responsibilitie* of the Superfund Remedial Project
Manager
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
September 19S7
Guidance
None*
Act1* Office
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.1)04 001-11.1
CERCLA She Diicrepancie* to PCTWs Guidance Manual
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
Augiut 1990
Guidance
None
Art's Office •
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.1) « 001-041
Framework: for Ecological Risk Anewment
EPA
USAF
February 1992
Guidance
None
Art's Office
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
PEA (11.1) #6 001-E.I
Preliminary Assessment Guidance Fiscal Year 19S8
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\2one4rod.iilx
D-78
12/22/94
-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Office of Emergency 4nd Remediil Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
January 19(8
Gui
-------
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Implementing EPA'* Groundwster Protection Strategy for the 1990' i: Draft Comprehensive State Groundweter
Protection Program Guidance
EPA
USAF
1992
Guidance
None
Art'i Office
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.1) #13 001-021
A Handbook for State Gioundwiter Managers
Office of Water, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
May 1992
Quiduicc
None
Art's Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.1) mOO 1-3 ,40
Conducting Remedial Inve«ig»tions/Feaiibiliry Studies for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Situ
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
February 1991
Guidance
None
An'a Office
i
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA<11.I)*15001-F.2
Guidance on Preparing Superfund Deciiion Documents: The Proposed Flan, The Record of Decision, and
Explanation of Significant Differences, The Record of Deciiion Amendment
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
July 1989
Guidance
None
Art'a Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.1)116001-6.12
Risk Aneiimntt Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) Interim Final
Office of Emergency and Remedial Retpome, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
December 1989
Guidance
None
Art's Office
*
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.1) #17 001-057
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual Interim Final
Office of Emergency and BcnmrtiaJ Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
March 1989
Guidance
None
Art's Office
I
MK01\RFT:0062S02fi.C04\wme4rod.idx
D-80
12/22/94
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #18Deleied
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11,!) #19001-8-2
Superftmd Removi] Procedure* Action Memorandum Guidance
EPA
USAF
December 1990
Guidance
None
Art'i Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(H.l)«OOOt-G
RCRA Orientation Manual
EPA
USAF
1990
Guidance
None
Art'i Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.1)121 001-295
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Ptognm: Technology Profile*
EPA
USAF
November 1991
Guidance
None
Art'* Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(ll.l)rZ2001-017
Acceding Federal Data Baies for Contaminated Site Clean-Up Technologic*
EPA
USAF
May 1991
Guidance
None
Art't Office
g
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.1) «3 001-023
Bibliography of Federal Report! tod Publication* Daacribiog Attemanvea and Innovative Treatment
Technologic* fat Corrective Action and Site Remediattoo
EPA
USAF
May 1991
None
Art'i Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER.:
LONGTrrLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA (11.1)124 001-111
Synopses of Federal Dcmonxtntiont of Innovative Site Remediation Technologic*
EPA
USAF
May 1991
Guidance
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\ione4rod.idx
D-81
12/22/94
-------
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
None
Art's Office
• NOTE:
11.2 EPA Regional Guidance
Guidance docnmcott fisted AS bibliographic sources for 3 document already included in the Administrative Record
are not listed separately in this index.
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.2) fl
Land Diipoitl Restriction! Summary of Requirement!
EPA, Region 1
USAF
August 1990
Guidance
None
Ait's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONCTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11,2) 12 001-107
Supplemental Risk Anesunent Guidance for the Superfund program
EPA, Region 1
USAF
June 1989
Guidance
None
Alt's Office
'NQTEJ
11J State Guidance
Guidance rtih'uf"^1*' IS***H as bibliographic sources for 4 document already included in the
are not fisted separately in this index.
AdnunistrjitiTe Record
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTrTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11-3) #1 001-001
ENC-WS 410 Groradwater Protection Rulea
NHDES
Art Ditto, AFBDA
February IS, 1993
LeOer
None
ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
FEA(11.3)*3001-04S
Qcoundwater Protedion Rule*
NHDES
USAF
February 1993
Guidance
None
Art'i Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR.:
RECIPIENT:
PEA(lt.3)*5001-C,li
Guidance Document for the Cloture of Solid W«te LindfiUt in New H«mp»hire
NHDES
USAF
MKi01\RPT:0062S026.004\zone4iod.Ktx
D-82
12/22/94
-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
May 1990
Guidance
None
Art'» Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(11.3)«001-D.7
Guidebook for Environment*] Permit* in New Hampshire
NHDES
USAF
1992
None
Art'i Office
11.4 Air Force Guidance
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTmLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.4) #1001-024
'Ecological Risk Aitestment Guidance for Pease AFB, New Himpthin*
Mitre Corporation, Civil Systems Division
Air Force
20 June 1990
Leitet Report
None
ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.4) 12001-016
"Implementation of Department of Defense (DOD) policy guidance on IRP Policy No.
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution List
II December 1981
Policy/Guidance Document
None
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.4) K 001-002
•Implemenution of DOD policy guidance OB 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:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (II.4) *4 001-003
•Relationship of the IRP to RCRA enforcement action*
Deputmeat of the Air Force"
See Distribution List
26 December 1985
Policy Document
None
ARF
t
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\ame4rodJdx
D-83
12/22/W
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR;
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (II.4) #5 001-002
"Guidance for Air Force Installation Compliance with Volatile Organic Compound Regulation!'
Department of the Air Force"
See Distribution List
8 October 1986
Guidance Document
None
ARF
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.4) #6001-003
"tRP Decision Documentation Policy*
Department of the Air Force*
See Distribution Lin
25 May 19SS
Policy Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.4} *7 001-003
•RCRA Facility Aueument Guidance to lottailation*
Department of the Air Force*
See Distribution Lift
3 August 1988
Guidance
None
ARF
If
PEA 01.4) 18001-003
"Guidance on ba*e crap construction and digitization D.O. 006 Peate AFB"
Department of die Air Force"
Roy F. Wetujn, Inc.
6 March 1989
Guidance Document
None
ARF
t
.DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.4) to 001 -13
Handbook to Support the InJtaltuioii Restoration Program Statement* of Wort for Remedial
InveftigatJoo/Feaaibility Smdiet Version 3.0
Air Force Occupation*! and Environmental Health Laboratory Technical Services Division
PeawAFB
May 1989
Handbook
Nooe
Art't Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.4) n 1001-087
Air Force Logixttc* Command'Public Affain Environmental Guidance
USAF
PeawAFB
March 31, 1989
Guidance
None
Art't Office
#
NO(01\PJ>T:00628026.004\zoii«4rod.idi
D-84
12/22/94
-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.4) tl2 001-DC.A1.3
Recommended Sampling Procedure!
Air Force Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory
PttteAFB
Much 1989
Guidance
None
Art'i Office
I
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(11.4)*13001-J.2
Report of the Defense Environmental Roponte Taik Force
PMieAFB
October 1991
Guiduct
Nooe
An1* Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONOTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.4) f 14 001-1.5
Initiattvct for Accelerating Cleanup at BRAC Installation!
Department of Defertie
PeueAFB
June 1992
Guidance
None
Art'i Office
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.4} 915 -Deleted
IIJ Tectanau SOOTOJ
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTtTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.5)12001-080
Geology and Gtoundwater Reaourcei of Southentcrn Now Hampihiro
U.S. Geological Survey
USAF
1964
Technical Source
None
Art'i Office
*
PEA (11.5) 13 001-010
Pidiminiiy Wetland Delineation and Evaluation Report for Petie Air Fore* Hue, NH — Draft
The Smart Acaociatei, Environmental Couubantt, IDC.
USAF
April 1990
Technical Source
None
Art'i Office
#
MK01\RPT:0062S026.004\zooe4rocl.idx
D-85
12/22/94
-------
11.6 Proposed Procedures/Procedure
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (li.6)fl 001-005
'Rule Aueumeot Data Needs and Sampling Procedures Letter Report"
Roy F. WeitoQ. (DC
EPA, NHDES
S March 1991
Letter Repon
None
ARF
S
PEA (11.6) 12001-051
"Analytical Method* Letter Repon" — Supplemental Information to Sttge 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan
Roy F. Wecton, Inc.
EPA, NUDES
23 April 1991
Letter Repon
PEA (3.1)
ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11,6) 13 001-055
'Protocol* for Generation of Biieline Ritfc AiMumenu for (be Peue AFB Sites - Revised"
Roy F. Wetton, toe.
EPA, NHDES
July 1991
Report
None
ARF
f
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONGTTTLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11. 6) #3 001-002
"Disposal of Drill Cuttings From Suge 2 tad 3 Investigation*"
Department of die Air Force
NHDES
14 August 1990
None
ARF
11.7 Correspondence
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11, 7) #1 001-006
•Letter to EPA requeuing review and concurrenceof riik assessment duti and umpling procedure letter report"
Depiitmem of the Air Fore*
Stat* of N«w Hunpthire
20 March 1991
None
ARP
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
PEA (11.7) ti 001-002
'Letter concerning use of drilling mod'
Roy F. Weaton, Inc.
NaCDl\RPT:0062803fi.004\rone4«xJ.id*
D-86
12/22/94
-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Air Face
26 December 1990
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA<11.7) K 001-002
• Analytical Method) for Pan AFB"
Ray F. Weaon, Inc.
Air Force
23 April 1991
Letter
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (11.7) #4 001-001
Coniolidited Background VUue* Letter Report
USAF
Ricbnd P««, NHDES
' lohimii Hunter, EPA
Much 9, 1993
Letter Report
None
ARF
MK01\RfT:00628026.004\zone4rodJdx
D-87
12/22/94
-------
12.1 Pnnlcgtd Documents (Extractions)
•NOTE: NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\ione4«xl.i(U D-88 12/22/94
------- |