Superfund Record of Decision Pease Air Force Base Site 45 NH


                                    EPA/ROD/R01-95/103
                                    1995
EPA Superfund
     Record of Decision:
     PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
     EPA ID:  NH7570024847
     OU10
     PORTSMOUTH/NEWINGTON, NH
     08/09/1995

-------
             Record of Decision
                   for a
              Remedial Action
                    at
      Site 45, Old Jet Engine Test Stand

           Pease Air Force Base, NH

                August 1995

                Prepared for:

   Air Force Base Conversion Agency  (AFBCA)
      The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330

Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
      Base Closure Division  (AFCEE/ESB)
    Brooks Air Force Base, TX 78235-5328

               Prepared by:

            Roy F. Weston, Inc.
               1 Weston Way
        West Chester, PA 19380-1499

-------
                   Record of Decision
           Site 45,  Old Jet Engine Test Stand
           Pease Air Force Base,  New Hampshire

                       August 1995

                    Table of Contents

Section                             Title                                    Page

   DECLARATION                                                                 ix

   I.     SITE NAME, LOCATION,  AND DESCRIPTION                                  1

   II.     SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES                               5

          A.  Site Use and Response History                                     5
          B.  Enforcement History                                               7

   III.   COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION                                               9

   IV.     SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION                   11

   V.     SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS                                      13

          A.  Geology                                                          14
          B.  Hydrogeology                                                     15
          C.  Distribution of Contaminants                                     16

   VI.     SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS                                                32

          A.  Human Health Risk Assessment                                     32
          B.  Ecological Risk Assessment                                       35

   VII.   DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES                            39

          A.  Statutory Reguirements/Response Objectives                       39
          B.  Technology Screening and Alternative Development                 40

   VIII.   DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES                                          42

   IX.     SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES                  48

          A.    Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment         50
          B.    Compliance with ARARs                                          51
          C.    Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence                         51
          D.    Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of Contaminants
                Through Treatment                                              52
          E.    Short-Term Effectiveness                                       53
          F.    Implementability                                               55
          G.    Cost                                                           56
          H.    State Acceptance                                               56
          I.    Community Acceptance                                           57

   X.     THE SELECTED REMEDY                                                  58

          A.    Methodology for Cleanup Level Determination                    58
          B.    Groundwater Cleanup Goals                                      59
          C.    Soil Cleanup Goals                                             60
          D.    Description of Remedial Components                             60

   XI.     STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS                                             67

          A.    The Selected Remedy Is Protective of Human Health and the
                Environment                                                    67

-------
          B.    The Selected Remedy Attains Applicable or Relevant and
                Appropriate Requirements                                       67
          C.    The Selected Remedy Is Cost Effective                          69
          D.    The Selected Remedy Uses Permanent Solutions and Alternative
                Treatment or Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum
                Extent Practicable                                             71
          E.    The Selected Remedy Satisfies the Preference for Treatment
                That Permanently and Significantly Reduces the TMV of Hazardous
                Substances as a Principal Element                              72

   XII.   DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES                                 73

   XIII.  STATE ROLE                                                           74

   REFERENCES                                                                 R-l

   LIST OF ACRONYMS                                                         Acr-1

  APPENDIX A )) TABLES

  APPENDIX B )) DECLARATION OF CONCURRENCE

  APPENDIX C )) RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

  APPENDIX D )) ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX


                                   List of Figures

Figure No.                             Title                               Page

   1    Location of Site 45  (OJETS)                                            2
   2    Site 45 (OJETS)  and Vicinity                                          3
   3    Former Features of Site 45 (OJETS)                                    6
   4    Surface Elevation and Thickness 9f Organic Contaminated Soil         17
   5    Locations of Geologic Cross Sections D-D' and E-E'                    20
   6    Schematic Cross Section D-D'  Showing Contaminated Soil               21
   7    Schematic Cross Section E-E'  Showing Contaminated Soil               23
   8    Organic Compound Plumes in Shallow Upper Sand Groundwater            27
   9    Distribution of Dissolved Metals Above Background in the
        Overburden Water-Bearing Zone                                        29
   10   Remedial Process Flow Diagram                                        62
   11   Site Plan of Remediation System                                      63

                                 List of Tables

Table No.                            Title                                        Page

   1    Results of WESTON's and other Air Force Contractors' Investigations
        at the 0 JETS Prior to the RI/FS                                           A-l
   2    Maximum Organic Compound Concentrations in Soft ))  Stage 3B and
        Stage 5 )) OJETS                                                           A-2
   3    Maximum Inorganic Compound Concentrations in Soil )) OJETS                 A-4
   4    Comparison of Analytical Results and Field Observations from Soil
        Borings 7620, 7612, and 7780 at the OJETS                                  A-5
   5    Summary of Chemicals of Concern by Medium                                  A-6
   6    Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices                  A-9
   7    Summary of Hazard Quotient/Indices for the Deer Mouse )) OJETS            A-10
   8    Summary of Hazard Quotient/Indices for the Chipping Sparrow ))
        OJETS                                                                     A-ll
   9    Summary of Detailed Alternatives Evaluation                               A-12
   10   Cleanup Goal Selection for Groundwater                                    A-14
   11   Cleanup Goal Selection for Soil                                           A-17
   12   ARARs for Alternative 3 )) In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment of
        Unsaturated Contaminated Soil, Air Sparging of Saturated Contaminated
        Soil, Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Soils that Exceed Cleanup
        Goals for Metals, and Institutional Controls                              A-18

-------
DECLARATION

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Pease Air Force Base (Pease AFB), Site 45, Old Jet Engine Test Stand, New Hampshire

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This decision document presents a selected remedial action designed to protect human and ecological receptors
at Site 45, the Old Jet Engine Test Stand (OJETS), Pease AFB, New Hampshire. This document was developed in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 USC
Section 9601 et seg.), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, and the
National Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR Part 300). Through this document, the Air Force plans to remedy the
threat to human health, welfare, or the environment posed by soil and groundwater contamination at the OJETS.
This decision is based on the Administrative Record for the site. The Administrative Record Index as it
applies to the OJETS is provided in Appendix D. The State of New Hampshire concurs with the selected remedy.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY

The selected remedy addresses the principal threat posed by the leaching of contaminants to groundwater from
soil in the OJETS source area, which is in Zone 7 at Pease AFB. The remedy also addresses the potential
threat to ecological receptors from ingestion of inorganic contaminants in surface soils at the OJETS source
area. Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by implementing
the response action selected in this Record of Decision (ROD) may present an imminent and
substantive endangerment to human health, human welfare, or the environment.

The selected remedy involves in situ air Sparging treatment of contaminated soil below the water table; in
situ soil vapor extraction treatment of contaminated vadose zone soil; and installation of a low-permeability
membrane on the ground surface in the source area. In addition, delineation, and if necessary excavation and
off-site disposal of surface soils contaminated above cleanup goals for inorganics will be conducted.
Following remediation of the contaminated soil (the source of groundwater contamination), natural physical
and chemical attenuation processes will remove residual contamination in groundwater. This remedy is the
final remedy for Site 45 (the OJETS) in Zone 7.

The selected remedy also involves the placement of land use restrictions on the use of groundwater in the
vicinity of the OJETS where MCLs are exceeded for the time period during which MCLs are exceeded, and
long-term environmental monitoring at the site. In addition, a Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ) will be
established in accordance with NHDES Regulation Env-Ws 410. A GMZ is the designation used by NHDES to denote
a subsurface volume in which groundwater contamination associated with a discharge of a
regulated contaminant is contained and managed. The OJETS site reuse will be under the jurisdiction of the
Pease Development Authority (PDA) to support operation of the airport at the Pease International Tradeport.

STATUTORY DETERMINATION

The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with federal and state
reguirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost
effective. The remedy uses permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. The determination reflects the reguirement of CERCLA 121 (b)(1) 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, EPA, and
NHDES no less than every 5 years after implementation to ensure that the remedy provided adeguate protection
of human health and the environment and will continue to do so.

The forgoing represents the selection of a remedial action by the Air Force and EPA
Region I, with the concurrence of NHDES.

Concur and recommended for immediate implementation:
U.S. Air Force
By: Date: July 29, 1995
Alan K. Olsen
Director, Air Force Base Conversion-Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
By:
Linda M. Murphy Date: August 9, 1995
Director, Waste Management Division

-------
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY

I. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION

Pease Air Force Base (AFB), located in the Towns of Newington and Greenland and in the City of Portsmouth,
Rockingham County, New Hampshire, is included on the federal National Priorities List (NPL). Based on
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies (RI/FSs) conducted at a number of sites at Pease AFB, several
areas contain contaminated media that reguire remediation to limit their impact on human health and the
environment. This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedial actions for Site 45 [Old Jet Engine
Test Stand (OJETS)] located in the portion of Pease AFB designated as Zone 7.

As shown in Figure 1, Pease AFB is located on a peninsula in southeastern New Hampshire. The peninsula is
bounded on the west and southwest by Great Bay, on the northwest by Little Bay, and on the north and
northeast by the Piscatagua River. The City of Portsmouth is located east and southeast of the base. Pease
AFB occupies 4,365 acres and is located approximately in the center of the peninsula.

The OJETS occupies an area of approximately 0.6 acre in Zone 7. It is located in the southern portion of
Pease AFB, approximately 1,000 feet from the southwestern edge of the runway and 400 feet north of the Golf
Course Maintenance Area (GCMA) (see Figures 1 and 2).

At the beginning of World War II, the U.S. Navy used an airport located at the present Pease AFB. The Air
Force assumed control of the site in 1951, and construction of the existing facility was completed in 1956.
During its history, Pease AFB was the home of the 100th and 509th Bombardment Wings, whose mission was to
maintain a combat-ready force capable of long-range bombardment operations. The New Hampshire Air National
Guard (NHANG) relocated the 157th Military Airlift Group from Grenier Field in Manchester, New Hampshire, to
Pease AFB in 1966. The mission of the group was changed in 1975, when it was designated as the 157th Air
Refueling Group. Over time, various guantities of fuels, oils, solvents, lubricants, and protective coatings
were used at the base for routine maintenance operations, and releases of contaminants into the environment
occurred as a result of usage and disposal of these and other materials.

In December 1988, Pease 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. NHANG remains at the airfield and uses some of the existing facilities. The remainder of
the reservation has been divided among the Department of the Interior (DOI), the State of New Hampshire's
Pease Development Authority (PDA), and the Air Force.

Land use in the vicinity of the OJETS is limited to the runway, which is approximately 1,000 feet to the
northeast; the GCMA, which is 400 feet to the south; Lowry Lane, which runs along the east side; and an open
field and wooded area, which axe to the west of the OJETS (see Figure 2). A fence runs along the eastern
edge of the site and separates the OJETS from the flightline area. The OJETS site is slated for reuse by the
PDA to support operation of the Pease Airport.

There axe approximately 3,700 dwellings within a 1-mile radius of Pease AFB. Based on water usage surveys
conducted in 1988 and 1992 and on available U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (NHDES) information, a number of these dwellings have wells and/or springs located on
their properties. A compilation of area springs and wells for Pease AFB, based on available information, is
presented in the Pease AFB Off-Base Well Inventory Letter Report (G-599). The OJETS is relatively isolated
from the off-base residential areas. The closest dwelling downgradient of the OJETS that has a well or
spring is approximately 3,500 feet away.

Surface water runoff from the OJETS is minimal because the site is relatively flat and the soils are highly
permeable. All rainfall and snow melt at the OJETS infiltrates into the subsurface at, or immediately
downgradient of, the site. There is no surface water body that receives runoff from the OJETS.

II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

A. Site Use and Response History

The OJETS was constructed in approximately 1958 and consisted of a partially enclosed engine test stand (roof
and sidewalls), an engine control room structure adjacent to the test stand, a fuel storage tank, associated
pumps and piping, and a rock-filled, in-ground crib (see Figure 3). During testing, engine exhaust was
directed out of the northern end of the containment structure toward the rock crib, which was designed to
deflect the exhaust from engines being tested. Between 1965 and 1976, the perimeter of the rock crib was
paved with asphalt.

-------
According to interview sources (G-545), this test stand was used heavily, particularly in the mid-1960s
when the base had its maximum number of aircraft. It would not have been unusual for the test stand to be
operating almost full-time most days of the week because, at maximum strength, the base had up to 165
aircraft, each with four to six engines. Records related to the detailed operation of the test stand are not
available; however, extensive use of petroleum products, hydraulic fluids, and solvents likely occurred at
the OJETS. After the OJETS was removed from service in 1976 and prior to commencement of the Site Inspection
(SI) in 1992, the engine control room, aboveground fuel storage tank, and transformer were removed from the
site. The date these items were removed is unknown. As part of the Remedial Investigation (RI) the OJETS
building, cement pad, and rock crib were removed in 1993.

Under the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) a Site Inspection (SI) was conducted at the OJETS between
October 1992 and January 1993. The SI was designed to confirm the presence or absence of contamination in
the soil and groundwater. In addition to the data collected during the SI, environmental data previously
collected by WESTON and other Air Force contractors was incorporated into the overall contaminant profile for
the OJETS. A summary of the findings for each of these investigations is provided in Table 1. A more
detailed discussion of these results is presented in the Zone 6 and 7 SI Report (G-638).

Based on the findings of the SI, the OJETS was recommended for a streamlined RI/FS in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986; and all relevant U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) guidance, including EPA's guidance for conducting RI/FSs under CERCLA. The RI was initiated at the
OJETS to define the downgradient extent of dissolved contaminants in groundwater associated with the site,
and to collect additional soil samples to complete the working conceptual model, a baseline risk assessment,
and FS. The RI field work was performed between 15 April and 8 November 1993. An FS was conducted during
the third and fourth guarters of 1993 to establish cleanup goals and evaluate remedial alternatives for the
site. The findings of the RI/FS are presented in the Draft Final OJETS RI/FS Report (G-637) issued 21
December 1993 and the Site 45 Feasibility Study Supplement (G-751) issued February 1995.

A pilot-scale soil vapor extraction/air sparging (SVE/AS) treatability study was conducted at the OJETS
between 12 September and 3 November 1994. The objective of the treatability study was to determine whether
SVE/AS are effective remedial technologies for treatment of contaminated vadose zone and saturated zone soil
at the OJETS. The results of the treatability study indicate that SVE/AS would be effective technologies for
remediation of soils at the site, and are detailed in the OJETS Treatability Study Letter Report (G-737).
The results of the treatability study will also be used to establish design criteria for a full-scale SVE/AS
system at the site. Following completion of the pilot study, operation of the pilot SVE/AS system was
continued on an interim basis from 4 November 1994 through 17 May 1995. The purpose of the interim
operations was to continue remediation of soils in the zone of influence of the pilot system.

B. Enforcement History

The enforcement history relative to Pease AFB, including the OJETS, is summarized as follows:

• In 1976, the Department of Defense (DOD) devised a comprehensive IRP to assess and control
environmental contamination that may have resulted from past operations and disposal practices at DOD
facilities.

• In June 1980, DOD issued a Defense Environmental Quality Program Policy Memorandum (DEQPPM) reguiring
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, EPA, and NHDES signed a Federal Facilities 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.

The OJETS, located in Zone 7, was not originally part of the FFA, but was added during a modification to the
FFA (Modification 1). Under this modification, the OJETS was identified as reguiring further

-------
characterization to determine if the site should be designated as an Area of Concern (AOC).   Based on data
collected during the SI, the Air Force decided to conduct an RI/FS at the OJETS.

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 apprized of
zone environmental 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 of 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 apprized of developments and milestones in the Pease
IRP.  The fact sheets released to date that concern Zone 7 are summarized as follows:

           Fact Sheet                                    Release Date

           Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program    October 1991
           Update

           Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program    December
           Update                                        1992

           Proposed Plan for the OJETS                   March 1995

In addition to the fact sheets, a number of public meetings have been held concerning the remedial activities
at Pease AFB, including the OJETS site.  The Air Force held a public hearing and information session on 11
April 1995 to present the Proposed Plan for the OJETS and to solicit comments on the selected remedy for the
site.  Responses to verbal comments received during the public hearing are presented in the Responsiveness
Summary in Appendix C.  A transcript of the public hearing is available in the Administrative Record file at
Pease AFB.  In addition, an official public comment period for the Proposed Plan for the OJETS was conducted
between 22 March and 21 April 1995.  There were no written comments received during this period.

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.

IV.  SCOPE AND ROIiE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION

The OJETS is the only site in Zone 7 where a remedial action will be implemented under CERCLA.  All other
sites in Zone 7 have been designated for no further action.  The remedy specified in this ROD is the final
remedial action for the OJETS.

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 various
environmental pathways.  The remedy specified in this ROD is designed to remove soil contaminants that have
the potential to leach to, and contaminate, groundwater.  In summary, the remedy provides for the following
actions:

•      Institutional controls, including placement of security fence and monitoring of site  groundwater until
       cleanup goals have been attained.

•      Excavation and off-site disposal of source area surface soil with concentrations of inorganic
       contaminants in excess of cleanup goals.

•      In situ air sparging of saturated contaminated soil to volatilize and/or biodegrade organic
       contaminants in soil and groundwater.

•      In situ SVE treatment of unsaturated contaminated soil to extract volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
       and to enhance biodegradation of organic contaminants.

•      Installation of a low-permeability membrane on the ground surface over the area to be treated by

-------
SVE/AS to minimize the potential for short circuiting of atmospheric air to the SVE vents.

• Natural attenuation of residual contamination remaining in groundwater after excavation, air sparging,
and SVE treatment.

• Establishment of a Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ) in accordance with NHDES regulation Env-Ws 410.

The results of the risk assessment (summarized in Section VI) for Site 45 soil indicate that risks to human
receptors do not exceed EPA's acceptable risk range (10-4 to 10-6 for cancer risk and a hazard index of less
than 1 for noncancer risks). The results of the ecological risk assessment indicate that some of the
contaminants detected in Site 45 surface soil result in an ecological risk with a hazard index or hazard
guotient greater than 1. Additionally, contaminants associated with site soil have leached to groundwater
and resulted in groundwater concentrations that exceed ARARs and 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 ingestion of surface soils and vegetation containing contaminants at
concentrations that may present an unacceptable risk.

• Protect human receptors from ingestion of contaminated groundwater that may present an unacceptable
health risk in exceedance of EPA's risk range of 10-4 to 10-6 (total cancer risk), or a hazard index
greater than 1.

• Comply with location- and action-specific applicable or relevant and appropriate reguirements (ARARs),
and to be considered (TBC) criteria, and/or established background levels for specific contaminants in
soil, as appropriate.

To meet these objectives, the Air Force has established site-specific cleanup levels for contaminated soil
and groundwater at Site 45. Cleanup goals were established for contaminants that exceeded either human
health risk-based, ecological risk-based, or regulatory-based concentrations at the site.

V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

A conceptual model has been developed for the OJETS that incorporates available applicable data, including
geological, hydrological, and analytical data and field measurements and visual observations. The salient
points of the model are summarized as follows:

• The soil beneath the OJETS building and upper portion of the rock crib is the primary contaminant
source area at the OJETS. Soil contamination consists of aromatic VOCs and total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPHs) and heavy metals. In addition, chlorinated VOCs [trichloroethylene (TCE),
tetrachlorethene (PCE), and chlorobenzene] were detected in the soil.

• The distribution of the soil organic contaminants suggests that the sources for these contaminants
were associated with leakage of aviation gasoline (AVGAS) from underground piping and the exhaust of
combustion products of AVGAS (which were directed into the rock crib) during jet engine testing. The
chlorinated VOCs were detected discontinuously across the site. The irregular distribution and
relatively low concentrations of these chlorinated VOCs suggest that only relatively moderate mounts
of degreasing solvents were likely used to clean jet engine parts, and that only small guantities of
these solvents were spilled or otherwise released. The source of metals contamination in the surface
soil is unknown but may have been engine testing activities at the OJETS.

• Organic soil contamination occurs from near the ground surface to a depth of approximately 20 feet
beneath the former OJETS building. The organic soil contamination occurs predominantly to the north
and west of the former building along the groundwater flow path, and is present in the vadose zone and
in the saturated zone. The total volume of organics-contaminated soil is estimated at 7,000 yd3.

• Metals-contaminated soil is confined to a small area immediately adjacent to the former engine test
stand. The maximum depth of the metals-contaminated soil is estimated at 2 ft BGS. The volume of
metals-contaminated soil is estimated at 120 yd3.

• Organic contamination in the groundwater is concentrated near the water table in the Upper Sand (US)
groundwater. These organic contaminants

• A semiconfining layer [the Marine Clay and Silt (MCS) unit] was observed that partially separates the
Lower Sand (LS) groundwater from the Upper

-------
• Sand (US) groundwater. An upward vertical hydraulic gradient was consistently measured from the LS to
the US; this gradient limits the potential for dissolved contaminants in US groundwater to migrate
downward.

• The downgradient extent of the organic contaminant plume in the overburden groundwater has been
defined. The plume has migrated approximately 200 feet from the source area and does not threaten
either groundwater currently used or planned to be used for a drinking source or surface water. The
closest surface water is a wetland area approximately 700 feet from the site. The closest potential
groundwater receptors are private residential wells approximately 2,600, 3,250, and 3,375 feet away.

The significant findings of the RI are presented in more detail in the subsections that follow.

A. Geology

This subsection provides a summary of the basewide and site-specific overburden geology. A more detailed
discussion of the overburden geology at the OJETS is presented in the OJETS Draft Final RI/FS Report (G-637).
Bedrock was not evaluated during field investigations at the OJETS because contaminants were not detected in
the LS or Glacial Till (GT) units that overlie bedrock at the site.

Overburden Geology

The generalized stratigraphic seguence of the glacial deposits of coastal New England is (in ascending
order): till; stratified drift, including subagueous outwash; marine clay and silt (MCS) of the Presumpscot
Formation; and subaerial outwash, such as ice-contact deltas and marine washover fans (G-468). Except for
the GT unit, all of the glacial units were deposited in a marine environment (G-491; G-493; G-377; G-468).

The glacially derived overburden at Pease AFB is Wisconsinan in age. Based on drilling information,
glaciomarine deposits have been divided into four units as follows (from oldest to youngest):

GT.
LS.
MCS.
US.

The overburden at Pease AFB also includes sediment that is Recent in age, such as marsh deposits and manmade
fill. Although all four units are present at the OJETS, one or more of the units may be absent at any
particular location.

B. Hvdrogeoloav

To evaluate the overburden groundwater, monitor wells were installed at three depths: shallow US; deep US;
and the LS/GT unit. The shallow and deep US unit wells were installed to characterize the vertical
distribution of contaminants in the US unit. The LS/GT unit wells were installed to monitor the water
guality below the MCS unit, which acts as a semiconfining layer at the OJETS.

To assist in evaluating the confining nature of the MCS unit, two well pairs were completed at the OJETS. In
each of these well pairs the fluid potential (i.e., groundwater elevation) is higher in the LS/GT unit than
in the US unit, indicating an upward vertical hydraulic gradient.

Groundwater in the US unit flows westward. The highest groundwater elevations in the US unit typically occur
in the spring and early summer, while the lowest groundwater elevations typically occur in the late summer
and fall. The water table fluctuates 4 to 6 feet seasonally. The estimated horizontal hydraulic gradients
during the highest and lowest water table elevations (April and October 1993, respectively) are 0.0092 and
0.0054 ft/ft, respectively. The groundwater flow velocity in the US unit is expected to range from 3.3 to 20
ft/day westward.

Groundwater flow occurs in two directions in the LS/GT unit. In the vicinity of the source area, the flow in
the LS/GT unit is north-northeastward toward the northeast portion of the site where the MCS is absent. The
horizontal hydraulic gradient of this north-northeastward flow direction is 0.024 ft/ft. Groundwater flow in
the LS/GT unit to the west of the source area (in the vicinity of well 5119) is west-southwestward. This
groundwater flow direction is similar to the westward groundwater flow direction observed in the US. The
groundwater divide between each flow direction is just west northwest of the OJETS building in the vicinity
of well 5121. The groundwater flow velocity of the LS/GT unit at the OJETS is estimated to be 0.84 ft/day.

-------
C. Distribution of Contaminants

Soil contaminants were detected in surface soils beneath the rock crib and in the subsurface vadose and
saturated zones. Groundwater contaminants were detected in the shallow and deep US. The following
paragraphs detail the contaminant distribution at the OJETS.

Distribution of Contaminants in Soil
Source Area Soil Contaminants

Maximum concentrations of organic compounds detected in soil at the OJETS and relevant background
concentrations and regulatory guidance values are presented in Table 2. The principal organic contaminants
detected in soil at the OJETS are TPHs; benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX); and two
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (2-methylnaphthalene and naphthalene). These compounds are
consistent with the type of soil contamination originating with AVGAS. Three chlorinated hydrocarbons were
detected: TCE, PCE, and chlorobenzene. None of these chlorinated hydrocarbons is widespread.
The distribution of these chlorinated hydrocarbons suggests that relatively localized solvent spillage
occurred at the OJETS.

The principal area of contaminated soil at the OJETS forms a shallow, wide lens within the US/fill
stratigraphic unit. The estimated areal extent, surface elevations, and thickness of the contaminated soil
is illustrated in Figure 4. As shown in this figure, the surface of the contaminated soil drops off steeply
toward the east and south and more gradually to the west. This westward decline is consistent with the
typically westwardly dipping water table present at the OJETS. The lens is centered under the former OJETS
building, where its maximum thickness is approximately 20 feet. The lens is also depicted in two cross
sections (see Figures 6 and 7). Figure 5 is an index map for these cross sections that shows the
distribution of soil sampling points at the OJETS. The total volume of organics-contaminated soil is
estimated at 7,000 yd3.

Water table elevation contours and groundwater flow directions from April and October 1993 are shown in
Figures 6 and 7. These elevations represent the range of water table elevations observed at the OJETS from
November 1992 to October 1993. Over this time period, the uppermost 4.5 feet of the lens of soil
contamination remained unsaturated, the underlying 4.5 feet of the lens was present under unsaturated and
saturated conditions, and the lowermost 11 feet remained under saturated conditions.

The maximum concentrations of inorganics detected in soil at the OJETS are presented in Table 3 along with
corresponding background and regulatory values. Eleven metals (arsenic, cadmium, calcium, chromium, copper,
lead, magnesium, nickel, silver, thallium, and zinc) were detected in at least one soil sample at the OJETS
at a concentration above established background values. The most significant measurements of metals
concentrations above background were in two surface soil samples (319 and 320) collected from directly
beneath the rock crib. Five metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and silver) were detected at
concentrations below RCRA Corrective Action Levels. RCRA Corrective Action Levels are not available for the
other six metals that were detected. The total estimated volume of soil contaminated with inorganic
constituents is 120 yd3.

Organic Contaminants in Subsurface Soil at Soil Boring 7620

In addition to the organic contaminants detected in the main source area, VOC-contaminated soil was
encountered in soil boring 7620 (see Figure 4) approximately 8 to 10 ft BGS. The soils in this depth
interval were stained, and analytical results for total VOCs and TPH were 159.2 mg/kg and 4,206 mg/kg,
respectively. These contaminant concentrations are significantly greater than those measured in soil borings
7780 and 7612, which had no visible staining or contaminant concentrations above soil cleanup goals, and are
believed to be at the edge of the principal source area (see Figure 4). Table 4 presents the field
observation and analytical results for borings 7612, 7620, and 7780. Prior to final design of remediation
systems for the OJETS, a field investigation will be conducted to clarify the extent of contamination in the
vicinity of boring 7620.

Distribution of Contaminants in Overburden Groundwater Shallow US Groundwater Quality

Ten shallow US overburden wells were sampled at various freguencies during characterization of the overburden
groundwater at the OJETS. The results of the groundwater sampling of these wells indicated that the shallow
US groundwater at the OJETS is contaminated with VOC concentrations above Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).

-------
SVOCs were not detected above MCLs. Total and soluble metal concentrations were detected above background
concentrations.

The VOCs detected above MCLs include aromatic VOCs (benzene and ethylbenzene) and chlormated VOCs
[cis-1,2,-dichloroethlene (cis-1,2-DCE), vinyl chloride, and trichloroethene]. Figure 8 depicts the plume of
chlorinated and aromatic VOCs that exceed MCLs, and the overall extent of VOCs detected in shallow US
groundwater at the OJETS. As shown on Figure 8, the plume extends approximately 200 feet downgradient of the
OJETS source area. The highest chlorinated VOC concentrations exceeding MCLs were detected in a screening
sample from piezometer 7891 (TCE at 1,600 ]lg/L) and a sample from piezometer 7628 (cis-1,2-DCE at 240 ug/L).
The farthest downgradient monitoring point within the chlorinated plume (well 5116) had a cis-1,2-DCE
concentration (97 jlg/L) that exceeded the MCL (70 jlg/L) in one of four sampling rounds. The aromatic VOC
plume extends from the OJETS source area west to piezometer 7623. The highest aromatic VOC concentrations
exceeding MCLs were reported for benzene (mobile laboratory sample from piezometer 7617 )) 114 jlg/L) and
ethylbenzene (screening sample from piezometer 7890 )) 1,800 jlg/L). The farthest downgradient monitoring
point within the aromatic VOC plume (piezometer 7623) had a benzene concentration (6.0 jlg/L) that exceeded
the MCL (5.0 jlg/L) in one of four sampling rounds. Ethylbenzene was not detected in piezometer 7623.

Background concentrations for metals dissolved in groundwater (filtered samples) were exceeded for seven
metals. Figure 9 shows the distribution of metals dissolved in groundwater above background concentrations.
Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) were exceeded for dissolved concentrations of aluminum, iron,
and manganese. Data from unfiltered samples (total metals) are not considered representative of actual
conditions because of the high turbidity of the groundwater in most monitor wells at the site. Specifically,
eight of the nine wells sampled in January 1993, 11 of the 15 wells sampled in
June 1993, and all nine wells sampled in September 1993 had turbidity values that exceeded 999 NTU
immediately prior to sampling. High turbidity values for the shallow groundwater wells and the low dissolved
metals concentrations suggest that unfiltered samples do not accurately represent site conditions. In
general, greater concentrations of metals were measured in unfiltered samples with higher levels of
turbidity. Additional detail concerning the relationship between turbidity and total metals concentrations
is presented in the Draft Final OJETS RI/FS Report (G-637).

Deep US Groundwater Quality

Four deep US overburden wells were sampled at various freguencies during characterization of the overburden
groundwater at the OJETS. VOC concentrations were not detected above MCLs. SVOCs were not detected. Total
and soluble metal concentrations were detected above background concentrations and one total and soluble
metal exceeded its MCL.

The first samples collected from the deep US monitoring locations were mobile laboratory screening samples
that indicated the presence of total BTEX in piezometers 7616 and 7626 at concentrations of 12 and 15 jlg/L,
respectively. Samples from multiple sampling rounds following this first round were analyzed at fixed
analytical laboratories. From these subseguent sampling events, toluene was detected at a concentration of
0.1 J jlg/L in one laboratory sample from well 5118. VOCs were not detected in any of the other fixed
laboratory samples. SVOCs were not detected in any of the three sampling rounds.

Background concentrations for dissolved inorganics were exceeded by silicon and lead. The exceedance for
lead (17.4 jlg/L) also exceeded the MCL for lead (15 jlg/L) and occurred in a single sample from piezometer
7626. Lead concentrations were below the MCL in two subseguent samples collected from piezometer 7626. As
with the US samples, high turbidity in LS samples resulted in total (unfiltered) metals concentrations that
were considered not representative of actual site conditions.

LS/GT and US/GT Groundwater Quality

Four wells (5119, 5120, 5121, and 5138) are screened in the LS/GT unit. Monitor well 5140 is screened in the
US/GT unit because the MCS unit is absent. VOCs were not detected in any of these five monitoring locations.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, detected once in well 5119, was the only SVOC detected in the LS/GT and US/GT
monitoring locations and is believed to be attributable to laboratory contamination. The SMCL for aluminum
was exceeded in well 5119 for dissolved metals during the September 1993 sampling round. No MCLs were
exceeded for dissolved metals.

As with the US and LS, the high turbidity values for the LS/GT and US/GT wells [>999 nephelometric turbidity
units (NTU) for wells 5121, 5138, and 5140; >200 NTU for wells 5119 and 5120] and the low dissolved metals
concentrations suggest that unfiltered samples do not accurately represent site conditions.

-------
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

A baseline risk assessment was performed to estimate the probability and magnitude of potential adverse
health risks to human and environmental receptors from exposure to contaminants associated with the site.
The risk assessment followed a four-step process:

1. Data evaluation and contaminant identification, which identified those chemicals that, given the
specifics of the site, were of significant potential concern.

2. Exposure assessment, which identified actual or potential exposure pathways, characterized the
potentially exposed populations, and determined the extent of possible exposure.

3. Toxicity assessment, which considered the types and magnitude of adverse health effects associated
with exposure to the chemicals of concern.

4. Risk characterization, which integrated the first three steps to summarize the potential for cancer
and adverse noncancer health effects posed to the evaluated receptors.

The approach and methodology for preparing the risk assessment were originally presented in a protocols
document submitted to EPA Region I and NHDES (G-568). This document was subseguently amended based on a
meeting among Roy F. Weston, Inc. (WESTON ), the Air Force, EPA Region I, and NHDES (G-217), and a revised
version was submitted (G-601). The results of the baseline human health and ecological risk assessments for
the OJETS are detailed in Section 6 of the Draft Final OJETS RI/FS Report (G-637) and are summarized in the
subsections that follow.

A. Human Health Risk Assessment

A number of chemicals of concern (listed in Table 5) were selected for evaluation in the human health risk
assessment. The potential risks to human health were evaluated separately for each medium, in accordance
with guidance from EPA Region I. The media evaluated were soil and groundwater. The soil and groundwater
data sets were evaluated for the presence of hot spots (e.g., storage tank or spill).

For each pathway evaluated, average and reasonable maximum exposure estimates were generated corresponding to
exposure to the average and maximum concentrations detected in that particular medium.

Excess cancer risks were determined for each exposure pathway by multiplying the exposure level by the
chemical-specific slope factor. Cancer slope factors have been developed by EPA from epidemiological or
animal studies to reflect a conservative upper bound of the risk posed by potentially carcinogenic compounds
(i.e., the actual risk is unlikely to be greater than the risk predicted). The resulting risk estimates are
expressed in scientific notation (e.g., 1 x 10-6 for 1/1,000,000) and indicate (using this example) that an
average individual is likely to have 1-in-l-million chance of developing cancer over 70 years as a result of
site-related exposure as defined for the compound at the stated concentration. Current EPA practice considers
cancer risk to be additive when assessing exposure to a mixture of hazardous substances.

A hazard index also was calculated for each pathway as EPA' s measure of the potential for noncancer health
effects. A hazard guotient is calculated by dividing the exposure level by the reference dose (RfD) or other
suitable benchmark for noncancer health effects for an individual compound. Reference doses have been
developed by EPA to protect sensitive individuals over the course of a lifetime, and they reflect a daily
exposure level that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of an adverse health effect. RfDs are
derived from epidemiological or animal studies and incorporate uncertainty factors to help ensure that
adverse health effects will not occur. The hazard guotient is often expressed as a single value (e.g., 0.3)
indicating a ratio of the stated exposure as defined to the reference dose value (in this example, the
exposure as characterized is approximately one-third of an acceptable exposure level for the given compound).
A hazard guotient 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 guotient for a compound known to produce
liver damage should not be added to a second whose toxic endpoint is kidney damage.

A most reasonable maximally exposed individual (RME) was selected for each medium based on both current and
expected future land and water uses. The site is currently inactive; however, minor maintenance activities
may be performed within the site area. It was assumed that future use for the OJETS will be restricted to
commercial/industrial use (i.e., residential development will not occur). There are no current receptors for
groundwater because groundwater from the site is not currently used. Based on the
assumption that site-related groundwater contaminants could potentially migrate to the extent that chemical
concentrations in off-base household wells would be the same as concentrations reported in on-site and
downgradient wells, a future off-base adult resident was selected as the RME for the groundwater pathway.

-------
Two exposure routes were evaluated for the soil and groundwater pathways: ingestion of soil (incidental)
and/or groundwater (as drinking water) and darrel contact with soil and noningestive contact with groundwater
(i.e., bathing, cooking, and washing).

Each RME was evaluated for potential cancer and noncancer health effects. The potential for cancer risk was
expressed as the probability of developing cancer over a 70-year lifetime. The potential for noncancer health
effects was expressed as the probability of developing these health effects over the duration of the
exposure.

Maximum cancer risks generally acceptable to EPA are in the 10-6 to 10-4 range (i.e., 1-in-l-million to
l-in-10,000), depending on site-specific conditions. Because of the absence of sensitive receptors at the
OJETS, the Air Force believes that risk levels in the 10-6 to 10-4 range do not reguire action. EPA
typically reguires action for cancer risk levels greater than 10-4. Risks of less than 10-6 are not usually
of regulatory concern. The potential for noncancer health risks was expressed as a hazard index. A total
hazard index of greater than 1 is generally considered the benchmark for potential concern.

The total lifetime cancer risks and total hazard indices are presented by medium in Table 6. The cancer risks
and hazard indices were calculated using three concentrations: the mean, the upper 95% confidence limit of
the mean, and the maximum. As shown in Table 6, the potential cancer risk posed by exposure to soil was
calculated to be less than 10-6 for all exposure scenarios. In addition, the total hazard indices for all
soil exposure scenarios were less than 1; indicating no risk of adverse noncancer health effects posed by
exposure to soil.

For the groundwater pathway, the total lifetime cancer risk posed to the future off-base resident was
calculated to range from 2-in-10,000 (2.47 x 10-4) to 8-in-10,000 (8.00 x 10-4). Most of the risk from
exposure to groundwater was contributed by arsenic (approximately 87% to 95%) and vinyl chloride
(approximately 4% to 11%). Benzene, 1,1-dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride each posed between a 10-6 and
10-4 cancer risk at all groundwater exposure concentrations. The maximum risk (7.56 x 10-4) posed by arsenic
in the OJETS overburden groundwater is lower than that posed by arsenic at the current MCL. At the MCL (50
jlg/L), the lifetime cancer risk to an individual through drinking water ingestion is calculated to be
between l-in-1,000 and 2-in-l,000.

For noncarcingogenic chemicals in groundwater the total hazard index ranged from 19.2 to 129 for the
different exposure concentrations. The major contributors to the hazard index were manganese, naphthalene,
2-methylnaphthalene, and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene. As was noted above, a hazard index greater than 1 is
usually considered the benchmark for potential concern. Actual or threatened releases of hazardous
substances from this site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health, human welfare, or the environment.

B. Ecological Risk Assessment

The ecological risk assessment evaluated the potential adverse impacts, associated with site contaminants, on
terrestrial organisms (receptors) that inhabit or are potential inhabitants of the OJETS site. The
assessment focused on the potential impacts of the chemicals of concern in surface soils (0 to 2 ft BGS) to
ecological receptors. The deer mouse and chipping sparrow were selected as receptors because they are
components of the local ecosystem that, based on professional judgment, appear most susceptible to site
contamination.

The potential risk posed to the ecological receptors was assessed by comparing estimated daily doses or
medium-specific concentrations with critical toxicity values (CTVs). Hazard guotients were calculated, by
contaminant, for each receptor by dividing the estimated daily intake by the CTV. Hazard guotients were
summed across all exposure pathways for each contaminant, by receptor, to develop specific hazard indices.

A hazard index of less than 1 indicates adverse effects are not likely to occur and no action is reguired. 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.

Summaries of the hazard guotients and indices for the deer mouse and chipping sparrow are presented in Tables
7 and 8, respectively. The hazard indices for ecological receptors were calculated using both the average
and maximum concentrations of chemicals of concern. The following paragraphs provide an overview of the
findings of the OJETS ecological risk assessment and highlight contaminants that contributed substantially to
the total hazard index for each receptor.

For the deer mouse, the cumulative average hazard index (1.25) and the cumulative maximum hazard index (4.46)
were both greater than 1. The major contributors to both the average and maximum cumulative hazard indices
were inorganic chemicals. The hazard indices were less than 1 for the average concentrations of each of the

-------
chemicals of concern. For the maximum concentrations, only the hazard index for cadmium (2.49) exceeded 1.

For the chipping sparrow, the cumulative average hazard index (11.9) and the cumulative maximum hazard index
(31.4) were both greater than 10. Again, the major contributors to both the average and maximum cumulative
hazard indices were inorganic chemicals. For the average hazard index, zinc (8.36), chromium (3.25), and
cadmium (0.23) contributed approximately 99% of the total hazard index. For the maximum hazard index, zinc
(22.8), chromium (6.24), and cadmium (1.85) contributed approximately 98% of the total hazard index.

Although results of the ecological risk assessment indicate that cadmium, chromium, and zinc in surface soils
may pose an ecological risk, there is considerable uncertainty concerning the results of the ecological risk
assessment. The hazard indices are calculated using hazard quotients for ingestion of both soil and
vegetation, and the results show that vegetation ingestion accounted for 84% to 99% of the calculated
cumulative hazard indices. For the deer mouse, the majority of plant material consumed is usually in the
form of seeds. However, it was assumed for this assessment that the majority of the diet would include the
vegetative portion of plants, where translocated chemicals tend to accumulate at higher
concentrations. This assumption may have lead to an overestimate of daily intake concentrations, and hence,
a higher hazard index. Assumptions associated with diet also introduce uncertainty to the estimated risk to
the chipping sparrow. 100% seed ingestion was assumed though it is likely that invertebrate ingestion
comprises up to 30% of the diet of the sparrow.

Additional uncertainties concerning the ecological risk assessment results axe related to the small area
(approximately 0.2 acres) of contaminated surface soil at the OJETS. The chipping sparrow and deer mouse
were assumed to obtain 25% of their daily diets on-site. However, the lack of vegetation and soil to support
vegetation in the area of the former concrete pad and rock crib minimizes the potential for receptors to
ingest site-related contaminants.

Because the maximum cumulative hazard index for the chipping sparrow (31.4) is in the range that generally
warrants action, soils contaminated with zinc will be targeted for remediation. The maximum hazard index for
zinc (22.8) contributed 72% of the cumulative hazard index for the chipping sparrow, and zinc was the only
chemical with a hazard quotient that exceeded 10. Because of the uncertainties associated with the
ecological risk assessment, the soils associated with hazard indices between 1 and 10 are not targeted for
remediation. However, treatment of soils contaminated with zinc and targeted for remediation will also
remove other contaminants and likely significantly reduce the cumulative hazard indices.

VII. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

A. Statutory Requirements/Response Objectives

Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several statutory requirements and preferences for remedial actions at
Superfund sites, including the following:

• Remedial actions must be protective of human health and the environment.

• Remedial actions, when complete, must comply with all federal and more stringent state environmental
standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations, unless a waiver is invoked.

• The remedial action must be cost-effective and use permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.

• There shall be a preference for remedies in which treatment that permanently and significantly reduces
the volume, toxicity, or mobility (TMV) of the hazardous substances is a principal element over
remedies not involving such treatment.

Remedial action alternatives were developed for the OJETS to be consistent with these mandates.

Based on available information relating to types of contaminants, environmental media of concern, and
potential exposure pathways, RAOs were developed to aid in the development and screening of remedial
alternatives. These RAOs are presented in detail in the Draft Final OJETS RI/FS Report (G-637) and in the
Site 45 FS Supplement (G-751). The RAOs were developed to comply with ARARs and TBCs, and to mitigate
existing and future potential threats to human health and the environment from contamination at the OJETS.
The RAOs address soil and groundwater at the OJETS as follows:
Soil
Minimize leaching of contaminants from soil to groundwater that would result in groundwater
contamination that may exceed ARARs or present an unacceptable health risk given the site-specific

-------
exposure scenarios.

• Comply with chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs and TBCs and/or established background
levels for specific contaminants in soil, as appropriate.

• Protect ecological receptors from direct contact with, or ingestion of, soil or vegetation containing
contaminants at concentrations that may present an unacceptable risk.

Groundwater

• Comply with chemical-specific ARARs and/or established background levels for specific contaminants in
groundwater, as appropriate.

• Protect human receptors from exposure to or ingestion of contaminated groundwater that may present
unacceptable health risks as defined in Subsection VI.A.

B. Technology Screening and Alternative Development

CERCLA and the NCP set forth the process by which remedial actions are evaluated and selected. In accordance
with these reguirements, remedial technologies were screened, and a range of remedial alternatives was
developed for the OJETS. Treatment that reduces the TMV of the hazardous substances is a principal element
of the remedial alternatives.

In Section 8 of the Draft Final OJETS RI/FS Report (G-637), technologies are identified, assessed, and
screened based on implementability, effectiveness, and cost. The purpose of the initial screening was to
narrow the number of remedial technologies that would be included in the remedial alternatives, while
preserving a range of options. The technologies that passed the screening process were combined into the
range of remedial alternatives presented in Section 9 of the Draft Final OJETS RI/FS Report (G-637) and in
the Site 45 FS Supplement (G-751).

The range of alternatives developed during the FS includes an alternative that removes or destroys hazardous
substances to the maximum extent feasible, minimizing to the degree possible the need for long-term
management. The range also includes alternatives that treat the principal threats posed by the site but vary
in the degree of treatment used and the guantities and characteristics of the treatment residuals and
untreated material that must be managed; and a no-action alternative. Each remedial alternative was
evaluated in detail with respect to the nine evaluation criteria specified in NCP.

VIII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

This section provides a narrative summary of each alternative that was evaluated in detail during the FS.
Detailed assessments of alternatives are presented in the Draft Final OJETS RI/FS Report (G-637) and in the
Site 45 FS Supplement (G-751). The remedial alternatives analyzed for the OJETS are as follows:

• Alternative 1: No action (always considered as reguired by CERCLA).

• Alternative 2: Excavation and off-site treatment and/or disposal of approximately 4,950 yd3 of VOC-
and metals-contaminated soil and institutional controls.

• Alternative 3: Soil vapor extraction and air sparging of source area soil, excavation and off-base
disposal of approximately 120 yd3 of metals-contaminated soil, and institutional controls.

• Alternative 4: Excavation and ex site biological/vapor extraction treatment of approximately 7,000
yd3 of VOC-contaminated soil, excavation and off-site disposal of approximately 120 yd3 of
metals-contaminated soil, excavation dewatering, and on-site treatment and disposal of groundwater.

• Alternative 5: Excavation and on-site thermal desorption of approximately 7,000 yd3 of
VOC-contaminated soil, excavation and off-site disposal of approximately 120 yd3 of
metals-contaminated soil, excavation dewatering, and on-site treatment and disposal of groundwater.

• Pump and Treat Alternative: Extraction and on-site treatment of groundwater, off-site recharge of
treated groundwater.

Alternative 1 )) No Action

The no-action alternative was evaluated in detail in the RI/FS to serve as a baseline for comparison with the
other remedial alternatives under consideration. Under this alternative, no treatment, containment,

-------
institutional controls, or monitoring of any kind would be performed.

Alternative 2 )) Excavation and Off-Site Treatment and/or Disposal of Soil, and Institutional Controls

This alternative consists of the following components:

• Institutional controls and placement of a security fence.

• Excavation and off-site treatment and/or disposal of approximately 4,950 yd3 of contaminated soil.

• Backfilling of the excavation with excavated clean soil and additional off-site soil.

• Environmental monitoring until cleanup goals have been attained.

• Designation of a GMZ in area of the groundwater contaminant plume. The GMZ would remain in effect
until groundwater cleanup goals have been attained.

Estimated time for design and construction: 2 months.
Estimated period of operation: 30 years.
Estimated capital cost: $1,031,000.
Estimated operation and maintenance (O&M) cost (net present worth): $65,000.
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $1,096,000.

Alternative 3 )) Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging of Source Area Soil, Excavation and Off-Site Disposal
of Metals-Contaminated Soil, and Institutional Controls

This alternative consists of the following components:

• Institutional controls and placement of a security fence.

• Excavation and off-site disposal of source area surface soil with concentrations of inorganic
contaminants in excess of cleanup goals.

• In situ air sparging of saturated contaminated soil to enhance volatilization and biodegradation of
organic contaminants in soil and groundwater.

• In situ SVE treatment of unsaturated contaminated soil for removal of volatile contaminants and to
enhance biodegradation of organic contaminants.

• Installation of a low-permeability membrane on the surface of the soil to be treated by SVE to
minimize the potential for short circuiting of atmospheric air to SVE vents.

• Monitoring of site groundwater until cleanup goals have been attained.

• Designation of a GMZ in area of the groundwater contaminant plume. The GMZ would remain in effect
until groundwater cleanup goals have been attained.

Estimated time for design and construction: 9 months.
Estimated period of operation: 4 years.
Estimated capital cost: $573,000.
Estimated O&M cost (net present worth): $463,000.
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $1,036,000.

Alternative 4 )) Excavation and Ex Situ Biological/Vapor Extraction Treatment of VOC-Contaminated Soil,
Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Metals-Contaminated Soil, Excavation Dewatering, and On-Site Treatment
and Disposal of Groundwater

This alternative consists of the following components:

• Institutional controls and placement of a security fence.

• Excavation and off-site disposal of source area surface soil with concentrations of inorganic
contaminants in excess of cleanup goals.

• Excavation of approximately 7,000 yd3 of soil contaminated above cleanup goals for organics.

• Dewatering of the open excavation for 6 months to facilitate removal of soil and to reduce the mass of

-------
contaminants in site groundwater.

• On-site treatment of groundwater and disposal of effluent in downgradient recharge trenches.

• On-site treatment of excavated contaminated soil by ex sire biological/vapor extraction, and treatment
of VOCs in the off gas by carbon adsorption.

• Off-site disposal of treated soil that does not meet cleanup goals for metals.

• Backfilling of excavated clean soil (clean soil excavated to access contaminated soil) and treated
soil in the excavated areas.

• Environmental monitoring until cleanup goals have been attained.

• Designation of a GMZ in area of the groundwater contaminant plume. The GMZ would remain in effect
until groundwater cleanup goals have been attained.

Estimated time for design and construction: 2 years.
Estimated period of operation: 2 years.
Estimated capital cost: $1,620,000.
Estimated O&M cost (net present worth): $359,000.
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $1,979,000.

Alternative 5 )) Excavation and On-Site Thermal Desorption of VOC-Contaminated Soil. Excavation and Off-Site
Disposal of Metals-Contaminated Soil, Excavation Dewatering, and On-Site Treatment and Disposal of
Groundwater

This alternative consists of the following components:

• Institutional controls and placement of a security fence.

• Excavation and off-site disposal of source area surface soil with concentrations of inorganic
contaminants in excess of cleanup goals.

• Excavation of approximately 7,000 yd3 of soil contaminated above cleanup goals for organics.

• Dewatering of the open excavation for 6 months to facilitate removal of soil and to reduce the mass of
contaminants in site groundwater.

• On-site groundwater treatment and disposal of effluent in downgradient recharge trenches.

• On-site treatment of excavated contaminated soil by a mobile thermal desorption unit.

• Off-site disposal of treated soil that does not meet cleanup goals for metals.

• Backfilling of excavated clean soil (clean soil excavated to access contaminated soil) and treated
soil in the excavated areas.

• Environmental monitoring until cleanup goals have been attained.

• Designation of a GMZ in area of the groundwater contaminant plume. The GMZ would remain in effect
until groundwater cleanup goals have been attained.

Estimated time for design and construction: 8 months.
Estimated period of operation: 2 years.
Estimated capital cost: $1,681,000.
Estimated O&M cost (net present worth): $28,000.
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $1,709,000.

Pump and Treat Alternative

This alternative was included in the Site 45 Feasibility Study Supplement (G-751) that was submitted to EPA
and NHDES in February 1995. This alternative may stand alone or be combined with any of the proposed source
control alternatives discussed previously.

The duration of the pump and treat alternative would vary depending on the source control alternative with
which it was combined. Contaminant transport modeling indicates that, to attain groundwater cleanup goals,

-------
pumping and treatment of groundwater would only be necessary for 2 to 6 months after complete remediation of
source area soil. Remediation of the entire source area would be expected under Alternative 3 within 3
years, and under Alternative 4 and 5 in less than 1 year. Complete removal of the contaminant source would
be unlikely under Alternative 2. Therefore, under Alternative 2, residual soil contamination would likely
continue to leach to groundwater and extend the duration of the pump and
treat alternative. If no source control remedial action were implemented, the duration of the pump and treat
alternative (the time until attainment of groundwater cleanup goals) would likely be several years or longer.
The pump and treat alternative consists of the following components:

• Groundwater extraction to capture the dissolved contaminant plume and reduce the mass of contamination

• On-site groundwater treatment to remove VOCs from extracted groundwater. Discharge of treated
groundwater to on-base recharge trenches.
•
Estimated time for design and construction: 6 months.
Estimated period of operation: Varies with source control alternative.
Estimated capital cost: $300,000.
Estimated O&M cost (net present worth): $340,000.
Estimated total cost (net present worth): $640,000.

IX. SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

Section 121(b)(1) of CERCLA presents several factors that must be considered when assessing alternatives and
specifies a preference for treatment of hazardous substances and contaminated materials. Building on these
specific statutory mandates, 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 NCP:

1. Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether a remedy provides adeguate
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 ARARs under federal environmental laws
and state environmental or facility siting laws, or whether there are grounds for invoking a waiver
pursuant to the reguirements of 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.

4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants through treatment addresses the degree
to which alternatives use recycling or treatment that reduces TMV 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 attained.

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 the Proposed Plan for the OJETS was
evaluated based on verbal comments received during the public comment period.

A detailed assessment of each alternative according to the threshold and balancing criteria is presented in
the OJETS RI/FS Report (G-637) and the Site 45 FS Supplement (G-751). 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
9.

The following subsections present evaluations of the remedial alternatives relative to each other and to the
nine evaluation criteria. The evaluations are based on the detailed and comparative analysis in the OJETS
RI/FS Report (G-637) and the Site 45 FS Supplement (G-751). In the following subsections the remedial
alternatives are also evaluated in terms of the two modifying criteria not discussed in the OJETS RI/FS
Report.

A. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Alternative 1 would not reduce the risk to human receptors from ingestion of source area groundwater, or the
risk to ecological receptors from exposure to metals in surface soil. It should be noted that the
groundwater contamination is confined to a limited area adjacent to the Pease AFB flightline, where use of
groundwater for drinking water supplies is not currently planned and is unlikely in the future. Also, the
cumulative average hazard index for the maximally exposed ecological receptor (the chipping sparrow) is 11.9,
which is only slightly above the benchmark of 10 for potential remedial action.

Implementation of Alternatives 2 through 5 would likely increase overall protection of human health and the
environment by treating contaminated media at the site. These actions would likely result in attainment of
drinking water standards in groundwater over the long term, and a reduction of risk to ecological receptors
from metals in soil. Alternatives 4 and 5 would likely attain a higher degree of protection in a shorter time
period than would Alternatives 2 and 3. Addition of the Pump and Treat Alternative to any of the
alternatives would likely decrease the time until attainment of groundwater cleanup goals following removal
of source area soil contaminants. As noted above, the degree of additional protection offered by rapid
attainment of groundwater standards would be minimal because there is no current plan, and future plans are
unlikely, to use groundwater from the site as a drinking water source.

B. Compliance with ARARs

Compliance with ARARs addresses whether a remedy complies with all state and federal environmental and public
health laws and reguirements that apply or are relevant and appropriate to the conditions and cleanup options
at a specific site. ARARs are divided into three categories: (1) chemical-specific reguirements that are
health- or risk-based concentration limits or ranges in various environmental media for specific hazardous
substance, pollutants, or contaminants, (2) location-specific reguirements are restrictions on activities
based on the characteristics of a site and its immediate environment, and (3)
action-specific reguirements are controls or restrictions on particular types of activities or treatment
technologies. Tables P-l through P-5 of the RI/FS (G-637) present evaluations of Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5 with respect to ARARs. The Site 45 FS Supplement (G-751) presents the ARARs for the pump and treat
alternative.

Current conditions at Site 45 are not in compliance with chemical-specific ARARs for groundwater.
Groundwater ARARs would not be attained under the no-action alternative, except by natural attenuation over
the very long-term. Groundwater ARARs would likely be attained in shorter lengths of time under
implementation of Alternatives 2 through 5, with Alternatives 4 and 5 resulting in the most rapid attainment
of groundwater ARARs. Addition of the Pump and Treat Alternative to any of the alternatives would likely
decrease the time, following remediation of source area soil, until attainment of groundwater ARARs.

Remedial activities implemented under Alternatives 2 through 5 and the Pump and Treat Alternative would
comply with action- and location-specific ARARs governing subsurface recharge of treated groundwater; air
emissions; and transportation, off-site treatment, and disposal of contaminated soil.

-------
C. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

The potential human health risk at Site 45 is based primarily on the unlikely event that contaminated
groundwater would be consumed by human receptors. Implementing Alternative 1 would not reduce this risk.
Alternatives 2 through 5 would all result in a significant and permanent reduction of site contaminants and
reduce the potential of contaminants leaching into the groundwater, thereby reducing this risk.

The thermal desorption of soil implemented under Alternative 5 would result in the most thorough level of
soil remediation, resulting in the least residual risk of contaminants leaching to groundwater of the five
alternatives. Alternative 4 would also offer a high degree of soil remediation because attainment of cleanup
goals in the treated soil would be reguired before it could be backfilled. The residual risk of contaminant
leaching associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 would likely be greater than for Alternatives 4 and 5. As
noted previously, it is likely that less contaminated soil would be removed under Alternative 2 than under
Alternatives 4 and 5. The in situ processes associated with Alternative 3 may provide less uniform soil
treatment than the excavation and ex situ treatment processes in Alternatives 4 and 5. Addition of the pump
and treat alternative to any of the alternatives would likely result in minimal reduction of residual risk
because pumping and treating groundwater would provide minimal remediation of the contaminant source.

No long-term management and monitoring o£ the site would be associated with Alternative 1. Groundwater
monitoring would be conducted once every 5 years under the remaining alternatives. It is difficult to
predict the time until groundwater cleanup goals would be attained, and thus the duration of the groundwater
monitoring. However, it is likely that the more rapid and thorough soil treatment in Alternatives 4 and 5
would result in shorter durations of monitoring for those alternatives than for Alternatives 2 and 3.

D. Reduction of Toxicitv, Mobility, or Volume of Contaminants Through Treatment

Alternative 1 would most likely not reduce the TMV of the contaminants in the foreseeable future.
Alternatives 2 through 5 would all result in a significant and permanent reduction of TMV of site
contaminants. Alternative 2 results in some untreated soil remaining in the source area saturated zone.
Alternative 3 may residual in less uniform treatment of soils because of the in situ treatment process.
Alternatives 4 and 5 would likely produce relatively insignificant mounts of treatment residuals. The
treatment processes used in Alternatives 2 through 5 would be irreversible. The primary difference between
Alternatives 4 and 5 and Alternatives 2 and 3, with respect to reduction of TMV, is the potential for
untreated contaminated subsurface soil to remain after completion of the remedial actions.
Implementation of Alternatives 4, 5, or the Pump and Treat Alternative would reduce the TMV of contaminants
in groundwater via extraction and treatment.

E. Short-Term Effectiveness

Air emissions from excavation, SVE, and air stripping operations would be controlled in compliance with state
and federal criteria. Groundwater recharge to downgradient recharge trenches would be performed in
compliance with NHDES criteria.

There would be no action taken; therefore, there would be no risk to workers under Alternative 1.
Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would involve excavation of approximately 12,100 to 18,700 yd3 of soil,
approximately 4,950 to 7,120 yd3 of which is contaminated. Therefore, Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would present
a greater risk to workers than Alternative 3, which involves minimal excavation (120 yd3). The risks
associated with excavation include potential exposure of site workers to gaseous emissions and dust, and
risks typically associated with excavation activities (i.e., heavy eguipment operation and slope stability).

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 and the pump and treat alternative would all present similar levels of risk to
workers with respect to operation of eguipment associated with SVE, air sparging, ex situ biological/vapor
extraction, thermal desorption, and groundwater recovery and treatment. Alternative 2 would not present
risks to workers beyond those associated with excavation and backfilling. Effective health and safety
measures, including use of personal protective eguipment (PPE) and appropriate engineering controls, would be
implemented for Alternatives 2 through 5 and the pump and treat alternative to ensure that workers are
protected from potential hazards and that Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) criteria are
met.

Alternative 1 would involve no action and, therefore, would not pose any risk to the environment during
implementation. Minimal short-term environmental effects would result from the limited excavation
(approximately 120 yd3) and installation of an impermeable surface membrane during implementation of
Alternative 3. Most of the area of the site that would be affected by Alternative 3 is currently unvegetated
or only sparsely vegetated. Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would involve clearing and regrading of 1 to 2 acres at
the northern end of Site 45, and excavation of approximately 12,100 to 18,700 yd3 of soil from approximately
1 acre of the site. While these effects on the environment are more substantial than those for Alternatives
1 and 3, it is expected that they would be mitigated by proper stabilization and revegetation of the site

-------
following completion of the remedial activities.

The time until attainment of cleanup of soil and groundwater cleanup goals would depend primarily on the
aggressiveness of the source area remedial action. Soil cleanup goals would likely be attained within a few
months under Alternative 5, within 1 to 2 years under Alternative 4, and 1 to 3 years under Alternative 3. A
significantly longer period of time would likely be necessary for attainment of soil cleanup goals under
Alternative 2 because of possible incomplete removal of all contaminated soil.

Following removal of the source of groundwater contamination (i.e., attainment of soil cleanup goals) the
remaining contaminants dissolved in groundwater would dissipate by natural attenuation. Contaminant
transport modeling was performed to estimate the time, following removal of the contaminant source, until
attainment of groundwater cleanup goals at the OJETS. Two scenarios were evaluated: natural attenuation and
groundwater extraction/treatment. The model simulated transport and attenuation of TCE in groundwater
following removal of all source area soil contaminants. It was estimated that the groundwater cleanup goal
for TCE (5 jlg/L) would be achieved through natural attenuation approximately 1 year after removal of source
area contaminants. Extraction and treatment of groundwater would decrease the time until attainment of the
cleanup goal for TCE to 2 to 6 months after complete remediation of source area soils. Thus, addition of the
Pump and Treat Alternative would provide only minimal impact to the short-term
effectiveness of any of the alternatives.

F. Implementabilitv

All of the alternatives use established and proven technologies that could be readily implemented, operated,
and maintained. The difficulties and unknowns associated with implementing Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 are
primarily related to the excavation of contaminated soil from below the water table. If the excavation
activities are conducted during periods when the water table is low, then the removal of contaminated soil,
as described for the different alternatives, would be easier. If the water table is high during the time of
excavation, or if the dewatering measures are ineffective, then removal of
contaminated soils from 14 to 18 ft BGS would likely be relatively difficult.

The SVE and air sparging technologies associated with Alternative 3 have been widely used and are well
established. Results of on-site pilot testing of SVE and air sparging will be used to optimize the design of
full-scale systems. A SVE/AS pilot treatability study was performed at the OJETS between September and
November 1994. The treatability study indicated that combined SVE/AS is an effective method for removal of
organic contaminants in vadose zone and saturated zone soil at the OJETS. The results of the treatability
study are discussed in the OJETS Treatability Study Letter Report (G-737). Results of on-site pilot testing
of SVE and air sparging will be used to optimize the design of full-scale systems. The groundwater
extraction, treatment, and recharge technologies associated with Alternatives 4, 5, and the Pump and Treat
Alternative are well established and could be readily implemented.

The duration of treatment and reliability of the soil treatment process (thermal desorption) for Alternative
5 is well established. The durations and uniformity of treatment associated with Alternatives 3 and 4 are
less well established and are more subject to site-specific conditions. Approval from state and federal
agencies, when necessary, would likely be obtained for actions associated with each of the alternatives,
except for Alternative 1. It is expected that approval for the no-action alternative would not be granted by
regulatory agencies. Implementation of any of the alternatives would not limit the ability to undertake
additional remedial actions, if deemed necessary in the future.

-------
G.  Cost

The estimated present-worth costs of the alternatives are as follows:
                    Remedial Alternative
   1.  No Action
   2.   Excavation and Off-Site Treatment and/or
       Disposal of Soil and Institutional Controls

   3.   Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging of Source
       Area Soft, Off-Site Disposal of Metals-
       Contaminated Soil,  and Institutional Controls

   4.   Excavation and Ex Situ Biological/Vapor
       Extraction Treatment of VOC-Contaminated Soil,
       Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Metals-
       Contaminated Soil,  Excavation Dewatering, and
       On-Site Treatment and Disposal of Groundwater

   5.   Excavation and On-Site Thermal Desorption of
       VOC-Contaminated Soil, Excavation and Off-Site
       Disposal of Metals-Contaminated Soil,  Excavation
       Dewatering, and On-Site Treatment and Disposal
       of Groundwater
 Capital
  Cost

Not costed

$1,031,000


 $573,000



$1,620,000
$1,681,000
 Present-
 Worth O&M
  Cost at
  Year 30

Not costed

  $65,000


 $463,000



 $359,000
 $28,000
  Total
 Present-
Worth Cost

Not costed

$1,096,000


$1,036,000



$1,979,000
 $1,709,000
       Pump and Treat Alternative
 $300,000
$340,000
  $640,000

-------
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 remedial action decisions
for the OJETS. The RI/FS was performed with the Air Force as the lead agency, 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 that are 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 are supportive of the proposed
remedial action, the selected remedy will not be modified from that presented in the OJETS Proposed Plan.

X. THE SELECTED REMEDY

The selected remedy, Alternative 3, is comprehensive in that it removes source area soil and groundwater
contaminants via in situ air sparging and SVE treatment of on-site soils. Treatment of the contaminant source
will minimize the potential for long-term leaching of contaminants from soil to groundwater. The selected
remedy involves delineation, excavation, and off-site disposal of surface soils contaminated above cleanup
goals for inorganics; in situ air sparging of saturated contaminated soil; in situ SVE treatment of
unsaturated contaminated soil; and installation of a low-permeability membrane on the site
soil surface. Institutional controls, including a chain-link fence, will be implemented and a
GMZ will be designated and remain in effect until groundwater monitoring demonstrates that groundwater
cleanup goals have been attained

A. Methodology for Cleanup Level Determination

Cleanup levels were evaluated for each medium of concern at the OJETS, Site 45. These media (soil and
groundwater) have been evaluated separately to account for differences in contaminants and exposure pathways
for each medium. Cleanup goals were selected after comparing maximum contaminant concentrations detected for
each chemical of concern in each medium to appropriate chemical-specific ARARs and TBCs, human health
risk-based concentrations, and, if applicable, ecological risk- and leaching-based concentrations.

The approach used to determine risk-based concentrations is consistent with the approach used to evaluate
human health and ecological risk in the risk assessment section of the Draft Final OJETS RI/FS Report (G-637)
and with general EPA guidance for developing risk-based preliminary remediation goals (G-224). In summary,
risk-based concentrations were derived from the chemicals of concern in each medium based on the most
reasonable maximally exposed human or ecological receptor (current or future) for the medium.

Risk-based concentrations were derived for each noncarcinogenic chemical in a medium based on a goal of a
hazard index of 1. For each carcinogenic chemical, the concentrations were derived based on a goal of 10.6
(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).

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 Site 45
exposure scenarios, a risk-based concentration or TBC was selected as the cleanup goal. When ARARs or TBCs
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 at Site 45 are
summarized in the subsections that follow.

B. Groundwater Cleanup Goals

The list of groundwater contaminants that were evaluated for establishing groundwater cleanup goals was
limited to groundwater chemicals of concern identified in the risk assessment conducted for Site 45. Cleanup
goals were established for all chemicals of concern that exceeded ARARs. Risk-based concentrations were
established as cleanup goals for chemicals of concern that did not have an ARAR.

Table 10 presents the maximum detected concentration, chemical-specific ARARs, risk-based concentrations, and
the cleanup goals established for each chemical of concern. Cleanup goals were established for nine

-------
contaminants in Site 45 groundwater, which includes seven organics and two inorganics.

C. Soil Cleanup Coals

Organic and inorganic contaminant cleanup goals for soil were developed based on a comparison of maximum
detected soil concentrations with the maximum detected background concentrations, ARARs, TBCs, ecological
risk-based remedial objectives, and leaching-based remedial objectives. The selection of cleanup goals for
soils is detailed in Table 11.

The NHDES Interim Policy for the Management of Soils Contaminated from Spills/Releases of Virgin Petroleum
Products is a TBC for the site and is the basis for cleanup goals for organics in soils. Background values
are selected as default cleanup goals for inorganics in soils because threshold values were less than surface
soil background values. Cleanup goals were established for six organics and two inorganics as indicated in
Table 11.

The results of the human health risk assessment indicate that for both current and future use soil exposure
scenarios, total lifetime cancer risks did not exceed EPA's acceptable range of 10-6 to 10-4, and total
hazard indices did not exceed EPA's action level of 1. Therefore, reduction of human health risks resulting
from the soil exposure pathway was not considered a Remedial Action Objective (RAO).

D. Description of Remedial Components

The selected remedy (Alternative 3) for the OJETS involves the following key components:

• Excavation and off-site disposal of approximately 120 yd3 of source area surface soil with
concentrations of inorganic contaminants in excess of cleanup goals.

• In situ air sparging of approximately 4,000 yd3 of saturated contaminated soil to enhance
volatilization and biodegradation of less volatile organic contaminants in soil and groundwater.

• In situ SVE treatment of approximately 3,000 yd3 of unsaturated contaminated soil to remove volatile
contaminants and to enhance biodegradation of organic contaminants.

• Installation of a low-permeability membrane on the surface of the soil to be treated by SVE to
minimize the potential for short circuiting of atmospheric air in SVE vents.

• Natural attenuation of residual contamination remaining in groundwater after excavation, air sparging,
and SVE treatment.

• Institutional controls and monitoring of site groundwater until cleanup goals have been attained.
Establishment of a GMZ in the area of the groundwater contaminant plume. The GMZ will remain in
effect until cleanup goals have been attained, in accordance with NHDES regulation Env-Ws 410.

Figure 10 presents a remedial process flow sheet for the selected remedy that depicts the elements described.
Figure 11 is a site plan that shows the major components of the remediation system. Results of the SVE/AS
pilot treatability study conducted at the site, and monitoring data collected during ongoing interim
operation of the SVE/AS pilot system, will be used to establish design criteria for the full-scale
remediation system. The various components of the remedial action are detailed in the following paragraphs.

Institutional Controls

Institutional controls for Alternative 3 will include access restrictions, establishment of a GMZ, land use
restrictions, and environmental monitoring. A chain-link fence will be installed, and access restriction
signs will be placed on the fence boundaries to prevent unauthorized persons from accessing the site. Access
restrictions will remain in place until the SVE and air sparging remedial actions are complete, and the
treatment units are removed from the site.

Environmental Monitoring

A detailed environmental monitoring plan will be developed during design of the full-scale remediation system
for the OJETS. The environmental monitoring plan will include sampling and analysis plans for soil,
groundwater, and the SVE/AS treatment system. The monitoring data will be used to evaluate the extent of the
cleanup and attainment of cleanup goals. It is expected that the remedial action will result in attainment
of cleanup goals in source area and downgradient soil and groundwater. It is estimated that soil and
groundwater cleanup goals will be attained within 3 years of full-scale SVE/AS system startup. Monitoring
will be conducted for 1 additional year after attainment of groundwater cleanup goals to confirm that the

-------
remedial action is complete.

A GMZ will be established in accordance with NHDES regulations (Env-Ws 410) to prevent use of groundwater
that does not meet drinking water standards, and to monitor groundwater guality at the site until such
standards are attained. Groundwater use restrictions will remain in-place until groundwater cleanup goals
are attained.

Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Metals-Contaminated Source Area Surface Soil

Some surface soil in the area of the former rock crib exceeds the leaching-based cleanup criterion for lead
and the ecological risk-based cleanup criterion for zinc. Under this alternative, additional sampling of
surface soils will be conducted to verify the extent of surface soil that exceeds cleanup goals for
inorganics. Subseguently, the surface soil that exceeds cleanup goals for inorganics will be excavated and
disposed of off-site. Asphalt batching is the primary option for the disposal of the surface soil from the
OJETS that exceeds cleanup goals for inorganics. Figure 11 shows the extent of the soil, approximately 120
yd3, that is currently estimated to exceed cleanup goals for inorganics.

In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction

SVE will be implemented in the vadose zone of the contaminant source area at the OJETS. SVE removes volatile
contaminants from the subsurface by mechanically drawing air through vadose zone soil pore spaces. The
increased air flow through soil pores enhances the volatilization of organic compounds, and results in
movement of organic vapors through the soil to extraction vents. The extraction vents are connected to a
vacuum blower system that draws the contaminant-laden air to the surface. The air stream is typically
treated for removal of contaminants prior to discharge to the atmosphere.

SVE vents will be placed across the source area in a manner that will induce vapor flow in all of the soil
reguiring treatment. The vents will be manifolded together and connected to a vacuum blower system. The
treatment system will likely consist of an air/water separator, particulate filter, centrifugal blower, and
an outlet silencer. Air exiting the blower system will be treated in compliance with EPA and NHDES
reguirements prior to discharge to the atmosphere.

A low-permeability surface seal will be installed over the area to be treated by SVE and will extend to the
perimeter of the area of influence of the SVE vents. The surface seal will prevent air from short-circuiting
from the atmosphere to the SVE vents without passing through the soil reguiring treatment.

During operation of the SVE system, monitoring of vapor concentrations, vacuum levels in the subsurface, and
other parameters will be conducted to optimize performance of the system and determine the cleanup rate.

Air Sparging of Saturated Soil

Air sparging will be implemented at the OJETS in the saturated soil contaminated above cleanup goals. Air
sparging involves injection of a hydrocarbon-free gaseous medium (typically air) into the saturated zone
below or within areas of contamination. With air sparging, VOCs dissolved in groundwater or sorbed to soil
particles partition into the gaseous phase. The volatilized contaminants are subseguently transported to the
vadose zone, within the radius of influence of an operating vacuum extraction system. The contaminant vapors
are withdrawn from the vadose zone via the SVE system, or are
biodegraded in the aerated vadose zone.

Sparging is typically most effective in coarse-grained soil similar to the contaminated soil at the OJETS.
Fine-grained soils reguire higher air entry pressures and are more likely to cause the formation of
significant gas pockets, which may impede air sparging effectiveness.

The sparging system will consist of an air injection blower or compressor, a distribution manifold, and air
injection (sparging) vents. The sparging vents will be placed across the site in a manner that will provide
effective treatment of saturated soils contaminated above cleanup goals.

It is estimated that the air sparging system will operate for approximately 2 to 3 years. This estimate is
based on the effectiveness of air sparging at other similar sites. As with the SVE system, performance
monitoring will be conducted to optimize operation of the system and evaluate the rate of contaminant
removal.

-------
XI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The remedial action selected for implementation for Site 45, the OJETS, is consistent with Section 121 of
CERCLA and, to the extent practicable, 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 the OJETS site will permanently reduce the risks posed to human health and the environment by
eliminating, reducing, or controlling exposures to human and ecological receptors through the use of the
following treatment measures, engineering controls, and institutional controls.

• Excavation and off-site treatment of contaminated surface soil and in situ air sparging and SVE
treatment of source area soils, thereby significantly reducing the leaching of contaminants from soil
to groundwater and reducing Oreceptor exposure.

• Establishment of a GMZ and land use restrictions on groundwater use at Site 45 will preclude the
consumption of groundwater.

B. The Selected Remedy Attains Applicable or Relevant Appropriate Requirements

This remedy will attain all federal and state ARARs that apply to the OJETS.
Environmental laws from which ARARs for the selected remedial action are derived and
the specific ARARs are listed below. In addition, TBC policies, criteria, and guidelines will
also be considered during implementation of the remedial action.

Chemical-Specific ARARs.

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 40 CFR 141.11-141.16.
Clean Air Act (CAA) )) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).
• State of New Hampshire Primary Drinking Water Criteria )) Env-Ws 410 Groundwater Protection
Regulations.
State of New Hampshire Toxic Air Pollutants Env-A 1300.
• State of New Hampshire Ambient Air Standards Env-A 300.

• Location-Specific ARARs.

• State of New Hampshire Groundwater Protection Regulations )) Env-Ws 410.26.

Action-Specific ARARs.

• State of New Hampshire Groundwater Protection Regulations )) Env-Ws 410.

TBC Criteria.

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 40 CFR 141.50-141.51.
EPA Examples of Concentrations Meeting Criteria for Action Levels 40 CFR 264.52.
EPA Health Advisories (HAs).
EPA Risk Reference Doses (RfDs) .
• EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group Potency Factors.
• EPA Groundwater Protection Strategy.
• NHDES Policy for Management of Soils Contaminated from Spills/Releases of Virgin Petroleum
Products.

The NHDES Policy for the Management of Soils Contaminated from Spills/Releases of Virgin Petroleum Products
establishes remediation goals for soil affected by a spill or release of virgin petroleum products. This
policy lists individual remediation goals for constituents of petroleum products. The remediation goals
estimate the concentration of petroleum product constituents that can be left on-site without potentially
impacting site groundwater. The cleanup goals identified in the NHDES policy have been retained as ARARs
because soil at the OJETS is contaminated by a release of virgin petroleum product.

-------
The basewide ARARs document (G-614) identifies and describes ARARs for Pease AFB. Table 12 provides a
complete list of ARARs and TBC criteria (federal and state criteria considered pertinent but not legally
binding) for Alternative 3, including regulatory citations, reguirement synopses, actions to be taken to
attain the reguirements, and determinations as to whether the reguirement is applicable, relevant, and
appropriate, or to be considered.

C.  The Selected Remedy Is Cost Effective

The Air Force considers the selected remedy to be cost effective  (i.e., the remedy affords overall
effectiveness proportional to its 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.   Excavation and Off-Site Treatment and/or
    Disposal of Soil,  and Institutional Controls

3.   Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging of Source
    Area Soil, Off-Site Disposal of Metals-
    Contaminated Soil,  and Institutional Controls

4.   Excavation and Ex Situ Biological/Vapor
    Extraction Treatment of VOC-Contaminated Soil,
    Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Metals-
    Contaminated Soil,  Excavation Dewatering,  and
    On-Site Treatment and Disposal of Groundwater

5.   Excavation and On-Site Thermal Desorption of
    VOC-Contaminated Soil, Excavation and Off-Site
    Disposal of Metals-Contaminated Soil,  Excavation
    Dewatering, and On-Site Treatment and Disposal
    of Groundwater
 Capital
   Cost

Not costed

$1,031,000


 $573,000



$1,620,000
$1,681,000
 Present-
Worth O&M
 Cost at
 Year 30

Not costed

 $65,000


$463,000



$359,000
 $28,000
  Total
 Present-
Worth Cost

Not costed

$1,096,000


$1,036,000



$1,979,000
$1,709,000
    Pump and Treat Alternative
 $300,000
$340,000
 $640,000

-------
Five of the six alternatives provide protection to human and ecological receptors and attain ARARs:
Alternatives 2 through 5 and the Pump and Treat Alternative. Alternative 3 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 3 (in net present-worth costs) is presented as follows:

Present-Worth
Component of Remedy Cost

Excavation/Off-Site Disposal $15,120
SVE/AS Vents and Surface Seal $162,976
SVE/AS Manifold and Treatment System $155,465
Miscellaneous $239,350
O&M $463,000
Total (rounded) $1,036,000

O&M includes groundwater monitoring; monitor well maintenance; and 5-year Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (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, 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/or TBCs 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 a principal element, and community and state acceptance. Of the alternatives evaluated, the
selected remedy provides the most favorable balance of the factors considered.

Alternatives 4 and 5 provide more rapid and thorough treatment of the soil and also include short-term
groundwater pumping and treatment. Thus, those alternatives would likely attain groundwater cleanup goals
sooner than Alternative 3. Over the long term, however, it is expected that Alternatives 3 through 5 would
all result in attainment of soil and groundwater cleanup goals. The short-term risks to site workers
associated with the excavation and handling of contaminated soils in Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 exceed the
short-term risks associated with the in situ technologies used in Alternative 3. The costs for
Alternatives 4 and 5 by exceed the costs of Alternative 3 by 190% and 165%, respectively. The cost of
Alternative 2 is approximately egual to the cost of Alternative 3 but less contaminated soil and water is
treated. Addition of the pump and treat alternative to

Alternative 3 would not increase the long-term effectiveness and permanence of the selected
remedial action.

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 action associated with the selected remedy is treatment of contaminated soils via SVE and AS.
Delineation, excavation, and removal of surface soils contaminated above cleanup goals for inorganics is also
included. By implementation of these actions, the selected remedy will significantly reduce the TMV of
contaminants at the site in a permanent and irreversible manner. Remediation of the contaminant source area
will minimize future leaching of soil contaminants to groundwater, and over the long-term will
result in attainment of groundwater cleanup goals.

XII. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

The Draft Final OJETS RI/FS Report was submitted in December 1993. The selected Alternative (Alternative 3)
was presented in the Site 45, OJETS Proposed Plan in March 1995. No changes to the selected remedy for the
OJETS have occurred since the issuance of the Site 45, OJETS Proposed Plan.

-------
XIII.  STATE ROIiE

NHDES has reviewed the various alternatives and has indicated its support for the selected remedy.  NHDES
also has reviewed the OJETS RI/FS Report, including the risk assessment, and the FS Supplement to determine
whether the selected remedy is in compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate state environmental
laws and regulations.  NHDES concurs with the selected remedy for the OJETS.  A copy of the
Declaration of Concurrence is provided in Appendix B.

-------
                                  REFERENCES

G-224     EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).   1991.  Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:
          Volume I )) Human Health Evaluation Manual  (Part B Development of Risk-Based Preliminary
          Remediation Goals).  Interim Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.  Publication 9285.7-01B.

G-377     Moore, R.B. 1982.  "Calving Bays versus Ice Stagnation )) A Comparison of Models for the
          Deglaciation of the Great Bay Region of New Hampshire." Northeastern Geology, 4(l):39-45.

G-468     Smith, G.W. and L.E. Hunter.  1989.  "Late Wisconsinan Deglaciation of Coastal Maine."  In:
          Studies in Maine Geology )) Volume 6:  Quaternay Geology.  R.D. Tucker and R.G. Marvinney
          (eds.).  Maine Geological Survey.  pp. 13-32.

G-491     Thompson, W.B. 1979.  Surficial Geology Handbook for Coastal Maine.  Maine Geological Survey.

G-493     Thompson, W.B., K.J. Crossen, H.W. Borns, Jr., and E.G. Andersen.  1989. "Glaciomarine Deltas of
          Maine and Their Relation to Late Pleistocene-Holocene Crustal Movements."  In:  Neotectonics of
          Maine.  W.A. Andersen and H.W. Borns, Jr. (eds.).  Maine Geological Survey, Department of
          Conservation.  pp. 43-67.

G-545     WESTON (Roy F. Weston,  Inc.).  1990.  Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Preliminary
          Assessment Letter Report, Pease AFB, NH.  20 July 1990.

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-637     WESTON (Roy F. Weston,  Inc.).  1993.  Installation Restoration Program, Stage 5, OJETS Draft
          Final Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Report, Pease AFB, NH. December 1993.

G-638     WESTON (Roy F. Weston,  Inc.).  1993.  Installation Restoration Program, Stage 5, Zones 6 and 7
          Site Inspection Report, Pease AFB, NH.  June 1993.

G-737     WESTON (Roy F. Weston,  Inc.).  1995.  Installation Restoration Program, Old Jet Engine Test
          Stand  (OJETS)  (Site 45) Treatability Study Letter Report, Pease AFB, NH.  February 1995.

G-741     WESTON (Roy F. Weston,  Inc.).  1995.  Installation Restoration Program, Draft Final Zone 2
          Feasibility Study Report, Addendum No. 1, Pease AFB, NH.  February 1995.

G-751     U.S. Department of Air Force.  1995.  Installation Restoration Program, Site 45 Feasibility
          Study Supplement, Pease AFB, NH.  February 1995.

-------
                                  LIST OF ACRONYMS
AFB
AFCEE/ESB
AOC
ARARs
AVGAS
BTEX
CAA
CERCLA
CTVs
DEQPPM
DOD
DOI
EPA
FFA
GCMA
GMZ
GT
HAPs
HAS
HQ AFBCA
IRP
LS
MCLs
MCS
NAAQs
NCP
NESHAP
NHANG
NHDES
NPL
NTU
O&M
OJETS
OSHA
PAHs
PCE
PDA
PPE
RCRA
RfDs
RI
RI/FSs
RME
ROD
SARA
SDWA
SI
SMCLs
SVE/AS
TBC
TCE
TMV
TPHs
US
USGS
UST
VOCs
Air Force Base
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence Base/Closure Division
Area of Concern
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
aviation gasoline
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
Clean Air Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
critical toxicity values
Defense Environmental Quality Program Policy Memorandum
Department of Defense
Department of the Interior
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Facilities Agreement
Golf Course Maintenance Area
Groundwater Management Zone
Glacial Till
Hazardous Air Pollutants
EPA Health Advisories
Headquarters Air Force Base Conversion Agency
Installation Restoration Program
Lower Sand
Maximum Contaminant Levels
Marine Clay and Silt
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Contingency Plan
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
New Hampshire Air National Guard
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
National Priorities List
nephelometric turbidity units
operation and maintenance
Old Jet Engine Test Stand
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
tetrachlorethene
Pease Development Authority
personal protective equipment
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Reference Doses
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies
reasonable maximally exposed individual
Record of Decision
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Site Inspection
Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels
soil vapor extraction/air sparging
to be considered
trichloroethene
volume, toxicity, or mobility
total petroleum hydrocarbons
Upper Sand
U.S. Geological Survey
Underground Storage Tank
volatile organic compounds

-------
  APPENDIX A
    TABLES
                                Table 1
   Results of WESTON's and other Air Force Contractors'
                    at the OJETS Prior to the RI/FS
                          OJETS, Pease AFB, NH
                           Investigations
        Report

Sampling of Miller
Engineering Wells

Basewide PA/SI
   Date

December 1988
May 1989

November 1990
       Comments

VOCs were not detected.
OJETS re-examined as a
potential site.  Not
recommended for further
action.
ICF-Kaiser Underground
Storage Tank  (UST)
Removal at Building 424,
which is adjacent to the
OJETS
 October 1991       TCE detected in a water
                    sample from a soil boring,
                    which was near the OJETS.
Zones 6 and 7
Site Inspection
WESTON UST
investigation at Building
410, which is adjacent to
the OJETS
 October 1992       VOCs and TPHs detected
                    in soil and groundwater at
                    concentrations above
                    regulatory guidance values.

 August 1993        No contaminants detected
                    at concentrations above
                    regulatory guidance values
                    in two soil and one
                    groundwater sample.

-------
                                                                                         Table 2
                                                                     Maximum Organic Compound Concentrations  in  Soil  ))
                                                                              Stage 3B and Stage 5 ))  OJETS
                                                                                   Zone 7, Pease AFB, NH
                                                                                Detection
                                                                                 Ratioc
   Maximum
Concentration    Sample ID
   Detected     of Maximum
   (mg/kg)       Detection
Sample Depth
 of Maximum
 Detection
  Benzene                              ND
  Toluene                              ND
9120-1.
  Ethylbenzene                         ND
  Xylenes (Total)b                     ND
9120-1.
  Chlorobenzene                        ND
       Halogenated Hydrocarbons
  Tetrachloroethene(PCE)               ND
  Trichloroethene  (TCE)                ND
  Trichlorofluoromethane               ND
       Oxygenated Volatile Hydrocarbons
  Acetone                              ND
  Diethyl ether                        ND
           SVOCs
       Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
  2- Methylnaphthalene                 ND
  Benzo(a)anthracene                   0.99

  Benzo(a)pyrene
  Benzo(b)fluoranthene
  Benzo(ghi)perylene
  Benzo(k)fluoranthene
  Chrysene
  Fluoranthene
  Fluorene
  Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
  Naphthalene
  Phenanthrene
  Pyrene
       Phenols
  Phenol                                ND
  0.053 J
  0.052 J
   0.16 J
  0.088 J
  0.071 J
   0.2 J
  0.12 J
  0.093 J
   4 .8 J
  0.62 J
  0.34 J
    4 .0
  0.0-2.0
  8.4-10.5
  0.0-1.0
  0.0-1.0
  0.0-1.0
  0.0-1.0
  0.0-2.0
   3.2-9
  8.4-10.5
  0.0-1.0
    4 .0
    2 . 0
    2 0
                                                Stage 3B surface soil sample in rock crib.
                                                Mobile laboratory sample.
                                                Stage 3B surface soil sample in rock crib.

                                                Test  pit 9119-4 .
Stage 3B surface soil sample in rock  crib.
Stage 3B surface soil sample in rock  crib.
Stage 3B surface soil sample in rock  crib.
Stage 3B Surface soil sample in rock  crib.
                 soil sample in rock  crib.

-------
                                                                                        Table 2

                                                                   Maximum Organic  Compound Concentrations in Soil ))
                                                                             Stage  3B  and Stage 5 )) OJETS
                                                                                Zone 7,  Pease AF1B,  NH
        Compound
   Phthalates
 3is(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
                                                                                    Detection
                                                                                     Ratioc
                                                        Sample ID    Sample Depth
                                                       of Maximum     of Maximum
                                                        Detection      Detection
                                                                                    Test pit  9120-1.
                                                                                    Test 9121
                                                                                    Test pit  9120-1.
   Petroleum Hydrocarbons
 TPHs  (418.1)
 Diesel  (8100)
lOOd
 ))
Mobile laboratory sample.
Test pit 9119-1.
a Basewide background concentrations  (G-609).
b Chemical of concern identified  in Section 6  of the RI/FS for 0 to 2 and/or  0 to  15  ft
c Number of detected results/number of  sample  analyzed.
d State of New Hampshire Virgin Petroleum Products Policy  (G-614).
e RCRA Corrective Action Levels  (G-614).

-------
                                                                          Table  3
                                                Maximum Inorganic Compound Concentrations in Soil ) ) OJETS
                                                                    Zone 7, Pease AFB,  NH
  Compound
 Metals  (mg/kg)
 Aluminum
 Arsenic
 Barium
 Beryllium
 Boron
 Cadmium
 Calcium
 Chromium
 Cobalt
 Copper
 Iron
 Lead
 Magnesium
 Manganese
 Nickel
 Potassium
 Silicon
 Silver
 Sodium
 Thallium
 Tin
 Titanium
 Vanadium
 Zinc
                 Regulatory
  Background      Guidance
Concentrationa     Valueb
   (mg/kg)          (mg/kg)
   24,900
   15.25
    105
    1.8
    43.6
    ND
   3, 180
   37.5
    19.6
     42
   35,300
   65.3
   8,240
    623
    43.4
   6, 650
   1, 900
    3.4
    356
     ND
     d
     d
    49.3
    92 .3
   Maximum
Concentration   Chemical
  Detected         of
  (mg/kg)       Concerne

  11,200           No
  15.8 J+          No
   36.4            No
   0.44            No
  14.4 J-          No
   38.8            Yes
  6,520 J          No
  47.9 J           Yes
   16.2            No
  53.2 J           Yes
  25,200           No
    92 J           Yes
  8,250 J+         No
    445            No
   56.1            Yes
  1,970            No
  831 J+           No
   16.1            Yes
   167             No
  5.3 J            No
  19.2             Yes
  298              Yes
  29.8             No
  111 J            Yes

Sample ID
of Maximum
Detection
45-7886-B109
45-7886-B109
45-7891-B011
45-319-S001
45-7883-B009
45-319-S001
45-7883-B001
45-7883-B009
45-9119-S012
45-7887-B010
45-7883-B009
45-319-S001
45-7886-B109
45-7891-B011
45-7883-B009
45-7887-B010
45-7781-B024
45-9121-S003
45-7886-B109
45-7782-B018
45-320-S001
45-320-S001
45-7886-B109
45-319-S001
Sample Depth
of Maximum
Detection
(feet)
3.2-9
3.2-9
8.4-10.5
0-1
8-9.5
0-1
0-1.5
8-9.5
2
2.5-9.5
8-9.5
0-1
3.2-9
8.4-10.5
8-9.5
2.5-9.5
22-24
2
3.2-9
16-18
0-1
0-1
3.2 — 9
0-1
Duplicate sample for risk assessment  boring
Duplicate sample for risk assessment  boring
Feasibility Study boring
Stage 3 surface soil sample  in  rock crib
Risk assessment boring
Stage 3 surface soil sample  in  rock crib
Risk assessment boring
Risk assessment boring
Test pit 9119-1
Risk assessment boring
Risk assessment boring
Stage 3 surface soil sample  in  rock crib
Risk assessment boring
Feasibility Study boring
Risk assessment boring
Risk assessment boring
SI boring
Test pit 9121
Duplicate sample for risk assessment  boring
SI boring
Stage 3 surface soil sample  in  rock crib
Stage 3 surface soil sample  in  rock crib
Duplicate sample for risk assessment  boring
Stage 3 surface soil sample  in  rock crib
a Basewide background metals  concentrations (G-609).
b RCRA Corrective Action  Levels  (G-614).
e As determined in Section  6  of  the  RI/FS.
d Basewide background metals  concentrations are not available for tin and  titanium.
e Chromium VI.
                                                                          - = No  value  reported.
                                                                          J = Estimated value.
                                                                          J + = Estimated with  high bias.
                                                                          J - = Estimated with  low bias.
                                                                          ND = Not  detected.

-------
                                                     Table  4
                              Comparison of Analytical  Results and Field Observations
                                from Soil Borings  7620,  7612,  and 7780 at the OJETS
                                                   Pease AFB, NH
    Soil Boring Number
Sample Elevation
   (ft-msl)
                             48.57-46.57
                             46.57-44.57
                             30.57-30.07
                             46.4-44.4
                             42.4-40.4
                             24.4-22.4
                             45.5-43.5
                             39.5-37.5
ND = Not detected.
J  = Estimated value
NA = Not applicable.

-------
                                   Table 5
                  Summary  of Chemicals of Concern by Mediuma
                         Site 45, OJETS Pease KFB, NH

                                     Soil - Site 45            Groundwater )) Site
                                                                      45b
         Chemical             0 to 2 feet     0 to 15 feetb        Overburden
Organics
Benzene                                                                x
Benzoic acid                      xc              xc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate       xc              xc                   x
n-Butylbenzene                                                         x
sec-Butylbenzeue                                                       x
tert-Butylbenzene                                                      x
Chlorobenzene                                     x
1,1-Dichloroethene                                                     x
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene                                                 x
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene                                               x
Diethyl ether                     x
Di-n-butyl phthalate              xc              xc
Ethylbenzene                      x               x                    x
Isopropyl benzene                                                      x
4-Isopropyl toluene                                                    x
2-Methylnaphthalene               x               x                    x
4-Methylphenol                                                         x
Naphthalene                       x               x                    x
PAHs
   Benzo(a)anthracene             xc              xc
   Benzo(a)pyrene                 xc              xc
   Benzo(b)fluoranthene           xc              xc
   Benzo(g,h,i)perylene           xc              xc
   Benzo(k)fluoranthene           xc              xc

-------
                                   Table 5
                  Summary  of Chemicals of Concern by Mediuma
                         Site 45, OJETS Pease RFB, NH
         Chemical
Organics (continued)

   Chrysene
   Fluorene
   Fluoranthene
   Indeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene
   Phenanthrene
   Pyrene
Phenol
n-Propylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3, 5-Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl chloride
m,p-Xylenes  (total)
o-Xylene
Xylenes (total)
Inorganics
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
       Soil - Site 45            Groundwater )) Site
                                       45b
0 to 2 feet     0 to 15 feetb       Overburden
    xc
    xc
    xc
    xc
    x

    x
    x
    x
    x
    x
    x
xc
xc
xc
xc
X
X
X
X
X
X
                                        X
                                        X
                                        X

                                        X
                                        X

-------
                                     Table 5
                    Summary  of Chemicals of Concern by Mediuma
                           Site 45, OJETS Pease RFB, NH
                                   (Continued)

                                       Soil - Site 45
           Chemical
                                0 to 2 feet
                                                0 to 15 feetb
                             Groundwater )) Site
                                    45b
                                 Overburden
    Inorganics (continued)
    Iron
    Lead
    Manganese
    Nickel
    Silicon
    Silver
    Tin
    Titanium
    Zinc
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
                                     x
                                     x
                                     x
a An
         indicates that the chemical was selected as a chemical of concern for both the human health and
  ecological risk assessments, unless otherwise indicated.
b Selected as chemicals of concern for the human health risk assessment only.
c Chemical was not detected above background.

-------
                                                                    Table 6

                                            Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices
                                                              Zone 7, Pease AFB, NH

                                                                Total Lifetime Cancer Riska,b
                                                                         Upper 95%
                                                                        Confidence
           Medium
    Solid

    Site 45 (0 to 2 feet deep)
    Site 45 (0 to 15 feet deep)
    Groundwater
       RME
Current maintenance
worker
Future maintenance
worker

Future maintenance
worker
                         Mean
                                        Limit
              Maximum
                                                                      Mean
                          Total  Hazard Indexa,c
                                   Upper 95%
                                  Confidence
                                     Limit
                                     Maximum
3E-08
8E-11


7E-07
2E-09
7E-07
2E-09
(All)
(BG)


(All)
(BG)
(All)
(BG)
4E-08
1E-10


8E-07
3E-09
8E-07
3E-09
(All)
(BG)


(All)
(BG)
(All)
(BG)
4E-08
3E-10


8E-07
7E-09
8E-07
3E-09
(All)
(BG)


(All)
(BG)
(All)
(BG)
8E-04 to; 9E-04e
(All)
8E-04 to 9E-04e
(BG)
2E-02 (All)
2E-02 (BG)
2E-02 (All)
2E-02 (BG)
1E-03
03e
1E-03
03e
3E-02
3E-02
3E-02
3E-02
to 2E-
(All)
to 2E-
(BG)
(All)
(BG)
(All)
(BG)
3E-03
3E-03


7E-02
7E-02
7E-02
7E-02
(All)
(BG)


(All)
(BG)
(All)
(BG)
    Site 45 Overburden
                                  Future off-base
                                  resident
                        2E-04
                       (filtered)
  4E-04
(filtered)
  8E-04
(filtered)
  2E+01
(filtered)
  3E+01
(filtered)
  1E+02
(filtered)
a Values are rounded to one significant figure.
b Maximum cancer risk at hazardous waste sites is regulated in the range of 1E-06 lo 1E-04  (10-6 to 10-4).  Risks of less than 1E-06  (10-6 ) generally are not of
  concern.
c A hazard index of greater than 1  (1E+00)  is usually considered the benchmark of potential concern.
d All = Includes all evaluated chemicals of concern.
  BG = Includes only the evaluated chemicals of concern that were detected above background.
e The first and second values assume that chromium is present entirely as chromium III and chromium VI, respectively.  A range is presented only where the two
  values differed after rounding to one significant figure.

-------
                                                   Table 7
                              Summary of Hazard Quotient/Indices for the Deer Mouse )) OJETS
                                                 Zone 7, Pease AFB, NH
                      Chemical

                      Organics
 Benzole acide
 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalatee
 Diethyl ether
 Di-n-butyl phthalatee
 Ethylbenzene
 2-Methylnaphthalene
 Naphthalene
 PAHs
   Benzo(a)anthracenee
   Benzo(a)pyrenee
   Benzo(b)fluoranthenee
   Benzo(g,h,i)perylenee
   Benzo(k)fluoranthenee
   Chrysenee
   Fluoranthenee
   Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrenee
   Phenanthrenee
   Pyrenee
 Phenol
 Tetrachloroethene
 Toluene
 Trichloroethene
 Trichlorofluoromethane
 Xylenes  (total)
                      Inorganics
 Cadmium
 Calcium
 Chromium
 Lead
 Silver
 Tin
 Titanium
 Zinc
      Hazard Quotients for
        Soil Ingestion
   Average          Maximum
 Hazard Quotients for
 Vegetation Ingestion
Average       Maximum
  Total Hazard Index
Average        Maximum
1
2
1
4
9
1
5
1
7




3

7
9
1
1
5
3

1
4

3
1
3
4

9
.05E-05
.56E-05
.12E-08
.35E-06
.15G-06
.31E-03
.50E-05
.50E-04
.34E-06
NE
NE
NE
NE
.30E-06
NE
.56E-04
.39E-06
.31E-06
.50E-07
.07E-07
.22E-06
NE
.99E-05
.74E-02
NE
, 46E-02
.35E=01
.55E-03
.05E-01
NE
.36E-03
105E-05
3,
1.
5,
5,
5,
2,
1.
8,




. 15E-05
.50E-08
.706-06
. 98E-05
.52E-03
.38E-04
.50E-04
.28E-06
NE
NE
NE
NE
330E-06

1.
1.
1.
1.
3,
1.

1.
3,

6,
4,
1.
5,

2,
NE
. 66E-03
.70E-05
. 66E-06
.88E-07
.OOE-06
.50E-05
NE
.84E-04
.83E-01
NE
. 64E-02
. 93E-01
. 67E-02
.14E-01
NE
.55E-02
3
2
1
9
5
2
2
3
7




1.

7
5
7
1
5
5

1
2

2
6
1
1

1
.37E-04
.76E-08
.56E-06
.74E-07
.35E-05
.15E-03
. 67E-06
.OOE-05
.34E-07
NE
NE
NE
NE
.98E-06
NE
.56E-04
. 63E-06
. 65E-07
.83E-06
.17E-06
.25E-05
NE
.OOE-04
. 61E-01
NE
.59E-03
.07E-02
.42E-02
.25E-01
NE
.40E-01
3.
3.
2.
1.
3.
9.
1.
3.
8.




1.

1.
1.
9.
2.
3.
2.

9.
2.

4.
2.
6.
1.

3.
37E-04
40E-08
09E-06
28E-06
50E-04
11E-03
16E-03
OOE-05
28E-07
NE
NE
NE
NE
98E-06
NE
66E-03
02E-05
70E-07
29E-06
06E-05
45E-04
NE
31E-04
11E+00
NE
98E-03
22E-01
67E-02
59E-01
NE
83E-01
3.
2.
1.
5.
6.
3.
3.
1.
8.




5.

1.
1.
2.
1.
5.
5.

1.
3.

3.
1.
1.
5.

1.
48E-04
56E-05
58E-06
32E-06
27E-05
46E-03
22E-04
80E-04
08E-06
NE
NE
NE
NE
28E-06
NE
51E-03
50E-05
07E-06
98E-06
68E-06
57E-05
NE
20E-04
08E-01
NE
72E-02
96E-01
77E-02
30E-01
NE
50E-01
3
3
2
6
4
1
1
1
9




5.

3
2
2
2
3
2

1
2

7
7
8
6

4
.48E-04
. 15E-05
.10E-06
.98E-06
. 10E-04
. 46E-02
.39E-03
.80E-04
.11E-06
NE
NE
NE
NE
28E-06
NE
.32E-03
.72E-05
. 63E-06
.48E-06
.36E-05
. 60E-04
NE
. 12E-03
. 49E+00
NE
. 14E-02
. 15E-01
.34E-02
.73E-01
NE
. 09E-01
      1.25E4-001
 CUMULATIVE HAZARD INDEX
L
 CUMULATIVE HAZARD INDEX (ABOVE BACKGROUND)
         1.24E+001  ~.~ -4:~4J~11
                                                                                            1.25E-00
                                                                                            1.24E-00
                                                                                                         4.46E-00
                                                                                                         4.46E-00
e Chemical was included in risk assessment although it was not detected above background concentration.
NE = Chemical was not evaluated because of the lack of date or CTV.

-------
                                                       Table 8
                           Summary of Hazard Quotient/Indices for the Chipping Sparrow )) OJETS
                                                  Zone 7, Pease KFB, NH
                      Chemical

                      Organics
  Benzole Acide
  Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalatee
  Diethyl ether
  Di-n-butyl phthalatee
  Ethylbenzene
  2-Methyhnaphthalene
  Naphthalene
  PAHs
    Benzo(a)anthracenee
    Benzo(a)pyrenee
    Benzo(b)fluoranthenee
    Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
    Benzo(k)fluoranthenee
    Chrysenee
    Fluoranthenee
    Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrenee
    Phenanthrenee
    Pyrenee
  Phenol
  Tetrachloroethene
  Toluene
  Trichloroethene
  Trichlorofluoromethane
  Xylenes (total)
                      Inorganics
  Cadmium
  Calcium
  Chromium
  Lead
  Silver
  Tin
  Titanium
  Zinc
e Chemical was included in risk ;
NE = Chemical was not evaluated because
   Hazard Quotients for
     Soil Ingestion
Average          Maximum
 Hazard Quotients for
 Vegetation Ingestion
Average       Maximum
  Total Hazard Index
Average        Maximum


3.
2.
2.
9.
4.
3.
6.
5.
1.
1.





6.
1.

2.
2.



9.
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
,73E-06
,92E-06
,80E-06
,94E-06
,29E-06
.21E-06
,83E-06
,78E-06
,75E-05
, 17E-05
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
, 67E-04
, 43E-02
NE
,24E+00
,50E-02
NE
NE
NE
, 19E-02
CUMULATIVE
CUMULATIVE


3
3
3
9
5
4
6
5
3
2





6
1

4
9



2
HAZARD
HAZARD
issment although it
lUi
se of the
lack of
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
.73E-06
.29E-06
.23E-06
.94E-06
.47E-06
.41E-06
.83E-06
.78E-06
.85E-05
.HE-OS
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
.19E-03
.16E-01
NE
.30E+00
.13E-02
NE
NE
NE
.51E-01
INDEX
INDEX (ABOVE


7
2
2
6
4
6
4
3
1
7





3
2

1
2



8


NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
.45E-06
.92E-06
.80E-06
.72E-06
.29E-06
.42E-06
.10E-06
.91E.06
.75E-04
.OOE-05
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
.37E-02
.15E-01
NE
.01E+00
.25E-02
NE
NE
NE
.27E-00

BACKGROUND)
was not detected above
data or CTV
.



7.
3.
3.
6.
5.
8.
4.
3.
3.
1.





3.
1.

1.
8.



2.


NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
45E-06
29E-06
23E-06
72E-06
47E-06
82E-06
10E-06
91E-06
85E-04
27E-04
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
12E-01
73E+00
NE
94E+00
22E-02
NE
NE
NE
26E+01


background




1.
5,
5,
1.
8,
9,
4,
9,
1.
8,





3,
2,

3,
4,



8,
1.
1.
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
.12E-05
.84E-06
.59E-06
. 67E-05
.57E-06
. 63E-06
.78E-05
.68E-06
.93E-04
.17E-05
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
.44E-02
.29E-01
NE
.25E+00
.75E-02
NE
NE
NE
.36E+00
.19E+01
.19E+01


1.
6,
6,
1.
1.
1.
4,
9,
4,
1.





3,
1.

6,
1.



2,
3,
3,
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
. 12E-05
.58E-06
.46E-06
. 67E-05
. 09E-05
.32E-05
.78E-05
. 68E-06
.24E-04
.48E-04
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
. 19E-01
. 85E+00
NE
.24E+00
.74E-01
NE
NE
NE
.28E+01
. 14E+01
. 14E+01
concentration.

-------
                                                                           Table 9

                                                          Summary of Detailed Alternatives Evaluationa
                                                                    OJETS, Pease AFB, NH
           Remedial Alternative

1.   No action.
 Short-Term      Long-Term
Effectiveness  Effectiveness
  Ranking         Ranking

    AB              C
Reduction of TMV
of Contaminants
    Ranking

      C
Implementability
     Ranking
Protection of
    Human
 Health and
 Environment
   Ranking
Compliance
   with
  ARARs
 Ranking
                                                                                                                                                               $0
2.   Excavation and off-site disposal  of
    approximately 4, 950 yd3 of
    contaminated soil, backfilling  of clean
    soil into the excavation, and
    institutional controls.
    In situ soil vapor extraction  treatment
    of unsaturated contaminated  soil,  air
    sparging of saturated contaminated
    soil, excavation and off-site  disposal  of
    approximately 120 yd3 of metals-
    contaminated soil, and institutional
    controls.
    AB
    Excavation and ex situ biological/vapor
    extraction treatment of approximately
    7,000 yd3 of VOC-contaminated  soil,
    excavation and off-site disposal  of
    metals contaminated soil, pumping  and
    treatment of groundwater  from  the
    open excavation, on-site  subsurface
    recharge of treated groundwater,
    backfilling of treated soil  into  the
    excavation, and institutional  controls.

-------
                                                                             Table  9

                                                        Summary of Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
                                                                      OJETS,  Pease AFB,  NH
                                                                           (Continued)
                                                                                                                              Protection  of
                                                                                                                                  Human        Compliance
                                                    Short-Term      Long-Term        Reduction of TMV                          Health and        with
                                                   Effectiveness  Effectiveness       of Contaminants     Implementability      Environment      ARARs
            Remedial Alternative                     Ranking         Ranking             Ranking              Ranking            Ranking       Ranking

 5.   Excavation and on-site  thermal
     desorption of approximately  7,000 yd3
     of VOC-contaminated  soil,  excavation
     and off-site disposal of  metals-                  A               A                    A                    A                  A              A
     contaminated soil, pumping and
     treatment of groundwater  from the
     open excavation,  on-site  subsurface
     recharge of treated  groundwater, and
     backfilling o[ treated  soil  into the
     excavation.

     Pump and Treat Alternative.
                                                       A                B                    C                    A                  A              A

a The letter ranking system  is defined as follows:
A = The alternative meets the  intent  of the criterion.
B = The alternative partially  meets  the intent of the criterion.
C = The alternative does  not meet the intent of the criterion.
AB = The alternative was  ranked between A and B.
BC = The alternative was  ranked between B and C.
b Estimated costs represent  present-worth costs.   Detailed cost estimates  are presented in Appendix O of the Draft Final OJETS  RI/FS Report.
c The sensitivity analysis costs  represent the upper and lower limits of the 50%  confidence interval.

-------
                                                Table 10
                                  Cleanup Goal Selection for Groundwater
                                           OJETS, Pease KFB, NH
       Contaminant

Organics (]lg/L)
Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
n-Butylbenzene
see-Butylbenzene
tert-Butylbenzene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene
Isopropyl benzene
4-Isopropyl toluene
2-Methylnaphthalene
4-Methylphenol
Regulatory-
Based RO
5
6



7
7
1
7




3
.OOE+OOd
.OOE+OOd
NA
NA
NA
.OOE+Old
.OOE+OOd
.OOE+02d
.OOE+02d
NA
NA
NA
NA
.50E+02e
Risk-Based
Maximum
Detected
Background
Maximum
Detected
ROa Concentrationb Concentrationb
1.47E+00
6.08E+00
NTV
7.3E+00
7.3E+00
1.83E+02
1.1E-01
3.65E+02
2.70E+03
1.46E+03
8.81E+01
NTV
1.34E+01
1.83E+02
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
3
3
1
8
2
7
5
1
2.
1
2
1
8.
.10E+01
.OOE+OOJ
.2E+01J
.8E+01J
.OE-01J
.40E+02
.OE-01J
.OE-01J
.OE+03
OOE+OOJ
.1E+02
.8E+01J
.50E+02
OOE+OOJ
Basis
Cleanup
Goalc
5.00E+00
NR
NR
7.3E+00
NR
7.00E+01
NR
NR
NR
NR
8.81E+01
NR
1.34E+01
NR
of
Selection
REG
-
-
RISK
-
REG
-
-
-
-
RISK
-
RISK
-

-------
                                                  Table 10

                                     Cleanup Goal Selection for Groundwater
                                              OJETS, Pease KFB, NH
                                                  (Continued)
          Contaminant

   Organics (]lg/L)  (Continued)
   Naphthalene
   n-Propylbenzene
   Toluene
   1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
   1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
   Vinyl chloride
   Xylenes (total)
   Inorganics (mg/L)
   Arsenic
   Iron
   Lead
   Magnesium
   Manganese
   Silicon
Regulatory-

2

1


2
1
5

1

1

Based RO
.OOE+Ole
NA
.OOE+03d
NA
NA
.OOE+OOd
.OOE+04d
.OE-02d
NA
.50E-02d
NA
.50E+OOf
NA
Risk-Based

1

2
1

3
3
4

1

1

ROa
.34E+01
NTV
.65E+03
.98E+01
NTV
.87E-02
.65E+04
.87E-05
NTV
.06E-02
NTV
.83E-01
NTV
Maximum
Detected
Background
Concent rat ionb
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.31E-02
5.84E-01
2.4E-02
1.89E+01
9.42E-01
6.4E+00

Maximum
Detected
Concentrationb


2
7
3
2
3
3
5
1
2
1
1
2.7E+02
l.OE+02
.OOE+OOJ
.20E+02
.1E+02
.OOE+OOJ
.03E+03
.71E-02
.86E+01
.74E-02
.88E+01
.10E+01
.68E+01
Cleanup
Goalc
2.00E+01
NR
NR
1.98E+01
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.50E-02
NR
1.50E+00
NR
Basis
of
Selection
REG
-
-
RISK
-
-
-
_
-
REG
-
REG
-
a Development of risk-based ROs is discussed in Section X.
b Maximum detected concentrations of inorganic contaminants are for filtered samples.
c Cleanup goals for inorganic contaminants are for filtered samples.
d Safe Drinking Water Act - Maximum Contaminant Level, May 1995.
e NHDES, Env-Ws 410 Groundwater Protection Rules, February 1993.
f New Hampshire Department of Public Health Services, March 1991.
BG = Background concentration is selected as cleanup goal.
J = Indicates estimated value.
NA = Not applicable.
ND = Analyte was not detected above detection limit.
NR = Not reguired.  The ARAR or risk-based RO exceeds the maximum detected concentration, or an ARAR or
risk-based RO does not exist.
NTV = A risk-based concentration was not calculated because the applicable toxicity value was not available.
REG = Regulatory-based RO is selected as cleanup goal.
RISK = Risk-based RO is selected as cleanup goal.
RO = Remedial Objective (ARAR or risk-based concentration).
Shaded chemicals are present above cleanup goals in groundwater at the OJETS.

-------
                                                    Table 11

                                        Cleanup Goal Selection for Soil
                                              OJETS, Pease KFB, NH
Contaminant

Organics
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylenes
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Inorganics
Lead
Zinc


Regulatory-
Based RO
(mg/kg)
0.2*
75*
75*
750*
0.66*
3.0*
NA
NA

Ecological
Risk-Based
RO
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.8

Leaching-
Based RO
(unsaturated)
(mg/kg)
16.5
30,600
9,920
106,000
2,920
746
NA
NA
Maximum
Detected
Background
Concentration
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
65.3
92.3

Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(mg/kg)
33.5
289
682
1980
13.0
4.8J
92. OJ
111J


Cleanup
Goal
(mg/kg)
0.2
75
75
750
0.66
3.0
65.3
92.3


Basis
of
Selection
REG
REG
REG
REG
REG
REG
BG
BG
NA = Not applicable.
J = Indicates estimated value.
* NHDES interim Policy of the Management of Soils Contaminated from Spills/Releases of Virgin Petroleum Products.
RO = Remedial Objective (TBC or risk- or leaching-based concentrations).
BG = Background concentration is selected as cleanup goal.

-------
                                                               Table 12
   Media
Groundwater
Groundwater
               ARARs for Alternative 3 )) In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment of Unsaturated Contaminated Soil,
                   Air Sparging of Saturated Contaminated Soil,  Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Soils that
                                    Exceed Cleanup Goals for Metals and Institutional Controls
                                                         OJETS,  Pease AFB,  NH
           Reguirement

Chemical-Specific ARARs

FEDERAL-SDWA-Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
(40 CFR 141.11 - 141.16)
FEDERAL-SDWA-Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs)
(40 CFR 141.50 - 141.51)
      Reguirement Synopsis
MCLs have been promulgated for a
number of common organic and
inorganic contaminants.  These levels
regulate the contaminants in public
drinking water supplies, but may also
be considered relevant and
appropriate for groundwater aguifers
that may potentially be used for
drinking water.

Non-zero MCLGs are non-
enforceable health goals for public
water systems.  MCLGs are set at
levels that would result in on known
or anticipated adverse health effects
with an adeguate margin of safety.
   Action To Be Taken To
    Attain Reguirements            Basis
Soil vapor extraction (SVE)     Relevant and
and air sparging of             Appropriate
contaminated soils.  MCLs
would likely be attained
over long-term resulting
from source removal and
natural attenuation
processes.
SVE and air sparging of         Relevant and
contaminated soils.             Appropriate
MCLGs would likely be
attained over long-term
resulting from source
removal and natural
attenuation processes.

-------
                                                               Table 12

               ARARs for Alternative 3 )) In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment of Unsaturated Contaminated Soil,
                   Air Sparging of Saturated Contaminated Soil, Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Soils that
                                    Exceed Cleanup Goals for Metals and Institutional Controls
                                                         OJETS, Pease AFB, NH
                                                             (Continued)
   Media

Groundwater
Air
           Reguirement

STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-Ws
410.03,  410.04, and 410.05,
Groundwater Quality Criteria,
Groundwater Protection Standards,
and Exemptions to Groundwater
Quality Criteria
FEDERAL-CAA-National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP)
      Reguirement Synopsis

New Hampshire Groundwater Quality
Criteria (410.03) reguire that all
groundwater of the state shall be
suitable for drinking, shall not contain
regulated contaminants in excess of
the standards (410.05), and shall not
cause discharges to surface water in
excess of surface water guality
standards.   The standards, which are
derived from MCLs and other EPA
and New Hampshire health-based
limits, protect the guality of ambient
groundwater.  Exemptions from
groundwater guality criteria  (410.04)
include areas designated as GMZs.

Maximum emission standards
designed to protect the public from
Hazardous Air Pollutants.
   Action To Be Taken To
    Attain Reguirements

To the extent they are more
stringent than federal
MCLs, these standards were
used to set cleanup goals
for groundwater and to
propose a GMZ.
   Basis

Applicable
Precautionary measures
would be taken to comply
with NESHAPs, for
benzene.
                                                                                                                               Relevant and
                                                                                                                               Appropriate
Groundwater
Location-Specific ARARs

STATE-NH Admin. Code-Ws 410.26
Groundwater Protection Rules
Contains specific reguirements for
establishing a Groundwater
Management Zone  (GMZ),  and
restrictions applicable to GMZs.
                                                                                               A GMZ would be
                                                                                               established, and
                                                                                               groundwater use would be
                                                                                               restricted.
                                Applicable

-------
                                                            Table 12

             ARARs for Alternative 3 )) In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment of Unsaturated Contaminated Soil,
                 Air Sparging of Saturated Contaminated Soil,  Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Soils that
                                  Exceed Cleanup Goals for Metals and Institutional Controls
                                                       OJETS,  Pease AFB, NH
                                                            (Continued)
   Media                   Reguirement

                Action-Specific ARARs

Groundwater     STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-Ws
                410.30-410.31 Groundwater Protection
                Rules

Groundwater     STATE-RSA 495-A:17 and NH
                Admin. Code Env-Ws 415 Terrain
                Alteration
Groundwater,     STATE-NH Guidance Document
Soil            August 6,  1993,  as amended - Interim
                Policy for the Management of Soils
                Contaminated From the
                Spills/Releases of Virgin Petroleum
                Products
        Reguirement Synopsis
Specifies monitoring criteria during
remedial activities.
Establishes criteria to control erosion
and run off for any activity that
significantly alters the terrain other
than removing material.
 Action To Be Taken To
  Attain Reguirements
Monitoring would be
conducted in accordance
with the regulations.

Remedial activities would
be conducted in accordance
with these reguirements.
Policy identifies options for treatment  Management of
 Basis
Applicable
Applicable
                                   TBC
and disposal, current analytical
methods, and remediation goals for
virgin petroleum contaminated soils.
contaminated soil would be
performed in accordance
with the NH Virgin
Petroleum Products Policy.
Groundwater,     FEDERAL-RCRA 40 CFR 264.90-
Soil            264.101 (subpart F)  Releases from
                Solid Waste Management Units
General facility reguirements for
groundwater monitoring at affected
facilities and general reguirements for
corrective action programs if reguired
at regulated facilities.
Groundwater monitoring
would be conducted in
accordance with these
reguirements.
Relevant and
Appropriate

-------
Table 12

ARARs for Alternative 3 )) In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment of Unsaturated Contaminated Soil,
Air Sparging of Saturated Contaminated Soil, Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Soils that
Exceed Cleanup Goals for Metals and Institutional Controls
OJETS, Pease AFB, NH
(Continued)
Media

Hazardous
Waste
Hazardous
Waste
Hazardous
Waste
Hazardous
Waste
Reguirement

FEDERAL-RCRA 40 CFR Subtitle C,
40 CFR part 264, Hazardous Waste
Regulations
RSA Ch. 147. A, NH Hazardous
Waste Management Act and
Hazardous Waste Rules, Env-Wm
Chapters 100-1000, specific
reguirements detailed below

STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-Wm
701-705, 707, 708, 709 Standards for
Owners and Operators for Hazardous
Waste Facilities
STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-Wm
702.10- 702.14, Monitoring of
Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities
Reguirement Synopsis

Subtitle C establishes standards for
treatment, storage, transport and
disposal of hazardous waste and
closure of hazardous waste facilities.
Standards for management of
hazardous waste facilities. Operates
in lieu of federal RCRA subtitle C
reguirements.
General reguirements for owners or
operators of hazardous waste site or
treatment facilities. Includes
Environmental and Health
Reguirements (702.08); General
Design Reguirements (702.09); Other
Monitoring (708.02); Technical
Reguirements (708.03).

Reguirements for installation and
operation of one or more of the
following monitoring systems:
! Groundwater monitoring network.
! Air emission monitoring network.
! Leachate monitoring network.
Action To Be Taken To
Attain Reguirements

Management of hazardous
waste as part of CERCLA
response must comply with
substantive Subtitle C
regulations.

Management of waste as
part of CERCLA response
must comply with the
substantive Standards of
thee rules.

All remedial activities will
comply with the substantive
provision of state hazardous
waste regulations.
Environmental monitoring
during remedial operations
will be developed and
installed in accordance with
these regulations.
Basis

Relevant and
Appropriate
See following
section-by-
section
analysis.
Relevant and
Appropriate
Relevant and
Appropriate

-------
                                                             Table 12
             ARARs for Alternative 3 )) In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment of Unsaturated Contaminated Soil,
                 Air Sparging of Saturated Contaminated Soil, Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Soils that
                                  Exceed Cleanup Goals for Metals and Institutional Controls
                                                       OJETS, Pease AFB, NH
                                                             (Continued)
   Media

Hazardous
Waste
Air
           Reguirement

STATE-NH Admin.  Code Env-Wm
707.03 Waste Pile Reguirements
                FEDERAL-RCRA 40 CFR Part 264,
                Subpart AA
        Reguirement Synopsis

Incorporate by reference the
reguirements of 40 CFR 264,  Subpart
L,  regarding waste piles.
                                      Contains air pollution emission
                                      standards for process vents associated
                                      with distillation,  fractionation,  thin-
                                      film evaporation,  solvent extraction or
                                      air or steam stripping operations.
                                      Applicable to operations that manage
                                      hazardous wastes.
 Action To Be Taken To
  Attain Reguirements             Basis

The excavated soil              Applicable
stockpiled at the site will
comply with these
regulations and 40 CFR 264
Subpart L.

Eguipment used in remedial      Applicable
activities will meet these
reguirements and be
monitored for leaks.
Air
                FEDERAL-RCRA 40 CFR Part 264,
                Appendix BB
                                      Contains air pollutant emission
                                      standards for eguipment leaks at
                                      hazardous waste treatment,  storage
                                      and disposal facilities (TSDFs).
                                      Contains design specifications and
                                      reguirements for monitoring for leak
                                      detection.
                                         Eguipment used in remedial      Relevant and
                                         activities will meet the        Appropriate
                                         design specifications,  and
                                         will be monitored for leaks.

-------
Table 12

FEDERAL-RCRA 40 CFR Part 264,
Subpart CC proposed
STATE-NH RSA Ch. 125. C Air
Pollution Control; NH Admin. Code,
Env-A 100-1300, as specified below
Requirement Synopsis

Contains proposed air pollutant
emission standards for owners and
operators of TSDFs using tanks,
surface impoundments, and containers
to manage hazardous wastes.
Specific organic emissions controls
would have to be installed if volatile
organic concentrations exceed
specified contaminations.

Air pollution controls, as specified
below.
Action To Be Taken To
Attain Requirements

Required emissions controls
will be installed.
Release of contaminants to
the air from any on-site
remedial activities would
not result in exceedence of
the respective standard, if
one exists.
Basis

TBC
Applicable
Air
STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-A 505
Emergency Procedures
Imposes obligations or sources of air
pollution in case of emergency.
Comply with directions of
state in case of "warning"
status.
Applicable
Air
STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-A 800
Testing and Monitoring Procedures
Identifies procedures that must be
followed for the testing of air
emissions from stationary sources.
The treatment systems
would be monitored in
accordance with these
requirements.
Relevant and
Appropriate

-------
Table 12

STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-A 902
Malfunctions of Air Pollution Control
Equipment
STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-A 1002
Fugitive Dust Emission Control
Requirement Synopsis

Provides for limited relief from other
requirements in case of malfunction.
(Notification requirements are not
ARARs).

Activities such as construction and
excavation must include precautions to
prevent, abate, and control fugitive
dust emissions.
Action To Be Taken To
Attain Requirements

No additional action
required; provides relief
from other requirements.
Maintain dust control
during site remediation.
Basis

Relevant and
Appropriate
Applicable
Air
STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-A 1204
Control of VOC Emissions
Specifies VOC emission control
methods and establishes limitations on
VOC emissions for various industries.
Precautions will be taken
during remedial actions to
minimize VOC emissions.
TBC
Air
STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-A 1300
Toxic Air Pollutants
Standards established to protect the
public from concentrations of
pollutants in ambient air that may
cause adverse health effects.
Release of contaminants to
the air from any on-site
remedial action would not
result in exceedence of the
respective ambient air limit,
if one exists.
Applicable
Air
STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-A 1305
Impact Analysis and Permit
Requirements
Requires air quality impact analysis of
devices emitting regulated substances.
Discharge from any new or
modified facility must
comply with requirements.
Applicable

-------
                       APPENDIX B

                DECLARATION OF CONCURRENCE

                               State of New Hampshire
       DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT 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

                                        July 24, 1995
Mr. Alan K. Olsen
Director, Air Force Base Conversion Agency
1700 North Moore Street, Suite 2300
Arlington, VA 22209-2802

Re:          Record of Decision for Site 45 (Old Jet Engine Stand)
             Pease Air Force Base Superfund Site
             Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire

Subject:     Declaration of Concurrence

Dear Mr. Olsen:

The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services has reviewed the "Record of Decision:  Site 45, Old
Jet Engine Test Stand"  (OJETS ROD) for the Pease Air Force Base Superfund Site, located in Newington and
Portsmouth, New Hampshire.  The OJETS 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 off-site disposal of approximately 120 cubic yards source area surface soil with
       concentrations of inorganic contaminants in excess of cleanup goals.

•      In situ air sparging of approximately 4000 cubic yards of saturated contaminated soil to enhance
       volatilization and biodegradation of less volatile organic contaminants in soil and groundwater.

•      In situ SVE treatment of approximately 3000 cubic yards of unsaturated contaminated soil to remove
       volatile contaminants and to enhance biodegradation of organic contaminants.

•      Installation of a low-permeability membrane on the surface of the SVE treatment zone soil to minimize
       the potential for short circuiting of atmospheric air in SVE vents.

-------
Letter to Alan K. Olsen
Re: OJETS ROD Declaration of Concurrence
July 24, 1995

• Natural attenuation of residual contamination remaining in groundwater after excavation, air sparging,
and SVE treatment.

Consistency with State Remediation Policy

Prior to Pease Air Force Base becoming a Superfund site, and as a party to the "Pease Federal Facility
Agreement Under CERCLA Section 120" (Pease FFA), the Department has been actively involved in the oversight
of the Air Force's environmental response activities at OJETS. The approach to site remediation, as outlined
in the OJETS ROD, is generally consistent with the approach the Department would reguire in a Remedial Action
Plan for similar sites in the State of New Hampshire, regardless of their Superfund status. While the
description of the selected remedial action in the OJETS ROD is less detailed
than what the Department would reguire 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 reguire 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.

The selected remedy described in the ROD is consistent with the approach that would be reguired to comply
with these rules at similar sites within the State. For example, the selected action includes the excavation
of 120 cu yds of inorganic contaminated soil not amenable to SVE/AS treatment and the treatment of the
remaining contaminated source area soil by SVE/AS. These actions address the Department's reguirement 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.

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 OJETS. Water
guality monitoring is determined on a site specific basis and will be addressed in a Groundwater Management
Permit, issued by the Department. Freguency and location of water guality monitoring is typically reguired
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 adeguate 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 reguirements of CERCLA.

Very truly yours,

Robert W. Varney
Commissioner
cc: Philip J. O'Brien, Ph.D., Director, DES-WMD
Carl W. Baxter, P.E., DES-WMEB
Gary S. Lynn, P.E., DES-WMEB
Anne Renner, Esg., NHDOJ-AGO
Michael J. Daly, EPA
Arthur L. Ditto, P.E., AFBCA
James Snyder, AFCEE

-------
                                    APPENDIX C

                              RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

OVERVIEW

The Air Force issued the Proposed Plan for the OJETS to the public in March 1995.  In the Proposed Plan for
the OJETS the Air Force identified its preferred alternative for the OJETS (Site 45).   The selection of this
preferred alternative 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 OJETS site activities,  and
the Air Force's response to comments received during the Proposed Plan for the OJETS public comment period of
22 March to 21 April 1995.

BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Prior to the start of the public comment period for the Proposed Plan for the OJETS,  the Air Force issued a
fact sheet that summarized the content of that document.  Presentations on the status of work being conducted
and results of the work at the OJETS were made to the Pease Air Force Base Restoration Advisory
Boaxd-Technical Review Committee (RAB-TRC).   Additionally, the content of the Proposed Plan for the OJETS was
presented to and discussed with the members of the RAB-TRC.  Notifications announcing the beginning of
the Proposed Plan for the OJETS comment period were mailed to all individuals on the Pease AFB mailing list
in March 1995.  A press release also was issued to the media announcing the beginning of the comment period.
Newspaper announcements (advertisements) were published prior to the public hearing date of 11 April 1995.
It is noted that the public comment period and public hearing for the OJETS ran concurrently
with that of Zone 2.  Proposed remedial actions for the OJETS and Zone 2 were presented together to the
public.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD AND THE AIR FORCE RESPONSES

No written comments were received during the public comment period.  Verbal comments were provided by four
individuals at the public hearing on 11 April 1995 as follows:

1.  Comment:    Now I'm getting over to Site 45 and I have a few problems with this.  Number one, is the
    monitoring.  And, basically it's because that site  (Site 45)  is so close to the Airport Road, where
    there's a residential area.  And I would like to find out from the Air Force, is the Air Force going
    to be working with the State when they are doing the monitoring on this site, on Site 45.  Because of
    that site, and what could migrate over into that area  (Airport Road), which is the whole residential
    area of Airport Road.

Response:  Airport Road is approximately 0.5 mile from the OJETS site.  The area of groundwater contamination
at the OJETS site is approximately 300 feet in diameter.  The release at the OJETS site occurred 20 years
ago, and the only source of contamination is what remains in the soil matrix. Based on the age of the release
and hydraulic characteristics of the site, the Air Force does not expect the contaminant plume to extend much
beyond its current limits.  The Air Force will implement groundwater monitoring at the site under the
supervision of both NHDES and EPA.  Monitoring results will be made available to the public.

2.  Comment:    Let me say, first of all, that SCOPE is in agreement with the actions of both Zone 2 and
    Site 45.

Response:       The Air Force acknowledges agreement by the commenter.

3.  Comment:    I get a lot of GAO reports that go into contamination clean up at closed bases all over
    the country, and in here they talk about a six year BRAG funds, and BRAG is based on Base Realignment
    Closure Act.  Now is funding for our IR program, is it also tied into that six year program, and if
    so, we're coming up to about the three year point, and so that we should be either running out of
    money or looking for money from some other source?  And at Pease we've also talked about monitoring
    costs upwards of $300,000.  Are we going to see those kinds of fundings?  Is it going to come from
    BRAG funds, or is it going to come out of some other pot?

Response:  Pease AFB is what is called a BRAG round one base, or BRAG 88 base. Funds were authorized by
Congress for BRAG one bases in 1988 and actually expire on 30 September 1995.  Congress, recognizing that the
round one base money was expiring,  authorized DOD to use BRAG round two funds for round one bases.  The Air
Force has planned its long term funding needs and expect that funds will be available when reguired.

-------
4. Comment: Just to reiterate the previous comment (comment #2), SCOPE is in concurrence with the
alternatives selected for the cleanup of Site 45 and Zone 2. Just one word of caution that I want to
add on that. The use of the air sparging technique, in both instances (Site 45 and Zone 2), it's been
shown, in some applications of this technology, that you can have a mobilization or re-mobilization of
contaminants with groundwater by basically disturbing the subsurface, the groundwater system. This
doesn't always happen in these situations, but it has been shown to occur in some. The only
recommendation that we can make is that near downgradient monitoring wells be monitored very closely,
and on a more regular basis, especially during the initial period of operation to, in essence, measure
whether or not this phenomenon is actually occurring at these sites.

Response: The Air Force appreciates the constructive comment and recommendation made by SCOPE. The Air
Force acknowledges that air sparging can have a mounding effect on the water table and could potentially
cause mobilization of contamination. SCOPE'S recommendation will be taken into account when developing the
monitoring plans for both Zone 2 and the 0JETS. Additionally, the Air Force notes that it is expected that
the SVE process will help eliminate or minimize the potential negative aspect of mobilization from air
sparging.

5. Comment: I commend you on your monitoring system. I just wondered if you could explain what
happens to its longevity. Do you remove them (monitoring wells) when the water is clear, or do you
leave them for another testing period.

Response: Once monitor wells are no longer needed they will be removed, if possible, or abandoned in-place.
The preferred option will be to remove monitor wells if at all possible, especially those located on private
property. Monitor wells that comprise the long-term monitoring system will be around for many years, but
once it is determined these critical monitor wells are no longer needed, they also will be removed, if
possible, or abandoned in-place.

-------
APPENDIX D
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FIIiE INDEX
FOR THE
INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
NEW HAMPSHIRE

AUGUST 1995

ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE

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.

Due to funding and space limitation, and based on guidance received from EPA Region I, the Air Force
has established one administrative file for Pease Air Force Base which encompasses environmental response
actions base-wide. Since access to Pease is unrestricted, both the information repository and the
administrative record file are housed on base. Although similar in nature, the information repository
contains general information about the Air Force's Installation Restoration Program while the administrative
record documents the specific decision-making process leading to response actions.

Although draft documents are not usually placed in an administrative record, the Air
Force and EPA Region I decided to temporarily house draft documents in the Pease administrative record.
Draft documents in the administrative record are pulled and replaced with final documents as soon as the
final documents are available. The Air Force and EPA Region I believe that this policy allows for an overall
more complete administrative record.

The administrative record serves two purposes, according to EPA guidance. First the record contains
those documents which form the basis for the selection of a response action and under section 113 (j) of
CERCLA judicial review of any issue concerning the adequacy of any response action is limited to the
administrative record. This does not mean that only documents which support a response decision are placed
in the record. Relevant documents that were considered but ultimately rejected are also included in the
record to better establish the decision-making process.

Second, CERCLA section 113(k) requires that the administrative record act as a vehicle for public
participation. Participation by interested citizens ensures that the concerns of the public will be
addressed during the response selection process. 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.

Major documents in the Pease Air Force Base administrative record are shelved by specific zone. For
example, documents pertinent to Zone 1 are shelved together and are kept separate from documents pertaining
to other zones. Documents relevant to all zones are together in a general area and are shelved in accordance
with the structure of the administrative record. In addition, the administrative record index is
cross-referenced to facilitate the location of documents related to specific zones.

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 Air Force Base. Documents may be added to
the administrative record file as site work progresses. This index will be updated quarterly to reflect
documents added to the administrative record file.

The administrative record file will be maintained in Building 43 at Pease AFB. Questions and/or
comments about the administrative record file should be directed to:

Arthur L. Ditto, Remedial Project Manager
Air Force Base Conversion Agency
Operating Location A, Building 43
61 International Drive
Pease AFB, NH 03803-0157
(603) 430-2586

Dynamic Corporation assisted in the organization, establishment and on-site setup of the Administrative
Record File at Pease Air Force Base.

-------
                          ABOUT THE INDEX NUMBERING SYSTEM

Document Number -     Comprised of a 3 letter site code  (PEA) ,  the category number, the entry number and the
page range of a document.   (Both page numbers will be the same for a one page document.)  If documents are
eventually placed on a microfiche system, the document number consists of the site code followed by the
microfilm reel and frame number.

                             Example:  PEA  (1.1) #1 001-031

Site Code             (Category #)            Entry #              Page Range

PEA                   (1.1)                     #1                  001-031

Long Title                            The long title and brief description of document.

Author                                Indicates author or primary originator of document.  If a
                                      contractor prepared the document, indicates company
                                      and location.

Recipient                             Indicates primary recipient of document.

Date                                  Indicates date document was issued.

Type                                  Indicates document type

Second Reference                      Other categories pertaining to the document.

Location                              Exact location(s) of document.

-------
                ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FIIiE STRUCTURE

1.0   SITE IDENTIFICATION
      1.1     Background - RCRA and other Information
      1.2     Notification/Site Inspection Reports
      1.3     Preliminary Assessment (PA) Report
      1.4     Site Investigation (SI)  Report
      1.5     Previous Operable Unit Information
      1. 6     Correspondence

2.0   REMOVAL RESPONSES
      2.1     Sampling and Analysis Plans
      2.2     Sampling and Analysis Data / Chain of Custody
      2.3     EE/CA Approval Memorandum  (Non-Time-Critical Removals)
      2.4     EE/CA (Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis)
      2.5     Action Memorandum
      2.6     Amendments to Action Memorandum
      2.7     Removal Response Reports
      2 . 8     Correspondence

3.0   REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION (RI)
      3.1     Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)
      3.2     Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Forms
      3.3     Work Plan
      3.4     Preliminary RI Field Work Reports
      3.5     Remedial Investigation (RI) Reports
      3.6     Correspondence

4.0   FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS)
      4.1     ARAR Determinations
      4.2     Feasibility Reports
      4.3     Proposed Plan
      4.4     Supplements and Revisions to the Proposed Plan
      4.5     Correspondence

5.0   RECORD OF DECISION (ROD)
      5 .1     ROD
      5.2     Amendments to ROD
      5.3     Explanations of Significant Differences
      5 . 4     Correspondence

6.0   STATE AND FEDERAL COORDINATION
      6.1     Cooperative Agreements/SMOAs
      6.2     Federal Facility Agreement (FFA)
      6.3     Coordination - State/Federal
      6.4     General Correspondence

7.0   ENFORCEMENT
      7.1     Enforcement History
      7.2     Endangerment Assessments
      7.3     Administrative Orders
      7.4     Consent Decrees
      7.5     Affidavits
      7.6     Documentation of Technical Discussions/Response Actions
      7.7     Notice Letters and Responses

8.0   HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
      8.1     ATSDR Health Assessments
      8.2     Toxicological Profiles
      8.3     General Correspondence

9.0   NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEES
      9.1     Notices Issued
      9.2     Findings of Fact
      9.3     Reports
      9.4     General Correspondence

-------
10.0  PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
11.0
10,
10,
10,

10,
10,
10,
10,
10,
10,
10,
.1
.2
.3

.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
Comments and Responses
Community Relations Plan
Public Notice (s) (Availability of the Admin. Record File,
Availability of the Proposed Plan, Public Meetings)
Public Meeting Transcripts
Documentation of other Public Meetings
Fact Sheets, Press Advisories, and News Releases
Responsiveness Summary
Late Comments
Technical Review Committee Charter
Correspondence
TECHNICAL SOURCES, GUIDANCE, AND PROCEDURES DOCUMENTS
11,
11,
11,
11,
11,
11,
11,
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
EPA Headguarters Guidance
EPA Regional Guidance
State Guidance
Air Force Guidance
Technical Sources
Proposed Procedures/Procedures
Correspondence
*Note:  Guidance documents listed as bibliographic sources for a document already included in the
Administrative Record are not listed separately in this index.

12.0  CONFIDENTIAL FILE
      12.1     Privileged Documents  (Extractions)

-------
                         1.1  Background - RCRA and Other Information
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
    PEA (1,1)  #1 001-031
    Scope of Work for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
    USAF
    EPA, NHDES
    April 1991
    Scope of Work for RI/FS
    None
    ARF, IR
                       #
                             1.2  Notification/Site Inspection Reports

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
     1.3  Preliminary Assessment (PA) Report

    PEA (1.3)  #1 001-068
    Phase II Problem Confirmation and Quantification Presurvey Report
    (Field Sampling for SI Work)
    Roy F. Weston,  Inc.
    EPA; NHDES; USAF Occupational and Environmental Health Lab (OEHL),
    Brooks AFB, TX
    June 1984
    Technical  Report
    None
    ARF, IR
                       #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
    PEA (1.3)  #2 001-182
    Installation Restoration Program Records Search for Pease Air Force
    Base,  New Hampshire
    CH2M Hill
    EPA; NHDES; USAF Engineering & Services Center, Tyndall AFB; SAC,
    Offutt AFB, NE
    January 1984
    Technical Report
    None
    ARF, IR
                       #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
    PEA (1.3)  #3 001-041
    Preliminary Assessment Stage 3B IRP, Pease AFB, New Hampshire
    (Updated PA Report)
    Roy F.  Weston,  Inc.
    USAF;  EPA; NHDES
    20 July 1990
    Letter Report
    None
    ARF, IR
                       #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
   Quantification Stage

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
      1.4 Site Investigation (SI)  Report

    PEA  (1.4)  #1 001-309
    Installation Restoration Program, Phase II -Confirmation/
I,  Volume I,  Final Report for Pease Air Force
    Base, New Hampshire
    Roy F. Weston, Inc
    HQ SAC/SGPB, Offutt AFB, NE; EPA; NHDES
    August 1986
    Technical Report:  Field Investigations
    None
    ARF, IR
                       #

-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (1.4) #2 001-883
Installation Restoration Program, Phase II - Confirmation/
Quantification Stage 1, Volume II, Appendix
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
HQ SAC/SGPB, Offutt AFB, NE; EPA; NHDES
August 1987
Technical Report:  Field Investigations
None
ARF, IR
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:            PEA  (1.4) #3 001-306
LONG TITLE:                 Installation Restoration Program, Stage  3B  Preliminary
Assessment/Site Inspection for Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire -
                            Draft
AUTHOR:                     Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:                  EPA; NHDES; HQ SAC/DE Offutt AFB, NE; AFSC  HSD/YAQ,  Brooks AFB,  TX
DATE:                       February 1991
TYPE:                       Technical Report:  Also includes review  of  PA
SECOND REFERENCE:           None
LOCATION:                   ARF, IR
                                               #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (1.4) #7 OOl-Acr.3
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease AFB Zones  6
and 7 Site Inspection Report Text Draft Final
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
September 1994
Report
Zone 6; Zone 7
ARF  (Zone 6 & 7 Shelf)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (1.4) #8 001-Figure 6.4.11
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease AFB Zones  6
and 7 Site Inspection Report Figure Draft Final
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
September 1994
Figures
Zone 6; Zone 7
ARF  (Zone 6 and 7 Shelf)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (1.4) #9 001-H
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease AFB Zones  6
and 7 Site Inspection Report Appendix G ONLY - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
June 1993
Appendix
Zone 6; Zone 7
ARF  (Zone 6 and 7 Shelf)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (1.4) #10 001-L.17
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease AFB Zones  6
and 7 Site inspection Report Appendix L ONLY - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
June 1993
Appendix
Zone 6; Zone 7
ARF  (Zone 6 and 7 Shelf)
                   #

-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:

DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (1.4) #11 001-J
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease AFB Zones  6
and 7 Site Inspection Report Appendix K ONLY - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
June 1993
Appendix
Zone 6; Zone 7
ARF  (Zone 6 and 7 Shelf)

PEA  (1.4) #13 Appendix B - Appendix M
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease Air Force
Base Zones 6 and 7 Site Inspection Report Appendices B, C, D, E, F,
H, I, J and M - Draft Final
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
September 1994
Appendices
Zone 6; Zone 7
ARF  (Zone 6 and 7 Shelf)
                   #
                             1.5  Previous Operable Unit Information

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
          1.6 Correspondence

PEA  (1.6) #1 001-002
Comments Regarding the Installation Restoration Program, Phase I
Record Search Report, Pease Air Force
The State of New Hampshire, Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
USAF, HQ SAC, Offutt AFB, NE
16 March 1984
Letter/Comments
None
ARF  (Section 1.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (1.6) #2 001-004
Comments Regarding the Installation Restoration Program Report
(09/10/86)
State of New Hampshire, Division of Public Health Services
NH Division of Public Health Services
24 November 1986
Comments to SI (1.4)
None
ARF  (Section 1.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (1.6) #3 001-005
Comments Regarding the Phase II, Stage 1 IRP Report  (06/86 Draft)
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental  Services
USAF
3 February 1987
Comments to SI  (1.4)
None
ARF  (Section 1.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA  (1.6) #4 001-007
Air Force Responses to Comments From the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services on the Phase II, Stage 1 IRP Draft Report
USAF
NHDES
8 May 1987
Responses to Comments to SI  (1.4)

-------
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
 DOCUMENT NUMBER:
 LONG TITLE:

 AUTHOR:
 RECIPIENT:

 DATE:
 TYPE:
 SECOND REFERENCE:
 LOCATION:
 DOCUMENT NUMBER:
 LONG TITLE:
 AUTHOR:
 RECIPIENT:
 DATE
 TYPE:
 SECOND REFERENCE:
 LOCATION:

 DOCUMENT NUMBER:
 LONG TITLE:

 AUTHOR:
 RECIPIENT
 DATE:
 TYPE:
 SECOND REFERENCE:
 LOCATION:
None
ARF  (Section 1.6 Binder)
                   #

PEA  (1.6) #6 001-004
Letter Concerning Site Walkovers made with Members of Sherburne
Civic Group
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
USAF
18 July 1990
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 1.6 Binder)
                   #

PEA  (1.6) #9 001-004
Pease Air Force Base Installation Restoration Program May 4, 1994
Zones 6 and 7 SI Meeting
NHDES
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA:
Michael Daly, EPA
20 May 1994
Letter
Zone 6; Zone 7
ARF  (Section 1.6 Binder)
                   #

PEA  (1.6) #10 001-002
Zone 3 Water Hardness at Pease AFB, NH
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
25 May 1994
Letter with Attachment
Zone 3
ARF  (Section 1.6 Binder)

PEA  (1.6) #14 001-001
Locations of Surface Waters of New Hampshire in the Vicinity of the
Former Pease Air Force Base
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
Richard Pease, NHDES
3 March 1994
Letter
Pickering Brook
ARF  (Section 1.6 Binder)
                                         2.1  Sampling and Analysis Plans

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.

                                2.2  Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.

                          2.3  EE/CA Approval Memorandum  (Non-Time Critical Removals)

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.

                                2.4  EE/CA  (Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis)

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.

                                          2.5  Action Memorandum

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.

                                   2.6  Amendments to Action Memorandum

-------
*NOTE:  NO ENTIRE IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.

                                       2.7  Removal Response Reports

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.
 DOCUMENT NUMBER:
 LONG TITLE:
 AUTHOR:
 RECIPIENT:
 DATE:
 TYPE:
 SECOND REFERENCE:
 LOCATION:
                2.8  Correspondence - Removal Responses

               PEA (2.8)  #25 001-003
               Surface Water and Sediment Background Values
               Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
               Mike Daly, EPA
               4 March 1994
               Letter with Attachment
               Section 2.2
               ARF (Section 2.8 Binder)
                           #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
3.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)

        PEA (3.1) #1 001-210
        Quality Assurance Project Plan, Integrated Installation Restoration
        Program, Stage 2, to Support the Preliminary Remedial Investigation
        Field Work,  Labeled Stage 2 Field Work
        Roy F. Weston, Inc.
        EPA; NHDES,  HQ SAC/DEPV,  Offutt AFB, NE
        November 1987
        Quality Assurance Project Plan
        None
        ARF
                           #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
        PEA (3.1)  #2 001-212
        Quality Assurance Project Plan, Integrated Installation Restoration
        Program, Stage 3
        Roy F. Weston, Inc.
        EPA; NHDES
        August 1989
        Quality Assurance Project Plan
        None
        ARF
                           #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
        PEA (3.1)  #3 001-286
        Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan
        - Draft
        Roy F. Weston,  Inc.
        EPA; NHDES
        January 1991
        Sampling and Analysis Plan
        None
        ARF
                           #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:

RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:

DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
        PEA (3.1)  #7 001-003
        Locations of Background Sampling Locations
        Arthur L.  Ditto, RPM
        U.S.  Air Force/Pease AFB
        Johanna Hunter, RPM, EPA;
        Richard Pease,  RPM, NHDES
        15 June 1992
        Letter and Map
        Stage 3C Background Data Base
        ARF (Section 3.1 Binder)
                           #
        PEA (3.1)  #11 001-R1
        Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan

-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
        Addendum 3,  Pease AFB, NH - Draft
        Roy F,  Weston. Inc.
        USAF
        October 1992
        Addendum
        None
        ARF
                           #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
        PEA (3.1)  #19 2.24-R.l
        Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan, Addendum #3, QAPP Portion
        Roy F. Weston, Inc.
        USAF
        2 December 1992
        Addendum
        None
        ARF
                           #

3.2  Sampling and Analysis Data / Chain of Custody Forms

        PEA (3.2)  #1 001.027
        Volatile Aromatics/Halocarbons by Modified 8010/8020 - Draft Data
        Sheets
        Roy F. Weston, Inc.
        USAF
        Unknown
        Data
        None
        ARF (Section 3.2 Binder)
                           #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
        PEA (3.2)  #2 001-018
        Volatile Aromatics/Halocarbons by Modified 8010/8020
        Roy F. Weston,  Inc.
        USAF
        Unknown
        Data
        None
        ARF (Section 3.2 Binder)
                           #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:

RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
        PEA (3.2)  #6 001.Dl
        Preliminary Survey of Metal Concentrations in New Hampshire Soils -
        Final Report
        New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services, Bureau of Health
        Risk Assessment
        USAF
        May 1991
        Data
        None
        ARF (Section 3.2 Binder)
                           #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
        PEA (3.2)  #7 001-131
        Background Soluble Metals Concentrations for Groundwater at Pease AFB
        Roy F. Weston,  Inc.
        USAF
        20 November 1991
        Letter Report
        PEA (3.6)
        ARF
                           #
 DOCUMENT NUMBER:
                            PEA  (3.2)
                                         001-E1

-------
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Tolerance Limits for Background Soils at Pease AFB, NH
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
17 April 1992
Letter Report
None
ARF
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.2) #10 001-002
Results of Background Surface Water/Sediment Location Walkover
Arthur L. Ditto, USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
19 August 1992
Letter
Knights Brook
ARF  (Section 3.2 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.2) #11 001-004
Haven Well Test
James G. Spratt, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Mark McKenzie, USAF
21 August 1992
Letter
Haven Well Aguifer
ARF  (Section 3.2 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.2) #12 001-052
Maximum Detected Concentrations for Unfiltered Groundwater at  Pease
AFB, NH
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Arthur Ditto, USAF
25 August 1992
Letter with Attachments  (Tables and Graphs)
None
ARF  (Section 3.2 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:

RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.2) #13 001-007
Haven Well Pumping Test Data
Jim Spratt, Project Geologist
Roy F. Weston. Inc.
Mark McKenzie, USAF
16 September 1992
Letter with Tables
Haven Well (597)
ARF  (Section 3.2 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:

RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.2) 4514 001-009
Newington Water Quality Sampling on July 18, 1992 and Analysis
Performed on August 28, 1992  (NHDES) Sample #210239-210241)
Scott Doane, Hydrogeologist
NHDES
Wayne Wood
Newington, NH 03803
21 September 1992
Letter with Chain of Custody and Tables
None
ARF  (Section 3.2 Binder)
                   #
                                        3.3  Work Plan
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA  (3.3) #1 001-144

-------
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Work Plan for the Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA; NHDES
August 1989
Work Plan
None
ARF
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.3) #4 001-258
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Work Plan
Roy F Weston, Inc.
EPA; NHDES
January 1991
Work Plan
None
ARF
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.3) #5 001-213
Work Plan for the Integrated Installation Restoration Program, Stage
2, Labeled Stage 2
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA; NHDES
September 1987
Work Plan
None
ARF, IR
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.3) 456 001-GL.2
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum  1,
Pease AFB, NH - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
September 1991
Addendum
None
ARF, IR
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.3) #7 001-G5
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum Number
2 for Pease AFB, NH - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
March 1992
Addendum
None
ARF, IR
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.3) #9 001-3.5
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Work Plan Addendum 3,
Pease AFB, NH
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
June 1992
Addendum
None
ARF, IR
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA  (3.3) #12 001-004
Groundwater Modeling Process Outline
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Arthur Ditto, USAF

-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
2 October 1992
Letter
Groundwater Modeling
ARF  (Section 3.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.3) #13 001-C.31
Installation Restoration Program,
Pease AFB, NH - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
October 1992
Health and Safety Plan
Groundwater Modeling
ARF, IR
                   #
Stage 5 Health and Safety Plan,
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:

DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.3) #15 001-F
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease AFB Interim
Monitoring Plan
USAF
Pease AFB
January 1994
Monitoring Plan
Groundwater Monitoring
ARF  (Zone 7 Shelf)

PEA  (3.3) #18 001-R.l
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease Air Force Base
Standard Operating Procedure for Well Abandonment
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
October 1994
Work Plan
None
ARF
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.3) #19 001-R.l
Work Plan for Soil Excavation at the Old let Engine Test Stand
(OJETS), Pease AFB, NH
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
25 May 1994
Work Plan
OJETS
ARF
                   #

 3.4  Preliminary RI Field Work Reports

PEA  (3.4) #38 001-041
Pease AFB Monitor Well Inventory and Inspection
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
7 August 1992
Report
None
ARF  (Section 3.4 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
PEA  (3.4) #39 001-D
Background Values for Soil, Groundwater, Surface Water and Sediment
at Pease Air Force Base
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
26 February 1993

-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Letter
None
ARF
                                              #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR;
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.4) #40 001-Map 6
Off Base Well Inventory Letter Report for Pease AFB
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
17 September 1992
Letter Report
None
ARF
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.4) #42 001-Figure 11
United States Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease Air
Force Base, Regional Groundwater Model
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
April 1994
Report
None
ARF
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.4) #44 001-C.2
Pease Air Force Base Monitor Well Inventory and Inspection Letter
Report
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
04 October 1994
Report
None
ARF
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
 3.5  Remedial Investigation  (RI) Reports

PEA  (3.5) #16 001-B.12
Sampling Locations and Results Drainage Area Letter Report
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
May 1992
Report
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.5) #43 001-126
Haven Well Pumping Test Letter Report
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Jim Snyder, AFCEE/ESB, USAF
8 January 1993
Transmittal Letter, Letter Report, Maps, Appendices
None
ARF
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA  (3.5) #106 iii.l-ACR-3
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease AFB,  Zone 7
(also known as Site 45, Old Engine Test Stand) Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study-Text-DRAFT FINAL
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
September 1993
Report

-------
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Zone 7, Site 45
ARF, PEA  (4.2) #36
Report)
iii-ACR.3 on Zone 7 Shelf  (Filed as Feasibility
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.5) #107 iii-9.2-6
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease AFB,  Zone  7
Old Engine Test Stand Remedial investigation/Feasibility
Study-Figures-DRAFT FINAL
Roy F. Weston,  Inc.
USAF
September 1993
Figures
Zone 7, Site 45
ARF, PEA (4.2) #37 iii-9.2-6 on Zone 7 Shelf  (Filed as Feasibility
Report)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.5) #108 001-F
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease AFB,  Zone  7
also known as Site 45, Old Engine Test Stand Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study-Appendices A, B, C, D, E, F and G-DRAFT  FINAL
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
September 1993
Appendices
Zone 7, Site 45
ARF, PEA (4.2) #38 A.1-G on Zone 7 Shelf-Filed as Feasibility  Report
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE;
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.5) #109 001-J(K.6-1)
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease AFB,  Zone  7
Old Engine Test Stand Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study-Appendices G, H, J and K-DRAFT FINAL
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
September 1993
Appendices
Zone 7, Site 45
ARF, PEA (4.2) #39 H.1-1.32 on Zone 7 Shelf  (Filed as Feasibility
Study Report)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.5) #110 ES.1-ACR.3
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease AFB,  Zone  7
Old Engine Test Stand Remedial investigation/Feasibility
Study-Appendix I-DRAFT FINAL
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
September 1993
Appendix
Zone 7, Site 45
ARF, PEA (4.2) #40 001-700 on Zone 7 Shelf  (Filed as Feasibility
Study Report)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR;
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.5) #111 L.1-Q.2
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease AFB,  Zone  7
(also known as Site 45, Old Engine Test Stand) Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study-Appendices L, M, N, 0, P and Q
))DRAFT FINAL
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
September 1993
Appendices
Zone 7, Site 45
ARF, PES, (4.2) #41 J on Zone 7 Shelf  (Filed  as Feasibility  Study
Report)

-------
                                               #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.5) #120 001-008
Zone 3 Water Hardness
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
Mike Daly, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
03 August 1994
Letter with enclosure
Zone 3
ARF  (Section 3.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.5) #121 001-007
Basewide Interim Monitoring Report No. 2 for Pease Air Force Base,
NH
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
05 August 1994
Letter with attachment
Zone 1; Zone 2; Zone 4
ARF  (Section 3.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.5) #123 001-E.34
Summary of Revisions to basewide Interim Monitoring Plan, Pease Air
Force Base, NH
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
23 November 1994
Interim Monitoring Plan
PEA  (10.1) #161 001-006
ARF
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.5) #124 001-040
Basewide Interim Monitoring Report No. 4 for Pease Air Force Base,
NH
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
16 December 1994
Interim Monitoring Report
Zone 1; Zone 2; Zone 4; Zone 5; Zone 7; PEA  (10.1) #161 001-006
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.5) #128 i-Appendix E
DDT Sediment Evaluation Report for Pease Air Force Base, NH
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
November 1994
Report
None
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.5) #129 1.1-Figure 2.7.6
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease Air Force
Base, Basewide Interim Monitoring Report No. 1 for October Through
December 1993 - Volume I
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
April 1994
Report
None
ARF
           #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA  (35) #130 Appendix A - Appendix C

-------
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
 U.S, Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease Air Force
 Base, Basewide Interim Monitoring Report No. 1 for October Through
 December 1993 - Volume II
 Roy F. Weston, Inc.
 USAF
 April 1994
 Report
 None
 ARF
                    #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
 PEA (3.5) #131 001-043
 U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease Air Force
 Base,  Basewide Interim Monitoring Report No. 2 for January Through
 March 1994
 Roy F. Weston, Inc.
 USAF
 July 1994
 Report
 None
 ARF
                    #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
 PEA (3.5) #132 001-049
 U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease Air Force
 Base,  Basewide Interim
 Monitoring Report No. 3
 Roy F. Weston, Inc.
 USAF
 October 1994
 Report
 None
 ARF
                    #
DOCUMENT NUMBER;
LONG 111 LE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
        3.6  RI Correspondence

 PEA (3.6) #1 001-001
 Comments Regarding the Work Plan for the IRP Stage 2
 State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
 USAF
 27 July 1987
 Comments Serving 3.4  (Preliminary RI Field Work Reports)
None
 ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
                    #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
 PEA (3.6) #2 001-006
 Letter Regarding IRP, Stage 2
 Roy F. Weston,  Inc.
 USAF
 11 November 1987
 Letter Serving 3.4  (Preliminary RI Field Work Reports)
 None
 ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
                    #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
 PEA (3.6) #3 001-001
 Letter Stating Conformance of the Stage 2, Quality Assurance Project
 Plan With Air Force IRP Practices
 State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Services
 USAF
 12 November 1987
 Letter Serving 3.4  (Preliminary RI Field Work Reports)
 None
 ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
                    #

-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #14 001-004
Sampling Data for Off-Site Sampling at Pease AFB
State of New Hampshire, Water Supply and Pollution Control Division
Air Force
5 July 1990
Sampling Data
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #16 001-003
Off-Base Sampling at Pease AFB
NHDES
USAF
25 October 1990
Sampling Results
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #18 001-065
Sampling Results from Pease AFB, Newington,
NHDES
USAF
17 January 1991
Sampling Data
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
Portsmouth
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #19 001-002
Installation Restoration Program  (IRP) at Pease AFB, NH
Department of the Air Force
Pease AFB
8 March 1989
Memorandum - Pertaining to RI
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #27 001-002
Letter Summarizing Discussions Between Roy F. Weston, Inc. and the
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Concerning
On-Site Handling and Disposal of Soil and Water Generated During
Drilling, Development, Purging, and Pump Testing of Wells
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
12 March 1990
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #31 001-002
Letter Regarding Well Installation Modification
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
5 July 1990
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA  (3.6) #34 001-004
Letter Regarding the Disposal of Clean Water, Drilling Mud and Soil
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF

-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
25 September 1990
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #35 001-002
Letter Regarding procedures for Handling Solids and Liguids During
Well Construction and Soil Borings
NHDES
USAF
25 September 1990
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #38 001-002
Information Letter 3 - Documenting discussion on 25 October 1990
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
29 October 1990
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #39 001-002
Letter Regarding the Disposal of Clean Soil Cuttings and Drilling
Mud
USAF
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1 November 1990
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #41 001-008
Response to Comments - Draft Final Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling
And Analysis Plan
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
7 February 1991
Letter/Response to Comments
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #43 001-004
Issues Needing Resolution Prior to the Upcoming Field Efforts
EPA
USAF
10 April 1991
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) $.46 001-038
Response to Comments - Stage
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
28 September 1990
Response to Comments
PEA  (10.1)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
4 Work Plan and SAP

-------
                                               #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #47 001-011
Review comments on the Installation Restoration Plan  (IRP) Stage 4
Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan
NHDES
USAF
16 October 1990
Review Comments
PEA  (10.1)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #48 001-017
The Town of Newington Review Comments on the IRP Stage 4 Work Plan
The Town of Newington
USAF
29 October 1990
Review Comments
PEA  (10.1)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #49 001-476
EPA Technical Review of the Draft IRP Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling
and Analysis Plan for Pease Air Force Base
EPA
USAF
2 November 1990
Review Comments
PEA  (10.1)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #50 001-002
Response to Air Force Questions on State Comments to the Stage 4
Work Plan
NHDES
USAF
3 December 1990
Response to guestions on comments
PEA  (10.1)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #51 001-007
Response to EPA Comments on the Pease AFB Stage 4 Work Plan/Sampling
and Analysis Plan
Air Force
EPA
10 December 1990
Responses to Comments
PEA  (10.1)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #52 001-008
Air Force Response to NHDES Comments - Draft Final Stage 4 Work Plan
and Sampling and Analysis Plan
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
7 February, 1991
Response to Comments
PEA  (10.1)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #

-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
LONG TITLE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #53 001-008
EPA Initial Approval of the IRP Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling anti
Analysis Plan
EPA
USAF
13 March 1991
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.
6 Binder)
    #
  DOCUMENT NUMBER:
  LONG TITLE:

  AUTHOR:
  RECIPIENT:
  DATE:
  TYPE:
  SECOND REFERENCE:
  LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #54 001-058
Air Force Response to EPA Comments on the Stage 4 Work Plan and
Sampling and Analysis Plan
USAF
EPA
1991
Response to Comments
PEA  (10.1)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
  DOCUMENT NUMBER:
  LONG TITLE:
  AUTHOR:
  RECIPIENT:
  DATE:
  TYPE:
  SECOND REFERENCE:
  LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #55 001-003
Off-Base Sampling at Pease Air Force Base
Richard Pease, NHDES
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
25 October 1990
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
  DOCUMENT NUMBER:
  LONG TITLE:
  AUTHOR:
  RECIPIENT:
  DATE:
  TYPE:
  SECOND REFERENCE:
  LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #56 001-001
EPA Concerns
USAF
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
8 April 1991
Internal Record of Phone Conversation with EPA and NHDES
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
  DOCUMENT NUMBER:
  LONG TITLE:
  AUTHOR:
  RECIPIENT:
  DATE:
  TYPE:
  SECOND REFERENCE:
  LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #57 001-004
Issues Needing Resolution Prior to Upcoming Field Efforts
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
10 April 1991
Letter
PEA  (3.3)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
  DOCUMENT NUMBER:
  LONG TITLE:
  AUTHOR:
  RECIPIENT:
  DATE:
  TYPE:
  SECOND REFERENCE:
  LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #58 001-002
Review of Risk Assessment Data and Sampling Procedures
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
16 April 1991
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER;
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA  (3.6) #59 001-067
Concerns about Analytical Methods
USAF
USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA

-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
23 April 1991
Fax with Attachments
None
ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER;
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #60 001-001
Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, EPA
24 April 1991
Letter  (Transmittal)
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #61 001-008
Field Oversight Coordination
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
29 April 1991
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #63 001-003
Review of April 25, 1991 Revised Analytical Methods
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
08 May 1991
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER;
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #64 001-002
Review of April 25, 1991 Revised Analytical Methods
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
08 May 1991
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #65 001-005
Field Performance Review of Weston Activities, Pease Air Force Base,
New Hampshire
Mitre Corporation
Dennis Lundguist, Human Systems Division
IRP Program Office
HSD/YAQ
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5000
14 May 1991
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA  (3.6) #66 001-002
Revised Analytical Methods for Pease AFB
Logan VanLeigh, Capt., USAF, BSC
Johanna Hunter, EPA
31 May 1991
Letter

-------
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.1)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #67 001-005
Procedure for Establishing Background Metal Concentrations for
Groundwater and Soil
Edward S. Barnes, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
03 June 1991
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #68 001-012
Information to Assist Interpretation of Data Submitted by EPA to the
Air Force
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
06 June 1991
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
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 McKenzie, Pease AFB
Richard Pease, NHDES
Carl Gysler, Earth Technology, San Bernardino, CA
Johanna Hunter, EPA
06 June 1991
Fax
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #70 001-001
Background Determination Protocols
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
07 June 1991
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #71 001-001
Background Determination Protocols
USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
07 June 1991
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #72 001-003
Revised Analytical Methods for Pease AFB GC/MS Method 8260 for VOA
Edward S. Barnes, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
11 June 1991
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #

-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #73 001-001
Laboratory Services
Richard Pease, NHDES
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
13 June 1991
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #75 001-002
EPA Pump Test Information Request to be Provided by Air Force
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Art Ditto, USAF
27 June 1991
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #76 001-002
Roy F. Weston, Inc., Proposed Methods for Determining Background
Concentrations at Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
George Rice, Mitre Corporation
Dennis Lundguist, Human Systems Division
IRP Program Office
HSD/YAQ
Brooks AFB, TX 76235-5000
02 July 1991
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #77 001-001
Transmittal Letter for Protocols for Baseline Risk Assessments
Arthur Ditto, USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
18 July 1991
Transmittal Letter
Baseline Risk Assessments
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #78 001-001
Transmittal Letter for Protocols for Baseline Risk Assessments
Arthur Ditto, USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
18 July 1991
Transmittal Letter
Baseline Risk Assessments
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #80 001-002
Exploratory Boring Soft Sampling Procedures
Edward S. Barnes, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Capt. Logan Van Leigh, AFCEE
26 July 1991
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
PEA  (3.6) #81 001-001
Vented Monitoring Wells
Scott Doane, NHDES

-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Mark McKenzie, USAF
31 July 1991
Letter
None
AR:F  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION
PEA  (3.6) #82 001-006
Review of the Proposed procedure for Background Determination
Protocols for Pease Air Force Base, Portsmouth, NH
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
02 August 1991
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #83 001-001
Vented Monitoring Wells - Response to July 31, 1991 Letter on same
Issue From NHDES
Arthur Ditto, USAF
Scott Doane, NHDES
26 August 1991
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #84 001-001
Split Sampling Results
Arthur Ditto, USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
9 September 1991
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #85 001-002
Field Oversight - September 1991
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, USAF
28 October 1991
Letter
PEA  (3.4)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #86 001-001
Transmittal Letter for Data Collected on Surface Water and Sediment
Background Concentration
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Ed Barnes, Roy F. Weston
2 December 1991
Transmittal Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
PEA  (3.6) #87 001-002
Regional Literature Search to Assist Development of the Sediment and
Surface Water Background Determination for Pease AFB, Portsmouth, NH
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
2 December 1991

-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #88 001-001
Fugitive Dust Pathway in the Baseline Risk Assessment
Arthur Ditto, USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
3 January 1992
Letter
PEA  (3.5)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #89 001-001
Evaluation of the Air Pathway in Baseline Risk Assessment
USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
11 February 1992
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #90 001-001
Evaluation of the Air Pathway in Baseline Risk Assessment
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
11 February 1992
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #95 001-001
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Baseline Risk Assessment
Protocols
Arthur Ditto, USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
25 February 1992
Transmittal Letter
Baseline Risk Assessment
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #96 001-001
Transmittal Letter For Revised Baseline Risk Assessment Protocols
Arthur Ditto, USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
25 February 1992
Transmittal Letter
Revised Baseline Risk Assessment
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #98 001-003
Request for EPA Split Sampling Results
Arthur Ditto, USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
9 March 1992
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA  (3.6) #99 001-D1

-------
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Letter Report of Results of Statistical Comparison of Stage 3C
Samples to the 66 Other Background Samples
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
9 March 1992
Letter Report
PEA (3.5)
ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
pea,  (3.6) #100 001-001
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum
Number 2 on the Draft Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum
Number 2
Arthur Ditto, USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
24 March 1992
Transmittal Letter
PEA  (3.1); PEA  (3.3)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #101 001-001
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Stage 4 Addendum Number 2 Work
Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan
Arthur Ditto, USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
24 March 1992
Transmittal Letter
PEA  (3.1); PEA (3.3)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #103 001-022
Evaluation of Air Pathway in Baseline Risk Assessments
Richard Pease, NHDES
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
13 April 1992
Letter with Attachments
None
AR.F  (Section 3.6 Blinder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #106 001-002
Oversight Role of Regulatory Agencies at Pease AFB
Michael Daly, EPA
Mark MeKenzie, Pease AFB
26 May 1992
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #111 001-001
Submittal of Draft Secondary Documents, Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum 3
and Stage 4 Health and Safety Plan Addendum
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
24 June 1992
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
PEA  (3.6) #112 001-001
Submittal of Draft Secondary Documents, Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum 3

-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
and Stage 4 Health and Safety Plan Addendum
USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
24 June 1992
Letter
None
ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR;
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #113 001-002
Additional Field Oversight
USAF
Michael Daly, EPA
8 July 1992
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #116 001-021
Pease Air Force Base Groundwater Modeling Letter Report
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
29 July 1992
Letter with Report
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
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, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
18 August 1992
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #122 001-002
Results of Background Surface Water Sediment Location Walkover
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
27 August 1992
Letter
PEA  (6.4)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #123 001-005
Risk Assessment Issues for Pease AFB
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Arthur Ditto, USAF
28 August 1992
Letter Report
PEA  (3.3)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA  (3.6) #124 001-001
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Groundwater Background Letter
Report
Mark McKenzie for Arthur Ditto, USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES

-------
DATE
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Johanna Hunter, EPA
1 September 1992
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3-6) #128 001-003
Summary of Risk Issues Meeting of August 19,
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Arthur Ditto, USAF
16 September 1992
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
1992
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #130 001-002
Field Oversight - Mid-August-Mid-September
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Pease
7 October 1991
Letter
PEA  (3.4)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #139 001-001
Submittal of Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum 3
USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
26 October 1992
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #140 001-001
Submittal of Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum 3
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
26 October 1992
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #142 001-001
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Stage 5 Health and Safety Plan
Arthur Ditto, USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
17 November 1992
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #146 001-001
Application of the Reasonable Maximum Exposure  (RME) in Risk
Assessments
Arthur Ditto, USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
1 December 1992
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)

-------
                                               #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:

LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #147 001-001
Explanation of Off-Base Well Inventory Report
Arthur Ditto, USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
4 December 1992
Letter
Off-Base Well Inventory Letter Report of 17 September 1992
PEA  (3.5)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #148 001-001
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) Portion of the Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan  (SAP)
Number 3
Arthur Ditto, USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
11 December 1992
Letter
PEA  (3.1)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #149 001-002
Reguest for Deadline Extension
Arthur Ditto, USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
23 December 1992
Letter
PEA  (6.3)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #152 001-002
MULTIMED as a Replacement for the Summers Model
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Art Ditto, AFBDA
11 March 1993
Letter
PEA  (4.5)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER;
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #156 001-002
Reguest for Deadline Extension
USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
19 March 1993
Letter
PEA  (3.5)
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #170 001-008
Locations of Surface Waters of the State of New Hampshire in the
Vicinity of Former Pease AFB
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
Richard Pease, NHDES
16 November 1993
Letter with Attachment
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)

-------
                                               #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #182 001-002
Interim Monitoring Plan, DES Review Comments
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
Richard Pease, NHDES
25 April 1994
Letter, with Response to Comments
Section 10.1
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #183 001-063
Pease AFB Second Quarter Report for 1994
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
12 July 1994
Letter Report
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #189 001-D.2
1994 Third Quarter Report
Mark McKenzie, AFBCA
Mike Daly, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
08 November 1994
Report
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (3.6) #194 001-001
Regional Groundwater Modeling Letter Report for Pease AFB, NH
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
02 May 1994
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 3.6 Binder)
                   #
                                  4.1  ARAR Determinations
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (4.1) #1 001-024
New Hampshire ARAR List Update
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, USAF
13 April 1992
Letter and Tables
None  (Section 4.1 Binder)
ARF
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION
PEA  (4.1) #2 001-B.3
Installation Restoration Program Stage 4, Basewide ARARs, Pease Air
Force Base, NH 03803 - Draft
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
January 1993
ARARs
None
ARF
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA  (4.1) #3 001-002

-------
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
     Waiverability of Env-WS 430, Surface Water Quality Regulations, as
     an ARAR
     Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
     Richard Pease,  NHDES
     21 December 1993
     Letter
     None
     ARF (Section 4.1 Binder)
                        #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
    PEA (4.1)  #4 001-025
     New Hampshire ARAR, List Update
     NHDES
     USAF
     23 December 1993
     Letter with Attachment
     None
     ARF (Section 4.1 Binder)
                        #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE;
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE;
LOCATION:
     PEA (4.1)  #7 001-001
     Pease Air Force Base:  Resolution of Env-Ws 410 ARARs
     Joan Miles,  Assistant Regional Counsel, EPA Region I
     Anne Renner, EPA Region I
     Assistant Attorney General, New Hampshire
     Letter
     PEA (6.3); PEA (11.2)
     ARF (Section 4.1 Binder)
                        #
Issue
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
4.2 Feasibility Reports

     PEA (4.2)  #36 iii-ACR-3
     U.S.  Air Forte Installation Restoration Program, Pease Air Force
     Base,  Zone 7 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Site 45, Old
     Jet Engine Test Stand-Text-DRAFT FINAL
     Roy F. Weston, Inc.
     USAF
     December 1993
     Report
     PEA 3.5 #106 ES.l-ACR. 3
     ARF (Zone 7 Shelf)
                        #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
     PEA (4.2)  #37 iii-9.2-6
     U.S.  Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease Air Force
     Base,  Zone 7 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Figures,
     ))Site 45, Old Jet Engine Test Stand DRAFT FINAL
     Roy F. Weston, Inc.
     USAF
     December 1993
     Figures
     PEA 3.5 #107 001-9.2-6
     ARF (Zone 7 Shelf)
                        #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
     PEA (4.2)  #38 a.l-G
     U.S.  Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease Air Force
     Base,  Zone 7 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Site 45, Old
     Jet Engine Test Stand-Appendices A, B, C, D, E, F and G-DRAFT FINAL
     Roy F. Weston, Inc.
     USAF
     December 1993
     Appendices
     PEA 3.5 #108 001-F
     ARF (Zone 7 Shelf)
                        #

-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (4.2) #39 H.l-12
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease Air Force
Base, Zone 7 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Site  45, Old
Jet Engine Test Stand-Appendices H, and I Part 2 of 2-DRAFT  FINAL
ROY F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
December 1993
Appendices
PEA 3.5 #109 001-J  (K.6-1)
ARF  (Zone 7 Shelf)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER;
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (4.2) #40 001-700
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease Air Force
Base, Zone 7 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Site  45, Old
Jet Engine Test Stand Appendix I Part 1 of 2 —DRAFT FINAL
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
December 1993
Appendix
PEA  (3.5) #110 ES.1-ACR.3
ARF  (Zone 7 Shelf)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (4.2) #41 J
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease Air Force
Base, Zone 7, Site 45.  Old Jet Engine Test Stand Remedial
Investigation/ Feasibility Study Appendix J-DRAFT FINAL
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
December 1993
Appendices
PEA  (3.5) #111 L.1-Q2
ARF  (Zone 7 Shelf)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (4.2) #46 K-Q
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease Air Force
Base, Zone 7 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Site  45, Old
Jet Engine Test Stand Appendices K, L, M, N, 0, P and Q - DRAFT
FINAL
Roy K Weston, Inc.
USAF
December 1993
Appendices
Zone 7
ARF  (Zone 7 Shelf)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (4.2) #54 001-004
Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Site 45 Soil Vapor
Extraction and Air Sparging Pilot Test Work Plan Comments
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
26 July 1994
Review Comments
Site 45; PEA  (10.1)
ARF  (Section 4.2 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT .NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA  (4.2) #68 001-005
Site 45 Feasibility Study Supplement
USAF
EPA
February 1995
Report
Zone 7

-------
LOCATION:
                            ARF
                                               #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR;
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (4.2) #71 001-358
Pease Air Force Base Old Jet Engine Test Stand  (OJETS)  (Site  45)
Treatability Study Letter Report
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
31 January 1995
Letter Report
Site 45
ARF
                   #

          4.3  Proposed Plan

PEA  (4.3) #12 001-G.4
Installation Restoration Program, Proposed Plan for IRP Site  45, Old
Jet Engine Test Stand. Pease Air Force Base, NH
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA.
March 1995
Proposed Plan
Site 45
ARF  (Zone 2 shelf)
                               4.4  Supplements and Revisions  to  the  Proposed Plan

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
         4.5  Correspondence

PEA  (43) #5 001-002
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Reguirements
Richard Pease, NHDES
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
25 November 1991
Letter
PEA  (6.4)
ARF  (Section 4.5 Binder)
                   #
(ARARs)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:

DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG LILLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (4.5) #14 001-001
Document Submittals
USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
26 May 1992
Letter
Pea  (10.1); Site 34
ARF  (Section 4.5 Binder)

PEA  (4.5) #15 001-003
Former Pease AFB, Surface Water Issues
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
29 November 1993
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 4.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
PEA  (4.5) #65 001-001
Regional Groundwater Model
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
John Regan, NHDES
3 June 1994

-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Letter
Haven Well
ARF  (Section 4.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (4.5) #74 001-002
Pease AFB - Applicability of Emissions Controls for Continued
Operation of the Soil Vapor Extraction/Air Sparging Pilot Study at
Site 45
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
Alan Moulton, NHDES
15 November 1994
Letter
Site 45
ARF  (Section 4.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE;
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (4.5) #80 001-015
EPA's Outstanding Issues on the Draft Final Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study Report for the Old Jet Engine Test Stand, Pease
Air Force Base, Newington, New Hampshire
Andrew F. Miniuks, EPA
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
05 January 1995
Letter with attachment
Zone 7; Site 45; PEA  (4.2); PEA  (10.1)
ARF  (Section 4.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (4.5) #81 001-004
EPA's Comments on the Draft Proposed Plan for the Old Jet Engine
Test Stand, Pease Air Force Base, Newington, New Hampshire
Andrew F. Miniuks, EPA
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
20 January 1995
Letter with attachment
Zone 7; Site 45; PEA  (4.2); PEA  (10.1)
ARF  (Section 4.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (4.5) #88 001-002
EPA's Outstanding Issues on the Feasibility Study Supplement for the
Old Jet Engine Test Stand, Pease Air Force Base, Newington, New
Hampshire
Andred F. Miniuks, EPA
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
06 February 1995
Letter with attachment
Zone 7; Site 45; PEA  (4.2); PEA  (5.1)
ARF  (Section 4.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (4.5) #89 001-001
Site 45  (OJETS)  Treatability Study Report, Pease AFB, NH
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Jim Snyder, AFCEE
06 February 1995
Letter
Zone 7; Site 45; PEA  (4.2)
ARF  (Section 4.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
PEA  (4.3) #90 001-002
Submittal of the Draft Final Site 45 Proposed Plan
Mark McKenzie, AFBCA
Mike Daly, EPA
08 February 1995

-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Letter
Zone 7; Site 45:  PEA  (4.2)
ARF  (Section 4.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (4.5) #101 001-001
Submittal of the Site 45 Treatability Study Letter Report
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
Mike Daly, EPA
28 February 1995
Letter
Zone 7; PEA  (4.2)
ARF  (Section 4.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR;
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (4.5) #106 001-001
Soil Vapor Extraction Pilot Test - Site #45, Zone 7
Dennis R. Lunderville, Director, NHDES
Krithika Jayaraman, Roy. F. Weston, Inc.;
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA;
Richard Pease, NHDES
13 April 1994
Letter
Site 45; Zone 7
ARF  (Section 4.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (4.5) #113 001-006
Submittal of the Final Site 45 Feasibility Study Supplement
Mark McKenzie, AFBCA
Michael Daly, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
20 March 1995
Letter with attachment
Site 45
ARF  (Section 4.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (4.5) #117 001-001
Site 45, Feasibility Study Supplement
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
Richard Pease, NHDES
16 May 1995
Letter
Site 45; PEA  (10.1)
ARF  (Section 4.5 Binder)
                   #
                                          5.1  ROD
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (5.1) #7 001-D
Record of Decision, Site 45, Old Jet Engine Test Stand, Pease Air
Force Base, New Hampshire - DRAFT
USAF
EPA
NHDES
March 1995
ROD
Site 45
ARF
                   #
                                      5.2  Amendments to ROD
*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.

-------
                       5.3  Explanation of Significant Differences

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
          5.4  Correspondence

PEA  (5.4) #1 001-001
Region 1 ROD Model Language
USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Unknown
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 5.4 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (5.4) #4 001-002
Pease AFB IRP ROD Review Process
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA/OL-A
AFBCA/NE
15 December 1993
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 5A Binder)
                  #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:

LOCATION:
PEA  (5.4) #5 001-002
Getting to a ROD, Revised Milestones
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
Michael Daly, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
4 February 1994
Letter
Zone 1:  Zone 2; Zone 3; Zone 4
Site 32/36
ARF  (Section 5.4 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (5.4) #12 001-002
Getting to a ROD
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA/OL-A
Mike Daly, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
15 August 1994
Lener
Zone 1; Zone 2; Zone 3; Zone
ARF  (Section 5.4 Binder)
                   #
4;  Site 32/36; Site 45
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (5.4) #24 001-006
Document Review Schedule
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA/OL-A
Mike Daly, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
14 November 1994
Letter with attachment
Zone 1; Zone 2; Zone 3; Zone 4; Site 32/36; Site 45
ARF  (Section 5.4 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA  (5.4) #30 001-003
Project Status and Schedule, Pease Air Force Base, Newington, New
Hampshire
Mary Sanderson, EPA
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
02 March 1995
Letter with attachments

-------
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
None
ARF  (Section 5.4 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (5.4) #37 001-001
Draft Zone 2 and Site 45 Records of Decision
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA/OL-A
Hank Lowman, AFBCA/NE
04 April 1995
Letter
Zone 2; Site 45
AK (Section 5.4 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (5.4) #41 001-005
Site 45, Draft Final ROD
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Jim Snyder, AFCEE
Mike Daly, EPA
Patti Tyler, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
31 May 1995
Transmittal letter
Site 45; PEA  (5.1)
ARF  (Section 5.4 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
 6.1  Cooperative Agreements / SMOAs

PEA  (6.1) #1 001-013
Memorandum of Understanding Executed Between the Town of Newington,
NH, and Pease Air Force Base, NH
Town of Newington/USAF
USAF
22 August 1980
Memorandum of Understanding
None
ARF  (Section 6.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6,1) #3 001-020
Defense and State Memorandum of Agreement
USAF
NHDES
14 December 1992
DSMOA
None
ARF  (Section 6.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
 6.2  Federal Facility Agreement  (FFA)

PEA  (6.2) #1 001-097
Federal Facility Agreement under CERCLA Section 120
EPA; State of New Hampshire; USAF
EPA; NHDES; USAF
24 April 1991
Federal Facility Agreement
None
ARF  (Section 6.2 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
PEA  (6.2) #2 001-003
Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes
pease Air Force Base
See Distribution List
16 January 1991

-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Meeting Minutes
None
(Section 6.2 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.2) #3 001-003
Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes
Pease Air Force Base
See Distribution List
20 February 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.2 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.2) #4 001-003
Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes
Pease Air Force Base
See Distribution List
20 March 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.2 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.2) #5 001-002
Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes
Pease Air Force Base
See Distribution List
17 April 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.2 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.2) #6 001-002
Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes
Pease Air Force
See Distribution List
21 May 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.2 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.2) #7 001-002
Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes
Pease Air Force Base
See Distribution List
24 June 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.2 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.2) #8 001-11.4
Modification 1 to Pease AFB Federal Facilities Agreement
USAF
Michael Daly, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
8 September 1993
FFA Modification
None
ARF  (Section 6.2 Binder)
                   #

-------
                             6.3  Coordination - State / Federal
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #1 001-003
Meeting Minutes From Air Force Meeting With State Officials
Concerning Pease Air Force Base IRP
USAF
Sec Distribution List
11 March 1987
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #2 001-002
Agenda for Meeting with State DES, Air Force, and EPA Technical Team
Pease Air Force Base
See Distribution List
26 April 1990
Agenda
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #4 001-002
Letter Regarding Emergency Discharge Exclusion From the Reguirement
for a Permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES)
EPA
USAF
29 September 1989
Letter
NPDES
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #6 001-001
Agenda and Notes for Working Meeting with U.S. EPA and State of New
Hampshire
USAF
See Distribution List
21 November 1989
Agenda and Meeting Notes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #8 001-033
Point Paper on Installation Restoration Program  (Pease AFB) and
Attachments (Prepared for a meeting of J. Coit and M. Aldrich, of
Senator Humphrey's office, with Pease, NHDES, WESTON, and OEHL)
USAF
J. Coit & M. Aldrich of Senator Humphrey's Office
31 March 1989
Letter
None
ARF  (Sextion 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #9 001-003
Recommendation to Place Pease AFB on the National Priority List
(NPL)
USAF
EPA
27 June 1989
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)

-------
                                               #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #10 001-004
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of January 16, 1991
Arthur Ditto, USAF
See Distribution Letter
16 January 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #11 001-034
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of February 20,
Arthur Ditto, USAF
See Distribution List
20 February 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
1991
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #12 001-004
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
USAF
See Distribution List
20 March 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #13 001-004
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, USAF
See Distribution List
17 April 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #14 001-003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, USAF
See Distribution List
21 May 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #16 001-003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, USAF
See Distribution List
24 June 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
PEA  (6.3) #17 001-003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, USAF
See Distribution List
24 July 1991

-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #18 001-004
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, USAF
See Distribution List
21 August 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #19 001-004
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, USAF
See Distribution List
26 September 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #20 001-004
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, USAF
See Distribution List
27 October 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #21 001-003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, USAF
See Distribution List
20 November 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #22 001-003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of January 27, 1992.
Arthur Ditto, USAF
See Distribution List
19 December 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #23 001-003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, USAF
See Distribution List
27 January 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
PEA  (6.3) #24 001-003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes

-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Arthur Ditto, USAF
See Distribution List
25 February 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #25 001-002
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, USAF
See Distribution List
07 April 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #26 001-004
NH Wetlands Permit for National
USAF
NHDES
24 April 1992
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
Priorities List Related Work
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #27 001-002
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
USAF
See Distribution List
22 April 1992
Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #28 001-008
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, USAF
See Distribution List
3 June 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #29 001-003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, USAF
See Distribution List
21 August 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #30 001-003
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, USAF
See Distribution List
10 September 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #

-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #31 001-002
New Hampshire Sites Where SVE is Used for NAPL Removal
John Regan, NHDES
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
Mike Daly, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
Scott Doane, NHDES
30 September 1992
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #32 001-002
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, USAF
See Distribution List
21 October 1992
Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #33 001-003
Application of the Reasonable Maximum Exposure  (RME) in Risk
Assessments; Reguest for Site Specific Justification for Using the
"Average Maximum"
Richard Pease, NHDES
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Capt. Woerhle, AFCEE
22 October 1992
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #34 001-001
Guidebook for Environmental Permits in New Hampshire
Richard Pease, NHDES
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, EPA
4 November 1992
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #36 001-Attachment 6
Quarterly Report, Second Quarter 1991
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA; NHDES; USAF
19 July 1991
Quarterly Report
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder); Arthur Ditto's office files
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #37 001-034
Quarterly Report, Third Quarter 1991
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA; NHDES; USAF
24 October 1991
Quarterly Report, Transmittal Letters
None
ARF  (Section 63 Binder); Arthur Ditto's office files
                   #

-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #38 001-030
Quarterly Report, Fourth Quarter 1991
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA; NHDES; USAF
14 January 1992
Quarterly Report
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder); Arthur Ditto's office files
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #39 001-020
Quarterly Report, First Quarter 1992
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA; NHDES; USAF
15 April 1992
Quarterly Report
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder); Arthur Ditto's office files
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #40 001-032
Quarterly Report, Second Quarter 1992
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA; NHDES; USAF
14 July 1992
Quarterly Report
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder); Arthur Ditto's office files
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #41 001-043
Quarterly Report, Third Quarter 1992
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA; NHDES; USAF
20 October 1992
Quarterly Report
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder); Arthur Ditto's office files
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #42 001-Q4
Transmittal Letter for Quarterly Progress Report, Fourth Quarter
1992
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
19 January 1993
Transmittal Letter and Quarterly Report
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder); Arthur Ditto's office files
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.3) #43 001-E.l
Quarterly Progress Report for Pease AFB
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, EPA Region 1
Richard Pease, NHDES
26 April 1993
Report
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder); Arthur Ditto's office files
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA  (6.3) #46 001-002
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
See Distribution List

-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
05 April 1994
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 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  (6.3) #47 001-002
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
See Distribution List
31 May 1994
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 6.3 Binder)
                   #

     6.4  General Correspondence

PEA  (6.4) #5 001-010
Letter to EPA Regarding Background Information on Pease Air Force Base
US Department of Commerce
USAF
7 March 1990
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 6.4 Binder)
                   #
PEA  (6.4) #6 001-001
File # 92-679; CERCLA Related Temporary Fill of 2000 Sguare Feet for
Wells at Pease AFB, NH
Kenneth N. Kettenring, NHDES
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
26 May 1992
Latter
None
ARF  (Section 6.4 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.4) #9 001-041
Quarterly Progress Report, Period of Performance July, August and
September 1993
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
October 1993
Report
None
ARF  (Section 6.4 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.4) #10 001-004
Appropriateness of CERCLA Versus State or Other Authorities for
Closing Military Installation
Robert Varney, Commissioner, NHDES
Carol Browner, Administrator, EPA
11 February 1994
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 6.4 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA  (6.4) #12 001-B.3
Quarterly Progress Report, Period of Performance October, November
and December 1993
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
January 1994
Report

-------
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
None
ARF  (Section 6.4 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.4) #13 001-B.4
Quarterly Progress Report,
and March 1994
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
April 1994
Report
None
ARF  (Section 6.4 Binder)
                   #
Period of Performance January, February
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.4) #14 001-022
Pease Air Force Base Installation Restoration Program January  13,
1994 Informal Dispute Resolution Meeting - Final Minutes
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
Michael Daly, EPA
16 March 1994
Letter with Meeting Minutes Attached
Section 10.1
ARF  (Section 6.4 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.4) #18 001-064
Quarterly Progress Report, Period of Performance:
April, May, and June 1994
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
July 1994
Report
None
ARF  (Section 6.4 Binder)
                   #
                        Calendar Months
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.4) #19 001-022
Quarterly Progress, Report, Period of Performance:
October, November, and December 1994
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
February 1993
Report
None
ARF  (Section 6.4 Binder)
                   #
                         Calendar Months
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (6.4) #20 001-003
Pease Air Force Base, Standard Operating Procedure for Well
Abandonment
John Regan, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
13 January 1995
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 6.4 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA  (6.4) #22 001-004
Background Contamination
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
Richard Pease, NHDES
30 January 1995
Letter with attachment
None

-------
LOCATION:                   ARF  (Section 6.4 Binder)
                                               #

DOCUMENT NUMBER:            PEA  (6.4) #23 001-001
LONG TITLE:                 DDT Sediment Evaluation Report
AUTHOR:                     Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
RECIPIENT:                  Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:                       30 January 1995
TYPE:                       Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:           None
LOCATION:                   ARF  (Section 6.4 Binder)
                                               #

                                          7.1  Enforcement History

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.

                                       7.2  Endangerment Assessments

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.

                                          7.3  Administrative Orders

DOCUMENT NUMBER:            PEA  (7.3) #1 001-11.3
LONG TITLE:                 Pease AFB Federal Facilities Agreement Modification
AUTHOR:                     USAF
RECIPIENT:                  Pease AFB
                            EPA Region I
                            NHDES
                            NH Attorney General
DATE:                       January 1993
TYPE:                       FFA Modification
SECOND REFERENCE:           none
LOCATION:                   ARF  (Section 7.3 Binder)
                                               #

                                            7.4  Consent Decrees

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.

                                              7.5  Affidavits

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.

                   7.6  Documentation of Technical Discussions/Response Actions

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.

                                     7.7  Notices, Letters, and Responses

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.

                                        8.1  ATSDR Health Assessment

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.

                                          8.2  Toxicological Profiles

DOCUMENT NUMBER:            PEA  (8.2) #1 001-ZN4
LONG TITLE:                 Installation Restoration Program Stage 4 Toxicity Profiles,  Pease
                            Air Force Base, NH 03803
AUTHOR:                     Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:                  USAF
DATE:                       January 1993
TYPE:                       Toxicity Profiles
SECOND REFERENCE:           None
LOCATION:                   ARF

-------
                                               #

                                         8.3  General Correspondence

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.

                                            9.1  Notices  Issued

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.

                                            9.2  Findings  of Fact

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.

                                               9.3  Reports

*NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.

                                        9.4  General Correspondence
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
REFERENCE:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (9.4) #2 001-002
Trustees for Natural Resources
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA/OL-A
AFBCA/NE
20 May 1994
Letter with Attachment
None
ARF  (Section 9.4 Binder)
                   #

10.1  Comments and Responses
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
PEA  (10.1) #1 001-005
Response to Comments - Draft Final Community Relations Plan
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
7 February 1991
Letter/Response to Comments
PEA  (10.2)
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #

PEA  (10.1) #2 001-003
Draft Community Relations Plan Comments
Piehard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, USAF
30 November 1990
Letter Comment Report
PEA  (10.2)
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #

PEA  (10.1) #3 001-010
EPA Region 1 Comments to IRP Draft Community Relations Plan; Pease AFB
Douglas S. Gutto, EPA
Arthur Ditto, USAF
7 December 1990
Letter Comment Report
PEA  (10.2)
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #

PEA  (10.1) #4 001-011
EPA Comments on Pease AFB Community Relations Plan with Air Force's
Responses
Unknown (From Air Force)

-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
USAF
January 1991
Comment Report
PEA  (10.2)
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #5 001-004
NHDES Comments on Pease AFB Community Relations Plan with Air  Force
Responses
Unknown  (From Air Force)
USAF
January 1991
Comment Report
PEA  (10.2)
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #6 001-002
Review of Draft  (Revised) Final Report IRP Community Relations  Plan
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Arthur Ditto, USAF
25 March 1991
Letter
PEA  (10.2)
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #7 001-003
Comments Remaining Unresolved for Stage 4 Work Plan Analysis Method
Mark McKenzie, Pease AFB
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
05 May 1991
Comments
PEA  (3.1)
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #9 001-002
Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection Draft Fact Sheet Comments
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
17 April 1992
Comments
PEA  (10. 6) ; PEA  (6.3)
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #12 001-003
Review Comments for Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum Number 2
Richard H. Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, USAF
08 May 1992
Letter
PEA  (3.3)
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #13 001-014
Review Comments for Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis  Plan
Addendum Number 2
Michael Daly, EPA
Arthur Ditto, USAF
14 May 1992
Transmittal Sheet, Letter and Comment Report
PEA  (3.1); PEA (3.3)
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)

-------
                                               #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:

RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #14 001-013
Review of Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum
Number 2 for Pease AFB
Michael Daly, EPA
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
Arthur Ditto, USAF
14 May 1992
Letter with Comment Report
PEA  (3.1); PEA (3.3)
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #24 001-003
Comments on Haven Pump Test Design and Piezometer Installations
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
7 August 1992
Comments
PEA  (6.3); Haven Well
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #26 001-002
Haven Well Pump Test at Pease Air Force Base, NH
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
11 August 1992
Comments
Haven Well
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #27 001-002
Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum 3 Review Comments
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
14 August 1992
Comments
PEA  (6.3)
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #28 001-006
Haven Well Test Response to Comments
James G. Spratt, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Mark McKenzie, Pease AFB
17 August 1992
Response to Comments
Haven Well
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #40 001-006
Response to Comments, Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis
Plan Addendum 2
Arthur Ditto, USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
3 November 1992
Response to Comments
PEA  (3.3); PEA (3.1)
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA  (10.1) #42 001-003

-------
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Comments on Pease Off-Base Well Inventory Letter Report
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, USAF
12 November 1992
Comments
Zone 2; Zone 5; Site 8
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #44 001-002
Review of Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum 3, Pease AFB
Michael Daly; EPA
Arthur Ditto, USAF
23 November 1992
Comments
None
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #105 001-D.3
Pease AFB Response to NHDES and EPA Comments on the Zones 6 and 7
Site Inspection Report
USAF
EPA
NHDES
30 November 1993
Response to Comments
Zone 6; Zone 7
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #106 001-013
Response to EPA Comments on the Draft Zone 7  (OJETS) RI/FS Report
USAF
EPA
17 December 1993
Response to Comments
Zone 7
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:            PEA  (10.1) #116 001-003
LONG TITLE:                 Review of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Comments  on
     Background Data for Pease AFB, NH
AUTHOR:                     Fred Price, Mitre Corporation
RECIPIENT:                  Major Charles Howell, AFCEE
DATE:                       11 June 1993
TYPE:                       Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:           None
LOCATION:                   ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                                               #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #122 001-003
General Review of September 1993 Draft Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study, Zone 7, Pease AFB, NH
Fred Price, MITRE Corporation
Major Charles Howell, AFCEE
21 October 1993
Letter
Zone 7
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
PEA  (10.1) #123 001-009
Review of the Air Force Installation Restoration Program Draft Zone
7 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Report, Pease AFB, NH
EPA

-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
USAF
4 November 1993
Letter with Attachment
Zone 7
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #124 001-008
Pease AFB Zone 7 Draft Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Review Comments
NHDES
USAF
5 November 1993
Letter
Zone 7
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #144 001-004
Review Comments, Old Jet Engine Test Stand, Draft Final Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, December 1993
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
22 February 1994
Review Comments
Zone 7, Old Jet Engine Test Stand; Section 3.5; Section 4.2
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #154 001-001
Response to EPA Comments and Additional Responses to NHDES Comments
on the Basewide Interim Monitoring Plan
Mark McKenzie, AFBCA
Richard Pease, NHDES
Mike Daly, EPA
21 June 1994
Response to Comments
None
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #155 001-019
Air Force Response to Comments
USAF
EPA
NHDES
26 August 1994
Response to Comments
None
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #161 001-006
Response to EPA and NHDES Comments on the Basewide Interim
Monitoring Plan
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
16 June 1994
Response to Comments
PEA  (3.5)  #123 001-E.34; PEA  (3.5) #124 001-007
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
PEA  (10.1) #162 001-002
Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Zone 7 OJETS Work Plan
Comments
Richard Pease, NHDES

-------
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
23 June 1994
Comments
Zone 7
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #166 001-012
Pease AFB Basewide Interim Monitoring Plan, Response to Air Force
June 21, 1994 Letter
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
21 July 1994
Comments
PEA  (3.5)  #121 001-007
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #167 001-003
Regional Groundwater Flow Model
John M. Regan, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
22 July 1994
Comments
Zone 3; Haven Well; Harrison Well; Smith Well
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #175 001-001
Response to Comments for the OJETS Treatability Study
Mark McKenzie, AFBCA
Richard Pease, NHDES
25 August 1994
Response to Comments
OJETS
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #189 001-022
Response to NHDES Comments on the Air Force's 21 June 1994 Letter
Responding to NHDES 23 March 1994 Comments on the Pease AFB Basewide
Interim Monitoring Plan
USAF
NHDES
07 December 1994
Response to Comments
PEA  (3.5) #121 001-007; PEA  (3.5) #123 001-E.34;
PEA  (3.5) #124 001-007; PEA  (10.1) #161 001-006;
PEA  (10.1) #166 001-012
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #191 001-001
EPA's Comments on the Draft Final RI/FS Report for Old Jet Engine
Test Stand and Zone 2, Pease AFB, NH
Andrew Miniuks, EPA
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
10 January 1995
Comments
Zone 2; OJETS
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA  (10.1) #192 001-003
DDT Sediment Evaluation Report for Pease AFB, NH - Comments
Mike Daly, EPA
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA

-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
11 January 1995
Comments
None
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #193 001-005
DDT Sediment Evaluation Report Review Comments
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
12 January 1995
Comments
None
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #194 001-5.2
Sediment Bioassay and Hardness Letter Reports Evaluation Review
Comments
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
12 January 1995
Comments
Zone 3; PEA  (3.5) #120 001-008; PEA  (11.1)
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #222 001-003
EPA's Comments on the Draft Final Proposed Plan for the Old Jet
Engine Test Stand, Pease Air Force Base, Newington, New Hampshire
Mike Daly, EPA
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
01 Match 1995
Letter with attachment
Zone 7; PEA  (10.1)
ARF  (Section 4.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #206 001-003
Draft Proposed Plan; Site 45 - Old Jet Engine Test Stand, March  1994
DES Review Comments
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
09 May 1994
Comments
Site 45; PEA  (4.3)
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #222 001-003
EPA's Comments on the Draft Final Propose Plan for the Old Jet
Engine Test Stand, Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
Michael Daly, EPA
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
01 March 1995
Comments
Zone 7; PEA  (4.3)
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA  (10.1) #230 001-002
Pease Air Force Base, Old Jet Engine Test Stand  (OJETS) Feasibility
Study Supplement, March 1995; DES Review Comments
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
20 April 1995
Comments

-------
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Site 45; PEA  (4.2)
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #231 001-003
Pease AFB, Old Jet Engine Test Stand  (OJETs) Treatibility  Study
Letter Report, February 1995:  DES Review Comments
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
24 April 1995
Comments
Site 45; PEA  (4.2)
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #234 0012
Review of the Draft Record of Decision for Site  45, Old  Jet Engine
Test Stand and Review of the Draft Record of Decision  for  Zone  2
Christine S. Beling, EPA Region I
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
28 April 1995
Letter
Site 45; Zone 2; PEA  (5.1) #8 001-D; PEA  (5.1) #7  001-D
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #235 001-003
Pease AFB, Old Jet Engine Test Stand  (OJETS), Site  45, Draft Record
of Decision, March 1995
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
2 May 1995
Comments
Site 45; PEA  (5.1) #7 001-D
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #237 001-011
Review Comments on Draft Record of Decision for Site  45, Old  Jet
Engine Test Stand and Review Comments on Draft Record of Decision
for Zone 2
Christine Beling, EPA Region I
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
8 May 1995
Comments
Zone 2; Site 45; PEA  (5.1) #7 001-D; PEA  (5.1) #8  001-D
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #244 001-005
Review Comments on Draft Final RODs for Site 45 and  Zone 2
Christine Beling, EPA Region I
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
20 June 1995
Comments
Site 45, Zone 2; PEA  (5.1)
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.1) #245 001-002
Review Comments on Draft Final ROD for Site 45
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
27 June 1995
Comments
Site 45, PEA  (5.1)
ARF  (Section 10.1 Binder)

-------
                               10.2  Community Relations Plan
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.2) #1 001-040
Installation Restoration Program Community Relations Plan
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA; NHDES; USAF
January 1991
Community Relations Plan
None
ARF, IR
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.2) #2 i-L.l
Pease Air Force Base Installation Restoration Program Revised
Community Relations Plan
Dynamic Corporation
230 Peachtree St., N.W.,  Ste. 700
Atlanta, GA. 30303
USAF
October 1994
Community Relations Plan
None
ARF
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
          10.3  Public Notices

PEA  (10.3) #14 001-001
Paid Advertisement in Foster's Daily Democrat Announcing the Public
Hearing and Comment Period for the Site 45 and Zone 2 Proposed Plans
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
Local Communities via Foster's Daily Democrat; Public
08 April 1995
Public notice
Zone 2; Site 45; PEA  (5.1)
ARF  (Section 10.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.3) #15 001-001
Paid Advertisement in the Portsmouth Herald Announcing the Public
Hearing and Comment Period for the Site 45 and Zone 2 Proposed Plans
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
Local Communities via the Portsmouth Herald; Public
09 April 1995
Public notice
Zone 2; Site 45; PEA  (5.1)
ARF  (Section 10.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
   10.4  Public Meeting Transcripts

PEA  (10.4)  #3 001-025
Pease Air Force Base Public Workshop and Information Meeting:
Installation Restoration Program
Dynamic Corporation
USAF
12 January 1993
Meeting Summary
None
IR
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
PEA  (10.4) #14 001-037
Pease AFB Official Transcript of Public Hearing for Proposed Plans
for Zone 2 and Site 45

-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
         APEX Reporting
         USAF
         11 April 1993
         Transcript
         Zone 2 (Site 45)
         ARF (Zone 2 Site Shelf)
                            #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
         PEA (10.4)  #15 001-Tab #6
         Summary of Pease AFB Public Hearings on Proposed Plans for Zone 2
         and Site 45
         Dynamic Corporation
         USAF
         11 April 1995
         Hearing Summary Report
         Zone 2 (Site 45)
         ARF (Zone 2 Shelf)
                            #

10.5  Documentation of Other Public Meetings/TRC Minutes

         PEA (10.5)  #00 001-004
         Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committee
         USAF
         See Distribution List
         22 February 1990
         Meeting Minutes
         None
         ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
                            #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
         PEA (10.5)  #0 001-013
         Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committee
         USAF
         See Distribution List
         30 March 1990
         Meeting Minutes
         None
         ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
                            #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
         PEA (10.5)  #1 001-004
         Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committee
         USAF
         See Distribution List
         27 April 1990
         Meeting Minutes
         None
         ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
                            #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
         PEA (10.5)  #2 001-010
         Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committee
         USAF
         See Distribution List
         30 May 1990
         Meeting Minutes
         None
         ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
                            #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
         PEA (10.5)  #3 001-008
         Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committee
         USAF
         See Distribution List
         27 June 1990
         Meeting Minutes

-------
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:

DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
PEA  (10.5) #4 001-005
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
25 July 1990
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #5 001-005
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
29 August 1990
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #6 001-012
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
26 September 1990
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #7 001-008
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
31 October 1990
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #8 001-004
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
29 November 1990
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #9 001-003
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
31 January 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA  (10.5) #10 001-003
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List

-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
27 March 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #11 001-006
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
24 April 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #12 001-003
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
28 May 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #13 001-006
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
25 June 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #14 001-007
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
30 July 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #15 001-007
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
27 August 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #16 001-010
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
01 October 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA  (10.5) #17 001-003

-------
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
29 October 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #18 001-013
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
26 November 1991
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #19 001-005
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
07 January 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TYPE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #20 001-003
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
31 March 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #21 001-002
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
28 April 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TYPE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #22 001-003
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
20 May 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #23 001-003
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
TRC Distribution List
28 July 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)

-------
                                               #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #24 001-005
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
29 September 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #25 001-013
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
27 October 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #26 001-004
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
16 December 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #27 001-003
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
TRC Distribution List
17 February 1992
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #28 001-003
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
TRC Distribution List
23 March 1993
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #29 001-006
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
TRC Distribution
27 April 1993
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
PEA  (10.5) #30 001-006
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
TRC Distribution List
25 May 1993

-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #31 001-012
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
TRC Distribution List
29 July 1993
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #32 001-002
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
TRC Distribution List
27 July 1993
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #33 001-008
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
31 August 1993
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #34 001-009
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
28 September 1993
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #35 001-010
Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes
USAF
See Distribution List
26 October 1993
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #36 001-011
Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes
USAF
See Distribution List
30 November 1993
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
PEA  (10.5) #37 001-032
Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes

-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
USAF
See Distribution List
11 January 1994
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #38 001-003
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
TRC Distribution List
1 March 1994
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #39 001-012
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
TRC Distribution List
26 April 1994
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #40 001-001
January 13, 1994, Informal Dispute Resolution Meeting - Final
Minutes
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA/OL-A
AFBCA/NE
11 April 1994
Memorandum
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #41 001-013
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee/Restoration Advisory
Board
USAF
TRC/RAB Distribution List
5 May 1994
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Sect on 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #42 001-004
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee/Restoration Advisory
Board
USAF
TRC/RAB Distribution List
28 June 1994
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
PEA  (10.5) #43 001-013
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee/Restoration Advisory
Board
USAF
TRC/RAB Distribution List
26 July 1994

-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.3) #44 001-006
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee/Restoration Advisory
Board
USAF
TRC/RAB Distribution List
30 August 1994
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #45 001-011
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee/Restoration Advisory
Board
USAF
TRC/RAB Distribution List
04 October 1994
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #46 001-010
Pease Air Force Base Restoration Advisory Board/Technical Review
Committee Meeting Minutes
USAF
TRC/RAB Distribution List
07 February 1995
Meeting Minutes
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.5) #47 001-001
Pease Air Force Base Restoration Advisory Board/Technical Review
Committee Meeting Cancellation Notice
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
TRC/RAB Distribution List
28 February 1995
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 10.5 Binder)
                   #
                      10.6  Fact Sheets, Press Advisories, and News Releases
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.6) #1 001-003
News Release Regarding the Investigation of 22 Sites on Pease AFB
USAF
Media
30 September 1987
News Release
None
ARF  (Section 10.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA  (10.6) #5 001-004
News Release Regarding Off-Base Well Water Sampling Results
USAF
Media
7 June 1989
News Release

-------
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
None
ARF  (Section 10.6 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.6) #7 001-003
Superfund Program Draft Interagency Agreement Fact Sheet
EPA, Region I
See Mailing List
December 1990
Fact Sheet
PEA  (6.2)
ARF  (Section 10.6 Binder), IR
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.6) #8 001-008
Pease Air Force Base Installation Restoration Program Update:
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Fact Sheet
USAF
1991 Mailing List
October 1991
Fact Sheet
None
ARF  (Section 10.6 Binder), IR
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.6) #9 001-011
Pease Air Force Base Installation Restoration Program Update Fact
Sheet
USAF
1992 Mailing List
December 1992
Fact Sheet
None
ARF  (Section 10.6 Binder), IR
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.6) #13 001-006
Pease Air Force Base Installation Restoration Program Update Fact
Sheet:  Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation
USAF
1993 Mailing List
January 1993
Fact Sheet
None
ARF  (Section 10.6 Binder), IR
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.6) #20 001-004
Pease AFB Environmental Reporter Volume 1, Number 1
USAF
See Mailing List
January 1994
Quarterly Newsletter
None
ARF  (Section 10.6 Binder), IR
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.6) #24 001-004
Pease AFB Environmental Reporter Volume 1, Number 2
USAF
Mailing List
April 1994
Quarterly Newsletter
None
ARF  (Section 10.6 Binder), IR
                   #

-------
                            PEA  (10.6) #27 001-006
                            Pease AFB Environmental Reporter, Volume 1, No. 3
                            USAF
                            Mailing List
                            August 1994
                            Newsletter
                            None
                            ARF  (Section 10.6 Binder), IR
                                               #

                            PEA  (10.6) #30 001-006
                            Pease AFB Environmental Reporter Volume 1, No. 4
                            USAF
                            See Mailing List
                            December 1994
                            Newsletter
                            None
                            ARF  (Section 10.6 Binder); IR
                                               #

                            PEA  (10.6) #33 001-004
                            Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Update Fact Sheet -
                            Proposed Plan for Site 45
                            USAF
                            See Mailing List
                            March 1995
                            Fact Sheet
                            Site 45
                            ARF  (Section 10.6 Binder); IR
                                               #

                            PEA  (10.6) #34 001-001
                            Pease AFB Public Hearing and Comment Period Announcement for the
                            Proposed Plans for Zone 2 and Site 45
                            USAF
                            See Mailing List
                            March 1995
                            Public Hearing Announcement
                            Zone 2; Site 45
                            ARF  (Section 10.6 Binder); IR
                                               #

                                 10.7  Responsiveness Summary

                            PEA  (10.7) #6 001-003
                            Site 45 Responsiveness Summary
                            Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
                            Mike Daly, EPA
                            Richard Pease, NHDES
                            Site 45 ROD
                            May 1995
                            Responsiveness Summary
                            Site 45
                            ARF  (Section 10.7 Binder)
                                               #

                                            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.

                                     10.10  Correspondence

DOCUMENT NUMBER:            PEA  (10.10) #1 001-001
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE;
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER;
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:

-------
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Letter Regarding Concern about the Hazardous Waste Sites at Pease
AFB
Gordon J. Humphrey, U.S. Senate
James F. McGovern, Acting Secretary of the Air Force
24 March 1989
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 10.10 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.10) #2 001-002
Letter Regarding the Migration of Air Force Hazardous Waste Beyond
the Pease AFB Perimeter
Town of Newington
Robert Field, Environmental Cleanup Advisory Committee, Portsmouth, NH
11 May 1990
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 10.10 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.10) #4 001-001
Submittal Letter for Draft Community Relations Plan for the
Massachusetts Military Restoration  (MMR) on Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Douglas S. Gutro, EPA
Karen Cowden, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
19 June 1990
Letter
PEA  (10.2)
ARF  (Section 10.10 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.10) #5 001-002
Impact of Base Closure on Personnel Responsible for the  Installation
Restoration Program and Public Affairs
Merrill S. Hohman, EPA
Col. James R. Wilson, Pease AFB
27 August 1990
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 10.10 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.10) #6 001-001
Impact of Base Closure on Personnel Responsible for the  Installation
Restoration Program and Public Affairs  (Your Letter, August 27,
1990)
USAF
Merrill S. Hohman, EPA
11 October 1990
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 10.10 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.10) #7 001-001
Submittal of Primary Documents  (Community Relations Plan)
USAF
Jim Brown, EPA
24 October 1990
Letter
PEA  (10.2)
ARF  (Section 10.10 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
PEA  (10.10) #8 001-001
Submittal of Primary Documents  (Community Relations Plan)

-------
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
24 October 1990
Letter
PEA  (10.2)
ARF  (Section 10.10 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.10) #9 001-001
Community Relations Plan Development Extension
USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
17 January 1991
Letter
PEA  (10.2)
ARF  (Section 10.10 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.10) #10 001-001
Community Relations Plan Development Extension
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
17 January 1991
Letter
PEA  (10.2)
ARF  (Section 10.10 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.10) #11 001-001
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Documents
USAF
Richard Pease, NHDES
5 February 1991
Letter
PEA  (3.1); PEA  (3.3)
ARF  (Section 10.10 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.10) #12 001-001
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Documents
USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
5 February 1991
Letter
PEA  (3.1); PEA  (3.3)
ARF  (Section 10.10 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.10) #13 001-001
Community Relations Plan
USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
12 April 1991
Letter
PEA  (10.2)
ARF  (Section 10.10 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.10) #14 001-004
Basewide ARARs Pease AFB, NH 03803, January 1993, Draft  - Keylow
Comments
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
1 April 1993
Letter
PEA  (4.1)
ARF  (Section 10.10 Binder)

-------
                                               #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.10) #33 001-001
Site 45  (OJETS) Draft Proposed Plan
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
Ronald Gehl, SCOPE Technical Advisor
30 March 1994
Letter
Site 45, Section 4.3
ARF  (Section 10.10 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:

DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (10.10) #35 001-001
Draft Final Community Relations Plan
USAF
EPA
NHDES
13 July 1994
Letter
PEA  (10.2) #3
ARF  (Section 10.10 Binder)
                   #
                               11.1  EPA Headquarters Guidance

  NOTE:                     Guidance documents listed as bibliographic sources for  a 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  (11.1) #1 001-003
Risk Assessment Issue Paper for Carcinogenicity Characterization for
Trichloroethylene  (CASRN 79-01-6), Tetrachloroethylene  (CASRN
127-18-4), and Styrene  (CASRN 100-42-5)
EPA
USAF
14 July 1992
Guidance
None
ARF  (Section 11.1 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #2 001-G.2
Draft Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents:  The
Proposed Plan and Record of Decision
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
March 1988
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #3 001-B.9
The RPM Primer:  An Introductory Guide to the Role and
Responsibilities of the Superfund Remedial Project Manager
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
September 1987
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
PEA  (11.1) #4 001-11.1
CERCLA Site Discrepancies to POTWs Guidance Manual
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington,
USAF
DC

-------
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
August 1990
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #5 001-041
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment
EPA
USAF
February 1992
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #6 001-E.l
Preliminary Assessment Guidance Fiscal Year 1988
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington,
USAF
January 1988
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DC
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:

RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #7 001-1.13
Community Relations in Superfund:  A Handbook
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington,
(EPA/540/R-92/009)
USAF
January 1992
Guidance
PEA  (10.0)
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DC
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #8 001-H.6
Summary Report on Issue in Ecological Risk Assessment
EPA
USAF
February 1991
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #9 001-127
Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils and Sludges
EPA
USAF
September 1988
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #10 001-F.19
Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility
Studies Under CERCLA — Interim Final
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
October 1988
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #

-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #11 001-103
Final Guidance on Administrative Records for Selecting CERCLA
Response Actions
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA, Washington,
USAF
1190/91
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DC
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #12 001-B.2
Implementing EPA's Groundwater Protection Strategy for the 1990's:
Draft Comprehensive State Groundwater Protection Program Guidance
EPA
USAF
1992
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #13 001-021
A Handbook for State Groundwater Managers
Office of Water, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
May 1992
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #14 001-3.40
Conducting Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies for CERCLA
Municipal Landfill Sites
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
February 1991
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #15 001-F.2
Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents:  The Proposed
Plan, The Record of Decision, and Explanation of Significant
Differences, The Record of Decision Amendment
Office of Emergency and Remedial Respond, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
July 1989
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #16 001-B.12
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I:  Human Health
Evaluation Manual  (Part A) Interim Final
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
December 1989
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA  (11.1) #17 001-057

-------
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:

DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume II:  Environmental
Evaluation Manual Interim Final
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Washington, DC
USAF
March 1989
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #

PEA  (11.1) #18 ))Deleted

PEA  (11.1) #19 001-B.2
Superfund Removal Procedures Action Memorandum Guidance
EPA
USAF
December 1990
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #20 001-G
RCRA Orientation Manual
EPA
USAF
1990
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #21 001-295
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program:
Profiles
EPA
USAF
November 1991
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
Technology
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #22 001-017
Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated Site Clean-Up
Technologies
EPA
USAF
May 1991
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #23 001-023
Bibliography of Federal Reports and Publications Describing
Alternatives and Innovative Treatment Technologies for Corrective
Action and Site Remediation
EPA
USAF
May 1991
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA  (11.1) #24 001-111

-------
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation
Technologies
EPA
USAF
May 1991
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #25 001-A.20
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual:  Interim Final
USEPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C.
USAF
August 1988
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #26 001-A.6
Ecological Assessments of Hazardous Waste Sites:  A Field and
Laboratory Reference Document
USEPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
USAF
March 1989
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #27 001-E.8
Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under CERCLA
USEPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, D.C
USAF
September 1992
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #28 001-E.ll
Guidance for Performing Preliminary Assessments Under CERCLA
USEPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington,
USAF
September 1991
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
D.C.
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #29 001-A.57
Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual
USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
USAF
November 1992
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
PEA  (11.1) #30 51532-51667
Federal Register:  Part II, Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR
Part 300, Hazard Ranking System Final Rule
USEPA
USAF
14 December 1990

-------
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #31 001-054
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:  Volume I - Human Health
Evaluation Manual  (Part B, Development of Risk-Based Preliminary
Remediation Goals)
USEPA, Office of Research and Development
USAF
December 1991
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #32 001-065
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:  Volume 1 - Human Health
Evaluation Manual  (Part C, Risk Evaluation of Remediation
Alternatives)
USEPA, Office of Research and Development
USAF
December 1991
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.1) #33 8813-8865
Federal Register:  Part II, Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR
Part 300, National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency
Plan Final Rule
EPA
USAF
08 March 1990
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
  NOTE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
     11.2  EPA Regional Guidance

Guidance documents listed as bibliographic sources for a document
already included in the Administrative Record are not listed
separately in this index.

PEA  (11.2) #1 001-C.l
Land Disposal Restrictions Summary of Requirements
EPA, Region 1
USAF
August 1990
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.2) #2 001-107
Supplemental Risk Assessment Guidance for the Superfund Program
EPA, Region 1
USAF
June 1969
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #

-------
                                      11.3  State Guidance
* NOTICE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Guidance documents listed as bibliographic sources for a document
already included in the Administrative Record are not listed
separately in this index.

PEA  (11.3) #1 001-001
ENC-WS 410 Groundwater Protection Rules
NHDES
Art Ditto, AFBDA
February 18, 1993
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 11.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.3) #2 001-B.8
Interim policy for the Management of Soils Contaminated from
Spills/Releases of Virgin Petroleum Products
NHDES
USAF
September 1991
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.3) #3 001-048
Groundwater Protection Rules
NHDES
USAF
February 1993
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.3) #6 001-D.7
Guidebook for Environmental Permits in New Hampshire
NHDES
USAF
1992
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:

RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.3) #7 001-017
List of Standards and Advisory Levels Used by New Hampshire Division
of Public Health Services to Evaluate Drinking Water Quality
New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health
Services
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
7 January 1993
Guidance
None
ARF  (Section 11.3 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.3) #8 001-039
New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules, Part Evn-A 1121
State of New Hampshire
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA
12 August 1994
Guidance
None
ARF  (See on 11.3 Binder)

-------
                                   11.4  Air Force Guidance
  NOTE:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Guidance documents listed as bibliographic sources for a document
already included in the Administrative Record are not listed
separately in this index.

PEA  (11.4) #1 001-024
Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Pease AFB, New Hampshire
Mitre Corporation, Civil Systems Division
USAF
20 June 1990
Letter Report
None
ARF  (Section 11.4 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.4) #2 001-016
Implementation of Department of Defense  (DOD) Policy Guidance on IRP
Policy No. 1
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution List
11 December 1981
Policy/Guidance Document
None
ARF  (Section 11.4 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.4) #3 001-002
Implementation of DOD Policy Guidance on Installation Restoration
Plan  (IRP), Policy No. 1
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution List
5 March 1982
Policy/Guidance Document
None
ARF  (Section 11.4 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.4) #4 001-003
Relationship of the IRP to RCRA Enforcement Actions
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution List
26 December 1985
Policy Document
None
ARF  (Section 11.4 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT UMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.4) #5 001-002
Guidance for Air Force Installation Compliance with Volatile Organic
Compound Regulations
Department of the Air Force
See Distribution List
8 October 1986
Guidance Document
None
ARF  (Section 11.4 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.4) #6 001-003
IRP Decision Documentation Policy
Department of the Air Force"
See Distribution List
25 May 1988
Policy Letter
None
ARF  (Section 11.4 Binder)

-------
                                               #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
 PEA (11.4)  #7 001-003
 RCRA Facility Assessment Guidance to Installation
 Department of the Air Force
 See Distribution List
 3 August 1988
 Guidance
 None
 ARF (Section 11.4 Binder)
                    #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
 PEA (11.4)  #8 001-003
 Guidance on Base Map Construction and Digitization D.O. 006 Pease AFB
 Department of the Air Force
 Roy F.  Weston,  Inc.
 6 March 1989
 Guidance Document
 None
 ARF (Section 11.4 Binder)
                    #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
Division
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
 PEA (11.4)  #9 001-1.3
 Handbook to Support the Installation Restoration Program Statements
of Work for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies Version 3.0
 Air Force Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory Technical Services

 Pease AFB
 May 1989
 Handbook
 None
 Arthur Ditto's Office
                    #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
 PEA (11.4)  #10 001-BI.3
 United States Air Force Environmental Restoration Program NFRAP
 Guide:  Making,  Documenting and Evacuating No Further Response
 Action Planned Decisions - Final Draft
 USAF
 Pease AFB
 February 1993
 Guidance
 None
 Arthur Ditto's Office
                    #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
 PEA (11.4)  #11 001-087
 Air Force Logistics Command Public Affairs Environmental Guidance
 USAF
 Pease AFB
 March 31, 1989
 Guidance
 None
 Arthur Ditto's Office
                    #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
 PEA (11.4)  #12 001-IX.A1.3
 Recommended Sampling Procedures
 Air Force Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory
 Pease AFB
 March 1989
 Guidance
 None
 Arthur Ditto's Office
                    #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
 PEA (11.4)  #13 001-J.2

-------
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Report of the Defense Environmental Response Task Force
Department of Defense
Pease AFB
October 1991
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA  (11.4) #14 001-1.5
Initiatives for Accelerating Cleanup at BRAG Installations
Department of Defense
Pease AFB
June 1992
Guidance
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #

PEA  (11.4) #15 )) Deleted
                   #
                                    11.5  Technical Sources
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.5) #1 001-022
Trichloroethylene in the Groundwater Supply of Pease Air Force Base
Portsmouth, NH
U.S. Geological Survey
USAF
1982
Technical Source
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.5) #2 001-080
Geology and Groundwater Resources of Southeastern New Hampshire
U.S. Geological Survey
USAF
1964
Technical Source
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.5) #3 001-010
Preliminary Wetland Delineation and Evaluation Report for Pease Air
Force Base, NH - Draft
The Smart Associates, Environmental Consultants, Inc.
USAF
April 1990
Technical Source
None
Arthur Ditto's Office
                   #

 11.6  Proposed Procedures / Procedures

PEA  (11.6) #1 001-005
Risk Assessment Data Needs and Sampling Procedures Letter Report
Roy F. Weston, Inc
EPA; NHDES; USAF
8 March 1991
Letter Report
None
ARF  (Section 11.6 Binder)
                   #

-------
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.6) #2 001-051
Analytical Methods Letter Report - Supplemental Information to Stage
4 Sampling and Analysis Plan
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA NHDES; USAF
23 April 1991
Letter Report
PEA  (3.1)
ARF
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.6) #3 001-055
Protocols for Generation of Baseline Risk Assessment for the Pease,
AFB Sites - Revised
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA; NHDES; USAF
July 1991
Report
None
ARF
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.6) #5 001-002
Disposal of Drill Cuttings From Stage 2
USAF
NHDES
14 August 1990
Procedures
None
ARF  (Section 11.6 Binder)
                   #
and 3 Investigations
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:

AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
         11.7  Correspondence

PEA  (11.7)  #1 001-006
Letter to EPA Requesting Review and Concurrence of Risk Assessment
Data and Sampling Procedure Letter Report
USAF
EPA
20 March 1991
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 11.7 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA  (11.7) #2 001-002
Letter Concerning Use of Drilling Mud
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
26 December 1990
Letter
None
ARF  (Section 11.7 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA(11.7) #3 001-002
Analytical Methods for Pease AFB
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
23 April 1991
Letter
None
ARF (Section 11.7 Binder)
                   #
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
PEA  (11.7) #4 001-001
Consolidated Background Values Letter Report
USAF

-------
RECIPIENT:                  Richard Pease, NHDES
                            Johanna Hunter, EPA
DATE:                       March 9, 1993
TYPE:                       Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:           None
LOCATION:                   ARF  (Section 11.7 Binder)
                                               #

                   12.1  Privileged Documents  (Extractions)

 *NOTE:  NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME.

-------